چکیده:
In this article, the conflict between the judge's knowledge and other evidences for proving a claim is examined with an approach based on jurisprudential and ethical foundations. In the process of this research, ethical, fundamental (Usuli), and jurisprudential discussions and concepts are presented in line with the realization of the research foundations and subject. According to ethical principles, jurisprudential arguments, and the fundamental rules of Usul, the authority (Hujjiya) of the judge's knowledge has been addressed. This is expressed by stating that when claims can be proven with presumptive evidences such as confession and testimony, which have incomplete disclosure of reality, then a fortiori, the judge's knowledge, which has complete disclosure of reality, is authoritative. Therefore, during the trial and the issuance of a verdict, the necessity and importance of achieving the conviction of the judge's conscience to discover the truth is unavoidable. This conviction, beyond judicial standards, is based on ethical standards such as patience, religiosity, justice, equality, consultation, etc., because the lack of these matters can be among the obstacles to obtaining the judge's knowledge toward convincing his conscience. For example, a judge who does not adhere to moral and social justice will, a fortiori, not possess judicial justice in issuing a verdict. The precedence of knowledge over suspicion and the priority of the judge's knowledge over testimony and indicators proves the preponderance and precedence of the judge's knowledge. Thus, after proving the precedence of the judge's knowledge based on the fundamental, jurisprudential, and ethical rules that are the foundation of judgment and the dignity of the judiciary, one can realize the innovation and solution provided by this research in the context of judgment and issuing verdicts in courts, especially where the legislator has chosen silence in the presence of conflicting evidence, so that the case judge can issue the appropriate verdict based on the precedence of the judge's knowledge.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Conflict of the judge's knowledge, authority of the judge's knowledge, evidences of proving a claim, ethical principles, discovery of truth Problem Statement Filing a lawsuit, seeking justice, and litigation in the pursuit of upholding rights require that a person claiming a violated right, against another who denies it, must pursue their rights according to legal rules and procedural laws.
It is here that the judge's knowledge, based on ethics and custom, becomes authoritative and, in opposition and conflict with the presented evidence by the litigants and disputants in lawsuits, finds a constructive position and role, which itself is a fundamental point in issuing judicial verdicts and upholding rights.
This is precisely what is stated in Islamic jurisprudence, based on jurisprudential arguments and jurisprudential and foundational principles, regarding the preponderance and precedence of the judge's knowledge in conflict with other evidences.
Providing an appropriate solution for the conflict between the judge's knowledge and other evidences of proving a claim, according to jurisprudential rules, principles of jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh), ethical foundations, and the issues of the science of Usul al-Fiqh, is one of the innovative aspects of this research.
This is because the revelatory nature of the judge's knowledge and its instrumentality toward reality is truly stronger than the 'bayyinah' which is considered a revealer in the subject of judgment and issuance of a verdict and is recognized as one of the evidences for proving a claim.
(
, 
, 
)
