Requesting “non-Ketabi” People to Take a Conclusive Oath not Conjoined with the Word “Allah” Under the Jordanian Legislation: A Comparative Study

Abstract

All laws entitle people to claim for their rights. That can be done under a litigation system. That can be done through filing a lawsuit and providing a proof in accordance with the provisions of the law. Under the Jordanian legislations, there are several types of proofs; (written documents, testimony, physical proof, confession, oath and expertise).Thus, taking the oath is one of the types of proofs under the Jordanian legislations. The oath is taken for settling conflicts between the disputed parties. The Arab legislations – including the Jordanian legislations- are derived from the Islamic jurisprudence and Shariah. For instance, it’s not permitted -under the Arab legislations- to request people to take a conclusive oath that is not conjoined with the word “Allah”. If the oath is not conjoined with the word “Allah”, the oath shall not be considered admissible nor binding. Hence, the present study aimed to shed a light on the legitimacy of requesting “non-Ketabi” people - (i.e. the ones who aren’t Muslim, Christian nor Jewish)- to take a conclusive oath that’s not conjoined with the word “Allah”. The present study also aimed to identify whether such an oath is considered binding or not. It also aimed to identify the legal implications derived from taking such an oath. It adopts an analytical inductive approach. The researcher reviewed the opinions of several Islamic jurists.

Keywords: Conclusive Oath, Supplementary Oath. Believers in Allah, Non-Believers in Allah.

DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/85-17

Publication date:May 31^st 2019