Evidence by circumstantial evidence in the crime of adultery: between Maliki jurisprudence and Libyan law

Abstract

This study examines the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in cases of adultery, comparing Maliki jurisprudence, which is considered the most expansive school of thought in accepting "suspicion" and strong circumstantial evidence such as pregnancy outside of marriage, with Libyan law, which derives its rulings from Islamic Sharia according to the laws of retaliation and prescribed punishments. The research reviews how the judiciary deals with contemporary circumstantial evidence such as DNA fingerprinting and its ability to establish the prescribed punishment or impose discretionary punishment on the offender, focusing on the principles of avoiding prescribed punishments in cases of doubt. The study concludes that the Libyan legislator has adopted the Maliki school of thought in accepting conclusive circumstantial evidence that is not open to interpretation, while exercising extreme caution to ensure the preservation of lineage and the protection of reputations.