A Comparison of Testimony and Expert Opinion in Proving Crimes from the Perspective of Imami Jurisprudence (With Emphasis on Compensation for Hair)

This study aims to examine the jurisprudential nature of "expert opinion" and its distinctions from "testimony" within the framework of Imami jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the subject of hair compensation (diyyat al-shaʿr). This study seeks to elucidate the similarities and differences between these two jurisprudential institutions from the perspective of Imami jurisprudence. It is evident that "expert opinion" and "testimony" share certain formal and substantive similarities, while significant differences also exist between them. In Imami jurisprudence, "expert opinion" refers to consulting individuals with expertise and experience for the purpose of establishing facts and making judicial decisions, whereas "testimony" pertains to the statements of individuals who have directly witnessed the occurrence of a crime. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this study explored the theoretical foundations and conditions of these two concepts and analyzed their essential differences. Furthermore, jurisprudential evidence for consulting experts, including the Qur'an, traditions (riwayat), consensus (ijma), and the rational practice of the wise (binaʾ al-ʿuqalaʾ), has been comprehensively examined. The findings underscore the importance of accurately distinguishing between these two concepts in judicial processes and appropriately applying them based on the specific circumstances of the cases.