The role of the judge's knowledge in proving a crime with a contemporary jurisprudence approach with an emphasis on Afghan law

The judge's knowledge is one of the pieces of evidence for proving a claim and ways of proving a crime in Islamic jurisprudence and law, and since the main origin of Afghanistan's statutory laws is jurisprudence, it was necessary to examine the basis and scope of the judge's knowledge and the quality of citing and issuing a ruling according to it from a jurisprudential and legal perspective. The purpose of this research is to analyze jurisprudential data based on contemporary jurisprudence and the procedures of the Afghan legal system in the field of the validity of a judge's knowledge by adopting a descriptive-analytical research method. The research findings show that the famous opinion of Imamiyya jurists, citing rational and narrated evidence (verses, narrations, and consensus), on accepting the judge's knowledge in proving crimes, has become well-known among jurists. Of course, the infallible Imam (a.s.) can rule. according to his personal knowledge, but there is a difference of opinion among jurists regarding an infallible judge. A number of jurists, who may be famous, believe that a judge can act on his own knowledge in all crimes, including the rights of Allah, such as adultery and theft, and the rights of the servant, such as retaliation and slander. The famous opinion of the later Sunni jurists is that the knowledge of a judge is not valid in the rights of Allah and the rights of the servant. However, in the statements of some modern and contemporary Sunni scholars and also the position of the Afghan legal system, The validity of the knowledge of a judge is used in cases that he has acquired. knowledge of himself. Because this knowledge is stronger than the knowledge obtained through other methods of proof compared to other evidence