Validation of Oath in Hudud and Ta’zir

The oath is one of the evidence considered by the legislature for proving claims and is so addrecodified legal laws as if it has a purely positive place in the legal system, both civil and criminal, while the analysis of the jurisprudential and legal teachings shows that such a place cannot be absolute. In order to examine the validity of the oath in proving the claims, a distinction must be made betwssed in een legal and criminal lawsuits on the one hand and the lawsuits by private plaintiff and those without a private plaintiff on the other hand. Accordingly, this descriptive-analytical study investigates the validity of oath in hudud and ta’zir. According the findings of this study, based on the arguments such as the narration "there is no oath in hudud", the fact that hudud are due god and some of them lack private plaintiff, the denial nature of the oath (except in exceptional civil cases), the tendency of legislator to mitigation and tolerance in the issues related to hudud and strictness in proving them hudud, as well as insisting on repentance and not disclosing the crime by execution of hudud and preventing the spread of prostitution and retaining the indecency of crimes subject to hudud, the invalidity of the oath in hudud has been proven. Considering the above-mentioned arguments and the commonalities of hudud and ta'zir in the above aspects, the oath also has no positive place in ta'zir and cannot be considered as a valid reason in proving the crime subject to ta'zir. Obviously, in cases where hudud and ta'zir have a financial aspect in addition to public status, such as robbery, the attached oath can be valid and only prove the financial aspect of the crime.