Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to explore the concept of interrogation in Palestinian law and Islamic jurisprudence, shedding light on its purpose and characteristics within both frameworks. It also seeks to clarify the procedures and regulations governing interrogation in Palestinian law and Islamic jurisprudence. Additionally, the research examines the legal and procedural implications of interrogation within these two legal systems. Methods: This study adopts a comparative approach, analysing the views of Islamic jurists and juxtaposing them with Palestinian legal texts. It also employs the inductive method, tracing Islamic rulings and extracting relevant data from primary sources, alongside an analysis of legal statutes related to interrogation. Furthermore, a systematic analytical approach is applied, categorizing and interpreting legal texts and jurisprudential opinions to formulate a well-founded scholarly perspective in line with established research principles. Conclusions: The research concludes that the primary objective of interrogation is to uncover the truth by identifying the actual perpetrator and eliminating wrongful suspicion from innocent individuals. It also establishes that coercing a suspect into confession invalidates their admission, rendering it legally and religiously ineffective. Moreover, if the interrogated party confesses to certain aspects of the case while denying others, the court must consider the acknowledged facts as legally established, while subjecting the disputed elements to general rules of evidence.