The Impact of Divergence in the Interpretation of Evidence on the Differences Among Jurists: The Case of Guardianship and Testimony in the Marriage Contract as a Model: A Comparative Jurisprudence Study

Abstract

This study aims to clarify issues where the evidence is the same, but the interpretation of its application differs among jurists, specifically in the context of guardianship (wilayah) and testimony (shahada) in the marriage contract. The research follows a descriptive methodology by reviewing the opinions of jurists and examining cases where the evidence is consistent but the reasoning behind it varies in the areas of guardianship and testimony in marriage. The inductive approach was employed to demonstrate how the divergence in interpreting the same evidence affects the juristic disagreement in these matters, with a comparative analysis of the jurists' views and a conclusion with a preference for the most widely accepted opinion. The study found several key results, including: the preferred view regarding widowhood that removes coercion is when a woman, after reaching adulthood, has either entered a valid or invalid marriage or committed adultery. The study also found that the preferred opinion on the integrity of witnesses for the marriage contract is that the witnesses must be of upright character, even if their actions appear outwardly correct. The study concludes with recommendations, the most important of which is the need to highlight the reasons behind the differences among scholars.