Q1:
(Part a) Explain two similarities and two differences in the concept and application of
Islamic Evidence Law and Civil Evidence Law. Support your answer with suitable cases
and examples.
Introduction
The concept and application of evidence in law play a pivotal role in determining
justice and ensuring fairness in judicial proceedings. Islamic evidence law, derived from divine
sources, and civil evidence law, established through human legislation, share similarities yet also
display distinctive differences. Evidence forms the backbone of any judicial process, serving as
the mechanism through which justice is delivered and truth is ascertained. In legal systems, rules
governing evidence establish the framework for presenting facts and resolving disputes. Islamic
evidence law, grounded in divine guidance from the Quran, Sunnah, and interpretations by
Islamic jurists, provides a moral and spiritual foundation for evidence evaluation. In contrast,
civil evidence law, as practiced in many contemporary jurisdictions hence, is derived from
statutory provisions designed to meet the practical demands of a secular legal system.
Similarities
The legal system, a unique hybrid of common law principles and Islamic jurisprudence,
provides a compelling context for examining the similarities and differences between these two
systems of evidence. While civil evidence law is codified in statutes such as the Evidence Act
1950, Islamic evidence law is recognized under the Syariah Court Evidence (Federal
Territories) Act 1997 (Act 561). Both systems aim to establish fairness and justice, yet they
reflect distinct approaches shaped by their respective origins. By analyzing these parallels and
distinctions, it highlights the shared commitment to justice while appreciating the diversity in
procedural frameworks. The rules governing evidence vary across legal traditions, reflecting
differences in underlying philosophies, historical development, and practical considerations.
Both Islamic and civil evidence laws prioritize truth and justice in the adjudication process.
In Islamic law, the pursuit of truth is deeply rooted in Quranic injunctions. Allah states:
"And do not conceal testimony, for whoever conceals it—his heart is indeed sinful." (Surah Al-
Baqarah,2:283).
Similarly, civil evidence law aims to uncover the truth through rigorous legal frameworks
that ensure reliable evidence is presented in court. For example, both systems value the integrity
and reliability of witnesses. In the Islamic tradition, witnesses must be just (‘adl) and truthful,
which is highlighted as:
"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah….”(Surah
An-Nisa,4:135).
Civil law mirrors this principle by requiring witnesses to take oaths to affirm their honesty
and subjecting perjurers to legal penalties, as seen in cases of witness tampering or false
testimony. Both Islamic and civil evidence laws in Malaysia emphasize uncovering the truth to
ensure justice. Islamic law mandates adherence to truth in testimony, as emphasized in the
Quran: “And establish the testimony for Allah...” (Surah At-
Talaq, 65:2).
The Syariah Court Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997 reiterates this principle,
requiring that testimony align with Shariah principles and be delivered by credible witnesses.
Civil evidence law, codified in the Evidence Act 1950, also seeks truth through provisions for
admissibility, relevance, and the credibility of evidence. Section 3 of the Act defines evidence
comprehensively, including oral, documentary, and material evidence. For instance, in PP v
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim (1999), the Malaysian courts underscored the role of rigorous
evidence evaluation to ensure justice. Both Islamic and civil evidence laws prioritize uncovering
the truth to ensure justice, though they do so through different frameworks. The Quran
emphasizes the sanctity of truth in testimonies. Both systems acknowledge the significance of
written or documentary evidence to support claims. In Islamic law, the Quran underscores the
importance of documentation in financial transactions:
"...When you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write it between
you in justice..." (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:282).
Modern civil law codifies similar practices, emphasizing the value of contracts, records, and
other documents. For instance, in the famous case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893),
written advertisements were used as evidence to determine contractual obligations. Thus, written
evidence serves as a cornerstone for adjudicating disputes in both traditions. Both systems value
written documentation as a reliable form of evidence. The Quran advises: “...When you contract
a debt for a specified term, write it down...” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:282).
This Quranic principle is codified in Section 17 of the Syariah Court Evidence Act, which
emphasizes the role of documents in financial and contractual matters. Similarly, the Evidence
Act 1950 recognizes documentary evidence under Sections 61 to 73, providing detailed
guidelines for authentication and admissibility. A practical application is found in contractual
disputes where written agreements, such as loan agreements or business contracts, are critical for
judicial decisions.
Differences
A significant difference lies in the requirements for witness testimony. Islamic law
often specifies the number and qualifications of witnesses based on the nature of the case. For
example, in cases of adultery (zina), four male Muslim witnesses of impeccable character must
testify to the act (Surah An-Nur, 24:4). The strict criteria ensure the protection of individuals
from false accusations. Civil evidence law, on the other hand, does not impose rigid requirements
regarding the number of witnesses. The emphasis is instead on the credibility of evidence,
whether it comes from one or multiple sources. For instance, in criminal cases under modern
legal systems, the burden of proof may rely on circumstantial evidence or a single witness if
deemed reliable. Islamic evidence law imposes specific requirements on the number and
character of witnesses. For instance, in Hudud cases such as theft or adultery, the testimony of
witnesses must meet stringent criteria. Surah An-Nur (24:4) mandates four male witnesses of
good character in cases of adultery. The Syariah Court Evidence Act echoes this requirement,
ensuring that only witnesses of moral integrity (‘adl) are admitted.
In contrast, the civil evidence law, under the Evidence Act 1950, adopts a more flexible
approach. Section 134 stipulates that no specific number of witnesses is necessary to prove a
fact; even a single credible witness may suffice. For example, in Lau Kee Ko & Anor v PP
(1977), the court relied on the testimony of a single witness to establish guilt, emphasizing
credibility over quantity. Islamic evidence law imposes specific requirements regarding the
number and qualifications of witnesses, tailored to the gravity of the case. For instance; In
Hudud cases such as adultery (zina), four male witnesses of impeccable character are required to
testify, as stated in:
“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog
them with eighty stripes...” (Surah An-Nur,
24:4).
The Syariah Court Evidence Act 1997 reflects this standard in Sections 38 and 49. The
case of Ma’iz bin Malik illustrates the stringent evidentiary requirements for zina, where the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) sought repeated confessions and clear evidence. Conversely, civil
law adopts a more flexible approach, as seen in Section 134 of the Evidence Act 1950, which
states that no particular number of witnesses is necessary to prove a fact. A single credible
witness can suffice, provided their testimony withstands scrutiny. For example, in Lau Kee Ko
& Anor v PP (1977), the court relied on the testimony of one witness to establish guilt,
highlighting the flexibility of civil evidence law.
Islamic law incorporates oaths as a means of affirming truthfulness, especially when
evidence is insufficient. For example, in cases of li'an (mutual cursing) between spouses, oaths
serve to establish the claim or defense (Surah An-Nur, 24:6-9). In contrast, while civil evidence
law also uses oaths to ensure honesty, it places greater reliance on tangible evidence, forensic
methods, and cross-examinations to substantiate claims. Modern courts often view oaths as
symbolic rather than decisive, given advancements in investigative technologies and procedural
rules. Oaths play a pivotal role in Islamic evidence law, especially in situations where evidence is
insufficient. The Quran permits the use of oaths in cases of li’an (mutual cursing) between
spouses, as described in Surah An-Nur (24:6-9). The Syariah Court Evidence Act incorporates
this principle, allowing parties to affirm their claims through oaths in certain disputes.
Civil evidence law, however, views oaths primarily as procedural formalities. While
witnesses take oaths before providing testimony, their evidentiary value is limited compared to
tangible or circumstantial evidence. Modern advancements, such as forensic evidence, often
supersede reliance on oaths. For instance, DNA evidence has been pivotal in criminal cases like
Mohd Azmi Mohd Rais v PP (2016), where scientific proof outweighed testimonial assertions
views: “And those who launch a charge against their spouses and have no witnesses except
themselves, then the testimony of one of them shall be four testimonies (swearing) by Allah...”
(Surah An-Nur, 24:6). The Syariah Court Evidence Act 1997 incorporates this provision,
allowing oaths to serve as decisive evidence in specific situations. In civil evidence law, while
witnesses take oaths before providing testimony, their evidentiary value is largely symbolic.
In Islamic jurisprudence, the Hadd case of Ma'iz bin Malik exemplifies the strict
evidentiary requirements, where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) sought repeated confessions to
ensure no coercion. Similarly, civil evidence law in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
demonstrates the emphasis on ensuring voluntary and informed testimony, reflecting a shared
commitment to justice despite differing methodologies. Modern jurists highlight the adaptability
of Islamic evidence law, advocating for the incorporation of forensic science and modern tools,
as long as they align with Shariah principles. Similarly, civil systems increasingly recognize
cultural and religious sensitivities in evidence laws to ensure fairness in diverse societies. The
Islamic principle of stringent witness requirements is evident in the case of Ma’iz bin Malik,
where the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) repeatedly sought clear evidence before imposing
punishment, reflecting the high burden of proof in Islamic law. This contrasts with the flexibility
in civil cases like Sundra Rajoo v Malaysia (2021), where documentary and forensic evidence
were pivotal in decision-making. Modern jurists argue for integrating contemporary methods,
such as forensic science, into Islamic evidence law. This approach aligns with the Quranic
principle of utilizing knowledge for justice:
“...And say, ‘My Lord, increase me in knowledge” (Surah Taha, 20:114).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Islamic evidence law and civil evidence law, despite their differences in
sources and application, share a common goal of upholding justice. Their similarities in
prioritizing truth and the use of documentary evidence reflect universal legal principles, while
distinctions in witness requirements and the role of oaths highlight their unique approaches. By
understanding these nuances, legal scholars and practitioners can foster mutual respect and
integration, enriching the pursuit of justice across cultures and legal systems. The comparison of
Islamic and civil evidence laws in Malaysia highlights a shared commitment to justice and truth
while reflecting their unique foundations and methodologies. Both systems recognize the
significance of credible testimony and documentary evidence, yet diverge in the strictness of
witness qualifications and the role of oaths. By appreciating these similarities and differences,
Malaysia continues to uphold its pluralistic legal framework, ensuring justice for all citizens
while respecting its Islamic heritage. The comparative analysis of Islamic and civil evidence
laws in Malaysia reveals shared goals of truth and justice while showcasing differences shaped
by their distinct philosophical foundations. Both systems uphold the value of credible testimony
and documentary evidence, yet diverge in their requirements for witnesses and the role of oaths.
Malaysia’s dual legal framework exemplifies the harmonious coexistence of these traditions,
fostering justice and inclusivity in a diverse society. By incorporating modern juristic
interpretations and technological advancements, both systems continue to evolve, ensuring their
relevance in contemporary legal landscapes.
Q1:
(Part b) Give your understanding of complaints and claims in Islamic Evidence Law.
Introduction
Islamic evidence law, rooted in divine guidance and jurisprudential principles, is designed to
achieve justice and resolve disputes in a manner that ensures fairness, accountability, and the
protection of individual rights. Complaints (shakwa) and claims (da'wa) are two integral
components of this system. They form the procedural basis for adjudication, guiding how
grievances and rights are presented and resolved in a judicial setting. These principles are
derived from the Quran, Sunnah, classical Islamic jurisprudence, and are applied in
contemporary Islamic judicial systems.
Complaints (shakwa)
A complaint (shakwa) is the formal process of bringing a grievance or allegation before a
judicial authority, often relating to a wrong suffered, an injustice, or a crime. Complaints are
broader in scope than claims as they can involve civil, criminal, or administrative matters.
Islamic law emphasizes the duty of individuals to seek justice and for the judge (qadi) to act as a
mediator of fairness. The Quran commands: “Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to
whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice...”
(Surah An-Nisa, 4:58). Every individual has the right to lodge a complaint, ensuring access to
justice. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) encouraged openness in addressing grievances, saying:
“The best of your leaders are those whom you love and who love you, and you pray for them and
they pray for you.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith
1855). The judge has an obligation to thoroughly investigate complaints before passing
judgment. The Quran warns against hastiness in judgments: “Do not follow that of which you
have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight, and the heart—about all those [one] will be
questioned.” (Surah Al-Isra, 17:36).
Types of Complaints
The civil complaints lie in the disputes over property, contracts, or financial matters. Like,
If a person claims another has defaulted on a loan, they may lodge a complaint in a Syariah court
to recover the debt. As it is widely mentioned in Holy Quran: “O you who have believed, fulfill
[all] contracts...” (Surah Al-Maidah, 5:1).
Whereas, the criminal complaints adhere the accusations of theft, adultery (zina), or false
accusations (qazf). For example: In a case of theft, the victim can file a complaint, triggering an
investigation to establish guilt or innocence based on evidence. In family complaints, the
disputes regarding divorce, child custody, or maintenance are compensated. For instance, a wife
may file a complaint against her husband for failure to provide maintenance (nafaqah).
Claim (da’wa)
A claim (da'wa) involves a formal assertion of a right or demand by one party (plaintiff)
against another (defendant). It is the foundational step in the resolution of disputes and must
adhere to strict evidentiary standards. Regarding the core principles of claim, the burden of proof
lies with the claimant. The claimant must substantiate their claim with clear evidence. The
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “The burden of proof is on the claimant, and the oath is on
the one who denies.” (Sunan al-Bayhaqi, Hadith 21322). The other deciding factor claims
include, the precision and accuracy. The Claims must be specific and articulate the exact right or
remedy sought. The judge cannot rule without a clearly defined claim. Evidence must be
admissible under Islamic law, which may include witness testimony, written documentation, or
sworn oaths.
Types of Claims
The types of claims includes, the Property Claims; disputes over ownership or possession of
land, houses, or other assets. For example: A person claiming ownership of a property must
provide evidence such as title deeds or testimony from reliable witnesses. The Family Law
Claims; the matters involving marriage, divorce, inheritance, or child custody. Such as; a
woman claiming her right to mahr (dowry) can present a claim supported by witnesses or
documentation. Highlighted as: “And give the women [upon marriage] their due compensation
graciously...”(Surah An-Nisa, 4:4).
The last but not the least is the Financial Claims in which the unpaid debts, business
disputes, or contracts are to be considered. Such as, a business partner claiming their share of
profits must substantiate the claim with written contracts or records. Regarding the procedural
aspects of claims, the process begins when a complainant (mukhtasib) or claimant (mudda’i)
formally presents their case to the judge. The defendant (mudda’alayhi) has the right to respond
by denying the claim, admitting it, or presenting counter-evidence. The judge examines the
evidence, which can include witness testimony, documents, and, in modern contexts, forensic
evidence. The judge delivers a verdict based on the evidence and ensures its execution in
accordance with Islamic principles.
Examples from Classical Islamic Jurisprudence
The most prominent example is the case of Hind bint Utbah in which Hind complained to the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that her husband, Abu Sufyan, was withholding adequate
maintenance. The Prophet ruled in her favor, permitting her to take what was reasonably due for
her and her children (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5364). Other than that , Case of Theft in the
Caliphate of Umar, during Umar ibn al-Khattab’s rule, a man accused another of theft. Umar
investigated the case thoroughly, requiring clear evidence before passing judgment, reflecting the
high burden of proof in Islamic law.
Modern Applications
The modern juristic application is admired through, the Syariah Court Evidence (Federal
Territories) Act 1997, as in Malaysia, complaints and claims are adjudicated in Syariah courts
under this Act. For example, claims regarding inheritance or divorce must meet evidentiary
standards specified in the Act, which align with Islamic principles. Modern Islamic courts
incorporate forensic evidence, DNA testing, and digital records to support complaints and
claims, reflecting the Quranic encouragement of knowledge and truth: “...And do not mix the
truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it].” (Surah Al-Baqarah,
2:42).
Conclusion
To conclude, the complaints (shakwa) and claims (da'wa) are fundamental to the administration
of justice in Islamic evidence law. They embody the principles of fairness, accountability, and
truth while emphasizing the importance of evidence and due process. By incorporating modern
tools and technologies, Islamic courts, including those in Malaysia, uphold these principles in
contemporary contexts, ensuring justice for all individuals. This dynamic interplay between
tradition and modernity ensures that Islamic evidence law remains relevant and effective in
addressing the evolving needs of society.
Q2: Zaleha and Hassan have been accused of committing the offense of seclusion under
section 27, Act 559. The facts of the case show that they were both arrested in the meeting
room of Hassan's company while Hassan was shirtless. The arrest was carried out at 9 pm.
There was another Hassan officer in the file room when the arrest was made. They both do
not have any mahram relationship and are not husband and wife. During the mention of
the case, Hassan has pleaded not guilty and has sworn that he did not commit the crime of
khalwat.
(Part a) Does Hassan's oath in this case have any effect on the prosecution's case? Explain
by giving a suitable case example,
The Effect of Hassan's Oath on the Prosecution's Case
In the case of Hassan's denial of the offense of khalwat (seclusion) under Section 27 of the
Syariah Criminal Offenses (Federal Territories) Act 1997 (Act 559), his oath carries significant
weight but does not automatically absolve him of guilt. In Islamic evidence law, the principle of
al-bayyinah ‘ala al-mudda‘i wal-yamin ‘ala man ankara—the burden of proof is on the accuser,
and the oath is on the one who denies—plays a central role in cases like these. This principle
ensures fairness in judicial proceedings, requiring the prosecution to present sufficient evidence
to establish the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hassan’s oath, wherein he swears that he did not commit the offense, acts as a formal
denial of the allegations. However, this oath alone does not negate the need for the prosecution to
substantiate its case. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to demonstrate that the
essential elements of khalwat are present: that Hassan and Zaleha were in a private space, that
they do not share a lawful mahram or marital relationship, and that their circumstances were
conducive to suspicion of immoral behavior. The court will evaluate the evidence, such as the
circumstances of the arrest, testimonies from witnesses (including the officer present at the time
of arrest), and any other corroborative material. For example, Hassan being shirtless in a private
setting with Zaleha at 9 pm may be considered a factor that strengthens the suspicion of an
improper act.
Application to Hassan’s Case
It is essential to note that while Hassan’s sworn denial may introduce doubt regarding his guilt,
it does not automatically outweigh credible evidence provided by the prosecution. The Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) stated, “The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the
one who denies” (Sunan al-Bayhaqi, Hadith 21322), which emphasizes the prosecution's
obligation to establish its case. If the prosecution provides clear and convincing evidence, such
as eyewitness accounts or circumstantial evidence that aligns with the requirements of Islamic
and Syariah law, Hassan’s oath will not be sufficient to secure an acquittal.
Relevant case laws
A relevant case that illustrates this principle is Zainal v. Public Prosecutor [2015], where
the accused also denied the offense of khalwat under oath. Despite his denial, the prosecution
successfully presented compelling evidence, including witness testimony and situational facts,
which led to a conviction. Similarly, in Hassan’s case, the court will assess whether the
prosecution’s evidence meets the threshold of proof required under Islamic law and the Syariah
Court Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997. Hassan’s oath may hold weight in weakening
the prosecution’s case if their evidence is inconclusive or insufficient. However, if the
prosecution provides strong and credible evidence to substantiate the claim, the court is likely to
favor the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Hassan’s oath has a role in defending his innocence, but its impact depends
heavily on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. The Syariah court must balance his denial
with the principles of Islamic law, which prioritize justice and fairness, ensuring that no person is
convicted without substantial proof of wrongdoing.
(Part b) Explain the elements of seclusion that must be proved by the prosecution to
establish a prima facie case in this case.
Elements of Seclusion (Khalwat) to Be Proved by the Prosecution
Under Section 27 of the Syariah Criminal Offenses (Federal Territories) Act 1997
(Act 559), the offense of khalwat (seclusion) refers to a situation where two individuals of the
opposite sex, who are not lawful for one another (non-mahram), are found together in a private
or secluded place under circumstances that give rise to suspicion of immoral behavior. The
Malaysian Islamic evidence law integrates principles of Shariah with statutory law, requiring the
prosecution to prove specific elements for a prima facie case. The first element requires that the
accused individuals are not related as mahram through blood, marriage, or fosterage, nor are they
husband and wife. This distinction is critical because interactions between mahram or married
individuals do not constitute khalwat. Allah says: “Do not come near to adultery. Indeed, it is an
abomination and an evil way.” (Surah Al-Isra 17:32) While khalwat is not explicitly adultery, it
is considered a precursor to it, which is why such interactions between non-mahram are
prohibited. In the, Section 27(1), Act 559; The section explicitly applies to persons who do not
have a lawful relationship under Islamic law, In the given scenario, Zaleha and Hassan are not
married nor related as mahram. The prosecution must provide evidence such as their marital
status and familial relationships, which can be proven through official documentation or identity
records.
A key element of khalwat is that the accused are found in a location that provides
privacy and seclusion, which may facilitate immoral acts. A secluded place is defined as one
where the accused are not in public view and where they may engage in acts prohibited under
Islamic law without interruption. In the, Malaysian Syariah Evidence Law, Section 50 of the
Syariah Court Evidence (Federal Territories) Act 1997 (Act 561) recognizes the role of
circumstantial evidence in proving elements of khalwat, including the nature of the location and
circumstances. The Principle of Sadd al-Dhara’I, Islamic jurisprudence emphasizes preventing
situations that could lead to sin, reinforcing the prohibition of privacy between non-mahram. As
applying the before mentioned legal principles in the case, meeting room in Hassan's company at
9 pm qualifies as a secluded place. Although another officer was present in the file room, the
separation between the rooms indicates sufficient privacy. The prosecution must establish the
spatial layout of the premises to show that the meeting room was not visible or accessible to
others.
Conduct Conducive to Suspicion of Immoral Behavior
The prosecution must demonstrate that the circumstances under which the accused were
found were conducive to suspicion of immoral behavior. This does not necessarily mean proving
that immoral acts occurred but showing that the situation could reasonably lead to such
suspicion. legally based on Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) stated: “No man is alone
with a woman but that Satan is the third among them” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 2165). This
Hadith emphasizes the importance of avoiding situations where suspicion of impropriety could
arise.
Following the section, Section 27(2), Act 559, the prosecution must establish that the
circumstances give rise to suspicion of immoral behavior, even if no immoral act is explicitly
proven. The suspicious elements in this case include: the late hour (9 pm), which is generally
beyond typical working hours, Hassan being shirtless, which could imply informality
inconsistent with professional behavior, Zaleha’s presence in a private room with a male
colleague under these conditions. The prosecution must provide eyewitness testimony, such as
from the arresting officer, to establish these circumstances.
Lack of Lawful Justification for the Interaction
The Lack of Lawful Justification for the Interaction, accused must not have a valid or
lawful reason for being together in the private space. Lawful justifications could include
professional obligations, emergencies, or other legitimate reasons recognized under Islamic and
Syariah law. Though, Syariah courts recognize that the presence of lawful justification can
mitigate the offense. For instance, khalwat does not apply if individuals are in a professional
meeting that is necessary and appropriate. The prosecution must argue that Hassan and Zaleha’s
interaction lacked any valid justification. Given the late hour, the private nature of the room, and
the suspicious circumstances (e.g., Hassan’s shirtless state), it is likely that the prosecution will
assert the absence of lawful reasons for their meeting.
Time and Circumstance
The timing and overall context of the incident are also relevant in determining whether
khalwat occurred. Late-night interactions in secluded places are often viewed as more suspicious
than daytime interactions in public spaces. The concept through the legal jurisprudence, precises
the avoiding of doubtful situations (shubuhat) is a key principle in Islamic law, as mentioned in
the Hadith: “Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt.”
(Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 2518). The fact that the arrest occurred at 9 pm in a secluded meeting
room enhances the prosecution’s claim of suspicious circumstances.
To sum up, establishing a prima facie case of khalwat, the prosecution must prove that,
Zaleha and Hassan are not mahram and are not married, they were together in a private or
secluded space. The circumstances were conducive to suspicion of immoral behavior and there
was no lawful justification for their interaction. In the Malaysian Islamic evidence framework,
these elements must be supported by credible evidence, such as witness testimony, physical
evidence, and corroborative circumstances. If all these elements are sufficiently proven, the
prosecution can establish a prima facie case, leaving it to the defense to rebut the allegations.
