Evidence of evidence in the administrative judiciary and the role of the objective judge in proof and the distribution of the burden of proof A comparative study between the Iraqi legal system and Islamic law

This   study  has  aimed   to  deal with  evidence of proof in administrative judiciary and the substantive  role of a  judge in proof and the distribution of the burden of proof and is a  comparative study between the Iraqi legal system and Islamic law, as these evidence represent the key to reaching the judicial truth and the truth  is not  achieved  without  it   and it is the only evidence that in the administrative judiciary, shows  the essence of the truth if it is judicially proven.

 Therefore, it  is   necessary  for  us   to answer the question :what are the evidences of proof in the administrative judiciary? What is the substantive role of the judge in proof and the distribution of the burden of proof in the law and in Islamic Sharia? This results  from the important position that  these  evidence and methods have  in the administrative judiciary, as it has been limited by the Iraqi law in No. 107 of 1979 in part two with 8 methods and evidences  including personal (written evidence), objective (such as testimony), and others related to the authority of the judge (investigation ), while Islamic Sharia agrees with some of what the law affirms  such as  (acknowledgment) and disagrees  with  some of them such as (scriptural evidence). Islamic Sharia adopts new evidence such as (the knowledge of the judge).  These  methods and  evidences  were discussed  in law and  views of  judicial  scholars  and we explained the views of the other four schools of thought and showed the  substantive and positive  role of the judge drawn by the law according to the mixed doctrine of proof in Iraq.  The study  has been written in four chapters which include  detail, comparison and analysis according to the true sources and references.

 The study  found results  that include the most prominent findings and recommendations including the comprehensiveness  of Islamic law.  It has a counterpart in Islamic jurisprudence, but their issues   have not been  complete and the texts of Sharia changed. The most prominent recommendation is that a new law of proof should be  drafted to comply with Islamic law, and legal and religious libraries, personal interviews and websites should be  used to provide these sources.