Witness is one of proofs that when its requirements are gathered proves the subject of action and JUDGE is obliged to render the verdict according to it and its validity is not contingent on certainty of JUDGE. But its depending on not certitude of JUDGE against it, is discussable and the research on this field shows that in religious jurisprudence, the certainty of JUDGE against testimony causes the invalidity of witness and the JUDGE should deny rendering judgment according to it. Our Civil Code has accepted this matter and has explained it in article 1319. Meanwhile, about certainty of JUDGE against testimony, situation in religious jurisprudence and in law is not similar and despite the fact of emphasis on necessity of reversal of judgment in such situation in religious jurisprudence, in law, reversal of judgment in such situation depends on requirements, respites and regulations of complaint against judgments.

According to the popular philosophical theories, the subject matter of metaphysics is "absolute existence" or "existent as existent". For this theory to be correct, it is necessary for existence to be capable of accepting any judgment. It means that one should be able to JUDGE on existence by some judgments or attributes. This article wants to argue that it is impossible to do that. Therefore, it is impossible for. "existence" to be the subject matter of philosophy.

Known Jurists stress that the JUDGE needs to be a jurist; however, others, mainly contemporary ones, disagree, highlighting that a non-juristcan be a JUDGEif other conditions are fulfilled and a jurist has permitted him/her. According to the formers, a non-jurist being appointed by a jurist cannot JUDGE, while based on the latters’ suggestion such an appointed JUDGE is allegedly permitted.However, if being a juristis a necessary condition for being a JUDGE, some jurists agree that in emergency conditions and for avoiding chaotic situations a non-jurist person can JUDGE the case. Some others totally disagree even in emergency cases.

As a result of rule of law ideal, JUDGEs are required to act in accordance with laws. The ideal is justified by some political values: political liberty, legal liberty, personal liberty and equality. Citizens are subject only to the law not to the arbitrary will or judgment of another who wields coercive government power. But in some cases law is indeterminate. In these cases there is an important question: how can the law command when the law books are silent or unclear or ambiguous? There are three theory in jurisprudence: legal positivism, legal pragmatism and legal interpretivism. I reject positivism and pragmatism and urge interpretivism. I believe that it provides a better account of our law.

There are disputes and in turn doubts about the JUDGE's science, whether in its principle of authority or its exploitation territory or in its meaning and purpose. It seems that significant part of differences is due to the lack of understanding the nature of the JUDGE's science. In the realm of religion and law, what is important is the realization of science. And approximately, if not by research, the purpose of science in above area is not the rational or logic which is concerned in epistemology and philosophy. In the judiciary territory which is a part of law framework to community cohesion, this science can not have other conceptual domains. Knowledge of the JUDGE is the same science that naturally is obtained through conventional methods and in jurisprudence, science that is obtained through conventional methods is certainty normal science. This certainty normal science is the same principles certainty that is distinguished from logical and philosophical certainty. So, JUDGE's science is the same certain normal science. Of course, for many, this science arises in the field of suspicion. And introduced by the interpretations of suspicion lead-knowledge, common knowledge, prevailed suspicion, semi-certainty and etc. But in terms of research, this normal science is the same principles certainty all jurists emphasize the requirement of it in the JUDGE.

One of the important issues in legal systems is whether the laws are ends in themselves or instruments for the JUDGE: is the JUDGE’s duty to apply the laws irrespective of their (moral, economic, political, religious and legal) content and value and regardless of their consequences? Or should he consider these in deciding the cases? There are proponents of each the two variants among jurists and legal schools of thought. The article examines the answers given to the question.

Islam has been revealed to save humanity from going astray, darkness and ignorance. This religion is based squarely on educating and guiding humanity to prosperity and perfection. The nurture of man's material and spiritual talents and then activating those dormant potentials are called 'tarbiyah' (lit. training). A look into the verses and traditions from the Infallibles (AS) in all areas pertaining to education will reveal to us the fact that not only do they have a say in every educational sphere but they have also presented multiple solutions and approaches. The jurists, however, engage in educational analyses of the juridical rules and issues explicating and elaborating on the educational aspects of jurisprudence as well as its dynamism. By studying from an educational perspective the different episodes of fiqh (jurisprudence) such as judicial procedures, testimony, penal and criminal rules, we come across divine instructions concerning qualifications and characteristics of a JUDGE, method of passing judgments, bearing witness, etc which somehow demonstrate the need for restudying jurisprudence in these chapters with an educational approach so as to clarify their role in earning mankind happiness in their individual, social, worldly and other-worldly lives.

Conviction of JUDGE is the most important evidence in criminal cases that is obtained with the exploration and research in the cases referred to the JUDGE. This evidence of the last ever driven has created many legal issues and field questions. With approval of Islamic criminal Act 1392 and the articles of this act that particularly is discussed to evidence in criminal cases and Conviction of JUDGE, to answer the basic questions of who was raised in this area, has been provided. Examination of 1392 law reveals that Conviction of JUDGE to be placed on the top of other evidence and to be takes Standard of proof in criminal case. This subject has precedence in hodud but is innovation in tazir. As the legislator in these crimes, possibility of the judgment upon the legal evidences provided that the JUDGE has not Conviction of against.

In Islamic law (jurisprudence), certitude of JUDGE is one of the effective evidences in the rules of evidence. But some lawyers have denied probative value of this personal assurance in judgment. This article analyzes legal approaches to this subject and reviews original sources of this rule. It is argued that we can accept certitude of JUDGE as valid substantive evidence in juridical procedure. This Islamic rule is not accepted by all and there are some limitations in applying it. It is concluded that only qualified cannon JUDGEs (Canonicify Cadi) can rely upon this rule. On the other hand, certitude of JUDGE is not considered as evidence in some cases such as adultery. This study proposes that normal certitude could be acceptable but it must not be sensible or sense datum. The paper also shows some inconsistencies between Islamic jurisprudence and statutory provisions in Iran.

This essay considers the principle of separation of prosecutor from investigating JUDGE in criminal procedure.in Iranian penal code 2013/1392, assignment of investigating official apart from prosecutor indicates accepting the principal.This refers to the independence of investigating official in his duties and noninterference of him in prosecution. However the purpose of separation is not absolute. Administering and necessary teaching and request completion of investigation is not contrary to the principle. Moreover in some exceptional cases, the principle can be excluded necessarily and immediately. Positive step of penal procedure is that investigating by prosecutor is subjected to shortage of investigating official. In addition to, the other favorable changes are explicit expression in cases such as impossibility to returning the case referred to the investigating JUDGE, the need for referring in exceptional circumstances that the investigating JUDGE starts the investigation directly. However some cases of violation of this principle can be found in law of Iran. For example, it can' t be said the principle is being observed when unchaste behavior is raised directly in the court.