الخلاصة:
This research aims to show the difference between the Islamic Jurisprudence and the civil law in relation to the status of the testimony as means of evidence in the criminal legislation. The tow laws will show the difference between how each judge views the testimony. For achieving this purpose, the paper discusses the rules of evaluating the testimony according to law. Then, the view of Islamic jurisprudence is presented. A comparison will then be made between the two parties. The most important results reached is that Islamic jurisdiction views testimony as an act of worship, but the civil law considers that as marginal spare means. The important recommendation is to withdraw the authority of the criminal judge in evaluating the testimony according to his personal conviction. The judge has also to be obliged to take the testimony seriously for passing the verdict on condition that it has the quorum, justice and conformity
