Analyzing the Methods of Proving Apostasy from the Perspective of Criminal Jurisprudence

Apostasy is a major issue and a point of contention in criminal jurisprudence. Given the importance of the crime of apostasy, the punishment of which is related to human life, the method of proving apostasy is much more critical. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine the conditions, method, and quality of proving apostasy. The article is descriptive-analytical, and the subject has been studied using the library method. The findings indicate that from the point of view of the general jurists. The most important way to prove apostasy is to confess; A person who is himself inclined to a religion other than Islam, disbelief or doubt and hesitation about the principles of Islam and the denial of Islamic rules in a way that leads to the denial of monotheism or mission is considered an apostate. Confession is the most common way of proving apostasy, as it's all-encompassing. Another way to prove apostasy, also mentioned in the narrations, is the uprising. The third way, which is the point of disagreement of the jurists, is the judge's knowledge. Regarding apostasy and freedom of expression, it can be said that in Islam, the right to research one's beliefs is permissible and obligatory. Considering the principle of freedom of expression and the approach of jurisprudence regarding freedom of expression and belief, the legislator must consider the conditions and methods of proving apostasy and get out of the current ambiguity, especially since the knowledge of the judge is one of the methods of proof in this regard and the judge's authority in this regard should not be restricted.