What is the ruling on using DNA evidence to uncover crimes, especially since crimes in Islam are proven by a decisive oath, confession, or the testimony of a certain number of witnesses? And what if the accused, whom DNA evidence has proven to have committed the crime, denies it, or presents witnesses and swears an oath that he did not commit it; then which of the proofs should we legally adopt?

Genetic fingerprinting is a powerful means of proof, and the Islamic Fiqh Academy has authorized its use in criminal investigations for crimes that do not entail a hadd (prescribed punishment) or qisas (retribution) penalty. Ibn al-Qayyim emphasizes that bayyinah (evidence) includes everything that clarifies the truth, and that the Lawgiver (Allah) seeks to reveal the truth through all available evidence. Experts believe that the results of genetic fingerprinting are definitive in identifying the owner of a trace at a crime scene, but they are presumptive in proving the crime itself. Therefore, genetic fingerprinting is used as a strong circumstantial evidence to help uncover criminals, but it does not establish a hadd or qisas penalty due to potential ambiguities therein, and because hudud and qisas are only established through testimony or confession.