Importance of Evidence of DNA in Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence

DNA or Genetic fingerprinting technology is the topic of the day. It has revolutionized the forensic science. Islamic Jurisprudence has its own procedure and priorities of evidences, which mainly depend upon eyewitness, personal evidence and testimony. It was introduced in 1984. It is used in the identification of parentage, forensic sciences, treatment and diagnosis of diseases. The sequence of base pairs varies from person to person and the relativity of persons is identified by identifying the matching of base pairs. The Contemporary International Institutions of Collective Ijtih฀d have launched heavy discussions on this new evidence and reviewed relevant serious law making efforts based on it, which results in very valuable Fat฀w฀ and resolutions, regarding the use of DNA techniques, as evidence in criminal cases and its limitations and scope in Islamic Jurisprudence. This article discusses and concludes that the genetic fingerprinting technique should be used for the attestation of the cases related to it, along with the traditional way to acquire evidences, even though, it does not have self-sustaining priority, but depends upon other evidences for making a judicial verdict. Like other forensic evidences, it has also errors and intervening factors that limit its accuracy. Therefore, the decisions of crimes liable to ฀ud฀d, Qi฀฀฀ and Diyyat should not depend only upon DNA fingerprinting. Thus, we can say that in the absence of stipulated evidences, rebuking punishment may be sentenced on the basis the evidence of DNA.

A Randomised Comparative Clinical Trial of Prokinetic Agents and Proton Pump Inhibitors in H. Pylori Negative Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia

Aim: To compare the efficacy of prokinetic agents and proton pump inhibitors in symptom relief of patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia. Design: Comparative prospective single blind clinical trial. Patients and setting: Fifty four cases of non-ulcer dyspepsia in whom H. pylori has been eradicated were seen in the specialist gastroenterology clinic of a tertiary care hospital. Methodology: Patients with dyspepsia and negative endoscopy for peptic ulcer disease, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, hiatus hernia and upper gastrointestinal malignancy in whom H pylori has been eradicated but still had dyspepsia were assessed and scored using the modified Glasgow dyspepsia severity score (GDSS) at baseline. They were then randomized to receive domperidone or oesomeprazole for three months and the GDSS evaluated monthly over a three month period. Results: Twenty eight patients were randomized to receive domperidone and 27 patients received oesomeprazole. All the patients were evaluated in the first month, 96% in the second month and 87% in third month. The mean GDSS at baseline was 4.68±1.49 for domperidone and 5.0±2.06 for oesomeprazole p=0.59. The rank of the scores at baseline was 5 for domperidone and 5 for oesomeprazole. There were no significant differences between the scores for domperidone and oesomeprazole using Mann Whitney analysis. The percentage of patients who scored less than 1 on the modified GDSS at one month was 29.2% for domperidone and 33% for oesomeprazole, p=0.741; at two months 43.5% for domperidone and 30.8% for oesomeprazole, p=0.357; and at three months 54.5% for domperidone and 40.9% for oesomeprazole, p=0.365. The odds of improving while on domperidone as compared to oesomeprazole was 0.824, 95% CI 0.251-2.700 in the first month, 1.731, 95% CI 0.536-5.587 in the second month and 1.733 95% CI 0.525-5.723 in the third month. Conclusion: Domperidone and oesomeprazole are equiefficacious in relieving dyspepsia symptoms amongst H. pylori negative non-ulcer dyspepsia patients when given continuously for three months.