in disputes, the stronger of the two litigants is given preference. Here we have a claimant and a defendant, and the defendant’s position is stronger because the presumption is on his side: the basic presumption is that what the claimant alleges has not been established. Thus, the defendant’s side outweighs the other because the presumption supports him, and so the oath is required of him rather than of the claimant.

This principle has subsidiary cases that support it. For example, if someone makes a claim against another person, produces one witness, and swears an oath alongside that witness, judgment is rendered in his favor on that basis. One witness alone is insufficient, but it strengthens his position; therefore, the oath is prescribed for him, and once he swears, judgment is rendered in his favor.

In cases of qasāmah, the claimant’s position is stronger than that of the defendant.

Similarly, if, after a woman has separated from her husband, she claims that the clothes in the room belong to her—and they are women’s clothing—while the husband says, “Rather, they belong to me,” then the woman’s position is stronger, and she takes them upon her oath.

Likewise, if a bald man is running after a fleeing man who is wearing a headcloth and carrying another headcloth in his hand, and the bald man says, “This is my headcloth,” then the bald man is the claimant, yet the headcloth is awarded to him on the basis of his oath, because his position is stronger.

His statement, “If he asks that the other be made to swear, he administers the oath to him and lets him go”: in the phrase “if he asks,” the subject is the claimant; in “that the other be made to swear,” the pronoun refers to the defendant; and the person asked to administer the oath is the judge. That is, if the claimant asks the judge to make the defendant swear, and the judge says to him, “Swear,” and he swears, then the judge lets him go. The case is concluded and the dispute is dissolved.