His statement, “His oath is not considered valid before the claimant’s request”: that is, the denier’s oath is not considered valid before the claimant asks the judge to require him to swear. Thus, if the judge hastens—as soon as he sees that the defendant has denied the claim—and says, “Swear,” before his opponent says, “Make him swear,” then this oath is not considered valid, because it was taken before its cause existed. Something done before its cause exists is not valid, as Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) established in al-Qawāʿid. The right belongs to the claimant; therefore, if the judge makes the defendant swear before the claimant requests it, he has made him swear before the cause for the oath exists, and that oath is not considered valid.

However, if it is the established practice of judges that the claimant’s request is not needed, and they administer the oath without his asking for it, then a customary request is equivalent to an explicit verbal request.

His statement, “If he refuses, judgment is rendered against him”: “If he refuses” means that the defendant refuses to swear; the judge then renders judgment against him.

But does he rule against him immediately? No. The author says:

“He says, ‘Either swear, or I shall rule against you.’” The words “if you swear” are the conditional clause, while its apodosis is omitted; its implied meaning is: “I shall let you go.” That is, either you swear and I shall let you go, or, if you do not swear, I shall rule against you. Perhaps when he says this to him, he will become afraid and swear. For this reason, the judge must say these words to him and should not suffice with his mere refusal.

His statement, “If he does not swear, judgment is rendered against him”: but if he swears, the judge lets him go.