the thousand riyals are taken from the estate, the heirs’ shares are diminished. Yet the heirs say, “You have absolutely no right against us.” So we say to the claimant, “Produce evidence.” He says, “I have no evidence. Let the heirs swear that their deceased relative owes me nothing.” The heirs reply, “We will not swear. We know nothing concerning our deceased relative; perhaps he bought something from you and did not pay you, or perhaps he borrowed something and did not repay you. So we will not swear; you know this better than we do.”

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that judgment is rendered against them. They are told, “At the very least, swear that you have no knowledge of it”; and if they refuse, judgment is rendered against them. According to the third view, however, the claimant is told: “You have full knowledge of this matter, whereas the defendants do not have full knowledge of it. Therefore, the oath is upon you.” This was the preferred view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him: if the claimant has full knowledge of the matter claimed whereas the defendant does not, the oath is referred back to the claimant. But if both of them have full knowledge of it, it is not referred back; and if neither of them has full knowledge of it, it is likewise not referred back. An example is where the heirs of Zayd claim from the heirs of ʿAmr that their deceased relative was owed such-and-such by the other party’s deceased relative.

If someone were to say that this should be left to the judge’s assessment and legal reasoning, rather than being determined by whether the claimant or defendant has full knowledge of the matter, or whether neither has such knowledge, that would be a strong position. The judge may know from the surrounding circumstances that the claimant is making a false claim, and thus consider it especially appropriate to refer the oath back to him. The defendant, meanwhile, may be an innocent man who hesitates to say, “By Allah, I owe him nothing,” out of fear that he may have forgotten. In this case, the judge may refer the oath back to the claimant, because the claimant’s falsehood and the defendant’s truthfulness appear more likely to him.