—of judges, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him, was fully aware of certain hypocrites whose blood and property were lawfully forfeit, and he was certain of the matter; yet he did not issue judgment against them on the basis of that personal knowledge, even though he stood acquitted before Allah, His angels, and His servants of every possible suspicion.

Ibn al-Qayyim went on to say: “Nevertheless, it is permissible for the judge to rule on the basis of information that has reached the level of mass transmission and whose reports corroborate one another, so that the judge and others share knowledge of it. He may also rely on what he has heard through widely–circulated report (istifāḍah), for that is one of the most evident forms of proof. No charge of partiality can touch a judge who rests his decision on such evidence; his ruling is then founded upon a recognized proof, not upon some private knowledge unique to himself.”

If the claimant says, “I have no evidence,” the judge should inform him that he has the right to demand an oath from his opponent. Muslim and Abū Dāwūd relate that two men—a Hadrami and a Kindite—brought their dispute to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Hadrami said, “Messenger of Allah, this man has usurped land that belongs to me.” The Kindite replied, “It is my land; it is in my possession, and he has no right to it.” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said to the Hadrami, “Do you have any proof?” When he answered that he did not, the Prophet said, “Then you have only his oath.”

Imām Ibn al-Qayyim commented: “This is a continuing principle of the Sacred Law: the oath is assigned to the defendant’s side when the claimant has nothing to tip the balance in his favor beyond mere allegation. Because the defendant is fortified by the basic presumption of innocence, his side is stronger by virtue of that operative presumption, and therefore the oath is required of him.”