place. In every situation where the claimant is able to know the facts for himself and the defendant therefore shifts the oath back to him, then if the claimant swears he becomes entitled to the claim; but if he refuses to swear, the court will not rule in his favor merely because the defendant refused. This mirrors the judgment handed down by ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān.

Ibn al-Qayyim said, “The view adopted by our shaykh is the definitive resolution of the dispute over refusal and the transferred oath.” He continued, “When the defendant alone is privy to the circumstances, if he declines to swear the judgment is entered against him. Conversely, when the claimant is the only one who knows the facts, the oath is shifted to him; and if he then refuses to swear, he is not awarded the claim on account of the defendant’s refusal. This precise clarification is the finest statement on refusal and the transferred oath.”

If the defendant has sworn and the judge has dismissed him, as noted earlier, and the claimant later produces evidence, that evidence will not be heard if the claimant had already denied possessing any by saying, “I have no proof,” for he has contradicted himself. If he had not denied it, the evidence is admitted and the judge rules accordingly.

The defendant’s oath does not extinguish the underlying right, because a claim is not annulled by the administration of an oath; the oath merely ends the litigation, not the right itself. Likewise, if the claimant says, “I do not know of any evidence for me,” and later discovers one, it is accepted and judged upon, since he has not disavowed it. Allah knows best.