by his refusal. Refusal (nukūl) is when he says, “I abstain,” or the judge tells him, “Swear,” and he responds, “I will not swear.” If he simply remains silent, the judge rules that he has refused; and if he turns to the claimant and says, “You swear,” that too counts as refusal.

The returned oath (yamīn mardūda) is, according to one opinion, tantamount to formal testimony; the sounder view is that it has the same effect as an admission by the defendant. Consequently, if the defendant later produces evidence that he has paid the debt or been released from it, such evidence is not entertained.

Should the claimant decline to swear without offering any excuse, his right to the oath is lost and he can no longer demand anything of the opponent. If he asks for time to produce witnesses or to check his accounts, he is given three days—another opinion grants him open-ended time. If, when told to swear, the defendant seeks a delay to consult his accounts, he is not granted it—though another view allows three days; but if he requests a delay at the very start of his answer, he is given until the end of the session.

Anyone from whom zakāt is claimed who asserts that he has already paid it to another collector, or that the crop assessor erred, and is then required to swear but refuses—and the oath cannot be shifted elsewhere—must, on the strongest opinion, still pay the zakāt.

If the guardian of a minor claims a debt owed to the child, the defendant denies it and then refuses to swear, the guardian is not put on oath. A second view obliges him to swear, and a third limits the oath to cases where the guardian himself undertook the transaction that generated the debt.

Section

When two people claim an object in the hand of a third party and each produces evidence, the two sets of evidence cancel one another. Another view says both are acted upon; within that, one opinion divides the object between them, another draws lots, and another suspends judgment until the truth emerges or they reach an agreement.

If the object is in their joint possession and they both bring evidence, it remains as it was. Should it be in the hand of one of them, and someone else produces evidence for it while the possessor likewise adduces evidence, the possessor’s claim is preferred, and the other party’s proof is not heard until the possessor’s has first been considered.