his right is still outstanding against him, for the default is that what once existed continues to exist.

10 – The same rule applies to claims of hidden defects, stipulated conditions, time-limits, or documentary instruments: the presumption is that none of these are in force and that no obligation arises from them. Whoever alleges them must present a bayyina; if he has no bayyina, the oath is required of the one who denies the claim.

11 – This ḥadīth, then, is the foundation of all litigation, and the procedure it enshrines for bringing suits to an end is the definitive means of blocking baseless claims and affirming rightful entitlements.

12 – The leading investigators among the scholars have stated that the Sharīʿa assigns the oath to whichever side—claimant or defendant—has the stronger position, and Allah knows best. Ibn al-Mundhir said: “The scholars are unanimously agreed that the bayyina is upon the claimant and the oath upon the one who denies.”

13 – Ibn Rajab said in his commentary on the Forty Ḥadith: “The meaning of the Prophet’s words, ‘The bayyina is upon the claimant,’ is that by means of it he becomes entitled to what he is claiming, for it is an obligatory proof that is acted upon. As for the words, ‘The oath is upon the defendant,’ they mean that he is exonerated by it, because it is an obligation placed upon him that is enforced in every circumstance.”

14 – He, may Allah have mercy on him, also said: “When the claimant produces a single witness, his side is thereby strengthened; if he then swears the oath as well, judgment is rendered in his favor.”

15 – He further stated: “A bayyina is anything that makes the claimant’s case clear and testifies to his truthfulness: the luwath (circumstantial evidence) in its various forms is a bayyina, and one witness together with an oath constitutes a bayyina.”

16 – And he said: “The Prophet’s words, ‘If people were given merely on the basis of their claims…,’ indicate that anyone who claims blood-money or property must produce a bayyina substantiating his allegation. Included in this general rule is the case of a man who accuses another of killing his relative but possesses nothing more than the victim’s dying words, ‘So-and-so wounded me.’ That alone is not sufficient, nor does it by itself amount to luwath; this is the view of the majority.”