his account, the one whose grounds outweigh those of his opponent is called upon to swear first. For example, if someone claims to have purchased an item from another man and produces a single witness, his word is accepted with his oath. The ground supporting his truthfulness—the witness—is stronger than the defendant’s ground, namely possession. If their grounds are equally strong, both swear, neither being called upon to swear before the other, as when the two parties to a sale disagree.

Section

The governing principle in all judgments and claims is that whoever is most likely to be telling the truth is called upon to swear first, whether claimant or defendant. Consider a man who begins living with his wife and remains with her for a long time. Whether or not he subsequently divorces her, if she demands her dowry and claims that he has had intercourse with her, while he denies it, her word is accepted with her oath—or, according to another view, without an oath—even though she is the claimant and he is the defendant. When the allegation made by the victim’s next of kin is most likely to be true because of grounds resembling those for which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, required the victim’s next of kin to swear the qasāma oaths, judgment must be given on the basis of qasāma, and retaliatory execution imposed accordingly.

If it is asked, “What were the grounds on which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ruled by qasāma?” the answer is:

Khaybar was inhabited exclusively by Jews, with no others living among them, and the enmity between them and the Ansār was evident. ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sahl went out after the afternoon prayer and was found slain before nightfall. Such circumstances would lead anyone who heard of them to consider it most likely that none but the Jews had killed him. Were a similar case to occur in our own time, it would be obligatory to rule on that basis, and impermissible to depart from it.

Section

This ground is what our jurists call lawth (grounds supporting an allegation). Mālik was asked, according to the narration of