A number of jurists, however, said: When the spouses differ they both take oaths and the matter reverts to the customary dowry, without dissolving the marriage as Mālik held. This is the position of al-Shāfiʿī, Sufyān al-Thawrī, and others.

It has also been reported that the wife is referred to the customary dowry without any oath, provided that the going rate is not higher than what she claims nor lower than what he concedes.

Their divergence turns on how they understand the Prophet’s statement—peace and blessings be upon him—“The burden of proof is on the claimant, while the oath is upon the one who denies.” Is this wording reasoned, carrying an underlying rationale, or not?

Whoever holds that it is reasoned says: the party with the stronger presumption must always swear; if their presumptions are equal they both swear and the contract is rescinded.

Whoever regards it as unreasoned says: the husband is the one who swears, for the wife admits the marriage and the existence of a dowry in principle but claims an additional amount, making him the defendant.

A third view maintains that they must always take reciprocal oaths, because each of them is, in one respect or another, a defendant. This is the opinion of those who do not weigh relative presumptions; the school itself is divided on the point.

As for the opinion that her word is accepted up to the customary dowry and his word for anything beyond it, its proponents hold that the parties can never be exactly equal in their claims; inevitably one of them will have the stronger presumption. If her claim falls at or below the level of her customary dowry, her statement prevails; if it exceeds that amount, his statement prevails.

The root of the disagreement between Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī over whether the contract is annulled after reciprocal oaths and a return to the customary dowry lies in the question: Should marriage, in this context, be likened to a sale? Whoever answers in the affirmative rules that the contract is dissolved; whoever answers in the negative—arguing that the dowry is not a condition for the contract’s validity—rules that, after the oaths, the spouses revert to the customary dowry.

Equally weak is the view held by some Malikis that, once the oaths have been taken, the couple may not subsequently agree on another settlement, nor may either party adopt the other’s claim. Such reasoning merely likens the matter to the procedure of mutual imprecation (liʿān), an analogy that is flimsy in itself—especially since whether liʿān actually entails that consequence is disputed.

If the dispute concerns receipt—she says, “I have not received the dowry,” while he says, “She has already received it”—the majority hold that the woman’s word prevails. This is the view of al-Shāfiʿī, al-Thawrī, Aḥmad, and Abū Thawr.

Mālik maintains that her statement prevails before consummation, but his statement after consummation. Some of his followers explain that Mālik said this because the accepted custom in Medina was that a husband would not enter upon his wife until he had paid the dowry; where such a custom does not exist, her word should always be accepted. Indeed, giving precedence to her statement in every case is preferable, for she is the one against whom the claim is made; Mālik merely considered the stronger presumption that arises once the husband has consummated the marriage.

Among Malikis there is further disagreement: if a long time has elapsed since consummation, should his statement be accepted only with an oath, or even without one?

When the dispute concerns the very kind of dowry—he says, for example, “I married you for this slave,” while she says, “You married me for this garment”—the well-known position in the school is that they take mutual oaths and the marriage is rescinded if the disagreement