by having the claimant swear an oath alongside a single witness in cases involving property.

Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, al-Awzāʿī, and the majority of the Iraqi jurists maintain that no verdict may ever be issued on the strength of an oath plus a lone witness; the same view is reported from al-Layth, one of Mālik’s associates.

The point of contention in this chapter is the clash between seemingly contradictory textual evidence. Those who allow judgment on the basis of an oath and one witness appeal to numerous reports, among them the ḥadīths of Ibn ʿAbbās, Abū Hurayrah, Zayd ibn Thābit, and Jābir. Muslim has transmitted only the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, whose wording is: “The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—ruled by accepting an oath together with a single witness.” Muslim includes it, whereas al-Bukhārī does not.

Mālik relies on a mursal report that reaches him through Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad from his father, to the effect that “the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—ruled by accepting an oath in conjunction with a single witness,” for in his methodology acting upon mursal traditions is obligatory.

The evidence adduced against this position is the Almighty’s words:

“If two men are not available, then a man and two women from among those you approve as witnesses.” (Q 2:282)

They argue that the verse is exclusive; adding to it would amount to abrogation, and the Qur’an cannot be abrogated by a Sunnah that is not mass-transmitted. Their opponents reply that the ruling in question is not abrogation but a supplementary provision that does not alter the original verse’s ruling.

From the Sunnah they cite what al-Bukhārī and Muslim relate from al-Ashʿath ibn Qays:

“There was a dispute between me and another man over some property, so we referred our case to the Prophet—upon him be blessings and peace. He said, ‘Produce your evidence—your witnesses—or else the defendant’s oath.’ I said, ‘Then he will swear and not care!’ The Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—remarked, ‘Whoever swears an oath in order to usurp the wealth of a Muslim, while lying, will meet Allah while He is angry with him.’”

They contend that the Prophet—peace be upon him—thus restricted the avenues of proof to these two alone, invalidating any other evidentiary claim a litigant might make; it is inconceivable, they say, that he would omit any division of argument that legitimately belongs to the claimant.

Those who uphold the oath plus one witness proceed from their broader principle that an oath constitutes the evidence of the litigant whose claim is relatively weaker. Here the claimant’s position is bolstered by a witness, just as it is strengthened in cases of qasāmah. Even among this group, however, there is disagreement over whether a judgment may be rendered on the basis of an oath accompanied by two female witnesses.