If, however, the preponderance of probability lies with the defendant, this may be for one of three reasons. First, the claimant may be known for habitually claiming to have been wronged and for treachery, while the defendant is known for fairness and trustworthiness. Second, the claimant may be a contemptible and disreputable person, whereas the defendant is upright and dignified; thus, the claimant seeks to make him swear merely to humiliate him. Third, there may be a known reason why the property came into the defendant’s possession, while no basis is known for the claimant’s claim.

In these three circumstances, the preponderance of probability lies with the defendant, and suspicion is directed toward the claimant. Mālik’s position was that if, in circumstances such as these, the claim concerned an existing specific property, it should not be heard until the claimant stated the cause giving rise to it. If it concerned a debt owed to him, it should not be heard until the claimant produced evidence that there had been a transaction between him and the defendant. A similar view has been reported from Ahmad.

As for the grievance authority, whose jurisdiction is founded on pursuing what is most appropriate, it acts by way of permissibility rather than obligation. It may therefore adopt such a measure when suspicion is apparent and a vexatious intent is evident. It should investigate thoroughly, using every means that may bring the truth to light, while protecting the defendant by exercising the latitude available in adjudication.

If the matter reaches mutual oath-taking, that is the final, conclusive resolution, which no petitioner may be denied—whether in ordinary judicial proceedings or in grievance proceedings—when intimidation or admonition has failed to deter him. If he divides his claims and seeks to have the opposing party swear separately at each hearing regarding some of them, with the aim of harassing and humiliating him, he must be prevented from doing so. When his intent to harass becomes apparent, he must be ordered to combine his claims and have the opposing party swear a single oath concerning all of them.