Likewise, the question of “ruling on the basis of one witness and an oath” is supported by hadiths in the Sahīh and Sunan collections, such as the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās narrated by Muslim, and the hadith of Abū Hurayra and others narrated by Abū Dāwūd. When some scholars said, “We hold that a judgment based on one witness and an oath should be overturned,” scholars such as Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abū ‘Ubayd and others rose to defend this Sunnah. Mālik discussed it in his Muwatta’ at a length unparalleled elsewhere in that work. Al-Shāfi‘ī devoted approximately ten leaves to it in al-Umm, as did Abū ‘Ubayd in his Book of Judicial Rulings.

The Kufans have nothing to support their position except the saying they transmit:

“The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the oath upon the one who denies the claim.”

This wording is not found in the Sunan collections, although some compilers of hadith have narrated it. The Sahīh does, however, contain the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbās reporting that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Were people to be granted what they claim, some would lay claim to the lives and property of others. Rather, the oath rests upon the defendant.”

This wording may be understood as not being general in scope. Rather, the definite article refers to the particular defendant envisaged: one against whom the claimant has nothing but a bare allegation, as indicated by the words, “Were people to be granted what they claim.” Those who require the claimant to swear do not do so on the basis of a bare allegation. They require his oath only when evidence has been established that lends greater weight to his side, such as a witness in disputes over rights, or inheritance in qasāma proceedings. If, however, the wording is held to be general, then the specific evidence qualifies the general.

As for their appeal to the Quran’s mention of two witnesses, and of one man and two women,