hold that the oath must always be taken by the party denying the claim. Even in the oath procedure for homicide cases, they require the defendant to swear; they do not rule on the basis of one witness and an oath, nor do they refer the oath back to the claimant when the defendant refuses to swear. They cite the general wording of this hadith as evidence.

As for the other scholars of the Muslim community—from Medina, Mecca, and Syria, as well as the jurists versed in hadith and others, such as Ibn Jurayh, Mālik, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, al-Shāfi‘ī, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishāq ibn Rāhawayh, and others—they sometimes require the claimant to swear and sometimes the defendant, in accordance with the established practices of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The principle held by most of them is that the oath is prescribed for the party whose case is stronger.

In their usage, “proof” denotes whatever makes the truth clear. They differ over the detailed applications of this principle: proof may consist of circumstantial evidence together with the oaths prescribed in homicide cases; it may consist of one witness and an oath; or it may consist of evidence other than witnesses, such as a description identifying lost property.

They have answered that hadith in several ways: by judging it weak; by arguing that its wording is general, whereas the hadiths they cite concern specific cases; or by maintaining that their hadiths are more authentic, more numerous, and better known, and thus deserve precedence when the reports conflict. It is established that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, required proof from the claimant and an oath from the party denying the claim in certain disputes that did not involve claims based on suspicion;