Muslims, he stated the oath absolutely and did not restrict it. Arguing with this (19) is more appropriate than resorting to what contradicts analogy (20) and abandoning its application. As for their hadith, it contains no evidence for the legitimacy of the oath at the pulpit; it only contains an intensification of the sin (21) upon the one who swears there, and it does not necessitate that the swearing must take place there. As for the story of Marwan, it is astonishing that they argue with it and follow the statement of Marwan in a case in which Zayd disagreed with him. The statement of Zayd—the jurist of the Companions, their judge, and the most knowledgeable among them regarding inheritance—is more worthy of being used as an argument than the statement of Marwan. For if the statement of Marwan were taken in isolation, it would not be permissible to use it as an argument; so how can it be permissible to use it as an argument against the consensus of the Companions, the statement of their imams and jurists (22), and in contradiction to the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the absoluteness of the Book of Allah the Almighty? This is something that is not permitted. Al-Khiraqi only mentioned the intensification (taghliz) through place and wording in the case of the dhimmi (protected non-Muslim) because of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) making the Jews swear, saying: "I adjure you by Allah who revealed the Torah to Moses." Also, due to the saying of Allah the Almighty regarding the two People of the Book: {You shall detain them both after the prayer}. And because it was narrated from Ka'b ibn Sur, regarding a Christian, that he said: "Take him to the altar and place the Gospel in his lap and the Torah on his head." Al-Sha'bi also said regarding a Christian: "Take him to the church and make him swear by that which a person like him is made to swear by." Ibn al-Mundhir said: "I do not know of any argument that necessitates that one must be made to swear in a specific place, nor with an oath other than that with which the Muslims are made to swear." In any case, there is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that intensification by time, place, and wording is not mandatory, except that Ibn al-Sabbagh mentioned that there are two opinions attributed to al-Shafi'i regarding the obligation of intensification by place. Ibn al-Qass disagreed with him, saying: "There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that wherever the judge makes the defendant swear in his official work and the land of his jurisdiction (24), it is permissible, and that intensification by place is merely a matter of choice." Thus, intensification remains with those who hold it to be a matter of preference and discretion.

Section: Ibn al-Mundhir said: "We have not found anyone who makes an oath by the Mushaf (copy of the Quran) mandatory." Al-Shafi'i said: "I saw them confirming [oaths] with the Mushaf, and I saw Ibn Mazin, who was a judge in Sana'a, intensifying the oath..."