If you swear, otherwise I will rule against you," three times. If he swears, [he is acquitted]; otherwise, [the judge] rules against him. According to the other opinion, he says to him: "You have the right to return the oath to the claimant." If he returns it, he (the claimant) swears, and [the judge] rules in his favor. If he refuses the oath, he is asked about the reason for his refusal. If he says: "I have evidence that I will present, or an account that I must verify so that I may swear upon what I am certain of," the trial is postponed. If he says: "I do not wish to swear," his right to the oath lapses; if he offers to take it in that same session after this, it will not be accepted from him until he returns in another session. If it is said: "If the defendant refuses the oath and then offers to take it, it is accepted from him, so why do you prevent it from being heard here?" We say: The oath in the case of the defendant is the original [procedure], so whenever he is able to take it or offers it, it must be accepted and relied upon, like substitutes along with their original counterparts. As for the claimant's oath, it is a secondary substitute; if he refuses it, the right does not transfer to anyone else; thus, if he refuses it, his right to it lapses due to its weakness. As for when he swears and judgment is rendered in his favor, and then the defendant returns and offers to take the oath, it is not accepted from him. Likewise, if he offers it after judgment has been rendered against him due to his refusal, it is not accepted, because the judgment has been finalized and cannot be overturned, just as if evidence had been established against him. As for matters other than wealth, and what is not intended for wealth, judgment is not rendered in it based on refusal. Ahmad stated this regarding qisas (retaliation). It was also narrated from him regarding a man who accused another of slandering him, and he said: "Make him swear; if he says: 'I will not swear,' then [the punishment] is applied to him." Abu Bakr said: This is an old opinion, and the established school (madhhab) is that judgment is not rendered based on refusal in any of these matters, and there is no difference between qisas for life and qisas for a limb (40). This is also the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. [Abu Hanifa said] (41): Judgment is rendered based on refusal in qisas for matters other than life. A similar view is narrated from Ahmad. The first [view] is the school's doctrine; because this is one of the two types of qisas, it resembles the other type. Accordingly, what is to be done with him? There are two views: one is that he is released, because no proof has been established against him, and the benefit of the legislation (42) of the oath is deterrence and restraint. The second is that he is imprisoned until he confesses or swears. The basis for these two views is the woman when she refuses the oath of li'an (imprecation).

Section: If he swears and says: "If Allah wills," the oath is repeated for him, because...