relates to it from a claim of raj'ah (reconciliation in divorce) or fay'ah (resumption of relations) in the case of ila' (oath of continence), nor in slavery and what relates to it from the status of umm al-walad, loyalty (wala'), and lineage. This is because these matters do not accept substitution (badal), and the oath is only presented in matters where substitution is possible, for the defendant is then given the choice between swearing or yielding. Furthermore, these matters are not established except by two male witnesses, so the oath is not presented therein, just like the hadd punishments. The second narration is that he is asked to swear in cases of divorce, retaliation (qisas), and slander (qadhf). Al-Khiraqi said: "If she says, 'I have reconciled with you' (implying he has reconciled with her), and she says, 'My waiting period (idda) ended before your reconciliation,' then the statement is her statement along with her oath. And if there is disagreement over the passing of the four months, then the statement is his statement along with his oath." It is derived from this that he is asked to swear in every right of a human being. This is the view of Al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad, due to the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "If people were given based on their claims, a group of people would claim the blood of others and their wealth; but the oath is for the defendant." Recorded by Muslim (49). This is general for every defendant and is clear in the case of blood claims, because it is mentioned in the context of claims along with the generality of the hadith, and because it is a valid claim regarding a right of a human being (50), so it is permissible for the defendant to swear therein, like a claim of wealth.

The second category: The rights of Allah the Exalted. These are of two types: The first is the hadd punishments, in which an oath is not legislated. We are unaware of any disagreement on this, because if he confessed and then retracted his confession, it is accepted from him, and he is released without an oath. So, that he should not be asked to swear in the absence of a confession is even more appropriate. Also, it is recommended to conceal him, and to suggest to the one confessing to retract his confession, and to the witnesses to abandon giving testimony and to conceal him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to Hazzal, in the story of Ma'iz: "O Hazzal, if you had concealed him with your garment, it would have been better for you" (51). Therefore, an oath is not legislated therein under any circumstances.

The second type: Financial rights, such as the collector (sa'i) claiming zakat from the owner of the wealth, and that the hawl (passing of one year) has been completed and the nisaab (threshold) has been met. Ahmad said: "The statement is the statement of the owner of the wealth, without an oath, and people are not asked to swear regarding their sadaqat (charity/zakat)." Al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad said: "He is asked to swear, because it is an admissible claim, similar to the right of a human being." Our position is that it is a right of Allah the Exalted, similar to a hadd punishment, and because that is an act of worship, he is not asked to swear regarding it, like prayer. If he claims against him that he owes the kaffarah (expiation) of an oath, or zihar, or a vow of charity or otherwise, then the statement is his statement regarding the negation of that without an oath.