Section: Whichever of the two pieces of evidence we give precedence to, its owner shall not take an oath along with it. Al-Shafi'i said, in one of his two opinions: The possessor is to be made to swear an oath, because both pieces of evidence are voided by their conflict, so they become like those who have no evidence, and the 'insider' swears an oath, just as if neither of them had any evidence. Our argument is that one of the two pieces of evidence is superior, so it is obligatory to rule by it exclusively, just as when two reports conflict—one specific and one general—or one of them is stronger due to some aspect. We do not concede that the superior evidence is voided; rather, it is deemed stronger, acted upon, and the inferior evidence is voided.

Section: If the evidence belongs to one of them and not the other, you must examine it; if the evidence belongs to the claimant alone, it is ruled by it, and he does not take an oath, without disagreement in the school. This is the opinion of the leading legal authorities among the scholars of the cities, including al-Zuhri, Abu Hanifah, Malik, and al-Shafi'i. Shurayh, 'Awn ibn 'Abd Allah, al-Nakha'i, al-Sha'bi, and Ibn Abi Layla said: The man is to be made to swear an oath along with his evidence. Shurayh said to a man: "Even if you proved to me this and that many witnesses, I would not rule for you until you swear an oath." Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to the Hadrami: "Your evidence, or his oath; you have nothing other than that." Also the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the defendant." And because evidence is one of the two proofs for a claim, it is sufficient by itself, like an oath. Our companions said: There is no difference between the present and the absent, the living and the dead, the minor and the adult, the insane and the legally accountable. Al-Shafi'i said: If the one against whom testimony is given cannot express himself, the one in whose favor testimony is given is made to swear an oath; because he cannot express himself regarding the claim of discharge and acquittal, the judge acts in his stead in that regard so that the doubt is removed. This is sound; for the establishment of evidence for the claimant regarding the proof of his right does not negate the possibility of discharge and acquittal, as evidenced by...