Section: An oath does not admit substitution (niyabah), and no one may swear on behalf of another. If the defendant is a minor or insane, an oath shall not be administered on his behalf, and the matter is deferred until the minor reaches maturity and the insane person recovers; his guardian does not swear on his behalf. If a father claims a right for his minor son, or a guardian or trustee claims it for him, and the defendant denies it, the defendant's statement is accepted along with his oath. If he refuses, a judgment is rendered against him. Those who do not hold that judgment can be rendered based on the refusal (nukul) and believe that the oath should be returned to the claimant do not administer the oath to the guardian (32) on their behalf; rather, the oath is paused, and the judge writes a record of the defendant's refusal. If a claim is made against a slave, you should look: if it is a matter in which the slave's statement is accepted regarding himself, such as retaliation (qisas), divorce, or accusations of unchastity (qadhf), the litigation is with him, not his master. If we say that an oath is legislated in this matter, the slave swears (33) instead of his master, and if he refuses, no one else swears. If it is a matter in which the slave's statement is not accepted, such as destroying property or an offense necessitating financial compensation, the adversary is the master, and the oath is upon him, and the slave does not swear in such cases under any circumstances.

Section: If the one against whom the oath is required refuses, and says: "I have evidence that I will produce, or an account I will verify, in order to swear with certainty," Abu al-Khattab mentioned that he is not granted respite; if he does not swear, he is considered a refuser (nakil). It was also said: This does not constitute refusal, and he is granted a short period of time. If he says, "I do not wish to swear," or remains silent and mentions nothing, we look into the subject of the claim; if it is wealth, or the intended purpose of it is wealth, judgment is rendered against him due to his refusal, and the oath is not returned to the claimant. Ahmad stipulated this, saying: "I do not hold the view of returning the oath; if the defendant swears, [he is cleared], otherwise he shall surrender the right to him." This is also the position of Abu Hanifah. Abu al-Khattab chose the view that one may return the oath to the claimant; if he returns it, the claimant swears, and judgment is rendered in his favor for what he claimed. He said: "Ahmad deemed this sound, saying: 'It is not far-fetched; he swears and establishes his right' (34)." He said: "It is the position of the people of Madinah, and it has been narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him." This was also stated by Shurayh, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Ibn Sirin, and Malik specifically in matters of wealth. Al-Shafi'i stated it (35) regarding all [claims].