all claims, because it was narrated from Nafi', from Ibn 'Umar, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returned the oath to the claimant of the right. Al-Daraqutni narrated it (36), and because when [the defendant] refuses, the truthfulness of the claimant becomes apparent, and his side is strengthened, so the oath is legislated in his favor, just like the defendant before his refusal, and like the claimant when a single witness testifies for him. Furthermore, because refusal may occur due to his ignorance of the situation, or his scrupulousness (wara') against swearing to what he is not certain of, or due to fear of the consequences of the oath, or holding himself above it, despite knowing the truthfulness of his denial. His refusal does not definitively establish the truthfulness of the claimant, so it is not permissible to judge in his favor without evidence. Thus, if he swears, his oath acts as evidence in the absence of anything stronger than it, as is the case in the place of consensus. Ibn Abi Layla said: "I will not leave him until he either confesses or swears." Our argument is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "But the oath is upon the defendant" (37) (38), thereby restricting it to the side of the defendant. And his saying: "The evidence is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the defendant" (38). [He placed the category of the oath on the side of the defendant] (39), just as he placed the category of evidence on the side of the claimant. Ahmad said: Ibn 'Umar came to 'Uthman regarding a slave of his, and he said to him: "Swear that you did not sell him while he had a defect that you knew of." Ibn 'Umar refused to swear, so he returned the slave to him and did not return the oath to the claimant. This is because it is evidence in matters of wealth, so judgment is rendered in it based on refusal, as if someone who has no heir dies, and the Imam finds in his ledger a debt owed to him by a person, and he demands it from him, and he denies it and demands the oath from him, and he refuses, then there is no disagreement that the oath is not returned. The companions of al-Shafi'i have mentioned in this regard that judgment is rendered based on refusal in one of two views; and in the other, the defendant is imprisoned until he confesses or swears. Likewise, if a man claims against a deceased person that he appointed him as executor to distribute his third, and the heirs deny it and refuse the oath, judgment is rendered against them. As for the report, its authenticity is not known, and the opposition of Ibn 'Umar to it in the story we mentioned indicates its weakness, for he did not return the oath to the claimant, nor did 'Uthman return it. Based on this, when he refuses the oath, the judge says to him: "If..."