Everything in which there are indications that outweigh the doubt regarding the truth of the claimant, the oath (qasamah) is applied in it.

The Shaykh : For this reason, the stronger opinion, which is the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), is that in every case where there are indications that outweigh the doubt regarding the truth of the claimant, the oath (qasamah) is applied. The claim that the oath (qasamah) is contrary to the original principle is an incorrect claim. Rather, the oath (qasamah) is in accordance with the original principle. How is that? Because the oath is only on the side of the stronger of the two disputing parties. The oath is not specific to the side of the defendant; it is on the side of the stronger of the two disputing parties. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) judged in favor of the claimant with one witness and an oath. He made the oath on the side of the claimant. Why? Because his side was strengthened by the witness he had. Do you know this judgment with one witness and an oath, or do you not know it? You do not know it. Suppose you claimed that the book in so-and-so's hand is yours, and he said, "No, the book is not yours," and you brought only one witness. In this case, the judge does not rule based on the witness alone, because Allah said: But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) judged with the witness combined with the oath of the claimant. Why was the oath on the side of the claimant? Because his side was strengthened by the witness. Similarly, the jurists said: If we see a person wearing a turban and holding a turban in his hand, and another person is running after him saying, "Give me my turban," and the first person is not wearing a turban, then the claimant is the one running after the man, and the defendant is the man who has the turban on his head and in his hand. In this case, we rule that the turban in the hand of the fleeing person belongs to the pursuing claimant, but with his oath. Here, we ruled with the oath on the side of whom? On the side of the claimant. Why? Because of the strength of his side due to this strong indication. They also said: If a woman, after her husband has divorced her, claims that the coffee pot—do you know the pot? It is known for milk and coffee—belongs to her, and the man says, "No, it belongs to me," the indication supports whom? It supports the man. So it belongs to the man with his oath. In any case, the oath (qasamah) has not departed from the original principle of claims; rather, it is in accordance with the original principle of claims.