Explanation of the author's statement: "And if he refuses, the judge rules against him, saying: If you swear, otherwise I will rule against you. If he does not swear, the judge rules against him."

The Shaykh :"And if he refuses, the judge rules against him". If he refuses, meaning he refuses to take the oath, the defendant is told to swear. He says, "I am not going to swear," so the judge rules against him. But does the judge rule against him immediately on the day he refuses, saying, "That is it, I have ruled against you for what your opponent claimed"? The author does not say "so he says to him: If you swear, otherwise I will rule against you". If he swears, where is the answer to the condition? It is omitted, and its meaning is "you are released." If he does not swear, I will rule against you. Perhaps when he is told this, he may be afraid and swear. Therefore, the judge must say this to him; he does not suffice with merely his refusal until he says to him, "If you swear, otherwise I will rule against you." "If he does not swear, the judge rules against him". And if he swears, he is released. If he swears, he is released. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that the oath is not returned to the claimant, but the claimant is ruled in favor of merely by the defendant's refusal, and the oath is not returned to the claimant. It is clear, for example, if Zayd claims a hundred riyals from 'Amr, and Zayd is told to bring evidence, and he requests that the denier, who is 'Amr, be made to swear. 'Amr says, "I will not swear." The apparent meaning of the author's words is that the judge rules against him, and we do not say to Zayd, the claimant, "Swear that you are claiming such and such." Yes, based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) . So he did not place on the side of the claimant anything but evidence, and the oath is on the one who denies. So he placed the oath on the side of the denier. Therefore, we do not return the oath, because if we told the claimant to swear, he would say, "I will not swear. I only have evidence. I have no evidence. My evidence is this man's refusal." It is clear. And this is the well-known position in the school of thought. It was said, however, that the oath is returned to the claimant, because when the defendant refuses, the claimant's side becomes strong. The claimant's side becomes strong. If the claimant is truthful in his claim, the oath does not harm him. And if he is lying, he may fear the oath. The claim may seem light to him, but when it comes to the oath, he fears it and does not swear. So if he refuses, we rule in favor of the defendant's innocence according to the opinion of returning the oath. If the claimant refuses, we say, "Then you have nothing. What makes you refuse to swear when you are right? If you were truly right, you would have sworn. The oath on the truth does not harm you. When you refused, we knew that you are wrong." If he says, "How can I be wrong? Why didn't he swear, even though he is innocent?" We say, "Because that man says, 'I am innocent. Why should I swear? I am not going to swear. You are judging against me and wronging me. You wronged him, but I will swear and I am innocent. That will not happen.'" Therefore, the second opinion in the issue is that the oath is returned to the claimant. There is a third opinion, which is to distinguish: if the claimant has full knowledge of the matter and the defendant does not, the oath is returned to him. If the opposite is the case, the oath is not returned to him. How, for example, if a group of people, or if a man comes to the heirs of a deceased person and claims against them, saying, "I claim against your deceased father for a thousand riyals. Where will the thousand riyals be in the estate? If I take a thousand riyals from the estate, whose right is diminished? The heirs' right. The heirs said, "You have no right at all. You have no right." It is clear. So we told the claimant to bring evidence. He said, "I have no evidence. Let them swear. Let them swear that there is nothing in the estate of their deceased father that belongs to me." Do you understand now? Is it not clear? It is clear. The heirs said, "We will not swear. We do not know about our deceased father. Perhaps our deceased father wasted something for you. Perhaps he bought something from you and did not pay you. Perhaps he owed something and did not pay you. We will not swear. We do not know. You know better about it than we do. We will not swear." Does the judge rule against them? The apparent meaning of the author's words is that he rules against them. He said, "Swear upon us in knowledge, at least upon us in knowledge." We say, "No, we are not going to swear." According to the author's opinion, he rules against them. And according to the opinion I mentioned, it is said to the claimant, "This is something you have full knowledge of. You have full knowledge of it, and the defendants do not have full knowledge of it. So the oath is upon you. The oath is upon you." And this is what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah chose. He stated that if the claimant has full knowledge of the claim and the defendant does not, the oath is returned to him. If both have full knowledge of it, it is not returned. And if neither has full knowledge of it, it is not returned either. As if the heirs of Zayd claim against the heirs of 'Amr that their deceased father owed the other deceased father such and such. If someone were to say that this returns to the judge's consideration and independent legal reasoning, regarding what the claimant or the defendant has full knowledge of, or what they do not have full knowledge of, this would have a strong aspect. Because the judge may know from the circumstances that the claimant is wrong. The claimant is wrong. He sees that returning the oath to him is confirmed. Confirmed, because he knows that he is wrong. And the defendant is a sound, kind man who feared to say, "By Allah, I have nothing for him." He has something for him, but he forgot it. Is that right or not? It is possible that the denier is a good man, and this greedy man claimed against him. The one who eats the camel and what it carried claimed against him. "Do you have evidence?" He said, "No, by Allah, I have no evidence. But if I have no evidence, I request his oath." We said to this good, sound, kind man, "Swear." He said, "I will not swear." Why don't you swear? In his heart, he says, "I will not swear because I am afraid that I have a right for him, but I forgot it. And I am not going to swear. You want to suffice with my denial. Suffice with it. If you do not suffice with my denial, rule against me for what he claimed." Is this possible? Yes, it is. Yes, Sami, it is. So it is possible for the judge now to return the oath to this claimant, because the truth of the claimant is more probable to him. Yes, because the lie of the claimant and the truth of the defendant are more probable to him. And this opinion, in my view, is the strongest. And although I have not seen anyone who stated it, since it is a detailed opinion that takes from the opinion of those who say the oath is returned from one aspect, and from the opinion of those who do not say the oath is returned from another aspect, this is part of the opinion of these people and part of the opinion of those people. No, because those people say it is returned absolutely, and those people say it is not returned absolutely. And this distinguishes, saying the oath is returned to the claimant if the judge sees that. If the judge sees that. And this opinion, in my view, is good and does not contradict the opinion of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, because the reality of the matter is that if the claimant has full knowledge of the matter and the defendant does not, it is more probable that we return the oath to him. It is more probable that we return the oath to him, because this denier only refused the oath out of scrupulousness. Scrupulousness. And this enables him to have full knowledge. So why do we not return it to him? So our statement, this possibility I mentioned, does not contradict the opinion of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in some cases, but it does not go out of the consensus. Meaning, it does not go out of the two opinions. It takes one of the opinions from one aspect and takes the second opinion from another aspect. It is clear, everyone. Yes.

The questioner : This judge?

The Shaykh : Be patient, be patient. The time for questions has not come yet. Anyway, the issue now has three opinions.

The questioner : Four people.

The Shaykh : Four. Yes. The first opinion is that it is not returned absolutely, and this is the school of thought. The second opinion is that it is returned absolutely, and this is another opinion in the school of thought. The third opinion is that it is returned to the one who has full knowledge of the matter, and not to the one who does not have full knowledge of it, and this is the choice of the Shaykh al-Islam. The fourth opinion is the possibility that it is said that this returns to the independent legal reasoning of the judge. If he sees that the oath should be returned to the claimant, he does so. And if he does not see that, he does not do so.