Is an oath required for the defendant when only the defendant possesses the evidence (Bayyinah)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
If the claimant has no evidence, but the defendant possesses evidence, the defendant's evidence shall be heard, and they are not required to take an oath alongside it. If we hold that evidence takes precedence over the claim in cases of conflict and that no oath is required with evidence, then this ruling is stronger when the evidence stands alone. If we hold that the defendant's evidence takes precedence, it must certainly suffice in place of an oath, as the evidence is stronger than an oath.
Supporting text
It is possible that an oath might still be required for the defendant. This possibility arises because the defendant's evidence might be based merely on possession ('yad') or transaction ('tasarruf'), which only establishes what possession and transaction establish, and these do not preclude the necessity of an oath. Therefore, what stands in their place (the evidence) might also not preclude the necessity of an oath.