Must the party whose evidence is preferred still take an oath?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
Whichever evidence is preferred, its proponent is not required to take an oath alongside it. This is because one of the two pieces of evidence is preponderant, and judgment must be rendered based upon it alone, just as when two pieces of evidence conflict but one is stronger based on a certain aspect.
Supporting text
Al-Shafi'i, in one of his two opinions, holds that the possessor must still take an oath, arguing that the conflict between the two evidences causes them both to nullify each other, rendering the situation as if neither had evidence, thus requiring the possessor to swear the oath as if there were no evidence presented by either side.