Does the ruling regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the claimant without an oath apply universally?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
The ruling that evidence suffices the claimant without an oath applies without distinction between a present or absent party, a living or deceased party, a minor or an adult, or a sane or insane person. This application is consistent across these differing states.
Supporting text
Al-Shafi'i held an exception: If the party against whom the evidence is presented cannot articulate themselves (i.e., they cannot speak for themselves), the claimant should be made to swear the oath. This is because the defendant cannot express concepts like judicial acknowledgment or remission, thus the judge stands in their place regarding these matters to remove ambiguity. This is deemed sound because the establishment of the right through the claimant's evidence does not negate the possibility of the defendant's prior judicial acknowledgment or remission, which would require an oath from the defendant if they were present and capable of speech.