What is the procedural ruling when the claimant presents evidence after the defendant has already taken the required oath?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judicial Rulings
Primary text
If the claimant states that their evidence is distant, unobtainable, or they do not wish to present it, and requests the defendant to swear an oath, and the defendant swears, the claimant may still subsequently produce evidence, and judgment will be passed in favor of the claimant based on that evidence. This opinion is held by Shuraih, Al-Sha'bi, Malik, Al-Thawri, Al-Layth, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and Ishaq.
Supporting text
It is narrated from Ibn Abi Laila and Dawud that the claimant's subsequent evidence should not be heard, because the oath taken by the defendant is a decisive argument for the defendant, and one argument cannot follow another to overturn the first. However, the sound proof is derived from the statement of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): 'Truthful evidence is more beloved to me than a perjurious oath.' Since truthful evidence implies the preceding oath was false, the evidence takes precedence. Furthermore, whatever right is established against a person by their admission must also be established by evidence, just as it would have been before the oath was taken. The opposing view is flawed because evidence is the origin, and the oath is merely a substitute, which is invalidated when the origin becomes available, just as Tayammum (dry ablution) is nullified by the availability of water.