What is the ruling if the defendant refuses to swear the oath (nakūl) after the oath has been directed to them?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judicial Rulings
Primary text
If the defendant refuses to swear the oath and claims to have evidence or accounts to substantiate their position for a firm oath, Abu al-Khattab holds that no respite is granted, and the refusal constitutes *nakūl* (default/refusal), leading to a judgment against them. If the defendant states they do not wish to swear or remains silent, and the claim involves money or is quantifiable in terms of money, judgment is passed based on their refusal, and the oath is not returned to the plaintiff. Ahmad explicitly stated this position, asserting that he would not return the oath to the plaintiff; if the defendant swears, the plaintiff receives their right, otherwise, judgment is against the defendant. Abu Hanifa holds this view.
Supporting text
A second opinion suggests that such a statement does not immediately constitute *nakūl*, and a short respite should be granted. Alternatively, Abu al-Khattab preferred returning the oath to the plaintiff; if the plaintiff swears, judgment is given in their favor. Ahmad supported this latter view, stating it is not far-fetched and that judgment should be made upon the plaintiff's oath.