Can the claimant demand both present evidence and the defendant's oath?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
If the claimant states they have present evidence but also wishes to demand the defendant's oath before presenting the evidence, this is not permitted. The ruling is based on the principle of 'Your two witnesses OR his oath,' where 'or' implies choice between two mutually exclusive options, not aggregation. Since the right can be settled through evidence, using the oath alongside the intention to present evidence is not prescribed, as the oath is a substitute for evidence.
Supporting text
Abu Yusuf held that the judge should administer the oath, in which case the defendant might fail to swear (nakul), leading to a judgment against them, thus obviating the need for evidence. However, the prevailing view restricts the claimant to one path if evidence is present and desired.