The conflict of evidence in legal claims is a significant topic in jurisprudence, and various solutions have been proposed by legal scholars to address it. One notable—though so far hypothetical—solution is the prioritization of the plaintiff’s evidence. The central question is whether, within the framework of the Islamic legal maxim “The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies”, and given the precedence of the plaintiff’s evidence over the defendant’s oath, a real conflict between the evidences of the plaintiff and the defendant can actually arise—such that prioritizing the plaintiff’s evidence would be necessary. Furthermore, the validity of the assumption that the defendant’s evidence is inadmissible, which underlies this hypothesis, is critically examined. In this article, the legal status and validity of the jurisprudential maxim of evidence and oath are clarified, and the role of the judge’s knowledge (ʿilm al-qāḍī) in relation to this principle is also explored. The research adopts a library-based method and processes the information through an analytical-critical approach.