If the defendant refuses to take the oath, is the oath then referred back to the plaintiff?

The scholars differed on the issue of returning the oath to the plaintiff if the defendant refused to swear. Abu Hanifa and a narration from Ahmad were of the opinion that it should not be returned, because refusal to swear is an admission of the right. Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and another narration from Ahmad were of the opinion that it should be returned to strengthen the right with the oath, and Malik limited this to claims of wealth. The Dhahiris were of the opinion that the oath should not be returned and that refusal to swear does not constitute a judgment. Al-Shawkani preferred this opinion, stating that the judge, after the refusal to swear, must compel the defendant to one of two things: the oath or admission. In summary, there is a disagreement on the matter, and the majority opinion is that the oath should be returned.