Should the defendant swear an oath that the plaintiff is not owed a debt and that he never borrowed from him, or should he swear that the amounts written are incorrect and have been tampered with, knowing that the judge will choose the wording of the oath?

Some scholars permit the oppressed person to use tawriyah (equivocation) and ta'rid (allusion) in an oath before a judge. Their meaning is: uttering a word that is apparent in one meaning, while intending another meaning that the word can also encompass, but which is contrary to its apparent sense. This benefits the oppressed person religiously, so they do not sin.