This paper attempts to highlight the ruling on refusal to take an oath in islamic Jurisprudence and its applications in the Malaysian Shari'ah Courts and the Procedures of Shari'ah Courts in the Philippines. This paper is divided into three sections namely , introduction , the ruling on refusel on refusal to take an oath based on the jurists opinion and law makers, conclusion and recommendation . In the ruling on refusal to take an oath , the researcher discusses a) te nature on refusal to take the oath, b) the ruling immediately after refusal to take the oath - expect for retaliation and punishments , c) the retortion of the oath to the suspect and d) the imprisoning or taking oath within the time of refusal. This paper discusses the issues among the Muslim jurists and law makers pertaining tp teh issue in question and some cases and positions of the Shari'ah Courts in Malaysia and in Philippine Shari'ah Courts. The predominant opinion is that the ruling on refusal to take the oath depends on the merits of each particular case. As such , returning the oath back to the plaintiff is for the purpose of settlement.