It thus becomes clear that qasāmah is not anomalous in relation to the principles governing legal claims, because there are features in such claims that support them. In qasāmah, there are indicia that strengthen the claimants’ side—namely, lawth, meaning manifest enmity—as will be mentioned in the author’s discussion.

As for the second point of difference—namely, the repetition of oaths, whereas in other claims a single oath suffices—the oaths in qasāmah are repeated because of the grave significance of cases involving bloodshed. For when these people proceed with the oath and swear fifty oaths, they are awarded the man and put him to death. This is among the gravest of matters; for this reason, the oaths are repeated fifty times.

As for its being fifty oaths, rather than, for example, ten, that is not for us to determine. The same objection could be raised concerning the fact that the noon prayer consists of four units, rather than, for example, eight.

As for the third point—namely, a person swearing to something he did not see—we say that a person may swear to something he did not see on the basis of circumstantial evidence and a preponderant likelihood. The evidence for this is that the Prophet ﷺ approved of the man who had intercourse with his wife during the daytime in Ramadan, when he said, “By Allah, there is no household between its two lava fields poorer than mine” (1). The Prophet ﷺ approved his statement because he had a preponderant likelihood, and he did not say to him, “Do not swear, for you do not know.”

His statement, “in a claim,” indicates that the one who swears is the claimant;