“Such as tribes that seek vengeance from one another.” That is, if a slain person from one tribe is found among another tribe that is hostile to it, this is termed lawth.

Some scholars have said that lawth is anything by which it is most likely that the killing occurred—that is, because of it. Thus, anything that makes it most likely that a killing took place because of it constitutes lawth, whether it is something occurring between tribes, or whether, for example, we find a slain person with a man standing beside him holding a sword stained with blood. This is an evident indication that he is the killer, while still allowing for the possibility that someone else killed him.

Likewise, if the slain person still has signs of life and says, “So-and-so killed me,” this is an indication that he is the killer; accordingly, it is acted upon, and qasāmah is carried out in this case, because we have something that makes it most likely that he killed him.

Strangely, some scholars have cited the story of the cow as evidence for this case. Yet the story contains no proof, and adducing it is far-fetched. For in the story of the cow, when they struck the slain man with part of it, he came to life and said, “So-and-so killed me.” If a sign of this kind is found, qasāmah is not carried out; this is why qasāmah was not carried out in that case.

In any event, the correct view is that lawth is anything by which it is most likely that a killing occurred because of it. This was the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, because the effective cause of qasāmah is known: namely, that it is most likely that the killing occurred. Once this likelihood of a killing has been established, it is acted upon.

May the heirs of the slain person take an oath when they neither witnessed nor saw it?