• kabbir kabbir: both words are imperatives; the second repeats the first for added emphasis. The intended meaning is: “let the eldest take the floor.”
• yadū: that the Jews pay you the blood-money.
• yaʾdhanū bi-ḥarb: to be notified of war. The expression ādhanahu bi-ḥarb means “he informed him of war,” i.e., threatened him with fighting and harm.
• a-taḥlifūn: the hamzah introduces an interrogative, asking for information.
• rakḍatnī: she struck me with her foot. The basic sense of rakḍ is to strike with the foot, as in the verse, “Strike with your foot” (Ṣād 38:42).
• nāqah: a female camel; its plurals are nāq, nūq, and anūq.

Points derived from the ḥadith
1 – This ḥadith is the principal text on the issue of qasāmah (the collective oath-procedure). Its outline is as follows: a slain person is found bearing wounds or other signs of homicide, the killer is unknown, and no conclusive evidence identifies the perpetrator. The heirs of the victim accuse a specific person of the murder, and circumstantial evidence supports their claim—such as proven enmity between the victim and the accused, the corpse being discovered in the accused’s dwelling, the victim’s belongings being found with someone, and the like. In that situation the claimants swear fifty oaths and thereby acquire the right to the blood of the one they allege to be the killer.

Ibn Ḥajar said in Fatḥ al-Bārī: “The jurists agree that qasāmah is not established by the heirs’ allegation alone; it must be accompanied by a suspicion strong enough to make judgment probable.”

If the claimants refuse to swear, the accused then swears fifty oaths and is exonerated; if he too refuses, judgment is entered against him on account of his refusal.

2 – According to the well-known view in the school of Imām Aḥmad, the claimant’s case is only valid when supported by a sign of hostility between the victim and the accused—what the jurists call al-lūth (circumstantial animus). If no such enmity existed, qasāmah is not invoked.