number fifty, the oaths are repeated among them, after which they must pay the blood money. If they refuse to swear, they are imprisoned until they swear or confess. ʿUthmān al-Laythī expressed a contrary view to the Kufan report that ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb ruled in his favour: he required those among whom the slain man was found to swear oaths and pay the blood money. Al-Hārith ibn al-Azmaʿ asked him, “Do they both swear and pay?” He replied, “Yes.”

Section

The authoritative proof lies in the Sunnah, not in what contradicts it. The authentic account is that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, called upon the victim’s next of kin to swear first, as Mālik, may Allah be pleased with him, related.

Some contend that giving judgment on the basis of qasāma and having the claimants swear first runs contrary to established principles and to the authentic statements of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: “The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the oath upon the one who denies the claim,” and, “If people were awarded claims on the strength of their oaths, some would lay claim to the lives and property of others.” This contention is incorrect. We do not have the victim’s next of kin swear the qasāma oaths first merely on the basis of their allegation. Rather, judgment is given in their favour through qasāma only when they have evidence making their account most likely to be true. This does not contradict established principles; it accords with them. Only someone who has neither understood their meaning nor grasped their true nature would say otherwise.

The reason for calling upon the defendant to swear first is not simply that he is the defendant. If that were so, every defendant’s word would be accepted with his oath. Nor is the reason for requiring the claimant to provide proof simply that he is the claimant. If that were so, every claimant would be required to produce proof. Rather, the defendant’s word is accepted with his oath because there is a ground for believing him: the item is in his possession.

Consider an item that passes out of his possession and is held by another man in his presence for a long time. If that man then claims to have bought it from him, his word is accepted with his oath, even though he is the one claiming to have purchased it. This is because there is a ground for believing him: his possession of the item in the other man’s presence for that long period. When each of the two litigants has grounds supporting