accidental. This was stated by Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz, who criticized the statement recorded in Yahyā’s transmission in the Book of Blood Money that the victim’s next of kin have a choice: they may swear the oaths and establish their right to exact retaliation for the killing, or they may exact retaliation for the wound, or take compensation for it if it was accidental. Yahyā ibn Yahyā and others also criticized this.
The second case is where the wound is established by two witnesses. Here, the victim’s next of kin may choose either to swear the oaths and have the killer put to death in a case of intentional killing, or swear the oaths and establish their entitlement to blood money from the ‘āqila in a case of accidental killing; alternatively, they may decline to swear and exact retaliation for the wound if it was intentional, or take compensation for it if it was accidental, since the wound is established by the testimony of two witnesses. However, a statement recorded in Abū Zayd’s transmission indicates the contrary: if the next of kin refuse to swear the oaths, they have no means of exacting retaliation for an intentional wound or obtaining compensation for an accidental one. This accords with the reasoning underlying Ashhab’s view, as we explained there.
The third case is where a single witness testifies to the wound. According to the position we preferred and upheld in the preceding two cases, a distinction should be made here between accidental and intentional injury. In the case of accidental injury, the heirs may choose either to swear the oaths concerning the killing and thereby establish their entitlement to blood money from the ‘āqila, or to swear a single oath concerning the wound and thereby establish their entitlement to compensation from the offender’s property, or from the ‘āqila if it amounts to one-third or more.
In the case of intentional injury, however, if the next of kin decline to swear the qasāma oaths concerning the killing, they have no means of exacting retaliation for the wound. Retaliation for a wound can be exacted only on the testimony of two witnesses, or on the injured person’s oath together with a single witness, subject to the well-known difference of opinion on this matter. An oath by the heirs, however, does not suffice when the victim has died from the wound and the next of kin refuse to swear the qasāma oaths, or are not permitted to do so according to the view that qasāma cannot be based on a single witness to the wound. The heirs do not take his place in establishing a right to retaliation through an oath together with a witness. They take his place only in establishing entitlement to compensation for an accidental wound, because this is a financial claim: they swear and establish their entitlement to it, just as heirs may swear and establish their entitlement when a single witness testifies that someone owed a debt to the person from whom they inherit.
Section
In a qasāma concerning intentional killing, no fewer than two men from among the slain person’s next of kin may swear the oaths. The basis for