fifty oaths, taking repeated turns in swearing them, with the accused himself among those who swear. If they decline to swear, or no one other than the accused can be found, he is not cleared until he swears fifty oaths alone. This is Ibn al-Qāsim’s opinion in al-Majmū‘a.
The third opinion is that the defendant swears alone and may not seek assistance from any of his next of kin in taking the oaths, as the slain person’s next of kin may do. This is Mutarrif’s opinion in al-Wādiha.
Section
If, however, qasāma is warranted solely by the testimony of two witnesses to the wounding, there are two opinions concerning the transfer of the oaths to the killer. The first is that they are transferred to the defendant, who swears: “He did not die as a result of my blows.” If he declines to swear, he is imprisoned until he does so. If he swears, he is given one hundred lashes and imprisoned for a year; if he confesses, he is put to death. This is the opinion of Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn al-Mājishūn.
It is stated in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book: “Retaliation for the wound is exacted from him if the next of kin decline to take the qasāma oaths.” This means whether the defendant swears or declines to do so, since the wounding has been established against him by the testimony of two witnesses.
Section
If, however, qasāma is warranted by the testimony of one witness to the killing, no retaliation for the wound is exacted, whether the killer swears fifty oaths or declines to do so. Retaliation for a wound can be exacted only upon the oath of the wounded person, not upon the oaths of his heirs. This is Ibn al-Mawwāz’s opinion, and it is correct. Ibn al-Qāsim’s words have been interpreted to mean that retaliation for the wound is exacted when it is a known wound. This, however, is a far-fetched interpretation: Ibn al-Qāsim said this only concerning qasāma warranted by two witnesses to the wounding. Allah knows best.
Ibn al-Mawwāz said: “Ibn al-Qāsim related from Mālik an opinion whose attribution has not been confirmed by anyone else. He said: ‘If the oaths are transferred to the defendants in a case of intentional killing and they decline to swear, they are liable for blood money, payable exclusively from the assailant’s own property, and retaliation for the wound is exacted from him in addition to the blood money.’”
Another opinion is also narrated from him: if he swears, he is given one hundred lashes and imprisoned for a year; if he declines to swear, he is imprisoned until he does so, and no blood money is due. This is the correct opinion.