The second is that fifty men from the ʿāqila swear one oath each. If they swear, they and the entire ʿāqila are discharged from all liability for the blood money. If only some swear, those who do so are discharged, while the remaining members of the ʿāqila remain liable for the full blood money until fifty oaths have been completed. This is Ibn al-Qāsim’s second opinion.

The third is that if the claimants refuse to swear, they have no entitlement; if only some refuse, those who refuse have no entitlement. No oath is required of the ʿāqila, because the blood money is not yet due from them: it becomes due only when formally assessed. This was Ibn al-Mājishūn’s opinion.

The fourth is that the oath is referred back to the defendant alone. If he swears, he is discharged. If he refuses, his refusal imposes no liability on the ʿāqila, for the ʿāqila does not bear liability arising from a confession, and refusal to swear is equivalent to a confession. Through his refusal, he merely stands as a witness against the ʿāqila. Ibn Wahb related this from Mālik.

The fifth is that the oaths are referred back to the ʿāqila. If they swear, they are discharged; if they refuse to swear, they must pay half the blood money. This was Rabīʿa’s opinion, and it accords with what is reported from ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb concerning his ruling against al-Saʿdiyyīn. Success comes only through Allah, glorified is He. He has neither partner nor equal.