to the killing before the ruler. Once he has confessed, they send someone to the official who claims to be a relative of the victim and says, “I have released this killer from the claim I have against him.” They use this as a pretext for shedding blood and fomenting strife.

If the ruler considers imposing the blood money for a slain person whose killer is unknown, and who belongs to one of the groups whose names he has entered in the register, upon all those groups, may he do so? Or may he impose it upon the inhabitants of the killer’s quarter, as has been reported from some of the leading scholars—may Allah be pleased with them?

Or, when members of this clan openly foment strife, shed blood, and spread corruption, may he discipline them by imposing a financial penalty upon them to restrain their aggressive impulses and deter them from all of this? Is he entitled to do so, and will he be rewarded for it? Please give us a ruling; may you be rewarded.

He replied—may Allah strengthen him:

All praise is due to Allah. If the killer is known, the leading scholars agree that the blood money is not to be imposed upon the inhabitants of the victim’s locality.

If, however, the killer has not been identified through either evidence or confession, then the procedure of oaths in homicide cases, known as qasāma, is prescribed in such circumstances. If there are grounds for suspicion, the claimants swear fifty oaths according to the majority—Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and Ahmad—as is established from the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—in the account of the slain man found at Khaybar. If they do not swear, the defendant swears instead.

According to Abū Hanīfa’s school, the defendants swear first, for his position is that the oath is assigned only to the defendant’s side. The majority, however, hold that it is assigned to whichever of the two parties has the stronger case.

If the killer is known and he killed in order to seize property, he is a brigand whom the ruler is to execute as a prescribed punishment. No one may pardon him, neither the victim’s heirs nor anyone else. If he killed over a private matter, the decision rests with the victim’s heirs, who may pardon him if they wish. The ruler may, according to the school of