Birummatihi: the initial rāʾ carries a ḍamma, followed by a mīm with a doubled consonant and a fatḥa. A rummah is a rope; the intended sense is that, once your oaths establish his guilt, he is surrendered to you as a captive, bound with his own rope so that he cannot escape.
Fa-wadāhu: meaning that he paid the blood-money.
Lessons derived from the ḥadith
- This ḥadith constitutes the principal evidence for the procedure of qasāmah (1) and its details: when a corpse is discovered—whether bearing wounds or otherwise—and the killer is unknown and no conclusive proof identifies him, the victim’s heirs may accuse a particular person or group and, if circumstantial indicators support the truth of their claim—such as documented enmity between the slain person and the accused, the victim being found dead in the accused’s home, or the victim’s belongings being discovered with the accused—they swear fifty oaths and thereby acquire the right to the blood of the one they allege to be the murderer. Fath al-Bari states: “All scholars agree that qasāmah is not triggered by the heirs’ allegation alone; it must be accompanied by a suspicion strong enough to make the ruling probable.”
If the heirs refuse to swear, the defendant must swear fifty oaths and is then cleared. Should he also refuse, judgment is rendered against him on account of his refusal.
-
The well-known view in the Ḥanbalī school is that the claimant’s case is only valid when there is evidence of enmity between the victim and the accused—what is termed al-lawth (preponderant enmity). If no such hostility exists, qasāmah is not initiated. A second opinion from Imam Aḥmad validates the claim whenever strong circumstantial evidence points to guilt, such as the victim being found in someone’s house, the victim’s property being seen with that person, or testimony that falls short of full legal proof—like the testimony of children—and similar indicators. This second view was favored by Ibn al-Jawzī and Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah; Al-Inṣāf declares it the correct position, and it is likewise the stance of Imam al-Shāfiʿī.
-
The qasāmah claim diverges from other legal claims in three respects:
• First: the oath is directed at the claimant, whereas in other cases the burden of proof lies with the claimant and the oath with the denying defendant.
• Second: the process begins with the oaths of the claimant—or claimants, if they are more than one.
• Third: the oath is repeated fifty times; in other claims only a single oath is required.
Qasāmah in this sense resembles the procedure of liʿān, discussed previously in its own chapter. -
When a slain person is found, the killer unknown, and circumstantial evidence points to a particular individual, the victim’s heirs swear fifty