oaths attesting to the truth of their allegation, and they thereby acquire the right to shed the blood of the accused if the killing was deliberate, unmitigated murder. This view is reported from a group of Companions and is the position of Mālik, Aḥmad, Abū Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and the earlier opinion of al-Shāfiʿī, on the strength of the Prophet’s ﷺ words: “Fifty of you shall swear concerning one of them, and he will then be handed over to you bound hand and foot.” Muslim records the wording: “and he will be surrendered to you,” while another narration states, “you will be entitled to the blood of your man.” Because qasāmah constitutes a powerful proof that establishes premeditated murder, it necessitates capital retaliation just as binding testimony does.
By contrast, the well-known view in the Shāfiʿī school is that the heirs are entitled only to the blood-money, based on the Prophet’s ﷺ statement: “Either they pay the blood-money for your man, or they will be treated as a people at war.” If the killing was accidental and the charge is upheld against the defendant, the blood-money remains due from him.
-
Should the claimants refuse to swear, or be legally incapable of taking oaths—such as women and children—the oaths pass to the defendants. The defendants must then swear fifty times that they neither killed him nor know his killer. If they do so, they are exonerated; if they refuse, judgment is entered against them, confirming the truth of the claim.
-
If the victim’s heirs decline the oaths and the defendants do swear them, the blood-money is paid from the public treasury (bayt al-māl) so that his blood is not lost. The same ruling applies to anyone killed in the crush of the ḥajj, in a mosque, at a public gathering, or to a body found slain with no identified killer and no circumstantial evidence pointing to one. All such cases are compensated from the state treasury.
-
The oath is administered to whichever litigant has the stronger side. In a qasāmah claim it is first directed to the victim’s heirs, because circumstantial evidence bolsters their allegation. When such indications are strong, they amount to clear proof. If the heirs then refuse to swear, their refusal strengthens the defendants’ position, so the oaths shift to the defendants; if they swear, they are cleared of the charge.
-
It is recommended to give precedence to the eldest, out of respect for age, their greater worship, wider experience, and broader expertise.
-
The phrase “so he ransomed him with one hundred camels from the zakat herd” demonstrates the permissibility of spending zakat funds on public interests. This is likewise indicated by Allah’s words, “and in the cause of Allah” (Q 9:60); “the cause of Allah” covers every public benefit that serves the Muslims.
-
It is lawful to appoint an agent to pursue ḥudūd (prescribed punishments).
-
The hadith also shows that an oath may be referred back to the claimant by the defendant, or when the defendant refuses to swear.
-
Litigation between a Muslim and a dhimmī (non-Muslim under Muslim protection) is treated the same as litigation among Muslims, and oaths are accepted from non-Muslims.