Al-Harith ibn Al-Azma’ narrated: A man was killed between Wadi’ah and another tribe, and the slain was closer to Wadi’ah. Umar said to Wadi’ah: “Let fifty men from among you swear by Allah: ‘We did not kill him, nor do we know his killer,’” then they were imposed the blood money. Al-Harith said to him: “We swear, yet you impose on us?” He said: “Yes.” [Narrated by Al-Tahawi] Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abdul Razzaq, and Al-Bayhaqi narrated similarly.

In Al-Bayhaqi’s narration from Sulayman ibn Yasar, Umar began with the oaths of the accused in qasama. Al-Tahawi said: Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) ruled by it after the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in the presence of the Companions without any objection, so it became a consensus.

Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from Al-Zuhri that the Prophet (ﷺ) ruled in qasama that the oath is on the accused.

In Al-Bazzar’s narration from Abu Salamah ibn Abdul Rahman, from his father: The Ansar came and said: “Our companion is writhing in his blood.” He said: “Do you know his killer?” They said: “No, except that the Jews killed him.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Choose fifty men from among them to swear by Allah with their utmost effort, then take the blood money from them.” They did so.

This is supported by what Muslim narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “If people were given based on their claims, some would claim the blood and wealth of others, but the oath is on the accused.”

(2) His statement: “Umar said to Wadi’ah: Let fifty men swear” etc.: Meaning, according to us, the victim’s guardian does not swear, even if there is lawth (circumstantial evidence). Al-Shafi’i said: If there is lawth, the heirs swear fifty oaths, and judgment is made for them for the blood money against the accused, whether the claim is for intentional or unintentional killing, and this is his authentic view. In his old view, if they swear it was intentional, retribution is granted, and this is the view of Malik and Ahmad. If the heirs refuse to swear, the residents are made to swear; if they swear, they are absolved; if they refuse, judgment is made against them for the blood money.

The disagreement with Al-Shafi’i is in two matters: first, that the claimant does not swear according to us, contrary to him; second, in the absolution of the residents by their oath. Lawth is circumstantial evidence that instills belief in the claimant’s truth, such as a sign of killing on a specific person, evident enmity, or testimony of a just person or a group of non-just persons that the residents killed him. The condition of death is required because, without it, his view aligns with ours. Our evidence is these Hadiths mentioned in the text. Also, his (ﷺ) statement: “If people were given based on their claims, some would claim the blood and wealth of others, but the oath is on the accused,” equates blood and wealth, ruling them under one judgment. It cannot be said that Al-Bukhari agrees with us, as he recorded the qasama of Abu Talib in the pre-Islamic era, which matches our qasama. Perhaps Al-Bukhari indicates that this qasama remained as it was in the pre-Islamic era. The incident in his (ﷺ) time is singular, and the disagreement lies in its interpretation. Excerpted from the commentaries on (Al-Kanz) and (Arf al-Shadhi). For further details, refer to (Badhl al-Majhud) and (Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar).

He (RA) began his praise with the oath of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)'s family.

After the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, it was decided in the presence of the group of his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, that if any of them denied something, they would be stoned.

He would swear by Allah on the condition of Madīnah.

The Ansar came and said, 'Our companions have been drenched in blood.' Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'Do they know their killer?' They replied, 'No, they do not know.' Then they added, 'The Jews have done this.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, 'Select fifty men from among them, and let them swear by Allah Almighty that we did not do it, then take the ransom from them.'

Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated from the Prophet (ﷺ): If people were given based on their claims, some would claim the blood and wealth of others. But the oath is upon the defendant. [Narrated by Muslim]

In al-Nawawi’s commentary, he said: In al-Bayhaqi’s narration with a good or authentic chain, there is an addition from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), raised to the Prophet: But the proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said in al-Athar: And we take it as such.

Al-Tirmidhi narrated with a good chain from Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: The proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the defendant.

The Prophet (ﷺ) divided between the two disputants, placing the proof on the claimant and the oath on the one who denies. This division negates partnership. He made the genus of oaths for the deniers, and there is nothing beyond the genus. The hadith: The witness and the oath is strange, while what we narrated is well-known, accepted by the ummah with certainty, reaching the level of tawatur, so it is not opposed. Moreover, Yahya ibn Ma‘in rejected it.

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan narrated in al-Athar from Ibrahim, who said: The proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the defendant, and he did not reject the oath.