It is mentioned from al-Shafi'i that Qasama (oath-taking) is not invalidated by the belying of an immoral person (fasiq), because his statement is not accepted. Our position is that he is an acknowledger against himself by exonerating the person his brother has claimed against, so it is accepted, just as if he had claimed a debt for both of them. His statement is only rejected against someone else; as for against himself, he is like a just person because he is not suspected in regard to his own rights. As for if he does not belie him and does not agree with him in the claim, such as if one of them says: 'This person killed him,' and the other says: 'We do not know his killer,' then the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's words is that Qasama is not established, due to his condition that the guardians must claim against one person. This is the statement of Malik. Similarly, if one of the two guardians is absent, and the present one claims against someone, or both of them claim against one person and one of them declines to swear the oaths, the killing is not established, according to the analogy of al-Khiraqi's statement. The requirement of the statement of Abu Bakr and al-Qadi is the establishment of Qasama. Such is also the school of al-Shafi'i; because one of them did not belie the other, so the Qasama is not invalidated, just as if one of the two heirs was a woman or a child. According to their statement, the claimant swears fifty oaths and is entitled to half the blood money (diyah); for the oaths here are in the place of evidence (bayyina), and no part of the right is established except after the completeness of the evidence. Thus, it resembles the case where one of them claims a debt for their father, for he does not deserve his share of the debt unless he produces complete evidence. Abu al-Khattab mentioned, in the case where one of them is absent, that there are two viewpoints regarding the first: one of them is that he swears twenty-five oaths, and this is the statement of Ibn Hamid; because the oaths are divided between him and his brother, by evidence of the case where they are both present and in agreement regarding the claim, and a person does not swear on behalf of another, so he is not liable for more than his share. So when the absent one is present, he swears twenty-five oaths by one viewpoint, because he builds upon the oaths of his brother. Abu Bakr and al-Qadi mentioned in the equivalent of this issue that the first swears fifty oaths, and as for whether the second swears fifty or twenty-five, there are two viewpoints; one of them is that he swears fifty, because his brother did not deserve except