fifty, then it is the same for him. Our position is that they have not agreed upon the claim, so the Qasama is not established, just as if he had belied him. Furthermore, the right in the area of agreement is only established by their oaths which were placed in the position of evidence, and it is not permissible for one of them to stand in the position of the other regarding the oaths, as in other claims. According to this, if the absent one arrives and agrees with his brother, or if the one who did not know returns and says, "I have come to know him; he is the one my brother identified," then they swear the oaths at that time. If one of them says: "So-and-so killed him," and the other says: "So-and-so and someone else killed him," then according to the statement of al-Khiraqi, the Qasama is not established, because it can only be against one person. According to the statement of others, they both swear oaths against the one they agreed upon, and they are both entitled to half the blood money, and retribution (qisas) is not required, because it is only required in a claim against one person. They both swear oaths together regarding this person they agreed upon according to their claim, and they are entitled to half the blood money, and no more than half the blood money is required; because one of them belies the other regarding the other half, so the suspicion (lawth) remains in his right regarding the half of the blood money they agreed upon, and it is not established in the half his brother belied him in, and the other does not swear oaths against the other because his brother belied him in his claim against him. If one of them says: "My father was killed by Zayd and someone else I do not know," and the other says: "He was killed by 'Amr and someone else I do not know," the Qasama is not established in the apparent statement of al-Khiraqi, because it only occurs against one person, and because they did not agree on the claim against one person. It is not possible for them to swear oaths against one whom they did not agree to claim against, and the right is only established in the area of agreement by the oaths of everyone, so how could it be established in the branch by the oaths of some! Abu Bakr and al-Qadi said: The Qasama is established. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because there is no belying here; for it is possible that the one each of them was ignorant of is the one his brother knew. Thus, each of them swears fifty oaths against the one he identified, and he is entitled to a quarter of the blood money. If each of them returns and says: "I have come to know the one I was ignorant of, and he is the one my brother identified."