and that they are not murderers, and they are fined the blood money; due to the ruling of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding that. We do not know of any Companion who opposed him, so it was a consensus. They discussed the hadith of Sahl by what Abu Dawud narrated from Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Harith al-Taymi, from Abd al-Rahman ibn Bujayd ibn Qayzi, one of the Banu Haritha. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim said: "By Allah, Sahl was not more knowledgeable than him, but he was older than him." He said: "By Allah, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, did not say: 'Swear to that of which you have no knowledge,' but he wrote to the Jews when the Ansar spoke to him: 'A slain person has been found among your houses, so pay his blood money.' They wrote swearing by Allah that they did not kill him and did not know a killer for him, so the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, paid it from his own possession." Our evidence is the hadith of Sahl, which is authentic and agreed upon; Malik narrated it in his "Muwatta" and acted upon it. What contradicts it from the other hadith is not valid for several reasons. First, it is a negation (nafy), so it cannot be used to reject the statement of one who affirms (muthbit). Second, Sahl is one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; he witnessed the story and knew it, to the point that he said: "A camel from those camels kicked me." The other narrates by his own opinion and conjecture, without narrating it from anyone, nor did he attend the event. Third, our hadith is recorded in the two Sahihs and is agreed upon, while their hadith is the opposite. Fourth, they do not act upon their own hadith, nor our hadith, so how can they use as an argument that which is an argument against them in what they differed on! The hadith of Sulayman ibn Yasar from men of the Ansar—and he did not mention that they were Companions—is lower in status than the hadith of Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, and it contradicted both hadiths entirely, so how is it permissible to rely upon it! The hadith: "The oath is upon the defendant" does not refer to this case, because it indicates that people are not given their claims [simply] by their [bare] claim,