1523 - Issue: He said: "If the claimants do not take the oath, and they are not satisfied with the defendant's oath, the Imam shall pay the blood money from the public treasury (bayt al-mal)."

This means he pays his blood money, due to the case of Abdullah ibn Sahl when he was killed in Khaybar; the Ansar refused to take the oath and said: "How can we accept the oaths of a people who are disbelievers?" So the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, paid it from his own means out of aversion to the idea of his blood being wasted. [1] If it is impossible to pay it from the public treasury, nothing becomes obligatory upon the defendants, because that which makes it obligatory upon them is the oath, and those entitled to it have refused to fulfill it, so nothing else becomes obligatory for them, as in a claim for property.

Section: If the defendants refuse to take the oath, they shall not be imprisoned until they do so. There is another report from Ahmad that they are imprisoned until they take the oath, which is the view of Abu Hanifa. Our evidence is that it is an oath prescribed in the right of the defendant, so he is not imprisoned for it, as with all other oaths. When this is established, retaliation (qisas) does not become obligatory due to refusal (nukul), because it is a weak argument; thus blood may not be shed on its basis, like a witness or an oath. Al-Qadi said: The Imam shall pay the blood money [2] from the public treasury. Ahmad explicitly stated this. Harb ibn Isma'il narrated from him that the blood money becomes obligatory upon them. This is the correct view, and it is the choice of Abu Bakr, because it is a ruling established [3] by refusal (nukul), so it is established against them here, like in all other claims. Also, because making it obligatory on the public treasury leads to the squandering of blood and the nullification of the claimants' right, while it is possible to enforce it, so it is not permissible, [as in all other] [4] claims. Furthermore, it is an oath directed toward a claim where it is possible to make the payment of wealth obligatory by means of it, so it cannot be devoid of making something obligatory upon the defendant, as in all other claims. And here, if no wealth were made obligatory upon the defendant by his refusal, and he were not compelled to take the oath, then he would be free from any obligation upon him.