altogether. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: If the defendants refuse to take the oath, the oaths are returned to the claimants if we hold that the object of the oath is property. If they take the oath, they are entitled to it, and if they refuse, they have no claim. If we hold that the object is retaliation, are the oaths returned to the claimants? There are two opinions on this. This opinion is not sound because the oath is only prescribed in the right of the defendant when the claimant refuses to take it; therefore, it is not returned to him, just as it is not returned to the defendant when the claimant refuses to take it after it was returned to him in all other claims. Moreover, it is an oath returned to one of the two litigants, so it is not returned to the one who returned it, like in a claim of property.

1524 - Issue: He said: "If a just witness testifies that the injured person said: 'My blood is upon so-and-so,' this does not necessitate qasamah (oath-taking procedure), as long as there is no lawth (evidence of suspicion)."

This is the view of most scholars, including al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and the people of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y). Malik and al-Layth said: It is a lawth, because the slain person of the Children of Israel said: "So-and-so killed me." It was therefore an argument. This opinion is also narrated from 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "If people were given based on their claims, a group of people would claim the blood of men and their wealth." Also, he is claiming a right for himself, so his statement is not accepted, just as if he had not died. Furthermore, he is an adversary, so his claim does not constitute a lawth, like the guardian. As for the slain person of the Children of Israel, there is no argument in it, for there is no qasamah in that case. Moreover, that was among the signs of Allah and the miracles of His Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, as Allah the Exalted brought him back to life after his death and caused him to speak by His power regarding what they disagreed upon. Allah the Exalted would not have caused him to speak with a lie, unlike the living, and there is no way to achieve something like this today. Furthermore, that was for the sake of exonerating the accused, so it is not permissible to extend it to accusing the innocent.