Others among our companions said: There is qasamah (oath-taking) in this. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because according to them, lawth (probative indication) is not restricted to animosity. Based on this, a claim is permissible against a group. If a claim is made against a group, fifty oaths are incumbent upon each one of them. Some of our companions said: The oaths are divided among them in proportions, like their division among the claimants, except that here they are divided equally because the defendants are equal in it; thus, they are like the children of the deceased. Shafi'i has two opinions, corresponding to the two views [among our companions]. The argument for this view is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The Jews will exonerate you with fifty oaths" (15). In one wording, he said: "They shall swear fifty oaths for you and be exonerated from his blood." Also, because they are one of the two disputing parties in the qasamah, the oaths fall upon them according to their number, like the claimants. Malik said: Fifty men from among the defendants shall swear fifty oaths. If they do not reach fifty men, it is repeated for those among them who have sworn until fifty oaths are completed. If no one is found to swear except the one who was claimed against, he swears fifty oaths alone, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The Jews will exonerate you with fifty oaths." Our argument is that these are oaths by which each person exonerates himself from the killing; therefore, fifty are due from each one, just as if a killing were claimed against each one individually. Furthermore, he does not exonerate the defendant in the state of joint participation except by what would exonerate him in the state of individuality. Additionally, each one of them swears to something other than what his companion swore to, unlike the claimants, for their oaths are concerning a single matter; thus, it does not follow from combining them that there is a combining of things whose denotations and objectives differ (16).

1527 - Issue; He said: (It is the same whether the victim is a Muslim or a disbeliever, free or a slave, provided that the victim is one for whose killing the defendant would be executed, if the killing is proven against him; because qasamah necessitates qisas (retaliation), unless the guardians prefer to take the blood money.)

As for when the victim is a free Muslim, there is no disagreement regarding it, whether the defendant is a Muslim or a disbeliever, for the origin of qasamah is the story of 'Abd Allah ibn Sahl when he was killed in Khaybar, and the Jews were accused.