He only swears to what is claimed against him, and nothing is claimed against him other than the blood money.

Section: If a man is wounded and two of his heirs, other than his parents and children, testify for him, you must examine: if the wound (21) is healed, their testimony is acceptable, because they are not drawing any benefit to themselves. If it is not healed, their testimony shall not be passed as a judgment, due to the possibility that it may lead to death, in which case the blood money would become due to them by virtue of their testimony. If they testify in that state and their testimony is rejected, then it heals and they repeat their testimony, is it accepted? There are two views: one is that it is not accepted, because the testimony was rejected due to suspicion, and it is not accepted even if the suspicion is removed, just like a dissolute person who repeats his rejected testimony after becoming upright. The second view is that it is accepted, because the cause of the suspicion has definitively been removed. There are two views for al-Shafi'i, like these two. If the two heirs of a sick person testify regarding property, there are two views regarding the acceptance of their testimony for him. One is that it is accepted, because they are establishing property for the sick person, and if he dies, it is transferred from him to them, so it is similar to testifying for a healthy person, unlike injury, for if it leads to death, the blood money becomes due to them because of it. The second view is that it is not accepted, because once the property is established for the sick person, the right of his heirs attaches to it; this is why his donation of it in excess of one-third is not valid. If someone who does not inherit from the wounded person testifies to the injury—because they are blocked from inheritance, such as two brothers who testify for their brother while he has a son—their testimony is heard. Then, if his son dies, you must examine: if the judge had already passed judgment based on their testimony, his judgment is not overturned, because that which occurs after the judgment based on the testimony does not affect it, just like [the occurrence of] immorality. But if that occurred before the judgment based on the testimony, it shall not be judged by it, because they have become entitled, so their testimony shall not be judged by, just as if the two witnesses became dissolute before judgment was passed based on their testimony. If it is testified against a man regarding wounds that necessitate blood money to be paid by the paternal kin (aqila), and some of the paternal kin of the person testified against testifies to the injury of the witnesses, his testimony is not accepted, even if he is poor, because he may become wealthy at the time of paying the blood money, and thus he would be defending himself. If the (22) injury (23) is such that it does not