He shall also swear upon the one whom his brother swore upon, and he takes from him a quarter of the blood money, and he swears twenty-five oaths; because he builds upon the oaths of his brother, so he is not obligated to more than twenty-five, just as if he had identified him from the beginning. There is another view regarding it, that he swears fifty oaths, because his brother swore fifty oaths. Al-Shafi'i has two statements regarding this, like the two views. Another view arises in the issue, which is that the first one does not swear more than twenty-five oaths; because he only swears to what he is entitled to, and what he is entitled to is the half, so he should have half the oaths, just as if his brother had sworn with him. If each of them says: "The one I was ignorant of is not the one my brother identified," the Qasama which they had performed is void; because belying undermines the suspicion (lawth), so each of them returns what he took of the blood money. If one of them belies his brother, and the other does not belie him, the Qasama of the one who belied is void, unlike the one who did not belie.

Section: If the claimant says after the Qasama: "I was mistaken; this is not the one who killed him," or "I have wronged him by my claim of murder against him," or he says: "The one sued was in another land on the day my relative was killed, and there was a distance between them that made it impossible for him to kill him if he was there," the Qasama is void, and he is obligated to return what he took, because he is confessing against himself, so his confession is accepted. If he says: "What I took is unlawful," he is asked about that. If he says: "I meant that I lied in my claim against him," his Qasama is also void. If he says: "I meant that the oaths should be on the side of the one sued, like the school of Abu Hanifa," the Qasama is not void; because it was established by the ijtihad (legal reasoning) of the judge, so it takes precedence over his belief. If he says: "This is usurped property," and confesses the one from whom he usurped it, he is obligated to return it to him, and his word is not accepted against the one from whom he took it; because a person’s confession against someone else is not accepted. If he does not confess it for anyone, his possession of it shall not be removed; because the one entitled to it has not been determined. If they differ regarding his meaning in his statement, his word is taken; because he is the most knowledgeable of his own intention.