In a narration by Muslim: "He shall be surrendered to you." In another phrasing: "And you shall become entitled to the blood of your companion." He meant the blood of the killer, for the blood of the killed is already established as theirs before the oath. The term "al-rumma" refers to the rope with which the one liable for retaliation is bound. Furthermore, it is a valid argument by which intentionality is established, so retaliation becomes obligatory through it, just as with evidence (bayyina). Al-Athram narrated, with his chain of transmission from Amir al-Ahwal, that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, executed retaliation by Qasama in al-Ta'if. [57] This is an explicit text (nass). Moreover, the Lawgiver (al-shari') made the statement that of the claimant with his oath, out of precaution for the [sanctity of] blood; if retaliation were not obligatory, this significance would be lost.

1522 - Issue: He said: "If the claimants do not take the oath, the defendant shall take fifty oaths and be acquitted."

This is the manifest [position] of the School. It is the view of Yahya ibn Sa'id al-Ansari, Rabi'a, Abu al-Zinad, Malik, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. Abu al-Khattab narrated another report from Ahmad that they [the defendants] take the oath, and they are fined the blood money, based on the case of Umar and the report of Sulayman ibn Yasar. This is the view of the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "Then the Jews will absolve you with fifty oaths from among them." [1] Meaning, they will free themselves [from liability] toward you. In another phrasing he said: "They shall take fifty oaths and be acquitted of his blood." It has been established that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, did not fine the Jews [2], but rather he paid it [the blood money] from his own [means]. Furthermore, these are oaths prescribed in the right of the defendant, so he is acquitted by them, like all other oaths. Also, because that would be granting [a demand] based merely on a claim, which is not permissible according to the report, and because it contradicts the requirement of the evidence; for a person's word is not accepted against another based solely on it, like a claim for property or other rights. Additionally, doing so would involve combining both the oath and the fine, which is not legislated, as in all other rights.