the shirk (polytheism) for which there is no sin greater, so he is not entitled by his oath to the blood of a Muslim, nor is a killing established by it. The Qadi said: It is better that the qasamah be presented to him, and if he swears, the blood money becomes mandatory; this is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because the entitlement to wealth by qasamah is a right of his (9), so it is not invalidated by his apostasy, just as the acquisition of wealth through [other] means of acquisition [is not invalidated]. His disbelief does not prevent his oath, for the oath of a disbeliever is valid and is presented to him in (10) claims; if he swears, the retaliation or blood money is established, and if he returns to Islam, it belongs to him, and if he dies, it becomes fay'. The correct view, if Allah wills, is what Abu Bakr said; because the wealth of the apostate either has his ownership ceased from it, or it is suspended, and the rulings on the rights of wealth follow the same status. If we say his ownership has ceased, he has no right, and if we say it is suspended, it is doubtful before his state is revealed, so a ruling cannot be established on something doubtful; how could it be otherwise when the killing of a Muslim is a grave matter that is not established by mere suspicion, nor is it carried out with uncertainty. As for if he apostatizes before the death of the one he inherits from, he is not an heir and has no right, and the qasamah belongs to other heirs (11). If the deceased has no heir other than him, there is no qasamah for it, for the reason we mentioned. If he returns to Islam before the qasamah of others, the analogy of the school is that he enters into the qasamah, because whenever he returns before the division of the inheritance, it is divided for him. The Qadi said: The qasamah does not return to him because it was already entitled to someone else. If a man apostatizes and his slave is killed, or [the slave] is killed then he apostatizes, does he have the right to swear the oath? There are two views, based on the aforementioned disagreement. If he returns to Islam, the qasamah returns, because he is entitled to the compensation for the slave.

Section: There is no qasamah in matters other than the life itself, such as limbs and wounds (12). I do not know of any disagreement among the people of knowledge regarding this. Among those who said there is no qasamah in that are Malik, Abu Hanifah, and al-Shafi'i; this is because qasamah was established (13) in cases of life due to its sanctity, so it is exclusive to it, excluding limbs, just like expiation (kaffarah). [It is also] because it was established where the victim could not express...