themselves, and the identification of the killer. As for the one whose limb has been severed, they can do that, and the ruling of the claim in it is the same as the ruling of the claim in all other rights. The burden of proof (bayyinah) lies upon the claimant, and the oath lies upon the one who denies it, [swearing] a single oath, because it is a claim in which there is no qasamah, so it is not reinforced by number, just like a claim in property.

1528- Issue: He said: "And the guardians (awliya') do not have the right to swear the qasamah for more than one person."

There is no disagreement within the school that more than one killing is not entitled by qasamah. This is the opinion of al-Zuhri, Malik, and some of the companions of al-Shafi'i. Some of them said: The killing of a group is entitled by it, because it is a proof (bayyinah) that necessitates retaliation (qawad), so the one and the group are equal in it, just like [other forms of] proof. This is similar to the opinion of Abu Thawr. Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: "Fifty of you shall swear an oath against a man of them, and he will be handed over to you completely (bi-rummatihi)." (1) He thus specified it for one individual. Furthermore, it is a weak form of proof, where the principle [of evidentiary requirements] was deviated from [only] in the killing of one person, so it is restricted to that, and it remains upon the original principle in all other cases. The evidence for the deviation from the principle in this [matter] is that it is established by the lawth (circumstantial evidence), and the lawth is a suspicion that outweighs the presumption of the claimant's truthfulness, whereas retaliation is dropped by suspicions—so how could it be established by such things? Furthermore, oaths in all other claims are established (2) initially on the side of the defendant, and this (3) is the opposite of that. The evidence for its weakness is that it is established (2) by the statement of the claimant and his oath, despite the accusation regarding him, the doubt concerning his truthfulness, and the existence of enmity, which prevents the validity of testimony against [the defendant] in establishing a right for someone else; therefore, it is more appropriate and certain that he be prevented from having his statement accepted alone in establishing a right for himself. It differs from the [standard] proof (bayyinah), for the latter is strengthened by number, the integrity of the witnesses, and the absence of any suspicion regarding them from both angles, in that they do not establish a right or benefit for themselves, nor do they ward off any harm from themselves, and there is no enmity between them and the one being testified against. This is why all other rights and hadd-punishments, which are warded off by suspicions, are established by it. Once this is established, there is no qasamah in matters where there is no retaliation, according to the opinion of al-Khiraqi, so his opinion holds consistently that qasamah is not legislated.