except regarding one person. According to others, qasamah is applied in matters where there is no retaliation, so it is permissible for them to swear the oath regarding a group in this situation. This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i. Based on this, if he brings a claim against two people, and there is lawth (circumstantial evidence) against one of them, he shall swear fifty oaths against the one against whom there is lawth and is entitled to half the blood-money (diyah) from him, while the other [defendant] shall swear one oath and be acquitted; if he refuses to swear the oath, he is liable for half the blood-money. If he brings a claim against three people against whom there is lawth, and only one of them is present, he shall swear fifty oaths against the one present and is entitled to one-third of the blood-money. When the second [defendant] arrives, there are two opinions: one is that he shall also swear fifty oaths against him and is entitled to one-third of the blood-money, because the right is not established against one of the two men except by the same means it is established against the other, just like proof (bayyinah), for it requires establishing complete proof against the second as it was established against the first. The second opinion is that he shall swear twenty-five oaths against him, because if they were both present, he would have sworn fifty oaths against both of them, and this one's share of them is twenty-five. This opinion is weak; for the oath is not divided among them if they are present, and if he were to swear his share of the oaths against each one individually, it would not be valid, and no right would be established for him. Rather, the oaths are against them all, and they encompass them in a single act. Furthermore, if they were divided among them by shares, it would necessitate that he not swear more than seventeen oaths against the first, and likewise for the second, because this amount is the share of the oaths. Therefore, under both considerations, there is no justification for his swearing twenty-five oaths. If it were said: he only swore [according to his share] and the share of the third, then he should swear thirty-four oaths. When the third [defendant] arrives, there are the same two opinions: the more correct of them is that he shall swear fifty oaths against him and is entitled to one-third of the blood-money. The other is that he shall swear seventeen oaths. If they are all present, he shall swear fifty oaths against them and is entitled to the blood-money from them in thirds. This derivation indicates the requirement for the defendant to be present at the time of the oaths, because they [the oaths] are established in place of proof, so the presence of the one against whom they are established is required, just like proof.