Similarly, if the oaths are returned to the defendants, it is a condition that the claimants be present at the time the defendants take their oaths, because the oaths are for their benefit against them, so their satisfaction with them and their presence is taken into account, unless the claimant appoints a representative, in which case his presence takes the place of the principal.

Section: If the claimant says, "This person killed him, and another man whom I do not know," and there is lawth (circumstantial evidence) against the specified person, he shall swear fifty oaths against him and is entitled to half the blood-money. If the other person is identified for him, he shall swear against him and is entitled to half the blood-money. If he says, "This person killed him, and a group whose number I do not know," the qasamah is not obligatory because it is not known what his share of the blood-money is.

Section: A claim is not heard unless it is clearly articulated, such as by saying, "I claim that this person intentionally, or erroneously, or quasi-intentionally killed my ward, so-and-so, son of so-and-so." He must describe the killing. If it was intentional, he says, "He attacked him with a sword, or with something that usually kills." If the claim is against one person and he confesses, the killing is established. If he denies it and there is proof (bayyinah), judgment is rendered by it; otherwise, the matter proceeds to oaths. If the claim is against more than one person, there are four possible situations: The first is that he says, "This one killed him, and this one intentionally killed him," describing the intent with its attributes. It is said to him, "Designate one person," for the qasamah that necessitates retaliation cannot be against more than one person. The second situation is that he says, "This one did it intentionally, and this one did it erroneously," as he is claiming a killing that does not necessitate retaliation. He makes them both swear, and he takes half the blood-money from the property of the one who killed intentionally and half from the tribe (aqilah) of the one who killed erroneously. The third situation is that he says, "This one did it intentionally, but I do not know if the second one killed him intentionally or erroneously?" It has been said that qasamah is not valid here, because it is possible that the other was erroneous, in which case the requirement would be blood-money against both of them. It is also possible that he was intentional, and since qasamah cannot be applied to them both in this manner, he must designate one and apply the qasamah to him, so that the requirement would be retaliation; thus, the qasamah is not permissible.