along with this. If he retracts and says, "I have learned that the other was intentional," then he may designate one and swear against him. If he says, "He was erroneous," the qasamah is established at that point, and he is asked. If he denies it, the qasamah is established; if he confesses, the killing is established against him, and half the blood-money is due from his wealth, for it is established by his confession, not by the qasamah. The Qadi said: "It is due from his tribe (aqilah)." The first [opinion] is more correct, because the tribe does not bear the burden of a confession.

The fourth situation is that he says, "They both killed him erroneously, or quasi-intentionally, or one of them was erroneous and the other was quasi-intentional." He may make them both swear. If he claims that the person killed his ward intentionally, and he is asked for an explanation of "intentional," and he explains it as "erroneous-intentional" (quasi-intentional), his explanation is accepted, and he swears to what he explained it as, because he made a mistake in describing the killing as intentional. Al-Muzani narrated from Al-Shafi'i: "He shall not swear against him," because by claiming intentionality, he exonerated the tribe, so his subsequent claim that entails a financial obligation upon them is not heard. We argue that his claim has been articulated, and he merely erred in naming quasi-intentional as intentional, and this is among matters that are ambiguous, so he should not be held accountable for it. If the judge made him swear before the claim was articulated and the type of killing was clarified, the oath is not counted, because a claim is not heard unless it is articulated, so it is as if he made him swear before the claim, and because he only makes him swear to establish what he is entitled to by his claim; if he does not know what he is entitled to through his claim, the purpose of the oath is not achieved, so it is not valid.

Section: The Qadi said: "It is permissible for the guardians to swear against the killer if it is their predominant belief that he killed him, even if they were absent from the scene of the murder," because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to the Ansar: "Take your oaths and establish your claim to the blood of your companion." They were in Medina and the murder was in Khaybar. Also, because a person may swear based on his predominant belief, just as when someone buys something from a person, and another comes claiming it, it is permissible for him to swear that the claimant has no right to it, because the apparent state is that it is the property of the one who sold it. Likewise, if he finds something with his own handwriting, or his father’s handwriting, or in his notebook, it is permissible for him to swear to it. Similarly, if he sells something and does not know of a defect in it, and then [the buyer] makes a claim against him.