Daniel. And it is said: Solomon did it while he was young. It is narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, that seven men set out, and one of them went missing. His wife came to Ali, so he summoned the six, asked them about him, but they denied it. He separated them and stationed each one by a pillar, entrusting someone to watch over him. He called one of them and asked him, but he denied. He said: 'Allahu Akbar.' The rest thought he had confessed, so he called them, and they confessed. He said to the first: 'They have testified against you, and I am your executioner.' He confessed, so he had them killed. If he does not know their uprightness, he investigates it; if their uprightness is not established, he says to the claimant: 'Bring me more witnesses.' If he has no evidence, the judge informs him that he has the right to his [the defendant's] oath. The judge does not have the right to require the oath from him before the claimant requests it, because the oath is his right; it is not permissible to fulfill it without the demand of the one entitled to it, just like the right itself. If he requires him to take the oath without a request, or if the denier takes the initiative and swears, his oath is not counted, because he provided it at the wrong time. When the claimant requests it, he repeats it for him, because the first one was not his oath. If the claimant holds back from requiring the defendant to take the oath, then later wishes to require him to take it based on the previous claim, it is permissible, because he did not forfeit his right to it, but merely delayed it. If he says: 'I absolve you of this oath,' his right to it in this claim is forfeited, but he may initiate the claim again, because his right is not forfeited by absolution from the oath. If he initiates the claim again and the defendant denies it, he may require him to take the oath, because this claim is different from the one for which he absolved him from the oath. If he swears, the claim is dismissed, and the claimant may not require him to take another oath, neither in this sitting nor elsewhere. If the right belongs to a group and they are content with one oath, it is permissible, and their claim is dismissed by the oath, because it is their right; and because since it is permissible for the right to be established by one testimony for a group, it is permissible for it to be dismissed by one oath. The Qadi said: It is possible that it is not valid until he swears an oath for each one individually. This is one of the two positions held by the companions of al-Shafi'i, because the oath is a proof regarding the right of an individual. If two are content with it, the proof regarding the right of each one of them becomes incomplete, and an incomplete proof is not made complete by the consent of the opponent, just as if he were content to have judgment passed against him based on a single witness. The correct view is the first, because the right belongs to them both.