If the oath takers establish their claim, does this establish liability for blood money (Diyyah) if Qisas is not enacted?
Chapter on Qasamah (Oaths regarding murder)
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
The established position of the school is that if the oath establishes liability, the claim defaults to Diyyah if Qisas is not executable or established. This position is held by Yahya ibn Sa'id al-Ansari, Rabi'ah, Abu al-Zinad, Malik, al-Layth, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. The basis for this view is the Prophet's statement: 'Then fifty of them shall swear, and they shall be absolved from his blood.' Since the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not compel the Jews to pay, but rather paid the blood money himself, it confirms that the oath primarily serves to absolve the defendants, similar to other types of oaths.
Supporting text
A second narration attributed to Ahmad, recorded by Abu al-Khattab, suggests that they swear the oath and must then pay the Diyyah, based on the case of Umar and the narration of Sulayman ibn Yasar. This is also the view of the Ashab al-Ra'y (the proponents of opinion-based jurisprudence). The counter-argument is that requiring payment based solely on the oath contradicts the primary ruling derived from the hadith where the Prophet paid himself, and it involves enforcing a financial obligation based only on a claim, which is generally impermissible without further proof, akin to claims of property rights.