What is the ruling regarding the oath of the defendant when sued for homicide without prior enmity or evidence suggesting culpability (lwath)?

Primary text

There are two narrations from Ahmad concerning the defendant in a claim of homicide without enmity or evidential suspicion. The first narration states that the defendant does not swear an oath, and no judgment is rendered against him, so he is released. This view holds that since the claim involves something impermissible to remit voluntarily, an oath is not required, similar to Hadd punishments. Furthermore, since judgment cannot be passed based on refusal to swear (nukul) in this case, an oath is not legislated, paralleling Hadd punishments. The second narration, which is considered correct and aligns with the view of Al-Shafi'i, mandates that the defendant must swear an oath. This is based on the generality of the Prophet's saying, 'The oath belongs to the defendant,' and another saying: 'If people were given what they claimed, a group would claim the blood and wealth of men, but the oath belongs to the defendant.' The generality of the wording and the context wherein the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned claiming blood and wealth before stating the rule about the oath imply its application here. Moreover, as it is a claim concerning a human life, an oath is required, similar to claims of property. Finally, since repudiation of an admission would not be accepted in this matter, an oath is obligatory, following the established principle.