What is the ruling when the relatives of a murdered person claim a man or group of people killed him, but there is no prior enmity or evidence (luth)?
Chapter on Qasamah (Oaths regarding murder)
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
If the relatives of a slain person claim a man or a group killed him, and there is no enmity or evidential basis (luth) present, the matter is treated like any other claim. If the claimants possess clear evidence (bayyinah), judgment is rendered based on that evidence. Otherwise, the assertion of the denier prevails. This is the position held by Malik, Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir. The foundational principle is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the oath rests upon the one who denies the claim, based on the Prophetic statement: "The evidence is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the denier." Furthermore, the original status of the accused is innocence of liability, and since their falsehood has not been established, their statement is accepted, similar to all other claims.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa and his school hold that if the relatives claim the killing against the residents of a locality or specific individuals, the relative may select fifty men from that location to swear fifty oaths, stating: "By Allah, we did not kill him, nor did we know who killed him." If the number falls short of fifty, the oaths are repeated until fifty are completed. If they swear, the blood money (diyah) becomes incumbent upon the rest of the locality. If they refuse to swear, they are imprisoned until they either swear or confess. This is based on a report concerning a man found murdered between two tribes, where 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) made them swear fifty oaths and ruled the diyya incumbent upon the nearest tribe.