Does the testimony of just witnesses stating that the wounded person said, 'My blood is upon so-and-so,' necessitate the ritual oath (Qasamah)?
Chapter on Qasamah (Oaths regarding murder)
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
This testimony does not necessitate the Qasamah unless there is an established basis for suspicion (*luth*). This is the position of the majority of scholars, including Al-Thawri, Al-Awza'i, and the proponents of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). The evidence against considering this *luth* is the Prophetic saying: 'If people were given what they claimed, a group would claim the blood and wealth of men.' Furthermore, one claiming a right for themselves cannot have their word accepted as evidence, just as if they were alive. He is a litigant, and his claim cannot constitute *luth*, similar to a guardian (wali).
Supporting text
Malik and Al-Layth hold that this statement is indeed *luth*, citing the case of the slain man among the Children of Israel who said, 'So-and-so killed me,' which served as evidence. This view is also attributed to 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. The incident of the slain man among the Children of Israel is not a valid precedent because Qasamah is not established in that case, as it was a sign and a miracle of the Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, where God resurrected him and enabled him to speak what they disputed about. Such a miracle is not available today, and that incident served to exonerate the accused, and its ruling should not be extended to suspecting the innocent.