What is the validity of establishing liability based solely on oaths taken by numerous non-accused individuals in a homicide case lacking enmity?

Primary text

Establishing liability and imposing a fine solely based on the oaths of non-accused individuals, especially when contrary to established Prophetic legal principles, is not sound. The ruling of 'Umar in the incident involving the two tribes is considered secondary to the explicit Sunnah regarding evidence and oaths. The Sunnah, established by the Prophet (peace be upon him), prioritizes the claimant providing evidence and the defendant taking the oath over the practice observed by 'Umar. Furthermore, the case involving 'Umar may be interpreted as the accused admitting to accidental killing while denying intentional murder, leading them to be sworn regarding the intentional act. The practice of making oaths obligatory upon those who are not the defendants, and compelling them financially alongside confinement for the oaths, contradicts the established legal methodology.