In the case of free Muslim women like Aisha, the Prophet Muhammad set very strict conditions for proving zina (unlawful sexual intercourse):

• Four male eyewitnesses are required.
• They must have seen the act of penetration clearly (described as “the kohl stick entering the kohl container”).
• If the four witnesses are not complete, the three accusers can be punished with 80 lashes each for making a false allegation (qadhf), even if they believed they were telling the truth.

However, for poor slaves, the rules were completely different and far more lenient toward the accuser:

• No four male eyewitnesses are needed.
• The “kohl stick in kohl container” condition is not required.
• No proper court trial is needed, where the slave could defend himself or herself.
• The ruler (or the slave’s owner) can inflict the prescribed punishment based solely on rumors, suspicion, or personal doubts.

Look at the following traditions where Muhammad ordered Ali to kill a Coptic slave based only on rumors and personal suspicion.

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2771: Anas reported that a person (a Coptic slave named Mabur, cousin of Maria al-Qibtiyya) was charged with fornication with the slave girl of Allah’s Messenger (Maria). Thereupon the Messenger of Allah said to Ali: “Go and strike his neck.” Ali went to him and found him cooling himself in a well. He brought him out, but discovered that his sexual organ had been cut off. Ali refrained from killing him and returned to the Prophet, saying: “O Messenger of Allah, he does not even have a sexual organ with him.”

Imam Hakim recorded in al-Mustadrak: Aisha said: “Maria was presented to the Prophet along with her cousin (a Coptic male slave). After some time Maria became pregnant. People started slandering that since the Prophet needed a child, he attributed the son to himself. Maria did not have enough milk, so they fed the child sheep’s milk, which made him fat. One day the Prophet brought the child to me and asked what I thought. I replied jealously, ‘Everyone fed on sheep’s milk becomes fat.’ The Prophet said, ‘Doesn’t he look like me?’ I said, ‘No.’ Later the Prophet heard the false accusations against Maria. Upon that, he sent Ali to kill her cousin (the Coptic slave).”

From these narrations we see:

• The Coptic slave was not given any fair trial in court.
• No one was asked to produce four witnesses for the alleged fornication.
• The companions who made false accusations against Maria and the Coptic slave should have received 80 lashes for qadhf (false accusation of zina), as happened in the Ifk incident involving Aisha.

Imam Malik said: “The master can enforce the hadd of zina and the hadd of qadhf on his slave if witnesses testify before him.”

The question remains: If even high-ranking companions could spread false rumors and give false testimony against Aisha based on doubts, then ordinary people could easily do the same against powerless slaves. Why were slaves not given the same protection — requiring four male eyewitnesses and the strict “kohl stick” condition?

Even worse, according to a Hanbali fatwa: “An owner can enforce the hadd on his slave when it is proven based on his personal knowledge… because he has the authority to discipline the slave.”

This gives the owner almost unlimited power. He does not even need external witnesses. If the owner becomes convinced based on rumors or personal doubts (just as Muhammad became convinced about Maria and the Coptic slave), he can punish the slave. A normal owner is far less careful than a neutral judge in a proper court.

What happens if an owner, out of anger or malice, makes a false allegation against his slave? Who will protect the innocent slave from brutal punishment?

This ruling essentially gave owners an open license to beat and punish their slaves on the slightest suspicion. It was a system that heavily favored the owner and left the slave completely defenseless.