Islamic Sharia imposed almost no real physical punishment on a slave owner for castrating or severely mutilating his own slave. The following incident clearly demonstrates this:
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 6671 (graded Sahih by Ahmad Shakir): Zanba‘ Abu Rawh found his slave boy with his slave girl, so he cut off the boy’s nose and castrated him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked the boy, “Who did this to you?” The boy replied, “Zanba‘.” The Prophet summoned Zanba‘ and asked, “What made you do this?” Zanba‘ said, “He was misbehaving with the girl.” The Prophet then said to the slave boy: “Go, you are free.” The boy asked, “O Messenger of Allah, whose slave am I now?” The Prophet replied, “You are the slave of Allah and His Messenger.” The Prophet then recommended the boy to the Muslims. After the Prophet’s death, the boy went to Abu Bakr, who continued to provide for him and his family. When Umar became Caliph, the boy again mentioned the Prophet’s recommendation, and Umar arranged for him to receive land in Egypt so he could support himself.
In this case:
- The owner brutally castrated the slave boy and cut off his nose.
- There was no physical punishment (ta‘zir) imposed on the owner.
- The only consequence was that the owner had to set the mutilated slave free.
- Freeing a slave was not considered a heavy penalty for a wealthy owner.
It is important to note that the prescribed punishment for fornication by a slave is 50 lashes. Yet instead of flogging the boy, the owner chose to castrate and mutilate him. Because of this extreme act, the Prophet ordered the slave’s freedom as compensation.
Modern Islamic preachers often claim that a ruler must impose some physical punishment (ta‘zir) if an owner kills or mutilates his slave. However, the Prophet’s own practice in this authentic hadith clearly contradicts that claim. No physical punishment was given to the owner — only the freeing of the slave.
This ruling once again shows the extreme imbalance in Islamic Sharia: owners had almost complete immunity when harming their slaves, while the slaves themselves faced harsh consequences even on the basis of suspicion or rumors.
