In Islamic Sharia, the rules regarding the killing of a human being varied dramatically depending on the status of the killer and the victim:
- If a free Muslim kills another free Muslim The killer faces either qiṣāṣ (retaliation — execution) or must pay diyya (blood money). Once diyya is paid, no further physical punishment (qiṣāṣ or taʿzīr) is imposed.
- If a free Muslim kills the slave of another person Qiṣāṣ (execution) is not applied. The killer pays only half the diyya (blood money). After payment, no additional physical punishment (qiṣāṣ or taʿzīr) is imposed.
- If the owner kills his own slave The owner faces no punishment whatsoever — neither qiṣāṣ nor diyya. Even if diyya were theoretically required, it would ultimately return to the owner himself. The loss of his “property” (the slave’s life) is considered sufficient consequence. All four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali) are unanimous: an owner cannot be punished — even if he beats his slave to death.
- If the owner beats his slave and causes mutilation (but not death) Again, no physical punishment (qiṣāṣ or taʿzīr) is imposed on the owner. The only consequence is that he must free the mutilated slave as compensation.
Al-Hidaya (a foundational Hanafi fiqh text) states: “A free man is not killed for killing his slave, his mudabbar slave, his mukatab slave, or even his own child.”
‘Umdat as-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller — Shafi‘i fiqh) records: “Blood money is not required for killing a harbi (enemy combatant), an apostate, someone whose stoning is proven by clear evidence, or someone who must be killed in combat. Likewise, a master pays no blood money for killing his own slave.”
Imam al-Qurtubi in his tafsir summarizes the consensus of the scholars: “The majority of scholars hold that a free Muslim is not killed in qiṣāṣ for killing a slave, because the verse (Quran 2:178) differentiates their status… Abu Thawr noted that all scholars agree there is no qiṣāṣ between slaves and free persons in cases less than loss of life — and life itself is even more entitled to this distinction.”
Imam Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd (Maliki school) writes: “A free man is not put to death for killing a slave, though a slave is put to death for killing a free man. A Muslim is not put to death for killing a disbeliever, though a disbeliever is put to death for killing a Muslim… Whoever kills his slave owes only the value (of the slave).”
Al-Inṣaf (Hanbali fiqh text) confirms: “A Muslim is not killed for killing a disbeliever… similarly, a free Muslim is not killed for killing a slave. This is the correct position, upon which the Companions acted.”
This legal framework is one of the most severe aspects of classical Islamic slavery. An owner held the power of life and death over his slave with complete immunity. The slave’s life was treated as property — its destruction carried no criminal penalty for the master.
