While a single statement from a slave woman was considered sufficient for a man to have sexual relations with her (i.e., if she came and claimed her master had gifted or made her lawful to him, that was accepted without witnesses), the same legal system did not regard slaves as human enough to give valid testimony in court in virtually any other matter.

Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni states clearly: “Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, and the majority of scholars have said: The testimony of a slave is not valid.”

Imam Shafi’i in Ahkam al-Quran (Vol. 2, p. 142) writes: “Testimony should come from free men, not from slaves. Moreover, these free men must be followers of our religion (i.e., Muslims); the testimony of free non-Muslims is also not accepted.”

Imam Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd in his fiqh book declares: “The testimony of one who has received a fixed punishment (hadd), a slave, a minor, or a disbeliever is inadmissible.”

Important clarification in Islamic law:

• There is a widespread misconception that a free Muslim woman’s testimony is considered “half” in all cases. No—her testimony is regarded as zero in serious hudud (fixed punishment) crimes such as rape, murder, theft, and robbery. It is considered “half” only in financial and commercial matters.
• In contrast, the testimony of slaves was completely disregarded in all circumstances. It held no value whatsoever—not even as a “half testimony.”
  • Example: If a free man assaulted a slave, the testimony of the victim slave or any other slave witnesses would not be accepted.
  • Example: If a free Muslim man raped or molested a slave woman, neither her testimony nor that of other slave women (or even free Muslim women) would be valid in court, since rape falls under hudud crimes.

The same applied to non-Muslims. In an Islamic state, the testimony of non-Muslim men or women against a free Muslim was generally not accepted—intended, according to classical sources, to humiliate and subordinate them.

Note on exceptions: There is a recorded incident where the Prophet accepted the testimony of a slave woman in a matter related to breastfeeding (rada‘ah). Classical jurists considered these as rare, narrow exceptions limited to private, women-specific matters (e.g., a slave woman testifying that her menstruation had ended, allowing her new owner to begin sexual relations).

Apart from these very limited cases, no other incidents appear in the vast hadith literature or Quranic verses where slaves were permitted to testify. The consensus of early Muslim scholars (ijma‘) was that a slave’s testimony is invalid in court.