Hadith 3504

(1) His statement: “A man killed his slave” etc.: Our position is that a free person is killed for another’s slave but not for his own slave, as his slave is his property, so he cannot claim against himself, but expiation is upon him, as in (Al-Jawharah). Our evidence is these narrations. Al-Shafi’i and Malik said: A free person is not killed for a slave, even if it is another’s slave, due to His statement, the Exalted: the free for the free, the slave for the slave (Al-Baqarah: 178). This is a reciprocal statement, implying that a free person is not killed for a slave. Also, a free person is an owner, and a slave is owned, so there is no equality between them, and retribution relies on equality. We rely on general statements like His statement, the Exalted: And We ordained for them therein that a life is for a life (Al-Ma’idah: 45), His statement, the Exalted: Prescribed for you is retribution (Al-Baqarah: 178), and his (ﷺ) statement: Intentional killing requires retribution. There is no conflict with what was recited, as it has a qualified reciprocity, while what we recited has absolute reciprocity, so it is not restricted by the qualified one. Moreover, the reciprocity of free for free does not negate free for slave, as it only mentions part of what the general includes, agreeing with its ruling, and that does not necessitate specifying what remains. Do you not see that He reciprocated female for female and male for male, yet that does not prevent reciprocating male for female, and similarly, it does not prevent reciprocating slave for free, such that a slave is killed for a free person by consensus, and vice versa. If it prevented that, it would prevent the reverse as well. (Al-Mirqat, Radd al-Muhtar, and commentaries on Al-Kanz, excerpted from them).

(2) His statement: “So he castrated him” etc.: It is deduced that a free person’s limb is not cut for a slave’s limb by agreement, meaning there is no retribution for it per our view and Al-Shafi’i’s. Therefore, it is said in (Al-Hidayah): There is no retribution between a man and a woman for what is less than life, nor between a free person and a slave, nor between two slaves, contrary to Al-Shafi’i in all of that except for a free person cutting a slave’s limb.

(١)قوله: فحبَّ مذاكيره إلخ: يستفاد منه أن طرف الحر لا يقطع بطرف العبد عليه الاتفاق يعني لا قصاص فيه عندنا،وعند الشافعي أيضًا لذلك قال في (الهداية): ولا قصاص بين الرجل والمرأة فيما دون النفس، ولا بين الحر والعبد، ولا بين العبدين، خلافًا للشافعي في جميع ذلك إلا في الحر يقطع طرف العبد.

(٢) قوله: أن رجلا قتل عبده إلخ: ومذهبنا أن الحر يُقتَل بعبد غيره دون عبد نفسه؛ لأن عبده ماله فلا يستحق المطالبةعلى نفسه، لكن عليه الكفارة كما في (الجوهرة). وحجتنا هذه الأحاديث. وقال الشافعي ومالك: لا يقتل الحربالعبد، وإن كان عبد غيره لقوله تعالى: ﴿الْحُرُّ بِالْحُرِّ وَاَلْعَبْدُ بِالْعَبْدِ﴾ (البقرة: ١٧٨) فهذه مقابلة، ومن ضرورتها أن لايُقتل الحر بالعبد، ولأن الحر مالك والعبد مملوك، فلا مساواة بينهما، والقصاص يعتمدها. ولنا العمومات نحو قولهتعالى: ﴿وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَآَ أَنَّ اَلنَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ﴾ (المائدة: ٤٥) وقوله تعالى: ﴿كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِصَاصُ﴾ (البقرة:١٧٨)وقوله علیہ السلام: (العمد قود) لا تعارض بما تلى؛ لأن فيه مقابلة مقيدة، وفيما تلونا مقابلة مطلقة، فلا تحمل علىالمقيدة. على أن مقابلة الحر بالحر لا تنافي مقابلة الحربالعبد؛ لأنه ليس فيه إلا ذكر بعض ما يشتمله العموم على موافقةحكمه، وذلك لا يوجب تخصيص ما بقي. ألا ترى أنه قابل الأثنى بالأنثى والذَكر بالذَكر، ثم لا يمنع ذلك مقابلةالذّكر بالأنثى، وكذا لا يمنع مقابلة العبد بالحر حتى يقتل به العبد بالإجماع، وكذا بالعكس؛ إذ لو منع ذلك لمنعالعكس أيضًا. أخذته من (المرقاة) و(رد المحتار) وشروح (الكنز).