Is a slave's confession valid?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Acknowledgment of Rights
Primary text
A slave's confession regarding penal retribution (Hadd and Qisas) for offenses less than those resulting in death is valid because the right belongs to the slave, not his master. A master's guardian (Mawla 'alayhi) cannot make a valid confession on behalf of the slave because the master only has proprietary rights over the slave's wealth.
Supporting text
There is a view that the guardian's confession for Qisas may be valid, requiring monetary compensation but not corporal punishment, as monetary rights relate to the slave's neck, which is the master's property, similar to accidental injury. The established position of Ahmad, Zufar, Muzani, Dawud, and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari is that a slave's confession leading to capital Qisas is invalid and only takes effect upon emancipation, as such a confession infringes upon the master's right, resembling accidental homicide where the slave is suspected of confessing to escape the master's right. Abu al-Khattab, Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Al-Shafi'i prefer that the confession for capital Qisas is valid because it is a form of Qisas, similar to lesser offenses. It is also established that the slave's confession regarding theft resulting in amputation is valid, but the associated monetary restitution is not accepted if the stolen item is in the master's possession, though amputation is executed, and the money follows the master's right upon emancipation. If the stolen item is in the slave's possession, the slave is amputated, and the money belongs to the master if the master denies the theft.