Does a slave who fights without the permission of his master deserve the *salab*?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Jihad
Primary text
If a slave engages in combat (*baraza*) without the permission of his master, he does not deserve the *salab* because he is disobedient (*'aasi*). This applies similarly to every disobedient individual, such as one who enters the battlefield without the commander's permission.
Supporting text
There is a narration from Ahmad concerning one who enters without the permission of the commander that one-fifth (*khums*) is taken, and the rest belongs to him, treating it like general spoils of war. A similar ruling is applied to the slave who fights without his master's permission. Alternatively, it is suggested that the slain enemy's *salab* belongs to the slave in all circumstances because whatever belongs to the slave belongs to his master, and depriving the slave of the *salab* results in depriving the master, and the slave has committed no disobedience against the master.