Malik related to me that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a judgement about the mudabbar who did an injury. He said, "The master must surrender what he owns of him to the injured person. He is made to serve the injured person and recompense (in the form of service) is taken from him as the blood-money of the injury. If he completes that before his master dies, he reverts to his master."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about a mudabbar who does an injury and then his master dies and the master has no property except him is that the third (allowed to be bequeathed) is freed, and then the blood-money for the in jury is divided into thirds. A third of the blood-money is against the third of him which was set free, and two-thirds are against the two-thirds which the heirs have. If they wish, they surrender what they have of him to the party with the injury, and if they wish, they give the injured person two-thirds of the blood-money and keep their portion of the slave. That is because that injury is a criminal action by the slave and it is not a debt against the master by which whatever setting free and tadbir the master had done would be abrogated. If there were a debt to people held against the master of the slave, as well as the criminal action of the slave, part of the mudabbar would be sold in proportion to the blood-money of the injury and according to the debt. Then one would begin with the blood-money which was for the criminal action of the slave and it would be paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of his master would be paid, and then one would look at what remained after that of the slave. His third would b be set free, and two-thirds of him would belong to the heirs. That is because the criminal action of the slave is more important than the debt of his master. That is because, if the man dies and leaves a mudabbar slave whose value is one hundred and fifty dinars, and the slave strikes a free man on the head with a blow that lays open the skull, and the blood-money is fifty dinars, and the master of the slave has a debt of fifty dinars, one begins with the fifty dinars which are the blood-money of the head wound, and it is paid from the price of the slave. Then the debt of the master is paid. Then one looks at what remains of the slave, and a third of him is set free and two-thirds of him remain for the heirs. The blood-money is more pressing against his person than the debt of ...

Allah's Apostle said on the Day of (the battle of) Hunain, "Whoever has killed an infidel and has a proof or a witness for it, then the salb (arms and belongings of that deceased) will be for him." I stood up to seek a witness to testify that I had killed an infidel but I could not find any witness and then sat down. Then I thought that I should mention the case to Allah's Apostle I (and when I did so) a man from those who were sitting with him said, "The arms of the killed person he has mentioned, are with me, so please satisfy him on my behalf." Abu Bakr said, "No, he will not give the arms to a bird of Quraish and deprive one of Allah's lions of it who fights for the cause of Allah and His Apostle." Allah's Apostle I stood up and gave it to me, and I bought a garden with its price, and that was my first property which I owned through the war booty. The people of Hijaz said, "A judge should not pass a judgment according to his knowledge, whether he was a witness at the time he was the judge or before that" And if a litigant gives a confession in favor of his opponent in the court, in the opinion of some scholars, the judge should not pass a judgment against him till the latter calls two witnesses to witness his confession. And some people of Iraq said, "A judge can pass a judgement according to what he hears or witnesses (the litigant's confession) in the court itself, but if the confession takes place outside the court, he should not pass the judgment unless two witnesses witness the confession." Some of them said, "A judge can pass a judgement depending on his knowledge of the case as he is trust-worthy, and that a witness is Required just to reveal the truth. The judge's knowledge is more than the witness." Some said, "A judge can judge according to his knowledge only in cases involving property, but in other cases he cannot." Al-Qasim said, "A judge ought not to pass a judgment depending on his knowledge if other people do not know what he knows, although his knowledge is more than the witness of somebody else because he might expose himself to suspicion by the Muslims and cause the Muslims to have unreasonable doubt. "