Islamic Sharia declared children to be the property of father, and he cannot be physically punished even if he kills his children. 

"A man came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and said: 'My father is taking all my wealth.' He said: 'You and your wealth belong to your father.'

And Ibn Abbas narrated from Muhammad that a father cannot be killed for killing his children. 

Jami at-Tirmidhi, 1401:

 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ لاَ تُقَامُ الْحُدُودُ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ وَلاَ يُقْتَلُ الْوَالِدُ بِالْوَلَدِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ 

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'The Hudud are not carried in the Masjid, and the father is not killed for the son."
Grade:
SAHIH (authentic) according to Sheikh Albani (link)
And Ibn Abbas is not alone in narrating it from Muhammad, but Umar Ibn Khattab also recorded the similar thing from the Prophet:
عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ لاَ يُقْتَلُ الْوَالِدُ بِالْوَلَدِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏
'Umar bin Khattab said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: 'A father should not be killed for his son.'”
Grade:
SAHIH (authentic) according to Sheikh Albani (link)

Saudi preacher who 'raped and tortured' his five -year-old daughter to death is released while a father cannot be physically punished for killing his children in Islamic Sharia

Please read the following horrible news, where you can see this Islamic Sharia Ruling in action:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-preacher-who-raped-and-tortured-his-five-year-old-daughter-to-death-is-released-after-paying-8480440.html
A ‘celebrity’ Saudi preacher accused of raping, torturing and killing his five-year-old daughter has reportedly been released from custody after agreeing to pay ‘blood money’.
Fayhan al-Ghamdi had been accused of killing his daughter Lama, who suffered multiple injuries including a crushed skull, broken back, broken ribs, a broken left arm and extensive bruising and burns. Social workers say she had also been repeatedly raped and burnt.
Fayhan al-Ghamdi admitted using a cane and cables to inflict the injuries after doubting his five-year-old daughter’s virginity and taking her to a doctor, according to the campaign group Women to Drive.
Rather than getting the death penalty or receiving a long prison sentence for the crime, Fayhan al-Ghamdi served only a few months in jail before a judge ruled the prosecution could only seek ‘blood money’.
Albawaba News reported the judge as saying: "Blood money and the time the defendant had served in prison since Lama's death suffices as punishment."
Fayhan al-Ghamdi, who regularly appears on television in Saudi Arabia, is said to have agreed to pay £31,000 to Lama’s mother.
The money is considered compensation under Islamic law, although it is only half the amount that would have been paid had Lama been a boy.
Despite Saudi Arabia’s famously strict legal system, Women to Drive say fathers cannot be executed for murdering their children in the country. Equally, husbands cannot be executed for murdering their wives.

This Saudi preacher was only asked to pay the 'blood money' to the mother. Firstly, paying this much amount of blood money is nothing for this rich Saudi preacher. Secondly, this so-called 'blood money' also stays in the family. 

Just imagine the trauma of this small girl, that his father first broke her several ribs, and bone of her left arm, and burnt several parts of her body, and finally broke her skull too, but the Judge of Saudi Islamic court says that he was only 'Disciplining' the girl. 

Do you find any logic in this so-called Divine Justice of Allah? 

And there are two more Islamic Rulings, which are even worse than killing of own children:

  • If an owner kills his slave, then there is neither any physical punishment for it, nor any 'blood money' for the family of slave.
  • And if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, still there is no physical punishment for it, but the Muslim killer only has to pay the 'HALF' of blood money in this case. 

Excuse by Islam apologists: This hadith is weak

Islam apologists claim that Darussalam declared the hadith of Ibn Abbas to be weak. 

Jami at-Tirmidhi, 1401:

 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ لاَ تُقَامُ الْحُدُودُ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ وَلاَ يُقْتَلُ الْوَالِدُ بِالْوَلَدِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ 

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'The Hudud are not carried in the Masjid, and the father is not killed for the son."
Grade: Da'if (Darussalam)

But there are two problems with this excuse:

  • Firstly, Muslim deception is that they don't make it clear to the readers that their other Ulama differed from it and they indeed declared it authentic too. For example, Sheikh Albani declared this hadith of Ibn Abbas to be authentic (link). 
  • Secondly, Ibn Abbas is not alone, but the same Islamic Ruling has also been recorded by Umar Ibn Khattab too from two chains of narration, and one of them has been again declared authentic by Sheikh Albani (link). 
  • Thirdly, all the 4 Sunni Imams gave Fatwa according to this Hadith, and it was practically the practice of the whole Muslim Ummah of the last 14 centuries. 

All the 4 Sunni Imams considered these Ahadith to be authentic too, and gave Fatwas according to these Ahadith

The next deception of Islam apologists is this that they don't tell that practically all Muslims of the last 1400 years followed exactly this same ruling, while all the 4 Sunni Imams gave their Fatwas according to these Ahadith. 

Under the commentary of hadith of Ibn Abbas in Miskat-ul-Masabih, it is written (link):

Hadith: 

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: 'The Hudud are not carried in the Masjid, and the father is not killed for the son."

Commentary:

... Secondly, if a father kills his child, then he will not be killed. The Fiqh details about it is that all scholars agree if a son kills his father or mother, then he will be killed in Qisas (i.e. in retaliation). But if a father or a mother kill their son, then there is a sling disagreement among scholars in this case. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (i.e. the 3 Imams) say that father cannot be killed in Qisas. While Imam Malik said if father killed his son by slaughtering him, then in this case father can also be killed in Qisas. Nevertheless, if father killed him with a sword, then the father will not be killed in Qisas.

Therefore, practically all Muslims of the last 1400 years followed this Ruling. 

If Islam apologists still insist that it was not the actual Sharia Ruling, then we ask them:

  • Why your so-called All-WISE Allah was unable to even clearly reveal the Sharia Rulings? 
  • How can the whole humanity follow such a thing (i.e. Allah) who does not even have the ability to reveal the Shari Rulings clearly, and thus that Allah caused almost all the Muslims of last 1400 years to go astray regarding this matter?

Islam apologists think that proving a "disagreement" in Islamic Ruling makes their Allah to become FREE of all faults and criticism.

But they are wrong. 

The 'inability' of Allah to reveal clear Sharia Rulings proves only this fact that either Allah is not WISE enough, or it was a 'human mistake' (i.e. Muhammad was making these Sharia Rulings himself and thus he made human mistakes in making these rules and then bringing the message to his followers clearly). 

What is the difference between the Muslims and the Jahali Arabs that buried their baby daughters? Is killing a child not killing? Do the extra steps of raising the kid please God?

What's even worse is that justifiers of this kind of behaviours would be like "scholars have different opinions, I am of the opinion of <whatever you think the listener will accept> and Allah knows best".

After the child is killed, the "moderates" will be like "this is not TRUE Islam" and "Their judgement is with Allah" and not do anything beyond about it except words. They only protest and march for the anti-hijab stuff.

A Muslim will not get any punishment for killing any Kafir

Please note that there were two types of non-Muslims in the eyes of Muhammad:

  • The people of the Book (i.e. Christians, Jews and Magians/Zoroastrians.
  • All other non-Muslims (commonly known as Kafirs).

There was absolutely no punishment on a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim (Kafirs). While the punishment of killing a person from the people of the book was 'half' of the blood money as compared to a Muslim. 

Sahih Bukhari, 6903:

Narrated Ash-Shu`bi: I heard Abu Juhaifa saying, "I asked `Ali 'Have you got any Divine literature apart from the Qur'an?' (Once he said...apart from what the people have?) `Ali replied, 'By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Qur'an and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man with and we have what is written in this paper.' I asked, 'What is written in this paper?' He replied, 'Al-`Aql (the regulation of Diya), about the ransom of captives, and the Judgment that a Muslim should not be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a disbeliever (i.e. Kafir)."

More References:

Despite such clear injustice, still Muslims brag that Allah justly gave equal rights to non-Muslims. 

Some Islam apologists try to deny this Islamic Ruling and claim that Abu Hanifa differed from it. Nevertheless, Abu Hanifa was himself refuted by his fellow Muslim scholars. 

Tafsir al-Qurtabi, verse 2:178:

 …والجمهور أيضا على أنه لا يقتل مسلم بكافر ; لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : لا يقتل مسلم بكافر أخرجه البخاري عن علي بن أبي طالب ، ولا يصح لهم ما رووه من حديث ربيعة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قتل يوم خيبر مسلما بكافر ; لأنه منقطع ، ومن حديث ابن البيلماني وهو ضعيف عن [ ص: 232 ] ابن عمر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرفوعا . قال الدارقطني : ” لم يسنده غير إبراهيم بن أبي يحيى وهو متروك الحديث ” .

And according to the majority of scholars a Muslim cannot be killed for killing a Kafir. The Prophet said: "A Muslim cannot be killed for a Kafir." This is a tradition from Sahih Bukhari, which is narrated from Ali Ibn Abi Talib. And few people (like Abu Hanifa), who differed from this position, they made a mistake. These few people cite the tradition of Rabiah where the Prophet killed one Muslim for killing one non-Muslim on the day of battle of Khaibar. But this tradition is broken. An another tradition is from Ibn al-Biylmani who narrated from Ibn Umar and the prophet, but it is again a weak hadith. Imam Dar Qutni says there exists no chain of narration of this hadith, except for Ibrahim bin Abi Yahya, who is himself rejected in hadith. 

Moreover, once again we tell these Islam apologists that proving a "disagreement" in Islamic Ruling does not make their Allah to become FREE of faults and criticism. The next question stays there why was the so-called all-WISE Allah not able to clearly reveal the Sharia Rulings? Why the MAJORITY of Muslims in this case too went astray and followed these Ahadith that a Muslim cannot be killed for killing a non-Muslim?

Moreover:

  • The 'blood money' of a person from 'People of the Book' (i.e. only Christian, Jews and Zoroastrian) is half of Muslim. 
  • And Umar Ibn Khattab didn't even increased this half blood money of the people of the book proportionally to Muslim's blood money

Sunan Abi Dawud, 4542:

.. the value of the blood-money at the time of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was eight hundred dinars or eight thousand dirhams, and the blood-money for the people of the Book was half of that for Muslims. He said: This applied till Um.ar (Allah be pleased with him) became caliph and he made a speech in which he said: Take note! Camels have become dear. So Umar fixed the value for those who possessed gold at one thousand dinars, for those who possessed silver at twelve thousand (dirhams), for those who possessed cattle at two hundred cows, for those who possessed sheep at two thousand sheep, and for those who possessed suits of clothing at two hundred suits. He left the blood-money for dhimmis (protected people, which included only Christian and Jews, while Quran order to kill all the Kafirs after 4 months in the verse 9:5) as it was, not raising it in proportion to the increase he made in the blood-wit.

Umar Ibn Khattab was like a pimple has grown upon an ulcer (i.e. Islamic Sharia). 

And after such injustices, Muslim still brag that Allah gave non-Muslims their rights JUSTLY. The worst part is they feel no shame in telling and propagating such clear lies. 

There was no punishment upon the owner, even if he killed his slave through beating

Mercy!!! Mercy!!!

  1. All 4 Fiqh Imams are unanimous upon this that an owner could not be punished even if he killed his slave through beating. There is absolutely no Qisas (i.e. killing the owner for killing the slave), or any lesser physical punishment or any Diya (دية)  i.e. fine for the owner for killing his slave.

  2. And if a free Muslim kills the slave of other person, still the killer could not be killed in Qisas (i.e. equal retaliation in Islamic Sharia), while Islamic Sharia does not consider free Muslim and a slave at the same human status.
    According to Islam, the punishment is this that the free Muslim killer only has to pay the “Half of Diya price (i.e. blood money)” to the owner of the slave.
    And the wife or children of that slave will not get that Diya price, but it is the owner of the slave who will get that money.

Al-Hadaya is the famous jurisprudence book of Hanafi Fiqh. It is written in it (link):

ولا يقتل الرجل بعبده ولا مدبره ولا مكاتبه ولا بعبد ولده
A free man could not be killed for the crime of killing his slave ۔۔۔

Imam Qurtabi gathered the fatwas of Imams in his Tafsir of Quran (link):

والجمهور من العلماء لا يقتلون الحر بالعبد ، للتنويع والتقسيم في الآية وقال أبو ثور لما اتفق جميعهم على أنه لا قصاص بين العبيد والأحرار فيما دون النفوس كانت النفوس أحرى بذلك …
Majority of Scholars have this opinion that none of free Muslim could be killed in Qisas (equal compensation) for killing a slave, while the verse (Quran 2:178) divided their status in this way, as Abu Thoor mentioned that majority of Ulama agree that human status of a slave is lower than that of a free person ...

And Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd writes in his book (link):

ولا يقتل حر بعبد ويقتل به العبد ولا يقتل مسلم بكافر ويقتل به الكافر ولا قصاص بين حر وعبد في جرح ولا بين مسلم وكافر ۔۔۔ ومن قتل عبدا فعليه قيمته
A free man should not be put to death for murdering a slave, although a slave should be put to death for murdering a free man. And a Muslim should not be put to death for murdering a Kafir, although a Kafir should be put to death for murdering a believer …

Imam Shafi’i wrote in his book al-Am (link):

وكذلك لا يقتل الرجل الحر بالعبد بحال ، ولو قتل حر ذمي عبدا مؤمنا لم يقتل به۔
A free person will not be killed for the crime of killing a slave. Even if a free Kafir Dhimmi (i.e. protected person of Kafir minority in Islamic State) kills a slave, still that Kafir Dhimmi could not be killed for this crime.

And it is written Hanbali Fiqh book “al-Insaaf” (link):

وَلَا يُقْتَلُ مُسْلِمٌ بِكَافِرٍ وَلَوْ ارْتَدَّ وَلَا حُرٌّ بِعَبْدٍ هذا الْمَذْهَبُ بِلَا رَيْبٍ وَعَلَيْهِ الْأصحاب
A Muslim could not be killed as punishment if he kills a Kafir … similarly, a free man could not be killed as punishment if he kills a slave. Indeed, this is the correct religion, upon which Sahaba (companions) acted upon.

Absolutely no Qisas punishment for the owner for CASTRATING the slave-boy and cutting his nose:

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 6671:

 أن زنباعا أبا روح وجد غلاما له مع جارية له فجدع أنفه وجبه فأتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال من فعل هذا بك قال زنباع فدعاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال ما حملك على هذا فقال كان من أمره كذا وكذا فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للعبد اذهب فأنت حر فقال يا رسول الله فمولى من أنا قال مولى الله ورسوله فأوصى به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المسلمين قال فلما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاء إلى أبي بكر فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم نجري عليك النفقة وعلى عيالك فأجراها عليه حتى قبض أبو بكر فلما استخلف عمر جاءه فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم أين تريد قال مصر فكتب عمر إلى صاحب مصر أن يعطيه أرضا يأكلها

Translation (link):

Zanba Abi Rawh found his servant boy with a servant girl, so he maimed his nose and castrated him. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, came and he said, “Who did this to you?” The boy said, “Zanba.” The Prophet summoned him and he said, “What made you do this?” Zanba said, “He was misbehaving in such a way.” The Prophet said to the slave, “Go, for you are free.” The slave boy asked: “Who is my Maula (i.e. who is setting me free)?” The Prophet said, “Your Mawla is Allah and Prophet (i.e. you are set free by Allah and his messenger).” And the prophet also made a testament about his freedom (from Allah and his side). When the messenger died, then that slave boy came to Abu Bakr and told him about the testament of messenger. Abu Bakr said: "Yes I remember it. Let me give share of meny to you and your family from Bait-ul-Mal." And when Abu Bakr died, and Umar became the new caliph, then that slave boy came to him and told him about the testament of messenger. Umar also said: "Yes I remember it. Where do you want to go?" He told that he wanted to go to Egypt. Upon that Umar wrote a letter to the governor of Egypt to give him certain amount of land for his expenditures. 

Grade: Sahih (Ahmad Shakir)

So, the maximum punishment that the owner got for cutting the nose and castrating his slave was to free him.