Suppose that someone comes rushing along while a car is proceeding on its way, then collides with the side or rear of the car. Is the driver liable?

The answer is: he bears no liability whatsoever, because he has neither acted wrongfully nor been negligent; rather, he was driving along the road in the ordinary manner, while the other person was the one who came rushing and collided with the car.

Likewise, suppose a man is driving his car along the road in the usual manner, when suddenly someone jumps in and ends up between the car’s wheels. Is he liable or not? The answer is that he is not liable, because the man has neither acted wrongfully nor been negligent. However, if he sees a man jump into the middle of the road, and he is able to stop the car but is careless, or assumes that the man will get across, then he is liable. The difference between the two cases is that in this latter case he was negligent, whereas in the former he was not.

His statement, “such as killing an assailant”: there is no liability for killing an assailant. This includes one who assaults a person’s life, honour, or property. Such a person should be repelled by the least harmful means possible; if he cannot be repelled except by being killed, and he is killed, then there is no liability. The evidence for this is that a man asked the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, saying, “What if a man comes to me intending to take my property?” He said, “Fight him.” He asked, “What if he kills me?” He said, “You are a martyr.” He asked, “What if I kill him?” He said, “He will be in the Fire.” (1)

His saying, “He will be in the Fire,” indicates that he is a wrongful aggressor, and there is no liability for a wrongful aggressor, because the aggression originated from the assailant.