—whether a human being attacks his life, inviolability—that is, the womenfolk of his household—or property. It makes no difference whether the assailant seeks to kill, to commit sexual immorality and violate one’s honour—Allah protect us—or to inflict harm short of killing and short of violating one’s honour. The same applies with respect to property, inviolability, and one’s family.

His statement, “a human being,” is the subject of “attacks.”

His statement, “or an animal,” means any animal. An animal is called a beast because its state is obscure: it neither speaks nor expresses what is within itself. Yet it is mentioned among the signs of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that a camel came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), complaining of its owner’s starving it. The Prophet questioned its owner, who confirmed this, and he instructed him to treat it well. (1) This occurred by way of a miraculous sign, and miraculous signs are departures from the ordinary course of events.

His statement, “then he may repel it by the least means that he believes most likely to ward it off”: “he may” indicates permissibility. That is, he is not required to submit; rather, he may defend himself, but he must do so by the least force that he believes most likely to repel the attack. If a threat will repel the assailant, he must not strike him. If striking him with the hand will repel him, he must not strike him with a stick. If restraining one of his hands will repel him, he must not restrain both hands. If restraining both hands, without the feet, will repel him, he must not restrain the feet. But if he cannot be repelled except by killing him, then he may kill him. This is why the author said:

“If he is killed, he is a martyr. He is obliged to defend his life and his inviolability, but not his property. Whoever enters a man’s home stealthily to steal is subject to the same ruling.”

“If he cannot be repelled except by killing him, then he may do so, and he bears no liability. If he is killed