They also cited the conduct of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him: the Companions asked him to allow them to defend him against those who had risen against him, but he refused and said, “Do not fight.” (1) Thus, when there is civil strife, do not fight.

The correct view is that, if defending oneself during civil strife would result in a greater evil, or if such defense would be futile because of the sheer number of the rabble, then one is not obliged to defend oneself in that case. Otherwise, defense is obligatory for the reasons mentioned previously. The texts reported on this matter are to be understood as referring to such a situation, as is what was reported from Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. Uthman saw that, if the people of Madinah defended him, those rebels would overwhelm them, for they were a large number whom the people of Madinah had no strength to resist.

Some scholars maintain that defense is obligatory in all circumstances, and that the hadiths concerning this apply when a person is unable to defend himself, since his defense is of no benefit if he lacks the ability to do so.

His statement, “and his womenfolk,” means that he must defend his womenfolk—that is, his wife, daughter, mother, sister, and the like—because protecting lives, as we mentioned earlier, is obligatory. As for his property, the author says:

“over his property”: he is not obliged to defend it, because the inviolability of property is less than that of life. Nevertheless, it is permissible to defend one’s property, however little it may be, even if it is an inkpot or a pen feather.

Some scholars said that if the property is insignificant, then it is not permissible