in the school of Imam Ahmad is that he is liable if the person asked for food and he refused to give it to him. But if he merely passed by someone in dire necessity and that person did not ask, then he is not liable.

Does the same apply if you saw someone drowning in the water, gesturing, “Save me, man! Save me!” and you left him until he drowned? Are you liable or not?

The answer is: according to the school, you are not liable. The correct view, however, is that you are liable if you were able to save him. But if you were incapable, then you are not liable. In such a situation as well, you should not enter the water to rescue a drowning person unless you have the strength and are confident in your ability, because a drowning person will usually, if he grabs hold of his rescuer, drown him by forcing him beneath himself and climbing on top of him. Thus, if a person lacks physical strength and knowledge of swimming, he will drown.

Most people do not understand this matter; compassion and mercy overcome them. Yet a person must let reason govern rather than emotion.

If a man is in a desolate wilderness and I pass by him, but I fear him, am I obliged to carry him with me or not?

The answer is: if the fear is well-founded, you are not obliged to carry him with you, but you must still rescue him. Thus, if you have surplus water or food, give it to him and continue on your way. But if the fear is not well-founded, then you must take precautions for your own safety: see whether he has a weapon or not, and have him ride at a distance from you.

This concerns the ruling where necessity compels a person to take another’s property itself. As for necessity compelling one to benefit from another’s property, the author says: