Second scenario
24- Likewise, a man may assassinate one of the leaders of the unbelievers while that leader is surrounded by his own men. For example, he might spring upon him openly after having slipped in unnoticed, certain that he can kill him and then make his escape⦗1⦘.
Third scenario
25- Or his companions may have fled, yet he—alone or with a small band that remains—stands and fights the enemy, thereby inflicting appreciable damage⦗2⦘ on them, even though he expects to be killed.
26- All of these cases are deemed permissible by the vast majority of Muslim scholars from the four legal schools and others⦗3⦘.
Consensus of the four schools on the permissibility of this scenario
27- On this point there is no disagreement except for a single, isolated opinion⦗4⦘.
(1) The original manuscript notes: “kadhā” (“thus”).
(2) Ibn al-Athir explains nikāya (devastating harm): “It is said, *ankaytu fi al-ʿadu anka nikāyatan fa-anā nāk*—meaning: I inflicted many wounds and killings upon the enemy until they were weakened.” See al-Nihāya, 5:117.
(3) A marginal note in the manuscript adds: “laʿallahu wa-ghayruhumā” (“perhaps he and others as well”).
(4) The author writes: “Muslim relates in his Sahih the story of the People of the Ditch, in which the boy ordered that he be killed so the religion would become manifest. For this reason the four imams permit a Muslim to throw himself into the ranks of the unbelievers—even when he is almost certain to be killed—if that benefits the Muslims. I have discussed the issue at length elsewhere. Thus, if a man deliberately exposes himself to death for the benefit of jihad—although killing oneself is graver than killing someone else—then an act that leads to the killing of others for a religious interest that cannot be secured otherwise, or to repel an enemy who corrupts both religion and worldly life and cannot be repelled except in this way, is even more permissible.” Majmuʿ al-Fatāwā, 28:540.