Thus, a person subjected to coerced unlawful intercourse, whether a woman or a boy, may be coerced in either of two ways: through unwillingness, so that the person does not wish to allow it—this is the first category—or by having it done to them despite their utmost resistance. The latter means having a firm will to resist and doing everything within one’s power to do so. If, however, the person does not resist and the act is committed upon them, they are acquiescing and are themselves committing unlawful intercourse, even if they did not seek it. For Allah has required them to feel complete aversion to it, a protective sense of honor against it, and hatred of it, accompanied by the utmost resistance. If this aversion and resistance are absent, the person is acquiescing, for repelling an assailant against one’s sexual inviolability is obligatory, without dispute.

As for repelling an assailant who seeks unlawfully to kill someone whose life is inviolable, when the fighting is not part of civil strife, is repelling him obligatory? There are two opinions, transmitted in two reports from Ahmad. One who allows an act to be done to him is not its agent. Indeed, if someone intends to kill him, he is obliged to repel him, just as he is obliged to eat carrion when faced with starvation. Just as it is forbidden for him to kill himself, he must do whatever is indispensable to preserving his life, such as eating, drinking, and warding off harm with clothing and the like. If he can escape or take some similar measure, he must do so.

If, however, repelling the assailant requires fighting him, another concern arises, even though it is permissible: killing the other person. This is why disagreement arose over whether a person is obliged to repel an assailant in self-defense.