or lawful authority. If the assailant seeks property, he may be repelled by whatever means are possible. If he can only be repelled by fighting, he is to be fought. If, instead, the person refrains from fighting and gives the attackers some property, that is permissible.

If, however, the assailant seeks to violate someone’s honour—for example, by seeking illicit intercourse with a person’s female relatives, or seeking to commit a sexual act with a woman, an enslaved boy, or anyone else—the person targeted must defend himself by whatever means possible, even by fighting. Under no circumstances is it permissible to submit to this. Property is different: one may allow it to be taken, because giving up property is permissible, whereas submitting oneself or those under one’s protection to sexual immorality is not.

If the assailant intends to kill someone, the intended victim may defend himself. But is he obliged to do so? Scholars within Ahmad’s school and elsewhere hold two views on this. This applies when the people have an established ruler. But if there is civil strife—Allah forbid—such as when two Muslim rulers dispute sovereignty and fight over it, may a person defend himself during that strife when one ruler enters the other’s territory and bloodshed ensues? Or should he surrender and refrain from fighting in it? Scholars within Ahmad’s school and elsewhere hold two views on this.

When the ruler captures highway robbers who have taken people’s property, he must recover that property from them and restore it to its owners, while also carrying out the prescribed punishment upon them. The same applies to a thief. If they refuse to produce the property after their liability for it has been established, he must punish them with imprisonment and beating until they make its recovery possible, whether by producing it, appointing someone to bring it, or disclosing its whereabouts, just as punishment is imposed on anyone who refuses