What is the ruling on secretly acquiring weapons and keeping them in homes for the defense of oneself and one's family?

The questioner : The fourth question: There in Khan Younis, there is no doubt that the entire community is Muslim; I mean the city of Khan Younis, and its population, I believe, is one hundred and fifty thousand. And one of the features of this city is that you rarely see women in the streets!

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.

The questioner : Yes, and so many have gone out that I can say that hijab is, for the most part, in accordance with the Shari'ah!

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.

The questioner : For the most part, in accordance with the Shari'ah!

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.

The questioner : Now, they say that sometimes Jewish soldiers enter our area. They do not have an order to search, but they do so out of mischief. Sometimes they overstep, either regarding honor, or property, or lives. Or, some of our brothers who rebel against us have rebelled against us.

The Shaykh : Who?

The questioner : Those who rebel against us; they want to.

The Shaykh : I mean, not the Jews who enter?

The questioner : It could be Jews, and it could be non-Jews.

The Shaykh : ... The second possibility is that they are not Jews?

The questioner : So, the question now is: What is the ruling on them having weapons? They can bring in hidden weapons that are kept in the house, even though possessing weapons is forbidden for them by the Jews!

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : But if they wanted to, they could have weapons in their homes for self-defense, in a situation where they know, or perhaps they know, the lesser of two harms.

The Shaykh : Perhaps I have brought an answer,

The questioner : Perhaps I have answered the question.

The Shaykh : Perhaps I will say, as you said, "Perhaps they know the lesser of two harms." I wanted to say that if someone is targeted in his home, the hadith on this is explicit: he must fight him and repel him. If he refuses, let him kill him. If he kills him, the one killed is in the Fire, and if the Muslim is killed, he is in Paradise. This is the well-known ruling. But the matter that requires research is the issue of their acquiring weapons, which are legally forbidden to them as disbelieving Jews. So here, you indicated that you brought the answer in the word "perhaps." I say: If they know, or it is most likely in their opinion, that bringing in such weapons may result in a harm greater than what befalls them if they are attacked in their own homes, as I said, then the answer has already been given: it is obligatory to take the lesser of two harms. And without a doubt, the matter is as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So they can assess the greater and lesser harms, and whether they should repel the lesser with the greater, more than we who live far from them. But is it not possible that, if we assume that their purchasing or possessing weapons results in a greater harm, could they not do without this purchase by acquiring knives? This is something we hear often in incidents: so-and-so, a Jew, was walking in the street and was stabbed, and he was killed. If this means achieving self-defense when one of them attacks in his home or regarding his honor, then there is no justification for purchasing these weapons that expose them to a greater harm.

The questioner : Especially if the Jews know that a weapon was found in a specific house, that necessitates them searching the entire house, O Shaykh...

The Shaykh : Insha'Allah, another time...

The questioner : Sometimes, if a weapon is found in a specific house, the Jews proceed to search the entire house. Here, a harm appears. I am asking, according to what... But I also wanted you to clarify this point: one might acquire a weapon and defend himself, but if the Jews learn of this, they will search all of Khan Younis and enter every house!

The Shaykh : This, this is a greater harm; this is a greater harm!