"If it cannot be repelled except by killing, then he has the right to do so, and there is no liability upon him. If he is killed, then he is a martyr."

The Shaykh : For this reason, the author said "If it cannot be repelled except by killing, then he has the right to do so, and there is no liability upon him". If it cannot be repelled except by killing, then he has the right to kill him, and there is no liability upon him. Why? Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about a man who comes to another man to take his wealth. He said: He said: "What if he fights me?" He said: He said: "What if he kills me?" He said: He said: "What if I kill him?" He said: So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So I have the right to defend myself. If it cannot be repelled except by killing, then I have the right to kill him, and there is no liability upon me. And do I have to pay an expiation? No. So this is the evidence. As for its basis in the legal maxims, it is because what results from what is permitted, here, is not guaranteed, and... that I defend myself, yes. So what results from this permission is not guaranteed.