"And if a human or a beast attacks one's self, one's honor, or one's property, one has the right to repel that attack by the easiest means by which one is most likely to repel it"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, and who, in your opinion, and if "was attacked" is used, it must be corrected. There is... there is, I know of copies in which it is written "and was attacked", but in my copy it is "and attacked," and it must be corrected because it does not make sense for it to be "was attacked," which is a passive verb, because of what?
The questioner : The presence of the doer.
The Shaykh : The presence of the doer, which is his statement "a human." "And if a human attacks one's self", a human, or attacks one's honor, meaning one's protected ones, or attacks one's property, a human, to the end. And it is the same whether the attacker intends to kill, or intends to commit a lewd act and violate honor, may Allah protect us, yes, or intends to cause harm that is less than killing and less than violating honor. And we say the same regarding property, and we say the same regarding honor and family.
The author says "a human", the doer of the attack. The attack is known, and it is rushing in and transgressing. "A human" means a person. "Or a beast" means an animal. The animal is called a beast because its nature is obscure, as it does not speak and does not express what is in its mind. Have you ever heard of a camel that was hungry and said to its owner, who passed by it, "O my companion, give me fodder," eh?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, and what does it do? It foams, or not? Although we do not know if the foaming is for the request of food or for something else, we do not know that either. But they mentioned in the miracles of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that a camel came to him, meaning to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), complaining about its owner that he was overloading it. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked its owner, and he informed him, and he ordered him to treat it well. And this is only on the path of
The questioner : The verses.
The Shaykh : miracles, and miracles are beyond the norm. Yes, all right, "a human or a beast, one has the right to repel that attack by the easiest means by which one is most likely to repel it". One has the right to repel that attack, and it will be mentioned again. Here, the lam here is for permissibility, meaning it is not obligatory for him to surrender, but he defends himself. He has the right to defend himself, but he defends himself by the easiest means by which it is most likely to be repelled. If it can be repelled by threat, he does not strike him. If it can be repelled by striking with the hand, he does not strike him with a stick. If it can be repelled by tying one of his hands, he does not tie both. If it can be repelled by tying the hands without the legs, he does not tie the legs. Meaning, up to the point of reaching killing. If it cannot be repelled except by killing, then he has the right to kill him.
The questioner : The presence of the doer.
The Shaykh : The presence of the doer, which is his statement "a human." "And if a human attacks one's self", a human, or attacks one's honor, meaning one's protected ones, or attacks one's property, a human, to the end. And it is the same whether the attacker intends to kill, or intends to commit a lewd act and violate honor, may Allah protect us, yes, or intends to cause harm that is less than killing and less than violating honor. And we say the same regarding property, and we say the same regarding honor and family.
The author says "a human", the doer of the attack. The attack is known, and it is rushing in and transgressing. "A human" means a person. "Or a beast" means an animal. The animal is called a beast because its nature is obscure, as it does not speak and does not express what is in its mind. Have you ever heard of a camel that was hungry and said to its owner, who passed by it, "O my companion, give me fodder," eh?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, and what does it do? It foams, or not? Although we do not know if the foaming is for the request of food or for something else, we do not know that either. But they mentioned in the miracles of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that a camel came to him, meaning to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), complaining about its owner that he was overloading it. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked its owner, and he informed him, and he ordered him to treat it well. And this is only on the path of
The questioner : The verses.
The Shaykh : miracles, and miracles are beyond the norm. Yes, all right, "a human or a beast, one has the right to repel that attack by the easiest means by which one is most likely to repel it". One has the right to repel that attack, and it will be mentioned again. Here, the lam here is for permissibility, meaning it is not obligatory for him to surrender, but he defends himself. He has the right to defend himself, but he defends himself by the easiest means by which it is most likely to be repelled. If it can be repelled by threat, he does not strike him. If it can be repelled by striking with the hand, he does not strike him with a stick. If it can be repelled by tying one of his hands, he does not tie both. If it can be repelled by tying the hands without the legs, he does not tie the legs. Meaning, up to the point of reaching killing. If it cannot be repelled except by killing, then he has the right to kill him.