And he is obligated to defend himself and his honor, but not his wealth

The Shaykh : The author said "And he is obligated to defend himself", meaning that it is obligatory for one who is attacked by a human or a beast to defend himself. The evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: And whoever surrenders to the attacker who intends to kill him has thrown himself into destruction and fallen into what Allah has forbidden. Also, because his soul is respected, a trust in his keeping, and he will be held accountable for it before Allah, he is obligated to defend it. This is the second point. And because it is a respected soul, whereas the soul of the attacker is an encroaching soul that has no sanctity. It is known that it is obligatory to redeem the respected soul with the encroaching soul, and that the encroaching soul must be destroyed to preserve the respected soul. Is that clear? These are three things that indicate the obligation of defending oneself. Also, what the brother Faisal referred to regarding the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "What do you think if he fights me?" He said: And because of the saying of Allah the Exalted: So He commanded to kill them even at the Sacred Mosque, despite its sanctity and its being held in high esteem. So the conclusion is that it is obligatory to defend oneself. But is anything excluded from this? The scholars differed on this. Some said that the state of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) is excluded from this. We seek refuge in Allah from trials. If people become unsettled and fall into fitnah, and some of them kill others, where the killer does not know for what he killed, and the killed does not know for what he was killed, a raging fitnah, then in this state it is not obligatory for him to defend himself. They cited as evidence the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): It was said: "O Messenger of Allah, what do you think if he enters my house?" Meaning, should I kill him or not? He said: And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

The questioner : A glint.

The Shaykh : Or , meaning, and he surrendered. They also cited as evidence the action of 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (may Allah be pleased with him), for the Companions asked him to let them defend him against those who rebelled against him, but he (may Allah be pleased with him) refused and said: "Do not fight". So if it is fitnah, do not fight. The correct view is that if fitnah occurs, and defending oneself leads to a greater evil, or if the defense is futile due to the large number of the mob, then in this state it is not obligatory to defend oneself. Otherwise, it is obligatory to defend oneself for the reasons we mentioned previously. The texts that have come regarding this are to be understood in this context. This also applies to what was reported from 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), because 'Uthman saw that if the people of Madinah defended themselves, these rebels would devour them, because they were a large number that the people of Madinah could not withstand. Some scholars hold that it is obligatory to defend oneself absolutely, and that the hadiths regarding this are for when a person is unable to defend himself, for if he is unable, his defense is of no use. All right.
He said: "But not his wealth", meaning it is not obligatory for him to defend himself and his honor, "and his honor". What is his honor? It means his family, such as his wife, his daughter, his mother, his sister, and the like. It is obligatory for him to defend them, because the protection of souls, as we said previously, is obligatory, so he is obligated to defend them. As for his wealth, the author says "but not his wealth," meaning it is not obligatory for him to defend it, because the sanctity of wealth is less than the sanctity of the soul. But is it permissible? Hmm?

The questioner : It is permissible.

The Shaykh : It is permissible. It is permissible to defend one's wealth, even if it is small, even if it is a jar of ink or a pen nib. Some scholars said that if the wealth is small, it is not permissible to defend it with a defense that leads to killing, because the sanctity of the soul is greater than the sanctity of wealth. But this view is weak, because the hadiths are general. "But not his wealth". The hadith: , and it is general. And he said: "If he asks for my wealth," he said: , and it is also general. So the correct view is the generality. The issue is not one of comparison and equivalence. Pay attention, because if it were a matter of comparison and defense, we would say that it is not permissible to defend oneself unless the wealth that was attacked is of a certain amount, hmm?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The blood money is in proportion to the blood money. And no one has said this. Rather, fighting is for the violation of sanctity, the sanctity of wealth.