And if he kills it to eat it during a famine (2), then retaliation (qisas) is mandatory, and the non-competent person is like the competent person in this regard. As for their statement that he does not possess the right to permit his own blood, we say: A competent person also does not possess the right to permit his own blood; if he were to say, "I have made my blood permissible," it would not be rendered permissible. Furthermore, since he attacked, his blood has been rendered permissible by his own action, so his liability must lapse, just like the competent person.

1611- Issue: He said: (And if someone enters his house with a weapon, and he commands him to leave but he does not do so, he has the right to strike him with the easiest means to force him to leave. If he knows that he will leave with the blow of a stick, it is not permissible for him to strike him with a piece of iron. If the striking leads to his death, there is nothing upon him, and if the homeowner is killed, he is a martyr.)

The summary of this is that if a man enters the house of another without his permission, the homeowner has the right to command him to leave his house, whether or not he has a weapon with him, because he is a transgressor by entering another's property. Thus, the homeowner has the right to demand that he cease the transgression, just as if he had usurped something from him. If he leaves upon the command, he may not strike him, because the objective is to force him out. It has been narrated from Ibn Umar that he saw a thief and drew his sword against him, saying: If we had left him, he would have killed him (2). A man came to al-Hasan and said: A thief entered my house and had a piece of iron with him; should I kill him? He replied: Yes, by any means of killing you are able. Our view is that it was possible to remove the aggression without killing, so killing is not permissible, just as if he had usurped something from him and it were possible to take it back without killing. The act of Ibn Umar is to be understood as being intended for intimidation, not that he intended to carry out the act (3). If he does not leave upon the command, he has the right to strike him with the easiest means by which he knows he will be repelled, because the objective is to repel him; if he is repelled by a little, there is no need for more than that. If he knows that he will leave with a stick, he does not have the right to strike him with iron.