For iron is an instrument of killing, unlike a stick. If he turns away, [the homeowner] has no right to kill him or pursue him, just as with the rebels (ahl al-baghy). If he strikes him a blow that incapacitates him, he does not have the right to strike him again, because he has been spared his evil. If he strikes him and severs his right hand, then [the intruder] turns away in retreat, and [the homeowner] strikes him and severs his leg, then the severance of the leg is a liability (madmun) upon him, either via retaliation (qisas) or blood-money (diya); because he is in a condition in which it is not permissible for him to strike him, while the severance of the hand is not a liability. If he dies from the spreading effect (siraya) of the cutting, he owes half the blood-money, just as if he had died from the wounding of two people. If he returns to him after cutting his leg, and he severs his other hand, then both hands are not liabilities. And if he dies, he owes one-third of the blood-money, just as if he had died from the wounding of three people. The analogy (qiyas) of the school of thought is that he should guarantee half the blood-money, because the two wounds are the severing of one leg (of a person), so their ruling is one, just as if one man wounded a man with one hundred wounds, and another wounded him with one wound, and he died; his blood-money would be divided between them in two halves, and the blood-money is not divided based on the number of wounds; such is the case here.

As for if it is not possible for him to repel him except by killing, or he fears that he will strike him first with killing if he does not kill him, then he has the right to strike him with that which will kill him or sever his limb, and whatever is destroyed from him is considered uncompensated (hadr); because it was destroyed for the purpose of repelling his evil, so he is not held liable for it, like the rebel. And because he forced the homeowner to kill him, so he became like one who killed himself. And if the homeowner is killed, he is a martyr, based on what Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that he said: "Whoever has his wealth sought unjustly, and he fights and is killed, he is a martyr." Al-Khallal narrated it with his chain of transmission. And because he was killed to repel an oppressor, he is therefore a martyr, just as the just person is when killed by a rebel.