during civil strife (fitna): "Sit in your house, and if you fear that the brilliance of the sword will overwhelm you, then cover your face." And in another narration: "Be the slave of Allah who is killed, and do not be the slave of Allah who kills." And because Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, refrained from fighting despite being able to prevent those who sought his life. If it is said: You have stated regarding one in necessity (muḍṭarr): if he finds something to repel the necessity, it becomes incumbent upon him to eat of it, in one of the two scholarly views, so why do you not say that here? We say: Because by eating, he revives his own self without causing the loss of another's life, whereas here, in reviving his own life, there is the loss of another's life, so it is not incumbent upon him. As for whether it is incumbent upon him if he is able to flee, there are two views: one of them is that it is incumbent upon him because he is able to defend himself without any harm befalling anyone else, so it is incumbent upon him, just like eating in a state of starvation. The second is that it is not incumbent upon him because it is a defense of his own person, so it is not incumbent upon him, just like defense through fighting.

Section: If an assailant attacks a person, seeking his wealth or his life unjustly, or seeks a woman to commit adultery with her, it is permissible for someone other than the person being attacked to assist him in repelling the assailant. If thieves approach a caravan, it is permissible for those other than the members of the caravan to defend them; because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Support your brother, whether he is an oppressor or oppressed." And in a hadith: "The believers cooperate against the aggressor (al-fattān)." And because if not for cooperation, the wealth and lives of people would be lost; for if the highway robbers were to isolate themselves to take the wealth of an individual, and no one helped him,