it is not possible for him to repel him except by that, according to the apparent meaning of the report. Ibn Hamid said: He should repel him by the easiest means possible; he should first say to him: 'Go away.' If he does not do so, he should gesture to him, making him think that he is going to throw [something] at him. If he does not leave, then he may throw [something] at him at that point. Following the Sunnah is more appropriate. As for if he stops peeking and leaves, it is not permissible to throw [something] at him, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not stab the one who peeked and then left, and because he ceased the act of transgression, so he is like one who bites and then stops biting—it is not permissible to knock out his teeth. It makes no difference whether the opening from which he peeked was small, like a hole or a crack, or large, like a big aperture. Some of our companions mentioned that an open door is the same, but the better view is that it is not permissible to throw [something] at one who looks through an open door, because the negligence lies with the one who left the door open, and it is apparent that whoever leaves his door open is concealing himself, as he knows that people look through it, and he is aware of the onlooker and the one standing at it, so it is not permissible to throw [something] at him, just like one who enters the house. If he peeks and the owner of the house throws [something] at him, and the onlooker says, 'I did not intend to peek,' he is not liable for it, according to the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words, because the act of peeking has occurred, and the one throwing does not know what is in his heart. According to the view of Ibn Hamid, he is liable, because he did not repel him with the easiest means. The same applies if he says, 'I did not see anything when I peeked.' If the onlooker is blind, it is not permissible to throw [something] at him because he does not see anything. If a person were naked on a path, he would not have the right to throw [something] at anyone who looks at him, because he is the one who was negligent. If the onlooker in the house is one of the female mahrams (unmarriageable kin) who are in it, some of our companions said: The owner of the house does not have the right to throw [something] at her, unless they are unclothed, in which case they become like strangers. The apparent meaning of the report is that the owner of the house has the right to throw [something] at him, whether there are women in it or not, because it was not mentioned that there were women in the house where he peeked at the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). His saying: 'If a person peeks at you without permission, and you throw [something] at him,' is general, applying both to a house in which there are women and one in which there are not.

Section: The owner of the house does not have the right to throw at the onlooker that which would kill him initially. If he throws a stone at him