Does not the verse, "Indeed, the recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is that they be killed," apply to an aggressor who repeatedly commits his deed, even without evidence against him?

Scholars have issued a fatwa that an aggressor against life, property, or honor is called a "sa'il" (assailant), and it is permissible to repel him with whatever means suffice to repel him. The ruling on repelling varies depending on what is being attacked. Repelling an assailant on property is permissible but not obligatory. The same applies to defending oneself. However, defending one's honor is obligatory without dispute.

The assailant must be repelled with the lightest means possible, then gradually heavier. It is not permissible to kill him if he can be repelled by lesser means. If his harm cannot be averted during the commission of the crime except by killing him, then it is permissible to kill him.

A distinction must be made between repelling an assailant during his aggression and implementing the prescribed punishment (حد) upon him after his act. No one is permitted to implement the prescribed punishments except with the permission of the ruler (Sultan), because implementing these punishments requires ijtihad (independent reasoning), knowledge, capability, and authority. The implementation of prescribed punishments by the general public leads to great corruption and disruption of security.