The issue of this research is about a loss that occurs between two people, and in this situation, the loss is either borne by person "A" or must be borne by person "B". Repelling a loss from one person causes the same loss to another. The example of loss in this research is the confrontation of financial loss with financial loss in one case and financial loss with non-financial loss in the other. The present research examines what, from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence, the obligatory ruling of an individual in such situations where neither of them causes the loss: can he transfer the loss to another and repel it from himself or must he bear it himself. The findings of the research show that in situations of conflict of losses, from a jurisprudential perspective, causing direct damage to the property, reputation, and life of another is forbidden due to the truth of the title of the harm-doer and the prohibition of harming another. However, protecting one person's property is not superior to another's property, and due to the lack of evidence and based on the principle of exemption from obligation, no person is obligated to protect another's property, so there is no need for him to cause harm to his own property in order to protect another's property. If a person seeks to protect his property and indirectly damages another's property, he will not be held responsible for any harm because the title of harm-doer is not true in the eyes of the common people. The same ruling applies to the aspect of honor for the same reason. However, in the aspect of the self, a person is allowed to harm another's property even directly to protect himself, because self-preservation is a necessity and takes precedence over everything else.