Does liability change if the intruder claims lack of intent to look?

Primary text

If the peeper claims they did not intend to look, the house owner bears no liability based on the apparent view of Ahmad, because the act of looking occurred, and the striker is unaware of the intruder's inner intention. The general ruling applies even if the intruder was blind, as they cannot see anything. Similarly, if a naked person is in the street, it is not permissible to strike those who look at them, as the negligence stems from the naked person's self-exposure.