The following pictures were taken at an Islamic Block school supply fair held during the first week of studies at Al-Najah University (from the Islamic Block Internet site, www.islamic-block.org, September 12, 2004).⁴

In the name of Allah the all-merciful

[Hand written:] Yassir Mahmoud ‘Ali Abu Bakr

Brother Abu Muhammad,

The research and detailed work were done by the student on the specific topic of specialization and not [taken] from newspaper articles. In addition, current conditions are not conducive to the publications of this thesis.

Al-Najah National University

The Graduate School

Political Planning and Development

Submitted to Dr. ‘Abd al-Sattar Qassam [identified with Hamas]

Prepared by: Yassir [Mahmoud ‘Ali] Abu Bakr [head of the Fatah student movement at the university]

In the past, the suicide bombing attacks [ al-‘amaliyyat al-istishhadiyyah ] in Palestine were the subject of many arguments about the extent of the benefits derived from them, especially in the political arena. At the same time, they were a kind of violent reaction to the harsh steps and revolting actions taken by the Israeli forces of occupation against our Palestinian people. However, despite the arguments, Palestinian society has recently witnessed the growth of the concept of istishhad and unprecedented support for it within all the organizations and even among Palestinians who do not belong to them.

That is the subject of this thesis, which focuses on the following [two central] questions:

A. What are the meanings of shahadah and istishhad , and what is the role of the individual regarding them?
B. What were the factors which accelerated the development and spread of the concept of istishhad in Palestinian society?

Based on those two questions, I constructed my basic hypothesis, that is: the concept of istishhad has arisen and spread within Palestinian society in direct proportion to the intensifying of [active] Palestinian resistance.

The importance of this work lies in the great but neglected argument regarding the issue of an individual’s killing himself for the sake of shahadah . Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to reveal the meanings of istishhad and shahadah and the causes that accelerate the concept of istishhad within Palestinian society. The study relates [only] to Palestinian society now during the era of the Al-Aqsa intifada .

The research methods used by the student for this thesis were description and analysis. The work is divided into sections in which the meanings of shahadah and istishhad are explained, and in later sections the factors behind the motivation of the concept or istishhad in Palestinian society [are also explained].

Shaheed : literally, the person who has made a declaration of faith [of Islam], or “the one who bears witness;” and [at the same time, it is also] the person who has died for the sake of Allah. In the plural form, shuhadaa’ and ashhad; from that [is derived] the term al-shaahid , in the sense of the person who is present, attends or testifies, and in the plural, shuhuud and ashhad; another meaning [of the term] relates to someone [i.e., a Muslim] who has carried out the act of shahadah .

One of the meanings [of the term shaahid ] is al-dalil [the guide](Note 1).⁶Shaheed as concept: the [Muslim] scholars have given it several definitions (Note 2).

According to the [school of the] Hanafis, a shaheed is someone who killed mushrikun [polytheists], or someone who died in battle or upon whose body were found signs of an internal or external wound, for instance, blood flowing from an eye, etc.

According to the [school of the] Malikis, a shaheed is only someone who was killed as a [holy Muslim] warrior under the assumption that he was killed within Islam and while he was fighting among Muslim warriors. That is, he was not [killed] because he was distracted or because he fell asleep. A person cannot be considered a shaheed if he was killed by a Muslim who [erroneously] thought he was an infidel, or if he was trampled to death by horses, or if he was wounded by his own sword or arrow, or if he fell into a well or fell [and was killed?] while he was watching the battle.

According to the [school of the] Shafi’is, a shaheed is someone who was killed in war against the infidels while leading warriors with perfect faith, and did not run away [during the battle.]

According to the [school of the] Hanbalis, a shaheed is someone who died in war while fighting the infidels, whether man or woman, adult or minor, whether he was killed by the infidels or by his own weapon, of whether he fell from his animal [and died as a result], or whether he was found dead with no signs on his body, as long as [the warrior who left for battle did so] with perfect faith.

The quotations [cited by the author] above are presented to illustrate the differences between the definitions among [Muslim] scholars. Some of the definitions are narrower and some are broader, while some concentrate on the importance of [dying because of] spilled blood while others claim that not to be important.

The difference between the definitions reminds us of the differences between the religious rulings describing istishhad and intihar [i.e., committing suicide for personal reasons], which will be dealt with below.

In any case, the common denominator of the aforementioned definitions is that the shaheed is [anyone who] was killed for the sake of Allah, may he be exalted . However, it is not correct to state that the shaheed is someone who [really] died for the sake of Allah, may he be exalted, for [in the Qur’an] it is written: “Do not in any way say that those who were killed for the sake of Allah are dead. Quite the opposite, they are alive, but you are not aware of it (Note 3).”

During the time of the prophet Muhammad many stories were told about istishhad , among them:

Sa’id bin ‘Amru and Suwaid bin Sa’id told the following story: “Sufyan bin ‘Amru said he heard Jaber say that someone said: ‘Oh messenger of Allah [Muhammad], where will I be if I die?’ And he answered: ‘In paradise.’ Then he threw down the dates in his hand and then fought the enemy until he died (Note 7).”

A story told by Abu Bakr bin ‘Abdallah bin Qais, who said about his father: “I heard my father say in the presence of the enemy: ‘The messenger of Allah, may the prayer of Allah and his blessing of peace be upon him, said: “The gates of paradise open to the ring of swords.” A man wearing rags rose up and said: “Abu Mousa, did you really hear the emissary of Allah, may the prayer of Allah and his blessing of peace be upon him, say those things?” And he answered: “Yes.” He [then] returned to his friends and said: “May peace be upon you.” Then he broke the scabbard of his sword and threw it aside, and advanced toward the enemy with [drawn] sword and smote them until he died (Note 8).’”

A story told about the Muslim army: Their horses were frightened by the [enemy’s] elephants, and they fled. [Because of that] one of the Muslims fashioned an elephant out of clay. Then he trained his horse not to be afraid of it, and when the time came his horse was not afraid and did not try to flee the charging elephant, rather, his horse attacked it. People told him to be careful, for it would kill him, and he said: “Never mind, if I die, [eventually] Muslims will be victorious [in battle] (Note 9).”

In that context, Dr. Yussuf al-Qardawi says: “The concept of istishhad , according to which a [Muslim] dies for the sake of a Muslim victory [in battle] is an ancient concept among Muslims (Note 10).”

That is, the concept of istishhad , according to which the individual must sacrifice himself and his soul to achieve shahadah , and thus to satisfy Allah, attain paradise and glorify his name, has its roots in the dawn of Islam, and the assumption is that it is the closest and easiest way to attain paradise , to fulfill the goal, that is, to glorify the name of Allah, to fight the infidel, to spread Islam and to remove the injustice [done] to Muslims so they might live with honor and liberty.

Throughout the history of Islam, that concept has been rooted in Muslim awareness, generation after generation. Thus for centuries Muslims have waged many wars, one after another, and the history books are full of touching [sic] stories about shahadah and istishhad for the sake of Allah. [The two concepts] became the [ultimate] goal of the mujahid [a Muslim holy warrior].

In that context it may be said that the term shahadah is specific to Islam and Muslims. True, the literal meanings of the terms shaheed , shaahid and shahadah are used by Muslim Arabs: [the shaheed is] the one [who testifies for others to be eligible for paradise, having first arrived there himself following the testimony Allah, the angels, the prophets, etc., as to his good character]; [the shahid is] the spectator; [ shahadah is] the Muslim’s testimony of faith. (However, a shaheed in the Shari’a sense (Islamic religious law) refers to the Muslim individual who is killed for the sake of Allah and for the glorification of His name, and it is a purely Islamic term.

It is true that recently we have seen many non-Muslims borrowing the term and using it to describe their comrades who died in wars and battles [waged against the enemy], but in that case it is a question of “casualties” and not of real shaheeds .

In that context, according to the Lebanese author Muhammad ‘Ali Qutb: “Certain ideologues, influenced by the transcendent meaning and exalted goal [of the term], have used it in a way that deviates [from its true meaning]: They use the expression shaheed to describe an individual who died for the sake of a [certain] idea or worldview, and thus make an analogy between [the true shaheed and] one of their followers who died in [any] battle or as the result of a distorted judicial sentence or arbitrarily (Note 11).”

Therefore, the discussion over the definition of the term istishhad and the Muslims’ eagerness to remove the injustices [they have suffered] and to defeat their enemies and thus to achieve shahadah [the death of a martyr for Allah during battle with the enemy], led many to have doubts about istishhad , based on the fact that it was [seen as] a question of an act of suicide for personal reasons [ intihar ] whose goal was to kill oneself and nothing more.

Since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada [late September, 2000], Palestinian society has been witness to the return and development of the concept of istishhad against the Israeli occupation in a way that draws a lot of attention to it. Causing the debate over the definition of istishhad was the use of the term in the sense of killing oneself, that is, suicide, and not the death of a martyr for the sake of Allah in the sense of shahadah .

When discussing the definition of istishhad and the activities accompanying it, that is the act of istishhad (acts of suicide in the eyes of others [original parentheses]), one must note the debate over the difference between the suicide of an individual who takes his own life [ intihar ] and the death of a martyr for the sake of Allah who carries out an act of istishhad , which usually leads to the death of Israeli civilians (as they are customarily described [original parentheses]).

That debate has led to the issuing of many conflicting religious Islamic decisions dealing with a prohibition on carrying out acts of istishhad because they are acts of intihar . That may lead to a distortion, or exchange or change in the definition of istishhad and prompt a change in the decisions, causing the addition of words to the definitions of shahadah and istishhad which will prevent or forbid the act of self-sacrifice for the sake of Allah in Palestine.

I would now like to relate to what I have already mentioned regarding the differences of opinion among theologians as to the definition of shahadah :

According to an article entitled “Acts of istishhad between religious decisions and ijtihad [a personal judgment about an unprecedented question made by a qualified Muslim scholar basing his personal judgment by drawing his conclusion based on various traditional Muslim sources]” by Dr. ‘Abd al-Sattar Qassam [the author’s thesis advisor], “Without a doubt, this contradiction reflects an ideologically difficult question is Islam (Note 12)… In truth, the definitions of concepts must be exact and use must be made of the research tools of exact science lest confusion become one of the more prominent traits of current Islamic ideas (Note 13).”

An act of suicide [ intihar ]: literally, it means “[knowingly] killing oneself for personal reasons,” “committing suicide (Note 15).”

There is no difference of opinion whatsoever that an individual is forbidden to kill himself [commit suicide], as it is written [in the Qur’an]: “Do not kill yourselves, for Allah will have mercy on you. Whoever does so out of aggression and injustice [towards himself], we will cast him into fire. Allah can do that easily (Note 16).”

In the words [of the prophet Muhammad], may Allah’s prayer and blessing of peace be upon him: “Whoever chokes his own soul chokes it with fire, and whoever stabs his soul, stabs it with fire (Note 17).”

According to Dr. Amir ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in his [Arabic] book Man in Islam: “Committing suicide [intihar] is a loathsome and disgraceful act in which a desperate, miserable individual, an infidel who has lost the true path, in a dangerous moment, [knowingly] decides to kill himself (Note 18).”

Those traits are completely opposite to the characteristics of an individual filled with faith, happy to meet his Creator, an individual who desires the shahadah to glorify the words of Allah.

Dr. Yussuf al-Qardawi reinforces the opinions of Dr. al-Sattar Qassam, that is: the importance of the [Muslim] religious [scholar’s] edict regarding the suicide bombing attacks [al-‘amalyyiat al-istishhadyyiah] in Palestine will “experience” the circumstances of time and place [to which his decision relates].

In the religious edict [which he issued] al-Qardawi stated: “Those activities are considered the most sublime of the [various] kinds of jihad for the sake of Allah. Despite the fact that they are [wrongly] described as ‘terrorism’ (in the modern negative sense) [irhab], they are nevertheless legitimate because in the words of Allah, the Qur’an says: ‘Prepare against them [i.e., your enemies] what force you can [arrange], including steeds of war, to thereby strike terror (turhibun) into the hearts of the enemy of Allah and your own enemy’ [Qur’an, Surah 8 [Al-Anfal], verse 60]. Calling such [heroic] actions ‘suicide’ is therefore both wrong and misleading. They are worthy acts of self sacrifice and are far from being acts of suicide. Therefore, whoever carries them out is far from committing suicide. A suicide is someone who [knowingly] kills himself for himself, while such an individual [who carries out the act of istishhad] sacrifices his life for his [Muslim] religion and nation.”

[Thus it can be seen that] the action of those heroes is not suicide, as some narrow-minded individuals might think. Quite the contrary, it is an action that requires taking a risk, a legitimate action, praiseworthy [within the framework of jihad], intended to defeat the enemy and terrify others. Since Israeli society is militaristic, necessity allows [the Palestinians] to do what it is [otherwise usually] forbidden to do.⁸The jihad in Palestine is a religious duty which each individual must take upon himself (Note 20).⁹

Therefore, in Palestine the act of self-sacrifice [istishhad] is completely different from the act of suicide [intihar]. The individual carrying out istishhad is a person who sacrifices the thing most important to him to extol the words of Allah for the sake of his country, his people and his nation. That is the opposite of the person who [knowingly] kills himself for personal reasons. In addition, the difference between the two lies in that the istishhad sacrifices his life to goals, the most important of which is to satisfy Allah and to achieve paradise. The suicide, on the other hand, kills himself [to achieve] no [supreme] goal, only out of frustration and despair.

The following, therefore, are the definitions we give to the terms associated with istishhad:
Shahadah: The status attained by the shaheed who kills himself for the sake of Allah.
Istishhad: The desire to perform the shahadah and the efforts made to realize it.
Istishhadi: The individual who decides to perform the istishhad and who indeed does so.

The act of istishhad: The act the istishhadi carries out.
The definitions show us that the individual is the fundamental factor here and that without the individual who is the istishhadi, istishhad cannot be carried out with the goal of achieving shahadah. If such an individual is not completely convinced or if his faith is not well rooted, he will never really aspire to the shahadah and istishhad, which raises questions about the true nature of an individual who allegedly thinks about istishhad.

Philosophers and intellectuals have differences of opinion about human nature, and the following question is asked: Does an individual possess certain forms of behavior from the day he is born? Is he just or evil? Plato dealt with an important point regarding human nature: man is naturally good [he said], and when he lives in an appropriate environment he exudes goodness. If his environment conflicts with human nature his activities will be contrary to his nature (Note 21). According to Thomas Hobbes, conflicts and wars are always the result of man’s evil, egotistical nature (Note 22). According to John Locke, man is naturally good (Note 23). According to Karl Marx, throughout history there has always been a conflict between men; hence, all the forces of evil contained within the conflict will disappear once Communism becomes the dominant system (Note 24).

These various views of human nature allow us to see that historical circumstances and environment are the factors forcing themselves on the individual and his cognitive processes. Hobbes, for example, who thought that man was evil by nature, lived during the 17 th century at a time fraught with conflicts and bloodshed.

According to Dr. ‘Abd al-Sattar Qassam: “An individual is influenced by his environment and by his own body. His body has needs which must be satisfied. When the body’s impulses grow and burst their boundaries, the individual becomes evil (a slave to his impulses [original parentheses]) and then he satisfies his impulses at the expense of others. If he takes care to satisfy them moderately he appeals to his [basic] good nature and thus becomes a good individual. However, his environment leads him to evil if his impulses overcome him (Note 25).”

According to Muhammad Qutb’s [Arabic] book, Studies on the Soul of Man: “Man is a combination of body and spirit. As a result of his true nature, when it is the spirit that rules him, he is given wisdom, understanding, will and choice. But when he is ruled by his body, he does not act in accordance with his true, sincere nature. When he is ruled by his body, the influence of the spirit upon him and its transparency fade. The body rejects wisdom, understanding, will and choice. That is, a man is evil when his body rules his nature and he is good when his spirit rules it (Note 26).

Therefore, when the body rules, man [only] aspires to satisfy the need for food and the sexual instinct and thus he fosters evil. The spirit, on the other hand, urges him to focus on the goal of all the actions he performs because it is associated with his awareness and insight and thus he fosters good for himself and for those around him.

Such an individual who relinquishes both body and spirit not to satisfy his lusts or for a [materialistic] action in this world, but rather to achieve something good by driving away the evil from his people with an act of istishhad intended to defeat the enemy [and reward him in the next world], is therefore a good person.

However, an evil individual, who [knowingly] committed suicide, has completely different motives. It was despair that made him kill himself. Therefore, comparing the two is like comparing what is permitted and what is forbidden, or what is good and what is evil.

“An individual’s acts against the claim of a painful situation are not born out of a vacuum, but rather rise from a previous human act which is at least characterized by thoughts about the practical steps which should be taken to cope with that situation. The human being will lose its essence if awareness is not translated into a practical desire which will reflect the actions of the being, which will then be realized (Note 27).”

[We are] striving to prove the existence of a human being aware of his ability to cope with the painful situation in which he or she lives. [Then we try] to transform that situation into an effective will, turning it into an action which will harm the enemy and frustrate his goals and plans destroy the individual’s morale. That effort, based on internal conviction intended to push the individual to carry out an act to the point of killing himself and [thus performing the] istishhad [is in fact our ultimate goal].

By ideology we mean Islamic ideology and by faith the faith in Allah, may He be praised.

Islamic ideology deals with the emotional and intellectual realization that Islam infuses into the hearts of the faithful about Allah, about descriptions of Him, about the individual and his relation to his Creator, about paradise and hell and other Islamic images in life (Note 28).

Faith is the situation in which the heart and soul complement one another, urging the individual to do what concurs with his faith in accordance with ideology (Note 29). Without an ideology on which the individual can rely, faith will remain within the realm of the intellect and heart and will not be realized. Therefore, ideology and faith are combined in practical application beyond the realm of emotion and logic.

In general, the individual acts enthusiastically and with dedication to realize the ideology in which he believes and which has taken root in his heart and mind to turn them to a practical desire which will influence the direction of his practical actions.

For the believer to achieve Allah’s mercy and paradise, he strives to participate in a jihad and to sacrifice his life for the sake of Allah so that he may “profit from the deal,” as it is written [in the Qur’an]: “Allah has acquired from the faithful their souls and money [and in return] he promises them [eternal] life in paradise. [Therefore] they fight for the sake of Allah [and thus] slay and are slain [for his sake] (Note 30).”

The suffering of the Palestinian people began with the British Mandate for Palestine in 1917. Since then there has been killing by Jews and the building of [Jewish] settlements¹⁰ on Palestinian land. With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, after thousands of Palestinian were evicted from their lands and emigrated, the suffering of the Palestinian people increased. There were difficult times full of prolonged crises, and then the Palestinian people suffered the fiasco of 1967 and the defeat of the Arabs.

Palestinian pain did not stop there. Throughout its history the Palestinian people have often been massacred by Israel, acts which to this day are supported by the United States, Israel’s strategic ally.

In response to the historical injustice and pain our people feel, Palestinian acts of resistance have been carried out, beginning with the [Izzedine] al-Qassam revolt [during the British Mandate for Palestine], through the outbreak of the modern Palestinian revolution in 1965, and up to the first Palestinian intifada in 1987.

The continuing historical development, in which Palestinians did not stop their acts of active resistance to the Zionist enemy and its supporters, had cumulative influence. Many ideas were fixated on and first among them were active resistance [ muqawamah ] and shahadah . More than ten years [sic] have passed since the Palestinian Liberation Organization signed agreements with Israel, as a result of which the Palestinian Authority was established with limited powers. Therefore, Palestinians increasingly began to feel that the agreements were futile, and instead of achieving lives of honor and liberty, the humiliation continued, and with it the heinous actions of the occupation.

Then another intifada broke out, one which still continues, the Al-Aqsa intifada , which focuses on attaining one goal: the end of the occupation. That is done by developing means of action which makes its nature that of armed resistance. There is complete agreement as to the importance of strengthening the active Palestinian resistance to defeat the occupier, inspired by the actions of Hezbollah against the Israeli enemy in southern Lebanon.

In this intifada the ideas of active resistance and istishhad have tangibly risen to the surface in a way that has threatened and caused fear among Israelis, thedirect result of acts of istishhad [i.e., suicide bombing attacks] in which for the first time all the factions of the Palestinian resistance have participated. That came about after a time during which acts of istishhad were reserved only for the Islamic [religiously-oriented] factions . That proves how the idea of istishhad grew and developed in [Palestinian] society.

In that context [it should be noted that] the increasing, daily suffering of the Palestinian people created the impetus for the growth of the idea of istishhad . It was caused by the choking closure placed on all the Palestinian cities and villages [which extended into] every facet of life: social, economic and political. It is unnecessary to note the Palestinian inability to move [freely], the humiliation [they undergo] at the Israeli roadblocks and the suffering of the Palestinian farmers who cannot reach their lands because of the settlers who pursue and kill them. There is no need to recount the destruction of buildings, which reached unprecedented numbers, and the uprooting of olive and fruit trees. More than two million Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza live below the poverty level. Fourteen point one percent of the families have no source of income and 57.9% find it difficult to obtain health services (Note 33).

The goal of [this] researcher in giving the above short historical survey is to show the historical stages of the Palestinian people and the injustice [done to them] and to expose their injustice, oppression and suffering. Throughout history insights and traditions have become rooted in human societies, and in Palestinian society as well. The conditions and environment in which they live and the suffering they experience have influenced the way they think.

The continuing Israeli occupation and the escalation of the steps it takes against the Palestinian people are reminiscent of the acts of slaughter that have been committed by the Israeli occupation forces since the days of the British Mandate and afterwards, at many times during the history of the occupation. Today, during the Al-Aqsa intifada, the daily killing by the occupying forces and the harm done to the young generation in front of adults, the arrest of fighters, the elimination of the leaders of the intifada and the cruel methods used by the occupying forces, in which they bring to bear all their military capabilities – are all a genuine cause for many Palestinians, whether they belong to one of the organizations or not, and encourage them to respond to the increasing, continued aggression, which leads to the growth of the active resistance and the idea of istishhad .

In that context, according to Dr. Ahmad Sidqi al-Dajani,¹¹ the continuation of the occupation is the result of “the colonialist ideology adopted by the colonialist Zionists. Its goal is to invade Palestine and the Arab homeland and to take radical steps:

The failure of the agreements and negotiations are manifested by the following:

1. Non-fulfillment of Israel’s commitments and its evasion of [implementing] the articles of the agreements.
2. Lack of the establishment of a Palestinian State at the time or times decided upon.
3. Reoccupation of Palestinian cities and their isolation from one another.
4. Attacks on buildings belonging to the Palestinian Authority and its apparatus to gradually destroy it.
5. Shattering illusions and revealing the maximum Israel is willing to give the Palestinians: autonomy under Israeli rule or a state with neither sovereignty not capabilities, also under full Israeli rule.

The success of the [current] intifada and the active resistance are manifested by the following:

1. The heavy economic damage inflicted on the State of Israel.
2. The decrease in the number of new immigrants to Israel.
3. The damage inflicted on all sectors of Israel, particularly commerce and tourism.
4. The political damage inflicted on Israel, particularly its depiction as racist at The Forum of Non-Government Organizations in Durban [ South Africa].
5. The lack of security and the spread of fear and apprehension among Israelis, in which the istishhadis played a central role.
6. The great number of Israeli casualties in comparison with the Palestinians.

[original parentheses]: the active resistance has begun to deter them as they [the Zionists] deter us, to frighten them as they frighten us and to kill them as they kill us.

According to Ibrahim Abu al-Hijaa’, in an article entitled “The importance of Palestinian self-sacrifice in balancing the conflict:”

“If we use our power to strike at their weak points, we will be able to achieve the balance of terror we desire, for the Palestinian fidaa’i¹² aspires to die while the Israeli is weak and fears for his life.” Abu al-Hijaa’ adds: “Israeli power, however great it might be, will not stop the fidaa’i who aspires to die (Note 35).”

The two factors for failure and success we noted had a strong, clear influence on inculcating the idea of istishhad in Palestinian society. Indeed, along with the success and growth of the active [Palestinian] resistance, in the wake of the escalation of the terrorism exerted by the State of Israel [sic], the ability and talents of the active resistance within the framework of the balance of deterrence and the response to [Israeli] hostility developed [as well]. Thence followed the most important result, which was the spread of the idea of istishhad and its development to the point of psychologically breaking the Israelis and raising the morale of the Palestinian people.

By eliminating Palestinian leaders such as Abu ‘Ali Mustafa in Ramallah, Jamal Mansour and those close to him in Nablus, and Thabet Thabet in Tulkarm, Israel tried to destroy the morale of the Palestinian people and exhaust the members of the resistance. However, one act of istishhad was sufficient to raise the morale of the Palestinian people and to decrease and shatter the morale of the Israeli people and its government.

In that context, shahadah has not only become the mere death the enemy forces upon the holy warrior [ mujahid ], for he chooses that death with complete awareness and feeling, with all his will, in full consciousness and at a level of internal conviction which became rooted in him in the wake of the idea of istishhad . He achieves a balance of terror and a balanced reaction to end the oppression and injustice of the [Israeli] occupation, and to achieve liberty and a life of honor and security.

Thus, the istishhadi is [every] one who leaves his home, his studies, his work and his whole life and strides towards death. He kills himself [sacrifices his life] to harm the enemy, and he himself is his own weapon – the dearest gift Allah gave him.

In that situation, for him death is life in the next world and giving life to others in this world and removing injustice from them.