His statement, “or is carried away and then eats,” means that he is carried away from the battlefield and eats, then dies. In that case, he is to be washed, shrouded, and the funeral prayer offered over him, even if we know that he died from the effects of his wounds. For the fact that he eats indicates that he had stable life, since one who is effectively dead does not eat.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that if he eats and then dies, even if no long interval has elapsed, he is to be washed.

Some jurists said that he is not to be washed if no long interval has elapsed, because he may eat unconsciously while in the throes of death. But this is, in fact, far-fetched; rather, his eating is evidence that he had stable life.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words, “or is carried away and then eats,” is that if he is not carried away but eats and then dies, he is a martyr and is not to be washed. Some jurists worded it: “or is wounded and then eats.” This latter wording is more general, whether he was carried away or not.

The view closer to what is correct is that if he eats, whether he was carried away or not, his eating is evidence that he had stable life; therefore, he is to be washed and shrouded.

If someone were to ask: What is the evidence that, if the enemy inflicts a mortal wound upon a martyr and he remains alive with stable life, he is to be washed and shrouded?

The answer is the account of Saʿd ibn Muʿādh, may Allah be pleased with him. He was wounded in his medial arm vein during the Battle of the Confederates, but he asked Allah not to cause him to die until He had granted him satisfaction concerning Banū Qurayẓah. Allah answered his supplication, and the wound remained closed until he personally passed judgement concerning Banū Qurayẓah, for he was their ally (1).