Narratives of Jihadi-Salafi operations are often filled with praise for what are considered exemplary acts of self-renunciation in the vein of early Islamic tradition. While many studies sift through the biographies of these so-called martyrs for evidence of social, psychological, political, or economic strain in an effort to rationalize what are often labeled 'suicide bombings,' Nathan French argues that, through their legal arguments, Jihadi-Salafis craft a theodicy that is meant to address the suffering and oppression of the global Muslim community. Pulling from a broad selection of primary sources, including previously untranslated fatwas, on the subjects of martyrdom operations, jurisprudence, and political philosophies, French reveals that the Jihadi-Salafi legal debates on martyrdom reorient the basic objectives of the Shari 'a, focusing on maximizing the general welfare and promoting religion above all other concerns—including the preservation of life. Understanding this utilitarian turn opens the possibility for formulating a meaningful engagement and critique of Jihadi-Salafi legal interpretation and theories of warfare within a broader, just-war framework. And, as the jurists and propagandists of ISIS have demonstrated, this turn also opens the possibility for the use of self-renunciative violence as a means of state formation.