عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

A Message in the Wrong Direction
Author : Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh
Date Added : 06-01-2026

A Message in the Wrong Direction

The message directed by the modern-day Khawarij toward Jordan and its people is, without question, a message in the wrong direction. It could only be issued by those who have lost their moral compass, whose vision is clouded, and who have strayed far into deep misguidance. This message failed for two fundamental reasons:

First: The religious arguments presented in the message are completely antithetical to Islam and possess no connection to its teachings. We have repeatedly emphasized that the texts of the Holy Qur'an and the Prophetic Sunnah, in their collective essence, explicitly call for mercy, affection, and the honoring of human dignity. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not sent to threaten people, vow to drink their blood, or decapitate them.

This terrorist organization attempted to justify its atrocities by citing certain historical accounts. However, it is not established that any of the Noble Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) ever burned an opponent. They were strictly committed to the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said: "None punishes with fire except the Lord of the Fire," and "Do not punish with the punishment of Allah."

Refuting Historical Fabrications:

• Abu Bakr al-Siddiq: The false claims that he ordered the burning of apostates are known to scholars of Hadith and historical critics as fabrications. Such claims only expose the group’s ignorance of the fundamental principles of Shariah sciences.

• Khalid ibn al-Walid: No authentic report suggests he burned apostates. Historical records do not attribute such acts to him with a chain of narration (Isnad) that can be scientifically scrutinized or relied upon. These claims are forgeries that contradict both reason and religion.

• Ali ibn Abi Talib: Those who cite that he used fire as a punishment often omit the full context to deceive the public. When Ali (may Allah honor him) acted against those who claimed he possessed divinity, the great Companion Abdullah ibn Abbas—the "Scholar of the Ummah" for whom the Prophet prayed for deep religious understanding—objected. Ibn Abbas reminded him of the Prophetic prohibition against punishing with fire. Upon being reminded, Ali expressed regret and accepted the truth brought by Ibn Abbas, acknowledging that he had momentarily forgotten the specific Hadith which Ibn Abbas had memorized.

In the rules of Shariah science, an authentic evidence from the Qur'an or Sunnah cannot be countered by historical anecdotes. On the contrary, history must be critiqued using the standards of Revelation. Even if such acts were historically proven, they would be considered personal legal reasonings (Ijtihad) by individuals to whom the prohibition had not reached or who had forgotten it. As Muhammad ibn Sirin said: "Indeed, this knowledge is religion, so look to whom you take your religion from." Imam Malik stated: "The words of anyone can be accepted or rejected, except for the occupant of this grave," referring to the Prophet (PBUH). A Companion’s Ijtihad is not a binding Shariah proof in itself if it contradicts a clear text (Nass), for no individual is infallible.

The misguidance of the modern Khawarij begins when they seek out anomalous (Shadh) or fabricated historical reports to justify their barbaric crimes, disregarding the established Shariah texts and jurisprudential rules that form the basis of our tolerant faith. It is impermissible to reject authentic Hadiths prohibiting torture by fire or to think ill of the Companions by attributing such acts to them without proof.

Furthermore, framing the immolation of the heroic pilot as "Retribution" (Qisas) is a glaring legal error. Retribution has no place in the context of combat or in the treatment of a captive. Anyone who believes Qisas applies to a prisoner of war is ignorant of the basic alphabet of Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh). It is equally ignorant to discuss this under the door of "Mutilation" (Muthlah); jurists define Muthlah as something that occurs to a corpse after death. Islamic Fiqh dictates that once a prisoner is subdued, they are subject to specific humanitarian rulings, not retribution or mutilation.

The second reason this message was misdirected is that it targeted Jordan and its tribes without understanding the nature of the Jordanian people, their deep understanding of their religion, their attachment to their homeland, and their loyalty to their Hashemite leadership, whose legitimacy is directly linked to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

Following the martyrdom of Pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh—who was burned while reciting the Book of Allah—Jordanians did not fracture. Instead, they grew in strength, unity, and adherence to the "Rope of Allah," which leads humanity toward dignity and stability. Public opinion polls confirmed this; a study by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan showed that 95% of Jordanians view "Daesh" as a terrorist movement, and 83% believe its actions threaten regional security.

The threat served only to display a profound cohesion among Jordanians of all backgrounds. They rallied around their leadership, reaffirming their commitment to the King in the defense of Islam and its tolerant image. The organization’s actions backfired, turning the Jordanian people into a global example of heroism and resilience. The tragedy did not break their resolve; it fortified their determination to confront and eradicate terrorism.

Finally, the group’s attempt to address Jordanian tribes through one of their own was met with nothing but ridicule and disgust. Jordanians recognize these criminals and are not deceived by their absurdities. This only increased their love for the "Mustafawi" Arab Army, following the path of their forefathers who sacrificed their lives for the soil of Jordan and Palestine. They continue to offer sacrifices today in defense of the great principles and tolerant values of Islam.

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

What are the conditions for a valid Udhiyah?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
First: The age of the animal must meet the Sharia requirements. These requirements vary depending on the type of sacrifice:
 
Camels: Must have completed five years and entered their sixth.
 
Cows: Must have completed two years and entered their third.
 
Goats: Must have completed two years and entered their third. As for Sheep, they must have completed one year and entered their second.
 
Some scholars have permitted goats that have completed one year and entered their second.
 
The Hanafi school, along with an opinion in the Maliki school, permits sacrificing sheep that are at least six months old, provided they are healthy and physically substantial. According to the Shafi’i school, it is permissible if the sheep sheds its front teeth (ajdha') before reaching one year [Al-Iqna’, by Al-Shirbini (Vol.2/P.588)].
 
Second: Soundness and freedom from defects. The animal must be free from any defect that causes a decrease in its meat or market value. This is based on the hadith narrated by Al-Bara' bin 'Azib, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
 
"Four [defects] are not permissible in sacrifices: A one-eyed animal whose blindness is evident, a sick animal whose illness is evident, a lame animal whose lameness is evident, and an emaciated animal that has no marrow in its bones." [Reported by Abu Dawood and Al-Tirmidhi, who graded it as authentic].
 
These defects are detailed as follows:
 
Evident Lameness: It is not permissible to sacrifice a lame animal if the lameness is severe enough to prevent it from walking to the pasture or seeking food, as this leads to a decrease in its meat. However, slight lameness that does not hinder its grazing is overlooked.
 
Evident Blindness (One-eyed): It is not permissible to sacrifice a sheep, cow, or camel that has a white film over its eye blocking light, or one that has lost an eye entirely. Weak vision that does not affect its ability to eat does not prevent the sacrifice from being valid.
 
Evident Illness: An animal with a clear sickness that prevents it from eating or moving is not valid. This includes severe mange (Jarab) that spoils the meat.
 
Extreme Emaciation: An animal so thin that there is no marrow left in its bones is invalid. The standard for emaciation that invalidates the sacrifice is that which spoils the quality of the meat to the point that people would find it undesirable even in times of plenty.
 
Additional Considerations:
These are the defects mentioned in the Prophetic tradition, and any defect that causes emaciation or reduces the meat or value is compared to them by analogy. This includes animals that are mentally unstable (diseased), those with mange, or those with a missing ear. In contrast, a slit or pierced ear does not affect the validity of the sacrifice. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on congregational prayer performed outside the mosque, and is it a condition that it be performed in a mosque in order to attain the full reward?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not a condition for attaining the reward of congregational prayer that it be performed in a mosque; however, a Muslim should still be keen to perform his prayers in the mosque, so as not to miss out on immense reward. This is due to the virtue of the mosque and of spending time there (i‘tikāf), the typically larger number of worshippers present, and the additional reward gained through walking to and from the mosque. On the authority of Abū Hurayrah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh), the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Whoever purifies himself in his house, then walks to one of the houses of Allah to fulfill one of the obligations Allah has prescribed, one of his steps will erase a sin, and the other will raise him a degree [in status]." (Related by Muslim)
Whoever misses congregational prayer at the mosque should still strive to pray in congregation at his workplace, or together with the members of his household. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on making up missed prayers during prohibited times?

 

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible to make up (qada’) missed prayers at any time, even during the periods when prayer is generally prohibited. The prayers that are forbidden and considered invalid during these times are 'absolute voluntary prayers' (nafl mutlaq)—which have no specific cause—and voluntary prayers whose cause follows the prayer itself, such as the Sunnah of entering Ihram or the Sunnah of the Istikharah prayer. Furthermore, no prayer is considered disliked (makruh) during these prohibited times when performed within the Meccan Sanctuary (Makkah al-Mukarramah).
 
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim (Vol.1/P.181), one of the Shafi’i texts: 'It is not forbidden to perform prayers that have a cause that is not delayed (i.e., the cause is preceding), such as making up a missed prayer (fa’itah)—even if it was a voluntary one—and the funeral prayer (janazah); or a cause that is simultaneous, such as the prayer for rain (istisqa’) or the eclipse prayer (kusuf)... and the Sunnah of wudu, the greeting of the mosque (tahiyyat al-masjid), the Sunnah of circumambulation (tawaf), the Sunnah of arrival, and the prostrations of recitation (tilawah) or thankfulness (shukr). These mentioned prayers and their like are not forbidden provided that one does not specifically intend (ta'ammud) to perform them during the disliked time because it is a disliked time. If one does so intentionally, it becomes forbidden, even if it is a mandatory makeup prayer that is due immediately; because in that case, one is acting in defiance of the Sharia. This is in contrast to when one does not specifically seek out that time, even if the prayer happens to fall within it, or if one seeks it for another purpose—such as delaying a funeral prayer to that time so that a larger number of people may pray over the deceased; in such cases, it is permissible and valid... And it is forbidden to perform prayers with no cause at all, like absolute nafl, or those with a delayed cause, such as the Istikharah prayer, the prayer for Ihram, the prayer for a need (hajah), the prayer before leaving the house, or the prayer before execution; because their causes occur after the prayer itself.' And Allah the Exalted knows best."

What is the ruling on fasting for those with diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney disease, or ulcers?

● A sick person who is completely unable to fast is exempted from fasting and must offer fidyah (feeding a needy person), as Allah Almighty says {what means}: "and [in such cases] it is incumbent upon those who can afford it to make sacrifice by feeding a needy person." [Al-Baqarah/184]. They are not required to make up for the missed fasts.
● A sick person who can fast on some days but not others should fast when able and make up the missed days after Ramadan when possible. No fidyah is required in this case.
● If fasting during the long, hot summer days is too difficult for a sick person, but they can make up the fasts during the shorter, cooler winter days, they should break their fast and make up for it when they are able, without fidyah.

See More