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 ]

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

A man has married a second wife and deprived the first from provision and overnight stay. He spent most of his time and wealth on his second wife. After sometime, the latter got sick and was diagnosed with breast cancer, which made him forsake her in bed and return to his first wife. What is the position of Sharia on this?

All perfect praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.
It is forbidden for a woman to forsake her husband in bed without a lawful excuse since this is one of the mutual rights of spouses. When the wife abstains from making love to her husband without a lawful excuse, she is considered sinful. This is because the Prophet (PBUH) said: "If a woman spends the night deserting her husband's bed (does not sleep with him), then the angels send their curses on her till she comes back (to her husband)." [Agreed upon]. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

Is it permissible for a person, who vowed to offer two Rak`ahs (units of prayer) everyday for Allah`s sake, to do so after the Fajr (dawn) prayer?

In principle, a vow should be fulfilled as it was originally intended, and if its time lapses then, it should be fulfilled at any time because of the vow. Therefore, it is permissible to offer them after the Fajr prayer, and there is no prohibition in doing so. However, it is preferable for him to offer these two Rak`ahs at some other time to avoid the disagreement amongst the scholars in this regard.

My mother inherited a share from my late father`s and brother`s property; however, the inheritance, a piece of land, wasn`t divided amongst the eligible heirs because it was hard to sell. While alive, she used say that she wanted these shares to be distributed amongst the poor and needy. What is the ruling of Sharia on this?

All perfect praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and may His Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all of his family and companions.
This is a will, so we have to consider the estate she had left behind. If the piece of land, which she had willed, equals one third and less of her estate, then the will must be executed. But, if it is more than one third, then one third must be executed and the rest of the estate, if the heirs agreed, is to be executed  as part of her will as well. However, if the heirs haven`t approved of that, then what remains, excluding that one third, must be divided amongst them according to the Islamic rules of inheritance. Moreover, we recommend that you pay a visit to the Iftaa` Department to make things clearer for you. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

Is it permissible to offer mandatory prayer while sitting?

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds, and may His Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all of his family and companions.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Standing up is a pillar in the mandatory prayer and the prayer is not valid without it unless one cannot do it. As for Nafila (supererogatory prayer), one can perform it in the state of sitting even if he/she can stand, but his/her reward is half the reward of the person who prays while standing if he/sh has no legal excuse for such an act. And Allah Knows Best.