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

In the Sharia-compliant viewing  at a prospective bride (*al-naẓrah al-sharʿiyyah*), is it permissible for the man to see the woman without a veil (*ḥijāb*)?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is sunnah for the suitor to see the woman he is seeking to marry within the limits the Sharīʿah permits, namely looking at the face and the hands (palms and backs), based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Look at her, for it is more likely to bring about harmony between you.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhī.
The suitor may also ask one of the women to look at the woman he is seeking to marry. In that case, she is permitted to see of her what she is normally permitted to see, which is not limited to the face and hands, and she then describes these matters to the suitor. It is narrated on the authority of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Umm Sulaym to look at a girl, and said: “Smell her breath, and look at her heels.” Narrated by Aḥmad in his Musnad.
It is stated in Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.7/p.192): “For one who cannot easily look, or does not wish to look himself, it is sunnah to send someone who is permitted to look at her, to observe her and describe her to him, even regarding what he himself is not permitted to look at. He thereby gains through the sending what he would not gain through looking. Because of the added need for this, it is excepted from the prohibition of a woman describing another woman to a man.”
The permissibility of looking is conditional upon his resolve to marry her once he is able to, his predominant assumption that his proposal will be accepted, and his assumption that the woman is free of marriage and of a waiting period (ʿiddah). Otherwise, looking is forbidden.
Accordingly, it is not permissible for the suitor to look at anything other than the face and hands. He may ask one of his maḥram women, such as his mother or sister, to see the woman unveiled, and the Sharia-compliant viewing (of a prospective bride) must take place in the presence of one of the woman’s maḥrams. And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on leaving the Sunnah prayer of Dhuhr due to fatigue?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to the general rule, a Muslim should strive to maintain the Sunnah prayers before and after the obligatory prayers (al-sunan al-qabliyyah wa al-ba'diyyah). One is permitted to pray them sitting from the outset, but if one leaves them due to severe fatigue, there is no objection to doing so. It is recommended (mustahabb) to make up (qadā') a time-bound supererogatory prayer (nafl mu'aqqat) at any time if it was missed.
Al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If a time-bound supererogatory prayer is missed, it is recommended to make it up according to the more authoritative view (al-azhar), based on the hadith recorded in the two Ṣaḥīḥs: 'Whoever sleeps through a prayer or forgets it should pray it when he remembers it.' This is also supported by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made up the two rak'ahs of Fajr when he and his companions overslept in the valley and missed the dawn prayer until the sun had risen [narrated by Abū Dāwūd with an authentic chain]." And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

A man led the people in prayer as imam, and at the end of the prayer he performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because he had omitted a short *sūrah* after al-Fātiḥah. What is the ruling on his prayer and that of those praying behind him?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to the Shāfiʿī school, it is sunnah to recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah in the prayer. One who omits it has a valid prayer, and no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is prescribed for omitting it. If someone performs sujūd al-sahw for its omission while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. But one who is ignorant of the ruling, or who did so out of forgetfulness, his prayer is not invalidated, because this is among the matters that are obscure to people, and ignorance of it is not restricted to those who recently entered Islam.
Shaykh al-Islām al-Shams al-Ramlī said in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj ilā Sharḥ al-Minhāj (Vol.2/p.70): “The remaining sunnahs are not compensated for by prostration, such as the remembrances (adhkār) of bowing and prostration, that is, the opening supplication (duʿāʾ al-iftitāḥ) and the sūrah, in accordance with the base rule, because they are not of the same nature as what has been reported [as compensable]. If one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to ignorance. As for the objection raised that the ignorant person does not know that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed, and whoever knows it knows its place, this is refuted by denying such a necessary connection, for the ignorant person may hear only that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed before the salām, and so assume that it applies to every sunnah and is not restricted to its prescribed place.”
This is among the matters that are obscure, in which the mukallaf is excused for ignorance, as stated by al-Shabrāmallisī in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.70).
However, if the imam prostrates, and the follower (maʾmūm) presumes that his imam’s prostration is for a reason for which one does not prostrate, it is not permissible to follow him in it, so long as the follower knows the ruling.
Accordingly, the prayer of one who did not recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah is valid, and sujūd al-sahw is not prescribed for it. Whoever prostrates out of ignorance or forgetfulness, his prayer is valid, because this is among the issues hidden from the general public. But whoever prostrates while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More