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 is the Islamic ruling on the Udhiyah (sacrificial offfering)?

 
 
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) is a Confirmed Sunnah (Sunnah Mu’akkadah) for every adult Muslim of sound mind who possesses the financial means, whether they are a resident, a traveler, or a pilgrim (Haj). This is based on the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: 'When the ten days [of Dhu al-Hijjah] begin and one of you desires to offer a sacrifice, let him not touch [cut] anything of his hair or skin' [Narrated by Muslim].
 
The point of evidence (Wajh al-Dalalah) here is that the Prophet ﷺ linked the sacrifice to the individual's will and desire by saying, 'and one of you desires.' This indicates that it is not obligatory (Wajib); had it been mandatory, he would have simply said, 'let him not touch his hair until he sacrifices' [without making it conditional upon desire].
 
Furthermore, it is narrated that Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes refrain from offering the sacrifice out of fear that people might mistakenly view it as an obligatory duty [Narrated by al-Bayhaqi and others with a good (Hasan) chain of transmission]. 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.

Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?

 
 
 
 
 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah Almighty knows best.

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.

See More