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 ruling of Islamic Law on compensating the patient in case of medical error on the part of the treating physician?

 
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The foundational principle is that every mistake issued by a physician that causes harm to another due to his negligence or lack of expertise obligates him to guarantee liability and compensate the harmed party. The Sharia maxim, in this regard, states: "The direct actor is liable."
 
Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "As for if he was skilled but his hand committed an error—such as exceeding the proper limit of incision, cutting in an incorrect site, cutting with an instrument that inflicts excessive pain, or cutting at an unsuitable time—he is liable, because it is destruction (Itlaf) whose liability does not differ between intent and mistake, thus resembling the destruction of property; and because it is a prohibited act, so he guarantees liability for its secondary effects." [Al-Mughni].
 
However, if the physician performed what was necessary in the most complete manner and took all measures of care and caution, but complications occurred that could not be avoided according to specialists, then no liability rests upon him.
 
Shaykh al-Islam Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "The cupper and the circumciser bear no liability if they have not been negligent, and likewise the veterinarian if he bleeds an animal and it perishes." [Rawdat al-Talibin].
 
Al-Khattabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "I know of no disagreement that if the practitioner transgresses and the patient perishes, he is liable. Anyone who undertakes knowledge or practice he does not know is a transgressor; so if perishing arises from his action, he is liable for the blood-money (Diyah) while capital retaliation (Qisas) is dropped from him, because he did not act independently without the patient's permission. And the physician’s offense in the view of the generality of jurists is borne by his agnates ('Aqilah*)."* [Ma'alim al-Sunan].
 
If negligence or transgression is established against the physician, it is necessary to compensate the patient or seek forgiveness from him. And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
 
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
 
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
 
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
 
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
 
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

A pious man proposed to me and my father was hesitant in this regard because he is black, am I sinful if I accepted his proposal?

If the suitor is pious, color isn`t a drawback. However, try talking to your father kindly, so that he approves of your marriage with contentment, and that is better for you.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on working in hotels?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible to work in hotels, restaurants, and shops in jobs that involve no direct handling of forbidden things and do not assist in them, such as administrative work.
As for jobs in which one directly handles forbidden things or assists in them, such as serving, transporting, or purchasing alcohol, receiving payment for it, or agreeing to buy it, working in them is forbidden, based on the saying of Allah the Mighty and Majestic: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” [al-Māʾidah/2]
The basic nature of the work of hotels and restaurants is permissible, and the sin of any forbidden element that arises incidentally in some of what takes place in a hotel or restaurant is borne by those who run it.
The scholars have also permitted dealing with one whose lawful wealth is mixed with unlawful wealth, as previously explained in Fatwa no. (2697). And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More