AUTHOR: Shaikh Saalih Al-Fawzaan
SOURCE: Lamha ‘an-il-Firaq-id-Daalah (pg. 31-37) w/ notes by Shabbaab Ar-Raajihee
PRODUCED BY: Al-Ibaanah.com


The Khawaarij are those who revolted (i.e. made khurooj) against the ruler during the last part of ‘Uthmaan’s Khilaafah. Their revolting resulted in the murder of ‘Uthmaan (radyAllaahu ‘anhu).

Then their evil increased during the Khilaafah of ‘Alee (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) and they rebelled against him, declaring him to be a disbeliever. They also pronounced disbelief on the Companions, because they would not agree with them in their (false) beliefs. So they ruled that all those who opposed them in their views were disbelievers. As a result, they pronounced disbelief on the best amongst creation - the Companions of Allaah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). Why was this (?) - because they did not agree with them on their misguidance and disbelief.

Their Beliefs: They do not adhere to the Sunnah and the Jamaa’ah, nor do they obey the leader. Rather, they hold rebelling against him and renouncing allegiance to him to be from the Religion,[1] contrary to the advice of Allaah’s Messenger of giving obedience and contrary to what Allaah has commanded in His saying: "Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you." [Surah An-Nisaa: 59]

So Allaah made obeying the ruler part of the Religion, and the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) made obeying the ruler part of the Religion, as is found in his saying: "I counsel you to have Taqwaa of Allaah and to hear and obey, even if a slave should take command over you. For indeed, whosoever lives amongst you, will see many differences..." [2]

So obeying the Muslim Ruler is part of the Religion (of Islaam). But the Khawarij say: "No, we are free (from this)." This is the way of insurrection and rebellion today!

So the Khawaarij are those who seek to cause division to the main unified body of Muslims and to revolt against the leaders - and there is disobedience to Allaah and His Messenger in doing this. They also hold that the person who commits a major sin is a disbeliever.

So someone that commits a major sin - a fornicator, a thief, one who drinks alcohol, for example - are all considered disbelievers by them. On the contrary, Ahl-us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah hold such a person as a "Muslim with deficient Eemaan"[3] and they call him a "sinner in the Religion." So he is a "believer" due to his Eemaan, while being a "sinner" due to his major sin. This is because nothing expels one out of the fold of Islaam except Shirk and the well-known things that nullify one’s Islaam. As for the sins that are below Shirk, then they do not cause one to be expelled from the fold of Eemaan, even if they are major sins. Allaah says: "Verily Allaah does not forgive that Shirk (association of partners in worship) be committed with Him, but he forgives what is lower than that (of sins) to whom He wills." [Surah an-Nisaa: 48, 116]

The Khawaarij say: "The one who commits a major sin is a disbeliever, he will not be forgiven and he will reside in the Hellfire forever." And this is contrary to what is stated in the Qur’aan. The reason for this is because they do not have understanding (of the Religion).

Take note that the cause for their falling into these (false beliefs) was their lack of knowledge. This is because they are a people intense in their worship, prayer, fasting and recitation of the Qur’aan. And they have a strong fervor for the Religion, but they do not have knowledge - and this is the problem.

So going to great lengths and exerting oneself in piety and worship must be accompanied by knowledge and understanding of the Religion. This is why the Prophet (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) described them to his Companions in the following manner: That the Companions would look down upon their own prayer as compared to their prayer and on their worship as compared to their worship. Then he said: "They will shoot out from the Religion just as the arrow shoots out from a hunted game"[4] - in spite of their worship and in spite of their righteousness and their praying Tahajjud at night.

So because their exertion was not based upon a correct foundation, nor upon authentic knowledge, it became a misguidance, a plague and evil upon them and upon the ummah.

And furthermore, it is not known from the Khawaarij - for one day - that they fought against the disbelievers ever! Instead, they only fight with the Muslims, as the Prophet (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: "And they will kill the People of Islaam, while leaving alone the people of Awthaan (idols)." [5]

So we have not come to know in the history of the Khawaarij that one day they fought against the disbelievers and polytheists. Rather, they are always fighting against the Muslims. They killed ‘Uthmaan and they killed ‘Alee bin Abee Taalib. They killed Az-Zubayr Ibn-ul-‘Awaam and killed the best of the Companions. And they have not stopped killing Muslims.

And this is all due to their ignorance of the Religion of Allaah. But in spite of this, they had piety and worship, but since these were not founded upon authentic knowledge, it became a disease on them. This is why the great scholar, Ibn Al-Qayyim (rahimahullaah) said in his description of them:

"They have textual evidences, which they fall short of in understanding
So they have been given shortness in knowledge." [6]

So they use texts as evidences but yet they do not comprehend them. They use as evidence texts from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah concerning the threat for committing sins, but they do not comprehend their meanings. They do not refer them back to the other texts, in which there is found a promise for forgiveness and the acceptance of repentance for those whose sins are less than Shirk. So they accept one part and leave off another part - all of this due to their ignorance.

So having an over-protective love for the Religion and enthusiasm are not sufficient. They must be founded upon knowledge and understanding of Allaah’s Religion. This is so that they can be produced from knowledge and so that they can be put in their proper place.

So over-protective love for the Religion is good and enthusiasm is good, but they must be guided and directed by the following of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.

There is no one with more precedence in the Religion nor more sincere to the Muslims than the Sahaabah (the Comapnions), but in spite of that, they fought against the Khawaarij due to their danger and their evil.

‘Alee bin Abee Taalib fought against them such that he slaughtered them with the worst of killings in the incident of Nahrawaan. By doing this, he realized what the Prophet (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) informed us of in that the Prophet (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) gave the good tidings to the one who killed them of goodness and Paradise. So ‘Alee bin Abee Taalib, he was the one who killed them - so he received this good tiding from Allaah’s Messenger.[7] He killed them in order to prevent their evil from befalling the Muslims.

It is an obligation on the Muslims in every generation, if they should become aware of the existence of this wicked methodology, that they remedy it by calling to the Way of Allaah first and educating the people about it. But if they do not accept this, then they must fight against them in order to prevent their evil.

‘Alee bin Abee Taalib (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) sent his cousin, ‘Abdullaah bin ‘Abbaas - the Habr (scholar) of the ummah and the Turjumaan (Interpreter) of the Qur’aan - to them. So he debated with them and six thousand amongst them repented and returned back, but many remained behind and did not repent. So at this point, the Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen, ‘Alee bin Abee Taalib, along with the Sahaabah, fought against them. This was in order to prevent their evil and harm from befalling the Muslims.

So this is the sect known as Al-Khawaarij and their beliefs.

Footnotes:

[1] In our time, perhaps the one who believes that we must hear and obey the leaders in matters that are not sinful, are labeled as government agents or kiss-ups or gullible simpletons! So you will see them attacking the leaders and exposing their faults to the public from the mimbars and in their gatherings. And Allaah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: "Whoever desires to advise the sultaan (authority) about a matter, then he must not expose it in public, but rather he should take him by his hand and go in privacy with him. So if he accepts (the advice) then that is (reward) for him, and if he doesn’t (accept) then he has conveyed what will be held against him." Reported by Ahmad (3/404) from the narration of ‘Iyyaad bin Ghanam (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) Ibn Abee ‘Aasim also reported it in his book As-Sunnah (2/522).

And when the leader bars one of them from speaking in public gatherings, they rally together and go out in demonstrations, thinking - out of ignorance on their part - that barring someone from speaking or putting someone in jail justifies rebellion! Did they not hear the Prophet’s statement found in the narration of ‘Awf bin Maalik Al-Ashja’ee (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) in Saheeh Muslim (1855): "...No, so long as they establish the prayer." And in the hadeeth of ‘Ubaadah bin As-Saamit (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) found in the two Saheeh Collections, the Prophet said: "...unless you see clear and open disbelief, by which you will have proof before Allaah in the matter." This was his (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) response to the Companions when they questioned him, seeking permission to fight against the oppressive leaders.

Do they not know how long Imaam Ahmad remained locked up in prison? And where did Shaikh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taimiyyah die?! Wasn’t Imaam Ahmad put in jail for several years and whipped because he would not say that the Qur’aan was created? So why then did he not order the people to revolt against the Khaleefah? Don’t they know that Shaikh-ul-Islaam stayed in prison for more than two years and died while in it? Why did he not command the people to revolt against the leader? And on top of this, these scholars had a high position in terms of virtue and knowledge, so what about those who are less than them??? Indeed these ideologies and actions did not come to us except after the youth began to take their knowledge from such and such modern-day thinker and from such and such literary poet and from such and such Islamic writer, abandoning the scholars and placing their books behind their backs to be forgotten! Wa laa hawla wa laa quwata ilaa billaah!

[2] An authentic hadeeth reported by Ahmad, Ibn Maajah, At-Tirmidhee, Al-Haakim and many others [Abridged by the translator].

[3] Even if they commit a sin thinking it to be trivial (Istikhfaaf), they do not commit disbelief so long as they do not make it lawful (Istihlaal), contrary to what some of them say: That a person who commits a sin thinking it to be trivial, commits disbelief that takes him out from the Religion. This statement is the essence of the beliefs of the Khawaarij as our Shaikh, Shaikh ‘Abdul-‘Azeez Ibn ‘Abdillaah Bin Baaz said when he was asked about it in Taa’if in 1415H.

[4] Part of a long hadeeth reported by Ahmad, Muslim, Al-Bukhaaree and others from several of the Companions [Abridged by the translator]

[5] Part of a long hadeeth reported by Ahmad, Muslim, Al-Bukhaaree and others [Abridged by the translator]

[6] Nooniyyah of Ibn Al-Qayyim (pg. 97)

[7] Al-Bukhaaree reported in his Saheeh (6930), Muslim in his Saheeh (1066), Ahmad in his Musnad (1/113), Ibn Abee ‘Aasim in his As-Sunnah (914) and ‘Abdullaah bin al-Imaam Ahmad in his As-Sunnah (1487): From ‘Alee (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) who said: "I heard Allaah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) say: ‘Towards the last days, a people will emerge who will be young in age and have foolish ideas. They will speak with the best speech of the creatures. Their Eemaan will not go past their throats. So wherever you encounter them, kill them, for indeed there will be a reward for the one who kills them on the Day of Judgement.’"

After narrating a hadeeth about the Khawaarij and their signs, Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudree (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) said: "Twenty or more than twenty of the Companions of Allaah’s Messenger narrated to me that ‘Alee was in charge of killing them." Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad (3/33) and his son ‘Abdullaah in As-Sunnah (1512).

Kharaja linguistically means to leave off, to separate from, disassociate or to go out. So this was attributed to the group of Muslims that were with Ali radhiyallahu anhu who were responsible for the death of Uthmaan ibn Affan radhiyallahu anhu. So after their lack of satisfaction with Ali radhiyallahu anhu, then they left him. They separated themselves from the sahabah which will be brought later as more perspective to the bayaan.

Kharajiyyah is not a concept, but rather a belief, which opposes the belief of the sahabah in that they see it permissible to unrestrictedly perform takfeer upon muslims irregardless of whether the conditions for such actions (that warrant takfeer) were met. And this is the position of ahlu-sunnah, but by this view by unanimous agreement, the modern day khawaarij view this particular view of ahlu-sunnah to be of that of the murji’ah. In a way this resembles the views of the haddadiyyah that has occurred in our times in which they view rifq (gentleness) to be nothing but tamyee (to soften or liquefy the truth in order to accommodate the people of innovation). This will be addressed later on inshallah.


So kharijiyyah is to take all the issues pertaining to the rule of Allah and all the texts that pertain to identifying what nullifies or negates emaan in Allah, and making all of it, general and not conditional, to be general and unrestricted for all and anyone who fall into that which they viewed which negated one’s Islam. This, in of itself, is an innovated belief not found with the sahabah nor the tabi’een who followed them.


What strengthened this innovated belief in current times is another innovated concept called haakimiyyah which will be discussed later on inshallah.


Conclusion of this is that both of these innovative beliefs and concepts affected one issue, which is the issue of emaan. It is this issue (emaan) that much of what is brought forth is what is discussed.


Here is an excerpt of the Urdunee mashaykh about the khawarij and statements that nullify the accusation of irj’aa.


“Khaarijism is a deviant sect whose position is evil and false and they are outside of the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa‘ah Even though we do not consider them disbelievers, their apostasy has been narrated by some of the scholars of the Salaf


So basically, soomeone is known to have the characteroistics of he khawarij based upon mainly three aspcts
1. takfeer of the Hukaam (rulers) calling them murtadd WITHOUT the scholastic hukm on the haakim (ruler)
2. the ardent desire for the overthrow of the ruler of whom they ibleesically view to be apostates and
3. the takfeer of those who dont follow the above two as their manhaj.

Imaam Aboo Hayyaan al-Andalusee – rahimahullaah – said “The Khawaarij use this aayah as a proof to say that everyone who disobeys Allaah, then he is a disbeliever! And they say that it is a textual proof stating that everyone who rules by other than what Allaah revealed, then he is a disbeliever. And everyone who sins, then indeed he rules by other than what Allaah revealed, so it is obligatory that he be a disbeliever.’’ Bahrul-Muheet (3/493).







Alaamah Saalih al-Fawzaan gave the following fatwa



Question: Is the one who makes takfeer of the rulers and encourages the Muslims to revolt against their rulers, to be considered from the Khawaarij?

Answer:



This is the madhab of the Khawaarij. When an individual holds it permissible to revolt against the Muslim rulers, and more severe than that is to declare them to be disbelievers. This is the madhab of the Khawaarij .Al-Ijaabaat al-Muhimmah fee Mashaakil il-Mudlahimmah,





Like wise the Imaam of the Sunnah, the thorn against the Innovators Imaam al-Barbaharee, the author of Sharhu Sunnah said



"Whoever rebels against a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims, has contradicted the narrations and has died the death of the days of ignorance."



Abu Bakr al-Aajurree

"It is not fitting for the one who sees the uprising of a khaarijee who has revolted against the Imaam, whether he is just or oppressive - so this person has revolted and gathered a group behind him, has pulled out his sword and has made lawful the killing of Muslims - it is not fitting for the one who sees this, that he becomes deceived by this person's recitation of the Qur'aan, the length of his standing in the prayer, nor his constant fasting or his good and excellent words in knowledge when (it is clear to him that) this person's way and methodology (madhhab) is that of the Khawaarij”. ash-Sharee'ah (p. 28),



Ibnul-Qayyim said



"And as for Imaam Maalik, then Ibn al-Qaasim said, "I heard Maalik say, "Indeed there are a people who desire worship but squander the knowledge (being deprived of it) so they revolt against the Ummah of Muhammad with their swords. And if they had followed the knowledge, then it would have prevented them from doing that." Miftaah Daaris-Sa'aadah (1/119),

Abul-Mudhaffar as-Sam’ani said in his tafsir (2/42),

“And know that the Khawarij use this verse as evidence and they say, ‘Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed is a disbeliever’ whereas Ahl us-Sunnah say such a one does not disbelieve by abandoning judgement by what Allaah has revealed.”

Al-Jassas said

“The khawarij have interpreted these verses to justify the takfeer of the one who does not rule by what Allah has revealed without willful rejection, juhood” [Ahkaamul-Quraan (2/543)]

why did the pasty imaams, all of ahlu-sunnah wal jama'ah say these. Here is a hint

Haafidh Khateeb al-Baghdaadee says:

"A man from the khawaarij entered upon Ma`moon, so he said: 'What is your position concerning our disagreement?' He said: 'A verse from the Book of Allaah the Exalted.' He said: 'What is it?' He said: 'His statement: "And those who do not rule by what Allaah revealed, they are the disbelievers."' So Ma`moon said to him: 'Are you certain that it was revealed?' He said: 'Yes.' He said: 'What is your proof?' He said: 'The agreement (ijmaa') of the ummah.' So Ma`moon said to him: 'So just as you are pleased with their agreement in its revelation, then you should be pleased with their agreement (ijmaa') in its interpretation.'" Taareekh Baghdaad (10/186)

hence none from the salaf nor those who followed them made takfeer of rulers based on thi ayaah aone

secodnyl, the ayaah is amm, general, so it is from nifaaq to restrict it to the rulers. Rather it is applied to every joe bloe. So, by definition, using the arguement of the khawarij, then they themselves are kuffar in Allah for judgeing through a manhaj that Allah had not revealed, thus them apostating from islam, thus their blood halaal, the fortunes seized, and their honor brought to the dumps of the annals of history.

The prophetic manhaj regarding these people was to slay them wherever you see them, allowing them no remorse, cuttin them off at every path, not allowing hem to remain, warning against them vehemently, having pue enmity for those who have alliegience with them.

easy, outside of the actually salafi fatwa regarding qaeda, then here are some nissues
1. their rather killing muslims rather than kuffar
In the first war in the 90s with the communists russioans, it was a common fallacy that Binladen was the leader fo the mujahideen. This is what the kuffar enemies of Allah wish for everyone especially gullible and feeble mied muslims operating on desires woul have them beleive. that is because Bin laden is an American Agent hel;ping and aiding the kuffar against the muslims, and his receiving a visit form one o he cia directors 2 months before the 9-11 incident that the U.S. collaborated with proves his munaafiqhood.

Anyways, the real leader was a salafi shaykh whom I forget his name. While the real mujahideen would be fighting the communists russian kuffaric invaders, they would also be running away from the rebels of allah, the army of Iblees and dajjal, bin laden's henchman.

One o the shaykh's students got infected by their poison and lured the shaykh into a trap by inviting him over, When the shaykh came, they had killed him point blank range and dismantled his body.

One of them had also told me that Bin Laden told his fellow criminals of Allah "To kill a ******* (meaning one wo follows the way of the salaf, ahlu-sunnah, athari, salafi) is more beloved than killing a communist (that killing the best of muslims is betetr with their lLord than killing the worst of people on earth) thus his kufr is made known to his fellow henchman and those who beleived during that time.

So in my opinion, he himself is a kaafir in Allah, should be sluaghtered on sight, in any land on earth or on ars, and doing so will land you bi ithnillah to a station to that of the companions and he prophet for he is the dajjal of our times may lah make the muslims dismantle his body and feed it to the prcupines, ants, spiders, and vultures without burial of the scum of his remains, and that he lands him to a station with Abu lahaab and Abdullah ibn ubay al-munaafiq.

of course this is my jarh of him, i dont make takfeer on whoever does not hold my view on him.

here is a assesment in almost its entity of the issue

A reply to the terroris and those upon the waas wass o revolt, revolutionand takfeer

asalamu alaikum