Category Archives: Current Events

Refuting the Jewish Claim of Their So-Called ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine

A Humble Request to Readers: Please share this Post as much as possible for the sake of Truth. You are also free to copy this post.

Fundamentalist Christians and Zionist Jews vociferously proclaim the ‘Divine right’ of the Jews to statehood in Palestine, and are willing to joyously support all manner of Jewish atrocities done in order to kick others out of that land and keep them out. It was the support of western ‘Christian’ nations that originally (following World War 2) ‘granted’ the Jewish people the right to supplant the Palestinian Christians and Muslims who were at that time inhabiting the land. (Christian supporters of Israel conveniently overlook the fact that a large portion of Palestinians are in fact Christians; they’re not all ‘evil’ Muslims, whom some Christians love to hate). Any opposition to any Zionist Jewish acts, no matter how atrocious, is considered opposition to God and His purpose and Word.

So what is the basis of this supposed Divine right of Jews to the land of Canaan? Well, of course it is to be found in the promise of God to Abraham found in Genesis 17:8 – “The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”  This is taken to be a true historical event, and is to be interpreted literally (according to the fundamentalist Christians, and Zionist Jews). And of course it is pointed out that this covenant is ‘everlasting’.

Now first of all, the word ‘everlasting’ means ‘for an age’; that is, for a long time – not ‘forever’ the way the Zionists want us to think of it. And secondly, despite this ‘everlasting’ covenant, the Hebrew Scriptures themselves warn that if the Jewish descendants of Abraham violated the terms of the covenant, God would ‘curse’ them and drive them out of the land (see Deuteronomy 28 and 29 for instance). According to these Scriptures, God even warned that he would violate His own promise due to their disobedience: “The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again”  (Deut. 28:68). The curses and threats in Deuteronomy were fulfilled by the Babylonians and Assyrians; and then finally, after warnings by the Jewish Prophet Jesus and his followers, it was fulfilled by the Romans in 70 C. E. Jesus even said (Matt. 21:43): “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” That word ‘people’ is the Greek word “ethnos” which is frequently rendered as ‘Gentile’ and ‘heathen’; it means a non-Jewish people or nation. From a Muslim viewpoint this means that the kingdom of God is to be found in people of every nation and tongue in whose hearts God reigns supreme, who hear and obey His word. It includes Jews who love and serve the One God, but they are only a part of God’s people, not a ‘chosen nation’ any more (if they ever were such). That of course was in fact part of that original covenant promise to Abraham: that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in him. Who can imagine that God would ‘go back’ to a former predominant concern with the Jewish nation (if He ever had such a predominant concern) now that He is blessing the whole world?

If it be objected that in Deuteronomy 30 God said that He would bring back the Jews to their land, from whatever part of the world in which they had been scattered, it should be noted when such a return would occur: “When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, THEN the LORD your God will restore your fortunes…”  (Verses 1-3). Will any thinking person (particularly the fundamentalist Christians) say that such was the case in 1948, or any time since? I don’t think so! A good portion of Jews are atheists today (or even devil worshipping Free Masons); how many of those who are not atheists love God with all their heart and all their soul I wonder? Would it not be fair to say that most non-atheists are still just nominal Jews, fulfilling rituals but not heart-felt lovers of God? Well, who am I to judge, right? There are certainly at least some Jews who are truly devout, anyway. But surely the fundamentalist Christians (and modernist ‘Muslims’ like the Saud’s), who are such avid supporters of Israel, won’t be willing to admit that any but the Muslims would truly fit into the category of those who fulfill those verses quoted above. Therefore, Jews don’t have any claim to the fulfillment of that prophecy yet; and current support for them based on that promise is without foundation.

Having said all of that, though, the real question to be examined is whether or not the events depicted in the ‘historical’ books of the Hebrew Scriptures are indeed genuine history, and to be understood literally. We really need to know who wrote those accounts, and whether or not they can be trusted as having given us accurate historical accounts. It has traditionally been believed by the Jews and Christians that the first 5 books of the Bible (the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) were written by Moses; and the next book – Joshua – was written by Joshua. Conservative Christians still defend this idea, but it won’t hold up to examination. First of all, nowhere in the Pentateuch is it ever claimed that Moses was the author of the books, and Joshua doesn’t make any claim that Joshua was its author. Secondly, the books are all written in the 3rd person about  the characters in those books, just the way one would expect in a ‘history book’. Moses did such and so, and Joshua did this or that; not “I did” or “I said”. Now if the books made claim to being written by Moses or Joshua, one could acknowledge that a person could write about himself in the 3rd person; but absent such a claim to authorship, there is simply no basis to assume this.

There are so many more plain proofs that these books were not written by Moses or Joshua, though – rather they were written by some other unknown person or persons several hundred years later. Would Moses have said about himself: “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3)? Such a claim by Moses himself would prove the claim was untrue! How could Moses write about his own death and burial in Deuteronomy 34? Note the account of Moses’ death and burial is written in the 3rd person, past tense (as one would naturally expect). Whoever wrote this lets us know that he is writing a long time after the events, because he said: “to this day no one knows where his grave is” (verse 6); “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses” (verse 10); and “For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (verse 12). These statements, and others like them in the Pentateuch and Joshua, show that the writer lived a long time after the events being described. (In Joshua 24, the death of Joshua is reported, so the same question applies as did to Moses’ death: can we really be expected to believe that Joshua wrote about his own death??!)

In Genesis 14:14 we read: “When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan”. The problem with that statement is that the city named ‘Dan’ did not go by that name in the time of Abraham or Moses. It was not named Dan until after the death of Samson, several hundred years after the time of Moses. Judges 18:27-29 tells us when that town came to be named Dan: “Then they [the Danites] took what Micah had made [idols], and his priest, and went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down the city. There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a valley near Beth Rehob. The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel – though the city used to be called Laish”. So whoever wrote Genesis could not possibly have done so before the Danites destroyed Laish and renamed it Dan.

In Genesis 26:31 there is this statement: “These are the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned…”  Of course, the first Israelite king to reign was Saul, so whoever wrote Genesis at the very least had to have written after Saul became king. The city of New York used to be called New Amsterdam; the name was changed in 1644. Anyone who writes about events in New York, calling it by that name, by that very fact indicates that he is writing after 1644 even though the writer does not identify himself or tell us when he was writing. So it is with the writer of Genesis. Even though the writer is anonymous, and does not tell us when he wrote, the fact that he says those Edomite kings lived “before any Israelite king reigned” unquestionably tells us that he was writing after Israelite kings began to reign.

This is only a small portion of the evidence available that Moses and Joshua were not the authors of those books traditionally attributed to them. What’s the point, though? The point is that we have no idea who the author was, so we know nothing about his character and trustworthiness. The events happened many hundreds of years before he wrote, and we don’t know what sources he used for his accounts (and the trustworthiness of those sources). Any claim of the Jewish people to the land of Canaan, based on the Biblical story of Abraham, Moses, and Joshua, is worthless because the validity of those accounts is utterly unprovable! They are stories compiled and edited by scribes relatively late in ‘Old Testament’ Israelite history, and as ‘histories’ they are just examples of prejudiced Jewish propaganda designed to validate themselves as a nation with a country to inhabit.

In fact, I believe many of the stories were deliberately made up so that we would be taken in by the ‘letter’ to fool people into believing the so-called ‘right’ of the Jewish people to the Land of Canaan. Consider the deplorable morality of some of the stories. For instance, consider Deuteronomy 20:16 and 17: “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…” That is precisely what Joshua did to the city of Jericho, as recorded in Joshua 6:21. What person who has any feelings for the honor of the God of love, mercy, compassion, justice and righteousness would ever be a party to such slanderous lies against God by believing such examples of moral depravity in the name of God? We must either believe they are outright lies, or that the writers (forgers) intended us to know from their loathsomeness that these stories were fabricated in order to suit the Holy Land agenda of the Jews.

An indication of what the higher truth is can be found in the great ‘faith chapter’ of Hebrews 11 in the “New Testament”. In verses 8-10 we read concerning Abraham: “By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.” This city is then further explained in verses 13-16: “All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country – A HEAVENLY ONE. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them”.

The “land of Canaan” is not a material, earthly territory, but is a ‘heavenly one’. The story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son (whether it was Isaac, as in the Bible, or Ishmael as in the Qur’an) is an allegory teaching us that we must be willing to let go of even the dearest earthly attachments if they hinder our pursuit of God and His kingdom. In our struggle to inherit the heavenly Canaan, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” –those ‘Old Testament’ accounts of combat are allegories of the heavenly struggle – “but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world [age] and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12).

Those Zionist Jews and fundamentalist Christians who promote Jewish occupation of the earthly Canaan, and building of a material Temple in earthly Jerusalem, have entirely ‘missed the boat’. The true Jerusalem is the one which ‘comes from above’, and the true Temple is the people of God, not a building. The true Canaan is the ‘heavenly country’ which God has prepared for those who love Him. Don’t ‘miss the boat’. And when you see or hear about despicable atrocities being done by anyone ‘in the name of God’, denounce them for the hypocrites and impostors they are, whether they’re Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus (or anyone else).

To Whom Was the Earthly Land of Canaan Given?

Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” 15 And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” 19 God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.” 22 When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. 23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. (English Standard Version)

According to the Biblical story, God made a covenant with Abraham – spoken of in several places in Genesis – whereby God would be in a special manner his God, bless him greatly, and give to him and his offspring the land of Canaan. Genesis 15:18 said that this land would extend from the “river of Egypt” to the Euphrates – quite a sizable area. The vexing question, though, is: who are the offspring of Abraham to whom this portion of land was said to be given by God?

The traditional answer given by Jews and Christians is considered to be obvious: it was given to that line of offspring descending from Abraham’s son Isaac, and grandson Jacob. Ishmael and the other children of Abraham are said to be excluded from this promise of land. This is based on verse 21 of Genesis 17 (quoted above): But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year;  and on Genesis 21:12 – But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This is understood to mean that God’s covenant is only with Isaac (not Ishmael or any other of Abraham’s children), and only the offspring of Isaac would be counted as Abraham’s offspring.

But is that traditional answer true? If you read this 17th chapter of Genesis from the beginning, you’ll see that the promise God was making to Abraham – based on the command to walk before me and be blameless – was that He would confirm the covenant promises to Abraham and greatly increase the number of Abraham’s offspring. Abraham would become the father of many nations, and kings would come from his descendants (the “many nations”). God would establish His covenant with those “many nations” offspring, and give them that land of Canaan.

Now one would assume from this that the covenant – with its promise of the land of Canaan – was intended for all of those “many nations” descendants (so long as they also fulfilled the covenant requirement to walk in blamelessness before God). As a confirmation of the correctness of this assumption, God proceeded to give Abraham a covenant sign – circumcision – which was to be applied to all of his male descendants throughout their generations. In fact, the covenant – with its sign – was not only for those who were physically descended from Abraham, but also with all the servants who were purchased and therefore members of his household. As long as all of these “descendants” (whether direct or purchased slaves) continued to practice that sign of the covenant, they were included in the covenant promise of being God’s people and inheriting the land of Canaan.

As a result, verse 23 says that Abraham proceeded to obey God by circumcising Ishmael, every other male born in his household, and all of those who had been purchased with money. They all received the sign of the covenant, and all – including Ishmael – were included in that covenant.

Note that this was a year before the birth of Isaac. Ishmael was already included in this covenant before Isaac was even conceived. However, while God was making this covenant promise and requirement, He told Abraham that his wife Sarah would give birth to a son – to be named Isaac. Abraham, though, was 99 years old and Sarah was 89; and despite the fact of the greatness of Abraham’s faith and trust in God, this was more than he could believe it would seem. He fell on his face laughing at this idea, and asked God to just let Ishmael “live” before Him.

God patiently responded that Sarah would indeed give birth to a son – to be named Isaac – and God would establish His covenant with that son. Ishmael would be blessed with fruitfulness, and a great nation would spring from him; but I will establish my covenant with Isaac. And it’s with that little word “but” that the problem arises. Despite the very apparent previous inclusion of all of Abraham’s circumcised descendants (including Ishmael) in the covenant of promise, that one little word seems to suddenly place a huge restriction on who would inherit the promise. Doesn’t that seem a good bit strange??

It would indeed be very strange; but that’s not what the Genesis account tells us that God said. Despite the fact that the translators are almost unanimous in putting that word “but” in there, the correct translation is “and” or “also”! Young’s Literal Translation renders it: and My covenant I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah doth bear to thee at this appointed time in the next year.

A web site called  “Ark of Salvation” has an article  explaining and defending this rendering of “and” rather than “but”. In this particular article, he points out that the word “but” in Genesis 17:21 is a single letter – transliterated as ‘V’ in English letters – which is prefixed to the first word of the sentence. As the author says, The Hebrew prefix “V-“ (Vav) is defined by Langenscheidt’s Hebrew Dictionary as a conjunction meaning “and, and therefore, also, then, yet”. He comments that beginning Hebrew students are taught that this prefix “V” means “and”. This would be the clear and obvious meaning in Genesis 17 if Hebrew prejudice and arrogance had not twisted it in order to make themselves “God’s special people”.

When the statement in Genesis 17:21 is read as “and” or “also”, it takes on an entirely different meaning than if it’s read “but”. The meaning in context then comes to this: God told Abraham that He was so pleased with him that it simply wasn’t sufficient that He was going to provide Abraham offspring through Ishmael; he was also going to give him another son whom God would also make to be very fruitful, and with whom He would also establish His covenant. [Compare this to what the LORD said to his servant (the messiah) in Isaiah 49:6 – he (the LORD) says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”  The idea is the same in what God is reported to have said to Abraham.] Ishmael was already obviously included in the covenant, but God was going to add to that blessing by establishing His covenant with another son also. Verses 20 and 21 would then read: As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 And I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.  Or if one insists on keeping the word “but” in the translation, it would read But also I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.

Some people maintain that it was certainly a very great blessing God bestowed on Hagar and Ishmael – making a great nation to come from them – but this was entirely separate from establishing His covenant. The covenant was a far greater blessing than just causing a huge number of descendants to come from them.

My response is that, on the contrary, the promise of fruitfulness and their descendants becoming a great nation (or nations) is precisely what the covenant was all about. Notice that in verses 15 and 16, this is precisely the promise that is made regarding Sarah and Isaac (which verse 21 defines as meaning God would establish His covenant with Isaac): And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” When God says he will make Ishmael fruitful, and cause a great nation to descend from him, that is the definition of establishing His covenant with Ishmael. (And the fact that Ishmael’s offspring would become a great nation necessarily implies that they would have a land to inhabit. And what would that land be other than at least a part of the promised land which would extend from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates – a land promised to the “many nations” offspring of Abraham?)

When verse 19 says: “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son…”, that was not a negation of Abraham’s request that Ishmael would “live” before God (as the context makes very clear); rather if there is any negation involved at all, it is negating Abraham’s denial that he and Sarah could possibly conceive a child at their advanced ages. In fact, the word rendered “nay, but” is probably not a negative at all. The KJV renders it “indeed” (And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed…); and the NIV renders it “yes, but” (Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son…). The Hebrew word appears 7 times in the Bible, and in the KJV is rendered “verily” 3 times; “indeed” twice; and “nevertheless” twice. In response to Abraham’s incredulity, God was telling him that His promise of a son through Sarah would indeed come to pass – without at all denying that Ishmael also would have God’s covenant blessing.

So verse 21 is not saying “but I will exclusively establish my covenant with Isaac”; rather it is saying “in addition, I will also establish my covenant with Isaac”.

This same idea of additional blessing, rather than exclusivity of blessing, can be seen in the passage in Genesis 21:12 and 13: (12) But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. (13) And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” Here’s how Young’s Literal Translation renders these verses: (12) and God saith unto Abraham, `Let it not be wrong in thine eyes because of the youth, and because of thy handmaid: all that Sarah saith unto thee–hearken to her voice, for in Isaac is a seed called to thee. (13) As to the son of the handmaid also, for a nation I set him, because he is thy seed.’ When Sarah jealously insisted that Hagar and Ishmael be “cast out” from the household, Abraham was understandably very distressed. But God is said to have reassured Abraham.   Abraham could safely do what Sarah requested, because God Himself guaranteed that Hagar and Ishmael would be safe, and would in fact thrive. Isaac would indeed bear offspring for Abraham; but Ishmael also was Abraham’s offspring, and God was going to fulfill His previously made promise and see to it that Ishmael survived to have a large family which would eventually become a great nation. Abraham’s offspring would be “called” from both of those sons.

That is the story as it is presented in the Hebrew Scripture. If it is a historically accurate account, then the “Israelites” don’t have a leg to stand on in arrogating to themselves sole “ownership” of the land of Canaan, and sole (or even primary) inheritance of God’s covenant with Abraham. The land belongs to all of Abraham’s descendants (including those from Ishmael) who keep God’s covenant requirements. If the story is not historically accurate, but is instead either false or allegory, then obviously again the “Israelites” don’t have any legitimate right to claim the “Abrahamic covenant” and the land as their own. The covenant is for all who follow in the steps of Abraham’s faith, and the “land” is allegorically interpreted as the “heavenly” inheritance.

It is certainly true that the Hebrew people twisted and distorted this Abrahamic covenant to make it theirs exclusively; and this distorted interpretation was reflected later in the writings of the prophets. But it is high time that this misuse of “sacred Scripture” should be corrected. The Qur’an points out in a number of passages that the Jewish people tended to pull verses out of context and distort their meanings. This is one example of such abuse.  Nevertheless, the interpretation of the particular text was wrong, although the principle he was seeking to establish was correct. This is a proof that God is able to bring forth good out of evil!

Is Israel God’s ‘Chosen Nation’??

“Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” [Acts 10:34, 35].

In this article I want to pursue the related idea of whether Jews (the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) have any special place in the purpose of God. This is obviously the key issue in the controversy over any national right of Israel to a particular land. It is the most basic element in the claims of Zionist Jews and their fundamentalist Christian supporters: the Jewish nation is God’s ‘chosen people’, made by God to be above all of the other nations and peoples of the earth; all nations must serve the Jews, and whoever opposes them opposes God Himself.

That viewpoint is so distorted, though, that one has to cry out in astonishment to Christians or Jews who hold such a view: “for you are still carnal [of the flesh]” [1 Corinthians 3:3]!  The key point of that story, though, is that Abraham and his descendants were being set apart as God’s witnesses to the nations, in order to – by their testimony – bring all the nations into the kingdom of God, and thereby into God’s blessings on an equal basis with themselves. God wasn’t setting up a national hierarchy, with one nation superior to all others. When the physical descendants of Abraham broke God’s covenant through disobedience, and failed to be a testimony to the nations of God’s righteousness and justice, mercy and kindness, then God cut them off from His blessing – as their own prophets testified.

Hosea, in chapter one, gave symbolic names to his children indicating that Israel would be called “not pitied” and “not my people” because of their disobedience. The point here is that it is not one’s genetic lineage that makes him part of the ‘people of God’, but one’s belief in God as manifested by an obedient life. The Hebrew prophets were clear in showing that it was never a violation of God’s covenant with Abraham when He removed unbelieving and disobedient descendants of Abraham (physically speaking) from the covenant blessings. The story of Elijah in 1 Kings 19 illustrates the point beautifully. Elijah complained to the LORD that he was the only person in Israel still loyal to God, and the Israelites were seeking to kill him. The LORD responded that Elijah was mistaken; there were still 7000 in Israel who refused to worship Baal. These 7000 would be spared by God while the rest (the unbelievers) were cut off from God’s blessing and destroyed – despite their verifiable claim to be genetically pure descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The prophet John (“the Baptist”), when castigating his Jewish hearers for their sinful departures from obedience to God’s covenant and calling on them to repent before God cut them off (he said: “Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” – Matthew 3:10), made this very interesting statement in verse 9: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham”! He was using the metaphorical and hyperbolic language of the Hebrew people to refer to the fact that all of creation ‘sings praises’ to God; trees ‘clap their hands’ and mountains ‘skip like lambs’ in joy at God’s presence and blessings. So metaphorically speaking, the very stones believe in and praise God, and are therefore children of Abraham (children of his faith) in contrast to the disobedient physical descendants whom God was about to cut off from His blessings. Here it is made plain that not only must Jews be believers to be the true ‘people of God’, but there can be children of Abraham who have no physical connection to him at all. The only thing that matters is obedient faith, such as Abraham illustrated.

Jesus taught this truth when he said (in Matthew 21:43): “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom”.  The physical Jewish descendants of Abraham were to be disinherited, and another nation (the ‘nation’ of believers from ALL nations – including the remnant of believing Jews) would inherit the promises forfeited by the (national-Zionist) Jews. (This was equivalent to John’s prophecy that the axe was at the root of the Jewish ‘trees’ and was about to cut them down).

The fact of the matter, then, is that God has never blessed a people based on their physical descent, doesn’t now, and never will. That is why Peter’s new understanding of God, quoted at the beginning of this article, is of such importance. Peter had once believed the carnal distortion of many Jews that those who are Jews by physical descent from Jacob were a ‘special’ people to God, separate from the ‘unclean Gentiles’. He told the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius: “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean (Acts 10:28). And so he said (as quoted at the start of this article): “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation ANYONE who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him(Acts 10:34 and 35). The nation of Israel has no special claim on God’s favor, and never will! With the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the dispersal of the Jewish people throughout the nations, in 70 AD, God has torn down the ‘first tabernacle’ with all of its outward trappings (land, Temple, sacrifices, and other regulations of worship) in order to open the way to the ‘holiest of all’ (Hebrews 9). You may be sure that God will never ‘rebuild’ that ‘first tabernacle’ with its outward ordinances and land. Anyone holding to the Zionist illusion should disillusion himself, and set his eyes on that ‘spiritual, heavenly country’ which is the inheritance of those in every nation who fear God and do what is right. This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and anyone else who truly loves and serves God. They show the law of God and of his anointed written on their hearts, even if it is not recognized intellectually. It is they who are the true ‘children of Abraham’ and receive the covenant promises.

Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. Gen 12:2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.Gen 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Isa 45:22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

John 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Acts 10:28 [The Christian apostle Peter speaking to the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius – SGP] And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean …
Act 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, Act 10:35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Qur’an 49:13 People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one another. In God’s eyes, the most honoured of you are the ones most mindful of Him: God is all knowing, all aware.

Qur’an 5:18 The Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are the children of God and His beloved ones.’ Say, ‘Then why does He punish you for your sins? You are merely human beings, part of His creation: He forgives whoever He will and punishes whoever He will. Control of the heavens and earth and all that is between them belongs to Him: all journeys lead to Him.’

[Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version; Qur’an quotations are from the Abdel Haleem English Version.]

Those verses, taken from the Hebrew and Christian portions of the Bible, and the Qur’an (Koran), proclaim with utmost clarity a most basic principle of the Religion of God in all its manifestations: God is King of all the earth (indeed of all worlds), all human beings come from Him, and He has no favorites among them – except that He favors all those from every nation and tribe who believe in Him and do righteous deeds.

This is actually something which should be clear to anyone who uses the reason God gave him/her, even without any ‘Divine Revelation’. Yet the darkness of human understanding is sometimes so great that even the most clear and evident truths of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” are not seen or are ignored.

Some people have imagined that the color of one’s skin makes him/her superior to everyone else: “white supremacy” for instance – whether its manifestation in the Ku Klux Klan in the USA; or the white, blond haired, blue eyed ‘Aryans’ of Nazi infamy; or any other manifestation. And of course there was the reaction of the “Black Muslims” of the “Nation of Islam” who maintained (maintain?) that the true ‘master race’ is the race of black skinned people.

Others imagine that “God’s elect” are those who belong to a particular expression of the Religion of God. Perhaps most obvious would be some from the Christian religion (“evangelicals”, “fundamentalists”, etc.) who think that they alone belong to the family of God – because they have come to believe in the ‘right’ Prophet, and believe the ‘right doctrines’ concerning that Prophet (that he is – supposedly – Pagan doctrines like “God the Son”, the “Second Person of the Trinity”, and that he died as a substitute for all believers to bear the wrath of God against them and so-called ‘save’ them).

Such ‘supremacist’ imaginations are demolished by the above quoted verses.

But there is another group of people who believe they are “the apple of God’s eye” because of a combination of physical genealogical descent from Abraham through his grandson Jacob/Israel, and their religious faith and obedience to the Law of Moses. For many, it is the genealogical descent which at least seems to be the biggest factor. These people, of course, are the Jews – or at least some from among the Jews. I’m not one who believes that they’re all alike.

Nevertheless, even though not all Jewish people are ‘racists’, I imagine it must be with difficulty that they avoid it. It is so ingrained in Jewish thinking based on interpretations of the Bible and the Talmud, that it seems to me that one must either reject a large portion of those books as forgeries and fable, or resort to what appears to many as ‘far fetched interpretations’ of them. Still, there may be some truth to the idea that much of what are known as the ‘historical’ portions of the Hebrew Scriptures was never intended to be understood as ‘true history’, but rather as Zionist propagandism. It is not “the truth” historically, but it contains a truth. And perhaps the stories were written in such a way as to be unbelievable and even atrocious, in order to ‘cue us in’ that they were in fact forgeries rather than true histories.

However, historically the Jewish Scriptures have been understood by much of the Jewish ‘nation’ as very literally teaching that they are “God’s chosen people”, vastly superior to the ‘dogs of the Gentiles’. An illustration of just how ingrained such thinking is in Jewish thought is the story in Acts 10 and 11 of the Christian “New Testament” concerning Peter and the household of Cornelius.

Peter would not even have considered entering the house of Cornelius – a Roman centurion – if he had not been given a vision by God showing him that God doesn’t show favoritism. This despite the fact that Peter had spent so much time in the presence of Jesus Christ; and the fact that Cornelius was considered a ‘righteous’ and ‘God-fearing’ man, even by the Jews – who respected him (Acts 10:1, 2, 22). Despite his righteousness and fear of God, he was still a ‘dog of the Gentiles’. He may have been a ‘good dog’, but he was a ‘dog’ nevertheless. He was not an ‘equal’ of the Jews, and no good Jew would think of entering his house and eating with him.

It took visions given to Peter and Cornelius to convince Peter that this notion of Jewish superiority was invalid. And when he returned to Jerusalem, he had some explaining to do – because the Jewish disciples of Jesus  there were horrified that Peter had done something as unthinkable as entering the house of an uncircumcised Gentile and eating with him (again despite the fact that Cornelius was respected by the Jews as a righteous and God-fearing man) [Acts 11:1 and 2].

This idea of Jewish superiority is easily seen today in what is known as ‘Zionism’ and ‘the Jewish State of Israel’. Most Jewish people seem to accept without hesitation that the land of Palestine belongs to them by so-called ‘Divine Right’. They are “God’s chosen people”, and they just don’t seem to comprehend that there might be some problem with them ‘cleansing’ the land of its non-Jewish inhabitants, demolishing their houses and cities, burning their crops, etc.

They eagerly accept fables about the land of Palestine being uninhabited, barren, and unfruitful – just waiting for “the apple of God’s eye” to come in and make the ‘desert’ blossom like a rose! Their blind prejudice is reflected in the slogan they adopted about the land: “a land without a people for a people without a land”. Despite the fact they had to murder or drive out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the land in order to turn it into a ‘Jewish State’, they still said it was a ‘land without a people’. I guess that’s because of the ‘fact’ that those Palestinian ‘Gentiles’ weren’t really people, but ‘dogs’! (Naudhubillah).

All of those olive and orange groves (as well as other types of agriculture) which the Zionist Jews had to destroy in order to be able to plant their own crops and turn the ‘desert’ into a ‘fruitful field’ were only imaginary, I guess. After all, Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) wrote that in his travels in Palestine he found the land uninhabited and barren! (We’re supposed to ignore the fact, I suppose, that Mr. Clemens also said the same thing of Greece – in perhaps even stronger terms. Mark Twain was a great writer of fiction and humor; but it sounds like his “non-fiction” was perhaps not quite so ‘non’ fictional.)

What is truly amazing, though, is that many Christians – and even some (westernized dajjalized) Muslims – buy into the absurd notion of Jewish ‘chosenness’ and their ‘Divine Right’ to the land!

In the past two and a half years that I have been reading the Qur’an, I have seen that the Qur’an does indeed confirm what remains of the truth in the former revelations; and it definitely confirms the truth seen by Peter that God shows no favoritism, but those in every nation who believe in God and do good works are accepted by Him. The quotations from 49:13 and 5:18 given at the beginning of this article are quite explicit. 5:18 in particular says that neither the Christians nor the Jews are God’s special people; they’re just human beings, and God bestows His blessings on whom He will among human beings.

Surah 2:124 says this: When Abraham’s Lord tested him with certain commandments, which he fulfilled, He said, ‘I will make you a leader of people.’ Abraham asked, ‘And will you make leaders of my descendents too?’ God answered, ‘My pledge does not hold for those who do evil.’ This confirms the Biblical assertions that Abraham believed God (and showed it by his works), and this was accounted to him for righteousness; and that it is those who have the same faith as Abraham (shown by righteous works) who are his descendents and heirs. Those who disbelieve and disobey are not Abraham’s heirs.

Sura 17:4-8 says this about the children of Israel: (4) We declared to the Children of Israel in the Scripture, ‘Twice you will spread corruption in the land and become highly arrogant’. (5) When the first of those warnings was fulfilled, We sent against you servants of Ours [Assyrians and Babylonians] with great force, and they ravaged your homes. That warning was fulfilled, (6) but then We allowed you to prevail against your enemy. We increased your wealth and offspring and made you more numerous – (7) whether you do good or evil it is to your own souls – and when the second warning was fulfilled [We sent them] [“servants of Ours” – the Romans this time] to shame your faces and enter the place of worship as they did the first time, and utterly destroy whatever fell into their power. (8) Your Lord may yet have mercy on you, but if you do the same again, so shall We: We have made Hell a prison for those who defy [Our warning].

This again confirms the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets. Isaiah and Jeremiah for instance predicted the Assyrian/Babylonian captivity, while Daniel in particular (though not only Daniel) predicted the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the “last days/end” for the Jewish State. Daniel 9:24-27 predicted that from the time Cyrus the Persian freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity there would be 490 years (70 “weeks/sevens” of years). Messiah the Prince would appear in the 69th “week/seven”, and be “cut off” in the 70th “week/seven”. After that, and as a result, the “people of the Prince” would come and destroy the city of Jerusalem and its Temple. When the “people of the Prince” is referred to, I believe the Prince is the same “Messiah the Prince” previously referred to who would come and be “cut off”. The Roman legions are seen as being sent at his command, by the will of God, to fulfill God’s purpose. However, others believe that this Prince whose people would destroy the Temple is Titus, the Roman General (son of Emperor Vespasian) who was the actual Roman leader.

In keeping with this prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by the Romans – and its fulfillment – the Qur’an says this in 5:78 and 79: (78) The Children of Israel who defied [God] were rejected through the words of David, and Jesus, son of Mary, because they disobeyed, they persistently overstepped the limits, (79) they did not forbid each other to do wrong. How vile their deeds were!  

I believe this Qur’anic statement about David and Jesus proclaiming God’s rejection of the Jewish people who defied and disobeyed God refers in particular to a parable and statement of Jesus given (with minor variations) in 3 of the 4 “Gospels” (the “Synoptics” – Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Jesus told a parable about the owner of a vineyard leasing it out to some tenants, and then leaving on a trip. From time to time the owner would send servants to collect some of the fruit from the tenants (lease payment); but the tenants beat some and killed others of those servants. Finally, the owner sent his son (servant) (the last Prophet of Bani Israel), figuring that the tenants would at least honor him. Instead they tried to kill him, thinking that with the heir dead they would inherit the vineyard themselves.

According to Matthew’s account, Jesus then asked his hearers:  Mat 21:40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? Their response (verse 41) was: He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.

Then followed this response: Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Mat 21:43  Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. Mat 21:44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

So Jesus confirmed the conclusion of his hearers, and applied it to the Jewish nation by quoting from David (Psalm 118:22 and 23) and making his own declaration of God’s rejection of Israel and replacement of them by another people.

Yes, I without hesitation adhere to what some (even Christians, interestingly) disparagingly label “replacement theology”. God honored the faithful obedience of Abraham by telling him that his descendants would bring the blessing of God to all the nations. The descendants of Abraham’s grandson Jacob were chosen to have the opportunity to fulfill that purpose and be a “light to the nations” (not to be superior to, and slave masters over, the nations). When those descendants of Jacob became arrogant and disobedient, and became a “blight to the nations” rather than a “light to the nations”, God repudiated them and gave that position to the descendants of Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael. The Arabic people, beginning with the leadership of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), fulfilled the purpose of being a “light to the nations”. They did not arrogantly imagine that God had made them superior to everyone else as the Jews had done. People from all nations and races have become “Muslims” (submitted and devoted to God), and the Arabs have no superior place among that “Muslim” people. They became the “cornerstone” in the kingdom, but they are not the kingdom itself.

To conclude then: it is simply impossible that God would adopt some particular nation or tribe of people – or followers of one particular Prophet out of the many He sent – to be His “chosen” or “special” people in any sense that makes them superior to everyone else. The Jewish people were chosen to have the opportunity to bring God’s light to other nations; but when they brought instead a “blight” to the nations, God rejected them and replaced them with a people who would not be arrogant and unfaithful. And it remains true of Arab Muslims as well as all other Muslims that if they are unbelieving and disobedient, they too will be rejected by God. God simply doesn’t play favorites!

In the next part we will try to identify the people of “The Stone which the Jewish People Rejected” and “the kingdom of God will be takeb away from you anf giveb to a people producing its fruits.” Insha Allah.

HUSBAND & THE RIGHT OF DIVORCE [Indian Government Interferes in Muslim Personal Law]





         (Translation of the Foreword)

The Constitution of India that was designed after the Independence of India declared India a Secular State. This implies that India does not have a state religion. Rather, the Constitution respects every religion and grants its followers complete Freedom of Religion, it has been clearly stated that the Government shall not pass any law which eliminates or decreases basic Fundamental Rights. If such a law is passed, it will be unconstitutional.

It is within the scope of such fundamental rights that every citizen is guaranteed to preserve his culture and the adherents of all religions in India have complete Freedom of Religion. The Government cannot interfere in such rights and cannot create any law that will affect this Basic Constitutional right.

Despite the guarantee of Freedom of Religion being an entrenched Constitutional Right, there is repeated discussion of changing and Reforming Muslim Personal Law through a Civil Code. Hence, a few days ago the Government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court requesting that there should be restrictions on the Laws of three Talaaqs, halala and polygamy. Presently, there are intense discussions and the media (which is meticulously used to brainwash against Muslim Personal Law) has published some articles, one of which is, “Why a man has the right of talaq?”. These articles are presented in such a way that  creates doubts in the minds of many Muslims.

Moulana Atiq Ahmad Bastawi (Lecturer at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow) has critically analysed and answered the related issues in this treatise in such a way that  it will easily dispel doubts instigated by the misleading campaign of the media and others. Seeing the relevance and the imminent threat to vulnerable Muslims, I deemed it necessary to have this treatise translated into English. To undertakes this important task, I requested the honorable and respected Moulana Mufti Ebrahim Desai (Senior lecturer of Hadith at Masrasah Nu’maniyyah, Durban, and a world renowned Scholar) who immediately fulfilled my request. May Allah bless him in knowledge and practice.

This treatise is therefore being presented to the Muslims in general and specifically for those who have been trapped in the net of doubts to dispel rheir doubts and increase their faith and conviction.

May Allah grant us all strength and consideration for Imaan. Aameen.

(Mufti) Ahmad Khanpuri
17th Muharram, 1438 A.H.
19th October, 2016

                   Translators Note

I have been advised to by my most revered and spiritual guide, Hadhrat Mufti Ahmad Khanpuri Sahib to translate the book  “عائلی تنازعات کا شرعی حل اور شوہر کو حق طلاق کیوں” as a matter of urgency. It is indeed very challenging to translate such intricate academic topics.

We have endevoured to maintain the message of the subject matter rather than a strict literal translation.

We humbly request you to overlook any shortcomings in the translation. Bear in mind, this book has been translated in one way due to the urgency of the matter. We hope to revise the translation in future Insha’ Allah.

                      _[Mufti] Ebrahim Desai

In Islam, Nikah is not a temporary enjoyment. Rather, it is a bond of love between two people which has to be revered and preserved till death. It is due to this that Islam has emphasised to both spouses to go out of their way in fulfilling every right of the other and overlooking each others faults.

Islam has decreed that women be obedient to their husbands  in all permissible acts. In doing so, she has been fiven glad tidings of Paradise. There are many Ahadith of Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam in this regard:

Hadhrat Umme Salamah (RadhiyAllahu Anha) narrates that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “If a woman dies in a state wherein her husband was pleased with her, she shall enter Jannah.” (Sunan Tirmidhi Pg 457, Vol 2. Hadith 1161 Daral Gharbi Islamiy, Beirut 1998 edition).

It is narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Anas (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “A woman shall have the honour of entering Jannah from whichever door of Jannah she pleases if she performs her five times prayers, fasts during the month of Ramadhan, safeguards her chastity and is obedient to her husband.” (Hilyatul Awliya Pg. 308. Vol.6. Darul Fikr. Beirut. fourth impression)

Hadhrat Abu Usama (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) narrates from the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam),

“After attaining conciousness of Almighty Allah, the next best thing a person can get is a pious wife with the following characteristics;

she accedes to his directives, she makes him happy when he sees her, if her husband takes an oath keeping her trust in mind, she fulfils the oath and in the absence of the husband she safeguards her chastity and his wealth.” (Sunan ibn Majah Pg. 62. Vol. 3. Daral Risalatal Alamiyyah, first impression 2009).

However, to facilitate harmony in domestic life, Islam’s guidance is not one sided. There is much emphasis on the husband to be extremely kind and considerate to the wife that even if he does not like his wife, he is advised to display good conduct towards her.

The Qur’aan explicitely outlines this in the following verses:

And show good conduct (because) if you dislike them (wives), it is possible that you only dislike something and Allah might have placed a lot of good in it. (Chapter of Women: Verse 19)

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) mentions that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) mentioned,

“If a man dislikes a woman, then possibly is just because of one habit wherein she may posses many other qualities.” (Sahih Muslim Pg. 1092 Vol. 2, Dar Ihya Turath Al-Arabiy, first impreasion)

Islam has made a man’s conduct with his spouse a yardstick to define his character.

Hadhrat Aisha (RadhiyAllahu Anha) reports that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned, “The best amongst you is the one who has the best conduct with his wife and I am the best amongst you in terms of good conduct with my family.” (Sunan Tirmidhi Pg. 709 Vol 5 Hadith 1161 Daral Gharbil Islamiy, Beirut 1998 edition)

To make the personal life harmonious and successful is the duty of both, the husband and the wife. However, the husband being the head of the house has a greater responsibility. Whenever there is discord between the spouses, since the husband is in charge in terms of management, he should abandon his firmness and take the first step in resolving the matter.

If the discord is due to his behaviour, then he should correct himself and try to win her over, and if it is because of the incorrect attitude of the wife, then the husband should deal with her with utmost patience, love, care and wisdom. Instead of being harsh and emotional, one should involve in dialogue and try to resolve the problem amicably.

The Qur’aan provides various instructions as remedies to family dissention. If these steps are taken, then the husband and wife will easily resolve their problem.

Men have charge over women (as their overseers, guardians, protectors) because of the virtue (distinction) Allah has (in His infinite wisdom) bestowed some of you over others and because of what men spend (on women) from their wealth. So the righteous women are obedient and in the absence (of their husbands), are protective of their chastity and property of their husband, because of that (those rights of women) which Allah has protected. As for those whose disobedience you fear, advice them; separate your bed from theirs and tap them (gently). If they obey you, then do not look for a way against them (to wrongfully accuse them). Verily, Allah is Most High, the Greatest. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people, if they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Knowing and acquainted (with all things) (chapter of Women: Verses 34,35)
In the above verses of Surah Nisah (Chapter of Women), four stages have been outlined to bring about reconciliation

The beginning of verse 34 says that a man is the leader of the family. The simple logic behind this is that no organisation can function without a leader. And generally men are more capable of carrying out this duty. A man is more capable in bringing about discipline and channel the energies of his household in the right avenues.

This does not necessarily imply that a man possess unrestrained and unlimited mandate. Rather it is his duty to oversee the  smooth running of the house. He is responsible of taking charge and control of the family members. He has to arrange for their well-being and education.

In the above quoted verses, man has been appointed the care-taker and the head of the house-hold due to two reasons:

1. Allah Taala has given man a degree of virtue over women.
This is understood from the following verse:

Women have rights similar to what they owe in recognised manner, though for men there is a step above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Surah Baqarah: Verse: 228)

2. The responsibility of the maintainance and the expenses of the wife and children is on the husband.

For this reason, our jurists explicitly mention that though the wife may be rich and wealthy, her expenditure, maintainance and arrangements for living accomodations are still the responsibility of the husband even if he may be poor. A woman supports herself financially and does not load the responsibility of her maintainance on her husband, rather she bears the finances of the house through her own wealth, this will not affect the status of the husband veing the caretaker.

The appointment of the man as the caretaker is due to man being given a degree of virtue over woman because generally men have been more blessed with those certain capabilities which assist in the heading and taking care of the household. However, women have less of a role of than men in the structure and running of the household. The internal issues of the household and supervision is solely the responsibility of women. Men and women both play a central role in the family system. The only way the household can be successful is through their mutual trust and co-operation.

Two qualities of a righteous women are described in the verse 34 of Surah Nisaa:

1. Righteous women obey her husbands.

2. In the absence of their husbands, they protect his wealth and reputation.

The qualities of righteous wives mentioned in this verse are clarified further in the upcoming Ahadith.

Hafidhatul Ghayb can also mean that righteous wives are the confidants of the husband’s secrets. In a martial relationship, secrecy and concealment (of the wives, i.e. for her to not gossip regarding her husband and vice-versa) is a very important and crucial quality. This vital quality is very eloquently expressed in the Qur’an:

They are apparel for you, and you are apparel for them  (Surah Baqarah- 187)

If any woman is unable to maintain the husband’s secrets, and she divulges those secrets, and she is unable to maintain the reputation and dignity of her husband, and in the absence of her husband, she allows strangers to enter the home, then this woman is a source of destruction to her husband’s morale. Rather than being a source of happiness in the personal family life of the husband, she is a source of bitterness and distaste.

This verse, after mentioning the virtuous qualities of a wife, provides a solution to bring the wife back to the correct path. If the wife does not inculcate these virtuous qualities in her, and she does not fulfil her martial duties, she does obey her husband in lawful matters, she does not maintain and protect the wealth and reputation of her husband, she is ill-natured and mischievous, then a process with three stages and initiatives  is presented to husbands to bring these types of women back to the correct path.


The concept of advice and counsel is that the husband repeatedly explains with utmost concern and care, leniency and gentleness. He should try to instil the fear of Allah, explain the consequences awaiting in the hereafter. If the wife veers from the correct path, and the husbands counsels her and tries to make her understand with a passion to steer her back on the straight path and rectify her while understanding her nature, then by the will of Allah, he will be successful in his attempt.

Counsel does not mean to admonish her and get angry at her. To admonish her and get angry at her without taking into consideration her emotions and feelings will more often than not lead to her becoming withdrawn and unresponsive. Rather than rectifying her, hostility and animosity is created within her.


If the disobedience of the woman is not resolved through advice and counsel, then the husband should display inattention and construct an invisible barrier. Some commentators of the Qur’aan explain separation in the bed as abstaining from sleeping with the wife. Others explain it as abstaining from conversing, and others explain it as turning away from the wife in the bed. The sum of the various explanations is that the husband should develop a change in the way he deals with his wife and display his disapproval to her. This stage is very effective in resolving the issue in most women.


If the issue is not resolved with the first two initiatives, then Shariah has allowed to administer a slight rap on her by hitting her lightly if he is confident that such an attitude will jolt and rectify her. However, the following conditions should be borne in mind:

1. Hitting her should not be the outcome of revenge or one’s anger towards her. Rather the sole intention must be to rectify her. If it is done for revenge then the adverse effects will be that the relationship will become even more bitter.

2. If the wife displays open disobedience, the husband can implement the reformation process presented in the Qur’aan. If the first two initiatives fails to produce any results and the husband is confident that slightly hitting her will not resolve the issue, then it will be incorrect to hit her merely to finish the reformation process.

3. In any given situation, the husband is not allowed and does not have the right to beat and assault her severely. Hitting the wife to such an extent that it leaves a mark, breaks a bone or injures her in any way has been prohibited by numerous Ahadith. It is also prohibited to hit her, slightly or harshly, in the sensitive areas of her body.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) mentioned in the plains of Arafat during the farewell Hajj: “Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by the words of Allah. You too have right over them, and that they should mot allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner.” (Sahih Muslim V-2/ Pg 891 Dar Ihya Turath Al-Arabi)

4. It is not necessary and not advisable to slightly hit women after the first two initiatives fail to reform her. It is merely allowed in the case of extreme necessity. Islam does not condone the hitting of wives, rather Islam discourages hitting women. Islamic law concedes slight chastisement of women in certain scenarios with certain conditions since maintaining and improving the household can only be achieved through it in certain societies. But to the contrary, Islam encourages such practices through which utmost consideration is given to maintaining the respect of women. Hitting is a distant notion, in fact, wives should not even be spoken to harshly!.

There were some incidents during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) When the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) brought complaints against their wives in regards to their sharp tongues with the hope of securing concession to hit them. Rather than conceding to hitting  the wives, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) advised that they should terminate the martial relationship instead.

The famous Tabi’ee, Hadhrat ‘Ata (Rahimahullah) mentions:
“If a wife refuses or opposes the command of her husband, then too the husband will not hit her rather he will be upset.” Qadi Ibnul Arabi (Rahimahullah) has mentioned this statement of Hadhrat ‘Ata (Rahimahullah) to be the culmination of his great intellect, insight and understanding. (Ahkam ul Qur’an li Ibnul Arabi – V 1/ Pg. 536)

The method of hitting wives in Shari’ah is further elucidated in the following Ahadith:

Hadhrat Iyas ibn ‘Abdullah reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens (wives). After this advice, Hadhrat Umar (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) came to the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and said: “Women have become emboldened towards their husbands”. He (the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) gave permission to hit the wives. After this, many women came to the wives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) complaining against their husbands. So the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “Many women have come to my wives complaining about their husbands hitting them. Those husbands who hit their wives are not good people” [Sunan Abi Dawud Pg. 479, Vol 3 – Dar Ar- Risalah al-Alamiyyah]

From the above narration, it is clearly understood that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) disliked the practice of hitting the wives. However, considering the fact that in various communities/societies there exists some disobedient and transgressive women (as explained by Hadhrat Umar (RadhiyAllahu anhu), the ruling of hitting has not been absolutely prohibited.

If the matter has reached such a stage where the husband and wife cannot mutually resolve their differences, then this conflict and tension will not only affect the couples but shall have a negative impact on both families and the society hence, the matter shall no longer remain their confidential issue but will become a community/public issue. In this regard, the Qur’an has addressed and explained the Muslim welfare societies or judges (who are in charge of the Muslim welfare societies) how to resolve issues between two spouses.

In Surah Nisaa, Aayat 35, Allah Ta’ala says:

“And if you fear dissension between the two send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people of they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever-Knowing and acquainted (with all things)” [Surah Nisa’: Verse 35]

The summary of the discussion is if the relationship has reached such a crucial stage where there is no hope of mutual conciliation, then the Qadhi (Muslim judge) or Muslim judicial committee should appoint two members/parties and conduct an arbitration/adjudication. One member from the husband’s family and other member forms from the wife’s side. The two members should be pious, sincere and knowledgable about the case. They will be responsible to hear the statements and arguments of both, the husband and wife and will try their best to reconcile the two. It is the promise of Almighty Allah that, if both the parties have firm intention of goodness and reconciliation to resolve the matter, Allah Ta’ala will bring harmony between the two. When arbitrators would report to Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) that inspite of their efforts, they failed to reconcile the couple, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) would alert them by saying, “You people did not try to your best to resolve your matter. Try again!”

It is the promise of Almighty Allah that if the arbitrators try to sincerely resolve the dispute, Allah will definitely bring harnony and will reconcile the two.

Eventually, if the arbitrators fail to resolve the issue, and according to them   the only way to overcome/ avoid the controversies/ conflicts between the spouses is to annul the Nikah, then in that case, if the husband is ready/ wants to terminate the Nikah, it is simple. But if the husband is not willing to terminate the relationship, do the arbitrators have the right to terminate this relarionship?

The Muslim jurists are of two view on this issue: According to Imam Malik (Rahmatullah Alaih), if the arbitrators confirm that annulment of the Nikah shall be the only solution to this case, then they (the arbitrators) will have the right to terminate the Nikah even if the husband objects. But most of the Muslim jurists are of the view that it will not be permissible for the arbitrators to do so.

In order to remove conflicts between husband and wife, and to create a harmonious martial relationship, Allah Ta’ala has prescribed four measures in Surah Nisaa. If one practices upon these measures, then all domestic issues will be resolved. Then there won’t be the need for Talaq or separation.


Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) has expressed great dislike towards divorce in various narrations:

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrated, the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, of all the lawful acts, the most detestable to Allah is divorce. [Sunan Abu Dawud: Pg. 305, Vol. 3, Dar Ar-Risalah al-Alamiyyah]

Just as it is undesirable for a husband to initiate/issue talaq without any valid cause, similarly it is disliked by Almighty and His beloved Rasul (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) for the wife to demand talaq without any valid reason.

Shaytan gets happy when a couple gets separated, this can be  understood from the following narration:

Hadhrat Thawban (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Any women who asks her husband for a divorce when it is not absolutely necessary, the fragrance of Paradise will be forbidden to her” [Ibn Maajah: 2055]

Hadhrat Jabir (Radhiyallahu Anhu) narrated that the Prophet of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Iblis places his throne on the water and he dispatches his army (to cause mischief). The closest Shaytans to Iblis in rank are those who are most notorious in causing mischief. One of the Shaytan comes to Iblis and reports: ‘I did so and so’ Iblis says: ‘You have done nothing’. Then one amongst them comes and says: “I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between the husband and a wife.” Iblis goes near him and says: “You have done well.” A’mash said: “He then embraces him” [Sahih Muslim, pg. 2167, vol. 4, Dar Ihya al-Turath Al-Arabi]

From the above narrations, we understand that shaytan gets immensely happy upon the separation of the spouses and he congratulates those shaytans who bring about separation between the spouses. The happiness of the Shaytan is due to a home being destroyed, consolidating the enmity between the two families and giving Iblis the opportunity to spread unlimited mischief and deviation.


Despite the fact that ending a marriage or giving a divorce (talaq) may be an extremely abhorrent act, one cannot deny the reality that at times, this act become an unavoidable necessity. At times, natural harmony is not found between a husband and wife; even though both are pious and noble, they are incompatible to one another due to immense differences between them in their temperments, attitudes and eventual habits.

In such a case, if all attempts to amend the situation by creating harmony lead to a total failure, there is no benefit for any of the parties (the husband, wife or the society) in binding the two spouses to the institution of marriage through legislative force.

The flag of marriage can only be at full mast if the wind of mutual afftection, love, trust and co-operation is blowing. The purpose of a marriage cannot be fulfilled if the environment of evil presumptions, mistrust, hatred and enmity.

It is for this reason that Islam has shown us the method of dissolving a marriage if such a situation were to occur, and despite the notion of divorce being detestable, Islam has not completely prohibited it.

The unavoidable necessities of life cannot be deferred. Thus, a system should be put in place to accommodate these necessities. In even the most affluent and fashionable areas of the cities, sewage pipes are found beneath the ground. If a muncipality were to announce that they no longer require these dirty pipes and decide to close them. What would happen to the city? All the roads and pathways would be impossible to cross due to the filthy water and slime, as well as its horrid stench and smell.


Despite the fact that fifty years ago, the Islamic system was criticised for the plethora of disapprobation for its validation of divorce (Talaq), the world now sees that the notion that was once considered a fault in Islam is a same notion that is now considered a merit of Islam. In every political and religious dispensation, the vision of Islam with regards to divorce (talaq) has been adopted in some form.

In the Hindu religion, as mentioned by the representatives of the religion from the latter centuries, divorce (talaq) was not considered permissible. Eventually, however, the Hindu members of the Indian Parliment formed a Hindu Code Bill in which permission for divorce (talaq) was granted.

Even still, the conditions and restrictions added to the Code Bill with regards to the permission for divorce (talaq) are such that it does not fulfill the requirements of the Hindu society with regards to divorce (talaq). For this reason, at times, a Hindu husband has to go to the extreme of converting to a different faith in order to free himself from a disliked wife.

The Christians also did not allow divorce (talaq). However, after constant demand and pressure, all the Christian countries gradually brought in laws to facilitate the right of divorce (talaq). Demand for the right of divorce (talaq) did not only come from men, in fact, women’s rights groups were also persistent and ardent in their demand.

Despite the fact that in the western countries, the right of giving permission for divorce lies in the hands of a court, the incidents of divorce are perpetually on the rise. The institution of marriage and the notion of divorce (talaq) have become sport and play. The tranquility of family life has been destroyed.


We have agreed that in some instances, divorce (talaq) becomes an unavoidable necessity for a human being. We have also agreed that to keep a husband and wife tied to the institution of marriage even when it has completely broken down is manifest oppression upon the two spouses as well as upon the society. However, the question arises: to whom should the autonomy of divorce (talaq) should be given in order to facilitate minimial aggravation and the deliverance of justice in the entire procedure of divorce (talaq)?

There are four possibilities:

1) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) should be jointly given to both husband and wife; just as the institution of marriage was formed through their consent, it should not be revoked except through a joint consultation and decision by both parties. This  possibility is compatible with the Shari’ah of Islam.

If a man and a woman mutually agree to end their marriage, they have the right to do so. In Islamic jurisprudence, this is referred to as Khula’. The Qur’an itself and the Prophetic teachings mention the permissibility of Khula’.

However, this is not the obly method of ending a marriage in the Islamic Shari’ah. In fact, there are other methods which we shall elaborate upon soon.

2) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) is given to the husband alone.

This option is also compatible with the Shari’ah of Islam. From an outside perspective, this may come across as a strange view that the institution of marriage which only came into existence through the consent of both the man and the woman, may be ended through the decision of one party.

However, due to the various profound reasons supported by wisdom (which shall be elaborated upon soon), Allah The Most High has given the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to the husband alone. Along with this, the husband has been advised not to use his autonomy of divorce (talaq) frivolously. In fact, he has been guided by the Qur’an and Prophetic teachings towards the proper manner of giving a divorce (talaq).

3) The autonomy of divorce is given to wife alone. This option is not compatible with the shari’ah of Islam. In Islamic law, woman alone has not been given the autonomy of divorce (talaq). This ruling is one which serves to the benefit of woman. We shall shed light upon the reasons as to why a woman has not been given the autonomy of divorce in the coming chapters.

Although Islam has not given the sole autonomy of divorce (talaq) to a woman, Islam has emphasised that a women must not be oppressed or hurt in anyway whatsoever. For this reason, if a husband does not fulfill the rights of his wife or oppresses her, the woman shall have the right to presenting her case to a judge with the hope of having her marriage anulled.

4) The autonomy of divorce (talaq) is not given to a husband, nor is it given to the wife. Rather, the issuing of a divorce or autonomy of divorce is left to the discretion of a judge. Whosoever from the husband or wife wishes to end the marriage is required to go to a court, file for a divorce (talaq), and establish the claims and reasons behind such a decision.

The judge shall then summon the other party, and avail him or her the opportunity to respond to the claims. Finally, if the judge feels that the claim for divorce (talaq) is reasonable and understandable, he shall anull the marriage. Otherwise, he shall discard the claim. In the current times, the family laws administered by a country generally grant the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to a court supporting the claim that by taking away the autonomy of divorce (talaq) from the husbands and giving it to the courts, it shall reduce the rate of divorce, bring oppression upon women to a halt and shall also protect their family rights. Islam does not concur with this argument.

We shall soon elaborate that the reports of those countries that have adopted the practic of granting the autonomy of divorce (talaq) to the courts show that instead of decreasing the rate of divorce, this practice has actually increased the rate of divorce and has not decreased the oppression upon women in a significant manner. Through this law, there is less benefit and more harm for women and the society in general.


It is first and foremost important to discuss why Islam has not given the right of divorce at all to the courts, although this appears to be most logical since a husband and wife are two separate persons in this matter. Each one may demand/threaten divorce some time or the other by being overridden with emotions at times.

On the other hand, the judge is an understanding and a neutral personality. He is the only one who can determine whether the demand of divorce is due to an abrupt disapproval of an act or due to interim emotions or the feud between them escalated to such a state that there is no scope of the relationship remaining.

In order to understand this point better, it is vital and necessary to have a clear insight on the correct nature and spirit of the relationship of Nikah.

Nikah is not based on absurd laws. The entire success of Nikah is wholly based on love and affection between husband and wife and having trust on each other. Without love and affection, unity and trust, the relationship of Nikah  cannot be kept by mere absurd laws. Even if this lifeless Nikah is somehow kept, instead of it being a priceless bounty and happiness, both will perceive restraint and unhappiness.

This reality should also be borne in mind that the relationship and bond of marriage is very sensitive and delicate. There are so many means/causes for the husbands’ heart to be wearied from the wife and for the emotions of hatred to be entrenched in his heart, that they cannot be brought to the justice of the court and sometimes the grounds of divorce are of such a nature that there is no benefit to the woman in bringing such cases to the court. In fact, keeping such issues a secret is better for them.

Understand these brief points through few examples:

1. Assume that a Nikah took place between Khalid and Zainab whom are both pious and devout, however, there is world of difference between their habit and nature. Because of their being no compatibility in their nature, there is resentment on petty issues. This daily resentment and disputes have developed into hatred. Now Khalid has no place left in his heart for Zainab. In this situation, Khalid is willing to end his Nikah with Zainab.

Now if he goes to the court and gives true reasoning for a divorce, the court does not give him permission to do so, because according to the court, Zainab has not done such an  act that warrants a dicorce. Now Khalid has only two ways; either he wrongfully accuses her (of fornication, etc) and brings forth false witnesses and releases himself from her.

In this case there will be no doubt that Khalid will be a sinner. Apart from that, Zainab will have her public image tainted and this will make it extremely difficult for her  to get another match.

The second scenario is that after having exhausted all means and instead of him being able to relieve himself from Zainab, he is forced by the rule of law to  keep Zainab in his marriage. It is obvious that when Khalid’s heart is broken/hardened from Zainab and his heart has been entrenched with emotions of hatred, so how then will he fulfil Zainab’s due martial rights? It is possible that perhaps due to having the fear of Allah or fearing the rule of law, he may keep giving Zainab maintenence, however, it is far-fetched that Zainab will be receiving that love, affection and harmony which hold greater importance than maintenence.

2. The husband is extremely possessive over his wife. Let’s assume that he has complaints in regards to his wife being immoral. After having cautioned and reprimanded her several times, he sees no changes in her and she is still involved in those immoral habits. The husband is coerced to terminate this relationship with her. Now if the husband was given the sole right of divorcing his wife, he will do so silently without anyone knowing.

Through this, the husband would be relieved and the shameful act of the wife would also remain concealed. It is possible that she would repent from this evil and get married to another person.

On the other hand, by handing the court the right of divorce, the husband and wife’s paths are blocked. If the husband has to go to the court and give a true account of a event and seek divorce, the wife would be infamous and notorious in the eyes of the community even before the jugde has issued a decree. Her standing and status in society is highly tarnished/stained. (Even if the court clears her of the accusations). She cannot show her face to anyone. Allah Forbid, if this case has to come to the knowledge of journalists!.

It is apparent that if fictious stories are not made and false witnesses are not brought forth, then it is a tough task to prove lewd acts. That’s why, if the husband has only sufficed on truthfulness, then he will not be able to prove his claim and thus he will not be given the right of divorcing his wife by the courts.

In this situation, how will he then be able to bear and fulfil the demands and requisites of a Martial life, even though, according to law and paper, they will be in the bond of Nikah, however, practically they will be living as though they are not married, in fact even worse than that. The wife specially will be placed in uphill calamity.

In these types of situations, many persons of nobility and dignity do not take the matter to the courts due to fear of defaming their families and as such continue living with swallowing their blood (extremely difficult). Instead of the bond of marriage being a bounty and mercy, it turns into psychological, mental and financial burden.


By giving the right of divorce to the courts, the increase and decrease in such cases will be confined to how loose/broad or how constricting the reasoning’s of divorce has been kept. In those countries where the reasoning’s/causes of divorce have been kept broad, especially more in favour and respect of the wife, then in such cases by giving the right of divorce to the courts, the cases of divorces escalate to alarming rates.

The wife becomes extremely unhappy with the husband due to a certain matter, by being overriden with extreme emotional interim moods, she decides that she cannot bear living with her husband, she then applies for the annulment of marriage to the courts

According to the courts, she qualifies to apply for annulment on this basis that the wife is not prepared to live with her husband, the judge then annuls the marriage.  Because in view of the court, the insistence of the wife in annuling the marriage may be due to her suffering grossly at the hands of her husband, even though the wife cannot prove/ justify her claim.

The current concept of her being deemed as a victim of oppression in all situations is a result of the legalising and action of the courts. As a result, many a times, the legitimate/valid interests and welfare of the husband and children are negatively affected. In specific, the husband suffers huge monetary and family loss.

Very often the wife becomes remorseful on her actions, after her anger having cooled off and her coming into her senses after making a rash decision. However, the husband does not risk bringing her back to his Nikah because of his bitter past experience with her.

Due to opening the doors of divorce wide open, marriage and divorce have become a play in western countries. Marriage relations have become unstable. The rates of divorce are increasing at an amazing pace.

The daily marriage and divorce is causing great harm to those boys and girls who came into existence due to the short period enjoyment of their parents. After becoming deprieved of the love and upbringing of the parents, they become a target of different types of sicknesses, bad habits, psychological and mental disorder, even though the government might provide them with medication, upbringing and high level of education standards.

The daily increase of children who are getting deprived of the love of the parents and upbringing of the family culture are becoming a dangerous fear to the community. These children easily get caught by the evil spreading groups. They get involved in bad habits. Instead of using their talents in the development and upbringing of the country. Their talents are used in destroying and bringing the country to a downfall.

After handing over the power of giving divorce in control of the judge, if the limits and conditions of giving divorce are kept strict, then the bad situations are created on the other hand.

If the government gives the power of divorce to the husband only when he can prove the fornication or evil act of his wife through witnesses, then even if the wife did these types of evils and the husband witnessed them and has the knowledge of those evil practices, how is he going to present witnesses for all these evil practices? Most of such evils are done in privacy.

To give lawyers and judges a chance to conduct a deep investigation is not in the interest of a woman. The poor lady won’t be able show her face in the society irrespective of the decision of the court. And if the wife didn’t get involved in fornication or any other evil through which the government gives the right to the husband to divorce his wife, but the husband hates his wife because of her bad habits and not having same temperments, the husband hates his wife with complete soul and mind and the husband’s heart is not inclined towards his wife in any way, then they are only two ways if he decides that he does not want to lie and present a false accusation. It is either he wont go to the court and if he does go to the court he will be unsuccessful.

In this situation, the marriage will remain based on the government rule, but instead of the marriage becoming a means of happiness, comfort and joy, the marriage will become a distressful painful one. The daily inner fights will frustrate the family more.

A husband in whose heart is filled with the hatred might pay expenses of the wife due to government fear, but it won’t be possible for him to give his wife love and comfort. In this situation keeping the marriage is not beneficial, especially when both are young, there is great fear. It is either they will keep fighting or they will look for non-permissible ways to fulfil their passion and end up losing their honour, chastity and dignity. And if the husband decides to get rid of his wife at any cost, then the situation will get worse than before.

Through the advice of the lawyer, the husband ends up putting false accusations on his wife such as fornication and other evils and claims for a divorce through false proofs and documents.

In this era, when religious teachings and good character and conduct are a scarcity and wealth has attained the status of been worshipped and the intelligent lawyers and government workers who are talented are involved in making the truth into lies and lies into truth, to present false proofs and accusations in the court through expert lawyers is not difficult for the husband.

Whatever will be the decision of the court will spoil the future of the wife and she will become suspected in the eyes of the family. What can be a greater harm for a woman than this?

If the husband does not succeed in getting rid of his wife through false accusations, then he will look for other criminal ways of getting rid of his wife.

Only Allah knows how many woman are being killed and burnt in different countries because their husbands hate them and could not divorce them due to government rules. Our media is filled with information about woman being burnt and killed by their husbands.

Is divorcing of hundred women are great concern or killing of fifty women? It is something to ponder upon.


Few years ago, the Supreme Court made a big uproar based on the claim of four hindu women whose husbands accepted Islam and remarried. According to the judge, these four men accepted Islam because they wanted to get rid of their wives. If the findings of the judges were true, then a shocking reality is in front of us. The Hindu Code Bill needs to be adjusted as it cannot facilitate the causes of divorce in the Hindu custom. Hence, there is a need to change and expand the Hindu Code Bill.

In our Indian Community, changing religions is not an easy task. After changing religions, one gets cuts-off from his family and community and is faced with many difficulties, especially if he has left Hinduism and become a Muslim. Therefore, a person who has the courage to leave Hinduism and become a Muslim will do so in one of the two situations:

1. His beliefs have actually changed due to research and pondering. He has such firm belief in the truthfulness of Islam that he would rather cut away from his community and face difficulties as he cannot bear to stay on in his old religion which he believes to be false and baseless.

2. His beliefs have not changed, in terms of beliefs, he is still a Hindu. However, he has accepted Islam due to a severe difficulty or torment that he is facing which he cannot be saved from except by changing his religion.

For example, he has formed severe hatred and enmity towards his wife and is not willing to stay with her under any condition. However, according to the Hindu Code, he does not have the right to divorce which is why he would rather change his religion in order to separate from his wife, inspite of knowing the challenges that he will have to face upon changing his religion. However, in comparison to the difficulty of keeping his Hindu wife, he considers the difficulties and dangers of changing his religion to be easier and bearable.


It is clear from the above analysis that the reasons for a divorce in the Hindu Code Bill are very narrow as they do not fulfil the need of divorce within the Hindu community. This is why many educated and wealthy Hindu males even take the step of accepting Islam in order to leave their wives.

The solution for this difficult situation is that some changes be made to the Hindu Code Bill so that the reasons for issuing divorce are expanded or the husband is given the right to divorce. Imposing the Civil Code is not the solution to this difficulty. The negative consequences of imposing the Civil Code is that the husbands who are frustrated with their wives will no longer be able to change their religion in order to gain freedom from their wives.

How will this solve the problems facing married women? A husband who is frustrated with his wife to such an extent that he resents her, does not want to see her face and in order to get freedom from her, does not even mind going to the extremes of changing his religion, shall not be able to stay in the same house as his wife.

This attitude, we fear, will increase the oppression on Hindu women and no court will be able to prevent such oppression.

Recently, some shameful news was published that a Hindu Husband made his brother and nephew rape his wife so that he may be able to leave his wife due to the person not having the right to divorce his wife without her being immoral according to the Civil Code.

It is clear from the above analysis that to hand over the complete right of divorce to the Court is not in the interests of husband and wife, and not in the interest of the community. It does not decrease the rate of divorce and neither does it fulfil the needs of divorce. The only outcome is the personal spousal secrets becomes exposed in the courts and becomes a public talk. This leads to humiliation for both husband and wife.  A better alternative is to quietly and amicably terminate the marriage so that both do not get disgraced and their secrets are not exposed.


In the previous lines, we have highlighted the argument that granting the autonomy of divorce solely to the court is not beneficial for the husband, wife or the society in general. The actual objectives of a divorce are not even fulfilled through this method.

Now, we wish to discuss the issue of granting the autonomy of divorce jointly to both the husband and wife i.e. if a legislation were to be made that a divorce cannot be given without  mutual agreement and consensus between the two parties and neither of the two parties would have the sole autonomy of ending a marriage, how would this work out? It cannot be disputed that if the husband and wife were to mutually agree upon ending the marriage, they should have the right to do this. Islam has given the husband and wife this right, it is known as Khula’.

However, to limit the methods of divorce to this one method is not an appropriate measure at all. Many incidents are found in which either one partner, the husband or the wife wishes to end the marriage in all instances whilst the other is not at all prepared in the marriage to end. Hence, in the many hundreds and thousand of situations where this occurs, divorce would not take place even though one of the two partners either the husband or a wife, becomes vexatious and frustrated to such an extent that emotional hatred has reached its summit in his or her heart for the other partner.

The institution marriage can only be successful and prosperous if the hearts of the two partners connect with one another, the hearts of the two partners have love and respect for one another and the two companions have complete trust over one another. Therefore, it is not appropriate in any way whatsoever to create the restriction that a marriage can only be dissolved through mutual agreement between the husband and wife. The result of this shall be that in order to escape from the other partner, the vexed partner shall commit a deeply unlawful and destructive act.


Shariah grants the unilateral right of divorce only to the husband. If the husband does not fulfil his responsibilities or he is oppressing his wife, the wife could request a judge for the annulment of her marriage. However, she does not have the right of divorce. What is the reason for granting this right only to the husband and what is the rationale behind it? What has shariah considered and the wisdom behind it? This can be understood from the following points.

To answer this question lies in the nature of roles that a husband and wife assume in a married life. In an Islamic society, the husband bears all the financial burden which results from a marriage contract. It is he who has to pay dower to his wife. It is he who has bear the expenses incurred during the wedding in terms of walimah etc. It is he who has to support his family financially and provide a home for his wife and children.

The wife on the other hand, does not have to provide even a small share of the family expenses, although she could take some responsibilities upon herself to save a percentage of her husband’s income.

On the flip side, the wife receives gifts and dowry which boosts her finances tremendously. The husband have to bear the burnt of all expenses after marriage and even after divorce. If the husband has not discharged the dowry due to the wife, then would be asked to settle it immediately. During the iddah period, the husband has to continue to bear financial expenses incurred by the wife. The husband also has to maintain his sons who have not yet attain maturity and he has to maintain his daughters as well. In fact the divorced wife will be remunerated for the time she looks after their sons who have not yet attained puberty.

Moreover, when a man has divorced his wife and he wishes to marry another woman, he has to pay similar expenses which makes the whole idea of divorce a very costly affair. Thus if one acts according to the teachings of Islam through divorce, a woman does not suffer any financial loss and in addition she sometimes acquires added financial benefits. There are so many duties and responsibilities on the husband after marriage and even after divorce that any man would think twice before going through the process of marriage and divorce because he realises that it constitutes a great financial burden on him. Thus, in view of this expected financial loss, a husband thinks very carefully before he decides to terminate his marriage.

A question may arise that why should the husband bear the responsibility of the expenses after marriage and after divorce and why the wife don’t bear some expenses also?

To understand the answer one should first unravel the inherent natures of every male and woman. To fathom this point, a detailed discussion is necessary.

One of the main reasons, for the man holding the right of divorce is he is more capable of controlling his emotions especially in disputed with his wife, whereas women are more emotional and hasty.

If the wife had been given the right of divorce, there is a possibility of abuse whereby the wife could divorce the husband on minor issues due to her being unable to control her emotions, thus leaving the husband  with a substantial financial burden. According to Sheikh Abu Zuhra, those women who secured an undertaking from her potential husband to transfer the autonomy of divorce to her, the rate of giving divorce is higher. We can blow our trumpets to prove the equality between men and women, the reality is that we can never delete the different temperments of both genders.

We cannot deny the fact that some women can control their emotions and temper better than man, however rules are designed according to the general situation and not according to rare situations. Even though the right of divorce is held by the husband, Shariah has also taken into  consideration that the wife is not oppressed and she could ask for the annulment of her marriage through a judge when the husband oppresses her or does not fulfil his duties.


There are many options available for a woman to dissolve her marriage, for example:

1. Absent husband: absconding or missing.

2. Failure to provide maintenence: inability or refusal

3. Husband is insane

4. Husband is impotent

5. Severe Abuse: Physical or other

6. Serious health condition or disease: leprosy or any such disease which can endanger the wife.

According to Imam Malik (Rahimahullah), when a judge presides over a martial dispute and the disputing spouses present their witnesses and it has not become clear who is the transgressing party due to the wife not presenting her claim of annulment clearly, the judge can grant the application of the woman if he feels the discord between the spouses is too deep and there is fear of more harm in maintaining the marriage.

Furthermore, if there is insistence on handing over the sword of divorce to the delicate hand of the wife, then there is a leeway for that as well. If at the time of the Nikah or after the Nikah, the husband hands over the anatomy to the wife or a third party, then the wife or third party may exercise that right which cannot be revoked by the husband.


While Islam has given the husband the right to issue divorce, it has also set certain guidlines. If those guidelines are considered, then the use of the right of divorce will be exercised in extreme desperation and as a last resort after all the avenues of resolving the disputes and attempting a reconciliation have failed.

Furthermore, if one considers the procedure of divorce in Islam, the door of a dignified reconciliation remains open. Some of the important and fundamental advices from the Quran and Sunnah pertaining to divorce are;

1) If someone wishes to divorce a woman with whom he was intimate, he should issue one talaq raj’ee (revocable divorce) after her menstrual cycle has ended without engaging in conjugal relations. He should not issue a divorce during her menstrual cycle or in a clean cycle in which they were intimate.

The wisdom behind this is that during her mentrual cycle, the husband may feel disinclined towards her as she is not clean and there are restrictions  to being intimate with her. Similarly, the husband may feel disinclined towards his wife after being intimate with her in a clean cycle. On the contrary, his divorce in a clean cycle where his emotions are still strong indicating his complete detachment from his wife and divorce being his final recourse.

2) Secondly, the husband is advised to suffice on one talaq raj’ee. This is the best form of divorce because if the husband regrets his decision, he still has the opportunity to revoke  his divorce within the ‘iddah period. Revoking the divorce will not necessitate a renewal of the Nikah or dowry and the initial Nikah will remain intact.

If he does not revoke his divorce within the ‘iddah period, the divorce will be finalized with the completion of the ‘Iddah period and their Nikah will terminate. However, if they wish to remarry, they shall have the option to do so.

3) If the husband is adamant on giving three talaqs, Shariah advises him to give one talaq raj’ee in a clean cycle in which he did not have intercourse with his wife. Thereafter, he should give the second talaq raj’ee approximately a month later; after her second menstrual cycle finishes. He should give the third talaq after her third menstrual cycle.

The husband still has the option to revoke the first and second talaq within the ‘iddah period if he wishes to restore the marriage. If he chooses not to give the third talaq and allows her ‘iddah period to finish without revoking the talaq, they can still consensually remarry.

After the third talaq, the husband cannot revoke his talaq nor can the husband and wife remarry regardless of their desires.

4) Shariah advises these methods of divorce so that the husband and wife are availed an opportunity to ponder and reflect over the situation, understand and restore their relationship,  and rectify their flaws.

5) Islam has bestowed a great favor to women by limiting the number of talaqs to three and has prevented the martial life after becoming a mere child’s play. In the pre-Islamic era, the Arabs would not have any limited number of talaqs. After every talaq, the husband had the right of taking back his wife. In this manner, many husbands would revoke these divorces before the completion of the ‘iddah. This system of talaq and revoking continued for many years. Thus, the wife was never able to get deliverance from her oppressive husband nor was she able to conduct herself as a typical wife should.

Islam then abolished this practice and uplifted this oppression; which gave the husband the right to issue unlimited number of talaqs and revoke the talaq thereafter. Islam also put such mechanisms in place which restricts the husband from reconciling with his wife and remarrying her during her ‘Iddah after issuing three talaqs. Consequently, the respect and awe for Nikah was restored.

6) Violations of the Islamic teachings of talaq is a grave sin. For example, to give talaq during  menses, giving three talaqs at once and giving more than one talaq in the state of tuhr (purity). Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) would punish husbands who would give three talaqs at once.

Currently, due to the lack of understanding of Deen and lack of conciousness of the fear of Allah, there has been a rise in the violation of the laws of talaq taught by Islam.

Many arrogant men think that talaq is not even valid unless you give three talaqs, this is why three talaqs are given. Some given talaqs during periods, some give talaq on trivial arguments. In relation to this, two things are very important.

1. In order for this ignorance to be removed, the understanding of the laws of Nikah and talaq should be given importance. It should be advised that to give talaq without any necessity or to give talaq against the teachings of Islam is a grave sin. There will be great accountability for this in the court of Allah.

2. A communal effort should be made to explain to people not to take the matters of Nikah and talaq lightly. The awareness of giving talaq without necessity and to give it in the wrong manner should be made. A penalty should be imposed for those who violate the laws of talaq and if there is a need then a social boycott should be implemented.

The prevention of wrong-doings is not only stopped by the laws. At times, the social boycott is very effective. Many reputable Darul Iftaas  have agreed that an appropriate penalty should be imposed for those who violate the laws of talaq or a social boycott should be implemented.

In relation to this, a question which was posed to Mufti Rasheed Sahib (May Allah have mercy on him) is presented.


Question: In this day and age, the most detestable of lawful actions to Allah (i.e. talaq) has become quite common, due to which trespassing the laws of Allah, corruption of the mind and rebellion are common in the society. Nevertheless, it is undeniably the right of the man to issue talaq in any given circumstance. In most cases of talaq, the man himself is the oppressor and hastens in issuing talaq. Is issuing talaq a punishable offence in this case? The punishment applicable in this situation is would be that his fellow faternity display animosity towards his actions and disassociate themselves from him until his mockery of the commands of Allah come to an end. Is this penalty in the form of disassociation and social boycott permissible or not?

Answer: Nowadays, there are many sins committed in the way divorce is issued. The correct method for issuing talaq is foe the husband to issue one revocable talaq (talaq raj’ee) while the wife is in a state of purity in which conjugal relations did not take place. This should only be done once a sincere effort was made to reconcile and advice was sought from upright and honest people. Hereunder are some of the mistakes committed while giving talaq:

1. Talaq is given without any thought or consideration and without hesitation.

2. A sincere effort to reconcile is not carried out.

3. Upright and honest family-members were not consulted before issuing divorce

4. Istikhara was not made

5. Talaq is given suring the menstrual cycle

6. One thinks that it is necessary to give two or three talaqs at once

7. Many adopt the detested practice of halalah since that is the only method of reconciliation available after issuing three talaqs. Some even avoid halalah and choose insted to involve themselves in Zina for the remainder of their lives.

Based on the above-mentioned points, it is necessary that the government enforces a severe penalty. In the case the government turns a blind eye to these situations, then the penalty of social boycott and disassociation should be enforced. [Ahsanul Fatawa, Pg 194-5, vol. 5]


Question: Every human being by nature  has an instinct to dispute. This instinct becomes more manifest between the husband and wife, thus leading to martial disputes. How can this instinct be controlled?

Answer: Consider the following ten points to control the instinct of dispute and maintain a happy marriage.

1. Fear Allah: It was the noble practice of Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam to conscentise the spouses about the fear for Allah before performing a Nikah (Nisa v14, Ahzab v69, Aali Imraan v101) from the Quraan. All the verses are common in the message of Taqwa (fear of Allah). The spouses will be first committed to Allah before being committed to their partner. There can be no doubt in the success of a marriage that is governed by the fear of Allah.

2. Never be angry at the same time: Anger is the root cause for all martial disputes. One Sahabi came to Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam and sought some advice. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam replied “Control your anger”. The same advice was rendered three times. [Mishkaat pg. 433]

3. If one has to win an argument, let it be the other: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: “Whoever discards an argument despite being correct shall earn a palace in the center of Jannah” [Ibid pg. 412]

4. Never shout at each other unless the house is on fire: Luqman (Alaihissalaam) while offering advice to his son said: ” and lower your voice for verily the most disliked voice is that of a donkey” [Surah Luqman v19]

5. If you have to criticize, do it lovingly: Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam said, “A Mu’min is a mirror for a Mu’min” (Abu Dawud vol. 2, pg. 325; Imdadiyah). Advise with dignity and silently.

6. Never bring up mistakes of the past: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: “Whoever conceals the faults of others, Allah shall conceal his fault on the day of Qiyamah” [Mishkaat pg. 429]

7. Neglect the whole world rather than your marriage partner: Nabi sallallahu alaihi wasallam confirmed the advice of Salman to Abu Darda’ (Radhiyallahu Anhum) for neglecting his wife: “Verily there is a right of your wife over you”. [Nasai Hadith 2391]

8. Never sleep with an argument unsettled: Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) resolved his dispute with his wife over-feeding the guests before going to bed. [Bukhari Hadith 602]

9. At least, once everyday, express your gratitude to your partner: Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “whoever does not show gratitude to the people has not shown gratitude to Allah” [Abu Dawud pg. 662]

10. When you have done something wrong, be ready to admit it and ask for forgiveness: Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “All the sons of Aadam commit error, and the best of those who err are those who seek forgiveness”. [Tirmidhi Hadith 2499]

The Kharijites- Historical Background and their Ideological Impact on Present-Day Fitnah’s

Prophet  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “There  will  appear  at  the  end  of  time  a people  who  are  young  of  age,  foolish-minded.  They  will  speak  with  the  best  (and most-alluring)  of  speech  (that  is  spoken)  by  people  and  will  recite  the  Qur’an  but it  will  not  go  beyond  their  throats.  They  will  pass  out  of  Islam  as  the  arrow passes  through  its  game.  Whoever  meets  them,  let  him  kill  them,  for  there  is  a reward for whoever kills them.”

The  Prophet’s  Companion,  Abu  Umamah  al-Bahili  (radhiyallahu anhu)  said  of  the  Khārijites, “The  Dogs  of  the  people  of  Hellfire,  they  used  to  be  Muslims  but  turned disbelievers.”  When  Abu Umamah  was  asked  whether  this  was  his  own  speech  or something  he  heard  from  the  Prophet,  he  said,    “Rather,  I  heard  it  from  the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).”  

Ibn  Taymiyyah  (d.  728H,  14th  century  CE)  said,  “For  they  [the  Khārijites]  strived to  kill  every  Muslim  who  did  not  agree  with  their  view,  declaring  the  blood  of the  Muslims,  their  wealth,  and  the  slaying  of  their  children  to  be  lawful,  while excommunicating  them.  And  they  considered  this  to  be  worship,  due  to  their ignorance and their innovation which caused [them] to stray.” 


All  praise  is  due  to  Allah,  the  Lord  of  the  worlds  and  may  He  make  good mention of His Prophet in the highest company and grant him safety.

As  prophesized  by  the  Prophet  Muḥammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  Khārijites (extremist  renegades)  were  the  first  sect  to  break  off  from  the  main  body of  the  Muslims  and  they  appeared  in  two  waves.  First,  as  the revolutionary  Saba’ite  movement  against  the  third  caliph ʿUthman  (radhiyallahu anhu) and  thereafter,  as  the  Khārijites  proper  against  the  fourth  caliph  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu).  They  expel  Muslims  from  Islam  on  account  of  major  sins. They  are  mostly  young  in  age,  appear  as  pious  worshippers,  have  not acquired  knowledge  from  the  scholars  of  Islam,  make  use  of  secrecy, come  to  the  people  under  the  guise  of  enjoining  the  good  and  prohibiting the  evil  and  employ  faulty  interpretations  of  Islamic  texts  due  largely  to their  ignorance.  The  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  also  explicitly  stated  that  they will  never  cease  to  appear  until  the  Dajjāl  (the  Anti-Christ)  appears  in  the midst  of  their  armies.  This  indicates  that  the  Muslim  will  always  be plagued by  this  disease  throughout  the  passage  of  time  and that their  war is fundamentally a war against the people of Islām.

Speaking  about  the  relative  ability  amongst  the  people  to  recognize opposition  to  the  Sunnah  (Prophetic  tradition),  Ibn Taymiyyah  said,  “Some  factions  are  greater  in  their  opposition  to  the Messenger  than  others,  and  others  are  more  apparent  in  their  opposition [than  others].  However,  the  apparentness  [of  such  opposition]  is  a relative  matter.  The  opposition  of  the  one  who  opposes  the  Sunnah  will be  clear  to  the  one  who  knows  the  Sunnah.  In  some  cases,  the  opposition of  some  of  them  to  the  Sunnah  is  apparent  to  some  of  the  people  due  to their  knowledge  of  the  Sunnah  as  opposed  to  others  who  do  not  know  of [the    Sunnah]  what  those  people  know.  And  sometimes  the  Sunnah  in that  matter  is  known  to  all  of  the  ummah  and  thus  the  opposition  of  the one  who  opposed  it  is  readily  apparent  –  just  as  the  opposition  of  the Rafiḍah  [Shi’ites]  to  the  Sunnah  has  become  apparent  to  the  majority.  In the  view  of  the  majority,  they  are  opposers  to  the  Sunnah,  and  thus  it  is said,  ‘Are  you  a  Sunni or  a  Raafidhi?’  Likewise  the  Kharijites,  when  they were  people  of  the  sword  and  of  fighting,  their  opposition  to  the  jama’ah became  apparent  when  they  would  fight against  the  people,  but  as  for  today,  most  people  do  not  recognize them.”  [Kitāb  al-Nubuwwāt  (Aḍwāʾ  al-Salaf, 1420H) 1/564].

The  last  statement  of  Ibn  Taymiyyah  about  the  Kharijites  and  the  fact that  most  people  do  not  recognize  them  or  their  ideology  is  reflective  of another  wider  reality,  which  is  that  most  people  do  not  understand  the reality  of  the  creed  and  methodology  of  the  Righteous  Salaf  and  what opposes it.  Many  of  the  contemporary  Kharijite  movements  nowadays make  an  ascription  to  the  way  of  the  Salaf  when  they  are  the  furthest away  from  it  in  their  statements,  actions  and  methodologies  of  reform. This  should  not  be  surprising  since  the  very  first  Kharijites  considered themselves  to  be  superior  to  the  Prophet’s  Companions,  considering themselves  to  be  the  actual  Salaf  and  the  true  representatives  of  Islam. This leads to three affairs:

Firstly,  many  naive,  ill-informed,  emotive  Muslims  who  see  oppression, bloodshed  and  war  in  Muslim  lands  are  emotionally  manipulated  into believing  that  the  loud,  rhetorical  voice  of  the  Kharijites  and  their  use  of lofty  slogans  of  “Shari’ah”,  “Jihad”,  “Judging  by  Allah’s  Law”,  “Enjoining Good  and  Forbidding  Evil”  are  contextually  valid,  evidence-based, authentic  voices  when  in  reality  they  are  nothing  but  the  rantings  of ignoramuses,  ignorant  of  the  basics  of  the  Islamic  creed  and  ignorant  of Allah’s  laws  in  His  creation.  This  is  evidenced  by  their  gross  misdiagnosis of  the  causes  of  affliction  (which  they  always  return  back  to  the  rulers) but whose true roots are more foundational and lie elsewhere. 

Secondly,  it  allows  those  with  enmity  from  the  non-Muslims  to  malign the religion of Islam and its noble, revered Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). 

Thirdly  and  fallaciously,  the modern-day Kharijites  are Salafis.  In  partial  explanation  of  this development,  many  of  these  Kharijite  groups  have  realized  that  in  order to  gain  legitimacy,  acquire  a  wider  following  and  to  spread  their  doubts more  easily,  they  ought  to  make  an  ascription  to  the  way  of  the  Salaf  and identify  as  Salafīs.   Further,  identifying  with “Salafiyyah,”  represented  a  manhaj  (methodology)  that  stood  in  stark contrast  to  true Salafus Saliheen.  Many  of  the  ideological  figureheads  behind  the Kharijite  movements  were  averse  to  the  label  of  Salafiyyah  and saw  it  as  a barrier  to  recruitment.  For  that  reason,  some  of  them  invented  principles to  undermine  ascription  to  Salafiyyah  and  to  incorporate  other  groups and  orientations  into  a  wider  umbrella  of  “Ahl  al-Sunnah  wal-Jamāʿah”  so they  could  draw  from  a  larger  recruitment  base  to  help  fulfil  their agendas.  It  also allowed  them  to  deflect  criticism  from  themselves  as  a  readily identifiable  extremist  Salafiyyah  and  its  adherents, thereby  achieving  more  than  one  objective  through  this  already extremist Wahhabi stuff. 

What follows  in this  article  is  a  small  effort  in  attempting to  uncover  the foundations  of  modern Kharijite groups  such  as  the Ibn Saud,  ISIS  and  similar  Kharijite  groups  whose  ideologies  and aspirations  are  behind  the  extremism  and  terrorism  being  witnessed today  and  oppressively  ascribed  to  Islam.  The  historical events  behind  the  emergence  of  the  very  first  Kharijites,  the  Prophetic traditions  regarding  them,  the  statements  of    scholars  throughout history  against  them  and  the  nature  of  their  activities  are  presented  in what  is  to  follow.

The  Prophet  Muhammad    (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  informed  of  a  group    that  would appear  shortly  after  his  death  who  would  put  the  Muslims,  their  leaders and  their  societies  to  trial  and  tribulation.  They  are  famously  known  as the  Kharijites  (extremist  renegades). These  Kharijite  renegades  came  in  two  waves.  The  first  were  known  as the  Sabaiyyah  and  they  assassinated  the  third  caliph  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) in  the  year  35H. They  were  behind  the  events  that  led  to  the  appearance  of  the  second  wave  who abandoned  the  fourth  caliph,  ʿAli  (radhiyallahu anhu)  during  a  period  of  civil  strife,  and  he was  eventually killed  by  them  in the  year 40H. When  this  group  appeared,  the Companions  of  the  Prophet  saw  that  numerous  verses  of  the  Qur’an applied  to  them.  These  verses  include  the  saying  of  Allah,  “Say: Shall  we  inform  you  of  the  greatest  losers  as  to  [their]  deeds?  Those whose  efforts  have  been  wasted  in  this  life  while  they  thought  that  they were  acquiring  good  by  their  deeds!”  (18:103-104). Imam  al-Tabari  relates  this  application  of  the  verse  to  the  Kharijites  from  ʿAli bin  Abi Talib  (radhiyallahu anhu)  in his  exegesis.  Also,  the  saying  of Allah,  “Some  faces,  that  Day,  will  be  humiliated.  Labouring  (hard  in the  worldly  life),  weary  (in  the  Hereafter  with  humility  and  disgrace).” (88:2-3). Also  the  saying  of  Allah,  “And  when  they  deviated,  Allah caused  their  hearts  to  deviate.”  (61:8). And  also,  “Those  who  break Allah’s  Covenant  after  ratifying it,  and sever  what Allah has  ordered to be joined and  do  mischief  on  earth, it  is  they  who  are  the  losers.”  (2:27). 

It  is  common  knowledge  to  the  scholars  of  the  Muslims  and  their students  that  ISIS,  Boko  Ḥaram  and  others  are  simply  another manifestation  of  the  recurring  appearance  of  this  group  that  was explicitly  mentioned  by  the  Prophet  of  Islam.  They  have  killed exponentially  more  Muslims  in  the  past  1400  years  than  they  have  killed non-Muslims  in  the  past  20  years.  In  fact,  if  we  were  to  say  this  the  other way around,  that  they  have  killed  more  Muslims  in  the  past  20  years  than they  have  killed  non-Muslims  in  the  past  1400  years  it  would  not  be  an exaggeration  at  all. This  is  because  the  Kharijites  revolt  against  Muslim Ummah and create fitnah.  Their  activities  are  primarily  directed  towards  them  and  not  non-Muslims  in principle.   Their  appearance  was  prophesized  by  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in a large  number  of  traditions  and  they  indeed  appeared  less than  30  years  after  him  in  36H,  around  the  year  657CE.  Because  this faction  was  intended  as  a  trial  and  tribulation  for  Muslims  in  various times  and  ages,  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  spoke  extensively  about  them, their  traits,  activities  and their  great  danger  upon  Islam  and  the  Muslims. The  traditions  in  this  regard  are  well-known  and  famous  and  have  come through large-scale transmission right from the dawn of Islam. 


The  primary  motivations  driving  Kharijite  extremists  return  back  to worldly  matters  including  wealth  and  how  Muslim  rulers  dispose  of  it. They  desire  that  wealth  should  come  to  them  upon  their  belief  that giving  it  to  the  rulers  is  unlawful  because  they  do  not  distribute  it  justly and  do  not  use  it  for  its  designated  purposes. This  is  revealed  in  a  letter  of  advice  given  by  the  great  Islamic  scholar, Wahb bin Munabbih  (rahimahullah d.110H,  early  8th  century CE)  to  a  man  affected  by  the  ideology of  the  Kharijites,  A  group  of  Kharijites  came  to  this  man  from  San’a  in  Yemen and  said  to  him  that  his  zakah  (obligatory  charity)  given  to  the  rulers  does  not fulfil  his  obligation  because  it  is  misused  and  thus,  his  wealth  should  be  given directly  to  the  Kharijites  who  will  give  it  to  the  poor  and  needy  as  well  as establishing  the  prescribed  punishments.  These  are  the  same  activities  of  the Kharijites  of  ISIS  today  whereby  they  collect  wealth  under  the  same  pretences whilst  using  it  to  fortify  their  own  position  and  power.  Refer  to  Munabahah  Wahb bin Munabbih (taḥqīq  al-Burjis,  1423H),  p.  19. In  other  words,  affairs pertaining  to  misuse  of  state  capital  and  social,  political  and  economic injustice.  For  this  reason,  there  are  strong  parallels  between  the Kharijites  who  departed  from  Islam  and  the  Jacobinist,  Marxist, Bolshevik, Communist,  Socialist  movements  originating  in  Europe and the fitnah of the Middle East such as the rebellion against the Ottoman Empire by Kharijite al-Saud, Sharif Hussain and Ataturk which paved way for the formation of illegitimate state of Israel which was the direct consequence of the extreme ideology of Kharijites,  under  the  very  same  banners  of  social  and  economic  injustice, launched an era  of  war  and  permanent  revolution.

And  this  revolutionary  ideology  [of  the  modern Kharijites],  we  do  not  say  it  is  ‘influenced  by  the  ideology  of  the  Kharijites’  but we  say  that  it  is  influenced  by  the  Communist,  nationalist  and  secularist revolutions  before  it  is  influenced  by  the  ideology  of  the  Kharijites. 

These  (demonstrations  and  revolutions)  are  from the  methodology  of  Marx  and  Lenin  and  their  likes,  they  are  not  from  the methodologies  of  Islam. Revolutionism,  shedding  blood,  tribulations, difficulties (all  of  this)  is  the  way  of  Marx  and  Lenin. They  combined  it  with  the  way  of  the Kharijites  and  they  said  ‘It  is  Islam’…  Jihad  itself  has  its  subject  areas  and  has  its conditions and fiqhi rulings  and  it  is  not  these  Marxist  methods  which  they  clothe  with  the garment  of  Islam.  They  have  taken  revolutionism,  Socialism  from  Marx  and Lenin. In  an  article  titled,  “How  Marx  Became  Muslim”  John Gray  writes,  “Islamic  fundamentalism  is  not  an  indigenous  growth.  It  is  an  exotic hybrid,  bred  from  the  encounter  of  sections  of  the  Islamic  intelligentsia  with radical  western  ideologies.  In  A  Fury  for  God,  Malise  Ruthven  shows  that  Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian executed after imprisonment in 1966 and arguably the most influential  ideologue  of  radical  Islam,  incorporated  many  elements  derived  from European  ideology  into  his  thinking.  For  example,  the  idea  of  a  revolutionary vanguard  of  militant  believers  does  not  have  an  Islamic  pedigree.  It  is  ‘a  concept imported  from  Europe,  through  a  lineage  that  stretches  back  to  the  Jacobins, through  the  Bolsheviks  and  latter-day  Marxist  guerrillas  such  as  the  Baader-Meinhof  gang.’  In  a  brilliantly  illuminating  and  arrestingly  readable  analysis, Ruthven  demonstrates  the  close  affinities  between  radical  Islamist  thought  and the  vanguard  of  modernist  and  postmodern  thinking  in  the  West.  The inspiration  for  Quṭb’s  thought  is  not  so  much  the  Koran,  but  the  current  of western  philosophy  embodied  in  thinkers  such  as  Nietzsche,  Kierkegaard  and Heidegger.  Quṭb’s  thought  –  the  blueprint  for  all  subsequent  radical  Islamist political  theology  –  is  as  much  a  response  to  20th-century  Europe’s  experience  of ‘the  death  of  God’  as  to  anything  in  the  Islamic  tradition.  Quṭbism  is  in  no  way traditional.  Like  all  fundamentalist  ideology,  it  is  unmistakeably  modern.”  The Independent  Newspaper  (UK),  27th July 2002.

The  aims  behind  the  instigation  of  these  social  revolutionary  movements revolve  around  ten  core  objectives  and  they  are:  One:  Abolition  of  all  private property  which  is  achieved  through  imposing  a  debt  burden  through  heavy, punishing  taxation.  Gradually,  property  is  confiscated  through  this  method  until it  remains  in  the  hands  of  the  beneficiaries  of  this  system.  Two:  Heavy progressive  or  graduated  income  tax  to  keep  everyone  at  relatively  similar  levels of  wealth  and  prevent  any  potential  competing  power  that  could  challenge  the system  and  its  beneficiaries.  Three:  Abolition  of  all  rights  of  inheritance  to  allow the  beneficiaries  of  this  system  to  gradually  own  all  wealth  and  property.  Four: Confiscation  of  property  of  all  emigrants  and  rebels  which  refers  to  what happens  when  debts  or  taxes  are  not  paid.  Five:  Centralization  of  all  credit through  a  central  bank  which  is  fundamental  to  the  running  of  the  system  and its  core  engine.  Six:  Centralization  of  the  means  of  communication  and  transport to  enable  the  monitoring  and  control  of  the  activity  of  all  subjects.  Seven: Extension  of  factories  and  instruments  of  production  which  refers  to  taking lands  from  farmers  and  giving  them  to  private  corporations.  This  amounts  to confiscation  and  privatization  of  land.  Eight:  Equal  liability  to  labour,  which means  everyone  must  work  in  this  collectivist  system.  Nine:  Manufacturing  and agriculture  blended  together  whereby  conglomerates  and  corporates  take  over farming  and  agriculture  and  city  and  country  are  blended  together  which effectively  amounts  to  population  control,  moving  all  people  out  of  rural  areas into  towns and  cities.  Ten:  Free  education  for all  children  in public  schools  which means compulsory indoctrination of children to be good citizens within this collectivist  system.  These  are  the  ten  planks  of  Communism  laid  out  by  Karl Marx  which  were  a  refinement  of  the  ideology  of  the  Jacobins  involved  in  the French  Revolution  in  the  late  18th  century.  Today,  many  aspects  of  this  system can be  readily identified  in  developed  nations.

The  ideological  grandfather  of  all  Kharijite  renegade  movements  in Islamic  history  is  a  man  known  as  Dhul-Khuwaisarah  al-Tamimi.  The Qur’an  judged  this  individual  to  be  from  the  disbelieving  hypocrites, “Amongst  them (the  Hypocrites)  is  one  who  criticizes you concerning  the [distribution  of]  charities.  If  they  are  given  from  them,  they  approve  but if  they  are  not  given  from  them,  at  once  they  become  angry.”  (9:58).    This man  and  his  few  followers  challenged  the  integrity  of  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  in  a  famous  incident  which  is  documented  in  numerous Prophetic  traditions.  As  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  was  distributing  wealth  to a  number  of  tribes  for  certain  benefits  he  had  in  mind  for  them,  this  man appeared  and  said,  “Be  just  O  Muḥammad”  and  “We  are  more  worthy  of this  than  them”  and  also,  “This  is  a  division  by  which  the  pleasure  of Allah  is  not  sought.” [al-Bukhārī  (nos.  3610 and 4351)].  The  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  to  prevent  his Companions  from  striking  this  audacious  man  and  as  the  man  walked away,  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “From  this  man  will  appear  a  people  who recite  the  Qur’an  but  it  will  not  go  beyond  their  throats.”  He  went  to  describe in  other  reports  that  they  will  separate  from  the  main  body  of  Muslims, turn  against  them  and  fight  them.  He  also  prophesized  that  they  would be  killed  and    “Amongst  them  will  be  a  black  man  on  whose  upper  arm  will appear  [a  feature]  as  if  like  the  breast  of  a  woman.” (Muslim (no.  1066). The  hadith  was  reported  by  Hadhrat Abu Sa’id  al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu)  who  also  bore  witness  that  he  was  present  when  this  man  was  identified  at  al Nahrawan where  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  fought  and killed  the  Kharijites)  This  incident  is  evidence that  the  entire  issue  with  the  Khariijtes  is  a  worldly  one.  Religion  is merely  used  as  a  cloak  to  legitimize  their  activities  and  serve  as  a  means of  recruiting  the  ignorant  and  unsuspecting.  Thereafter,  it  is  used  as  a vehicle  to  help  them  attain  their  worldly  objectives.  Ibn  Kathir,  the Qur’an  commentator  said,  “For  the  first  innovation  to  occur  in  Islam  was the  tribulation  of  the  Kharijites  and  their  (ideological)  starting  point  was due  to  [a  matter]  of  the  world.” [Tafsīr  al-Qurʾān  al-Adheem (2/10)]  The  matter  being  referred  to  was  the distribution  of  wealth,  they  consider  the  ruling  authorities  to  be  unjust and  astray  in  their  disposal  of  wealth.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “The foundation  of  the  misguidance  of  these  [Kharijites]  is  their  belief regarding  the  leaders  of  guidance  and  the  body  of  the  Muslims  that  they have  departed  from  justice  and  are  misguided.” [Majmuʿal-Fatawa  (28/497)].  As  we  shall  see  in  what follows,  the  Kharijites  employed  texts  of  the  Qur’an  which  they  did  not understand  and  built  their  ideology  upon  gross  misinterpretations.  By revolting  against  the Ummah  they  create  civil  strife  and  bring  chaos, ruin  and  destruction. One  can  see  here  the  parallels  between  the  ideology  of  the  Kharijites  and  the Marxist, Communist  movements  calling  for  social  justice.  Refer  to  the  section  at the  end  of  this article  which  connects  Sayyid  Qutb,  founder  of  20th  century  takfiri jihadi  movements  with Leninist  methodology. Not  a  single  Companion  of  the  Prophet  was amongst  the  Kharijites  which  demonstrates  their  departure  from  Islam, its scholarly tradition and its main body.


The  Prophet  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  prophesized  that  this  group  would appear  during a  period  of  conflict  and splitting between the  Muslims.  The Companion  Abu  Sa’id  al-Khudri  (radhiyallahu anhu)  relates  that  the  Prophet  said, “They  [the  Khārijites]  will  depart  from  the  religion  like  an  arrow  passes  through its  game  …  and  they  will  appear  during  a  period  wherein  the  people  will  be  in  a state  of  division.” [(Muslim  (no.  1064)]  In  another  tradition  related  by  Abu  Sa’id  al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu),  the Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “There  will  appear  a  people  from  the  East,  they  will recite  the  Qur’an  and  it  will  not  pass  beyond  their  throats…” [Bukhari  (no.  7652)]  And  in  the tradition  related  by  Yasir bin ‘Amr  who  said  that  he  asked  Sahl  bin Hunayf,  “Did  you  hear  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  say  anything  about  the Khārijites?”  Sahl  said  that  he  heard  the  Prophet  saying  –  and  whilst narrating,  Sahl  pointed  his  hand  towards  Iraq  –  “There  will  appear  from there  a  people  who  recite  the  Qur’an,  it  will  not  pass  beyond  their  throats,  and they  will  depart  from  Islam  like  the  arrow  passes  through  the  game.” [al-Bukharī  (no.  6934)]  We  find another  prophecy  in the  tradition related by  Abu  Sa’id al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) who said that  he  heard  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “My  nation  will  split  into  two parties  and  from  their  midst  there  will  depart  a  renegade  group,  the  closest  of  the two  parties  to  the  truth  will  kill  them.” [Muslim  (no.1064)]  This  was  mentioned  by  the  Prophet at  least  two  and  a  half  decades  before  it  actually  happened.  It  is worthwile  therefore,  to  look  in  some  detail  into  the  background  and circumstances  leading  to  the  emergence  of  this  group  as  it  contains  many lessons  and  benefits.  One  can  refer  to  the  works  of  famous  historians such  as  Ibn  Kathir’s  al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah, al-Tabari’s  Tarikh  and  Ibn ʿAsakir’s Tarikh  Dimashq during  the  events  of  34H-38H  for  a  detailed elaboration  on  these  events.  A  condensed  summary  of  the  main  events follows below.


The  appearance  of  the  first  two  sects  in  Islam, the  Kharijites  and  the Rafidites (Shi’ites)  is  tightly  interwoven  and  cannot  be  separated  from each  other.  The  activities  of  a  particular  subversive  movement  known  as the  Saba’iyyah  led  to  the  creation  of  these  two  sects.  The  Companion Hudhayfah  bin  al-Yaman  (radhiyallahu anhu)  used  to  ask  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  about evil  out  of  fear  that  it  may  befall  him  and  he  would  be  in  gatherings  in which  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) mentioned  the  various  tribulations  to  befall the  Muslim  nation  following  his  death.  Ḥudhayfah (radhiyallahu anhu) stated,  “By  Allah,  I  am the  most-knowledgeable  amongst  the  people  of  every  tribulation  to occur  between  my  presence  and  the  Final  Hour.” [Imam  Muslim  (no.  2891)]  Ibn  Kathir,  the  famous historian  and  Qur’anic  commentator,  relates  the  statement  of Hudhayfah (radhiyallahu anhu),  “The  first  of  the  tribulations  is  the  killing of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu) and  the last  of  them  is  the  appearance  of  the  Dajjal  (Anti-Christ).” [Al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah (Dar Hajar, 1418H) 10/330].  Thus,  the  first significant  event  having  major  consequences  for  the  Muslim  nation  was the  revolution  against  the  third  caliph, Uthman  (radhiyallahu anhu)  which  culminated in  his  assassination.  This  was  executed  by  a  group  of  renegade  hypocrites led  by  a  man  known  as  Abdullah  bin  Saba [His  existence,  presence  and  subversive  activities  are  documented  and  reported by  dozens  of  Sunni  and  Shi’ite  scholarly  authorities  right  until  the  end  of  the 19th  century.  After  that  some  of  the  Orientalists,  followed  by  Muslim  ‘thinkers,’ began  to  propagate  the  claim  that  ʿAbdullah    bin  Sabaʾ  is  a  figment  of  the imagination  and  that  he  was  invented  in  order  to  malign  the  Shi’ites.  The following  is  a  brief  list  of  works  accepted  by  Shi’ite  authorities  affirming  his existence,  activities  and  doctrines:  Risalah  al-Irjaʿ  by  al-Hasan  bin  Muhammad  bin al-Hanafiyyah  (d.  100H) – who  is  a  grandson  of  ʿAli  bin  Abi  Talib  (radhiyallahu anhu).  This small  treatise  was  written  by  him  and  was  read  out  openly  in  Kufah.  It  covered the  tribulations  that  had  taken  place,  and  a  statement  of  deferment  (suspension) about  his  position  regarding  ʿUthman  (radhiyallahu anhu)  and  his  grandfather  Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu).  He also  announced  his  clear  allegiance  to  Abu  Bakr  (radhiyallahu anhu).  He  also  spoke  of  the tribulations which had occurred and spoke of the Saba’ites (followers of Abdullah  bin  Saba)  and  their  doctrines.  The  Irjāʿ  (deferment)  referred  to  here  is not  the  doctrine  of  the  well-known  Murji’ite  sect  who  expelled  actions  from faith.  Kitab  al-Gharat  of  Abu  Ishaq  Ibrahim  bin  Muhammad  Sa’id  bin  Hial  al-Thaqafi  al-Isfahānī  (d. 283H),  this  book  has  been  published  in  Iran.  Kitab  al-Maqalaat  wal-Firaq  of  Sa’d  bin  Abdullāh  al-Ash’ari al-Qummi  (d. 301H),  this  book was  also  published  in  Iran  in  1963CE.  Kitab  Firaq  al-Shi’ah  of  Abu  Muhammad  al-Hasan  bin  Musa  al-Nawbakhti  (d.  before  300H). This  has  been  published numerous  times  and  has  an  Orientalist  print  which  was  done  in  Istanbul  in 1931CE.  This  contains  a  good  section  on  ʿAbdullah  bin  Sabaʿ and  his  doctrines. Rijal al-Kashi of  Abu  Amr  Muḥammad  bin  Umar  bin  Abd  al-ʿAziz  al-Kashi,  (d. 370H).  This  book  has  been  published  in  Karbala, Iraq. Rijal  al-Tusi  by  their shaykh,  Abu Ja’far  Muhammad  bin  al-Hasan  al-Tusi  (d.  460H).  First  edition published  in  al-Najaf  in  1961CE  distributed  by  Muhammad  Kadhim al-Kutbi. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Ḥadid  li  Najh  al-Balaghah  of  Abi  Hamid  Abd  al-Hamid  bin Hibatullah  al-Mada’ini  known  as  Ibn Abi al-Ḥadid, (d.  656H).  First  edition published  in  1326H.  Al-Rijal  by  al-Hasan  bin  Yusuf  al-Ḥilli  (d.  726H),  printed  in Tehran  (1311H)  and  al-Najaf  (1961CE).  Rawdat  al-Jannat of  Muhammad  Baqir al-Khawansari (d.  1315H),  it  was  published  in  Iran  (1307H). Tanqih al-Maqal  Fee Ahwal  al-Rijal  by  Abdullah  al-Mamqani  (d.1351H),  printed  in  al-Najaf  (1350H). Qamus al-Rijal of  Muhammad Taqi al-Tustari,  printed  in  Tehran  (1382H).  Rawdat al-Safa, a  book  of  history  relied  upon  by  the  Shi’ah  in  Persian  (2/292),  printed  in Tehran.  Al-Kuna  wal-Alqab  of  Abbas bin Muhammad Rida al-Qummi (d.1359H), printed  in  1359H]. His  followers  became  known as the Saba’iyyah  and  they  had  been  recruited  and  mobilized against Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) on  alleged  grounds  of  social  injustice,  class  separation  and despotism  in  addition  to  a  range  of  what  were  claimed  to  be  erroneous mistakes  in  jurisprudence  and  personal  conduct. [The  Maliki  jurist,  Muhammad  bin  Abdullah, Abu  Bakr  bin  al-Arabi (d.543H, 12th  century  CE)  wrote  his  famous  work  titled,  al-ʿAwasim  min  al-Qawasim,  which contains  a  powerful  and  robust  response  to  each  and  every  allegation  raised against  Uthman  (radhiyallahu anhu)] Their  slogan  against Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  the  same  as  the  slogan  of  the  hypocrite,  Dhul Khuwaysarah  al-Tamimi against  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  –  the  absence  of social  justice  in  matters  of  wealth  –  the  same  slogan  of  Marxist, Communist and the Arab revolutionary  movements  of  the 18th, 19th  and  20th  centuries.  This  is  a  crucial point  to  note  as  it  helps  to  explain  the  circumstances  behind  the emergence  of  the  Kharijite  terrorists  during  both  the  dawn  of  Islam and modern  history  in  the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.  Four  figures  are  of  special note  here. Muhammad bin al-Saud the Jew-sympathizer & Jamal  al-Din  al-Afghani,  a  concealed Shi’ite  revolutionary  who  the  founder  of modern  Salafism. He  was  the  first  to  revive  and  spread  this  claim  in  the modern  era.  He  launched  a  Marxist,  Communist  diatrabe  against class  separation. Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu),  accusing  him  of  hoarding  capital,  nepotism,  despotism  and  After  him  Sayyid  Qutb  developed  this  poison  in  more detail  in  a  number  of  his  writings  dealing  with  social  justice  and capitalism  and  he  also  praised  the  revolution  of  ʿAbdullah  bin  Sabaʾ against  ʿUthman  and  maligned  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu),  his  parents  and  the  Banu Umayyah  in  the  severest  of  ways,  even  negating  their  Islam.  At  the  end  of his  life  spread  doctrines  of  excommunication  and  hatred  against  all contemporary  Muslim  societies  whom  he  charged  with  apostasy  just like Ibn Saud had done to attack Ahlus Sunnah of Arabia. 

Abu  A’la Mawdudi  also  made  insinuations  against  Uthman  (radhiyallahu anhu)  and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). In  his  book  ‘Khilafat  wa  Mulukiyat’  (written  in 1386/1966CE)  lays  charges  of nepotism  against  ʿUthman  (radhiyallahu anhu)  and  of  transforming  the  nature  and  structure of  the  khilafah  into  a  kingship.  He  also  attacks  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  and  the  Banu Umayyah  in  general.  This  is  the  foundation  of  Saba’ite  and  Shi’ite  revolutionary poison  against  the  Companions.  It  should  come  as  no  surprise  that  Mawdudi  was an extremely close friend of the kafir and mushrik, “Ayatollah” al-Khomeini and described  his  1979  revolution  as  a  genuine  “Islamic  revolution”  which  should  be supported  by  Muslims,  groups  and  movements  from  all  over the  world. 

It  is  important  from  the  beginning  for  us  to  understand  that  anyone  who wished  to  speak  ill  of  the  Companions  by  concealment  did  so,  not  by attacking  them  directly,  but  by  attacking  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  who was  the first  of  the  kings  of  Islam. Mu’awiyah  bin  Abi  Sufyaan (radhiyallahu anhu) was  amongst  the  Muslims  who  accepted  Islam  prior to  the  conquest  of  Makkah  but  concealed  his  faith  from  his  father, Abu Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu). Ibn Asakir relates the  saying  of  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), “I  accepted  Islam  on  the  day  of  the affair  [referring  to  events  surrrounding  the  treaty  of  Ḥudaybiyyah  in  7AH]  but concealed  my  faith  out  of  the  fear  of    my  father”  [Tarikh  Dimashq,  (5/19)].  He participated  in  the  battle  of  Hunayn  with  the  Messenger  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Ibn Taymiyyah  mentions  in  al-Fatawa  (4/458)  that  he  and  others  such  as  Suhayl  bin ʿAmr,  al-Harith  bin  Hisham  were  from  those  upon  whom  Allah  sent  down tranquiilty (sakinah)  during  the  battle,  as  occurs  in  the  verse,  “He  is  the  one  who sent  down  His  tranquility  upon  His  Messenger  and  upon  the  Believers…”  (9:26). Likewise  the  verse  (Ḥadid  57:10)  which  promises  goodness  for  those  who  spent and  fought  after  the  conquest  of  Makkah  includes  Mu’awiyah  as  also  indicated by  Ibn  Taymiyyah  in  al-Fatawa  (4/459).  Further,  the  Messenger  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) made  supplication  for  him,  “O  Allāh  make  him  a  guide  (for  others),  guided  (in  himself) and  guides  others  through  him.”  [Sahih Sunan  al-Tirmidhī]. Likewise  in  al-Bukhari,  from  the  hadith  of  Umm Haram (radhiyallahu anha) that  she  heard  the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say,  “[Paradise,  forgiveness]  will  become  obligatory  for  the first  army  from  my  ummah  to  makes  a  sea  expedition..”  So  Umm Haram (radhiyallahu anha) said,  “O Messenger  of  Allah,  am  I  from  them?”  He  said,  “You  are  from  them.”  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was  the  first  to  make  a  sea  expedition  to  Cyprus. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was  also  a  writer  of revelation,  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “For  it  has  been  established  through  large-scale transmission that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) commanded him as he commanded others,  and  he  made  jihad  alongside  him and  he  was  trustworthy  to  him,  writing the  revelation  for  him,  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  did  not  suspect  him  at  all  in  the writing  of  revelation.”  [Al-Fatawa  (4/472)].  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) also related 163 hadiths  from  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) some of  which  are  found  in  al-Bukhari  and Muslim. Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  is  also  “the  Uncle  of  the  Believers”  because  he  is  the  brother of  Umm Habibah  bint Abu Sufyan (radhiyallahu anha), who  is  the  Prophet’s  wife. As  for  his  rulership, then  he  was  appointed  by  ʿUmar  bin  al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) to  rule  over  Sham,  and  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was  most  knowledgeable  and  informed  about  men  and  would  only  appoint  them due  to  his  trust  in  them  and  his  knowledge  of  their  capabilities.  He  became  the first  king  of  Islam  as  he  said,  “I  am  the  first  of  the  kings  of  Islam”  as  related  in the  Musannaf  of  Ibn  Abi  Shaybah  (6/207).  The  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) explained that  after  the  Prophetic  Khilafah  there  would  be  a  kingship  of  mercy,  and  this was  another  praise  of  the  rule  of  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).  He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “The first  of  this  affair  (of  Islām)  is  nubuwwah  (prophethood)  and  mercy. Then  there will  be  khilafah  (succession)  and  mercy.  Then  there  will  be  mulk  (kingship)  and mercy.”  [Reported  by  al-Tayalisi  and  Ahmad].  Ibn Abi  alʿIzz said,  “Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  is  the  first  of  the  kings  of  the  Muslims  and  he  is  the best  of  the  kings  of  the  Muslims.”  [Sharh  al-Tahawiyyah (p. 722)].  Ibn  Taymiyyah said,  “The  scholars  are  agreed  that  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is  the  best  of  the  kings  of  this ummah.  For  the  four  that  were  before  him  were  the  caliphs  of  nubuwwah (prophethood)  and  he  was  the  first  of  the  kings,  his  kingship  was  one  of  mercy  as has  come  in  the  ḥadīth…  and  there  was  in  his  kingship  such  mercy,  gentleness and  benefit  for the  Muslims  that  nothing  better was  known about  the  kingship  of others  besides  him.”  [Majmuʿal-Fatawa  (4/478)].  Al-Khallal  relates  that  Mu’afī  bin ʿImran  was  asked  whether  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or  Umar  binʿAbd al-Aziz (rahimahullah) was  superior and  he  replied  “Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was  six-hundred  times  the  likes  of  ʿUmar  bin  ʿAbd  al-Aziz.”  [As-Sunnah (2/435)]. Under  his  authority,  the  Muslims  conquered vast  regions  of  the  Earth  and  he  was  also  the  first  to  launch  a  successful sea  expedition. Thus, anyone  who  desired  to  attack  Islam  and  its  people but  desired  to  conceal  their  hatred  towards  its  carriers  and  conveyers (the  Companions)  would  target  speech  towards  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in particular.  This  was  simply  another  approach  in  their     ideology which  intended  harm  for  Islam  and  its  people.  However,  the  Righteous Salaf,  wise  to  this,  on  the  basis  of  what  they  understood  from  revealed texts,  consolidated  and  protected  the  fortress  of  Islam  by  making  it  clear that  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is  the  veil,  the  cover  for  the  rest  of the Companions, and that  whoever attacked  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) has  lifted  that  veil  and  made  the  rest of  the  Companions  vulnerable  to  attack  and  thus  intends  evil  for  Islam and its adherents. Ibn  Kathir (rahimahullah) brings  the  following  statement  of  al-Rabiʿ  bin Nafiʿal-Halabi, “Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is  the  veil  (covering)  for  the  Companions  of  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  So  when  a  man  removes  the  covering  he  will  transgress against  what  lies  beyond  it  (meaning  the  Companions).” [al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah (8/139)]  

And Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) also  brings  the  statement  of Abdullah  bin  al-Mubarak (rahimahullah), “Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is  a test  (trial)  for  us.  Whomever  we  see  looking  at  him  suspiciously  then  we suspect  him  in  relation  to  those  people  (the  Companions).”  What  we learn  from  these  statements  is  that  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  has  been  made  a fitnah  (trial)  and  mihnah  (test,  examination). A  person’s  attitude  towards the  Companions  and  his  intentions  towards  them  is  known  from  his intentions  and  attitude  towards  Mu’awiyah  (radhiyallahu anhu).  For  this  reason when the  Salaf  saw  a  man belittling  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)   they  suspected  him  of harbouring  ill-will  and  malice  towards  the  Companions  as  a  whole,  and hence  to  Islam itself.  Ibn  Kathir  relates  from al-Fadl bin  Ziyad  who said, “I heard  Abu  ʿAbdullah  (Imam  Ahmad)  being  asked  about  a  man  who  reviled Mu’awiyah  and  ʿAmr  bin  al-‘As (radhiyallahu anhum) and  whether  he  should  be  labelled  a  Raafidhi and  he  said,  ‘He  did  not  venture  into  transgressing  against  them  except that  he  was  secretly  harbouring  evil.  No  one  ever  belittled  any  of  the Companions  except  that  he  has an evil intent’.”  [al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah  (8/148)].

It  should  come  as  no  surprise  that  the  writings  and  ideas  of  these thinkers  (al-Afghani, Ibn Saud, Sayyid  Qutb, Mawdudi)  became  the inspiration  behind  the  ideologies  of  excommunication  (takfir)  and revolution,  leading  to  hatred  and  desertion  of  Muslim  societies, eventually  culminating  in  terrorism.  Thus, The  foundations  of  20th  century extremism  and  terrorism lie  with  Salafis  inspired by European revolutionary movements.

The “Marxist” Social Revolution Against ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)

Al-Tabari,  the  historian  and  Qur’anic  commentator,  relates  that  in  the year  30H  (around  652CE)  ʿAbdullah  bin  Sabaʾ  travelled  to  Syria  where  he met  the  Companion  Abu  Dharr  al-Ghifari (radhiyallahu anhu) .  He  began  to  complain  against Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  govenor  of  Syria  appointed  by  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu),  saying,  “O Abu  Dharr,  are  you  not  surprised  at  Mu’awiyah?  He  says  that  wealth  is Allah’s  wealth,  but  everything  belongs  to  Allah,  as  if  he  wishes  to  hoard  it exclusive  to  the  Muslims  and  to  remove  the  name  of  the  Muslims  from this  [wealth].” This  is  the  ideology  of  Marxist  Socialism  and  Communism,  a  full  1200  years before  the  Communist  Manifesto  was  written  by  Marx  and  Engels.  From  1848 onwards,  this  ideology  coincided  with  a  spate  of  revolutions  against  monarchies and  governments  in  Europe  and  beyond.  These  revolutions  were  intended  to overturn  the  existing  order  in those  nations  for the  benefit  of private  interests. 

Attempting  to  arouse  discontent,  he  went  to  another Companion,  Abu al-Darda (radhiyallahu anhu) ʾand  also  began  to  hang  around  ʿUbadah  bin al-Samit (radhiyallahu anhu),  though he  was  unsuccessful  in these  endeavours. [Tarikh  al-Ṭabari  (4/283)].  This  was  part  of a  wider  strategy  since  his  presence  is  also  documented  in  the  Hijaz  (the Arabian  peninsula),  Basrah,  Kufah  (Iraq)  and  finally  Egypt  from  where the  revolutionary  activities  were  planned  during  34H  (655CE)  through written  correspondence  between  supporters  in  Egypt,  Basrah  and Kufah. [Ibn Asakir’s  Tarikh  Dimashq  and  Ibn  al-Jawzi’s  al-Muntazam  fil-Tarikh for further  details].  In  the  month  of  Shawwal  of  35H  (656CE)  the  revolutionaries descended  into  Madinah  from  the  various  townships  and  surrounded  the house  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu). Due  to  their  large  numbers,  they  effectively controlled  the  city  and  were  unchallenged.  The  siege  had  been  planned to  coincide  with  the  Hajj  season  in  the  month  of  Dhul-Hijjah  35H  (around June  656CE)  with  their  knowledge  that  the  major  Companions  would have  travelled  to  Makkah.  After  forty  days  they  burst  into  the  house  of ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu), an  eighty-year  old  frail  man  who  was  fasting  and  reciting  the Qur’an.  They  attempted to  pull  off  his  shirt  and  repeatedly  and  violently stabbed  him  to  death.  After  the  assassination,  the  main  leaders  of  this large  group  of  around  two  thousand  people  kept  a  low  profile  and concealed  themselves  within  the  army  of  ʿAli  bin  Abi  Talib (radhiyallahu anhu).  Some of  them  had  escaped  to  Basrah.  Meanwhile,  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  who  was  the appointed  ruler  of  Syria  demanded  that  the  killers  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu) be apprehended  before  the  new  caliph  is  chosen.  ButʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  by  then became  the  fourth  caliph  by  agreement  of  the  major  Companions  who held  authority  and  standing. Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was  resolved  to  pursue  and  identify  the perpetrators  and  bring  them  to  justice,  however  his  immediate  goal  was to  establish  political  stability  and  unify  the  Muslims  following  this  great calamity  and  the  immediate  danger  posed  by  the  large  number  of revolutionaries. 

The  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  had  informed  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu) that  a  group  of  hypocrites would  attempt  to  pull  off  his  shirt  and  that  he  would  be  killed  unjustly.  This related  in  the  hadith  of  ʿ’Abdullah  bin  ʿUmar (radhiyallahu anhu) who  said  that  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said  “A tribulation  will  occur  in  which  this  man”  –  and ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu) passed  by  –  “will  be  killed unjustly  on  that  day.”  Related  by  al-Tirmidhi,  Ahmad.  And  in  the  hadith  related  by  A’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) that  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) summoned  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu) to  speak  to  him  and  when  he  finished,  he  struck  his shoulder  and  said,  “O  Uthman,  perhaps  Allāh  will  clothe  you  with  a  shirt  and  if  the hypocrites  attempt  to  remove  it  from  you,  do  not  remove  it  until  you  meet  me  (in  the Hereafter).”  [Related  by  Imam  Ahmad,  al-Tirmidhi,  Ibn  Majah  and  others]  and Shaykh  Muqbil  bin  Hadi  said,  “This  tradition  is  authentic  upon  the  requirements of  al-Bukhari  and  Muslim.”  Refer  to  Sahih al-Musnad  (5/501-502).  And  Abu  Bakr al-Khallal  also  narrated  that  Imam  Ahmad  (d.  241H)  used  this  tradition  as evidence  and  said,  “They  (the  hypocrites  who  killed  him)  indeed  desired  to  do that.”  Al-Sunnah  of  al-Khallal  (no.  407).  These  traditions  provide  two  of  many, abundant  examples  of  foreknowledge  indicating  the  veracity  of  the  prophethood of Nabi Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wadallam).

Activities of the Revolutionaries Post-Assassination

The  Saba’iyyah  who  had  descended  upon  Madinah  outnumbered  the inhabitants  of  Madinah  rendering  ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  powerless  and having  to  tread  with care. 

For  this  very  same  reason,  a  group  of  those  from  the  clan  of  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  Banu  Umayyah,  departed  to  Makkah  to  the  wives  of  the Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to inform  them  of  what  had  transpired  and  to  discuss the  next  steps  to  seek  justice.  In  a  gathering  of  the  senior  Companions and  the  wives  of  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  ʿA’ishah (radhiyallahu anha)   encouraged  them to  establish  justice  for  the  murder  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  before  settling  the  issue  of leadership.  The  people  responded  to  her  call  and  some  of  them  said  that they  should  proceed  to  Madinah  to  demand  the  killers  and  others  said they  should  go  to  Basrah  to  make  military  preparations  to  pursue  the perpetrators  some  of  whom  had  alighted  there.  They  eventually  decided to  go  to  al-Basrah. [al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah  (10/432-433)].

Prior  to  reaching  Basrah,  the    party  of  ʿA’ishah (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  attacked  by  a  band  led by  Hukaym  bin  Jablah  al-‘Abdi  who  was  from  the  Saba’iyyah  and  their intent  was  to  prevent  the  reconciliation  that  was  about  to  take  place between Ali  and A’ishah (radhiyallahu anhuma). He  was  a  leader  of  one  of  the  four  factions  that  came  from  Basrah  to  al-Madinah  which  led  to  the  siege and  assassination  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu).  [Refer  to  alʿAwasim  min  al-Qawasim  of  Ibn  al-Arabi  al-Maliki  (Maktabah  al-Sunnah,  1412H)  p. 124]. However,  they  were  successfully  repelled. [Tarikh  al-Tabari  (4/466)]. This  indicates  the  extent  to  which  the  Saba’iyyah  were  resolved  to prevent  unity  amongst  the  Companions.  As  the  journey  to  Basrah continued,  an  incident  took  place  which  changed  the  mind  of  A’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) and she  expressed  her  desire  to  return  back  to  Makkah. On  the  journey  to  Basrah,  they  passed  by  an  oasis  called  al-Hawab  whereupon some  dogs  began  to  bark  at  them.  When A’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) heard  this  she  asked,  “What  is the  name  of  this  oasis?”  When  she  was  told  it  was  called  al-Hawab,  she  struck one  hand  with  the  other  and  said,  “To  Allah  we  belong  and  to  Him  shall  we return.  I  do  not  see  except  that  I  should  turn  back.”  When  asked  why,  she  said that  she  had  heard  the  Prophet  say  to  his  wives,  “If  only  I  knew  which  one  of  you will  be  barked  at  by  the  dogs  of  al-Hawab.”  [Related  by  Ahmad  in  al-Musnad  (6/52)]. This  became  a  fulfilled  prophecy of  the  Prophet  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)]. However, news  reached  that  the  army  of  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  reached  Basrah  before  them  so they  made  their  way  to  Basrah  with  the  intent  of  catching  the perpetrators  and  resolving  the  matter  with ʿ’Ali (radhiyallahu anhu),  who  had  also  arrived  at Basrah  for  reconciliation. [Tarikh  al-Tabari  (4/505)] Neither  party  had  any  intention  of  fighting with each other. 

The Saba’ites and the Battle of the Jamal (Camel)

Upon  arrival  of  both  parties  at  Basrah,  discussions  took  place  between Ali  and  A’ishah (radhiyallahu anhuma)   through  a  messenger.  Eventually,  a  truce  was reached  and  it  was  agreed  that  both  parties  would  disengage  peacefully and  return  to  their  homes.  This  was  unwelcome  to  the  Saba’iyyah concealed  within  Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu) army. [Tarikh  al-Tabari  (4/513)].  Whilst  it  was  known  they  were  present and  lurking  around,  their  specific  identities  were  not  which  made  it difficult  for  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  to  take  the  appropriate  course  of  action. Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered  his people  to  depart  and  return.  Similarly,  the  party  of  A’ishah  , Talhah  and  al-Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhuma)  also  made  plans  to  depart.  Fearing  that  they  were soon  to  be  apprehended  due  to  the  combined  efforts  of  both  parties  who had  come  to  an  agreement,  the  Saba’iyyah  conspired  with  each  other  for their  survival.  Al-Tabari  relates  that  after  discussing  their  options,  their leader,  ʿAbdullah  bin  Saba,  suggested  that  they  split  into  two  parties, with  each  party  positioning  itself  in  strategic  positions  on  the  side  of  Ali and ʿA’ishah (radhiyallahu anhuma). Then  at  the  appropriate  time  during  the  night,  they  would both  initiate  an  attack  to  make  it  appear  to  each side  that  the  other  party had  acted  treacherously  and  initiated  war  despite  the  truce. [al-Kamil  Fil-Tarikh  of  Ibn al-Athir  (3/125)].  They implemented  their  evil  plot  and  each  party  fought  as  the  aggrieved oppressed  party,  believing  it  their  religious  duty  to  establish  justice.  The resulting  turmoil  led  to  the  death  of  ten  thousand  Muslims.  This  sad event  took  place  in  36H  (November  656CE)  and  after  it,  both  parties  were remorseful  at  what  had  taken  place  of  chaos  and  loss  of  life  which  had  in fact  been  instigated  by  subversive  Saba’iyyah  element  within  their  ranks. None  of  the  Companions  involved  in  this  incident  had  any  intention  to fight  against  each other  at  all.   

The Battle of Siffin

Six  months  later  and  still  resolved  to  achieve  political  unity,ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  turned to  address  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in  Syria  who  had  not  yet  come  under  the authority  of ʿAli’s (radhiyallahu anhu) leadership  and  demanded  vengeance  for ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu).  But ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  insisted  on  unity  and  for  everyone  to  come  under  his  authority before  pursuing  justice  for  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu). What  complicated  matters  was  that  it  was  known  that  the  perpetrators  had taken  cover  within  the  ranks  of  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu).  This  was  to  the  consternation  of  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and  those  with  him  who  demanded  the  perpetrators  be  turned  over.  However,ʿAli’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  position (of  establishing  leadership and  stability)  was  judged  by  the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to be closer  to  the  truth  in  his  prophecy  that  civil  war  would break  out  between  two  parties  and  the  one  that  was  closer  to  the  truth  would fight  and  kill  the  Kharijite  renegades  when  they  appeared,  and  that  was  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).  Abu Sa’id  al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) reported  that  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “My  nation  will  split  into two  parties  and  from  their  midst  will  split  a  renegade  group,  the  closest  of  the  two  parties to  the  truth  will  kill  them.”  [Related  by  Muslim (no.  1064)].  Despite  sustained  diplomatic efforts  to  come  to  a  resolution,  the  armies  of  the  two  parties  met  at  a place  called  Siffin  near  the  Euphrates  (present-day  Raqqah  in  Syria).  This was  in  Dhul-Hijjah,  the  last  month  of  the  Islamic  calendar,  in  the  year  36H (May  657CE)  Fighting  broke  out,  and  continued  for  just  over  two  months and  very  large  numbers  were  killed. Abu  Hurayrah  related  that  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “The  Final  Hour  will  not come  to  pass  until  two  great  armies  fight  and  great  killing  will  take  place  between  them, whilst  the  claim  of  both  is  one  [and  the  same].”  [Bukhari no. 3609]. Both  parties  claimed  to  be  upon  the  truth, [Fath al-Bari  (6/616)] and  there  were  tens  of thousands  of casualties  on  both sides. The  Companion  Ammar  bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) who  was  on  the  side  of ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  killed  in  this  battle.  Just  prior  to  his death,  he  took  a  drink  of  milk,  fulfilling  two  more  prophecies. Abu  Sa’id  al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu)  related  that  during  the  Battle  of  the  Trench  in  5AH (627CE),  whilst ʿAmmar  bin  Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  participating  in  digging,  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said to  him,  “A  transgressing  faction  will  kill  you.”  Reported  by  Muslim (no.  2915).  This  is  evidence  that  ʿAlī  was  correct  in  his  position  and  that  the  other party  had  erred  and  Ibn  Kathir (rahimahullah) indicated  that  this  prophecy  is  from  the evidences  for  the  prophethood  of  Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Abu al-Bukhtari  relates  that  some milk  was  brought  to  ʿ’Ammar (radhiyallahu anhu) (in  the  Battle  of  Siffin  before  he  died)  and he laughed and said, “The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said to me, ‘The last drink you  will  have  when  you  die  will  be  a  drink  of  milk’.” [Musnad Ahmad (4/319)]. Over  the passing  of  time,ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) gained  the  upper  hand  and  the  army  of  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) began  to  signal  their  desire  for  arbitration  by  placing  copies  of  the  Qur’an on their spears and raising them up. 

The Saba’ites, Arbitration and Separation of the Kharijite Movement

The  faction  of  the  Saba’iyyah  in  the  army  of  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  coerced  him  to  accept  an arbitration  and  even  threatened  to  kill  him.  One  of  them,  Zayd  bin Husayn al-Ta’i, said,  “If  you  do  not  accept  [arbitration]  we  will  kill  you just  as  we  killed  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu),  for  when  he  abandoned  acting  by  the  Book  of Allah  we  killed  him  and  by  Allah  we  will  do  to  you  what  we  did  to  him.” [al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah 10/546].  And  Imam al-Dhahabi said,  “And  from the  heads  of  the  Kharijites  was  Zayd bin Husayn…”  [Al-Siyar  (2/536)].  This  is evidence  of  the  link  between  the Saba’ites  and  the  Kharijites.  The  peak  of  the heirarchy  of  both  movements  were  made  up  of  the  same  instigators  which  is why  any  study  of  the  emergence  of  the  first  two  sects  in  Islam  cannot  be separated. ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) was  not  happy  with  accepting  an  arbitration  because  he  saw  it  as  a mere  tactic  of  war  by  the  opposing  faction  to  avoid  impending  defeat. Under  pressure  and  threat  of  assassination  by  the  Saba’iyyah  who  had managed  to  maneuvre  themselves  into  a  position  of  strength  within  his army  he  unwillingly  accepted  the  request.  An  arbitration  ensued  with each  side  delegating  a  representative  to  settle  the  matter  and  end hostilities.  However,  no  sooner  had  the  arbitration  taken  place  and reconciliation  made  between  the  two  warring  parties  of  Muslims  but objections began to be raised. It  is  related  that  the  first  who  raised  the  issue  of  the  arbitration  was ʿAbdullah  bin  Wahb  al-Rasibi. [al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah 10/560]  Then  some  of  the  Qur’anic  reciters  who were  associates  of  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) took  this saying  and  began  to chant, in  their compound  ignorance,  “The  judgement  is  for  none  but  Allah.”  This  was  the beginning  of  the  emergence  of  the  Kharijite  renegades  mentioned  in  the Prophetic  traditions.  The  army  ofʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  returned  to  Kufah  in  early  37H  (July 657CE).  As  they  approached  the  city,  twelve-thousand  men  separated from  him  and  refused  to  inhabit  the  city  with  him. They  settled  in  a  place called  Harura. This  is  why  they  were  also labelled  the  Harurites (Haruriyyah).  It  appears  that  the  Saba’ite  faction  stirred  up discontentment  towards Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) during  the  return  journey  and  a  large number  had  been  affected.  They  raised  a  number  of  objections  against ʿAli’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  conduct  so  he  sent  Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  scholar  of  the  Qur’an,  to  debate them  on  those  issues. Ibnʿ’Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu)  refuted  their  arguments  and  a  third  of them  returned  from  their  error  but  the  remainder  persisted  upon  their misguidance. [al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah 10/567].  They  claimed  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  disobeyed  Allah,  that  the  truce  was unlawful  and  that  everyone  who  accepted  the  arbitration  had  become disbelievers including ʿAli, Mu’awiyah and both of their armies. 

These were  the Kharijite  renegades intended by  the  saying  of  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), “A renegade  faction  will  appear  during  an  era  of  civil  strife  amongst the  Muslims  and  the  closest  of  the  two  [contending]  parties  will  kill  them.” [Bukhari  and  Muslim].  In this  tradition  is  a  clear  judgement  that  despite  the  contention  and  war between  the  two  parties  of  ʿAli  and  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhum),  both  remained  Muslims. One  was  correct  (‘Ali)  in his  decision  that  political  unity  and  stability  was the  first  priority  and  the  other  (Mu’awiyah)  had erred in his  judgement  of demanding  that ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  should  be  avenged  beforeʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) took  power.  This is  the  belief  of  orthodox  Muslims  and  it  is  prohibited  to  harbour  any  ill-feeling  towards  the  Companions  who  had  been  put  to  trial  with  each party pursuing what they knew to be truth and justice. 

The  Breakaway  “Islamic  State”  of  the  Kharijites  and  “Enjoining  the  Good and Forbidding the Evil”

When  the  Kharijites  split  away  from  the  Muslims,  they  began  to  entice each  other  to  ‘enjoin  the  good  and  forbid  the  evil’ [ Refer  to  the  statements  of  the  Saba’ite  Kharijites  later  in  this  article  in  this regard  after  they    had  broken  away  and  set  up  their  own state  –  point  8  in  the  section which relates  to  their  activities  and  methods] and  to  rectify  the  people because  they  had  become  misguided  in  their  view. This  was  the  very  same  foundation  upon  which  Hasan  al-Banna  founded  his Brotherhood  (al-Ikhwan  al-Muslimun, a salafi sub-group).  They  saw  themselves  as  an  elite  band who  stood  to  enjoin  good  and  prohibit  evil  and  whoever  did  not  join  them  was deficient  if  not  suspect  in  his  faith.  Similarly,  the  present-day kharijis largely  operates  upon  the  claim  of  enjoining  good  and  forbidding  evil.  To  them, it  is  practically  encompassed  in  mobilizing  people  against  the  people whom  they  consider  disbelievers  and  apostates  and  as  the  root  of  all  problems faced  by  Muslims.  Islam  and  the  Shari’ah  did  not  come  with  revolutions  and coups,  these  are  the  ways  of  the  disbelievers  under  whose  influence  the  20th century  political ‘terrorists’  appeared,  founded  upon  hizbiyyah  (partisanship  and loyalty  to  the  party  and  its  goals).  From  Harura,  the Kharijites  made  their  way  to  a  place  called  al-Nahrawan,  twelve  miles from  Baghdad.  This  became  their  ‘Islamic  State’  which they  considered  the abode  of  Islam  upon  the  belief  that  the  rest  of  the  Muslims  had  forsaken Islam  and  their  lands  were  lands  of  disbelief  and  war.  This  was  in  early 37H  (July  657CE)  and  over  the  next  two  years,  the  Kharijite  ideology  began to  develop  more  fully  and  take  shape.  They  also  began  recruiting  people and  obliging  them  to  emigrate  to  their  alleged  Islamic  state  so  that  they could  launch  jihad  against  the  Muslims  as  is  explicit  in  their  words. (These  are  documented  in  a  later  section  on  the  activities  of  the  Saba’iyyah  and Kharijites  during  this  entire  four year  period,  until  they  assassinated  Ali). They  also  began  to  take  the  ambiguous  verses  of  the Qur’an  and  interpret them  with  false  interpretations,  using  them  against  the  Muslims.  As  a result,  the  learned  scholars  of  the  Qur’an  of  the  time  such  as  Qatādah  (d. 118H,  early  8th  century  CE),  a  direct  student  of  the  Prophet’s  Companions, commented  on  the  Qur’anic  verse,  “As  for  those  in  whose  hearts  is  a disease,  they  pursue  what  is  ambiguous  therein,  seeking  tribulation…” (3:7)  by  saying,  “If  they  are  not  the  Haruriyah  [Kharijites]  or  the  Sabaʾites, then  I  do  not  know  who  they  are.” [Tafsir  al-Tabari].  The  first  leader  of  the  Kharijites  was ʿAbdullah  bin  Wahb  al-Rasibi  and  he  and  some  of  the  main  instigators with  him  have  been  identified  as  Saba’iyyah,  followers  of  ʿAbdullah  bin Sabaʾ.  He  had  strong  marks  of  prostration  on  his  forehead  due  to  striving hard  in  worship  which  indicates  that  outward  piety  does  not  equate  to guidance  and  doctrinal  authenticity.  Regarding  this  appellation  (al-Sabaʾ, referring  to  the  region  in  Yemen)  the  historian  known  as  al-Sam’ani  (d. 562H)  wrote,  “And  Abdullah    bin  Wahb  al-Saba’i,  leader  of  the  Kharijites, and  it  is  my  belief  that  this  Ibn  Wahb  is  ascribed  to  Abdullah  bin  Saba, for  he  (the  latter)  is  from  the  Raafidah  [Shi’ites],  and  a  group  amongst them  ascribe  to  him  and  they  are  called  Saba’ites.” [  Al-Ansab (Dar al-Janan, 1408H)  p.209].  Imam  al-Dhahabi, the  famous  encyclopedic  biographer,  wrote,  “In  this  year  [38H,  659CE]  was the  occurrence  of  al-Nahrawan  between  Ali  and  the  Kharijites.  The  head of  the  Kharijites, ʿAbdullah  bin  Wahb  [al-Rasibi]  al-Saba’i was  killed  and most  of  his  associates  were  killed.”  Al-Dhahabi  also  said,  “And  from  the heads  of  the  Kharijites  was  Zayd  bin  Huṣayn al-Ta’i…” [Al-Siyar  (2/536)]  and  he  was  the individual  who  said  to  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) that  unless  he  accepts  the  arbitration  with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), they  will kill him as  they  killed  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu).  Those  who  later  revolted  against  the  leaders  of  Bani  Umayyah,  the  first  ruling dynasty after  the  four  righteous  Caliphs,  were  also  from  the  Saba’iyyah.  The  poet al-A’sha  (d.  84H)  said  about  the  revolutionary,  al-Mukhtar bin Abi  Ubayd al-Thaqafi  and  his  followers,  “I  bear  witness  against  you,  that  you  are  Saba’iyyah and  that  I  am  acquainted  with  you  O  agents  of  disbelief.”  Refer  to  al-A’sha’s Diwan  (p.148)  and  Tarikh al-Tabari (Dar al-Ma’arif,  2nd  edition) 6/83.

Short  of  two  years  later, Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) finally  fought  against  the  Kharijites  at  al-Nahrawan  in  38H  (659CE),  fulfilling  the  prophecy  in  the  speech  of  the Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), “A renegade  faction  will  appear  during  a  time  of  civil  strife and  the  closest  of  the  two  parties  to  the  truth  will  kill  them.”  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  closer  to the  truth  than  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  in  this  tribulation  and  he  fought  and  killed  the Kharijites.  When  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  defeated  them  at  al-Nahrawan,  he  ordered  that  the black  man  mentioned  by  the  Prophet  on  whose  upper  arm  would  be  a mark  should  be  looked  for.  After  a  few  attempts,  he  was  finally  found  on the  battlefield  and  identified  with  a  mark  exactly  as  the  Prophet mentioned. Al-Haytham bin Adi  (d.  207H)  in  his  work  titled  “al-Khawarij” relates  through  Nafiʾ  bin  Maslamah  who  said,  “The  man  who  was  (found), Dhul-Thudayyah  (possessor  of  the  breast-like  mark  on  his  upper  arm) was  from  Uraynah,  from  Bajilah,  and  he  was  intensely  black  in complexion.  He  had  a  vile  stench  that  was  known  within  the  army  and [during  the  battle]  he  would  be  in  our  proximity.  He  would  fight  us  and we  would  fight  him.” [al-Bidayah (10/590)].  When  his  lacerated  body  was  found  and  came  to the  attention  of  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), he  prostrated  for a lengthy  time, recognizing  the fulfilment of the prophecy  made  by  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). [Ibid]  Following the  defeat  of  the  Kharijites  the  people  began  to  say  to  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) ,  “All  praise  is due  to  Allah,  O  chief  of  the  believers,  who  has  cut  them  off.”  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) responded,  “No  by  Allah,  they  remain  in  the  loins  of  men  and  wombs  of women  and  when  they  appear,  hardly  do  they  fight  anyone  except  that they  overwhelm  him.” [al-Bidayah 10/590-591].  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  knew  that  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  had prophesized  their  continued  appearance  till  the  end  of  time  and  that they will not go extinct after their defeat at al-Nahrawan. Once  this  historical  background  has  been  put  in  place,  we  can  now  look in  more  detail  about  the  traits  of  the  Kharijites  mentioned  in  the Prophetic  traditions,  some  of  their  early  terrorist  activities,  how  the Muslim  scholars  spoke  of  them  through  every  generation  and    the  nature of  their  activities  during the  time  they  broke  of  from  Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  army  and  were eventually fought and killed by him almost two years later. 


Many  of  the  ideas  and  activities  of  this  early  subversive  current  which put  Islam  and  the  Muslims  to  trial  can  be  found  today  amongst  the Kharijite  terrorists  of ISIS  in  the  land  of  Shām  (Syria)  and Iraq – the  very  place  from  which  the  Prophet  of  Islam  indicated,  over 1400  years  ago,  that  these  people  would  first  emerge  and  then  continue to  emerge.  The  famous  historian  and  Qur’an  commentator, Isma’eel Ibn  Kathir (d.774H,  14th  century  CE),  compiled  the  activities  of  the  early  Saba’ites and  Kharijites  in  some  detail  and  it  is  worthwhile  to  mention  them  here to  see  the  striking  parallels  between  them  and  the  Kharijites  of  today  in the  form  of  ISIS,  Boko  Haram  and  others.  When  the statements  of  the  leaders  and  spokesmen  of  ISIS  and  videos  of  the activities  of  their  members  are  compared  with  those  of  the  first Kharijites,  it  becomes  clear  with  absolute  certainty  that  they  are  the Kharijite  Dogs  of  Hellfire  intended  in  the  Prophetic  traditions.  This prophecy  about  the  Kharijites  is  one  of  many  serving  as  proof  for  the truthfulness of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

1.  Forging  documents  against  the  Companions.  The  Saba’ite  Kharijite terrorists  distributed a  document  in the  name  of  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) in  which there  was  a  command  authorizing  the  killing  of  the  conspirators  behind the  planned  uprising  against  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) during  35H  (656CE). They  had forged  this  document  and  the  seal  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  with  which  they  stamped the  document  to  give  it  the  appearance  of  authenticity.  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  would have  had  no  knowledge  about  these  conspirators  and  their  intentions  at the  time  and  he  expressly  denied  he  wrote  this  document. [Al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah 10/280-281]. 

They also fabricated  documents  against  the  Companions  such  as ʿAli, Talhah and Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhum) in  which  they  allegedly  called  the  people  to  fight  against  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) in  order  to  aid  the  religion,  and  they  wrote  in  these  fabricated  documents that  fighting  againstʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  the  greatest  form  of  jihad  and  support of  the  religion. [Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah:10/277]. In  a  like fashion,  the Kharijites Ibn Saud claimed and now the ISIS  claim  that  killing people  is  the greatest  form  of  jihad  and  they  fabricate  statements  upon  the  scholars  of  the Muslims  such  as  Muhammad  Ibn  ʿAbd  al-Wahhab  and  Ibn  Taymiyyah,  ascribing to  them  and  their  statements  what  they  did  not  say  or  intend.  This  is  to  deceive the  people  to  make  it  appear  that  they  are  justified  and  supported  in  their  evil activities  when  the  reality  is  that  in  the  speech  of  those  scholars  is  the  very opposite  and  what  acually  condemns them,  their  ideology  and  their activities.  They  also  fabricated  a  document  against  ʿA’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) in  which  she  allegedly  called  the  people  to  revolt  against  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu).  After mentioning  narrations  from  Masruq  and  al-A’mash  in  this  regard,  Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) comments,  “And  in  this  and  its  likes  is  plain  evidence  that  those Kharijites,  may  Allah  disfigure  them,  would  fabricate  documents  upon the  tongues  of  the  Companions  and  spread  them  in  the  horizons,  inciting the  people  to  fight  against ʿUthman.” [Al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah 10/339-340].

2.  Addressing  the  rulers  with  Jewish  or  Christian  names.  The  Kharijite terrorists  would  address  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  with  names  of  Jewish  and  Christian leaders  to  imply  he  was  somehow  working  for  them  or  aligned  with  them or  like  them  [Al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah 10/282]   and  they  would  refer  to  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  with  derogatory  names  such  as jahid  (denier,  rejector). [Al-Bidayah  wal-Nihayah 10/591].  ʿAbdullāh  bin  Wahb al-Rasibi  would  refuse  to  call ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  with  any  name  or  title  except  this  one,  jahid (denier,  rejector)]  During  their  revolt  against  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  in  Madinah, one  of  them  stood  up  whilst Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  delivering  a  sermon  and  said to  him,  “Stand  O  Na’thal  and  come  down  from  this  pulpit.”  Na’thal  was the  name  of  one  of  the  Jewish  leaders  in  Madinah.  And  when  the murderers  eventually  broke  into  his  house  they  said  to  him,  “Which religion  are  you  upon  O  Na’thal?”  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  replied,  “Upon  the  religion  of Islam  and  I  am  not  Na’thal,  but  I  am  the  Chief  of  the  Believers  (amir  al-mu’minin).”

3.  Stealing  property  and  wealth.  The  first  Kharijite  terrorists  would  steal the  property  and  possessions  of  the  People  whom  they  declared  apostates as  they  did  with  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  after  killing  him.  They  left  nothing  in  his house  and  took all of  his  possessions. [al-Bidayah  10/307]. 

4.  Spilling  blood  and  cutting  off  routes  of  travel.  The  Kharijite  terrorists who  opposed ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) would shed blood,  cut  off  the  routes  of  travel  and would  violate  the  inviolable [al-Bidayah, 10/584], such  as  their  murder  of  ʿAbdullah  bin  al-Khabbab and killing women and even an  unborn child. [The  Kharijites  of  ISIS  and  Boko Haraam  slaughter  men,  women  and  children without  distinction  as  they  were  doing  in  the  streets  and  mosques  of  Baghdad years  ago  with  horrendous  bombings  –  terrorizing  the  people  and  cutting  off  the routes  of travel, also needs mention of Muhammad ibn Saud’s slaughtering and looting of innocent people of Ta’if and Karbala] 

5.  Motivated  by  personal  reasons.  The  Kharijite  terrorists  of  old  made  it clear  that  they  were  motivated  primarily  for  personal,  worldly  reasons. One of  the  assassins  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu) called ʿAmr  bin  al-Hamiq  sat  on his chest  after  he  had  already  been stabbed  by  another  and  proceeded to stab him  nine  times  in  the  chest,  after  which  he  said,  “Three  of  them  were  for Allah  and  six  of  them  were  for  what  I  held  in   my  chest.” [al-Bidayah, 10/309].  In  a  like  fashion,  the  Kharijites  in  all  their  varying factions  today,  whether  those  engaged  in unneeded violence  or  those  who just  support  the  underlying  ideology,  they  all  have  grievances  against  the Muslim people in  matters  of  wealth and  employment] In  reality,  none of  them  were  for  Allah  at  all,  for  these  individuals  were  disbelieving hypocrites by judgement of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) they kill Muslims in their services to their U.S-Israeli Masters who have installed them to kill Muslims.

6.  Divided  in  their  pursuit  of  overall  leadership.  Ibn  Kathir (rahimahullah) writes,  “So when  they  revolted  in  the  era  of  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  people  rallied  behind  them [the Kharijites],  and  everyone  had  an  associate  [leading  them  in  the revolution],  and  each  group  of  people  desired  that  their  associate  would take  the  overall  leadership  after  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu).” [ al-Bidayah, 10/397].  In  a  like  fashion,  the  Kharijites  of  today  are  divided into  factions  (al-Nusrah,  ISIS  and  Saud dynasty),  each  of  them  desiring  that they  will  be  the  ones  to  take  over  general  leadership.  This  has  led  them  to  fight and  kill  each  other  and  declare  each  other  apostates  indicating  the  nature  and extent  of their misguidance,  founded  upon matters  of the  world]. Many  factions  came  to Madinah  from the  various  cities  and  each  had  a  leader.  Their  anticipation would  be  that  following  the  removal  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu),  their  leader  would  be the  one  to  take  power.  This  undercurrent  of  rivalry  and  pursuit  of ultimate  authority  expresses  itself  today  in  the  rivalry  between  the factions of ISIS, al-Nusrah.

7.  Recruitment  by  stealth  and  encouraging  emigration  from  Muslim lands.  After  splitting  from  the  main  body  of  Muslims  under  the leadership  of  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu),  ʿAbdullah  bin  Wahb  al-Rasibi  –  who  was  the  first  leader of  the  Kharijites  and  member  of  the  Saba’iyyah  subversive  movement  – began  to  meet  with  his  associates  and  started  recruiting  people  by encouraging  them  to  abandon  their  families  and  to  travel  to  them  by stealth.  He  said,  “Come  out  with  us  O  our  brothers  from  this  city  whose inhabitants  are  oppressive  to  this  outskirt  near  the  mountainous  rural district  or  to  some  of  these  cities,  upon  your  rejection  of  these  oppressive rulings.” [al-Bidayah,  10/578.  Similarly,  the  Kharijites  of  ISIS  use  propaganda  via social  media  to  entice  the  young,  ignorant  and  foolish  to  abandon  their  families and  travel  to  them  in  the  lands  occupied  by  them] Similarly,  Zayd  bin  Husayn al-Ta’i  –  the  one  who  threatened  to kill  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  just  as  his  group  had  previously  killed  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  –  advised  those who  were  upon  this  Kharijite  ideology  in  various  cities.  He  informed them  when  they  desire  to  leave  Kufah  to  come  to  their  meeting  place, they  should  not  leave  in  groups,  but  in  isolation  so  as  not  to  create suspicion.  They  would  write  letters  to  their  followers  in  Basrah  and  other locations  giving  them  advice  on  how  and  where  to  meet.  Youths  began  to leave,  abandoning  their  mothers,  fathers,  aunties  and  uncles  and  all other  relatives.  Ibn  Kathir (rahimahullah) commented,  “Due  to  their  ignorance  and paucity  of  knowledge  and  intellect,  they  thought  this  matter  pleases  the Lord  of  the  Heavens    and  Earth.  They  did  not  know  that  it  is  from  the greatest  of  major  sins,  vices,  destructive  affairs,  mighty  transgressions and  errors  and  that  it  is  from  what  Iblis  (Satan)  has  beautified  for  them and for  their  souls  which command  them with evil.” [al-Bidayah, 10/581]. 

8.  Waging  jihad  against  Muslims  and  encouraging  their  slaughter.  These Kharijites  considered  the  Muslims  to  have  strayed  and  abandoned  Islam, despairing  of  bringing  them  back  and  thus  they  enjoined  jihad  against them.  When  the  heads  of  this  movement  gathered  in  a  house,  each  one  of them  of  was  presented  with  leadership  and  they  all  refused  except ʿAbdullah  bin  Wahb  al-Rasibi  who  said,  “By  Allah,  I  do  not  accept [leadership]  desiring  the  world  and  nor  do  I  abandon  it  out  of  aversion  of death.”  When  he  had  been  made  leader,  they  gathered  together  in  the house  of  Zayd  bin  Husayn  al-Ta’i  who  gave  them  a  sermon.  He encouraged  them  to  enjoin  the  good  and  forbid  the  evil  and  he  recited  verses from  the  Qur’an  to  them  such  as,  “O  Dawud,  we  have  made  you  the vicegerent  upon  the  Earth,  so  judge  between  the  people  with  truth  and do  not  follow  desire  lest  it  misguide  you  from  Allah’s  path.”  (38:26)  and also  “And  whoever  does  not  judge  by  what  Allah  revealed,  they  are  the disbelievers.”  (5:44)  and  “…they  are  the  oppressors.”  (5:45)  and    “…  they are  the  sinners.”  (5:47).  Then  he  said,  “So  bear  witness  against  the  people subjected  to  our  call  from  the  people  of  our  qiblah  (direction  of  prayer) that  they  followed  desire,  shunned  the  judgement  of  the  Book,  have transgressed  in  speech  and  deed  and  that  waging  jihād  against  them  is  a duty  upon  the  believers.”  Then  he  encouraged  them  to  attack  the  people and  in  his  speech  he  said,  “Strike  their  faces  and  foreheads  with  swords until  the  Most-Gracious,  Most  Merciful  (al-Rahman,  al-Rahim)  is  obeyed.” Ibn  Kathir (rahimahullah) commented  upon  this,  “These  type  of  people  are  from  the strangest  of  species  amongst  the  offspring  of  Adam,  and  sublime  is  Allah who  created  variations  in  His  creation  as  He  desired…  The  intent  here  is that  they  are  misguided  ignoramuses,  wretched  (despicable)  in  both statements  and  deeds.” [al-Bidayah,  10/578-581].  [In  a  like  fashion  today,  the  Kharijites  of  ISIS, Boko  Haram  and  others  wage so-called jihad  against  Muslims  after  first excommunicating  those  who  do  not  agree  with  them,  or  criticize  them.  The Kharijite  ideology  is  clothed  with  lofty  slogans  such  as “Shar’ah”  and  “Khilafah” and  “social  justice”  and  the  claim  of  “enjoining  the  good  and  forbidding  the  evil” and  what  is  similar  to  that].  One  should  note  that  though  the  Kharijites  split and  became  into  many  sects,  acquiring  other  deviant  beliefs,  what  is common  between  them  and  unites  them  all  is  the  issue  of  takfir  in relation  to  justice and  judgement  by  Allah’s  law.  This  is  the foundational  basis  of  all  revolutionary  political  movements  taking  form in the innovated “Islamic political jama’ah.”

9.    Judging  Muslims  with  disbelief  on  account  of  matters  that  do  not constitute  it.  The  ignorant  Kharijites  excommunicated  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and  accused him  of  being  a  polytheist  because  he  deferred  judgement  to  men,  a reference  to  the  arbitration  between  ʿAli  and  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  during  the  battle at  Siffin.  They  said,  “O  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu),  you  have  ascribed  partners  to  Allah  in  His religion,  judgement  belongs  only  to  Allah.” [al-Bidayah, 10/570].  This  is  despite  the  fact  that arbitration  –  such  as  in  marital  disputes  and  in  reconciliation  between  to contending  or  warring  parties  –  is  permitted  in  the  Qur’an,  and  this  is how  Ibn  ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  Qur’anic  scholar,  refuted  those  Kharijites.  Thus,  they accuse  Muslims  with  disbelief  through  matters  that  are  not  even considered  sins  in  the  Islamic  Shari’ah,  let  alone  disbelief  itself,  but rather  commended.  

10.  Their  opponents  condemned  to  Hellfire  if  killed  by  them.  The Kharijites  of  old  also  believed  that  whomever  was  killed  by  them  was automatically  in  the  Hellfire.  The  companion  of  the  Prophet,  Abu  Ayyub al-Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu) said,  “I  pushed  a  spear  into  a  man  from  the  Kharijites and  pushed  it  through  till  it  came  out  from  his  back  and  I  said  to  him, ‘Glad  tidings  O  enemy  of  Allah  of  the  Fire.’  So  he  replied,  ‘You  will  soon come  to  know  which  of  us  is  more  worthy  of  being  burned  therein’.” [al-Bidayah,  10/588.  Today,  the  Kharijites  of  ISIS  claim  that  anyone  who fights  them  and  is  killed  by  them  is  automatically  an  apostate  and  is  condemned to  the  Hellfire  –  as  can  be  seen  in  numerous  videos  that  have  been  surfacing  over the  last  couple  of years]. This  is  keeping  in  mind  that  the  Companions  of  the  Prophet  are guaranteed  Paradise  by  the  testimony  of  the  Qur’an  and  the  Kharijite dogs  are  condemned  to  the  Hellfire  by  testimony  of  the  Qur’an  and  the Prophetic traditions. 

11.  Claiming  Paradise  for  their  dead.  When  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  came  to  them  at  al-Nahrawan,  admonished  them  and  warned  them  severely  and  they intended  battle,  they  began  chanting,  “Judgement  is  for  Allah,  departure, departure  to  Paradise!” [al-Bidayah, 10/587].  Thus,  they  claimed  automatic  entry  to  Paradise for  their  dead,  whereas  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  judged  them  Kharijite dogs  of  Hellfire  who  exit  from  Islqm  as  an  arrow  passes  through  its game. [The  same  rhetoric  is  found  today  with  the  Kharijite  dogs  of  ISIS    and others,  their  slogans  being,  “The  judgement  is  for  Allah  alone,”  and  their enticement  to  the  ignorant  and  foolish  to  seek  Paradise  through  martyrdom  and slaughtering  other  Muslims].

11.  Violating  the  rights  of  the  people  under  protection.  The  Khsrijites violate  the  rights  of  the  non-Muslims  who  are  under  guarantee  of protection  from  the  Muslims.  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  sent  Ibn  ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu),  the  most knowledgeable  companion  of  the  Prophet  of  the  Qur’an,  to  debate  the Kharijites  and  as  a  result  one  third  of  them  returned. [It  is  said  they  numbered  six  thousand  and  it  is  also said  twelve  thousand].  To  the  remaining two-thirds  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  announced  that  there  is  “an  agreement  between  us  and you  that  you  will  not  spill  inviolable  blood,  you  will  not  cut  off  the pathways  and  you  will  not  oppress  [the  non-Muslims]  under  protection.” Later,  when ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)  had  fought  them,  A’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) said  to  Ibn  Shaddad,  “He  killed them”  and  he  replied,  “By  Allah,  he  did  not  dispatch  [his  army]  to  them until  they  cut  off  the  pathways,  spilled  blood  and  made  lawful  [the killing]  of  the  [non-Muslims]  under  guarantee  of  protection.” [al-Bidayah, 10/588].  In  a  similar  way,  the  treacherous  Kharijites  of  ISIS   violate  the  sanctity  of  the  Shari’ah  by  taking  lives  which  the Shari’ah  has  protected]. 

12.  They  comprised  the  ruffians,  hooligans,  the  dregs  of  society  and  the young  and  foolish  of  age.  Those  who  were  mobilized  against  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  by the  Saba’iyyah  were  the  dregs  of  society  and  the  young  and  foolish. [al-Kamil of Ibn al-Athīr (3/101)].  Just the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  described  them,  “young  of  age,  foolish-mind.” Historians  Ibn  Sa’d,  al-Dhahabi,  Ibn  Kathir  and  others  recount  from earlier  authorities  that  those  the  revolutionaries  mobilized  against ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  were  the  dregs  of  society,  ruffians,  brainless  savages  and  that the  Kharijites  comprised of  ignorant  masses. [Similarly  today,  the  young  and  foolish  who  know  hardly  a  thing  about  the foundations  and  principles  of  Islam  are  recruited  by  ISIS,  and  many  of  them  have barely  left  street-life  thuggery,  drugs  or  a  teenage  life  engrossed  in  pop- culture  and  music,  and  then  all  of  a  sudden,  they  are  off  to  the  alleged  Islamic state  to  wage  jihad.  This  phenomenon  is  not  new  and  it  is  not  surprising  to  those who  know  history  and  understand  the  reality  of  the  religion  of  the  Kharijites,  it was  the  very  same  thing  taking  place  between  36H  and  38H  when  the  first Kharijites  set  up  their  alleged  Islamic  state  in  al-Nahrawan  and  began  to  use propaganda  to  recruit  the  young  and  foolish  to  their  cause].

13.  Find  fault  with  scholars  in  irrelevant  matters.  When  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) sent  Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) to debate  with  the  Kharijites  after  they  abandoned  his  army and  camped  at  Harura,  he  was  wearing  a  fine  garment.  They  began  to debate  with  him  about  it  and  he  replied  with  the  Qur’an,  “Say:  Who  has forbidden  the  adornment  [of  clothing]  given  by  Allah  which  He  has produced  for  His  servants  and  the  good  lawful  things  of  provision?” (7:32).  This  indicates  their  resentment  against  both  the  rulers  and  the scholars  for  the  good  things  Allah  has  bestowed  upon  them  and  that these  underlying  currents  of  jealousy  are  what  drive  the  instigators amongst  them. [ Similarly the  Khariji Muhammad ibn Saud rebelled against the Ottoman Caliphate, of late,  ISIS  and  others  resent  what  they see  of  affluence  with  the  rulers  of  the  Muslims,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Prophet informed  and  taught  his  nation  that  there  will  come  leaders  who  will  give preference  to  their  own  interests  above  and  beyond  those  of  the  subjects  and that  some  of  them  would  not  follow  his  guidance  and  would  have  the  hearts  of devils  in  the  bodies  of  men,  but  despite  that,  he  enjoined  patience  upon  the subjects  even  if  oppressed.    

14.  Fault-picking  against  the  rulers  and  twisting everyting that they  do  in their  statements,  activities  and  decisions.  During  the  2  year  period between  36H  and  38H  before  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  eventually  fought  the  Kharijites,  they would  find  fault  with  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) in  every  issue  possible,  criticize  him  and twist  his  words  to  present  them  in  the  worst  possible  light.  Ibn  Kathir relates  through  al-Tabari  that  the  Kharijites,  “began  to  confront  him regarding  his  statements,  make  him  hear  their  slurs  (revilements)  and making  all  sorts  of  interpretations  of  his  statements.” [  al-Bidayah, 10/569].  Similarly, ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  made  some  personal  judgements  in  matters  of jurisprudence  and  these  issues  were  raised  against  him  by  the  Saba’iyyah as  part  of  a  wider  agenda  to  stir  up  revolution.  Likewise,  when  they fabricated  a  letter  upon ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  in  which  he  allegedly  gave  orders  to have  them  killed  andʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  stated  his  complete  innocence,  they responded  by  saying, “If  you  did  write  it  you  are  treacherous  and  if  you did  not  write  it,  it  shows  you  are  powerless  and  the  likes  of  you  therefore are  not  fit  for  leadership  due  to  either  treachery  or  incapacity.” [ al-Bidayah, 10/311].

15.  Complaining  and  supplicating  for  change  despite  living  in  relative affluence  and  safety.  From  their  ungratefulness  is  that  despite  living  in sufficiency,  affluence  and  safety,  they  supplicate  for  change.  In  the  reign of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu) ,  people  would  come  to  the  Bayt  al-Mal  (the  state  treasury), take  their  portion,  and  then  supplicate  for  a  change  in  their circumstances  for  the  better. [al-Bidayah, 10/336.]  [Just like al-Saud did with the rebellion against Ottomans, despite living in security and peace under them, This  indicates  the nature  of  the  heart  residing  in  the  body  of  a  Kharijite,  vile  and  putrid, ungrateful and filled with scorn].

16. Doctrines  of  prominent  early  Kharijite  sects.  The  heresiographers specializing  in  documenting  the  ideas  and  practices  of  the  deviant  sects note  the  following  about  the  very  early  Khariijte  splinter  groups:  The Azariqites  declared    killing  the  wives  and  children  of  Muslims  they considered  apostates  to  be  lawful.  Some  of  them  also  made  it  lawful  to violate  contracts.  They  also  held  that  whoever  resides  in  the  lands  of disbelief  is  a  disbeliever,  keeping  in  mind  that  a  land  of  disbelief  is  any land  other  than  theirs.  The  Najadites  made  it  lawful  to  kill  non-Muslims under  covenant  with  the  Muslims  and  to  take  their  wealth.  Some  of  them also  believe  that  dissimulation  (taqiyah)  in  speech  and  deed  is  permissible even  in  killing  people.  The  Bahaisites  asserted  that  when  the  ruler becomes  a  disbeliever  (according  to  them),  all  of  his  subjects  also  become disbelievers.  Another  group,  the  ʿAjaridites  make  secret  assassinations lawful  and  they  also  make  it  permissible  to  enslave  women  and  kill  the children of the disbelievers (that includes Muslims). [lawful  and  they  also  make  it  permissible  to  enslave  women  and  kill  the children of the disbelievers (that includes Muslims)].

From  the  above,  which  is  but  a  glimpse  of  their  activities  one  can  clearly determine  that  these  people  are  at  war  with  Islam,  its  lands  and  its inhabitants,  rulers  and  ruled.  Anyone  who  equates  the  ideology  of  the modern  Kharijites  from  the  Qutbists,  al-Nusrah,  ISIS  and others  with  the  Islam  brought  by  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or  with  the   scholars  of madh-habs who  have  always  been  at  the forefront  of  fighting  against  the Kharijites  is  a  rank  ignoramus  or  a  paid  shill  who  prostitutes  his  services for  silver  coins  or  a  resentful  hater  and  it  is  not  impossible  for  him  to  be all  three  at  the  same  time.  This  brings  to  question many  of  the  “terrorism experts”  that  have  appeared  over  the  past  decade  or  so  to  take  advantage of  the  monetary  rewards  available  in  the  terrorism  industry,  the  goal  of which  is  to  maintain  a  particular  perception  towards  the  average  Muslim living  in  non-Muslim  countries  who  wishes  to  preserve  his  faith  from erosion.  Well  funded  anti-Islamic-hate  networks  operate  to  spew propaganda against  Islam,  its  Prophet  and  the  Muslims  at  large. 


From  the  well-known,  authentically  related  statements  of  the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) about this group include  his  saying,  “They  depart  from  the  religion (Islam)  like  an  arrow  passes  through  its  game  and  they  do  not  return  back  to  it until  the  arrow  returns  back  to  its  bow-string” [This  indicates  that  the  Kharijites  rarely  abandon  their  misguidance  and  do  not return  back  to  the  truth  due  to  a  combination  of  ignorance  about  the  rulings  of Islam  and  strong  religious  fervour founded  upon  such  ignorance]. and  “Their  faith  does  not  pass beyond  their  throats”  and  “They  recite  the  Qur’an  but  it  does  not  go  beyond  their collar-bones,”  indicating  ignorance  and  false  scholarship.  He  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) also  said,  “They  speak  with  the  best  speech  of  the  creation,”  meaning, beautified,  alluring  speech,  and  “(They  are)  young  of  age,  foolish  of  mind”  and  “Their  speech  is  beautiful,  alluring  yet  their  actions  are  evil”  and    “They  are the    most  evil  of  the  creation”  and  “They  call  to  the  Book  of  Allāh,  yet  they  have nothing  to  do  with  it.”  The  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  went  further  and  also  said “They  are  the  most  evil  of  those  killed  beneath  the  canopy  of  the  sky”  and  “They are  the  Dogs  of  Hellfire.” [These  reports  can  be  found  in  the  hadith  collections  of  al-Bukhari,  Muslim, Abu  Dawud,  Ibn  Majah  and  others  and  are  well  known  and  famous  to  the Scholars  of  the  Muslims,  the  students  of  knowledge  and  many  of  the  common folk.  It  is  great  oppression  therefore,  that  the  actions  of  these  terrorists  are ascribed  to  Islam  and  its  noble  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)].  These  very  severe  and  harsh  descriptions  of  the  Kharijite  extremists came  alongside  a  mention  of  their  devotion  which  would  surpass  and excel  that  of  the  Prophet’s  Companions  themselves.  Despite  this,  the Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  signalled  his  intent  to  kill  them  should  he  have reached them. [For  documentation  of  these    traditions  refer  to  Jamiʾal-Usul  Fi Aḥadith  al-Rasul  of Ibn al-Athīr  (10/76-92)  under  the  heading  of  “The  Kharijites.”].


On the  basis  of  the  Prophetic  traditions  and  the  activities  of  the  Kharijites, the scholars  have  detailed  their  traits  and  characteristics,  which are  summarized   below: 

1.  They  display  fake  piety  (wara’ʾ).  A  type  of  piety  that  led  them  to  major innovations  and  deviation.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “This  (display  of  overt) piety  can  lead  a  person  to  major  innovations,  for  the  (overt)  piety (displayed)  by  the  Kharijites,  Rafidites  and  Mu’tazilites  is  of  this  type. They  avoided  oppression  and  from  what  they  believed  to  be  oppression from  mixing  with  the  oppressors  as  they  claimed  until  they  abandoned the  major  obligations  such  as performing the  jumu’ah (Friday)  prayer  and congregrational  prayers  (with  the  Muslims),  and  Hajj  and  giving  advice  to  the  Muslims  and  showing mercy  to  them.  The  people  of  this  type  of  piety  were  shown  rejection  by the  leading  imams,  such  as  the  Four  Imams,  and  this  condition  (of  overt, fake  piety)  began  to  be  mentioned  amongst  the  (issues)  within  the doctrine  of  Ahl  al-Sunnah  wal-Jama’ah.” [ Majmuʿal-Fatawa  (20.140)].  An  illustration  of  their  fake piety  is  that  when  they  took  the  Prophet’s  companion  ʿAbdullah  bin Khabbab (radhiyallahu anhu)  captive  and  led  him  to  his  eventual  slaughter,  they  passed  by some  date-palm  trees  owned  by  a  Christian  and  one  of  them  took  a  date and  ate  it.  So  they  said  to  him,  “You  have  (unlawfully)  taken  a  date  which belongs  to  the  people  of  the  covenant.”  Another  killed  a  pig  that belonged  to  a  Christian  and  they  ordered  him  to  pay  compensation. Whilst  observing  these  actions,  ʿAbdullah  said  to  them,  “Shall  I  not  tell you  who  is  a  greater  right  upon  you  than  this?”  They  said,  “Who”  and  he replied,  “Me,  I  have  not  abandoned  a  prayer  nor  have  abandoned  this  nor that  (form of  worship).”  However,  they  killed him. [Musannaf  Ibn  Abi  Shaybah (7/560)]. So  they  showed overt piety  and  fear  of  Allah  in  taking  a  date  unlawfully  and  killing  a  pig  which was  the  property  of  a  Christian,  however,  it  was  a  fake  type  of  piety, because  they  paid  no  regard  to  human  life,  that  of  the  Prophet’s companion,  whom  they  slaughtered  by  the  banks  of  a  river  until  his blood flowed into it.

2.  They  abandon the  main  body  of  the  Muslims.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “The foundation  of  the  misguidance  of  these  [Kharijites]  is  their  belief regarding  the  leaders  of  guidance  and  the  body  of  the  Muslims  that  they have  departed from justice  and  are  misguided.” [Majmu al-Fatawa (28/497)].

3.  They  consider  themselves  to  be  more  righteous  and  superior  to  the people  of  knowledge.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “The  first  of  those  who  went astray  in  this  regard  are  the  renegade  Kharijites  when  they  judged  that they  (alone)  are  holding  fast  to  the  Book  of  Allah  and  His  (Prophet’s) Sunnah.” [ Al-Istiqamah  (1/13)]. Considering  that  the  Kharijites  have  no  genuine  scholars amongst  them,  it  is  clear  that  they  consider  themselves  more  learned  and supeior to the scholars.

4.  Treating  what  is  not  a  sin  to  be  a  sin.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “They  have two  well-known  traits  by  which  they  departed  from  the  main  body  of  the Muslims  and  their  rulers.  The  first  of  them  is  their  departure  from  the Sunnah  and  making  what  is  not  a  sin  to  be  a  sin  or  what  is  not  a  good deed to be  a  good deed.” [Majmuʿ  al-Fatawa (19/72)].

5.  They  declare  Muslims  disbelievers  on  account  of  sins  and  subsequently legalize  their  murder.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “[The  second  of  their  two well-known  traits]  that  they  declare  Musilms  to  be  disbelievers  on account  of  sins  and  evils  and  built  upon  this  takfīr  they  make  lawful  the shedding  of  the  blood  of  the  Muslims  and  taking  their  wealth  and  claim that  the  land  of  Islām is  a  land of  war  and  that  the  land inhabited by  them (alone)  is  a  land  of  faith.” [ Majmu al-Fatawa  (19/73)].

6.  They  follow  ambiguous  passages  of  the  Qur’an.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said, “Likewise,  [Imam]  Ahmad  would  explain  (correctly)  the  ambiguous verses  and  ḥadīths  which  the  deviants  would  utilize  from  amongst  the Kharijites  and others.” [Majmuʿal-Fatawa  (17/414)].

7.  Their  raising  the  sword  of  violence  and  slaughter  with  the  pretext  of enjoining  good  and  forbidding  evil.  Ibn al-Qayyim  said,  “The  Kharijites appeared  fighting  against  the  rulers,  revolting  against  them  with  the sword with the  pretext  of  enjoining  the  good and  forbidding the  evil.” [Ighathat al-Lahafan (2/81)].

8.  Considering  something  to  be  from  the  religion  when  it  is  alien  to  the religion.  Ibn  Taymiyyah said,  “For  the  people  of  religiosity  amongst  those desire  the  attainment  of  what  they  consider  to  be  religion  but  they  err from  two  angles.  The  first  is  that  what  they  consider  to  be  religion  is  not religion,  such  as  the  view  of  the  Kharijites  and  other  than  them  from the  people  of  desires.  For  they  believe  and  opinion  which  is  erroneous and  innovation  and  then  fight  the  people  over  it.  Rather,  they  declare their  opponents  to  be  disbelievers.  Thus,  they  err  in  their  view  and  in fighting  those  who  oppose  them  or  in  declaring  them  disbelievers  and cursing  them.  This  is  condition  of  the  generality  of  the  people  of desires.” [Minhaj  al-Sunnah (4/536)].

9.  Their  gross  ignorance  of  the  religion  and  absence  of  scholars  amongst them.  This  is  manifest  when  Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) was  sent  to  debate  with  them  and to  repel  their  doubts. It  became  clear  that  amongst  the  twelve  or  so thousand  of  them,  there  was  not  a  single  companion  of  the  Prophet. In their  debate  they  demonstrate  their  ignorance  of  the  Qur’an  and  its interpretation.  They  do  not  have  the  ability  to  make  istidlal  (infer  and deduce  from  the  texts)  and  they  rely  upon  generalizations  and absolutions. Imam al-Shatibi  said,  “From  following  ambiguities  is  to  take unqualified  absolutions  before  looking  at  their  qualifications  and  taking generalizations  without  reflecting  as  to  whether  they  have  specifications or  not.  Likewise,  the  opposite,  to  take  a  text  which  has  been  restricted and  to  generalize  it.” [Al-I’tisam (1/245)].  There  are  no  scholars  to  be  found  with  the Kharijite  terrorists  of  al-Nusrah  and  ISIS  and  certainly  they are diagnosed with the satanism due to them abandoning the madh-habs of khair ul khuroon and following the whims and desires of deviant modern-day salafi scholars,  they  were nurtured  upon  the  books  of  Sayyid  Qutb and Mawdudi  and  the  books  of ideology  (fikr)  and  harakah  (political  activism)  that  are  circulated amongst  the  Qutbiyyah,  Sururiyyah,  Ḥaddqdiyyah  –  all  factions  of  Takfiris who came from the direction of the Salafiyyah Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan). 

10.  They  subject  the  Qur’an  and  Sunnah  to  faulty  analogies  and interpretations.  Ibn  al-Qayyim  said,  “Whoever  subjected  the  Qur’an  and the  Sunnah  with  a  form  of  interpretation  such  as  the  use  of  one’s own opinion (dhawq) or  emotional  state  (hal) then  he  has  a  resemblance  to  the  Kharijites,  the  followers  of  Dhul Khuwaysarah.” [ Al-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah  (1/308)]. Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “The  very  first  innovations  such  as the  innovation  of  the  Kharijites  arose  due  to  their  evil  understanding  of the  Qur’an.  They  did  not  deliberately  intend  to  oppose  it,  but  they understood   from it  what  it  did not indicate.” [Majmuʿal-Fatawa (13/30)].

11.  Severity  and  exaggeration  in  worship.  The  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) informed  his  companions,  as  occurs  in  a  narration  collected  by  al-Bukhari,  that,  “A  people  will  depart  from  you  and  you  will  belittle  your  prayer compared to their prayer and your fasting compared to their fasting.”

12.  They  split  into  groups,  declare  each  other  astray  and  make  takfir  of each  other.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “From  the  blameworthy  characteristics of  the  people  of  innovation  is  that  they  make  takfir  of  each other.” [Minhaj  al-Sunnah (5/251)].

13.  If  they  gained  power,  they  would  behave  with  the  Muslims  as  the leaders  of  Persia  and  Rome. ʿAli bin  Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) said  in  a  sermon  to  the Muslims  prior  to  fighting  the  Kharijites,  “Fear  Allāh  and  fight  those  who contend  with  Allah  and  attempt  to  extinguish  the  light  of  Allah,  fight  the erroneous,  misguided,  oppressive  criminals.  Those  who  are  not  (truly) reciters  of  the  Qur’an,  nor  jurists  in  religion,  nor  scholars  in interpretation,  nor  do  they  have  any  precedence  in  worthiness  in  this affair  within  Islam.  By  Allah,  if  they  were  appointed  with  authority  over you,  they  have  would  have  done  with  you  the  deeds  of  Chosroes  and Heraclius.” [Tarikh  al-Tabari  (5/78)].

14.  When  they  gain  strength  they  slaughter  Muslims  primarily  and  leave alone  non-Muslims.  Ibn Hajar  said,  “When  the  Kharijites  judge  with disbelief  those  (Muslims)  who  oppose  them,  they  make  lawful  the shedding  of  their  blood  whilst  leaving  alone  the  people  of  the  covenant. They  say,  ‘We  shall  fulfill  their  covenant  with  them.’ [As  indicated  elsewhere  in  this  work,  the  Kharijites  do  not  withhold  from killing  the  people  of  the  covenant  either,  even  if  they  do  not  subject  them  to  the same  type  of slaughter  they  unleash upon  Muslims].  And  they  abandon fighting  the  pagans  and  preoccupy  themselves  with fighting  the  Muslims. All  of  this  is  from  the  effects  of  the  worship  of  the  ignoramuses  whose hearts  have  not  been  expanded  with  the  light  of  knowledge.  They  did  not hold  fast  to  any  firm  rope  of  knowledge.  Sufficient  it  is  that  their  leader showed  rejection  against  the  Messenger  of  Allah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  accused him  of  oppression,  we  ask  Allah  for  safety.” [Fath al-Bari (12/301)].  This  observation  is  true today  when  we  see  that  the  vast  majority  of  those  killed  by  the  ISIS Kharijite  terrorists,  once  they  gained  power,  are  Muslims.  Likewise,  the overwhelming  majority  of  those  killed  by  terrorist  attacks  are  Muslims. [Refer  to  The  New  Jihadism,  A  Global  Snapshot  by  Peter  R.  Neumann,  International Centre  for  the  Study  of  Radicalization  at  King’s  College  London.  p.  14.  Peter Neumann,  the  author  of  the  report  states,  “This  report,  therefore,  tells  the  story of  a  movement  in  the  middle  of  a  transformation  –  one  whose  final  outcome  is impossible  to  predict.  The  immediate  focus,  however,  is  jihadism’s  human  cost: with,  on  average,  more  than  20  attacks  and  nearly  170  deaths  per  day,  jihadist groups  destroy  countless  lives  –  most  of  them  Muslim  –  in  the  name  of  an ideology  that  the  vast  majority  of  Muslims  reject.”  And  he  notes  in  the conclusion,  “In  just  one  month,  jihadist  groups  killed  5,042  people  –  the equivalent  of  three  attacks  on  the  scale  of  the  London  bombings  in  July  2005 each  day.  Contrary  to  the  often  articulated  complaint  that  jihadism  is  overreported  and  that  groups  like  the  Islamic  State  get  too  much  coverage,  our survey  seems  to  suggest  that  most  of the  victims  receive  practically no  attention. Hardly  any  of  the  attacks  that  formed  the  basis  for  our  analysis  were  reported  in the  Western  media.  Indeed,  even  the  suicide  bombings  –  of  which  there  were  –  made  virtually  no  headlines  except  in  the  countries  in  which  they  took  place. Yet  most  of  the  victims  of  jihadist  violence  continue  to  be  non-combatants,  and the  vast  majority  is  Muslim.”  (p.  21).  Refer  also  to  a  2009  report  by  the Combating  Terrorism  Center  (US)  titled  “Deadly  Vanguards:  A  Study  of  al-Qa’ida’s Violence  Against  Muslims”  by  Scott  Helfstein and  others]. 

15.  They  are  the  worst  of  those  killed  beneath  the  canopy  of  the  sky.  This is  textually  stated  in  the  Prophetic  tradition  related  by  Ibn  Majah,  “They are  the  most  evil of  those  killed beneath  the  canopy  of  the  sky.” [Ibn Majah no.176] 


The  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  indicated  that  they  will  not  cease  to  appear  in every  age  and  era  by  saying,  “There  will  emerge  a  people  from  my  nation  from the  East  who  recite  the  Qur’an  but  it  does  not  go  beyond  their  throats.  Every  time a  faction  amongst  them  emerges  it  will  be  cut  off.  Every  time  a  faction  amongst them  emerges  it  will  be  cut  off,”  until  he  said  this  ten  times,  (and  then  he said)  “Every  time  a  faction  amongst  them  emerges  it  will  be  cut  off,  until  the Dajjal  (Anti-Christ)  appears  amongst  their  (later)  remnants.” [Related  by  Ibn  Majah].  In another  more  explicit  narration,  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “They  will  not cease  to  emerge  until  the  last  of  them  emerge  with  the  Dajjal.” [Majmaʾ  al-Zawa’id  of al-Haythami  (6/246)].  An  indication that  the  Kharijites,  from  their  beginning  to  their  end,  are  at  war  with  the people of Islam.


The  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  encouraged  the  Muslim  rulers  to  fight  them whenever  they  appear  with  their  turmoil  and  bloodshed.  He  said, “Wherever  you  meet  them,  kill  them,  for  there  is  a  reward  on  the  Day  of Judgement  for  whoever  kills  them.”  And  he  also  said,  “If  I  was  to  reach  them,  I would  slaughter  them,  like  the  slaughtering  of  Ad  (a  destroyed  nation  of  the past),”  meaning,  every  last  one  of  them  until  not  one  of  them  remains  as explained  by  the  classical  Scholar,  Ibn Hajar  al-Asqalani  in  his commentary  on  this  tradition. [Fath al-Bari  (6/435)].  For  this  reason,  the  Muslim  rulers  from the  time  of  the  fourth  righteous  Caliph ‘Ali  bin  Abi  Talib (radhiyallahu anhu)   have never  ceased  to  fight  against  them. When  they  appeared,  the Companions  of  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  applied  the  folllowing  Qur’anic verses  upon  them:    “Say: Shall  we  inform  you  of  the  greatest  losers  as  to [their]  deeds?  Those  whose  efforts  have  been  wasted  in  this  life  while they  thought  that  they  were  acquiring  good  by  their  deeds!”  (18:103-104). [Imam al-Tabari  relates  this  application  of  the  verse  to  the  Khārijites  from Ali bin  Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) in his  exegesis].  Also,  the  saying  of  Allah:  “Some  faces,  that  Day,  will  be humiliated.  Labouring  (hard  in  the  worldly  life),  weary  (in  the  Hereafter with  humility  and  disgrace).”  (88:2-3). [This  application  of  the  verse  is  mentioned  by  Imam al-Qurtubi in  his exegesis and  he  relates  it  from  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu)]  Also  the  saying  of Allah  “And  when  they  deviated, Allah  caused  their  hearts  to  deviate.”  (61:8). [al-I’tisam of al-Shatibi  (1/89)] And  also,  “Those  who  break  Allah’s  Covenant  after  ratifying  it,  and  sever what  Allah  has  ordered  to  be  joined  and  do  mischief  on  earth,  it  is  they who  are  the  losers.”  (2:27). [Refer  to  al-I’tisam  of al-Shatibi (1/90)].  Misguided  in  this  life  and  losers  in  the  next because  their  deeds  were  vain  whilst  they  deceived  themselves  into thinking  they  were  doing  good;  toiling  hard  in  this  life,  but  weary  and  in humiliation  in  the  next;  their  hearts  caused  to  deviate  because  they chose  deviation  by  breaking  the  covenant  and  causing  mischief  upon  the Earth.


The  first  wave  of  Kharijites  terrorists,  the  Saba’iyyah,  revolted  against the  third  caliph,  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu),  and  assassinated  him  in  his  own  home whilst  he  was  fasting  and  reciting  the  Qur’an.  This  incident  in  the  year 35H  (around  June  656CE)  led  to  a  series  of  events  which  brought  about the  circumstances  for  the  emergence  of  the  larger  body  of  the  Kharijites in  the  time  of  ʿAli  bin  Abi  Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) as  has  preceded.  After  they  broke off  from  the  army  of  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) ,  their  first  act  of  terrorism  was  against  the Companion  of  the  Prophet  called  ʿAbdullah  bin  Khabbab (radhiyallahu anhu) near Basrah  in  Iraq  in  the  year  37H  after  they    had  split  from  ʿAli’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  army  and set up their own state in al-Nahrawan.

Despite  giving  him  ʿAbdullah (radhiyallahu anhu)  an  assurance  of  safety  at  the  first encounter,  they  acted  treacherously  towards  him.  Because  he  did  not agree  with  them  that  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) , the  fourth  caliph,  was  an  apostate (Na’audhubillah),  they excommunicated  him.  Thereafter,  they  laid  him  on  the  ground  and slaughtered  him  whilst  his  blood  flowed  into  the  nearby  water  stream. Then  they  murdered  his  woman  who  was  at  the  peak  of  pregnancy.  She pleaded  for  her  life  and  that  of  her  unborn  child,  but  they  sliced  her  open and  spared  not  even  her  child.  Then  they  killed  numerous  others  who were  present  in  his  caravan. [This  incident  is  related  by  numerous  historians  such  as  al-Tabari  and  Ibn  al Athir and  others].  It  was  here  that  the  cousin  and  son-in-law of  the  Prophet,  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  followed  the  Prophetic  traditions  ordering  this group  to  be  fought  and  killed. [It  should  be  noted  that  groups  such  as  ISIS,  Boko Haram etc  are  the ideological  descendants  of  those  very  first  Kharijite  terrorist  renegades  and  had the  noble,  esteemed,  lofty,  honourable,  merciful  Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) been  alive  to  reach  them  and  their  likes,  he  would  have  slaughtered  them  until not  a  single  one  of  the  savages  remained.  The  Kharijite  terrorists  are  a  trial  for the  Muslims  before  they  are  a  trial  for  anyone  else].


The  Kharijites  extremists  accusedʿAli bin Abi Talib (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) of  becoming  an apostate  because  he  agreed  to  an  arbitration  by  which  reconciliation  was intended  between  himself  and  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).  Due  to  their  severe ignorance  and  the  absence  of  a  single  scholar  amongst  them,  the Kharijites  held  this  arbitration  to  be  an  act  of  disbelief  because  in  their misguided  view  it  entailed  judging  by  other  than  Allah’s  law.  Hence,  they excommunicated  the  Companions  and  split  away  from  the  main  body  of Muslims.  It  was  only  after  their  murder  of  ʿAbdullah bin  Khabbab (radhiyallahu anhu) that  Ali bin  Abi  Talib (radhiyallahu anhu)  recognized  these  were  the  very  people  spoken  of  by the  Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) decades  earlier  and  mobilized  himself  to  fight them.   A  number  of  years  after  battling  them,  one  of  the  extremist Kharijites  called  ‘Abd  al-Rahman  bin  Muljam  plotted  to  assassinate  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and  attained  his  evil  objective  in  the  year  40H  (661CE).  This  was one  of  three  assassination  plots  but  the  only  one  that  was  successful.  The Kharijites  had  desired  to  kill  the  main  leaders  of  the  Muslim  nation following  their  defeat  at  al-Nahrawan.  Abd  al-Rahman  bin  Muljam agreed  to  assassinate  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  in  Kufah,  al-Barrak  bin  ʿAbdullah  al-Tamimi agreed  to  assassinate  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in  Syria  and  ʿ’Amr  bin  Bakr  agreed  to assassinate ʿ’Amr  bin  al-‘Aas (radhiyallahu anhu)  in  Egypt.  The  latter  two  failed  in  their  mission. One  can  see  that  the  Kharijites  were  intending  to  destroy  the  Muslim nation  by  assassinating  its  rulers  in  the  three  major  capital  regions  of  the Islamic  caliphate  after  having  split  away  from  the  main  body  of  Muslims and established their  own mini-state  in al-Nahrawan  close  to  Baghdad. [This  is  identical  to  what  ISIS  have  done  today  in  which  they claim  to  have  established  an  ‘Islamic  state’,  which  to  them  is  the  land  of  Islam  and all  lands  inhabited  by  Muslims  are  lands  of  disbelief  and  war  because  their  rulers are  apostates  whose  removal  is  of the  most  urgent  priority, so they butcher everyone mercilessly].

This  is  the  way  of  these  people  throughout  the  ages  until  this  day  of  ours: To  pursue  wealth  and  power  by  undermining  the  Islamic  authorities  and bringing  chaos,  destruction  and  bloodshed  through  murder, assassination,  terror  and  chaos.  In  the  Prophetic  traditions,  the  Muslim rulers  are  commanded  to  fight  these  Kharijites  whenever  they  appear because  their  evil  ideology  and  terrorist  mindset  is  the  first  of  enemies  to the  religion  of  Islam  and  runs  contrary  to  it  from  every  angle.  The  leaders  amongst  them  are  motivated  by  wealth,  land,  power  and politics  and simply  use  Islam  as  a  hijacked  vehicle  or  a  donned,  beautified garment  through  which  they  pursue  their  interests.  Through  beautified speech,  they  recruit  the  young,  ignorant  and  foolish.  Whilst  the  noble, just,  Prophet  of  Islam,  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  commanded  that  these  evil and  most  harmful  of  people  to  Islam  and  its  adherents  be  fought,  killed and  cut  off  we  see  on  the  other  hand  that  they  are  most  beneficial  in serving  the  purposes  of  those  who  oppressively  ascribe  their  destructive activities  to  the  Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  satirize  him  upon falsehood.  This  is  despite  the  historical  record  showing  that  the  Prophet of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  was  challenged  by  their  ideological  grandfather,  Dhul Khuwaysarah,  that  his  Companions  were  slaughtered  and  murdered  by them  and  that  the  Islamic  tradition  throughout  history  is  squarely against  them.  Despite  being  defeated  by Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  at  al-Nahrawan,  many  of them  escaped  to  various  Islamic  lands  and  continued  to  sow  the  seeds  for the Kharijite ideology which has continued to this day.  


Many  early  Islamic  scholars  from  the  3rd,  4th  and  5th  centuries  of  Islam who  specialized  in  the  study  of  deviant  sects  (heresiography) documented  the  beliefs  and  actions  of  one  of  the  most  extreme  sects  of the  Kharijite  terrorists  known  as  the  Azariqah.  ISIS  are  reminiscent  of this  group. [al-Milal  wal-Nihal  of  al-Shahrastani  (1/112)].  Their  founder  was  Abu  Rashid  Nafiʿ  bin  Azraq  (d. 65H around  685CE).  The  Azariqah  split  off  from  the  Kharijites  and  made  their way  to  Basrah,  taking  control  over  it  and  other  areas  in  Persia.  Their  evil doctrines  included  the  belief  that  the  excommunication  of  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  was valid  and  correct  and  that ‘Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  assassin,  Ibn  Muljam,  was  correct  and praiseworthy  in  his  action.  In  their  view,  all  sinful  Muslims  are  apostates who  will  reside  in  Hellfire  for  eternity  should  they  die  without  having repented  from  their  sins. [This  clashes  with  the  belief  of  orthodox  Muslims  who  hold  that  the  sinful amongst  the  Muslims  who  die  without  repentance  will  be  eventually  delivered due  to  their  pure  monotheism].  Whoever  opposed  their  opinion  was considered  a  polytheist  and  they  threw  the  children  of  such  people alongside  them  –  all  of  them  were  considered  disbelievers  whom  it  was permissible  to  fight  and  kill.  The  land  inhabited  by  those  outside  their group  was  considered  to  be  land  of  war  (dar al-harb)  and  whatever  was permitted  with  respect  to  a  land  of  war  was  permitted  to  them  against the  Muslims  inhabiting  such  a  land.  Anyone  who  did  not  join  them  by emigrating  to  them  even  if  he  held  their  view  was  considered  a  polytheist. They  also  held  the  necessity  of  eliminating  every  “disbeliever”  from  the Earth,  and  by  “disbeliever”  they  mean    every  Muslim  who  does  not  agree with  them.  They  would  interrogate  Muslims  on  their  views  towards  the rulers  and  whoever  did  not  agree  with  their  excommunication  of  the Muslim  rulers  of  the  time  would  be  killed.  They  would  lie  in  wait  for Muslims,  slaughter  them  and  also  slaughter  their  children  mercilessly,  on the  flimsiest  of  grounds  until  they  instilled  terror  in  the  hearts  of civilians  who  would  be  scared  to  leave  their  homes  or  embark  on journeys.  


From  what  has preceded,  it  is  clear  that  the  central  focus  of  the  Kharijites is  around  the  issue  of  rulership  and  judgement  by  Allah’s  law. [It  is  not  the  case  that  every  group  or  sect  of  the  Kharijites  excommunicates Muslims  on  the  basis  of  major  sins  –  and  that  is  not  what  unites  them  in  doctrine. This  is  because  some  Kharijites  make  takfīr  on  the  basis  of  all  major  sins,  others only  on  the  basis  of  some  as  opposed  to  others.  However,  what  unites  them  all  is the  issue  of  rulership  and  juding  by  Allah’s  law,  they  make  unrestricted, generalized,  unqualified  takfir  in  relation  to  this  matter  and  it  was  on  this  very basis  that  their movement  began].  Their ignorance  in  this  regard  became  manifest  when  they  treated  something permissible  in  the  Shari’ah  –  namely, arbitration  between  two  warring parties  as  a  means  of  conciliation  –  to  be  major  disbelief.  This  same compound  ignorance  remains  a  trait  with  them  to  this  day  and  indeed the  Messenger  of  Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) characterized  them  as  “youthful”  and “foolish-minded”  and  stated  that  “the  Qur’an  does  not  go beyond  their  throats,” meaning,  that  whilst  they  recite  it,  they  do  not  grasp  and  understand  it. Today,  the  Kharijite  movements,  parties,  groups  and  sects  show  their ignorance  in  this  matter  in  their  interpretation  of  the  verses  related  to judgement  and  rulership  in  order  to  elicit  generalized  takfir  of  the  rulers without  any  detail  or  elaboration. This  in  turn allows  them to  justify  their revolutionary  methodology  clothed  with  the  lofty  slogan  of  “enjoining  the good  and  forbidding  the  evil”  thereby  mimicking  the  speech  and  action  of the  heads  of  the  Saba’ite  Kharijites  such  as  Zayd  bin Husayn al-Ta’i  (see below).  This  is  after  our  knowledge  that  due  to  their  compound ignorance  they  have  grossly  misdiagnosed  the  actual  causes  of  decline and  deterioration  in  Muslim  societies  and  nations  which  are  not restricted  just  to  the  rulers  alone.  As  for  the  centrality  of  their  focus around  this  issue,  Abu  al-Muzaffar  al-Sam’ani  (d.  489H)  said,  “Know  that the  Kharijites  seek  evidence  through  this  verse  and  say  that  whoever does  not  judge  by  what  Allah  has  revealed  is  a  disbeliever,  but  Ahl  al Sunnah  do  not  make  takfīr  on  account  of  abandonment  of  judging alone.” [Tafsir al-Qur’ann  of  al-Sam’ani  (Dar al-Watan, 1418H)  2/42].  And  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said  regarding  the  verse,  “But  no  by  your Lord,  they  do  not  have  faith  until  they  make  you  a  judge  in  all  disputes between  them…”  (4:65),  “This  verse  is  from  that  which  the  Kharijites  use to  make  takfir  of  the  rulers  who  do  not  judge  by  what  Allah  has revealed.” [Minhaj  al-Sunnah  (5/131)].  And  Ibn Abd  al-Barr  said,  “And  a  faction  of  the  people  of innovation  from  the  Kharijites  and  Mu’tazilites  have  strayed  in  this  field and  used  as  proof  verses  which  are  not  to  be  taken  apparently,  such  as His  saying,  the  Mighty  and  Majestic,  ‘And  whosoever  does  not  judge  by what  Allah  has  revealed,  they  are  the  disbelievers.’  (5:44).” [Al-Tamhid  of Ibn ʿAbd  al-Barr  (16/17)].  Ibn Taymiyyah  said,  “They  (the  Kharijites)  said  that  ʿUthman  and  ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhum)  and whoever  allied  with  them  had  judged  by  other  than  what  Allah  revealed, ‘And  whosoever  does  not  judge  by  what  Allāh  has  revealed,  they  are  the disbelievers.’  (5:44).  Thus,  they  declared  Muslims  to  be  disbelievers  on account  of  this  and  other  than it.” [Majmuʿal-Fatawa (13/208)].

The  misguided  and  ignorant  Kharijites  treat  matters  pertaining  to  upon generalization  and  absolution.  Upon  that  basis,  they  stir  up  socieities,  thereby  causing  instability,  which  in turn  facilitates  the  beneficial  interests  of  hostile  enemies  of  Islam  from the  outside (just like what the ISIS are doing by killing people of Oraq & Syria thereby helping Israel and allies!).  In  all  these  subject  matters  there  are  details  and  elaborations in  the  statements  of  the  people  of  knowledge  from  the  Companions  and   scholars,  right  until  this  day  of    ours  –  all of  which  the  Kharijites  either  feign  ignorance  of  or  are  ignorant  of because they have no genuine scholars amongst them. 


Worthy  of  mention  at  this  point  is  that  there  are  to  be  found  today ignoramuses  who  sympathize  with  the  Kharijite  terrorists,  making excuses  for  them  and  stipulating  such  conditions  for  considering someone  to  be  a  Kharijite  that  would  exclude  even  the  very  first Kharijites  mentioned  by  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  from  being  Kharijites.  The most  common  doubt  in  this  regard  is  the  claim  that  expelling  a  person from  Islam  on  account  of  a  major  sin  (such  as  lying,  stealing,  fornicating, drinking,  gambling  and  the  likes)  is  what  identifies  a  Kharijite.  This  is incorrect  because  from  the  very  first  Kharijites,  in  fact  from  the  heads  of the  very  first  Kharijites  were  those  who  would  not  expel  a  Muslim  from Islam  due  to  these  actions.  In  Maqalat  al-Islamiyyin,  a  famous  early  book on  heresiography  (dealing  with  deviant  sects),  Abu  al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (rahimahullah) writes,  “And  they  (the  Kharijites)  were  upon  agreement  that  every  major sin  constitutes  disbelief  except  the  Najadites  for  they  do  not  speak  with that.  They  were  also  agreed  that  Allah  will  punish  the  major  sinners  with eternal  punishment  except  the  Najadites,  the  associates  of  Najdah (bin ʿAmir).” [Refer  to  Minhaj  al-Sunnah  of Ibn Taymiyyah  (3/461)]. Thus,  it  is  clear  that  not  all  of  the  factions  of  the  Kharijites make  takfir  by  way  of  major  sins.  That  which  unites  all  the  Kharijites  is the  issue  of  rulership  and  judging  by  what  Allah  has  revealed,  utilizing that  to  make  takfīr  of  the  rulers  and  to  contend  with  them  for  power, raising  the  sword  and  breaking  off  from  the  main  body  of  the  Muslims. The  Kharijites,  in  their  foundations,  are  two  groups.  Abu  Bakr  Ibn  alʿArabi (rahimahullah) explains  that  the  first  are  those  who  claimed  ʿUthman,  ʿAli,  those participating  in  the  Battle  of  the  Camel  and  those  pleased  with  the arbitration  between  ʿAli  and  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhum)  are  disbelievers.  The  second  are those  who  claimed  that  whoever  committed  a  sin  will  be  in  the  Hellfire eternally. [Aridat  al-Ahwadhi  (9/38-39)]  There  are  many  differences  between  this  group  on  this  point and it is not something upon which they are united. 

Abu  Mansur  al-Baghdadi  writes  in  al-Farq  bayn  al-Firaq,  “Our  Shaykh, Abu al-Hasan said,  ‘That  which  unites  (all  the  sects  of  the  Khārijites)  is imputing  disbelief  to  ʿAli  and  Uthman,  those  who  participated  in  the Battle  of  the  Camel,  those  who  partook  in  the  arbitration  and  those  who were  pleased  with  the  arbitration  and  considered  the  two  arbitrating parties  to  be  correct  (in  their  action)  or  just  one  of  them,  and  revolting against  the  ruler.’  And  he  (Abu al-Hasan)  was  not  pleased  with  what  al-Ka’bi  cited  that  they  were  united  upon  excommunicating  the perpetrators  of  major  sins.  That  which  is  correct  is  what  our  Shaykh  Abu al-Hasan  has  cited  from  them  (the  Kharijites).  Al-Ka’bi  erred  in  his  claim of  their  being  a  consensus  of  the  Kharijites  upon  excommunicating  the perpetrators  of  major  sins.  This  is  because  the  Najadites  amongst  the Kharijites  do  not  expel  from  Islam  those  amongst  them  who  commit major  sins  which  have  prescribed  punishments  associated  with  them.” [Refer  to  al-Farq bayn  al-Firaq  (Maktabah Ibn Sinah,  Cairo) pp.  72-73]. Shaykh Abd  al-Razzaq  al-Afifi  wrote,  “And  also  from  their  doctrines  is  to make  takfīr  on  account  of  major  sins.  Thus,  whoever  committed  a  major sin  is  a  disbeliever.  They  would  consider  the  major  sinnner  to  be  in  the Hellfire  eternally  except  the  Najadites  in  these  last  two  points.” [Mudhakkarah  al-Tawhid  (p.  121)].  Shaykh ʿAbd  al-Latif,  the  great  grandson  of  Muḥammad  bin  ʿAbd  al-Wahhab  wrote,  after  mentioning  the  story  of  the  emergence  of  the Kharijites,  “This  is  a  summary  of  their  affair  and    you  have  come  to  know their  misconception  on  account  of  which  they  firmly  held  the  disbelief  of ʿAli (radhiyallahu anhu) and  his  party  and  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and  his  party.  This  belief  remained present  amongst  those  who  had  dispersed  after  this  event.  Thereafter, the  extremists  amongst  them  began  to  make  takfīr  by  way  of    major  sins. Then  they  gained  strength  and  [acquired  a]  state  after  which  they  were fought  by  al-Mihlab  bin  Abi Sufrah,  al-Hajjaj  bin  Yusuf.  And  before  that, they  were  fought  by  Ibn  al-Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu)  during  the  era  of  his  brother, ʿAbdullah.  It  was  then spread  about  them,  that  they  make  takfir  by  way  of sins,  meaning  those  which are  less  than  shirk.” [Al-Durar  al-Saniyyah  (9/229)].

From  the  above  it  is  clear  that  expelling  Muslims  from  Islam  due  to  major sins  was  a  later  development  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Kharijites  and  even then,  it  is  not  the  case  that  all  factions  of  the  Kharijites  impute  major disbelief  to  Muslims  on  account  of  major  sins,  there  is  considerable disagreement  between  them  and  a  variety  of  sayings  and  elaborations. But  that  which  all  Kharijites  are  united  upon  is  contending  with  the rulers upon the claims of injustice and judging by other than Allah’s law.


The  righteous  caliph,ʿUmar  bin  ʿAbd  al-Aziz (rahimahullah d.101H,  8th  century  CE), the  great  grandson  of  the  second  caliph,  Umar  bin  al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu),  wrote  an admonition  to  the  Kharijite  terrorists  of  his  time,  warning  them  of  the consequences  of  their  transgressions  and  making  clear  to  them  that  he would  not  hesitate  to  terminate  them  if  they  did  not  cease  and  desist from  their  anti-Islamic  activities.

Since  that  time,  the  written  Islamic tradition  of  refuting  the  Kharijite  terrorists  and  waging  war  against  them has  been  continued  by  Islamic  scholars  and  rulers.  Islamic  historians have  documented  the  beliefs  and  activities  of  this  vile  group  in  great detail.  Whenever  the  Muslims  adhered  to  the  way  of  the  upright orthodox  scholars  who  held  fast  to  the  unadulterated  Islam  of  the Prophet’s  Companions,  they  remained  protected  from  the  poison  of  the Kharijites.  But  when  they  became  distant  from  such  scholars,  they  were no  longer  able  to  recognize  the  poisonous  ideology  of  the  Kharijites.  Ibn Taymiyyah  said,  “Likewise  the  Kharijites,  when  they  were  people  of  the sword  and  of  fighting,  their  opposition  to  the  jama’ah  (body  of  Muslims united  behind  their  ruler)  became  apparent,  when  they  would  fight against  the  people.  But  as  for  today,  most  people  do  not  recognize [Sirah  ʿUmar  bin ʿAbd  al-ʿAziz  byʿAbd  Allah  bin ʿAbd  al-Hakam,  pp. 75-76].  From  this  insightful  statement  one  will  recognize  that  the  very them.” First  strategic  action  of  the  Kharijites  is  to  undermine  the  orthodox  scholars  who  the  greatest  barrier  to  their  evil  so  that  they  can  gain  a foothold in the  minds  of  the  youth. 


In  another  tradition,  the  Prophet  Muḥammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “There  will appear  at  the  end  of  time [The  various  Prophetic  traditions  about  them  indicate  that  they  were  to appear  shortly  after  the  death  of  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan)  and  would  continue  to appear  through the  passing  of time,  putting  the  Muslims  to  trial], a  people  who  are  young  of  age,  foolish-minded.  They will  speak  with  the  best  (and  most-alluring)  of  speech  (that  is  spoken)  by  people and  will  recite  the  Qur’an  but  it  will  not  go  beyond  their  throats.  They  will  pass out  of  Islam  as  the  arrow  passes  through  its  game.  Whoever  meets  them,  let  him kill  them,  for  there  is  a  reward  for  whoever kills  them.” [Ibn  Majah (no.  167)]. 

The  Prophet’s  Companion,  Abū  Umamah  al-Bahili (radhiyallahu anhu)  said  of  the Kharijites,  “The  Dogs  of  the  people  of  Hellfire,  they  used  to  be  Muslims but  turned  disbelievers.”  When Abu Umamah was  asked whether  this  was his  own  speech  or  something  he  heard  from  the  Prophet,  he  said,  “Rather,  I  heard it  from the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).” [Reported  by  Ibn  Majah (no. 175)] 

Abu al-‘Aliyah  (d.  90H,  8th  century  CE),  a  famous  student  of  the  Prophet’s Companions,  said:  “Allah  has  bestowed  two  favours  upon  me,  I  do  not know  which  of  them  is  superior.  That  Allah guided  me  to  Islam  or  that  He did  not  make  me  a  Haruri  (Kharijite).” [Shu’ab  al-Iman  of  al-Bayhaqi  (4/212)] 

Qatadah  (d.118H,  8th  century  CE),  the  famous  Qur’anic  commentator, said  about  them  as  cited  by  Imam  al-Tabari,  “The  Kharijites  emerged whilst    the  Companions  of  Allah’s  Messenger  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  were  plentiful  in al-Madinah,  Sham  and  ʿIraq,  and  his  wives  were  still  alive.  By  Allah,  none of  them  (the  Companions),  male  or  female,  came  out  as  a  [Kharijite]  ever, and  they  were  not  pleased  with  what  they  were  upon,  nor  did  they support  them  in  that.  Rather,  they  used  to  convey  the  criticism  by  Allah’s Messenger  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  of  them  and  the  descriptions  with  which  he described  them.  They  used  to  hate  them  with  their  hearts  and  would show  enmity  towards  them  with  their  tongues.  By  Allah,  their  hands would  be  severe  against  them  whenever  they  came  across  them.” [Tafsir  al-Tabari,  Dar  Ihya  al-Turath al-Arabi, 1421H, 3/209] 

This proves  that  Islam  has  always  been  in  one  direction  and  the  Kharijite terrorists  have  been  in  an  altogether  different  direction.  There  was  not  a single  Companion  of  the  Prophet  with  them,  showing  that  they  departed completely from the main body of Islam.  

Imam al-Tabari  (d. 310H,  10th  century CE)  said,  “The  Kharijites  would meet  each  other  and  remember  the  location  (of  battle)  of  their  brothers [of  old]  at  al-Nahrawan.  They  held  that  remaining  stationary  amounted to  cheating  and  weakness  and  that  in  [the  activity  of]  making  jihad against  the  Muslims  (ahl  al-qiblah)  lay  excellence  and  reward.” [Tarikh  al-Tabari (5/174)]. 

Imam al-Ajurri  (d. 360H,  10th  century  CE)  said  in  his  book  entitled  The Shari’ah,  “It  is  not  permissible  for  the  one  who  sees  the  uprising  of  a Khārijite  who  has  revolted  against  the  leader,  whether  [the  leader]  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’an,  the  length  of  his  standing  in prayer,  nor  his  constant  fasting,  nor  his  good  and  excellent  words  in knowledge  when  it  is  clear  to  him  that  this  person’s  way  and methodology  is  that  of  the  Kharijites.” [Al-Shari’ah  (p.  28)].  This  speech  of  this  insightful scholar  is  not  heeded  today  by  the  ignorant  and  youthful  who  are deceived  by  the  apparent  display  of  what  is  really  fake  piety  by  the Kharijites of ISIS and rush to join them in their evil.

Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi (d. 456H,  11th century CE)  said,  “And  they  do  not cease  to  strive  in  overturning  the  orderly  affairs  of  the  Muslims  (to chaos)  and  splitting  the  word  of  the  believers.  They  draw  the  sword against  the  people  of  religion  and  strive  upon  the  Earth  as  corrupters.  As for  the  Kharijites  and  Shi’ah,  their  affair  in  this  regard  is  more  famous than that  one  should be  burdened in mentioning.” [Al-Fasl  Fil-Milal  al-Ahwa wal-Nihal (5/98)].

Ibn  Taymiyyah  (d. 728H, 14th  century CE)  said,  “For  they  [the  Kharijites] strived  to  kill  every  Muslim  who  did  not  agree  with  their  view,  declaring the  blood  of  the  Muslims,  their  wealth,  and  the  slaying  of  their  children to  be  lawful,  while  excommunicating  them.  And  they  considered  this  to be  worship,  due  to  their  ignorance  and  their  innovation  which  caused [them]  to  stray.” [Minhaj  us-Sunnah  (5/248)].  He  also  said,  “The  people  knowledgeable  of  the  affairs are  agreed  that  the  greatest  swords  unsheathed  upon  the  people  of  the qiblah  (the  Muslims)  from  those  who  ascribe  to  it  and  the  greatest mischief  that  has  occurred  to  the  Muslims  from  those  who  ascribe  to  the people  of  the  qiblah  is  from  the  factions  ascribing  to  them  (the  Muslims), for  they  are  most  harmful  upon the  religion and its  adherents.” [ Majmuʿ al-Fatawa  (28/479)].

Ibn  Kathir,  the  famous  Qur’an  commentator,  (d.774H,  14th  century  CE) said,  “If  these  [Kharijites]  were  to  acquire  strength,  they  would  corrupt the  entire  earth  in  Iraq  and  Sham  (Syria)  and they  would  not  leave  a  male or  female  child  nor  a  man  or  woman  (alive).  This  is  because  in  their  view the  people  (Muslims)  have  become  corrupt  in  a  way  that  nothing  will rectify  their  (situation) except  mass  murder.” [Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah  (10/585)].


Many  highly-regarded  scholarly  authorities  throughout  Islamic  history have  considered  the  Kharijite  renegades  and  terrorists  to  be  disbelievers and not Muslims.  Ibn Hajar  al-ʿAsqalani  (d.  852H,  15th  century  CE),  one  of  the  highly respected  scholars  who  wrote  a  monumental  explanation  of  the collection  of  Prophetic  traditions  by  Imam  al-Bukhari,  writes,  after explaining  that  the  Kharijites  are  to  be  fought  when  they  spill  blood  or take  wealth  unlawfully  after  they  have  been  advised  and  the  proof  has been  established  against  them,  “This  was  indicated  by  al-Bukhari  in  his heading  for  the  aforementioned  [Qur’anic]  verse,  and  those  who excommunicated the  Kharijites  [from  Islam]  used  it  as  a  proof,  [this  view] is  necessitated  by  what  al-Bukhari did  whereby  he  put  them  [the Kharijites]  alongside  the  disbelievers  [in  his  chapter  heading]  whereas  he separated  [them]  from  those  who  [err  by]  making  a  faulty  interpretation by  putting them into  a  separate  chapter  heading. [Indicating  that  the  most  famous  authority  in  the  collection,  compilation  and arrangement  of  the  Prophet  traditions  in  Islam,  Imam  al-Bukhari,  inclined  to  the view  of  the  Kharijites  being  disbelievers.] 

This  [same  view]  was  also  stated  explicitly  by  al-Qadi  Abi  Bakr Ibn  alʿArabi  in  his  explanation  of  al-Tirmidhi  wherein  he  said,  ‘That  which  is correct  is  that  they  [the  Kharijites]  are  disbelievers  due  to  his  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying,  ‘They  exit  from  Islam’  and  his  saying,  ‘I  would  slaughter  them  like  the slaughtering  of  [the  people  of]  ʿĀd’  and  in  a  wording,  ‘[the  people  of]  Thamudand  both  of  these  nations  were  destroyed  due  to  their  disbelief.  Also  due to  his  saying,  ‘They  are  the  most  hated  of  creation  to  Allah,  the  Exalted’  and due  to  their  judgement  upon  everyone  who  opposed  their  belief  with disbelief  and  eternity  in  the  Hellfire,  [and  because  of  this],  they  [the Kharijites]  were  more  worthy  of  this  label  [of  disbelief]  than  them.’  [End of  quote  from  Ibn  al-ʿArabi].” [Aridat  al-Ahwadhi (9/38)  and  refer  also  to  Fath al-Bari  (12/299)]  Then  Ibn  Ḥajar  continues,  “And  from those  who  inclined  towards  this  orientation  is  [Imam]  al-Tabari [ Imam  Ibn  Jarir  al-Tabari (d.  310H, 10th  century  CE)  wrote  one  of  the  most rigorous  and  extensive  explanations  (tafsir)  of  the  Qur’an  based  upon  the statements  of the  Companions  of the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  their  students].  in  his [work],  ‘Tahdhib’  wherein  he  said,  after  citing  the  traditions  in  this  topic [relating  to  the  Kharijites],  ‘Within this  is  a  refutation  of  the  one  who  said that  no  one  can  [ever]  leave  Islam  from  the  people  who  turn  to  the direction  [of  Makkah  for  prayer]  after  he  deserves  this  ruling  unless  he knowingly  intended  to  leave  Islam.  Such  a  person  [holding]  this  view  is invalidating  this  tradition  [about  the  Kharijites]  that  ‘they  speak  the  truth and  recite  the  Qur’an  but  they  exit  from  Islam  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.’ And  it  is  known  that  they  [the  Kharijites]  did  not  make  lawful  the  spilling of  the  blood  of  the  Muslims  and  taking  their  wealth  except  erroneously on  account  of  what  they  interpreted  wrongly  from  the  verses  of  the Qur’an  with  what  was  not  intended  by  it’.” [Fath al-Bari (12/300)].  After  citing  from  these scholars,  Ibn Hajar says,  “And  what  supports  their  excommunication [takfir]  is  the  example  mentioned  in  the  tradition  of  Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu), meaning  the  one  that  is  yet  to  come  in  the  chapter  which  follows. That which  is  apparently  intended  by  it  is  that  they  exit  from  Islam  and  no longer  have  any  connection  to  it,  just  as  the  arrow  passes  right  through its  game  due  to  the  speed  and  strength  of  its  propulsion,  in  that  it  has  no connection  to  the  game  at  all  [after  passing  through  it].” [Fath al-Bari  (12/300)].  A  page  later, Ibn  Hajar  mentions  the  position  of  Imam  al-Qurṭubi,  the  famous  exegete of  the  Qur’an,  “And  the  statement  of  excommunication  (takfir)  [of  the Kharijites]  is  most  apparent  from  the  [Prophetic]  tradition.”  Ibn Hajar also  states  “Upon  the  view  of  their  excommunication,  they  are  to  be fought  against  and  killed,  and  their  wealth  is  to  be  taken,  and  this  is  the saying  of  a  group  of  the  people  of  Prophetic  traditions  regarding  the wealth  of  the  Kharijites.” [Fath al-Bari (12/301)].


At  the  head  of  them  is  the  Iranian  Shi’ite,  Jamal al-Din, pretending  to  be  “al-Afghani.”  His  dubious  and  sinister  movements across  Egypt,  Iran  and  Turkey  in  the  19th  century  were  attempts  at altering  the  forms  of  government  in  those  lands  to  facilitate  foreign exploitation.  He  was  the    inspiration  behind  Hasan  al-Banna’, setting  up  the  Muslim  Brotherhood,  an  instrument  of destabilization  in  Muslim  lands.  Al-Banna’  also  called  to  nearness  and unity  with  the  Shi’ites.  Abu A’la Mawdudi  propounded  the  Kharijite revolutionary  methodology  in    his  writings,  claiming  that  the  primary goal  of  the  Prophets  was  toppling  the  tyrannical  rulers.  He  was  a  close friend  of  the  mushrikkafir,  al-Khomeini.   Finally,  the  ideological  grandfather, who  made  explicit  what  those  before  him  concealed,  Sayyid  Qutb,  He  propounded  the  Kharijite, takfiri  doctrine  with full  expression  and  added  to  it  a  distorted  conception  of  jihad

Following  the  failed  attempts  to  assassinate  Jamal ‘Abd  al-Nasser  in  Egypt, many  of  those  upon  the  doctrines  of  Sayyid  Qutb  fled  to  Saudi  Arabia,  seeking sanctuary  and  refuge,  which  they  were  graciously  given.  They  repaid  the  favour by  working  sedition  and  spreading  their  takfiri  poison  – giving  birth  to  the Qutbiyyah  and  Sururiyyah  movements  prominent  in  the  1990s.  It  is  due  to  them that  extremism  and  terrorism  is  associated  with  Arabia.  In  reality  it  is  the infiltration  of  the  Muslim  Brotherhood  (al-Ikhwan  al-Muslimun)  within Arabian educational  institutions  that  led  to  the  emergence  of  Kharijites  such  as  Safar  al-Hawali,  Salman  al-Awdah  and  others  who  carried  the  poison of Sayyid  Qutb]. 

A  common  theme  in  the  writings  of  these  figureheads  is  the  revilement of  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) and  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu),  accusing  them  of  nepotism  and mismanagement  of  capital  and  the  absence  of  social  and  economic  justice in  their  rule.  This  type  of  commotion  led  to  revolution  against  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) and  his  eventual  assassination  and  the  subversive  group  behind  this,  the Saba’ites,  were  the  seed  group  from  which  both  the  Kharijites  and  the Rafidah Shi’ites  emerged  following  the  civil strife  between  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)   which  they  instigated.  It  should  come  as  no  suprise then,  that  all  of  those  mentioned,  al-Afghani,  al-Banna, Mawdudi  and  Qutb  have  in  their  works,  the  poison  of  the  Shi’ites  or  calls to  nearness  with  the  Shi’ites.  All  contemporary takfiri  movements have  their  ideas  traced  back  to  these  thinkers  and  writers.  Their  primary focus is around the rulers and revolutionary activity.

The  seeds  of  this  ideology  in  the  20th  century  were  laid  by  Abu  A’la Mawdudi  during  the  1940s  within  his  writings  within  which  he  distorted the  message  of  Islam,  giving  it  a  political  interpretation  and  representing Islam  as just a  political  ideology  concerned  primarily  with  wrestling  power from  the  ruling  authorities  who  assert  legislative  and  executive  power over  laws  that  govern  the  lives  of  their  subjects.  He  portrayed  the message  of  all  the  Prophets,  from  Nuh  (alayhissalaam)  to Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  as one  in  which  political  power  and  authority  was  the  essential  meaning  of the  declaration,  “la ilaha illallah.” [There  are  evidences  to  suggest  that  Mawdudi  was  a  crypto-Raafidhi.  First  his ideology  resembles  the  Imamah  ideology  of  the  Raafidhi  Shi’ites  who  make  it  from the  greatest  pillars  of  the  religion.  Secondly,  he  criticised  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu). Thirdly,  he  spoke ill  of  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Fourthly,  he  was  a  close  friend  of “Ayatollah”  Khomeini  and  praised  the  Iranian Revolution]. Mawdudi preceded  Sayyid  Quṭb  in this  concept  and  Qutb  himself  took  it  from  Mawdudi  and  also recommended  the  writings  of  Mawdudi to  his  own  followers.  Upon  this basis,  the  Messengers  were  sent  to  establish  a  political  infrastructure. Since  all  current  rulers  govern  the  lives  of  their  subjects,  they  have usurped  the  right  of  Allah  to  rule  (Hakimiyyah)  and  have  thus,  revoked Islam.  On  that  basis,  establishing  Islam  requires  an  overturning  of  this situation  through  revolutions.  Whilst  Mawdudi  was  the  original expounder  of  these  ideas,  they  remained  an  ideology  and  were  not implemented practically  until Sayyid Qutb  took them  to  the  next  level.


In  his  book  al-Adalah  al-Ijtima’iyyah Fi al-Islam  (Social  Justice  in  Islam)  and Kutub  wa  Shakhsiyat  (Books  and  Personalities),  Sayyid  Quṭb  interpreted early  Islamic  history  through  a  Marxist,  Socialist,  Communist  lenses, reviled  the  third  Caliph  Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) and  excommunicated  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu),  his  parents  and  ʿ’Amr  bin  al- ‘Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) and  the  rulers  of  Banu Umayyah, accusing  them  of  mismanagement,  hoarding  capital  and  creating  class separation.  He  praised  the  revolution  initiated  and  led  by  ʿAbdullah  bin Saba al-Yahudiʾ [The  1906  edition  of  the  Jewish  Encyclopedia  has  an  entry  for  Abdullah  bin Sabaʾ  as  follows,  “A  Jew  of  Yemen,  Arabia,  of  the  seventh  century,  who  settled  in Medina  and  embraced  Islam.  Having  adversely  criticized  Calif  Othman’s administration,  he  was  banished  from  the  town.  Thence  he  went  to  Egypt,  where he  founded  an  antiothmanian  sect,  to  promote  the  interests  of  Ali.  On  account  of his  learning  he  obtained  great  influence  there,  and  formulated  the  doctrine  that, just  as  every  prophet  had  an  assistant  who  afterward  succeeded  him, Mohammed’s  vizier  was  Ali,  who  had  therefore  been  kept  out  of  the  califate  by deceit.  Othman  had  no  legal  claim  whatever  to  the  califate;  and  the  general dissatisfaction  with  his  government  greatly  contributed  to  the  spread  of Abdallah’s  teachings.  Tradition  relates  that  when  Ali  had  assumed  power, Abdallah  ascribed  divine  honors  to  him  by  addressing  him  with  the  words,  ‘Thou art  Thou!’  Thereupon  Ali  banished  him  to  Madain.  After  Ali’s  assassination Abdallah  is  said  to  have  taught  that  Ali  was  not  dead  but  alive,  and  had  never been  killed;  that  a  part  of  the  Deity  was  hidden  in  him;  and  that  after  a  certain time  he  would  return  to  fill  the  earth  with  justice.  Till  then  the  divine  character of  Ali  was  to  remain  hidden  in  the  imams,  who  temporarily  filled  his  place.  It  is easy  to  see  that  the  whole  idea  rests  on  that  of  the  Messiah  in  combination  with the  legend  of  Elijah  the  prophet.”  End  of  quote.  This  entry  indicates  the  origins of the  Shi’ite  sect]  which  led  to  the  assassination  of  ʿUthman (radhiyallahu anhu)  and  described  it as a manifestation of the “true Islamic spirit.”

In  the  writings  of  Qutb  there  is  to  be  found  an  ideological  framework identical  to  the  ideology  of  the  Kharijites  and  of  socialist,  communist movements  who  operate  under  the  banner  of  social  justice  and  equal distribution  of  wealth.  Thus,  in  this  period  Qutb  started  writing  about Islam  from  a  doctrinal  angle,  unlike  his  previous  phrase,  in  which  his interest  was  purely  artistic  and  literary. [Qutb’s  early  writings  were  simply  artistic  and  literary  discussions  of  the  style of the  Qur’an  and  were  not  studies  on Islamic  subjects].  This  ideological  framework  is greatly  reminiscent  of  the  slogan  of  “social  justice”  raised  by  Dhul Khuwaysarah  al-Tamimi,  the  father  of  the  Kharijites  who  accused  the Prophet  Muḥammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  of  being  unjust  in  the  distribution  of wealth  and  from  whose  descendants,  the  Prophet  informed,  would  come the  Kharijites  who  would  depart  from  Islam  and,  motivated  by  other  than Islqm,  would  fight  and  kill  the  Muslims.  In  1952,  Qutb  had  some involvement  in  the  socialist  coup  of  Jamal  Abd  al-Nasir.  For  some  reason, he  fell  out  with  the  Free  Officers  in  1953  and  was  given  a  prominent position  by  the  then  supreme  guide  and  leader  of  the  Muslim Brotherhood,  Hasan  al-Hudaybi.  It  was  in  this  decade,  within  Nasserite Egypt,  that  Qutb’s  extremist  doctrines  began  to  take  shape  more  fully.  In this  period,  his  hatred  of  all  Islamic  societies,  his  excommunication  of them  (judging  them  with  apostasy)  and  instigating  violent  jihad against them  began  to  develop  in  his  writings.  He  explicitly  negated  the  Islam  of all  contemporary  Muslim  societies  and  conveyed  the  idea  that  there  has been  no  Islamic  society  in  existence  since  the  time  of  Banu Umayyah,  the first ruling dynasty after the four righteous caliphs. 

Sayyid  Qutb  said,  “The  whole  of  mankind,  including  those  who  repeat from  the  minarets,  in  the  eastern  and  western  parts  of  the  world,  the words  ‘Lā  ilāha  illallāha’,  without  any  [consideration  of]  meaning  or reality,  then  they  are  the  most  sinful  of  people  and  will  be  the  most severely  punished  on  the  day  of  Judgement  because  they  have apostatised  by  turning  to  the  worship  of  the  servants  (of  Allāh).” [ In  al-Dhilal  (2/1057)]  Qutb also  wrote,  “Today  we  are  in  Jahiliyyah  (pre-Islamic  ignorance),  like  that which  was  prevalent  at  the  dawn  of  Islam,  in  fact  more  oppressive  (i.e. severe).  Everything  around  us  is  Jahiliyyah…” which  we  live  is  not  a  Muslim  society.” [Ma’alim  Fi al-Tariq, 17th  edition,  1991  (p.21)].  And  also  “This  society  in which  we  live  is  not  a  Muslim  society” [In al-Dhilal  (4/2009)]  He  also  said,  “The  Ummah  (of Islam)  has  ceased  to  be  in  existence  (ghabat  al-ummah)  and  has  not  been perceivable  for  a  very  long  time.” [Ibid.  (p.  8)].  After  Qutb  announced  his  hatred  and excommunication  (takfīr)  of  all  Muslim  societies  without  exception, he  continued,  in  a  hateful,  thunderous tone  and  advocated  violent  revolutions  against  them. [This  is  acknowledged  by  many  prominent  figures  amongst  the  Muslim Brotherhood  (al-Ikhwan).  FaridʿAbd  al-Khaliq,  former  leader  amongst  the Ikhwan,  writes,  “We  have  pointed  out  in  what  has  preceded  that  the  spread  of the  ideology  of  takfir  occurred  amongst  the  youth  of  the  Ikhwan  who  were imprisoned  in  the  late  fifties  and  early  sixties,  and  that  they  were  influenced  by the  ideology  of  …  Sayyid  Quṭb  and  his  writings.  They  derived  from  these  writings that  the  society had  fallen  into  the  disbelief of  pre-Islāmic  ignorance,  and  that  he had  performed  takfir  of  the  rulers  who  had  rejected  the  hakimiyyah  of  Allqh  by not  ruling  by  what  Allah  has  revealed,  and  also  takfir  of  those  ruled  over (civilians),  when  they  became  satisfied  with  this.”  And  he  also  said,  “The adherents  of  this  ideology,  even  if  their  jamāʿāt  (groups)  are  numerous,  believe in  the  kufr  (disbelief)  of  all  the  present  Islamic  societies  and  that  their  jāhiliyyah is  like  the  jāhiliyyah of  the  disbelievers  before  they  entered  into  Islām  during  the era  of  the  Messenger.  Then  they  built  Sharīʿah  rulings  in  relation  to  them  (these societies)  upon  this  foundation  and  defined  their  relationships  with  individuals from  these  societies  in  implementation  of  that.  They  judged  the  society  with disbelief  because  it  did  not  apply  the  legislation  of  Allah,  and  nor  adhere  to  His commands  and  prohibitions.”  [Ikhwan  al-Muslimun  Fi  Mizan  al-Haqq, (p.115,  118)]. 

Sayyid  Qutb  wrote, “And  this  important  duty,  the  duty  of  instigating  a  Islamic  revolution  is general,  it  is  not  restricted  to  one  region  exclusive  to  another.  Rather,  it is  what  Islam  desires,  and  places  it  in  front  of  its  vision,  that  it  should instigate  a  comprehensive  revolution  in  all  inhabited  places.  This  is  its greatest  objective  and  its    loftiest  goal  to  which  it  turns  its  vision,  except that  it  is  absolutely  mandatory  for  the  Muslims  or  members  of  any Islamic  party  to  immediately  embark  upon  their  duty  by  instigating  the urgent  revolution,  and striving to  alter  the  structure  of  rule  in their  lands in  which they  live.” [Fi Dhilal al-Qur’an  (9th edition, 1980, 3/1451)].

Once takfir  had  been  made  of  all  societies  and  destructive  revolutions announced  against  them,  the  only  thing  left  was  the  practical methodology  of  launching  the  proposed  revolutions.  And  it  is  here  that Qutb  plagiarizes  the  essential  idea  of  “What  is  To  Be  Done?,”  a  tract written  by  Vladimir  Lenin  between  1901  and  1902.  It  constituted  a skeleton  plan  for  the  revolution  and  was  later  refined  and  republished  in 1907.  Qutb’s  book  “Ma’alim  Fi  al-Ṭariq”  (Milestones)  formed  the  basis  of  a new,  innovated  understanding  of  jihad  in  the  20th  century.  These particular  writings  of  Qutb  were  strongly  influenced  by  Marxist, Communist  revolutionary  movements.  In  addition  to  the  notion  of  social justice,  Qutb’s  ideology  took  shape  around  a  number  of  other  concepts such  as  Jahiliyyah  and  Hakimiyyah [In  this  concept  Sayyid  Qutb  was  influenced  by  the  French  Philosopher,  Alexis Carrell  and  his  book,  “Man,  the  Unknown”  in  which  the  idea  of  “barbarism”  of modern  societies  is  developed].  The  first  alludes  to  all  contemporary Muslim  societies  reverting  to  the  pre-Islamic  days  of  ignorance  through which  they  are  judged  apostates.  The  second  alludes  to  the  sole  right  of Allah  alone  to  judge  which  Qutb  alleged  to  have  been  usurped  by  all rulers  and  governments.  Within  this  framework,  Sayyid  Qutb  redefined the  notion  of  jihad  and  took  it  away  from  its  noble  and  honorable  status to  one  involving   chaos,  treachery,  perfidy,  slaughtering  of civilians  and  everything  that  opposes  the  spirit  of  Islam.  Thus,  all contemporary  takfiri movements  are  operating  upon  the philosophy  and  thought  (fikr)  of  Sayyid  Qutb  and  not  the  Islam Prophet of Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  his  Companions  which  is  based  upon revelation (wahi). 

Paul  Berman  wrote  in  an  article  published  in  the  New  York  Times,  23rd March  2003,  “The  few  had  to  gather  themselves  together  into  what  Qutb in  ‘Milestones’  called  a  vanguard  –  a  term  that  he  must  have  borrowed from Lenin.

Rod  Dreher  wrote,  “What  is  to  be  done?  Lenin  famously  asked  about Czarist  Russia.  Qutb’s  answer  to  the  same  question  about  the  West  was,  in part,  ‘Milestones,’  a  Leninist-style  tract  advocating  worldwide  Islamic revolution.” [In the  Dallas  Morning  News  (27th August  2006)]. 

Phil  Paine  wrote,  “The  first  thing  one  notices  about  Qutb’s  ideological thought  is  how  little  it  has  to  do  with  traditions  of  Islam,  or  the  needs  of people  in  Islamic  countries.  It  is  profoundly  European  in  inspiration,  and it’s  chief  models  are  Hitler,  Marx  and  Lenin…  Lenin  is  by  far  the  strongest influence.  Whole  passages  look  like  they  were  simply  copied  out  from  his works  and  then  a  pseudo-Islamic  terminology  inserted,  ‘revolutionary vanguard’  becoming  ‘Islamic  vanguard’,  and  so  on…  As  Marxist  mumbojumbo  justified  the  telling  of  any  lie,  the  betrayal  of  any  value,  the commitment  of  any  atrocity,  in  the  name  of  an  implacable  destiny,  so too,  does  Milestones.” [In his  review  article,  The  Ideology  of  Sayyid  Qutb  (22nd  August  2006)] 

Lawrence  Wright  observed  about  the  book  ‘Milestones,’  that  “Its  ringing apocalyptic  tone  may  be  compared  with  Rousseau’s  ‘Social  Contract’  and Lenin’s  ‘What Is  to  Be  Done?’  –  with  similar  bloody  consequences.” [Cited  by  Daniel  Martin  in  Sayyid  Qutb]

From  these  citations,  we  can  see and  insight  about these renegades: And  this  revolutionary  ideology  [of the  modern  Kharijites],  we  do  not  say  it  is  ‘influenced  by  the  ideology  of the  Kharijites’  but  we  say  that  it  is  influenced  by  the  Communist, nationalist  and  secularist  revolutions  before  it  is  influenced  by  the ideology  of  the  Kharijites.”


These  realities  are  unknown  to  the  Kharijites  because  they  have  no understanding  in  the  religion.  It  is  clearly  established  in  the  Qur’an  and the  Sunnah  that  the  nature  of  the  rulers  and  their  rule  is  directly  tied  to the  actions  of  the  servants.  The  Messenger  (sallallaahu alayji wasallam),  explained  “And never  do  a  people  cheat  in  the  weights  and  measures  except  that  they  are  taken by  years  (of  hardship),  scarcity  of  resources  and  the  tyranny  of  the  ruler  upon them.” [Sahih  Ibn  Majah  (no.  4019)  from  ʿAbdullah  bin  ʿUmar  (radhiyallahu anhu)]. 

Elaborating  upon  the  same  principle,  Ibn  al-Qayyim said:  “And  reflect  in  His,  the  Most  High’s  wisdom  in  making  the kings  of  the  servants,  their  leaders  and  their  rulers  to  be  of  the  same species  as  the  actions  [of  the  servants].  Rather,  it  is  as  if  their  actions became  manifest  in  the  appearances  of  their  rulers  and  kings.  If  they remain  upright,  then  their  kings  will  remain  upright,  and  if  they  turn away  (from  uprightness),  then  they  (the  kings)  too  will  turn  away  from uprightness. [In  the  hadith  of  Ibn  ʿUmar  (radhiyallahu anhu)  the  Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “And  never  do a  people  cheat  in  the  weights  and  measures  except  that  they  are  taken  by  years  (of hardship),  scarcity  of  resources  and  the  tyranny  of  the  ruler.”  [Sahih  Ibn  Majah (4019)]. When  this  is  for  cheating  in  the  weights  and  measures,  then  what  about  shirk with  the  Lord  of  the  worlds,  the  greatest  of  all  injustices,  that  is  found widespread  in the  majority of  Muslim  lands?]  And  if  they  (the  servants)  oppress  [each  other],  then  their kings  and  rulers  will  oppress  [them].  And  if  plotting  and  deception appears  from  them,  their  rulers  will  [be  made  to]  behave  likewise (towards  them),  and  if  they  (the  servants)  withhold  the  rights  of  Allah that  are  between  themselves  and  become  miserly  with  respect  to  them, then  their  kings  and  their  rulers  will  withhold  the  right  that  they  (the servants)  have  upon  them  and  will  become  miserly  with  respect  to  them. And  if  they  take  from  the  one  who  is  considered  weak  what  they  do  not deserve  to  take  from  him  in  their  dealings,  then  the  kings  will  take  from them  (the  servants)  what  they  do  not  deserve  to  take  (from  them)  and will  inflict  them  with  taxes.    And  everything  that  they  (the  servants)  take away  from  the  weak  person  (unjustly),  the  kings  will  take  away  from them  with  power,  force.  So  their  actions  (those  of  the  servants)  become manifest  in  their  actions  (those  of  the  kings  and  rulers).  And  it  is  not from  the  Divine  wisdom  that  the  evil-doers  and  the  sinners  are  made  to be  ruled  over  [by  anyone]  except  by  one  who  is  of  their  like.  And  when the  very  first  band  (of  Islām)  was  the  best  of  the  generations,  and  the most  pious  of  them,  then  their  rulers  were  likewise.  And  when  they  (the people)  became  corrupt,  the  Rulers  were  made  corrupt  over  them.  Thus, the  wisdom  of  Allah  refuses  that  the  likes  of  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu),  and  ʿUmar  bin ʿAbd  al-ʿAziz (rahimahullah) are  put  in  authority  over  us  in  the  likes  of  these  times  [the 8th  Century  Hijrah],  let  alone  the  likes  of  Abū  Bakr  and  ʿUmar.  Rather, our  rulers  are  in  accordance  with  our  (nature)  and  the  rulers  of  those before  us  were  in accordance  with their  (nature).” [Miftah Dar  al-Sa’adah,  (Dar Ibn  Affan, 2/177)].

Ibn  al-Qayyim  also  said,  “For  every people,  Allah,  the  Sublime,  with  His  wisdom (hikmah)  and  justice  (‘adl)  makes  the  (consequences)  of  the  actions  of  the servants  to  appear  to  them  in  forms  (suwaar)  that  are  appropriate  to  (their actions).  So  sometimes  it  is  in  the  form  of  a  drought  or  barrenness  (of land).  Other  times  it  is  by  way  of  an  enemy.  Other  times  by  way  of tyrannical  rulers.  Other  times  by  way  of  general  diseases  (that  spread). Other  times  it  is  by  anxiety,  grief  and  worry  that  reside  in  their  souls  and do  not  leave  them.  Other  times  it  is  by  preventing  the  blessings  from  the sky  and  the  Earth  from  them.  Other  times  it  is  by  unleashing  the  devils upon  them  to  incite  them  to  the  causes  of  their  destruction,  so  that  His word  can  be  established  upon  them  and  so  that  each  of  them  arrives  at the  outcome  destined  for  him.  The  intelligent  (aqil)  traverses  with  his insight  (baseerah)  in  all  regions  of  the  world  and  witnesses  this,  and  he  sees   the  occurrence  (of  these  instances)  of  Allah’s  justice  and  wisdom  taking place.” [Zad  al-Ma’ad  (4/363)].

These  statements  of  Ibn  al-Qayyim  are  in  effect,  an  insight  into  the statement  of  Mu’adh  bin  Jabal  (radhiyallahu anhu),  who  said,  “The  ruler  is  from  the affair  of  Allah  whoever  reviled  the  ruler  is  in  reality  reviling  the affair  of  Allah.” [Related  by  Abu  Amr  al-Dani  in  al-Sunan  al-Waridah  fil-Fitan]. The  ruler  is  from  the  placement  of  Allah,  He places  rulers  in  accordance  with  what  the  subjects  deserve,  as  a  direct expression  of  the  actions  of    the  servants  themselves,  a  law  in  Allah’s creation.  Thus,  when  the  modern  Kharijites  revile  and  attack  the oppressive  rulers  who  do  not  judge  by  Allah’s  law  with  respect  to  their subjects,  attempting  to  remove  them  and  acquire  power,  they  are corrupters  of  an  already  corrupted  situation.  The  situation  was  corrupted by  the  people  due  to  their  deeds,  their  shirk  (associationism),  bid’ah (innovation),  ma’siyah  (disobedience),  as  result  of  which  Allah  punished them  from  a  way  amongst  the  ways  at  His  disposal,  which  includes tyrannical  rulers  who  do  not  judge  by  Allah’s  law  and  do  not  implement justice  to  the  detriment  of  the  subjects.  Ibn  Taymiyyah  said,  “Indeed,  the affair  [of  rule]  being  destined  for  the  kings  and  their  deputies  from  the rulers,  judges  and  leaders  is  not  due  to  the  deficiency  in  them  alone,  but due  to  the  deficiency  in  both  the  shepherd  and  the  flock  together,  for  ‘As you  yourselves  behave,  you  will  be  ruled  over  (in  a  like  manner)’   and  Allāh,  the Exalted  has  said,  ‘Thus  do  we  turn  some  of  the  oppressors  against  others on  account  of  (the  deeds)  they  earn.’  (6:129).” [Majmu  al-Fatawa (35/20-21)].  And  Abu Bakr Muhammad  al-Ṭurtushi said,  “I  never  ceased  hearing  the  people saying,  ‘Your  actions  are  your  workers,  as  you  yourselves  behave,  you will  be  ruled  over  (in  a  like  manner)’  until  I  grasped  this  meaning  from the  Qur’an,  Allāh,  the  Exalted  said,  ‘Thus  do  we  turn  some  of  the oppressors  against  others  on  account  of  (the  deeds)  they  earn’.  (6:129). And it  used  to  be  said,  ‘Whatever  you  show  rejection against  in  your  time, then  it  is  your  own  deed  that  has  corrupted  that  for  you.’  And  ʿAbd  al Malik  bin  Marwan  said,  ‘O  subjects,  you  have  not  dealt  justly  with  us.  You want  from  us  the  sirah  (way,  approach,  behaviour)  of  Abu  Bakr  and ʿUmar (radhiyallahu anhu) but  you  do  yourselves  do  not  behave  with  respect  to  us  or yourselves  with  their  behaviour’.” [Siraj al-Muluk  (2/467-468)].

Thus,  modern-day  Kharijite  movements  are  further  corrupters  of  already corrupt  situations  and  this  is  from  their  ignorance  and  their  inability  to grasp  the  ʿaqidah  of  Ahl al-Sunnah  in  these  great  and  mighty  affairs  of  alqada  wal-qadar,  the  actions  of  the  servants,  the  rule  of  Allah  in  His creation  and  the  purpose,  justice  and  wisdom  in  Allah’s  actions  and  His legislations  –  and  from  that  is  the  famous  hadith  related  by  Hudhayfah (radhiyallahu anhi),  which  is  a  stake  in  the  heart  of  every  brain-dead  Kharijite,  that  the Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “There  will  be  after  me  rulers  who  do  not  guide themselves  by  my  guidance  nor  follow  my  Sunnah  and  their  will  appear  amongst you  men  whose  hearts  are  the  hearts  of  devils  in  the  bodies  of  men.”  Hudhayfah (radhiyallahu anhu) said,  “What  shall  I  do  if  I  reach  that  (time)?”  He  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “Hear  and obey  the  ruler,  even  if  your  back  is  beaten  and  your  wealth  is  confiscated.” [Related  by  Muslim  in his  Sahih].  And this  is  only  after  we  accept  that  the  rulers  targeted  by  the  Kharijites  are as  evil  as  they  are  made  out  to  be,  for  most  of  what  the  Kharijites  allege  is from  their  own  evil  understanding  or  complete  lack  of  undestanding  of the  rulings  of  the  Shari’ah,  treating  things  permitted in  the  Shari’ah  to  be disbelief  –  just  as  the  very  first  Kharijites  treated  the  matter  of  arbitration to be disbelief.


The  Shari’ah  of  Islam  judged  the  Khariijtes  to  have  departed  and  exited from  Islam  just  as  an  arrow  passes  through  its  game.  The  following citation  will  help  us  to  grasp  one  of  the  angles  from  which  this  is  indeed the  case.   Muhammad  bin ʿAbd  al-Wahhab  said,  in demonstrating  the  contrast  between  the  way  in  which  the  Shari’ah  treats the  sinners  and  the  heretical  innovators,  “Chapter:  What  has  come  [to show]  that  innovation  is  more  severe  than  major  sins  due  to  His  saying, “Indeed,  Allah  does  not  forgive  association  with  Him,  but  He  forgives what  is  less  than that  for  whom  He  wills.”  (4:116)  and  his  saying, the  Most High,  “That  they  may  bear  their  own  burdens  in  full  on  the  Day  of Resurrection  and  some  of  the  burdens  of  those  whom  they  misguide without  knowledge.  Unquestionably,  evil  is  that  which  they  bear.” (16:25) [Fadl al-Islam  within  the  Majmuʾ  Mu’allafat  (6/1156)].  And  in  the  Sahih [of al-Bukhari]  that  he  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said  about the  Kharijites,  ‘Wherever  you  find  them,  slaughter  them’  and  within  [the Sahih]  is  that  he  prohibited  from  fighting  the  tyrannical  rulers,  so  long  as they  pray.”

He cited  the  first  verse  (4:116)  to  show  that  no  matter  what  level of  sin  is  committed  (by  the  sinners,  rulers  included)  it  can  be  forgiven, unless  it  is  shirk.  And  the  second  verse  (16:25)  is  about  the  innovators who  will  bear  their  burden  and  that  of  all  those  whom  they  misguided.  In the  first  hadith  he  indicated  how  the  Kharijites  (despite  their  outward piety  and  alluring  speech  about  the  religion  and  Allah’s  right  to  judge and  so  on)  are  to  be  slaughtered  wherever  they  are  found [This  is  for  the  rulers  to  pursue  and  not  for the  subjects]. and  in  the second  hadith  he  indicated  how  the  sinful,  tyrannical  rulers  must  not  be fought  so  long  as  they  pray.  This  is  an  indication  of  how  the  Shari’ah  of Islam  preserves  both  the  worldly  and  religious  interests  in  contrast  to what  the  intellects  and  opinions  of  men  may  surmise.  It  came  with rulings  and  injunctions  that  actualize  the  greater  benefit  and  repel  the greater  harm.  Unlike  atheistic,  materialist  philosophies  which  came  with social  revolutionary  movements  to  topple  monarchies  and  governments (under  the  guise  of  establishing  social,  economic  and  political  justice) leading  to  mass  murder,  chaos,  civil  strife,  destruction  of  infrastructure and  whose  beneficiaries  are  not  the  masses  but  an  elite  few,  the  Shari’ah of  Islam  came  with  the  opposite:  The  preservation  of  peace  and  security despite  the  presence  of  tyranny  and  social  and  economic  injustice.  It came  with  patience  upon the  tyranny,  injustice  and  self-preference  of  the rulers,  despite  their  sinfulness  and  injustice,  alongside  strong  incitations to  slaughter  and  kill  the  revolutionary  renegades  (Kharijites)  who  revolt against  the  authorities  and  create  more  evil  and  harm  than  which  is found  from  the  rulers  alone.  And  this  is  despite  the  apparent  great  piety of  these  Kharijites  in  their  abundant  beautified  speech,  their  prayer  and fasting. 

And  all  praise  is  due  to  Allah  and  may  peace  and  blessings  be  upon  His Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

The Oppressed Muslims of Burma

[By Insani Yardim Vakfi]


This report elaborates on violence that broke out in Arakan in June 2012, the background of the violent incidents and rights violations against Arakanese Muslims. The objective of this report is to bring to the public opinion developments in the region, inform the Islamic world and international community, and urge decisionmaking bodies to take necessary steps to end escalating acts of violence in Arakan.

Incidents deemed humiliating to human dignity have been going on in Arakan for long years. Recent clashes have left more than 1,000 Muslims dead unimaginably inhumane conditions at these camps Arakanese Muslims are losing hopes for a better future. Kala, a 75-year-old Arakanese refugee who has been in these camps for long years, describes refugees’ despair: “We are waiting for death that will relieve us of our suffering.” To make the matters more tragic, Bangladesh not only has been denying refugees that have been coming since June entry into the country but also returning those who arrived in the camps in the past years.  

This report on the ongoing violence in Arakan has been prepared using interviews with refugees who fled Arakan and sought shelter in different countries, information provided by human rights organizations, and 14-year-long experience of IHH in the region.

Historical Background


Arakan, which has an area of 50,000 square-kilometers lying north to south on the Bangladesh-Burma border, has a deep-rooted historical heritage. The oldest known history of Arakan dates back to 3rd century BC. In the region today known as Arakan, Dhanyawadi and Vesali kingdoms were established in the 1st century AD and 3rd century AD respectively.    

Islam arrived in Arakan in the 8th century with Arab merchants. Muslim Arabs, who had a significant place in maritime commerce, had established strong commercial relations with South Asia, Southeast Asia and Far East, and had founded small commercial hubs in the region stretching from Arakan to Sumatra Island and Java.

In the 15th century, an Islamic kingdom was founded in Arakan when the king Narameikhla adopted Islam, and Islam started to rapidly spread to neighboring areas.

Burmese and British occupation

Under the Burmese occupation that began in 1784, two Arakanese native groups Muslim Rohingya and Buddhist Rakhine faced repression and persecution. Thousands of Arakanese fled their homeland to escape the Burmese persecution and south shelter in India. The British ended Burmese rule in Arakan in 1826 and held the region under the colonial rule for over 120 years.

The two native groups pit against each other

Arakanese  natives  Muslim  Rohingyas  and  Buddhist Rakhines lived side by side in peace until the 19th century. However, Thakin Party, which aimed to end the British occupation of Burma that began in 1826, provoked Buddhist Rakhines against Muslim Rohingyas. When Burma was separated from India in 1937 with colonial rule remaining in place, Thakins seized power inside Burma. Seeds of hatred were sown among ethnic groups with the propaganda that Muslims posed a serious threat to Buddhism and would gain ground and wipe out Buddhists if not stopped, and therefore Rakhines preferred to live under the Burmese rule to a peaceful,  independent life with Muslims.


1942 Massacre

The  first  major  attacks  against  Indian  and  Bangladeshi Muslims began after the British withdrew from the region. Defenseless Muslims were forced to seek refuge in India and Bangladesh to escape violence. Arakanese Buddhist Rakhines began mass killings of Muslim Rohingyas after Indian and Bangladeshi Muslims left the country. On 28 March 1942, Rakhines attacked Muslims in Chanbili village of Minbya Township, and butchered women, men and children with swords and spears. The attacking Rakhines raped women before brutally killing them and ransacked the area after the massacre. Gold, silver and other valuable possessions of Muslim Rohingyas were confiscated by Thakin leaders and their animals, crops and property were given to looters. It is said that the Lemro River running through the area turned red with the blood of innocent civilians.

During the 40-day long attacks that erupted in the town of Minbya and spread to the entire Arakan province at least 150,000 Arakanese Muslims were killed, villages were looted and demolished. The settlement areas east of the Kaladan River that were once predominantly Muslim had only a small percentage of Muslim population after the attacks.  Operation Monsoon and eliminated Muslim forces. The same year thousands of Muslims were either killed or deported from the country on grounds that they had aided mujahids. During a visit in 1959 to the Muslim-populated Buthidaung and Maungdaw cities, Burmese Prime Minister promised equal citizenship to Muslims, and consequently Muslim mujahids gave up arms and surrendered to the state.

The mass killings forced many Arakanese Muslims to seek refuge in neighboring countries, particularly in Bangladesh. The events of 1942 made cohabitation in the future practically impossible for the Rohingya and the Rakhine, two brotherly nations with a common history.

Attacks continuing

Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League, which played a significant role in independence of Burma, laid off many Muslims and replaced them with Arakanese Buddhists shortly after independence. Encouraged by anti-Muslim policies of the state, Buddhists stepped up their attacks on the Muslim community without facing any preventive measures from the government. Moreover, the government restricted movement of Muslim Rohingya fleeing violence from Maungdaw, Buthidaung, and Rathedaung to Akyab (officially Sittwe), leaving thousands of Muslims at the mercy of aggressive Buddhists.  

Even before recovering from the 1942 massacre Muslims found themselves as the target of yet another attack by the Burmese in 1947. In that period certain Muslim groups launched armed resistance against the Burmese state but failed. In 1954 when Muslim groups got more organized and powerful, the Burmese army launched a bloody attack called the Operation Monsoon and eliminated Muslim forces. The same year thousands of Muslims were either killed or deported from the country on grounds that they had aided mujahids. During a visit in 1959 to the Muslim-populated Buthidaung and Maungdaw cities, Burmese Prime Minister promised equal citizenship to Muslims, and consequently Muslim mujahids gave up arms and surrendered to the state.

1962 Military Coup

Repression of Muslims in Burma continued unabated until the 1962 coup. In 1962 the military too over power and nationalized all private enterprises and banks. As a result, Muslims, who controlled major enterprises in Arakan up until that year, lost their economic power. Coup leader General Ne Win issued a number of notices to Arakan authorities to restrict movement of local Muslims. State-controlled media began propaganda broadcasts claiming Rohingya Muslims were not native of Arakan and urged Arakanese Buddhists to act against the Muslim population. Such broadcasts, whose only aim was to pit Buddhist Rakhines against Muslim Rohingyas, escalated tension in the region.


When he took over power Ne Win moved to put Buddhists in charge of Arakan administration. Almost all Muslim police officers working in border areas were appointed to distant parts of the country. Muslim civil servants were threatened with dismissal or being removed from northern Arakan. All but a few Rohingya civil servants and teachers were replaced with Burmese and Rakhines who had migrated to the region several years ago from eastern Pakistan. The military regime abolished Mayu Frontier Administration and brought the region under the control of central government. Tighter economic restrictions were imposed on Muslims and Buddhist Rakhines took over the inter-town trading that was once controlled by Muslims.    

In this period the military junta became increasingly more disrespectful to the rights of Muslims. It became routine for Muslim opinion leaders to be detained at night by the military and released after being tortured. Injustices against the Muslim community were encouraged by authorities.    

With support from Burmese authorities, Buddhist Rakhines began attacking and usurping possessions of Muslims whenever they saw fit. When Muslim applied to police stations to complain they would frequently found themselves in the defendant position on trumped-up charges. Maltreatment of the police daunted Muslims and they simply gave up asking for justice.

After seizing power the military junta launched a merciless offensive called “Immigrant Investigation Operation.” Physical torture, molestation of women, extortion, and similar mistreatment acts became a matter of ordinary life. Many innocent people were labeled as illegal immigrant and arrested. Hundreds of people were forcefully removed from their homes in Kyauktaw, Mrohaung, Pauktaw, Myebon and Minya, and deported to Bangladesh.

King Dragon Operation

With “King Dragon Operation” in March 1978, the Burmese government aimed to intimidate the Muslims and force them to leave Arakan. The operation was launched in the largest Muslim village in the town of Akyab and had a ripple effect throughout the region. The reports that Muslim masses had been arrested in Akyab, women and men and children, young and elderly everyone had been tortured, women had been raped and killed, quickly reached the entire northern Arakan. Police and immigrant scrutiny officers of the Nagamin Team, set up by the military, reached Buthidaung region and terrorized the local community. Hundreds of Muslim men and women were arrested, many were killed after being tortured and women were raped.

Arakanese Muslims, who were terrorized by brutal attacks and no longer had security of life and property, were forced to leave their homes to protect their honor. The Rohingya people headed for the Bangladeshi border through formidable route, but once again were targeted by Buddhist Rakhines and security forces and all their possessions were confiscated. Most of the Muslims fleeing mass killings in Arakan were killed while escaping. Those who could reach the Naf River that marks the Bangladesh-Burma border were forced to jump into treacherous waters of the river when their boats were fired on. In the course of several months over 300,000 Arakanese refugees arrived in Bangladesh and were placed in makeshift camps by the authorities.

As Nagamin Units withdrew from evacuated villages, Rakhines, who had looted and burned down Muslim houses and had stolen their animals, moved in.

Buddhismization of Arakan

The Myanmar state, which aims to wipe out the Islamic heritage in the country and completely reshape the region, has been building Buddhist temples in almost every corner of northern Arakan. Hill tribes of Murung, Chakma, and Saak have been ordered to settle the land taken from Muslims, and Buddhist Rakhines coming from Arakan and even Bangladesh have been placed in areas previously populated by Muslims. Faced with aggression from the new despot settlers that are backed by the government, Arakanese Muslims have begun migrating out of Arakan.  

From 1990 onward, hundreds of thousands of Arakanese have fled to neighboring Bangladesh as refugees to escape pressure and persecution. Muslims villages were evacuated on ground that they would be rebuilt as model settlements, but Buddhist Rakhines were placed in the evacuated villages. As part of the policy to make Arakan Buddhist, the name of Arakan state was changed to Rakhine and the name of the state capital was changed from Akyab to Sittwe.

Rights Violations To Date


The Burmese rule in Arakan paved the way for a period marked with rights violations against the Rohingya people. In the 1938 massacre, thousands of Arakanese Muslims were killed and more than 500,000 were forced to leave their homeland. In 1942 Muslims were target of another massacre that claimed 150,000 Muslim lives. The death toll of attacks on Muslims in 1947, the Monsoon Operation of 1954 and the King Dragon Operation of 1978 is in ten thousands. Intimidation and attacks against Arakanese Muslims continue as of today.

Unlawful Detention, Torture and Maltreatment

In the years following the 1962 coup, the Rohingyas were subjected to unlawful detention, torture and maltreatment. Communal prayers and Qurban ritual were banned. It is known that during the 1978 King Dragon Operation large numbers of Muslim women, men and elderly people were subjected to torture, imprisoned or executed. Arakanese Muslims are still facing arbitrary detentions, torture and mistreatment.

Religious and Ethnic Discrimination, Revocation of Citizenship

The situation of Arakanese Muslims deteriorated in the aftermath of the 1962 coup. Most of the commercial enterprises owned by Rohingyas until that time were nationalized and thereby economic power of Muslims was reduced. State-controlled media started to portray Rohingyas as foreigners and Muslims in government positions were replaced with Buddhists.  

The question of Arakanese Muslims is not the only problem the Burmese state has. The military regime has subjected ethnic minorities of Burma, where 64 native peoples and more than 200 languages and dialects are spoken, to systematic pressure and discrimination. The ethnic composition of Burma is 68% Bamar, 9% Shan, 7% Karen, 4% Buddhist Rakhine, 3% Chinese, 2% Mon, 2% Indian, and 5% other ethnic groups, including Arakanese Muslims (Rohingyas). The fact that Arakanese Muslims, Shan and Karen people are systematically persecuted by the Burmese state has been confirmed by international institutions.

Ethnic groups face official discrimination at schools and governmental institutions, cultures, languages, history and identities of ethnic peoples are restricted or completely banned. Members of ethnic communities are used as forced labor by the military and face insulting treatment at work. These civilians are treated really badly and they sometimes pay the price of their ethnicity with their lives. Arakanese Muslims are worst affected by discriminative and restrictive policies.    

The 1982 Citizenship Law left Rohingya out of the list of ethnic groups, labeling them as foreigners in their own native land. Today Rohingyas are still not recognized as citizen of Burma. By stripping them off their citizenship, Rohingyas were denied one of their most basic human rights. In those years the government openly supported anti-Muslim riots. Rohingyas were prevented from travelling outside their towns; those living in northern Arakan were forcefully removed from their homes, coerced into forced labor, and subjected to torture.

Building New Settlements and Displacement of Muslims


The most serious rights violations Arakanese Muslims have experienced at the hands of the Burmese military regime is the confiscation of Muslim property after they have been forced out of their homes and settling Buddhists in Muslim homes under the cover of model villages. Muslims are forced to work in the construction of these model villages. The villages are constructed from materials confiscated from Muslims and new homes are built in a way to resemble historical Buddhist homes. Buddhists living in Arakan, in central Burma and even in Bangladesh are encouraged to move into northern Arakan, where Muslims live, in an effort to reduce the overall percentage of Muslim population in the region. The Buddhist urged to settle in Arakan bring their relatives with them. Shelter, land, and livestock needs of new settlers are provided from confiscated Muslim property. On 25 March 1999, 34 new settlers were brought from Buthidaung to Akyab. Before their arrival authorities forced Muslims to make certain changes in the villages so that they would resemble old Buddhist settlements, even Buddha statues were erected in different parts of the villages. In February 2005, the military junta ordered Arakanese Muslims to build fences around their villages and forcefully employed Muslims for this work.  

Evacuated Rohingya villages were settled by Buddhists and most of the displaced Rohingyas moved out of Arakan. Today the Rohingya community in Arakan is living under extremely hard conditions. The Burmese military junta frequently incites Arakanese Buddhist against Muslims and keeps them under systematic pressure. This policy involves displacement of Muslims from their land and settling Buddhist in their place, confiscating possessions and property of Muslims, forced labor, shutting mosques and preventing new ones being built, and travel ban. Frequent acts of violence occur in the region as a result of inciting Buddhists against Muslims.   

The objective in settling Buddhist in Muslim villages and towns is to reduce the percentage of Arakanese Muslims so that they would not be able to claim autonomy within Burma. Obliteration of Islamic heritage in Arakan and reshaping it as a Buddhist land is planned. The military regime not only alter demographic shape of Arakan and exploit Muslims but also arms Buddhists settled in the area and urges them to raid Muslim villages.

Travel Ban

Arakanese Muslims have no freedom of travel in their own land. Muslims residing in cities and towns outside Akyab are banned from entering the Arakanese capital Akyab on any grounds including emergency medical treatment. They are also not allowed to travel to the Burmese capital Rangoon under any circumstances. Muslims cannot even visit villages and towns neighboring their own. Muslims with no travel cards and sometimes even those with authorized cards are forced to get off buses and trains. In one instance in February 2001, eight Muslims travelling to Rangoon were detained by police for travelling outside Arakan even though they had travel permits, and were sentenced to seven years in prison.     

Marriage Ban

Muslims face serious restrictions when they want to get married. Muslims have to meet a dozen of procedural requirements to receive a permit for marriage, which makes extremely difficult for Muslims to marry. A significant part of the Burmese government policy to reduce the Muslim population, the marriage restrictions create serious social problems for Muslims. Authorities demand couples to pay high taxes to get marriage permits. Both the man and the woman willing to get married have to pay a tax between 50 and 300,000 kyat. The waiting period for the permit is approximately 2-3 years, those failing to pay the tax are not allowed to marry, and sometimes even those who pay the tax are not granted a permit. That’s why some couples cross into Bangladesh illegally to marry.

Destruction of Cultural, Historical Heritage and Values

Arakanese Muslims created a rich Islamic heritage with the states they founded in history. The Rohingya language is a member of the Indo-European languages and is very similar to the language spoken in southern Bangladesh. The Rohingya people used Arabic script for about 300 years. The coins minted by Arakanese kings in history bore Islamic confession of faith in Arabic. Arakanese cultural heritage, just like that of other minorities in Myanmar, is being obliterated as part of Myanmarization policy by Burmese nationalists. The culture of Burma Muslims and especially culture of Arakanese Muslims is deemed foreign “Burma culture.” Burma Muslims are even pressured to change their names. Artifacts dating back to the Islamic reign in Burma are being destroyed and place names are being changed. For instance, the Arakan name was changed to Rakhine and Akyab was renamed as Sittwe. Mosques and religious schools, which dot every corner of Arakan and occupy a significant role in Rohingya culture and religion, are either burned down or Buddhist temples are erected in their courtyard.  

Pressure on Christians and Buddhists

Burma Christians, particularly those living in rural areas, are finding their religious rituals being restricted. Religious leaders agree that politically-sanctioned religious discrimination is the main reason for the problem. Burmese Christians are members of tribes that oppose military junta, which explains restrictions they encounter. Another point that proves religious persecution is that the government occasionally pressure Buddhist monks even though Buddhism is the majority religion and is officially propagated. The reason for suppression of Buddhist monks is that they oppose oppressive military junta. Although the accuracy and reliability of reports from inside Burma is debatable, the number of jailed monks is estimated to be around 300.  

Refugee Problem

Today hundreds of thousands of Arakanese Muslims  are  living  as  refugees  outside  Burma  due  to pressure of the military regime. There are 200,000 Arakanese Muslims in Pakistan, some recognized as refugees some not, 500,000 in Saudi Arabia and 10,000 in Malaysia. Although a signatory to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, Malaysia regards Arakanese refugees, together with other refugees in the country, as illegal immigrants and refuses to grant them refugee status. However, in 2004 Malaysia granted Arakanese permit to stay in the country and they are still living there without officially being recognized as refugees. The country with the highest number of Arakanese refugees is Bangladesh, where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has a protection program in place. Between the years 1991 and 1992, about 300,000 Arakanese Muslims migrated because of persecution of the Burmese government to Bangladesh, which is a small, overcrowded and impoverished country.

On 28 April 1992, the UN brokered an agreement between Burma and Bangladesh for voluntary and safe return of Arakanese refugees; however, necessary measures were not taken to monitor refugees’ return through impartial authorities or to assess their situation in the wake of return.   

Out of all Arakanese refugees in Bangladesh, 23,000 returned to Burma in 1996. However, refugee influx from Burma to Bangladesh did not stop. Between 10-15,000 Arakanese fled to Bangladesh in 1996, while at least 5,000 Arakanese arrived in the country to escape forced labor, heavy taxation, rape and oppression. About 500 of them were deported to Burma upon entry into Bangladesh.

Most of the refugees arriving in Bangladesh were not allowed into camps. The Arakanese who were denied residence in camps opted for an illegal stay in the country in forests or slums instead of returning home.

Bangladeshi authorities stepped up pressure in May 2003 on refugees in two camps in the country to force them to return home and it had forcefully deported 230,000 refugees to Burma by 2005. The UNHCR is mostly responsible for forced deportation for planning to handover its responsibilities towards refugees to Bangladeshi authorities.

According to official figures, there were 20,000 refugees in Bangladesh under the protection of the UNHCR as of 2005 and they were living in Nayapara and Kutupalong camps in southern Bangladesh. Nayapara and Kutupalong are housing 12,000 and 8,000 refugees respectively. However, these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of Arakanese are still fleeing to Bangladesh to escape pressure of Burmese government. Most of them are staying as illegal economic migrants in the country since they are not allowed into camps. The number of unregistered “illegal immigrants” is estimated to be about 200,000 according to the Bangladeshi media, while Arakan Historical Society it is nearly 300,000. These unregistered migrants are striving to survive with no assistance and protection outside camps on the BangladeshBurma border under extremely difficult conditions. Arakanese Muslims, who are not recognized either by the Burmese military junta or Bangladesh, work illegally in factories without any rights and suffer from maltreatment by security forces.    
Bangladeshi authorities resort to physical and psychological tactics to force refugees into repatriation such as detaining them and then giving them the option to either sign a document for return or be imprisoned. It is known that the families who refuse to return home get their ration cards confiscated, are sometimes tortured, transferred to different parts of camps, and find their shelters burned. Separating family members from each other have devastating effects. Most men prefer to escape from the camp instead of returning to Burma, which leaves the women and children helpless. The UNHCR stripped them off their citizenship, making them as foreigners in their own land. Existing and proposed solutions look for ways to relieve institutions and governments off their responsibilities towards refugees rather than safeguarding refugees’ rights. The 2003 UNHCR plan named “promoting selfsufficiency pending voluntary repatriation” fell short of solving the main problem of Arakanese Muslims which is their status as foreigners in their own land and bringing any real improvements to refugees’ life. Human rights organizations monitoring rights violations against Arakanese Muslims have made a number of suggestions for solution to the UNHCR, international community and governments of Bangladesh and Burma. These organizations urged the Bangladeshi government, the UNHCR and international community to take necessary steps to prevent maltreatment of refugees at camps and stop deportation of refugees to Burma, where even refugees are even denied basic rights. The suggested solutions also included a call on the Bangladeshi government to ratify the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Additional Protocol, assisting Arakanese refugees until conditions in Burma have improved enough for a safe return and protection for refugees. The proposals also demand granting the UNHCR the authority to supervise whether repatriations are voluntary or not and cooperation with major institutions and refugees to carry out a plan for ensuring self-sufficiency of returning refugees.   remains indifferent to such developments.    

Bangladesh, the UNHCR and Burma have failed to sign an agreement regarding the Arakanese refugees in Bangladesh and any solution proposed has remained on paper. The reason is that proposed solutions have failed to address the root causes of the problems and have even made the matter more complicated. The 1982 Citizenship Law enacted by the Burmese military junta declared all Arakanese Muslims as “illegal immigrants” and replaced their identification cards with new ones that effectively stripped them off their citizenship, making them as foreigners in their own land. Existing and proposed solutions look for ways to relieve institutions and governments off their responsibilities towards refugees rather than safeguarding refugees’ rights. The 2003 UNHCR plan named “promoting self-sufficiency pending voluntary repatriation” fell short of solving the main problem of Arakanese Muslims which is their status as foreigners in their own land and bringing any real improvements to refugees’ life.

Human rights organizations monitoring rights violations against Arakanese Muslims have made a number of suggestions for solution to the UNHCR, international community and governments of Bangladesh and Burma. These organizations urged the Bangladeshi government, the UNHCR and international community to take necessary steps to prevent maltreatment of refugees at camps and stop deportation of refugees to Burma, where even refugees are even denied basic rights. The suggested solutions also included a call on the Bangladeshi government to ratify the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Additional Protocol, assisting Arakanese refugees until conditions in Burma have improved enough for a safe return and protection for refugees. The proposals also demand granting the UNHCR the authority to supervise whether repatriations are voluntary or not and cooperation with major institutions and refugees to carry out a plan for ensuring self-sufficiency of returning refugees.

Incidents Since June 2012 

The last incidents broke out on 3 June when 10 Muslims travelling from the capital Akyab to Maungdaw were killed by Buddhist fanatics. Hundreds of Muslims gathered at the central mosque in Maungdaw to protest the attack but hardline Buddhists and the Burmese police, who viewed the protest as a threat to their existence, attacked the local Muslims and killed and wounded many. The Burmese police branded the protest as an uprising against the state and ordered the punishment of the Muslims involved in the incidents. Together with Buddhist fanatics the police began raiding Muslim villages and towns.

More than 300 Muslim villages, mosques and madrasahs were set on fire on grounds that they were sheltering the criminals. Mosques were besieged by Buddhist fanatics. According to independent human rights organizations, around 1,000 people have been killed and thousands of Muslims have been forced out of their homes and villages and into forests since violence erupted in June. Some Muslims set out with boats into Naf River and the Indian Ocean to reach Bangladesh, but hundreds were drowned to death when the Bangladeshi government denied them entry into the country. It has been reported that some of the wounded have secretly crossed into Bangladesh with their own means to receive treatment. A large number of  Arakanese  with  critical  condition  have  been  left  to  die. 

Aided by Nasaka (Burmese border security force),   Hlun-tin (riot police) and the police, Rakhine Buddhists have been trying to displace the Rohingya. While curfew was in place, security forces and Rakhine groups went from village to village and set fire to Rohingya houses and fired on those escaping burning houses. Independent sources report that many Rohingyas were burned to death in the houses and the bodies were taken away in trucks, adding it is not possible to verify exactly how many had been massacred. Reports from an area knownas the fifth zone in Arakan state that at least one mosque and many villages had been set on fire. There are no independent media organizations in Burma but only a single media outlet that is supplied stories by the government.  

It is reported that in the region under curfew property of Rohingya had been looted by Rakhines and the Rohingya community had been living in fear. No end date has been set for curfew, sources report. Homeless people find themselves as the target for security forces once the night falls. About 4m Arakanese are facing the risk of deportation and violence acts such as their houses being raided and burned. A serious humanitarian crisis is unfolding in the region.

Current State Of Human Rights

1Muslims continue to be killed in Arakan on a daily basis.

2.  It is known that a large number of Muslims are currently jailed and are subjected to torture but their identities and exact number cannot be verified.

3.  Women are being raped.

4.  The ongoing travel ban and curfew imposed on the Rohingya population have completely paralyzed life.

5.  Mosques, masjids, houses and villages are being set on fire and destroyed.

6.  Masjids and madrasahs cannot be repaired without government permit. To monitor compliance with the regulation, masjids and madrasahs have to be photographed three times a year as a routine practice. If unpermitted maintenance is spotted, those responsible are sentenced to between six months and six years in prison plus a fine. No new mosques or madrasah have been allowed to be built in the last 20 years.   

7.  A photograph featuring all family members has to be handed to government officials every year. Families are required to pay taxes to the state for every child born and every family member died.

8.  Muslims  have  no  freedom  of  travel.  A  Muslim  has  to get permission and pay tax to travel from one village to another.

9.  Muslims are forbidden from building their houses out of concrete; they have to make them from wood. The houses are considered as state property and if they are burned down accidentally, owners are sentenced to prison sentences as long as six years.

10.  To set up a business a Muslim has to establish partnership with Buddhist. In this partnership, the Buddhist partner owns half of the business without investing any capital.

11.  Muslims have to pay annual taxes for the livestock they own.

12.  Muslims cannot marry without a permit. A couple wishing to get married has to pay a tax. Sometimes they are denied a permit even if they pay the tax.

13.  Muslims are deprived of all public services. For instance, when they get sick they cannot go to state hospitals for treatment.

14.  Muslims are not allowed into higher education institutions.

15.  Muslims are forbidden to work in public sector jobs. Today there is not a single Muslim civil servant in Arakan.

16.  Muslims cannot own fixed line telephones or cellular phones.

17.  Muslims are not allowed to own motor vehicles.

18.  When Muslims are accused of a crime, they are not give the right to defense and are immediately imprisoned. The police or the army have the authority to raid a Muslim house without a warrant and accuse its inhabitants of any crime. Raiding officers immediately jail the residents if they cannot get a bribe in return for not arresting them.

19.  Muslims are subjected to curfew after nine o’clock at night and cannot visit their relatives or neighbors without permission from the police.

20.  Muslims are forced to work for the state and Buddhists without receiving any wage in return.

21.  Muslims have no right to citizenship. They carry white identification cards bearing the title “foreigner.” These cards are only for identification purposes and do not entitle card holders to any rights.

22.  Muslims are not issued passports. They are provided a document to cross into neighboring Bangladesh and sometimes they cannot return to their country because Arakanese Muslims sought shelter in neighboring countries to escape from decade-long systematic persecution and the year-long refugee life has become a hope for survival. Although it is not possible to estimate the exact number of refugees in Bangladesh, it is well-known by everyone, including the UN, that striving to survive in camps under extremely difficult conditions.

The camps in Bangladesh where Arakanese refugees are sheltered:

•  Kutupalong Refugee Camp. The camp housing 12,000 refugees is officially recognized by the UN.

•  Nayapara Refugee Camp. The camp where 10,000 refugees has the official UN recognition.

•  Leda Refugee Camp. The camp is housing 13,000 refugees and is officially recognized by the UN.

•  Kutupalong Unofficial Refugee Camp. The 95,000 refugees staying in this camp are not treated as refugees by the UN and the Bangladeshi government. The camp residents are constantly experiencing food shortages. The Bangladeshi authorities do not allow entry to the camp which is plagued with frequent deaths from hunger.

It is know that more than 100,000 unregistered Arakanese refugees are struggling to survive in woods and villages across Bangladesh. 

Findings, Analyses And Suggestions

It has been found that in Arakan, deep-rooted religious and ethnically-motivated violence has been rising and is officially fueled as a policy.

Recent clashes in the region have left more than 1,000 Muslims dead and over 90,000 Muslims homeless.

The fact that voter lists for the 2012 elections in Burma are scheduled to be published late this year is among the main reasons behind recent attacks on Muslims. The Rohingya population in Arakan is tried to be reduced so that Buddhists can gain more political ground.


Systematic acts of violence against Arakanese Muslims by the Burmese government qualify as genocide. Crimes against humanity are being perpetrated in Arakan. The UN and international human rights organization should call on the Burmese government to end pressure on Muslims.

Arakanese Muslims are fleeing to neighboring countries to escape spiraling violence they are facing. There are 28,000 registered and 500,000 unregistered Arakanese refugees in Bangladesh. Burma is regarded by China, the USA and Russia as a strategic region. China does not want to allow the USA gain influence in a country it is sharing border with. The USA, on the other hand, wishes to play an active role in Burma in case of crises with China.  

Under these circumstances, the settlement of the problem of Arakanese Muslims is tied to the settlement of problems of the Burmese opposition and other ethnic groups in the country. This, however, is dependent on the end of restrictive regime and allowing ethnic groups in Burma a free political sphere. Otherwise, basic rights of Arakanese refugees in different countries, particularly in Bangladesh, and Muslims in Arakan will continue to be threatened.

Muslim Rohingya, who are regarded as foreigners in their own land as per the 1982 Citizenship Law and issued different identification cards as the most striking proof of discrimination, should be reinstated as citizens of Burma. Forced displacement of Muslims from their villages to be replaced with Buddhists and forced labor should be ended.

Economic, political and military relations of the Burmese government should be put under the spotlight and necessary measures should be taken to cut resources feeding oppressive policies of the government.

Although the pressure international community has put on Burma is not independent of its strategic interests, replacing the Burmese junta with a more pro-liberty government will relieve to some extent the suffering of Muslims in Arakan and Arakanese inhabitants living as refugees or illegal migrants in various countries, particularly in Bangladesh.   

International community must immediately put an end to ongoing oppression in Burma. Countries should suspend economic relations with Burma until this objective has been achieved.

Steps should be taken to stop privileges to exploit the country’s natural resources, especially gemstones reserves, being used for political means.  

Islamic countries must end silence against the persecution of Arakanese Muslims and make their reaction felt. Islamic scholars should lead the Muslim community in this regard and issue statements that remind Muslims their responsibilities against ongoing persecution of Arakanese Muslims.

Turkey should take initiatives at different platforms to stop oppression of Arakanese Muslims.
It should be guaranteed that international aid agencies have access to Arakan and refugee camps outside Arakan to deliver assistance.

The area inside Burmese borders should be opened to human rights organizations and international observers.

Buddhists around the world should act to help end oppression in Burma.

Putting an end to human rights violations mentioned above and those committed during recent incidents, and punishing perpetrators is the responsibility of international community.

The “Holocaust”  is a Typical Zionist Myth

By Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi

1. Introduction

2. Zionist Lies

3. How and Why the “Holocaust” Lies Started

4. Scholars and Historians deny the “Holocaust”

5. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The word “holocaust” means an extensive destruction of humans by other humans resulting in the massive loss of life, especially by fire. However, the so-called “holocaust” by Nazi Germany against Jews is actually based on two major lies.

The first lie says that the Nazis killed “6 million” Jews. Because this figure is extremely exaggerated, it is a lie (see below for some reasonable and unbiased estimates).

The second lie says that these “6 million” Jews were rounded up and then “gassed” or “burned” alive. Again, this is a lie because there is no proof whatsoever that any live Jew was ever “gassed” or “burned” in any “gas chambers” or “crematories” in Nazi Germany.

Only those people who had died of dangerous infectious diseases such as typhoid (whether Jews or non-Jews) were burned or cremated in Nazi Germany in order to avoid epidemics. The number of these infected burned dead is much smaller than the “6,000,000” legend. It was a common and legal practice by Nazi Germany and other countries to burn or cremate dead people infected with fatal communicable diseases to avoid infecting the living. No one has ever declared this kind of practice to be illegal.

On the other hand, those Jews who were killed by Nazi conventional  means (i.e., not gassed, and not burned) were no more special than the other overwhelming majority of non-Jewish victims who were also similarly killed by the same Nazi conventional means. Since the killing of non-Jews at the hands of the Nazis is not considered by anyone to be a “holocaust”, why then should the killing of Jews by Nazi conventional means constitute a “holocaust”?

2. Zionist Lies

All Arabs and all Muslims (along with many other people around the world) know very well that the Jewish/Zionist state of Israel is an illegitimate and illegal state established by the power of terror in 1948 and has been maintained by it ever since.

Committed to a brutal and undemocratic program that could be implemented only by force, Israel has been founded on many well-known myths and lies. Toping the list of these typical myths and lies are the following ten:

1. That Jews are the “Chosen People of God.”

2. That Palestine is “The Promised Land from God” for Jews only (despite the fact that Christianity was born there).

3. That the “Promised Land for Jews extends from the Nile to the Euphrates.”

4. That Jews have been “homeless” for the last 2,000 years until Israel was created for them in 1948.

5. That the creation of Israel in 1948 has been a “fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy.”

6. That Arabs have “hated” Jews for the last 2,000 years (despite the fact that Arabs have always been composed of Muslims, Christians, and Jews).

7. That Palestine was “an empty land” that did not have any Arab inhabitants when the Western the Zionist Jews created Israel on its land in 1948.

8. That Jews were not “allowed” to practice their religion freely in Palestine before Israel was created in 1948.

9. That Israel is a “democratic” and “peaceful” country (even though it has waged many brutal and expansionist wars against the Arabs, has systematically killed and uprooted the native Arab Christians and Muslims from their historical homeland of Palestine, and has stolen their properties and businesses for the last 68 years).

10. That Nazi Germany committed a “holocaust” by “gassing and/or incinerating six million Jews” during World War II.

While there are many Westerners who do not agree with at least one of the above first 9 myths, most people in the West generally accept the last Jewish/Zionist claim about the so-called “holocaust” without any challenge as if it were a “divine truth”. This holocaust hoax has been bought and sold by educated and uneducated Westerners alike, whether they are from the far right (such as Christian fundamentalists), or from the so-called “moderates”, or even from the far left (such as socialists and communists).

Although the US is believed to be a free country where the first Amendment to the US Constitution has supposedly guaranteed the freedom of speech for anyone who wishes to express logically and rationally his/her views on any subject, the so-called “holocaust” is clearly an exception to this rule. While an attack or criticism by anyone in the US is permitted against the American Government, the American President, Jesus Christ, or even God, a public (as opposed to private) attack or critical comment from anyone in the US on the powerful Jewish lobby or the so-called “holocaust” is not permitted in the land of the “free”. Anyone who dares to publicly say or write anything critical about Zionism or Jewish influence in the US is immediately castigated as a “racist’ or “anti-Semitic” (that is, anti-Jewish) and would pay a heavy price in damage to his/her reputation and career, as actors Marlon Brando and Vanessa Redgrave found out the hard way. Sometimes the price for speaking out against the Zionists in the land of the “free” is murder, as was the case with Alex Odeh, an Arab-American who was brutally killed in 1985 in his ADC (Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) office in Southern California.

Although American Jews constitute only a tiny minority of about 2 or 3% of the total US population according to the best estimates, one really wonders if the US is truly a Christian or a Jewish nation, especially when it comes to a public free debate on the so-called “holocaust”.

3. How and Why the “Holocaust” Lies Started

During the latter parts of World War II in Europe (1939-1945), when it became apparent that Nazi Germany’s military defeat was on the horizon, Zionist leaders in and out of the United States feared that their colonialist design to steal the Holy Land of Palestine from the Arabs might lose support. Despite the fact that the anti-Jewish Nazis were on the verge of being annihilated (add to that most European Jews had already been assimilated and were living peacefully in their own respective native Western countries including the US where many German and Eastern European Jews had migrated), Zionist leaders still desperately wanted to continue at all costs with their old Pre-Nazi plan to settle-colonize Arab Palestine.

Obviously something heinous, dreadful, and shocking was needed during and after the concluding months of World War II for two main reasons. The first was to gain the necessary global legitimacy and support for the old Zionist scheme of 1897 (the birth of the World Zionist Organization) and 1917 (the British Balfour Declaration) to settle-colonize Palestine. The second was to rejuvenate Zionism by rallying reluctant Western non-Zionist Jews firmly behind the Zionist cause to establish an “exclusively” Jewish country for the so-called “homeless” Western Jews on this important Arab Holy Land of Palestine. It should be indicated here that the West has been obsessed to steal Palestine from the Arabs since the times of the old bloody Western Crusades (1095-1291).

To acquire world-wide support, compassion, and sympathy for their plan to colonize Arab Palestine, Zionist leaders in and out of the US suddenly began to circulate terribly horrifying stories that the Nazis had “incinerated” or “gassed” “six million” Jews in various “gas chambers”, “ovens,” and “crematoria” in and out of Germany between the end of 1942 and November 1944 (five months prior to Adolph Hitler’s suicide in April 1945). The Zionists also added that the Nazis had even made “fertilizers,” “lamp shades,” “handbags,” “ropes,” and “soap” from the skin, fat, and hair of the “exterminated” Jews.

The first person in the world to mention this dreadful information about the so-called “holocaust” and the “extermination of six million Jews” was Zionist Rabbi Israel Goldstein. He mentioned his wild claim on December 13, 1942. [1] Goldstein’s unverified claim became much more widely circulated by Zionist leaders, in and out of the USA, and their sympathizers all over the world after the end of World War II.

This “holocaust” claim was actually instrumental in producing the “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181” on November 29, 1947 that gave “legitimacy” and “legality” to the creation of the illegitimate and illegal Western-oriented Zionist state of Israel over half of Palestine against the wishes of its native Arabs. It should be indicated that this “UN” resolution, which the US masterfully engineered by heavily pressuring UN member states, passed by a vote of 33 countries for it, 13 against it, with 10 abstentions. 

4. Scholars and Historians Deny the “Holocaust”

No sooner had this new and shocking information about the so-called Nazi “holocaust” become public than many Western scholars and historians both in Europe and the US began to quickly refute it as a well-orchestrated wartime Zionist propaganda campaign. They compared it to other similar propagandas during wars such as those during World War I when the Germans were accused of “eating Belgian babies and delighting to throw them in the air and transfix them on bayonets”. In the words of Dr. Arthur R. Butz, an American professor at Northwestern University in Illinois, (more on Dr. Butz below), the: “Zionists, principally the World Jewish Congress, merely presented their nonsense [“holocaust”] to the Allied governments, in particular to the US Government, demanding endorsement of their nonsense.”[2]

Although the Zionists and their sympathizers have always labeled anyone who denies the “holocaust” as a “right-wing” or “racist”, in fact since the mid 1940s many Western and non-Western scholars and historians, from all walks of life with different ethnic backgrounds and political persuasions (including Jews), have categorically refuted the alleged Nazi “genocide,” “the gas chambers,” and the unbelievable number of “six million.”

However, it should be quickly emphasized here that these scholars and historians like Dr. Butz, some of whom will be mentioned shortly, do not deny the fact that many Jews and non-Jews were indeed persecuted or killed in Nazi Germany as well as in the German-occupied territories during World War II, both inside and outside the Nazi horrible concentration camps. What they deny is this so-called “holocaust”. They deny both the number of the “six millions” as well as the manner by which these Jews were killed. These holocaust deniers all agree on the following six fundamental points: [3]

1. That the so-called “holocaust” and the “six million” story originated from the Zionists themselves and not from any government authority or any other independent source.

2. That neither the February 1945 Yalta Conference (the summit of the three leaders of Russia, US, and Britain), nor the Vatican, nor even the International Red Cross, spoke out against any “holocaust” or “the six million” legend, and none of them had any reason to.

3. That none of the three major personal World War II memoirs of either the one written by French leader Charles de Gaulle, or that of the British leader Winston Churchill, or even that of the American leader Dwight D. Eisenhower, mentioned anything about any “holocaust”.

4. That the post-World War II Nuremberg war crime trials in Germany, which automatically “accepted” the Zionist claim of the “six million” figure, were nothing more than partial and biased political prosecutions by the victorious powers.

5. That the only so-called “confession” to “burning and gassing live Jews” came from only one person on April 5 1946 – Nazi Auschwitz commandant Colonel Rudolf Franz Hoess (or Hoss) – after he was tortured by six British military police intelligence officers as one of them, sergeant Bernard Clarke, later admitted.

6. That the best estimate of the total number of Jews who died or were killed (not “gassed” or “incinerated”) in and out of the German terrible concentration camps lost their lives either from Nazi brutalities, starvation, diseases, war-related causes, or other reasons, ranges from 300,000 to 500,000 (and not 6 millions). It should be indicated here that during World War II about 74 million people died, the overwhelming majority of whom were non-Jews, including the atomically bombed/incinerated civilians of the entire two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The late French geographer Paul Rassinier (nicknamed “the father of holocaust revisionism”), who was elected in 1945 as a Socialist to the French National Assembly, published in 1948 a book titled: Le Passage de la Ligne (“Crossing the Line”) in which he recounted his horrible experiences as an interned left-wing political prisoner in the German concentration camps of Buchenwald and Dora between 1943 and 1945. In this book and in many others that followed it, such as The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, Rassinier strongly refuted the “holocaust,” the “gas chambers,” and the “six million” figure.

While completely rejecting the claim of the “extermination” of Jews by the Nazis, Rassinier generously estimated that perhaps a million Jews might have perished [4] (a figure considered too high by many other holocaust refuters) due to many causes between 1933 and 1945 as a result of direct and indirect various brutal Nazi policies such as the turmoil of Jewish deportations, harsh labor conditions, internment camps, malnutrition, diseases, epidemics, and more importantly World War II itself.

Another French, Dr. Robert Faurisson, a former Professor at the Universite de Lyon, also rejected the so-called Nazi “holocaust”; challenged anyone to draw or show a “Nazi gas chamber”; described the famous Diary of Anne Frank as a hoax; and called the Washington, DC Holocaust Memorial Museum “an historical fiasco”.

Incidentally, while there is a Holocaust Memorial Museum in the US for the presumed “six million gassed” Jews by Nazi Germany, there are nowhere in the US any holocaust memorial museums, reparations, or even words of apology for either Native Americans or Black Americans who were slaughtered like animals by the tens of millions at the hands of Euro-Americans during the largest real holocaust the world has ever seen. In the words of the American professor Ward Churchill, “All told, it is probable that more than one hundred million native people were ‘eliminated’ in the course of Europe’s ongoing ‘civilization’ of the Western Hemisphere”. [5] Another American professor, David E. Stannard, writes that between 40-60 million black Africans lost their lives in the brutalities of the Euro-Americans slavery system. [6]

In his well researched and documented book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Dr. Arthur R. Butz explained that during World War II even US State Department officials, such as J. Breckenridge Long and associates, “… considered all the talk about ‘exterminations’ to be just wartime propaganda invention, in the same spirit as the stories invented during World War I.” [7] In Dr. Butz’s words, “The ‘gas chambers’ were wartime propaganda fantasies completely comparable to the garbage that was shoveled out by Lord Bryce and associates in World War I.” [8]

Dr. Butz also indicated that the total number of inmates in the entire German concentration camp system, Jews and non-Jews (since there were no camps specifically for Jews alone), was about 224,000 in 1943 and 524,000 in 1944. [9] Moreover, Dr; Butz pointed out that Heinrich Himmler, the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany (who supposedly “committed suicide” by “poisoning himself” on May 23, 1945, while in British captivity), had explained a few weeks before the end of World War II in an interview with a representative of the World Jewish Congress that:

“In order to put a stop to the [typhus] epidemics, we were forced to burn the bodies of incalculable numbers of [dead] people who had been destroyed by disease. We were therefore forced to build crematoria, and on this account they are knotting a noose for us.” [10]

Finally, Dr. Butz proved that there was no direct Nazi tangible documentary evidence of any kind for an “extermination” program. He indicated that even Dr. Aryeh Leon Kubovy of the Israeli Center for Jewish Documentation in Tel-Aviv admitted in 1960 that “there exists no document signed by Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich speaking of exterminating the Jews and … the word ‘extermination’ does not appear in the letter from Goering to Heydrich concerning the final solution of the Jewish question.” [11]

Also, in her 1968 book Le systeme concentrationnaire nazi, French Jewish author Olga Wurmser-Migot writes:

“Just as there exists no … order of extermination by gas at Auschwitz, there exists no order to stop in November 1944. Neither at the Nuremberg trial, nor during the course of marginal trials nor at the Hess trial in Cracow, nor of Eichman in Israel, nor at the trial of the camp commanders nor at the Frankfurt November 1945 – August 1946 trial of secondary Auschwitz figures, was the famous order signed by Himmler on 22 November 1944 on the end of the extermination of Jews by gas ever found, the order putting an end to the Final Solution.” [12]

Moreover, in his book The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks with Fabricated Corpses, Dr. Austin J. App, the late American Professor of English literature at the University of Scranton and LaSalle College, explained the following four vital points: [13]

1. 1.      That Hitler’s so-called “Final Solution” to the Jewish problem was not “annihilation” but rather deportation or expulsion from Germany, which was approved with the open cooperation and encouragement of the Zionists themselves who wanted German Jews to join other Jews from around the world to leave their own native countries in order to settle-colonize Palestine (a Zionist plan since 1897 and in accordance with the 1917 British Balfour Declaration).

2.      That absolutely no live person (Jew or non-Jew) was ever “gassed” or “burned” in any German concentration camp, including Auschwitz (allegedly the main “extermination” center).

3.      That the Jews who lost their lives while in Nazi hands either died of epidemics and/or killed because they were subversives, spies, saboteurs, criminals, or otherwise victims of unfortunate but internationally legal reprisals.

4.      That the Zionists and their American sympathizers, in and out of the American media and motion picture industry, who constantly use the figure of “six million” have failed to offer even a shred of evidence to prove their charge.

In addition, other Western writers have confuted holocaust story claims. Among them are the following two Americans: World War II Colonel John Beaty of the US Military Intelligence Service of the War Department who ridiculed the “six million” legend in his book Iron Curtain Over America, and Dr. David Leslie Hoggan, a former Professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Also, among British historians who have denied the “holocaust” are the following two: Best-selling author David Irving, and Richard E. Harwood who wrote a book in 1974 titled: Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth at Last [14]. At least three German scholars refuted the “holocaust.” These include Dr. Wilhelm Staeglich who wrote Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Emil Aretz who wrote Hexen-Einmal-Eins einer Luege (“The Witches’ Multiplication Table is a Lie”), and Thies Christophersen who wrote Die Auschwitz Luege (“The Auschwitz Lie”).

Among the Japanese holocaust deniers are the following two: Dr. Masanori Nishioka who wrote an illustrated ten-page feature article titled: “The Greatest Taboo of Post-war History: There Were No Nazi Gas Chambers” in the Japanese magazine Marco Polo (February, 1995), and best-selling Japanese writer Masami Uno who described the “holocaust” and The Diary of Anne Frank as lies.

Other prominent holocaust deniers include the following two Canadians, publisher Ernst Zundel, and geologist and aerial photography expert John Ball; Swiss right-wing educator Jurgen Graf; Italian document expert Carlo Mattogno [15]; and Roger Garaudy, a leftist French writer and former member of the French Communist Party whose book, Les mythes fondateurs de la politique israelienne (“The Founding Myths of the Israeli Policy”) was published in 1995 in Paris by the leftist writer and publisher Pierre Guillaume. [16]

Beside the already-mentioned Jewish author Olga Wurmser-Migot, there are some other Western Jews who have also categorically denied that the Nazi government ever carried out or even contemplated the “gassing” of Jews. These include Swedish publisher Ditleib Felderer of the Jewish Information Bulletin, American David Cole, and German scholar Joseph Ginsburg. [17]

In fact, people who dispute the “holocaust” are found even in Hollywood itself where Jews established all of the major film studios such as Columbia, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Paramount, Twentieth-Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Brothers. [18] For example, in a 1983 interview with Esquire magazine, the late prominent American actor, Robert Mitchum, scoffed at the so-called “holocaust”. When asked about the “slaughter of six million Jews” by the Nazis, Mitchum answered: “So the Jews say, … People dispute that.” [19]


5. Conclusion

There is no doubt whatsoever that it was from this so-called “holocaust” (more than anything else) that Zionism has gained its wide popular acceptance and sympathy throughout the west. This in turn led to the brutal creation of the alien State of Israel over the land of Arab Palestine in 1948 at the extremely tragic expense of its innocent Muslim and Christian natives.

In conclusion, however, whether the Nazis killed one single Jew or 6 million Jews (by whatever method or means), the Germans – and certainly not the Palestinian Arabs – should have paid the price for this so-called “holocaust”. Rationally speaking, any part of Germany (and not Palestine) should have been the site for the creation of this brutal, illegitimate, and illegal Jewish/Zionist State of Israel, which has been causing much death and misery to the Arabs.



1. Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Newport Beach, California: Institute for Historical Review, 1993), p. 80.

2. Ibid., p. 87.

3. See “66 Questions and Answers on the Holocaust,” (Newport Beach, California: Institute of Historical Review, 1995).

4. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, p. 17.

5. Ward Churchill, Indians are Us? Culture and Genocide in Native North America (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 30.

6. David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 151.

7. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, p. 63.

8. Ibid. p. 240.

9. Ibid. p. 36.

10. Quoted in ibid., p. 240.

11. Quoted in ibid., p. 19.

12. Quoted in Roger Garaudy, The Founding Myths of the Israeli Policy (USAR Publishing Group: IPP Printers & Publishers, 1997), pp. 48-49.

13. See Austin J. App, The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks With Fabricated Corpses(Takoma Park, Maryland: Boniface Press, 1973).

14. Richard E. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth at Last (Brighton, Sussex England: Historical Review Press, 1974).

15. For more details on the mentioned authors and their positions, which are beyond the scope of this article, see the deliberations of the Twelfth International Revisionist Conference on the “Holocaust” held on September 3-5, 1994 in Irvine, California, organized by The Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, California.

16. Garaudy, The Founding Myths.

17. Butz The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, p. 11-12.

18. See Jewish author Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Double Day [and Crown], 1988).

19. Barry Rehfeld, “Robert Mitchum Gives a Ran Interview,” Esquire, February 1983, p. 56.

Islam and Nationalism

The contents of this article are listed below:

1. Understanding the bonds with which humans identify and relate to each other in Society
2. Characteristics of Nationalism
3. Secularism and Nationalism are twin brothers
4. History of Nationalism
5. How nationalism made inroads into Muslim world
6. Rise of Nationalism as a creed and a pseudo-religion
7. Illogical Basis of Nationalism
7.1 Territory and country
7.2 Language
7.3 History, culture and civilization
7.4 Race
7.5 Political organization and economic factors:
8. Nationalism defeats its own objectives
9. Dangers of Nationalism
9.1 Tribal prejudice
9.2 Nationalism culminates in racism
9.3 Nationalism results in a desire to colonize
9.4 Narrowing man’s mental horizon
10. Islam and nationalism are two opposite poles
11. The Prohibition of Nationalism in Islam

1. Understanding the bonds with which humans identify and relate to each other in Society

The concept of nationalism cannot be understood without studying the way humans identify and relate to each other in society.

This study will enable a differentiation to be made between various forms of grouping and nationalism. Human beings can identify or group together on the basis of:

• Love of a particular land or a country – patriotism

• Tribe, lineage or race – nationalism

• Religion – spiritual bond

• A particular issue – bond of interest

• A creed – ideological bond

Patriotism arises when people come together due to the love of a country. It is a form of  unity that comes about when that particular country is under external threat e.g. military conflicts with other nations. The effect of this bond results in people of different backgrounds setting their differences aside to form a common front in support of the
government. A classical example of patriotism was found during the so-called invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina. Public opinion in the United Kingdom was
mobilised against Argentina through the media machinery, uniting political parties of  all shades in the process. The message was simple: “We are fighting for Queen and country.” This unity, based on patriotism, soon evaporated after the Falkland Islands were captured from Argentina.

The inherent weakness of patriotism, as a basis of uniting people, is that it unites people temporarily, and only then if an external threat is looming in the horizon. Hence, patriotism has no role to play during peace time, and it cannot, therefore, be a basis of a
permanent unity.

Nationalism is a bond between people that is based upon family, clan or tribal ties.

Nationalism arises among people when the predominant thought they carry is that of  achieving domination. It starts from the family, where one member asserts his authority to achieve leadership in the affairs of the family. Once this is achieved, the individual extends his leadership to the wider family. In this way, the families would also try to achieve leadership in the community they reside in. The next stage is that of tribes competing with each other, all trying to dominate others in order to enjoy the privileges and the prestige that comes with this authority.

Nationalism cannot unite the people because it is based on quest for leadership. This quest for leadership creates a power struggle between the people and this leads to conflicts among various strata of society. Examples of power struggles can be clearly seen in many Muslim countries, such as in Saudi Arabia where the Saud family has achieved leadership over others by force, and in Sind, Pakistan, where the Bhutto’s have secured massive influence through feudalism.

Another drawback of nationalism is that it gives arise to racism. This is expected if people are allowed to compete with each other on the basis of their race. Some whites, for example, may see themselves as superior to the blacks, or vice-versa, leading to
polarisation of the races and a divided society.

The spiritual bond is a grouping of people based on their ‘religious belief’ which is not a comprehensive belief covering every aspect of life. An example of a spiritual bond is when people identify with each other on the basis of being a Christian, a Hindu or a Jew. Spiritual bond does not unite people on issues other than matters of belief and worships,
hence it is limited and cannot be the basis of any lasting unity.

Another way people group together is on the basis of some common interest. Pressure
groups are an example of such groupings, where people unite over a particular issue which affects their life. Examples of such groups are the Suffragettes from the past and, more recently, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), Anti-Nazi League, Farm Animal Welfare Council and so on. Normally, once the issue has been resolved this type of grouping disappears.

Uniting over common interest does not serve to unite people permanently because when
the issue is resolved, people will disperse. Besides, people can hold different opinions over the same issue, thus leading to a clash. For example, some people may support the deployment of nuclear weapons as a means of security whilst others, like members of
CND, will call for nuclear disarmament. Hence, common issues do not provide the basis of a permanent unity.

The final way in which people can group together is on the basis of an ideology. An  ideology is a creed that provides a set of rules and regulations according to which man lives and which he refers to in order to solve his problems . This is commonly known as an ideological bond. It only takes into account the creed and nothing but the creed.
Colour, race and gender are irrelevant. This type of bond is found amongst Muslims,
Capitalists and Communists.

Ideological bond is a permanent bond because it arises from a creed, which is an intellectual conviction pertaining to the meaning of life. The creed is never influence by colour, race, language, love of a land or local issues. Hence, it is the only basis for
permanent unity. Islam calls for this type of unity, as it will be seen later in this essay.

2. Characteristics of Nationalism

The school of nationalism is built upon two animal instincts of man which he has in common with other creatures, namely the ‘group instinct’ and the ‘love of home’.

Nationalism begins with these two instincts, eventually ending in a pseudo-religion which causes these relatively innocent sentiments to become dangerously fanatical. It is similar to tribal system. In the tribal system, wars and peace were made for the tribe’s sake. A person was proud of his membership in the tribe and very often looked with scorn upon others. The tribe was an organization under whose umbrella, the members felt secure. Nationalism also gives rise to similar sentiments.

Giving authenticity to territory, blood or language is the basis of nationalism. It bases unity on language, territory and race. Homeland and nationality become the axis of patriotism. All the loyalty is centred upon the homeland. All other loyalties such as loyalty to God, religion, belief and ideology are subordinated to loyalty to the country and nation. No loyalty should check patriotism, and when religious sentiments come in opposition with patriotic sentiments, the latter must prevail. This is a principle which no nationalist can ignore. Man lives for his country and offers his life for it, and not for anything else. It is attachment to nationality that gives direction to one’s individual and social postures, not attachment to ideology. A human being takes pride in his national achievements and feels dependent on its cultural heritage.

A nationalist believes deeply that nation and country are superior to all others, attributing all the good things to them. It considers sovereignty as a tool to protect the country and its citizens, not one for enforcing a particular ideology and system.

Economy, too, is based on national interest and welfare, not on what is legitimate or illegitimate. Culture, art, poetry and literature are the means for depicting national pride and greatness and creation of solidarity and inspiring racial sentiments.

To nationalism, the strongest factors directing individual and social life, determining intellectual and political postures, are the country and nation. Some of the other characteristics of nationalism are:

1) Belief that one should defend a compatriot against a foreigner, whether the former is in the right or not.

2) Eulogizing and almost worship of national personalities and historical heroes of one’s country.

3) Revival of past traditions such as ancient idolatry. Neo-nationalism too, in this connection, relies on myths, ancient and dead customs.

4) A tendency to distort historical facts to glorify one’s country, and to invent stories and create models to show one’s nation at its best.

5) Like old Totemism, there are special emblems in nationalism which are given sanctity. The flag, national emblem, and national anthem are considered sacred, for each of which a human being has the duty of self-sacrifice.

3. Secularism and Nationalism are twin brothers

Nationalism is closely linked with secularism, in view of the necessity of separation between government and religion, and politics from creed. One of the basic principles of nationalism is a rejection of religious bonds and an acceptance of a secularist order.

Secularism means that religion is something subjective that must be confined to an individual’s private and family life, and religious feelings and ideas should not interfere in the socio-politico set-up, be the concern of nationalism only. So the socio-politico roots of religion should be severed from politics.

Nationalism leads directly to secularism. The belief that national unity must be based on a common land, race or language, necessitates that religion be kept apart from politics. Thus, secularism paves the way for the domination of nationalism, since according to this school of thought, religion and nationalism cannot rule at the same time in the same realm.

Secularism is the twin brother of nationalism and it changes the meaning of minorities. In a government founded on religion, the followers of other creeds and schools are regarded as minorities, but with nationalism and secularism, there are only racial, political and regional minorities. Nationalism claims that religious beliefs prevent national unity and religious minorities feel themselves alienated. The only proper basis is geographical, racial or lingual nationality. The main duty of everyone is the patriotic duty, and religious duty is subordinate to it, and confined to personal belief. The patriotic duty of everyone is to sacrifice everything, even religion, for the nation and country and serve and fight for them.

4. History of Nationalism

While some of the characteristics of nationalism may be witnessed in the tribal system of the Greek city-state many thousand years ago, nationalism as a political, social and ideological school of thought took birth in the West following the French Revolution.

The main fabric of the school of nationalism was laid by the French Revolution, where it was first put to practice. It was then that the stimulation of emotions towards the flag and country, the glorification and worship of national heroes, the composition of the national anthem, the emphasis on the sanctity of the French language and race, the creation of great national festivals and ceremonies in the style of religious rites, a pride in the history of France and a belief in the great mission of the French nation, emerged and displayed themselves one after another in the course of the Revolution.

The 19th century is called ‘the golden age’ of nationalism. It was in that century that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine set up the foundations for American nationalism. In England, Jeremy Bentham gave nationalism a new scope. With William Gladstone, British nationalism reached its height. Nationalism spread as an intellectual movement and school in the whole of central and Western Europe. Mazzini, who rose in Italy is regarded as one of the greatest theoreticians of the school of nationalism of the 19th century. Other great propounders and banner-bearers of nationalism in that century were Giuseppe Garibaldi in Italy, Victor Hugo in France and Otto Bismarck in Germany.

The history of nationalism in the 20th century can be divided into two periods:

A- Nationalism in the first half of the 20th century.

B- Nationalism in its second half.

In the first half of the 20th century, up to the Second World War, the clearest manifestation of nationalism was seen in Europe and Japan resulting in a universal war. It revived in them the dream of colonizing the whole world, and led them to start two calamitous wars. Most scholars admit that the main cause for the First and Second World Wars was nationalistic sentiments. In this period, the true off-springs of nationalism who elevated this school to its highest position and gave it its severest form were Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Peron in Argentina, Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal. This was the wicked product that nationalism gave to mankind and this way is still continued. Nationalism is still looked upon as a formal religion by international aggressors such as the U.S.

In the contemporary world, colonization having become a thing of the past, and the colonies having secured their independence, nationalism has come to be used by colonization and imperialism in another form, and its role is somewhat changed.

Neo-colonization uses nationalism to prevent the union of former colonies, so as to keep them weak and dependent on stronger powers.

The imperialists on realizing that they could no longer keep eastern nations under their direct yoke, and that their union would be a serious threat to their interests, started exporting nationalism to the East in a bid to weaken them and encourage conflicts among the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa. This way, they aimed at sowing the seed of hostility and dispersion among them to check their unity and solidarity. This is why we see that wherever colonization has made an exit, the rein of affairs is held by an evil westernized educated minority, and nationalistic forces are encouraged to stand against Islamic forces.

5. How nationalism made inroads into Muslim world

After failing to defeat the Muslims in the Crusades, Britain and France along with the United States focused their attention to separate Muslims from Islam. One of these means was to inject nationalism into the Muslim Ummah.

Using Missionaries who operated in the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottomans), there were many attempts (and failures) to try and establish associations and organizations of members belonging exclusively to one ethnicity (tribe) – such as “Arab” or “Turk”. In 1857, the missionaries were successful in establishing the Syrian Scientific Association and in 1875 the Secret Association was established in Beruit. These organizations, would promote “Arabism” and its related pre-Islamic culture while criticizing the Uthmani Khilafah and accusing the “Turks” of stealing the Khilafah from the “Arabs”. In this manner, Arab nationalism was re-introduced into the Muslim Ummah. By the turn of the 20th century, the fever of nationalism had spread to all corners of the Islamic regions of the Middle East.

When the Colonialists occupied various parts of the Islamic regions, by dividing it into nation states, patriotism (the temporary bond between people of a geographical location against an external threat) emerged among the Muslims as a reaction to the political and economic oppression by the Colonialists. By the time the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate was abolished Muslims were no longer bound solely by the Islamic Aqeedah. Rather, there were additional ties of race, ethnicity, tribe and geographical location.

The important question that arises is why the idea of nationalism which penetrated Islamic lands through Western ideas and colonial plots, was welcomed by some sections of the Muslim masses and how did it expand??

Firstly, the masses could not see the difference between ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’ and to their unconscious mind, both concepts seemed to denote the same idea as that of Islamic ‘Ummahism‘. From the beginning, Islam had created a strong feeling of the ‘Ummah‘ and had divided the world into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”. The masses believed nationalism to be the same as ‘Ummahism‘ and therefore welcomed it.

Secondly, contrary to the main pioneers of nationalism, who propagated it as a result of their dependence on colonial powers and the West, the masses manifested nationalistic sentiments in opposition to social tyranny or to the colonial influence of Britain and France. To the masses, nationalism was a sentiment, not a school, but to the Western, so-called ‘enlightened class’ and politicians, it was an ideology and a political creed.

6. Rise of Nationalism as a creed and a pseudo-religion

Man cannot live without a faith, an ideology, to which he can show affection and love. In the Middle Ages in the West, this faith, ideology, were found in Christianity and the religion of the Church. But Christianity was an unrealistic, imperfect and one dimensional religion, and since it had an unscientific and anti-intellectual basis, it could not last as a permanent and universal religion and ideology.

The Renaissance and subsequent changes dealt the church a heavy blow, and Christianity could no longer make its presence felt as a living faith in Europe, and soon became a dead creed.

In the absence of an inspiring force that would revive them, the westerners were left in the dark. Christianity was dead. Since man cannot live in a vacuum (of belief) and needs an ideology to follow, to inspire and love, ‘Aazar, the idol-maker’ of Western ideas hewed the idol of nationalism, and offered it to the West as a new religion and a new god to fill the vacuum and that was welcomed by thirsty devotees. This vacuum was later on filled by Marxism, and both these schools owed their creation to the weakness and failure of Christianity in satisfying the religious longing of Westerners.

7. Illogical Basis of Nationalism

Herbert Luthy says: “Nationalism is a creed based on a handful of dogmas that cannot be accounted for from a scientific and intellectual point of view, and have authenticity only in the minds of their followers.”

Nationalists have been unable to explain explicitly how their principles can be applied universally, and what are the factors which build up the independent identity of a nation and what is the distinction of a nation which naturally or psychologically sets it apart from other nations, so that these qualities cannot be found in any other nation. The works of the nationalist propounders give us no indication in this connection, but a show of such disharmonious ideas which are not logically acceptable.

Nationalist theoreticians rely on geographical, lingual, racial, political, economic, cultural and historical factors, and regard the territory, country, blood and history as the factors that build up a nation’s separate identity.

Now we will analyze the validity and logic of each of the above factors as a so-called unifying factor and as a yardstick for measuring the independent identity of a society.

7.1 Territory and country

These words are rather conventional, than natural. A human being feels at home to be in his town, village and locality as a result of persistent suggestion from outside.

If one is to consider more than the above, why should he regard himself an Egyptian and not an Arab?? And if he is a member of the Arab world, why not be an Asiatic?? This is something conventional and personal, not logical. Why should a man, born in Ireland, consider his country to be Britain and not Ireland?? The frontiers of many countries are imaginary demarcations. Nationalists want the people to show attachment to these crooked lines that colonial powers have drawn on the maps of Asia and Africa, and turn this affection into an ideology. They drew these lines, made them look real and forced people on this side of the line to consider themselves as belonging to that country, and those outside that line as foreigners, without giving a logical reason for it. The attachment of a person to his land is natural, not logical. When it is suggested constantly to a person that a country is his homeland, he comes to believe it, and to consider others as aliens. From a geographical viewpoint, ‘homeland’ is constantly changing. What Afghanistan is today, was considered Iran yesterday. Why then should an Afghan regard himself an Afghan and not an Iranian? This is only a matter of suggestion.

7.2 Language

The German school of nationalism with Herbert Luthy (1744-1803) and Johan Fichte (1762-1814), particularly, who had been its greatest representatives in the 18th and 19th centuries considers language and history to be the most important factors behind the national identity of a people. They regard language as being especially significant in the creation of a national spirit and identity. Following them are some nationalists of the Islamic world like Namegh Kamal of Turkey and Nadim of Egypt who attach the greatest importance to language as a basis of nationality. But the fact is that the language and common history of a people have not been sufficient in themselves to kindle a national awareness.

The Americans of George Washington’s time had the same language and history as those of England, and yet they segregated from Britain and became an independent nation. Switzerland has three different languages in three regions, and yet the feeling of nationality is strong there. If language is a determining factor of unity and independent national solidarity, why did not England and North America form a single nation in spite of their common language?? Why did not the Latin American countries (except Brazil) which have a common language like Spain, Brazil or Portugal become united??

We do not want to deny the role of a common language in accelerating the process of unity and solidarity, since it is evident that language is a means of direct communication, offering a nation a common literature. What we mean is that language is not the principal factor in shaping nationality, even if it speeds the process. Many nations have become nations in spite of differences in languages (like Switzerland), while there are many nations which are remote from one another in spite of a common language. Thus language cannot be regarded as a firm basis for nationality. Nasser and other Arab nationalists tried to set up a united Arab nation on the basis of a common language but they failed. The Maronite Christians and Muslims of Lebanon speak the same language but they have been fighting each other for the last six years, and these Christians feel closer to the Europeans than to the Muslims.

Moreover, in every country, we come across several languages, not one. What is called a dialect is in fact a different language. Is it easier for a Persian-speaking individual to understand the Afghani Dari or the Azari of Tabriz?? The people of Arabia do not understand even ten percent of the Arabic of Libya. All these facts show that language is a weak factor and basis of nationality and any reasoning opposing this assertion will be illogical and defective.

7.3 History, culture and civilization

It is true that the history and culture of a people create a feeling of unity and of communal interests, but nationalists forget the fact that in the East, especially in the world of Islam, the unity of history, culture and civilization is based on belief, not on geographical factors. Culture and civilization-wise, post-Islamic Iran is more close to Arab countries and Pakistan, than to the ancient Zoroastrian culture. Similarly, Egypt in its culture and civilization is closer to post-Islamic Iran than was the Pharaonic civilization. Our history and culture are based on ideology and belief. All the Muslims after the rise of Islam have the same history and culture. The past civilization of Iranians, Arabs, Turks, Pakistanis and Indian Muslims is nothing but an Islamic one. Nationalism tries in vain to call this civilization an Iranian or Arab civilization in order to rouse the national sentiments or unearth the decayed bones of pre-Islamic history and culture which has nothing to do with our present culture and civilization. That is why the relics of those civilizations cannot warm the hearts of the people in comparison with Islamic history and civilization, and lead them towards unity and victory.

Nationalists do not only try to revive the memory of the ancient civilization through exaggerations, suppositions, bombasts, self-Praise and fallacious reasonings, but they also resort to a scorn of Islamic history and civilization in order to elevate the racial greatness of Iranians, Arabs or Turks, and, try to ignore Islam altogether. But this is wrong and prejudiced and it defeats the objective. As a teacher  has pointed out: “During the whole course of history, the Iranian race (and the Turks, Arabs and other Muslim nations) has never found a better opportunity than the brilliant Islamic centuries to show its talent and ability.

Contrary to the nationalists, since the seventh century A.D., Iran, Turkey and the Middle East embraced Islam, so strongly that their history is the same as that of Islam, and their course has been the same with the course of Islamic history, culture and civilization. The greatness and honor of these nations lie in their share in promoting Islam and in their creation of a magnificent Islamic culture and civilization. They are the achievements of these Islamic nations whose past history is not in any way comparable with their religion, and if Islamic countries wish to be proud of their past, they have no basis but Islam.

Moreover, the choice of history as a factor in building up a man’s identity is a feeble and illogical one, since the frontiers of countries have not been the same throughout history. Afghanistan was once part of Iran. How then can history be considered as the basis of independent nationality??

7.4 Race

Most nationalists regard race as a factor which determines nationality. But a careful analysis of it shows the weakness and illogicality of it, like other factors based on prejudice, illusion and superstition.

What is racism?? It is a feeling of unity based on kinship. The first line of this attachment is an objective reality, namely the bond with one’s father and mother. When this is extended, it reaches one’s family, tribe and lastly one’s race. But extending it to race, the bond becomes so remote from common ancestors that the racial root cannot be scientifically and logically proved. Has there ever existed in history a thing called the Aryan or Semitic race?? Moreover, who can prove that a man is an Aryan?? For example half of the Iranians are Sayeds, who are descendants of the Prophet of Islam who was not himself an Aryan. Can those non-Sayeds claim that during these thousands of years, their blood has not been blended with non-Aryan blood??

Belief in the race and racial unity has no objective and scientific reality; it is only a subjective illusion on which nationalism wishes to base its social-political relations. How comical and illogical!

Thirdly, if we were to adopt blood as a basis, as racism and nationalism do, why should we not have our first ancestors, namely Adam and Eve, as the basis of human generation. In such a case, instead of racism, we may turn to humanism, and instead of nationalism to internationalism. This would be a more logical and convincing idea than the question of race which cannot be proved. Even if the Aryan, Semitic and other races have a historical authenticity, if we do not stop at this point and go far back in history, all these races end In common ancestors. Then why should we not adopt this as a basis?

7.5 Political organization and economic factors:

Some nationalistic schools consider political organization and economic factors as the basis of nationality. From apolitical angle, the Irish form part of Britain, and yet they consider themselves independent. There are many similar cases in the present and past history.

Economics has sometimes acted as a factor of unity like the union of the customs among the various German provinces between 1819 and 1952, which was a prelude to their political union. But such cases are only exceptions to the rule. Economic harmony and collaboration of various groups are not the requisites of national unity.

It is thus clear that the main foundations of nationalism are weak, invalid and illogical, even though they may help occasionally in rousing nationalistic sentiments. They are not determining the fundamental factors behind unity and solidarity. An effort to create unity on the above basis leads to greater differences and conflicts among human beings. A unity based on geographical boundaries, race or language cannot include all human beings. It is more like walls set up between them, separating them, and intensifying their division. Ideological boundaries can expand without force or imposition with the free acceptance of that school by individuals and nations, and intellectually it is not impossible for it to end with the unity of all mankind.

Nationalism creates division among mankind and thus, it cannot lead to universal unity. In such a unit, the questions of minorities and aliens, too, become insoluble. But an Ummah founded on belief is an ‘open unit’ and it can admit people from every race, color, language and territory who accept that belief. This unity can, therefore, expand and lead to man’s universal brotherhood.

In fact the only proper, scientific and logical basis for nationality and unity is belief and ideology. Other factors as compared to these are insignificant.

Thus we see that none of the principles that nationalists rely on are universal and logical. But the nationality based on belief and ideology which Islam upholds has an intellectual authenticity and is justifiable. Those who have the same ideology possess the same world vision, religious belief, culture, objective and destination, form thus a single Ummah.

8. Nationalism defeats its own objectives

The aim of nationalism is the creation of unity, but its result is the reverse and it defeats its own objective. The means adopted by nationalism to realize its objectives of creating unity is to kindle sharp sentiments of solidarity on the basis of race, language or nationality.

But in every country, there exist racial and lingual minorities. When these minorities come to face nationalistic sentiments incited by the propaganda of the majority, they may lose their own independent identity within the majority and react. It is often seen that such propaganda directed at inciting nationalistic sentiments by the majority rouses a regional, racial or lingual nationalism among the minorities and results in the dispersion and disunion of the country.

Logically there is no reason why the majority’s nationalism should be considered right and the minority’s one wrong. Why should British nationalism be regarded as right and laudable, while the Irish one, as blameworthy and condemnable. If Iraqi Baathists have the right to speak of Arab nationalism all day and night, why shouldn’t an Iraqi Kurd have the right to turn to Kurdish nationalism. If territorial, racial and lingual prejudice is good, then it is good for both sides, and if it is bad, it is so for both. We cannot judge by two different criteria. If the nationalism of America’s whites is good, why should that of its blacks be bad??

We see, then, that nationalism has no logical basis, and it defeats its own purpose, and has to establish solidarity by force. It secures what is contrary to its goal, namely division and dispersion.

Contrary to the nationalists’ claim, it is not ideological beliefs, but nationalistic feelings which check unity and produce division in the country. The result of half a century of the nationalistic propaganda of Reza Khan and Muhammad Reza was rebellion in Kurdestan and Turkeman Sahara.

Nationalism has at no time been able to solve the question of racial, lingual and regional minorities. On the, contrary it has intensified oppositions and made them perpetual.

As the criterion is race, language or territory, and as race and language and the like are not changeable, therefore those not belonging to a certain race or having a certain language are always regarded and live as a minority group and cannot share the sentiments of the majority. Those who through emigration or change of geographical boundaries or invasions become nationals of a country, even after many generations and centuries, feel themselves to be a segregated and alienated group, and others feel the same towards them. Armenians in Turkey, Syria and Iran, and Kurds, Scots, Irish and American negroes are the clearest examples of this.

9. Dangers of Nationalism

To glorify itself, nationalism generally resorts to suppositions, exaggerations, fallacious reasoning, scorn and inadmissible self-praise, and worst of all, it engages in the distortion of history, model-making and fable-writing. Historical facts are twisted to imaginary myths as it fears historical and social realism.

Misinterpretation of history is one of the greatest harms of nationalism. It may be argued that the case is so where an extreme form of nationalism exists. But that is not the case. Any kind of nationalism by essence inclines towards self-pride and scorn of others, for so long as it does not rouse in people a false sense of pride in their nation, how can it turn national prejudice in favor of itself and against others??

9.1  Tribal prejudice

As nationalism is based on man’s animal instincts, not on belief and intelligence, therefore, tribal prejudice is its foundation and one of its peculiarities.

The accidental birth of a person in a certain country gives him the wrong baseless idea that he may scorn others and consider them as enemies. Having been born in Europe and having a white skin for example, he gives himself the right to plunder the blacks and refuse to employ towards others criteria he uses towards his own compatriots. Even a genius like Einstein is disliked by a German because he is a Jew. Taking birth in Germany or France, both a matter of accidental birth in a certain land and not one of conscious choice, is no reason to dislike other, be prejudiced and evaluate human beings with two different criteria.

Can anything be more inhuman and unreasonable that to prefer a wicked, corrupt and incompetent compatriot of the same race or language to an honest, benevolent and competent person who is born beyond one’s frontiers??

A person is judged on the basis of his race, language, country and considered a compatriot or alien, without the least consideration of his deeds, virtues or views. Human honor and good deeds are disregarded simply because one is born in a certain land. The yardstick for evaluating the individual becomes territory and blood, not action, faith, chastity or obligation.

The more popular nationalism becomes, the more intense will fanatical ignorance and racial prejudice become, and the more limited will be one’s vision. A nationalist defends everything related to his country solely through intellect or reflection. He considers everything outside his country as alien and ignominious. Right and wrong become meaningless concepts.

This is fanatical ignorance which is strongly condemned in Islam, it is inherited from the inhuman tribal system, but with a more dangerous dimension.

9.2  Nationalism culminates in racism

Nationalism inevitably ends in racism and racial prejudice. In any land where it attempts to base unity on the co-existence of a particular group so as to create fanaticism and make that group an independent, separate unit, it must attribute a certain name to that group like Iranian, Turk or some other name; it must brainwash those in that group into believing that they are superior to other on the basis of their race, blood etc. Without attention to the criteria of virtue, belief and action. Eventually, other neighboring countries come to manifest similar feelings, leading to perpetual clashes, rivalry and racial hostilities.

History bears witness to the fact that nationalistic sentiments have always ended in racism. The Greeks at the height of their civilization called non-Greeks as ‘barbarians.’

Aristotle said:

It is nature’s will that barbarians be the slaves of the Greeks.” The Jews who were a national unit before being a religious unit, regarded themselves as God’s selected people. The Romans at the height of their civilization believed that there were only three nations on earth, the Romans, their confederates and the ‘barbarians’ (non-Romans).

9.3   Nationalism results in a desire to colonize

Nationalism results in a desire to dominate and colonize seeking domination due to three factors:

1- Strong prejudice

2- Superiority complex

3- Self-interest (and disregard of others interests)

Nationalism relies on all these three factors and that is why it eventually leads to domination and colonization. Nationalism has been the cause of clashes, aggressions, and constant rivalry between nations, causing much riot and bloodshed the world over. When a country thinks only in terms of its own interests and gives itself the right to dominate others, the result will obviously be conflicts, aggressions and colonization. Some think that this is only true of extreme nationalism. But history has taught us that there are no such things as healthy or unhealthy nationalism, since nationalism in whatever form ultimately ends in chauvinism and racism.

As mentioned in the previous chapters, the savage colonialism of the West in the 19th century which spread over the Third World was caused by nationalistic sentiments. The calamitous World Wars and the Nagasaki and Hiroshima disasters and hundreds of other wars which have tainted man’s history with blood, are living proofs of nationalism as a dominating evil force.

Nationalism is a factor of expansionism and a basis of injustice and aggression. It has been the source of imperialism and it cruelly transgresses over weak nations, imposing its illegitimate ambition on others in the name of national desires and national expediencies.

9.4  Narrowing man’s mental horizon

Nationalism narrows man’s mental horizon in two ways: Firstly, it discourages man to think of the whole of mankind and of ways to help and guide the latter. It encourages him to consider his compatriots only and limit the radius of his vision within the framework of frontiers. Secondly, it encourages man to reject belief, the spirituality, the intellect, and to focus on land, blood, country and race, thereby narrowing down his mental horizon.

Nationalists are the slaves of emotions, and have no regard for the intellect and intelligence. Ideology, on the other hand, relies extensively on reflection and by creating a sense of obligation and responsibility, the intellect comes to dominate over emotions and not the other way round as is the case with nationalism.

10.  Islam and nationalism are two opposite poles

Simple patriotic sentiments, so long as they do not contravene the higher conviction of man is permissible in Islam, like the affection one feels towards one’s father, son and family. But nationalism does not stop at simple sentiments. It is a socio-political creed and an actual way of life which aims at controlling man’s individual and social conduct. Islam, too, being a school having its own independent, spiritual, practical, political and social system and comprising a particular set of beliefs, it naturally comes into conflict with the school of nationalism.

Unlike other religions such as Christianity, Buddhism etc, Islam is not confined to religious rites and metaphysical convictions. Had Islam been only a religion of devotions, it might have agreed with nationalism. But Islam is a religion with a social and philosophical worldview, and provides for economic and political principles. Nationalism, too, has its own social and political principles based however on different beliefs and criteria. Therefore, conflict between Islam and nationalism is inevitable. The Islamic ideology is not compatible with any other ideology on the question of sovereignty over the private and social life of Muslims. A Muslim cannot at the same time be a Muslim and a polytheist, or a Muslim and communist. In Islam, there is no room for one to be a loyal and genuine nationalist. It is a question of identity, and one negates the other.

Nationalism is incompatible with Islam, both schools having two opposite ideologies. These two assume two totally opposite poles in their spirit, essence, direction and goal.

Nationalism attaches value only to the historical traditions, culture, civilization, ideas and historical figures of its own nation, but Islam’s vision goes beyond the frontier, race, tribe and nation.  Musa (alayhissalaam) (Moses), Nabi ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam) (Jesus) , and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are considered as belonging to all mankind. Islam wishes all nations to regard the Qur’an as their Book, and the Ka’aba as their Qibla.

It is very hard for nationalism to accept this view. According to its limited vision, it considers the entry of Islam as a transgression or as something dangerous. It associates the nation to Cyrus and Darius, not to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). It intends to revive its ancient past which Islam calls paganism. Islam curses the Pharaoh, but Egyptian nationalism makes him a national hero to be worshipped.

The logical result of this attitude is to revive national creeds. It is not surprising that during the nationalistic regime of Pahlavi, the creeds of Zoroastrianism and Baha’ism which were regarded as Iranian faiths, were encouraged by the regime. In the time of Hitler’s domination over Germany, Nazi thinkers belonged to one of the two following groups: one group considered Christ as a Palestinian Jewish descendant and thus rejected Christianity, and the other group turned to Christianity and wanted to prove that Christ was not Palestinian, but of the Nordic race.

Islam says that all the Muslims in the world are members of the same body and all Arab, non-Arab, Turk, Afghan, Indian, black, white and yellow belong to one ummah in their belief. But nationalism considers the religious solidarity of a country with other nations as a danger for national and tribal identity.

Thus, nationalism’s vision about society and politics is quite opposite to that of Islam, and these two cannot go together. That’s why the nationalists of other Islamic lands regard separation from Islam a condition for nationalism to succeed, even if they do not utter it. Their acts reveal their hatred towards those who seek Islam.

Nationalism is based on giving authenticity to racial and national units. It divides human society into limited and independent units according to geographical boundaries or factors of race, language, history, political organization etc., and considers all others outside these units as aliens, and very often encourages hostility between them. Nationalism does not address the whole of humanity, but restricts itself to national units, and its goal is the establishment of national states, not a universal society.

But Islam addresses all of mankind as a single unit. Its system is not for a nation, a race, a special region, but for the whole human society. Those who accept this system are regarded as equals and brothers, and have equal rights and duties in devotion, politics, economy and social life. The ultimate goal of Islam is to establish a universal monotheistic society which goes beyond geographical, racial, lingual and cultural boundaries, and joins them all in one community. Islam condemns the division of mankind on the basis of blood and territory in national and racial units, and grants no authenticity to national and racial differences. Its only test of individual worth is chastity, belief, faith and good deeds. The Quran emphasizes the universal unity of mankind:

 “O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife [Hawwa (Eve)], and from them both He created many men and women.” (Qur’an 4:1)

Differences in race, tribe, nation and family have no legal authenticity and they are not the basis of unity or criteria of superiority and inferiority. They are only the means of facilitating human relations:

 “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allâh is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa” (Qur’an 49:13)

Thus, divisions into tribes and groups is for the purpose of knowing one another better, not for taking pride, showing love or hate, seeking superiority or engaging in disputes. The only criteria are faith, belief and chastity.

There is not a single verse in the Qur’an concerning the authenticity of nationality and division of mankind on the basis of land and blood. The Qur’an calls all men to kindness and happiness, not to national and racial privileges.

Nationalism believes the country to be the focus of loyalty while Islam believes God and His religion should be this focus. As the Quran says:

“The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allâh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him;” (Qur’an 12:40)

In nationalism, deep affection to’ one’s country is a basis, whereas in Islam, the basis is belief in God and absolute loyalty to Him.

“You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help” (Qur’an 1:5)

Nationalism aims at having man given the greatest share of his loyalty and affection to the country, and to even subordinate the loyalty to God to the love of the nation. This in itself is a kind of polytheism.
To nationalism, what matters the most is national interests, whether from an individual or social point of view, but in Islam it is love of God and divine injunctions. Love and hate, friendship and enmity, war and peace are all for the sake of God and His religion. No other factor is of importance.

“Say (O Muhammad Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): “Verily, my Salât (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allâh, the Lord of the ‘Alamîn (mankind, jinn and all that exists) ;” (Qur’an 6:162)

In nationalism, sovereignty belongs to the nation and the criterion is national interests. But in Islam, God is the sovereign, and no other factor is of significance before His laws.
“So the judgement is only with Allâh, the Most High, the Most Great!” (Qur’an 40:12)

Nationalism considers all people in a country as compatriots and those of other nations even if they are Muslims as foreigners. Islam believes in the contrary: All relationships, even that of a son, father, wife, husband, are subordinated to belief, and those who do not believe in the school are aliens in spite of their close relationships:

“O you who believe! Take not for Auliyâ’ (supporters and helpers) your fathers and your brothers if they prefer disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers).” (Qur’an 9:23)

11.  The Prohibition of Nationalism in Islam

Nationalism is a concept alien to Islam because it calls for unity based on family and tribalistic ties, whereas Islam binds people together on the ‘aqeedah, that is, belief in

Allah and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In other words, Islam calls for the ideological bond.

Grouping together on tribalistic lines is clearly forbidden. It is narrated by Abu Dawud  that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

He is not one of us who calls for ‘asabiyyah, (nationalism) or who fights for ‘asabiyyah or who dies for ‘asabiyyah.

And in another hadith, the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) describes the one who calls for  nationalism as being like the worm that crawls in the bottom of the dung, and in the hadith recorded in Mishkat al-Masabih, the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

He who calls for ‘asabiyyah is as if he bit his father’s genitals

There are many examples in the seerah where the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had rebuked those who upheld nationalism. On one occasion a party of Jews conspired to bring about disunity in the ranks of the Muslims after seeing the ‘Aus and Khazraj within Islam. A youth from amongst them was sent to incite remembrance of the battle of Bu’ath where the ‘Aus had been victorious over the Khazraj, and he recited poetry to bring about division between them. As a result there was a call to arms. When the news reached the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), he said:

O Muslims, remember Allah, remember Allah. Will you act as pagans while I am present with you after Allah has guided you to Islam, and honoured you thereby and made a clean break with paganism; delivered you thereby from disbelief; made you friends thereby?

When they heard this they wept, and embraced each other. This incident clearly highlights how the messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) rebuked any forms of tribalism. Allah  then revealed,

“O you who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared and die not except in a state of Islam. And hold fast together all of you to the rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favours on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace you became brothers; and you were on the brink of the pit of fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah make His signs clear to you that you may be guided.” [Qur’an 3:102-103]

It is transmitted by at-Tabarani and al-Hakim that in one incident some people spoke very lowly about Salman al-Farsi (radhiyallahu anhu). They spoke of the inferiority of the Persian in relation to the Arabs, and upon hearing this the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasalla ) declared, “Salman belongs to ahl al-bayt (the Prophet’s family).” This statement of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) disassociates all links based on lineage and tribal considerations.

It is also transmitted, in two different versions, by Ibn al-Mubarak (rahimahullah) in his two books, Al- Birr and As-Salah, that some disagreement occurred between Abu Dharr and Bilal (radhiyallahu anhum) and Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhi) said to Bilal (radhiyallahu anhu), “You son of a black woman.” The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was extremely upset by Abu Dharr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) comment, so he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) rebuked him by saying, “That is too much, Abu Dharr. He who has a white mother has no advantage which makes him better than the son of a black mother.” This rebuke had a profound effect on Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu), who then put his head on the ground swearing that he would not raise it until Bilal (radhiyallahu anhu) had put his foot over it.

The incidents above demonstrate that tribal ties have no place in Islam. Muslims are commanded to stick together and not to disassociate themselves from each other just because they comes from different tribes. The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) also said,

The Muslims are like a body, if one part of the body hurts, the rest of the body will also suffer

meaning that the Muslims, whether they are of Chinese, African, European or Asian origin, are one Ummah and they cannot be separated from each other. No tribalistic ties should ever break their unity.

Some people claim that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) approved of nationalism because during the migration to Madinah, he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said about Makkah with tears in his mubarak eyes, “You are the most beloved land of Allah to me.” However, this saying has nothing to do with nationalism, and this can be seen from the full saying which people often do not quote, “You are the most beloved land of Allah to me because you are the most beloved land of Allah to Allah.” The Messenger of Allah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) love for Makkah was based on the noble status that Allah has given to Makkah, and not because he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was born there. All Muslims should have this love and affection for Makkah because it is the most beloved land in the sight of Allah. After all, the Muslims pray towards Makkah and go there to perform hajj there as it houses the Ka’ba. The above saying of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) therefore has nothing to do with nationalism.

Not only does Islam forbid people from grouping on nationalistic ties, but it also prohibits the establishment of more than one state, whether these states are based on nationalism or otherwise. The only state that is allowed for the Muslims is the state of Islamic Shari’ah, which is a state that is governed exclusively by Islam. Allah addressed the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),

“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you” [Qur’an 5:48]


“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you.” [Qur’an 5:49]

The speech of Allah  to the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhu wasallam) is a speech to his  Ummah unless specific evidence comes to restrict this. In this case, there is no such restriction, and so it becomes obligatory for the Muslims to rule according to Islam. And ruling according to Islam leaves no room for nationalistic constitutions whatsoever because what is applied, and what forms the criteria for judgement, is the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan).

Ruling according to Islam can only be achieved in one state, with Islamic Shariah. It is reported in Sahih Muslim that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that he heard the

Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhu wasallam) say,

He who gave the bay‘ah to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart has to obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him (his authority) strike the neck of that person.”

Abu Said al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,

If a bay‘ah is taken for two Khaleefahs, kill the latter one.”

And ‘Arafaja (radhiyallahu anhu) said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say,

If someone comes to you when you are united over one man and wants to break your strength and divide your unity, kill him.

This unity of the Muslims was clearly highlighted in the document that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) wrote when he established the Islamic Statw in Madinah. In this document, which was to regulate the relationships of Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic State, the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said regarding the Muslims, “Allah’s covenant amongst them is one” and “Believers are brothers to the exclusion of others” and “The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of Allah.” These statements serve to indicate that Muslims are one body and they are not to be treated separately.

Furthermore, the obligation for having one state, and not many nationalistic states, also comes from the Ijma’ of the Sahabah. When the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) left this world, the Sahabah convened to discuss the appointment of the Khaleefah in the courtyard of Bani Sa‘ida. One person had proposed that the Ansar should elect their own amir and the Muhajireen their own, but Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated the hadith that forbids the Ummah from having more then one leader. So the Sahabah never allowed more than one ruler and their consensus is a legitimate evidence for us.

Islam therefore leaves no room for the Saudi state, an Egyptian state, or a Pakistani state. Islam calls for one state with one ruler where all Muslims are tied together by the ‘aqeedah of Islam. And this is a matter decided by Islam to which we must submit to, for Allah says,

  “It is not for a believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in the matter.” [Qur’an 33:36]

And those who still uphold nationalism, remember what Allah  says,

“Those who oppose Allah’s order have to be warned that a calamity may strike them or a painful doom may fall upon them.” [Qur’an 24:63]

Islam needs a Restoration, not a Reformation

[Abdullah al-Andalusi]

The desire for the reformation of Islam tends to typically come as a demand made upon the Muslim world by external factors or influences

Having been invited to speak in many debates and lectures about the question of whether there should be a reformation of Islam, I’ve observed that it is not a question that I or most Muslims raise, but one that is thrust upon us by others.

Generally, Muslims are well aware that there is no problem with Islam. Muslims understand that Islam defines human purpose in the cosmos, and offers a complete and consistent way of life that is designed to lead to human happiness and justice in this life and the hereafter. For Muslims, the author of the Qur’an, being also the author of mankind, knows humans better than anyone, and understands how humans should be organised and guided – therefore Islamic laws and solutions are perfectly balanced for implementation by mankind.

The desire for the reformation of Islam then, tends to typically come as a demand made upon the Muslim world by external actors or influences – typically by Westerners and those influenced by Western civilisation, i.e. “secular reformists”. Their demand for reform is based upon the false assumption that religion must be separate from state, and that Islam is comparable to Christianity’s problems with politics. However, there are a number of other fallacies and assumptions they make that quickly come undone under simple scrutiny.

Non-liberal government does not cause technological backwardness

Christianity never caused the Dark Ages, nor did it bring about backwardness. This may come as a surprise to anyone unfamiliar with the relevant history, but the Dark Ages occurred because of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476AD and being overrun by Germanic barbarian migrations entering the empire. Meanwhile, the devoutly Christian Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantines), experienced no fall, and no Dark Ages, and ancient Greek Philosophy and Roman technological know-how continued to be taught in numerous academies and schools throughout the Eastern Roman Empire.

In fact, if anything, the Catholic Church created the modern West, since after encountering the Islamic civilisation through either trade or war, they began translating Arabic and Greek intellectual works and setting up universities, triggering the European renaissance in the 1100s. The Roman Catholic Church was a patron of science and education, causing European science and technology to progress for 600 years under non-secular Christian governments. Modern secular liberal governments did not arise until around the 1780s.

Europe’s famous “Scientific revolution” started around the 1500s and is said to have reached its completion by the 1700s all under non-secular Christian governments. By the time secular liberalism first arose in state systems, Europe had already invented the steam engine 80 years before.

The industrial revolution in 1760-1840 began while most of Europe still was not secular liberal. Even the few Liberal regimes existing at the time had not yet adopted most of the laws we associate today with Liberal government.

Europe never progressed technologically or economically due to Secularism, but rather due to the beginning of curiosity, thought and inquiry that was kick-started by encounters with the Islamic civilisation’s level of advancement. The creation of secular liberalism (called “The Enlightenment”) was actually an unintended by-product of the Renaissance, and not the cause of it.

Modern Chinese political philosophers have already remarked that secular liberal democracy is not a prerequisite for technological, economic and scientific development, nor good government, and the meteoric rise of China demonstrates that there are other ways to progress and to achieve prosperity. Indeed, democracy is an older system than Islam, yet is considered “modern”. Islamic laws therefore are not obsolete, but rather they only require re-implementation, with the wisdom and mercy that the Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) demonstrated should accompany them.

The Muslim world is already the product of previous colonial reform attempts

It is argued that the Muslim world is in its current predicament because Islam has not been reformed, but this is ignorant of the fact that the Muslim world has already been “reformed”. Through colonialism, the European powers aimed to reform Islam, and removed Islam from political life in Muslim lands and altered or abolished the teaching of classical Islamic education in law and government, replacing it with a secular and pragmatic understanding for the people, leaving Muslims today illiterate in Islamic political laws. However, the process of changing the masses would take a long time so, in the meanwhile, the colonial occupiers selected and educated a new secular elite from the indigenous peoples to take power after “independence” – and guard the new status quo.

The public activities of Islamic scholarship and its institutions in almost every Muslim country are tightly controlled by their governments. The reality today is that secular elites hold Islam hostage, censoring Islamic education to apolitical aspects of Islam and commissioning bogus legal rulings from client scholars to exhort people to be politically passive, while simultaneously using these same scholars to give Islamic rulings ‘justifying’ allowing the government to perpetrate suppression, torture and arbitrary killing of their enemies (especially against peaceful political Islamic groups – which the West quietly condones).

Militant violence is not caused by Islam

Secular reformists like to claim that terrorist violence is caused by Islam, or an interpretation of it (e.g. Salafism), and not political factors. However, their claims have been disproven by numerous Western academic studies, and even classical secular philosophers, like John Locke, refuted the connection between religion and anti-state violence.

The reality reformists attempt to obscure is that terrorism doesn’t emerge from traditional education of Islam. Most political Islamic education is censored in secular Muslim countries, and a tightly controlled “spiritual-only” education is allowed. Each state teaches its own controlled version, from state-controlled Sufism in Uzbekistan, to Saudi-controlled “Salafism”. Each version is designed to keep the people passive and focusing only on theological disputes or spiritual self-development.

However, the control by secular elites over Islamic education does not always keep the people politically or militarily passive.

The continual extreme oppression and subjugation of peaceful political dissent by these secular elites eventually led to armed revolutionary movements, and in response, a brutal suppression by the elites. This caused some to unfortunately react to the extremism of the secular elites in a reciprocal manner, copying the horrific tactics of the elites they were fighting and, in some cases, attacking other groups suspected of also being used by the West against the Muslim world – tragically including non-Muslim minorities.

The Islamic belief of universal Muslim solidarity and sympathy to the plight of the global Muslim community led to further groups arising from around the Muslim world in response to constant military invasions or occupations of Muslim countries by the West.

Unfortunately, this again saw some using strategies that copy the horrific historical tactics of Western armies used against enemy populations, like “strategic bombing,” where in WWII civilians were first targeted by US/UK as part of a “defensive strategy” to demoralise an aggressive enemy and get them to stop their warring. It then becomes curious how Islam being “reformed” to secular liberalism would stop this, when mainstream Secular Liberal philosophers justify these tactics for the defence of liberalism, and many groups used terrorism in their fight for the liberal ruling system of secular democracy.

In fact, the main argument of terror groups for their tactics is not an interpretation or Islamic text, nor the denial of the Islamic prohibition against targeting civilians. These groups argue that the prohibition is “not set in stone” and that “in today’s world” they can copy modern Western tactics to fight the West.

The problem here is not a classical understanding of Islam (which would prohibit these actions), but that these groups arose from post-colonial Muslim populations who were deeply affected by Western thinking, clearly causing militant groups to arise afflicted with the same Western-imitating logic as the populations they arose from.

Although secular Muslim rulers have been known to use Islam to bolster their support when they feel threatened, this tactic caused strange things to start to happen. Secular elites that were deposed by the West, due to being no longer useful to the West, began cynically transforming themselves into the very Islamic groups they used to violently suppress, but keeping the same tactics they once used against their populations – one such example is the so-called Islamic State (IS).

In modern times, the 20th Century was dominated by terror attacks by secular groups. In Lebanon, during the 1970s, the Christian militia known as “The Phalange” (Phalanx) – in alliance with Israel – massacred thousands of civilians in Palestinian refugee camps and committed numerous war crimes against Muslim populations in Lebanon. Communist Kurdish groups have waged a decades-long terror and insurgency campaign against Turkey, killing thousands. Recently, Communist Kurdish groups detonated deadly car bombs and suicide bombs in crowded civilians areas in Turkey (which noticeably did not receive as much attention in Western media as “Islamist” terror attacks).

Therefore, it is not ideology that causes terror violence, but rather political and social circumstances connected to oppression and invasion which historically have arisen under the same conditions, whether in South America, Africa or Europe itself.

However, secular reformists like to cynically take advantage of IS’s propaganda and public facade of “Islam” to strengthen their case for “Islamic reform,” leading to a shockingly strange and unholy agreement between reformists, Islamophobes and IS for its (bogus) claim to be Islamic. Such reformists have even been known to describe IS as a “blessing in disguise,” with others making similar comments, ironically making reformists some of the biggest apologists for IS.

As demonstrated above, Islamic law does not sanction the actions of extreme groups, despite the invocation of Islamic history and warfare by these groups. These groups use Islamic text merely to seek support for themselves in a region where religion carries weight. These groups arose from a region where everyone does the same, even secular dictators like (Shaitan Jew) President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who uses religion to justify his authority and commission “religious” justifications to perpetrate the killing of dissidents, despite the fact that all these actions actually contradict the details and conditions contained in those texts.

The logic of terror groups and secular dictators in the Muslim world are no different to far-right American terror groups who misquote the passages of the American constitution and declaration of independence discussing use of force to justify violent revolution against the current American government (which they believe has overstepped its limits) and violence against immigrants and minorities (including Muslims).

Of course, American law courts (like most American laypeople) reject these spurious citations as false and ignorant “legal” arguments. However, in the Muslim world, in the absence of the once widely established Islamic court systems under a Caliphate, post-colonial Muslim populations have a difficult time debunking bogus Islamic legal arguments in the political aspects of a law they simply have not been educated in.

What is the solution to this – less Islamic education on a holistic Islam, or more of it?

“Wahhabism” is not the ‘root of all evil’

Some Western secular reformists claim that the main root of most of the problems in the Muslim world is “Wahhabism” or “puritanical Islam”. They then point to the 1744-1818 Wahhabi-Saudi uprising against the Ottoman Caliphate and the sectarian violence that ensued.

However, what they forget to mention, is that like the decline of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Caliphate’s military and intellectual decline in the 18th-19th centuries saw the rise of armed insurrections and civil unrest throughout its lands. Some were led by religious reformist movements who saw the Ottoman state as corrupt due to what must be spiritual defects, others fought for the new ideology of nationalism, and others for power. Sectarian violence affected all citizens, not just “Wahhabis”.

The Ottoman Caliphate saw a religious uprising from a Sufi movement that was far more sectarian and more deadly than the “Wahhabis” – the Mahdist movement of the Sufi Samaniyya order in Sudan, led by Mohammed Ahmad. Ahmad claimed he was the awaited “Mahdi” and believed the Ottoman Caliphate to be corrupt collaborators with “infidels”. Ahmad declared all Turks to be disbelievers, and ordered that they should be killed. His movement was also noted for attacking the followers and shrines of rival Sufi groups who rejected him, like the Khatmiyyah, forcing many to flee for their life. Like the Wahhabis, the Mahdists were condemned by the Islamic scholars of their region, and found support mainly from tribal fighters living in the outer frontier areas of the Muslim world. Unlike the Sufi Mahdists, the Wahhabis never declared Ottoman Turks to be disbelievers.

However, most armed uprisings that arose afterward continued to be mostly from Sufi-led insurgencies responding to colonial occupation of Muslim lands in the 19th to early 20th century.

Even non-Muslim communities in the Middle East fell into sectarianism amongst themselves. For example, the Christian and Druze communities of the Levant fell into fighting each other in 1860 leading to the deaths of over 60,000 people (many of them civilians).

Some Western secularists point to sectarian intolerance and violence as evidence of the effect of fundamentalist religion. However, the problems that effect different parts of the Muslim world are not due to Islam or an interpretation of Islam – but rather the declined thinking of the people and un-Islamic cultural practices that arose either after the intellectual decline of Islamic civilisation and/or after colonialism. Consequently, we see the same deteriorating social and intellectual phenomena amongst not just Muslims, but secularists and non-Muslims in the Muslim world, and many other countries outside.

In Jordan, it was reported that a Christian father killed his daughter because she had allegedly converted to Islam. In 2007, a Yazidi father gathered members of the local Yazidi community to stone to death his daughter for wanting to marry a Muslim man. Outside the Muslim world, Indian Sikh father in the UK was alleged to have killed his daughter for being “Westernised” and for not following “Sikhism or Indian traditions”.

In the Secular majority non-Muslim India, there is an acknowledged, out of control rape crisis brought about by the clash of Secular and traditional values. This is mirrored in Egypt by reports of sexual harassment and rape reported in the 2013 pro-secular protests in Tahrir square (notably, none were reported in the “Islamist” counter-protests in Rabia al Adhwiyyah square). Furthermore, the secular Egyptian regime under  (Zionist Butcher) Sisi has been documented to use rape as a weapon against female protestors.

Were these problems caused by Wahhabist interpretations of Islam?? Will reforming Islam affect the secular Kurds, secular Egyptians, secular Indians and Yazidis in those examples? The answer is no. It is therefore clear that the problem that afflicts the Muslim world does not only afflict the Muslim world, and is related to sociological factors that affect both Muslims, secular Muslims and non-Muslims in the region – not an interpretation of Islam. Even the British colonialists noticed that Egyptian Christians were no different to Egyptian Muslims, and were just as sectarian, maybe more so.

Secular reformists exploit sectarian divides in the Muslim world and use the label “Wahhabism” to divide and conquer Muslim resistance to reformation. Wahhabism was a movement, not a school of thought. If you examine the aspects of Islam that the reformists call “Wahhabism” – e.g. hudud (penal) laws in the Qur’an and traditions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the prohibition of interest etc – you will find that they are generally shared by all the classical scholars of Islam, and not just of the four Sunni schools of thought, but also the three Shia schools, the Dhahiri (apparentist) school of Ibn Hazm, and the Mutazilite school. The differences between the schools are only in the details of these Islamic laws, not the fundamental concepts themselves.

The use of the word “Wahhabi” (a word taken from European history) therefore, is merely a cover by reformists to attack all of classical Islamic thought – Sunni, Sufi and Shia alike.

The way forward is a restoration of Islam

As demonstrated above, the arguments of secular reformists lack accuracy on the reality of the Muslim world, and its solutions. Their demand for reformation, therefore, is not to initiate something original, but merely to call to complete the re-indoctrination process of the Muslim world that was begun 150 years ago by the predecessors of the secular reformists – the European colonialists.

Muslims that lived after the Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), from their birth to their death, attempted to continuously change themselves toward the state of perfect obedience of their creator described in the Qur’an – both in their hearts, minds and actions. This is called “islah,” and means to reform the individual to be better than they were before, or in an improved position.

But if the Muslim world is not living up to the values and objectives that Islam prescribes, Muslims generally understand that this is the result of the failure of the Muslim community itself, not of Islam. When such cases occur, Islam calls for “tajdeed,” which means revival in the sense of the restoration of something. In this case, it is the restoration of Islam in the community, bringing it back to the mental and behavioural state it was in, before it declined.

Ironically, the claim that countries whose policies are influenced by Islam become backward is refuted by examples in the Muslim world today. Amazingly, the so-called “Islamic Republic” of Iran – although only a hybrid regime with some Islamic policies – is just one of only nine countries in the world that has a fully independent space programme which independently builds and launches its own satellites into orbit. Likewise, the late leader of the “Islamic Republic” of Pakistan, General Zia ul Haq, initiated work on Pakistan’s first independently built space satellite, Badr 1, as well as developing nuclear power reactors and weapons to match India’s developments.

Arguably, the more Islam influences a government’s policies, the more likely it is to invest in an independent capacity for science and technology, even though those governments currently implement only a few Islamic policies. These examples raise an interesting question: if Muslims established a fully Islamic political system, how much more progress could be possible?

The above examples clearly show the Islamic world has great potential, but to fully achieve this it must strive to return to a full intellectual awakening, re-opening of inquiry, creative thought and ingenuity – like it had achieved in its past. This cannot be achieved by an Islamic Reformation, which simply continues to ape the West and continues to turn Muslims into blind imitators, with no original thought or authenticity based upon the Islamic worldview.

What the Muslim world needs is an Islamic restoration (tajdeed), re-establishing the enlightened, plural and just Caliphate that Islam prescribes. That would be a patron of industry, research and defend the citizens of the Muslim world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, from oppression and incursions. It is only then that the Muslim world can progress beyond militancy, secular dictators, invasions and oppression, and become an example of justice and Islam for all mankind – for Islam came to try to change the wrongs of the world, not be changed by them.