Category Archives: Jamaat e Islami/ Maududi

The Fitnah of Maududism

In response to a letter by the Amir of the Jamaat Islami Hind, nearly 70 years ago (circa 1948), the Muhtamim of Deoband, Shaykh-ul-Islam Hazrat Husayn Ahmad Madani, elaborated at length on the satanism inherent in Maududism – a particularly virulent strain of modernism.

Those who have not yet been desensitized by the evils described by Shaykhul Islam, will be able to appreciate the fact that the contents of this letter holds even greater relevance and weight in this day and age, in closer proximity to the Hour, in which such evils have become far more pronounced and widespread.

A Letter from the Amir of the Jamaat Islami to Shaykhul Islam, Hazrat Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (rahmatullahi alayh):

Muhtarami Assalamualaykum,

It is hoped that you are well. Some time back an invitation was sent to you to participate in the Annual Convention of the Jamaat Islami. Till now it is not known if you have accepted it or not. We realise well your commitments due to the Annual Convention of the Jamiatul Ulama, but there is such a gap between the dates of the two conventions that we hope you will favour us with a little of your time.

Insha-Allah our convention will begin on the 20th April. Since a long time I have been looking forward to meeting you. I had corresponded regarding this too, but unfortunately due to your heavy commitments a suitable time could not be found at that time. Thereafter I tried to fix a time through Hifzurrahman Maulana Saheb. This time too no suitable occasion could be found.

In any case, I feel it is of utmost importance that I exchange views with you on a few questions and would also be pleased to seek your advice on many matters. If it is possible for you to attend this convention of ours it will be deemed an honour, and the above mentioned aims will also be fulfilled. Allah forbid, if this is not possible, then it will be appreciated if you can avail me of some suitable time after the Hyderabad convention. Insha-Allah I will present myself in your noble assembly.

At present the most important question which I feel should be discussed is the Fatwa of the Darul Iftaa, Deoband, which has been published in Saharanpur under the following titles: ‘Wipe out the Maududi mischief’, ‘The Maududi movement is a killer and poison‘, ‘Those who think like Maududi have gone astray’, ‘Do not perform salaat behind the Maududi’s’.

I do not know if these Fatwas have come before you or not? These Fatwas are naturally a cause for heart-ache for all those who believe that the Jamaat Islami is on the Haq (truth) and have joined it, or for those who feel it is on the Haq. For such a Fatwa to be published from Darul Uloom, Deoband, where there are cautious personalities like yourself, is a cause of surprise and anxiety to us, especially in such circumstances, and regarding the questions on which the Fatwa is based.

Time and again clear explanations were published on our behalf on these matters regarding which the authorities of Darul Uloom have been directly contacted and which still is in progress. It is hoped that your excellency will favour us with a speedy reply.


Abul Lays

Amir, Jamaat Islami. [Hind]


Your letter was received. Before that, your invitation also reached me. You have correctly estimated my commitments due to the Annual Convention of the Jamiat. Besides this I have other similar commitments. At present there are even more important commitments, i.e. The Annual Examinations at Darul Uloom which will commence at the end of Rajab and end on the 23rd or 24th of Sha’baan.

As it is the end of the educational year at Darul Uloom, the kitaabs of Bukhari Shareef and Tirmizi Shareef have still to be completed, and must be covered by the 27th or 28th of Sha’baan. These commitments are of such a nature that they remain for the whole year, despite having other important matters to attend to as well.

The posters you have referred to have not come to my notice before you had mentioned this in your letter. Only a booklet titled ‘Revealing the Truth’, i.e. ‘The Maududi movement in its true colours’ published in Saharanpur was sent to me by some gentlemen.

My first impression about your movement was that it was limited to improving the Ilmi and Amali, worldly and Deeni, shortcomings and their impact on the Muslims. Although there was a difference of opinion in the way matters were promoted, I did not feel it necessary to raise a voice or write against it.

Although some members of the Jamaat Islami and its leaders at times wrote and made some indecent and improper statements, it was felt that it would be better to close the eyes regarding these matters. But now, many comments on the books of Maududi Saheb have been sent to me from all corners of India and Pakistan, and have piled up considerably. The water has already flowed over the head.

After perusing and understanding these comments I find myself forced to come to the following conclusion: Your Islamic movement is against the Salaf Saaliheen (Righteous elders of Islam), just like those old sects of the Mu’tåzilah, Rawaafid, Khawaarij, Jahmiyyah etc., and like the modern sects of Qadianis, Chakralwis, Mashriqis, Nechris, Mahdawis, Baha’is etc., who wish to establish a new Islam, and to which path they are trying to attract the people. It is based on such foundations, beliefs and practices that are contrary to the teachings of the Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat and the Salaf Saaliheen.

I list them hereunder:

1. It believes in Tafseer Bir Raay (Interpretation according to personal opinion). Every professor who possesses the sciences of the modern free-thinking Europeans, and has also acquainted himself with the knowledge of a smattering of Arabic, has the right to commentate and interpret the Qur’aan according to his whims and fancies so that it may be a light for the Muslims. This is what is happening in your circles. It does not matter if it refutes the sayings of the Sahaaba and the Salaf.

Actually, this was the first Fitnah that crept into Islam. A Tafseer Bir Raay was made on the judgement of Hazrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) on the words ‘Inil Hukmu illa Lillah’. As a result twelve thousand Muslims revolted and separated themselves. Hazrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) says regarding this, “Haqqun Uridu bihil Baatil‘ (Truth through which is intended evil). Hazrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) sent Hazrat Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu)  to explain to the people that the Qur’aan is Zu Wujooh (of multiple meaning) hence he should explain them through the Sunnat.

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) explained this to the people, and as a result of which eight thousand people repented. Four thousand remained adamant on their views and began killing and labelling people as non-Muslims. This movement became popularly known as the Khawaarij.

Thereafter this disease spread so widely that not only on the question of ‘Tahkeem’, but views were put forth on other matters too. Fierce squabbles were held on the questions regarding the one who commits a major sin, etc.

This was not limited to the Khawaarij sect. The disease of Tafseer Bir Raay spread and the mischief of new sects like the Mu’tazilah, Jahmiyyah, Rawaafid, Karramiyyah, Mujassimah, Murjiyyah etc. arose. The Ahlus Sunnat wal Jamaat at all times made the Sahaabah Kiraam and the Salaf Saaliheen their leaders and guides, fashioned their views accordingly, and kept on obtaining the certificate of ‘Maa Ana Alayhi Wa Ashaabee‘ (The path that I (Rasulullah sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and my Sahaaba radhiyallahu anhum are adopting).

These very same mischiefs (of new sects) took place in these latter times. The sects of the Nechris (materialists, atheists), Quraniyyah, Chakralwis, Qadiyaniyyah, Khaksaars, Baha’iyyah etc. also adopted the Tafseer Bir Raay by following their own whims and fancies.

They began to stretch and manipulate the Nusus (Quranic Verses) as they desired. Rasulullah (sallallaaahu alayhi wasallam) in forecasting this calamity said: ‘Man Fassaral Qur’aan Bira’yihi Faqad Kafar‘ (The one who interprets the Qur’aan according to his own thoughts has become a non-Muslim).

Is it not surprising that the interpretations of things according to those Sahaabah and their students whose mother tongue was Arabic; and of those who witnessed the Wahi (revelations) of Allah; and of those who had the honour of the company of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam); and had seen his deeds and Sunnats; and of the Taabi’een who were the students of those who witnessed the Wahi be shelved and labelled as incorrect.

Instead the views of those non-Arab Ajami speaking people who were born thirteen hundred years later and who do not possess a command over the Arabic language, its related subjects and the Usul of the Deen, or even possess a smattering command of these, are accepted as positive and correct, just because they are graduates of Cambridge, Oxford or some other university where they acquired only the basis of the Arabic language. Those who spend their lives studying and teaching Arabic and the Deen are labelled as backward and their Tafseer is rejected as incorrect. In its place the views of the free-thinking, ungodly professors of Europe are claimed to be superior and the ones that lead to the path of Allah.

Can any intelligent person or nation accept this, that a graduate of a military college or an engineering college, with whatever distinctions, will ever be permitted to work in a medical department or treat patients if he did not obtain a certificate from a medical school? Every person knows and understands that to do so is to cause chaos among humanity. Instead of benefit it will result in chaos.

This is the case of those who adopt Tafseer Bir Raay. By rejecting the Tafseer of the Salaf Saaliheen and the fundamentals of the Deen, they are turning away from the straight path and going towards their ruin.

2. It throws away the Saheeh and Hasan Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the waste paper basket on the strength of the view of those who hold incorrect suppositions and theories of historical events whereas the Qur’aan and Hadith announce that every command and advice of the Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is divine revelation. On the contrary, to resort to suppositions and guesses on the basis of worldly advice and expediencies is to openly refute the Nusus Qat’iyyah (irrefutable and categoric Divine Commands). It is an open invitation to innovation in the Deen.

3. It accuses the Sabaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) – as the Rawaafid had done – because of some weak Hadith or a Saheeh Hadith that apparently does not conform to reason [or conflicts with authentic and mass-transmitted narrations]. Whereas those after them solely rely on their trustworthiness for keeping Islam alive. Allah forbid, if these doyens of the Deen are labelled as untrustworthy, then the whole foundation of Islam will crumble. (The orientalists have done the same to undermine our Deen).

The Qur’aan and Ahaadith have verified their truthfulness and trustworthiness in many places. Many old writings testify to this and also praise them in strong terms. They are regarded as the best and greatest among the human race. By opening this door every religious foundation will have no value.

4. It regards many Ahaadith of the Sahaabah, however Saheeh and correct they may be, as being based on sheer good-will (Husne Zann). This takes one away from the truth. If this door is opened all the Mu’jizaat, high and noble character etc. of the Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) will become meaningless. The free-thinking heretics will attain a strong weapon by this.

5. It accuses and claims that the narrators of the Saheeh Ahaadith are untrustworthy. It presents weak sayings as Saheeh, or accepts the sayings of the Ahlul Hawa (Followers of their own desires) and enemies of the Deen. The well-known A’immah are regarded as untrustworthy. By doing so the whole treasure of the Ahaadith will be wiped out. It becomes worthy of the saying of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam): ‘The later ones of this Ummah will curse the forebearers of this Ummah’.

6. It labels Taqleed Shakhsee (i.e. to follow one of the Four accepted Madh-habs) as going astray and towards ruin whereas this command is taken from the following Aayats of the Qur’aan:

“… and follow the path of him who repenteth unto Me…” (Surah Luqman: 15),

“Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not.” (Surah Nahl: 43),

“And whoso seeketh as religion Other than the surrender (Islam) (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter”.  (Surah Aali Imraan: 85)

In these times it is Waajib (because there do not exist those who qualify for Ijtihaad, as events from the 4th century Hijri show) for all Muslims to observe Taqleed. Those who do not observe it are in great danger and will go astray. Those who refute it are opening the doors of free-thinking which will eventually make one wary of the Deen. The least effect it has on one is that it makes one indulge in Fisq and Fujur (impiety and wickedness).

[NOTE (added): Trustworthy paragons of Ilm and Taqwa have testified to the Ijma’ (consensus) enacted on the obligation of Rigid Taqleed (Taqleed Shaksi) during the early centuries when the “illat” (cause, raison d’etre) for this ruling i.e. the fitnah of following one’s desires, of issuance of erroneous Fatwas, of Haraam Talfeeq, and of other evils, was far less acute than what it is today. For example, Shaykh-ul-Islam Qadhi Iyadh (476-544H) provides his explicit testimony that, “The consensus (Ijma’) of the Muslims in all places of earth has occurred on Taqleed in this fashion (i.e. Shakhsi).” 

Hujjatul Islam, Imam Ghazali (450 – 505H), states that “None of the scholars” permitted one to leave his Madh-hab and that “by Agreement (i.e. Ijma’) of the scholars” the one doing so is sinful. Other trustworthy Fuqaha, such as Imam Nawawi, have attributed this position to the early Usooliyyeen and Mujtahideen as a whole, corroborating the Ijma’ that was enacted in the early eras of the Ummah.

The Saheeh Hadith, “My Ummah will never unite upon error.”narrated in dozens of authentic compilations seals the stamp on the strength of this Ijma’, and assigns any contrary opinion to the same category as other anomalous rulings found in our tradition which invariably draw the attention of, and exposes the identity of the Ahlul Hawa (people of desires who desperately desire to escape the inflexibility of Rigid Taqleed in order to create sufficient flexibility to grant Deeni sanction to their desires) who instinctively recoil with abject horror at the very thought of submitting themselves to this clear-cut Ijma’ enacted by the early MujtahideenEnd of note]

7. It has given the verdict that the Taqleed of the A’immah Arba’ah (the four celebrated Imaams) Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alayh), Imaam Shafi’ee (rahmatullahi alayh, Imaam Maalik (rahmatullahi alayh, Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahmatullahi alayh) — is Haraam and leads one astray whereas these personalities were guiding lights of their times. They were pinnacles of guidance, Taqwa, Fiqh, religious knowledge and shone like stars.

8. It gives every professor and layman the license and right to free-thinking, and to practise what they feel is correct. They advocate that all Muslims should follow this path, and it does not matter if one’s views contradict those of the Salaf Saaliheen. Even those groups that deny Taqleed are against this. They have realised this after experiencing its ill-effects.

The late Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalwi Saheb who was an ardent Imaam of the Ghayr Muqallids and an exponent and crusader of this group in India wrote in his book “Isha’atus Sunnah’ Vol. 2 Page 51, 52, 53:

“The experience Of 25 years has shown that those who, with rudimentary knowledge, act as a Mujtahid (one who interprets the Qur’an and Sunnah) and leaves Taqleed completely, in the end turn away from Islam. Some of them embrace Christianity, some become atheists. Impiety and wickedness are the simplest result of free-thinking. Among those Faasiqs, some openly disregard the Jumu’ah, Namaaz with Jamaat, Namaaz, Rozah etc. They do not keep away from interest and intoxicants. Some because of worldly benefits refrain from open sin, but heavily indulge in these in private. They illegally trick women into marrying them. Under false pretence they grab the wealth of the people, saying that it is the wealth of Allah. There are many other reasons in this world for people to turn apostate and commit sin, but for the pious to become irreligious, not having knowledge and discarding Taqleed is a major reason. “

[NOTE: Since many scholars during that age still exhorted Taqlid Shakhsi, it was very easy for this Ghair Muqallid Imam, and even the simple layman, to observe this clear connection between apostasy and abandonment of Rigid Taqleed. In contrast, today, with virtually every group encouraging abandonment of Taqlid Shakhsi, implicitly or explicitly, the “scholars” of all such groups are stupidly looking askance and coming up with their own pet theories on the unprecedented rate of apostasy today, all designed to deflect attention from the true cause as observed by this Ghair Muqallid Imam after decades of first-hand experience during an era when the abundance of Ulama who still exhorted Taqleed Shakhsi made the correlation far more easily discernible and observable.

In fact, many of these modernist “scholars” themselves are Kaafir at heart or harbour doubts regarding the truth of Islam, but maintain the façade of being a Muslim for worldly motives, some of whom are able to demand in excess of $100,000 dollars for just one speech. To cite just one example, the following statement (inadvertently leaked) from Yasir Qadhi, an extremely popular “scholar” whose beard and Sunnah appearance have been undergoing a typically Ghair-Muqallid burnout, rapid-reduction process, exposes the state of Imaan and Yaqeen of such “scholars”: “Wallahi I’ll be honest with you, the shubahaat I was exposed to at Yale [the “madrasah” in which he enrolled to acquire his “Islam” from atheistic teachers], some of those I still don’t have answers to.”

When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stated that even the “Subhat” (association and companionship) of camels and sheep have an effect on the shepherds herding them, then one can understand the unimaginably destructive spiritual damage being wrought by such faasiq “scholars” on the masses, especially since the form of Suhbat adopted by such masses is infinitely more potent than the mere herding of animals. Giving an attentive ear to the satanically embellished (zukhruf al-qawl) bleatings and mooings of such modernist “scholars” who harbour heresy in their hearts, which is the most powerful form of Suhbat, spells disaster to one’s Imaan, regardless of the superficial, pork-like “benefits” which deviates love to harp on about.

Furthermore, the catastrophic result, chaos, and anarchy that stems from abandonment of Rigid Taqleed are far more evident today. Take the example of the famous ruling espoused by prominent Ghair Muqallid and modernist Imams such as Ibn Uthaymin and his teacher Hamoud ibn Uqla, Naasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd, Anwar Awlaki and many others exhorting the mass-slaughter of women, children, babies, etc. using such modernist “Daleel” as rationale, logic, and Tafseer bir Ray – exercise one’s own Ijtihaad on the verses of Qur’an pertaining to Qisaas (equal retaliation), and on the Ahaadith.

Far worse than such abominable Fatwas is the satanic Usool (core principle) of ALL modernist, free-thinking Ghair Muqallids which exhorts abandoning Rigid Taqleed in favour of one’s own interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah. According to this satanic Usool, it is FARD (obligatory) for Ibn Uthaymin and Co. to follow what they sincerely believe to be the “stronger ruling” and what makes most logical sense to them i.e. it is FARD (obligatory) for them to exhort the mass-slaughter of women, children and babies. According to this satanic Usool, it is HARAAM (or discouraged at the least) for Ibn Uthaymin and Co. to abandon what they sincerely believe to be the “stronger ruling”, in favour of Rigid Taqleed to the ruling of the Four Madh-habs which unanimously prohibit the killing of male farmers, monks, and other non-combatants, leave aside the mass-slaughter of women, children and babies.

Ijma’ (consensus) has no meaning for such free-thinking Ghair Muqallids, since for each and every Ijma’ anomalous and marjooh rulings are available to give sanction to their abominations. The Ijma’ on 3 talaqs being 3, Taraweeh consisting of 20 rak’ats etc. are just a few of countless examples the free-thinking, modernist Ghair Muqallids have overturned in this age.

The term “Ghair Muqallids” also includes fake sufis and others who fraudulently claim to adhere to a Madh-hab, but who are similarly loose as the Salafis in their Taqleed of a Madh-hab – the salient feature (shi’ar) of all such deviate groups being the scavenging and adopting of anomalous and marjooh opinions found in our tradition.End of Note]

The laxity in practicing religious deeds described by Maulana Muhammad Husain Batalwi Saheb Marhum is generally found among the educated elite, especially the professors and those who attain a Western education. This group is as unaware of Islamic teachings, Arabic Arts and literature, as the ordinary uneducated Muslim layman. If any of them claim to have a little knowledge, it is in reality nothing. Generally this group make use of Urdu, Persian and English translations. Those among them who obtain an MA, or Honours in the Arabic language from an Indian or European University are like primary school children to those who obtain an Honours degree from an Arabic Madrasah. They are not capable of even reading a sentence correctly according to the laws of Arabic Grammar nor write or speak this language. If by chance some are found with these qualifications, they are surely lacking in the other necessary sciences on which rely the science of ljtihaad in the Deen and Arabic Iiterature.

It has been seen and experienced that in such cases these professors by observing ljtihaad and discarding Taqleed, and expounding this belief, destroy the roots of the Deen, spread falsehood and lead others astray. We have ourselves witnessed the outcome of the activities of such downright ‘Mujtahids’.

9. It has resolved that the orders of Tasawwuf and Suluk and its teachings are from the Jahiliyyah and is the worst form of Kufr. Tasawwuf is billed as Buddhism and Yoga whereas this path and its teachings complete one’s faith in Islam in our times. Without it, it is impossible to attain the desired lhsaan and complete devotion, just like, in our times, it is impossible to correctly recite the Qur’aan if it does not have diacritical symbols (Zabar, Zer, Pesh etc.), or if one does not know Tajweed.

In the same manner it is not possible to understand the Qur’aan, Hadith, Arabic poetry etc. if one has not learnt Sarf, Nahw, Ma’aani, Baýaan and books on language etc. In the early centuries, for reciting the Qur’aan and understanding it, these sciences were not necessary, but in our so-called ‘Modern’ times there is no alternative, but to study them. The Arabs themselves (whose mother tongue and daily language is Arabic) are in need of these sciences just as we need them. It is a different matter that they need them less than we do. They have become like the Ajamis because of their association with them.

In the early days and during the first century it was not necessary to follow the present-day path of Ihsaan and devotions because those were periods attached to the age of the Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Today, without this, one cannot normally reach one’s goal. To bill it Buddhism and Yogaism is great injustice.

10. It stretches its tongue and literally uses abusive language rearding the Salaf Saaliheen and Awliyaa. It degrades these personalities among the common people. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has said: ‘Those who insult and degrade my Awliyaa, I have declared war on them’. He has also said: ‘Remember your dead by their good deeds’. In yet another place he has said: ‘The modern ones from among this Ummah will curse its forebearers’. By all the above Ahaadith it is meant that one should exercise caution and refrain from such acts.

11. It has declared that the following personalities are the ones who have led the Muslims astray and have injected them with opium: Mujaddid Alf Thaani, Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi; Shah Waliyullah Dehlawi, his followers and offspring; Khwaja Mu’inuddin Chisti; Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani; Shaikh Shahabuddin Sùhrawardi, etc. etc. These are those great giants who have rejuvenated Islam and kept the Sunnat alive. Through their guidance countless people gained true Taqwa and knowledge of Allah. History books are filled with their noble deeds and Barakaat.

12. It claims that the above Mashaa’ikh are the ones who by their teachings spread Buddhism and Yogaism. The teachings of Tariqat, be it of the Naqshbandiyyah, Chishtiyyah, Qadariyyah or Suhrawardiyyah etc. orders are heavens apart from the teachings of Buddhism or Yogaism. The teachings of Tariqat are a collection from the teachings of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, where in it is strongly stressed that every footstep of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) be followed. The writings of the Mashaa’ikh bear testimony to this. The books, Awaarful Ma’aarif and Futuhul Ghayb, should be read in this regard.

13. It uses derogatory remarks on the Ulama Zaahir and the guardians of the Shar’ee Uloom. The layman is incited to hate them. It practically degrades and taunts them and regards them as unreliable. It wants to lead the Muslims towards a new religion and wants them to make Taqleed and be loyal to its leader. In these turbulent times when open sinning, free-thinking, Kufr, arrogance and carnal greed are widespread in every corner of the world, people are becoming remote from the teachings of Allah and His Rasul (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and are lax in practising the Deeni injunctions, the correct thing to do is to instil respect into the public for the teachings of the Shari’ah, its Muballigheen and guardians. Avenues and means of rebuilding the true Deen and bringing it back to life must be given priority.

To do the opposite, by creating hatred and disregard for the Salaf, is like wiping out the Deen. This is the manner which the innovators have always resorted to, and was also adopted by the Nechris (materialists, atheists), Qadiyanis. Khaksaars, etc. Mashriqi’s book “The fault of the Molvi” is an example on this subject. Every innovator and heretic has used this method to conceal his own faults and spread ignorance among the masses.

14. It comments on the Saheeh Ahaadith according to its own tastes and thinking, and is turning away the general Muslims from it. On the contrary the Salaf Saaliheen, Sahaabah Kiraam, the great Taabi’een and those of the Khayrul Qurun accepted these. Whatever grade we confer to our intellect, it still remains defective. Experience and incidents have proven this. The most dull and stupid person thinks that he possesses a good understanding and sound intellect.

5. Like the Khawaarij, it uses the labels of ‘Inil Hukmu illa Lillaah’ and ‘Wa mal lam Yahkum bimaa Anzalallaah’ to proclaim Muslims as heretics. This is the result of faulty interpretations, out of context explanations, and ‘A truthful word through which is intended evil’. It has rebelled against the accepted views of the Salaf Saaliheen.

16. It has proclaimed the Ahadith collection and literature as unacceptable just as the Chakralwis have done even though it does not contain Akhbaar Aahaad. From the beginning of Islam till this day it has been accepted as the foundation of the Deen and in relation to historical narrations it is accepted as more powerful.

17. Like the Qadiyanis it regards its Grand leader and Amir to possess such power, that if he wills, he shall reject any Hadith according to his taste or if he wishes may throw it in the waste paper basket. Such dictatorship was not experienced or accepted by anyone during the times of the Salaf Saaliheen or during the Khayrul Qurun nor can it be accepted in these turbulent times of Fitnah and Fasaad. Hazrat Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu) has said: ‘If anyone among you wants to follow anyone, let him follow those who are dead, because the one that is alive is not free from Fitnah’. The existence of such a state of affairs within the ranks of the people of these times is the beginning of a great calamity and a means of leading the masses astray.

18. It labels the Fiqhi treasure as incorrect and a collection of falsehood. It orders that this should be renovated and changed. The deeds of all the Muslims for the past 1300 years are regarded as a loss and a product of ignorance. It believes all those previous Muslims will not gain salvation. This is such a Fitnah that in whatever manner one mourns and laments, it will still not be enough.

19. Like the Mu’tazilah and Rawaafid they write on their signboards etc. “The office of Actual Tawheed; Jamaat of Muwahhideen; The complete and true Islam.” or other similar slogans. The Mu’tazilah called themselves ‘Ashabul AdI’ (People of Justice) and Ashaabut Tawheed (People of Tawheed). The Shi’ah (Rawaafid) call themselves the ‘Lovers of the Ahle Bayt’. This will mean that those who are not amongst them, and do not belong to their group are not from the People of Justice, or the People of Unity or from amongst those who have love for the Able Bayt.

The poison that these types of signboards spread in the past is evident from those historical incidents that took place between the Mu’tazilah, Khawaarij, Rawaafid etc. and the Ahius Sunnah. In the modern times too these types of incidents took place between the Ghayr Muqallids, Qur’aaniyyah, Nechris. Qadiyanis, Khaksaars etc. Each one of them used these types of signboards to attack the other group, indicating that they do not possess this quality. The Ghayr Muqallids call themselves Ahle Hadith wat Tawheed, and proclaim that the Hanafis are deprived of the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and Tawheed. etc. Your organisation also makes the same claim, that those who do not belong to it are not faithful Muwahhids (unitarians, believers in the unity of Allah) and, as such, they do not possess complete Islam. By this the public is thrown into such confusion and disunity, that it is an open truth that the least effect it has is that those who do not join the Jamaat Islami are considered Mushriks, un-believers who will not gain salvation. It will become adamant on its own views, and will heat up the stock market of accusations, swearing, debates. Bickering, fighting, gang warfare. etc. Then the Muslim public will be beyond control and the Muslim Ummah will fall into chaos and face insurmountable difficulties.

Muhtaram, Muslim India is faced with great difficulties. The difficulties and trials that they are surrounded with and are experiencing emanate from the majority group. i.e. the communalistic mind of the Hindu Mahasaba: the anti-Islamic stand of the R.S.S.; the policy of the Arya Samaj to forcibly convert all Muslims to their religion; the spiritual and materialistic degeneration of the Muslims suffering from inferiority complex; the poisonous wind and materialistic flood that is engulfing the schools and, colleges fed by the non-believing heretics of the west. etc. etc.

These situations necessitate that Muslim organisations be cemented together and made stronger and stronger. A sound and accepted organisation should have been established to save the Muslims from fear, cowardice, terror, bewilderment, irreligiousness and laxity in practising religious deeds. We see that your movement is creating an air of religious and worldly degeneration. An order is created, as a result of which the whole community will become involved in this poisonous trend in the future. Therefore I feel it appropriate to advise Muslims to keep away from this movement, and refrain from reading the literature of Maududi Saheb.

As for your claim that we ‘are not concerned regarding the beliefs and thoughts of Maududi Saheb’ we have time and again clarified our stand. It is like Mashriqi Saheb’s announcement after seeing the people objecting and becoming an obstacle to his Khaksaar movement, that we “are creating the spirit of war and its tactics among the Muslims, and are trying to spread it and that Muslims should have nothing to do with our beliefs and publications’. What happened subsequently? Were the members of the Khaksaar movement free from the beliefs, morals, and filthy writings of its leader? This could be heard from the tongue of Maududi Saheb himself. See ‘Al-Furqaan’ No. 2 and 3, page 9 and 10. Safar and Rabiul Awaal issue on the subject of the Khaksaar movement and Allama Mashriqi.

Muhtaram, when a movement is àttributed to someone, that person will become its source of inspiration. The beliefs, morals and views of that person will surely have an effect on its members, especially when the literature of Maududi Saheb is being published with such abundance and members and non-members are induced to read it. At such times, the effects of the poisonous substances which have been included with such craftiness in such ‘inspiring’ writings cannot escape one’s thinking.

My Muhtaram, taking into consideration the above points it cannot be understood what benefit will be derived from a meeting with you. I am of the orthodox Muslims and a Muqallid Hanafi, who is also a servant of the Mashaa’ikh of Tariqat. You people are of the ‘enlightened new Islam’. I wish to guide the Muslims on the path of the Salaf Saaliheen (Pious predecessors) and believe their salvation to be in it. You people wish to lead the Muslims on to the ‘New Islam’ of Maududi Saheb and are trying to reform it, a task which Mujaddid Alf Thaani, Shah Waliyullah, Sayyid Ahmed Shahid, and others were not fortunate enough to achieve, and you proclaim it as the only way to salvation for the Muslims. You are trying to salvage the Muslims by leading them on the path of those ignorant ones who opposed the Salaf Saaliheen, the pious Imaams etc.

On such foundations it is possible that you may try to influence me, and I will not be able to guide you. You are running this movement for a long time and many years have passed. In this period you did not take the trouble to visit Deoband once, nor did you come to the offices of the Jamiat and exchange views with its workers so that a solution could be chalked out for the betterment of the Muslims. I am at a loss to understand today the reason for your thinking in such terms. Anyway, I am thankful for your kind attention. With all this, there is no hope of any benefit, especially when the Rampur convention has elevated your status.

I can now only say, ‘You have your Deen and I have my Deen’, and free you from any inconveniences. I cannot think of anything else.

Due to the Hyderabad convention and other commitments I could not complete this letter, when a second registered reply letter was received from you. I thank you for this letter too, as I thank you for the first one.

My Muhtaram, the above matter has been taken from many reviews which in themselves are disheartening. You have complained about the articles from the Darul lftaa and have ordered that they he stopped. Regarding this, I wish to state, that the Darul lftaa of Deoband is an independent department, the head of which is Maulana Mufti Mehdi Hassen Saheb. He is an elderly, experienced researcher. About thirty to forty, or even more Istiftaas come to him daily, the replying of which is incumbent on him. When people began asking about the Jamaat Islami and Istiftaas regarding this movement began to increase, it became necessary to study Maududi Saheb’s literature and write on it. He has a considerable volume of Maududi literature. It is not in my hands to stop it. May the grace of Allah be with us.

O Allah show to us the truth as the truth, and grant us the following of it. And show to us falsehood as falsehood, and grant us the strength to abstain from it’. (Aameen).

Nang Aslaaf (A disgrace to the Aslaaf)

Husayn Ahmed — May Allah forgive him 


Translated from Maktubaate Shaykhul islam — Part two.

[Translation taken from “The Majlis” Newsletter, Vol. 2, no.3, April 1977 with additional ‘notes’ from]

Refuting the Christian Lie that Prophet Considered Women as “Dogs and Donkeys”

WikiIslam & Christian Missionary Liars and ‘topic-changers’ attempt to prove that women are considered no better than dogs and donkeys by the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the Ahadith by quoting various traditions. I will quote the website here:

“You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.”

Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.”
(Sahih Bukhari 1:9:490)

Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, “You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.”
(Sahih Bukhari 1:9:493, See Also Sahih Bukhari 1:9:486, Sahih Bukhari Muslim 4:1032, Sahih Muslim 4:1034, Sahih Muslim 4:1038, Sahih Muslim 4:1039: 004:1039 adds “and the asses”

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw. (Abu Dawud 2:704)


The following tradition was left out by WikiIslam and other liars which proves a point besides the one made above:

Narrated ‘Aisha: It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys. No doubt I saw Allah’s Apostle praying while I used to lie between him and the Qibla and when he wanted to prostrate, he pushed my legs and I withdrew them. [Sahih Bukhari, Book #9, Hadith 498]

Either way, the meaning of the above Ahadith has been misconstrued, since Hadhrat Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) was explaining that women were not equal to dogs and donkeys, rather it was alright for a woman to be in front of a man when he prayed. Hadhrat Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) knew the Prophet better than the people so she corrected their views on the subject of praying without a Sutrah. She lived with him in his own home, while the people only learned about what he did when they saw him on some occasions.

As for the third Hadith about praying without a Sutrah, it is better for someone to not pass in front of another who is praying without a Sutrah since it can be spiritually harmful to that individual:

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: When any one of you prays he should not let anyone pass in front of him (if there is no sutra), and should try to turn him away as far as possible, but if he refuses to go, he should turn him away forcibly for he is a devil. [Sahih Muslim, Book #004, Hadith #1023] 

The grievousness of passing in front of someone praying is given in the following Hadith:

Busr b Sa’id reported that Zaid b Khalid al-Juhani sent him to Abu Juhaim in order to ask him what he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) with regard to the passer in front of the worshipper. Abu Juhaim reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: If anyone who passes in front of a man who is praying knew the responsibility he incurs, he would stand still forty (years) rather than to pass in front of him.” Abu Nadr said: I do not know whether he said forty days or months or years.  [Sahih Muslim, Book #004, Hadith #1027]

Thus, the meaning of the above Ahadith are that it is better to not be in front of someone else while they are praying because of the sin one could get from being in front of someone. Hadhrat Ayesha slipped away when the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prayed and she was in front of him because of her courtesy for him and his concentration during his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)’s prayers.

The next time you come across an Islamophobe or their website, make sure that you research their claims and never blindly believe anything, because they are big time liars.

Refuting the Christian Lie of Prophet Muhammad having sex with a Dead Body


[This is a refutation to that moron (in the pic) who is throwing the filthy allegations on our beloved Prophet]

The allegation is that Prophet Muhammad had sex with Fatima bint Asad (radhiyallahu anha) when she was dead.

It is a nonsensical and a malicious claim which is gaining some popularity amongst the aberrations on the internet

The simplest way to disprove this allegation is to go to Islamic Jurisprudence.

As the charge is that of necrophilia (sex with a dead body) we can look into Islamic theology. If the allegation is true then the act of necrophilia would be allowed in Islam. So what does the expert (Ibn Hajar Haytami) say?

Well, he includes necrophilia in his list of sins [1]. Thus we can realise necrophilia is not allowed in Islam and the Prophet did not engage in such a deed.

In fact if we consult Fiqh we realise “it is unlawful to look at the nakedness of the deceased or touch it” [2].Thus further showing sex with the deceased (dead) cannot possibly be allowed. This further shows the Prophet did not engage in such a deed as if he did then the practice of necrophilia would have been allowed in Islam.

Now we know the claim of necrophilia against Prophet Muhammad is incorrect we can analyse the methodology used by the claimant (Zakaria Botros) and the narration he uses. This course of action will suffice for us to be fully conversant with this claim and able to explain why the claims are erroneous (false lie).

It is important to be able to explain it as there is a growing number of willing propagators of such falsehood, thus this false claim will only become popular if good people sit on their hands.

Analysing the Allegation: Authentic?

The narration which is used is from a book named Kanza ul Amal. This book contains fabricated and weak narrations, thus is not recognised as an authoritative source (individual narrations need to be checked).

Regardless of the authenticity let’s still look at the narration and context to gain understanding so we can realise the actual meaning of such a narration (regardless of authenticity)

The Narration

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

“I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib”… The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali.

Looking at the narration alone one would not cry “necrophilia” or any wrong doing as “sex” is not mentioned. However, simply looking at the narration’s English translation one would find it odd. Sleeping with somebody in a coffin (grave) is an odd occurrence indeed. However, once the context is given we realise what actually happened.

The Context and Explanation

Firstly the translation of “I slept” does not best convey the meaning based on the context, the Arabic word translated as “I Slept” is Idtaja’ (اضطجع ). This word can either mean:
lie down, lie, recline, repose [3].

I hope you have noticed within the list of definitions (lie down, lie, recline, repose) the word “sleep” (or “sex”) does not appear. Lane’s Lexicon does indicate it can refer to sleeping too:

lay upon his side; or] he laid his side upon the ground; [and simply he lay; and he slept [4]

Though the word can refer to sleep, I have seen NO indication in Lane’s Lexicon nor the other dictionary which indicates the word means sex. (I will elaborate on this later on in this paper whilst discussing Father Zakaria’s bizarre and fallacious interpretation of the narration)

So we are left with the question: did Muhammad sleep or lie in the grave?

The context explains it all, as it was a grave we realise the word cannot possibly mean “sleep” but rather it means “lie/lay in the grave”.

This actually makes sense with the other bits of context we have at our disposal;“When the grave was prepared Muhammad himself examined it and placed her into the grave” [5].

Thus, it is reasonable to think the examination procedure also involved Prophet Muhammad lying in the grave. This would not have been at length in terms of duration (time). Therefore we realize Prophet Muhammad simply laid in the grave to make sure it was comfortable for his deceased foster mother as well as to honour the lady as it would be seen as a fabulous honor to be resting in a place where a Prophet of God had previously laid.

Did Muhammad Lie with his Foster Mother (Fatima Bint Asad) in the Grave?

It does not appear so as the process of investigating/examining the grave would have been PRIOR (before) lowering Fatima Bint Asad (radhiyallahu anha) into the grave. Therefore Muhammad would have reclined (lied) in the grave in order to check the grave before Fatima was placed in the grave, thus he would not have lied with her. Furthermore, there were two types of graves in vogue at the time of the Prophet which were Lahd and Shaqq (shiq) [6], [7].

The Shaqq type of grave is characterized by a niche within the grave for the dead body to be placed within. So it is impossible to lie with the body due to the niche. [8]

The Lahd form of grave is characterized by a lateral hollow which is dug into the side of the base of the grave for the body to be placed [8]. This type of grave makes lying with the deceased body risky as the earth could cave in on top of the body and the one who is lying with the deceased.

Thus, it seems the laying in the grave for examination purposes was done prior to Fatima (radhiyallahu anha) being lowered into her resting place. This is despite the Arabic phraseology used literally denoting “with”:

اضطجعت معها في قبرها

However, even if one takes it literally it does not mean wrong doing took place and it certainly does not refer to sex.

If Prophet Muhammad did lie with his foster mother whilst she was in the grave in order to check for comfort and honor her before the companions filled the grave it would only have been for a short time and this would have been witnessed by other people too. There is nothing wrong with lying in the grave to ensure comfort for your foster mother and honor; in fact it was an act of great compassion.

Having established all the above we can move on to discuss and deconstruct the misdirection of Father Zakaria (the one who initially made this fallacious claim)

This seems to be a transcript of Father Zakaria’s explanation to the narration:

The Arabic scholar Demetrius explains: “The Arabic word used here for “slept” is “Id’tajat,” and literally means “lay down” with her. It is often used to mean, “lay down to have sex.” Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a “mother of the believers.” This will supposedly prevent her from being tormented in the grave, since Muslims believed that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave. “Reduce the pressure” here means that the torment won’t be as much because she is now a “mother of the believers” after Muhammad slept with her and “consummated” the union.”

Firstly, who is “Demetrius”? Zakaria gives no introduction to this scholar. Why? I have had a look at Lane’s Lexicon and I did not get the inference the word meant sex. However, this is a smaller point in the deconstruction of Zakaria’s claim.

We will look at Father Zakaria’s unauthorised interpretation of the event and show the holes within his reasoning.

Have Sex with Her in Order to give her a Special Status?

Zakaria states:

“Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a “mother of the believers””

Zakaria’s premise is that Muhammad had sex with Fatima because he wanted her to attain special status as the “mother of the believers”. Well, Zakaria’s premise falls flat on its face because Fatima bint Asad (radhiyallahu anha) already had the special status of being Prophet Muhammad’s foster mother. [5]

In the transcript this information has been withheld (i.e. nobody is told of her special status as the foster mother of Prophet Muhammad). Why is this information not relayed to us in the transcript which is circulating the internet? It is because Zakaria’s premise is thrown into doubt immediately if we are told she already has a special status. Thus if she already had a special status then there would be no need for her to be given the special status of being “like a wife to him” as she was already like a mother to him (Prophet Muhammad).

So Father Zakaria’s reasoning is flawed from the start. However, it gets worse for the Zakaria.

“She has become like a wife to him”

Father Zakaria is trying to fool us (this is the case with all the other allegations too..lies upon lies -islamreigns). He is claiming Prophet Muhammad had sex with Fatima in order for her to have a status of a wife of Prophet Muhammad and thus the title of “mother of the believers”.

Zakaria is either ignorant or dishonest.

Prophet Muhammad could NOT possibly have taken Fatima Bint Asad (radhiyallahu anha) as a wife as Islamic Law dictates consent be given by BOTH parties in a marriage; of course marrying a dead person would not be allowed simply based on this injunction. Father Zakaria knows this but continues with his fanciful claim because it suits his agenda to besmirch the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad.

So the point here is that Fatima bint Asad (radhiyallahu anha) could never have become his wife through such an act, despite Father Zakaria’s nonsensical pleadings. Thus Father Zakaria is looking even more foolish in his claim. It gets more embarrassing for Father Zakaria

“Muhammad did this to save her from the torment of the grave”?

Father Zakaria is showing signs of a fertile imagination and utter ignorance.

If we consult Ahadith literature we will realise Prophet Muhammad’s PRAYER made the grave a better abode for people (Hadith) through the grace of God. This shows us if Prophet Muhammad seriously felt Fatima Bint Asad was in danger of the punishment of the grave he would have simply PRAYED for her grave to be a better dwelling. [9]

Thus we realise Zakaria’s debauched idea that sex (or marriage) is required to save a person from the punishment of the grave is warped and fallacious to say the least. It gets worse for Father Zakaria.

“Muslims believed that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave”

Zakaria is showing signs of clear ignorance. Muslims of course believe in the punishment of the grave but those whom Allah is pleased with are NOT punished. Fatima Bint Asad (radhiyallahu anha) is considered a saintly woman thus Muslims do not believe she is subjected to the punishment of the grave.

In fact the Muslim belief concerning pious people (such as Fatima Bint Asad) is that their graves will reflect Paradise and will be very comfortable and blissful indeed.

‘The grave is a garden of paradise or a pit of hell.” (Mishkat)

Rasulullah said, ‘The grave is a garden of paradise or a pit of hell.’ (Mishkat).

Concerning the pious people (such as Fatima Bint Asad) “A believer will answer all three questions and he will be honored with the clothing of Jannah. The window of Jannah will be opened for him and he will enjoy the sight of Jannah” (Mishkat) (appendix 1)

Thus we realise the grave of a saintly woman (i.e. Fatima Bint Asad) would not be one of torment but of splendour, peace and bliss. She will also see Jannah (Paradise).

This just illustrates Father Zakaria’s ignorance and shows his crackpot idea of Prophet Muhammad having sex with his foster mother in order to save her from torment is unadulterated nonsense and a product of a very strange mind indeed.

Father Zakaria’s Hypocrisy

The one making this odd claim is a Christian and it just goes to reveal his hypocritical nature because the same word (a construct of Idtaja) is used in the Arabic Bible and it is not translated as sex but is translated as “LAID”. Does Father Zakaria want to be consistent now and withdraw his silly claims?

Please also bear in mind the dictionary references (given earlier) which disprove Father Zakaria’s malicious claims, well the Bible is now disproving hm.

The same Arabic word is used in the Bible (2Kings 4:32) and it is translated as “laid” and not sex or anything of that nature:

وَدَخَلَ أَلِيشَعُ الْبَيْتَ وَإِذَا بِالصَّبِيِّ مَيْتٌ وَمُضْطَجعٌ عَلَى سَرِيرِهِ.

English Translation: And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. (KJV)

This along with the dictionary references shown earlier just further indicates the narration in question has nothing to do with sex.

Clarification: Why Do You Say There Was No Sex?

I think this point needs reiteration and summarizing so nobody is in any doubt. It is a silly, unfair and false claim to say sex was involved, consider the following:

*The word used (Idtaja’) does not infer sex. It simply refers to lying down or sleeping. The meaning of lying down is further highlighted by the context. There is NO way it refers to sex. NO authority would consider it meaning sex. In fact if the narrator wanted to convey the idea of sex/marriage taking place he would have used a totally DIFFERENT Arabic word (i.e. a construct of nikah).

*The same Arabic word is used in the Bible (2Kings 4:32) and it is translated as “laid” and NOT “sex” or “sleep”.

*Islam does not allow sex with dead people (already mentioned above). Islam is based on the deeds and actions of the Prophet as well as the Quran. Thus if Muhammad did involve himself in this type of activity it would be allowed within Islam. This just goes to show Muhammad never committed such an act.

*Fiqh (Jurisprudence) tells us it is not allowed to touch the nakedness of the deceased, as most Fiqh is also based upon Muhammad’s actions we can realize Muhammad did not touch any deceased body in a sexual manner.

*Fatima Bint Asad was deceased, thus meaning a marriage between Muhammad and her or any subsequent conjugal (sexual) relations would be rejected by Islam

*The burying of a deceased person is a community effort thus Muhammad would not have been alone whilst at the grave side. Thus it would be absurd to suggest somebody had sex with a deceased woman whilst everybody sat and watched

* Prophey Muhammad’s enemies would have mentioned it and used it against him if he did commit such an act. Prophey Muhammad’s enemies never accused him of necrophilia. This further shows this allegation of necrophilia is false and baseless.

*As we have already mentioned, the dictionary references do not indicate sex but lying down/sleeping (the context of which simply refers to lying down). These references are further strengthened by the context.

*Also, the two grave types (Lahd/Shaqq) would physically render the grave as unsuitable for sex.

*The body of the deceased is meant to be handled with care [10] so much so that a bone of the body must not be broken. Of course it goes without saying this would mean sex would be out of the question.

*Fatima bint Asad was the foster mother of Prophet Muhammad. “When Muhammad heard Fatima Bint Asad had died, he immediately went to her house sat beside her body and prayed for her soul”

*“When the grave was prepared Muhammad himself examined it and placed her into the grave. Thus, she was one of the few people whose graves were examined by Muhammad”. Examination of a grave does involve lying down in a grave but does NOT involve sex. 

* It is dehumanizing and a disconnection from reality to believe a world religion of nearly 2 billion will be founded by a man who involved himself in necrophilia


Prophet Muhammad was doing what any loving and caring son should do; that was focussing on the well being of his relative (foster mother and aunt, Fatima bint Asad) ) both in this life and the hereafter. There was no sex or wrong doing involved.

This heart warming story of compassion and love for one’s family member is now being hijacked by the debauched and hateful mind of a few who are motivated by hatred and destruction.

Father Zakaria should be ashamed with himself; this man has a poor reputation in the Arab world, both Christians and Muslims will see him as a man looking for controversy and attention whilst viewing him as a crackpot figure.

I have had some dealings with the English speaking version of Father Zakaria and he, too, is seen as a man motivated by deviance and outright deception. This man’s deception extends to making up his own BIBLICAL verses up! (Appendix 2)

Fair people (both Muslims and Christians) should be wary of such characters and help fight their misinformation. If you happen to be somebody who dislikes Islam or a supporter of such perpetuators of outrage and dishonesty then I urge you to have a rethink and refrain from supporting such individuals financially as they will ultimately be laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of the truth.

There is no copyright restriction on this work so feel free to share it in order to further the truth

May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad and may Allah send more good upon Fatima bint Asad. Aameen


1. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 [W52.1, 343]

2. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 [g2.7]

3. Online Arabic-English dictionary,

4. An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872


6. Bulug al Maram, compiled by Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (with brief notes from Subul us Salam), Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, 2002 pg 186

7. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 g5.3

8. Ibid. g5.3

9. Bulug al Maram, compiled by Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (with brief notes from Subul us Salam), Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, 2002 pg179 Hadith no 447 (see appendix 3)

10. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Aman Publications, 1994 w52.1/119

Appendix 1
Rasulullah said, ‘When a person is buried and the people go away, two angels approach the deceased and ask three questions, a) Who is your lord? b) What is your religion? and c) Who is he (Rasulullah )?. A believer will answer all three questions and he will be honored with the clothing of Jannah. The window of Jannah will be opened for him and he will enjoy the sight of Jannah. On the contrary, a disbeliever will express regret at not being able to answer the questions. Upon that, an angel who is blind and deaf is appointed to punish him. Blind so that the angel does not see the punishment and feel mercy and deaf so that the punishment is not heard. The hammer used to punish a disbeliever is so heavy that it can reduce a mountain to dust. The disbeliever screams with pain and every creation can hear him besides human and Jinns.’ (Mishkat)
Rasulullah said, ‘The grave is a garden of paradise or a pit of hell.’ (Ibid)

Appendix 2
The English speaking version of Father Zakaria makes up his own Biblical verse in order to fit in with a strange “mathematical code” idea:

Such is the disrespect for the truth people of this nature possess.

Appendix 3

Narrated Abu Huraira ®: Regarding the story of a woman who used to sweep the mosque. The Prophet (S) asked about her and they ( the Companions) told him she had died. He (S) then said, “why did you not inform me?” and it appeared as if they had considered her as of little importance. He (S) said, “show me her grave”, and when they did so he prayed on her. And Muslim added : He (S) then said, “these graves are full of darkness for their occupants, but Allah will illuminate them (the graves) for them (the occupants) because of my prayer on them”.

Appendix 4

Another example of Muhammad caring for people in the grave

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet once passed by two graves and said, “These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin (to avoid). One of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine, while the other used to go about with calumnies(to make enmity between friends).” The Prophet then took a green leaf of a date-palm tree, split it into (pieces) and fixed one on each grave. They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why have you done so?” He replied, “I hope that their punishment might be lessened till these (the pieces of the leaf) become dry.” (See the foot-note of Hadith 215). (217)

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: Once the Prophet, while passing through one of the grave-yards of Medina or Mecca heard the voices of two persons who were being tortured in their graves. The Prophet said, “These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin (to avoid).” The Prophet then added, “Yes! (they are being tortured for a major sin). Indeed, one of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine while the other used to go about with calumnies (to make enmiy between friends). The Prophet then asked for a green leaf of a date-palm tree, broke it into two pieces and put one on each grave. On being asked why he had done so, he replied, “I hope that their torture might be lessened, till these get dried.” (215)
Read more:

Appendix 5

Claim in full:

(Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

“I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib”… The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali.

The Arabic scholar Demetrius explains : “The Arabic word used here for “slept” is “Id’tajat,” and literally means “lay down” with her. It is often used to mean, “lay down to have sex.” Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a “mother of the believers.” This will supposedly prevent her from being tormented in the grave, since Muslims believed that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave. “Reduce the pressure” here means that the torment won’t be as much because she is now a “mother of the believers” after Muhammad slept with her and “consummated” the union.”

now, i know the same word اضطجع
is used in 2 king:4:32-34

the word
means lay dawn, it doesn’t mean he have sex with the boy.

Appendix 6

Lack of authenticity in Kanzal ul Amal

Appendix 7

More context:
Fatima looked after Muhammad during his youth.
Anas bin Malik says that when Muhammad heard Asad had died, he immediately went to her house sat beside her body and prayed for her soul.
“My dear mother, may God keep you under His Protection. Many times you went hungry in order to feed me well. You fed me and clothed me on delicacies that you denied yourself. God will surely be happy with these actions of yours. And your intentions were surely meant to win the goodwill and pleasure of God and success in the Hereafter.”

He gave his shirt to be used as part of her shroud. When the grave was prepared Prophet Muhammad himself examined it and placed her into the grave. Thus, she was one of the few people whose graves were examined by Muhammad. Fatimah is buried in Jannatul Baqee’ cemetery in Madinah, Saudi Arabia.

Refuting the Christian Lie that Prophet Muhammad was a Racist


We must first of all know that Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran loves us because of our Righteousness and not because of our race or gender: 

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.  And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted.  [The Noble Quran, 49:13]

False Allegation on Prophet Muhammad being racist

This is a rebuttal to the Islam-haters lies against our beloved Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Before we start, it is important to know the following story:

One of our beloved Prophet’s best friends was a black Ethiopian from Africa. His name was Bilal Al-Habashi. Bilal 8radhiyallahu anhu) used to be the slave of Prophet’s Muhammad’s Uncle Umayya, who was a Pagan. When one of our Prophet’s close companions, Ammar, was caught during the early times of Islam when Muslims used to meet in secret in Makkah, Umayya ordered Bilal to flog him. Bilal refused to accept the order because he heard from Ammar during the little dialog that happened between Ammar and Umayya and some other Pagans that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“People are as equal as the teeth of the comb.”  The old Arabic combs had equal in height and width teeth for combing the hair.

When Bilal (radhiyallahu anhu) refused the order, Umayya punished him severely by flogging him on his stomach while he was laying on his back tied with ropes on the very hot sand in the middle of the day in what we call today Saudi Arabia.

When our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) learned about this, he ordered for Bilal (radhiyallahu anhu) to be bought from Umayya.  So Abu Bakr, one of our Prophet’s close companions and the first Caliph in Islam went to Umayya and requested to buy Bilal. Umayya refused at first and kept insisting on refusing to sell Bilal. Abu Baker (radhiyallahu anhu) went as high as 200 Dinars to buy Bilal. This was way too much money at that time. Bilal was immediately set free by our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

Later on, when the Muslims migrated from Makkah to Madinah, and the first Mosque in Islam was built, our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was Bilal’s best friend at that time.  He gave Bilal the job to be the caller for the daily prayers, which back then was one of the most honorable jobs to have.  Bilal, the black Ethiopian from Africa, was one of the few best friends of our beloved Prophet that we know about from our Islamic History.

Below are their comments and my responses:

Here is what they (the Christian liars) wrote:

“Muhammad the Racist against Black people!! 
Black skin and Creation:

“Abu Darda reported that the HOLY PROPHET SAID: Allah created Adam when he created him (sic). Then He stroke (sic) his right shoulder and took out a white race as if they were seeds, and He stroke (sic) HIS LEFT SHOULDER and took out a BLACK RACE as if they were coals. Then He said to those who were in his right side: Towards paradise and I don’t care. He said to those who were ON HIS LEFT SHOULDER: Towards Hell and I don’t care. – Ahmad” (Mishkat ul-Masabih, translated by Karim, v. iii, p. 117) 

FROM IBN ISHAQ’S “SIRAT RASULALLAH”, translated as, “THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD” by A. Guillaume, page 243. 

“I have heard that it was of him that the apostle said, “Whoever wants to see Satan let him take a look at Nabtal b. al-Harith!” He was a study black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks. He used to come and talk to the apostle and listen to him and then carry what he had said to the hypocrites. It was he who said: “Muhammad is all ears: if anyone tells him anything he believes it.” God sent down concerning him: “And of them are those who annoy the prophet and say he is all ears, Say: God ears for you. He believes in God and trusts the believers and is a mercy for those of you who believe; and those who annoy the apostle of God for them there is a painful punishment.” (Sura 9:61)”

The above doesn’t in anyway suggest that black people are destined for hell, nor the sayings come from the trustful resources such as “Sahih Bukhari”, “Sahih Muslim” and “Sunan Abu Dawud” volumes!  The quotes don’t at all come from reliable Islamic resources. I would like to see the above existing in any of the volumes that I mentioned.  Anyone can come up with a book and make up a lie against our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Let’s assume for a second that the above Saying is a valid one, even though as I said, it doesn’t come from a trustful resource.  The Arabic words for “Race” and “Group” are one word, and that is “Jama-aa”.  The Arabic word “Jinns” could also be sometimes used for “Race”, but “Jinns” means more “sex” than “race”. Anyway, the Saying above doesn’t at all suggest that Africans are going to hell. Islam is never ridiculous to make such a claim. Below you will see how Allah Almighty loves us for our good deeds and righteousness. Our genders and race don’t count when judged by Allah Almighty.

Important Note: When Adam (alayhissalaam) was created, no race or gender existed by him. He was every race and gender of Mankind. How can Africans or black people be taken into the offensive consideration if they didn’t even exist yet?  It is quite obvious that the word “Race” is a mistranslation.

Anyway, the translation above, which it is quite possible that the hypocrites of the Christian liars have twisted it a little bit suggests that a “race” or “group” will be black and the other will be white.  In Islam, we are taught that Angels mark bad deeds with “black” points.  It is clear that the Saying above suggests that the “black group” will go to hell, and the “white group” will go to heaven. 

Important Note:  In Islam, we are ordered to shake hands with the right hand, and to enter doors with the right foot. Does this mean that left-handed people are cursed?  Of course not!  Same thing with black or African people. Islam has no offense toward them.

As we all know, when one burns himself too much, his skin would turn blackish or black.  So, this Saying is suggesting that the people of Hell will eventually be burnt and blackened, and the People of Paradise will be lighter.

There is no racism in this Saying!  But again, it doesn’t come from an Islamic authentic resource anyway!

Many lies had been inserted in history against our beloved Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam); “A section of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] say: Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).  [The Noble Quran, 3:72]” 

The above false claims clearly contradict what Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran in the following Noble Verse:

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes [people with different cultures, races and religions], that ye may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.  And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted.  [The Noble Quran, 49:13]”

Here is the answer by Abdal Hakim Murad:

“As-salamu alaykum. The key text is Qur’an 49.13, ‘and created you peoples and tribes that you might know each other. The most noble of you in Allah’s sight is the most pious.’ Imam Qurtubi explains that the ‘peoples’ (shu’ub) are those with unknown genealogies, unlike ‘tribes’ (qaba’il). Hence all human collectivities, of whatever race, are included in the verse, which moreover states that ethnic identity is a natural and legitimate thing, insofar as it does not obstruct religious solidarity.

There are many hadiths which indicate the prohibition of anti-African attitudes. In one, the pagan al-Harith ibn Hisham is shamed for expressing amazement that the honour of calling the adhan should have been conferred upon Bilal, an Abyssinian. In another hadith, we read: ‘A red-faced (i.e. white) man is not superior to a black one; superiority is only in piety. You are all from Adam, and Adam is from dust.’ (Bukhari and Muslim)

There is also the famous incident narrated by Ibn al-Mubarak in his Kitab al-Birr wa’l-Sila, in which Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu) asks Bilal (radhiyallahu anhu) to put his foot on Abu Dharr’s head, because he fears that he has committed the sin of racism against his Abyssinian brother.

Finally, we note that in all four schools of fiqh, racial affiliation is of no significance in legal entitlements and duties.

The hadith you have cited (and which are only imperfectly translated) therefore refer to the Qur’anic use of the metaphor of darkness and light. Light is one of Allah’s names, and darkness refers to ignorance of His presence and acts.

Salams and best wishes,

Abdal Hakim

Also Read: BEAUTY

Mr Maududi’s View on Imam Mahdi (Alaihissalaam)

[Maulana Yusuf Ludhiyanwi Shaheed (rahimahullah)]

Moulana Maududi states in his  book “Tajdeed Wa Ahyaa-e-Deen”, regarding Imaam Mahdi (alaihissalaam):

“Those Muslims who believe in  Imaam Mahdi are not very far  behind in their misconception from those revivalists who do not  believe in him. They think that  Imaam Mahdi will be some kind of  future molvi or sufi who will  suddenly emerge from a certain  Madrasah or khanqah with a tasbeeh in his hand. Upon arrival  he will announce “I am Mahdi”.  The Ulama and Mashaaikh will  proceed to him with books in  hand and recognize him by  comparing the written signs with his external features. Then the  pledge will occur and the  announcement of Jihad will be proclaimed. The forty day sages  and the old-fashioned  predecessors will gather under his flag. They will use their swords as a mere formality to fulfil the  conditions of Jihad. The actual  work will be performed by  blessings and spiritual powers.  They will be victorious due to  incantations and wazifas. On  whichever kafir their sight falls, he will fall unconscious. By mere dua, tanks and aircraft will be infested with worms.”   [Page 55]

I cannot believe that such  disparaging fairy tales can  emanate from the pen of an Aalim. Maududi’s hatred for the  pious servants of Allaah has  driven him to mock and humiliate  them. Does he claim that any  victory can be achieved without  any Barakah (blessings)? Just as  he has mocked Imaam Mahdi,  how will Maududi react to  someone who mocks Nabi  (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) in a  similar manner (Nauthubillaah)?  Is he denying the Mu`jizaat of  the Ambiyaa (alaihi salaam) and  Karaamaat of the Auliyaa? Did  the battle of Badr, which was won by two horses, eight swords and three hundred and thirteen  dedicated soldiers against a well-equipped army lack in blessings?  On the occasion of Badr Nabi  (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) spent the entire night supplicating to  Allaah Ta`ala. He made the  following dua: “O Allaah! If you annihilate this little group (of  Sahaabah) there will be none to  worship You after this day.” Did the Assistance of Allaah Ta`ala descend without Barkat (blessings)? 

On the occasion when Nabi  (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) cast  the sand rearding which Allaah Ta`ala says in the Qur`aan  Majeed: “And you did not throw  when you threw, indeed it was Allaah who threw.”  In Moulana’s  estimation was this not Barkat?  When Moulana Maududi can poke fun and jest at the coming of Imaam Mahdi (alaihi salaam) it is not far-fetched for an atheist to go one step further and mock at the Battle of Badr.

Moulana Maududi goes on to say this about Imaam Mahdi:

“My estimate is that the person  will be a modern leader of the  times. He will have a deep insight into all the prevailing sciences of  the day. He will possess a proper understanding of all the important daily laws. He will have complete authority in mental leadership, political strategy and war-time expertise. He will be so much more modern than the others that I fear the molvis and sufis will be first to raise a hue and cry.” [page 55]

Are the statements of  Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alaihi  wasallam) not sufficient  regarding Imaam Mahdi that  Maududi has to conjure up his  own predictions concerning a  personality that is to appear in the future? Predictions are either  formulated by means of divine  inspiration, correct intuition or  by stronomers who combine fact  with fiction. What is Maududi’s  “estimation” of Imaam Mahdi based upon?

Disregarding Maududi’s fear of  the molvis and Imaam Mahdi’s  ‘modernism’, I wish to ask him what quality he (Maududi) lacks  from amongst the qualities he has assigned to Mahdi? He possesses all the above-mentioned qualities but yet his  movement has not progressed.  Let alone the entire world, he has  not even been able to forge his  authority on Pakistan. Leave  aside Pakistan, he has failed to  create an Islaamic government  even in his own village. Imaam  Mahdi, according to Maududi will  not be super-human. Hence if all  blessings, Thikr, dua, tasbeeh and the musAllaah are taken away from him, will he be able to forge his authority with all his modernism? Has Maududi  pondered over these issues when  making his predictions. In reality, Maududi wanted only to mock  the saints, their khanqas and  their blessings in the shadow of Imaam Mahdi. In fact he falls short in his own logical deductions.

A Response to Doubts raised by Maududi on the Science of Hadith Verification

Maududi expounds his views extensively on hadith and the science of hadith verification in his book Tafhimaat (vol.1, p.359–362 / Islamic Publications Limited, Lahore 2000 CE). Under the heading, ‘Maslak-e-Eitidaal (The Moderate Position)’, he says,

“…Rather our intention is to clarify that those (the Muhadditheen) who have criticized or praised individuals were after all human. They too had human weaknesses. Is it necessary that those whom they have declared as trustworthy were trustworthy beyond doubt and trustworthy in all their narrations… Moreover, to accurately ascertain each individual’s memory, good intention and self-restrain, etc., is further difficult…

It is due to this and similar reasons that the knowledge of isnad, Jarh and Ta’deel cannot be considered correct in its entirety. This material is reliable to the extent that it helps in the research of Prophet’s Sunnah and Aathaar and it may be given due consideration, but it is not of the status that it may be relied upon completely.”

On page, 356-57 he writes,

“The first thing that is examined in judging a narration is the  status  of  the  narrators.  In  this  regard,  each  and  every narrator  is  examined through various manners, whether he is  a  liar,  careless  in  narrating  narrations,  sinner  or  heretic, dubious  or  weak  in  his  memory,  whether  his  condition  is unknown or his condition is known. By all these conditions the  status  of  the  narrators  were  examined  by  the Muhadditheen,  and  they  thus  presented  a  glorious collection  on  Asmaa’  ar-Rijaal  (the  study  of  the  narrators) which  are  beyond  doubt  invaluable.  But  what  amongst  this is  not  prone  to  mistakes?  Firstly,  it  is  difficult  to  accurately know  the  biography  of  the  narrators,  their  memory  and their  other  inner  qualities.  Secondly,  those  people themselves  who  formed  an  opinion  about  them  were  not free  from  human  weaknesses.  Nafs  (desires)  accompany everyone  and there  is  a  strong  possibility  that  personal opinions  interfered  in  forming  an  opinion,  good  or  bad, about individuals…


Firstly:  The science  of hadith and isnads (chains of narrators) is one of  the  special  characteristics  of  this  ummah.  No  other nation  paid  attention  as  this  ummah  did  to  the chains  of  narration  through  which  their  books and  their  religion  were  transmitted.  This  is why  the  texts  of  other  nations  were subjected  to  distortions  and  fabrications, and it became impossible for them to know  the  pure  religion  and  to  find  out  about  the  stories  of  the Prophets in a sound and authenticated manner.

The  scholars  of  hadith  have  striven  hard  and  reached  a prominent  position  in  that  field,  as  Allah  has  honoured  them  with efforts  to preserve His religion and the Sunnah of His Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

Muhammad ibn Haatim ibn al-Muzaffar (rahimahullah) said,

“Allah  has  honoured  this  ummah  and  favoured  it  over others  by  blessing  it  with  the  isnaad.  No  other  nation  has  this blessing,  and  they  do  not  distinguish  between  that  which  was revealed  in  the  Tawrah  and  Injeel  and  was  brought  by  their Prophets, and that  which  was added to their books of narrations transmitted  from  inauthentic  sources.  This  ummah  narrates hadith  from  a  trustworthy  individual  who  was  known  at  his own  time  for  sincerity  and  honesty,  from  another  of  similar character,  and so on until the end of the chain of narrators. Then they  researched  very  carefully  to  find  out  who  had  the  stronger memory  and  was  more  precise,  and  who  spent  more  time  with the  one  from  whom  the  report  was  transmitted,  and  who  spent less  time,  then  they  would  write  down  the  hadith  from  more than  twenty  chains  of  narration,  so  that  they  could  be  sure  that they had eliminated  any  mistake or error from it,  and they  wrote it  exactly  as  it  was  narrated.  This  is  one  of  the  greatest  blessings that  Allah  has  bestowed  upon  this  ummah.  We  ask  Allah  to inspire us to thank Him for this blessing and we ask Him to make us  steadfast  and  to  guide  us  to  that  which  will bring  us  closer  to Him  and  make  us  adhere  to  obedience  to  Him.” [End  quote  from Sharaf Ashaab al-Hadith (40)]

Secondly: They are the best people who strove the most to ensure that their judgement and transmission of hadith was done on the basis of honesty  and sincerity,  and  they  were  the  ones  who strove the most to avoid  errors  and  mistakes  to  the  extent  that  they  set  the  highest example  of  fairness  and  avoiding  favoritism  when  it  comes  to preserving the religion of Allah. 

So we see ‘Ali ibn al-Madini  ruling that his father was da’eef (weak),  and  he  knew  that  this  ruling  regarding  his  father  would guarantee an end to his position as a scholar, but  that  did  not  prevent him from stating his opinion concerning him.

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi (rahimahullah) said,

“None  of  the  people  of  hadith  should  show  any  favoritism with regard to the science of hadith, whether it is to his father or his  son.  ‘Ali  ibn  ‘Abd-Allaah  al-Madini,  who  was  a  prominent scholar  of  hadith  in  his  time,  never  narrated  even  a  letter  to suggest  that  his  father  was  strong  in  hadith,  rather  what  was narrated from him was the opposite of that.” [End  quote  from  Sharaf  Ashaab  al-Hadith  (41)]

Ibn Hibbaan said in al-Majrooheen (2/15),

“Ali  ibn  al-Madini  was  asked  about  his  father  and  he  said, ‘Ask  someone  else.  They  said,  ‘We  asked  you.  He paused  then  he  raised  his  head  and said,  This has  to  do with religion;  my  father  is  da’eef (weak).” 

Yahya  ibn  Ma’een (rahimahullah) spoke about a friend of his whom  he  loved,  and  al-Husayn ibn Hibbaan narrated that he said of Muhammad ibn Saleem al-Qaadi,

“By Allah, he is our friend, and he is dear to us, but there is no way  to  praise  him  and  I  do  not  recommend  anyone  to  narrate from him or encourage others to do so.” and he said, “By Allaah, he heard  a  great  deal  and  he is  well  known, but he  does not limit himself  to  what  he  heard,  rather  he  includes  things  that  he  did not  hear.”  I  said  to  him,  “Should  he  be  narrated  from?”  He  said, “No.”                                   [See, Tareekh Baghdaad (5/325)]

Jareer ibn ‘Abd al-Hameed said concerning his brother Anas, “He should not be narrated from. He tells lies when he talks to people.”           [Al-Jarh wal-Ta’deel (2/289)]

Imam  al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) narrated  a  great  deal  in  his  Sahih  from  his Shaykh,  Muhammad  ibn  Yahya  al-Dhuhali  in  spite  of  the  harm  that he  was  subjected  to  as  a  result  of  a  misunderstanding  between  him and the Shaykh who forsook him. But that enmity did not prevent him from accepting and narrating his hadith.

They  would  accept  hadith  from  those  who  held  different opinions and beliefs to their own – if it was proven that (the narrator) was  honest  and  sincere.  The  fact  that  a  narrator  was  a  follower  of bid’ah did not prevent them from judging him on the basis of fairness, because  they  paid  heed  to  the  Words  of  Allah,  “O  you  who  believe! Stand  out  firmly  for  Allaah  as  just  witnesses;  and  let  not  the  enmity and  hatred  of  others  make  you avoid justice.  Be  just,  that  is  nearer  to piety,  and  fear  Allah. Verily,  Allaah  is Well  Acquainted with  what  you do.” [Surah al-Maidah 5:8]

Yahya ibn Ma’een (rahimahullah) was asked about Sa’eed ibn Khuthaym and he said,

“He  is  a  Kufi  and  there  is  nothing  wrong  with  him;  he  is trustworthy.”
It was said to Yahya, “Is he Shi’i?”
He said, “A trustworthy Shi’i, a trustworthy Qadari.” [Tahdheeb  al-Kamaal  (10/414)]

Abbaad  ibn  Ya’qoob  al-Rawaajini  al-Kufi  was  a  fanatical  Shi’i,  but despite that Ibn Khuzaymah said in his Sahih (2/376), “The  one  who  is trustworthy  in  his  narration  but  dubious  in  his religious commitment, ‘Abbaad ibn Ya’qoob, told us… ”

Thirdly:  Just  as  they  understood  the  seriousness  of  tarnishing people’s  honour  unlawfully,  they  also  understood  the  seriousness  of speaking  badly  about  any  of  the  narrators,  because  it  could  affect  the issue of accepting or rejecting the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) from  them.  Muhammad  ibn  Sireen (rahimahullah)  said,  “This  knowledge  is  the (foundation  of)  religion,  so  watch  from  whom  you  learn  your religion.”  [Narrated by Muslim in the Introduction to his Sahih]

Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid said,

“The  honour  of  the  Muslims  is  a  pit  of  Hellfire.  Two  groups are  standing  at  the  edge  of  this  pit;  the  muhadditheen  and  the judges.”         [See: Tadreeb al-Raawi (2/369)]

Such great  piety  and  awareness  must  inevitably have  a  great  effect  of fairness  and  seeking  to  be  right  when  judging  narrators.  This  is  what was  stipulated  by  the  scholars  for  everyone  who  wants  to  examine narrators and pass judgement concerning them.

Al-Dhahabi said in al-Mooqizah (82),

“Judging narrators requires a great deal of piety and freedom from  whims  and  desires  and  bias,  along  with  complete experience in the science of hadeeth and the faults and narrators thereof.” 

Al-Mu’allimi (rahimahullah) said in al-Tankeel (1/54),

“The  imams  of  hadith  are  knowledgeable  and  careful, andthey  strive  to  avoid  mistakes,  but  they  differ  with  regard  to that.”  

Fourthly:  Yes,  none  of  them  is  infallible  and  it  is  possible  that  there may be mistakes in what some of them say. It is also possible that the cause  of  some  of  these  mistakes  may  be  love  or  hate  for  someone. Some  things  of  that  nature  did  indeed  happen,  for  no  human  being can  be  entirely  free  of  that.  But  that  should  not  be  a  reason  for doubting all of their judgements, and this is for the following reasons:

1  – Because these are a few mistakes when compared with the great  legacy  that  the  leading  scholars  of  hadith  and al-jarh  wa’l-ta’deel  have  left  behind,  the  vast  majority  of which  is  based  on  honesty  and  fairness,  so  it  is  unfair  to overlook that because of a few mistakes.

2  –  Because  the  scholars  highlighted  these  mistakes  and pointed them out in their comments. Whatever the motive was,  whether  it  was  enmity,  envy  or  a  difference  of madhhab, they would reject unfair judgements and would issue fair judgements concerning a specific narrator.

Hence none of the scholars accepted the view of Imam Malik (rahmatullah alayh) concerning  Muhammad  ibn  Ishaaq,  the  author  of  al-Maghaazi,  that he  was one of the  fabricators,  when  they  realized  that  this  statement was  based  on  resentment  and  personal  reasons;  rather  they  judged him  as  “hasan  al-hadith”  (i.e.,  a  good  narrator)  and  the  leading scholars  of  hadith  used  his  reports  as  evidence.  And  they  did  not accept the view of al-Nasaa’i concerning Ahmad ibn Salih al-Masri, or the  view  of  Rabi’ah  concerning  Abu’l-Zinnaad  ‘Abd-Allaah  ibn Dhakwaan. [See, al-Raf’ wa’l-Takmeel (409-432)].

Abu Hatim al-Raazi (rahimahullah) said,

“There has never been in any nation since Allah created Adam (alayhissalaam), safekeepers  who preserve the  legacy of the Messengers except in this  ummah.  A  man  said  to  him,  “O  Abu  Hatim,  perhaps  there were  narrations  which  have  no  basis  and  are  not  sound?”  He said,    “Their scholars will recognize the sound from the unsound. So  they  preserved  this  science  (of  hadeeth)  so  that  the  people who  came  after  them  were  able  to  distinguish  between  reports and  preserve  them.”  Then  he  said.  “May  Allah  have  mercy  on Abu Zur’ah; by Allah he strove very hard to preserve the legacy of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).”        [Sharaf Ashaab al-Hadith (43)]

You should understand that Allah has  preserved  this religion  by  His  grace  and  blessing  and  that  the Sunnah  has  been  preserved  as  Allah guaranteed  to  preserve  His  religion.  So  it  is not  possible  for  the  scholars  to unanimously agree to authenticate  a weak narrator  or  to  criticize  or  condemn  a sound narrator. Rather you will inevitably find  that  truthfulness  and  fairness  are very  apparent  in  the  views  of  the  majority of scholars and in most issues of religion.

Imam  al-Dhahabi  (rahimahullah)  said  in  al-Mooqizah (84),

“The  same  Imam  may  be  more  generous  or  more kind  with  regard  to  a  report  that  is  in  accordance  with  his madhhab  or  the  madhhab  of  his  Shaykh  than  with  regard  to other  reports  that  say  the  opposite.  But  it  is  only  the  Prophets who are infallible.  But this religion  is  supported and protected by Allah, may He be  exalted,  and  its  scholars  will  never  agree  on  misguidance, either deliberately or by mistake. So no two scholars will agree on classing  a  weak  narrator  as  sound,  or  a  sound  narrator  as  weak. Rather  their  differences  will  be  with  regard  to  how  strong  or weak a narrator is.  The  one  who passes such judgements speaks on  the  basis  of  his  own  effort,  strength  and  knowledge.  If  it  so happens that  he  makes a  mistake in  judging,  then  he will have  a single reward. And Allah is the source of strength.” 

Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) said in al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (1/11),

“As  for  the  words  of  these  imams  who  took  on  this  task  (of examining  hadith),  they  should  be  accepted  without questioning  or  mentioning  the  reason  because  of  their knowledge  of  it  and  their  deep  understanding  of  this  field  and because  of  their  being  known  to  be  fair,  religiously  committed, experienced  and  sincere,  especially  if  they  agree  unanimously that a narrator is weak, or matrook (to be ignored) or a liar and so on.  The  skilled  muhaddith  will  not hesitate  to  agree  with  them  when they  take  a  decision  of  that  nature because  of  their  honesty, trustworthiness  and  sincerity.  Hence  al-Shafi’i (rahimahullah) said  in  many  instances  when commenting  on  Ahadith,  “None  of  the scholars would regard this hadith as sound,” so he would reject it and not quote it as evidence on that basis.” 

Finally, one should be content with the blessing that Allah has bestowed  upon  this  ummah  by  means  of  this  noble  branch  of knowledge, and do not get carried away with doubts about the sahih ahadith.  Reason  dictates  that  we  should  not  reject  the  efforts  of thousands of sincere scholars throughout the centuries on the basis of a  few  mistakes  here  and  there.  To  appreciate  the  science  of  Hadith verification,  one  must  strive  to  read  the  numerous  books  on  the subject,  and  one  cannot  help  but  be  astonished  by  the  huge  efforts that  were  put  into  verifying  a  single  hadith

Even  the  Orientalist Margoliouth said, “The Muslims may boast about their science of hadith.”

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).