Khawarij and Their Ideology

[LordJames]

As discussed with @BouncerGuy, I am sick of Sanghees polluting threads so I will be acting on his advice and reporting every post by a Sanghi to keep this conversation intact.

My focus is to discuss Khawarij (historically) and their modern incarnations of ISIS, TTP and their impact on Pakistan and its security.​

I am fairly disturbed by what I have discovered from people at a high level in Pakistan and I would like to extend my apology to @emranabbas @IronShield @The Bald Eagle @ElRaja @Major and others because I made certain statements about Taliban-Pakistan relationships which I now know to be wrong because I didn't know the full facts.

I will explain that later as we progress, so Khawarij...

 

[LordJames]

15 Characteristics of the Khawarij​

1. They are mostly young in age.
2. They are immature.
3. They quote the Quran and Hadith to their perverted purposes.
4. They do not have a deep understanding of Islam.
5. They show unnecessary excessiveness in their acts of worship.
6. They kill the believers and spare the idolaters.
7. They go to the extreme in religion until they abandon it.
8. They insult and defame Muslim leaders, declaring them to be misguided.
9. They appear in times of disunity and strife
10. The Khawarij do not hold the scholars and people of knowledge in high esteem if their opinions do not conform with theirs.
11. They quote verses about fighting the idolaters to justify their fight against the believers.
12. The Khawarij accuse of apostasy the people who oppose their opinion and stance, and consider it legal (halal) to kill them.
13. The Khawarij advocate violent opposition of oppressive Muslim leaders.
14. They disagree amongst each other to the point of dividing into several sects and attacking each other.
15. They abuse the Islamic principle of Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice (Al-Amr bi Al-Ma‘ruf wa Al-Nahi ‘an Al-Munkar) and manipulate the proofs in the Quran and Sunnah to justify recourse to violence.

This is a good article but published in a "Salafi magazine" and they use the points in RED to forbid criticizing the rulers in the middle east when they legibility need to be criticized, for example on their inaction on Palestine and collusion on Israel.

The Kahawarij excel in Islamic acts of piety and worship and are extra diligent.

 

[LordJames]

Narrated `Aisha: Whenever Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was given the choice of one of two matters, he would choose the easier of the two, as long as it was not sinful to do so, but if it was sinful to do so, he would not approach it. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) never took revenge (over anybody) for his own sake but (he did) only when Allah's Legal Bindings were outraged in which case he would take revenge for Allah's Sake [Bukhari]

Sign of Khawarij:

Always taking the tougher, harder, harsher option when the Sunnah is to take the easier option in permissible matters

 

[Stewie]

DO they have a historical origin or background?

 

[topspin]

A good example of the Khawarij are the Arabs who revolted against the Ottoman rulers. I'm not saying the Ottomans were perfect, they were far from it and had their fair share of flaws.

What we are witnessing in the ME today is a result of what happens when you backstab your brother in the Ummah. Palestine was under the rule of Muslims but the Arabs thought "why would a Turk rule over us for hundreds of years".

The Ummah is suffering because of some Arab traitors who are still in power in the Arab peninsula.

 

[IronShield]

A good example of the Khawarij are the Arabs who revolted against the Ottoman rulers. I'm not saying the Ottomans were perfect, they were far from it and had their fair share of flaws.

What we are witnessing in the ME today is a result of what happens when you backstab your brother in the Ummah. Palestine was under the rule of Muslims but the Arabs thought "why would a Turk rule over us for hundreds of years".

The Ummah is suffering because of some Arab traitors who are still in power in the Arab peninsula.

And they were right. Why should they be ruled over by someone living in Istanbul. There is no concept of dynastic kingship in Islam.... unless ofcourse you are Shia.

 

[topspin]

And they were right. Why should they be ruled over by someone living in Istanbul. There is no concept of dynastic kingship in Islam.... unless ofcourse you are Shia.

I'm a Sunni. Unlike you I'm not going to make assumptions about what you follow but what I will say is you're part of the problem since it appears that you're passively justifying how they backstabbed the Ottomans.

In case you didn't know, after the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the land got split up into dozens of countries by the Allies (Britian, France and Russia) and then we wonder why the Ummah is so divided and weak.

Justifying this is exactly what I would expect from a khawarij.

 

[LordJames]

A good example of the Khawarij are the Arabs who revolted against the Ottoman rulers. I'm not saying the Ottomans were perfect, they were far from it and had their fair share of flaws.

What we are witnessing in the ME today is a result of what happens when you backstab your brother in the Ummah. Palestine was under the rule of Muslims but the Arabs thought "why would a Turk rule over us for hundreds of years".

The Ummah is suffering because of some Arab traitors who are still in power in the Arab peninsula.

And they were right. Why should they be ruled over by someone living in Istanbul. There is no concept of dynastic kingship in Islam.... unless ofcourse you are Shia.

Shia and Sunni both believe in the Qur'aan:

[4:59] O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

The Arabs committed a sin by rebelling against the Caliphate and it is clear cut. I have deliberately split the verse and notice the subtlety between the first part and the second part.

DO they have a historical origin or background?

Will research and write on this later, InshaAllah.

 

[topspin]

Shia and Sunni both believe in the Qur'aan:

[4:59] O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

The Arabs committed a sin by rebelling against the Caliphate and it is clear cut. I have deliberately split the verse and notice the subtlety between the first part and the second part.


Will research and write on this later, InshaAllah.

Well said. Do you think the ones who rebelled meet the definition of a Khawariji?

 

[LordJames]

Well said. Do you think the ones who rebelled meet the definition of a Khawariji?

Although the Arabs rebelled against the Ottomans and also did mass Takfeer (declaring people Kaafir) which is the bedrock of Khawarij'ism, the Muslim scholars have not unanimously declared them to be Khawarij.

You have of course, dozens of Arab and non-Arab Scholars who call them "Wahabees, Najdees, Khawarij" etc and have dozens of books and articles etc. The reality is that the offshoot of that movement is Modern "Salafiyyah" which is split into branches each with its own distinct identity:

1. Purist Salafis
2. Jihadi Salafis
3. Reformist Salafis
4. Madkhali Salafis
5. "Neo-Salafis"

etc etc etc

These are not official branches but the type of scholars and Islam people tend to gravitate towards.

The Indian/Pakistani people lazily call them all "Wahabees" or "Salafees" or "Wobblers (the common British slang)" etc...

The Key distinction of Khawarij is that they rebel against rulers without them renouncing Islam. The "Madkhali Salafes" are the opposite e.g. cling to the ruler and refuse to criticize them no matter what! On the Sufi side, you have Hamza Yusuf etc who do the same to the rulers of UAE

This is the exact opposite of Khawarij thought which is "Madkhali Salafism" of modern day Saudia Arabia

 

[shamaan]

Most khawarij/salafi call people mushriks and destroy graves.

 

[shamaan]

Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will be division and sectarianism in my nation, and a people will come with beautiful words and evil deeds. They will recite the Quran, but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target, and they will not return to it as the arrow does not return to its bow. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them.”Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will be division and sectarianism in my nation, and a people will come with beautiful words and evil deeds. They will recite the Quran, but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target, and they will not return to it as the arrow does not return to its bow. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them.”

 

[Stewie]

Very interesting debate. It is believed that those who opposed the khulfa Rashidun were also khawarij, with all due respect to those Shia brothers who may disagree with this assessment. I honestly don’t know much of their origins which is why I asked the OP if he had some background on this subject.

 

[Boyka]

It’s hard to call any group Khawarij because they are still seen as believers, so each group can call another Khawarij.

ISIS are the perfect example.

With regard to Pakistan, the political, military, and the economic capital is provided by Punjab and Punjabis. If a Pathan like IK comes along it’s obviously a challenge to the hegemony. There’s an ethnic and religious discord with the host population. I think integrating Afghans into Pakistan is not a great idea.

What is your opinion on this? @LordJames

 

[Stewie]

It’s hard to call any group Khawarij because they are still seen as believers, so each group can call another Khawarij.

ISIS are the perfect example.

With regard to Pakistan, the political, military, and the economic capital is provided by Punjab and Punjabis. If a Pathan like IK comes along it’s obviously a challenge to the hegemony. There’s an ethnic and religious discord with the host population. I think integrating Afghans into Pakistan is not a great idea.

What is your opinion on this? @LordJames

So basically it’s not as such a movement. Khawarij are elements who use and distort Islam to achieve their own twisted goals and their philosophy and agenda have nothing to do with faith. They are inadvertently or intentionally just using it?

 

[IronShield]

Shia and Sunni both believe in the Qur'aan:

[4:59] O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

The Arabs committed a sin by rebelling against the Caliphate and it is clear cut. I have deliberately split the verse and notice the subtlety between the first part and the second part.


Will research and write on this later, InshaAllah.

Ottomans were not Caliphs by any stretch of the imagination. They were kings who were muslims. The greatest act of self harm to muslims was when the Safavid's forcibly converted Persia (modern day Iran), a majority muslim population to Shiaism. Thereby Sunni Islam losing one of its greatest seats of learning and scholarly thought, leaving space for the Salafis to fill in Arabia.

Khwarij and their offshoots are easily spotted by their cruelty in thought and deed when push comes to shove.

 

[shamaan]

Ibn Majah (173) narrated that Ibn Abi Awfa said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.” (Classed as sahih by al-Albani in Sahih Ibn Majah)

 

[LordJames]

Ottomans were not Caliphs by any stretch of the imagination. They were kings who were muslims. The greatest act of self harm to muslims was when the Safavid's forcibly converted Persia (modern day Iran), a majority muslim population to Shiaism. Thereby Sunni Islam losing one of its greatest seats of learning and scholarly thought, leaving space for the Salafis to fill in Arabia.

Khwarij and their offshoots are easily spotted by their cruelty in thought and deed when push comes to shove.

I do not believe that you are correct from historical and Jurisprudence perspective but discussing this will take the argument in a different and sectarian direction.

You are a Shia and have strong opinions about Sunni Ottomans, fine and power to you my Brother.

But the Sunni or Shia Scholars have never expressed this opinion that Ottoman Empire was not a Caliphate even the ones who revolted against them accepted them as a Caliphate but there reasons for disobeying the Sunni Caliph were different but didn't make the same argument that you are making.

So in summary, even the ones who revolted didn't deny the legitimacy of Ottoman Empire

 

[LordJames]

DO they have a historical origin or background?

So basically it’s not as such a movement. Khawarij are elements who use and distort Islam to achieve their own twisted goals and their philosophy and agenda have nothing to do with faith. They are inadvertently or intentionally just using it?

General Characteristics of the Khawārij in the Sunnah

The Prophet ﷺ warned about the rise of a group called the Khawārij. Their main traits include:

• Literal interpretation of Qur’ān and Sunnah, ignoring background and wisdom.
• Harshness and zeal, especially among youth.
• Excessive outward acts of worship, but shallow understanding.
• Declaring Muslims as disbelievers (takfīr).
• Attacking Muslims more than non-Muslims.

The Assassination of Caliph ʿUthmān (RA)

• On June 17, 656 CE, the third Caliph, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān (RA), was assassinated.
• He (RA) was a gentle, soft-spoken man, loved by many. He was married to two of the Prophet’s ﷺ daughters (Ruqayyah and then Umm Kulthūm).
• A group of mainly young rebels accused him of nepotism and corruption.
• They besieged his house. Despite calls to fight back, ʿUthmān (RA) refused bloodshed.
• In his old age, while reciting Qur’ān, he was killed, the first assassination in Islam by those claiming virtue through their own misguided interpretation of religion.

The Egyptian Questioner and Ibn ʿUmar (RA)

One example of zealous literalism without context is recorded in the authentic books:

• An Egyptian man came for Ḥajj and saw people from Quraysh sitting. He asked: “Who is the old man among them?” They said: “ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar (RA).”
• The man asked him three questions about ʿUthmān (RA):
  • “Didn’t he flee at Uḥud?” Ibn ʿUmar: “Yes.”
  • “Wasn’t he absent at Badr?” Ibn ʿUmar: “Yes.”
  • “Didn’t he miss the pledge at Ḥudaybiyyah?” Ibn ʿUmar: “Yes.”
• The man shouted “Allāhu Akbar!” thinking these were proofs against ʿUthmān.
• Ibn ʿUmar (RA) calmly explained:
  • At Uḥud, Allah revealed {Indeed Allah has pardoned you} (Āl ʿImrān 3:155).
  • At Badr, his wife (the Prophet’s daughter) was sick. The Prophet ﷺ said: “You will have the reward and share of Badr if you stay with her.”
  • At Ḥudaybiyyah, the Prophet ﷺ sent ʿUthmān as his envoy. When the pledge was made, the Prophet ﷺ placed his right hand on his left and said: “This is for ʿUthmān.”

Ibn ʿUmar (RA) told the man: “Take these explanations with you.” In some narrations he added: “Go back and tell others,” meaning to undo the damage of misinterpretation.

(References: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī #3698, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim #2500)

The Caliphate of ʿAlī (RA) and the Rise of the Khawārij

1. After ʿUthmān’s death, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (RA) became Caliph.
2. He prioritized stability and unity before punishing ʿUthmān’s killers, because society was unstable.
3. The family of ʿUthmān, led by Muʿāwiyah (RA), disagreed — they wanted immediate justice.
4. Though tensions rose, both sides negotiated through senior companions.

The Zealots’ Slogan

• A group of young zealots rejected this arbitration, raising the motto: “Judgment belongs to Allah alone.”
• This group became known as the Khawārij.

Ibn ʿAbbās (RA) Debates the Khawārij

• ʿAlī (RA) sent ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās (RA), cousin of the Prophet ﷺ, to debate them.
• He found them to be intense in worship (fasting, prayer, recitation) but shallow in understanding.
• Out of about 6,000 Khawārij, nearly 2,000 repented after his reasoning. The rest fought and were defeated.

Defining Traits of the Khawārij

From these early events, the Khawārij are known for:

• Literal reading of Qur’ān and Sunnah without proper context.
• Rejecting and insulting senior scholars and companions.
• Claiming exclusive correctness, declaring others wrong or disbelievers.
• Hostility toward Muslims, more than toward non-Muslims.
• Assassinating and killing Muslims in the name of “purity.”

This was the first extremist sect in Islam, rising from youthful zeal without knowledge, and their traits continue to appear throughout Muslim history.

Very interesting debate. It is believed that those who opposed the khulfa Rashidun were also khawarij, with all due respect to those Shia brothers who may disagree with this assessment. I honestly don’t know much of their origins which is why I asked the OP if he had some background on this subject.

It’s hard to call any group Khawarij because they are still seen as believers, so each group can call another Khawarij.

ISIS are the perfect example.

With regard to Pakistan, the political, military, and the economic capital is provided by Punjab and Punjabis. If a Pathan like IK comes along it’s obviously a challenge to the hegemony. There’s an ethnic and religious discord with the host population. I think integrating Afghans into Pakistan is not a great idea.

What is your opinion on this? @LordJames

These points are unfortunately correct! Throughout history, both Sunni and Shia and others have accused each other of being "Khawarij" because what we have in tradition are a bunch of signs and depending on who has the power the powerful side can stick a label on the other and accuse them of being Khawarij. In the Mawlid thread @Justcrazy and @Suleiman are explicitly called "Salafi zealots" and implicitly "Kahwarij" because they are arguing against Mawlid.

There is a line between "Salafism" and "Khawarij" and it is possible for a person to cross and join the ranks on the other side and a person has to be onguard of that. Generally, on Forums and talks (and assumed by Security agencies) many Salafees are labelled as "Khawarij" or understood be on the first step in the ladder to being from the Khawarij, majority of Salafi Muslims never cross it and just keep on practising on the apparent not literal understanding of Islam.

Then there have been some examples in recent history which sheds light on certain characteristics which are ever present in their behavior, understanding and actions

1979: Siege of Kabah:

Juhayman al-Otaybi, although the opinion is still divided in Saudi Arabia if he was from Kahwarij but he:

1. Rejected the mainstream understanding of Islam and disagreed with traditional understanding
2. Considered masses of Muslims to be misguided (and apostates)
3. Considered himself to be "Mahdi"
4. 1, 2 & 3 enabled him to take over Kabah and murder Muslims during pilgrimage

Assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Saadat:

Muhammad Anwar es-Sadat was assassinated on October 06, 1981 by Lieutenant Khalid Al-Islambuli of 17th Artillery Regiment of Egyptian Army.

Lieutenant Khalid Al-Islambuli was part of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who:
​

1. Declared Muhammad Anwar es-Sadat as apostate​
2. Thus making his blood Halal and then killing him!​

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto:​

"Possible" link to TTP

ISIS (Levant Region)
ISKP (Afghanistan)

TTP (Pakistan): Remember before the 2014 APS Peshawar massacre, TTP was considered a bunch of weirdos in Pakistan with many scholars and Muslims defending them! It was the barbarity which shook the nation and forced scholars to distance themselves and issue clear cut Fatwas!

Before 2014 there was dispute in Pakistan as to who is a "Shaheed", TTP people or Pak Army or both!​

 

[Stewie]

General Characteristics of the Khawārij in the Sunnah

The Prophet ﷺ warned about the rise of a group called the Khawārij. Their main traits include:

• Literal interpretation of Qur’ān and Sunnah, ignoring background and wisdom.
• Harshness and zeal, especially among youth.
• Excessive outward acts of worship, but shallow understanding.
• Declaring Muslims as disbelievers (takfīr).
• Attacking Muslims more than non-Muslims.

The Assassination of Caliph ʿUthmān (RA)

• On June 17, 656 CE, the third Caliph, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān (RA), was assassinated.
• He (RA) was a gentle, soft-spoken man, loved by many. He was married to two of the Prophet’s ﷺ daughters (Ruqayyah and then Umm Kulthūm).
• A group of mainly young rebels accused him of nepotism and corruption.
• They besieged his house. Despite calls to fight back, ʿUthmān (RA) refused bloodshed.
• In his old age, while reciting Qur’ān, he was killed, the first assassination in Islam by those claiming virtue through their own misguided interpretation of religion.

The Egyptian Questioner and Ibn ʿUmar (RA)

One example of zealous literalism without context is recorded in the authentic books:

• An Egyptian man came for Ḥajj and saw people from Quraysh sitting. He asked: “Who is the old man among them?” They said: “ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar (RA).”
• The man asked him three questions about ʿUthmān (RA):
  • “Didn’t he flee at Uḥud?” Ibn ʿUmar: “Yes.”
  • “Wasn’t he absent at Badr?” Ibn ʿUmar: “Yes.”
  • “Didn’t he miss the pledge at Ḥudaybiyyah?” Ibn ʿUmar: “Yes.”
• The man shouted “Allāhu Akbar!” thinking these were proofs against ʿUthmān.
• Ibn ʿUmar (RA) calmly explained:
  • At Uḥud, Allah revealed {Indeed Allah has pardoned you} (Āl ʿImrān 3:155).
  • At Badr, his wife (the Prophet’s daughter) was sick. The Prophet ﷺ said: “You will have the reward and share of Badr if you stay with her.”
  • At Ḥudaybiyyah, the Prophet ﷺ sent ʿUthmān as his envoy. When the pledge was made, the Prophet ﷺ placed his right hand on his left and said: “This is for ʿUthmān.”

Ibn ʿUmar (RA) told the man: “Take these explanations with you.” In some narrations he added: “Go back and tell others,” meaning to undo the damage of misinterpretation.

(References: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī #3698, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim #2500)

The Caliphate of ʿAlī (RA) and the Rise of the Khawārij

1. After ʿUthmān’s death, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (RA) became Caliph.
2. He prioritized stability and unity before punishing ʿUthmān’s killers, because society was unstable.
3. The family of ʿUthmān, led by Muʿāwiyah (RA), disagreed — they wanted immediate justice.
4. Though tensions rose, both sides negotiated through senior companions.

The Zealots’ Slogan

• A group of young zealots rejected this arbitration, raising the motto: “Judgment belongs to Allah alone.”
• This group became known as the Khawārij.

Ibn ʿAbbās (RA) Debates the Khawārij

• ʿAlī (RA) sent ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās (RA), cousin of the Prophet ﷺ, to debate them.
• He found them to be intense in worship (fasting, prayer, recitation) but shallow in understanding.
• Out of about 6,000 Khawārij, nearly 2,000 repented after his reasoning. The rest fought and were defeated.

Defining Traits of the Khawārij

From these early events, the Khawārij are known for:

• Literal reading of Qur’ān and Sunnah without proper context.
• Rejecting and insulting senior scholars and companions.
• Claiming exclusive correctness, declaring others wrong or disbelievers.
• Hostility toward Muslims, more than toward non-Muslims.
• Assassinating and killing Muslims in the name of “purity.”

This was the first extremist sect in Islam, rising from youthful zeal without knowledge, and their traits continue to appear throughout Muslim history.






These points are unfortunately correct! Throughout history, both Sunni and Shia and others have accused each other of being "Khawarij" because what we have in tradition are a bunch of signs and depending on who has the power the powerful side can stick a label on the other and accuse them of being Khawarij. In the Mawlid thread @Justcrazy and @Suleiman are explicitly called "Salafi zealots" and implicitly "Kahwarij" because they are arguing against Mawlid.

There is a line between "Salafism" and "Khawarij" and it is possible for a person to cross and join the ranks on the other side and a person has to be onguard of that. Generally, on Forums and talks (and assumed by Security agencies) many Salafees are labelled as "Khawarij" or understood be on the first step in the ladder to being from the Khawarij, majority of Salafi Muslims never cross it and just keep on practising on the apparent not literal understanding of Islam.

Then there have been some examples in recent history which sheds light on certain characteristics which are ever present in their behavior, understanding and actions

1979: Siege of Kabah:

Juhayman al-Otaybi, although the opinion is still divided in Saudi Arabia if he was from Kahwarij but he:

1. Rejected the mainstream understanding of Islam and disagreed with traditional understanding
2. Considered masses of Muslims to be misguided (and apostates)
3. Considered himself to be "Mahdi"
4. 1, 2 & 3 enabled him to take over Kabah and murder Muslims during pilgrimage

Assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Saadat:

Muhammad Anwar es-Sadat was assassinated on October 06, 1981 by Lieutenant Khalid Al-Islambuli of 17th Artillery Regiment of Egyptian Army.

Lieutenant Khalid Al-Islambuli was part of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who:
​

1. Declared Muhammad Anwar es-Sadat as apostate​
2. Thus making his blood Halal and then killing him!​

Assassination of Benazir Bhutto:​

"Possible" link to TTP

ISIS (Levant Region)
ISKP (Afghanistan)

TTP (Pakistan): Remember before the 2014 APS Peshawar massacre, TTP was considered a bunch of weirdos in Pakistan with many scholars and Muslims defending them! It was the barbarity which shook the nation and forced scholars to distance themselves and issue clear cut Fatwas!

Before 2014 there was dispute in Pakistan as to who is a "Shaheed", TTP people or Pak Army or both!​

While I admire your research and detailed response, I feel there is a need for a more precise and contextual definition needed in light of modern day global political landscape.

… if that requires direct finger pointing or naming of groups so be it.

I will begin: the house of saud and its utterly jaahil and extreme take on Islam with Wahhabism to me is a clear candidate for khawarij. The taliban, al qaeda, all the Arab sheikhs monarchs of the Middle East, ISIS and any other autocratic systems who are violating the will of their own people, including the Pakistani establishment etc, are all khawarij.

 

[ElRaja]

i got tagged here so ill give my two cents, the khwarijites are fundamentally, according to my understanding of early islamic political history, poltiical rebels to muawiya (and by extension any khalifa) on the grounds they believe the ordinary citizen has the right to cast judgement on the moral standards, and ellegibility of khalifas, whereas to my best understanding conventional sunny and wahhabi thought promotes the unity of the ummah over all other political concerns, including nitpicking on the legitimacy of the khalifa.

my own two cents, purely in a political context, falls on the sunni, wahabi side, it is evident from multiple historical accounts that a united front under morally questionable leadership outperforms division under the most morally upstanding leaders. morality has very little to do with political skill, and some of the best leaders in history of done some of the least moral stuff.

so when we come to the modern context, if u want to be technical about it, firstly qualify whether a leadership represents a union of muslims, which is not at odds with the muslim world as a whole, then question who seeks to bring down that leadership whilst believing they hold a higher standard of islam, morality, etc, then u will find the closest parallel to the khwarij of early islamic history.

 

[LordJames]

While I admire your research and detailed response, I feel there is a need for a more precise and contextual definition needed in light of modern day global political landscape.

… if that requires direct finger pointing or naming of groups so be it.

I will begin: the house of saud and its utterly jaahil and extreme take on Islam with Wahhabism to me is a clear candidate for khawarij. The taliban, al qaeda, all the Arab sheikhs monarchs of the Middle East, ISIS and any other autocratic systems who are violating the will of their own people, including the Pakistani establishment etc, are all khawarij.​

Putting all of these in the same basket is counterproductive but the issue is confusing for sure, for example:​

1. Taliban (of Afghanistan) are not killing their own people in Afghanistan, in fact serving them as best as they can.​
2. Taliban (of Afghanistan) are extremely tolerant of Shia/Sunni differences and have no placed no restrictions on anyone's religious worship​
3. Taliban (of Afghanistan) are also guilty of supporting TTP against Pakistan due to actions of Pakistan Army (against Afghan people) and their support for TTP is a genuine issue and needs to be addressed.
   1. Taliban (of Afghanistan) had no issues with Pakistan or its Government until General Parviaz Musharraf did a U-Turn on Foreign policy.​
4. Al-Qaeda have legitimate complaints against Arabs rulers, their corruption and lavish lifestyles hence hugely popular in the Arab world and do not target civilians either; nor have they issued Fatwas of Kuf'r against Muslims​
   1. Shaykh Abdullah Azzam (RA) was brought to Pakistan and taught in Pakistan and remained loyal to Pakistan until his assassination and Al-Qaeda was indebted to Pakistan and its people.​
   2. Al-Qaeda also had no issues with Pakistan or its Government until General Parviaz Musharraf did a U-Turn on Foreign policy.​
5. Ikhawnul-Muslimeen and other groups have never targeted any Muslims, nor issued Fatwas of Kuf'r against Muslims​
6. TTP always had issues with Pakistan, its people and its rulers from the outset and still does.​
7. BLA is a Secular organization and nothing to do with Islam and never take an Islamic position on anything​

So the shortcut to labeling people as "Khawarij" doesn't work without addressing the underlying issues. The reason shortcuts don't work is because the Youth who have actually studied "Islam" will see through lazy labeling and join these groups and the aim will be defeated.

Taliban (of Afghanistan) and Al-Qaeda of today are not blanket Khawarij although those thoughts do exist and strands do cross these organizations.

TTP on the other hand are killing innocent Muslims and children for decades.
​

i got tagged here so ill give my two cents, the khwarijites are fundamentally, according to my understanding of early islamic political history, poltiical rebels to muawiya (and by extension any khalifa) on the grounds they believe the ordinary citizen has the right to cast judgement on the moral standards, and ellegibility of khalifas, whereas to my best understanding conventional sunny and wahhabi thought promotes the unity of the ummah over all other political concerns, including nitpicking on the legitimacy of the khalifa.

my own two cents, purely in a political context, falls on the sunni, wahabi side, it is evident from multiple historical accounts that a united front under morally questionable leadership outperforms division under the most morally upstanding leaders. morality has very little to do with political skill, and some of the best leaders in history of done some of the least moral stuff.

so when we come to the modern context, if u want to be technical about it, firstly qualify whether a leadership represents a union of muslims, which is not at odds with the muslim world as a whole, then question who seeks to bring down that leadership whilst believing they hold a higher standard of islam, morality, etc, then u will find the closest parallel to the khwarij of early islamic history.

True to a large extent and important point and Islam does recognise that.

A comptent leader even when is guilty of major sins is obeyed because he is eligible and fit for the Job.

I'm a Sunni. Unlike you I'm not going to make assumptions about what you follow but what I will say is you're part of the problem since it appears that you're passively justifying how they backstabbed the Ottomans.

In case you didn't know, after the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the land got split up into dozens of countries by the Allies (Britian, France and Russia) and then we wonder why the Ummah is so divided and weak.

Justifying this is exactly what I would expect from a khawarij.

Exactly this!

The collapse of morally questionale Ottoman Empire has led to morally bankrupt rulers and dozens of Nationstates.

Ottomans celebarted Mawlid so Muslims rebelled against them and now we have Saudees who don't celebrate Mawlid but unable to do anything about thousands of Muslims being salughetred on a weekly basis.

So make a choice:​

1. Mawlid OR​
2. Muslim Slaughter?​

​

 

[LordJames]

As discussed with @BouncerGuy, I am sick of Sanghees polluting threads so I will be acting on his advice and reporting every post by a Sanghi to keep this conversation intact.

My focus is to discuss Khawarij (historically) and their modern incarnations of ISIS, TTP and their impact on Pakistan and its security.​

I am fairly disturbed by what I have discovered from people at a high level in Pakistan and I would like to extend my apology to @emranabbas @IronShield @The Bald Eagle @ElRaja @Major and others because I made certain statements about Taliban-Pakistan relationships which I now know to be wrong because I didn't know the full facts.

I will explain that later as we progress, so Khawarij...

Problem:

A man or woman strapping bombs and blowing up civilians in Pakistan

What is needed?

1. Ideologically: To convince the Youngster who is motivated from Islamic sources that to kill an innocent civilian is a grave sin
2. Economically: To provide alternatives and to integrate them into National framework if their motivation is financial

Pakistan Army Solution:

Label everyone doing it "Khawarij"

Why Pakistan Army Solution doesn't work?

1. Often these youngsters "superficially" know more about religion then an average Muslim so a clickbait response does not work. This is the feedback from all the scholars who have worked on de-radicalization in the West
2. Without providing alternative financial and economic opportunities, no sermon can work!

What can work?

This is a fight which needs to be fought by the Scholars of Pakistan e.g. Mufti Taqi Usmani Saheb and other respectable scholars, nobody will take the words of YouTubers and forum goers seriously! This is what happened at the time of Sahaba (RA), they picked a well-known, well-established and worthy Scholar to speak to Khawarij

​

 

[LordJames]

Problem:

A man or woman strapping bombs and blowing up civilians in Pakistan

What is needed?​

1. Ideologically: To convince the Youngster who is motivated from Islamic sources that to kill an innocent civilian is a grave sin​
2. Economically: To provide alternatives and to integrate them into National framework if their motivation is financial​

Pakistan Army Solution:

Label everyone doing it "Khawarij"

Why Pakistan Army Solution doesn't work?​

1. Often these youngsters "superficially" know more about religion then an average Muslim so a clickbait response does not work. This is the feedback from all the scholars who have worked on de-radicalization in the West​
2. Without providing alternative financial and economic opportunities, no sermon can work!​

What can work?

This is a fight which needs to be fought by the Scholars of Pakistan e.g. Mufti Taqi Usmani Saheb and other respectable scholars, nobody will take the words of YouTubers and forum goers seriously! This is what happened at the time of Sahaba (RA), they picked a well-known, well-established and worthy Scholar to speak to Khawarij

​

What Pakistan Army can and should do?

As history is our witness (time and again), Academic discourse has never solved this issue and ultimately these zealots were defeated on the battlefield.

Khawarij were killed without compunction or hesitation and the Islamic rules are crystal clear in this regard.

If you choose to strap bombs or target Muslims then you will be targeted, hunted down and killed:​

1. The Intelligence agencies should be spared from Academic debates and knit picking and do its job of cutting off sources of funding and providing intelligence for operations​
2. The Army should be spared from Academic debates and knit picking and do its job at hunting down and eliminating Terrorist​

The consequences of picking up arms against Muslims and strapping bombs should be crystal clear to everyone who chooses to take that path!
​

 

[Stewie]

Putting all of these in the same basket is counterproductive but the issue is confusing for sure, for example:​

1. Taliban (of Afghanistan) are not killing their own people in Afghanistan, in fact serving them as best as they can.​
2. Taliban (of Afghanistan) are extremely tolerant of Shia/Sunni differences and have no placed no restrictions on anyone's religious worship​
3. Taliban (of Afghanistan) are also guilty of supporting TTP against Pakistan due to actions of Pakistan Army (against Afghan people) and their support for TTP is a genuine issue and needs to be addressed.
   1. Taliban (of Afghanistan) had no issues with Pakistan or its Government until General Parviaz Musharraf did a U-Turn on Foreign policy.​
4. Al-Qaeda have legitimate complaints against Arabs rulers, their corruption and lavish lifestyles hence hugely popular in the Arab world and do not target civilians either; nor have they issued Fatwas of Kuf'r against Muslims​
   1. Shaykh Abdullah Azzam (RA) was brought to Pakistan and taught in Pakistan and remained loyal to Pakistan until his assassination and Al-Qaeda was indebted to Pakistan and its people.​
   2. Al-Qaeda also had no issues with Pakistan or its Government until General Parviaz Musharraf did a U-Turn on Foreign policy.​
5. Ikhawnul-Muslimeen and other groups have never targeted any Muslims, nor issued Fatwas of Kuf'r against Muslims​
6. TTP always had issues with Pakistan, its people and its rulers from the outset and still does.​
7. BLA is a Secular organization and nothing to do with Islam and never take an Islamic position on anything​

So the shortcut to labeling people as "Khawarij" doesn't work without addressing the underlying issues. The reason shortcuts don't work is because the Youth who have actually studied "Islam" will see through lazy labeling and join these groups and the aim will be defeated.

Taliban (of Afghanistan) and Al-Qaeda of today are not blanket Khawarij although those thoughts do exist and strands do cross these organizations.

TTP on the other hand are killing innocent Muslims and children for decades.
​

True to a large extent and important point and Islam does recognise that.

A comptent leader even when is guilty of major sins is obeyed because he is eligible and fit for the Job.



Exactly this!

The collapse of morally questionale Ottoman Empire has led to morally bankrupt rulers and dozens of Nationstates.

Ottomans celebarted Mawlid so Muslims rebelled against them and now we have Saudees who don't celebrate Mawlid but unable to do anything about thousands of Muslims being salughetred on a weekly basis.

So make a choice:​

1. Mawlid OR​
2. Muslim Slaughter?​

​

Wait- Taliban and Al Qaeda have never targeted civilians? Seriously? Lol

 

[LordJames]

Wait- Taliban and Al Qaeda have never targeted civilians? Seriously? Lol​

There is a difference in Islamic Fiqh (discussed dozens of times by Al-Qaeda in their publications) in:​

1. Deliberately, clearly and directly targeting civilians​
2. Civilians being hurt as a result of an operation and as collateral damage ​

Mainstream Islamic Scholarship deems both to be impermissible.

Al-Qaeda follows the 2nd opinion to be correct.

So I understand your mocking but in order to understand an issue, you need to understand the issue from the other perspective.

Thanks​

 

[IronShield]

I do not believe that you are correct from historical and Jurisprudence perspective but discussing this will take the argument in a different and sectarian direction.

You are a Shia and have strong opinions about Sunni Ottomans, fine and power to you my Brother.

But the Sunni or Shia Scholars have never expressed this opinion that Ottoman Empire was not a Caliphate even the ones who revolted against them accepted them as a Caliphate but there reasons for disobeying the Sunni Caliph were different but didn't make the same argument that you are making.

So in summary, even the ones who revolted didn't deny the legitimacy of Ottoman Empire

Regards to Ottomans - I think you need to look into the Ottoman Empire with a more objective viewpoint. They carried out fratricide upon succession amongst one of the many unislamic practises, this is just one example. Just because someone is a king and they have a Muslim name, does not make them righteous leader of all muslims. There were several muslim dynasties in several places, Safavids in Iran and the Mughuls in India to name but two.

No, I am not a Shia. I do not believe that some people are special and divinely appointed or incapable of making mistakes. You clearly misunderstood my posts. The Safavids forcibly converting a majority sunni population of Persia into Shias is part of the sad demise of intellectual Islam. How many of the calibre of Al Gazalis came after once the Safavids took power in modern day Iran?

Yes revolt in ended ottoman rule, but it was on its knees at the point anyway.

 

[LordJames]

Regards to Ottomans - I think you need to look into the Ottoman Empire with a more objective viewpoint. They carried out fratricide upon succession amongst one of the many unislamic practises, this is just one example. Just because someone is a king and they have a Muslim name, does not make them righteous leader of all muslims. There were several muslim dynasties in several places, Safavids in Iran and the Mughuls in India to name but two.

No, I am not a Shia. I do not believe that some people are special and divinely appointed or incapable of making mistakes. You clearly misunderstood my posts. The Safavids forcibly converting a majority sunni population of Persia into Shias is part of the sad demise of intellectual Islam. How many of the calibre of Al Gazalis came after once the Safavids took power in modern day Iran?

Yes revolt in ended ottoman rule, but it was on its knees at the point anyway.

Dear Brother @IronShield​

Don't want to tell you my background and identity...but in my opinion the issue with the Ottomans & Persians is a different topic altogether to what we are discussing. I wholeheartedly agree with underlined points but have two questions:

• Who told you that Sunni Caliph (Khalifa) is a divinely appointed position or incapable of making mistakes? Do you know that he can be impeached as per Qur'aan and Sunnah? Although, practically you are more likely to lose your head if you try! ​
• What is the result of abolishing the Ottoman Empire 100 years later? Are Muslims better or worse, today? ​

Thanks

On the part in RED, ideally we want an honest, morally upright pious and competent ruler but in practice we get what we get!​

i got tagged here so ill give my two cents, the khwarijites are fundamentally, according to my understanding of early islamic political history, poltiical rebels to muawiya (and by extension any khalifa) on the grounds they believe the ordinary citizen has the right to cast judgement on the moral standards, and ellegibility of khalifas, whereas to my best understanding conventional sunny and wahhabi thought promotes the unity of the ummah over all other political concerns, including nitpicking on the legitimacy of the khalifa.

my own two cents, purely in a political context, falls on the sunni, wahabi side, it is evident from multiple historical accounts that a united front under morally questionable leadership outperforms division under the most morally upstanding leaders. morality has very little to do with political skill, and some of the best leaders in history of done some of the least moral stuff.

so when we come to the modern context, if u want to be technical about it, firstly qualify whether a leadership represents a union of muslims, which is not at odds with the muslim world as a whole, then question who seeks to bring down that leadership whilst believing they hold a higher standard of islam, morality, etc, then u will find the closest parallel to the khwarij of early islamic history.

@ElRaja makes a very important point here...

 

[Stewie]

There is a difference in Islamic Fiqh (discussed dozens of times by Al-Qaeda in their publications) in:​

1. Deliberately, clearly and directly targeting civilians​
2. Civilians being hurt as a result of an operation and as collateral damage ​

Mainstream Islamic Scholarship deems both to be impermissible.

Al-Qaeda follows the 2nd opinion to be correct.

So I understand your mocking but in order to understand an issue, you need to understand the issue from the other perspective.

Thanks​

I don’t need to study Islamic fiqh when Quran says there is no worst sin than taking the life of an innocent human. I am sorry but I don’t AT ALL prescribe to the same beliefs as you in this matter. I won’t defend Al Qaeda or Taliban. They are the worst of Muslims and their methods have directly resulted in a lot of problems Muslims face around the world today.

 

[LordJames]

I don’t need to study Islamic fiqh when Quran says there is no worst sin than taking the life of an innocent human. I am sorry but I don’t AT ALL prescribe to the same beliefs as you in this matter. I won’t defend Al Qaeda or Taliban. They are the worst of Muslims and their methods have directly resulted in a lot of problems Muslims face around the world today.

Not defending it at all.

In order to fight something, you need to understand it from their perspective and their Islamic evidence and this issue is discussed dozens of times by Al-Qaeda.​