Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The Technical Meaning of the Term "Khawarij" pt. 2


Now, to study the technical definition of "Khawarij" from the perspective of some Shia scholars (who I will admit, I am generally less familiar with). Sheikh Muhammad Abduh [Nahju Al-Balagha Vol. 1, pg 78] attempts to explain the concept of what the Khawarij are more clearly than Sunni scholars by saying "the Mariqun [Khawarij] are those who have gone out of the religion, who have doubt and who are not sure, and he [Ali] crushed them with arguments and defeated them!"


To go out from the religion I personally would have to consider a Muslim to a. either commit extreme shirk of worshipping something other than Allah, b. to disregard the sunnah of the Prophet Mohamed sallalahu alahi wa salaam as being part of the religion, c. to give up prayer, ect. We know from history, that this is not so of the people of Nahrawaan. And if you are Shia, you will know this because Ali himself said they were not infidels/disbelievers.


To have doubt, to me personally, means, that the people of Nahrawaan's belief in Allah and the hereafter was weak. This is not evidenced at all, and is contradicted entirely for any Shia scholar who would state it is so by Ali's own statement about the people of Nahrawaan: "From infidelity they have already fled; and a hypocrite seldom remembers Allah." [Al-Baihaqi Al-Kubra Vol. p. 334, narrative no. 17189]. Meaning, Ali himself in history acknowledged that the people of Nahrawaan remembered Allah frequently. In fact, the people of Nahrawaan are always mentioned as praying constantly, especially by Sahaba companion Ibn Abbas, and Ali.


As for whether or not Ali crushed them with arguments and defeated them, he did indeed defeat them in the skirmish battle at Nahrawaan. But with force, not arguments. To clarify this, from Ali himself : "They are the people who have rebelled against us, and we have been given victory over them." None of Ali's arguments changed the so-called Khawarijites opinion, for indeed, Ali himself had been of the same opinion as them originally about Muawiya's tactic of raising the Qu'ran copies on spearheads saying "what is between these pages is the judgement between you and us" to keep the war away from them awhile while they were at the disadvantage to Ali's forces. Short history lesson: Ali's side had ALREADY tried negotiating with Muawiya's side on NUMEROUS occasions. Ali was no fool and realized a pause in the fighting right now was advantageous to Muawiya. Originally, like the people of Nahrawaan, he did not wish to agree to this truce, but the majority of his fighters did so he changed his position. Historically sahih (from a Sunni perspective) ahadith also corroborate from Muawiyia's advisor Amru bin Al Alas himself that this was not a sincere act of truce, but a military tactic. "Let us raise copies of the Qu'ran on spearheads as a sign of wishing to end this war… so that we may stop Ali's forces and weaken their strength." [Al Yaaqubi Taarikh Al Yaaqubi, Vol. 2, p 188].


Ali would have been in no position to persuade the so-called Khawarijites with arguments, seeing as he had originally stood adamantly with them. In fact, the people of Nahrawaan's arguments were so compelling that companion Ibn Abaas was persuaded by them. It is my personal belief after reading all accounts from Sunni and Shia sources of the incident, that Ali would have preferred to stand on the same side of the fence as the people of Nahrawaan, who rejected the pseudo truce agreement shouting "There is no judgement except that of Allah." Except that it was NOT the wish of majority whom he led, and since it led to disunity he was quoted saying "That is the word of truth behind which wrong is intended." [Al Tabari Al Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 17 (and numerous others sources saying the same, both sunni and shia)].


If you believe that Ali was sinless like Mohamed salalahu alahi wa salaam (I do not), you would have to believe that by saying that Ali meant that the people of Nahrawaan were right, but that there was more to be considered than that alone. Or, authoobillahi minash shaytaani rajeem, astighfuraAllah, that Ali received Divine revelation from Allah (I totally DOOOOOOOOOO NOT and believe to believe so IS shirk). If you think it is meant literally, than this would be a mistake of Ali's as no man is allowed to judge or assume intention. I say this with authority because of the case that a disbeliever proclaimed "la ilaha il Allah" and a Sahabi slew him. When asked by Mohamed salalalhu alahi wa salaam why he did so, the Sahabi said, "He did not do so except in fear of the sword." The Prophet angrily asked him: "Have you split his heart to see what exists therein?" So without Divine revelation, no man can pass judgement on another man's intention.


We know that the action of the people of Nahrawaan were honest, and even Ali says it was the truth. They rejected the false truce under the same pretexts that Ali had given for the war having been justified in the beginning. Perhaps, later having reconsidered what he knew about judging intentions to be for Messengers and Allah alone, Ali came to rule his followers about the "khawarij": "Do not kill the Khawarij after me, for he who seeks the truth but mistakes is unlike he who seeks misguidance intentionally [Muawiyia and his Syrian forces]. Scholars will say that Ali speaks of Muawiyia as one who seeks misguidance intentionally, and the Khawarij as those who do so accidently, but I feel more Ali was speaking about his own followers, when they chose to make the truce in error. BTW, the last statement is biased so feel free to strike through if you like. This is me trying to give Ali an out for a mistake I believe history would have him make.


At least from Ali's opinion, and thus I must conclude what should be the Shia one regardless of what their scholars say, the Khawarij didn't leave Islam like they regard Muawiyia to have done. They still regard them as Muslims, but as Muslims who will not follow majority opinion if it contradicts what they know of Qu'ran.


I have not found a single Sunni source that can tie in the "what is Khawarij" with "who" the Khawarij are purported to be alas. Abu Dawood says of the people of Nahrawaan "They are no people who follow their prejudices… they are the people whose traditions are the most authentic" and even Ibn Taymiyya says: "they are well known to speaking the truth to the extent that the traditions narrated by them are the most authentic of all" [Minhaj Al Sunnah Vol. 3, pg. 3]. So much so for the old "they innovated" argument, then I guess.


CONCLUSION:


SUNNI: So the Sunni technical description of "Khawarij" is people who are adamant followers of the Prophet Mohamed's traditions and honest to the point of being highly quoted by all ahadith scholars, yet they [people of Nahrawaan] left Islam and created the first disunity (which they didn't) somehow by disregarding Ali's military decision which cannot be evidenced from any of their decisions/actions concerning creed and tauhid, especially when reading from the perspective of respected companion and sahabi Ibn Abaas.


BTW, I follow Ibn Abaas over a lot of Sunni Scholars. For instance, he said the eye rims [aka kohl applied in the rim of the eye, makeup of the time upon the Salaf] was halal and what is apparent of. Yet I've never read Saudi Sheikh Ibn Baaz say the same right? Ibn Abaas walked with Rasoolulah. I'm going to take his word first, unless the hadith is proven to be fabricated or inaccurate ect.


???? (This is KIND OF why I don't follow scholars blindly when I can have daleel [Islamic evidence] instead).


SHIA: The Khawarij are those who rebelled against Ali's majority forces' decision to accept Muawiyia's fake truce. They were neither the first callers of disunity, nor did they leave Islam, but their actions are regarded as an innocent but misinformed mistake. [This is me taking Imam Ali over Shia scholars because he's more authorative I'd figure].


OOOOOR Ali himself admits his forces majority were mistaken, as I concluded [not a shia though so my opinion here doesn't count].


IBADHI: The people of Nahrawaan did not go out of Islam, but defended it to the letter even from their friends and allies. If the definition of Khawarij is one who rebels against a right leader, the people of Nahrawaan believe a leader must always lead by Qu'ran and Shariah and within its pretexts, and not simply be a leader regardless of Shariah legality. If right leader means someone injust, who disregards Qu'ran and sunnah, then this is not Islam they have gone out from, but from tyranny and corruption.


(K, I am not Ibadhi, and I don't know yet about LATER Nahrawaanese practices of Islam, but I agree about RIGHT LEADER).


So technical definitions now all dealt with in the highly confusing mess that they are, we will now delve into how the term "Khawarij" has been used historically.


What are YOUR thoughts on this thus far? Any takers?

3 comments:

hijabi said...

Thanks for writing such an interesting article. I see you respect other 'sects' and don't call them disbelievers. As a shia muslimah I can only say:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, says: "'Ali is with the truth and the truth is with 'Ali; wherever the truth is, 'Ali will incline to it."

I love your blog and hope to read more posts like this inshaAllah.

Pixie said...

hijabi: I respect anyone who is sincere in their beliefs, whether I can believe the same or not due to my own understanding and the available evidences, and I respect the truth no matter who speaks it:)

I believe that Ali was one to strive for the truth, and speak the truth, and truly, truly loved Islam. Of course, I see him as a man great in standing of the Sahaba... and at a time, a Calipha and qualified to be such, not a Prophet (nebi) or a Messenger (rasululah---one who recieves a divine message from Allah subhanhu wa ta ala) so from historical analysis I do not believe he was free of mistakes or capable of giving guidance beyond repeating the actions of Mohamed salalahu alahi wa salam and what is contained in the Qu'ran which is where I will differ from the majority of shite scholarly work.

But that is for when I move on to the "shia" section which I really, really hope to find a shia sis to help me write because while I can reference SOME jafari and most Sunni ahadith (and I can obtain Ibadhi) I don't know all the other Shia resources to write their perspective.

It will be fun though, cuz I get to write the traditional and more modern Sunni scholars takes on Shiaism, and my own take, which will be controversial to probably both Sunni and Shia because I find alot of Shia and Sunni scholarly works that purport shiite practices not really to be based on the sunnahs of Rasoolulah or what Ali historically did at all.

That why I need a shia sis to write the shia scholarly take because honestly, it will be hard for me to not write it without a bias. same with some Saudi sunni stuff. I'll be very tongue in cheek:)

I hope no one takes offense. I am trying to go by common sense and history alone more than saying which scholars and ahadith books are best alone, because I believe that is where all our misundertsandings and big arguements come from in the first place.

All Shia sisters: BTW, I don't know if anyone knows the name of it, but there is a Shia book, published in Iran, and it is in English, about a former Sufi (from Tunisia I believe?) and then Al Ahzar trained Sunni then Wahabi scholar who converted to being Shia and all his reasons why and his take on Islamic history, and I really want to reference his work for when I write the shia section. If anyone knows what it is called or his name let me know so I can order it from the shia bookstore in Mutrah.

hijabi said...

Thanks for your reply. I think you mean the book: Then I was Guided
It's also online available.
http://www.al-islam.org/guided/

ws