Part 3
Syedna
Ali’s position becomes even more commendable when we consider the fact that
he, along with those who joined him in the arbitration, was possibly the first
victim of the charge of kufr and shirk in this nascent Muslim community. By
introducing arbitrators with a view to resolving the conflict, they were now
setting themselves up as gods in place of Allah. Hence the charges of shirk
against them by the Kharajites.
The
other obvious implication of the misuse of the Quranic verse “The prerogative
of command belongs to Allah alone” is the implied assertion that there can be
absolutely no mediation in the affairs concerning people and Allah. In terms of their
reading of the verse the necessary and logical conclusion ought to be that there
should be no governments, organisations, learned and informed interpreters of
the Quran etc. These are, after all, institutions and instruments of mediation.
The Kharajite vision of an Islamic state appeared to display the contours of
what might be called a sacred state of ordered chaos. Of things sacred,
unfortunately, they had no idea; of chaos, on the other hand, they left behind a
legacy of carnage that constitutes much more than just a bad memory for the
broader Muslim ummah.
Nevertheless,
despite the gravity of the charge laid against Syedna Ali and many of the
Sahaba, and despite the suicidal implications of the Kharajite vision, he
refused to excommunicate them from the fold of Islam.
Recounting
the story from Imam Sarakhsi’s “al-Mabsut”, Hashim Kamali, in his
“Freedom of Expression in Islam”, relates the following incident:
“…we
read in a report from Kathir b. Tamar al-Hadrami who said: I entered the mosque
of Kufa…where I met five men cursing the caliph Ali. One of them, dressed in a
burnus, said: ‘I have made a covenant with God that I shall kill him.’ I
then took the man to Ali and reported to him what I heard. ‘Bring him
nearer’ said Ali, and added, ‘Woe to you. Who are you?’ ‘I am Sawwar
al-Manquri’ replied the man. ‘Let him go’ said the Caliph, to which
al-Hadrami responded, ‘Should I let him go even though he has made a covenant
with God to kill you?’ ‘Shall I kill him even though he has not killed
me?’ replied Ali. ‘He has cursed you’ said I. ‘You should then curse him
or leave him,’ said Ali.”
In
the Nail al-Awtar of Imam Shawkani we find similar instances of tolerance
towards them. Amongst the many incidents reported in the Nail al-Awtar are the
following:
“Syedna
Ali sent them (the Karajites) a message stating: ‘You are at liberty to live
wherever you want. However, it is resolved between both of us that you will not
shed the blood of people in the land, nor create disorder, nor tyrannise anyone.
On the other hand, if you do resort to these crimes then I shall declare war
against you.’”
He
is also reported as having said to them:
“If
you do not create disorder then we shall not be the first to declare war against
you.”
In
line with the attitude and standards set by Syedna Ali, Imam Shawkani observes:
“If
any sect openly express their beliefs and convictions similar to that of the
Kharajites, then they would not merit execution purely on that basis. Their
execution would be justified if they grew in numbers, started to organise
themselves, and posed a threat to the life and property of others.”
Recounting
Imam al-Khatabi’s opinion he records:
“Imam
Khatabi has observed that the Muslims are unanimous on the point that despite
their deviation from the truth, the Kharajite sect would, nonetheless, be
regarded as a sect of the Muslims, and that there should be no bar on
intermarriages with them, nor on eating their slaughtered animals. Nor would
they be declared as unbelievers so long as they adhere to the fundamental tenets
of Islam.”
The
above approaches adequately reflect what we, of late, are forced to call
“mainstream” Islam.
Nevertheless,
in the year 41AH Syedna Ali fell victim to the murderous designs of a Kharaji
called Abdurahman ibn Muljam al-Muradi. The murder was further inspired and
instigated by his wife, Quttam bint as-Shajna, whose father and brother were
killed in the Battle of Nahrawan. It is also reported that the said ibn Muljam,
along with two other Kharajites, stood in front of the Ka’ba and swore that
they would rid the Ummah of the three – according to them - vilest figures
known to Islam: Syedna Ali, Muawiyah, and Amr ibn al-As.
These
pious marauders, unfortunately, proceeded to establish themselves in three
important Muslim centres. The fanatical Azariqa held the first two, namely Iraq
and Southern Iran. The Najadat held the third, namely the Arabian Peninsula. The
Azariqa, founded by Nafi’ ibn al-Azraq al-Hanafi and the Najadat, founded by
Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi, were amongst the first and most influential offshoots
of the original Muhakkima mentioned in the first part of this series. The modern
day tendencies of certain Islamic “movements” and groupings – influenced
by the spirit of Kharijism - to implode upon themselves and eventually fragment
into myriads of belligerent sub-groups, are merely reminiscent of what
eventually happened to the original movement called the Kharijis. Extremism and
integrity can never co-exist in a single heart - let alone the heart of Islam.
Any Islamic tendency, movement, or grouping, founded on other than the
compassionate foundations of Islam will necessarily come to experience a state
of spiritual entropy. But it is in the nature of “energy” to find work to
do. And if that “energy” finds itself without a compassionate basis then
chaos – particularly in its worst form of demented violence - is a natural
consequence.
In
the next article – and before we link this discussion to the contemporary
Muslim world - we shall explore the principles and practices that informed some
of the most important offshoots of the original Kharijis.