Nevertheless,
the most important of these factions were the Azariqa, the Najadat, the
Buhaisiyya, the Ajarida, the Tha’alaba, the ‘Ibadiyya, and the Sufriyya.
From these core factions a host of other sub-factions emerged. These factions
and sub-factions merely differed in the extent of their extremism. While a
detailed study of the nature and extent of their differences is beyond the scope
of this series, it is, nevertheless, instructive to know precisely how some of
these divisions occurred.
After
the Muhakkima, the first and by far the most powerful and influential faction to
emerge was the Azariqa. This faction, mentioned previously, was founded by
Nafi’ b. Azraq (d.60AH). The chief difference between them and the Muhakkima
was the manner in which they regarded those who differed from them. While the
Muhakkima viewed others who differed from them as kuffar (unbelievers), the
Azariqa now regarded them as mushrikin (idolaters). The fine thread that
distinguished kufr from shirk was all that distinguished them from each other.
The
following therefore, formed part of the principles espoused by the Azariqa:
a)
That those who refused to settle in or undertake a hijra to the
territories they controlled were declared mushrikin, even if those who refused
to do so agreed with their opinions.
b)
That it was obligatory for anyone seeking to join their armed forces to
be subjected to an inquisition. Part of the inquisition included presenting to
the candidate a Muslim prisoner of war that differed with the Azariqa. The
candidate was ordered to kill the prisoner. If he refused to do so then he, in
turn, would be declared a mushrik and killed.
c)
That it was permissible to kill both the women and children of those who
differed with them and that their children, after being killed, would
permanently reside in hell.
The
notions of a Dar al-Hijra (an abode of refuge for Muslims) and a fervent sense
of “belonging” to their views were strong in Azariqa circles. In their Dar
al-Hijra they were the Muhajirin (those who fled, literally, from a state of
unbelief to a state of true belief). The rest who refused to flee with them were
all mushrikin residing in a Dar al-Harb (an abode of war violently opposed to
Islam). Nafi’ b’ Azraq finally declared too, that it was not permissible for
those Kharajis residing in non_Kharajite lands to hide their beliefs. This form
of taqiyya (or to hide one’s faith under life-threatening circumstances) that
have broadly been accepted by the vast majority of Muslims, was classed as an
act of shirk by Nafi’. This latter view of Nafi’s was one of the main
reasons that lead to Najda b. ‘Amir al-Hanafi breaking ranks with the Azariqa.
Thus emerged a new faction – the Najadat.
While
Najda, along with a military contingency, was on his way from al-Yamama to meet
Nafi’ he encountered Abu Fudaik and ‘Atiyya b. al-Aswad al-Hanafi. They
informed Najda of certain new innovations (bida’at) invented by Nafi’. Najda
rejected these innovations and was then pronounced the new leader of the
Kharijis. He adopted the title of Amir al-Mu’minin (Leader of the Faithful).
It was not long after that that Najda, in turn, found himself in trouble with
both Abu Fudaik and ‘Atiyya.
Najda,
as the new Amir and Mujtahid, had given himself the licence to introduce a few
new innovations of his own. Amongst these “innovations” was his view that
those of his followers who perpetrated major sins – such as stealing and
fornicating etc. – were destined to be punished in a hell other than that
reserved for genuine unbelievers. These transgressors remained Muslim for as
long as they agreed with his views. Another of his “innovations” was that
those who deviated slightly – but consistently – from his views or engaged
– also consistently – in the telling of harmless little lies were all
declared idolaters. Even more comical was the fact that he was told by a
dissenting group to go to the mosque and repent from these innovations. This he
did. Subsequently a party from this dissenting group apparently regretted their
behaviour. They told him that he was the Imam and that he had the right to his
ijthad. But it did not end there. They then ordered him to repent from his
initial repentance. In addition he had to further instruct those who originally
ordered him to repent to repent from that order. To add to his misery the group
now threatened to remove him if he failed to comply with these new demands.
All
of this appeared to be a little too much for Abu Fudaik. By now Abu Fudaik had
taken control of al-Yamama. So while the followers of Najda were out warring
along the coastline of Syria and in certain parts of Yemen, Abu Fudaik contrived
to get rid of Najda. They snuffed him out in a house of one of his followers,
decapitated him, and brought his head to Abu Fudaik. Meanwhile, Abu Fudaik and
Atiyya b. al-Aswad – erstwhile co-conspirators against Nafi’ b. al-Azraq –
also appeared to have developed a new set of problems with each other. So each
one blandly absolved himself of the others’ excesses. In the midst of this
division between the two the Umayyad ruler, Abd al-Malik b. Marwan, sent an army
to crush Abu Fudaik and his followers. The mission was a success. Abu Fudaik was
killed in the process and Atiyya fled to Sajistan where he founded the
lesser-known Kharijite branch called the ‘Atawiyya.
Amongst
the disciples of ‘Atiyya was Abd al-Karim b. ‘Ajrad. Abd al-Karim, in turn,
founded the ‘Ajarida – another influential branch of the Kharajites. Their
principles broadly corresponded to those of the Najadat, except that they denied
that Surah Yusuf was a part of the Quran. They alleged that the Qissat
al-‘Ishq (or the “story of passion” between Nabi Yusuf and Zulaikha) could
never have been revealed by Allah. My
personal view, however, is that Nabi Yusuf’s approach to the oppressive
pharaonic political order flew in the face of their belief that all oppressive
rulers must be eliminated by force. In Kharajite terms, there is no other way to
deal with an unjust political order. Those who differ with their approach on
this issue are either kafir or mushrik. It is this particular point that has
lead many to conclude that the Kharajite movement was primarily a political one
masquerading in the garb of religion.
The
unfortunate consequences of their position however, was that much of their
political “theory” – such as the freedom to elect political leaders
irrespective of tribal or racial origins – that might have been useful to the
ummah became lost under the weight of their extremism. It is in this sense that
the words of Syedna Ali may be understood when he said: “Do not fight the
Kharajites after my death. Those who fight for the truth but are mislead along
the way are not as bad as those who fight for falsehood and achieve their
ends.”
His
former statement refers to the Kharajites; the latter, to the Umayyads.
Similar
words were uttered by the only recognised leader of the Umayyad dynasty, Umar b.
Abd al-Aziz when he addressed a group of Kharajites and said to them: “Indeed
I am aware that you do not behave in the manner that you do for the sake of
worldly gain. You do seek the blessings of the afterlife, but your approach is
completely wrong.”
The
one fact that does emerge from the statements of these two great leaders is
their unparalleled tolerance towards those who opposed them. Syedna Ali might
have paid a heavy price for it, but it is precisely because of this that he is
immortalised in the memory of Muslim history. Few indeed, are the examples that
history can produce that are able to match up to the humanity of Syedna Ali.
Nonetheless,
after the death of Syedna Ali, the bloodlust of the Kharajites – especially
against other Muslims – continued. While later generations of Muslims ensured
that their influences were either eliminated or at least neutralised one sect,
in its original form, has survived. They are the Ibadites of present day Oman.
Their survival is attributed to the fact that they were the most tolerant of the
Kharajite factions. They were the one group that did not, for example, regard a
perpetrator of a major sin as a kafir or mushrik. Today the Ibadites are averse
to being associated with the Kharajites and consider themselves just another
madhab like the Shafis and Hanafis etc.
In
general, the Kharajites became distinguished from other Muslims by four
principles that defined most of them and, of almost equal importance, their
common approach to things.
The
four principles comprised the following:
a)
The declaration of kufr (unbelief) on Syedna Ali, Uthman, ‘Amr ibn
al-‘As, Abu Musa al-‘Ashari, Muawiya, and all those who consented to the
process of arbitration. All of the differing Kharajite factions agreed on this
point.
b)
That all perpetrators of major sins were permanently destined for hell.
The exception to this was the Ibadites.
c)
The declaration of either kufr or shirk upon those who differed with
them.
d)
That it was obligatory to overthrow an oppressive ruler by force.
Their
approach, on the other hand, was marked by unbridled extremism and severity.
This extremism was most manifest in two respects. One, in the puritanical spirit
that they executed all their affairs – whether of the worldly or spiritual
order – and particularly so in their ‘Ibadat; two, in the ruthless spirit of
inquisition that they introduced into Islam. In this respect they differed but
little from all other crazed fanatics, whether past or present, Muslim or
non-Muslim.
In
the next part of this series we shall look at the coming of Abdul Wahhab and
what has come to be known as the “Wahhabite” movement.