From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Origin Clarity[edit]

The first segment is unclear. A better explanation of where Kharijites stand with regard to Sunni and Shia Islam would be beneficial. What is the distinction between the sect which opposed Ali.--Jsn4 02:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There is background in the areas where you have "citation needed" in Balyuzi, "Muhammad and the Course of Islam" George Ronald Publisher, 1976; ISBN 0853980608 at pages 183-186. pilgrimbrent Pilgrimbrent 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph says the only surviving group are the Ibadhi, then it says the Ibadhi reject that designation. So if the Ibadhi don't consider themselves to be Kharijites, then who does consider them to be Kharajites? The Sunnis and Shi'a? That paragraph shoud be rewritten to be clear 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)eric

It should be reworded. The thing to point out is that none of the Kharijite groups (Ibadhi or otherwise) referred to themselves as Kharijites; this was a derogatory term given to them by their enemies (c.f. "Wahhabis"). That's why the Ibadhis reject this apellation. However, it's an established fact that Ibadhism is an offshoot of that general movement, whether you call it Kharijism or not. This, the Ibadhis do not dispute. Slacker 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed 5th line of 1st paragraph to read "other opponents" instead of "a variety of other ignorants and miscreants" to make it more NPOV and less mischieveous, although I must admit the original characterization had a charming pugnacity that made me smile. Aren't those who disagree with us always ignorants and miscreants? :-) Signed, lkredhat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkredhat (talkcontribs) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Akward Translation[edit]

I know the parenthetical statements are supposed to add clarity but really the make this paragraph sound akward:

"Coming after me a sect that hurt me in my Itrati (posterity). They keep (meaning from time to time) coming out (khuruj from Kharijites) against Muslims, Kill them O ˤAlī, kill them, for they will be the Shia of Ad-Dajjal."

I am putting:

"Coming after me will be a sect that hurts me in my posterity. They will keep breaking away from the Muslims and opposing them. Kill them O ˤAlī, kill them, for they will be the supporters of the Antichrist."

then following with a comment referring the reader to the Ad-Dajjal article for Islamic teachings on the Antichrist to make up for the lost link in the translation.

NPOV and Citation concerns[edit]

I know nothing about Kharajite Islam but one thing that is remarkably clear to me upon reading the "Origin" section is that the bulk of it was written by a Sunni Muslim with poor mastery of the english language and for whom the very concept of NPOV is almost totally alien. The person obviously tried to write from a neutral perspective, at one point saying "this is not theology it is history", but it's also obvious that they are incapable of telling the difference. Unfortunately I suspect that the vast majority of people who have sufficient knowledge of this subject to contribute would be similarly unable to write with NPOV and would very possibly also share the poor english skills.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely new to editing wikipedia, so please bear with me. "It is said that ˤAlī agreed to the arbitration in a clever scheme of his, so that he could identify the sect that the Prophet had warned him from. It is reported that the Prophet said to ˤAlī warning him of a future sect in Islam" It is said by whom? Also, does anyone know where the Hadith that follows is recorded? A link to it, or even a citation would be helpful. The claim that the Kharaijites murdered a number of the Sahaba to preserve their secrecy is new to me, a preliminary look over the Sahaba linked to from Shia_view_of_the_Sahaba revealed no similar allegations.

"It is said ... invited Hussein to come to them in Kufah were from those Kharijites' original tribes of Eastern Arabia (namely Banu Hanifa of Iraq and Ihsa'a up to ad-Dumat al-Jandal west). Later a false prophet came out of them Musailemah, and they constituted all the Kharijites. These days they still live in south Iraq and Ihsaa as Shia of south Iraq." This paragraph needs some reworking to be more clear. It makes it seem as the Kharajites invited Hussein to Kujah, that Musailemah came from the K, and that the K still live in s. Iraq instead of the Banu Hanifa and Ihsa'a.

As far as NPOV I think a rewording of "clever scheme" might be in order. Also "radical fundamentalism" seems to be using modern concepts in a way that is not particularly helpful. "Fundamentalism" usually refers to scriptural literalism, and that doesn't strike me as a good way to differentiate the Kharajites from the Shi'a or the Sunni.

Just thought I'd throw those comments out there before I started editing. Also, know any good books about the Kharijites? I'm stuck mostly working from lecture notes and journal articles.

MikeBryan 07:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Mike Bryan

This whole page is really quite POV, and several sections are actually cut-and-pasted from other sources. It needs a rewrite. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The key case for the neutrality flag, is this quote, just to take a plain example:
It is said that ˤAlī was against the idea of arbitration, because he thought that it was Muawiyya's trick to stop the loosing war, but his army refused to fight anylonger as long as the Quran is between them. It is also reported that the God's last Prophet said to ˤAlī warning him of a future sect in Islam:
"Coming after me will be a sect that hurts me in my posterity. They will keep breaking away from the Muslims and opposing them. Kill them O ˤAlī, kill them, for they will be the supporters of the Antichrist."
(See the entry on Ad-Dajjal for Muslim belief in the Antichrist.)
The Kharijites fit the Prophet' description. So ˤAlī hurridly divided his troops and ordered them to catch the dissenters before they reach major cities and disperse among the population.
The text is written from an anti-Kharijite POV and makes assertions such as "The Kharijites fit the Prophet's description" (of the followers of Al-Dajjal), which is inflamatory at the least. There's good info in here, but it needs to be rewritten into a neutral tone, with the POVs extracted and identified and sourced. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I've just kicked this article around abit, adding a lot of citation placeholders, as well as adding better structure and removing only the most blatantly unsourced POV. If those who added such comments (like how the Karijites fit some description of the Ahl-Dajjal), then they should source external articles indicating WHO identified them as such, and how so. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed a large section of text which seemed to be blatant translated proselytizing, and was extremely unwikified, as well as being difficult to read. This article is still in need of attention by an expert, and much editing. --gnomelock (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Present day Ahle-hadith or Salafiyyah group is strongly and unanimously considered to be their (Kharijite's) descendants, promoting their belief system." - This statement lacks references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alt spellings?[edit]

Kharajites? 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Muˤāwiyya ?[edit]

Please note that the correct name is Muˤāwiya, not Muˤāwiyya. Bye. --Cloj 23:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

reverted edit by Khalidkhoso[edit]

The addition of ",who mascared Hazart Usman(A.S) and faught With Ali Bin Hussain during protection of Usman(A.S)." is non-NPOV, unsourced, and contradictory. My NPOV concern is the addition of the A.S. The real problem is the unsourced statement that the Kharijites massacred Uthman. As a group the Kharijites didn't exist until Siffin, after Uthman's assassination. If individuals present at Uthman's assassination were later Kharijites, say so, name them, and cite a source. Also (and this might just be my ignorance) the only Ali bin Hussain I can find reference to was Ali ibn Hussayn and the dates of his birth and Uthman's death don't match up.

Can you quote from or any Khawarij Books or Scholars on their dogma[edit]

== I think that a lot of the detail that is drawing fire wrt whether there is a NPOV is unnecessary to an understanding of the Khawarij. People are contesting things that don't lie at the heart of the subject. kenw

reverted edit by Leranigisteaching - blatant cut-and-paste[edit]

I removed the new addition by Leranigisteaching because it was cut and pasted directly from a text at or a similar site - see Wikipedia's policy regarding copying from sources: Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources#Copying_other_reference_works - specifically: " should not just dump the text unedited ..." At least edit out the "<Previous | Table of Contents | Next>" ;-) Seriously - this article needs a rewrite, not more cut-n-paste. --gnomelock (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments[edit]

I was considering cleaning up this discussion page to identify unsigned comments - but considering that the bulk of the comments were unsigned it looked like too arduous a task. "Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse is good etiquette and facilitates discussion ..." See: Wikipedia:Signatures --gnomelock (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody would refer to themselves as Khawaarij as it's root word in Arabic meant "to go out" as in to go out of Islam. This only refers to the group that rebelled agaisnt the forth Kalifate Ali. However, it is said, based on the ahadith that the Khawaarij would re-appear at the end of time. It is unsure who they are as of yet. Still studying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Shi'ah Muslims believe the Khawarij were created by Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Can we maybe get that into the origins section?--عيسى (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The nature of this sect[edit]

From what I've learned about the Khawarij, their theology was that the Quaran was, in itself, the ultimate and sole authority of Islam. They rejected all hadith and other institutional interpretation. The two current major divisions of Islam trace their origins to ancient leadership disputes, and this article defines the Kharijites merely in that context. But such is an inaccurate, revisionist view of this sect. Their stance and role in conflicts over leadership, regardless of how important such things are to Sunni and Shi'a, were minor consequences of their much more central and key characteristic: their independent hermeunetics. Facts about this sect's "fathers" are historical, yet trivial, relative to its beliefs and internal characteristics. One can't tell the story of Christian Protestantism, without referring to Martin Luther, but he was just one man. The relevant long-term differences between major religious sects are their systems of theology, not their founders. Analogdrift (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Get some references and make a contribution then! Jahelistbro (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Change the page title because it is spelled wrong[edit]

The proper spelling is Khawaarij.

source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talkcontribs) 01:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hadith section[edit]

Hadith section seems to be referring to Kharajites (or other extremists proclaiming themselves Muslims), but there is no secondary source saying they are. Should they not be deleted as WP:OR? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think so too. Jahelistbro (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: The solution would be to find RSs dissecting them, and not deleting them altogether. 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Perhaps though it should be taken down until someone does so, as those narrations aren't on their own contributing anything but suggestions that the Ash-Shura were a people who didn't have a connection to that which they were reciting.. Also, those narrations don't state the Kharaji were those who claim to be the 'Ash-Shura'. Jahelistbro (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Serious Issues[edit]

It looks like the article was written by some supporter of the Khawarij. Namely the opening paragraph where it says Khawarij were for pro equality etc. I see a banner that the article does indeed have multiple issues. Hopefully some editors can fix these issues. Misdemenor (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: Fixed a bit. 17:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Now it's written in a manner of those who despise the Ash-Shura. Can't this article be written to a NPOV? Jahelistbro (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering. I have looked at some of the sources on khawarij, and it appears that the narrative is similar to the POV I had assumed.. Khawarij is viewed as a proponent of democracy according to britanica [1] I believe we can make note of what they perceived as injustice inorder to balance the article per Jah. Misdemenor (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Template: Eschatology states the Khawarij were "evil"[edit]

The people this article refers to as the Khawarij considered themselves to be Ash-Shurāh, or 'the exchangers', of the Here for the Hereafter. And in Sunni, as well as Shi'ite Islam that is both commendable, and arguably a requirement of Muslims. That is not an "evil" characteristic, and neither is fighting against oppressors, another claim of the Ash-Shurah, and a command to the Muslims written in the Qur'an.

However the Template 'Eschatology' ( puts the Khawarij under the subcategory of "Evil". This is a harmful statement, and a violation of Wikipedias NPOV claims, and as such I think it should be removed, and/or replaced.

Really this stems down to the fact that we're directly imposing the term 'Khawarij' onto the Ash-Shurah, something that a NPOV wikipedia article shouldn't be doing.

Perhaps we could rewrite this article, like the unbiased Wikipedians we're. The Ash-Shurah didn't refer to themselves as the Khawarij, so why should we? Why is this article called "Khawarij"? Of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't represent also the perspectives of those who thought the Ash-Shurah were Khawarij, I am merely saying that the Mormonism article isn't called "Christian Heretics", even though most Christians see them as that. We could even have two articles, the "Khawarij" article, and the "Ash-Shurah" article.

What do you think? Jahelistbro (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well unlike the Mormons the Khawarij are not around to defend themselves therefore who are we offending? According to Islamic eschatology they are considered evil and if they are around today they obviously wouldnt admit that they are khawarij. Misdemenor (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, but we should still have a NPOV... Jahelistbro (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"According to Islamic eschatology" the Khawarij are considered evil, not the Ash-Shurah, in fact "according to Islamic eschatology" the Ash-Shurah are considered to be commendable. Which is why I suggested we could have two articles, one on the concept of "the Khawarij", and another on the 7th century group called the "Ash-Shurah"... And perhaps people do become offended, such as the Ibadis, when their descendants are called "outsiders"(Khawarij), as this article has, or evil as was stated. Jahelistbro (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Now did the "Ash-Shurah" revolt against authority? Do most reliable sources refer to the Ash-Shurah as the khawaraij? The Ibadis are accused of being descendants but im not sure if they are offended by it. The offence imho is when they are incorrectly labelled khawarij presently or that they are always mentioned as descendants. A quick look at the Ibadi article shows that they admit to having some sort of relations with the khawarij but deny anything more. Im sure any islamic group would want to distance itself from the subject. Infact I had to remove khawarij from Ibadi a couple months ago [2] because someone apparently thinks they are khawarij. Misdemenor (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Extreme doctrines", "sets them apart", "radical approach"[edit]

From the article: "The Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. They were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir (declaring self-described Muslims were non-Muslims)."

The question I have is this; how is that different than the states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other states governed apparently by Islamic law? My question is not to incite argument but for clarification of how they doctrines of the Ash-Shura are "extreme", and "set them apart" from mainstream Sunni, and Shi'ite muslims, and how this approach of theirs is "radical". Compared of course to the majority. Jahelistbro (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Good Question. The founders of the Saudi state were regarded extreme by even Sunnis. The Sunni scholars regarded Saudi Wahhabi sect khawarij for using takfir on non-Wahhabis. In early Saudi Arabia, smoking was considered punishable by death. The mainstream muslims unlike khawarij do not believe minor sin can be considered disbelief. I believe as time went by the Saudis became more lax in order to coexist with muslims. As one Saudi writer puts it." Saudi scholars were strict because the society was closed for hundreds of years, but they are changing now" Saudis have begun calling Sunnis deviants in the modern age rather then infidels. The khawarij's main issue is their promotion of sedition, much like what the Saudis did to the Ottomans, which is considered a major sin according to islamic text. So to answer your question the Saudis and Iranians are not executing civilians for minor sins currently. Misdemenor (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright! That's the clarification I was looking for. :) Jahelistbro (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue: 'Citations needed'[edit]

Is this still an issue? Jahelistbro (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Iqbal's classification of Khawarij[edit]

I shall be very brief in my account of the Khawarij, since the history of their opinion is yet to be worked out.

The first Muslims who were so called were the notorious 12,000 who revolted against Ali after they had fought under him at the battle of Siffin. They were offended at his submitting the decision of his right to the Caliphate to the arbitration of men when, in their opinion, it ought to have been submitted to the law of God — the Quran. "The nation," they said to Ali, "calls us to the Book of God; you call us to the sword." Shahristani divides them into twenty-four sects, differing slightly from one another in legal and constitutional opinion, e.g., that the ignorance of the law is a valid excuse; that the adulterer should not be stoned, for the Quran nowhere mentions this punishment; that the hiding of one's religious opinions is illegal; that the Caliph should not be called the commander of the faithful; that there is nothing illegal in having two or more Caliphs in one and the same time. In East Africa and Mazab — South Algeria — they still maintain the simplicity of their republican ideal. Broadly speaking, the Khawarij can be divided into three classes:

Those who hold that there must be an elected Caliph, but it is not necessary that he should belong to a particular family or tribe. A woman or even a slave could be elected as Caliph provided he or she is a good Muslim ruler. Whenever they found themselves in power, they purposely elected their Caliph from among the socially lowest members of their community.

Those who hold that there is no need of a Caliph — the Muslim congregation can govern themselves.

Those who do not believe in Government at all — the anarchists of Islam. To them Caliph Ali is reported to have said: "You do not believe in any Government, but there must be some Government — good or bad."


Syed Hassan Raza Shah 08:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Hassan Raza Shah (talkcontribs)