View this article in PDF Format.

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Razzāq ʿAfīfī (1415H) wrote:

The speech of the scholars about the Khārijites as it concerns the Islāmic sects is about those who revolted against ʿAlī (raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu) on account of the issue of arbitration (taḥkīm). As for Ṭalḥah, al-Zubayr, Muʿāwiyah and whoever followed them, they were not known by the scholars of the Muslims with this name. Thereafter the word ‘Khārijite’ was applied to everyone who revolted against a ruler among the rulers of the Muslims whose leadership had been agreed upon by the body [jamāʿah] in any age among the ages without that ruler having brought clear, open disbelief and for which he [the Khārijite] does not have any proof. Hence, the first to introduce this innovation into this ummah is the group that revolted against ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib in 39H. The most severe of them in obstinacy and revolt were al-Ashʿat bin Qays, Masʿūd bin Fadakī al-Tamīmī, Zayd bin Ḥuṣayn al-Ṭāʾī. That which made called them to [revolt] was the issue of arbitration that is famous in history... alongside [the fact] that they are the ones who commanded him with it and compelled him towards it. Thereafter, they rejected it from him and said, ‘Why have you deferred judgement to men, judgement belongs to none but Allāh’. Their heads are six: the Azāriqah, Najadāt, Ṣufriyyah, ʿĀjāridah, ʾIbādiyyah and Thāʿālibah and their other sects branch off from them.

Mudhakkirat al-Tawḥīḍ (pp. 68-69)
Abu ʿIyāḍ Amjad Rafīq @abuiyaadsp
21 Muharram 1438 / 22 October 2016

Note: The Khārijites’ issue was pertaining to taḥkīm (arbitration), they believed upon their ignorance that ʿAlī had given men the right of judgement which belongs only to Allāh. This is similar to the ignoramuses of today such as Abū Muḥammad al-Maqdisī, Sayyid Imām and other hardcore Khārijites who claim that the rulers have become pagans and idolators on account of matters that the Sharīʿah permits such as as truces, treaties, giving gifts to non-Muslim rulers, diplomatic relations, trade relations, legislation in matters of broad public interest (customs, immigration, road regulations) and so on. The core engine of Khārijite ideology is revolt against the ruler on account of perceived sin or actual sin and oppression, all justified with takfīr of the ruler built upon exaggeration in the issue of ḥākimiyyah. The basic formula then is ḥākimiyyah, takfīr, khurūj. And this is the religion of Abū Aʿlā al-Mawdūdī, Sayyid Quṭb, Ayman al-Zawāhirī, Abū Qatādah, Abū Muḥammad al-Maqdisī, the generality of al-Qaeda, ISIS and others.

As is known and established in the books of history and creed that it is not a condition for being a Khārijite that one must make takfīr of Muslims on account of sin. Thus, what is done by members of al-Qaeda, ISIS and their spiritual leaders (or former ones) such as Abū Qatādah, Abū Muḥammad al-Maqdisī and others of denying that they make takfīr of Muslims by way of sin or apply general rulings of takfīr upon whole societies is deception by which they delue the ignorant and also deceive ignorant, uninformed Western academics. Believing in the permissibility of revolting against a Muslim ruler (due to his sin and oppression) is a matter separate to making takfīr of Muslims by way of major sins. They justify this act by exaggerating in ḥākimiyyah and do their utmost to prove the disbelief of the ruler [so as to validate their actions]. This is what unites all Khārijites and is the central core of their innovated religion. As for making takfīr of Muslims on account of major sins or of whole societies, these are later developments amongst the Khārijites and not all of them subscribe to these doctrines. Thus, there are refutations between the Khārijites themselves, and some refer to others as Khārijites. Hence, we see the hardcore Khārijite, Abū Muḥammad al-Maqdisī refute those amongst his followers who make takfīr of Muslims on account of major sins or of whole societies. Alongside this, al-Maqdisī remains a hardcore Khārijite because the central core of his innovated religion still remains.