Talk:Kharijites

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Origin Clarity

message: 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.
===Continued Awkwardness with "khuruj"===
I cannot determine the original Arabic word being referenced based on this transliteration. Can someone share the Arabic? I did find "Khuruj" in this article on Tablighi_Jamaat referring to "proselytizing". However, this is commonly referred to as dawah (دعوة). "Activism" seems like a strange translation of what is being described in the Tablighi Jamaat article. - Mimercha (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Akward Translation

message: I cannot determine the original Arabic word being referenced based on this transliteration. Can someone share the Arabic? I did find "Khuruj" in this article on Tablighi_Jamaat referring to "proselytizing". However, this is commonly referred to as dawah (دعوة). "Activism" seems like a strange translation of what is being described in the Tablighi Jamaat article. - Mimercha (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued Awkwardness with "khuruj"

message: Kharajites? 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alt spellings?

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

message: I removed the new addition by Leranigisteaching because it was cut and pasted directly from a text at http://www.islamfact.com/books-htm/moderatesect/ 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:  "...you 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)
thread_title:  reverted edit by Leranigisteaching - blatant cut-and-paste 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please sign your comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: I shouldn't think so; any more than putting "The Nation of Islam believes that White people were created by a scientist named Yakub" in a paragrah that concerns the origin of white people. (Granted that the situations are not perfectly analogous.) Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: 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:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#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)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: The nature of this sect

message: The proper spelling is Khawaarij. 
source http://books.google.com/books?id=JRDJ489Pd2MC&pg=PA471&dq=Battle+of+Siffeen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ziTSUdaHEOTAyAGQk4C4Cw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Siffeen&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the page title because it is spelled wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text:   The solution would be to find RSs dissecting them, and not deleting them altogether. 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadith section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed a bit. 17:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Serious Issues 

message: 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' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  because someone apparently thinks they are khawarij. Misdemenor (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template: Eschatology states the Khawarij were "evil" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Extreme doctrines", "sets them apart", "radical approach" 

message: Is this still an issue? Jahelistbro (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue: 'Citations needed' 

message: 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  — 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."
Source: http://koranselskab.dk/profiler/iqbal/political.htm
Syed Hassan Raza Shah 08:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iqbal's classification of Khawarij 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Khawarij. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110042110/http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/leuiyij-shaykh-saalih-al-suhaymee-it-is-obligatory-to-name-expose-and-refute-the-instigators-of-extremist-ideologies.cfm to http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/leuiyij-shaykh-saalih-al-suhaymee-it-is-obligatory-to-name-expose-and-refute-the-instigators-of-extremist-ideologies.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227053930/http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/nbleuwe-it-is-criminal-and-unjust-to-ascribe-the-actions-of-the-kharijite-renegades-to-islam-and-the-muslim.cfm to http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/nbleuwe-it-is-criminal-and-unjust-to-ascribe-the-actions-of-the-kharijite-renegades-to-islam-and-the-muslim.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227053926/http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/hnjsd-imam-al-albani-contemporary-takfiri-kharijites-are-dogs-of-hellfire-upon-the-prophetic-description-of-them.cfm to http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/hnjsd-imam-al-albani-contemporary-takfiri-kharijites-are-dogs-of-hellfire-upon-the-prophetic-description-of-them.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140802045255/http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/the-balance-of-islam-in-challenging-extremism.pdf to http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/the-balance-of-islam-in-challenging-extremism.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is English Wikipedia! Do not assume all readers are able to read Arabic, just because they might be reading an article about a term derived from Arabic. This means, do not simply give an Arabic root without supplying a transliteration in the Roman alphabet!
Nuttyskin (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...''from the Arabic root خ ر ج'' 

message: The edits and the associated changes made to the article from my account between these revisions are based on feedback by Dr. Adam R. Gaiser of the Florida State University. These three edits are also based on his feedback. Any errors that the article may still have are solely due to me. The purpose of this section is to give credit for his valuable contributions. This section should not be archived. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution for expert feedback 

message: Check the EI2 article on Hurqus. His identity with Dhul Khuwaysira -- the person who reportedly accused Muhammad of injustice-- is disputed at best and there is no evidence that he spawned the Kharijite movement. Thomas Sizgorich refers to the Sufriya Kharijites, a Kharijite sub-sect that emerged during the 8th century, to be tracing their lineage back to him. Nowhere does he say that Hurqus started the Kharijite movement as you were implying. As for Kenney, he doesn't talk about Hurqus at all, but about Dhul-Khuwaysira. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Dhu al Khuwaishirah=Hurqus ibn Zuhair. its the same person. Dhu Al Khuwaishirah is the nickname, while Hurqus are the real name. even without reading the whole book, im almost certain that both Jeffrey Kenney, and Thomas Sizgorich were using the indentification from Ibn Kathir to identifying Dhu Khuwaishirah as Hurqus Ahendra (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said above is OR. You should bring sources which make the mathematical equation that you wrote above and assert that Kharijites movement was started by Dhul Khuwaysira.  EI2 refers to Hurqus as Muhammad's compnion, who is associated in some sources with one of the three persons: "Mukhdaj", "Dhul Khuwaysira", "Dhul Thudaiyya". What Ibn Kathir thought of him is irrelevant. What modern historians of early Islam think is important. You are not asked to read whole book, just the relevant sections. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurqus b. Zuhayr 

message: What do you think? Does the article meet FA comprehensiveness criteria? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I will read it carefully and let you know my thoughts. Impressive turnaround of the article from its former, poor state though. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have to reiterate: excellent work on this. Comprehensiveness-wise, the article is ready, though I am no expert on the Kharijites specifically. I do remember reading in Blankinship's End of the Jihad State that the Kharijite movement had special appeal among the Rabi'a tribes (Shayban, Taghlib, others) of the Jazira and Iraq, or at least that was his view. Leave it to you to determine if it warrants mention here. The prose needs improvement before FAC though. I will copyedit over the next few days. Regards, Al Ameer (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . TBH, this was the hardest project I've undertaken on Wikipedia so far. It took two years of work, including a book translation, and help from an academic expert to fix it. I was double-minded on adding tribal affiliations. But, you are right I think. Will add soon, and maybe also Robinson's analysis of the Jaziran Kharijites. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

text: And yes, copyediting is greatly appreciated as always. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you please cite the page number from Blankinship? Have similar list from Wilkinson, but want to see Blankinship also. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blankinship 1994, pp. 54–57. Let me know if you need the pages. Al Ameer (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  Excellent article overall, but the parts about Uthman need to be expanded, given how his assassination mainly formed this sect. Was killing Uthman planned and considered lawful by the rebels before it happened? And why did the arbitrators declare it unjust? I know that Ibn al-Zubayr in a speech to the Azariqa claimed that Uthman refuted the rebel's accusations (Tabari, vol.20, p.101, end of 64AH). I think these justifications for opposing/supporting the Kharijites should not be left out. Wiqi(55) 01:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . Will look into the sources over the coming couple of days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 01:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought about it for quite some time and to me it seems that there is not much room for these elaborations in this article. I have added some information on why the Zubayr party and Mu'awiya party refused to recognize Ali, but adding more than that would be putting undue weight on this matter. These things relate to Uthman's murder and are better suited in the article on Uthman's siege. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for the ping. I'm done adding; can't think of anything else of note. I think it is very much complete now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Yeah that would be fine. I didn't mention them out of fear of making the lead too long.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Agreed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Due to manipulation of the source material by the authors of the sources, we do not know with certainty if the actual events were as reported by them or if many of them actually happened at all. So the sentence tries to convey that the information in the sources is not necessarily what actually happened or how it happened. The authors wanted to make the readers see the past from a certain perspective and manipulated/fabricated information to make that happen. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my attempted revision. Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Will do. I think the bit about the followers of Abu Talut removing him to make room for Najda should be kept as it shows the Kharijites readiness to depose a leader when they found someone better and how powerless a Kharijite caliph/leader was. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: All done except for the Zanzibar thing. I remember reading some time ago in I forgot which source that they reached there through trade, but can't find it right now. The standard sources that I have on Ibadism just talk about the relocation of the Ibadi capital from Muscat to Zanzibar during the 19th century, without mentioning how Ibadism got there originally. I will add it when I am able to find the forgotten source. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensiveness 

message: Adding these as I go:
*As the major Kharijite movements of the Second Fitna, should the Azariqa and Najdat be mentioned/linked in that part of the Lead?
::Yeah that would be fine. I didn't mention them out of fear of making the lead too long.--AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to manipulation of the source material by the authors of the sources, we do not know with certainty if the actual events were as reported by them or if many of them actually happened at all. So the sentence tries to convey that the information in the sources is not necessarily what actually happened or how it happened. The authors wanted to make the readers see the past from a certain perspective and manipulated/fabricated information to make that happen. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my attempted revision. Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Will do. I think the bit about the followers of Abu Talut removing him to make room for Najda should be kept as it shows the Kharijites readiness to depose a leader when they found someone better and how powerless a Kharijite caliph/leader was. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

text: All done except for the Zanzibar thing. I remember reading some time ago in I forgot which source that they reached there through trade, but can't find it right now. The standard sources that I have on Ibadism just talk about the relocation of the Ibadi capital from Muscat to Zanzibar during the 19th century, without mentioning how Ibadism got there originally. I will add it when I am able to find the forgotten source. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: General remarks