peace
thanks all for your comments i have not had time to go through them but intend to soon ...
peace out!

They are among the biggest problems within the Muslim world today, because they provide a major roadblock in the reformation of governments of Muslim countries. While they want to overthrow these regimes, moderates are trying to work within the regime to make change. People like Ghannouchi are trying to democratize their countries along the lines of shareeah, as opposed to democracy along the lines of western secularism.

They were the FIRST group to actually split from the main body of Muslims. As The_keepr said, they were the first group to say that they were Muslim, and everybody else was non-Muslim. It was based upon the precedent that whoever commits a major sin is outside the fold of Islam. And when Ali and Muawiya sought arbitration, that considered this ruling against the command of Allah, because according to their own twisted version of the Quran, "the command belongs to Allah".

You will find a striking resemblance between their doctrine and the doctrine of the like of many 'jihadist' groups who argue against a spiritual democracry as defined by many moderate Islamic groups, led by such people as Raschid Ghannouchi. They confuse 'rule of the people' as shirk, when it fact Islamic governance is rule of the people in accordance to the principles outlined in shareeah. They have also played part in assassination of leaders such as Sadat, who despite their corruption definitely did not deserve to be shot withuot due process of law. Hizb u Tahrir, and other groups all originate almost on a similar pattern of thinking.

Ali (R) is reported to have said about the khawarij that if they do not raise the call for blood they will be tolerated, but if they do, than he (R) would crush them.

You should read some about them Mehnaz, they're an entity of their own. They're always around to make fitna and cause havoc. There is many hadiths about them. They're rarely talked about, but are so dangerous that the Prophet s.a.w mentioned them in his hadiths on several occasions as a danger to the muslim society.

The word khawarij was given to them even during that time, I believe, comes from the word "khurooj" (to leave or exit) by their rebellious behaviour. They strongly and by all means condone killing and were the first to actually call a muslim.... a kafir. If you don't agree with their idealogies, they declare you a fasiq or kafir, and your blood and wealth are neither safe from their hands.

Like I said, I have met many in London before I even knew what they were...and found them very odd people, then when I learned about the khawarij, the similarities with that group there were absolutely incredible.

ive never heard of kharawijs.

Qalandarlal,

Here is from what I know of the khawarij, just to add on to what Khiladi said earlier, these people are in every time period apparently, and have began even in the time of the Prophet s.a.w. The first was reported to have been Dhul-Khuwaysarah Ibn Tameem.

The Prophet s.a.w. said about him:

"Indeed, he will have companions whom you will belittle your prayer when compared to their prayer and your fasting compared to their theirs. They will recite the Qur'an but it will not even reach beyond their throats. they will pass through Islaam just as an arrow passes through its target". Recorded by Imam Muslim

In the meaning that reading the quran won't affect their hearts or won't enter thir hearts (hence stopping at their throats) and being muslims, where you will see their prayers and marks on their foreheads from so much praying and the redness in their eyes from staying up at night doing prayers and reading quran...yet, their actions, outside the extensive prayers and quran etc etc (what they deem as "piety"), leave a lot to be desired as they find it simple to claim people as kafirs.

Absolutely bro, it's incredible the similarities between how the Prophet s.a.w. describes them from his time to how these people I have met in person behave.

They will always be condescending, they will label me and you kafirs or fasiqs for not having a beard, or for having a store that sells newspapers written by "3ilmaneyeen" (communists??). Lame things like this. They tried to persuade my brother to join them when he was young, but he wouldn't bite into it, he knew something was fishy about them.

I'm tempted to write a little entry just about what I have learned of them as they have taken a big part in this whole twist of events where suddenly you have many muslims going in different directions.

The roots of the problem of the people in London are the same as the roots of the problem of the khawarij. They are attempting to attain the 'moral tension' of religous faith through their 'extreme piety', without understanding the real basis of Islam.

"faith passes through them like an arrow through the neck"...

It was reported that one person came to the Prophet (S) and told him to fear Allah in his judgement. The Prophet (S) got extremely upset saying to the effect, "Who is going to fear ALlah more than me?" A Companions who observed this incident stated he saw that very man with the khawarij during the latter-years.

The self-rightuousness of them knows no limit, such that they thought they were more pious than Rasool (S).

The khawarij are an odd bunch, and I do believe they are still around up 'till now. I think I actually know a few in London.

These guys will be "sooooo pious looking", worrying about the littlest things and smallest details, yet they would kill a muslim in a second if they feel that this muslim said something they don't like.

When Abdullah bin Abbass (R) was sent by Ali to speak with the khawarij, he ended up convincing a group of them to come back. He told them about verses in the Quran that allowed arbitration, such as between husband and wife. The rest of them maintained their position, and CLEARLY DISAFFILIATED THEMSELVES.

They were a minority group, and caused some havoc in early Islam, but not so much to continue in the Muslim world. Too rigid a group. The point is that they clearly delineated themselves and were not like those within the ranks of Ali and Muawiya that were bent on sedition and divisiveness. These were led by people like Abdullah ibn Saba.

But like I said, the situation is not as simplistic as it's made out to be in most sectarian conflicts. There are a few points that should be taken:

1. Expansion was very fast, not allowing the value system of Islam to imbibe itself in the new followers to keep pace...

2. The political mechanism of shoora did not adjust to these changes. This latter problem was intensified because of the rapid expanse and georgraphic area. If the majority of elder Companions (R) were alive by the time of the death of Uthman (R), they would have undoubtedly worked some sort of balance out.

And also, correct me if I'm wrong Khiladi, but from my understanding, the khawarij got involved on both sides (Muawiya and Ali (R.A.A.)) to stir up the fitna.

And the ironic thing is people are gullible about their leadership, because that leader is either sunni or shia, i.e. he is a member of their own sect.

In Iraq, we see 'religion' becoming the main 'impetus' for various groups fighting over power. Lust for power is now beginning to define the religious landscape that is Iraq, instead of the other way around.

Your going to see chaos for years...

The other dimension in this whole battle were the khawarij. They broke away from Ali (R), when the latter was going to arbitrate with Muawiya (R). They stated that the 'command belongs to God alone', and that one cannot arbitrate according to the Quran.

The khawarij, although an aberration, reveals that their was a loss in the moral tension of the ummah as it expanded. Various peoples did not embibe the true characteristics of faith, as opposed to the original converts. This combined with all the wealth that was entering the ummah led to jealousy, and pursuit of wealth at the expense of the Islamic concept of brotherhood. The extreme 'piety' of the khawarij led them into fanatical positions. They stated that anyone who commits a major sin has gone out of the fold of Islam. So they took a position of WAR as well. Thus, two groups became 3 groups of war. The mentality of the people complicated the situation during the time of Ali (R) and Muawiya (R).

The early discussions in Islam about faith as defined by the ahl-hadeeth and ahl-fiqh, like Abu Haneefah really were the result of social implications. They were not just debates of theory. While the ahl-hadeeth argued from the perspective of spirituality, i.e. iman can increase or decrease, Abu Hanifa (R) in his brilliance pronounced many things about how to define a Muslim, among them such that whover prays towards our qiblah is Muslim. Abu Hanifa (R) was concerned primarily with the SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS of the doctrine, and the reduction of blood-shed.

As a side note, Umar (R) forsaw that too much expansion would ruin the ummah, and this is why he forbade the building of a navy at the insistence of Muawiya (R). He was unique in his leadership in that he could maintaion solid control of an empire so vast. The vision of the Prophet (S) forsaw this, when he (S) observed Umar in the dream drawing out water from a well almost endlessly. When he was murdered by the Persian slave, which in itself revealed the above tension, the control over the ummah gradually weakened.

The first major conflict in Islam was the Battle of Siffin. It was actually a battle fought over the death of Uthman (R). In it's deeper movement it revealed that the Muslim world, in reference to the political mechanism of mutual consultation, did not keep pace with the rapid expanse of the Muslim world.

Uthman (R), like the previous Khaleephas, was appointed by the Muhajireen and Ansaar as the rightfuly khaleepha. During the beginning of Islam, Medina pretty much represented the collective will of the ummah. By the end of Uthman's reign, the Muslim world encompassed so many diferent cultures beyond the Arabian peninsula that the collective will of the 'ummah' was no longer represented in the Muhajireen and Ansar, as well as Medina. Irrespective of the fact that the grievances held by the majority of those people bent on causing fitna were invalid during his reign, these grievances did expose the weakness resulting out of the lack of adapting the shoora to the new conditions. This is precisely why, when the rioters surrounded the house of Uthman (R) when the majority of people of Medina went for hajj demaning that he step down, he (R) stated that it is only those that appointed him, i.e. the Muhajireen and Ansar that can remove him.

When Ali (R) was appointed the khaleepha by the people of Medina, his son Hasan (R) warned him that he should not remain content with the bayaah of Medina, and should seek the surrounding territories for allegiance. This is why one finds certain speeches in Nahjul Balagha stating that Ali (R) emphatically declared his right based upon his being appointed by the Muhajireen and Ansar. He stated that if he did not, he (R) would face the same type of death as Uthman (R), and this was realized a few years later.

Most of the conflicts need to be seen in this political light. As time progressed, politics moved into the realm of theology where various groups tried to gain their 'right' of support from heaven. This is a common human phenomenon. The simple democratic spirit of Islam was turned into theological nonsense, and sectarian divisions grew. The idea of 'imamate' and divine appointment was fabricated, and sunni scholars justified hereditary leadership as well. The latter is quite evident in that the sunnis dominated the courts of the various Empires, such as the Ottoman Empire.

We find baseless political conditions for khaleepha among certain scholars among the ummah. Scholars have argued that a khaleepha can appoint his son without collective will of the people, and so on, but never do they clearly state the ultimate over-riding principle of leadership according to Islam... i.e. the will of the people in choosing their leaders. This is precisely why Husain (R) set out to fight Yazeed. It was the Iraqi people that urged him that they did not support Yazeed, and that they would support him in what he believed the way to return to the process of appointing a khaleepha in accordance with the democratic spirit of Islam.

When they turned their backs like they did on his father and granfather, he set out to pledge allegiance to Yazeed, and what happened is the tragic event of Karbala. The people that were necessary for a political change were not ripe for it.

And like I said in the other journal when you told me to stop being over sensitive, my humility and patience are both tested very well in these journals becase of theway each person talks. I try to respect and keep it civil, but there will be one point (for anyone, not just me) where a person gets upset. It's human nature...and then, unfortunately, let the mudslinging begin.

And in all honesty, as much as I hate to retort in similar fashion in response to someone else's, but I learned that sometimes you have to talk back to people in a similar way as they address you (when all else fails of course).

why do you say I don't comprehend that...what you fail to realize mehnaz, is that it's not my ultimate goal to comprehend the least as possible and shoot down as much as possible from what you tell me.

I can see what you are saying making sense. Just because he had shia under him it doesn't mean they are good by any means and doesnt mean it was in good intentions. The point was only that one can't just talk about saddam's party and say..."see what you sunnis do to shia". There will be oppressors under a certain title at any given time from any certain people. I don't like when people go out of their way and try to ake sunnis seem like the bad guys.

The keeper, you will only be taken seriously if your bouts of politeness are humility are linear and not cyclical.

Secondly, even if there were Shia names under saddam's regime, for arguments sake, doesnt that prove his brutality even more, considering that he rapes peoples wives and daughters in order to enlist their own men to terrorize the masses. Its one way of morale breaking. Its a mind game. Too bad you cant comprehend that.

"I do my best to use logic and try to be humble about it, people like you condescending is the only thing that drives me to become defensive. Think about that one."

"The other fellow who got schooled by Khiladi, again not worth talking to." What exactly did you mean by schooled? Remember that?

As I recall, I was quite polite with you even when you started maked remarks about my lack of comprehension abilities, etc in the discussion about Umar.

Seeing as you want to start afresh Masha'Allah, and as Muslims should never have an argument if it can be avoided, I have no problem in doing that Brother.

so you do believe that the little hole in the pentagon wall there was from a gigantic plane?....you sure you're using your head on that one?

and FYI, your repeated concern about "my ignorance" makes me wonder why you even bother with me. If I don't live up to your class and level of intellect. I do my best to use logic and try to be humble about it, people like you condescending is the only thing that drives me to become defensive. Think about that one.

FYI, the point about tikrit comment was that only 18 weere from the hometown of saddam, but quite a number of the rest have even shia names. In any case, what you think of my level of intellect is quite irrelevant to me, making a simple mistake doesn't indicate someone to have less intellect, unless you're shallow enough to use that as your strongest evidence.