“This booklet is a personal initiative that was initially presented
as a slide set thirty years ago to medical staff in Oman. As a midwife, my
intention at that time was to eventually revise it and present it to the
general public at some future date. It was based on a study of what is
mentioned about child healthcare in particular and personal hygiene in general
in the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and Hadith.” By Sukayna Al Ghaithy
You may download the booklet by pressing
on the image!
Over the past two decades a number of
states and institutions have launched initiatives to promote mutual
understanding between the world’s civilizations through intercultural and interreligious
dialogue. All the professors and academics who are with us here today are
involved in this, so what conclusions can we draw?
This kind of dialogue is clearly not
a waste of time or a symptom of mere idle curiosity. Rather, it shows that there
is a problem which people of good will around the world would like to see
resolved. While it is true that there are plenty of problems in today’s world and
conferences are being held all the time to tackle them and address their root
causes, the fact is that the kind of intercultural dialogue — or dialogue
between civilizations — that concerns us here is essentially a response to the
uneasy relationship between Muslims and the modern world.
Anthropologists (as well as some
strategists) see religion as being a part of culture — indeed, a pivotal part
of it. Here I do not wish to go into the causes of cultural/religious turmoil
or conflict, because much has already been written on the subject; in fact,
Professor Esposito, who is with us here today, has published several books
about it. However, if religion is indeed a cultural phenomenon, this would mean
that it falls into the philosophical category of “Weltanschauung” or “world
view”. Indeed,some people even go so far
as to claim that the mutual hostility we see today is due to the fact that the
way Muslims see themselves and others is incompatible with the values of the
prevailing global culture.
As we all know, there are many
religions in the world — some major and some minor — as well as countless
cultures, and no-one can deny that there is mutual hostility between Western
civilization and some religions and cultures — a hostility that may be
attributed to the hegemony Western nations imposed upon them in the name of
religion in former times, then latterly in the name of “empire”. Eventually it
became a global problem that spawned conferences and symposiums, many of them
focused on relations with Muslims and Islam. This is mainly due to the fact
that there are so many Muslims in the world; today they account for around one fifth
of the total world population and many of them (in their countries of origin
and as expatriate communities) are determined to preserve their distinctive
religious and cultural identity. On the other hand, others — i.e.non-Muslims — see their
attitude as being contrary to their own traditions,values and laws, and it is true
that in some cases it has led to acts of violence against non-Muslims in the
name of Islam.
There have been two kinds of global and
strategic reactions to this situation. One of these maintains that there is a
clash of civilizations; that is to say, that Islam by its very nature is
antagonistic to other religions,cultures and nations and
must be resisted by force. This is what has happened over the last decade. On
the other hand, most academics and informed observers — including those present
here today — prefer the option of intercultural dialogue aimed at peaceful
coexistence and good-neighbourly relations with Muslims.
The important thing is to ensure that
the spectre of violence and terrorism has no place in the international arena
and in relationships between members of the human race.
There have been two lines of approach
to cultural and religious dialogue. The first sees Islam as sharing a number of
common religious denominators — in its beliefs as well as its practices and
Abrahamic origins — with Judaism and Christianity, and consequently with Western
civilization which is rooted in the Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian traditions.
On the cultural side, Muslims and the West share a common historical background
thanks to extensive interaction between their two civilizations in al Andalus,
Sicily, Oman and elsewhere. Moreover,Baghdad’s thriving culture
was largely a result of the Arabic translations of works from their original
languages, including Greek, Syriac, Middle Persian and Sanskrit. The fruits of
that cultural renaissance later spread to Europe, producing a “tripartite
partnership” between the civilizations of Islam, Europe and China.
The second line of approach is
essentially a pragmatic one. Its basic premise is that Western civilization is
now the global civilization and that its main political, social and economic
values have become globalised.Pressure should therefore
be put on Arabs and Muslims to become part of it and abandon their ossified
traditions and violent fundamentalism,because this would be in
their interests in the Age of Globalization. An obsession with identity — and
the consequent violence arising from it — is just a reaction by Muslims to
their failure to become part of the modern world.
We can see from this that the
attitudes adopted by the Muslims’ friends to the dialogue of civilizations show
both sides as being responsible for the crisis in relations, so that
consequently they need to work together to replace it with reconciliation and
There are some people of goodwill and
friends of Islam around the world who recommend the following: firstly, a
recognition of shared values and a dialogue aimed at coexistence based on those
values and, secondly,an acceptance of the
realities of globalization along with the abandonment of entrenched attitudes
and extremism. In their view this is the best way to achieve integration and
put paid to misunderstandings and feelings of disappointment.
It is not my intention here to
present you with a rundown of various Islamic trends and their views on calls
for dialogue. It is well known that many Muslims — traditionalists as well as
others — have responded positively to the idea of religious and cultural
dialogue; some of them see it as a solution and a step in the right direction,
while others view it as an opportunity to put forward their own opinions on the
causes of the mutual hostility.
However, there has been no
corresponding enthusiasm for the idea from the general Muslim public.
There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, seen from a Muslim perspective the problems have nothing to do with religion,
culture or values, but with politics, strategy and economics. Secondly, Muslims
tend to feel that dialogue is not likely to benefit them because it is not
moving in their direction. They believe that what is needed is an approach that
will solve their political, strategic and ethical problems — problems that have
to do with freedom, dignity and respect for one’s fellow humans as human beings.
This is what the Holy Qur’an really means by the word “ta‘aruf” (“knowing one
another”) in the verse: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and
female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another”.
“Ta‘uruf” is something that entails
two mutually complementary processes — knowledge and recognition.
Although Christian-Islamic dialogue
has been going on for over six decades, it has not yielded any tangible results
and it has been limited to the religious elites. Cultural dialogue has been
somewhat more successful because the door has been kept open to exchanges of views,
though this has not led to recognition.
There has been a meeting of minds at
the cultural and human level.This continues to be the
case and the door for dialogue remains open.Meanwhile, as far as results are
concerned, due to a range of political,strategic and economic factors,
intercultural and interreligious relations are not limited solely to contacts
between East and West. This is because in today’s world Asia and Latin America
are also active players in the political and economic order, while the global
financial crisis has been a further significant factor. As a result, today we
stand on the brink of a new multipolar political and economic order governed by
reciprocity and mutual interests within a much broader context than ever
before. Although it is true that there are still many shortcomings, I think we
can say that today there are good prospects for a fairer world with a far
greater degree of give and take — a world in which a growing number of
previously excluded peoples will play an active part in influencing the course
of events. We can look forward to less outside interference in other countries’
affairs, a reduction in violence and counter-violence, greater peace and tranquility
and a rejection of extremism and the use of force, whether in the name of religion
or under any other pretext.
Nevertheless, should we conclude from
all this that Christian-Islamic dialogue has never really served any useful
purpose, and that it never will? Not at all. Quite the contrary, in fact. It is
an essential tool for promoting rapport and mutual understanding. The process
of “ta‘aruf” has led to a series of dialogues, and these have shown us the
potential benefits that familiarity with different cultures and value systems
can bring. Today our younger generation feels — just as we do — that through
the dialogue we have started we will not only be able to acquire knowledge and
engage in constructive discourse, but we shall also gain the recognition that comes
from initiatives, participation and reciprocity (as opposed to having ideas and
values imposed upon us from outside). This cultural-political process has
enabled our young people and our nation to grasp the initiative with their own
hands, rather than suffer invasion in the name of democracy or being told that
there is something called “Arab and Islamic exceptionalism”.
Experience has shown us that most of
the crises in today’s world are due to an absence of moral absolutes, the lack
of a proper value system, and the abandonment of religious belief and guidance.
In Arabic there is a saying which sums up the need for all mankind to agree to
live together, while striving to work for the common good by remaining true to
the highest moral principles — “Low la’l wi’am,lahalaka’l
— or in English: “Were it not for harmony, mankind would perish”.
Harmony, by: Abdullah bin Muhammad al Salimi, Al-Tafahom Magazine, issue number
were groups of people who appeared at the time of A ’Taabi ’een3
and those who came after them. Their leaders were Naﬁ’a bin Alazraq, Najdah
bin Aamir,Abdul-Allah bin Alasfer and their followers. They were
given this name because of their radical approach of accusing others of
unbelief, which set them apart from the truth and the Muslim community. For Khawarij,
a sinner was a heretic whom it was permissible to kill and whose properties
could be despoiled. This false accusation was all based on their
misinterpretation of the A1mighty’s words: “If you were to obey them, you would
indeed be heretics”, AlAn’am 6:121. They claimed that
this verse meant if you obey heretics in eating carrion4, you will
be deemed one of them. However, the correct understanding of this verse is that
those who make carrion lawful are heretics5.
When their news reached Imam A’Rabi
bin Habeeb bin Amr AlBasri AlFarahidi AlIbadhi6, the author of AlMusnad
A’Sahih7, may Allah have mercy on him, he said: “leave them
until they apply what they say. If they do so, we will apply Allah’s ruling on
them”. Thus, when their wrong innovations [bid’ah] became apparent and
they applied their wrong dangerous doctrines, killing Muslims, Ibadhis
declared their dissociation from them, expelled them from their meetings and fought
them in different places. Ibadhis announced, based on clear and
assertive verses from the Qur’an, that Khawarij were Kufaar [unbelievers]
for they permitted what Allah forbade.
Omanis, for example, stood with AlMuhalab
in the face of Khawarij’s armies. (For more information see AlKamil
written by AlMubarad)8. The famous Ummayad Azdi Omani warrior, AlMuhallab
bin Abi Sufrah, took the responsibility of suppressing this group and motivating
people to ﬁght them. However, to give a stronger motive for ﬁghting Khawarij,
AlMuhallab started creating wrong hadiths9 against Khawarij.
This doubled the crisis of the Khawarij as not only many Muslims were
also, wrong hadiths were made up. Because these groups of Khawarij
were against arbitration10, Ibadhis who were against it as
well were falsely and unjustly attached to them. However, this unjust
attachment can be refuted as follows:
First, Ibadhis do not approve
of the ruling of tyrant kings. For them, it is a must that the Caliph should
follow the steps of the rightly guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar11.
This was clearly stated by the Prophet, peace be upon him,as he said in an authentic hadith, agreed upon, “Fol1ow the
examples of those who come after me, Abu Baker and Umar”12. When
this hadith was narrated about Ammar bin Yasir13, may
Allah have mercy on him, “you'll be killed by the transgressor party”, it was
used by the opponents of arbitration as well as the other party. Although its
authenticity was conﬁrmed by both parties,Mu’awiyah’s group interpreted it in a way that twists
the reality in their favor14.
Second, driven by their desires, many
people claim that the people of A’Nahrwan15 rebelled against Ali16.
This is an unsound claim, for Ibadhis had insisted that Ali should
stay as the Caliph of the Muslims. However, when he accepted arbitration, they
freed themselves from the allegiance because they didn’t see any point in negotiating
his right as an elected Caliph by Muslims. His concession to the arbitration
with Mu’awiyah’s group means that his election was questioned; therefore,
they elected their own Caliph, amongst the most pious companions of the
Prophet, Abdul-Allah bin Wahab A’Rasbi AlAzdi17. When Wahab
was elected, Ibadhis asked their brothers, including Imam Ali, to
give allegiance to the newly chosen Imam. However, Alibin Abi Talib
saw that the allegiance was given to Azdi18 not Qurashi19,
so he fought them before getting stronger and thus Quraish would lose
the Imamate. This was the only reason for the Battle of A’Nahrawan20.
In Dawmat AlJandel21, Mu’awiyah took the Caliphate
after the negotiation of the two arbitrators, Amr bin Alas and Abu
Musa Al’Ash’ari. Consequently, Ali debated and asked Wahab’s group
to ﬁght Mu’awiyah and his followers, but it was too late as they were
free from their allegiance to him. Ibadhis didn't elect a new Caliph,
until the result of arbitration appeared. What they warned against happened,for
arbitration was wangled by Al’Ash’ath bin Qais who was put into Ali’s
group by Mu’awiyah.
Thus, it is not as claimed by
falsiﬁers of history and extreme sectarians that the Battle of A’Nahrawan
happened because of a rebellion against Ali. On the contrary, they did not leave
his group when his allegiance was valid. Therefore,people looking for the truth should be aware of making a mistake
in this regard as it is apparent that desires are pervasive amongst such people22.
Third, the name Khawarij
didn't appear until the spread of Azariqah’s movement. Thus,the
people of A’Nahrwan were not described as Khawarij. The ﬁrst use
of this name was by Mu’awiyah against one of his visitors from the people
of Mu’awiyah, Al’Ahnaf bin Qais23. He said to him,
“Why do people like [admire] you knowing that you are from Khawarij?” Al’Ahnaf
replied, “If people had found water bad, they wouldn’t have drunk it”. Mu’awiyah
meant here those who refused to accept him as Caliph (see Al’Amali by
Abdu Ali AlQali24).
Was Mu’awiyah's accusation of Al’Ahnaf as being Khariji25
because Al’Ahnaf was with the people fought by Ali in the Battle
of A’Nahrwan? Or was it because he did not pledge the allegiance to Mu’awiyah?
If it were because of the former reason, Mu’awiyah’s party would have
been more eligible of this description as he was the one who fought against Ali
on the Day of Siffeen and freed himself of Ali’s allegiance,
knowing that he was given allegiance by prominent companions and his allegiance
must be followed by all Muslims.
Fourth, Ibadhis have never
fought against any monotheists [Muslims] even when AIHajaj and Ziyad
bin Abeeh got tough on Muslims based on doubts. However, they were rebelled
against by a group called A’Tawaboon headed by great scholars like Saeed
bin Jubair and Ibrahim A’Nakh’i. Later, AlHajaj killed Saeed
bin Jubair, who was a scholar in the interpretation of the Holy Qur’an.
What was really surprising was that this big group of scholars who took up the sword
against the horrible injustice done by AlHajaj was not called Khawarij,
but they were called A’Tawaboon [the people of repentance]. They were all
carriers of knowledge who died in the ﬁght except about three. Certainly, a
mind is stunned because of such a tragedy, yet many readers overlook it.
However, those who scrutinize history
objectively will ﬁnd out that the word Khawarij was unjustly given to Ibadhis
because they only believed that the Imamate [Caliphate] should not be
restricted to the tribe of Quraish. This position is the right of
whoever is elected by Muslims to lead them because it is clearly unwise to accept
that Allah places the leadership of all humankind in the hands of only one
tribe irrespective of whether it does right or wrong. Common sense supports what
Ibadhis believe on this issue, and how they have used this belief to
interpret the hadith that “the Imams are from Quraish”. It is a kind
of arrogance and avoidance of the truth to claim that leadership is restricted
the supporters [Ansar] of the Prophet, peace be upon him, who understood
his teachings, said to Abu Bakar, “A leader from us and a leader from
you”. With the same token, the reply of Abu Bakr “leaders are from us,
and ministers are from you as Arabs are subservient to this tribe” does not
support the restriction of the Caliphate Quraish. He justiﬁed it with
Arabs being subservient to Quraish but not for any other reason as
claimed by people of political and sectarian desires. Would nations of different
races accept being driven by a man from Quraish only because of his tribe?! It
Fifth: Ibadhis desire justice
to disseminate the application of the Quran and Sunna, and to follow the
political paradigm of rightly guided Caliphs whether the person in charge is Qurashi,Habashi
[Ethiopian], Arab, or non-Arab, as it was narrated in sound hadiths.
This is why they accepted the leadership of Umar bin Abdul-Aziz26, and
they sent a group of six great Ibadhi scholars,J’afer bin A’Simak, Abu AlHur Ali bin AlHusain Al’Anbri,
AlHattat bin Kateb, AlHabab binKulaib, Abu Suyan
Qanber AlBasri, and Salim bin Thakwan among other unnamed scholars, but these
were the names I came across, may Allah have his mercy upon them all. Non-Ibadhi
historians mentioned these delegates to Umar bin Abdul-Aziz though they
said with their usual insinuation: “The Khawarij sent him a delegation”.
However, they did not mention what happened between them and the Caliph Umar
and his acceptance of all their suggestions about spreading justice, and
purging the country of the Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali from the
Ibadhi delegation said to Umar, “Muslims are cursing from pulpits
in mosques, so this evil tradition must be changed”. Thus, Umar replaced
it with the words of Allah: “Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and
giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He
admonishes you that you remember”, Anahl 16: 90.
In spite of this, many historians
still do not admit the good that Ibadhis have done to this Ummah [Muslim
nation]. Blindly, they overlook many incidents that prove how Ibadhis
were always there defending justice and truth and ﬁghting injustice with words
not swords as it was done by Abdul-Allah bin Ibadh27 with Abdul-Malik
bin Marwan and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudair28 with Ziyad
bin Abeeh. They have never accepted that it is permissible to shed blood among
Muslims or lawful to despoil their properties. Ibadhis have always
believed in the freedom of choice and opinions as everyone is accountable for
what he/ she has. They were unlike otherswho used the sword to establish their states or to force people to
follow their sects.Ibadhis gave
people the freedom of expression and the freedom to choose their sects, for
there is no compulsion in religion. For Ibadhis, truth is acceptable
from whoever brings it and falsehood is returned to whoever brings it. Thus, Ibadhism
is the only sect that grants a slave freedom once he/ she agrees with his/her
lord even if s/he does not pay the full price of his/her freedom. The remaining
amount is a debt the slave has to pay later. This shows how Ibadhis were
ahead of others in understanding the essence of Shari’ah[Islamic Law].
By mentioning Khawarij’s hideous
actions, it has become clear that Ibadhis do not have any connection
with Khawarij. These differences between Ibadhis and Khawarij
have become clear for just those non-Ibadhi intellectuals who realized
the truth and admitted it, for returning to the truth is an obligation and a
Sixth, Ibadhis allow intermarriages
between them and all other monotheists while Khawarij do not because the
Khawarij see others as polytheists [heretics]- as explained before.
Based on this, they also do not allow inheritance between them and those who
disagree with them because heresy that prevents intermarriage prevents
inheritance as well. So, did falsiﬁers of history turn a blind eye to these
differences? That is what a person sees when turning the pages of history in
the records and books of other Muslims [non-Ibadhis] who have not learned
from what Allah says in the Holy Quran: “And those who annoy believing men and women
undeservedly, bear on themselves the crime of slander and plain sin”, AlAhzab
Allah says: “O you who believe! Stand
out ﬁrmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of
others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that
is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that
you do”, AlMa’idah 5: 8.
Indeed, a Muslim gets bewildered from
those calumniators on the People of Truth and Straightness, lbadhis. How
dare they say those things for no other reason than for their hidden desires.
We seek refuge with Allah from following desires and denying the truth. Do they
not know that they would meet Allah with this slander? Or is it their belief
that leaving Hell Fire has eased everything for the sake of following desires?
Seventh, Ibadhis have turned
their effort to serve Islam in knowledge and practice since the Fitnah29
started. They were the ﬁrst to write down the hadith of the Prophet; our
Imam, Jabir bin Zaid was the ﬁrst to write down the hadith and
the Prophet of the companions’ sayings in his Diwan [volumes of books]
which was described to be as large as a load of a camel. Then after him, his students,
carriers of knowledge to the east and the west, followed his steps.
The Khawarij practiced
bloodshed, scared people and abolished the rulings of Islam. None of the Khawarij
were known to have written a book and those who are attributing books to
Khawarij mean Ibadhis. Undoubtedly, they want to distort the Ibadhis’
The same thing is said about the Sufriya,Azariqah,
and Najdiyah30; they did not care about the
narrations of the Prophet or writing down hadith except a narration by Najdah
bin Amer31 who narrated one hadith and Nafe bin
Alazraq32 who had questions to Ibn Abbas, yet this is not
the place to mention them. Rather, the Khawarij were concerned about
warring rather than the compilation and narration of knowledge. All those who
were mentioned as scholars of Khawarij by other non-Ibadhi
Muslims were Ibadhis scholars.
Our ancestors [Ibadhis] came
with wonders in recording knowledge and they were well known for their piety,
trustworthiness, and honesty to a status none but them attained. Therefore, some
non-Ibadhi Muslim writers resorted to distorting the facts with false
and promiscuous Propaganda when they were shocked by those blight lights33.
They did not mix Ibadhis with Khawarij except to blur the lines
of truth in envy.
How would a person who has taken
distortions as his principles and whose insight has gone blind admit the truth?!
You ﬁnd that those false writers would never -mention our companions [Ibadhis] with
any good virtue even when they were to be mentioned. Rather, they would ignore
their greatness in knowledge and religious perfection.Indeed, I have come across some books on history and literature
in which there must have been a mention of our companions [Ibadhis] as
to what they have contributed. Yet, with no piety, those authors ignored them
as if they did not exist. This is a transgression and indulgence in blurring
the truth that you never ﬁnd with our companions [Ibadhis]. Praise be to
Allah, the Most High, the Most Great.
Eighth, when our Muslim brothers [non-Ibadhis]
recorded history and they mentioned our companions [Ibadhis], they
failed to tell the truth.Instead,
they mixed Ibadhis with Khawarij.Sometimes, they attributed Ibadhis to Khawarij,while
other times they attributed Khawarij to Ibadhis as done by many
authors in Usul [the Fundamentals of Islamic Law] attribute the sayings
of Mutazilah34 to Ibadhis and vice versa.This
resulted in mixing things up and distortion because those authors who depended
on copying from these sources fell in the same mistake. To me, they do not have
any excuse, for the one who spreads the truth should request it from its source
and not forge it as he wants.
We ﬁnd those who claim that Abu Bilal
bin Mirdas bin Hudair was among the Khawarij and Qatri bin Alfuja’a
was among the Ibadhis! Yet,the
reality is the opposite. Another confuses that Imam Talib AlHaq Abdu-Allah
bin Yahya AlKindi was Imam Abdu-Allah bin Ibadh, but that was not right.
Imam Abdul-Allah bin Ibadh died in the last days of Abdul-Malik bin
Marwan, while Talib AlHaq Abdul-Allah bin Yahya appeared during the time
of Marwan AlHimar [Marwan the donkey]35 in l30H. This is how
those authors mix facts up to distort the Ibadhis’ repute. Looking at
the history of Andalusia36, you will not see a mention of Ibadhis.
The truth is that lbadhis have attained in Andalusia a great status in
knowledge and wealth. Ibiza island in Andalusia was fully inhabited by Ibadhis
until the sixth century, Hijri37, or even further until the
fall of Andalusia.
When reading Tabakat Ibn S’ad38,
there is no mention of Ibadhis except for Imam Jabir bin Zaid who
had to be mentioned as he was too famous to be ignored.
The indisputable truth is that
important ﬁgures are closer to [well known by] their people and history is
better known by its people than others. Allah says the truth and He guides to
the right path.
The innovations of Khawarij
necessitated Islamic rules against them. Muslims said that there must be a
distinction between major sins so Muslims do not fall in the crimes of Khawarij.Major
sins are of two types: major sins of heresy [shirk] and major sin of
hypocrisy [nifaq]. Major sins of heresy [shirk] include every sin
that violates Islamic creed like allowing what Allah forbids, forbidding what
Allah allows, rejecting what must be known about religion, or rejecting Islamic
rulings such as stoning. The sins of hypocrisy are sins of ingratitude to Allah’s
bounties. This is what scholars of hadith call a deviation without
unbelief [kufr dona kufr]39; they are the major sins of
corruption [ﬁsq] to non-lbadhis. These sins include committing
intercourse, eating unlawful food, perjury,disobedience of parents, and other similar acts and deeds. More
examples include ceasing the performance of obligatory orders of Allah without believing
that they are non-obligatory. Ibadhis call all these sins major sins of
hypocrisy [nifaq] and ingratitude to Allah’s bounties [kufr ne’mah].
When Ibadhis call a sin ‘kufr’, this would lead to the next
question: does it affect the major belief [creed] or is it part of doing acts
of worship or not? Accordingly, the type of disbelief [kufr] can be
recognized whether it is kufr of hypocrisy or kufr of shirk.
Our Ibadi companions do not call others kuffar [unbelievers]40
without a legitimate reason and they do not call the people of Qibla
[Muslims] kuffar [disbelievers] as long as they are under the word of sincerity41
[ikhlas]. The truth is that they are distinguished by this method even
if it is claimed by other Islamic schools of thought. If you realize this, you
will know that there is a marked distinction between Ibadhis and Khawarij
and nothing links them together except rejecting the arbitration which is the
truth that is supported by Quran, Sunnah, the path of Omarein42
and the consensus of Muslims. So, hold ﬁrmly to the truth as who depends on
Allah will be guided to the straight path.
Some of our scholars and other non-Ibadi
scholars said that Khawarij deny stoning. According to me, this is not
true unless we consider their ruling that a person who commits a major sin is
an unbeliever whose blood is lawful.In
this case, the one who commits adultery is killed because he is considered a
non-believer not killed as a punishment for adultery; therefore,there
is no need to deny stoning.
This matter, according to me, is not as
many think; some non-Ibadi Muslims’ claim that Khawarij reject
stoning has an insinuation. This claim backﬁres on them because they narrated a
verse that states “if an old man and old woman commit adultery, stone them as a
punishment from Allah and Allah is Almighty All-Wise” was recited in the Holy
Quran in AlAhzab43 but was eaten by a goat. Based on this
false narration, an imperfection has occurred in the Qur’an. This terrible
error will always accompany them despite their claims that its recitation is
being abrogated while its ruling remains in effect. However, our Ibadi scholars
say that stoning is not prescribed in the Holy Qur’an but in the hadith. Imam AlHaﬁdh
AlHujjah44A’Rabibin Habeeb narrated in his Sahih
that Imam Jabir bin Zaid said, “Istinja45, circumcision
witr46 and stoning are obligatory Sunnah47”.
Praise be to Allah Who has protected
our companions48 from error and may Allah bless our Prophet
Muhammad, his righteous family, followers and his companions.
Abu Is’haq Ibrahim Attfayish
1 This book hopes to clear out some misconceptions that many people
hold about Ibadhis based on other inaccurate or biased sources written
long time ago.
2 Two ways of spelling
the same word.
3 Those who met the
companions of the Prophet but did not see him.
4 Carrion means here
a dead animal meat that is not slaughtered in the lawful way.
5 Once, while Allah’s
Messenger, peace be upon him, was reciting the above verse, ‘Adi bin Hatim
said, “O Allah’s Prophet! They do not worship them (rabbis and monks).’ Allah’s
Messenger said, “They certainly do. They (i.e. rabbis and monks) made legal
things illegal,and illegal things legal, and they (i.e. Jews and Christians)
followed them; and by doing so they really worshiped them”. Narrated by Ahmed,
Attirmidhi, and Ibn Jarir. (Tafsai A’Ttabari, Vol. 10, p.114)
6 Died in 175H.
7 A book that has very
authentic Prophet’s tradition because the narrators are described as golden
8 This is the
author’s note within the original text.
Prophet’s traditions, his sayings and practices and sometimes called ‘the
Sunnah of the Prophet’.
10 Arbitration was a
trick used by Amr bin Alas, who was in Mu’awiyah’s side, to take the Caliphate
from Ali during the Battle of Siffeen in 37H/ 657G.
11 They were the ﬁrst two
successors after the Prophet peace be upon him.
12 An authentic hadith
narrated by AlHakim, and A'Tirmidhi.
was one of the loyal companions who accepted Islam early and was killed in Siffeen
14 Mu’awiyah claimed
that Ali killed Ammar because he brought him and threw him in Mu’awiyah’s
lances (or swords(
15 A Place in Iraq, in
the south east of Baghdad
16 The fourth Caliph
elected by Muslims and the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet.
17 He was a companion
of the Prophet described as a knowledgeable brave person and one of the
reciters of the Qur’an. He supported Imam Ali in his battles and he participated
in the conquest of Iraq with S’ad bin Abi Waqas. He died in 38AH.
18 Azdi is an
attribution to a person who belongs a famous Arabic tribe called Azd.
l9 Qurashi is an
attribution to a person who belongs a famous Arabic tribe called Quraish from
20 Some Ibadhi scholars
question the validity of this claim.
21 A place 1n the far
north of current Saudi Arabia.
23 Died in 67H.
24 A note by the
25 Khariji: a singular
form of the plural form of Khawarij.
26 An Umayyad Caliph who
followed the way of the rightly guided Caliphs. He died in l0lH/ 720CE.
27 He was the
political spokesman of a group of Muslims who were attributed to his name, Ibn
Ibadh. He lived during the time of Umayyad.
28 He was with Imam
Ali’s group then after the arbitration, he was one of the main leaders in A’Nahrawan
and among the few who survived the Battle of A’Nahrawan. Later, he became the
closet companion of Jabir bin Zaid and was killed in 61H.
29 Fitnah, an Arabic
word, refers to the time when Muslims split into political groups and fought
each other in 37H/ 657CE.
30 of Khawarij.
31 He was the founder
of A’Najdat’s group, a group of Khawarij, and took over Bahrain during Umayyad’s
era and he was killed in 73H.
32 He was the founder
of Azariqah’s group.
33 A metaphor means
34 A school of Islamic
theology based on rational thought. It emerged in the Umayyad Era, and
ﬂourished in the Abbasid period.
35 There are many
explanations why he was called the donkey.
36 Alandalus was the
old Arabic name for the land conquered by Arabs including Spain and Portugal.
37 Hijri refers to the
Islamic calendar starting from the emigration of the Prophet from Mecca to Madinah
38 Ibn S’ad was born
in 168 AH / 784CE and died in 230 AH/ 845CE. This book is an eight-volume work
that included the biographies of outstanding Islamic personalities.
39 This is one level
of disbelief. It means a person is insisting on committing sins but he is still
40 Unbeliever or
non-believer is someone who is outside the faith, either by choice or because
they haven’t been told. Disbeliever implies a deliberate and deﬁnite rejection
of the belief, ideas, concepts in a religion.
41 The word of sincerity
means that people witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His
42 The ﬁrst two
rightly guided Caliphs after the Prophet peace be upon him.
43 Chapter 33 in the
44 These names are
titles given to A’Rabi and many other great scholars as they are distinguished
in their ﬁeld of knowledge.
45 Cleaning private parts
46 An Islamic prayer performed
at night after Isha’a (night-time prayer(or before Fajr (dawn
47 The sayings and
practices prescribed by the Prophet Muhammed,peace be upon him.
48 Ibadhi scholars.
The Differences between Ibadhis and Khawarij,
written by: Sheikh Ibrahim Attfayish, translation and commentary by:Muneer AlHadhrami and Abdullah AlRawahi.