Ibadhism, The Cinderella of Islam (Chapter8)

CHAPTER 8

SECTS (MADHAHIB)

SECTS OR MADHAAHIB

          The origin of madhahib was not always religious. In some cases there were social or political factors which brought about the rise of certain movements in the name of religion. For example during the period of Umayyad and Abbasid rulers, many countries were conquered and so considerable wealth was acquired. As a result, Muslim ruling classes led a life-style of luxury, pomp and affluence in sharp contrast to the austere way of living led by the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) and his Companions. This brought about resentment and revolt especially among those of older generations who still remembered the simple life of Allah’s Messenger. And so started the adoption of the doctrine of Sufism with its teachings of ascetism, self-denial and unworldliness.

          Likewise Mu’tazilism came into existence to protest against the exercise of arbitrary and despotic powers by the Umayyad rulers. Their officials defended them by saying that the rulers were not responsible for what they did- it is God who causes everything, whether it is good or bad:

ما أصاب من مصيبة في الأرض ولا في كتاب من قبل أن تبرأها

(verse 22 of Suratul Hadeed)

“No calamity befalls on the earth or in yourselves but it is inscribed in the Book of Decrees (Al-Lawhul Mahfudh) before we bring it into existence ”                                                 (Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan).

Or as the Holy Prophet said,

إنك لن تجد ولن تؤمن وتبلغ حقيقة الإيمان حتى تؤمن بالقدر خيره وشره انه من الله (مسند الإمام الربيع حديث 72)

“You will not find nor believe and reach the true faith until you believe in the Divine Predestination (Fate), its good and its evil are (all) from Allah ”                           (Hadith 72 of Musnad Imam Rabi)

          Because of the misapplication of the doctrine of Fatalism, the idea of Freewill arose in which man including a ruler is made accountable for his actions (Studies in Muslim Philosophy by Saeed Sheikh, Lahore, 1962). Similarly, the formation of Shia and Khawarij was the result of the political crisis surrounding Seyyidna Ali and Muawiyah over the office of Caliphate. The Shias were all along on the side of Seyyidna Ali whereas the Khawarij, although at first supported him, eventually extricated themselves from both contenders. Thenceforward each party went its own way.

          And so Islam, like all other religions, started as one undivided unit during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and continued to be so for the next 24 years after his death. But during the second half of the third Caliphate of Uthman, troubles and discontent began to simmer underground until violence erupted on his 12^th year of office when he was murdered by a group of Muslims from Egypt and Iraq in conspiracy with some Companions (Sahabas) from Medina. When Seyyidna Ali took over as Khalifa, the Uthman supporters directed their anger at him for failing to punish the culprits. A rebellion broke out led by Muawiya, the Governor of Syria and distant cousin of Uthman who refused to recognize Seyyidna Ali as Khalifa. As we saw when we were tracing the tragic events during Seyyidna Ali’s Caliphate, the first group to break away from him were the Uthmaniyyun. They were thus the first group of seceders. Then when an arbitration committee was later proposed to settle the dispute between Ali and Muawiya another faction from among Ali’s supporters also seceded- they became the second group of Khawarij. But the Khawarij No.1 (the Uthmaniyyun) became the rulers of the Islamic State after the death of Ali. Hence nobody dared call them Khawarij, and so the label Khawarij has remained stuck to the second group until today. If Khawarij means breaking away from Imam Ali and from the mainstream of Islam, then the only true Islamic group that remains is the Shia because they have not withdrawn their allegiance from him nor from his descendants up to the present time. This is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the logic of the sectarian fanatics. The succeeding generations witnessed continuous bloody conflicts between the first group of Khawarij as rulers and the second group as rebels fighting against corruption and tyranny which characterized, with few exceptions, the Umayyad and Abbasid rules. The Uthmaniyyun usurped the Caliphate from its rightful incumbent, Seyyidna Ali. When a group of people seizes power wrongfully they should not expect others will stand idly by without armed rebellion.

          On the question of calling each other by labels like Khawarij, the Holy Qur’an has this to say in ayah 11 of Suratul Hujuraat (49):-

"ولا تلمزوا أنفسكم ولا تنابزوا بالألقاب بئس الإسم الفسوق بعد الإيمان ومن لم يتب فأولئك هم الضالمون"

Its translation runs as follows:-

“Nor defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. How bad to insult one’s brother after having faith [i.e. to call your Muslim brother (a faithful believer) as sinner or wicked]. And whosever does not repent, then such are indeed wrongdoers”

                                                                   (Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan).

In other words, Allah has forbidden Muslims to call one another by bad names (like Khawarij) after becoming believers. The two translators of the Qur'an (Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan) in spite of the above ayah have appended a footnote to ayah 115 of Suratu Tawba (9) as follows:-

“Killing the Khawarij (people who dissented from the religion and disagreed with the rest of the Muslims), and the Mulhidun (heretics) after establishment of firm proof against them”.

The statement in the footnote contradicts what Seyyidna Ali said about the Khawarij. He said:-

لا تقاتلوا الخوارج بعدي فليس من طلب الحق فأخطأه, كمن طلب الباطل فأدركه

Do not fight the Khawarij after me, for those who sought for a right and missed it are not like those who sought for a wrong and attained it (Dr. Hussein A. Ghabbash quoting from Nahji – l- Balaaghah by Imam Ali(

Here Seyyidna Ali was comparing two groups – the Khawarij and the Uthmaniyyun. The former fought for a right which they failed to achieve namely the establishment and the general recognition of Seyyidna Ali’s lawful Caliphate; whereas the latter group fought for a wrong which they won, to wit, the establishment of an unlawful Caliphate of Muawiyah. Hence Seyyidna Ali’s statement, ‘do not fight the Khawarij henceforth’. So the inflammable statement quoted in the footnote to verse 115 of Chapter 9 of the Holy Qur'an by the two translators is intended to create sectarian friction and dissension among Muslims.

The footnote continues:-

“And Ibn Umar used to consider them the worst of Allah’s creatures.” ‘Them’ here refers to the Khawarij and the Mulhidun.

Dr. Hussein A. Ghabbash in his book عمان (Oman p.56) makes the following comments on Seyyidna Ali’s statement quoted earlier:-

وما يلفت النظر حقا, هو أن عليا لم يعتبر المنشقين عنه مشركين أو منافقين بل كما يقول "إخواننا بغوا علينا فقاتلناهم"

And what really draws (one’s) attention is that (Seyyidna) Ali did not consider those who seceded from him polytheists or hypocrites but, as he said, ‘They are our brothers who wronged us and we fought them’. (Seyyidna Ali’s statement has been quoted from Ibn Katheer’s Al-Bidaayah Wa Nnihaayah).

Note the contradictions between Ibn Umar’s alleged statement and Seyyidna Ali’s. Ibn Umar referred to the Khawarij as ‘the worst of Allah’s creatures’, that is, worse than the infidels or polytheists whereas Seyyidna Ali considered them as ‘our brothers who wronged us’. Ibn Umar’s alleged statement is again intended to create discord among Muslims. Seyyidna Ali knew the Khawarij more than any other Muslim leader. They fought for him in two battles and they wanted to continue fighting for him to the end, and so rejected the arbitration, and it proved they were right because the arbitration turned out to be a fraud.

          The two translators have moreover exhibited complete misunderstanding of this aspect of Islamic history. If they had studied it objectively, without bias, they would have learnt that the Khawarij were a group of people who broke away from Imam Ali for political rather than religious reasons. Dr. Majid Ali Khan in his book, The Pious Caliphs published in Kuwait (p.209) says:-

‘The Khawarij were more a political group than theological..... in the later period this group became almost extinct’.

The Khawarij as a group of Islamic sects (Azraqis, Najdat, Sufriya) no longer exists.

          The Khawarij were not the only ones to secede. The Uthmaniyyun and their leader Muawiyah were the first Khawarij to break away from Imam Ali and refused from the beginning to pledge allegiance to him as the legitimate Khalifa of all Muslims, while the so-called Khawarij accepted and recognized him and fought on his side all along against the Khawarij – Uthmaniyyun. It is only later when an arbitration was proposed that they seceded and rejected the proposal, and it turned out they were right because the arbitration proved to be a deceit against Imam Ali, and the deceit was perpetrated by Muawiyah and his followers.

          The two learned translators also write about ‘Killing the Khawarij’. It is very regrettable that they have chosen Allah’s Holy Book as a forum to foment terrorism against fellow Muslims. Every Muslim should know that Islam today is accused of supporting terrorism. Hence the translators have supplied the enemies of Islam a firm proof that it is a religion of terrorism. In the current world situation, human rights issues are given great prominence and one of the fundamental rights of man is his Freedom of Worship. Not only has man the right to belong to any religious sect, he also has the right to belong to any faith he chooses, and no civilized society would permit the killing of a man for his religious beliefs. It might have been accepted in the first and second millennium in some societies but is certainly not acceptable in any society in the third millennium. The footnote continues:-

“And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah’s creatures and said, ‘These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers”.

          The two translators have not mentioned what those verses are which have been misinterpreted. With regard to Ibn Umar, the lbadhis have respect for him, first, because he was one of the Sahabas and, secondly, he was the son of Seyyidna Umar whom the Ibadhis have the greatest admiration for his just administration. But Ibn Umar was not a prophet, his opinion in one way or another would not entitle a Muslim to go to Heaven nor would it help him on the Day of Judgment. It is his private opinion which can be taken at face value – it carries no weight.

          The Khawarij are not the only ones whose interpretation of some Qur'anic verses differ from others. The following are examples of Ayahs which have been given different meanings by two different translators, the differences being fundamental, not merely superf1cial:-

A)       Verse l of Suratul Qalam (68)

"والقلم وما يسطرون"

Dr. Al-Hilali and Dr. Khan translate it as follows:-

“By the Pen and by what they (the angles) write (in the records of men) ”

Ustadh Abdullah Yusuf Ali on the other hand explains it this way:-

“By the Pen and by the (record) which (men) write”.

The reader will thus notice that the first translation of وما يسطرون means “and by what the angels write.....” Whereas the second translator understands it in the sense of …. “And the (record) which men write”...... totally different interpretation!!

B)          In verse 7 of Suratul Jinn (72)

"وأنهم ظنوا كما ظننتم أن لن يبعث الله أحدا"

Dr. Al-Hilali with Dr. Khan interpret it thus:-

“And they thought as you thought, that Allah will not send any messenger (to mankind or jinn)”

while Ustadh Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates it as follows:-

“And they (came to) think as you thought, that Allah would not raise up anyone (to Judgment)”

One has translated the word يبعث to mean “to send” and the other in the sense of “to raise up” (i.e. resurrect). There is obviously a stark difference in the two interpretations.

C)           In Suratul-Jinn again, verse 28 has been translated differently by the two translators:-

ليعلم أن قد أبلغوا رسالات ربهم

Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan explain it as follows:-

“(Allah protects the Messengers), till He sees that they (the Messengers) have conveyed the message of their Lord (Allah)”.

Thus they have translated the word:- ليعلم to mean “till God sees”... .. whereas Ustadh Abdullah Yusuf Ali understood it to mean, “that the Holy Prophet may know… ….”

D)          The best example in this connection is ayah 29 of Suratul-Hijr (15):-

"فإذا سويته ونفخت فيه من روحي فقعوا له ساجدين"

Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan’s interpretation of the ayah is as follows:-

“So when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall(you) down prostrating yourselves unto him”.

Ustadh Abdullah Yusuf Ali explains it this way:-

“When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit fall you down in obeisance unto him”.

Thus one has translated the words ونفخت فيه من روحي)) to mean I breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him whereas the other interpreted the clause to mean, “and breathed into him (Adam) of My spirit”: There is a world of difference between the two translations. If the second translation is correct it means man’s soul is part of Divine Soul, whereas according to the first, man has a soul specially created for him, separate from the Soul of Allah and then breathed it into him.

E)           In verse l5 of Suratu Ibrahim Allah says:-

"واستفتحوا وخاب كل جبار عنيد"

which has been explained to mean:-

“But they sought victory and decision, and frustration was the lot of every powerful obstinate transgressor”.  

          Ustadh Abdullah Yusuf has explained that “they” refers to the ungodly (Kuffars) whereas Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan say it means the Messengers (that is the Prophets). The two interpretations are totally contradictory.

          In all the five examples given above there are serious differences in the translations and one of them must be right and the other wrong, although both translations have been approved by Islamic Authorities in Saudi Arabia. But then can we describe the translator who is wrong (whoever he may be) as “the worst of Allah’s creatures” as Ibn Umar is alleged to have described the Khawarij because they have been wrongly accused of misinterpreting some Qur’anic verse? These differences are common among scholars of all Islamic sects; they are only magnified and exaggerated when they involve scholars among the Khawarij or Ibadhis. Every scholar makes an honest attempt to translate the Qur'an to the best of his knowledge and ability, but there are some Qur'anic verses which are not clear (آيات متشابهات) and as Allah Himself has said in ayah 7 of suratul-Imran (3), “no one knows its true meaning except Allah”.

          Among the Qur'anic verses which are ambiguous are those dealing with theological issues and that is why they have brought about differences among the madhahib. To the Ibadhis these issues are not so important; what is important is that we should obey and worship our Lord in this life according to what are commonly accepted as His Commandments and Injunctions as prescribed in the Qur'an and the Holy Prophet’s Sunnas. But to the others these controversial side issues are more important than the fundamental principles of Islam itself and those who disagree with them are branded as heretics.

          Dr. lsrar Ahmed Khan in the Introduction to Qur’anic studies (Kuala Lumpur, 200 p.305) refers to Dr. Muhammad Hussein Al Dhahabi who emphasize that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) elaborated a great portion of the Qur’an to his companions (Sahaba) but not the entire book. He presents two arguments supporting his opinion.

a)    According to Abdullah bin Abbas, Tafsir (interpretation of the HolyQur’an) has four dimensions:-

1)      Tafsir based on the Arabs’ understanding of the language

2)      Tafsir of those parts of the Qur'an that are easily comprehensible even by an ignorant person;

3)      Tafsir known to ‘Ulama’ (Scholars); and

4)      Tafsir which is known to Allah alone for example the occurrence of the Last Day and the reality of the Spirit are beyond human perception and are known to Allah alone. (This also seems to be the opinion of Al Tabari).

b)    Had the Prophet (Peace be upon him) explained to his adherents the whole Qur'an, there would not have been controversy among them over the meaning of certain Qur'anic verses.

With regard to the opinion no.4 above about ‘ayahs’ the interpretation of which is known to Allah alone, it is supported by verse no.7 of Suratul Imran (3) which reads as follows:-

“He (Allah) it is who has sent down to you (Muhammad) the Book (the Qur’an). In it, are verses fundamental that are clear (in meaning); they are the foundation of them Book, and others are not entirely clear. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not entirely clear, seeking discord, and searching for its interpretation. But no one knows its true meaning except Allah” (Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

          In man-made laws, disagreements in their interpretation are very common among lawyers, even though they were prepared by well-trained legal draftsmen, and passed by Parliament which consists of members. many of whom are lawyers. When disputes go to courts of law, parties to the disputes as represented by their advocates argue fiercely about the meanings to be attached to the wording of the enactments in front of a bench of judges who are highly qualified and experienced. And yet the decision arrived at is not unanimous, some of the judges decide one way, and the others the other way. When the matter is appealed to the Higher Court, the Appeal Court sometimes overturns the majority opinion of the lower Court. The point worthy of note here is that if we cannot agree on the interpretation of laws enacted by ourselves, how can we unanimously agree on those laws made by Allah in the Qur'an. Indeed some of them have been explained by the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) in his lifetime, but there is still a body of Qur'anic verses which have remained unclear and each school tries to interpret them as best as it can in the way its members understand them. The only difference is that some of them take a tolerant view towards their opponents while others assume an aggressive position against anyone who does not agree with them. This is not Islam, it is religious dictatorship since they regard those who do not conform to their dogmas as heretic and Hell is their destination.

          The Ibadhis strongly object to being classified in the same group as the Khawarij especially in the distorted sense of breaking away from Islam. It is true that during Seyyidna Ali’s crisis there was a political group which opposed the truce and arbitration between Muawiyah and Seyyidna Ali. The group came to be known as the Khawarij which afterwards disintegrated into various factions and were as poles apart as the heavens and the earth. The only thing in common between the Ibadhis and the Khawarij was their opposition to the truce, arbitration and usurpation of the throne of Caliphate by members of the Umayyad family. Their initial alliance had nothing to do with the essence of Islam. If the office of the Caliphate is so important to Islam, then today the religion of Islam does not exist because there is no longer Khalifa or Imam of all Muslims as was before.

          Abdullah bin Ibadh was not the only one in Islamic history who had seceded from a creed. All Sahabas were at one time pagans (Kufar) and some of them were fierce opponents of Islam. Should we not recognize them as Muslims because they had once been pagans? Imam Al-Ghazali was first a Sufist and then reverted to Orthodoxy. Abu-l-Hassan Al-Ash’ary was once a Mutazilite but later became a bitter opponent of the Rational school. Ibn Hazm was initially a Shafi, then he changed to Dhahirii. It seems that all religious thinkers and leaders had a freedom to change their minds except Abdulla bin Ibadh, his prejudiced opponents still maintain that his followers are Khawarij.

          The Ibadhis share common beliefs with many other Islamic school – with the Sunnis in the fundamental principles of Islam, with the Shias and the Mutazilites in the subsidiary issues relating to certain events expected to happen on the Day of Judgment. They also have differences with all of them, just as there are differences within each sect, among the Sunnis, the Shias, the Mutazilites and the Sufists. Within each group there are factions and each one holds religious views which distinguish it from others.

          During the reigns of the Umayyad and Abassid dynasties, it was a fashion for some Islamic scholars, in order to win favour from the rulers, to criticize the Khawarij in the same way as Muawiyah used to curse Seyyidna Ali in his sermons before Friday prayers until it was abolished by Umar bin Abdul Aziz when he acceded to the throne. Unfortunately this practice is still continued to some extent today by some of those so-called Imams paid by wealthy patrons to create division in the Islamic community, forgetting or deliberately ignoring what Allah says in Ayah 107 of Suratul Tawba (9):-

"والذين اتخذوا مسجدا ضرارا وكفرا وتفريقا بين المؤمنين وارصادا لمن حارب الله ورسوله من قبل وليحلفن إن أردنا إلا الحسنى والله يشهد إنهم لكاذبون"

“And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity to disunite the believers and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good, by Allah does declare that they are certainly liars”      

                                                     (Translation by Abullah Yusuf Ali).

          Although the ayah refers specifically to a rival mosque which the hypocrites wanted to build at Qubaa outside Medina, it applies generally to those who want to use a mosque as a forum to create dissension among Muslims, for Allah’s words have wider and far reaching applications than the occasion for which they were revealed. And yet some Imams (hypocrites and paid agents) instead of preaching to the worshippers during Friday prayers on Islamic unity resort to controversial issues in order to cause inter-sectarian dissension. And in Ayah 108 of Suratul An’am (6) Allah says:-

"ولا تسبوا الذين يدعون من دون الله فيسبوا الله عدوا بغير علم"

“And do not insult (or abuse or call names) those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest out of spite they insult Allah in ignorance”

          If Allah has forbidden Muslims to abuse false gods whom disbelievers worship, how can they stand on the pulpit of a mosque during Friday sermons and abuse their fellow believers because of sectarian differences which exist not only between one sect and another but also within each sect? At this juncture it is worth quoting from a book, Should a Muslim Follow a Particular Madhhab? by Sheikh Muhammad Sultan Al-Ma’soomi of Azerbaijan who lived in Saudi Arabia and died 40 years ago. He says (p.16):-

          “Different Madhahib are personal and private opinions, judgments and interpretation of legal points according to religious scholars and jurists. Allah and the Prophet have not ordered us to follow these opinions and interpretations. There is a possibility of being correct or incorrect in their opinions and interpretations. There are many issues on which Imams had different views and they explained them according to their own reasons and speculation”.

          Since this is the position, one wonders why scholars of some sects hold extreme views against other sects and launch malicious campaigns against those who disagree with them on certain religious issues and on interpretations of certain Qur'anic verses. Sheikh Al-Ma’soomi is not a Kharijee but he is trying to defend a minority sect (not Ibadhis) within a group of sects. But his learned observations are most interesting. On p.2l of his book he says:-

“The entire Muslim Ummah is divided into different sects...every sect condemns the others in foul and abusive language. Everybody claims: ‘our faith and our views are the best and the rest is rubbish. Hanafi took Shafi as his rival and vice versa. Sometimes the followers of the same sect are bitter opponents and fight with each other as they are fighting against non-Muslims. For example, Hanafi Barailvi is harsh against Hanafi Deobandi”

But the Muslim laity are told by their sectarian fanatics that it is only the Khawarij who are condemning other sects. On the matter of blind following of Imams, Sheikh Al-Ma’soomi (p.20) has the following to say:-

          “Later religious leaders and intellectuals wrote volumes over volumes and thousands of pages and the masses took those writers as jurists, whereas their knowledge about Islam was shallow. The so-called scholars made it incumbent on people to follow one of the four Imams and prohibited them from following another at the same time. In other words, they raised up the Imams to the level of Prophets to whom scriptures are revealed and made it obligatory to obey every word of the Imam”.

          Worse still some sectarian fanatics not only blindly follow the Imam of their madhhab but even idolize some of their scholars within the madhahab and call them reformers and in all their writings they would quote more often from them than from the Qur'an itself. The more extreme a sectarian scholar is, the less educated he is and the more shallow is his knowledge of Islam. A true scholar must have a wider view of Islam and not concentrate on minute irrelevant or unimportant details, whether historical or theological, which artificially divide the Muslim Ummah. On page 32 of his book, Sheikh Al-Ma’soomi has quoted a statement made by Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiya below:-

“Anyone who makes it obligatory to blindly follow a specific Imam should be asked to repent and give up fixated (obsessive) following and if he is not prepared for it, he should be executed, since this is associating partners with Allah in setting down Sharee’ah, which is one of the unique rights of the Lord”.

          While we agree with Ibn Taymiya’s ideas on blind following, we disagree that those who follow a specific Imam blindly he should be executed as he has so ruled above. Fortunately several important Muslim countries have not yet complied with his ruling or ‘fatwa’ because Saudi Arabia (where he has many followers) has codified Islamic law according to the Hanbalee madhhab, Pakistan and Turkey according to the Hanafi madhhab. Egypt based it on the shafii madhhab and Iran based it on the Jaafary madhhab (The Evolution of Fiqh by Abu Ameena Bilal Philips p.111). In other words by codifying the legal rulings of their respective madhhab, it means they have made it obligatory to follow the rulings of their specific Imam. To apply Ibn Taymiya’s ruling would mean executing all those responsible for codifying sectarian law within the legal system of the country concerned and even judges who administer the code.

          For those not familiar with court procedures, the implications of the codified law needs further elucidation. Suppose a Turkish magistrate is presented with a case involving Islamic Sharia and finds that the subject of contention can be resolved equitably and fairly by the application of the Hanbali code. If he does so, his decision would be overturned by the Appeal Court because he has not complied with the low of the country which in this case is the Hanafi Code. So he will have to apply the Hanafi Code even if, in his opinion, it does not provide in the circumstances of the case a satisfactory solution.

          Similar situations would arise in other Islamic countries which have codified their legislation according to the legal rulings of Imam of their respective particular madh-hab. On the other hand, magistrates in countries which have not codified according to a particular madh-hab have a wider discretion to apply legal opinions of any of the Imams which seem to them most appropriate in the circumstances.

          Thus the countries which have incorporated the legal rulings of a madh-hab into their legal system are the ones which have tied themselves to a particular Imam. But let us see what Sheikh Al-Ma’soomi has to say on this issue on page 31 of his book:-

          “He who deviates from the right way of Tabe’in (تابعين) and sticks to one specific Imam and is prejudiced in his favor, is similar to one who leaves aside all Companions of the Prophet and follow one only, as the Shias and Khawarij do. This is the way of heretics and apostates. Qur'an, Hadith and Ijma denounce them”.

          The Khawarij have not stuck to one specific Imam. But the people who have stuck to one specific Imam are those who have codified or incorporated the legal rulings of their madh-hab into their country’s legal system, and they are the people of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran. However we would never call them heretics and apostates, let alone advocate their execution as Ibn Taymiya has done. The Ibadhis have not codified their Islamic law according to the legal opinions of their Imam. They follow the Qur'an and the Sunna as they understand them. Nonetheless we would still continue to refer to Sheikh Ma’soomi. On page 28 of his book, he makes the following observations:-

          “Research proves that these madhahibs and sects were propagated by power-hungry rulers with the help of knavish (unprincipled) scholars. This is how the Muslim Ummah was disunited and sects were initiated in (the) interest of these power-mongers”.

Sheikh Ma’soomi’s observations were not only true during the periods of Umayyad and Abbasid rulers, but are applicable even today when some power-hungry scholars in some countries are trying very hard to isolate Ibadhis from the mainstream of Islam because historically and politically Ibadhis have refused to be subservient to any but Divine authority.

One more quotation from Sheikh Al-Ma’soom’s book (p.68):-

          “Sectarian following brings nothing but destruction, and it is an innovation in religion. This heresy (of sectarianism) was introduced by kings and rulers to attain their political ends and save themselves and their empire”.

          As we have seen, the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) knew that there would arise numerous sects, hence the Hadith that there would be 73 sects after his death. This is something natural and to be expected, for there are as many differences between men as there are things in common among them, and that is what makes life interesting and worth living. Everybody is entitled to cherish the beliefs which he thinks are right and not be forced to accept the dogmas of other people even if they are wrong. What then is to be done? The solution is to iron out these differences by friendly discussions, in an atmosphere of mutual respect, for our respective points of view instead of hurling insults at each other in the mosques or inciting Muslims of different sects to fight one another as is happening in some Muslim countries even today. If we cannot solve these problems peacefully, the least we can do is to comply with Allah’s instructions as laid down in the following chapters of the Qur'an. In verse l0 of Suratu-Sshura (42), He has said,

"وما اختلفتم من شيء فحكمه إلى الله"

“And whatever it be wherein ye differ, the decision thereof is with Allah”.                                                               (Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

But the translator’s comments in the footnote are more clarifying,

“If their differences arise merely from selfish motives, or narrowness of vision, they are sinning against their own souls. If their differences arise from sincere but mistaken notions, their proper course is not to form divisions and sects, or to increase contention and hatred among men but to leave all things to Allah, trusting in Him and turning to Him in all difficulties. The final decision in all things is with Him”.

In chapter 16 (AN-Nahl), verse 125 Allah addresses His Prophet as Follows:-

"ادع إلى سبيل ربك بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة وجادلهم بالتي هي أحسن إن ربك هو أعلم بمن ضل عن سبيله وهو أعلم بالمهتدين"

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with Wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious for thy Lord knows best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance                                 (Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

Thus Allah instructed His messenger to preach Islam with wisdom and good advice, and argue in a gracious manner. He did not tell him to spread the holy message by violent means. So where is the justification or the authority for spreading sectarian dogmas by bloodshed and abuses?

In Suratul-An’am, aya ll7 Allah says:-

"إن ربك هو أعلم من يضل عن سبيله وهو أعلم بالمهتدين"

“Your Lord knows best who strays from His way, and knows best who are rightly guided”.                                   (Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

The leading scholars of each Islamic school claim that the tenets of their sects are correct, and others are wrong, but the above ayah is a reminder that only Allah knows best who are right and who are wrong. So they should not be overconfident, it may turn out on the Day of Judgment that they are wrong and those whom they assume to be wrong are right. Religion is not like trade where each trader claims that his goods are the best. In business every consumer is a judge but in religion Allah alone is the judge. So who gave the sectarians the authority to assert that their madh-habs are right?

          The ill-wishers of the madh-hab of Ibadhi say that Imam Jabir bin Zaid the founder of the Ibadhi sect, was not an Ibadhi. They say that Jabir denied, when asked, whether he belonged to this sect. That was natural because, at that time, Ibadhism was an underground movement rebelling against the Umayyad rulers; it was a political faction in a way fighting against the corruption of the ruling regimes, and if Jabir denied he was Ibadhi, he was naturally trying to save his own skin otherwise he would have been arrested and imprisoned, and in fact he was for a short period of time and then released. He was later exiled to Oman. But that is not the point. The important thing is that Ibadhis follow his teachings. The Prophet’s Hadiths which they rely on were transmitted through him from Ibn Abbas and other recognized narrators. Shias follow Seyyidna Ali but he was not a Shia nor belonged to any sect. this is true of all Imams; Muslims identify themselves with one or the other of the Imams, not in their lifetime out long after their deaths.

          In their own frantic effort to disparage Ibadhism, they say it is a small sect only. Since when does righteousness necessarily go with numerical strength? Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity. So those who go after big numbers, they might as well join Christianity. On the question of numbers, let us see what Sheikh Al-Ma’soomi says in his book (p.64):-

‘Those who do not follow the right path may be greater in number but are worthless before Allah’.    

Former righteous and nobles have said:

‘Choose the right path and do not feel lonesome in this path due to you smallness in number. Keep away from the wrong way and do not be taken in by the majority – certainly they are approaching their destruction’. 

In religion, unlike politics, numerical strength is irrelevant. Remember you are worshipping God, and that is what matters, even if you are alone. Imam Auzai is reported to have said:-

‘Follow the pious predecessors of the early period of Islam even if you are left alone; don't pay any heed to later views and opinions because most of these are just adorned with high sounding words and phrases....’

Dr. Mustafa Mahmoud, an Egyptian scholar in his treatise on Intercession (الشفاعة) has this to say on the question of majority:-

في دنيانا الفوز بالأغلبية يوصلك الى الفوز بكل شيء, فأحزاب الأغلبية هي التي تفوز بالمناصب وهي التي تمثل الشعب أكثر وهي التي تمثل وجهات النظر الأكثر عدلا والأكثر إنصافا... وإن تكون مع الأغلبية معناها أن تكون مع الحق ومع أهل الصدارة.. هذا حال الدنيا أما في الأخرة فيعلمنا ربنا أن الأغلبية على الضلال... وأن الأكثرية في جهنم... فأكثر الناس في القرآن لا يعلمون*, وأكثر الناس لا يفقهون, وأكثر الناس لا يؤمنون, وأكثر الناس لا يعقلون أن هم إلا كالأنعام به هم أضل ... ويقول ربنا عن الأكثرية .. إن يتبعون إلا الظن... فهم على الباطل دائما وهم الأخسرون على طول الخط ... ولن يدخل الجنة في آخر المطاف إلا الأقلية.

          ‘In our world, victory by majority leads you to success in everything.The majority parties are the ones which win (high) positions, and they are more representative of the people, and they represent more fair and just points of view. And to be with the majority means to be on the side of right and to be with those in the front place. This is the position of this world. As for the Hereafter, our Lord instructs us that the majority are astray (in error) and the majority are in Hell. In the Qur'an it is mentioned, most of the people are ignorant, most of the people do not understand, most of the people do not believe, and most of the people are unreasonable; they are but like cattle and more astray. Our Lord says about the majority: they follow nothing but conjecture, they are always wrong, they are the losers all along, and in the end they will not enter Heaven except the minority’. (Translation by the author).

There are a number of ayahs in the Qur'an which support Dr. Mustafa’s statement above but I will quote only two of them. In Suratul An’am (6), verse 116 says:-

"وإن تطع أكثر من في الأرض يضلوك عن سبيل الله إن يتبعون إلا الظن وإن هم إلا يخرصون"

“And if you obey most of those on earth, they will lead you astray, far away from Allah’s Way. They follow nothing but conjecture and they do nothing but lie”. And in the same Surah (الأنعام), verse 119, Allah says:-

"وإن كثيرا ليضلون بأهوائهم بغير علم إن ربك هو أعلم بالمعتدين"

“And surely many do lead (mankind) astray by their own desires without knowledge. Certainly your Lord knows best the transgressors”.                                          (Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan).

So if someone invites you to join his religion or sect because they are the majority, there is no better advice to take than that given in the above verses by Allah Himself.

          One of the factors which contributed to the numerical strength and survival of some madh-habs is the support they received from the State or government. State support is the most important deciding factor for the survival of a madh-hab. According to Abu Ameena Bilal Philips, there were other madh-habs with outstanding scholars but they disappeared for political reasons. Now let us see how these major madh-habs came to flourish and spread to other countries.

HANAFEE MADH-HAB

          When Abu Yusuf, a student of Abu Hanifa was appointed chief judge during the second half of the 8^th Century (CE) of the Abbasid rule, he used to appoint judges for various cities, and all his appointments were followers of the Hanafee madh-hab. Thus he was instrumental in the spread of this school throughout the Muslim empire.

          When Ottoman rulers codified Islamic law according to the Hanafi madh-hab in the 19^th century CE and made it state law, any scholar who aspired to be a judge was obliged to lean it. As a result, the madh-hab spread throughout the Ottoman Islamic State during the last part of 19^th century to countries like Iraq, Syria, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Guyana, Trinidad, throughout Turkey itself and to some extent Egypt. (Abu Ameena Bilal Philiphs p.68).

MALKI MADH-HAB

          In his closing chapter, on the Causes of Madha-hib, Sheikh Al-Ma’soomi (p.77) quotes from a book by Ahmad bin Muhammed Muqri the following passage:-

          “Previously the people of Morocco and Andalus followed the method of Imam Auzai but afterwards they adopted the method of Imam Malik because Hakam bin Hisham Abdul Rahman Al-Dakhil, the third Omayyah (Umayyad) ruler of Andaluus ordered them to pass judgment according to the views and words of Imam Malik and people of Medina. This had happened for political considerations by orders of (the ruler) Hakam”. One of the political considerations is that Imam Malik admired the ruler of Andalus and said to a man from Andalus,

          “May your ruler take over the charge of our Haram (masjid) and may Allah bless him”.

The man narrated this incident to the ruler Hakam who urged the people of Andalus to adopt the madh-hab of Imam Malik

SHAFEE _MADH-HAB

          Until the tenth century, the Madh-hab of Imam Awzai was the dominant creed in Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon as well as in Spain. But when Abu Zar’ah Muhammad ibn Uthman of the Shaafi’ee madh-hab was appointed judge of Damascus, he began the practice of giving a prize of l00 dinars to any student who memorized the book, Mukhtasar al-Muuzanee (a basic book of Shaafi’ee Fiqh). Naturally this practice caused the Shafi’ee Madh-hab to spread rapidly in Syria. (Abu Ameena Bilal Philips p.69).

HANBALEE MADH-HAB

          The majority of the followers of this Madh-hab can now be found in Palestine and Saudi Arabia. Its survival in Saudi Arabia, after almost completely dying out elsewhere in the Muslim world, is due to the fact that the founder of the so-called Wahhabee revivalist movement, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, had studied under the scholars of the Hanbalee madh-hab, and thus it unofficially became the fiqh madh-hab of the movement. When Abdul-Azeez ibn Sa’ud captured most of the Arabian Peninsula and established the Saudi dynasty, he made the Hanbalee madh-hab the basis of the kingdom’s legal system. (Abu Ameena Bilal Philips p.86-87)

SHIA MADH-HAB

          “One of the kings of Iran, Khudaa Bandah (خدا بنداه) belonged to one of the Sunni sects. One day he was angry with his wife and divorced her three times. Then he wanted to revoke the divorce and take his wife again. But the Sunni scholars told him that there was no way until she married someone else and get divorced. The king found that difficult, so he sought the legal opinion of Ibnu-l-Mutahhar (ابن المطهر), one of the Shia scholars in jurisprudence (fiqh) who decided that there had been no divorce because not all the conditions of divorce had been fulfilled and so the king could take back his wife. The king was pleased with this legal opinion and decided to appoint him as his adviser, and this had an effect of influencing the king to become a Shia and his people followed suit”. (p. 143 الموسوعة الميسرة). (Translation by the Author).

          Thus the dominance of a madh-hab in any particular country is the result of having been imposed by the political authorities in power, it has nothing to do with its genuiness or otherwise. When Western powers ruled Africa they brought their religion with them and so Christianity flourished there and became the largest religion in the continent, south of the Sahara but that is not to say that it is the best of all other religions prevailing there.

          Unitarianism is one of the smallest, if not the smallest, sects in Christianity. Its followers adhere to the original teachings of Jesus Christ and believe in one God, and reject the doctrine of Trinity. They are nearest to Islam, but, like the Khawarij, they suffered persecution under the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Europe. Michael Servetus (1511-1553 CE) who was born in Spain was a great advocate of Unitarianism; he was a physician as Well as geographer. Because of his religious belief, there was an attempt on his life and he fled to France and then to Switzerland. He was considered a heretic by other Christian denominations, like the Khawarij by some other Islamic sects.

          Muhammad Ata-ur-Rahim, in his book, “Jesus, A Prophet of Islam” (p.115) writes the following account of Servetus’ attempt to spread the doctrine of Unitarianism:-

“Since all his attempts to influence people by personal contact failed, Servetus published two books, one was called “The Errors of Trinity” and the other “Two Dialogues on Trinity”. The result was that the Church hounded Servetus from one place to another. Servetus was forced to change his name, but not his views. From 1532 until his death he lived under an assumed name”.

          Calvin, his Protestant opponent had him arrested by the Roman Catholics and thrown into prison on a charge of heresy (a very popular charge among religious, including Muslim, scholars when they differ from one another). He tried to escape in disguise from prison but was again arrested and prosecuted. At his trial he was found guilty of heresy. On 26^th October 1553 Servetus was burnt alive with a copy of his book, The Errors of Trinity, tied with him. In later years the people of Geneva in remorse erected a statue in his memory, not of his opponent Calvin who was supposed to be a reformer. Castillo, one of the followers of Servetus, said:-

“To burn a man is not to prove a doctrine” (i.e. The Trinity Doctrine).

The sect of Unitarianism still survives, 450 years after his death. Similarly, the Ibadhi madh-hab survives after more than 1350 years of the massacre of the innocent people of Nahrawan. People may be buried to extinction but not the truth.

IBADHI MADH-HAB

          In the battle of the Camel between Seyyidna Ali and Muawiya, there were a number of Companions (Sahabas) among the forces of the former. Dr. Majid Ali Khan in his book, The Pious Caliphs (p.186) describes the composition of Seyyidna Ali’s army as follows:-

“This could be noticed with the fact that in the first battle which took place between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Aisha (and her group) about 800 of those Companions who had participated in the Treaty of Hudaibiyah were with Hadhrat Ali besides other Companions”.

          And so when a faction of Seyyidna Ali’s army broke away and formed a separate independent group which later came to be known as the Khawarij, there were a number of Companions among them. Later the group decided to appoint one of them as their Imam and the choice fell on Abdullah bin Wahab Al-Rasby who was one of the Sahabas who had originally joined Seyyidna Ali. He was the first non-Quraish Imam. Hence when the battle of Nahrawan broke out, it was not meant just to crush the rebellion of the Khawarij but was also to overthrow Abdullah bin Wahab Al-Rasby from an office. which had hitherto been reserved for the Quraishis only. The battle ended with the killing of Abdullah bin Wahab.

          Abdullah bin Ibadh Al-Tamimy after whose name the sect is known was not yet born. He was born later during the reign of Muawiyah (40-60H) and grew up at time when the political atmosphere was highly charged. It seems he did not live long, for he died during the rule of Abdul-Malik bin Marwan (65-86H) the 5^th Umayyad ruler and so his life span stretched out to about 45 years only if not less. He came from the Najd region of what is now known as Saudi Arabia. He was politically active against the Umayyads and used to propagate the views of his movement openly. He was its spokesman and ardent activist. He is reported to have written to Khalifa/Abdul Malik bin Marwan in which he refuted allegations of religious extremism. He opposed the views of various other movements especially the followers of Al-Azraqi, an extreme wing of the Khawarij. Because of his open activities, the movement was named after him.

          But the real founder of the Ibadhi School was Imam Jabir bin Zaid leading it behind the scene; he was its spiritual leader and had his own group of students who were receiving religious teachings on the basis of the Qur’an, the Holy Prophet’s traditions and the judicial rulings of the rightly guided Caliphs. Prominent among his students was Abu Ubeida Muslim bin Abi Karima Al-Tamimy who took over the leadership of the movement after his death. The latter was responsible for spreading Ibadhism and establishing the first Ibadhi Imamates in Hadhramawt, Oman and North Africa.

          The Ibadhis broke away from other Khawarij factions because of the latter’s extremist views towards their fellow Muslim opponents. The Azraqis, one of such factions regarded their Muslim opponents as ‘Kuffar’ in the sense of polytheists or idolaters and justified killing their women and children or take them as prisoners and plunder their property. They made it obligatory to fight them as jihad and those who stayed behind were regarded as idolaters. The Ibadhis rejected this view, and their policy on the relations with fellow Muslims was expressed by Abdullah bin Ibadh as follows:-

“We do not regard our Muslim opponents (Mukhalifun) as idolaters, for they believe in the unity of God, the Book, and the Messenger. But they are ‘infidels-ingrate’ (كفار النعمة). We hold it lawful to inherit from them, and live among them. The faith of Islam unites them (with us)”.                                                           [Studies in Ibadhism p.33].

          Not only did the Ibadhis dissociate themselves from the un-Islamic war policies of the Khawarij, they also had to fight against them in self-defence. Dr. Muhammad Rashid Al-‘Uqaily in his booklet, الأباضية في عمان وعلاقاتها مع الدولة العباسية في عصرها الأول (published by the Ministry of National Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman) reports that the Khawarij Najdat (another extremist wing) under the leadership of Najdah bin Amir Al-Hanafy imposed their authority on the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula and Bahrain and wanted to extend it to Oman. They sent an army under the command of ‘Atayah bin Al-Aswad Al-Hanafy, seized it and murdered its ruler ‘Abbad Al-Julandy. He stayed there for a month, then left after appointing Abu Qassim as his deputy. But the Omanis did not wait long before they revolted against Abu Qassim, killed him and restored Al-Julandi rule over Oman. The Omanis warded off another attempt by Najdat to seize the country again, which proves without doubt Ibadhis’ utter refusal to the principles of the extremist factions of the Khawarij like Azariqas and Najdat. Another occasion when Ibadhis fought the Khawarij, this time the Sufriyyah faction, has been reported by Dr. Isam Al-Rawas of the Sultan Qaboos University in his book, Oman in Early Islamic History (p.117):-

“After the Sufriyyah, under the command of Shayban Al- Yashkuri, arrived in Julfar, they were met by the Ibadhiyyah, who refused them access to the town. The Imam, Al-Julanda bin Masud, who was thus faced with the dual challenge of the Sufriyah and the Abbasid army, sent Hilal bin Attyyah Al-Khurrasani and Yahya bin Najih to fight them. According to Ibadhi sources, the Imam’s army refused to give Suflriyyah shelter. Instead they asked them to accept the Ibadhi doctrine or else leave the town peacefully. The Sufriyyah chose to fight ... ... The two parties then met in battle and the Sufriyyah were defeated”.

          The events narrated above gives us the following clear picture. From the policy declarations made by Abdullah bin Ibadh and Abdullah bin Yahya al-Kindi regarding their treatment of Muslim opponents in times of war, and the two battles which took place first with the Najdat and then with the Sufriyyah, showed clearly that the Ibadhis had nothing in common with the Khawarij apart from the Muhakkimah, when a faction of Seyyidna Ali’s army defected when he accepted arbitration with Muawiyah. After that, the faction split up into different groups and each one of them went its own way, pursuing separate policies. So those who group together the Ibadhis with other extremist splinter groups are distorting history, and aim to perpetuate division among the Islamic ummah especially bearing in mind that the other splinter groups no longer exist today.

          Ibadhism is one of the oldest, if not the oldest school of Islam. In history it has been associated with various groups fighting against the tyranny and injustices of the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers. Its followers have lived, by and large in remote areas of North Africa. At the same time Oman was for centuries isolated from the rest of the world. That is why many Muslims of other countries have heard little, if at all, of the sect. It is only in the last thirty years that Oman and Ibadhism have received the limelight. There is another factor which has kept Ibadhism in the dark. We do not pursue a vigorous propaganda campaign as our rivals do; and nowadays you cannot sell without advertisement, and bad goods sell better with it than high quality ones without it.

          We need to publish more Ibadhi literature and translate it into other languages so that Muslims of other sects and nationalities become acquainted with and educated about it. We should not try to convert them; if they join us, well and good; if they don’t, it is their free choice! We should adopt the policy of our forefathers of not imposing our creed on others as some other sects are vigorously attempting to do: لا إكراه في الدين – there is no compulsion in religion” (Verse 256 of Suratul Baqara). But we ought to try to enlighten them on what Ibadhism is all about, so that they are cleansed of their ignorance, fanaticism and prejudices which they have acquired for centuries from their parents, religious teachers and enemies of Islamic unity.

          Islam is a universal religion in the sense that it has been brought for the benefit of all mankind, not just for people of a particular race or country, and the way it has spread to other regions of the world proves its cosmopolitan character. It was born in the village of Mecca in the midst of paganism in the year 610 CE when the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) received his first divine inspiration. Twelve years later it fled from the pagans’ persecution and sought refuge in Medina where the Prophet was given warm welcome. The tender seedling of Islam was nurtured in that city until it was firmly rooted, and by the time the Prophet died in 632 CE it was fully grown up at the matured age of twenty-two. At this time there were only three countries in the world which had embraced Islam, namely, Hijaz, Oman and Yemen (see map attached) The rest of what is now the Moslem world was either under Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism or paganism. A large part of the Arabian Peninsula too was still under paganism (see map in the appendix). Oman like Medina, but unlike Mecca, accepted Islam peacefully. Mecca after many years of armed confrontation surrendered to Islam in 630 CE. On the other hand Oman responded positively after the Prophet (Peace be upon him) sent a special emissary, Amr bin Al-‘As with a letter calling upon the rulers of Oman to accept Islam about the year 629 CE. Thus Oman and Mecca entered Islam at about the same time. The Prophet’s emissary remained in Oman for some time to teach its people the Qur'an and what Islam is.

          And yet when Omani students meet Muslim students from some other countries abroad, the latter ask the former to testify to the two articles of faith:

شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله و أن محمداً رسول الله

implying that the Ibadhis are not Muslims!! It is a shame that these misguided students do not know the history, the essence and principles of Islam. But they are not to be blamed because they had been subjected to indoctrination under a wrong system of religious education based on an arrogant maxim:

“We only are right, the rest are wrong!!

In the next twenty-eight years, Islam continued to thrive in Medina, in spite of internal pressures, producing seeds which spread far and wide, both eastwards and westwards. At the age of fifty it moved to Damascus where it established its capital and lasted for nearly a century. However as a result of a bloody struggle for power among the Quraishis, the Islamic empire was split up, one part of it under the Umayyad family establishing its headquarters in Spain, and the other part under the Abbasid House settled in Iraq. Iraq developed into a thriving cultural center of the Islamic world.

          It had contacts with and was influenced by Greek, Persian and Indian civilizations. Many books from those countries were translated into Arabic, and Muslims who studied the translated works developed interest in mathematics, science, astronomy, literature and medicine. Parallel developments in these fields were taking place in the western part of the Islamic State, that is Spain. The Abbasid rule continued for the next 500 years until its collapse in the middle of the 13^th century. After that it transferred its metropolis to Constantinople in Turkey in the beginning of the 14^th century with the rise of the Ottoman Empire during which time Islam was able to penetrate into the heart of Europe as well as Asia. Constantinople remained the religion’s stronghold for a period of more than half a millennium leaving a permanent impact on some parts of Europe and in many parts of Asia. These achievements, intellectual as well as spiritual, have been the results of valuable joint contributions and concerted efforts exerted by multifarious people of different parts or regions of the world.

          Thus the Islamic torch moved from one country to another like a relay race, the first runner hands over the torch to the next until the last runner, and when the race is won, the credit goes to all who participated in the race, not just to the last or the first runner. Thus Islam belongs to all Muslims; it does not belong to any group of them or to any particular country. For those who are not familiar with Ibadhi contribution to the spread of Islam, the following are brief accounts. Dr. Issam Al-Rawas in his book, Oman in early Islamic History (p.50-5 l), quoting from al-Awtabi, writes as follows:

“Thus the Omanis played a major role in the conquest of Persia. They had joined with the rest of the Arab tribes in the war from Iraq, where they were centered in Basra, while others crossed the sea from Oman to the Persian coast, being skillful navigators, where they succeeded in encircling the Persians along with their fellow soldiers. As a result, many Omani tribes, after completing the mission of conquering Persia, either returned to or emigrated and settled in Basra”.

          Another occasion in which Ibadhis made a contribution in the defence of Islam presented itself in the second half of the 17^th century. After expelling the Portuguese from the coast of Oman in January 1650, the Ibadhi Imam, Sultan bin Seif Al-Yaaruby received a request from the Muslims of East Africa to assist them in ousting the Portuguese colonizers from their territories. Apart from levying heavy taxes on the local Muslim population, there was evidence that the Portuguese were trying to impose Christianity on them as they did in Goa in India, East Timor in Indonesia and Macao in China. Norman R. Bennet in his book, A History of the Arab State in Zanzibar (p.10 – 13), describes the situation in Mombasa, Pemba and Zanzibar as follows:-

“Prior to falling under the sway of Mombasa the usual four or five separate rulers resident upon Pemba apparently had been supplanted during the course of the sixteenth century by one ruler, including one individual whom the Portuguese had sent to India for education. He also married a Portuguese subject. On his return however he failed to receive the acceptance of Pemba inhabitants, the affair dragging on unresolved into the seventeenth century”.

          “In Mombasa, following the death of the first ruler of the Malindi dynasty, relations between the inhabitants and the Portuguese progressively deteriorated. An attempted solution to the problem was the sending of a future ruler, Yusuf bin Hassan, to India where he accepted Christianity and was educated in Portuguese ways before returning to assume his position in Mombasa. Yusuf, however, became increasingly dissatisfied with his foreign masters and, fearful of his own future, seized control of Mombasa in 1631”.

“Answering requests for aid from a Pemba delegation to Muscat, an Omani expedition, with support from Pemba (unsuccessfully) raided in 1652 the Portuguese establishment in Zanzibar”.

          “In the following decades Zanzibar remained quiet, but Pemba consistently supported Omani ventures against the Portuguese. Final Omani triumph came following an epic siege of Mombasa... With Mombasa’s fall, Zanzibar briefly remained the only Portuguese occupied center north of Mozambique until the Omanis seized it…”

          Had it not been for Ibadhi’s military intervention, these three places would have been Catholic enclaves and would have remained so until today just like Goa, East Timor and Macao. The important thing to bear in mind is that the Muslims of East Africa belong to the Shafii madh-hab but did not request military aid from the Muslim Khalifa (خليفة المسلمين) in Istanbul or his Governor in Mecca or Medina but chose to seek assistance from the Ibadhi Imam in Oman, or as the sectarian fanatics would call him Imam of the Khawarij (إمام الخوارج).

          Another striking point on the part of Ibadhis, they did not impose their madh-hab on the people of that region as others would have done in the circumstances in the belief that all madhahib constitute the same religion-they worship the same one God and believe that Muhammad is His last Messenger and that the Qur'an is the word of Allah. Oman was and still is a relatively poor country and war costs money and manpower especially when the battlefield is many thousand miles away across the sea. But this was a war of ‘jihad’ and it was their duty to respond to the call and fight a ruthless enemy in defence of Islam and their Muslim brethren. So one would expect that the Islamic world would appreciate the sacrifice made for the cause of Islam.

          But, No! That was not so. From the year 1800 onwards, Oman was subject to a series of raids and invasions from some neighbouring Muslim country in varying degrees of force over a period of seventy years. The purpose of these aggressions was the propagation of a new brand of Islam and extortionate plundering in the name of Zakaat (See Ian Skeet p.13 8 – 139). But why was Oman, and not any other neighbouring country, chosen as the target of these “missionary campaigns”? The reason is simple, because Ibadhis believe in the following fundamental principles of Islam:-

A.	1.	(a)     That Allah is one only and has no partner, and also they believe in His Angels, Messengers, Books, in the Hereafter and in Predestination. (b)     That Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is His last Messenger.
	2.	That it is obligatory to say daily prayers, five times.
	3.	That it is obligatory to pay Zakaat.
	4.	That it is obligatory to fast during the month of Ramadhan.
	5.	That it is obligatory to perform pilgrimage in Mecca once in one’s lifetime for those who are capable.
	6.	That certain acts of behaviour or conduct are sins as prescribed by the Qur'an and are punishable in this world and in the Hereafter.

B.   But Ibadhis also believe in the following:-

1.    That Almighty God will not be seen in the Hereafter.

2.    That those who will enter Hell for committing grave sins will not get out of it.

3.    That the Our'an is not part of essence of Allah though they believe it is the word of God.

4.    That Allah has no limbs.

5.    That Allah is not in a particular place, the seventh Heaven.

The second (B) group of beliefs is regarded by Ibadhis as secondary, not fundamental, theological issues which have arisen as a result of sectarian disagreements in the interpretation of certain Qur'anic verses. These issues have been discussed in detail in the previous chapter.

          The result of these raids has left, in their wake, wounds and tensions in some areas between neighbouring villages and it is only in the last thirty years that they have started gradually to heal and abate. If the conflict arose as a result of doctrinal disagreements, one might as well ask ‘what is then Islam?’ The question was answered by the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) when it was put to him by Angle Gabriel (Jibreel) as follows:-

(( أن تشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول الله, وتقيم الصلاة وتؤتي الزكاة وتصوم رمضان وتحج البيت إن استطعت إليه سبيلا)).

قال جبريل: ما الإيمان! فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ((أن تؤمن بالله وملائكته وكتبه ورسله واليوم الآخر وتؤمن بالقدر خيره وشره)).

“Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to perform the prayers, to pay Zakat, to fast Ramadhan, and to make the Pilgrimage to the House if you are able to do so”.

Jibreel said, “What is Iman (belief)”? God’s Messenger (Peace be upon him) said: “It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, and to believe in Destiny – both the good and the evil thereof.” (Imams Rabii, Ahmed bin Hanbal and Muslim).

          This is Islam as defined by the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) himself. Who else would know better than he what Islam is? The other disputable or controversial issues listed in B above are divine secrets which no human knows with certainty about them. They are opinions which constitute a madh-hab and as Al-Ma’soomi says (p.12):-

“Not only ignorant and illiterate people but also many scholars who imagine themselves well informed, are of the opinion that every Muslim must follow an Imam (that is madh-hab). This is not only a mistaken idea but it is also an attestation of people’s ignorance and unawareness of the BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAM”.

          The basic knowledge of Islam is contained in the reply of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) to Angel Jibreel quoted above. To some people the fundamental principles of Islam are not all that important; what is important to them are the differences that exist among the various sects, ignoring the basic principles that unite them. Some Islamic scholars are so engrossed or obsessed in sectarianism or their madh-hab that they consider those outside their madh-hab who hold different views from them as heretics. But who are greater heretics than those who form sectarian clubs and call those inside them Ahlul Haq and those outside them Ahlul Bida’? Did the Holy Prophet authorize it? What he said about madh-hab is as follows:-

“My people will split into 73 sects. All of them will go to Hell. Only one will be saved. And all of them will claim they are that one”. (Hadith No.41, Musnadul Rabii).

This Hadith has been confirmed by Imams Ahmed, Abu Daud, Al Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah. If you go through the Hadith carefully you will notice that the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) said only one will be saved, not four or twelve or none of them. But some sectarian fanatics seem to have better knowledge than the Prophet himself. They have arrogated to themselves the Divine prerogative of passing judgment before the Day of Judgment; they are in a hurry to forestall the results before they are out by declaring which madh-habs are right and which are wrong!!

          The question of who will go to Heaven or Hell does not depend upon membership of a particular madh-hab or group of madh-habs; it depends upon individual performance in this life, for as Allah Himself has said in Suratul-Qari’ah (S. 101) verses 6-11:-

فأما من ثقلت موازينه (6) فهو في عيشة راضية (7) و أما من خفت موازينه (8) فأمه هاوية (9) وما أدراك ما هية (10) نالر حامية (11)

“Then as for him whose balance (of good deeds) will be heavy (6), he will live a pleasant life (in paradise) (7), but as for him whose balance (of good deeds) will be light (8), he will have his home in pit (Hell), (9); and what will make you know what it is? (10) (It is) a fiercely blazing Fire! (11). (Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan).

          Thus we will be individually rewarded or punished according to the scale of our good deeds (ثواب) as against our sins (ذنوب) which we have committed in this world; our membership of a madh-hab would not count, for millions of Muslim do not even know the tenets of their respective sects although they are all aware of the fundamental principles of Islam. The above verses have been recited again with some modifications in Suratul-A’raaf (verses 8 and 9), In Suratul-Muuminuun (verses 102 and 103) and in Suratul- Anbiyaa (verse 47). Again in Suratul-Maryam, (verse 69), Allah says:-

"ثم لننزعن من كل شيعة أيهم أشد على الرحمن عتيا"

“Then indeed We shall drag out from every sec all those who were worst in obstinate rebellion against the Most Gracious (Allah)”. (Dr. Al Hilali & Dr. Khan).

It should be noted that God did not say that He would drag out some sects which were worst in obstinate rebellion against Him, but He said, He would drag them out from every sect. In other words no rebellious person will escape from being singled out for punishment because of his membership to a particular madh-hab. It is his performance in this life which matters and decides whether he will be punished or not.

          The following two poetic verses are ascribed to Imam Ali bin Abu Talib:-

إلا التي كان قبل الموت بانيها و إن بناها بشر خـاب بانيهــا

لا دار للمرء بعد الموت يسكنها فإن بناها بخير طاب مَسْكـــَنـُـه

Thus Seyyidna Ali is telling us that a man will find in the next life the house which he built in this life before he died. So if he has constructed a pleasant dwelling by doing good deeds here in this world, he will find the same there in the next. On the other hand if he puts up an evil one here by committing mischief, the same will be there waiting for him. In other words, it is the performance of an individual Muslim in this life which matters rather than membership of a sectarian club as some religious fanatics try to mislead the Islamic Ummah.

          Before leaving the subject of the spread of madh-hab let us conclude with a reference to Sheikh Al-Masoomi again (p.77):-

“In a nutshell it can be said that these sects, madhahibs and creeds are part of politics of rulers, leaders and politicians. If you wish to know the reasons and causes of expansion of sects, study Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun. He has discussed the cases in detail and has inferred that selfish, greedy imposters and cunning politicians are the cause of the spread of madhahib”.

          Next time you go to a mosque for Friday prayers and you hear an Imam abusing followers of another Islamic sect, remember the words of Ibn Khaldoon, namely, they are nothing but selfish, greedy imposters and part of politics of cunning rulers. (By the way, Ibn Khaldoon, a Tunisian, is internationally acknowledged as a philosopher and Father of the Science of History. He belonged to the Malki sect).

          As we are approaching the end of this book it would be of interest to read the comments of non-Muslim authors on the Ibadhi sect. These authors have been fortunate in that they had not been influenced in their childhood against any madh-hab and so have been able to study Islam with an open, impartial mind, free of any prejudices unlike some Muslim scholars. So professor Duncan B. Macdonald, author of a book, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory (Beirut, 1956, 24) has this to say on Ibadhism:-

“It cannot be doubted that these men (the Ibadhis) were the true representatives of the old Islam. They claimed for themselves the heir ship to Abu Bakar and Umar, and their claim was just. Islam had been secularized, worldly ambition, fratricidal strife, luxury, and sin destroyed the old bond of brotherhood. So they drew themselves apart and went their own way, a way which their descendants still follow in Oman, in East Africa and in Algeria” (Studies in Ibadhism by Dr. A.K.Ennami p.41).

The underlined words above describe the nature of the Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid regimes from which the Ibadhis isolated themselves by establishing their own separate independent Imamates.

          Another writer, Prof. Schacht, author of Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence has made the following observations on the Ibadhi sect: -

          “The variants (differences) of Muhammadan law which are recognized by the ancient sects of Islam, the Kharij is and the Shiites, do not differ from the doctrine of the Orthodox or Sunni schools of law more widely than these differ from one another”. (Dr. A.K. Ennami p.120)

Dr. Ennami adds that the reason for the similarity of law among the Islamic schools is due to the fact that they owe their origin from the Qur'an, the Sunnah and Ijmaa (consensus of the Sahabas). Hence the classifications of Islamic schools into Fiqhiyya (or Sunniyyah) and Aqaidiyya is artificial, misleading and arbitrary designed to create a rift in the religion.

          The following is an extract from a book entitled, ‘Islam’ (published in London & New York, 1961) edited by John Alden Williams (pp. 213 – 214):-

“The Kharijis soon divided into several sects; from the first they were men who would not and could not compromise. Since their principles frequently led them to fight to the last against overwhelming odds, only the most moderate of these sects, the Ibadhis, has survived into modern times….. their just dealings with the People of the Book made them many friends among the subject peoples. They were nothing if not sincere men, and in their devotion to the Qur'an and the Divine Imperative as they understood it, one must admire, even if grudgingly, the harsh uncompromising righteousness of the Semitic prophets whose followers they were. They have their own legal system and collections of Hadith. They are exceedingly puritanical, and forbid tobacco, games, music, Sufism, luxury, …….”

          With regard to tobacco, it is true that smoking is forbidden among the Ibadhis as it is considered ‘haram’ (unlawful) whereas some other sects regard it as distasteful (مكروه); and so at one time smoking in public was banned in Muscat. The outside world considered it, then, a peculiar law. Today there is a worldwide ban on public smoking in such places as restaurants, hospitals, aeroplanes and public transport, which shows that Ibadhism is ahead of times.

          Now let us see what a Muslim author has to comment on this small sect. He is Dr. Ehsan Ehsanullah, author of a book, Siyasa Shar’iyya (Malaysia, 1996) who has defined the Ibadhi sect as,

“a minor, but by no means unimportant, orthodox branch of Islam. Doctrinally, they seem to balance the two extreme views of the Sunni and the Shii on the question of leadership of the Community of Faith, the Umma. Their fiqh, however, is generally speaking not very much different from the fiqh of others. The Ibadhis (are) generally regarded as being the remnants of the Khawarij. Majority of the Ibadhis, however, deny having any substantial connection with the Khawarij”.

          On the question of leadership, both the Sunnis and the Shias have supported the hereditary system of succession for the institution of the Imamate, but whereas the latter insist that the candidate must be selected from among the descendants of Seyyidna Ali, for the former any Quraishi candidate can qualify for the office. For the Ibadhis the appointment is open to all Muslims who qualify for it by the general consensus of the Ummah through consultation. The Ibadhi stand is consistent with modern democratic trends.

          Lastly here is a selection of a Friday sermon of an early Ibadhi leader who in 129 H (747 AD) briefly captured Mecca and Medina. It has been preserved in several early collections of rhetoric as an example of Arab eloquence and moral fervor. He is Abu Hamza al-Mukhtar bin Awf al-Uzdy al-Umany (also known as Abu Hamza al-Shari) one of the prominent Ibadhis of Basra. The sermon was delivered in Medina in the presence of Imam Malik Ibn Anas:-

“I counsel you in fear of God and the Sunna of His prophet – His blessing and peace be on him and to observe the ties of blood, and magnify the truth of God which tyrants have diminished, and to diminish the falsehood they have magnified, to put to death the injustice they have brought to life, and to revivify laws they have let die; to obey God- and to those who obey Him, disobey others in obedience to Him, for there is no obeying a creature which disobeys its Creator. We call you to the Book of God and the Sunna of His prophet, and to equal sharing, and to justice for the subject peoples, and to putting the fifths of the booty in the place God ordained for them. As for us, we have not taken arms lightly or frivolously, for play or amusement, or for a change of government on which we hope to immerse ourselves, or for the revenge that was taken from us; but we did it when we saw the earth had grown wicked, and proofs of tyranny had appeared, and religious propagandists increased, but men did as they pleased, and laws were neglected, and the just were put to death, and speakers of truth treated violently, and we heard a herald calling us to Truth and the straight Path, so we answered the summoner of God… And by His grace we became brethren…”

“O people of Medina! Children of the Muhajirin and the Ansar! How sound are your roots, and how rotten are your branches! Your fathers were men of certainty and religious knowledge – and you are a people of error and ignorance.... For God opened the door of religion for you, and you (let it grow choked with rubbish); He locked the door of this world for you, and you forced it open; hasters to temptation and laggards in the way of the Prophet; blind to the demonstration of Truth and deaf to knowledge; slaves of greed and allies of affliction! How excellent was the legacy your fathers left, had you preserved it, and how miserable will be that of your children if you hold on to it! Them He aided to the Truth – you He deserts in error. Your ancestors were few and pious, and you are many and malicious... the preachers of the Qur'an cry out to you, and you are not chidden’ they warn you, and you do not ponder...” (Islam by John A. Williams (London & New York 1961 pp. 215 – 217).

If these are the words of a heretic as some religious propagandists would like us to believe, then one might as well ask: Who is a true Muslim today? Abu Hamza died a martyr in the following year 130 H. in a fierce battle with an Umayyad army sent by Marwan II to restore the city of Medina to his rule.

“THE KHAWARIJ”

          We have seen in the historical part of this book, when we were tracing the events following the assassination of Seyyidna Uthman and the succession of Seyyidna Ali in the year 35 H (656 CE), that fighting broke out between the supporters of Muawiya who wanted to avenge the murder of Uthman and the supporters of the new Khalifa Ali b. Abi Talib. When arbitration was proposed after the battle of Siffiin in the year 37 H (657 CE), a section of Seyyidna Ali’s army deserted him. This group opposed the proposed arbitration and regarded it as a challenge to the legitimacy of Ali’s Caliphate. They persuaded him to reconsider his decision, and although he agreed at first, yet later on he reverted to his earlier position of accepting arbitration. It is not true, as is alleged by some writers, that the opponents of arbitration persuaded him to accept it and when he did, they abandoned him.

          It is generally agreed that the arbitration eventually turned out to be a fraud. The secessionist party which came to be known by various names: the Muhakkimah, the Khawarij, the Shurah, the Al-Qaeda, Ahli Nahrawan or Ahli Haraura, went to settle in an area known as Nahrawan, near Kufa, in Iraq, and elected Abdullah b. Wahab al Rasby al-Uzdy as the first non-Quraishi Imam. In the year 38 H (658 CE) Seyyidna Ali and his army, on their way to Syria to fight Muawiya, decided to finish off with the Khawarij first. And so fighting broke out at Nahrawan when Imam Abdullah al-Rasby and about one thousand of his followers were killed in the battle. The tragedy brought about remorse and grief among the people of Kufa and so the expedition to Syria was abandoned. Seyyidna Ali, in remorse, said:-

"لا تقاتلوا الخوارج بعدي ..."

‘Do not fight the Khawarij after me’..

          Two years later Seyyidna Ali was murdered by one Ibn Muljam in 40 H (661 CE) to avenge the massacre of the relatives of his wife at the battle of Nahrawan. The conspiracy to kill him was hatched, according to Jalaluddin Assyuti, in Mecca, not in Basra where there was a large concentration of the people of Nahrawan. The identity of Ibn Muljam is not known but some historical sources allege that he was a Khariji, and so they accuse the Khawarij including the Ibadhis, of having murdered Seyyidna

Ali. Today some Muslim leaders bitterly complain that the Western media unjustifiably accuse Muslims in general of terrorism because of the tragedy which happened in the World Trade Centre in New York on 11^th September.2001  and perpetrated by a group of young men belonging allegedly to the Islamic faith.‘ But the same Muslim leaders had been in the forefront in accusing Ibadhis today for a crime which was committed by one man almost l400 years ago. Allah will punish the individual who murdered Seyyidna Ali but not all future generations belonging to a particular sect or madh-hab.

          Twenty-seven years later serious disagreements occurred within the Muhakkimah party, and so in the year 65 H (685 CE) two extremist factions, the Azariqa and the Najdaat, broke away from it. These dissident groups developed a doctrine whereby they considered their Muslim opponents as polytheists and justified killing them, their women and children. They also held that it was lawful to confiscate their properties. At the same time they forbade inter-marriage with them. About ten years later another splinter group, the Sufriyya also seceded. The remnants left of the original Muhakkimah party developed their own independent body of principles known as Ibadhism (or Ibadhia), and also adopted a moderate approach towards their Muslim opponents; they did not share the extremist views of the other factions. It is under these circumstances that Ibadhism as an independent sect was born.

          Thus the final split brought the end of the Muhakkimah party originally a one political group which distanced itself from a power struggle for the office of Khalifa and now split up into four separate sects, each with its own independent doctrine:-

The Azariqa

The Najdaat

The Sufriyya

The Ibadhis

The rest of the Muslim World condemned the extremist doctrines of the first three factions. The Ibadhis too not only condemned them but also fought them on different occasions. Thus Dr. Hussein Abeid Ghanim Ghabbash in his book “Oman, Islamic Democracy” reports on p.39 as follows:-

“And among the most prominent Omanis worth mentioning is... Muhallab b. Abi Sufrah who saved Basrah from the extreme Azariqa. According to Shahrastani, a Muslim Scholar of Shafii Madh-hab, Muhallab fought the Azariqa for 19 years until they were liquidated during the time of Al Hajjaj, the Umayyad Governor”

                                                                 (Translation by the Author).

          Dr. Muhammad Rasheed al ‘Uqaily on page 5 of his booklet الإباضية في عمان reports that Omanis in about 70 H fought the Najdat when the latter imposed their authority on the eastern part of the Arabian peninsula and Bahrain. After several battles, the Najdat were driven away from Oman. Dr. Al’Uqaily comments that this confirms Omani’s utter refusal to the principles of the extremist factions of the Khawarij like Azariqa and Najdaat.

          Similarly Dr. Isaam al-Rawaas in his book, “Oman in Early Islamic History” reports on p. 117 that the army of Imam Julanda b. Masud (who ruled Oman 131 – 133 H) refused to give shelter to the Sufriyyah. Instead they asked them to accept the Ibadhi doctrine or else leave the town (Julfar) peacefully. The Sufriyyah chose to fight. The two parties then met in battle and the Sufriyyah were defeated.

          Thus it is clear that the Ibadhis have nothing to do with the extremist policies of the other splinter groups. The three terrorist factions of the Khawarij have ceased to exist for more than 1200 years, they exist only in the minds of those who want to perpetuate division in the Islamic Ummah (Community). They often single them out as examples of terrorism in the Islamic history, ignoring numerous cases of terrorist activities perpetrated by those in power such as the notorious Umayyad Governor, Al Hajjaj; Yazid whose army savagely murdered the Holy Prophet’s grandson, Hussein and all male members of his family except his son Ali (also known as Zain-l-Abidin); and Assaffah, the first Abbasid Khalifa whose uncle organized the massacre of all Umayyad princes (eighty of them) at a party held in Damascus especially for the purpose.

          The lists of murdered Khalifas which appear in the historical part of this book characterize the terrorist nature of some of those regimes. They are not exhaustive; they represent only a drop in the ocean. In the appendices to this book there is a list of prominent and pious Muslims who were tortured or imprisoned by the ruling regimes.

          The Khawarij are accused of having forbidden their followers intermarriage with members of other sects. But let us see what Abu Ameenah Bilaal Philips on p.107 of his book “The Evolution of Fiqh” has to say on this point with regard to other sects:-

          “The hyper conservative scholars of this stage (i.e. during the Ottoman Empire) went so far as to rule that whoever was caught transferring from one Madh-hab to another was liable to punishment at the discretion of the local judge. A ruling was also made in the Hanafee Madh-hab prohibiting the marriage of a Hanafee to a Shaafee”.

          Another charge against the Khawarij is that they justified the confiscation of properties of their Muslim opponents. There are many cases of confiscation of properties by Muslims other than the Khawarij. For example, al Mansur the second Abbasid Khalifa (754 – 775 CE) confiscated the properties of the families of Muhammad and Ibrahim, the great grandsons of Imam Hassan who had been killed while leading a revolt against the Caliph. But the Khalifa did not seize the properties of the two brothers who had led the rebellion but of their families so that they were left without means of subsistence. And yet Prof. Masud al-Hassan describes Al Mansur as one who “maintained religious discipline at his court, and did not allow any practice repugnant to Islam”. (History of Islam p. 204 – 205).

Another Abbasid Khalifa, Al Qahir (933 – 934 CE) also seized the properties of nobles who had been the favourites of Khalifa A1-Muqtadir who ruled before him (907 – 932 CE).

          One last charge against the Khawarij was that they were extremists or fanatics. But extremism in not confined to them only. All other sects were guilty of it at one time or another in history. Let us go back to what Abu Arneena Bilaal Philips says on p.107 of his book “The Evolution of Fiqh”:-

“And even the second most important pillar of Islam, Salaa, was not spared the effects of Madh-hab fanaticism. The followers of the various madh-habs began to refuse to pray behind the Imaams from other Madh-habs. This resulted in the building of separate prayer niches (Qiblas) in the masjids (mosques) of communities where more than one Madh-hab existed. Masjids of this type can be seen in places like Syria... Even the most holy Masjid, al-Masjid al-haraam of Makkah, which represents the unity of Muslims and the religion of Islam, was affected. Separate prayer niches were set up around the Ka’bah: one for an Imaam from each school. And when the time for Salaa came, an Imam from one of the Madh-habs would lead a congregation of followers from his Madh-hab in prayer; then another Imaam from one of the other Madh-habs would lead his congregation of followers and so on”.

This is an extremism or fanaticism of the worst order. If one does not pray behind an Imaam of another Madh-hab it means he does not recognize that Madh-hab as one of the tme Islamic sects. This amounts to apostatizing the other Madh-hab (تكفير) which is a serious matter especially when the Madh-hab belongs to the same group.

          Thus we see that while the Khawarij declared in their doctrine extremist principles, other factions of Islam practiced them just the same in dealing with their Muslim opponents. This defence of the Khawarij is unnecessary because they have ceased to exist for a long time, but it has been raised because there is still in the Islamic Ummah a section of Muslim extremists who keep on reviving old conflicts which have little to do today with the basic principles of Islam.

______________________________

^*See also V.179 of Chap. 7 (الأعراف)

  Verses No. 103 and 106 of Chap. 12 (يوسف)

  and V.1 of Chap. 13 (الرعد)

>>>>>> (To be Continued)

Reference:

Ibadhism, The Cinderella of Islam, by Soud H. Al Ma'awaly, pg: 112-156.