Oman and Ibadhism: Part III

2 PART

7

The Principles of Ibadhism

 

AFTER believing in God, Islam insists on unity and harmony among its followers; and after forbidding associating God with other things, it discourages emphatically differences among the people.

 

The Quran asserts: “Verily, this Brotherhood of yours is a single Brotherhood” (XXI-92). The Believers are but a Single Brotherhood” (XLIX-10), and, warning against the consequences, the Quran says: “And fall unto no disputes lest ye lose heart and your power depart” (VIII-46). And calling for unity and harmony, it says: “And hold fast all together, by the Rope which God (stretches out for you) and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God’s favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren” (III-103).

 

          Thus the root of Islam is Unity and harmony. Gone are the days when such unity prevailed during the days of the Prophet and of his orthodox Caliphs, particularly the first two. But God’s wisdom is such that He has not created people with the same level of thinking. The standards of understanding differ—and this is quite normal—and there is a wide difference among individuals in valuing and judging things. Hence, differences of opinions. But since such differences are an inborn matter, it is appropriate that it should be a healthy matter feeding the Muslim mind with fertile opinion, and perceiving the matters in all the angles horizontally and vertically rather than becoming a means of internal erosion and exhaustion—which has been the most dangerous thing that has touched the Muslim Community in our age—i.e. differences in everything to an extent that they have included the ideologies and opinions, thinking and imaginations, behaviour and character and perceiving and dispositions; but have exceeded the bounds and have touched the rules of Jurisprudence and the prescribed forms of worship.

 

          Such differences being natural as a fact of life in our age, we have to admit that they have come about because of a shortcoming in the Ideology or a wish to add new things and to investigate the truth and a desire to injure the aims of the Sharia. These are the most important causes of differences which confirm our opinion. Thus the cause of differences cannot be:

(1)      failure of reaching the Tradition (Sunnah) to some and reaching to others.

 

(2)     Or the extent of asserting a Tradition (Hadith) or non-assurance.

 

(3)     Or a difference in the method of understanding a text and its interpretation.

 

(4)    Or a difference in giving a word any meaning of the meanings which it carries.

 

          Political factors entering the Islamic thinking have been the most controversial new things and have caused differences over generations and each group to maintain its point of view and to consider that of another group as astray. When we lack patience to investigate the truth, we develop political support and opposition. Pride and vanity hover around the truth carrying us away from the Straight Path. The whole thing is so mixed up to an extent that people cannot distinguish between what should be unanimously understood and what should bear different meanings. They become so confused that they cannot comprehend what to agree upon and what to differ.

 

          Muslims have been divided into groupings, and each group believes that its opinion is the most correct and considers another group tantamount to another religion. Enmity has spread among the brethren because of these differences of ideas, which on the contrary, should not spoil the Brotherhood as long as the aim is to seek the truth and to adhere to it. In fact, the Prophet (S.A.W.) has commended that differences (of opinions) among his community is a blessing. Hence, the differences are not a barrier between brethren preventing them from meeting each other.

 

          There are voices calling for awakening of the Muslims among themselves and for cooperation in matters about which they hold unanimous ideas. This is a call deserving our commendation and support.

 

          It is up to us, therefore, to derive a lesson from the events of history and to make rules by which our differences are discussed in complete respect and affection, restricting any temptation to force adoption of unanimous opinions on questions which may provoke arguments.

 

          Accordingly, if there is a will and a desire to seek the truth, there is every opportunity to tolerate each other’s differences. There is no way to stop differences of opinion, as any person convinced against his will will remain of the same opinion still. What we should do is to understand each other’s opinions and respect them even if we do not accept them.

 

          There are topics which are controversial and different sects have different opinions thereof. Since Ibadhism is a much unknown sect and having its opinions on the different topics, we feel it our duty to explain the opinion of the Ibadhis with regard to certain matters about which opinions differ.

 

8

On History

 

OUR Islamic history has been soiled by some authors—ancient, modern and orientalists—who have taken the differences of opinion as a target of attack. Also, politics have contributed to inflame the spirit of divisions between the supporters and the opposers of the ruling state. Divisions into sects have led people from unity to groupings and each group to work to prove correctness of its ideology and to disprove that of another. Each claim to be on the right and accuses the other of going astray.

 

          It has become customary—for example—to consider The Sunnites as a measuring rod for nearness to truth or remoteness from truth of any other sect outside the Sunnites. The commentators have uniformly used the biased history which considers those who refused the Judgement (TAHKIM) as defectors and called them “Khawarij”. Likewise, supporters of the Imam Ali bin Abi Talib, have been accused of partisanship and exaggeration without distinction between the extremists and the moderates. This historical fraud has succeeded in painting on the screen of the truth, a picture attracting people to consider the Ibadhis as Khawarij. This has confused even the Ibadhis themselves. Throughout the 14 centuries, scholars have not been able to free the minds of the people from the sinful word, uttered by biased mouth against the believing people.

 

The Rise of Ibadhism and Its Political Effect

          The Ibadhis are accused of being part and parcel of Khawarij but if one traces the rise of Ibadhism and studies its principles with consideration and precision, he will certainly realize that such an accusation is merely a tale resulting from political and sectarian fanaticism.

 

          It has been alleged that there were defections in the army of Imam Ali bin Ali Talib following his acceptance of the Judgement, and that has been considered the beginning of the appearance of Khawarij, among whom were Ibadhis. A1so it has been said that many of the people in the army denounced the Judgement and deserted Imam Ali—an incident which caused divisions into angry factions and others to engage in secret plotting—but no evidence has been given to support this fallacy.

 

          On the contrary, the Khawarij are a genuine Muslim generation, and according to their principles, they were not affected by any outside factors. They were among those who sincerely embraced Islam and no seducer infiltrated into their community. The refusal of the Judgement by both the Ibadhis and the Khawarij was just a coincidence but the two groups are mutually exclusive in ideology. It is therefore out of place to refer the refusal of the Judgement to the crisis of that Judgement alone and to consider the Battle of Saffain as a source of divisions among the Muslims into differing sections. The fact remains that the Khawarij represent the original movement in the nature of the progress of the Religion. The movement became manifest after the Battle of Saffain and what came with it in discord and what resulted therefrom in changing the Caliphate into the biting Kings.

 

          The conflict became intensified between the Umayyad Empire and the opposing factions causing differences among themselves. Stories were fabricated and used as weapons Opponents and disputants.

 

          The difference between the justice of the Orthodox Caliphate and the tyranny of the Umayyads is enormous. Voices of opposition against this oppressive Empire came from various groups. The Umayyads called anyone opposing them ‘Khawarij’ without a difference between the Ibadhis and the Azariq (who were the followers of Nafiy bin Al-Azraq. They considered their opponents as violators and made their blood lawful to shed including that of their women and children). For the Umayyads, it was sufficient for anyone opposing their rule to be among the Khawarij. This name—Khawarij—did not spread until after the appearance of the Azariqa whereas those who were known as the Muslim group and people of Justice and rightness were not known in the First Judgement, the stand of those people with regard to the events was in accordance with justice supported by evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah. Thus in refusing the Judgement, for example, they declared openly that it was not a solution to the dispute between Imam Ali and Muawiya. The matter is clear without ambiguity in that Muawiya and his supporters were rebellions and fighting must continue until they surrender to God’s Cause and correct their sins. And how could Ali, as the righteous Imam, accept the Judgement with his representative who revolted against him?

 

          There is an unfounded accusation that the Ibadhis argument is an imaginary suspicion and that Abdulla bin Abbas managed to drop it from some of them when he discussed with them, but the majority remained with their wrong idea. If Abdulla bin Abbas was against them, they would not have relied on him (for his teachings). The Ibadhis rely on Ibin Abbas and quote intensively from his teachings, and this is widely known to those who read the lbadhi writings on the Tradition (Hadith). To the Ibadhis, Ibni Abbas was the leader of the Prophetic Traditions whose narrations are greatly relied upon.

 

          Another accusation is based on the judgement of Al-Hafidh bin Kathir on the Khawarij when he considered them as straying. There is no comment on this accusation, but it has been made to correspond with the call of Al-Hafidh to clear the misunderstandings so that all (the Muslims) should come under the banner of one ideology. Was it not more appropriate to consider judging the group of the Companions and the Adherents as astray? The avoidance of justice increased when the Court was accused of being influenced by a number of factors in the form of movements which refused to recognise the position of The Arabs,—those who sought to change the meanings of the revealed texts and also the conspiracy of the Jews. All these caused divisions in the army of Imam Ali which consequently compelled him to accept the Judgement.

 

          We have previously mentioned the firmness of the Court and its non-adherence to the outside influence. Also, Imam Ali was clever to understand the trick of raising up the text of the Quran and he did not accept the comedy of the Judgement, but after the confusion in the Army and pressure from his supporters he had no choice but to accept.

 

          As for Imam Ali’s assassination, the tale makes reference to a beautiful woman who promised the assassin, as supporting the story of Ibni Kathir. There is no comment on this story and no assessment on the membership of Abdul Rahman bin Muljam Al-Murady to “Khawarij” and his relation with Al-Ashath bin Qais about whom some narrations put it that he told Ibni Muljan: “Hurry up—the dawn has exposed you”. The policy of violence continued against those so-called Khawarij throughout the rule of the Umayyads when Muawiya sensed their danger and their stubborn-stand in favour of justice. He declared war against them and chased them away; and he was succeeded in suppressing and in fighting justice by the Caliphs, governors and judges who came after him, particularly in Basra and Kufa where support for the opposition against tyranny became immense. When they could no longer tolerate the annoyance, particularly after the martyrdom of Abi Bilal Murdas bin Hadyr, and hearing about the deflection of Abdulla bin Al-Zubair in Mecca, they called for Holy War against Muawiya. Accordingly, Nafy bin Al-Azraq announced: “Surely, God has sent to you the Book (Quran) and has decreed upon you the Holy War and has reasoned for you with the Quran; the oppressors have drawn out their swords against you, so come out with us to he who has revolted in Mecca. If he is of our opinion, we shall fight with him, and if he is not, then we shall expel] him from the House (The Kaaba)”.

 

          There is an accusation here that Abdulla bin Abadh was with the Khawarij when they went to Abdulla bin Al-Zubair just to insist that he was among the leaders of Khawarij and that there was no difference between him and Nafiy bin Al-Azraq and Abdulla bin Al-Sughar. But knowing that separation and division took place in the year 64 A.H. after the Khawarij had deserted Ibni Al-Zubair, who, it became apparent after giving him their full support in defending the Kaaba, that he was not a person they anticipated. Thus after asking him to pledge allegiance, they understood his disagreeing with them and they quit him.

 

          One reads contradictory comments about Abdulla bin Abadh. On the one hand he is blamed for not opposing the Khawarij in their withdrawal from Othman and for asking the opinion of Abdulla bin Al-Zubair regarding the Third Caliph (Othman). On the other hand the Ibadhis are praised for their appreciation for Othman and Ali, and also Abdulla bin Abadh is acclaimed for his objection to the attitude of the extremist— Azariqa and his dis-association with him.

 

9

Between the Ibadhis and the Khawarij

IT has been established that Abdulla bin Abadh agreed with the leaders of Khawarij to decide on defection. He preceded them to the appointed place, and while waiting, he heard confusing voices; and when they came, he told them: “I have nothing to do with you, does it befit to defect on this method?”.

 

          If one traces the principles of the Khawarij which are considered as straying, and comparing them with those of the Ibadhis, he will find a clear difference between the two. While the Ibadhis consider those who differ with them as Muslims with whom they can live together, marry from each other, inherit each other, eat their slaughtered meat and forbid killing them or confiscating their properties; the Azariqa and their supporters see that those who commit big sins are polytheists, and it is proper to shed their blood, loot their property and abuse their children. Also they allow checking those who differ with them when they go to their camps. They consider those who do not join them as atheists and make it lawful to kill their children. How then could there be a similarity between those who permit and those who forbid?

 

          The writer’s persistence on placing the Ibadhis with Khawarij, notwithstanding very obvious differences between the two, indicates lack of seriousness on the part of research workers to seek the facts. It simply shows the tendency of the modern writers to quote from the works of their predecessors. There has been no author, writing on the sects, who has given the Ibadhis their correct status but would simply call them Khawarij or among the Khawarij or close to close to Khawarij. Authors of such a type discuss this terminology in their writings on Religion and history without seeking the facts or bothering about them. Such facts which clearly reveal that the Ibadhis have nothing in common with the Khawarij except in denouncing the judgement. Hence, bringing the Ibadhis and the Khawarij together is an insult and unpardonable. The sinful among the Amirs have used this terminology to keep people away from the Ibadhis because they are outstanding in denouncing the wrong and they never obey the tyrant and never hesitate to repel injustice with violence. And for this, their enemies have branded them with extremism and sternness.

 

          One wonders what did the early writers intend by generalising the Khawarij to include others who have nothing in common with them! Yet they assumed the position of protected persons who cannot be criticised. We learn that the early leaders of the sects used to invite criticisms for their views if they contradicted with a version of the Quran or the Prophetic saying, and they never claimed purity. Hence, it was possible to argue with them in the attributes of their expressions and to criticise them if there was a reason.

 

          It is therefore quite reasonable to demand convincing explanation of the general term “Khawarij”, so that anyone using it should avoid involving those who do not belong to it. The term “Khawarij” applies to those who defected from a certain prevailing ideology, be it correct or wrong. Such defectors would not be satisfied by merely opposing the ideology but would go even further to consider it lawful to shed the blood, confiscate the properties and spoil the sanctity of those they oppose. They judged them as idolaters and treated them accordingly.

 

          In his book “Views of Khawarij”, Ammer Al-Taliby says: “The Ibadhis have their opinion about the Khawarij. They consider defection as deserting the Religion and do not consider political defection as tantamount to apostasy”.

 

          To the theologians, the Khawarij are a group which defected from the truth during the time of the adherents and considered those who commit big sins as idolaters. They legalised confiscation of their properties and shedding of their blood.

          The term “Khawarij” has gained the reputation of straying through the influence of books and essays on Sects. But on the historical side, it does not at all mean deviation from the Religion. Neither has it any other meaning denoting favouring infidelity or atheism. Thus, Dr. Ahmed Al-Subly did not see any objection that the Ibadhis should take pride in the name! and he considers the issue purely political having no connection with the Religion.

 

          But writers on history themselves consider Khawarij to mean people who deviated from the Religion—hence, the issue is not so simple as considered by Riffat Fawzy Abdul-Muttalib who thinks that the issue is simply a difference in generalization of the term and not a deviation in usage. He says in his book “Succession and the Khawarij in Western Arabia” that the fact is that the principles which the Ibadhis have adopted are more moderate than those adopted by other Kharijite sects, but many authors on history consider them Khawarij while at the same time call them moderates. In his opinion he sees that the difference between writers on history and the Ibadhis is merely a difference in using the name and that the principles which the Ibadhis insist upon, are not denied by those writers on history who were involved in the issue. Those writers neither deprive the Ibadhis of their true position nor do they exempt them from the terminology of Khawarij and there should be no problem in this as long as the aim is understood and the difference between the moderate and the extremist is clear.

 

          So authors, however, surprise us when they consider the comments of historians and authors of essays to be above criticism notwithstanding their recognition of the moderateness of the principles of Ibadhism and their distinction from the principles of the Khawarij. Yet they see that the historical link of the Ibadhis with the Khawarij is an undeniable fact. Al-Ashary has given his judgement, followed by Al-Baghdady, Ibni Hazm, Al-Asfihany and Al-Shahristany, and they thought that their judgements should be final. Thereafter, however, a chain of insults on Ibadhism continued until our pre-sent time, and many of the distinguished propagators have surprised the Ibadhi youths with strange opinions on Ibadhism. One of them compared Ibadhism with Karnathians (a sect of Shia extremists). Another judged those who deny the sight of God (among them the Ibadhis) as atheists and deserve to be stopped with the sword.

 

          Al-Islam, a Magazine published in U.A.E. published an article on ‘Religious Extremism’ and the author said: “Although extremist sects have all vanished and nothing remains except AL-BATINIYAH (a section of Karnathians) and Ibadhism, yet many of our youths today are moved towards extremism”.

 

          A question arises: “Does this help in uniting the Muslims? Do they not fear to fall into what God has forbidden and has censured he who does it by placing Ibadhis in the rank of AL-BATINIYAH?: “And that ye should say of God that of which ye have no knowledge” (II: 169).

 

          Discussing things without knowledge is averting the reality, and we do not conceal the right of some of the propagators and research workers who made serious efforts to seek the facts from the original sources of Ibadhism, and were successful in their findings. They also contributed-for their sincerity-in bridging the gap between the factions of the community.

 

          The late scholar—Abu Al-Aalaa Al-Mawdudy said that what is meant by Religion in the question of defection is simply obedience to the leader (Imam). He said: “It does not mean that the Khawarij will abandon the Religion to embrace another religion. When Imam Ali was asked about the Khawarij if they were infidels he replied: “They have fled from infidelity”, and when asked if they were hypocrites, he replied: “The hypocrites do not remember God except little at dawn and at sunset”. Hence, he insists that ‘by religion’ in this connection, is meant obedience to the Imam. This counters the former commentators such as MANSOUR Ali Naasif who said in his book “The Comprehensive Crown of Sources of the Prophet’s Sunnah” Vol. V.P. 314, under the heading “Fighting the Khawarij is a personal duty”. He claimed that the Prophet (S.A.W.) did not fight them when some of them showed him intimacy. Abu Dhar is said to have said that the Prophet had said: “Surely, after me, there will be from my people a group (of people) reciting the Quran (in a voice not crossing their throats—they will flow out from the Religion in the same way as the arrow flows out from the bow, and will not return thereto. They are the vicious creation and creatures”. (Related by Muslim and Abu Dawood). But Doctor Awadh Khaliifat who has specialised in the history of the Ibadhis makes the following observations:

 

(1) The Ibadhis are not Khawarij as some books and articles on Creed and Sects claim and as claimed by some modern authors who emulated these writings without precision and clarification. The fact is that the Ibadhis are not related to Khawarij except in denouncing the Judgement.

 

(2) The Ibadhis forbid killing the believers who believe in the Unity of God (TAWHID) and forbid shedding their blood, searching and examining them (as done by the Khawarij extremists such as Azariqa and Najdiyah).

 

(3) The Research worker on the sources of the Ibadhi Jurisprudence (FIQH) will see that the Ibadhis are the Muslims who follow the Sunnah most and who seek guidance therefrom.

          All the accusations against them are due to either ignorance or fanaticism. What is needed, when discussing the Muslim sects is thorough research lest one throws mud on the face of a brother Muslim by accusing him as straying without a proof.

 

          The author of “AL-IBADHIYA—Ideology and Sect”, Sabir Taimah, has rightly described Ibadhism among the majority of sacts, but has not been true to his own words when he vowed to be honest. He has described the Ibadhis as more stern than moderate and has accused them of innovation and arrogance. These are strange accusations which have been opposed by many writers—old and new ones—who have confirmed moderateness for Ibadhism. Ibni Al-Saghir Al-Maliky in his Thesis on the Rule of Rostum (I60-297 A.H.) has acclaimed the Ibadhis for their justice and has acknowledged that they are right. Also Hassan Al-Sanduby (who made observation of the book: “AL-BAYAN WA AL-TABYIN” by Al-Jahid) said: “The Ibadhi sect, and its followers are among the excellent members of the Qibla (ahli al-qibla) and are among those who avoid innovations which have nothing to do with Religion . . . and I was deceived by what the opponents of the Ibadhis said about them; and I referred to the summaries of their accusations, and it became clear to me the truth about them. I knew, then, that they are among the best Muslims, and they refer for all their affairs pertaining to warship and dealings to the Book and the Sunnah”. Also, Ezzi-Din Al-Tanukhy says, “Ibadhis in Oman and Maghrib today are the remains of the moderate Muslims who adhere to the Book and the Sunnah”.

 

          Perhaps the accusation for defection contradicts with Ibadhism when we trace their denounciation of the Khawarij. Their resentment of the Khawhrij is sterner than that of others. Al-Rabia bin Habib, Abu Obaidah Muslim bin Abi Karimah and Dhammam bin Al-Saib have commented on the Khawarij saying: “As long as they insist on their dogma, they are responsible for their mistake, but if they exceed to actions, we shall judge them for their infidelity”.

 

          When the Khawarij put their doctrine into action, the Ibadhis considered them as straying and quitted them. In his letter to Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Abdulla bin Abadh said: “We declare our innocence to God from Ibni Azraq, his actions and his followers; when he defected, he was for Islam as it appeared to us, but he invented (things) and rebelled and became an infidel after being a (devout) Muslim—so we declare our innocence to God from him”.

 

10

On Ibadhism from the Sunni Sources

SOME authors writing on Ibadhism have claimed that some sects have defected from Ibadhism. Abu Al-Hassan Al-Ashary, who is an outstanding author on sects alleges that the Ibadhis have four sects, namely, Al-Hafsiyah, Al-Harithiya, Al-Ziydiya and Companions of Obedience. He then associates with each Sect atrocities tantamount to infidelity and rebellion. Al-Ashary lived during the closing years of the Third Century and opening years of the Fourth Century A.H. He died in 330 A.H. Both in the East and the West the Ibadhis had established their rule for quite long periods (such as the rule of Rostum from 160-297). But we do not see in the writings of Al-Ashary a single mention of one of the Ibadhi leaders or scholars, particularly as the Ibadhis were outstanding—in the early writings—for ideology and their attitude. On the other hand, we see the authors fill the pages with baseless ficticious stories. The story of Ibrahim, for example, has been given that he used to sell slave girls, but no mention of the source of information has been given to support the story. This unknown person—Ibrahim—has been purported to have been the leader of the Sect which defected from Ibadhism. In commenting about this story, the late Sheikh Ali Yahya Muammar said: “O that Aba Al-Hassan had mentioned the source of his information that he could be free from the responsibility of proving his statement. Al-Ashary has not mentioned any truth in his book about the Ibadhis—whether sects, personalities or even mere stories. Unfortunately, other authors follow Al-Ashary and have not given anything except accusations of guiltiness which have nothing to do with Ibadhism. Yet, Dr. Sabir Taimah finds courage to blame the Ibadhi author—Al-Mansuri—for his challenging the authors of essays written on the fashion of Al-Ashary.

 

          Books on attitude, culture and manners written by the Ibadhi scholars are many and accurate and they have been written since the time of the Companions, and there is no one referred to by Al-Ashary as belonging to Ibadhism who has been mentioned in the books of our predecessors. How could Al-Ashary mention the recent scholars such as Muhamed bin Mahjoub, Hood bin Mahkam Al-Hawary, and leaders like Al-Salt bin Malik Al-Kharasy and Abu Al-Yazyd Mukhlid bin Kaydad and does not expose them or their writings? He leaves the real Ibadhis such as Jabir bin Zayd, Abdulla bin Abadh and Abu Obaidah and discusses unknown persons whose writings contradict with the principles of Ibadhism, and yet refers those writings while he has vowed not to cheat by making reference to the words of his opponents, nor to deliberately condemn them or spare them through the examination of their views or add to their sayings what is beyond the need.

 

          How could one keep quiet about this historical distortion on the pretext that Aba Al-Hassan had no ideological critics nor ideological confrontation with the Ibadhis or shall we take it that historians agree with authors of articles and essays regarding what they have recorded about the Ibadhis, and it is thus illogical for us to refuse their writings while we know that they have quoted or copied from each other and the same mistake is repeated by them, particularly as Al-Ashary has gained wide reputation for his arguments and controversy which have made his book important and a reliable source of reference for those who came after him.

 

          One century later, Al-Baghdady deliberately divided the people into three groups. In the introduction to his book, he considered the first group as a defector from the Religion, and the second group as dishonoured and exposed. He prayed to God to put the two groups into the Hell of Fire while he favoured the third group for happiness.

 

          He never took the trouble of making references to the Original Ibadhi sources in spite of their being available in his time, but—again—he simply quoted from Al-Ashary in his reference to Ibadhism, sometimes using the same expressions repeatedly. He did not add anything except associating Ibadhism with Abdulla bin Abadh. As regards the sects, he agreed with Al-Ashary in his opinion of comparing the Four Sects with Ibadhism and concluded that the Ibadhis belong to the Khawarij, who in his opinion, must be dishonoured and their straying be exposed. His fanaticism over ruled his wisdom and alleged that it is not permissible for a Sunni to say prayers behind an Ibadhi Imam or to pray for the Ibadhi corpses; nor to marry their women nor to eat the meat slaughtered by them.

 

          Sabir Taimah—a modern writer—makes reference to Al-Baghdady and accuses him of disgracing the Ibadhis. He claims that Al-Baghdady concentrated on the ideology of the extremist group—Al-Yazidiyah—but then he calls them non-Ibadhis. He also complains with false excuse against Sheikh Muammar regarding the historical presence of Yazid bin Abi-Anysah, and is satisfied that he has found in the references of Al-Ashary, Al-Baghdady and Al-Shahristany what proves that Yazid’s presence was a reality. He then acknowledges that those people did not give the Ibadhis what they deserve in research and explanation. Yet, however strongly the Ibadhis deny that Yazid belongs to them, he does not accept that because the name of Yazid appears in the works of those people. In the balance of justice, this is sufficient to prove what the Ibadhis deny.

 

          The Ibadhis do not need to be understood through writers of history who did not use the Ibadhi references—which were abundantly available—at the time of their writing. Al-Baghdady—for example—could not avoid distorting the facts about Ibadhism because he did not take his material from the Ibadhi sources. He relied on the other sources which avoided the truth and corrupted the principles.

 

          Equally, Shahristany did not surrender from his point of view in spite of his delay in coming into the field and deriving benefit from the works of his predecessors among those who avoided the truth about the Ibadhis when giving their opinions. Sabir Taimah claims that Shahristany did not discuss Ibadhism in a manner stronger than what the historical sources have said.

 

          One wonders if it is objective to repeat what his predecessors have reached without clarification. Does accepting the works of authors of books and writers of articles mean an indication of the facts which the research worker has collected? Surely, justice requires avoidance of mistakes which the predecessors have made and deriving benefit from the sources prevailing at the time of writing.

 

          Al-Shahristany had vowed also to discuss the sect of each group according to what he could find in their own sources without any fanaticism or criticism and without pointing out the correct and the wrong. But did he keep his promise? Depending upon the sources which he mentioned, there is no connection with Ibadhism, and in the essays we cannot find any trace in the books of the Ibadhi writers. Hence the answer will be sadly in the negative. He does not differ much with his predecessors except in some details in that he has violated what he himself vowed to do in the forefront of his book. He associated the straying sects with Iblis (Satan). How then, could we have confidence in Al-Shahristany who vowed to depend upon the books of the people of the sects while we do not see any reference of any Ibadhi author from whom he has quoted his material? He has emulated the former writers who associated the Ibadhi sect with Abdulla bin Abadh whom he considered a contemporary of Marwan bin Muhamed whereas Abdulla died during the last days of Abdul Malik. He has also mentioned Al-Kaaby as a source of some articles which he related to Ibadhism, and this is an escape from the responsibility of such statements wherein there is right and wrong. Al-Kaaby is not a source of Ibadhism. Abu Al-Fat-h also has differed with his predecessors in considering Al-Hafsiya, Al-Ziydiya and Al-Harithiya as factions independent from Ibadhism. He also ignored to mention many of the stories which have been told by the former writers, and, surely, this is tantamount to criticism and a denial of such stories.

 

          As for the Ibadhi sources they have contradicted with the defecting factions which adopted things different from the original sect, although there is strict reservation in using the word “faction” for such defections and differences among the Ibadhi scholars. Not each difference leads to formation of a faction. The author concluded that in these factions there are ideological, political and personal secretions. He also pardoned the former writers of articles for not mentioning those differences because they originated in the western part of the Muslim world; but authors like Ibni Hazm Al-Andalosy was not very far from the western environment. So a question arises! Why did he not mention those differences? A1so the dispute between Imam Abdul Wahab Al-Rustamy and Al-Nakkar reached the East and the reply came from Basra asserting the Imamate of Abdul Wahab and refuting Al-Nakkar.

 

          Essentially, for anyone who wishes to write on any sect should make thorough research and collect enough information from different sources, particularly in our age when the means of contact are available and both public and private libraries are filled with reference books and are open to research workers.

 

          The Ibadhi divisions are found in the old sources such as the manuscript of Al-Sufy and also in the new books. Such divisions are mentioned in the same number, names, wordings and causes of disputes between the Imams of the sect and the leaders of the divisions. Some recent authors, such as the late Sheikh Ali Muammar, however, hesitates to accept what has been said about those divisions. It may be that the secret of such divisions within the sect was passion for popularity or greed for position or an attempt to impose an idea in opposition to the predecessors. It is therefore essential that there should be a distinction between those to whom the term ‘division’ is applicable, such as Al-Nakkar (a division among the Muslim divisions) or Al-Hassiniya and Al-Saqaqiya—(which are the two factions which defected from Islam), and between those whose differences are personal and on marginal matters which are many in the Muslim Jurisprudence, such as Al-Nafathiya and Al-Farthiya or political differences under the leadership of aggressive faction such as Al-Khalafiya. There are some mistakes made by the author regarding the Ibadhis in that in discussing the divisions, it has been admitted that, Nafatha (a research worker) has based his ideology on an unknown book by an unknown author; but in spite of this, Sabir Taimah has accused Sheikh Ali Muammar for his statement that: “And this book known as Register is unknown and the author is also unknown”. We do not see any justification for the accusation. Sabir Taimah has not commented on the number of troops which Al-Baruni has given in the army of Khalef as 40 thousand, whereas it appears strange compared to the number of the troops in the army of Imam Aflah which was only 700 Accepting the number of the army of Khalef is to refute the reservation of Sheikh Ali Muammar in calling Al-Khalafiya a faction while it was this group which managed to recruit this big number which did not stand before the army of the Imam and was swept away.

 

          Although Sabir Taimah refrains from argument—and we sincerely support him that it does not lead anywhere—his insistence on accepting factions has nothing to do with Ibadhism as alleged that it is a faction of Khawarij.

 

          If one does not know the facts one should refrain from argument and should seek the truth in order that one may get what all of us seek, which is unity of the whole Muslim community and adherence to the Rule of God.