Talk:Kharijites

Origin Clarity

The first segment is unclear. A better explanation of where Kharijites stand with regard to Sunni and Shia Islam would be beneficial. What is the distinction between the sect which opposed Ali.--Jsn4 02:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There is background in the areas where you have "citation needed" in Balyuzi, "Muhammad and the Course of Islam" George Ronald Publisher, 1976; ISBN 0853980608 at pages 183-186. pilgrimbrent Pilgrimbrent 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph says the only surviving group are the Ibadhi, then it says the Ibadhi reject that designation. So if the Ibadhi don't consider themselves to be Kharijites, then who does consider them to be Kharajites? The Sunnis and Shi'a? That paragraph shoud be rewritten to be clear 4.142.78.191 04:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)eric

It should be reworded. The thing to point out is that none of the Kharijite groups (Ibadhi or otherwise) referred to themselves as Kharijites; this was a derogatory term given to them by their enemies (c.f. "Wahhabis"). That's why the Ibadhis reject this apellation. However, it's an established fact that Ibadhism is an offshoot of that general movement, whether you call it Kharijism or not. This, the Ibadhis do not dispute. Slacker 17:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed 5th line of 1st paragraph to read "other opponents" instead of "a variety of other ignorants and miscreants" to make it more NPOV and less mischieveous, although I must admit the original characterization had a charming pugnacity that made me smile. Aren't those who disagree with us always ignorants and miscreants? :-) Signed, lkredhat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkredhat (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Akward Translation

I know the parenthetical statements are supposed to add clarity but really the make this paragraph sound akward:

"Coming after me a sect that hurt me in my Itrati (posterity). They keep (meaning from time to time) coming out (khuruj from Kharijites) against Muslims, Kill them O ˤAlī, kill them, for they will be the Shia of Ad-Dajjal."

I am putting:

"Coming after me will be a sect that hurts me in my posterity. They will keep breaking away from the Muslims and opposing them. Kill them O ˤAlī, kill them, for they will be the supporters of the Antichrist."

then following with a comment referring the reader to the Ad-Dajjal article for Islamic teachings on the Antichrist to make up for the lost link in the translation.

Continued Awkwardness with "khuruj"

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

NPOV and Citation concerns

I know nothing about Kharajite Islam but one thing that is remarkably clear to me upon reading the "Origin" section is that the bulk of it was written by a Sunni Muslim with poor mastery of the english language and for whom the very concept of NPOV is almost totally alien. The person obviously tried to write from a neutral perspective, at one point saying "this is not theology it is history", but it's also obvious that they are incapable of telling the difference. Unfortunately I suspect that the vast majority of people who have sufficient knowledge of this subject to contribute would be similarly unable to write with NPOV and would very possibly also share the poor english skills.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.251.179 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely new to editing wikipedia, so please bear with me. "It is said that ˤAlī agreed to the arbitration in a clever scheme of his, so that he could identify the sect that the Prophet had warned him from. It is reported that the Prophet said to ˤAlī warning him of a future sect in Islam" It is said by whom? Also, does anyone know where the Hadith that follows is recorded? A link to it, or even a citation would be helpful. The claim that the Kharaijites murdered a number of the Sahaba to preserve their secrecy is new to me, a preliminary look over the Sahaba linked to from Shia_view_of_the_Sahaba revealed no similar allegations.

"It is said ... invited Hussein to come to them in Kufah were from those Kharijites' original tribes of Eastern Arabia (namely Banu Hanifa of Iraq and Ihsa'a up to ad-Dumat al-Jandal west). Later a false prophet came out of them Musailemah, and they constituted all the Kharijites. These days they still live in south Iraq and Ihsaa as Shia of south Iraq." This paragraph needs some reworking to be more clear. It makes it seem as the Kharajites invited Hussein to Kujah, that Musailemah came from the K, and that the K still live in s. Iraq instead of the Banu Hanifa and Ihsa'a.

As far as NPOV I think a rewording of "clever scheme" might be in order. Also "radical fundamentalism" seems to be using modern concepts in a way that is not particularly helpful. "Fundamentalism" usually refers to scriptural literalism, and that doesn't strike me as a good way to differentiate the Kharajites from the Shi'a or the Sunni.

Just thought I'd throw those comments out there before I started editing. Also, know any good books about the Kharijites? I'm stuck mostly working from lecture notes and journal articles.

MikeBryan 07:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Mike Bryan

This whole page is really quite POV, and several sections are actually cut-and-pasted from other sources. It needs a rewrite. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The key case for the neutrality flag, is this quote, just to take a plain example:

It is said that ˤAlī was against the idea of arbitration, because he thought that it was Muawiyya's trick to stop the loosing war, but his army refused to fight anylonger as long as the Quran is between them. It is also reported that the God's last Prophet said to ˤAlī warning him of a future sect in Islam:

"Coming after me will be a sect that hurts me in my posterity. They will keep breaking away from the Muslims and opposing them. Kill them O ˤAlī, kill them, for they will be the supporters of the Antichrist."

(See the entry on Ad-Dajjal for Muslim belief in the Antichrist.)

The Kharijites fit the Prophet' description. So ˤAlī hurridly divided his troops and ordered them to catch the dissenters before they reach major cities and disperse among the population.

The text is written from an anti-Kharijite POV and makes assertions such as "The Kharijites fit the Prophet's description" (of the followers of Al-Dajjal), which is inflamatory at the least. There's good info in here, but it needs to be rewritten into a neutral tone, with the POVs extracted and identified and sourced. --Christian Edward Gruber 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just kicked this article around abit, adding a lot of citation placeholders, as well as adding better structure and removing only the most blatantly unsourced POV. If those who added such comments (like how the Karijites fit some description of the Ahl-Dajjal), then they should source external articles indicating WHO identified them as such, and how so. --Christian Edward Gruber 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed a large section of text which seemed to be blatant translated proselytizing, and was extremely unwikified, as well as being difficult to read. This article is still in need of attention by an expert, and much editing. --gnomelock (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Present day Ahle-hadith or Salafiyyah group is strongly and unanimously considered to be their (Kharijite's) descendants, promoting their belief system." - This statement lacks references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.218.164 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alt spellings?

Kharajites? 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Muˤāwiyya ?

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

Same thing, just a difference of transliteration example: Leila, Layla, Leyla, Lila, Laila, etc. Layla derives from Semitic/Arabic and means night and is correctly spelled as ليلى LebaneseBebe (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

reverted edit by Khalidkhoso

The addition of ",who mascared Hazart Usman(A.S) and faught With Ali Bin Hussain during protection of Usman(A.S)." is non-NPOV, unsourced, and contradictory. My NPOV concern is the addition of the A.S. The real problem is the unsourced statement that the Kharijites massacred Uthman. As a group the Kharijites didn't exist until Siffin, after Uthman's assassination. If individuals present at Uthman's assassination were later Kharijites, say so, name them, and cite a source. Also (and this might just be my ignorance) the only Ali bin Hussain I can find reference to was Ali ibn Hussayn and the dates of his birth and Uthman's death don't match up.

Can you quote from or any Khawarij Books or Scholars on their dogma

== I think that a lot of the detail that is drawing fire wrt whether there is a NPOV is unnecessary to an understanding of the Khawarij. People are contesting things that don't lie at the heart of the subject. kenw

reverted edit by Leranigisteaching - blatant cut-and-paste

I removed the new addition by Leranigisteaching because it was cut and pasted directly from a text at http://www.islamfact.com/books-htm/moderatesect/ or a similar site - see Wikipedia's policy regarding copying from sources: Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources#Copying_other_reference_works - specifically: "...you should not just dump the text unedited ..." At least edit out the "<Previous | Table of Contents | Next>" ;-) Seriously - this article needs a rewrite, not more cut-n-paste. --gnomelock (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments

I was considering cleaning up this discussion page to identify unsigned comments - but considering that the bulk of the comments were unsigned it looked like too arduous a task. "Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse is good etiquette and facilitates discussion ..." See: Wikipedia:Signatures --gnomelock (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody would refer to themselves as Khawaarij as it's root word in Arabic meant "to go out" as in to go out of Islam. This only refers to the group that rebelled agaisnt the forth Kalifate Ali. However, it is said, based on the ahadith that the Khawaarij would re-appear at the end of time. It is unsure who they are as of yet. Still studying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.171.217 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins

Shi'ah Muslims believe the Khawarij were created by Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Can we maybe get that into the origins section?--عيسى (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The nature of this sect

From what I've learned about the Khawarij, their theology was that the Quaran was, in itself, the ultimate and sole authority of Islam. They rejected all hadith and other institutional interpretation. The two current major divisions of Islam trace their origins to ancient leadership disputes, and this article defines the Kharijites merely in that context. But such is an inaccurate, revisionist view of this sect. Their stance and role in conflicts over leadership, regardless of how important such things are to Sunni and Shi'a, were minor consequences of their much more central and key characteristic: their independent hermeunetics. Facts about this sect's "fathers" are historical, yet trivial, relative to its beliefs and internal characteristics. One can't tell the story of Christian Protestantism, without referring to Martin Luther, but he was just one man. The relevant long-term differences between major religious sects are their systems of theology, not their founders. Analogdrift (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Get some references and make a contribution then! Jahelistbro (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I’ve learned through research, they were considered Quran literalists, akin to today’s Salafis, and differing from Quranists (not Qur’an literalists). This distinction should be clarified, and can be sourced by whoever feels like doing it. LebaneseBebe (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Change the page title because it is spelled wrong

The proper spelling is Khawaarij.

source http://books.google.com/books?id=JRDJ489Pd2MC&pg=PA471&dq=Battle+of+Siffeen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ziTSUdaHEOTAyAGQk4C4Cw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Siffeen&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hadith section

Hadith section seems to be referring to Kharajites (or other extremists proclaiming themselves Muslims), but there is no secondary source saying they are. Should they not be deleted as WP:OR? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think so too. Jahelistbro (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: The solution would be to find RSs dissecting them, and not deleting them altogether. 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Perhaps though it should be taken down until someone does so, as those narrations aren't on their own contributing anything but suggestions that the Ash-Shura were a people who didn't have a connection to that which they were reciting.. Also, those narrations don't state the Kharaji were those who claim to be the 'Ash-Shura'. Jahelistbro (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Serious Issues

It looks like the article was written by some supporter of the Khawarij. Namely the opening paragraph where it says Khawarij were for pro equality etc. I see a banner that the article does indeed have multiple issues. Hopefully some editors can fix these issues. Misdemenor (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: Fixed a bit. 17:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Now it's written in a manner of those who despise the Ash-Shura. Can't this article be written to a NPOV? Jahelistbro (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering. I have looked at some of the sources on khawarij, and it appears that the narrative is similar to the POV I had assumed.. Khawarij is viewed as a proponent of democracy according to britanica [1] I believe we can make note of what they perceived as injustice inorder to balance the article per Jah. Misdemenor (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Template: Eschatology states the Khawarij were "evil"

The people this article refers to as the Khawarij considered themselves to be Ash-Shurāh, or 'the exchangers', of the Here for the Hereafter. And in Sunni, as well as Shi'ite Islam that is both commendable, and arguably a requirement of Muslims. That is not an "evil" characteristic, and neither is fighting against oppressors, another claim of the Ash-Shurah, and a command to the Muslims written in the Qur'an.

However the Template 'Eschatology' (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Eschatology) puts the Khawarij under the subcategory of "Evil". This is a harmful statement, and a violation of Wikipedias NPOV claims, and as such I think it should be removed, and/or replaced.

Really this stems down to the fact that we're directly imposing the term 'Khawarij' onto the Ash-Shurah, something that a NPOV wikipedia article shouldn't be doing.

Perhaps we could rewrite this article, like the unbiased Wikipedians we're. The Ash-Shurah didn't refer to themselves as the Khawarij, so why should we? Why is this article called "Khawarij"? Of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't represent also the perspectives of those who thought the Ash-Shurah were Khawarij, I am merely saying that the Mormonism article isn't called "Christian Heretics", even though most Christians see them as that. We could even have two articles, the "Khawarij" article, and the "Ash-Shurah" article.

What do you think? Jahelistbro (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well unlike the Mormons the Khawarij are not around to defend themselves therefore who are we offending? According to Islamic eschatology they are considered evil and if they are around today they obviously wouldnt admit that they are khawarij. Misdemenor (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, but we should still have a NPOV... Jahelistbro (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"According to Islamic eschatology" the Khawarij are considered evil, not the Ash-Shurah, in fact "according to Islamic eschatology" the Ash-Shurah are considered to be commendable. Which is why I suggested we could have two articles, one on the concept of "the Khawarij", and another on the 7th century group called the "Ash-Shurah"... And perhaps people do become offended, such as the Ibadis, when their descendants are called "outsiders"(Khawarij), as this article has, or evil as was stated. Jahelistbro (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Now did the "Ash-Shurah" revolt against authority? Do most reliable sources refer to the Ash-Shurah as the khawaraij? The Ibadis are accused of being descendants but im not sure if they are offended by it. The offence imho is when they are incorrectly labelled khawarij presently or that they are always mentioned as descendants. A quick look at the Ibadi article shows that they admit to having some sort of relations with the khawarij but deny anything more. Im sure any islamic group would want to distance itself from the subject. Infact I had to remove khawarij from Ibadi a couple months ago [2] because someone apparently thinks they are khawarij. Misdemenor (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Extreme doctrines", "sets them apart", "radical approach"

From the article: "The Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. They were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir (declaring self-described Muslims were non-Muslims)."

The question I have is this; how is that different than the states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other states governed apparently by Islamic law? My question is not to incite argument but for clarification of how they doctrines of the Ash-Shura are "extreme", and "set them apart" from mainstream Sunni, and Shi'ite muslims, and how this approach of theirs is "radical". Compared of course to the majority. Jahelistbro (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Good Question. The founders of the Saudi state were regarded extreme by even Sunnis. The Sunni scholars regarded Saudi Wahhabi sect khawarij for using takfir on non-Wahhabis. In early Saudi Arabia, smoking was considered punishable by death. The mainstream muslims unlike khawarij do not believe minor sin can be considered disbelief. I believe as time went by the Saudis became more lax in order to coexist with muslims. As one Saudi writer puts it." Saudi scholars were strict because the society was closed for hundreds of years, but they are changing now" Saudis have begun calling Sunnis deviants in the modern age rather then infidels. The khawarij's main issue is their promotion of sedition, much like what the Saudis did to the Ottomans, which is considered a major sin according to islamic text. So to answer your question the Saudis and Iranians are not executing civilians for minor sins currently. Misdemenor (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright! That's the clarification I was looking for. :) Jahelistbro (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue: 'Citations needed'

Is this still an issue? Jahelistbro (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Iqbal's classification of Khawarij

I shall be very brief in my account of the Khawarij, since the history of their opinion is yet to be worked out.

The first Muslims who were so called were the notorious 12,000 who revolted against Ali after they had fought under him at the battle of Siffin. They were offended at his submitting the decision of his right to the Caliphate to the arbitration of men when, in their opinion, it ought to have been submitted to the law of God — the Quran. "The nation," they said to Ali, "calls us to the Book of God; you call us to the sword." Shahristani divides them into twenty-four sects, differing slightly from one another in legal and constitutional opinion, e.g., that the ignorance of the law is a valid excuse; that the adulterer should not be stoned, for the Quran nowhere mentions this punishment; that the hiding of one's religious opinions is illegal; that the Caliph should not be called the commander of the faithful; that there is nothing illegal in having two or more Caliphs in one and the same time. In East Africa and — South Algeria — they still maintain the simplicity of their republican ideal. Broadly speaking, the Khawarij can be divided into three classes:

Those who hold that there must be an elected Caliph, but it is not necessary that he should belong to a particular family or tribe. A woman or even a slave could be elected as Caliph provided he or she is a good Muslim ruler. Whenever they found themselves in power, they purposely elected their Caliph from among the socially lowest members of their community.

Those who hold that there is no need of a Caliph — the Muslim congregation can govern themselves.

Those who do not believe in Government at all — the anarchists of Islam. To them Caliph Ali is reported to have said: "You do not believe in any Government, but there must be some Government — good or bad."

Source: http://koranselskab.dk/profiler/iqbal/political.htm

Syed Hassan Raza Shah 08:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Hassan Raza Shah (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Khawarij. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110042110/http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/leuiyij-shaykh-saalih-al-suhaymee-it-is-obligatory-to-name-expose-and-refute-the-instigators-of-extremist-ideologies.cfm to http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/leuiyij-shaykh-saalih-al-suhaymee-it-is-obligatory-to-name-expose-and-refute-the-instigators-of-extremist-ideologies.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227053930/http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/nbleuwe-it-is-criminal-and-unjust-to-ascribe-the-actions-of-the-kharijite-renegades-to-islam-and-the-muslim.cfm to http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/nbleuwe-it-is-criminal-and-unjust-to-ascribe-the-actions-of-the-kharijite-renegades-to-islam-and-the-muslim.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227053926/http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/hnjsd-imam-al-albani-contemporary-takfiri-kharijites-are-dogs-of-hellfire-upon-the-prophetic-description-of-them.cfm to http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/hnjsd-imam-al-albani-contemporary-takfiri-kharijites-are-dogs-of-hellfire-upon-the-prophetic-description-of-them.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140802045255/http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/the-balance-of-islam-in-challenging-extremism.pdf to http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/the-balance-of-islam-in-challenging-extremism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

...from the Arabic root خ ر ج

This is English Wikipedia! Do not assume all readers are able to read Arabic, just because they might be reading an article about a term derived from Arabic. This means, do not simply give an Arabic root without supplying a transliteration in the Roman alphabet!

Nuttyskin (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Khawarij → Kharijites – Much more common. Even the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which does not shy away from Arabic forms, uses it. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMON NAME. HistoryofIran (talk)
• Support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kharijites/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this up. The nom had been there for quite a while. Looking forward to the review. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting article! Thank you for nominating it. I don't have much of substance for you, the referencing is fantastic. Neutrality and stability are good. I just have a couple points below about images and broadness. Most of my comments are just minor prose issues. I'll place the article on hold for now so you can take a look at the comments below and let me know what you think. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: Is the Islamism sidebar necessary? Islamism does not mention the Kharijites.

It was added to the article before I started editing and I never thought of it. But you are right; Islamism is a recent thing and it seems somebody had added it due to the popular conception of the modern Islamist groups as Kharijites. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Etymology: I like the wiktionary links in etymology! That is a cool idea. The first one though does not seem to work. Also, could you add a transliteration for خرج? I'm not sure if you need one for the root.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Origin

• This article tends to omit articles (the, a, an) when it should not. This page has a list at the bottom of nouns which do not need an article, but as far as I know words like Qur'an and Kharijites always need an article. So hoist Qur'an on their lances should be hoist the Qur'an. Kharijites denounced Ali's caliphate should be The Kharijites, and of Tigris should be of the Tigris. This issue pops up the throughout the article, I can give more examples if you'd like.

You are absolutely correct:) I have problem with articles, especially the definite article. I have now fixed as many as I could. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well if you are a native Arabic speaker that makes sense! The English rules are so inconsistent. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• The images you have are good, for Origin I was thinking you could add File:Balami - Tarikhnama - Battle of Siffin (cropped).jpg, since you discuss the Battle of Siffin.

Done. Also added a map with battle locations etc. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence of "Harura" is very long, I would break it into two sentences. Maybe The arbitration proceedings continued however, and after a few months (March 658) Ali refused to denounce the arbitration. He sent his arbitration delegation headed by Abu Musa Ash'ari to carry out the talks, which led the Kharijites to denounce Ali's caliphate and elect Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi their caliph.

I have split the sentence but in a slightly different way. Please see if it's okay. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Were the Kharijites involved in the murder of Uthman? If so it might make sense to mention this after the sentence beginning They held that the third caliph Uthman had deserved his death, just to provide more context.

Yeah sort of. It was mainly Egyptian rebels who actually killed him. But Kufan qurra were also among the besiegers and their leader al-Ashtar is named in some sources as one of the assassins. I have now added more background on the death of Uthman. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Following this exodus, they were called as Khawarij. I would just say Following this exodus, they became known as Kharijites, the article uses the form Kharijites everywhere else so saying Khawarij here could confuse the reader.

I have to disagree. I find it necessary to use the original word here, which is Khawarij. Saying that they were called "Kharijites" (which is the English derivation of the original word) would be inaccurate. I have added in the article that the word Kharijites comes from Khawarij.

• I think the fact that Ali was assassinated by a Kharijite deserves more than one sentence. Could you add a bit more about what happened?

Done. Let me know if you think more should be added. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Modern scholarly views on the split

• But they denounced it once they discovered that Ali was not recognized as caliph: Starting a sentence with "but" is a bit informal, I would change it to "however".

I removed "but", but since the article is already replete with "however", I did not add it here. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• When he agreed to talks with the relative of Uthman (Mu'awiya): Do you need the "relative of Uthman" part? Could you just say When he agreed to talks with Mu'awiya?

Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• According to him, main role in forcing Ali to accept the arbitration was not of the qurra, but of the tribal chiefs under the leadership of Ash'ath ibn Qays, who had benefited from the policies of Uthman. I think there is a grammatical problem here, saying that the main role was of the qurra or of the tribal chiefs does not make sense. I would reword to something like According to him, it was not the qurra who had forced Ali to accept the arbitration, but the tribal chiefs under the leadership of Ash'ath ibn Qays. These tribal chiefs had benefited from the policies of Uthman.

It actually has a not in there: According to him, main role in forcing Ali to accept the arbitration was not of the qurra... so that part is correct IMO. But I have modified the later part to clarify that the beneficiaries of Uthman's policies were the tribal chiefs and not the qurra. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Later history

• When you first mention Abu Fudayk, since he does not have his own article, I recommend including his full name (if known) or saying briefly who he was.

Added full name. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Isti'rad: I think this should not be capitalized.

Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Traditional Muslim view

• Some hadiths of this sort encourage Muslims to eliminate them. Should this be past tense, encouraged?

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

External links

• Is the "Hermeneutics of takfir" link necessary? It looks like a blog to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It was there before me, and I did not remove it for fear of potential edit war. Now removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review Cerebellum. I think I have addressed all of your points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

You went above and beyond! I love the info you added about the later years of Uthman's reign, sets the stage really well for the rest of the article. Thank you for the fast response, I'm happy to pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Kharijites were the first sect to arise in Islam? Source: Patricia Crone, Friedrich Zimmermann (2001). The Epistle of Salim Ibn Dhakwan. p. 1: ("The Kharijites were the first sect to crystallize in the Islamic world")

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Herr, du bist mein Leben

Improved to Good Article status by AhmadLX (talk). Self-nominated at 19:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC).

• New enough GA. QPQ present. Hook fact is interesting, cited and in article, checkable against the source. All paragraphs have inline citations and there are no other textual issues. This one's ready for DYK; very nice work. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Sammi Brie. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Attribution for expert feedback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Takfir

Isn't it curious that the term takfir (i.e. the accusation that a self-declared Muslim is not a Muslim) appears not once in this article? If you search Google Scholar for "kharijites" and "takfir" you find "About 914 results", (for example: Binti Abd Rahman, Saodah (2011). "THE THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION OF THE KHARIJITES (KHAWARIJ) ON THE ISSUES OF TAKFIR (ACCUSING OF UNBELIEF), AND THE STATUS OF MUSLIMS AND POLYTHEISTS". Al-Shajarah: Journal of The International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC). 16 (1). ISSN 1394-6870. Retrieved 3 June 2021. )

When I added the word in parentheses in this sentence:
"In particular, the groups are alleged to share the militant Kharijites' anarchist and radical approach whereby self-described Muslims are declared unbelievers (takfir) and therefore deemed worthy of death."
AhmadLX Deleted it with the edit summary
(Undid revision 1026567315 by Louis P. Boog (talk)--This is a back-projection of the modern concept of takfir on the Kharijite accusation of Kufr, which actually was different from the accusation of apostasy. Also, those at Siffin did not accuse Ali of Kufr)
(He also deleted a phrase and citation I added to the lede: "They declared takfir on Ali, asserting ..." )

I confess to confusion AhmadLX, if Ali said he was a Muslim, being a Rashidun and all, and kharijites accused him of kufr, isn't he a victim of an "accusation of apostasy", i.e. takfir? While I'm sure not all of these 914 scholarly articles talk about kharijites being takfiris, I'm willing to bet a good many of them do. In which case surely it would be useful to mention takfir in this article -- if only for you to explain to all those scholars your theory that "the Kharijite accusation of Kufr, [is] actually ... different from the accusation of apostasy"? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For example, you could site : Campo (2009, p. 421) notes, “The word takfir was introduced in the post-Quranic period and was first done by the Khawarij.” and then explain how this is wrong.

@Louis P. Boog: Your claim that "the accusation that a self-declared Muslim is not a Muslim...appears not once in this article" is outright false. If your concern is rephrased as "the article takfir is not linked here", then it is correct and you can link the article below in the relevant section. Kharijite accusations of "Kufr" are discussed below in the article that the Kharijites were the first group to declare other Muslims "kuffar". However, you are taking the term in its contemporary meaning. If you check the "genuine scholarly sources" cited below, you will find that the Kharijites understood the term in a different way: a "kafir" meant to them someone who was "less than full Muslim". Only Azariqa asserted that Non-Kharijite Muslims, and even quietist Kharijites, were apostates. You are grouping all Kharijites in one category and that in the lead. This is a grave distortion of history.

The removal of the source you added was justified. It is an overtly partisan and unreliable source i.e. it doesn't even pretend to be neutral. The title "Muhammad's Prophecy of Extremist Thought" simply assumes the correctness of the hadith attributed to Muhammad, and presupposes Kharijites as "Extremists". The synopsis doesn't leave any doubts: "The Prophet Muhammad had prophesied the coming of extremism. The roots of the vicious beliefs of IS can be traced back to the Kharijites – the first extremist group in Islamic history." This source isn't even usable for citing Muslim beliefs, let alone for asserting historical facts in Wikipedia's voice.

You assert that they accused Ali of apostasy. No, they certainly accused him of "kufr" but not at Siffin, as you are implying in the lead. Moreover, as mentioned previously, their "Kufr" did not mean apostasy. [3] relies exclusively on [2]. And [2] is not a high quality source. It is a single author encyclopedia which doesn't come even close to Brill's EI2 and the latest EI3, which are cited in the article. You are urged to actually read the article and check the sources, instead of making incorrect accusations motivated by incomplete reading. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not make "incorrect accusations motivated by" misquoting, namely,

Your claim that "the accusation that a self-declared Muslim is not a Muslim...appears not once in this article" is outright false.

What I said was, the term takfir (i.e. the accusation that a self-declared Muslim is not a Muslim) appears not once in this article...

If we accept your magisterial judgement on what are "grave distortion of history" or high quality sources fit for the article, that still leaves the issue of these less than high quality popular sources that connect Kharijite and takfir. Isn't there a need to explain the inaccuracy of these rather than ignore them? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, if your concern is linking the article takfir— which as it now seems to me is the case, because the Kharijite ideology of kufr is thoroughly discussed already—sure do it, but not in the lead, where it implied that they accused Ali of Kufr at Siffin. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hurqus b. Zuhayr

Ahendra Check the EI2 article on Hurqus. His identity with Dhul Khuwaysira -- the person who reportedly accused Muhammad of injustice-- is disputed at best and there is no evidence that he spawned the Kharijite movement. Thomas Sizgorich refers to the Sufriya Kharijites, a Kharijite sub-sect that emerged during the 8th century, to be tracing their lineage back to him. Nowhere does he say that Hurqus started the Kharijite movement as you were implying. As for Kenney, he doesn't talk about Hurqus at all, but about Dhul-Khuwaysira. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Dhu al Khuwaishirah=Hurqus ibn Zuhair. its the same person. Dhu Al Khuwaishirah is the nickname, while Hurqus are the real name. even without reading the whole book, im almost certain that both Jeffrey Kenney, and Thomas Sizgorich were using the indentification from Ibn Kathir to identifying Dhu Khuwaishirah as Hurqus Ahendra (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

What you said above is OR. You should bring sources which make the mathematical equation that you wrote above and assert that Kharijites movement was started by Dhul Khuwaysira. EI2 refers to Hurqus as Muhammad's compnion, who is associated in some sources with one of the three persons: "Mukhdaj", "Dhul Khuwaysira", "Dhul Thudaiyya". What Ibn Kathir thought of him is irrelevant. What modern historians of early Islam think is important. You are not asked to read whole book, just the relevant sections. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

okay..

Hussam Timani (edited by Peter Lang); page 9 mention clearly Hurqus as the starter of Kharijites

Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli mention Hurqus=Dhu Khuwaysirah

Andrew Morrow; page 125 also clearly mention Kharijites Ahendra (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

@Al Ameer son: What do you think? Does the article meet FA comprehensiveness criteria? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I will read it carefully and let you know my thoughts. Impressive turnaround of the article from its former, poor state though. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Have to reiterate: excellent work on this. Comprehensiveness-wise, the article is ready, though I am no expert on the Kharijites specifically. I do remember reading in Blankinship's End of the Jihad State that the Kharijite movement had special appeal among the Rabi'a tribes (Shayban, Taghlib, others) of the Jazira and Iraq, or at least that was his view. Leave it to you to determine if it warrants mention here. The prose needs improvement before FAC though. I will copyedit over the next few days. Regards, Al Ameer (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Al Ameer son. TBH, this was the hardest project I've undertaken on Wikipedia so far. It took two years of work, including a book translation, and help from an academic expert to fix it. I was double-minded on adding tribal affiliations. But, you are right I think. Will add soon, and maybe also Robinson's analysis of the Jaziran Kharijites. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And yes, copyediting is greatly appreciated as always. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Could you please cite the page number from Blankinship? Have similar list from Wilkinson, but want to see Blankinship also. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Blankinship 1994, pp. 54–57. Let me know if you need the pages. Al Ameer (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent article overall, but the parts about Uthman need to be expanded, given how his assassination mainly formed this sect. Was killing Uthman planned and considered lawful by the rebels before it happened? And why did the arbitrators declare it unjust? I know that Ibn al-Zubayr in a speech to the Azariqa claimed that Uthman refuted the rebel's accusations (Tabari, vol.20, p.101, end of 64AH). I think these justifications for opposing/supporting the Kharijites should not be left out. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Wiqi55:. Will look into the sources over the coming couple of days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 01:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: I thought about it for quite some time and to me it seems that there is not much room for these elaborations in this article. I have added some information on why the Zubayr party and Mu'awiya party refused to recognize Ali, but adding more than that would be putting undue weight on this matter. These things relate to Uthman's murder and are better suited in the article on Uthman's siege. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Let me know when you are finished making substantial additions; I will resume c/e at that point. Al Ameer (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

General remarks

Adding these as I go:

• As the major Kharijite movements of the Second Fitna, should the Azariqa and Najdat be mentioned/linked in that part of the Lead?

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

• In the sentence regarding Kharijite views on the qualifications of the caliph, it should be mentioned that the caliphs all hailed from the Quraysh (in the Kharijites' time at least).

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

• The sentence beginning "Rather, what their authors" is confusing, please rewrite/clarify.

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

Please see my attempted revision. Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Add direct citation after quote beginning "who had made innovations"; I see two citations afterward but was not sure which one applied to the quote specifically. Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Ok. Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• If it could be found in the sources, note the connection of the Zanzibar community to the Omanis as the Ibadi presence on this island, which is relatively far from the lands of the Caliphate, otherwise seems random.
• Introduce or briefly describe the Bayhasiyya.
• Identify the mawla fruit seller the Najdat elected as their leader (I know it was not Najda).
• Perhaps explain briefly why it was a practical necessity for the Najdat to be more lenient because of their Arabian setting? Was this because the Arabs or tribesmen there were 'free-spirits', for lack of a better word? Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 156 (Watt) needs to have the year corrected–there's three sources of his cited here so I wasn't sure which one is being referenced. Al Ameer (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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