Who are the Khawarij? And is it understood from the hadith: "They emerge from Islam" that they are disbelievers?

The questioner: As for my question, it is: Who are the Khawarij? My question has two parts. And is it ruled upon them, or is it understood from the hadith: or ; that is: they emerge from the Islamic religion? Then another point: the one who declares the rulers disbelievers now, the Muslim rulers, and does not declare disbelievers for sins; is it said that he is of the Khawarij, or that he has something of the Khawarij in him? This is the question.

The Shaykh: First, we should not cling to the wording, but rather to the meanings and the scientific realities. Your last question: Are these people called Khawarij or not? Whether it is said or not said; what is the outcome? The outcome is whether they are on the right or on the wrong.

The questioner: Yes, that is it.

The Shaykh: Ah, because we can say—for example, and this is not the final answer—we say: They are not of the Khawarij, but they are not on the right. Good; do you see that if we say they are Khawarij, that means they are not on the right? So what is the difference between the two expressions? That is: between my saying: They are not of the Khawarij but they are not on the right, or my saying: They are Khawarij and naturally they are not on the right; what is the difference?
The difference is that the Khawarij have a specific indication in the hadiths—for example—it was said in them: . Good, this characteristic has not been realized in those whom we might say are Khawarij in the present era. So does the fact that this characteristic has not been realized in them mean they have exited being Khawarij? We say: No; because this is one of the characteristics. And thus we leave this term which is subject to taking and returning, and we say: These who declare the Muslim rulers disbelievers today in general, in the Syrian expression "by the lump," are a commodity that is not a commodity. We must always keep before our eyes the danger of declaring a Muslim disbeliever. Not just declaring the masses of Muslims or a group of Muslims disbelievers, but an individual among the Muslims; this is dangerous, as you know from the well-known hadiths about the one who declares a Muslim disbeliever, one of the two will return to it.
So I believe that these who announce the declaration of Muslim rulers as disbelievers, with a distinction between some of them and others—and we are not in this context now—they are, in this respect, like the first Khawarij who used to declare a Muslim disbeliever simply for committing a major sin. So among these contemporaries today, some can be called Khawarij or not, because of what I mentioned earlier. Because these people became known not for declaring the general Muslims disbelievers, as is the doctrine of the Khawarij and the Ibadis among them today, who exist in Oman, and perhaps in Algeria.

The questioner: ... Algeria, we have some of that.

The Shaykh: You have some of that.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Their doctrine is known: the one who commits a major sin is a disbeliever.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: These whom we mentioned earlier with reservations, are they Khawarij or not? We have not heard, at least, that they meet with the Ibadis in declaring a Muslim disbeliever simply for committing a major sin. Because their current practice is only what relates to the ruling, declaring Muslim rulers disbelievers. So we say: This declaration of disbelief, whether in the circle of rulers or in a wider circle that includes the ruled as well. And I met with many of them ten years ago.

The questioner: We have many, Shaykh, ... they extended it to the ruled as well.

The Shaykh: I say: I met with a group of these and discussed with them in Syria and in Jordan. This reminded me of their progression in declaring disbelief, by a story I had heard from some of my sheikhs from the non-Arabs. And we know for certain, by the grace of Allah—Mighty and Majestic—after our Lord—Blessed and Exalted is He—taught me the language of the Qur'an and the language of the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), that the non-Arabs have strange things, and very strange things, regarding the distance from the correct understanding of this religion. They narrated to us the following story:
That a learned man visited a friend of his in his house, in his home. So when he left, instead of bidding him farewell with the greeting, he bid him farewell by declaring him a disbeliever. Why? We have a custom in your lands, and perhaps it is so in the lands of the non-Arabs, when guests enter, as you entered now, they take off their sandals, so their sandals remain as they left them when they went out. They have etiquette, it may be etiquette; but look at what follows from this etiquette. So the lady of the house, or the son of the master of the house, or a servant if they have one, goes out to the sandals and directs them like this. Did you not enter like this?
The audience : Yes.

The Shaykh: He directs the sandals like this. When the guests leave, they find the sandals directed, so they do not have to kick their feet into them. What is this respect? For the guest, honoring him. This learned man, when he left, found the sandals as he had left them; that is, not directed. He said: This master of the house is a disbeliever. Why? He said: Because he did not respect the scholar. How? Because he did not direct the sandals for him. This requires him to extend his leg, extend his hand, and direct them. This is not honoring the scholar. And the one who did not honor the scholar did not honor knowledge. And the one who did not honor knowledge did not honor the one who brought the knowledge, who is Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. The one who did not honor the Messenger of Allah did not honor Jibril, did not honor the Lord of the Worlds. So he is a disbeliever. The reality of this group reminded me, and I cannot assign them a specific color or country, but I know that among them are those who progressed in declaring rulers disbelievers to the ruled, to the imams of the mosques, to the mu'adhdhins, to the religion teachers in the schools they call "knowledge," why? Because they all support this disbeliever ruling.

The questioner: This is what a Muslim says.

The Shaykh: We start from this principle they built, which is declaring Muslim rulers disbelievers. This is extremism in the religion of Allah; because declaring disbelief is not permissible unless it is clear that the one declared disbeliever has denied a ruling known from the religion by necessity, and then the proof was established against him. He may be a non-Arab, he may be an Arab; but he is ignorant, and so on. So these people speak freely and say ...
, and they turn away from what came in "Tafsir Ibn Jarir" and "Tafsir Ibn Kathir" that the intended meaning of these disbelievers is the deniers of the Shari'ah of Allah—Blessed and Exalted is He—and they are the Jews. And when we say in the interpretation of the verse this saying, we do not mean that only the Jews disbelieve; no, but whoever joins the Jews as well in denying the Shari'ah of Allah—Blessed and Exalted is He—and that it is suitable for every time and place; then this verse is applied to him: .
But whoever believes that the Shari'ah of Allah is what should be the ruling, but I do not certify them like those who engage in usury and steal and commit zina; these are sinners, but we do not say they are disbelievers unless we know that they have made lawful what they committed of sins. Likewise, these who rule by other than what Allah revealed; if they make it lawful in their hearts and believe in it in their creed; that is: as we hear from some writers, unfortunately, saying: That the Shari'ah of Islam now is not suitable for ruling. So these are like the Jews; so His saying—Exalted is He—is applied to them: .
As for the other case; which is that they acknowledge that ruling by Islam is what should be, but the soul that commands evil, which carries the fornicators and usurers to make lawful what Allah has forbidden, is this soul that commands evil that carries them to ... situations and submission to the pressure of the disbeliever world, and so on. But their hearts—and we have not seen them, of course—are one of two things:
Either they are affirming the legitimacy of this Islam; then they have not exited the circle of Islam, they are like the other open sinners who commit the forbidden things. As for if they believe that Islam is not suitable for ruling in this time; then it is disbelief itself.
So where do these people who declare takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) in a blanket manner get their idea that every Muslim ruler today is either one who has seen into their hearts, or has heard words from them that condemn them as not believing in Islam? If any of this were the case, we would be with them; one who denies the validity of Islam for governance in all times and places is not a Muslim. But there is no way to reach that conclusion. As for seeing into the heart, we all know the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to that Companion: ; even though he was under the blow of the sword, it is most likely that this polytheist did not say "There is no god but Allah" except to escape being killed. Nevertheless, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) gave precedence to the word of testimony over the apparent action, this appearance that indicated he said it out of hypocrisy and to save himself from death. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) denied that, and said: . So we, too, say that among these rulers there is Islam and there is other than Islam; so what makes us give precedence to other than Islam, which is kufr (disbelief), over their Islam? We have nothing except to hear from them a statement, a word, or a writing, as happened with some of the rulers who denied the legitimacy of fasting, for example, in Ramadan, claiming to preserve... the economy and the like.
So it is a very clear error to declare the takfir of the rulers in this general way without detail. Then, suppose that is the case; what about the oppressed people on earth who are associated with these disbelievers, as they claim, or these tyrants, as they say, and so on? The oppressed people on earth have been in every time and every place. Then where do they go with the saying of his Lord, the Lord of all people: , and his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): ? All these points indicate to us that the group proceeds from their desires, just as the previous Khawarij (an early sect that declared sinners disbelievers) proceeded from their desires. Otherwise, what did they see in 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), the rightly guided caliph, that made them rebel against him?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So extremism in religion is the phenomenon of these people today; so we must not be deceived by them, and we must know the rulings of Allah and the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) in their details, on the one hand. On the other hand, suppose that all these rulers are disbelievers, as they say; what is beyond that? Beyond that is rebelling against them. Well, if the intention is to rebel against them; have you prepared yourselves for such a rebellion, which entails two things?
The first thing: the correct understanding of Islam in its creed and its rulings. And the second thing: training these souls in this purified Islam until they become a single block, so that if they rise to fight the disbeliever, they can overcome him with their faith and their preparation. There is nothing but uncontrolled emotions; reality has witnessed this in the present era in many incidents in Egypt, in the Makkah Haram (the sacred precinct), and recently in Syria.

The questioner : In Algeria.

The Shaykh : And Algeria, yes, all these incidents indicate to us that people are rushing.

The questioner : No, wait, explain the incident to me.

The Shaykh : They are rushing into a matter in which they should have patience. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as you know, lived in Makkah being persecuted by the disbelievers, beaten, and humiliated, and the weak Muslims, too, were driven out and killed, and so on. They did not rise in such a rebellion before they prepared themselves with their faith, and then with their weapons, as happened later when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated to al-Madinah.
So the point is that these people, in truth, I believe they are not scholars first, and second, they were not raised with a correct Islamic upbringing. Therefore, they will stir up new problems without benefiting the Muslims in any way; except that they may be a cause for the delay of the da'wah (calling others to Islam), and what has happened is sufficient for us as an example, unfortunately.
And now, regarding your question, I say: I have no objection to your directing clear questions about some of the activities that take place there; because I cannot visualize the situation you are referring to there. If you write something, I will study it. If it is not here, then if I return soon, if Allah wills, to Amman, I will give you the answers. And I do not see much benefit in this activity; because you said that everyone interprets your words according to his desire, even though my words are clear and very clear. But do you not think that the words of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), even today, the Christian preachers exploit some of its texts to support their disbelief and misguidance? This is the affair of the people of desires always and forever. So I do not believe that in my words that you heard just now there is anything that leaves room for every person of desire to cling to it. I say frankly: partisanship is invalid, the fanaticism of a group for a man, their pledging allegiance to a man, and their hostility toward another group, this is invalid and not permissible. So how can this speech be exploited for the benefit of the group that I say is invalid and partisan?