Who are the Khawarij, and does the hadith: "They will come out of Islam" imply that they are disbelievers? And is one who declares Muslim rulers disbelievers but does not declare disbelievers for sins considered a Khariji?

The questioner : As for my question, who are the Khawarij? My question has two parts. Is it ruled that they are, or is it understood from the hadith or that they come out of the Islamic religion? Then another point: the one who declares Muslim rulers disbelievers, but does not declare disbelievers for sins, is he called a Khariji, or does he have some of the characteristics of the Khawarij? 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? If they are called that, or if they are not, what is the outcome? The outcome is whether they are on the right path or on the wrong path.

The questioner : Yes, that is it.

The Shaykh : Ah, because we can say, for example, and this is not the final answer, that they are not of the Khawarij, but they are not on the right path. Now, if we say they are Khawarij, that means they are not on the right path. So what is the difference between the two expressions? Between my saying "they are not of the Khawarij, but they are not on the right path" and my saying "they are Khawarij, and naturally they are not on the right path." What is the difference?
The difference is that the Khawarij have a specific indication in the hadiths. For example, it was said in them: Now, this characteristic has not been realized in those whom we might call Khawarij in the present era. So, does the fact that this characteristic is not realized in them mean they are no longer Khawarij? We say no, because this is one of the characteristics.
And thus, we leave this term, which is subject to acceptance and rejection, and we say that those who today declare Muslim rulers disbelievers in general, using the Syrian expression, are a commodity that is not a commodity. We must always keep in mind the danger of declaring a Muslim a disbeliever, not just declaring the masses of Muslims or a group of Muslims disbelievers, but even a single individual among the Muslims. This is dangerous, as you know from the well-known hadiths that whoever declares a Muslim a disbeliever, one of the two will bear it.
So I believe that those who declare Muslim rulers disbelievers, with a distinction between some of them and others, and we are not in that position now, are in this regard like the first Khawarij who used to declare a Muslim a disbeliever simply for committing a major sin. Among these contemporary people today, some can be called Khawarij, or not, because of what I mentioned above. Because these people are known not for declaring all 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 : ... .

The Shaykh : Do you have any of that?

The questioner : ... .

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

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Those whom we mentioned earlier, with reservations, are they Khawarij or not? At least, it is not widely known about them that they agree with the Ibadis in declaring a Muslim a disbeliever simply for committing a major sin. Because their current practice is only related to the ruling, declaring Muslim rulers disbelievers.
So we say that this declaration of disbelief, whether in the circle of rulers or in a wider circle that also includes the ruled, and I met many of them ten years ago.

The questioner : We have ... .

The Shaykh : I say that I met a group of these people and discussed with them in Syria and in Jordan, which reminded me of their progression in declaring disbelief, like a story I had heard from some of my shaykhs from the non-Arabs. And we know for certain, by the grace of Allah the Exalted, after our Lord Blessed and Exalted 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 told us the following story: A learned man visited a friend of his in his house. When he left, instead of bidding him farewell with a greeting, he declared him a disbeliever. Why? In our country, and perhaps this is the case in the lands of the non-Arabs, when guests enter, as you are entering now, they take off their shoes, and the shoes remain as they left them when they went out. They have etiquette, which may be etiquette, but look at what follows from this etiquette. The lady of the house, or the son of the master of the house, or a servant they had, would go out to the shoes and direct them like this, as you entered like this, he directs the shoes like this. When the guests leave, they find the shoes directed, not with their feet in them. What is this respect for the guest? It is honoring. This learned man, when he left, found the two shoes as he had left them, meaning not directed. He said, "The master of the house is a disbeliever." Why? He said, "Because he did not respect the scholar. How? Because he did not direct the shoes for him. This requires him to extend his leg, extend his hand, and direct them. This is not honoring the scholar. And whoever does not honor the scholar does not honor knowledge. And whoever does not honor knowledge does not honor the one who brought the knowledge, who is Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah. So, whoever does not honor the Messenger of Allah does not honor Jibril, does not honor the Lord of the Worlds. So he is a disbeliever." This reminded me of the reality of this group, and I cannot assign them a specific color or country, but I know that among them are those who progressed in declaring rulers disbelievers, then the ruled, then the imams of the mosques, then the mu'adhdhins, then the teachers ... in the schools they call "public education." Why? Because they all support this ruling of the disbeliever.

The questioner : This is what 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 being declared a 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 ...
Then they turn away from what came in the tafsir of Ibn Jarir and the tafsir of Ibn Kathir, that the intended meaning of these disbelievers is the deniers of the Shari'ah of Allah Blessed and Exalted, and they are the Jews. And when we say in the tafsir of the verse this statement, we do not mean that only the Jews are disbelievers. No, but whoever joins the Jews in denying the Shari'ah of Allah Blessed and Exalted and that it is suitable for all times and places, 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, steal, and commit zina, these are sinners, but we do not say they are disbelievers unless we know that they have made permissible what they committed of sins. Likewise, those who rule by other than what Allah has revealed, if they make it permissible in their hearts and believe in it in their creed, as we hear from some writers, unfortunately, who say that the Shari'ah of Islam is not suitable for ruling now, then these are like the Jews, and the statement of Allah the Exalted is applied to them .
But if it is the other case, which is that they acknowledge that ruling by Islam is what should be, but the soul that commands evil, which leads the fornicators and usurers to make permissible what Allah has forbidden, is this soul that leads them to ... situations and submission to the pressure of the disbelieving world, and so on. But their hearts, and we have not seen them naturally, are one of two things: either they are affirming the legitimacy of this Islam, in which case they have not come out of the circle of Islam; they are like the other open sinners who commit forbidden acts. Or if they believe that Islam is not suitable for ruling in this time, then that is disbelief itself.
So where do these people who declare takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) in a blanket manner get their authority? Since every Muslim ruler today, either they have looked into what is in their hearts, or they have heard words from them that condemn them as not believing in Islam. If any of this is the case, we are with them; one who denies the suitability of Islam for governance in all times and places is not a Muslim. But there is no way to reach that conclusion. As for revealing the heart, we all know his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying 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 apparent action indicates that he said it out of hypocrisy and to escape being killed. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) denied that and said: So we also say that these rulers have Islam in them and they have other than Islam in them. What makes us give precedence to the other than Islam, which is kufr (disbelief), over their Islam? We have nothing except to hear from them a speech, a word, or a writing, as happened with some 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 takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) of the rulers in this general way without detail. And suppose that is the case, what about the oppressed on earth who are associated with these disbelievers, as they claim, or these tyrants, as they say, and so on? The oppressed on earth have been in every time and place. And where do they go with his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, or rather the saying of the Lord of Mankind: And his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: All these points indicate to us that the group (al-Jama'ah) 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. Therefore, 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. This is from one aspect. From another aspect, suppose these rulers are all 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 for such a rebellion, which requires two things?
The first thing is the correct understanding of Islam in its creed and its rulings. The second thing is raising these souls upon 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 age 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 hastening.

The questioner : No, wait, then explain it to me now.

The Shaykh : They are hastening in 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. The weak Muslims were also driven out and killed, and so on. They did not rise in such a rebellion before they prepared with their faith, and then with their weapons, as happened later when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated to Madinah.
So the point is that these people, in reality, I believe they are not scholars first, and secondly, 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 become a cause for the delay of the da'wah (calling others to Islam). 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 to Amman soon, if Allah wills, I will give you the answers. And I do not see much benefit in this activity, because you said in your speech that each of them interprets it according to his desire. Even though my speech is clear and very clear, do you not think that the speech 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 think that in my speech that you heard just now, there is any room for every person of desire to cling to it. I am frank: I say that partisanship is invalid. The fanaticism of a group for a man, and you pledged allegiance to a man, and the hostility of this group to 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 invalidated and is partisan?

The questioner : After the basmalah and the greeting and what follows it.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.