Was the group of Juhayman who was killed in the Makkah al-Haram mosque the Khawarij or rebels?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding the group that perished in the Makkah al-Haram under the leadership of Juhayman al-‘Utaybi, it was described in the book *Al-Wala' wa al-Bara'* (Loyalty and Disavowal) by Professor ‘Abd al-Rahman ‘Abd al-Khaliq as being of the Khawarij. What is your opinion on applying this description? Are they truly of the Khawarij? Because Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned a condition in his *Majmu' al-Fatawa* that distinguishes between rebels and the Khawarij. If this condition is applied, it is observed that this group is of the type of rebels, and it is not correct to apply the term Khawarij to them. And Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt that these people are not Khawarij, because the term Khawarij carries within its connotations a specific methodology and a path adopted by this sect that contradicted the Shari'ah, the Book, and the Sunnah in many aspects, and for that reason they took this name, the Khawarij. It is not merely because they rebel against the imams, but because they deviate from the texts of the Book and the Shari'ah. There is no sect among the people of the Sunnah that adopts the creed of the people of the Sunnah one hundred percent but deviates and rebels against the Muslim ruler; they are called rebels, but it is not said that they are of the Khawarij, because the term Khawarij has a specific connotation that carries within it many and numerous deviations other than the deviation of rebelling against the obedience of the ruler and stirring up fitnah between rulers and between Muslims. So there is no doubt that this Juhayman cannot be considered to have been of the Khawarij. As for the fact that he rebelled, he did rebel, but there is no necessary connection between his rebellion and his being of the Khawarij. In the Arabic language, if a person adjudicates in a matter and rules with a Shari'ah ruling, it is said that he was just, or if he rules with a non-Shari'ah ruling, it is said that he was unjust. But in neither case is the first called a just ruler, nor the second called an unjust ruler, merely because the first was just in one case and the second erred and was unjust in one case. Rather, one looks at what predominates in this person. We know from history that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi is a byword for injustice and tyranny and the killing of innocent souls, and it is sufficient that he killed Sa'id ibn Jubayr, one of the great scholars of the Tabi'un and narrators of hadith. Do you see? Did this unjust al-Hajjaj ever act justly in any case? He must have acted justly many, many times, but what predominated in him? Injustice predominated in him, and by that he was known. So these people who rebelled and stirred up fitnah in the Makkah al-Haram, and who were without doubt in that most wrong, did not rebel in anything else, nor did they adopt the creed of the Khawarij regarding, for example, declaring the sinner who commits a major sin a disbeliever. They did not adopt the creed of the Khawarij that says that Allah does not see on the Day of Resurrection or in the Hereafter.
Whereas the people of the Sunnah say that the believers see Him without asking how, without likening Him to creation, and without comparing Him to anything. So calling them Khawarij is an exaggeration in criticizing these people, and it is sufficient for them that they rebelled and transgressed in this rebellion, and that they were the cause of the spilling of innocent blood from all of the Muslims who were in that Haram, whether attacking, defending, or peaceful. This is my opinion regarding this question. I mean, I have covered the answer to the question, and there is nothing left there...
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you, if Allah wills, and Glory is to You, O Allah, and praise, I bear witness that there is no deity but You. I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.
Glory is to You, O Allah, and praise, I bear witness that there is no deity but You. I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.
The Shaykh : There is no doubt that these people are not Khawarij, because the term Khawarij carries within its connotations a specific methodology and a path adopted by this sect that contradicted the Shari'ah, the Book, and the Sunnah in many aspects, and for that reason they took this name, the Khawarij. It is not merely because they rebel against the imams, but because they deviate from the texts of the Book and the Shari'ah. There is no sect among the people of the Sunnah that adopts the creed of the people of the Sunnah one hundred percent but deviates and rebels against the Muslim ruler; they are called rebels, but it is not said that they are of the Khawarij, because the term Khawarij has a specific connotation that carries within it many and numerous deviations other than the deviation of rebelling against the obedience of the ruler and stirring up fitnah between rulers and between Muslims. So there is no doubt that this Juhayman cannot be considered to have been of the Khawarij. As for the fact that he rebelled, he did rebel, but there is no necessary connection between his rebellion and his being of the Khawarij. In the Arabic language, if a person adjudicates in a matter and rules with a Shari'ah ruling, it is said that he was just, or if he rules with a non-Shari'ah ruling, it is said that he was unjust. But in neither case is the first called a just ruler, nor the second called an unjust ruler, merely because the first was just in one case and the second erred and was unjust in one case. Rather, one looks at what predominates in this person. We know from history that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi is a byword for injustice and tyranny and the killing of innocent souls, and it is sufficient that he killed Sa'id ibn Jubayr, one of the great scholars of the Tabi'un and narrators of hadith. Do you see? Did this unjust al-Hajjaj ever act justly in any case? He must have acted justly many, many times, but what predominated in him? Injustice predominated in him, and by that he was known. So these people who rebelled and stirred up fitnah in the Makkah al-Haram, and who were without doubt in that most wrong, did not rebel in anything else, nor did they adopt the creed of the Khawarij regarding, for example, declaring the sinner who commits a major sin a disbeliever. They did not adopt the creed of the Khawarij that says that Allah does not see on the Day of Resurrection or in the Hereafter.
Whereas the people of the Sunnah say that the believers see Him without asking how, without likening Him to creation, and without comparing Him to anything. So calling them Khawarij is an exaggeration in criticizing these people, and it is sufficient for them that they rebelled and transgressed in this rebellion, and that they were the cause of the spilling of innocent blood from all of the Muslims who were in that Haram, whether attacking, defending, or peaceful. This is my opinion regarding this question. I mean, I have covered the answer to the question, and there is nothing left there...
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you, if Allah wills, and Glory is to You, O Allah, and praise, I bear witness that there is no deity but You. I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.
Glory is to You, O Allah, and praise, I bear witness that there is no deity but You. I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.