Обсуждение:Хариджизм

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Khārijīs

---

Article Table of Contents

Khārijī revolts

Khārijī sects

Khārijī doctrine

Bibliography

The strongest opposition party in early Islam, their name (Ar. khārijī, pl. khawārij) is derived from the Arabic triliteral root kh-r-j, which has as its basic meaning “to go out,” “to take the field against someone” and “to rise in revolt” (Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh, ii, 32; trans. Morony, 37; see fighting; jihād). In the case in point, it means “to secede from the community.” Although forms of kh-r-j appear numerous times in the Qurʾān with varied meanings, the group in question took its name from the usage in q 9:46, where the root kh-r-j, denoting “to go out to combat,” is opposed to the verb qaʿada, which denotes people who held back from the war (q.v.; see ¶ expeditions and battles). The earliest Khārijīs were those who withdrew from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib's (q.v.) army when he agreed to the arbitration (q.v.) at the battle of Ṣiffīn in 37/657 (see politics and the qurʾān). Another name given to these first Khārijīs is al- Shurāt (lit. “the vendors”) — meaning those who have sold their soul for the cause of God. This appears to have been the name they themselves used, and it has also been extended to their descendants (cf. Levi Della Vida, Khāridjites; Higgins, Qurʾānic exchange).

Early traditions state that a breeding-ground for the Khārijīs could be found among the Qurʾān readers (see reciters of the qurʾān), who displayed extreme piety (q.v.) and asceticism (q.v.). The earliest Khārijīs, just like the Arabs (q.v.) of Kūfa and Baṣra, were all bedouins (see bedouin), who had migrated to the garrison cities (see city). In this respect there is little distinguishing information to provide other than that they were much less concerned with the system of genealogy based on kinship (q.v.). As a consequence of this stance, their doctrines had enormous appeal for minority groups within the newly emerging Islamic community (see heresy; theology and the qurʾān).

The earliest of ʿAlī's opponents were called Ḥarūrīs, from Ḥarūrāʾ, the place in which some twelve thousand men had gathered, those who, in protest against the arbitration, had seceded as ʿAlī entered Kūfa in Rabīʿ I 37/Aug.-Sept. 658, after the conclusion of the arbitration agreement. Also among them were many who had initially accepted the arbitration but now acknowledged their mistake and no longer recognized ʿAlī as their leader. Their oath of allegiance was to God on the basis of “ordering what is good and prohibiting what is reprehensible” (on this concept, see M. Cook, Commanding right; see also good and evil; lawful and unlaw- ¶ ful; ethics and the qurʾān; virtues and vices, commanding and forbidding). The Ḥarūrīs were initially secessionists, not rebels. They wished to secede from the community to protect their principles. They were also called Muḥakkima from their motto “No judgment (q.v.) but God's” (lā ḥukma illā li-llāh). They accused those who supported the arbitration of having acted contemptibly toward God by appointing human arbitrators. People who shouted “lā ḥukma illā li-llāh” at the battle of Ṣiffīn most likely meant that ʿUthmān (q.v.) had broken God's law as revealed in the Qurʾān (see law and the qurʾān) and was therefore worthy of death, and not that the question between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya should be left to the “arbitrament of war” (Watt, Kharijite thought, 217-8). They also held that Muʿāwiya was a rebel and that according to q 49:9, rebels are outlaws who should be fought until they repent (see rebellion; repentance and penance). Arbitration was thus a mistake because no one had the right to substitute a human decision for God's clear pronouncement (Barradī, Jawāhir, 120).

The rupture among ʿAlī's followers proved serious since it brought a wider dogmatic schism to the fore. The Khārijīs objected to the concept of personal alliance to the imām (q.v.). In their view, allegiance should be bound not to a particular person (see community and society in the qurʾān), but to the Qurʾān and the sunna (q.v.) of the Prophet, Abū Bakr (q.v.) and ʿUmar (q.v.). They denied that the right to the imāmate should be based on close kinship with Muḥammad (see shīʿism and the qurʾān), for that was irrelevant in their eyes. These differences found military expression when the Khārijīs from Kūfa and Baṣra assembled in Nahrawān. After calling for a resumption of the war with Muʿāwiya, who had been acknowledged by some as caliph (q.v.) before the end of Dhū l-Qaʿda 37/April-May 658 (Hinds, ¶ Muʿawiya, 265), ʿAlī invited them to join him and to fight their common enemy. Faced with their refusal, ʿAlī decided to deal with it before carrying out his campaign to Syria (q.v.). The Khārijīs fought desperately but they were outnumbered by ʿAlī's followers and the battle turned into a one-sided massacre. The battle of Nahrawān (9 Ṣafar 38/17 July 658) set the seal on the division between Shīʿa (q.v.) and Khārijīs, and made the Khārijīs' split with the community irreparable.

Khārijī revolts

During the Umayyad period, several Khārijī revolts broke out in various Muslim lands, causing the caliphate to suffer material damage as well as a blow to its pride. Large sections of territory were removed from its administration. The Azāriqa, one of the main branches of the Khārijīs, threatened Baṣra, while other Khārijī groups who emerged from the region of Mawṣil (i.e. the high Tigris country between Mārdīn and Niṣībīn) endangered Kūfa (cf. Levi Della Vida, Khāridjites, 1075-6). The chief persecutors of the Khārijīs were the governors of Iraq, Ziyād b. Abīhi (d. 53/673) and his son ʿUbayd Allāh, who became governor there in the year 55/674. They proceeded against the Khārijīs with harsh measures and killed and imprisoned many of them. As the Umayyad caliphate began to collapse, the Khārijīs turned into a revolutionary movement. The small numbers of troops, which had previously characterized the Khārijī armies, swelled to powerful masses. During this late Umayyad period, the revolts of the Ibāḍīs, a moderate branch of the Khārijīs (who spread to the Maghrib, the Ḥaḍramawt and ʿUmān) constituted a greater menace to the caliphate than did the Azāriqī uprisings (cf. Lewicki, al-Ibāḍiyya, 650). After occupying the Ḥaḍramawt and Ṣanʿāʾ, the capital of southern Arabia, in 129/746-47, the Ibāḍi ¶ army, under the command of Abū Ḥamza, took Mecca (q.v.) and Medina (q.v.). Abū Ḥamza was a skilled soldier, but also a scholar and a preacher who gave sermons from the Prophet's pulpit (see mosque) that have been preserved in the Arabic chronicles (Darjīnī, Ṭabaqāt, ii, 266-72). The Ibāḍīs were defeated and, for the most part, massacred in the middle of Jumādā I 130/January 748. The Umayyad army reconquered Medina and then Mecca but were forced to conclude a peace treaty with the Ibāḍīs of the Ḥaḍramawt.

The Khārijī revolts continued after the ascension of the ʿAbbāsids. The Ibāḍīs and the Ṣufrites, another moderate branch of Khārijism, succeeded in establishing their rule in the Maghrib. Again in ʿUmān, the Ibāḍīs had some success in a revolt about 132/750. Towards the second half of the second/eighth century they rose up again and recommenced their activities in the region creating an imāmate, which continued to exist almost without interruption for over 1200 years. There were revolts in other regions that were successful for some years and then died down. In various districts around Mawṣil, in northern Iraq, sixteen revolts have been recorded in the years between the middle of the second/eighth and the middle of the fourth/tenth century; Sijistān and southern Khurāsān also witnessed Khārijī revolts.

Khārijī sects

The weakness of the Khārijī movement lay in its incapacity to preserve both religious and political unity. A number of schisms (iftirāq) resulting from dogmatic disputes as well as from political crises culminated in the formation of several theological and political subdivisions (firqa). Some of the Khārijīs adopted political quietism and moderation, while others took to activism and extremism. The extremists followed ¶ Nāfiʿ b. al-Azraq or Ḥanẓala b. Bayhas. The Azāriqa (who met a violent end in Ṭabarīstan in 78-9/698-9) upheld the istiʿrāḍ (the indiscriminate killing of the non-Khārijī Muslims, including their children), submitted new recruits to a severe inquisition, disregarded the practice of the dissimulation (q.v.; taqiyya) of one's real belief, considered unbelief a grave sin and insisted on the eternal punishment for the grave sinner (see belief and unbelief; sin, major and minor; eternity). The Bayhasiyya were as fierce as the Azāriqa in that they approved of the killing of non-Khārijī Muslims and the taking of their goods (see booty). The followers of Najda b. ʿĀmir represented a milder tendency. The Najadāt permitted dissimulation (taqiyya) and quietism, as they did not expect everyone to join with them in the fight against the unbelievers. Another branch of the Khārijīs were the ʿ Ajārida, who stem from ʿAbd al-Karīm b. ʿAjarrad. They insisted on the supremacy of divine law and on the upright conduct of individuals.

The most moderate branch of the Khārijīs — and today the only survivors — were the Ibāḍīs. They appeared in Baṣra in 65/684-5, when ʿAbdallāh b. Ibāḍ broke away from the Khārijī extremists over which attitude was to be adopted towards other Muslims and joined a group of quietists who had gathered around Abū Bilāl Mirdās b. Udayya al-Tamīmī. During the first half of the second/eighth century, Ibāḍism began to undergo a profound change: from being part of the Khārijī sect, it became an autonomous movement with a defined membership, doctrine and organized missionary activities. At present, Ibāḍīs form the main part of the population in the oases of Mzāb in Algeria, of Zawāra and Jebel Naffūsa in Tripolitania, on the island of Jerba in Tunisia and in ¶ ʿUmān, while small groups are also found on the island of Zanzibar. Another moderate branch of the Khārijīs were the Ṣufriyya, whose teachings spread among the remote Berber tribes of the western Maghrib.

Khārijī doctrine

The Khārijīs made important contributions to Islamic thought, and to the formation of Islamic culture. A considerable amount of historical and theological material has been preserved by the Ibāḍīs (for a discussion of Ibāḍī exegesis of the Qurʾān, see Gilliot, Le commentaire coranique de Hūd b. Muḥakkam), but apart from this Ibāḍī material, the only source for the Khārijī thought is the Sunnī historical and heresiographical tradition. The religion of the Khārijīs had as its aim paradise (q.v.). They did not think of victory (q.v.) on earth (q.v.). They wished to save their souls (see soul) by fighting the impious with a total lack of consideration for themselves and others (see salvation). The core of the theological teaching of the Khārijīs was the conception of a righteous God who demands righteousness from his subjects (see justice and injustice). Indeed, the earliest Khārijite propositions attempted to place the believer in a direct relationship to God. Khārijism attached great importance to religious principles that stressed the responsibility of the individual, such as the obligation of “promoting good and preventing evil” and the conception of the relationship between works and faith (q.v.). Anyone who committed a capital sin, failed to obey the divine law (see obedience) or introduced innovations (see innovation) was an infidel and was to be combated as long as he remained dissident. Moreover, if there were no repentance, the transgressor would be condemned to eternal punish-¶ ment in hell (see reward and punishment; hell and hellfire). This doctrine was used to support the Khārijī view that the killers of ʿUthmān could be justified in their act, and, for the Azāriqa, it became the theological basis for their action.

The obvious corollary of the doctrine of human responsibility was the doctrine of divine decree (qadar, see freedom and predestination). Al-Ashʿarī (d. 324/935-6; Maqālāt, 93, 96, 104, 116) mentions some Khārijī groups that agreed with the Muʿtazila (see muʿtazilīs) in affirming human free will, but the general attitude of the Khārijīs supported the doctrine of predestination. The debate on qadar emerged in the Ibāḍī community during the imāmate of Abū ʿUbayda (first half of the second/eighth century), who was conscious of the danger to the community of carrying rational argument and disputation too far (see debate and disputation). He fiercely opposed ʿAbdallāh b. Yazīd al-Fazārī for his rigidly rational reasoning and expelled Ḥamza al-Kūfī (cf. van Ess, tg, ii, 203-4) and ʿAṭiyya (cf. van Ess, tg, iv, 204), suspected to be followers of Ghaylān al-Dimashqī (cf. van Ess, tg, i, 73-5). According to Abū ʿUbayda, God is all-powerful and all-knowing (see god and his attributes); he knows people's acts but he does not determine them. Thus the individual is responsible for his or her actions and will be judged for them (Darjīnī, Ṭabaqāt, ii, 233; Shammākhī, Siyar, 84-5; see last judgment; record of human actions). The Khārijī theological doctrine shared a number of features with Muʿtazilī theology as a result of a parallel development, since the center of Ibāḍism was still Baṣra at the time when the founders of Muʿtazilism were active there (Moreno, Note, 312-3). Khārijīs and Muʿtazilīs used the same arguments, often borrowed from each other, to substantiate ¶ their doctrines. In general, the dogma of the Khārijīs resembled certain main points made by the Muʿtazilīs, as in the case of the doctrine of anti-anthropomorphism (see anthropomorphism) and the theory of the createdness of the Qurʾān (q.v.). This latter doctrine was well established among the early Ibāḍīs in the Maghrib, as shown by a treatise in which the Rustamid imām Abū al-Yaqẓān (r. 241-81/855-94) quotes early Ibāḍī scholars (Cremonesi, Un antico documento, 148 f.) on the matter. In ʿUmān, the doctrine was first introduced only at the beginning of the third/ninth century, though it was opposed until the sixth/twelfth century.

The question of the imāmate was central for the Khārijī movement, together with the related question of membership in the community, which depended on the acceptance of its specific doctrines. It was on this latter question that the movement split into various sects over minor differences. The Khārijīs were not anarchists: they upheld the necessity of an imām, but rejected imāms such as ʿUthmān, ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya, insisting upon the personal qualities of the imām and his duty to enjoin good and forbid evil. They held that the limitation of the imāmate to the Quraysh (q.v.) was not valid: the most meritorious Muslim should be elected whatever his ethnic origins might be. In other words, for the Khārijīs, personal merits overruled considerations of descent. In their view, leadership stems from personal excellence, and the confidence that the community placed in its imām constitutes his authority (q.v.). When an imām commits major sins, his followers should not immediately dissociate themselves from him (al-barāʾa ʿanhu), but call him to formal repentance (cf. Rubinacci, Barāʾa, 1027-8). If he repents, and does not continue in his errors, then he retains his imāmate; if he does not, then it ¶ is the duty of his followers to dissociate themselves from him and, if necessary, fight him. The Khārijīs supported the principle that any Muslim could be elevated to the supreme dignity of the imāmate, even if he were “an Abyssinian slave whose nose has been cut off” (Shahrastānī, Milal, 87; see abyssinia; slaves and slavery). The Ibāḍī sources state that the imām must be male, an adult in full possession of his faculties and so on (see maturity; kings and rulers), but they do not regard a slave as eligible for the caliphate (Wilkinson, Ibadi Imāma, 538). The formulation of “even an Abyssinian slave” causes misunderstanding. It actually means that the Khārijīs held any qualified Muslim, even one of slavish origin, eligible to the imāmate — provided that he was of irreproachable character. Originally this “black slave” tradition was not a Khārijī statement nor was it concerned with the qualification of the imāmate. It expressed Sunnī quietism, which maintained that rulers must be obeyed however illegitimate they may be (Crone, ‘Even an Ethiopian slave,’ 60-1).

It should be added that the Ibāḍīs were also eminent jurists (see traditional disciplines of qurʾānic study). The Ibāḍī school is one of the oldest surviving schools of law. Its foundation was attributed to Jābir b. Zayd (d. ca. 100/718-9). The first jurists of the movement were trained at his “circle” (ḥalqa): Abū Nūḥ Ṣāliḥ al-Dahhān, Ḥayyān al-Aʿraj, Ḍumām b. al-Sāʾib, Jaʿfar b. al-Sammāk, and Abū ʿUbayda al-Tamīmī propagated the doctrine learnt from Jābir in secret meetings (majālis), at which the members of the sect discussed questions of law and dogma. The first Ibāḍīs lived in places where Islamic law began to develop, namely in Baṣra and Kūfa, but also in the Ḥijāz, in close contact with the learned experts of the time with whom they ¶ exchanged opinions and teachings. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728) and Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68/686-8) were teachers as well as personal friends of Jābir, and the first Ibāḍīs recognized the authority of the Sunnī traditionists (see ḥadīth and the qurʾān) who were among Jābir's pupils: Qatāda b. Diʿāma, ʿAmr b. Harim, ʿAmr b. Dīnār, Tamīm b. Ḥuwayṣ, and ʿUmāra b. Ḥayyān.

Some scholars have argued that the Ibāḍīs derived their law from the orthodox schools, introducing only such superficial modifications as were required by their own political and dogmatic tenets (Schacht, Origins, 260 f.). Recent studies on the Ibāḍī madhhab show, however, that from the beginning the Ibāḍīs took a line detached from Sunnī schools and thus contributed to the general development of Islamic jurisprudence (Ennami, Studies in Ibāḍism, chap. iv; Wilkinson, The early development, 125-44; Francesca, The formation; id., Teoria e practica, esp. chaps. 1-3).

Bibliography

Primary

al-Ashʿārī, Abū l-Ḥasan, ʿAlī b. ʿIsmāʿīl, Maqālāt al-islāmiyyīn, ed. H. Ritter, Istanbul 1929

Baghdādī, Farq, Cairo 1328/1910

Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Jābir, Ansāb al-ashrāf, ed. W. Ahlwardt, Greifswald 1883

al-Barrādī, Abū al-Faḍl Kitāb al-Jawāhir, lithograph, Cairo 1302/1884-5

P. Crone and F. Zimmermann (eds.), The Epistle of Sālim ibn Dhakwān, Oxford 2001

al-Darjīnī, Abū l-Abbās Aḥmad b. Saʿīd, Kitāb Ṭabaqāt al-mashāyikh bi-l-Maghrib, ed. I. Ṭallāy, 2 vols., Constantine 1394/1974

Ibn Ḥazm, Milal, 5 vols., Cairo 1317-21

Ibn Sallām, Kitāb Ibn Sallām. Eine ibaditisch-magribinische Geschichte des Islams aus dem 3./9. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Schwartz and S. b. Yaʿqūq, Wiesbaden 1986

al-Jayṭālī, Abū Ṭāhir Ismāʿīl, Qawāʿid al-Islām, 2 vols., Ghārdāya 1976

I. Kāshif (ed.), [al-]Siyar wa-l-jawābāt li-ʿulamāʾ wa-aʾimmat ʿUmān, 2 vols., Oman 1989

Masʿūdī, Murūj, ed. C. Pellat, al-Mubarrad, Abū l-ʿAbbās Muḥammad b. Yazīd, Kāmil, ed. W. Wright, 3 vols., Leipzig 1974-92, trans. ¶ O. Rescher, Die Ḵh̲aridschitenkapitel aus dem Kāmil, Stuttgart 1922

Shahrastānī, Milal, ed. W. Cureton

al-Shammākhī, Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Saʿīd, Kitāb al-Siyar, lithograph, Cairo 1301/1883

Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh

id., The history of al-Ṭabarī. xviii. Between civil wars. The caliphate of Muʿawiyah, trans. M. Morony, Albany 1987

al-Warjlānī, Abū Zakariyyāʾ Yaḥyā b. Abī Bakr, Kitāb Siyar al aʾimma wa-akhbārihim, ed. I. al-ʿArabī, Alger 1399/1979

trans. E. Masqueray, La chronique d'Abou Zakaria, Alger 1878, trans. R. Le Tourneau, La chronique d'Abū Zakariyyāʾ al-Warānī, in Revue africaine 104 (1960), 99-176, 322-90; 105 (1961), 117-76, 323-74

al-Wisyānī, Sālim b. ʿAbd al-Sallām, Kitāb al-Siyar, ms. Z. Smogorzewski, Cracow 00277, fol. 1-189

Secondary

R. Brünnow, Die Charidschiten unter den ersten Omayyaden. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der ersten islamischen Jahrhunderts, Leiden 1884

L. Caetani, Annali dell'Islām, 10 vols., Milan 1905-26, ix, 541-56; x, 76-151; 168-95

M. Cook, Commanding right and forbidding wrong in Islamic thought, Cambridge, UK 2000

V. Cremonesi, Un antico documento ibāḍita sul Corano creato, in Studi maghrebini 1 (1966), 133-61

P. Crone, ‘Even an Ethiopian slave.’ The transformation of a Sunnī tradition, in bsoas 57 (1994), 59-67

P. Cuperly, Introduction à l'étude de l'Ibadisme et de sa théologie, Alger 1984

H. Djaït, La grande discorde. Religion et politique dans l'Islam des origines, Paris 1989

A. Kh. Ennami, Studies in Ibāḍism, Beirut 1972-3

van Ess, tg (esp. i, 404-16 for the Khārijīs in Kūfa; ii, 186-233 for the Ibāḍīs in Baṣra; ii, 460-6 for the Khārijīs in Wāṣiṭ; ii, 572-84 for the Khārijīs in Iran; ii, 590-600 for the Khārijīs in Khorasān; ii, 601-4 for the Ibāḍīs in Khurāsān; ii, 613-24 for the Khārijīs in middle and southern Iran; ii, 618-24 for the later Khārijīs; ii, 655-6 for the Khārijīs in Mecca; ii, 656-9 for the Ibāḍīs in Mecca)

E. Francesca, The formation and early development of the Ibāḍī madhhab, in jsai 28 (2003)

id., Teoria e pratica del commercio nell'Islam medievale. I contratti di vendita e di commenda nel diritto ibāḍita, Rome 2002

F. Gabrieli, Sulle origini del movimento ḫārigita, in Rendiconti. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 7 (1941-2), 110-7

C. Gilliot, Le commentaire coranique de Hūd b. Muḥakkam, in Arabica 44 (1997), 179-23

M. Guidi, Sui Ḫārigiti, in rso 21 (1994), 1-14

A.C. Higgins, The qurʾānic exchange of the self in the poetry of Shurāt (Khārijī) political identity (37-132 a.h./657-750 a.d.), Ph.D. diss., Chicago 2001

M. Hinds, Muʿāwiya I, in ei2, vii, 263-8

N. Koribaa, Les Kharidjites. Démocrates de l'Islam, Paris 1991

G. Levi Della Vida, Ḵh̲āridjites, in ei2, iv, 1106-9

T. Lewicki, al-Ibāḍiyya, in ei2,¶ iii, 648-66

K. Lewinstein, The Azāriqa in Islamic heresiography, in bsoas 54 (1991), 251-68

W. Madelung, The Shiite and Khārijite contribution to pre-Ashʿarite kalām, in P. Morewedge (ed.), Islamic philosophical theology, Albany, N.Y. 1979, 120-39

id., The succession to Muḥammad. A study of the early caliphate, Cambridge 1997

id. and K. Lewinstein, Ṣufriyya, in ei2, ix, 766-9

M. Moreno, Note di teologia ibāḍita, in aiuon 3 (1949), 299-313

ʿĀ.Y. Muʿammar, al-Ibāḍiyya bayna l-firaq al-islāmiyya, Ghārdāya 1987

ʿA. Najjār, al-Ibāḍiyya wa-madā ṣilatihā bi-l-khawārij, Cairo 1993

C.A. Nallino, Rapporti tra la dogmatica Muʿtazilita e quella degli Ibāḍiti dell'Africa settentrionale, in rso 7 (1916-8), 455-60

U. Rebstock, Die Ibāḍiten im Maġreb (2./8.-4./10. Jh.). Die Geschichte einer Berberbewegung im Gewand des Islams, Berlin 1983

R. Rubinacci, ʿAd̲j̲ārida, in ei2, i, 213

id., Azāriḳa, in ei2, i, 833-4

id., Barāʾa, in ei2, i, 1026-8

id., Nad̲j̲adāt, in ei2, vii, 860-1

E.A. Salem, Political theory and institutions of the Khawaridj, Baltimore 1959

J. Schacht, The origins of Muhammadan jurisprudence, Oxford 1950

W. Schwartz, Die Anfänge der Ibaditen in Nordafrika — der Beitrag einer islamischen Minderheit zur Ausbreitung des Islams, Wiesbaden 1983

W. Thomson, Ḵh̲ārijitism and the Ḵh̲ārijites, in W.G. Shellabear (ed.), The Macdonald presentation volume, London 1933, 371-89

L. Veccia Vaglieri, Il conflitto ʿAlī-Muʿāwiya e la secessione khārigita riesaminati alla luce di fonti ibāḍite, in aiuon 4 (1952), 1-94

id., Ḥarūrāʾ, in ei2, iii, 242-3

id., Sulle denominazione H̲awāziǧ, in rso 26 (1951), 41-6

id., Traduzione di passi riguardanti il conflitto ʿAlī-Muʿāwiya e la secessione khārigita, in aiuon 5 (1953), 1-98

id., Le vicende del ḫārigismo in epoca abbaside, in rso 24 (1949), 31-44

W.M. Watt, Kharijite thought in the Umayyad period, in Der Islam 36 (1961), 215-32

J. Wellhausen, Die religiöspolitischen Oppositionsparteien im alten Islam, Berlin 1901

J. Wilkinson, The early development of the Ibāḍī movement in Basra, in G.H.A. Juynboll, Studies on the first century of Islamic society, Carbondale 1982, 125-44

id., The Ibāḍī imāma, in bsoas 39 (1976), 535-51

Cite this page

Francesca, Ersilia, “Khārijīs”, in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Consulted online on 07 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00103>

3/84-90

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ites

---

(al-K̲h̲awārid̲j̲, sing. K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī), the members of the earliest of the religious sects of Islam, whose importance lies particularly, from the point of view of the development of dogma, in the formulation of questions relative to the theory of the caliphate and to justification by faith or by works, while from the point of view of political history the principal part they played was disturbing by means of continual insurrections, which often ended in the temporary conquest of entire provinces, the peace of the eastern part of the Muslim empire during the two last years of the caliphate of ʿAlī and during the Umayyad period, and involuntarily facilitating first Muʿāwiya’s victory over ʿAlī, then that of the ʿAbbāsids over the Umayyads.

I. The origins of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī movement.

Opportunity for the schism was given by the proposal presented to ʿAlī by Muʿāwiya during the battle of Ṣiffīn (Ṣafar 37/July 657) [q.v.] to settle the differences arising out of the murder of ʿUt̲h̲mān, which had provoked the war, by referring it to two referees who would pronounce judgment “according to the Ḳurʾān”. While the majority of ʿAlī’s army readily adopted this proposal, either because they were tired of war or because the “Ḳurʾān-readers” (ḳurrāʾ) hoped there would emerge from this Ḳurʾānic judgment the justification of the furious campaign they had conducted against ʿUt̲h̲mān which had ended in the latter’s assassination, one group of warriors, mainly of the tribe of Tamīm, vigorously protested against the setting up of a human tribunal above the divine word. Loudly protesting that “judgment belongs to God alone” (lā huḳma illā li-llāhi) they left the army, and withdrawing to the village of Ḥarūrāʾ [q.v.], not far from Kūfa they elected as their chief an obscure soldier, ʿAbd Allāh b. Wahb al-Rāsibī [q.v.]. These first dissenters took the name al-Ḥārūrīya or al-Muḥakkima (i.e. those who repeat the above phrase; cf. RSO, viii, 789, note 1), which is often applied by an extension of meaning to the later K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ also. This little group gradually increased on account of successive defections, especially when the arbitration ended in a verdict quite contrary to what the ḳurrāʾ expected (probably in Ramaḍān or S̲h̲awwāl 37/Feb.-March 658); on this occasion a large number of partisans of ʿAlī, including a number of ḳurrāʾ “went out” (k̲h̲arad̲j̲a) secretly from Kūfa (to which the army had gone during the truce) to join the camp of Ibn Wahb, who in the meantime had gone to the Ḏj̲ūk̲h̲ā country on the left bank of the Tigris, to a place ¶ which commanded the exits of the roads from Fārs and the bridge-head, at which in those days stood the little village of Bag̲h̲dād, which later was to become the capital of the empire. The rebel camp lay along the Nahrawān canal. It is to this episode of the exodus from Kūfa that the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ owe their name (“those who went out”), more probably than to a general epithet expressing the idea that they had gone out of the community of the faithful, as it was later interpreted, probably at quite an early period (cf. the name of the Jewish sect of the Pharisees, which Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, ii, 283-4, derived from the incident of their separation from the partisans of Judas Maccabeus in 163 B.C., quoting in support of his explanation the name of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲). Another name given to those first K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ (which has also been extended to their successors and seems to be the one which they gave themselves) is al-S̲h̲urāt (pl. of s̲h̲ārī), the “vendors” i.e. those who have sold their soul for the cause of God (this idea is found in several contemporary verses).

The extreme fanaticism of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ at once manifested itself in a series of extremist proclamations and terrorist actions: they proclaimed the nullity of ʿAlī’s claims to the caliphate but equally condemned ʿUt̲h̲mān’s conduct and disclaimed any intention of avenging his murder; they went farther and began to brand everyone infidel and outside the law who did not accept their point of view and disown ʿAlī as well as ʿUt̲h̲mān. They then committed many murders, not even sparing women. Little by little the strength of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī army grew by the accession of other fanatical and turbulent elements, including a number of non-Arabs, attracted by the principle of equality of races in the faith that the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ proclaimed. ʿAlī, who had so far tried to avoid dealing with the rebels, in order to avoid a war in his rear so long as he had to face the army of Muʿāwiya, after the rupture of the preliminaries of peace was obliged to take steps to avert the growing danger. He attacked the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ in their camp and inflicted a terrible defeat on them in which Ibn Wahb and the majority of his followers were slain (battle of al-Nahrawān, 9 Ṣafar 38/17 July 658 [q.v.]). But the victory cost ʿAlī dear. Not only was the rebellion far from suppressed and was prolonged in a series of local risings in 39 and 40, but ʿAlī himself perished by the dagger of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muld̲j̲am al-Murādī [see ibn muld̲j̲am ], the husband of a woman whose family had lost most of its members at al-Nahrawān. The tradition that a conspiracy of K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ had aimed at killing simultaneously ʿAlī, Muʿāwiya and the governor of Egypt, ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, is almost certainly apocryphal.

It should be noted that the narratives of Arab historians on the origin of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī. movement are very confused and contradictory, and seem to have lost sight of the real connection between it and the arbitration; on the other hand the nature and date of the latter are quite uncertain. The reconstruction which is given above is that proposed by the writer of this article (see Bibl.) against the view of Wellhausen (followed by Lammens and Caetani), who thinks that the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī rebellion and the arbitration are independent of one another and even dates the battle of al-Nahrawān before the verdict of the arbiters.

II. The wars of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ under the Umayyads.

The wise and energetic administration of Muʿāwiya, ¶ succeeding the feeble and vacillating rule of ʿAlī, prevented the agitation of the Ḵh̲ārid̲j̲īs from breaking out, but it did not succeed in extinguishing it any more than it succeeded in suppressing the feelings and aspirations of the S̲h̲īʿa. Our sources mention several risings that broke out in Kūfa and Baṣra during the twenty years of Muʿāwiya’s reign (40-60/660-80), but they were promptly put down and only served to increase the roll of martyrs, the worship and avenging of whom became one of the features of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī movement. It is at Baṣra in particular, under the governors Ziyād b. Abīhi and his son ʿUbayd Allāh, that we find most risings and suppressions of risings. These insurrections, of which the most formidable was that of Mirdās b. Udayya al-Tamīmī Abū Bilāl [q.v.], settled the tactics of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲, whose raids henceforth took the form of guerilla warfare and owed their successes mainly to the rapidity—which soon became legendary—of their cavalry (the names of some of their horses are preserved in Arabic works on hippology). They mobilised unexpectedly, swept through the country, surprised undefended towns and then retired rapidly to escape the pursuit of the government troops. The centres of concentration of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ were the marshy country of the Baṭāʾiḥ around Baṣra (see al-baṭīḥa) and around D̲j̲ūk̲h̲ā, on the left bank of the Tigris, where their movement had originated, from which they could, if defeated, rapidly gain the mountainous lands of the Iranian plateaus.

It was only with the great civil war that broke out after the death of Yazīd I, that in the midst of the general disorder the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī movement assumed serious dimensions and contributed more than anything else to render precarious the hold of the pretender ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr [q.v.], on the territory that he had at first been able to subdue. After the fall of Ibn Zubayr, it was the Umayyad governors who had to wage a hard struggle with these indomitable rebels, enemies alike of victors and vanquished. It is at this time that we begin to distinguish among the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ half-political and half-theological subdivisions, the origin of which is not at all clear, for the tradition which makes them appear at the same time quite suddenly at Baṣra on the death of Yazīd has probably altered the real succession of events. In any case, we henceforth find the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ breaking out throughout the eastern part of the empire (Syria was always free from them and Africa only knew them under the ʿAbbāsids) into serious rebellions, at the head of which they placed individuals who have given their names to the Azāriḳa or Azraḳīs, to the Ibāḍiyya and to the Ṣufriyya [q.vv.]. Of all these movements the most dangerous to the unity of the Muslim Empire and the most terrible on account of its ferociously uncompromising character was without doubt that led by Nāfiʿ b. al-Azraḳ [q.v.], which gave the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ temporary control of Kirmān, Fārs and other eastern provinces, constituted a permanent threat to the security of Baṣra and surrounding country, and which al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra at first, and later al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲ b. Yūsuf only overcame (in 78/698 or 79/699) after long years of effort which ended in the defeat and death of the last and most remarkable of the Azraḳī leaders, the valiant Ḳaṭarī b. al-Fud̲j̲āʾa [q.v.]. Less serious and less extensive and prolonged, but quite as stubborn as the Azraḳī movement, was the insurrection which was called after S̲h̲abīb b. Yazīd al-S̲h̲aybānī (76-7/696-7), although he did not begin it but was only its most distinguished leader; it began in the high Tigris country between Mārdīn and ¶ Niṣībīn and its object was the conquest and devastation of Kūfa. The partisans of S̲h̲abīb. who advanced only in little bands of several hundred horsemen, but who often gathered round them large bands of malcontents, sowed terror throughout ʿIrāḳ, and having several times defeated al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲’s troops were only destroyed by the help of an army of picked troops summoned from Syria. S̲h̲abīb himself perished, drowned in the Dud̲j̲ayl, while trying to reach the mountains of Kirmān; his successors caused a certain amount of trouble to the governors of Yazīd II and His̲h̲ām but never again were a serious danger.

Arabia was another field of K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī activity, where during the rule of Ibn al-Zubayr between the years 65/684-5 and 72/691-2 their leaders Abū Ṭālūt, Nad̲j̲da b. ʿĀmir and Abū Fudayk captured in succession Yamāma, Ḥaḍramawt, Yaman and the town of al-Ṭāʾif, and were only restrained by religious scruples from taking the holy cities. They were only destroyed after the intervention of al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲, but they left the seeds of future movements, especially in the eastern part of the peninsula.

Owing mainly to the energy of al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲, K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ism seemed definitely quelled. Another factor contributed considerably to its failure, namely the fanaticism and intolerance of the rebels, whose religious disputes ended in splitting their ranks and sometimes resulted in the removal of their ablest leaders on the charge of having on some occasion failed to observe the absolute irreconcilableness of their principles. Another cause of weakness may be recognised in the eternal feud between the Arab element and that of the Mawālī which brought fatal consequences along with it, especially among the remnants of the Azraḳīs after the death of Ḳaṭarī b. al-Fud̲j̲āʾa. But under the last Umayyads, in the midst of the irreparable collapse of the central government, the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ again raised their heads, and resumed their exploits, this time not in little bands but in large bodies. While the two most serious risings of this period, those of al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Ḳays al-S̲h̲aybānī [q.v.] in the Ḏj̲azīra and ʿIrāḳ and that of ʿAbd Allāh b. Yaḥyā, surnamed Ṭālib al-Ḥaḳḳ, and of Abū Ḥamza [see al-muk̲h̲tār b. ʿawf ] in Arabia (in the course of which Medina itself was occupied), ended in defeat, it is nevertheless true that the anarchy which they provoked destroyed the eastern rampart of Umayyad power and enabled the ʿAbbāsid insurrection to penetrate more easily to the heart of the empire.

Under the ʿAbbāsid caliphs, the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī movement may be said to be practically extinct in ʿIrāḳ and adjoining regions. Except for a few local risings, promptly suppressed, K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ism no longer presented any serious danger and only survived as a religious sect, without, however, any remarkable vitality or wide dissemination. In Eastern Arabia, on the other hand, in North Africa and later on the eastern coast of Africa, one of the principal branches of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲, that of the Ibāḍiyya, played an important part in politics, and even after this role was ended it continued to be of importance from the religious point of view. It survives in our day with its dogmas, its rites and its special laws.

III. The political and religious theories of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲.

The K̲h̲awārid̲j̲, who, as we have seen,.never had any true unity of military and political action, did not have either a uniform body of doctrines. Their teachings seem to us like the particular views ¶ of a number of independent sub-sects (the heresiographers number not less than a score including principal and subsidiary together), some of which represent theological schools as well as political movements of a collectivist character, while others confine themselves to expressing differences of individual opinions among the theorists of the sect. One article is common to all : it is that which treats of the question of the caliphate, a question which has been the starting point of all the religious divisions in Islam. On this question, the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ are opposed equally to the legitimism of the S̲h̲īʿa and the quietism of the Murd̲j̲iʾa. On the one hand they assert what Wellhausen aptly calls their “non-conformity” i.e. the obligation on believers to proclaim illegitimate and ipso facto deposed the imām who has gone off the right path (this is how they justify their abandonment of ʿAlī after his acceptance of the arbitration); on the other hand they declare every believer who is morally and religiously irreproachable to be capable of being raised by the vote of the community to the supreme dignity of the imāmate, “even if he were a black slave”. The result is that each of their leaders has been recognised by them as amīr al-muʾminīn, although none of them had, among other things, the qualification of Ḳuras̲h̲ī birth. Consequently the only other caliphs besides their own that they recognise as legitimate are Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (the latter is particularly venerated by them); ʿUt̲h̲mān only during the first six years of his reign; and ʿAlī till the battle of Ṣiffīn.

Another capital article of K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī heterodoxy is the absolute rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith without works. They push their moral strictness to the point of refusing the title of believer to anyone who has committed a mortal sin and regarding him as a murtadd (apostate); and their extreme wing, represented by the Azraḳīs, says that he who has become an infidel in this way can never re-enter the faith and should be killed for his apostasy along with his wives and children. Of course all non-K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī Muslims are regarded as apostates. Here we have the principle of istiʿrāḍ (religious murder [q.v.]) which we find applied from the beginning of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī movement, even before it had been formulated in theory, and which found its completest application during the war of the Azrakīs. This ferocious principle forms a strange but not illogical contrast with the spirit of tolerance shown by the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ to non-Muslims and which in some of their schools goes so far as to recognise as equal to Muslims in every way those Jews or Christians who will pronounce the s̲h̲ahāda with the modification: “Muḥammad is the Apostle of God to the Arabs and not to us.” The tendency to the levelling of the Arabs and the Mawālī (which was already a result of their attitude to the problem of the imāmate) was pushed so far by one of the theorists of K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī doctrine, Yazīd b. Abī Anīsa (founder of the Yazīydīya), that he says that God will reveal a new Ḳurʾān to a prophet among the Persians and that he will found a new religion for them, divine in the same sense as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which will be no other than that of the Ṣābiʾūn mentioned in the Ḳurʾān.

The same Puritanism which characterises K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ism in its conception of the state and of faith is found in its ethical principles: it demands purity of conscience as an indispensable complement to bodily purity for the validity of acts of worship; one of their sects goes so far as to remove Sūra XII from the Ḳurʾān (Sūrat Yūsuf) because its contents ¶ are worldly and frivolous and make it unworthy to be the Word of God. If, on the other hand, they seem to be less strict than the orthodox in the punishment they inflict on adulterers, for whom they do not allow stoning, this is due simply to the fact that they do not recognise the authenticity of the famous verses added by ʿUmar to the primitive text of the Ḳurʾān (cf. Nöldeke-Schwally, Gesch. d. Qorāns, i, 248-52).

Outside of general principles and a few particular cases, the law and dogmatics of the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ are not known to us in their totality except for the Ibāḍīyya, whose survival to the present day has preserved in its integrity their religious tradition. The Ibāḍiyya represent (as do the Ṣufriyya on the other side) a comparatively moderate school and their present views, in dogma as well as law, have been to some degree influenced by other Muslim schools. Attention has recently been drawn (by C. A. Nallino, in RSO, vii, 455-60) to the very close connection between the dogmatics of the Ibāḍiyya and of the Muʿtazila. It may also be supposed that it was the latter which, in certain points at least, received a stimulus from K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ism. What seems beyond doubt is that, as Wellhausen points out, K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ism played a very important part in the development of Muslim theology, either directly or by the impetus which it gave to reflection on the problems of the faith.

Although K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ism seems to us an essentially popular movement in its origins, we must be careful not to think of it as devoid of intellectualism. On the contrary, the very radicalism of its theories must have exercised an attraction on many cultivated minds, much as similar doctrines have done in other times and countries. It is particularly at the time of the early ʿAbbāsids, under the influence of and at the same time in opposition to the refined and sceptical culture of the period, that we find many scholars and men of letters who were thought to cherish K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī views, without this preventing their frequenting high society and enjoying the favour of the court. The best known of these K̲h̲awārid̲j̲ sub rosa was the famous philologist Abū ʿUbayda Maʿmar b. al-Mut̲h̲annā [q.v.], regarding whose fanaticism, in conversation at least, a rather piquant anecdote is recorded by Ibn K̲h̲allikān (i, 107 of the 1310 edition; the poetic quotation should be corrected from the Amālī of al-Murtaḍā, iii, 88-9). Poetry and eloquence were also cultivated among the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲, which is explained by the fact that the majority of their leaders, especially in the early days, belonged to the Bedouin element in the military camps of Kūfa and Baṣra. Collections were compiled of the k̲h̲uṭab pronounced by the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī leaders, and what survives of them, besides giving an excellent idea of their views, gives us a fairly high opinion of their oratorical talent. We also possess numerous fragments of their poetry (which had also been collected in particular dīwāns), especially of those of ʿImrān b. Ḥiṭṭān [q.v.] (who is at the same time considered one of the founders of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī fiḳh). A long list of K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ī orators, poets and jurists was prepared by D̲j̲āḥiẓ (see Ch. Pellat, Ḏj̲āhiẓ et les K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ites, in Folia Orientalia, xii (1970), 195-209).

The wars of the K̲h̲ārid̲j̲īs had been recorded from the beginning of Arabic historiography in several works which have not come down to us in their entirety; we know, however, the substance of the more important among them, the authors of which were Abū Mik̲h̲naf, Abū ʿUbayda and al-Madāʾinī ¶ from the extracts which have been preserved in the historical sources given below.

Bibliography

Mubarrad, al-Kāmil, ed. Wright, passim (scattered throughout this work, in no sequence or order, are abundant literary and historical references to our subject; they have been translated by O. Rescher, Die Kharidschitenkapitel aus dem Kāmil, Stuttgart 1922)

Ṭabarī, i, 3341 ff., ii, passim

Balād̲h̲urī, Ansāb al-As̲h̲rāf, in RSO, vi, 488-97 (résumé and specimens of the text for the period of the caliphate of ʿAlī; errata: ibid., 925)

idem, ed. Ahlwardt, 78-96, 125-51 (for the period of the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik)

Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲, iv-vi, passim

L. Caetani, Annali dell’ Islām, ix, 541-56, x, 76-151, 168-95, and passim (translation by the author of this article of the historical texts for the period of the caliphate of ʿAlī and of other material relating to the K̲h̲awārid̲j̲, taken from the collections of ḥadīt̲h̲, etc.)

idem, Chronographia Islamica, i

R. E. Brünnow, Die Charidschiten unter den ersten Omayyaden, Leiden 1884

J. Wellhausen, Die religiös-politischen Oppositionsparteien im alten Islam, i, Die Chavârig (Abh. G. W. Gött., N.S., 1901, v, 2; H. Lammens, Le caliphat de Moʿâwia I er (reprinted from MFOB), 125-40

G. Levi Della Vida, in RSO, vi (1913), 474-88

W. Thomson, Khārijitism and the Khārijites, in Macdonald Presentation Volume, Princeton 1933, 371-89

F. Gabrieli, Sulle origini del movimento ḫārigita, in Rend. Accad. Lincei, Ser. vii/2 (1941-2), 110-17

M. Guidi, Sui Ḫārigiti, in RSO, xxi (1944), 1-14

L. Veccia Vaglieri, Le vicende del ḫārigismo in epoca abbaside, in RSO, xxiv (1949), 31-44

eadem, Sulla denominazione Ḫawāriğ, in ibid., xxvi (1951), 51-6

M. Kafafi, The Rise of Khārijism according to Abū Saʿīd Muḥammad b. Saʿīd al-Azdī al-Qalhātī, in BFA, xiv (1952), 29-48

L. Veccia Vaglieri, Il conflitto ʿAlī-Muʿāwiya e la secessione khārigita riesaminati alla luce di fonti ibāḍite, in AIUON, N.S., iv (1952), 1-94

eadem, Traduzione di passi riguardanti il conflitto ʿAlī-Muʿāwiya e la secessione k̲h̲ārigita, in AIUON, N.S., v (1953), 1-98

R. Rubinacci, Il Califfo ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān e gli Ibāḍiti, in AIUON, N.S., v (1953), 99-121

G. Scarcia, Lo scambio di lettere fra Hārūn al-Rašīd e Ḥamza al-Hāriğī secondo il “Ta’rīḫi-Sistān”, in AIUON, N.S., xiv (1964), 623-45

idem, Due precisazioni sut ḫārigismo sistanico, in AIUON, N.S., xv (1965), 303 ff.

S̲h̲āhrastānī, Milal, ed. Cureton, 85-103 (tr. Haarbrücker, Religionspartheien und Philosophen-Schulen, 128-56)

Ibn Ḥazm, Fiṣal, Cairo 1320, iv, 188-92

ʿAbd al-Ḳāhir al-Bag̲h̲dādī, Farḳ (tr. K. Ch. Seelye, Moslem schisms and sects..., Columbia University Oriental Series, xv, New York 1919, i, 74-115)

I. Goldziher, Vorlesungen über den Islam 2, 191-6 (1st edn., 204-8, Fr. tr. F. Arin, 159-64)

M. Th. Houtsma, De strijd over het dogma in den Islam tot op el-Ashʾari, Leiden 1875

F. Gabrieli, La poesia ḫārigita nel secolo degli Omayyadi, in RSO, xx (1943), 331-72

M. M. Moreno, Note di teologia ibāḍita, in AIUON, N.S., iii (1949), 299-313

R. Rubinacci, La professione di fede di al-Ǧannāwunī, in AIUON, N.S., xiv (1964), 553-95

C. Cremonesi, Un antico documento ibāḍita sul Corano creato, in Studi Magrebini, i (Naples 1966), 133-78

H. Laoust, Les schismes dans l’Islam, Paris 1965, 36 ff.

(G. Levi Della Vida*)

Cite this page

Levi Della Vida, G., “K̲h̲ārid̲j̲ites”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 10 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0497>

4/1074-1077

Ссылки

https://primaquran.com/2021/12/18/overview-of-ibadi-tafsir-literature/