Khawarij wal-Jama‘ah?
A Sunni-and-Shia Source Refutation of TwelverShia.net
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/05/02/response-to-khawarij-wal-jammah/
TwelverShia.net attempts to answer the charge that major Sunni hadith collections transmitted narrations from Khariji narrators, even though the Prophet ﷺ severely condemned the Khawarij.
Its response is built on four claims:
1. “Passing out of the religion” does not necessarily mean disbelief.
2. Imam Ali a.s did not call the people of Nahrawan polytheists or hypocrites.
3. Therefore, Ahl al-Sunnah did not consider the Khawarij disbelievers.
4. Shia scholars also allow reports from a reliable narrator despite his disbelief, so the criticism is meaningless.
This response is incomplete, selective and internally inconsistent.
The article itself may be read here in the uploaded text.
1. The lexical correction does not answer the complete Prophetic wording
The article objects that the Arabic word:
الْمَارِقِينَ
does not literally mean “apostates,” but those who pass through or leave something.
It also correctly notes that:
الرَّمِيَّة
means the animal or target struck by the arrow—not the bow.
That minor translation correction does not solve the real problem.
The Prophet ﷺ did not merely say that they would “pass through.”
Sahih al-Bukhari records:
يَمْرُقُونَ مِنَ الْإِسْلَامِ كَمَا يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ مِنَ الرَّمِيَّةِ
“They will pass out of Islam just as an arrow passes through its target.”
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6934.
The Arabic explicitly says:
مِنَ الْإِسْلَامِ
“Out of Islam.”
Therefore, the article’s attempt to reduce muruq to a neutral dictionary meaning ignores the object from which they are said to depart: Islam itself.
Sahih Muslim adds:
يَخْرُجُونَ مِنَ الدِّينِ كَمَا يَخْرُجُ السَّهْمُ مِنَ الرَّمِيَّةِ، ثُمَّ لَا يَعُودُونَ فِيهِ، هُمْ شَرُّ الْخَلْقِ وَالْخَلِيقَةِ
“They will leave the religion just as an arrow passes through its target. Then they will not return to it. They are the worst of creation.”
Reference: Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1067.
This is much stronger than merely saying that they disobeyed an imam:
“They leave the religion.”
“They do not return to it.”
“They are the worst of creation.”
2. The Prophet explicitly called them “the dogs of Hell”
The clearest evidence is:
الْخَوَارِجُ كِلَابُ النَّارِ
“The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.”
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 173.
Status: Sahih according to the displayed Darussalam grading.
This narration directly establishes their destination.
TwelverShia.net argues that being ordered to death does not prove disbelief because Muslim murderers and adulterers may also receive capital punishment.
That observation is true but irrelevant.
The argument is not based only on the order to fight them.
It is based on the Prophet ﷺ describing them as:
كِلَابُ النَّارِ
“The dogs of Hell.”
هُمْ شَرُّ الْخَلْقِ وَالْخَلِيقَةِ
“The worst of creation.”
يَخْرُجُونَ مِنَ الدِّينِ
“They leave the religion.”
ثُمَّ لَا يَعُودُونَ فِيهِ
“They do not return to it.”
The article answers the weakest possible argument while leaving the strongest Prophetic texts unanswered.
3. “They were Muslims, then became disbelievers”
Abu Umamah said regarding the Khawarij:
شَرُّ قَتْلَى قُتِلُوا تَحْتَ أَدِيمِ السَّمَاءِ، وَخَيْرُ قَتِيلٍ مَنْ قَتَلُوا، كِلَابُ أَهْلِ النَّارِ، قَدْ كَانَ هَؤُلَاءِ مُسْلِمِينَ فَصَارُوا كُفَّارًا
“They are the worst of those killed beneath the sky, while the best of the slain are those whom they killed. They are the dogs of Hell. These people had been Muslims, but they became disbelievers.”
Abu Ghalib asked him:
يَا أَبَا أُمَامَةَ، هَذَا شَيْءٌ تَقُولُهُ؟
“O Abu Umamah, is this merely something that you are saying yourself?”
Abu Umamah replied:
بَلْ سَمِعْتُهُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
“Rather, I heard it from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.”
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 176.
The report is graded hasan in the displayed grading.
The wording is explicit:
قَدْ كَانَ هَؤُلَاءِ مُسْلِمِينَ فَصَارُوا كُفَّارًا
“They had been Muslims, but they became disbelievers.”
TwelverShia.net cannot honestly claim that the Prophetic evidence contains no indication of kufr while ignoring a narration that says exactly that.
4. Abu Umamah connected the Khawarij with disbelief after faith
When Abu Umamah saw the heads of Khawarij displayed, he said:
كِلَابُ النَّارِ، شَرُّ قَتْلَى تَحْتَ أَدِيمِ السَّمَاءِ، خَيْرُ قَتْلَى مَنْ قَتَلُوهُ
“Dogs of Hell—the worst of those killed beneath the sky, while the best of the slain are those whom they killed.”
He then recited:
يَوْمَ تَبْيَضُّ وُجُوهٌ وَتَسْوَدُّ وُجُوهٌ ۚ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ اسْوَدَّتْ وُجُوهُهُمْ أَكَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ فَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ
“On the Day when some faces will become white and some faces will become black. As for those whose faces become black: ‘Did you disbelieve after having believed? Then taste the punishment because of your disbelief.’”
Qur’an 3:106.
When asked whether he had heard this from the Prophet ﷺ, Abu Umamah replied that had he heard it only once, twice, three times or even four times, he would not have narrated it—until he counted seven times.
Al-Albani graded the report hasan sahih.
Again, this is not merely the Shia interpretation of the Khawarij.
It is evidence transmitted in Sunni hadith sources.
5. Sunni scholars actually disagreed over whether the Khawarij were disbelievers
The article says:
“The Khawarij are not Kuffar in the eyes of Ahl al-Sunnah.”
That is historically inaccurate as an absolute statement.
It is true that the majority of Sunni jurists generally did not declare all Khawarij disbelievers. They treated many of them as severely misguided Muslim rebels.
However, a recognized group of Sunni hadith scholars did declare them disbelievers.
Al-Qurtubi stated:
وَالْقَوْلُ بِتَكْفِيرِهِمْ أَظْهَرُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ
“The position that they are disbelievers is more apparent from the hadith.”
Ibn Hajar records that this was the position of a group among the hadith scholars.
Therefore, the academically accurate conclusion is:
“Sunni scholars disagreed over the kufr of the Khawarij.”
The article instead turns the majority position into a supposed unanimous Sunni doctrine and suppresses the substantial opposing position.
6. Imam Ali’s statement concerns their worldly legal treatment
The article correctly quotes Imam Ali a.s regarding the people of Nahrawan:
أَهُمْ مُشْرِكُونَ؟ قَالَ: مِنَ الشِّرْكِ فَرُّوا. قِيلَ: فَمُنَافِقُونَ؟ قَالَ: إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَا يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا. قِيلَ: فَمَا هُمْ؟ قَالَ: قَوْمٌ بَغَوْا عَلَيْنَا
“Are they polytheists?”
He replied: “They fled from polytheism.”
“Are they hypocrites?”
He replied: “The hypocrites remember Allah only a little.”
“Then what are they?”
He replied: “A people who rebelled against us.”
This is important evidence that Imam Ali a.s did not indiscriminately treat the entire Nahrawan army as pagan idolaters or apply the worldly laws of foreign unbelievers to them.
It explains why he did not enslave their women or treat their property like ordinary pagan war booty.
But it does not prove that they were saved from Hell.
Worldly legal classification and the final judgement of the Hereafter are not necessarily identical.
Imam Ali’s mercy and legal caution cannot be used to cancel the Prophet’s explicit statements:
الْخَوَارِجُ كِلَابُ النَّارِ
“The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.”
هُمْ شَرُّ الْخَلْقِ وَالْخَلِيقَةِ
“They are the worst of creation.”
قَدْ كَانَ هَؤُلَاءِ مُسْلِمِينَ فَصَارُوا كُفَّارًا
“They had been Muslims, but they became disbelievers.”
Even Sunni commentators who discussed Imam Ali’s statement acknowledged the alternative explanation that he may not yet have been informed of all the beliefs used by later scholars to declare them disbelievers. Al-Qurtubi nevertheless stated that takfir appeared stronger from the hadith evidence.
Therefore, the fair conclusion is:
Imam Ali a.s treated the Nahrawan rebels according to the cautious worldly rules governing internal rebels.
That does not erase the Prophet’s judgement about the unrepentant Khariji ideology and its people in the Hereafter.
7. Hatred of Imam Ali is a sign of hypocrisy
Imam Ali a.s reported:
وَالَّذِي فَلَقَ الْحَبَّةَ وَبَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ، إِنَّهُ لَعَهْدُ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ إِلَيَّ أَنْ لَا يُحِبَّنِي إِلَّا مُؤْمِنٌ، وَلَا يُبْغِضَنِي إِلَّا مُنَافِقٌ
“By Him who split the seed and created the soul, it was the covenant of the unlettered Prophet ﷺ to me that none except a believer would love me, and none except a hypocrite would hate me.”
Reference: Sahih Muslim; also transmitted by al-Nasa’i, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Ahmad.
Al-Albani authenticated and documented its multiple Sunni routes.
Allah says:
إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ فِي الدَّرْكِ الْأَسْفَلِ مِنَ النَّارِ وَلَنْ تَجِدَ لَهُمْ نَصِيرًا
“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depth of the Fire, and you will never find for them any helper.”
Qur’an 4:145.
The defining historical Khariji movement rebelled against Imam Ali a.s, fought him and produced Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam, who assassinated him. Sunni sources themselves describe the Khawarij as having fought Ali and his companions.
This provides powerful supporting evidence:
Hatred of Imam Ali is a sign of hypocrisy.
Hypocrites are in the lowest depth of Hell.
The Khariji movement’s hostility toward Imam Ali was not merely a private political disagreement; it became armed rebellion, takfir and assassination.
However, the strongest proof that the Khawarij are people of Hell remains the direct Prophetic statement:
الْخَوَارِجُ كِلَابُ النَّارِ
“The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.”
8. Shia sources also transmit that the Khawarij are the dogs of Hell
This judgement is not restricted to Sunni books.
Wasa’il al-Shia records:
قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ: الْخَوَارِجُ كِلَابُ أَهْلِ النَّارِ
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘The Khawarij are the dogs of the people of Hell.’”
Reference: Wasa’il al-Shia, vol. 15, p. 82 in the cited edition.
Therefore, the basic Shia position is not dependent on manipulating one English translation of “mariqin.”
Both Sunni and Shia transmitted sources explicitly connect the Khawarij with Hell.
9. Sunni books really did narrate from Khariji transmitters
The article does not disprove the original historical point.
Sahih al-Bukhari narrated from ‘Imran ibn Hittan.
Sunni rijal sources describe him as:
خَارِجِيٌّ
“A Khariji.”
Al-Dhahabi said:
وُثِّقَ، وَكَانَ خَارِجِيًّا، مَدَحَ ابْنَ مُلْجَمٍ
“He was declared reliable, although he was a Khariji and praised Ibn Muljam.”
Al-‘Ijli said:
بَصْرِيٌّ، تَابِعِيٌّ، ثِقَةٌ
“A Basran, a Tabi‘i and reliable.”
Sunni sources explicitly acknowledge that al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud narrated from him.
Other Sunni discussions state plainly that al-Bukhari narrated from ‘Imran ibn Hittan despite his being a Khariji who praised the killer of Imam Ali.
Therefore, the factual core of the original criticism remains true:
Major Sunni hadith collections transmitted reports through narrators identified in Sunni rijal works as Khawarij.
The article merely explains why Sunni hadith scholars considered that permissible. It does not disprove that it occurred.
10. The correct methodological point
A narrator’s beliefs and his accuracy in transmitting a particular report are two different questions.
A person may possess corrupt beliefs but still accurately repeat a statement he heard.
Therefore, accepting a report through a reliable Khariji narrator does not mean endorsing Khariji theology.
This principle is reasonable.
But it must be applied consistently.
If a truthful Khariji narrator is not rejected merely because his sect fought Imam Ali, then a truthful Shia-inclined narrator cannot be automatically rejected merely because his narration supports a virtue of Imam Ali.
Yet in its article attacking:
عَلِيٌّ وَلِيُّ كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ بَعْدِي
“Ali is the Wali of every believer after me,”
TwelverShia.net repeatedly uses the Shia inclinations of Ja‘far ibn Sulayman and al-Ajlah as a reason to reject their reports when the narration supports Imam Ali’s authority.
Here, however, it defends accepting Khariji narrators because truthfulness—not sectarian belief—is supposedly the real standard.
That is the actual double standard:
A Khariji narrator may be accepted despite belonging to a movement condemned as the dogs of Hell.
But when a truthful narrator inclined toward Ahl al-Bayt narrates a virtue of Imam Ali, his sectarian tendency suddenly becomes a decisive hidden defect.
The same standard must be applied to both.
11. The al-Khoei quotation is genuine—but quote-mined
The article quotes Sayyid al-Khoei concerning al-Hasan ibn Ali al-Sajjadah:
أَقُولُ: الرَّجُلُ وَإِنْ وَثَّقَهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، لِوُقُوعِهِ فِي أَسَانِيدِ تَفْسِيرِهِ، إِلَّا أَنَّهُ مَعَ ذَلِكَ لَا يُمْكِنُ الِاعْتِمَادُ عَلَى رِوَايَاتِهِ، لِشَهَادَةِ النَّجَاشِيِّ بِأَنَّ الْأَصْحَابَ ضَعَّفُوهُ، وَكَذَلِكَ ضَعَّفَهُ ابْنُ الْغَضَائِرِيِّ
“I say: Although Ali ibn Ibrahim apparently considered the man reliable because he occurs in the chains of his Tafsir, nevertheless his narrations cannot be relied upon, because al-Najashi testified that the companions weakened him, and Ibn al-Ghada’iri also weakened him.”
Al-Khoei then says:
نَعَمْ، لَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي الْبَيْنِ تَضْعِيفٌ، لَأَمْكَنَنَا الْحُكْمُ بِوَثَاقَتِهِ، مَعَ فَسَادِ عَقِيدَتِهِ، بَلْ مَعَ كُفْرِهِ أَيْضًا
“Yes, had there been no explicit weakening, it would have been possible to judge him reliable despite the corruption of his belief—even despite his disbelief.”
Reference: al-Khoei, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 6, p. 25.
What was al-Khoei’s actual verdict about this narrator?
لَا يُمْكِنُ الِاعْتِمَادُ عَلَى رِوَايَاتِهِ
“His narrations cannot be relied upon.”
The article highlights al-Khoei’s hypothetical methodological principle while minimizing his actual ruling rejecting the narrator.
That is quote-mining.
Al-Khoei did not authenticate al-Sajjadah.
He rejected him because direct rijal criticism from al-Najashi and Ibn al-Ghada’iri overruled the indirect indication of reliability.
12. Al-Khoei’s principle does not refute the original criticism
Al-Khoei’s principle is:
A narrator’s theological disbelief does not logically prove that he lies in every factual report.
That is essentially the same methodological defence Sunni scholars use for narrating from truthful innovators.
Therefore, the quotation does not establish that the Khawarij were not people of Hell.
It does not cancel:
“The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.”
“They leave Islam.”
“They do not return to the religion.”
“They had been Muslims but became disbelievers.”
It merely distinguishes between:
The narrator’s beliefs;
and
The narrator’s accuracy in transmitting a particular statement.
Thus, the correct Shia criticism should not be:
“Every report from every Khariji narrator is automatically false.”
The stronger criticism is:
“Why do Sunni polemicists defend reliable Khariji narrators on the basis of truthfulness, but reject reliable Shia-inclined narrators when they transmit virtues or authority for Imam Ali?”
Final Verdict
TwelverShia.net’s response fails for several reasons.
It reduces “they leave Islam” to a neutral dictionary discussion of the word muruq.
It ignores the explicit narration:
قَدْ كَانَ هَؤُلَاءِ مُسْلِمِينَ فَصَارُوا كُفَّارًا
“They had been Muslims, but they became disbelievers.”
It ignores:
الْخَوَارِجُ كِلَابُ النَّارِ
“The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.”
It hides the real Sunni disagreement by claiming that Ahl al-Sunnah did not consider them disbelievers, even though al-Qurtubi said that takfir was more apparent from the hadith and Ibn Hajar reported that a group of hadith scholars adopted that position.
It mistakes Imam Ali’s merciful worldly legal treatment of rebels for proof of their salvation in the Hereafter.
It does not disprove that Sahih al-Bukhari narrated from ‘Imran ibn Hittan, a narrator described in Sunni rijal literature as a Khariji who praised Ibn Muljam.
It quote-mines al-Khoei while ignoring his actual verdict:
“His narrations cannot be relied upon.”
And most importantly, it exposes a glaring double standard:
Khariji narrators may be accepted despite belonging to a movement called the dogs of Hell, provided they are considered truthful.
But Shia-inclined narrators become unacceptable when they narrate:
عَلِيٌّ وَلِيُّ كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ بَعْدِي
“Ali is the Wali of every believer after me.”
The consistent standard is simple:
Do not reject a truthful narrator merely because of sectarian affiliation.
Examine his honesty, accuracy, chain and corroborating evidence.
Apply that standard equally to Khariji narrators and to narrators who loved and supported Ahl al-Bayt.
The Arabic word did not change.
The science of hadith did not change.
Only the narrator’s loyalty to Imam Ali changed—and suddenly the rules changed with it.
Khawarij Narrators in Sunni Hadith Collections
Primary Category :
Loading comments...