Kharijite Puns

Title.

Ok so I watching a video about the futuhat in North Africa. When Musa Ibn Nusair arrived, he reaffrimed the ummeyad rule in Africa and then marched to Tangiers and Ceuta to kick the romans, on his way, he allied with several berber tribes who later were the main body for the islamic conquest of Al-Andalus, but my question is, by the time the kharijites arrived, were the berbers mostly muslims and those were just a minority and the kharijites converted the rest ?

Their horses were well-trained for war and were easy to maneuver by their riders. In fact, the Turks raised their mounts themselves from foals and developed close relationships with them. They were excellent at caring for their horses and were more skilled than veterinarians when it came to treating their horses when they fell ill or got injured. Additionally, when the Turkic Warriors hungered or thirsted they could sustain themselves through their horses by drinking their milk or their blood; this often negated the need for cumbersome baggage trains on campaign. When not at war the Turks continued to sharpen their skills by constantly riding and hunting game, which kept them in the best shape possible.

Based on the description given by al-Jahiz in his essay, the Turks were probably one of the best warriors of the medieval period. They were versatile and combined the roles of several different types of soldier into one. They were scouts, raiders, skirmishers, heavy cavalry, and shock cavalry all in one; and could operate as infantry as well if the need arose. One can argue that al-Jahiz’ description may not be very objective because he wrote his essay for one of his patrons, who happened to be a Turk officer in the Abbasid army. However, when examining the historical record and other sources one can see that al-Jahiz is not too far off in his analysis of the Turks. They were pastoralist nomads who depended on their animals for their livelihood. Their need for mobility also made them an equestrian people, skilled at riding and raising horses. The harsh environment in which they lived also forced them to be a very martial people. The various Turkic tribes and clans often warred with one another for the best pastures. They also raided each other for livestock and slaves and also attacked sedentary and agricultural communities to obtain goods that they did not produce (although they often traded with them too). This lifestyle honed the military skills of the Turks, who were riding and shooting from a very young age, and made them the first choice as recruits into the armies of the rulers of the Muslim world both as mercenaries and slave soldiers.

Al-Jahiz is not the only medieval writer who viewed the Turks as the best soldiers. Nizam al-Mulk (the great Seljuk vizier) and Qay Qavus Ibn Iskandar (one of the last rulers of the North Iranian Ziyarid dynasty) Both of these authors extol the martial virtues of the Turks, stating that no group or race is more cour

Karmatism is a heretical esoteric sect founded by Hamdan ibn Karmat in the ninth century AD. Hamdan took advantage of the poverty of people and was influential, especially in Iraq and its periphery, voicing “collective property” and claiming shares from the rich. These people may have appeared religious on the outside, however, they had an economic theory, political zeal and objectives. They attempted to rebel against the Abbasid caliphate, gathering forces around them, and they tortured Muslims of the Sunni path for years, martyring many. They ambushed pilgrims on their way to the Hajj, attacked the sacred city of Makka, and they even stole the Hajar al Aswad from the Ka'ba and took it to Basra.

Not accepting marriage as an institution, Karmatis named forbidden acts as being “fine arts.” They treated women as collective property and led the youth astray through prostitution, the legitimization of drinking wine and alcoholic drinks, and made every kind of indulgence lawful. In short, enslaved by their carnal desires and aspirations the Karmatis designed a religion of their own; they labeled anyone who did not follow their way as being *“hell bound,”*and thus managed to fabricate disunity for a long time. In one sense, they can be seen to be the anarchists or nihilists of their time.

Modern Kharijites

The Kharijites were another heterodox faction which blamed Caliph ‘Ali, first for conceding to arbitration and accepting the treaty at the Battle of Siffin and second for not handing over the caliphate to Muawiya and thus being guilty of a “grievous sin.” They declared all others who did not think likewise—including the Companions of the Prophet—infidels. Although they apparently believed in Islam, their vision was narrow and deprived of sound thinking. Action always took precedence over knowledge and learning for them; they were subsequently dragged into bigotry, hostility, and intolerance, getting mired in harshness, violence, and crudity. They were distracted by their slogans and action, which they had turned into a religion shaped by their rioting and restless character. They were motivated, not by knowledge, but by slogans, enthusiasm, and reactionary mood. Perhaps they read the Qur'an time after time, but it was a literal reading and they always opposed any interpretation other than theirs. They regarded those who thought otherwise as infidels whom were to be obliterated; they were cruel and tyrannical without a single drop of mercy.

Today,

https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamicState/comments/byff56/so_let_not_their_speech_grieve_you/

They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target and they will not return to it as the arrow does not return to its bow. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them.”

Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4765, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani

Ibn Kathir said, “If the Khawarij ever gained power, they would corrupt the entire earth, Iraq, and Syria. They would not leave alone a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, for in their view the people have become so corrupt that they cannot be reformed except by mass killing.”

Source: al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah 10/584

Is it just better to be kharijite instead of Ibadi? To me it seems like kharijite has more and better features then Ibadism. Just wondering if I should become a heretic or not in my new playthrough

What if someone makes takfir on a Muslim ruler, not for a sin such as tolerating sins but because he thinks that the ruler has done legitimate kufr when in reality he has not done so? Would this man be judged as being of amongst the Khawarij?

And how was this connected to the rise of the Ummayeds?

I've tried reading it on Wikipedia (which may not be reliable on such a religiously charged topic), but honestly, it's a bit confusing.

So, from what Wikipedia tells me, I think what happened is something like: Some people murdered Uthman. I'm not sure why. Ali was chosen as the fourth Caliph. He didn't punish Uthman's murderers (again, I don't know why). Muawiyah, Governor of Syria (and a relative of Uthman?), refused to accept Ali as Caliph because he hadn't punished Uthman's murderers (but maybe it was really because Ali's capital was in Iraq, not Syria?). They had a big battle, and after three days decided to solve it peacefully. Ali chose people who were involved in Uthman's death (why?), but others didn't accept his choice. The arbitrators decided that Muslims should elect a Caliph. Ali didn't accept this. Some extremists on Ali's side were fed up with negotiations, saying Ali wasn't pious enough to fight properly, and went off and made their own faction. Wikipedia seems to say these guys are the same ones that murdered Uthman? The war continued, but the extremists decided to assassinate both Ali and Muawiyah. They killed Ali, but I assume failed to kill Muawiyah? And then Muawiyah made peace with Ali's son Hassan and became Caliph.

How accurate is that? What's the deal with Ali failing to punish Uthman's killers, did he just not know who they were?

With recent events going on with ISIS I thought a lecture about them would be nice to learn more. This one is very well done and he is clear and explains with sources.

Part 1

Part 2

Also known as 'Harooriyyah'

Rebelled against 'Ali ibn Abu Taalib (RA), they were those present at Nahrawaan. They are the Takfeeriyyoon, astray and leading others astray.

Al-Khawarij declare the one who commits a major sin in this world to be a disbeliever in this life, and they deem his blood and wealth lawful. If he died in that state without repenting, then they hold that he will be in the Hellfire forever.

(Present day Khawarij are Al-Qaeda terrorist organization)

- Excerpts from: Three Fundamental Principles of Islaam by Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab Pages 50, 54, 55

Recently started getting interested in the history of my country and found out (to my surprise) that we used to be ibadis b4 becoming (predominantly) sunnis, and I'm curious to discover that branche of islam so pls help me out if possible

Phil