Maqivi: Новая страница: «== Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Khārijīs == {{refbegin3}} ;Article Table of Contents :Khārijī revolts :Khārijī sects :Khārijī doctrine :Bibliography T...»

2020-10-04T10:23:44Z

Новая страница: «== Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Khārijīs == {{refbegin3}} ;Article Table of Contents :Khārijī revolts :Khārijī sects :Khārijī doctrine :Bibliography T...»

Новая страница

== Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Khārijīs ==
{{refbegin3}}
;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
{{refbegin2}}

← Предыдущая версия		Версия от 12:53, 20 февраля 2022
Строка 278:		Строка 278:
	4/1074-1077		4/1074-1077
	{{refbegin2}}		{{refbegin2}}

			== Ссылки ==

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

Обсуждение:Хариджизм - История изменений

Maqivi: /* Ссылки */ новая тема

Maqivi в 08:55, 6 октября 2020

Maqivi: Новая страница: «== Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Khārijīs == {{refbegin3}} ;Article Table of Contents :Khārijī revolts :Khārijī sects :Khārijī doctrine :Bibliography T...»