Votre recherche

The Khārijites are usually regarded as the first faction to separate from the early Islamic community. They are viewed as rebels and heretics, constituting the first sect within early Islam. This thesis seeks to examine the narrative role and function of Khārijism in the historiographical tradition of the formative period of Islam. To that end, it looks at the major Islamic chronicles of the 3rd and 4th centuries AH/9th and 10th centuries CE and investigates their portrayal of Khārijite history. The analysis covers the period from the apparent emergence of the Khārijites at the Battle of Ṣiffīn in 37 AH/657 CE until the death of the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān in 86 AH/705 CE. The thesis’ methodological approach is based on the premise that the historiographical works under study need to be approached as literary artefacts, as texts rather than databanks that can be mined for hard facts in order to reconstruct early Islamic and thus Khārijite history ‘as it really was’. This literary analysis of the source material on Khārijism leads to two major conclusions: first, there is hardly any narrative substance to the Khārijites as presented in the sources. Instead, the reports on Khārijite activities are mostly made up of structural components such as names and dates on the one hand, and topoi and schemata on the other. Consequently, no distinct and tangible identity, literary or otherwise, emerges from the material, pointing out the pitfalls of positivist approaches to Khārijite history and by extension early Islamic history in general. This phenomenon is directly connected to the second conclusion: the historiographical sources approach Khārijism not as an end in itself, but as a narrative tool with which to illustrate, discuss and criticize other actors and subject matters. The thesis is divided into six chapters. Chapters One and Two address those characteristics of and topoi in the representation of Khārijism that pervade the source material across the entire period investigated here. It emerges that the historiographers’ major concern in the depiction of Khārijism is the discussion of the perils of the rebels’ militant piety that threatens the unity and stability of the Islamic community. Chapters Three to Five look at the periods of ʿAlī’s caliphate, Muʿāwiya’s rule and the second fitna as well as t he reign of ʿAbd al-Malik, respectively, and identify the specific narrative purposes of Khārijism in the portrayal of each period. Chapter Six offers a number of observations on the early historiographical tradition as derived from the analysis over the preceding five chapters, addressing issues such as whether it makes sense to distinguish between proto-Sunnī and proto-Shīʿī sources. The Conclusion summarizes the main findings of this thesis and provides some suggestions regarding future research on Khārijite history and thought as well as early Islamic history in general.

Khārijite resistance to Umayyad authority during the caliphate of Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān (r. 661–680) is represented in detail in the works of the early Muslim scholars Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī (d. c. 892) and Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 923). While the Khārijites are overwhelmingly depicted by both authors as religious fanatics whose excessive piety caused widespread bloodshed and who thus should be condemned, a closer look reveals that Khārijites serve specific and distinct narrative purposes: al-Balādhurī uses them mainly to illustrate Umayyad tyranny, while al-Ṭabarī addresses the consequences of Khārijite revolts for communal and imperial stability. The latter's work is also marked by a dichotomy between activist and quietist Khārijism, implying that al-Ṭabarī is not so much opposed to Khārijism as a set of “heretic” religious ideas, but rather to its violent expression of politico-religious opposition.

This article examines rhetorical strategies in letters from rulers to rebels as part of a complex system of early Islamic conflict resolution. It offers a historical, historiographical, and literary analysis of two case studies (late seventh and early ninth century), locating them within a broader discourse of political authority and opposition that was couched in the covenantal lexicon of the Qurʾan and also included the safe-conduct (amān) and oath of allegiance (bayʿa). Beyond the two main case studies, the article suggests a common template of letters to rebels that grants insight into the political culture of the early Islamic period.

This article reassesses the “Khārijite” rebellion of Muṭarrif b. al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba al-Thaqafī in 77/696–97 and recontextualizes it within a different “category” of revolt. Analyzing both the history and the historiography of this uprising, the article argues that Muṭarrif’s rebellion is best understood not within a Khārijite framework, but rather as part of a series of revolts carried out by other Iraqi tribal notables (ashrāf) in the same period. This reevaluation is based, for example, on the composition of Muṭarrif’s following, which shows clear connections with other important Iraqi/eastern leaders, such as Muṣʿab b. al-Zubayr, Ibn al-Ashʿath, and Yazīd b. al-Muhallab. These connections, observable in other structural patterns common to Marwānid-era rebellions as well, point to a similarity of grievances, reactions, and aims whose salience far exceeded the context of individual revolts. More broadly, this article also seeks to challenge the received scholarly understanding of Khārijism and to question its usefulness as a category of historical analysis, suggesting instead different approaches to a renewed engagement with this phenomenon.

Des trois branches de l’islam, on connaît généralement le sunnisme et le chiisme. La troisième, le kharijisme, constitue une catégorie beaucoup plus difficile à cerner, mais son image dans les sources majoritaires est celle de la dissidence, voire de la déviance, politique et religieuse. Les Kharijites sont très présents dans la littérature arabe pour incarner un anti-modèle, celui du chaos politique, de la révolte permanente, de l’excès de zèle religieux et dévotionnel. A tel point que leurs leaders, qui défièrent à plusieurs reprises l’Empire omeyyade, puis abbasside, sont dépeints tantôt comme des rebelles insaisissables, tantôt comme des desperados, des bandits de grand chemin ou des fous de Dieu. Nous analyserons et déconstruirons tout d’abord cet imaginaire de la dissidence, qui participe à la construction de cet islam hégémonique que devint le sunnisme au cours des premiers siècles. Occasion pour nous de revisiter quelques récits qui structurent la narration historique en islam : le règne d’Uthmân, calife de la discorde, la bataille de Siffîn, matrice symbolique des trois branches que se reconnaît l’islam, le meurtre d’Ali, qui met en jeu la question du meurtre politique… Les Kharijites ont constitué une nébuleuse dont nous tenterons aussi de cerner les caractéristiques, de comprendre le programme politique et religieux. Mais pour cela, il faudra tenter de passer de l’autre côté du miroir en essayant d’identifier les textes et les témoignages qui documentent ce courant au plus juste. Nous nous appuierons pour cela sur la production écrite des Ibadites, leurs lointains héritiers idéologiques.

"The Umayyad World encompasses archaeology, history, art and architecture, and the study of manuscripts and documents of the Umayyad era (644-750 CE). This era was formative both for world history and for the history of Islam. Subjects covered in detail in this collection include regions conquered in Umayyad times, ethnic and religious identity among the conquerors, political thought and culture, administration and the law, art and architecture, the history of religion, pilgrimage and the Qur'an, and violence and rebellion. Close attention is paid to new methods of analysis and interpretation, including source critical studies of the historiography and inter-disciplinary approaches combining literary sources and material evidence. Scholars of Islamic history, archaeologists and researchers interested in the Umayyad Caliphate, its context and influence on the wider world, will find much to enjoy in this volume"--

In the world of Islamic terminologies “Khawarij” is truly one of the most infamous. Historically it denotes one of the most notorious factions to ever exist in all of Islamic history. And considering the way the term “Khawarij” (or “Khariji” in the singular) has been used, and how it is still in use today—in polemically charged and heresiographical writings—it only paints a picture of extremism, brutally, and deviance, such that most Muslims know only this contrived negative image. For modern Ibadis, Khawarij as an identity marker concerning their origins is highly disputable. And given the portrayal of the Kharijites in Muslim literature, it is completely understandable as to why they have chosen to distance themselves from such a label. But are what we deem to be characteristics of Kharijism, based on descriptors found in Islamic literature, historically sound? Or does the information for what we believe to be the intrinsic hallmark of Kharijite behavior, tell us more about the author's intentions rather than the historicity of Kharijism? And are allegations of Ibadis being from the Kharijites, or having a Kharijite origin, a gross lie used to slander members of that community. Or is there any truth to such a claim, and that the Ibadi attempt to disentangle themselves from the Kharijites is nothing more than a sleight of hands to say the least?