“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally in that. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)
﷽
Analyzing the Hadith: Khawarij are the dogs of hellfire!!
This is an analysis of the hadith that are attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw), in terms of their chains of narration and analysis of the text being transmitted Insh’Allah.
This particular hadith which has been put in the mouth of the Blessed Messenger (saw) has him insult, revile and curse his companions!
Before we start dear reader one should be reminded. What I am about to share with you be extremely careful in what you attribute to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Narrated by Ali: “The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whosoever tells a lie against me then he will surely enter the hell-fire.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:106)
Narrated By ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair: ” I said to my father, ‘I do not hear from you any narration (Hadith) of Allah s Apostle as I hear (his narrations) from so and so?” Az-Zubair replied. l was always with him (the Prophet) and I heard him saying “Whoever tells a lie against me then (surely) let him occupy, his seat in Hell-fire.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:107)
Narrated By Anas: “The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet said: “Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:108)
Narrated By Al-Mughira: “I heard the Prophet saying, “Ascribing false things to me is not like ascribing false things to anyone else. Whosoever tells a lie against me intentionally then surely let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire.” I heard the Prophet saying, “The deceased who is wailed over is tortured for that wailing.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1291)
There are two options here. If you lied about the Blessed Prophet (saw) intentionally than you will be in the hellfire. If you lied about the Prophet (saw) unintentionally you still need to make tauba (repentance) and vow to never repeat such again.
Ibn Sirin said:
“Nobody used to ask about the isnad (chain of narration), but when the fitna occurred (infighting among the companions), they would question others by asking: “Tell us the names of your men?” After this they were cautious about every narrator, and they would take narrations from those who were known to be scrupulous in following the Sunnah, and leave (or reject) the narrations of those who were known as innovators in religion.”
Source: (Muslim Volume 1 P. 15)
HADITH: KHAWARIJ ARE THE DOGS OF HELLFIRE.
This huge statement attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) comes to us by way of two transmissions attributed to two companions.
Hadith #1 The first is by way of Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa.
‘Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa
It was narrated that Ibn Awfa said:
“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.'”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:173)
Hadith #2 This hadith is by way of Abu Umamah said:
“(The Khawarij) are the worst of the slain who are killed under heaven, and the best of the slain are those who were killed by them. “Those (Khawarij) are the dogs of Hell. Those people were Muslims but they became disbelievers.” I said: “O Abu Umamah, is that your opinion?” He said: “Rather I heard IT from the Messenger of Allah.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:176)
Now let us analyze the chains of transmissions.
An example of difference in the text when Abu Ghalib claims to narrate from Abu Umamah:
“Abu Umamah saw heads (of the Khawarij) hanging on the streets of Damascus. He said: ‘The dogs of the Fire and the worst dead people under the canopy of the heavens. The best dead men are those whom these have killed.’ He then recited: On the Day when some faces will become white and some faces will become black… (3:106) until the end of the Ayah. I said to Abu Umamah: ‘Did you hear IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw)?’ He said: ‘If I had not heard IT but one time, or two times, or three times, or four times – until he reached seven – I would not have narrated it to you.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3000)
ANALYZING THE FOUR CHAINS THROUGH ABU UMAMAH AL BAHILI
1. Abu Ghalib
Ibn Hibban says we cannot take his hadith.
An Nasai’ says he is weak.
Ibn Sa’d also says he is weak.
Yahya ibn Ma’in & Tirmidhi both comment that he is a good transmitter.
Al Dhahabi comments that in all of his (Abu Ghalib’s) narrations there is something.
2. Safewan bin Suliam Almadni
He did not meet Abu Umamah Al Bahili
He met with another Abu Umamah As Said ibn Suhair ibn Hanif
On account of that Ibn Hajar Al Asqalni commented that it is possible this transmission is cut off.
And it is proven that it has a cut as he did not meet the one he claims to transmit from. The lack of ‘an ‘an, that he was listening makes this clear he did not get from the source. This is why in the matn it says: “He entered” he did not say, “I heard from…” “I listened..” In the narration when the hadith is a strong and correct hadith the wording will be: “I saw him”, “I met him”, “I listened from him”
3. Shadad ibn Abdillah Abi Ammar
Ibn Hajar-says He is sincere; however, the hadith is musral. The sahaba is cut off.
3a. Ikrima ibn Ammar
Ibn Hajar says: sincere but a faulty individual.
His narration through Yahya ibnu Kathir -His hadith via this route is Maqloob.
Fulaan yasriq al-Hadith -so and so steals Hadith.
4. Siyar Ashami Al Amawi
Virtually none of the people of Jarh wa Tadeel has given him trust, with the exception of Al Bukhari. Even than it is not that Bukhari gave him trust but Bukhari uses him in Tarikh Al Kabir.
Ibn Hibban gives him trust. However, it is noted that Ibn Hibban is lax when giving trust to narrators.
No other is with Ibn Hibban considering him.
Ibn Abi Hatim in his Al Jarh wa Tadeel claims no one gives Siyar Ashami Al Amawi trust.
Al Dhahabi says of him ‘wuthiq’ and not ‘thiqa’. This indicates weakness in Siyar Ashami Al Amawi.
4a. Abi Saeed Abur Rahman bin Abdillah Al Basri
He is a mawla (client) of Bani Hashim. He is a Shaykh for Ahmed bin Hanbal.
Ibn Hajar says about him: He is sincere but may have faults.
Imam Al Uqali says Imam Ahmed mentioned that his teacher had “many faults”.
Al Qabani also says that Imam Ahmed found found fault in his teacher.
The chain for this hadith is: Abu Bakr bin Abi Shayba narrates from Ishaq bin Yusuf bin Mrdas narrating from Sulaiman bin Mahran al-Ahmash narrating from Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa.
ANALYZING THE TWO CHAINS THROUGH ABDULLAH IBN ABI AWFA
1. al-Amash
al-Amash is known as Mudallas.
A Mudallas (“concealed”) in hadith is one which is weak due to the uncertainty caused by tadlis. Tadlis (concealing) refers to an isnad where a reporter has concealed the identity of his Shaykh.
Tadlis al-Isnad. A person reports from his Shaykh whom he met, what he did not hear from him, or from a contemporary of his whom he did not meet, in such a way as to create the impression that he heard the hadith in person. A mudallis (one who practices tadlis) here usually uses the mode (“on the authority of”) or (“he said”) to conceal the truth about the isnad.
There is agreement that al-Amash did not meet Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa.
2. Saeed Ibnu Jamhan via Allalakaee via two ways:
2a. Allalakaee -via- Hashragu Ibnu Nabatha
Ibn Hajar says about him (Hashraju): Truthful but forgets allot.
2b. Allalakaee-via- Qutnu ibnu Nusair
Ibn Hajar says about him: Truthful but forgets allot.
Abu Zuhra says he is carrying something in his heart about that man.
Ibnul Adei says that he is stealing the hadith. Fulaan yasriq al-Hadith -so and so steals Hadith
MATN (TEXTUAL) CRITICISM OF THE HADITH: KHAWARIJ ARE THE DOGS OF HELLFIRE.
The statement:
“The dogs of the Fire and the worst dead people under the canopy of the heavens. The best dead men are those whom these have killed.”
This is not from pure Arabic grammar and the Prophet (saw) did not speak like this.
The statement: “Did you hear IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw)?’ He said: ‘If I had not heard IT but one time, or two times, or three times, or four times – until he reached seven – I would not have narrated it to you.”
Is hardly believable. This is a huge hadith this is not something light or small. Where are the other sahaba, companions?
This hadith is giving a hukm! It is talking about taking the life of others, which is not a small matter.
How are we to believe that especially in light of the claim of one narrator that the Prophet (saw) mentioned as such seven times! Only 1 or 2 have heard this!?
After 64 hijri, this hadith mentions this term ‘khawarij’ which was not there in the time of the Prophet (saw).
Dr. Salahuddin ibn Ahmad al-Idlib says this hadith is mawdu, it is lies!
Source: (Manhaj Naqd al-Matn ‘Inda ‘Ulama’ al-Hadith al-Nabawi (منهج نقد المتن عند علماء الحديث النبوي) page 362)
Translated from the above:
Concerning the Condemnation of the Khawarij: Ibn Majah narrated from Ibn Abi Awfa that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said:
“The Khawarij are the dogs of Hellfire.” (1)
The fabricators did not neglect condemning the Rawafid (a term for some Shi’a sects), so they fabricated hadiths for that purpose. Among them is what Ibn al-Jawzi narrated from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said:
[There will be] “The Qadariyyah, the Murji’ah, and the Rawafid.” (2)
And in Al-Mawdu’at (The Fabricated Hadiths), it is also narrated from Anas that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said:
“The Qadariyyah, the Jabriyyah, the Murji’ah, the Rawafid, and the Khawarij will be stripped of a quarter of Tawhid (monotheism), so they will meet Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, as disbelievers, abiding eternally in Hellfire.” (3)
These labels (for sects) did not exist during the time of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), so it is not permissible to attribute these hadiths condemning them and insulting them to him.
The Second Issue: Fabricated Hadiths in Support of Jurisprudential Schools (Madhahib)
Ijtihad (legal reasoning) in subsidiary jurisprudential matters led to the emergence of different schools of thought (Madhahib). Each jurisprudential school had its principles, conclusions, and theories. Each group would support its viewpoint with what it understood from the texts of the Noble Quran and what was narrated from His Messenger (peace be upon him).
“Regrettably, some ignorant zealots among the followers of the jurists were not content to limit their evidence to sound, established texts. Instead, they wanted to silence their opponents with decisive proofs that did not accept rebuttal, even if they were not proven. Thus, they began to compose forged hadiths and attribute them to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).“
(1) Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 172
(2) Al-Mawdu’at (Ibn al-Jawzi), Vol. 1, p. 272
(3) Al-Mawdu’at (Ibn al-Jawzi), Vol. 1, p. 278
Notice that to Abu Ghalib this is not some common knowledge or something well known.
Also, note that he asked Abu Umamah if that was his opinion or rather he heard IT from the Blessed Messenger (saw). Another point of consideration is that the ‘it‘ is not qualified. What part of his statement is he actually saying he heard from the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Notice the statement of takfir “They used to be Muslims but they became disbelievers.”
The very thing they accuse the so called ‘Khawarij’ of doing are that which they themselves are doing!
Do take note of the following!
Notice how apparently this individual takes an ayat of the Qur’an that is used to describe unbelievers and arguably applies the text to believers (or former believers). Again, something they accuse the so called ‘Khawarij’ of doing!
Also, notice the ghastly image the narrator finds in Damascus. The heads of these people are on pikes: “Abu Umamah saw heads (of the Khawarij) hanging on the streets of Damascus.”
Now, that sounds like something that an imperium would do against dissenters.
Lastly, this text differs remarkably from the first one. Unless someone wants to make the spacious argument that Abu Ghalib is relating two different instances. That makes the matter worse because it makes Abu Ghalib question Abu Umamah’s statement as being truthful on two different occasions!
Also, it is extremely telling to note that Abu Umamah al Bahili was in the battle of Siffin on the side of Ali, even after the events.
OVER ALL ASSEMENT OF THE THREE HADITH ABOVE.
The Blessed Messenger (saw) never call people dogs.
The strongest condemnation of unbelievers and those who reject the message of truth comes from Allah (swt) in the Qur’an: “Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6).
Allah (swt) never called anyone dogs, let alone the Blessed Messenger (saw)
Now dear reader imagine you are walking with a friend of yours. This friend suddenly says, “And the Litharians are the worst of people! They are absolute scum!”
Wouldn’t that be odd? Wouldn’t you want to have some context to this statement?
Considering this statement: “dogs of hellfire” coming from the lips of the Blessed Messenger (saw) it should have more context and more background to it and it simply doesn’t!
It just gives the impression that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was walking around during the brisk afternoon and stated: “The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.” Really? Just like that?
No context?
The three hadith quoted above give you absolutely no context. Now what Ahl Sunnah does is that they take these hadith and juxtapose them besides other hadith to paint a picture. However, these hadith quoted above give no picture, no context and no clue to the situation that has given rise to the very strong words that are allegedly used by the Blessed Messenger (saw).
This is a huge statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw). Only two of the companions narrate this?
The other point is that the word ‘Khawarij’ was not in use in the time of 640 Hijra. This is a tell tale sign itself.
Now, if we want to talk about a hadith that talks about rebels or those who do khurooj. Why not talk about a hadith that has no ambiguity in the text or in its chain of transmission? Then we can know who these ‘khawarij’ are.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2812)
Now this presents a clear dilemma for Ahl Sunnah and the Pro Alid camp. They are in a pickle. However, it does not present a dilemma for truth seekers.
Are we to believe that Ikrima (ra) whom is an impeccable narrator, and whom narrated the above hadith about Ammar that is used by the pro Alid camp to attack the Umayyad’s was among the dogs of the hellfire?
Or,
Is it more likely given the ambiguity of the ‘dogs of the hell fire’ text quoted above, no context for such a tremendous statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw), and the issues surrounding the chains of transmission that they are indeed fabrications with malevolent intent?
May Allah (swt) open your hearts and your eyes dear Ummah! Muslims are to be guided by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Our noble scholars lead the way.
The Amir of the Muslims is the head of the Muslims. It is not a theocracy. It is a human government. One in which the head of state can make mistakes and can be removed from office! Peacefully preferably and forcibly if need be.
I recommend the following articles for you dear reader. Remember the victors write history and know that Allah (swt) will allow the truth to prevail in the end.
Say, ‘Truth has come and falsehood has been banished; it is doomed to banishment.'” (Qur’an 17:81)
Dogs of hellfire? Who really believes that animals are going to hell?
This article addresses the bizarre belief that Allah (swt) has a goat into hell ….well…just because.
https://primaquran.com/2023/02/24/do-muslims-believe-animals-can-go-to-hell
Defending the noble companion Hurqus ibn Zuhair (ra) from the slander of Ahl Sunnah.
https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/analyzing-the-chains-of-abu-said-al-khudri-concerning-the-khawarij
Prima Quran 