When History Differs by Sect: Sectarian Narratives of Ibn ʿAbbās’s Debate with the Khārijites at Nahrawān during the First Fitna (35 – 41 AH)
Narratives of Ibn ʿAbbās’s debate with the Khārijites at Nahrawān vary across Islamic sectarian traditions. This article explores these differences through Sunni, Shiʿi, and Ibāḍī narratives.
The third caliph, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, was killed toward the end of the year 35 AH by rebels who had come from various regions of the Islamic state. Disorder prevailed in Medina for a time, after which ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib was pledged allegiance as caliph, becoming the fourth of the Rashidun Caliphs.
The new caliph was compelled to lead his army to fight certain groups that rejected his rule. In the year 36 AH, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib marched to Basra and succeeded in crushing the opposition movement led by Lady ʿĀʾisha, al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām, and Ṭalḥa ibn ʿUbayd Allāh. The following year, ʿAlī headed to the region of Ṣiffīn, where he fought the Syrian army led by the governor Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān.
Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, who died in 310 AH, recounts the events of that battle in his book The History of Prophets and Kings, speaking of the fall of thousands of dead on both sides. Historical accounts confirm that the Iraqi army came close to achieving a decisive victory, and that when the Syrians sensed imminent defeat, they raised copies of the Qurʾān on the tips of their spears and called for a truce and an end to the fighting.
The fourth caliph tried to persuade his soldiers to continue the battle, but many of the army’s leaders inclined toward reconciliation and a ceasefire. In the end, ʿAlī accepted the truce, and the two warring parties agreed that two arbitrators—one from the people of Iraq and one from the people of Syria—would meet in Dūmat al-Jandal to find a solution to the conflict and the civil war. A group of Iraqi soldiers opposed this agreement, and some of them openly proclaimed the famous slogan, “No judgment but God’s.” That group left ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s camp and encamped in the area of Ḥarūrāʾ, becoming known as the Ḥarūriyya; later, Sunni and Shiʿi sources referred to them as the Khārijites.
ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib attempted to convince them of the soundness of his position, so he sent his cousin ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAbbās to debate with them and explain the caliph’s viewpoint. Indeed, Ibn al-ʿAbbās visited them and debated their leaders. Accounts of that debate have been transmitted to us in many historical sources. In this article, we shed light on three different narratives of that debate, to see how its details differed in Sunni, Shiʿi, and Ibāḍī sources.
The Debate According to the Sunni Narrative
The story of this debate appears in many Sunni sources, among them Sunan al-Nasāʾī, whose author died in 303 AH. According to this account, ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAbbās went to debate the Khārijites and asked them to specify the points for which they resented the caliph. The Khārijites replied that there were three issues that had led them to part ways with ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
The first issue was that ʿAlī had “allowed men to judge in a matter belonging to God, while God says: ‘Judgment belongs to none but God.’ What business do men have with judgment?”
The second issue was that ʿAlī had fought his opponents in the Battles of the Camel and Ṣiffīn: “He fought, yet he neither took captives nor seized spoils. If they were unbelievers, their captives and property would have been lawful; and if they were believers, then neither fighting them nor taking them captive was lawful.”
The Khārijites defined the third issue as ʿAlī’s action after agreeing to arbitration, when he “erased his title ‘Commander of the Faithful’; if he was not the Commander of the Faithful, then he was the commander of the unbelievers.”
The report states that Ibn al-ʿAbbās asked his opponents:
“If I recite to you from the Book of God, exalted is He, and from the Sunnah of His Prophet that which refutes your claims, will you then recant?” The Khārijites agreed. Ibn al-ʿAbbās then began to refute the three issues for which they had condemned the caliph. He said regarding their first claim—that men were allowed to judge in a matter belonging to God—that he would recite to them from the Book of God evidence that God Himself had delegated judgment to men in a matter involving the value of a quarter of a dirham. God, exalted and blessed, commanded that men judge in such a case, as in His saying: “O you who believe, do not kill game while you are in a state of consecration; and whoever among you kills it intentionally, the penalty is an equivalent from livestock to what he killed, as judged by two just men among you.”
Ibn al-ʿAbbās explained that this was part of God’s judgment, which He had entrusted to men, and that had He willed, He could have judged directly. Thus, judgment by men was permitted. He then adjured them by God, asking whether men judging to reconcile people and prevent the shedding of blood was more deserving than judging over the value of a rabbit. He further cited God’s saying regarding a woman and her husband: “And if you fear a breach between them, then send an arbiter from his family and an arbiter from her family.” Again, he adjured them by God: was men’s judgment to reconcile people and prevent bloodshed more deserving than their judgment concerning the marital rights of a woman?
The account affirms that the Khārijites agreed with Ibn al-ʿAbbās on this point. He then moved on to the second issue and said:
“Do you consider it permissible to take your mother ʿĀʾisha captive”—referring to her defeat in the Battle of the Camel—“and to deem lawful from her what you deem lawful from others, when she is your mother? If you say that you deem lawful from her what you deem lawful from others, you have disbelieved; and if you say that she is not your mother, you have disbelieved, for God says: ‘The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.’ Thus, you are caught between two paths of error—so find a way out of this.”
Ibn al-ʿAbbās then turned to the third issue and said:
“On the day of al-Ḥudaybiyya, the Prophet of God made peace with the polytheists and said to ʿAlī: ‘Write, O ʿAlī: This is what Muḥammad, the Messenger of God, has agreed upon.’ They”—meaning the disbelievers of Mecca—said: ‘If we knew that you were the Messenger of God, we would not have fought you.’ The Messenger of God then said: ‘Erase it, O ʿAlī. O God, You know that I am the Messenger of God. Erase it, O ʿAlī, and write: This is what Muḥammad son of ʿAbd Allāh has agreed upon.’ By God, the Messenger of God was better than ʿAlī, yet he erased his own title, and erasing it did not erase his prophethood.”
The narrative concludes that the Khārijites were unable to respond to Ibn al-ʿAbbās and acknowledged his victory over them in the debate. Some of them returned to ʿAlī’s army, while others persisted in their opposition and obstinacy.
The Debate According to the Shiʿi Narrative
The story of Ibn ʿAbbās’s debate with the Khārijites also appears in Shiʿi sources, among them Kitāb al-Futūḥ by Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, who died in 314 AH. In this account, there is a clear influence of Twelver Shiʿi doctrine, especially the ideas of following the Ahl al-Bayt and emulating the designated successor and infallible imam who inherits the Prophet’s spiritual authority after his death.
Ibn Aʿtham relates that the fourth caliph summoned Ibn ʿAbbās and said to him: “Go to these people and see what they are about and why they have gathered.” Ibn ʿAbbās went to meet the Khārijites and asked them to choose one of their number to debate with him. One of them came forward, a man named ʿAttāb ibn al-Aʿwar al-Thaʿlabī. Ibn ʿAbbās began the discussion and said to ʿAttāb:
“Tell me about this abode of Islam—do you know to whom it belongs and who built it?” The Khārijite replied: “Yes, it belongs to God, mighty and exalted, and He built it through the hands of His prophets and those who obeyed Him. Then He commanded those prophets He sent to it to order the nations to worship none but Him. Some believed and some disbelieved, and the last of the prophets He sent to it was Muḥammad.”
Ibn ʿAbbās asked:
“Did Muḥammad have anyone who would take charge of maintaining this abode after him, or not?” The Khārijite replied: “Yes, he had Companions, members of his Household, a designated successor, and descendants who would take charge of maintaining this abode after him.” Ibn ʿAbbās said: “Did they do so, or did they not?” He replied: “Yes, they did; they maintained and inhabited this abode after him.” Ibn ʿAbbās then said: “Tell me now about this abode after him: is it today as Muḥammad left it, complete in its construction and sound in its boundaries, or is it ruined and its boundaries neglected?” The Khārijite replied: “Rather, it is neglected in its boundaries and in ruins.”
Ibn ʿAbbās said:
“Was it his descendants who were put in charge of this ruin, or his community?” He replied: “Rather, his community.” Ibn ʿAbbās said: “Then tell me—are you from the community or from the descendants?” He replied: “I am from the community.” Ibn ʿAbbās said: “O ʿAttāb! Then tell me how you hope for salvation from the Fire when you are from a community that has ruined the abode of God and the abode of His Messenger and neglected its boundaries?” ʿAttāb responded: “Indeed we belong to God and to Him we shall return. Woe to you, O Ibn ʿAbbās! By God, you have used a stratagem until you have involved me in a grave matter and bound me with an argument that has made me among those who ruined the abode of God. But woe to you, O Ibn ʿAbbās—what is the way out and deliverance from what I am in?”
The account states that Ibn ʿAbbās said to ʿAttāb:
“The way out of that is for you to strive to rebuild what the community has ruined of the abode of Islam… The first thing you must do in that regard is to know who strove to ruin this abode, so that you oppose him, and to know who seeks to rebuild it, so that you support him.” ʿAttāb and those around him among the Khārijites realized that the only path to their salvation was to follow ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, as one of the foremost builders of the abode of Islam and the sole legitimate heir of the Prophet.
However, ʿAttāb then returned to criticizing ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s acceptance of arbitration. Ibn ʿAbbās replied by explaining:
“Woe to you, O ʿAttāb! We have found arbitration in the Book of God, mighty and exalted. God, exalted is He, says: ‘So send an arbiter from his family and an arbiter from her family; if they desire reconciliation, God will cause harmony between them.’ And He says: ‘to be judged by two just men from among you.’”
Ibn Aʿtham relates that the Khārijites objected that ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ—one of the two arbitrators—was not among the “just men” referred to in those Qurʾanic verses. Ibn ʿAbbās replied:
“O people! Was ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ a judge on our behalf, that you should use him as an argument against us? He was only an arbitrator for Muʿāwiya. The Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī, wished to send me so that I might be his arbitrator, but you refused and said: ‘We are satisfied with Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī.’ By my life, Abū Mūsā was upright in himself, in his companionship, his Islam, and his early service, but he was deceived and thus said what he said. The deception of Abū Mūsā by ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ does not bind us. So fear your Lord and return to what you were upon—obedience to the Commander of the Faithful. Even if he is temporarily refraining from claiming his right, he is only waiting for the appointed time to pass, after which he will return to fighting the people. ʿAlī is not one to abandon a right that God has granted him.”
The narrative ends by affirming Ibn ʿAbbās’s victory over ʿAttāb ibn al-Aʿwar in the debate, and that the Khārijites nevertheless persisted in their position and refused to return to the Iraqi army.
The Debate According to the Ibāḍī Narrative
The story of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAbbās’s debate with the Khārijites appears in many Ibāḍī sources. The Ibāḍī school is attributed to ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ibāḍ, who died in 89 AH, and it agrees with the Khārijites/Ḥarūriyya on many beliefs and ideas, particularly regarding the view that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib erred by accepting arbitration at the Battle of Ṣiffīn.
Many Ibāḍī beliefs are evident in this debate, foremost among them reliance solely on the Qurʾān and the Sunnah, as well as the view that the probity of many Companions who participated in the events of the civil strife and internal war should be rejected. The Ibāḍī scholar Badr al-Dīn al-Shammākhī, who died in 928 AH, mentions in his book al-Siyar that when Ibn al-ʿAbbās debated the Ḥarūriyya and addressed the issue of arbitration, he argued that God had commanded the arbitration of men in cases of hunting while in a state of consecration and in disputes between a husband and wife. The Ḥarūriyya replied:
“Arbitration by two judges in the case of a man and a woman, and in the case of a bird, is something for which God has referred judgment to upright men. But this matter”—by which they meant fighting rebels—“has come with a ruling from God, like adultery, theft, and false accusation, and no human being may judge in it contrary to God’s judgment. If an imam wished to cut off the hand of a thief and people said to him, ‘Let us appoint two judges to rule on it,’ would he have the right to appoint them, or should he carry out God’s judgment?”
The Ḥarūriyya then moved on to speak about the condition of the two arbitrators—Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, representing the Iraqi army, and ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, representing the Syrian army—who met at Dūmat al-Jandal. They said:
“Is ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ an upright man, when he openly declared enmity and rebellion, sold his religion for Egypt, and shed the blood of Muslims unjustly? And Abū Mūsā—the one who discouraged people from jihad?” They then explained that affirming the uprightness of one party necessarily entails acknowledging the error of the opposing party, since it is impossible for both sides to be right. They said: “If ʿAmr is upright while he is fighting us, then we are in the wrong; yet he had reviled the Messenger of God in seventy verses of poetry, concerning which the Prophet said: ‘O God, I do not compose poetry, so curse him with a curse for every verse he recited.’ And if he is upright, then we testify that ʿAmmār and those martyred with him were killed upon falsehood and error…”
Al-Shammākhī affirms that Ibn al-ʿAbbās acknowledged his defeat in the debate and returned to ʿAlī, saying to him: “The people have bested you in argument.” The caliph was then compelled to go out himself to debate the Ḥarūriyya, and according to Ibāḍī sources, they prevailed over him as well.
The contemporary Ibāḍī scholar Sālim ibn Ḥamad ibn Sulaymān al-Ḥārithī mentions in his book al-ʿUqūd al-Fiḍḍiyya fī Uṣūl al-Ibāḍiyya that when ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib resolved to fight the Ḥarūriyya and asked Ibn al-ʿAbbās to join him in battle, Ibn al-ʿAbbās refused and abstained, explaining:
“No, by God, I will not fight a people who have bested me in argument in this world; and on the Day of Resurrection they will indeed be my opponents, while ʿAlī will be stronger. If I am not with them, I will not be against them…”
After that, Ibn al-ʿAbbās left ʿAlī’s camp, abandoned the fighting, and chose to withdraw from politics for the remainder of his life.