Nasb-and-the-Nawasib

However, it should be noticed that the opposition of the Khawārij of ʿAlī I
remained as was without progressing in any way. This was due to the following
reasons:
1.
2.
3.
They had already reached the furthest possible extent, i.e. they had
excommunicated him and deemed his blood permissible to shed.
They would not consider lying admissible, even if it be against their
opponents, hence Khawārij with their various sects were all free from
lying. 1 Ibn Taymiyah has stated that they would not lie and were not
people who would intentionally lie, 2 but were rather known for their
truthfulness. To the extent that their narrations are the most authentic
of narrations. 3
They were preoccupied in fighting against the Umayyad and the Abbasid
dynasties which lasted for a very long period, especially with the Umayyads. 4
Hence rebelling against their governors and killing them one after the
other was their main occupation. They would only go undercover when
they needed to replenish their sources and increase their numbers. 5
Hence it would justified to conclude that the open hatred for ʿAlī I initially
came to the fore in Shām because the people thereof refused to pledge allegiance
to ʿAlī I and took up arms against him in Ṣiffīn. Subsequent to that it took
root in Iraq, but it gained a lot of traction in Shām as a result only very few people
were safe from it. 6
As opposed to Iraq where criticism for ʿAlī I did exist but to a very limited
extent, when compared to the criticism of ʿUthmān I which prevailed there,
1 Al-Kāmil fī al-Adab 2/106.
2 Ibid. 1/68.
3 Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah 5/154, 6/344, 7/192, 260.
4 Ibid. 2/90.
5 Al-Khawārij, Tārīkhuhum wa ʾĀrāʾuhum al-Iʿtiqādiyyah p. 129.
6 Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 3/128.
159