The main quality of Khawarij, as described in the live session was that they accused the rulers of corruption and continued it with an extremely violent rebellion against them. Throughout the Muslim History we find that whenever one dynasty overthrows its predecessors such events had always occurred . For example when the Abassids took over from the Umayyids such accusations and violent rebellion including large scale killings had taken place. Even Al Saud expansion over the Saudi Arabian peninsula saw large scale killing of Muslims under the banner of Islam. So how do we differentiate between these expansionist movements, from the Khawarij?

It is important to remember that the Khawarij are characterized by a number of traits, including takfeer of the Muslim rulers, takfeer of those who oppose their views, outward (superficial) piety, and extreme violence. Although we may find one or two of these traits in one group or another, that doesn’t mean that this particular group can be branded Khawarij. Although the linguistic meaning of Khawarij (i.e., rebels) may apply to them, the Shareeah meaning (i.e., rebelling against the Muslim community AND the Sunnah) may not.

Regarding the Abbasids, although they did employ violence in overthrowing the Umayyids, they never declared the rulers of Banu Umayya disbelievers or made takfeer of anyone else. In contrast, the Khawarij sub-sects, during the same period, did exactly that.

So even if we find one trait or another in a particular group, that is not enough to declare them Khawarij. It is the convergence of most or all of these traits mentioned in the Sunnah that would lead us to conclude that such a group are Khawarij, as is the case with ISIL, Boko Haram, Shabab, and all the other extremists causing havoc today.