Hadith 4667

حَدَّثَنَا مُسْلِمُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، حَدَّثَنَا الْقَاسِمُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ ، عَنْ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : "تَمْرُقُ مَارِقَةٌ عِنْدَ فُرْقَةٍ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَقْتُلُهَا أَوْلَى الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ بِالْحَقِّ " .
Abu Saeed reported the Messenger of Allah ﷺ as saying: In the event of the dissension among Muslims an emerging sect will emerge ; one of the two parties that is nearer to the truth will kill it.
Hadith Reference سنن ابي داود / كتاب السنة / 4667
Hadith Grading الألبانی: صحيح  |  زبیر علی زئی: صحيح مسلم (1065)
Hadith Takhrij « صحیح مسلم/الزکاة 47 (1064)، (تحفة الأشراف: 44370)، وقد أخرجہ: مسند احمد (3/32، 97) (صحیح) »
Related hadith on this topic
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi
Benefits and Issues:
➊ The existence of individuals or groups among Muslims holding differing opinions is possible, among whom certainly only one will be upon the truth while the other will be distant from it. However, as long as no clear and explicit false belief or action becomes apparent, a ruling of misguidance should not be passed upon them. Rather, understanding should be sought through knowledge and wisdom, and as much as possible, silence should be maintained regarding their propagation and publicity; only in this way can such a tribulation be suppressed.

➋ In this hadith, there is a mention of the prophecy regarding the emergence of the Khawarij. This hadith is a proof of the truthfulness of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), because the emergence of the Khawarij occurred exactly in accordance with this hadith. This event took place in 32–38 AH, when fighting was ongoing between Ali and Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhuma). At that time, the sect of the Khawarij emerged from Nahrawan, and Ali (radi Allahu anhu) fought against them and inflicted a crushing defeat upon them. On the basis of such ahadith, Ali (radi Allahu anhu) is considered closer to the truth (aqrab ila al-haqq) compared to Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu).

➌ In this, both groups who fought each other have been called Muslims; therefore, regarding Ali and Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhuma) and their companions, it is necessary to withhold the tongue (remain silent) instead of criticism and reproach, because both were Muslims and upon the truth, though one was more correct (ahaqq).

➍ The group that was seditious or had departed from the religion was that of the Khawarij, not the group of Ali or Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhuma); both of them were great groups among the Muslims.
Source: Sunan Abu Dawood – Commentary by Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi, Page: 4667
Shaykh Maulana Abdul Aziz Alvi
Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: In accordance with the prophecy of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), after him the Ummah was divided into two groups regarding the killers of Uthman (radi Allahu anhu). One group was with Ali (radi Allahu anhu) and the other with Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu). Both groups considered their own stance to be correct; one group had one perspective before them, and the other had another perspective. Both were people of intellect and insight, and were among those capable of resolving matters, and were characterized by sincerity of intention.

However, the stance of Ali (radi Allahu anhu) was closer to the truth, and adopting or choosing it was more correct and sound. But the other group was not entirely upon falsehood or injustice. Therefore, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not refute or declare this group to be in error, because they too had adopted their stance with complete sincerity and deliberation. Thus, to use inappropriate words against this group or its leader, or to harbor hatred and malice against them, is not a commendable act. While the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not even declare them to be at fault or sinful, how then can it be proven from declaring their opponents as "closer to the truth" or "more deserving of the truth" that the other had no connection or relation to the truth at all?

Furthermore, even if a mujtahid (independent jurist) errs, he is not deprived of reward. Therefore, how can one extend the tongue of reproach against him? Ali (radi Allahu anhu) himself said about the other group:

(أَنَّ رَبَّنَا وَاحِدٌ(1)
,
وَنَبِيَّنَا وَاحِدٌ،
وَدَعْوَتَنَا فِي الاِْسْلاَمِ وَاحِدَةٌ،
لاَ نَسْتَزِيدُهُمْ فِي الاِْيمَانِ(2)
بِاللهِ وَالتَّصْدِيقِ بِرَسُولِهِ (صلى الله عليه وآله)
,
وَلاَ يَسْتَزِيدُونَنَا،
الاَْمْرُ وَاحِدٌ،
إِلاَّ مَا اخْتَلَفْنَا فِيهِ مِنْ دَمِ عُثْمانَ،
وَنَحْنُ مِنْهُ بَرَاءٌ!)

(Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 2, page 114, researched by Imam Abduh, referenced in Rahmaa Baynahum, part 4, page 183)

"Our Lord is one, our Prophet is one, our call in Islam is one. In faith in Allah and in affirming His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), neither are they ahead of us nor are we ahead of them; our religious matter is the same as theirs. But regarding the blood of Uthman (radi Allahu anhu), we differ from them, though we are free from responsibility for it."

And the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) himself referred to both these groups as (فِئَتَيْنِ عَظِيمَتَيْنِ مِنَ المُسْلِمِينَ) "two great groups among the Muslims." (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, page 530)
Source: Tuhfat al-Muslim: Commentary on Sahih Muslim, Page: 2461