"Fatwa" on the tribute to the Hanbali and a meeting of the "heads of the people of fire" in a ministerial council ... the scientific dispute between the crime of intolerance and the employment of politics

Muhammad the fisherman

Some try to highlight exclusion between Islamic currents and doctrines as the origin, and that the spirit of humanity, mutual friendliness, and tolerance was a margin; the fact that all scholars ’determination that“ one of the people of the qiblah ”is not permissible” was the rule that refutes that claim, because the scholars distinguished between the dispute Scientific within the seminars and between exclusion, atonement and desertion, as well as intervention to change the scientific scene by hand.

In this article, we strive to unveil the philosophy of disagreement between Islamic schools of thought and members of the scientific community, and scholars were keen to keep the scientific dispute within the framework of the scientific lesson in order to push for any civil strife, although this was not sometimes achieved due to the scholarly disagreement affected by personal and sectarian interests, as well as political factors As a result of the authority's use of this dispute and its creation of a sector it belongs to among the group of scholars.

Systematic separation
The fundamentalist and subordinate dispute is considered normal in doctrines and religions, since the heavenly texts are sometimes deterministic in terms of evidence or evidence, and sometimes presumptions are indicative or established, and then the eyes of the mujtahids differ in them. This is if the discussion about the pure scientific issue is deprived of the environment and the context in which there may be human symptoms and personal interests, and so on the effects of understanding the texts that cause differences between the scientific community.

But the problem that has aggravated the religious scene is beyond the natural scientific dispute. If the philosophical, verbal, and juristic / scientific reason in general is to draw the ranks of the dispute and set its controls in fundamentalist and verbal discussions, then there is an area related to the consequences of that scientific dispute socially, where it may lead - if not It is managed morally within the scientific community - to backfires that affect the community’s cohesion and cohesion, as has happened repeatedly.

The jurist / speaker / scientist in the first time when he spoke of the contractor or doctrinal violator, and threw it into immorality or delusion or innovation in some issues; he did this inside the scientific corridors and often from a scientific perspective, then restricting the fulfillment of rights in the hands of the judicial and executive authorities, so that he does not think People have the right to track and exclude those guilty, and as a matter of priority not to trace the superiority of the people from scholars of all sects due to a scientific dispute.

In this, the Imam Al-Haramain Al-Juwaini (d. 478 AH) - in his book 'Al-Ghayathi' - says this unique glowing phrase: "Rather, it was not made for individual people the month of arms, and the attempt of anchors in the care of righteousness and reclamation, because of the aversion of souls, parents and puerperals (= competition) , And conducive to fringe and deacon (= parenthood and nose).

In the words of Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi (d. 684 AH) in his book Al-Ahkam, for “the ruler (= judge) is required in the images agreed upon if it lacks the consideration and diligence and the liberation of causes, such as annulment of the marriage, or if its mandate for people leads to shrewdness and fighting, such as borders And condolences. " Al-Qarafi repeated this meaning a lot in a wrong place, justifying this by saying: "If it were made for the general public to speak (= behave) in it, the situation would be corrupted and money will be bad."

And referring to the judge here is not final as well, but rather to adapt the case jurisprudentially and pass judgment on it, then the implementation phase comes in the hands of the executive authority. Al-Qarafi pointed out - in "ammunition" - this glance. He said: "And not all rulers (= judges) have the power of execution, especially the weak ruler who has the ability to tyrants. He creates compulsion and does not notify him of his execution because he cannot do it. The ruler has only creation. As for the force of execution, it is more than a ruler. "

a precaution
The scholars have repeatedly emphasized the difference between the jurist, the mufti, the ruler, the imam or head of state, and that carrying people on a particular doctrinal doctrine in state institutions is one of the peculiarities of the head of the state, and that the judge rules between them, not with his doctrine or opinion, but with the approved doctrine of the state when it exists. All this negates the question of withdrawal of the dispute to society and its fueling.

We conclude from all of this that what happened from the goals between the groups and currents came originally as part of the scientific lesson, so he ran among the scholars and workers who are aware of its dimensions and purposes, and therefore they prevented the common people from "theology" so that atonement does not spread socially, because they are not qualified to understand the purposes of The words of this science and its reasons. Otherwise, it is not included in the scientific community’s work circles, but rather is at the heart of the functions of the Royal Institution.

And then there was a mutual need between the scientific and political groups, as strict scientific wings aimed at excluding their scientific opponents, especially if they could not scale them scientifically and reduce their followers in the public. Each side sometimes resorted to the Royal Institution to remove it from the other side or to reduce and stunt it.

The greatest evidence is that they did not intend behind the descriptions of wrongdoing with creativity and coordination other than the verbal lesson that the modernists approved the novel of the innovator if there are conditions for documentation, especially honesty, “We have believed him and invented him”, as Al-Dhahabi says (T 748 AH) in the 'balance of moderation'. Likewise, the jurists accepted the tradition of the evildoer in disagreement, and some of them permitted the tradition of the innovated mujtahid, which indicates that these scholars distinguish between the scientific dispute and its degrees, as well as their distinction between the scholarly dispute and brotherhood under the shadows of one religion, and even one humanity.

Hajjah al-Islam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) - in “Savior of Delusion” - refers to this delicate glimpse when he warns that the scientific dispute will lead to “bloodshed, sabotaging the country, orphans of children, cutting off the road and raiding money.” He wants to keep the disagreement - no matter how fundamental and ideological - within the framework of the scientific lesson, and within the narrow scientific disagreement, without withdrawing to society and the public.

Difference and affection
Heritage books abound with models of the non-impact of the scientific dispute on societal relations between scholars of all sects and intellectual currents, including the story told by Al-Jahiz - in his book "The Animal" - about the cooperation of one of the imams of the Sunnis named Ibrahim bin Abdul Aziz (and perhaps the updated Abu Ishaq Al-Salhi: Ibrahim bin Abdul Aziz al-Salhi al-Baghdadi (d. 284 AH) with "Sheikh of the Mu'tazila" Ibrahim al-Nizam (d. 231 AH) and his sympathy for him at the time of his need and want.

Al-Jahiz reported that the regime Ibrahim had once seen that the regime was going through a financial hardship in its alienation from his country, Basra, so he sent to him saying: “If we differed in the article (= opinion and doctrine), then we return to the rights of morals and freedom (= honor of the soul and humanity)” And I saw you - where you passed me - if you hated it, and you should have taken off something (= I brought you out of your country), so if you want, stay in your place for a month or two, so we will send you some enough time for you .. And if you want to return, this is thirty dinars so take it And left, and you are more right than excuse "!!

Ibrahim Al-Sunni’s behavior with the Mu'tazili regime was only an echo and an embodiment of the narration narrated by Ibn Asaker (d. 571 AH) - in “History of Damascus” - when translating it to al-Shafi’i (d. 204 AH); on the authority of Yunus bin Abdel-Al-Al-Sadafi (d. 264 AH) - “He was the chief moderator And scholars in his time in Egypt. "According to Al-Dhahabi in 'Al-Sir' - he said:" One day I looked at a matter of Shafi’i and then parted, and he met me and took my hand and then said to me: O Abu Musa! Is it not right to be brothers and if we do not agree on a matter ?! "; Al-Shafi’i was a sheikh of al-Sadafi, and he was twenty years older than him !!

And Hafiz Al-Andalus Ibn Abdul Bar (d. 463 AH) - in the 'Mosque of the Statement of Knowledge and its Virtue' - mentioned that Ahmed bin Hanbal came to Ali bin Al-Madini (d. 234 AH) "riding on an animal ... and they matched and their voices rose" until some of those present feared that Jafaa falls between them ... When he wanted me to leave, Ahmad rose and took his passengers ", to help him ride his reverence and honor !!

This compassion was often condemned by the great scholars. The scholar Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795 AH) translates - in the 'tail of the Hanbali layers' - to the Sheikh of Sufism Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (d. 561 AH) and praises him, despite their difference in the method and method, so he says that it is " He was ... magnified by most of the elders of time from scholars and asceticism, and he has many honors and dignities. "

Mutual discipleship
According to Ibn al-Imad al-Hanbali (d. 1089 AH) - in “The Gold Nuggets” - al-Dhahabi was a disciple of Ali bin Masoud bin Nafis al-Musli (d. 704 AH) and he was one of the imams of Sufism in his era; although al-Dhahabi was the Imam of Salafism and the idol in his era, and a loyal disciple of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH).

Indeed, when he visited Egypt in the year 695 AH, Al-Dhahabi wore a robe of Sufism from Sheikh Ziauddin Issa bin Yahya al-Ansari al-Sabti. He used to differentiate between asceticism and worshipers who follow the path of the major, and between the sorcery and the owners of spam.

The position of al-Dhahabi here reminds us of the position of Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali (d. 513 AH), who was fair to Sufism until he sympathized with Abu Mansur al-Hallaj (309 AH) and wrote to defend him, and his esteemed Sufis who had sufism in the guidance of Sharia did not prevent him from criticizing the heresy of Sufism. The Sufi Imam Abu Ahmad Al-Jaloudi (d. 368 AH) - one of the narrators of Sahih Muslim - was a student of the Salafi Abu Bakr bin Khuzaimah (d. 311 AH), who is one of the great imams of the hadith.

And al-Dhahabi quotes - in the 'Al-Sir' - on the authority of the Andalusian Imam al-Baji (d. 474 AH) a narration from his Sheikh Abi Dhar al-Harawi (d. 435 AH) that his modern Imam al-Darqutni (d. 385 AH), the modern Salafi coincidentally met the Imam al-Baqalani (d. 402 e) of the Ash'ari speaker, embracing him and kissing him between His eyes; his hobby student asked him: "Who is this that you made with what I did not think you are making and you are the imam of your time?" Al-Dhahabi says that when Al-Baqalani died, "The Hanbali Sheikh Abu Al-Fadl Al-Tamimi ordered a caller saying in the hands of his funeral: This is the victory of the Sunnah and the religion and the one who defeated the law ... Then he visited his grave every Friday !!"

The bottom line is that the imams did not practice penance among them, and they linked personal, human and social relations outside the scientific lesson, so they married, consulted, coexisted, and cooperated, and they realized that there is competition and envy that some scholars may suffer, so they decided that “the words of the peers in one another are not to be filled with, especially If it is clear to you that it is enmity, doctrine, or envy that only escapes from God’s protection, and I did not know that an era of hurricane delivered to its people anything but the prophets and the righteous ”, according to the expression of the golden imam in the 'balance of moderation'.

New exclusion
Friendliness and mutual respect remained a feature of the great imams of the madhhabs and their students. Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) praised Ja`far al-Sadiq (d. 148 AH), and Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH) praised Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi’i used to say about his sheikh, Malik. The owner of the star! "

And with that reverence, Al-Suyuti says in Al-Maqamat: “Imam Al-Shafi’i responded to Imam Malik while he was his sheikh and what he used to call except‘ Al-Ustaz ’, and Al-Muzni responded (d. 264 AH) to his teacher Al-Shafi’i.” They distinguished well between the scientific dispute and the personal relationship. Their personal relationship, their affection, and their common knowledge among them were never affected by the pure scientific dispute, which - in the eyes of these imams - is part of the consideration and diligence guaranteed to every diligent.

But this thin thread of understanding was not held by all generations of scholars. After the generation of the great imams, a successor succeeded in narrowing the scientific horizon of many of them, or some of them made the scientific dispute a cover for personal, doctrinal, or political gains, and the large deviation of these intruders took over the scientific community, or those Those who did not combine jurisprudence and ethics, with the keenness of the elderly to mix them, and achieve a perfect fusion between science, work, jurisprudence and sponsorship.

Then the problem of mutual penance and exclusion was exacerbated for two main reasons: The first relates to the scientific community itself, as some of the problems in speech science and its difficult issues and problem terminology - whose goals only people of art are aware of - descended into the public, and others were marked by sectarian and sectarian intolerance, and some sought to achieve personal interests in the name of Doctrine and caste. Therefore, scientists tried to avoid human symptoms by insisting on the issue of piety and piety and working with science.

The second reason is related to determinants outside the scientific community, such as the general political scene or the employment of the Royal Institution of the dispute between scholars. Perhaps the causes and factors overlapped, and what is political is combined with what is personal and psychological. The 'atonement' that we want here is not confined to dogmatic atonement, but what is broader, including exclusion and throwing heresy and debauchery, and if this is palatable as a scientific characterization in the scientific lesson, it becomes a danger to society and its fabric if it goes out to the public, and is used on the platforms of preaching and endorsement. This type of personal disagreement was not limited to a specific group and group, but rather extended to all groups and currents.

Mesmerize intolerance
There were profound scholarly differences between the Ash'ari and the Hanbali, despite what Ibn Taymiyyah affirms - in 'Total Fatwas' - that "Ash'ari was only affiliated with the doctrine of Ahl al-Hadith ..., [he is, according to some Hanbalis] among the speakers of Ahl al-Hadith." The rationales of the two sides were keen to keep these differences within the frameworks of the school and the corridors of school, but some fanatics took them to the lessons of preaching that are commonly visited by the public, and then moved with them to the streets, markets and residential neighborhoods.

Ibn Katheer (d. 774 AH) states - in 'The Beginning and the End' - that in the year 447 AH, "strife took place between the Ash'ari and Hanbalis (in Baghdad), so the Hanbali side was so strong that no one of the Ash'aris had witnessed the Friday or the assemblies" for the prayers !! In the year 469 AH, the sedition of Sheikh Abi Nasr Ibn al-Qushairi (d. 514 AH) - or the trial of the Hanbali - erupted, as "the matter reached the sword" with the expression Golden, and a number of Hanbalis and poets died.

With this sedition, Al-Hafiz Ibn Asaker dated the moment the conflict between the two factions began. He said, according to what Ibn Taymiyyah narrated about him in the 'Fatwa': “Hanbali and Ash'ari are still in agreement, not separated until the sedition of Ibn al-Qushairi occurred.”

One of the funny things about this sedition was what Ibn al-Jawzi narrated - in the 'regular' - that the Shaykh al-Shafi’i Aba Ishaq al-Shirazi (d. 476 AH) “[Mal] to Nasra al-Qushairi and wrote to [the minister] the regime complaining about the Hanbali and asking him for help,” so the response of the Sheikh of Hanbali Al-Sharif Abu Jaafar Ibn Abi Musa Al-Hashimi (d. 470 AH) - who has long accused his opponents of setting up a "market of intolerance" - that "he was making money for the Jews to surrender at the hands of Ibn al-Qushairi to strengthen the mob, and the common people said: This is the Islam of bribery, not Islam that met" !!

Strangely enough, this Ibn al-Qushary left his hometown of Nishapur in Khorasan (today northeast of Iran) forcibly because of a major sectarian strife that erupted between Sunnis and Shiites in 444 AH, and lasted for more than ten years as it did not end until the year 455 AH. This was done under the auspices of the Seljuk Minister Abu Nasr al-Kandari (d. 456 AH), and this minister was "Mu'tazili ... hurting Shafi’i and exaggerating the victory of Abu Hanifa's doctrine", according to al-Dhahabi in al-Sir.

Atonement and demonization
When Sharif Abu al-Qasim al-Bakri al-Mughrabi (d. 476 AH) went to Baghdad in the year 475 AH, he had a decree from the Seljuk minister Nizam al-Mulk (d. 485 AH), which included his permission to sit in the regular school (in relation to this minister) and speak with the Ash'ari school of thought to which the minister was a supporter; Maghribi preached regularity, then preached at the Mansour mosque, which is the stronghold of the Hanbali then, and then left the mosque in police custody after he said in his lesson according to Ibn Al-Jawzi’s narration in “Al-Nizam”: “{Solomon did not disbelieve, but the demons disbelieved, disbelieving, but rather Kafr Kafr bin His companions, and the Hanbalis threw him in wages, "and almost great sedition took place H.

This “Mufti of the Shafi’is” Abu Mansour Muhammad al-Barawi (d. 567 AH) visits Baghdad in the year 566 AH, and he preaches in the regular school and supports the Ash'ari school of exaggeration in defaming the Hanbali, and he used to say: “If I had an order, I would have to pay the tribute”, and it is said that the Hanbali insulted him of what he called According to the narration of the tribe of Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654 AH) in "Mirat al-Zaman" !!

Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) - in the 'regular' - states that Abu Yusef al-Qazwini al-Mu'tazili (d. 488 AH) entered a day in the system of the king and had Abu Muhammad al-Tamimi - who is the "head of the Hanbali" in the expression of al-Dhahabi - and another man, Ashaari, jokingly said to him: "O Al-Sadr! The heads of the people of Hell have met with you and said: How ?! He said: I am a Mu'tazili, and this is similar, and that is my hair, and some of us atone for some !!

He also mentioned that in the year 470 AH he left the regular school "agreed to be known as the Alexandrian" and with him some of his followers to the Tuesday market in Baghdad, so he spoke of expiation of the Hanbali in the market and he paid fare, so he entered the school market and sought help from its people, and they went out with him to the Tuesday market and plundered some of what was in it And evil occurred and the people of the Tuesday market overcame the Hanbalis by the commoners, and they entered the school market and plundered the piece that followed them, and the soldiers entered and pushed the commoners "and killed the crossbows a few ten" of them.

This sectarian strife - not only within the Sunni framework - was confined to Iraq and East Khorasan, but also reached the Levant, albeit relatively late, as well as the countries of the Fatimid state in Egypt and the Islamic West. Ibn Katheer reported - in the "beginning and end" - that in the year 716 AH "There was an affliction between the Hanbalis and Shafi’is in Baalbek because of the beliefs."

And Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) mentioned in his book, “Anba Al-Ghamr” - that in the year 835 AH, great strife arose between the Hanbalis and the Ash'ari in Damascus, and the fanaticism of Sheikh Alaa al-Din al-Bukhari (the Hanafi who died 841 AH) .. on the Hanbali and exaggerated the degradation of Ibn Taymiyyah. In his thinking, he became a fanatic of a group of damascens by Ibn Taymiyyah.

Sect wars
Examples of the widening sectarian dispute between the Shiites and the Sunnis and its withdrawal over the group’s strength from the people; what happened from sectarian strife in the state of Beni Bueh for more than a century, so that “the agreement .. between the Sunnis and Shiites remained insecure to the contradiction of what is in the chest” of dissonance and grudges; According to Ibn al-Jawzi, who provided adequate coverage of this sedition in his 'regular' history.

In the year 340 AH, great strife took place between the two sects during the days of Sultan Al-Buwayhi Moez al-Dawla (d. 356 AH), which Ibn Katheer said was “he loves the Shiites and brings them closer to him and brings them closer to his court.” In 345 AH, a great strife occurred between the people of Isfahan and the people of Qom due to the insult of the last two of the companions, and the people of Asbahan revolted against them and killed many of them and created the property of their merchants, so the Sultan was angry at the corner of the state (d. 366 AH) for the people of Qom, and the people of Isfahan confiscated with a lot of money.

In the year 346 AH, great strife occurred between the Sunnis and the Shiites in Baghdad, and the general Shiites wrote at the gates of mosques in Baghdad: “Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan was cursed, and he was cursed by the usurpation of Fatima Haqqah (meaning the Caliph Abu Bakr), and who brought Abbas out of the Shura (they mean the Caliph Omar), And whoever denies Abu Dharr (they mean Caliph Uthman). In 351 AH itself, a great strife occurred among the people of Basra because of insult also, and many creatures were killed and a large crowd was present. There was also sedition between Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad in 408 AH, and many people died on both sides.

In the year 443 AH, the war broke out - in the expression Ibn Katheer - between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Ali's name was only associated with the name of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in preference to him over Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman.

The war renewed between the two teams 444 AH, it stopped a little, and then 445 AH broke out. In 482 AH, a great strife occurred between them, in which two hundred men were killed in Karkh, and another strife took place in 487 AH in Baghdad, and many people died in it.

Sibling conflict,
and the dispute was not limited to different schools of thought; rather, a dispute broke out and fighting within the same school, and an example of this was the internal fighting and throwing of heresies that nearly destroyed the heads of the school of thought during the plight of Imam Ibn Aqil. The dispute sometimes occurred between Ash'ari and Matarid, although they are two very closely related doctrines. And there is evidence that some of the differences were personal and interests revolving around status, influence, prominence, and possibly money.

We find that what happened to Ibn Aqeel from his archenemy rival, Abu Jaafar Al Hashemi, was due to sitting on the Hanbali chair in the Mansour Mosque after the death of their two sheikhs, Judge Abi Ali Al-Hanbali (d. 458 AH). Likewise, the disagreement that occurred between Al-Sakhawi (d. 902 AH) and Al-Asiuti (d. 911 e) was about the forefront and exclusivity of Marjaiya after the death of Ibn Hajar, and in this Al-Suyuti says in Al-Maqamat: “Al-Sakhawi thought that he was the corner pillar after Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar. !!

Among the total interest disagreement is what happened between some scholars about the lead in large and central scientific schools such as the regular school and the Mansour Mosque in Baghdad and others. Ibn Aqeel denounced the conversion of a group from the Hanbali to the Shafi’i school of thought in order to gain from the regularity, or from the state that adopted the Ash'ari and Shafi’i schools at that time. In this, Ibn Aqeel says in what Ibn Al-Jawzi narrates about him in the 'regular': “And I saw many of the owners of the schools of thought who moved and hypocrisy, and documented [Wawa] the doctrine of Al-Ash'ari and Al-Shafi’i in terms of glory and honor (= salaries).”

If we realize this and are aware of the attendant doctrinal outbidding, the map of conflicts is presented in front of the beholder, and it is well understood as an authentic expression of the human symptoms and the infallibility that surrounds the model as the original scientific group, but it is undoubtedly a root in the intruders over this group. So the conclusion, then, is that many of the disputes with a scientific appearance are in fact personal differences, related to influence, money, prestige, fame and "follow-up to the common people", as will come in the words of Imam Al-Ghazali.

Motivations of Intolerance
The previous models indicate the psychology of some scholars who are not from the people of work and piety, or who have penetrated the scientific community in the negligence of its people, and they are characterized by extreme intolerance of their doctrines and their increasing salvation and righteousness, poisoning the scientific atmosphere, and exaggerating the differences in order to "follow the common people"; Al-Ghazali. Then comes the role of the political authority by appeasement, agitation, employment, or perhaps complete disregard.

But the important question - which traditionalists are trying to ignore - is: Are there fanatical scholars? It is assumed that the mere fact of asking this question implies the presence of infallibility and holiness in human souls and their outputs, but this is the scientific reality that cannot be overcome.

Therefore, we find that al-Nawawi (676 AH) says in his book al-Majmoo ': The respondent must search by which he knows the eligibility of those who refer to him for a fatwa, and if he is not aware of his eligibility, he is not allowed to referendum to those who belonged to the knowledge and were instructed to teach, as soon as he was affiliated with and was elected to do so. Before al-Nawawi, al-Ghazali addressed - in his book 'The Balance of Work' - the vernacular and the referee, so he demanded that each of them must consider the eligibility of the leaderboards; he says: "There is no salvation [for you] except in independence", that is, independence of consideration and thought.

With regard to the question of intolerance among some of the leaderboards, we find its answer to al-Baqalani, al-Nawawi, and others who have accused some of their scholars of intolerance of doctrines and poisoning the general scientific landscape. Al-Ghazali said after he talked about the concept of doctrine: "The principle of intolerance: a group's keenness to seek the presidency to follow the commoners, and the reasons for commoners are not emitted except by a mosque that carries out the pretense and the elements. So the doctrines were made in detailing the religions as a whole. And their support came close to it. "

But what if the doctrine is the same and there are no sectarian differences? We have found in history - as we said - the Hanbali intellectual struggle with each other, and even Ibn Taymiyyah divided them - in the "group of fatwas" - into four different groups in some beliefs, so what about other things !! As we know the Shiite groups struggle with each other, as well as Mu'tazila and Ash'ari.

An artificial dispute and
here Al-Ghazali holds the core of the problem, describing this trend of human symptoms. He says: “In some countries, when the doctrine was united, and the presidential students were unable to follow, they put things and imagined the necessity of violating them and intolerance to them, such as the black flag and the red flag, so the black people said: the truth Others said: The right is red, and the presidents intended to follow the commoners with such a degree of disagreement, and the public believed that this was important, and the presidents knew their purpose in the situation.

That is, the disagreement in many areas is artificial from the scholars of the world and bad jurists, and therefore the rabbinical scholars spoke a lot about piety and asceticism and the necessity of working with science, and in all of these methods and ways to eliminate the scientific community from the intruder and the smoke, and an attempt to keep the divine elite exclusively.

Al-Nawawi says - in Sharh Sahih Muslim - in response to some scholars: "Some of them have claimed that the hadith is disturbed, and this is an apparent and bold mistake in responding to the Sunnahs (= weakening of hadiths) with mere fancy, and attenuating its validity to support the madhhabs." Al-Nawawi here understands their response to the narration of the Prophet’s Hadith as being among the reasons for championing the schools of thought, for the sake of victory rather than scientific and methodological methods.

And like that Al-Baqalani said - in 'approximation and guidance' - arguing with his opponent: "Perhaps you have found it (= evidence) as we found it, but you conceal this for your purpose of supporting the doctrine or others." This is evidence of the prevalence of the phenomenon and the awareness of the scholars about it. Therefore, al-Ghazali determines - in the "work balance" - that all doctrines "do not have a miracle among them that favors his side, so pay attention to the doctrines, and seek the right by way of looking to be the owner of a doctrine, and not in the form of Blind ... There is no salvation except for independence! "

However, the scholars systematically distinguished the sectarian commitment that was nervous - which they absolutely blamed - and the world adhered to the saying of its doctrine when it saw it as the strongest evidence and made a few. Therefore, the scholar Ibn Mulla Farrukh Al-Hanafi (d. 1061 AH) says in his book 'The Right Sayings on Some Issues of Ijtihad and Tradition': “The text of our scholars - and other owners of doctrines - on the prohibition of intolerance and the correction of hardness in the doctrine, and the meaning of hardness ... The evidence ..., and fanaticism is the tendency with passion to support the doctrine, and the treatment of the other imam and his imitators in what degrades them. "

Political employment
With regard to the determinant of the interference of the political authority, either positively or negatively, for example, the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustansir Billah (d. 640 AH) established - after the exacerbation of the danger of atonement due to the fanatic sectarianism - established the school of "Al-Mustansiriya", stopped it on the four schools, and did not allocate it to a sect without another.

The tribe of Ibn al-Jawzi says in this: “(= Al-Mustansir) was a fair grace, the age of the beach school (= Al-Mustansiriya), and he stood on the four schools, and he held many endowments on it, and arranged for the jurists all they needed of food, drink, and guam (= salaries) and fruits, He had no fanaticism against a school of thought, and there is no such school in this world, nor was there a similar school in the past years.

This is an indication of the narrow political establishment, sometimes unlike the scholars, which inflated and almost caused the state itself to weaken sectarian and political opponents. Another example is that after the outbreak of Ibn al-Qushayri’s sedition mentioned earlier, the minister declared Nizam al-Mulk - according to Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Muntazim - that “the Commander of the Faithful (= al-Muqtada by God’s deceased 487 AH) worsened the dissent of Muslims in their beliefs.”

Then the minister explained his intention of establishing the regular school by saying: "And we are in favor of the Sunnah, first of constructing temptation, and we have not advanced to build this school except for the maintenance of scholars and the interest, not for the difference and dispersal of the word." He instructed preachers in the regular school not to mix their preaching with mentioning some of the principles and doctrines, and he asked Abu Nasr al-Qushairi to leave Baghdad to return to his country, Nishapur.

But the politicians also took advantage of the scholars ’weakness in political aspects, as they employed their scientific differences, or perhaps even invoked them to reinforce the legitimacy of the government, or delegitimize the sect or current and the like, and most of them did not adhere to the rule of their colleague Sultan Ghiath al-Din al-Ghuri (d. 599 AH) who was saying - according to the gold In 'Al-Sir' - “Intolerance in schools of thought is ugly!” Therefore, the political authority, in all Islamic eras to this day, has endeavored to bypass the private scientific community and establish a religious authority that is its own and subordinate to it and receives salaries and benefits from it.

On the other hand, and in order to move away from the influence of political power, divine scholars warned their counterparts against entering the sultans, and urged them to move away from the jurisprudence, sciences and scientific community from the influences of the authority, and its scientists who were not receiving - in most cases - the acceptance and consent of the scientific community or the public.

Attempts to reform
Scientists - especially the reformists among them - tried to keep the purity of the scientific community away from atonement and exclusion, and away from external influences such as interests, personality and politics. Therefore, we find the likes of Ezz bin Abdul Salam (d. 660 AH) from Shafi’i, Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn Aqil from the Hanbali, and others were synthesized with other schools of thought, even those of the Aqidiya of them.

Al-Ghazali’s argument turned to this imminent danger of mutual atonement between sects, and he wrote books - the most important of which is the 'distinction between Islam and heresy' - in which he warned against the atonement of atonement for the "fanatic", and authored a book he called "the public unification of theology" because they did not understand the terms of the people Scientific, until times came when many scholars became "general in science", in the words of Ibn al-Jawzi, so their preoccupation with theology became a great danger.

Al-Ghazali says in Al-Ajam Al-Awam: “If it was said, how do we abstain from the answer and stop the question, and these differences have spread in the country and fanaticism has arisen? I said: The answer is what Malik said regarding the issue of leveling, so that the path of sedition will not be resolved, and the common people will not enter the dilemma of danger.” Failure to break into the public is a dilemma of intent in itself.

Ibn al-Jawzi warned - in 'Hunting Al-Khater' - against the participation of the common people in the science of speech, and he saw this as a great danger to them and to the entire religious scene, so he says: "What harm the common people: the speakers, because they thwart their beliefs with what they hear, among the ugliest things that The commoner - who does not know the pillars of prayer or usury in the sale - attends the preaching council, so he does not forbid it from tawani in prayer, and salvation from usury does not teach him, but rather says to him: The Qur’an is based on oneself and we have a creature, so the Qur’an is with that commoner and swears by it on lies .

Warning of the atonement for sectarian bigotry, Al-Ghazali says: “If he claims that the extent of infidelity does not contradict the Ash'ari doctrine, or that of the Mu'tazili or Hanbali or others ... know that it is not a dull blemish that has been restricted by tradition, so it is blind from the blind, so do not waste it by fixing it!” !

Al-Ezz Ibn Abd al-Salam said - in 'The Rulings of Rulings' - trying to reform the Al-Ash'ari interior: "Al-Ashari - may God have mercy on him - came back upon his death from the expiation of the people of the qiblah, because ignorance of the attributes is not ignorance of the descriptions. He said: We differed in terms and referred to one." It reminds the Ash'ari here that all the people of the qiblah are Muslims and they cannot be atoned. And he criticizes his Ash'ari group with open criticism: "It is strange that Ash'ari differed in many of the [divine] attributes ... and yet they did not atone for each other." That is, if they do not disbelieve each other because of the contractual dispute, then why do they disbelieve others who disagree with them in the same dispute and perhaps less ?!