[alecoplesosse]

Assalam 'Aleikoum wa Rahmatulillahi wa Barakatuhu
A question for you brothers; can you explain me this:
Is it true that the Hanafis and Shafi'is of Khurasan fought each other and as a result the Hanbali/Athari school spread there?

[LypeReexy]

That may well be true.

In the same way, Hanbali zealots put Imam at-Tabari under seige in his house till he died. A simillar incident happened to Ibn 'Asakir.

[Caunnysup]

It is true that they fought each other. However, while some claim that it was due to extreme ta´assub to their madhhabs, other sources indicate that it was due to Aqidah, the Hanafis of Khurasan at that time being Mu´tazila, and the Shafi´is of Ahl as-Sunnah, and that fighting erupted due to preservation of what was thought to be a correct Aqidah.

Wa'Allahu a´lam.

[68AttendGem]

It is true that they fought each other. However, while some claim that it was due to extreme ta´assub to their madhhabs, other sources indicate that it was due to Aqidah, the Hanafis of Khurasan at that time being Mu´tazila, and the Shafi´is of Ahl as-Sunnah, and that fighting erupted due to preservation of what was thought to be a correct Aqidah.

Wa'Allahu a´lam.

Can you tell me more about it please?

[alecoplesosse]

It is true that they fought each other. However, while some claim that it was due to extreme ta´assub to their madhhabs, other sources indicate that it was due to Aqidah, the Hanafis of Khurasan at that time being Mu´tazila, and the Shafi´is of Ahl as-Sunnah, and that fighting erupted due to preservation of what was thought to be a correct Aqidah.

Wa'Allahu a´lam.

Where you get this information brother?
Because iv read that first they fought together against shiia then each other.. iv read also that it was a cruel "civil war" about 300 000 people die .. it's possible this? How can we call these people muslim when they kill brothers?

[Dwencejed]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46915351/C...vol-5#page=294

Probably an orientalist history though. The chapter quotes some Shi'i histories ("polemics"), apparently the situation in Khorasan was extremely complicated, with a whole bagful of different groups. Hanafi-Mu'tazili, Shafi'e-Mu'tazili, Shafi'i-Mujassima, Najjarites (whoever they are?), Maliki-Khariji (is that even possible?), Shafie-Khariji (shocking!) etc etc etc!

It seems Khorasan was full of heresy in those days. There was also no singular ruler for the area but lots of little chiefs, a recipe for civil strife. I would say the strife is likely tribal, but made worse by tribes adopting and aggrandizing small differences.

[tgs]

I can not believe on a history provided by an orientalist about Islam.

[rsdefwgxvcfdts]

this reminds me of an article that I have read on Hizmet Books website http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Answer_to...am/enemy-6.htm

it begins thus...

RASHID RIDA STATES THAT THE MUSLIM HISTORY IS FULL OF CONSTANT FIGHTING AMONG VARIOUS FACTIONS


6 - "Open the history books and read about the fights that took place between Ahl as-Sunnat and the Shia [Shiites] and Kharijis, and even among those who were in the Ahl as-Sunnat madhhabs! Enmity between the Shafi'is and the Hanafis caused the Mongols to assault the Muslims."

The la-madhhabi people like Rashid Rida, in order to attack the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat, choose a tricky way. For doing this, first they write about the assaults of the seventy-two groups [for whom the Hadith says will go to Hell] against Ahl as-Sunnat, and about the bloody events which they caused, and then they basely lie by adding that the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat fought one another. Whereas, not a single fight has ever taken place between the Shafi'is and the Hanafis at any place at any time. How could they ever fight despite the fact that both belong to Ahl as-Sunnat! They hold the same belief. They have always loved one another and lived brotherly. Let us see if the la-madhhabi people, who say that they fought, can give us an example after all! They cannot. They write, as examples, the jihads which the four madhhabs of Ahl as-Sunnat co-operatively made against the la-madhhabi. They try to deceive Muslims with such lies. Because the name "Shafi'i" of Ahl as-Sunnat and the word "Shia" sound alike, they narrate the combats between the Hanafis and the la-madhhabi as if they took place between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is. In order to blemish the Muslims who follow the madhhabs, those who reject the four madhhabs slander them by misinterpreting some special terms. For example, referring to the dictionary Al-munjid written by Christian priests, they define the word 'ta'assub' to mean 'holding a view under the influence of non-scientific, non-religious and irrational reasons' and regard explaining and proving the teachings of madhhabs as ta'assub and say that ta'assub has caused conflicts between madhhabs. Whereas, according to the scholars of Islam, 'ta'assub' means 'enmity that cannot be justified.' Then, attaching oneself to a madhhab or defending that this madhhab is based on the Sunnat and on the sunnas of al-Khulafa' ar-rashidin (radi-Allahu 'anhum) is never ta'assub. Speaking ill of another madhhab is ta'assub, and the followers of the four madhhabs have never done such ta'assub. There has been no ta'assub amongst the madhhabs throughout Islamic history.

and ends like so...

"There has been no dispute between the Hanafis and the Shafi'is; Muslims belonging to the four madhhabs have loved one another as brothers. This base slander, which was made against Ahl as-Sunnat by Rashid Rida, was repeated by the reformer named Sayyid Qutb, too, yet he is given the necessary answer well documentedly in the book The Religion Reformers in Islam."