The Khwarazmshahids followed the Hanafi school of thought, which was also the predominant belief system among the majority of people living in their territory. What kind of policy did they pursue towards Hanafism? To answer this question, the Khwarazmshahid era was divided into five periods. Their policies in each period were evaluated on five parameters: behavior towards Hanafi people and clergy, relations with Hanafi rulers, appointment of Hanafis in political positions and establishment of religious institutes. The results show that in the period of obedience (1098-1136 A.D.) the Hanafipeople and clergy had security and welfare because of Muhammad and Atsiz to obedience for Sanjar. In the independence period (1136-1173) , the Hanafi people and clergy were attacked and insulted because of Atsiz’s arrogance towards Sanjar and Ilarsalan’s expansionism, although this hostility was political and in reality neutral. In the Empire-Establishing Period (1174-1201) the neutral policy was intensified in favor of the Shafiites following the conquest of Iraq, where the non-Hanafites were in the majority. In the Empire-Peak Period (1201-1221) because Sultan Muhammad's government wasn’t legitimized by the caliph and the non-Mutazilite Hanafites did not recognize his reign as legitimate thus the neutral policy converted at times to antagonism against Hanafites. Following the anarchy of the Post-Mongol Attack Period (1221-1231) the sultan’s sons tried to conquer part of the empire by any means necessary. Thus Qurshah and Pirshah allied themselves with Shafiites against the Hanafites but Jalal-al-Din, as the savior of Islam, implemented an Islamic unity policy and generally avoided supporting Hanafites. Since the Khwarazmshahids were mutazilites, they supported the mutazilite Hanafis in all periods except that of Jalal-al-Din. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing a desk study methodology for data collection and analysis.

The school of jurists or the Hanafites is one of the most famous schools especially among the Hanafites. In this school, questions and principles are derived from juridical minutiae deductively. Perhaps the tendency of these scholars to this school was the lack of reliable source from Hanafite scholars. The dawn of this school can be traced back to the third century. The most notable features of this school are: confirmation of the principles based on the minutiae transmitted from schools' leaders, the obligation to school in deduction, versatility and novelty of examples, deducing principles from juridical minutiae or altering them because of contradictory minutiae, making principles practical, and complexity of study. Weakness in method of deduction of principles in this school has caused this approach somehow to begin to become obsolete.

The issue of Muslim inheritance from an apostate and vice versa is a controversial one. Is there an inheritance relation between a Muslim and an apostate even if there exists a relationship based on blood or marriage or not? How do the five sects of Islam answer this question. What are their opinions and arguments?The present article intends to put forth the views of Muslim jurisprudents and to express their arguments and finally to criticize some of their views.

One of the important principles in theology and Islamic studies is the intellectuality or religiosity of goodness and evil. It is based on this principle that the following questions can be answered: Does the goodness and praiseworthiness of good deeds such as saving the innocent emanate from their nature? Would the killing of innocent people be considered as a good deed, if God ordered people to do so? Does God follow the natural criteria of goodness and badness or is it that whatever he does is good? For example if God punishes a child in the dooms day, can this be viewed as an evil deed? Is it the case that God transcends the ordinary human values so that none of His deeds could be considered as evil? Will those who never heard prophetic messages be punished based on innate criteria? Are people obliged to know God even before accepting religion? Is it the case that whatever is called ethical and humane is also religious? The Mo’tazelites, the Shiites and the Matoridites believe in the innateness of goodness and evil, while the Ash’arites believe in their religiosity. The present article explores Rumi’s views in his Fihe Ma Fih and Mathnavi. The claim is that his position is not consistent with the Ash’arites views and that it is more consistent with Hanafi- Matridites, Mo’tazelites and Shiites.