DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Difference between Maturidis and Ash'aris?

**lalpphilalk** · 01-22-2008, 02:18 AM

lol, you must be kidding, they where called ashari's and maturidis.
They where even called Kullubist in the early day's.

http://www.hanbalis.com/index.php/Kullabism

What I mean is that I have personally seen books which say that the Ash'aris and Maturidis BOTH fall under the category ahl ul-Athar. I am not denying that they are mostly known by Ash'ari and Maturidi, but what confuses people is that when someone wants to refer to BOTH groups similtaneously, they don't always say "ahl us-sunnah," sometimes they say ahl ul=Athar or ahl ul-Hadith.

Ashari's are not athari's it is well known that Hanbali's where nearly alway's rebuking ashari's. It is also true that the Hanbalis and Ash'aris have repeatedly been at odds with one another on matters of Aqidah over the centuries. But, the Ash'aris never denied the validity of the creed of Imam Ahmad. Rather, we reject the anthropomorphic tendencies of those who came later and claimed to believe what He believed (rahimahullah).

If you wan't to take up the aqeedah of Hanbali Madhaab, please feel free to go to a hanbali, and I gurantee you would see their dislike of asharism. Why would I want to do that? Rasoolullah

said that His Ummah would be split into 73 groups, each of which is in Hellfire except for one - and when He was asked which is that one, He replied "al-Jamaa3ah" (the majority). The Ash'aris and Maturidis have been the majority since the founding of their schools. And the beliefs of the Ash'aris and Maturidis have been the majority since the time of Rasoolullah Himself

.

Secondly who told you it is not a truly a school.

What chain's you are talking about? Hadith chain's? This is Islam that we are talking about. Everything has a chain. Each ayah has a chain. Every Prophetic Hadith has a chain. Every Hadith from a Companion has a chain, and from a tabi'i, and from any Imam, and from the awliyaa', etc. etc. Anything that has been said about anything that pertains to the religion has a chain. That includes every statement from Imam Ahmad. His statements that pertain to fiqh still have Saheeh chains that stretch back to him (although there is very real danger of this disappearing soon). But for many of his statements about aqidah, there are no (or few) authentic chains EXPLAINING what he meant by those statements. This is because Imam Ahmad (a) didn't like to go into depth about aqidah and (b) wasn't trying to establish a set of Aqidah teachings. Yes, we agree that his aqidah was correct, but we have little information with which to confirm that we have fully understood his aqidah.

The Ash'ari and Maturidi schools, on the other hand, were established with the intention of CLARIFYING matters of Aqidah, and TEACHING them.

Oh that would be great, please do not let me stop you.

While you at it, check also the thread out on Allah(swt) is above, and provide your ton's of proof fromt the Quraan and Sunnaah that he is not. When I get home, I will post a few, insha' Allah.

And as for the thread about aboveness - you are playing with words and being indirect. We all agree that Allah is above, and the Qur'an and Sunnah attest to that. However, we understand that "above" is in reference to the High status of Allah and in reference to His authority. It's sort of like in English when a person says "the lawyer appealed his case to the court above." The word 'above,' neither in English nor in Arabic, is limited to a spatial aboveness. If you understand Allah to be in a place or a direction, then you do not have the belief of the Muslims, and you are a mushabbih who likens Allah to the creation.

01-22-2008, 02:18 AM	#10
lalpphilalk Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	lol, you must be kidding, they where called ashari's and maturidis. They where even called Kullubist in the early day's. http://www.hanbalis.com/index.php/Kullabism What I mean is that I have personally seen books which say that the Ash'aris and Maturidis BOTH fall under the category ahl ul-Athar. I am not denying that they are mostly known by Ash'ari and Maturidi, but what confuses people is that when someone wants to refer to BOTH groups similtaneously, they don't always say "ahl us-sunnah," sometimes they say ahl ul=Athar or ahl ul-Hadith. Ashari's are not athari's it is well known that Hanbali's where nearly alway's rebuking ashari's. It is also true that the Hanbalis and Ash'aris have repeatedly been at odds with one another on matters of Aqidah over the centuries. But, the Ash'aris never denied the validity of the creed of Imam Ahmad. Rather, we reject the anthropomorphic tendencies of those who came later and claimed to believe what He believed (rahimahullah). If you wan't to take up the aqeedah of Hanbali Madhaab, please feel free to go to a hanbali, and I gurantee you would see their dislike of asharism. Why would I want to do that? Rasoolullah said that His Ummah would be split into 73 groups, each of which is in Hellfire except for one - and when He was asked which is that one, He replied "al-Jamaa3ah" (the majority). The Ash'aris and Maturidis have been the majority since the founding of their schools. And the beliefs of the Ash'aris and Maturidis have been the majority since the time of Rasoolullah Himself . Secondly who told you it is not a truly a school. What chain's you are talking about? Hadith chain's? This is Islam that we are talking about. Everything has a chain. Each ayah has a chain. Every Prophetic Hadith has a chain. Every Hadith from a Companion has a chain, and from a tabi'i, and from any Imam, and from the awliyaa', etc. etc. Anything that has been said about anything that pertains to the religion has a chain. That includes every statement from Imam Ahmad. His statements that pertain to fiqh still have Saheeh chains that stretch back to him (although there is very real danger of this disappearing soon). But for many of his statements about aqidah, there are no (or few) authentic chains EXPLAINING what he meant by those statements. This is because Imam Ahmad (a) didn't like to go into depth about aqidah and (b) wasn't trying to establish a set of Aqidah teachings. Yes, we agree that his aqidah was correct, but we have little information with which to confirm that we have fully understood his aqidah. The Ash'ari and Maturidi schools, on the other hand, were established with the intention of CLARIFYING matters of Aqidah, and TEACHING them. Oh that would be great, please do not let me stop you. While you at it, check also the thread out on Allah(swt) is above, and provide your ton's of proof fromt the Quraan and Sunnaah that he is not. When I get home, I will post a few, insha' Allah. And as for the thread about aboveness - you are playing with words and being indirect. We all agree that Allah is above, and the Qur'an and Sunnah attest to that. However, we understand that "above" is in reference to the High status of Allah and in reference to His authority. It's sort of like in English when a person says "the lawyer appealed his case to the court above." The word 'above,' neither in English nor in Arabic, is limited to a spatial aboveness. If you understand Allah to be in a place or a direction, then you do not have the belief of the Muslims, and you are a mushabbih who likens Allah to the creation.
	Quote