Talk:List of Ash'aris

Split Proposal

I prose we split this article into "List of Ash'aris" and "List of Maturidis":

1. They are not identical to each other and have separate "founders", histories, beliefs and are associated with different schools of law.

2. I have never seen an article combine two lists of different people together like this. It would be like having articles, "List of Chemists and Physicists" or "List of Scottish and English People". Similar is not identical.

3. Keeping them together and downplaying differences feels ideological and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia, to promote that there is one vision of Sunni orthodoxy with little to no difference--Zaynab1418 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree – the only reason they are merged is because some modern Muslim scholars agreed to accept their differences, which is not a good reason to assume they are equal to begin with. Apart from a lack of reasons to merge them, there are good reasons to distinguish them, such as significant differences, especially regarding their historical development, cultural differences, and doctrines, such as positions regarding ethics and afterlife, as well as rivalry among scholars of each school. Additionally, some differences fall so much into weight, some sources which analyse the essence of their teachings had to be censored because they were considered "disruptive" for the aim of the list. A split is urgently necessary.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)>

I would strongly disagree. The Ashari and Maturidi creeds are essentially similar in all but name to the point where many Asharis consider Maturidism to be a valid theological standpoint among their own school. Many Maturidis I have come across also identify as Asharis and the 2 schools are heavily intermingled while considering themselves to be virtually one, with most points of disagreement being semantical rather than theological.

Although the 2 schools are not identical they share the same history and have always historically been referred to by both their proponents and opponents as one. the analogies drawn with English and Scottish people as well as Chemists and Physicists are not comparable in this case as these groups have always been separated. With Asharis and Maturidis, this is not the case as the Maturidi school has virtually no identity outside of the Ashariyya, they have always been regarded as an extension of the Ashari school and the Asharis have regarded them as such.

Keeping them together would essentially confirm how they are viewed in the real world and separating them would likely have no benefit whatsoever and it also does not promote the idea of one Sunni orthodoxy as Wikipedia also rightly displays the Atharis and Traditionalist muslims without showing any bias whatsoever. BUDFJDK (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Disagree for the following reasons:

• This is a special case. These two schools of doctrine are followed by the bulk of Sunni Muslims and differ only in minor details. Both the Maturidi and Ash'ari schools of Islamic theology used the 'ilm al-kalam (science of discourse; often also called Islamic scholastic theology), to interpret the Qur'an and the Hadith (a collection of reported sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammad) in order to apply Islamic principles to Islamic rulings, or fatwas. This is in contrast to other schools of Islamic theology, such as the Athari school of thought who generally opposed kalam.

• Not all Hanafis are Maturidis, some of them are Ash'aris, and most Ash'aris consider themselves Maturidis and vice versa! Therefore, I consider this list an exceptional case.

• Other wikis such as the Arabic Wikipedia and French Wikipedia gathering them together in one list.--TheEagle107 (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zaynab1418: You don't actually need anyone's permission to create a List of Ash'aris and List of Maturidis. At the end of the day, Ash'arism and Maturidism are separate pages, so the standing community consensus is that these are separate subjects. There is nothing to stop you from creating differentiated lists of adherents pertaining to these already differentiated groups. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not split

The reason these 2 are clumped together is because they are basically the same with only minor differences in approach as both these schools reject anthropomorphism and would not accept that God resembles any of his creation in anyway. They also do not take literal approaches when coming to the mutashabihat ayat as opposed to the so called atharis who do all of that. Thats why ashari and maturidi are the same while the latter isn’t associated with them. Another point is that al azhar stated that the only 2 accepted creeds present in the modern era are ashaari and maturidi 178.135.9.63 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this is not the case, but a misunderstanding by previous scholars to take the conclusion made by scholars who probably had their own reasons to assert a lack of difference uncritica. The diffrences which exist have a large impact on theology, and both came from different cultural backgrounds and have a different history. Maturidism was also once regarded as rationalistic, while Asharism was not. The view that they are the same is outdated. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Mufti Ebrahim Desai, a South African Grand Mufti of Indian descent who was educated at a traditional Dars Nizami (Hanafi/Maturidi) institution, when answering a question on what the differences between the Ash'aris and the Maturidis are, said: Imaam of the Asharites is Abul Hasan Ashari (RA) [sic] and the Imaam of the Maturidites is Abu Mansoor Maaturidi (RA) [sic]. Both were adherents of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa'. There is no real difference in Aqeedah between the two. The differences are only in the different use of words and ways of interpretation. And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best.

• Most Sunnis of the four madhahib follow the Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of doctrine and theology. Indeed, Ash'ari and Maturidi doctrines basically only differ on a few issues, most of which are arguably linguistic quibbles, so that these two schools of theology are essentially one tradition.

• Maturidi school of theology: Closely related to the Ash'ari school of theology is that of the Maturidis.

Well, no problem, if you are proposing that the list should be split into two lists, feel free to request a split. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ash'arism and Maturidism are separate pages because it has already been decided at a community level that these are separate subjects, and anyone can quite rightly create separate lists if they want - and they do not have to disassemble this one to do so, though obviously once separate lists exist, this list would certainly appear all the more counter-intuitive by comparison. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that the User who opposes the split constantly reverts sourced edits against his position, and his ignorance about all attempts to participate in a discussion, except for repeating a bunch of sources which barely cover their own position, I suspect an ideological bias. Construcitivism seem to be only secondary to the user. I am considering reporting them at this point. At least, one should not give too much weight into their opinion. Since there are not many Users involved, and those who are, always opted for a split (apart from the Red-Named User who might be a sockpuppet given the rather weak arguements akin to that of the other user), consensus seems to be, they are seperate schools. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Similarities, differences and possible modern reconcilation

For what I read about Maturidism and Asharism, I cannot agree with the leadsction stating that both have only minor differences. This might be true compared to other schools such as Athari, but there are still significant differences only aMaturidite or an Asharite might agree upon. This probably turns into a little essay, but I think it is important to properly discuss this issue on lenght to ensure, we both have the same level of knowledge. Don't get me wrong! I don't opt for removing this entirely, but I think it should be contextualized:

"Already in Seljuk times, theologians of a more conciliatory tendency tried to tone down conflicts between the supporters of al-Ashari and al-Maturidi. Abu l-Yusr al-Pazdawi (d1100), a leading Maturidite scholar, thought that although al-Ashari was only second best in comparison with al-Maturidi, his books were still useful and he and his supporters had to be conunted among the ahl al-sunna in contrast to the mujassima (those who would put forward an anthromoporphic picutre of God, for him the Hanbalis and Karramites)

(...)

A paradigmatic example for the integration of Asharite and Maturidi theology in Mamluk EMpire is the Egptian Asharite scholar al-Subki (1370). Here, al-Subki ttied to show that among the thirteen differences of opinion between al-Ashari and al-Maturidi he identified, seven were of purely linguistic nature, while the six remaining differences concerned points that in no way justified takfir.

(...)

But there was even more: Ottoman Aharite and Maturidi theologians not any agreed to respectfully disagree.

(...)

(...), after the turbulent beginnings of Asharite-Maturidi encoutner,refrained from interfering in the business of theologias of both schools." (The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology p.696-698)

These are the common arguements who show the similarities. They mostly consist of validating the arguements of the other school. So both accept each other as Islamic (while Atharis, for example, are accused of anthropomorphism, Mutazilites often as denying the ternity of the Quran etc.) This means they are similar compared to other branches of Islam, however, this doesn't count against the difference within Islam. Since this article focuses on the theology of Islam, the differences are relativly strong. Of course, they are similar to, lets say, Christianity, but they are different if we are talking or comparing the schools of theology. It can, and should, be mentioned that Maturidis and Asharis do accept each other without regarding any of the other doctrine's as heretical, but it should be pointe out, that their differences matter in regards of theology. Both have, for example, another history, other cultural and intellactual differences, which may have no impact on a global scale, but within Muslim Theology.

Let's look at some differences: "Maturidi school and Ash'ari school are similar in terms of argumentation method that both demonstrate their ideas on Islamic belief with reason and logic in light of the Qur’an while Maturidi school attaches more importance to the reason than Ash'ari does. For instance, Ash'ari school thinks that it is Sharia that makes man to acquire knowledge about Allah, and that if there is no message from prophets reaching human, there is no responsibility on the part of human to understand Allah, as such human will not be responsible for not understanding Allah after death. Whereas Maturidi school maintains that it is with reason that intellectual human try to acquire knowledge about Allah, though some people are unlucky to be informed of Allah’s message, they have to be responsible for their innocence of Allah after they die in that some verses in the Quran do enjoin people to observe everything in the universe and then think and ponder until they can finally realize Allah and believe in Allah." (Study On the Theory of God's Science of Maturidi School Cunping Yun p. 185)

This might appear to be insignificant at first, but can and had, incluence on the actual Maturidis and Asharis and their social enviroment. In the long term, such differences become clear and significant.

"Despite the fact that some of Maturidi school’s thought has be absorbed by Ash'ari school, Maturidi school is still not as well-known as Ash'ari school, but their historical role and influence obviously cannot be neglected or denied." (ibid)

This conclusion, that the difference could not be ignored, has further been acknowledged in academic circles:

"Although Islamic scholars conventionally proclaim that there is no seri�ous difference between Maturidism and Ashʻarism on major issues, the differences between these two schools in today’s world cannot be accepted as mere nuances. Contrary to Ashʻarism and especially the Ahl al-Hadith school (to which multiple Salafi groups belong), which claims that reason cannot find good and evil by itself, the Maturidite approach instead sug�gests that good and evil may be known by intellect alone. In other words, Maturidism, in contrast to Ashaʻrism, maintains that reason, independent of revelation, can arrive at religious truths and that there is no basic incom�patibility between the two (Afsaruddin 2007, p. 101). This means that ‘there is a fundamental difference between Ash’ari and Maturidi schools in that it is inconceivable in the Maturidi position that God could order things untruthful and miserly as being ‘good’, nor anything which is known by the intellect to be wrong’7 (Deen 2016)." ("Political Theory and Central Asia: An Introduction: The State, Ideology and Power p. 109)

"‘When classical Maturidi schol�ars were faced with a “problematic” Hadith (narrations of the Prophet)8 they would override its “authority” since it was at odds with reason’ (Deen 2015)." (ibid)

This is something not to be said about Ashari/Asharism. This means, that even the canon of Muslim scripture might differ how be handled differently. This means, depending on how muc you dive into theology, the stronger the differences get. Both agree against the ltieralists and anthropomorphists and agree on kalam, but this agreement on such as huge topic doesn't wash away the differences within kalam.

Since this article is specifically about the realtionship between both schools (and not in contrast towards Hanbalites or Mutazilites) we differences shouldn't be downplayed by Muslim schlars who reconsiled both views compared to other schools of Islam. The agreement is that both agree to disagree, and even if the disagreements are few in number, they might lead to entirely different theological assumpations which cannot be ignored if this topic should be understood properly. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: That this list even needs an explanation at the beginning is testament to its contrived nature. The irony of the consecutive statements 'they are essentially one', 'they just differ in 40 ways' is, umm, quite hilarious. That is not helping readers in any regard; that is just confusing. These are the problems that arise when one essentially tries to kludge together different list topics as one. Suddenly you have the front the list with an explainer justifying itself. If someone wants to write the article Ash'arism and Maturidism or Comparisons between Ash'arism and Maturidism, they should go do so at one of those destinations, and haggle about this stuff there. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, Please see: WP:FLCR, List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire & List of Ottoman grand viziers.--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well you're certainly right that this isn't a featured list; it's barely even a good list atm. For one, thing, a half decent list would have dates in AD (though it doesn't matter if AH is used also); second, the division of the Ash'ari part of the list into schools is pointlessly confusing. This is a list based on theological school, not jurisprudence school, and all that this serves to do is throw all of the Ash'ari entries on the list out of chronological order, making it even harder to follow the progression of Ash'ari entries. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• WP:SALLEAD: "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content,..."
• MOS:SORTLIST: "Lists may be sorted alphabetically (e.g. for people: by surname, given name, initials), chronologically (by date, usually oldest first), or occasionally by other criteria."

In Islam, theological schools are linked to schools of jurisprudence. In general, Maturidis are associated closely with the Hanafi school in fiqh. The Mu'tazilis were also associated with the Hanafis, except some Shafi'is like al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar. The Malikis, the Shafi'is, some Hanafis, some Hanbalis, and some Zahiris are Ash'aris in theology. While, the Atharis (Traditionalists) are closely associated with the Hanbali school.

Ibn 'Abd al-Salam said: "Agreement has formed in subscribing to al-Ash'ari's doctrine among the Shafi'is, the Malikis, the Hanafis, and the nobility of the Hanbalis." His statement was endorsed in his time by the Maliki authority Abu 'Amr ibn al-Hajib and by the Shaykh of the Hanafis Jamal al-Din al-Hasiri. The Maliki imam Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Musa al-Mayurqi said: "The Ahl al-Sunna among the Malikis, the Shafi'is, and the majority of the Hanafis speak with the tongue of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari and argue by his arguments." Taj al-Din al-Subki quoted it and went on to say: "We do not know any Malikis except they are Ash'aris."

There are several other sources that confirm this but I think this is enough. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Not even a reliable source (WP:BIASED), better sources already debunked your arguement several times. Also synthesis of various sources to reach the desired outcome (WP:SYNTH). Agreement of all Users isn't necessary (WP:CON). You further claim you are not interested in a discussion, yet you suggest a split proposal only to copy&paste disproved sources, without ever acknowleding objections. At this point, I lost all good faith in your edits on this article (WP:GF). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarification

Actually, in the past, there was a dispute between the Ash'aris and the Maturidis over some doctrinal issues, but this disagreement ended with the passage of time into agreement.

There are certainly some differences between the Ash'aris and the Maturidis, but they are merely terminological in a few issues ("in the branches of religion"), occur only in questions of detail in which disagreement does not justify charges of heresy. Perhaps the origin of these differences is due to the difference in the point of view of Imam al-Shafi'i with Imam Abu Hanifa in some jurisprudential issues. There are some works that talked about these differences, for example: Masa'il al-Ikhtilaf bayna al-Asha'ira wa al-Maturidiyya (Arabic: مسائل الاختلاف بين الأشاعرة والماتريدية, lit. 'The Differences between the Ash'aris & Maturidis') by Ibn Kamal Pasha (d. 940/1534). Ibn Kamal Pasha does, as his title suggests, examine twelve important differences between the Ash'aris & Maturidis, asserting that "there is no contention between the two Shaykhs [al-Ash'ari and al-Maturidi] and their followers, except in twelve issues."

Here are some examples that confirm that these differences are just simple superficial differences:

• The theological treatise by the Maturidi scholar Najm al-Din 'Umar al-Nasafi known as al-'Aqa'id al-Nasafiyya, was praised and explained by the Ash'ari scholar al-Taftazani, and was also explained by many Maturidi scholars and Ash'aris together, in the past and the present.
• The Maturidi theological treatise Al-Musayara fi al-'Aqaid al-Munjiya fi al-Akhira (Arabic: المسايرة في العقائد المنجية في الآخرة), by the Maturidi scholar al-Kamal ibn al-Humam that follows the sequence of al-Ghazali's tract on dogmatic theology called al-Risala al-Qudsiyya (The Jerusalem Epistle); hence, the name al-Musāyarah (the Pursuit). This Maturidi theological treatise was explained by the Ash'ari scholar Kamal al-Din ibn Abi Sharif (d. 905/1499-1500) who was the student of al-Kamal ibn al-Humam. See: al-Musamara Sharh al-Musayara.
• Al-Sayf al-Mashhur fi Sharḥ 'Aqidat Abi Mansur. This book is an explanation of the theological creed of Abu Mansur al-Maturidi written by the Shafi'i-Ash'ari scholar Taj al-Din al-Subki. He explained in the introduction to this book that the Ash'ari faith is the same as that of the Hanafi Maturidis, and that the disagreement between the Ash'aris and the Maturidis is merely limited to a very few issues.
• Al-'Aqida al-Tahawiyya by the Hanafi jurist al-Tahawi. It has been explained by both Maturidi and Ash'ari scholars.

The Hanafi-Maturidi scholar Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi (d. 493/1100) said in his book Usul al-Din (the Principles of Religion):

Kitāb Usul al-Din

The doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a is the seventh, and it is the doctrine of the jurists, reciters, Sufis, and the People of Hadith... And Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari and all his followers say that they are from Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'a, and the Shafi'is in general follow the al-Ash'ari school of thought, and there is no disagreement between us and them except in a few issues...

ومذهب أهل السنة والجماعة هو السابع وهو مذهب الفقهاء والقرّاء والصوفية وأصحاب الحديث، وهو مذهب الصحابة والتابعين وهو سنة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وأبو الحسن الأشعري وجميع توابعه يقولون إنهم من أهل السنة والجماعة، وعلى مذهب الأشعري عامة أصحاب الشافعي، وليس بيننا وبينهم خلاف إلا في مسائل معدودة قد أخطأوا فيها، والكُلّابية وهم أصحاب أبي محمد القطان يقولون أيضاً إنهم من أهل السنة والجماعة، وليس بيننا وبينهم خلاف إلا في مسائل ثلاث أو أربع قد أخطأوا فيها.

Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi, كتاب أصول الدين، تأليف: أبو اليسر البزدوي، تحقيق: الدكتور هانز بيتر لنس، أحمد حجازي السقا، المكتبة الأزهرية للتراث، 2003م، صفحة: 250

In addition, there are many academic sources written by Muslims and non-Muslims that affirm that the Ash'aris and Maturidis are generally the same, only differing on a few theological issues. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, I think this is an overly simplyfied view. It doesn't matter which position outnumbers the others, neither science nor Wikipedia is a democraty. There are explicit objections towards the claim they are the same. One of the most crucial issues their position towards ethics and free-will. Noone states they were in anyway enemies or didn't accepted each other. The points brought forward in favor for them being essentially the same are until now: 1. a lot of sources say, there is no huge difference 2. all Muslim sources show that they accept each other 3. they both are "kalam". However, you can even find "kalam" among the Atharis, newer research shows deficits in older research regarding this matter and why merging both into one category was a mistake, noone implied that differences would mean they would not respect each other, so the second point isn't in support of any view anyways. If there is good reason to assume that older theories were flawed, why should we still use them? You could, for example, look up the beliefs of Asharism and Maturidism here on Wikipedia to get a quick impression how differently they are, if the sources provided and the historical background don't suffice.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This may all be true, but it's also much simpler than this. At a structural level, these pages are already split, separate subjects. It is extremely inconsistent in this context to then unify related content at a more subordinate level. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Revert of sourced content

There have been an ungoing revert of edits which support that Maturidism and Asharism aren't the same made by TheEagle107. For the background, the User reverted the last edit with pointing out at WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. My edits were further considered "unconstructive". As observable in this talkpage, I reached out for a consensus, however, attempts to read and comprehend the sources brought forth, wer eignored by simply repeating outdated sources, which largely rely on each other. For the claim (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) the User ignored that the points under this header don't apply. Next (WP:WEIGHT) doesn't apply either, for the same reasons as before, it is not a fringe theory. ALl the sources provided are academic sources so WP:RS/AC doesn't apply either.

Next, I also want to point out to mistakes by the user; a revert must be justified (WP:REVEXP), since my edit clearly improves the misunterstanding hold by the editor who reverted as well, I think at least this edit should be done. Actually, much more should be done, since now, it is quite misleading. Next, the user also failed to (explain the revert) and failed again to do so, even when something is written in the edit summary. Simply stating "nah I revert cause it is bad and it seems to go against academic consensus" appears arbitrary, when reliable sources are provided and the sources are explained at length on the talkpage. For the article, I think the fact we can determine almost every scholar to be Maturidi or Ashari indicates they are not identical. If I had seen the dicussion about the splitting, I would have supported the split. Maybe we can agree to rename the list to "Scholars of Kalam", but even here, I am concerned since Atharism isn't necesarily excluding Kalam. However, the user above who is strongly insisting that Maturidism and Asharism are the same, without evidence apart from outdated studies, which partly rely on each other (identifying some differences and then washing them off as insignificant without any method how this insignificance was determined in the first place, while new studies show that some differences are fundamental). This user was also the only participant in the split discussion. Maybe we should repeat the discussion and do compare contemporary sources on that matter. Regarding the reverts, I would kindly advise to take the informations I brought forth on the talkpage and reply to them, instead of writing a "clarification" which misses the point entirely. If the justification for a position is rather "Copy&Paste" and misses the points, it rather speaks for the opposition, since there was no counte-arguement at all. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• FIRSTLY: You should be thorough, objective and neutral, and avoid cherry-picking sources to favor your preferred viewpoint, which is considered a fringe theory.

• SECONDLY: If you think there is a huge disagreement between the two schools, simply make a split request.

• THIRDLY: There is a book in Arabic translated into English under the title of Ahl al-Sunna: The Ash'aris - The Testimony and Proofs of the Scholars, authored by two scholars: Hamad al-Sinan & Fawzi al-'Anjari, with forewords by: Wahbah al-Zuhayli, Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, 'Ali Gum'a, 'Ali al-Jifri, and others. This book contains several lists that include Ash'ari and Maturidi scholars together in each list:

1. Qur'an exegetes
2. Hadith scholars
3. Writers of Prophetic biography

• A leading contemporary Ash'ari scholar Sa'id Foudah wrote a al-Naqd wa al-Taqwim in defence of the doctrine of the Maturidis against their critics from the Salafis/Wahhabis.

In Fiqh, there are four main schools of law: the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali, in 'Aqidah, there are similar schools: Maturidi, and Ash'ari, and in Tasawwuf, there are also similar schools: the Naqshbandi, Shadhili, Rifai and Qadiri, other principal schools are the Ashrafiyya, Badawiyya, Bektashiyya, Chishtiyya, Darqawiyya, Dasuqiyya, Firdawsiyya, Khalwatiyya, Kubrawiyya, Mawlawiyya, Suhrawardiyya, Tijaniyya, and Yasawiyya, all named after a scholar from the region they were founded in. Although the practices, appearances and internal structures of different orders may vary from one to another, from region to region, there are no fundamental differences between the tariqas, since the ultimate goal is essentially the same. The variations have nothing to do with religious principles, the Sufi orders are essentially the same, just as the differences in schools of law refer to methods and not the essence of religion.

Anyway, our personal opinions and analyzes are not important here, what is important is what reliable sources say.

• Al-Azhar depends on both Ash'ari and Maturidi theological schools on an equal footing in the matters of belief.

• Deobandism is known for its traditional outlook and strict adherence to Sunni orthodoxy. It seeks to harmonize religious law with the spiritual path of Sufism (a mystical branch of Islam) while officially endorsing the Hanafi school of thought (the oldest and largest school of Islamic legal beliefs) and the Ash'ari school (a 10th-century Islamic philosophy that believes that comprehension of God is beyond human capability) and the Maturidi creed, which is closely related to the Ash'ari.

• There were, to be sure, still some frictions between the officially recognized maḍāhib. Yet no one could question their basic equality in Sunnite orthodoxy. It was in this intellectual atmosphere that Tāj al-din al-Subki (d. 771/1370) composed his Nūniyya poem on the points of difference between al-Ašh'ari and «Abū Ḥanifa» as interpreted by the Maturidites. Al-Subki found thirteen such points, seven of which, in his view, were merely terminological (lafziyya), the remaining six objective (maʼnawiyya), but so minor that they could not possibly justify mutual charges of infidelity or heresy (tabdi'). With this in mind al-Subki, ardent apologist of Ašh'arism, could maintain that most Ḥanafites were in fact Ašh'arites, except for the few who joined the Mu'tazilites or the Ḥanbalites. The Nuniyya according to its author was avidly memorized by many people, especially Ḥanafites. A commentary on it was written by the Šhafi'ite Nür al-din Muḥammad b. Abi l-Tayyib al-Šhirāzi, who came from Gilän to Damascus in 757/1356 and attended the lectures of al-Subki. Nearly four centuries later Abu 'Udba (wrote about 1125/1713) in his al-Rawda al-Bahiyya fīmā bayn al-Ašhā'ira wa al-Maturidiyya merely copied the commentary of al-Šhīrāzī, repeating al-Subki's list of thirteen points of difference. Al-Subki's view that Ašh'arite and Maturidite theology are virtually identical thus was adopted by the Sunnite community, drawing a line underneath centuries of bitter antagonism between Ash'arite Šhafi'ites and Maturidite Hanafites.

• The Spread and Persistence of Māturīdi Kalām and Underlying Dynamics The paper is concerned with a long-term perspective on the position of Māturīdi kalām within (mostly) Ḥanafi Muslim societies from Timurid times to the 19th century. Whereas outright conflict between legal and theological schools was mainly a thing of the past during the time in question with Ash'arism, already fully embraced also by Ḥanafi constituencies within the ahl al-sunna wa l-jamā'a, a preference for Māturīdi views on specific issues persisted among the majority of Ḥanafi kalām scholars from Bosnia to South Asia.--TheEagle107 (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  With all due to respect, but I feel kinda trolled by you. 1. avoid the caps, it is considered rude, because it stands for screaming on someone. I won't defed the cherry-picking accusation anymore, I did several times above. The split request is something you oppose anyways, why do you suggest that? what is the third point even supposed to mean? Yeh, our personal opinion doesn't matter, why do you continue citing exactly what I critized above? The next quote, once again, is nothing about waht I said, it is about the concept of God, which was not in question in the first place. At the end, you partly reveal the possibility of your true intentions; it is about a future prediction. Pointing out differences, could endanger this progress. However, Wikipedia is not the place for promoting movements or political ideas, it is an encyclopedia. Historically, there have been a lot of differences as pointed out above (with sources, read them!). I will now go on looking for a third opinnions. Shadowwarrior8 (due to their impressive contributions on Islamic branches on Salafism) and Iskandar323 who contributes to a variaty of of Islam-related articles. Summary: The issue here is about a disagreement, if Maturidism and Asharism are the same. TheEagle107 states they are, indeed offering a wide range of sources, while I say, no they are not, by critizing flaws in the sources provided, such as copying from each other, missing the point of the sources (such as 1. stating that "Asharism and Maturidism are essentially the same about the depiciton of God, but still differ in regards of morals, methodic of hadith science, history, and cosmology 2. using outdated sources crticized by mine or 3. referring to religious authorities who fail to privide a secular reliable depiction of the subject). Since I see no amibutions of sai user to listen to my points andconstantly only repeats their own points, I hope you two, or one of you, could bring fourth the efforts to read through the discussion and state your opinions on that matter. Maybe explaining or clarifying some misunderstandings here. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  A debate is being rehashed here that has already been resolved at a community level. Ash'arism and Maturidism are different pages and therefore subjects by community consensus. No one gets to argue otherwise when creating lists about them. Ahl al-Ra'y, the joint family to which Ash'aris and Maturidis are conceptually considered to both adhere, is a relatively impoverished page on Wikipedia, so for those interested in drawing links between the two groups, that is the obvious place to start. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Q:"The issue here is about a disagreement, if Maturidism and Asharism are the same"

  A: Obviously, No. Thats why they are two different schools with seperate stances on theology in many issues.

  Rather than whether they are two different schools of theology, I presume you're specifically talking about the relationship between the scholarship of these two schools. While for the past couple of centuries, traditional Ash'ari and Maturidi scholarship has by and large recognized each school, historically they werent always cordial and they once had an intense rivalry in the past. This is how their early relationship is described is various academic sources:

  Maturidism, based on the work of al-Maturidi (d. c. 944), a Hanafi theologian and jurist, became the main rival to Ash'arism

  Al-Asha'ari lived in Baghdad and was a contemporart of al-Maturidi, but there is no indication that they were aware of each other's efforts... Substantial differences between the two are few, but they are sufficient to have created some rivalry between their respective schools. The difference between the attitude of al-Maturidi and of all-Ashari may be judged from this: If al-Ash'ari's attempt during the later period was to strike a middle path between rationalism and traditionalism, al-Maturidi certainly took a position between what may be called Ash'arism and Mu'tazilism. The important points of difference between these two leaders of orthodox Kalam, more strictly between the two schools, have been reckoned by some writers as fifty in number (Shaikzadah, 1317/1899). As a result of these differences there was a bitter rivalry between the followers of these two schools but happily in course of time this tendency subsided and both the schools were regarded as orthodox.

  Prof. Ulrich Rudolph's "Al-Māturīdī and the Development of Sunnī Theology in Samarqand" gives a brief account on how this reconciliation between Asharites and Maturidites came around during the 6th century:

  Zangid ruler Nūr al-Dīn (r. 541–68/1146–74) paved a way by which he would advocate the strengthening of Sunnism as a whole, which meant toleration of the differences between the individual Sunnī schools. What he instituted found appeal and a following among the Ayyūbids (from 564/1169), and was upheld most notably in the subsequent century, when the Mamlūks came to power (from 648/1250). Within their territory they established the definitive principle of the equal authority of all the Sunnī legal schools; and if this was initially intended for the four great schools of law, then in principle it could be extended to theology. It is certainly not a coincidence that in Syria of the eighth/fourteenth century, voices could be heard articulating what to us today seems to go without saying: in Sunnī Islam there are two recognized kalām methodologies, one the doctrine of al-Ashʿarī, and the other the Māturīdite doctrine from distant Transoxania. Thus did al-Māturīdī finally gain general recognition, and to a degree that only a few Islamic theologians have been similarly granted. But this relatively late acknowledgment had its own share of consequences; such a delay was ultimately responsible for the fact that his teachings are not described or even alluded to in any of the well-known Islamic heresiographies—which almost all originate from before the eighth/fourteenth century.

  The same book also speaks about the polemics between prominent Maturidi theologians like Al-Nasafi and Al-Bazdawi & Ash'arites:

  The first remarks on our theologian naturally originate from the region in which he was active, namely, Transoxania. When reflecting on the nature of their theological tradition, scholars of that region from the fifth/eleventh century held that it had been decidedly imprinted by al-Māturīdī’s contributions. This is the sense of the testimony given by Abū l-Yusr al-Pazdawī (d. 493/1100), for instance, and by his younger contemporary Abū l-Muʿīn al-Nasafī (d. 508/1114).. It is noteworthy that we can detect an apologetic undertone with al-Pazdawī as well as with al-Nasafī. This was directed at the Ashʿarites of Nishapur, who had apparently censured the Transoxanians for allowing unacceptable innovations in their theology. At the focal point of this critique was the doctrine of divine attributes professed in Samarqand and the surrounding areas. This was denounced by the Ashʿarites as a heretical innovation of the fifth/eleventh century that none of the predecessors (salaf) had adhered to.

  Hope that was insightful. Thanks! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, this was very very insightful. It is also a good reading recommendation for myself though. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Solution

Hello everyone VenusFeuerFalle, Iskandar323, Shadowwarrior8, The solution is very "SIMPLE": WP:NPOV or WP:SPLIT. That's all. End of story.--TheEagle107 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that is extremely unclear, but it sounds like you are attempting to dictate. If you are saying that to split this article would be POV then you have no basis for saying that, unless you are arguing that the existence of these pages: Ash'arism and Maturidism is a WP:POVFORK - which is clearly incorrect, as they are distinct schools, but you are welcome to go over to those and argue that there. However, as it stands, these are separate subjects, and this is a list that is at odds with the division of the parent articles on the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If your solution is a split, why did you vote against the split in the first place? If you are convinced by new information that you appreciate a split, why don't you cooperate? It appears to me, you just want to oppose the split again and waste people's time in order to prevent change by obstructing through buerocratic processes. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle, Iskandar323, I am not here to argue, and I don't have time for that. And yes, I am against the splitting because this is a special case, as I have mentioned above and as the sources state, but if there is consensus on splitting the list into two lists, then there is no problem, at least for me. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

So you are fine with a split? Since to reach a consensus, we would need all, including you, to agree. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the active members of Wikiproject Islam should be notified about this, per WP:APPNOTE.--TheEagle107 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

References