Ashari and Maturidi differences

[faqir]

[FONT='Arial', 'sans-serif']You should know that Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari is the Imam of Ahl al-Sunna and at their forefront, followed by Shaykh Abu al-Mansur al-Maturidi. Know also – as some of our Shaykhs have mentioned to us, may Allah have mercy upon them – that the companions of al-Shafi‘i and his followers follow him (Abu al-Hasan) in matters of doctrine, and follow al-Shafi‘i in matters of law. The companions of Abu Hanifa follow Shaykh Abū al-Mansur in doctrine and follow Abu Hanifa in law. This is what our Shaykhs have imparted to us. And we beseech Allah, the Exalted, asking Him to grant these two noble Imams a generous reward for what they have expended of sincere advice to the Muslims. We beseech Allah, the Exalted, asking Him to include us among those perform the actions of those granted Divine success: those who traverse the path of the rightly-guided and realized ones; by His largess, bounty, and generosity – Amen! There is no contention between the two Shaykhs and their followers except in twelve issues.[/font]

pdf available here:

http://www.marifah.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=228&Item id=47

Eleven:
al-Maturidi
said
that
being
male
is
a
condition
for
Prophethood,
and
consequently,
it
is

impermissible
for
a
women
to
be
a
Prophetess.
Al-Ash‘ari
said
that
being
male
is
not
a
condition
fo r
it,

and
that
being
female
does
not
negate
it.
This
is
taken
from
Bidaya
al-Kalam.

interesting!

Eleven:
al-Maturidi
said
that
being
male
is
a

condition
for
Prophethood,
and
consequently,
it
is






impermissible
for
a
women
to
be
a
Prophetess.

Al-Ash‘ari
said
that
being
male
is
not
a
condition
for
it,






and
that
being
female
does
not
negate
it.
This
is
taken

from






Bidaya
al-Kalam

.

is that correct?

[kattarsunni]

No. The overwhelming majority of the Ash'aris (jamhur) held the same position as the Maturidi's. A small minority held the divergent position.

though it was al-ashari' himself.

[faqir]

When i get home I'll check sh Sa'id's commentary on the above. Wa-s-salam

[abu Hasan]

this is a warning to all posters who rake up obscure matters that may cause confusion to common people: if you are trying to show off your knowledge - we are not impressed. just because you opened your eyes yesterday does not mean the whole world is still sleeping.

secondly, if you are a seeker, a public forum of non-scholars is not a place to discuss or rake up such issues. i don't see any other reason other than seeking attention to oneself.

mentioning contentious topics and planting confusion in the minds of common muslims is Haraam.

----
if you are capable, go and read the books in this list. if you are not capable, it is beyond your ordinary learning - you are unfit to discuss the topic.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

------
oh, and i almost forgot. administrators and moderators still retain the right to delete posts.

everything is contentious for you like a litterateur.

mentioning contentious topics and planting confusion in the minds of common
muslims is Haraam.

what about the following?

to reject a SaHiH hadith whose chain is rigorously authenticated,
is kufr

you have a home made definition of contentious. that which suits you is OK and everything else is contentious. I do not think there is anything contentious if an Imam said that being a man is not a condition of being a Prophet. you are saying kufr for the denial of a sahih hadith yet for so long I am asking you to provide evidence yet I provided everything you requested. could this be the reason for your contentious thesis?

[abu Hasan]

i did not start it; it was an idiot who made a stupid comment that imam bukhari makes his blood pressure shoot up.

----
i take it that you have a problem with english comprehension:

this is how you quote with YOUR emphasis:

to reject a SaHiH hadith whose chain is rigorously authenticated,
is kufr

what i said was:

to reject a SaHiH hadith whose chain is rigorously authenticated,
is kufr

it is not my problem if you want to give novel meanings to my words. when a friend sent me the link from the original poster going off on the 'chain', i ignored him because he didn't even understand the context of what was said. but i did not think that you you would insist on making a fool of yourself.