The Extent of Agreement between the Muʿtazilites and the Māturīdīs in Doctrinal Issues

-

Abstract

The research problem lies in the fact that some claim the Māturīdīs fully agree with the Muʿtazilites in their theological views. This study aims to examine the most prominent issues commonly believed to be identical between the two schools in order to verify this assumption and clarify the points of agreement and disagreement between them. The study is divided into an introduction and three sections covering the following topics: the obligation of knowing God through reason, the ambiguous (attributes) with respect to Him, the ruling on those to whom the message has not reached, human ability, the issue of imposing what cannot be borne, divine wisdom and the rationale behind God’s actions, the concepts of good and evil, and the promise and the threat. The study employs analytical, comparative, and critical methods. Among the main findings is that the similarity between the two schools on certain rulings is only superficial, while the disagreements are profound and substantial. It was also found that the role of reason in Māturīdī thought is more limited compared to that in Muʿtazilite thought. Moreover, the Muʿtazilites’ reliance on reason was not driven by mere personal whims but stemmed from motives to uphold God’s transcendence, in which they were correct in some instances and mistaken in others. This research opens new horizons for further specialized studies to examine in greater depth the differences between the Māturīdīs and the Muʿtazilites in doctrinal matters, particularly in issues where the rulings appear similar, in order to scrutinize the extent to which their content and foundations truly converge.