Thread by @IbnMosharraf

Imam Tahawi and Imam Maturidi were contemporaries.

Maturidis say that he was Maturidi. Salafis say he was Salafi(i.e. Athari).

Which is actually the truth?

Tahawi's core text is said to be the documentation of the Hanafi Aqeedah which could be traced all the way back to Abu Yusuf, Muhammad Al Shaybani and Abu Hanifa himself.

Salafis use the commentary of Ibn Abi Al Izz to affirm that Abu Hanifa was in fact Athari(Salafi).

However there are a few issues.

I say this prefacing with the fact Ibn Abi Al Izz was a far greater scholar than I'll ever be and whatever was done to him by his opponents is utterly disgraceful and condemnable.

May Allah have mercy on him and elevate his rank.

I have read the core text of Tahawi in Arabic. And there are core issues where both Imam Tahawi and Imam Maturidi agree on.

1. The six directions don't contain him.

Salafis say that this is ambiguous and what it really means is the Throne is below Him and nothing above can

contain Him.

But Imam Tahawi highlights the transcendence of Allah in the absolute sense similar to Imam Maturidi. He isn't dependent on anything and nothing can contain Him.

Both Imam Tahawi and Imam Maturidi affirm the reality of the Throne and the Footstool.

2. Seeing Allah Jannah has no Kayfiyya.

Imam Ibn Abi Al Izz attacks the Mutakallimun fiercely on this issue. However, the solution he offers doesn't align with Imam Tahawi's core text.

If it was just a matter of having a powerful vision to see Him, why would Imam Tahawi say that there is no Kayfiyya? Saying that we will have a powerful enough to vision to see Him is in fact Kayfiyya.

The fact that he Imam Tahawi emphasizes that there is no Kayfiyya alludes to the fact that he does adopt Kalam metaphysics.

And there is more than enough evidence to allude to the fact that Imam Abu Hanifa negated space and spatiality. And the core text of the Tahawi Creed reflects it.

And that is why Salafi commenters say that there is ambiguity in Tahawi's core text.

And they also criticized Tahawi for using Al Qadim stating that Al Qadim was never used as a name for Allah.

So the fact that Salafis have to resort to elaborate commentary to make the Tahawi Creed align with Salafism shows that at the very least that Tahawi's Salafism is debatable.

To me he clearly ascribes to the Hanafi tradition that is distinct from Salafism.

Or the Athari tradition Salafis ascribe themselves to.

This isn't to say that the Salafi Aqeedah is baseless. They have lot Aimmah they can refer to as authorities from the era of the Salaf like Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Hanbal and others.

But Tahawi is not really Salafi.

So while there were some differences between Imam Maturidi and Imam Tahawi, as Imam Maturidi engaged in Kalam much more than him.

But on many issues Imam Maturidi deferred to the Quranic reality after exhausting all the rational arguments.

In conclusion Imam Tahawi and Imam Maturidi have more than enough similarities for both of them to be classified as scholars of the Hanafi tradition. In both Fiqh and Aqeedah.

And Maturidis haven't really deviated from Abu Hanifa's principles.

The above is from a full year of studying the Tahawi Creed and all its Sharh.

I also attended the Dars of Mufti Harun Izhar has lectures available online.

To reiterate, I do not wish to belittle Imam Ibn Abi Al Izz. But his Aqeedah differed from Tahawi more than the Maturidis.

And that is the reason why Hanafi Atharis are an anomaly and most modern "Hanafi" Atharis rely on Salafi(or Hanbali) texts for Aqeedah.

I am not saying that it is not possible to be a Hanafi Athari. Ahmadullah is one. But there will be a lot of work involved.

In the west you have Akram Nadwi. His Al Salam offers you that route.

So best of luck. Barak Allah Fik for reading.