I was doing some more research into the Maturidis, which is the theology school that the Hanafis follow. Apparently, they believe in a lot of reasonable things, and though it is the school the majority of Muslims follow, I’m surprised that its presence is so obscured in the study of Islam.

- For example, Maturidis believe that revelation only confirms what reason already knows

- Good and evil, sin and righteousness are knowable through the fitrah, not solely because God declares them

- Faith requires intellect, reflection, and the contemplation of divine being and observation, not just blind acceptance

- The Divine attributes of God are not literal and have to be understood metaphorically without any degree of anthropomorphism involved

- Logic and philosophy are tools that enrich faith, as long as they’re done in the framework of the Quran and Sunnah

- Believing in the oneness of God is possible without revelation, but accepting Islam is still mandatory for attaining paradise

- Allah creates the possibilities, but humans choose between them. Therefore, whatever good or bad happens in this word will be towards the loss or benefit of the people

Being a Hanafi, I find the Maturidi way of thinking to be the most reasonable. It makes way more sense than what the Atharis or Ash’aris say, but I just don’t see a lot of Maturidi aqidah being talked about.

So the reason I’m asking this question is: why is that the case? Being the most popular theological school, it SHOULD be the dominant way of thinking, yet a lot of discourse about Islam is dominated by either the Asharis/Atharis.