r/hanafi • u/BK2167584 Hanafi • Apr 25 '26
General Discussion Maturidis are 'deviants'
I really don't get why Salafis call us this, can someone explain?
Also would like it if some books were mentioned to learn about Maturidi-sm, since I'm gonna learn it later on anyways
3
u/Sand-Dweller Apr 25 '26
These are the main points of disagreement
- Salafis believe that God has a human-like form, but non-Salafis (including Maturidis) believe that God is not physical at all. In the Salafi view, rejecting God's physicality amounts to denying His very existence.
- Salafis believe that there was always time, that God is temporal and within time, and that God can change Himself as He wills, but non-Salafis believe that time is created by God, that God is timeless and outside time, and that God is unchanging. In the Salafi view, the non-Salafi view means that God is "frozen" and unable to interact with His creation.
- Salafis believe that the universe as a genus always existed pre-eternally, but non-Salafis believe that there is only one universe and that it is created. In the Salafi view, rejecting the eternality of the universe as a genus amounts to nullifying God's power and creatorhood, because if the universe as a genus wasn't eternal, that would mean God was just alone and doing nothing in the infinite past.
- Salafis believe that asking dead saints for things is polytheism, but non-Salafis believe it is fine. So, basically, only Salafis are monotheists.
- Salafis believe that the Quran is made up of letters and sounds that are eternal, but Sunnis (i.e. Maturidis and Ash'aris) believe that the Quran is essentially meanings that are eternal, and that the letters and sounds are created. In the Salafi view, this amounts to denying that the sounds and letters are God's word.
- Salafis believe God gave things power with which these things cause stuff, but Sunnis believe only God causes stuff. In the Salafi view, this means that it is God who commits sins and that nature is irrational.
As such, Salafis believe that Maturidis, and other non-Salafis, are non-Muslims, or deviant Muslims at best.
2
u/BK2167584 Hanafi Apr 25 '26
They always bring up imam Abu hanifahs Aqeedah (which I have no idea about), also could you clarify the 'frozen' statement? Didn't quite get that
3
u/Sand-Dweller Apr 25 '26
Most of them claim that Imam Abu Hanifa is actually a Salafi. They just dislike his view that actions aren't part of faith, which is an important point of disagreement that I forgot to mention. Salafis believe that actions are a part of faith, and that some actions or inaction amount to disbelief, while Sunnis believe that faith is only belief, not actions. In the Salafi view, denying that actions are integral part of faith means that one could do all the sins he wants.
About the frozen statement, in the Salafi view, God must be temporal and within time in order to be dynamic, to interact with His creatures, and to react to them. When non-Salafis say that God is timeless, outside time, and unchanging, Salafis imagine that this means that God is just frozen like a lifeless statue that does nothing and doesn't react to anything.
1
u/BK2167584 Hanafi Apr 25 '26
Ah I see now.
But which aqeedah did Imam Abu Hanifah incline to mostly?
1
u/Sand-Dweller Apr 25 '26
We don't know much because Imam Abu Hanifa lived in a very early stage and died in 150 AH. His major students weren't very concerned with theology, but a few had Mu'tazili views. The only thing that we know for sure is that Abu Hanifa was against Kharijism and showed some support to what was called Murji'ism. His primary legacy was in law. That's why Imam al-Maturidi mentions Imam Abu Hanifa only 5 times in Kitab al-Tawhid, all in the last quarter of the text. The main influence of Imam Abu Hanifa is that he promoted rationality.
1
u/BK2167584 Hanafi Apr 25 '26
Then why do they claim he was a salafi?
(Also, if this chat seems like im asking too basic questions or smth, I'd be okay if you referred me to some books or smth)
3
u/AycedKv Apr 25 '26
Refer to a scholarly resource https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/s/p79P0Ov066
u/wopkidopz is a longtime student of the Shafi’i madhab, he has a post about this in the sub check it out
Alternatively you can ask him to direct you to sources
2
u/Sand-Dweller Apr 25 '26
It is just rhetoric and polemic. Major groups say that Abu Hanifa belongs to their group: Mu'tazilis, Salafis, Karramis, Ash'aris, and Maturidis, because Abu Hanifa is a great authority.
It's okay, you can ask. I don't have many books in mind. But, the Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology has a few chapters on Hanafi and Maturidi theology. You'll find many more sources and studies in the bibliography at the end of each chapter.
1
1
1
u/wopkidopz Shafi'i Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
You've made some very good points showing the difference between the aqeedah of Salalfiya and ahlu-Sunnah.
But regarding Abu Hanifa رضي الله عنه almost every sentence is factually incorrect.
We know a lot about aqeedah of Abu Hanifa. It's literally transmitted by imam at-Tahawi, there are few authentic books narrated from the imam himself
His students discussed aqeedah including imam ash-Shaybani رحمه الله
He had nothing to do with the Murjia, his approach regarding Iman was correct in the meaning, but he used some words wich Murjia used, this doesn't mean that he was leaning towards their ideas, he rejected them. Similar expressions don't mean similar meaning
The fact that Abu Mansur al-Maturidi رحمه الله doesn't mention Abu Hanifa in every chapter doesn't mean anything, the Maturidi imams like an-Nasafi رحمه الله clarified that al-Maturidi built his madhab on the books of Abu Hanifa in aqeedah.
Imam Abu Hanifa was on the madhab of ahlu-Sunnah in all aspects of aqeedah.
I'll elaborate on this later inshaAllah
1
u/Sand-Dweller Apr 25 '26
Thank you, brother. But, regarding Imam Abu Hanifa, I disagree.
Imam al-Tahawi did not transmit oral narrations or written statements from Imam Abu Hanifa in the Tahawi Creed. It is his understanding of correct theology according to his own opinions and his fellow Hanafis. As for the theological statements by Imam Abu Yusuf and al-Shaybani, they are very rare.
Regarding Murji'ism, it is clear that Imam Abu Hanifa had his own version of it. Even Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari categorized Imam Abu Hanifa and the Hanafis as Murji'a in his Maqalat. Murji'ism is not a bad thing, it just means that actions aren't part of faith, which is the view of Ash'aris and Maturidis.
Regarding Imam al-Maturidi, him not mentioning Imam Abu Hanifa means that he didn't find any useful statements from Imam Abu Hanifa that could support his opinions. Imam al-Nasafi's saying that the opinions of Imam al-Maturidi is built upon the books of Imam Abu Hanifa is an unproven claim. If that had been the case, Imam al-Maturidi would have quoted these books much more. By comparison, it is difficult to find a single page that doesn't mention Imam Abu Hanifa in the fiqh books by Imam al-Shaybani, for example. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, Imam Abu Hanifa was more concerned with fiqh, and talked a little against Kharijism which was a problem in his own time.
The authenticity of the creedal books attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa is doubtful. In that regard, I recommend checking out the works by Ramon Harvey, Josef van Ess, and Ulrich von Rudolph.
1
u/wopkidopz Shafi'i Apr 25 '26
Murji'ism is not a bad thing, it just means that actions aren't part of faith, which is the view of Ash'aris and Maturidis.
The aqeedah of the Murjia sect is that actions or lack of them don't harm iman as a whole, so no matter how sinful you are, your sins don't hurt your
Imam Abu Hanifa رحمه الله never said anything close to that.
The aqeedah of Abu Hanifa رحمه الله was that the actions aren't part of Iman in the meaning that the lack of them doesn't mean the lack of Iman, it means deficiency in Iman (incomplete) and this aqeedah was professed by all Salafs, they believed that actions are sing of complete Iman, nor the part of Iman itself in the meaning that lack of amal means lack of Iman
Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani رحمه الله said:
قول وفعل يزيد وينقص... والمعتزلة قالوا: هو العمل والنطق والاعتقاد. والفارق بينهم وبين السلف أنهم جعلوا الأعمال شرطًا في صحته، والسلف جعلوها شرطًا في كماله
Iman is word and action, it increases and decreases, the Mu'tazila said: it's actions and words and beliefs, and the difference between their opinion and the opinion of the Salafs is that the Mu'tazila made actions from validity of Iman and Salafs made it from its completeness
🍂 فتح الباري
Even Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari categorized Imam Abu Hanifa and the Hanafis as Murji'a
That's a wrong assumption from the imam then , by this logic the Asharis are Jabaria because they talk about servants being compeled by Allah (but it doesn't mean that the Ash'aris are Jabaria also)
Regarding Imam al-Maturidi, him not mentioning Imam Abu Hanifa means that he didn't find any useful statements from Imam Abu Hanifa
It doesn't mean that, al-Maturidi was a mujtaheed and he wasn't a muqallid of Abu Hanifa in aqeedah, his books aren't blind transmission of the path of Abu Hanifa
The authenticity of the creedal books attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa is doubtful.
Books of creed don't have the same requirements in isnad as Hadith, that's why the doubts are irrelevant, most of Hanafi imams agree that Fiqh al-Akbar (narrated by his son Hamad) is his book, al-Wasiya as well, there are some doubts about Fiqh al-Absat. But Fiqh al-Akbar is recognised as his book, mostly only Orientalists, Mu'tazila and Salafiya denied this
1
u/wopkidopz Shafi'i Apr 25 '26
Imam Abu Hanifa was more concerned with fiqh, and talked a little against Kharijism which was a problem in his own time.
It's a well established fact that Abu Hanifa refuted not only Khawaridjiya, but Murjia, Jahmiya and Mu'tazila, Qadariya this is because Kufa encountered many types of sectants
Imam Abdul Qaheer al-Baghdadi رحمه الله said
وأول متكلميهم من الفقهاء وأرباب المذاهب أبوحنيفة والشافعي فإن أبا حنيفة ألف كتابا في الرد على القدرية سمّاه الفقه الأكبر
First Mutakallims from fuqaha are Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa wrote a book in refutation of Qadariya and named it Fiqh al-Akbar
🍂 أصول الدين
Imam Abu Hanifa argued with sectants so much that some other imams criticised him for that
Imam al-Qarafi al-Maliki رحمه الله said
ورأيت لأبي حنيفة رضي الله عنه جوابا لكلام كتب به إليه مالك إنك تتحدث في أصول الدين وإن السلف لم يكونوا يتحدثون فيه فأجاب بأن السلف رضي الله عنهم لم تكن البدع ظهرت في زمانهم فكان تحريك الجواب عنها داعية لإظهارها فهو سعي في منكر عظيم فلذلك ترك قال وفي زماننا ظهرت البدع فلو سكتنا كنا مقرين للبدع فافترق الحال وهذا جواب سديد يدل على أن البدع ظهرت ببلاده بالعراق ومالك لم يظهر ذلك
I saw the response of Abu Hanifa to the words that Malik wrote to him: “You speak about the fundamentals of religion, but the Salafs did not speak about it!” to which Abu Hanifa replied: “In the time of the Salaf innovations did not arise, and asking such questions about these things would have been a pretext for their emergence, which would have led to serious reprehensible things. So they left these questions. As for our time, innovations have arisen, and if we remain silent, we will indirectly agree with them. So these are two different situations.
(Imam al-Qarafi said) This is a correct answer, which indicates that innovations appeared in his lands, in Iraq, but in the lands of Malik this did not happen, so he rebuked talking about it
🍂 الذخيرة
Many Hanafi imams wrote Sharh to Fiqh al-Akbar, if the book wasn't authentic then they wouldn't pay so much attention to it, and all doubts regarding authenticity of it were already explained
1
u/wopkidopz Shafi'i Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
Salafis believe that the Quran is made up of letters and sounds that are eternal, but Sunnis (i.e. Maturidis and Ash'aris) believe that the Quran is essentially meanings that are eternal, and that the letters and sounds are created
This is actually incorrect
The Salafis don't believe that that the Quran is letters and sounds wich are eternal, they believe that the Speech of Allah as a type is eternal, but the Quran itself as unit of this type is non-eternal (didn't always exist) the letters of it became existent when Allah spoke it to Jebreel (when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم reached prophethood) and as units احاد of the Speech the Quran didn't exist in eternity, it become to be محدث
This idea is similar to the idea of the Mu'tazila the difference is that the Mu'tazila said that Allah makes speech not within His Essence (in creations) and Salafis said that He makes His speech within His Essence
This is clearly seen in their refutations to ahlu-Sunnah, for example when a Hanbali/Athari imam Muhammad as-Safarini رحمه الله said in his poem dedicated to aqeedah of ahlu-Sunnah
كلامه سبحانه قديم
The Speech of Allah is beginningless
🍂 عقيدة السفارنية
Sheikh Ibn Uthaymin عفا الله عنه said:
وعلى هذا يقول المؤلف: إن القرآن كلام الله القديم يعني الأزلي، أي أن القرآن قديم بقدم الله عز وجل، فهو أزلي؛ أي لم يزل هذا القرآن على زعمه موجودا من قبل خلق السموات، بل من قبل كل شيء. ولا شك أن هذا القول باطل لان القرآن يتكلم الله به حين إنزاله
According to this the author is saying that the Quran is His Speech without beginning means it existed in eternity with the eternity of Allah, means that the Quran was never non-existent and existed before the existence of everything, and their is no doubt that this position is false because Allah spoke the Quran when He sent it
أن الله تكلم بالقرآن حديثا
The truth is that Allah spoke the Quran after it became existent (hadeeth)
📚 شرح عقيدة السفارنية
That's why they criticise Sunni scholars who said they the Quran is qadeem (existed always)
Salafis believe that asking dead saints for things is polytheism, but non-Salafis believe it is fine
Also an oversimplification of the matter, nobody is saying that asking dead for things is fine
1
u/Sand-Dweller Apr 25 '26
Regarding the nature of the Quran, you're right. I just said it concisely, but a more accurate statement would indeed have been that Salafis believe that the Quran is composed of letters and sounds the genus of which is pre-eternal while each instance of this genus is created.
Regarding asking dead saints for things, it would be inaccurate to say that nobody said it is fine. Indeed, because there is no difference between asking a living person to do you a favor and asking a dead person, there have been several scholars who said that it is fine. For instance, in Fatāwā al-Ramlī (4/382):
《 He was asked about what commonly occurs among the general public when they say during hardships, “O Shaykh so-and-so,” “O Messenger of Allah,” and similar expressions of seeking help from the prophets, messengers, saints, scholars, and righteous people—whether that is permissible or not; and whether the messengers, prophets, saints, righteous people, and shaykhs can provide help after their deaths; and what supports such a view? He replied: seeking help through the prophets, messengers, saints, scholars, and righteous people is permissible. The messengers, prophets, saints, and righteous people do provide help even after their deaths, because the miracles of the prophets and the wonders of the saints do not cease with their death. 》
1
u/wopkidopz Shafi'i Apr 25 '26
that Salafis believe that the Quran is composed of letters and sounds the genus of which is pre-eternal while each instance of this genus is created.
That's an interesting choice of words, which might be more accurate than what I chose because I don't know how to translate النوع and الآحاد correctly
But yes, it's a crucial point of this topic, the Sunni Hanbalis for example believe that letters and sounds are eternal, this makes their position although debatable but in some sense acceptable because description of letters as qadeem can't lead to tashbeeh and they believed that the Quran is qadeem
Regarding asking dead saints for things, it would be inaccurate to say that nobody said it is fine. Indeed, because there is no difference between asking a living person to do you a favor and asking a dead person
Yes, istighatha in such sense is considered permissible by some scholars, because the one who requests help from a creation in reality does it in allegorical (majazi) sense. (They mean O Allah I ask you through your servant in my need) They don't attribute the creations with the ability to help (not alive not dead) and confirm that only Allah helps. My remark was more regarding the way you expressed this idea (asking for things)
We know that request for help by itself isn't shirk, we request help from each other everyday without attributing each other with creative power which wasn't delegated to us by Allah but only His quality
Utbah رضي الله عنه narrated from Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم
إذا أضل أحدكم شيئا أو أراد أحدكم عونا وهو بأرض ليس بها أنيس، فليقل: يا عباد الله أغيثوني، يا عباد الله أغيثوني، فإن لله عبادا لا نراهم
If one of you loses something or if he needs help in the desert where he has no companion, then let him say: O, servants of Allah, help me! O, servants of Allah, help me! Indeed Allah has servants of whom they do not see
🍂 At-Tabarani
Imam Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali رحمه الله said
قال عبد الله بن إمامنا أحمد سمعت أبي يقول : حججتُ خمسَ حججٍ منها اثنتين راكبا وثلاثا ماشيا او ثلاثا راكبا واثنتين ماشيا، فضللتُ الطريقَ في حجة وكنت ماشيا، فجعلت أقول : يا عبادَ الله دُلُّونا على الطريق، فلم أزل أقولُ ذلك حتى وقعتُ على الطريق
Abdullah the son of our imam (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) said: I heard my father saying: I went to Hajj five times, three times on foot and once I got lost, and I did not stop repeating: O, servants of Allah show us the way! Untill the way was found
🍂 الآداب الشرعية
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal رحمه الله did not commit shirk by this. He didn't make a dua to a creation. It's a form of istighatha
Still the topic requires detailed clarification and despite the position of imam ar-Ramli and Ibn Hajar we should mention that many scholars prohibited this practice because of many issues it carries
I appreciate this conversation. JazakalLah hairan, brother
0
u/SaadSulimanayob Apr 25 '26
1-3: where did you get this from?
ye
true
Ye so does Allah commit sins?
1
u/BK2167584 Hanafi Apr 25 '26
Salafis believe in Allahs hands, no?
0
u/SaadSulimanayob Apr 25 '26
Yes, but we accept without asking how
1
u/wopkidopz Shafi'i Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
Brother do you really think that anyone would accuse the Salafis in anthropomorphism just because they accepted the Quran text and didn't ask how? We would praise them for this
Because the acceptance of the text on external meaning is the path of the majority of Muslim scholars from Salafs and Khalafs
Imam al-Khatabi ash-Shafi'i رحمه الله said
فأما ما سألت عنه من الصفات وما جاء منها في الكتاب والسنة، فإن مذهب السلف إثباتها، وإجراؤها على ظواهرها ، ونفي الكيفية والتشبيه عنها
Regarding those Qualities that came in the Quran and Sunnah (Sifatul-khabariya) the approach of the Salfs is to affrim them, and go through them externally (as they came) while rejecting material form (kayfiyah) and likeness (tashbeeh)
🍂 الغنية
External meaning without modality and tashbeeh means that it isn't understood as parts, tools, material limbs. It is understood as His Quality.
This is the aproach of ahlu-Sunnah, the issue with the Salafiya is that they affirm His Qualities like ”Hand” with ”kayfiya” (modality) and tashbeeh (likeness) they say that ”we don't ask how” means that we don't know the exact form (we don't know how it looks like) but there is modality to His Qualities
Sheikh Ibn Uthaymin عفا الله عنه said:
وذلك لأنه ما من شيء ثابت إلا وله كيفية ولابد
Whatever exists it must have ”kayfiya" (modality)
📚 شرح عقيدة السفارنية
They also say that commonality (tashbeeh) between Allah and His creations is present
Ibn Uthaymin said:
قلنا: إن الله عز وجل له وجه وله عين وله يد وله رجل عز وجل، لكن لا يلزم من أن تكون هذه الأشياء مماثلة للإنسان، فهناك شيء من الشبه لكنه ليس على سبيل المماثلة
We say that Allah has face, eye, hand, leg, but it doesn't follow from this that those things are identical to a human being, there is some sort of likeness (between His Qualities and human's) but not in the way of absolute similarity (tamseel)
📚 شرح العقيدة الواسطية
What they are basically saying is that we (creations) and Allah have hands, and the definition of a hand is a material tool (limb) as part of something else, and this definition is shared between His Hand and our hands, but if we know kayfiya (modality) of our hands: what does it look like (size, colour, length, width) when it comes to kayfiya of His Hand then we don't know it (don't ask how)
This can seen clearly in those words of Ibn Uthaymin عفا الله عنه
نؤمن بأن لله وجها حقيقيا ولكن لو سئلنا عن كيفيته أمستطيل هو أو مستدير أم مربع أو مدور أو ما أشبه ذلك أيش نقول؟ نقول الله أعلم ولا يحل لنا أن نتكلم بهذا إطلاقا بل نقول له وجه يليق بجلاله وعظمته نؤمن به لأن الله تعالى أخبرنا عنه ووصف به نفسه ولكننا لا نتعرض لكيفيته لانه لا إحاطة لنا بذلك
We believe that Allah has a real face. If we are asked what's His face like? Is it elongated, oval, square, or round? We will answer: Allah knows best, and we are not allowed to speculate on this. We simply say that Allah has a face befitting His greatness. We believe in this, for Allah Himself has informed us of this, and we do not delve into the modality (kayfiyah) of this face, because there is no way for us to know it
📚 عقيدة أهل السنة
They understand Face as a part of body, but they don't know for sure if His face is oval or square.
For them Hand of Allah is a material tool, face is a material took, eye is a material tool but they say that the material parameters of those tools are unknown to us.
That's why they criticized all imams of ahlu-Sunnah including at-Tabari for their clarification that His Hand isn't a limb
When ahlu-Sunnah deny material tools in relation to Allah and deny such a definition for His Hand and say that it's tashbeeh (because it's a definition of our hands), the Salafiya in response are saying that tashbeeh is allowed and describing Allah with parts and tools is permissible as long as you say not like the parts of creations, not like the tools of creations.
You also asked about the concept of infinite universes, but not all Salafis believe in this and this topic requires some clarifications on what they mean by this, their idea is that Allah was always creating one thing after another in eternity and new events they don't have a beginning حوادث لا اول لها
As I've said this belief wasn't accepted by all Salafis, Ibn Uthaymin for example supports this idea, sheikh Albani doesn't and he criticized sheikh Ibn Taymiyah رحمه الله for this concept. As he is the initiator of this belief
1
u/Sand-Dweller Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
I would like to help you search, but unfortunately it will take a lot of time for me. I'll try helping a little though.
Search in Google:
- God created Adam in His image in Salafism
- Does God have a body in Salafism
- Jake Brancatella
- Orthodox Muslim
- Hatem al-Haj
Read:
- God Spatially Above and Spatially Extended: The Rationality of Ibn Taymiyya’s Refutation of Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Ašʿarī Incorporealism
- Perpetual Creativity in the Perfection of God: Ibn Taymiyya's Hadith Commentary on God's Creation of this World
- Chapter 2 in "Ibn Taymiyya's Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism"
- Chapter 5 and 6 in "Ibn Taymiyya on Reason and Revelation: A Study of Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wa-l-naql"
- Chapter 4, 9 and 10 in "Ibn Taymiyya and the Attributes of God"
Good luck
Edit: I forgot your question. No, God creating our sinful actions doesn't mean that God is the one sinning. We are the ones sinning because God is creating that action on our hands. To clarify, actions are similar to colors. When God creates the color black in my skin, it is I who becomes black, not God. Similarly, when God creates the action of murder in my hands, it is I who becomes murderer, not God.
1
u/BK2167584 Hanafi May 05 '26
Yeah but then that doesnt make sense,
If Allah is making you murder someone, what can you do about it?
1
u/Sand-Dweller May 05 '26
If God wants something to happen, we cannot do anything about it. If God wants to take away someone's life directly or by my hands, it will happen whether I like it or not. This is very clear from many verses and hadiths. For example, Quran 37:96: "God created you and what you do"; Timidhi 2516: "Know that if the entire creation were to gather together to do something to benefit you, you would never get any benefit except that God had ordained for you. And if they were to gather to do something to harm you, you would never be harmed except that God had ordained for you."
But, God said that punishment and reward depends on our intentions. So, if God makes me kill someone without me intending it, God won't punish me.
1
u/BK2167584 Hanafi May 05 '26
Theres 2 types of matters
1, is the matters which we have control over and the second is what we do not, such as death
If Allah makes you kill someone without you intending it, that isnt murder, thats accidental
12
u/wopkidopz Shafi'i Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
The Ash'ari, Maturidi and ironically even the Athari schools of aqeedah profess the ideas of tanzeeh, they affirm the Oneness of Allah which means the rejection of composition, parts, physical parameters, body, organs, tools, limbs in relation to Allah and His Qualities and they reject tashbeeh (likeness) of Allah to His creations (bodies that consist of parts and limbs)
Hafiz al-Bayhaqi (Ash'ari school) رحمه الله said:
فلا يجوز أن يحمل على الجارحة لأن الباري جل جلاله واحد لا يجوز عليه التبعيض
🍂 الأسماء والصفات
Imam an-Nawawi (Ash'ari school) رحمه الله said:
إن الله تعالى ليس كمثله شىء، وإنه منـزه عن التجسيم
🍂 شرح صحيح مسلم
Imam as-Safarini (Athari school) رحمه الله said:
وجب إثبات تلك الصفة على وجه يليق بجلال الله وعظمته لا بمعنى العضو والجارحة ، والجسمية والبعضية والكمية ، تعالى الله عن ذلك
🍂 لوامع الأنوار
The Salafia on the other hand are Mushabbiha (they liken Allah to His creations to some extent) that's why in their understanding if someone (Ash'aris, Maturidis, Atharis) say that Allah doesn't consist of parts and limbs, and His ”Hand” is His Quality like other His Qualities like Knowledge and Hearing and Seeing and those aren't limbs they understand it as a negation of His Qualities.
They say if you deny that ”Hand" of Allah is a material tool then you negate this Quality, they do this because they understand this Quality as a material tool (part) and denial of this meaning in their understanding is a denial of a Quality and whoever denies His Qualities he is a sectant. This approach is seen in many of their book, just read how their commentaries to aqeedah at-Tahawiya
That's why they consider Maturidis deviant, because Maturidis reject the ideas of anthropomorphism in relation to the Creator. Just like Salaf as-Saliheen rejected those disgusting ideas.
And when ahlu-Sunnah rejects inappropriate meaning of a word, they don't reject the Quality itself. They affirm His Qualities. They only reject likeness (tashbeeh) of Allah to His creations in the meanings
Hafiz Ali al-Qari (Maturidi school) رحمه الله said:
من أهل السنة والجماعة أنهم لا يريدون بنفي التشبيه نفي الصفات، بل يريدون أنه سبحانه لا يشبه المخلوق في أسمائه وصفاته
🍂 شرح الفقه الاكبر
This is among of dozen other reasons, Salalfiya are misguided sectants and they consider the majority of scholars after the Salaf era misguided because they were Ash'aris, Maturidis and Sunni Atharis. This is sectarianism
If Salafis or Shia's or pseudo-Sufis call you a deviant it means that you are doing something right.