The Atomistic Conceptions in Maturidi and Ashari Theological Traditions: An Analysis of Islamic Physics

This doctoral thesis examines the complex atomistic theories developed within the Maturidi and Ashari schools of Islamic theology (kalam). These schools articulated sophisticated physical frameworks centered on atoms (jawhar) and accidents (‘arad) that profoundly shaped Islamic intellectual thought. While sharing fundamental premises, these traditions developed distinctive approaches to physics that reflected their theological commitments. The Maturidi emphasis on rational demonstration and greater allowance for secondary causality contrasted with Ashari occasionalism and momentary accident theory. This research illuminates how Islamic atomism became a cornerstone for addressing questions of divine sovereignty, creation, human agency, and metaphysical reality within an indigenous Islamic intellectual framework, independent of external influences.

Historical Development of Maturidi and Ashari Schools

Origins and Development of the Ashari School

The Ashari school emerged during the fourth and fifth centuries AH (tenth and eleventh centuries CE) as a response to theological challenges facing the Islamic community. Named after its founder, Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari (d. 324 AH/935-6 CE), this school developed in several distinct stages. Initially, al-Ashari established the foundations of the school after breaking from the Mu’tazilite tradition, seeking a middle path that employed rational argumentation while giving greater emphasis to revelation2.

The development of Asharism occurred in several phases. Following al-Ashari’s foundational work, his students and followers – particularly Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH/1013 CE) – systematized and elaborated Asharite theology. Al-Baqillani played a crucial role in developing Asharite atomism, transforming it from a mere premise supporting religious beliefs to an essential part of Islamic creed14. The consolidation phase saw further refinement through figures like Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, who integrated Asharite theology with other intellectual traditions2.

The expansion phase witnessed the spread of Asharism throughout the Islamic world, particularly under Ottoman patronage. The school reached its peak expansion during this period, spreading eastwards and westwards throughout the Arab lands, India, Turkey, Persia, and Transoxiana2. This widespread acceptance established Asharism as a cornerstone of Sunni orthodoxy.

Origins and Development of the Maturidi School

The Maturidi school derives its name from Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (d. 333 AH/944 CE), a theologian born near Samarkand in Transoxiana (modern Uzbekistan). Al-Maturidi developed his theological approach in a context where diverse religious and philosophical perspectives were present, including interactions with non-Islamic traditions prevalent in Central Asia2.

His primary work, “Kitab al-Tawhid,” established the foundations of what would become recognized as the Maturidi school of theology3. This text addressed fundamental theological questions concerning God’s essence and attributes, the nature of faith, human actions, and other central issues. Al-Maturidi, unlike many scholars in kalam and usul fields, was not heavily influenced by Jahmi beliefs, though he did adopt certain positions on divine attributes that involved interpretation2.

The development of the Maturidi school followed a trajectory somewhat similar to that of Asharism. After the foundational phase, the school entered a developmental stage where al-Maturidi’s students elaborated and defended his positions. Key figures included Abu’l-Qasim Ishaq ibn Muhammad al-Hakim al-Samarqandi and Abu Muhammad Abd al-Karim ibn Musa al-Bazdawi2. The consolidation phase saw prolific scholarly production by figures such as Abu’l-Ma’in al-Nasafi and Najm al-Din Umar al-Nasafi, who systematized Maturidi theology and compiled supporting evidence2.

Like Asharism, the Maturidi school expanded beyond its Central Asian origins, particularly as it became associated with the Hanafi legal school and gained political patronage. The school spread throughout Eastern countries like India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as well as Turkey, Byzantine lands, Persia, and Transoxiana2.

Theological Contexts and Concerns

Both schools emerged within specific theological contexts that influenced their approaches to atomism and physical theory. For the Ashari school, a central concern was refuting what they perceived as excessive rationalism in the Mu’tazilite approach to theology. The Asharites sought to affirm the primacy of divine power and will while still employing rational argumentation to defend their theological positions2.

The Maturidi school faced somewhat different challenges, particularly given its geographical location in Central Asia. Al-Maturidi engaged not only with internal Islamic debates but also with dualistic religions like Manichaeism18. This context led Maturidis to emphasize rational argumentation perhaps even more than the Asharites, though always within the framework of reverence for revelation2.

Both schools were fundamentally concerned with establishing a theological framework that affirmed God’s absolute sovereignty, the created and contingent nature of the universe, and the reliability of revealed knowledge. These concerns significantly influenced their approaches to atomism, as atomistic theories provided a physical framework that supported their theological commitments14.

Fundamental Terminology in Islamic Physics

Basic Concepts and Definitions

Islamic physics, as developed within the kalam tradition, employed a specific terminological framework to describe and analyze physical reality. Within this framework, existence (wujud) was classified into necessary existence (wajib al-wujud) and contingent existence (mumkin al-wujud). Necessary existence referred to God alone, while contingent existence referred to everything else, which depends on God’s creative act10.

Within contingent existence, as Imam al-Razi explained, entities could be divided into those which are “self-subsisting” (qa’im bi-nafsihi) and those which “subsist in another” (qa’im bi-ghayrihi). The self-subsisting could be further classified as “occupying space” (mutahayyiz) or “not occupying space.” Those occupying space could be either “indivisible” (the atom or jawhar fard) or “divisible” (the body or jism)10.

A fundamental question in Islamic physics concerned whether physical reality is continuous or discontinuous. Both the Maturidi and Ashari schools generally adopted a discontinuous or atomistic view of reality. This position was adopted partly for theological reasons, as it supported the contingency of creation and avoided problems associated with actual infinity1.

Jawhar (Substance)

The concept of jawhar, typically translated as “substance,” is central to Islamic atomism. In Islamic theological physics, jawhar was defined in various ways by different scholars. According to some mutakallimun, jawhar is “that which occupies space by itself” (al-mutahayyiz bi-dhatihi). Others defined it as “that which exists self-subsistently” (ma wujida qa’iman bi-dhatihi)9.

The kalam tradition generally recognized two types of jawhar: the indivisible atom (al-jawhar al-fard) and the body (jism), which consists of multiple atoms. Some scholars, like al-Mufid, identified additional types of jawhar, including point (nuqta), line (khatt), and surface (sath)9.

The indivisible atom (al-jawhar al-fard) was defined as “that which occupies space but does not accept division in any dimension.” This concept formed the foundation of Islamic atomism and was central to how both Maturidi and Ashari theologians understood the structure of physical reality9.

In the kalam tradition, atoms (jawahir) possessed several key characteristics: they were indivisible, they occupied space (tahayyuz), they were qualitatively identical, and they were created by God and could be annihilated by Him. An important aspect of kalam atomism was the idea that atoms do not possess any inherent qualities. An atom by itself, without accidents, would be entirely featureless4.

This conception of jawhar supported key theological commitments, particularly the contingency of creation and the dependence of all existents on God’s creative act. By conceptualizing physical reality as consisting of indivisible atoms that possess no qualities in themselves, the mutakallimun established a framework in which God’s continuous creative activity becomes necessary for the persistence of the world14.

‘Arad (Accident)

The concept of ‘arad, typically translated as “accident,” is complementary to jawhar in Islamic physics. While jawhar represents the substance or substrate of physical reality, ‘arad represents the qualities or attributes that inhere in substances7.

In Islamic theological physics, ‘arad was defined as “that which subsists in another” (ma qama bi-ghayrihi) or “that which cannot exist except in a substrate” (ma la yujadu illa fi mahall). Accidents, unlike substances, cannot exist independently but must inhere in a substance9.

The mutakallimun classified accidents into various types. One common division was between accidents specific to living beings (such as knowledge, power, will, and life) and accidents not specific to living beings (such as motion, rest, combination, and separation)7. As the Sheikh in source7 explains: “First, there are accidents specific to living beings – knowledge, power, will, breath… Second, there are accidents that can be found in both living and non-living things, such as movement, rest… There are four of these: combination, separation, movement, and rest.”

In the kalam tradition, accidents possessed several key characteristics: they could not exist independently but required a substrate, they were fleeting or momentary in nature (according to the Ashari view), they were created by God, and they were the source of all perceptible qualities in physical objects4.

A particularly important aspect of the Ashari understanding of accidents was the notion that “no accident can last for two successive instances of time.” This idea, central to Ashari occasionalism, implied that God continuously recreates accidents at each moment4. The Maturidi position on this issue was somewhat different, as will be discussed in subsequent sections.

Jism (Body)

The concept of jism, typically translated as “body,” represents a composite entity in Islamic physics, consisting of multiple atoms (jawahir) combined together10.

In Islamic theological physics, jism was defined as “that which is composed of two or more indivisible substances (jawahir).” Some mutakallimun specified that a body must be composed of at least eight atoms arranged in a cubic formation, though this was not a universally held position9.

Al-Mufid defined jism as “that which occupies space and accepts division in three dimensions (length, width, and depth).” This definition emphasizes the divisibility of bodies in contrast to the indivisibility of atoms9.

The composition of bodies was understood to involve both atoms (jawahir) and the accidents (‘arad) that inhere in them. The specific qualities of a body-its color, taste, smell, temperature, etc.-were determined by the accidents inhering in its constituent atoms9.

Bodies were understood to possess various properties, all derived from the atoms and accidents that constitute them. These properties included extension in three dimensions, the capacity for division, the ability to bear accidents, and susceptibility to change through the replacement of accidents4.

An important aspect of the kalam understanding of bodies was the notion that they have no inherent causal powers. The apparent causal relationships observed between bodies were understood not as inherent powers but as correlations established by God’s customary action (‘adah)4.

Other Key Terms

Several other terms were crucial to the Islamic physics framework:

Hayyiz (Space)

Space (hayyiz) was not conceived as an empty, continuous medium but as a collection of discrete points or positions that could be occupied by atoms. Each atom occupies one indivisible unit of space, and bodies occupy multiple units corresponding to the number of atoms they contain4.

Haraka and Sukun (Motion and Rest)

Motion (haraka) and rest (sukun) were understood as accidents that inhere in atoms. Motion was conceived not as continuous movement but as the successive occupation of different positions by an atom. Rest was the accident of remaining in the same position7.

Zaman (Time)

Time in kalam physics was typically understood atomistically, as consisting of discrete, indivisible moments rather than as a continuous flow. Each moment was associated with the creation and annihilation of accidents, and the succession of these moments constituted time4.

Khalq and Kasb (Creation and Acquisition)

These terms relate to the theological question of human action within the atomistic framework. Khalq (creation) referred to God’s creation of substances and accidents, including those involved in human actions. Kasb (acquisition) referred to the human being’s relationship to these actions4.

The Atomistic Theory in Ashari Thought

Foundations of Ashari Atomism

Ashari atomism represents one of the most comprehensive and influential physical theories developed within Islamic theology. Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari himself laid the groundwork for what would become Ashari atomism, though the fully developed theory emerged through the contributions of his followers5.

Early Ashari thinkers began articulating an atomistic conception of physical reality as part of their argument for the created nature of the world. By demonstrating that the world consists of contingent substances and accidents, they sought to establish the necessity of a creator who brought these contingent entities into existence14.

Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, one of the most important early Ashari theologians, played a crucial role in developing and systematizing Ashari atomism. Al-Baqillani articulated a comprehensive theory of atoms (jawahir) and accidents (‘arad), emphasizing their created nature and their dependence on God’s continuous creative activity14.

Al-Baqillani’s formulation included several key principles that would become central to Ashari physics: the indivisibility of atoms, the momentary nature of accidents, the continuous creation of the world by God, and the denial of natural causality. These principles supported the theologian’s primary concern with affirming divine sovereignty and the contingency of creation6.

Key Principles of Ashari Atomism

The Indivisible Atom (Al-Jawhar Al-Fard)

The cornerstone of Ashari atomism was the concept of the indivisible atom (al-jawhar al-fard), a substance that occupies the smallest possible unit of space and cannot be further divided. These atoms were understood to be qualitatively identical, differing only in their spatial positions and the accidents inhering in them4.

The affirmation of atomic indivisibility served multiple purposes within Ashari thought. Philosophically, it avoided problems associated with infinite divisibility. Theologically, it supported the contingency of creation by establishing that the world consists of discrete, created entities rather than an eternal, continuous substance14.

As described in source4: “For the Ash’arites, the only perpetual object is the atom. The atom itself is created at a specific point in time, but after that time, it remains in creation until God wills otherwise. Everything else in the world besides the atom is ‘accidental,’ meaning something that lasts for only a fleeting instant.”

Momentary Accidents

One of the most distinctive aspects of Ashari atomism was the doctrine that accidents (‘arad) cannot endure for more than one moment. According to this view, an accident comes into existence, lasts for precisely one instant, and then ceases to exist, to be replaced by a similar accident in the next instant if continuity is to be maintained4.

This principle has profound implications for Ashari physics and theology. It means that the apparent continuity and stability of the physical world is actually God continuously recreating the world at each moment. As source4 explains: “No accident can last two successive instances of time.” In other words, as soon as an accident is created, it immediately ceases to exist. There is no continuity or connection between one moment in time and another.”

Denial of Secondary Causality

Building on the principle of momentary accidents, Ashari atomism generally denied the existence of secondary causes in the physical world. The apparent causal relationships observed in nature were understood not as inherent causal powers in the objects themselves but as correlations established by God’s customary action (‘adah)4.

According to this view, when fire comes into contact with cotton, it is not the fire that causes the cotton to burn but God who creates the accident of burning in the cotton. God has established a customary pattern (‘adah) whereby burning typically follows the proximity of fire to cotton, but this pattern reflects God’s free choice rather than any necessary causal connection between the objects4.

As source4 explains: “Contingent events, which man perceives as having been subject to natural physical causes, are in fact the direct result of God’s constant intervention… it is only because man eats that he does not starve to death, it is only because a fire is lit that food can be cooked, and so forth. Pressed with such factual realities, the Ash’arites (and in particular al-Ghazāli) developed the theory of ‘God’s habitual character’ or ‘ādah, meaning that God had ordained upon Himself to act within certain norms.”

The Ashari Conception of Space, Time, and Motion

Atomistic Space

In Ashari physics, space (hayyiz) was conceptualized atomistically, as consisting of discrete, indivisible units rather than as a continuous medium. Each atom occupies exactly one indivisible unit of space, and bodies occupy multiple units corresponding to the number of atoms they contain4.

This atomistic conception of space aligned with the broader atomistic framework and avoided the philosophical problems associated with continuous space, such as the potential for infinite division4.

Discrete Time

Similarly, time in Ashari physics was understood as consisting of discrete, indivisible moments rather than as a continuous flow. Each moment corresponded to the creation and annihilation of accidents, and the succession of these moments constituted time4.

As source4 states: “Time itself is composed of discrete, successive units that are not directly connected to each other. It is God who must create and re-create each accident, on each atom, at each instance of time.”

Leap Motion (Tafra)

Given the atomistic conceptions of space and time, motion in Ashari physics was understood not as continuous movement through a medium but as the successive occupation of different positions by an atom. This sometimes led to the concept of “leap motion” (tafra), where an object moves from one position to another without occupying the intermediate positions4.

As explained in source4: “The ṭufrah is the belief that an object has the capacity to move from point A to point C without traveling through the intermediate point B but rather ‘leaping’ over it. This belief was needed in order to explain how a body could traverse from point A to point C when, according to al-Naẓẓām, there were an infinite amount of points between them.”

Theological Implications of Ashari Atomism

Divine Sovereignty and Continuous Creation

The most significant theological implication of Ashari atomism was its affirmation of absolute divine sovereignty through the doctrine of continuous creation. By positing that accidents cannot endure and must be continuously recreated by God, Ashari physics established a framework in which the entire world depends on God’s direct activity at each moment4.

This view maximized divine sovereignty by making all existents directly dependent on God’s creative act not merely for their initial existence but for their continued existence at every moment. As source14 notes: “This was to ‘vindicate the absolute power of God and to ascribe to His direct intervention not only the coming of things into being, but also their persistence in being from one instant to another.'”

The Theistic Argument from Temporality

Ashari atomism provided the basis for one of the most important Islamic arguments for God’s existence, known as the “Proof from Accidents and the Temporality of Bodies” (dalil al-a’rad wa huduth al-ajsam). This argument demonstrated that since bodies cannot exist without accidents, and accidents are temporal (created), bodies themselves must be temporal and therefore created, necessitating a creator4.

Source4 explains: “So, for example, based upon this cosmological view, the Ash’arites formalized more than one elaborate proof for the existence of God, the most common one being the ‘dalīl al-‘a’rāḍ wa ḥudūth al-ajsām’, or the ‘Proof from accidents and temporality of bodies.'”

Predestination and Human Action

Ashari atomism had significant implications for understanding human action and moral responsibility. Since all accidents, including those constituting human actions, are created directly by God at each moment, the question arose as to how humans could be responsible for “their” actions4.

The Ashari response involved the doctrine of “acquisition” (kasb), according to which God creates the action while the human “acquires” it by intending it. This theory sought to maintain both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As source4 explains: “The Ash’arite position on predestination is that God creates the actions of the servant directly without the servant himself causing that act, and that the servant then ‘acquires’ the reward or punishment of that deed. Hence, there is only an illusion of free-will, for in the end all actions are a direct result of God’s will and action. This theory, propounded by al-Ash’ari himself, is known as the theory of ‘acquisition’, or kasb.”

The Atomistic Theory in Maturidi Thought

Al-Maturidi’s Approach to Physics

Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, the founder of the Maturidi school, established a theological framework that included distinctive perspectives on physical reality. While al-Maturidi himself may not have elaborated a comprehensive atomistic theory to the extent that later Asharites did, his approach to questions of physical reality laid the groundwork for what would become Maturidi physics1.

Al-Maturidi’s primary work, “Kitab al-Tawhid,” contains discussions of physical concepts that provide insights into his understanding of the material world. In this text, al-Maturidi engages with concepts such as body (jism), substance (jawhar), and accident (‘arad), indicating his acceptance of these basic categories for analyzing physical reality3.

According to scholarship on al-Maturidi’s thought, “Māturīdī embraced atomism and defended the prevailing kalām view that ‘the universe is composed of indivisible substances and accidents'”1. This suggests that al-Maturidi, like his Ashari counterparts, accepted the fundamental premise of Islamic atomism: that the physical world consists of indivisible particles and the qualities that inhere in them.

Al-Maturidi’s approach to physical questions was motivated by theological concerns similar to those of the Asharites, particularly the affirmation of divine sovereignty and the contingent nature of creation. However, al-Maturidi placed greater emphasis on human reason as a source of knowledge about God and the world, which influenced his approach to physical theory1.

Al-Maturidi developed his physical concepts in dialogue with various intellectual currents, including not only internal Islamic debates but also encounters with other religious and philosophical traditions present in Central Asia, particularly when debating theologies such as those of the Manichean dualists18.

Key Features of Maturidi Atomism

Substances and Accidents

The Maturidi school, like the Ashari school, conceptualized physical reality in terms of substances (jawahir) and accidents (‘arad). Substances were understood as the basic constituents of matter, while accidents represented the qualities or attributes that inhere in substances15.

Maturidi atomism maintained the fundamental premise that atoms are indivisible and qualitatively identical, differing only in their spatial positions and the accidents inhering in them. However, the Maturidi approach to understanding the relationship between substances and accidents and their implications for divine action had its own distinctive features15.

As noted in source18, Imam Maturidi “did not place as much of an emphasis on the quantum physics of the universe, preferring to emphasize the connection between man’s rationalism and God over the physical world and God as the more effective method in debating the particular heresies he ran into in Central Asia.” However, “he did use a coherent quantum model where necessary.”

Emphasis on Rational Demonstration

A characteristic feature of Maturidi physics was its emphasis on rational demonstration (istidlal) in establishing physical principles. While affirming the created nature of the world and its dependence on God, Maturidi theologians placed greater emphasis than their Ashari counterparts on the role of human reason in discerning the nature of physical reality15.

This emphasis on rationality led Maturidi physicists to develop sophisticated arguments concerning the necessary existence of atoms, the nature of space and time, and the relationship between physical entities and divine action. These arguments were designed not merely to support theological positions but to establish physical truths through rational inquiry15.

Natural Causality and Divine Action

One of the areas where Maturidi atomism potentially diverged from the Ashari approach concerned the question of natural causality. While Ashari physics tended toward strict occasionalism, denying any causal efficacy to created entities, the Maturidi approach may have allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between divine action and natural processes15.

Maturidi physicists, while affirming that God is the ultimate cause of all events, may have been more willing to recognize a form of secondary causality in which natural entities possess real but derived causal powers. This perspective allowed them to affirm both divine sovereignty and the integrity of natural processes15.

Space, Time, and Motion in Maturidi Physics

Conceptualization of Space

The Maturidi approach to understanding space (hayyiz) shared with the Ashari approach the basic premise of atomism: that space consists of discrete, indivisible units rather than a continuous medium. Each atom occupies exactly one indivisible unit of space, and bodies occupy multiple units corresponding to the number of atoms they contain15.

This atomistic conception of space supported the broader atomistic framework of Maturidi physics and provided a basis for understanding position, distance, and spatial relations in terms of discrete units rather than continuous extension15.

Understanding of Time

Similarly, time in Maturidi physics was generally understood in atomistic terms, as consisting of discrete moments rather than as a continuous flow. However, the Maturidi approach to time may have differed from the Ashari approach in its understanding of the persistence of accidents15.

While Ashari physics emphasized that accidents cannot endure for more than one moment, requiring continuous recreation by God, the Maturidi approach may have allowed for greater stability in the physical world, potentially recognizing that some accidents could persist across multiple moments without requiring recreation15.

Conception of Motion and Change

Given its atomistic understanding of space and time, Maturidi physics conceptualized motion and change in terms of discrete transitions rather than continuous processes. Motion involved the successive occupation of different spatial positions by an atom, while change involved the replacement of one accident with another in a substance15.

This understanding of motion and change supported the Maturidi affirmation of both divine sovereignty (as all changes ultimately depend on God’s action) and the integrity of natural processes (as changes follow intelligible patterns that can be discerned through rational inquiry)15.

Theological Implications of Maturidi Atomism

Divine Attributes and Actions

Maturidi atomism had significant implications for understanding divine attributes and actions. By conceptualizing the physical world as consisting of contingent substances and accidents, Maturidi physics supported the theological affirmation that God is the creator and sustainer of all existents15.

At the same time, the Maturidi approach to divine attributes was distinctive, particularly in its understanding of how God’s actions relate to His essence. Maturidi theologians affirmed that God’s attributes are neither identical to nor separate from His essence, a position that sought to navigate between the Mu’tazilite tendency to deny the reality of divine attributes and anthropomorphic tendencies to conceive of these attributes in human terms2.

As noted in source7, “Allah is exalted above being a substance (jawhar) or body (jism) or accident (‘arad), contrary to the Wahhabis.” This position was shared by both Maturidi and Ashari schools, as part of their common commitment to divine transcendence.

Human Agency and Divine Determinism

Another area where Maturidi atomism had theological implications concerned the relationship between human agency and divine determinism. The Maturidi school sought to affirm both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, developing a distinctive approach to understanding human actions within the atomistic framework15.

While affirming that God is the creator of all substances and accidents, including those involved in human actions, Maturidi theologians emphasized that humans possess a real capacity for choice (ikhtiyar) and are responsible for their actions. This position differed from the Ashari theory of “acquisition” (kasb) by granting humans a more active role in their actions, while still maintaining that these actions ultimately depend on God’s creative power15.

Relationship Between Faith and Reason

Maturidi atomism reflected and supported the school’s distinctive approach to the relationship between faith and reason. By developing a physical theory that could be defended through rational argumentation while also supporting theological commitments, Maturidi physicists exemplified the school’s emphasis on the harmony between revelation and reason15.

This approach allowed Maturidi theologians to engage with philosophical and scientific questions on their own terms, developing sophisticated physical theories that could withstand rational scrutiny while also serving theological purposes. It represented a distinctive path between rationalism and traditionalism, affirming the value of rational inquiry within the framework of commitment to revealed truth15.

Comparative Analysis of Maturidi and Ashari Atomism

Similarities in Fundamental Principles

The atomistic theories developed within the Maturidi and Ashari schools shared several fundamental principles, reflecting their common theological commitments and intellectual contexts15.

Shared Atomistic Framework

Both schools embraced an atomistic conception of physical reality, maintaining that the material world consists of indivisible atoms (jawahir) and the accidents (‘arad) that inhere in them. This shared framework provided a basis for understanding the structure of matter, the nature of physical qualities, and the relationship between God and the created world14.

The affirmation of atomic indivisibility served similar purposes in both traditions: philosophically, it avoided the problems associated with infinite divisibility; theologically, it supported the contingency of creation by establishing that the world consists of discrete, created entities rather than an eternal, continuous substance14.

Common Theological Motivations

The atomistic theories of both schools were motivated by similar theological concerns, particularly the affirmation of divine sovereignty, the contingency of creation, and the created nature of the world. Both traditions used atomism as a framework for demonstrating that the world must have a beginning and therefore requires a creator14.

As source14 explains: “Ash’ arite atomism was the fruit of the direct application of a particular theological perspective embedded in the Islamic Revelation to the domain of nature.” This observation applies equally to Maturidi atomism, though with some differences in emphasis and approach.

Rejection of Philosophical Alternatives

Both schools rejected alternative philosophical conceptions of physical reality, particularly those associated with dualistic and materialistic traditions. The atomistic theories of both Maturidi and Ashari physicists represented distinctively Islamic approaches to understanding the physical world, developed in conscious opposition to what they perceived as problematic aspects of philosophical physics14.

As noted in source18, Imam Maturidi used his atomistic framework particularly when debating theologies such as those of the Manichean dualists, who “tended to favor a materialist spin on dualism, talking about opposing flavors of ‘substances’… which were constantly in a struggle for supremacy over each other.”

Divergences in Approach and Emphasis

Despite their shared atomistic framework and common theological motivations, the Maturidi and Ashari approaches to atomism exhibited significant divergences in approach and emphasis15.

Role of Reason in Establishing Physical Principles

One area of divergence concerned the role of reason in establishing physical principles. The Maturidi school generally placed greater emphasis on rational demonstration (istidlal) in discerning the nature of physical reality, reflecting the school’s broader emphasis on the harmony between reason and revelation2.

As source2 notes, the Maturidi school divided the fundamentals of Islam differently from the Ashari school, with a greater emphasis on what can be known through reason: “The Maturidis divided the fundamentals of Islam as follows: ‘Rational theology (al-ilahiyyat al-‘aqliyyat)’ – this refers to what can be proven by reason, and the texts are secondary to that; that includes Tawhid (the Oneness of Allah) and the divine attributes.”

While Ashari physicists also employed rational argumentation, they tended to be more cautious about the capacity of human reason to discern truth independently of revelation. This difference in emphasis influenced how the two schools approached questions of physical theory2.

Understanding of Divine Agency in the Physical World

Another significant divergence concerned the understanding of divine agency in the physical world. Ashari physics tended toward strict occasionalism, denying any causal efficacy to created entities and emphasizing God’s direct creation of all events at each moment. This view was reflected in the Ashari principle that accidents cannot endure for more than one moment, requiring continuous recreation by God4.

The Maturidi approach, while affirming that God is the ultimate cause of all events, may have allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between divine action and natural processes. Maturidi physicists may have been more willing to recognize a form of secondary causality in which natural entities possess real but derived causal powers15.

Conception of Human Agency

The two schools also diverged in their understanding of human agency within the atomistic framework. The Ashari theory of “acquisition” (kasb) maintained that God creates all actions, including human actions, while humans merely “acquire” these actions without having causal efficacy in producing them4.

The Maturidi approach, while still affirming God’s ultimate sovereignty, allowed for a somewhat stronger role for human agency. Maturidi theologians emphasized that humans possess a real capacity for choice (ikhtiyar) and are responsible for their actions in a more robust sense than implied by the Ashari theory of acquisition15.

Contrasting Views on Specific Physics Concepts

Beyond these general divergences in approach and emphasis, the Maturidi and Ashari schools developed contrasting views on specific physics concepts15.

The Duration of Accidents

A particularly significant contrast concerned the duration of accidents. The Ashari principle that “no accident can last for two successive instances of time” led to a conception of the physical world as being continuously recreated by God at each moment. This principle was central to Ashari occasionalism and its emphasis on divine sovereignty4.

The Maturidi approach may have allowed for greater stability in the physical world, potentially recognizing that some accidents could persist across multiple moments without requiring recreation. This difference would have significant implications for understanding divine action in the world and the nature of physical regularity15.

The Reality of Causal Relations

Related to the question of the duration of accidents was the understanding of causal relations in the physical world. Ashari physics generally denied the reality of causal powers in created entities, attributing all causal efficacy to God alone. The apparent causal relationships observed in nature were understood as correlations established by God’s customary action (‘adah) rather than as necessary connections between events4.

As source4 explains: “Contingent events, which man perceives as having been subject to natural physical causes, are in fact the direct result of God’s constant intervention.” This occasionalistic view was a distinctive feature of Ashari physics.

The Maturidi approach, while affirming that God is the ultimate cause of all events, may have been more willing to recognize a form of secondary causality in which natural entities possess real but derived causal powers. This would allow for a more robust understanding of natural laws as reflecting God’s wisdom in creating an ordered universe15.

The Status of Natural Laws

The two schools also potentially differed in their understanding of the status of natural laws. In the Ashari framework, natural laws were understood as God’s customary patterns of action, which He is free to change at any time. This understanding emphasized divine freedom and the contingency of natural regularities4.

As source4 states: “God had ordained upon Himself to act within certain norms… This theory safeguarded the permanent order of the universe, and also explained the apparent ‘causal’ relationship in daily life. What man perceives as ‘permanent’ is merely God’s habit (‘ādah) manifesting itself, at each successive instant.”

The Maturidi approach, while affirming divine sovereignty, may have understood natural laws as reflecting more stable divine wisdom, potentially allowing for a stronger sense of the intelligibility and predictability of the natural world. This difference would have implications for how the two schools understood miracles and other apparent departures from natural regularities15.

Theological Implications of Atomism

Atomism and Islamic Monotheism (Tawhid)

The atomistic theories developed by the Maturidi and Ashari schools played a crucial role in supporting and articulating Islamic monotheism (tawhid), the central principle of Islamic theology14.

Affirming Divine Unity Through Atomism

Atomism provided a physical framework that supported the affirmation of divine unity in multiple ways. By conceptualizing the physical world as consisting of contingent, created entities (atoms and accidents), atomism established a fundamental distinction between God as the necessary, eternal creator and the world as His contingent, temporal creation14.

This distinction was crucial for avoiding what theologians perceived as the pantheistic tendencies of some philosophical systems, which blurred the boundary between God and the world. Atomism supported a conception of God as transcendent, existing beyond and independent of the physical world He creates7.

As source7 emphasizes: “Allah is exalted above being a substance (jawhar) or body (jism) or accident (‘arad),” highlighting the fundamental distinction between the creator and the created that atomism helped to articulate.

Refuting Dualism and Materialism

Atomism also provided a framework for refuting competing metaphysical systems, particularly dualism and materialism. Against dualistic systems like Manichaeism, which posited two eternal principles, atomism supported the Islamic affirmation of a single creator by demonstrating that all physical reality consists of similar atoms differentiated only by their accidents, all of which depend on God for their existence18.

Against materialistic systems that denied the existence of a creator, atomism provided a basis for demonstrating the contingency and temporal nature of the physical world, thereby establishing the necessity of a transcendent creator. As source4 explains, the “Proof from Accidents and the Temporality of Bodies” (dalil al-a’rad wa huduth al-ajsam), based on atomistic principles, became a standard argument against materialism.

Supporting the Concept of Creation Ex Nihilo

Atomism supported the Islamic concept of creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing) by providing a physical theory in which all entities are radically contingent and depend on God’s creative act for their existence. By conceptualizing atoms as discrete, indivisible particles that can come into existence and cease to exist, atomism avoided the philosophical problems associated with creation from pre-existing matter14.

As source4 notes: “The mutakallimīn strongly affirmed the belief that both atoms and accidents were created, and that matter was not eternal.” This support for creation ex nihilo was crucial for affirming God’s absolute sovereignty and the radical distinction between creator and creation, central aspects of Islamic monotheism.

Atomism and Divine Attributes

The atomistic theories of the Maturidi and Ashari schools had significant implications for understanding divine attributes, another central concern of Islamic theology8.

God’s Power and Knowledge

Atomism provided a framework for understanding God’s power and knowledge as extending to all aspects of physical reality. By conceptualizing the physical world as consisting of discrete atoms and accidents, atomism facilitated the understanding that God’s creative power extends to the smallest constituents of reality and that His knowledge encompasses all possible arrangements of these constituents4.

The atomistic framework also supported the understanding of God’s power as unconstrained by any necessity in the physical world. Since atoms and accidents are contingent and have no inherent causal powers, God’s action in the world is understood as free and unconstrained by any necessity imposed by the nature of created things4.

Divine Transcendence and Anthropomorphism

Atomism supported the affirmation of divine transcendence by establishing a framework in which God exists beyond and independent of the physical world He creates. By conceptualizing physical reality as consisting of contingent atoms and accidents, atomism facilitated the understanding that God is neither a physical entity nor composed of parts7.

This support for divine transcendence was crucial for navigating between the opposing dangers of anthropomorphism (conceiving God in human or physical terms) and ta’til (denying the reality of divine attributes). The atomistic framework allowed theologians to affirm that God possesses real attributes while maintaining that these attributes are not comparable to created qualities2.

As source8 explains: “The meaning of jawhar and ‘arad in the interpretation of Surah Al-A’la refers to how Allah is exalted above all that does not befit Him in His essence, attributes, names, and actions. Regarding His essence: it is to believe that it is not from substances (jawahir) or accidents (a’rad).”

God’s Creation and Sustaining of the World

Atomism provided a physical framework for understanding God’s relationship to the world as both creator and sustainer. By conceptualizing the physical world as consisting of contingent entities that depend on God for their existence, atomism supported the theological affirmation that God not only created the world initially but continues to sustain it through His ongoing creative activity4.

The Ashari principle that accidents cannot endure for more than one moment, requiring continuous recreation by God, represented an extreme form of this understanding, emphasizing God’s direct involvement in sustaining the world at each instant. As source4 explains: “It is God who must create and re-create each accident, on each atom, at each instance of time.”

The Maturidi approach, while potentially allowing for greater stability in the physical world, still affirmed God’s role as the ultimate sustainer of all existence15.

Atomism and the Problem of Evil

The atomistic theories of the Maturidi and Ashari schools had implications for addressing the problem of evil, a perennial challenge for monotheistic theologies4.

Divine Will and the Creation of Evil

The atomistic framework, particularly as developed in the Ashari tradition, supported a voluntaristic understanding of divine action in which God creates all events, including those perceived as evil, through His free choice. This understanding was expressed in the Ashari principle that God creates both good and evil, though evil is not attributable to Him in terms of imperfection or deficiency4.

This approach to the problem of evil emphasized divine sovereignty and the inscrutability of divine wisdom, suggesting that what appears as evil from a human perspective may serve purposes in the divine plan that human reason cannot fully comprehend4.

Natural Evils and Divine Justice

Atomism provided a framework for understanding natural evils (such as diseases, disasters, and death) as part of the divinely ordained arrangement of atoms and accidents. Since all physical events consist of arrangements of atoms and accidents created by God, natural evils are understood as expressions of divine will rather than as independent forces opposing God’s purposes4.

The theological challenge was to reconcile this understanding with the affirmation of divine justice and mercy. Both the Maturidi and Ashari schools developed responses to this challenge, with the Maturidi approach potentially placing greater emphasis on the role of divine wisdom in the ordering of creation and the ultimate comprehensibility of divine actions to human reason15.

Human Actions and Moral Evil

The atomistic framework also had implications for understanding moral evil (evil resulting from human choices). The Ashari theory of acquisition (kasb) sought to reconcile divine sovereignty with human responsibility by maintaining that God creates all actions, including human actions, while humans “acquire” these actions through their intentions4.

As source4 explains: “The Ash’arite position on predestination is that God creates the actions of the servant directly without the servant himself causing that act, and that the servant then ‘acquires’ the reward or punishment of that deed.” This led to ethical challenges: “This understanding led to another ethical dilemma, and that was the accusation of God doing something evil. How was it possible, the Mu’tazilites charged, that God would Himself create the actions of His servant and then punish them for it?”

The Maturidi approach, while still affirming God’s ultimate sovereignty, allowed for a somewhat stronger role for human agency, emphasizing that humans possess a real capacity for choice (ikhtiyar) and are responsible for their actions. This approach sought to address the problem of moral evil by affirming human responsibility while maintaining that God’s creation of the capacity for evil serves purposes in the divine plan15.

Impact on Islamic Intellectual History

Influence on Later Theological Developments

The atomistic theories developed by the Maturidi and Ashari schools had a profound impact on later theological developments within the Islamic intellectual tradition15.

Integration with Other Intellectual Currents

Over time, the atomistic physics of the kalam tradition came into contact with other intellectual currents, including Sufism (Islamic mysticism) and falsafa (Islamic philosophy). These interactions led to complex syntheses in which atomistic concepts were integrated with ideas from these other traditions6.

For example, some later theologians sought to reconcile the atomistic framework with insights from Sufi metaphysics, developing sophisticated understandings of how the apparent multiplicity of atoms and accidents relates to the underlying unity of divine reality. Others engaged with philosophical critiques of atomism, refining the theory to address these challenges6.

Continued Relevance in Later Theological Debates

Atomistic concepts continued to inform theological debates in later centuries, providing a framework for addressing emerging questions and challenges. The atomistic understanding of substances and accidents, space and time, motion and change, and divine action in the world remained relevant for theological discussions even as the intellectual context evolved15.

During periods of theological revival and reform, thinkers often returned to the atomistic framework established by earlier theologians, finding in it resources for addressing contemporary challenges. This ongoing relevance testifies to the sophistication and adaptability of the atomistic theories developed by the Maturidi and Ashari schools15.

Divergent Trajectories Within the Maturidi and Ashari Traditions

As the Maturidi and Ashari traditions developed over time, they followed somewhat divergent trajectories in their approaches to atomism and physical theory. These divergences reflected broader differences in theological emphasis and methodology, as well as the distinct historical and geographic contexts in which the two traditions evolved2.

The association of Maturidi theology with the Hanafi legal school and its prominence in Central Asia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Indian subcontinent contributed to distinctive developments in Maturidi physics. Similarly, the Ashari tradition’s association with multiple legal schools and its prominence in different regions of the Islamic world shaped the development of Ashari physics in distinctive ways2.

As source2 notes: “The Maturidis spread and the number of followers increased in India and neighbouring Eastern countries, such as China, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They also spread in Turkey, the Byzantine lands, Persia and Transoxiana; they still have a strong presence in these countries.”

Relationship to Islamic Sciences

The atomistic theories of the Maturidi and Ashari schools had complex relationships with other Islamic sciences, including natural philosophy, mathematics, and medicine15.

Interfaces with Natural Philosophy

Islamic natural philosophy (tabi’iyyat) had complex interactions with the atomistic physics of kalam. While some natural philosophers were critical of kalam atomism, others sought to incorporate elements of atomistic thinking into their own theories or to reconcile the two approaches6.

These interfaces between kalam atomism and natural philosophy led to sophisticated debates concerning the nature of matter, space, time, and causality. While these debates did not resolve the fundamental differences between the two approaches, they contributed to the richness and diversity of Islamic thinking about physical reality6.

Applications in Mathematics and Astronomy

The atomistic conception of space and time had potential applications in mathematics and astronomy, fields that were highly developed within the Islamic intellectual tradition. The idea that space and time consist of discrete, indivisible units had implications for understanding geometric magnitudes, astronomical distances, and related concepts15.

Some scholars sought to develop these implications, exploring how the atomistic framework might inform mathematical and astronomical theories. While the resulting approaches were not always fully integrated with the mathematical traditions derived from Greek sources, they represented distinctive Islamic contributions to thinking about space, time, and quantity15.

Interactions with Medicine and Alchemy

The atomistic understanding of matter and its qualities had implications for medicine and alchemy, fields concerned with the composition and transformation of physical substances. The idea that physical qualities result from accidents inhering in atoms provided a theoretical framework for understanding how substances can change their properties through natural or artificial processes15.

These implications were explored by some practitioners of medicine and alchemy, leading to complex interactions between the atomistic physics of kalam and the practical knowledge developed within these fields. While the resulting syntheses were not always fully developed, they represented attempts to integrate theoretical and practical approaches to understanding the physical world15.

Conclusion

This doctoral thesis has examined the atomistic conceptions developed within the Maturidi and Ashari schools of Islamic theology, focusing on their terminological frameworks, distinctive features, and theological implications. Our investigation has revealed several key findings about these sophisticated physical theories and their significant role in Islamic intellectual history.

Both the Maturidi and Ashari schools developed comprehensive atomistic theories that conceptualized physical reality in terms of indivisible atoms (jawahir) and the accidents (‘arad) inhering in them. These theories represented distinctive Islamic approaches to understanding the physical world, crafted to support theological commitments while addressing intellectual challenges of their time14. As we have seen, “Māturīdī embraced atomism and defended the prevailing kalām view that ‘the universe is composed of indivisible substances and accidents'”1, while Ashari atomism became “one of the most evident examples of his application of the Mu’tazilite theory to the traditional position”16.

While sharing a common atomistic framework, the Maturidi and Ashari approaches exhibited significant differences in emphasis and detail. The Maturidi tradition placed greater emphasis on rational demonstration and may have allowed for a more robust understanding of secondary causality and natural law. The Ashari tradition emphasized God’s direct creation of events at each moment through the doctrine that accidents cannot endure, leading to a more occasionalistic view of divine action in the world415.

These atomistic theories had profound theological implications, supporting Islamic conceptions of divine unity (tawhid), divine attributes, creation, causality, human agency, and eschatology. The physical frameworks developed by these schools were intimately connected with their theological commitments, demonstrating the integration of physical theory and religious thought within the Islamic intellectual tradition14. As source14 notes, “Ash’ arite atomism was the fruit of the direct application of a particular theological perspective embedded in the Islamic Revelation to the domain of nature.”

The legacy of these atomistic theories continues to be relevant for contemporary Islamic thought and for understanding the richness and diversity of the Islamic intellectual tradition. By examining how Islamic thinkers addressed fundamental questions about physical reality and its relationship to divine action, we gain insights that can inform contemporary discussions across cultural and religious boundaries1215.

In conclusion, the atomistic theories of the Maturidi and Ashari schools represent significant achievements within the Islamic intellectual tradition, demonstrating the sophistication and distinctiveness of Islamic approaches to understanding the physical world. As source14 observes, these theories were not “a discredited theory which has been rejected by most of the Greek schools of philosophy” but rather were “taken very seriously by the mutakallimun, because it was inseparably linked to their theology.” This inseparable link between physical theory and theological commitment remains one of the most distinctive and valuable aspects of Islamic atomism.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Classical Works of Islamic Kalam and Theology

• Abu Mansur al-Maturidi. Kitab al-Tawhid (كتاب التوحيد). Critical edition by Fath-Allah Khuleif. Beirut: Dar al-Mashriq, 1970. [Arabic]

• Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari. Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (مقالات الإسلاميين). Ed. Helmut Ritter. Istanbul: Matbaat al-Dawla, 1929. [Arabic]

• Abu Bakr al-Baqillani. Kitab al-Tamhid (كتاب التمهيد). Ed. R. J. McCarthy. Beirut: Dar al-Mashriq, 1957. [Arabic]

• Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Al-Matalib al-‘Aliyyah min al-‘Ilm al-Ilahi (المطالب العالية من العلم الإلهي). Ed. Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqqa. Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Haditha, 1987. [Arabic]

• Abu al-Mu‘in al-Nasafi. Tabsirat al-Adillah (تبصرة الأدلة). Ed. Hasan Mahmud ‘Abd al-Latif. Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji, 1979. [Arabic]

• Najm al-Din al-Nasafi. Al-‘Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya (العقائد النسفية). Numerous editions. [Arabic]

• Abu Hanifa. Al-Fiqh al-Akbar (الفقه الأكبر). Ed. F. Klein. Leipzig: 1862; multiple modern editions. [Arabic/English]

• Al-Ghazali. Tahafut al-Falasifa (تهافت الفلاسفة). Ed. Maurice Bouyges. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1927. [Arabic/English]

• Sa‘d al-Din al-Taftazani. Sharh al-Maqasid (شرح المقاصد). Istanbul: 1837. [Arabic]

• Ibn Furak. Mushkil al-Hadith (مشكل الحديث). Ed. Salah al-Din al-Tijani. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 2002. [Arabic]

Archival and Manuscript Collections

• “Maturidi Books Collection.” Internet Archive. [Arabic, Persian, Turkish]6

• Berlin State Library. Kitab al-Ustl (Berlin Ms. No. 1921). [Arabic]

• Suleymaniye Library, Istanbul. Various manuscripts of Maturidi and Ashari kalam texts. [Arabic, Ottoman Turkish]

• British Library, London. Arabic and Persian manuscripts related to kalam atomism.

Secondary Sources

Monographs and Scholarly Books

• Bulgen, Mehmet. “al-Māturīdī and Atomism.” Dini Tetkikler Dergisi (Journal of Religious Inquiries), 2/2 (December 2019): 225–245. [Turkish/English Abstract]110

• Harvey, Richard. Transcendent God, Rational World: A Māturīdī Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2023. [English]13

• Griffel, Frank. Al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. [English]

• van Ess, Josef. The Flowering of Muslim Theology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. [English]

• Sabra, Abdelhamid I. Theories of Light from Descartes to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. [Relevant for context]

• Madelung, Wilferd. Religious Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam. London: Variorum, 1985. [English]

• Wolfson, Harry Austryn. The Philosophy of the Kalam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. [English]

• Goodman, Lenn E. Islamic Humanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. [English]

• Adamson, Peter, and Richard C. Taylor, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. [English]

Articles and Book Chapters

• Bulgen, Mehmet. “al-Māturīdī and Atomism.” DergiPark (2019). [Turkish/English Abstract]110

• “Atomic Concept During Medieval Muslim Scholarship.” Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(9), 804–811. [English]7

• “The Role of Atomism in the Groups of Kalam.” MuslimMatters.org (2008). [English]2

• “The differences between the Ash’aris and the Maturidis (a doctrinal study).” Journal of the College of Basic Education, 28(115), 641–655. [English/Arabic]3

• “Occasionalism and Causality – Re-thinking Al-Ghazali’s alleged opposition to science.” Islam-Science.net (2020). [English]5

• “Imam Maturidi and The Accident (Aradh) of Substance (Jawhar).” Ghayb.com (2015). [English]11

• “Does Asharite atomism affirm that space & time must necessarily be atomic?” Philosophy StackExchange (2012). [English]14

Encyclopedias and Reference Works

• “Maturidism.” Wikipedia (2025). [English, with references to Turkish and Arabic sources]12

• “Atomism Versus Hylomorphism in the Kalam of Al-Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi.” Apple Books (2006). [English]4

• Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd and 3rd editions. Leiden: Brill. [English, French, German]

• The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Ed. Sabine Schmidtke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. [English]

• The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology. Ed. Tim Winter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. [English]

Regional and Non-English Scholarship

• Bulğen, Mehmet. “Mâturîdî ve Atomculuk.” Ulum Dergisi, 2/2 (2019): 225–245. [Turkish]110

• “A Study On the Theory of God’s Science of Maturidi School.” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 328 (2019): 182–187. [English/Chinese]8

• “Maturidi Books Collection.” Internet Archive. [Arabic, Persian, Turkish]6

• Madelung, Wilferd. “Māturīdiyya.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. [English, French, German]

• Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Islamic Cosmological Doctrines. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978. [English, with references to Persian and Arabic sources]

• Sezgin, Fuat. Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (History of Arabic Literature). Leiden: Brill, 1967–. [German]

• Aydin, Mahmut. Kelamda Atomculuk (Atomism in Kalam). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1995. [Turkish]

• Yavuz, Yusuf Şevki. “Mâturîdî’de Cevher ve Araz Anlayışı.” İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi (Journal of the Faculty of Theology), 1988. [Turkish]

Tertiary and Contextual Sources

• “Modern Science’s Debt to Islamic Civilization.” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 42 (April–June 2003). [English]9

• Saliba, George. Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. [English]

• King, David A. Astronomy in the Service of Islam. Aldershot: Variorum, 1993. [English]

• Sabra, Abdelhamid I. “The Andalusian Revolt Against Ptolemaic Astronomy: Averroes and al-Bitruji.” In The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, ed. O. Neugebauer, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. [English]

Specialized Studies and Recent Dissertations

• “Transcendent God, Rational World: A Maturidi Theology.” OAPEN Library. [English]13

• “The Place of Reason in the Theologies of al-Maturidi and al-Ashari.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford, 2018. [English]

• “Atomism and Occasionalism in Islamic Thought.” Kalam Research & Media, Journal of Islamic Philosophy, 2015. [English]

Archival Materials and Manuscripts

• Berlin State Library, Manuscript Catalogues (Ahlwardt, W. Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek, 1889).

• Suleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Manuscript Catalogues.

• British Library, Arabic and Persian Manuscript Collections.

• Topkapi Palace Museum Library, Istanbul, Manuscript Collections.

Notes on Further Research

• Languages: For comprehensive research, consult primary texts in Arabic, Ottoman Turkish, and Persian; relevant modern scholarship is available in Turkish, German, French, and Russian.

• Archival Access: Manuscript catalogues (Ahlwardt, Berlin; Suleymaniye, Istanbul) and digital repositories (Internet Archive, Gallica, HathiTrust) are essential for locating rare kalam treatises.

• Regional Studies: Explore Central Asian, Ottoman, Indian, and Chinese scholarship for the regional development of Maturidi and Ashari atomism, especially in Hanafi-majority societies.

• Specialized Journals: Journal of Islamic Studies, Islamic Law and Society, Studia Islamica, Der Islam, and Ulum Dergisi regularly publish articles on Islamic theology and atomism.