Since the spread of Islam in Transoxiana, religious understandings based on the opinions of Abu Hanīfa have always been dominant. It was not possible to become strong and influential in the region for other understanding which have been considered opposite to Abu Hanīfa‟s opinions. That Nejjāriyya and Karrāmiyya could not be perennial in the region may be an example of this case. Similarly, Māturīdiyya, which benefit from Abu Hanīfa‟s treatises of creed and his rational method, in the years of Imam Māturīdī and Abu al-Muīn al-Nasafī could not get the support of masses adequately since Māturīdiyya is assumed opposite to the prevailing imaginations about Abu Hanīfa. Moreover, Hanafi jurists, who were influential not only on people but also on city administrations, and Hanafi theologians, who used to be fed with a theological method led by Māturīdī, did not come to an agreement on the understanding Abu Hanīfa. Hanafi jurists who benefited mostly from juridical sources and manāqib works were thinking different from Hanafi theologians whose opinions regarding the legitimacy of the science of Kalām, responsibility of people of fatrat, and creation of faith are based on the treatises of Abu Hanīfa. Hanafi jurists defended various issues such as that faith is not created, the divine attributes found in the Quran and the hadith should not be interpreted, responsibility to believe in the Creator without invitation of a prophet but with a rational investigation does not begin, the people of fatrat cannot be held responsible, and Abu Hanīfa renounced dealing with the science of Kalām in the last years of his life. These jurists confirm Abu Hanīfa‟s views regarding some issues such as that a definition of faith does not include deeds and that faith neither increases nor decreases, while they condemn discussions on these issues by applying theological methods that excess the limits of the treatise of creed. While Hanafi theologians who adopt the religious views of Imam Māturīdī of Samarkand, recognize for the intellect an independent role on reaching knowledge, Hanafi jurists known as Imams of Bukhara recognize an authority of the intellect on understanding and interpretation of the tradition (naql) only. This case is seen clearly on opinions of the sides concerning the religious responsibility of the people of fatrat. When these debates on the Kalām and jurisprudence are taken into consideration in general, it will be understood that this difference identified with these two cities stems from a methodological difference on the epistemological values of the intellect and the tradition (naql). Māturīdiyya is a school of faith constituted by Hanafi theologians who affirm necessity and significance of the science of Kalām. It is possible to say that Hanafi jurists did not contribute to constitute of this school rather tried to prevent it. The results acquired show that Hanafi jurists lived in Transoxiana differ from each other because of their different understandings of Abu Hanīfa. In the historical process extending today it is evident that instead of Māturīdiyya, which is the understanding of Hanafi theologians, the religious views and Abu Hanīfa understanding of Hanafi jurists have been prominent and effective.