218 Claudia Preckel
Conclusion
Ṣiddīq Ḥasan’s career and the personal networks he was able to estab-
lish have been analysed here in some detail. The degree to which he was
(not) reading and quoting Ḥanbalī scholars should also be clear through
the number of selected manuscripts and books he owned in his private
library in Bhopal. A major part of these works were printed in the cit-
ies to which Ṣiddīq Ḥasan had sent one of his wakīls. Ṣiddīq Ḥasan was
definitely influenced by Ibn Taymiyya and to a minor degree by Ibn
Qayyim al-Jawziyya. He quoted them mainly in the fields of tawḥīd
and the elimination of bidaʿ. Often he did not mention the exact source,
hence it may be assumed that he sometimes did not quote from these
references directly, but through the works of al-Shawkānī or another
author of the Yemenite tradition. Ṣiddīq Ḥasan wanted to establish a
direct network with this Yemenite tradition of al-Shawkānī and his
pupils. Like al-Shawkānī, Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān described himself as an
independent mujtahid, which in his eyes additionally qualified him to
govern the state of Bhopal. By the means of ijtihād, the Ahl-i Ḥadīth
challenged the prevalent positions in the widespread Ḥanafī school of
law and gave religious life in Bhopal a new outlook, for instance in the
style of prayer. Practising ijtihād in interpreting the holy sources, they
extended the religious discourse on the “authenticity” and “truthful-
ness” of the religious texts. Several newly emerged groups were debat-
ing about the “real Islam” and the ideal of the Prophet Muḥammad.
This polarised and separated Muslim groups or other religious com-
munities who were regarded either as bid ʿatīs (people who commit
religious innovations) or even mushrikūn (polytheists), on the one
hand, and the Ahl-i Ḥadīth on the other. In the multi-religious settings
of the former with a variety of religious cults and even shared use of
holy places, debates on bidaʿ developed into a medium of self-identifi-
cation and separation. Such controversies even led to harsh verbal and
physical attacks, which had to be ended by the British authorities.^179
179 For example, an “oral debate” (munāẓara lisāniyya) took place in Delhi
between members of the Ahl-i Ḥadīth and the Aḥmadiyya in 1902. Muḥammad
Bashīr Sahsawānī heavily attacked the Aḥmadīs on the question of the mujad-
did. British authorities ended this debate before open revolts started. In 1870,
another munāẓara between Ahl-i Ḥadīth and the members of the Ahl-i sun-
nat wa-jamāʿat took place in Punjabi town of Shaikhupura. The different view-
points were written down by the Ahl-i Ḥadīth Muḥammad Nadhīr Sahsawānī
(d. 1882) who published the book Munāẓara Aḥmadiyya in Kanpur 1289/1871.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated