Screening Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān’s Library 195
tion and style of language were not as complex as in the other ʿaqīda
treatises mentioned before. It also differs from other monographs of
the same category in that it observes the principle of wasaṭ, “the golden
mean”. Ibn Taymiyya applied this principle of wasaṭ notably in his
explanation of the attributes of God (ṣifāt allāh). Here, Ibn Taymiyya
stressed that neither anthropomorphism nor the negation of the divine
attributes was the correct way to deal with this subject. Another impor-
tant aspect of the ʿAqīda wāsiṭiyya was the growing sectarianism of
the Muslim community (umma) and the existence of various sects and
groups aberrant from the straight path of Sunni Islam. It is also worth
mentioning that al-ʿAqīda al-wāsiṭiyya did not contain any hints or
references to the Ḥanbalī school of law. This confirms Ibn Taymiyya’s
claim to speak generally for Sunni Islam as al-firqa al-nājiya, the group
of Muslims who are saved from hellfire. Because of its selection of sub-
jects, Ibn Taymiyya’s ʿAqīda wāsiṭiyya was of special interest for the
Arabian Wahhabiyya. Being quite short, it has represented an ideal
medium for instruction, also for the Ahl-i Ḥadīth. Ṣiddīq Ḥasan espe-
cially supported Ibn Taymiyya’s views on the endangered umma and
his criticism that groups, like certain Sufis and the Shia, were sectarians.
6.1.2. Al-ʿAqīda al-ḥamawiyya al-kubrāA close look at the groups Ibn Taymiyya refuted in his works shows
that his opponents resemble those of the Ahl-i Ḥadīth: one of Ibn
Taymiyya’s main aims in al-ʿAqīda al-ḥamawiyya al-kubrā was to
criticise the scholars of rationally inspired theology (kalām), the
mutakallimūn. In several of his own works, Ṣiddīq Ḥasan^102 declared
that he did not want kalām and logic (manṭiq) to be included in Islamic
curricula because kalām “was full of speculation” introduced by schol-
ars of “Greek philosophy”.^103 In his view, the works of Aristotle and
Plato had been completely misunderstood by Muslim, especially Ira-
nian philosophers. The consequence was that the principle of the unity
of God (tawḥīd) was constantly violated.^104 Because of all these aber-
rations and innovations (Pers. mulḥida o-mubtadiʿa), the teaching of
kalām was not necessary (Pers. ghayr-i ḍarūrī). Another concern of
102 E. g. Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Abjad al-ʿulūm, part 2, p. 452.
103 On this topic, see also the article by Anke von Kügelgen in the present volume.
104 Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Abjad al-ʿulūm, part 2, p. 452 and Sayf, Taḥrīk-i Ahl-i
ḥadīth, p. 198.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated