196 Claudia Preckel
al-ʿAqīda al-ḥamawiyya al-kubrā taken up by Ṣiddīq Ḥasan was Ibn
Taymiyya’s criticism of the Ashʿariyya, although Ṣiddīq Ḥasan did not
follow Ibn Taymiyya on this point. The reason may have been that
the Ashʿarīs were often associated with the Shāfiʿī school of law, to
which the Bhopal Yemenites’ fatwas showed a leaning. Al-Shawkānī
likewise displayed a certain affinity to the Shāfiʿī school of law. The
Māturīdiyya, on the other hand, was traditionally associated with the
Ḥanafī school of law, which constituted the main opponent of the Ahl-
i Ḥadīth. In the eyes of the Ahl-i Ḥadīth, the optimal position was
that of the Ḥanbalīs, who declined any kind of interpretive specula-
tion (taʾwīl) about God’s characteristics. In Ḥujaj al-kirāma,^105 Ṣiddīq
Ḥasan wrote that he took a close look at the differences between the
Māturīdiyya, Ashʿariyya and Ḥanbaliyya. He claims to have realized
that there were only three or four differences between the Ashʿariyya
and Ḥanbaliyya – but without naming them in detail. These were
merely “practical” divergences (khilāf-i taṭbīq) and differences in ter-
minology (nizāʿ-yi lafẓī), which were of minor importance.^106 Ṣiddīq
Ḥasan did not mention the Māturīdiyya in this specific context, and
he did not possess a single work by a Māturīdī. In this regard, he did
not follow the recommendations of al-Shawkānī, who had instructed
future mujtahids to study books from every school of kalām because
each of them would be able to refute the works of one’s opponents.^107
6.1.3. Najdī Wahhābīs’ Reactions to Ibn al-Qayyim’s NūniyyaThe Ahl-i Ḥadīth used to study another ʿaqīda work that was consid-
ered much more complicated than the others and that was also contro-
versially discussed, al-Kāfiya al-shāfiya fī al-intiṣār al-firqa al-nājiya
(The Sufficient and Salutary Concerning the Triumph of the Rescued
Group)^108 by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. This work, which is composed
as a poem, rhyming on the Arabic letter N (nūn), has also become
known as the Nūniyya. It discusses some attributes of God and refutes
105 Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Ḥujaj al-kirāma, p. 122.
106 Ibid., pp. 122–123, chapter on the “truth about the Ashʿariyya”. He strictly
avoids the discussion on the divergences between Ashʿariyya and Ḥanbaliyya,
but it becomes clear that he favoured a kind of synthesis between those posi-
tions. For similar statements see Riexinger, Sanāʾullāh Amritsarī, pp. 153–154.
107 Haykel, Revival and Reform, p. 125.
108 Brockelmannn, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, vol. 2, p. 106.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated