Imam Nawawi’s Role in the Shafi`i School 

It is obvious to anyone who has been exposed to various fields of study that every field expands with each era, its maxims become more established, its issues become further codified, and, because of what Allah bequeathed each person with in terms of idiosyncratic strengths and weaknesses in insight and reflection, the differences of opinion among the subject’s researchers increase. This is the case with fiqh, our school, and the fiqh of our imams (i.e. the Shafi’is). Imam Shafi’i (Allah Most High be pleased with him and have mercy on him) established the principles of his school and published its issues in large books like Al-Hujja, Al-Umm, Al-Imla’, Mukhtasar Al-Muzani, Mukhtasar Al-Buwayti, and others. Our imam (Allah be pleased with him) was like other mujtahids, being that his analysis of a single issue would change, so he would declare something, then his legal reasoning (Ar. ijtihad) would change regarding it, so he would contradict what he had established earlier. He became known for what is referred to as his old opinion (that being what he ruled in Iraq) and his new opinion (that being what he ruled in Egypt). His opinion would also change within the new school, so he would have two opinions there as well.

If we move on to the students of the imam we find a similar situation, yet more so, because if a single person changes his opinion on a matter, how so with more than one person? And this continues on, for in every era, differences of opinion and new issues emerge. However, imams also emerge whose contemporaries and those after them unanimously agree are the most capable at revising the school and knowing strong positions from others. Thus, these imams are followed in their conclusions. Among such early scholars were Imam Al-Qaffal Al-Marwazi and Imam Abu Hamid Al-Isfarayeeni. The leadership of the school rested with them and our imams followed them in their manner of deduction and trutination (Ar. tarjeeh). The followers of the former became known as the the Khorasanis [1] while the followers of the latter became knows as the Iraqis. After these two imams by some time came imams who combined between both groups and gave preponderance to what they saw as more aligned with the principles of the imam of the school. Among such scholars were Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni, Imam Ibn Al-Sabbagh, Imam Al-Ruyani, the Defense of Islam Al-Ghazali, and others. Their books are widely known and accepted. These collectors eased the way and brought nearer for late scholars the knowledge of opinions and justifications, as well as the sound and the unsound. However, like those before them, they differed in weighing between the two aforementioned groups.

The situation was in need of those who would further pore over and revise [m: the issues], so the main efforts of those who came after [m: the aforementioned scholars who combined between both groups] was focused on their books, specifically the books of Ghazali, which are four: Al-Baseet, Al-Waseet, Al-Wajeez, and Al-Khulasa. This is because he gathered in them what his teacher, Imam Al-Haramayn, gathered from the books of Imam Shafi’i and his students. Later scholars thus busied themselves with them, sometimes abridging them and sometimes expounding upon them. Between these two venues, those who expounded and abridged would differ among themselves until the matter fell before the venerable imam, Abu Al-Qasim Al-Rafi’i (Allah Most High have mercy upon him). He applied himself to the books of Al-Ghazali and others who came before or after him and pored intently over them, revising their primaries and secondaries, organizing their particulars, proofs, and justifications. This is particularly the case in his explanation of Al-Wajeez by Al-Ghazali (also known as Al-Sharh Al-Kabeer or Al-Sharh Al-Azeez) which proved to be universally beneficial to later scholars. Late scholars concur that he was the greatest of those of his time who were qualified to look into the books of our imams and judge the sound from the unsound.

Shortly following him was the imam, the blessing, Abu Zakariyya Yahya Al-Nawawi (Allah have mercy upon him). He applied himself to the books of Al-Rafi’i and those who came before him and pored intently over them, revising and examining them in order to reach the reliable position of the school. He summarized Al-Sharh Al-Kabeer in Al-Rawdah and expounded a large part of Al-Muhadhdhab in Al-Majmu’. Late scholars concur regarding his merit, qualifications in fulfilling his aims, and that he is worthier of being followed than others with respect to identifying the position of the school where disagreements exist. They even gave him precedence over Imam Al-Rafi’i. Imam Nawawi’s books became an arena for jurists after him, for from them they issue legal judgments, teach, and study; they furthermore expound upon them and abridge them. As scholars mention, this is for no reason other than Allah having endowed him with a vast mastery of various fields of knowledge, particularly fiqh and hadeeth. As many of our imams have explicitly stated, this is also due to the soundness of his conscience. The imam of Egypt in his day, Imam Al-Shihab Al-Ramli, mentions in his Fatawa (that are published in the margins of the Fatawa of Al-Shihab Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami), in response to a question similar to this one:

A known fact is that the Two Shaykhs struggled to the utmost degree to revise the school. For this reason, the concerns of practicing scholars and the indications of exacting imams who came before us revolved around confirming what the Two Shaykhs indicated, taking whatever the two validated with acceptance and obedience, strengthened by evidence and proofs. If one of them differs with the other, the position of the imam of the school, Al-Nawawi, is practiced. This is for no reason other than his good intention and sincerity of conscience.

As for what the questioner mentions regarding Imam Nawawi not being a mujtahid, if he means by this that he is not an absolute mujtahid, then this is correct, but if he means the state of absolute taqlid, as is the situation with the late scholars, this is flawed. According the consensus of late scholars, Imam Nawawi and Imam Rafi’i reached the level of ijtihad in issuing legal verdicts (Ar. fatwa) and trutination. Thus, he [m: (i.e. Imam Nawawi)] was a muqallid of his imam in principles and maxims, but a mujtahid in issuing verdicts and performing trutination according to these principles and maxims. As Imam Nawawi points out in the Majmu’, among the qualities of a person at such a level are that he be:

a natural jurist, having memorized the school of his imam, knowing his proofs, affirming them, [m: capable of] conceptualizing [m: legal issues], revising, establishing, untangling, identifying the apocryphal, and trutination.

As such, when our imams imitated the Two Shaykhs [m: (i.e. Al-Nawawi and Al-Rafi’i)] in their conclusions, they did not follow a muqallid as understood by the questioner, but rather, they followed a mujtahid in the sense I clarified. Furthermore, the school has remained in this way. The contemporaries of the Two Shaykhs and those who came after them were not amateur jurists and students of knowledge. Rather, they were among the pillars of knowledge in whose variegated and exacting publications the world shines. And even so, they acknowledged this prerogative that Allah bestowed upon these two.

The prerogative of the Two Shaykhs — in terms of relying upon their trutination and giving them precedence over others — did not prevent those who reached the level of ijtihad, such as Imam Subki, from arriving at different conclusions than them, as is the obvious reality with the books of our imams. However, what is not allowed is for a muqallid to give a legal verdict in our school according to other than what the Two Shaykhs or Imam Nawawi [m: alone] considered reliable while considering it to be the relied upon position of the school. This is what the late scholars have concurred upon as being forbidden, as was previously quoted from Al-Shihab Al-Ramli. Similar statements can be found with others, such as Ibn Hajar.

Something that demonstrates the extent of the reliance of late scholars upon the opinion of the Two Shaykhs is that when Imam Isnawi (who was one of the most critical of our imams regarding the opinions of the Two Shaykhs) was asked, he would give legal verdicts from Al-Rawdah, even though he criticized it in his book, Al-Muhimmat. Al-Shihab Ibn Hajar says:

Others whom we have seen were also like this, pursuing criticisms of the Two Shaykhs, but when issuing legal verdicts, only doing so according to what the two indicated. And this is what is correct, so no one can now do otherwise.

Imam Sha’rani quotes the hadith master Al-Jalal Al-Suyuti in his biography as saying, “when I reached the level of trutination, I did not issue legal edicts according to other than the conclusions of Al-Nawawi, even when I viewed other than them as preponderant.”

The foregoing is the upshot of what is said in response to the question, and Allah is the Guarantor of success, the Guide to His path, truth, and its verification. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all worlds.

Amjad Rasheed

[Translated by Sidi Moustafa Elqabbany]

Notes

[m:

1. For an article on Khorasan, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khorasan 

]

السؤال: لماذا صار الإمام النووي مرجع الفتوى في المذهب الشافعي مع أنه ليس بمجتهد ؟ ولماذا لا يُعتمدُ على المجتهدين أمثالِ السبكي والسُّيوطي ؟ فكيف يَعتمد المقلِّدُ على مقلِّد آخر ؟ الجواب : لا يخفى من على من يطالع في شتى العلوم أن كل فنٍّ منها لا يزال في كل طور يتوسع وتتقرر قواعده وتسطر مسائله وتكثر خلافات المشتغلين فيه لما ميز الله تعالى كل إنسان بنظر وفكر لا يشاركه فيه غيره قوةً وضعفاً ، وهذا حال الفقه وحال مذهبنا وفقه أئمتنا أعني الشافعية ، فقد قرر الإمام الشافعي رضي الله تعالى عنه ورحمه قواعد مذهبه ونشر مسائله في كتب كبار كـ “الحجة” و”الأم” و”الإملاء” و”مختصر المزني” و”مختصر البويطي” وغيرها ، وحالُ إمامنا رضي الله عنه في هذا هو حالُ غيره من المجتهدين فكان يختلف نظره في المسألة الواحدة فيقول فيها قولاً ثم يتغير اجتهادُه فيها فيخالف ما قرره أولاً، فعُرف عنه ما يلقب بالقول القديم وهو ما قاله في العراق ، والقول الجديد وهو ما قاله في مصر ، وكذلك كان يختلف قوله في مذهبه الجديد فيكون له فيه قولان أيضاً ، وإذا انتقلنا إلى أصحاب الإمام وجدنا الحال نفسه بل أشد لأنه إذا كان الواحدُ قد اختلف قولُه فما بالُ الأكثر ، وهكذا دواليك ، ففي كل طور يظهر الخلاف وتظهر المستجدات من المسائل ويظهر أئمةٌ يُجْمِعُ معاصروهم ومن بعدهم على أنهم الأقدرُ على تحرير المذهب ومعرفة القول الراجح من غيره فيتبعون في ذلك وكان ممن ظهر في المتقدمين الإمامان القفال المروزي وأبو حامد الإسفراييني فإليهما انتهت رئاسة المذهب وتبعهما أئمتنا في طريقة التفريع والترجيح فعرف أتباع الأول بالخراسانيين وأتباع الثاني بالعراقيين ، ثم جاء بعدهما بزمن أئمةٌ جمعوا بين الطريقتين ورجحوا ما رأوه أقرب إلى قواعد إمام المذهب ومن هؤلاء إمام الحرمين الجويني والإمام ابن الصباغ والإمام الروياني وحجة الإسلام الغزالي وغيرهم ، وكتبهم معروفة مشهورة ، فيسر هؤلاء الجامعون على المتأخرين وقربوا لهم الطريق في معرفة الأقوال والتعليلات والصحيح منها من الفاسد ، لكن هم كمن قبلهم اختلفوا في الترجيح بين الطريقتين المتقدمتين فاحتاج الأمر لمن يمحص ويحرر أكثر فصار اشتغال من بعدهم بكتب هؤلاء خصوصاً كتب الغزالي وهي أربعة “البسيط” و”الوسيط” و”الوجيز” و”الخلاصة” لأنه جمع فيها ما جمعه شيخُه إمام الحرمين من كتب الإمام الشافعي وأصحابه ، فأخذ المتأخرون باختصارها تارة وشرحها أخرى وبين هذا وذاك يختلف الشراحُ والمختصرون ، حتى وصل الأمر ليد الإمام الجليل أبي القاسم الرافعي رحمه الله تعالى فعكف على كتب الغزالي وغيره ممن تقدمه أو تأخر عنه فبالغ في النظر فيها وتحرير قوادمها وخوافيها وترتيب جزئياتها وأدلتها وتعليلاتها خصوصاً في كتابه الجليل الذي عم المتأخرون نفعه وهو شرح الوجيز للغزالي ويعرف بالشرح الكبير أو العزيز ، وسلم له المتأخرون أنه أكبرُ من يتأهل في عصره للنظر في كتب أئمتنا وتحرير صحيحها من سقيمها ، وجاء بعده بزمن قريب الإمامُ البركة أبو زكريا يحيى النووي رحمه الله تعالى فعكف على كتب الرافعي وغيره ممن تقدمه فبالغ بالتحرير والتنقير لبلوغ معتمد المذهب فاختصر “الشرح الكبير” في “الروضة” وشرح قطعةً كبيرةً من “المهذب” سماها “المجموع” وأجمع المتأخرون على فضله وأهليته لما كان بصدده وأنه أولى من غيره بالاتباع في معرفة المذهب عند الخلاف حتى قدموه على الإمام الرافعي وصارت كتبُه رضي الله عنه ساحة الفقهاء بعده فمنها يفتون ويُدَرِّسون ويَدْرُسون وعليها يكتبون الشروح والمختصرات ، وما ذلك كما قالوا إلا لما خصه الله تعالى بسعة الدائرة في العلوم خصوصاً الفقه والحديث ولسلامة طويته كما وقع التصريح به لكثيرين من أئمتنا كإمام مصر في عصره الشهاب الرملي حيث قال في “فتاويه” المطبوعة بهامش “فتاوى الشهاب ابن حجر الهيتمي” جواباً عن مثل سؤال السائل هنا ما نصه :” إنّ من المعلوم أنّ الشيخين – رحمهما الله – قد اجتهدا في تحرير المذهب غاية الاجتهاد ، ولهذا كانت عناياتُ العلماء العاملين وإشاراتُ من سبقنا من الأئمة المحققين متوجهةً إلى تحقيق ما عليه الشيخان والأخذ بما صّحَّحاه بالقبول والإذعان ، مؤيّدين ذلك بالدّلائل والبراهين ، وإذا انفرد أحدُهما عن الآخر فالعمل بما عليه إمام المذهب النووي ، وما ذاك إلا لحسن النية وإخلاص الطوية “. اهـ أما ما أشار إليه السائل من أن الإمام النووي ليس بمجتهد فإن عنى به الاجتهاد المطلق ونحوه فصحيحٌ ، وإن عنى به رتبة التقليد المحضة كما هو حالُ المتأخرين فغير مسلم ؛ فإن النووي والرافعي قد بلغا بإجماع المتأخرين مرتبةَ مجتهدي الفتوى والترجيح في المذهب ، فهو مقلدٌ لإمامه في القواعد والأصول مجتهدٌ في الفتوى والترجيح للأقوال بحسب تلك القواعد والأصول ، ومن أوصاف صاحب هذه المرتبة كما قال النووي في مقدمة “المجموع” أنه : فقيهُ النفس ، حافظٌ مذهبَ إمامه ، عارفٌ بأدلته ، قائمٌ بتقريرها ، يُصَوّر ويحّرر ويقرّر ويمهّد ويزيّف ويرجحّ . وعليه فإن أئمتنا لما قلدوا الشيخين في ترجيحاتهما لم يقلدوا مقلداً بالمعنى الذي قد فهمه السائل وإنما قلدوا مجتهدا بالمعنى الذي بينته ، وقد استقر المذهب على ذلك ، ومن كان من أئمتنا في عصر الشيخين وبعدهما ليسوا من أغرار الفقهاء وطلاب العلم ، بل كانوا أساطين العلوم ممن ازدهت الدنيا بمصنفاتهم المحررة في شتى الفنون ومع ذلك سلموا للشيخين هذه الميزة التي خصهما الله إياها ، وهذه الميزة التي في الشيخين من حيث اعتماد ترجيحهما وتقديمهما على غيرهما لا تمنع من بلغ مرتبة الاجتهاد كالإمام السبكي أن يخالف اجتهادُه اجتهادَ الشيخين كما هو الواقع في كتب أئمتنا ، لكن الممتنع هو أن يفتي المقلد في مذهبنا بغير معتمد الشيخين أو النووي ويعتبر ذلك هو معتمد المذهب، فهذا هو الممنوع الذي أجمع المتأخرون عليه كما سبق نقله عن الشهاب الرملي ومثله في كلام غيره كابن حجر . ومما يُظهر لك مدى اعتماد المتأخرين لقول الشيخين أنه نُقل عن الإمام الإسنوي وهو من أكثر أئمتنا اعتراضاً على كلام الشيخين : أنه كان إذا سئل يفتي بما في “الروضة” وإن كان اعترضه في كتابه “المهمات” . قال الشهاب ابن حجر : “وكذلك غيرُه ممن رأيناه فإنه كان يتبع المعترض على الشيخين وعند الإفتاء لا يفتي إلاّ بما قالاه . وهذا هو الحقُّ فلا يسع أحد الآن مخالفته “. اهـ ونقل الإمام الشعراني في ترجمة الحافظ الجلال السيوطي أنه قال :” ولما بلغتُ مرتبة الترجيح لم أخرج في الإفتاء عن ترجيح النووي وإن كان الراجح عندي خلافه “. اهـ هذا حاصل ما يقال في الجواب عن السؤال ، والله ولي التوفيق والهادي إلى طريقه ، والحقِّ وتحقيقِه ، والحمدُ لله رب العالمين