Imam an-Nawawi and the Concept of Innovation: Understanding the Difference between the Salaf and Khalaf
بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله
Originally translated by cn3m_
(Edited and annotated | Galandān )
I listened to the well-known debate,(between Muhammad bin Shams and Dr. Hassan Al-Husaynī regarding the Aqīdah of Imām Al-Nawawī) and I found it generally good. However, it did not answer the point of contention that the opponents (those who label him an innovator) raise, and even among those who blindly agree in their praise of ibn Hajar and an-Nawawi — there are those who raise this point, although they say it out of taqleed and did not understand the reason for its grading or were not convinced by the scholars' words in the claim of an-Nawawi's ijtihaad and the like.
The point is, if we say that an-Nawawi is a mujtahid, why can't Bishr al-Mareesi be a mujtahid (and thus excused)? Is the consideration (to the likes of An-Nawawi) is based on the abundance of (academic) works? If that was the case, why is az-Zamakhshari not considered from Ahlus-Sunnah, despite his many (academic) works?
Next is, what is the ruling on one who believed in what an-Nawawi's aqidah was? Is such a person misguided or not?
All these questions seem valid, but the confusion disappears by understanding the reason (sabab), and anyone who is confused by these questions has not understood the Restriction of Tabdee' (declaring someone as an innovator), and thought that the restriction (مناط) is mere ta'weel ("interpretation"). The restriction is not the ta'weel; because the ta'weel is only the fruit of belief and is based on it. Whoever bases his principles on the precedence of the words of Allah and His Messenger (ﷺ) and what the Ummah agreed upon, he is from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah.
On the contrary, a person may express the apparent words of Ahlus-Sunnah and refrain from ta'weel - by the rule of the dominant and majority -, and is not from Ahlus-Sunnah in reality if he is from the people of whims.
This brings us to the next question:
Why was an-Nawawi not an innovator, while the Salaf declared those who interpreted [falsely] the attributes [of Allah, as innovators]?
The answer: Ibn Taymiyyah discussed this issue extensively, and its summary is: weighing it upon the spread and disappearance of the prophetic message and its light.
The era of the Salaf was dominated by the Sunnah, and the opponent (of sunnah) were living amidst the likes of ash-Shaafi'ee, Maalik, Sufyan, Ahmad, and ibn 'Uyaynah, and they knew for certain that they took that from the Taabi'een; even ibn Abi Haatim in the 'aqeedah of the [two] Razis says: "We have reached the scholars east and west, Hijaaz, Yemen... etc." Meaning: All the scholars were like that.
= Therefore, the opponent knew for sure that he contradicts the imams and the majority of Muslims intentionally and deliberately, and therefore disbelief or innovation was the dominant upon them.
As for the later ones after the establishment of the sciences [العلوم]: the (heretical) Kalaam books have spread even among the Hanbalis out of the need for that, and the matter settled on the scientific establishment and division and they left the generality of the Salaf, and many matters became ambiguous to the later ones.
Ibn Taymiyyah says: "... therefore when the time period extended, much of what was apparent to them became unclear to a lot of people, and much of what was obvious to them became obscure to a lot of people, even though they were still mujtahids, excused, forgiven by Allah; because the Salaf found those who help them in this, but these did not find those would help them in this ..."
Therefore, you may have noticed that the Salaf declared these as innovators, those who interpreted [falsely] an Attribute [of Allah] for the sake of (precedence of desire) and cut them off from the body of Muslims and their imams - in their time -
While they excused (heretical) Qadariyyah of Basrah - in contrary to other than them -, because the matter became ambiguous to them and they did taqleed of the fair mashaayikh, so they became neither oppositional nor deliberately leaving the group.
And that's why imam Ahmad did not declared Qadariyyah of Basrah itself [as innovators], even though he declared their articles [i.e. statements as innovations], because they grew up on the sayings of their mashaayikh, rather when the governor pressured them (this was when Mu'adh bin Mu'adh became the Jidge, and refused testimony of Qadariyyah) imam Ahmad requested him saying: "I have known the madhhab of this city", 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad said in (العلل 2595): "as if my father became lenient afterwards."
Therefore, ibn Taymiyyah makes its criterion for cutting off from general mass of Muslim, allegiance and enmity upon this definition. He said about the ta'weel of the late Ash'ariyyah [المتأولين من متأخري الأشعرية]: "and these, if they do not infringe a saying by which they depart from the general mass of Muslims and for which enmity and disavowal is based = their mistake was of the kind of forgivable error."
If it is said that an-Nawawi sometimes cites the words of the mutakallimeen to base his ta'weel upon,
The answer: He assumed that this was what the Ahlus-Sunnah agreed upon, such as someone who follows [يقلد] ibn Taymiyyah - for example - on the issue of the creation of the Qur'an, even though the apparent words of the Salaf contradict this. In fact, many of the muhadditheen clearly state that the Qur'an is eternal, and the same goes for someone who follows [يقلد] ibn Taymiyyah in the issue of the succession of events, even though the (apparent) words of the Salaf contradict this. (The example of the writer is subject to debate, see, this this fatwa and this , and detailed this) So, this is similar to that.
If you said, "but these theological matters that ibn Taymiyyah said are the correct theological extrapolation for the general words of the Salaf", it was said: "And likewise, an-Nawawi assumed - exactly - that what his teachers said was the theological extrapolation for the general words of the Salaf."
Then again an-Nawawi cites their words and intends something else by them:
-
If he says in his ta'weel : It (the attribute) is carried it on the ta'weel (interpretation) that agrees with the (arabic) language.. and this is a meaning correct in its origin, and ibn Taymiyyah also agreed.
-
If he denies the body and the essence: He means by it the linguistic meaning not appropriate to Allah.
-
If he denies that Allah is in the heavens: He means that He is not in the cavity of the sky.
-
And if he denies that He is in a place: He means He is not in a created place. An-Nawawi's intention is correct.. and he affirms the highness [العلو] - overall - and he has transmitted the words of al-Qaadi 'Iyaad in explaining (in the sky) meaning above the sky, and he agreed with it.
For this reason, ibn Taymiyyah considered the Ash'ari scholars who did taqleed - apart from the mutakallimeen - from the Ahlus-Sunnah in the reality of their matter.
He said (may Allah have mercy on him): "And many of the followers [مقلدة] of Jahmiyyah agree with them verbally, but as for his heart, it is on fitrah (natural disposition) and Sunnah, and most of them do not understand the denial they say with their tongues, rather they think it is absolute glorification, like understanding He is not in the sky, that He is not in the cavity of the sky,.. and his belief in that is true."
Therefore, perhaps you noticed that ibn Taymiyyah considered them from the Ahlus-Sunnah in the essence of their belief - because they do not realize the purposes of the mutakallimeen, but they interpreted the denial in another interpretation not that (of mutakallimeen).
To simplify the matter, it is necessary to know the sections of the later Ashaa'irah:
Levels of the later Ashaa'irah:
-
(The level of mutakallimeen who adhere to the madhhab): like the level of al-Juwayni, ar-Razi, and al-Aamidi who were inclined by the madhhab towards the Mu'tazilites and excelled in the dispraised Kalaam science.
-
(The intermediate level): In this level, the scholar follows [يقلد] the mutakallimeen in terms of what they concluded, even if he himself is not a profound mutakallim, but moderate. Among their examples: al-'Izz ibn Abdis-Salam, and Taqiyy ad-Deen as-Subki and their likes. This level - as ibn Taymiyyah says - its owner has not reached the level of mutakallimeen, hence knows the corruption of their words, and he is not satisfied with the level of the general public who affirms it because of what he has of knowledge about the doubts.
-
(The level of muqallideen): It is the level of general affiliation, in terms of seeing Ash'ariyyah being a banner of Ahlus-Sunnah.. and they thought it was what the action should on. And this is what most of the later factions of (ashaaira are upon) who are mostly engaged in other sciences, such as mufassireen, fuqahaa', muhadditheen and their likes, those who affiliate to Ash'ari because they are the opposite of the Mu'tazilah in terms of attributes [of Allah]. Or because it is the prevailing madhhab in Muslim countries. And being an Ash'ariyyah was at one time considered that which differentiates from Mu'tazilah. So, when it is said: So-and-so is Ash'ari, it means he is neither Mu'tazili nor Shi'i.
= And from this rank are al-Qurtubi, ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, ash-Shaatibi, the author of al-Muwaafaqaat, al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, an-Nawawi, and those better than him like ibnus-Salah and similar figures who affiliate themselves with the Ash'ari madhhab nominally, and generally affirm the Attributes [of Allah], and dislike engaging in detailed discourse, and ibn Taymiyyah presents their statements as evidence. From these is the statement of ibnus-Salah: "Taking al-Aamidi's school is more preferable than conquering Acre" which was under the crusaders.
Ibn Taymiyyah uses ibnus-Salah and an-Nawawi as his evidence against al-Ghazali and considers them from the reliable scholars, so he says: "And the shaykh Abul-Bayyaan and shaykh Abu 'Amr ibnus-Salah refuted him - referring to al-Ghazali - and warned about his speech in this regard, as well as Abu Zakariyyah an-Nawawi and others."
And ibn Taymiyyah respected the way of ibnus-Salah and his likes, even though they associated themselves with the Ash'ariyyah generally, which was due to their environment.
Hence, shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "As for those among them - meaning: the Ash'ariyyah - who confirmed the book Al-Ibaanah, which al-Ash'ari authored at the end of his life and did not present a contradictory statement, then this one is considered among Ahlus-Sunnah, but merely associating oneself with al-Ash'ari is an innovation."
Therefore, there are Ashaa'irah who are not innovators - at the same time - and this is a very important introduction that should be paid attention to, and regardless of whether this applies to an-Nawawi or not, but if we accept this introduction: that not all Ashaa'irah are innovators = then understanding what follows will be easier, insha'Allah.
It appears that an-Nawawi settled his affair according to the way of ibnus-Salah and the likes of the muhadditheen, and there are many evidences for this, including:
-
His student ibnul-'Attaar, the author of [الاعتقاد الخالص], affirmed the Attributes [of Allah] in it and criticized the way of the latecomers, and so did his student al-Haafidh al-Mizzi - who is also a student of an-Nawawi - who is known for his support of ibn Taymiyyah.
-
An-Nawawi's criticism of the mutakallimeen in several issues such as: the matter of faith of the muqallid, and on the first duty of the mukallaf being considering the evidences for al-hudooth - which is one of their most assertive issues - and the issue of faith being a saying and an action, and the decrease and increase of faith, etc. As well as his prohibition of the science of logic [المنطق] being upon the way of the Salaf.
In each issue of the previous issues, An-Nawawi's proof is the argument (the way of the Salaf) and ignoring the way of the mutakallimeen.
Therefore, the foundations of an-Nawawi are correct and they are relying on the Salaf - in what is clear to him - as for the matters of Attributes [of Allah] and similar controversial issues, he followed [قلَّد] his mashaayikh in them - not out of self desire (hawaa).
Not every Ash'ari is an innovator
And this is an important note that is hidden from many virtuous people, or causes them a problem. And we will summarize it, insha'Allah, with a clarification.
The clarification is that those with general attribution from the Ash'ariyyah: like ibnus-Salah, an-Nawawi, al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, ash-Shaatibi - the author of al-I'tisaam and al-Muwaafaqaat -, ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, as-Suyooti and their likes, are Ashaa'irah in terms of affiliation, not in terms of theological verification. And the majority of these people follow the Sunnah, even if they fall into interpretations [تأويلات] that they thought were correct.
And ibn Taymiyyah mentions that the interpretations of the Ash'ariyyah are of the same kind as the interpretations of their Hanbaliyyah opponents, who indulged in the theological rhetoric when they denied the attributes of mercy, anger, voluntary action, and others - and neither of them intended to contradict the Salaf (but they confused and erred.)
So if the Hanbali declares the Ash'ari [as an innovator], it is incumbent on the Hanbali to declare his companions from the mutakallimah al-Hanbaliyyah as innovators, which is something that no one among the Hanaabaliah or Ahlul-Hadith have committed to.
Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says, after mentioning some scholars of al-Ash'ariyyah and those who denounced them: "Anyone who follows his prejudices and lusts, then he slanders the person who seeks ijtihad but is mistaken, even though the person who seeks ijtihad sees himself as right, then it (i.e. this slandering) is an innovation that goes against the sunnah. He should compare this, whether for a bigger or smaller case to someone he exalted from among his own group (surely he will find mistakes in some of the ijtihad, but he will not criticize the mujtahid for being in the group the same). This is because there are very few later scholars who are safe from such problems (mistakes in ijtihad) due to the abundance of confusions and contradictions, and people being distant from the light of Prophethood and the Message which is the sun through which guidance and truth are attained."
The Criterion for Considering a Scholar an Innovator
The people of innovation are called "the people of whims" because they put their whims and minds before the Book and the Sunnah.
Commitment to whims can be identified throgh two things:
-
The condition of the person himself.
-
The state of the era and the level of Sunnah being spread therein or lack of it.
Whoever does not submit to his personal whims, he is not from the people of whims.
= And this is a significant rule, when applied, most of the doubts in these chapters and the like are removed from it.
---
The ruling of specified tabdee' is of the same nature as the ruling of, specified takfeer
If the man is generally attributed to the Ahlus-Sunnah and considered that what he is upon is their madhhab, and the hujjah has not been established upon him = he is not an innovator per se, even if his statement is an innovation.
If it is said that the Ash'ariyyah is a mubtadi'ah sect, and therefore whoever attributes himself to it is an innovator, it is not like those who attribute themselves to the Sunnah and Hadith. There is much dispute about this among the people of the sects. The Ash'ariyyah, the Kullaabiyyah, and the Salaamiyyah among the Ahlul-Hadith and Hanbaliyyah, if they affiliate themselves to the Ahlus-Sunnah, they are not innovators per se if the hujjah is not established against them, while their statements are considered innovation. This is due to the confusion regarding the Haqq in the later generations.
This is the opinion of ibn Taymiyyah and the great scholars of Salafiyyah, and the famous scholars of the Sunnah like ibn 'Uthaymeen and the likes of him and ibn Baaz and the likes of him and ash-Shanqeeti and Bakr Abu Zayd and al-Barraak and al-'Abbaad and ibn Jibreen - then their students from the discerning people of understanding and experience like Yoosuf al-Ghafees and al-'Usaymi and Tameem al-Qaadi and ash-Shuway'ir and their likes: It is the method of the people of moderation and knowledge and Deen, who know that by the scientific method, and these matters are not confusing to them, unlike those who are below them in understanding and knowledge, who do not have experience with the (deep technical) statements of the Ahlus-Sunnah and understanding its meanings and intentions. These matters are only confusing to such people.
Objections and their responses:
1) "An-Nawawi is not ignorant so he can't be excused by ignorance, and he is not a misinterpreter [وليس متأولاً]."
As for the statement that the excuse of ignorance is only for the general public, it is incorrect, for ignorance is relative, and not absolute, rather one might be ignorant of the specifics of a matter.
And 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood was ignorant that the two Surahs of seeking refuge (al-Falaq and an-Naas) were part of the Qur'an, even though he is a great scholar [وهو الحبر البحر], (details on it here) and al-Qaadi Shurayh was ignorant of reading {بَلْ عَجِبْتَ وَيَسْخَرُونَ} and denied the attribute of amazement, yet he is one of the knowledgeable judges. (See Majmoo Alfatawa here)
In conclusion, ignorance is not only for the general public, but it includes the obscurity of the evidence of a matter or matters to some scholars.
2) "An-Nawawi is a scholar and surely he must have come across the words of the Salaf and the scholars of hadith ..."
The answer to this fallacy is as follows:
Firstly: The assertion that an-Nawawi must have come across such and such = is baseless, built on assumption. And it belies ibn Taymiyyah's repeated mention of the ignorance of later scholars, their lack of familiarity with the words of the Salaf, and their failure to refer to them.
The books of the Salaf on belief were abandoned in these times and those who read them were criticized. Al-Mizzi read [خلق أفعال العباد] by al-Bukhaari in a gathering, and they accused him of targeting them, and imprisoned him out of ignorance. Ibn Taymiyyah had to go to the prince and release him personally.
Moreover, when they were sentencing ibn Taymiyyah, they summoned al-Mizzi, who read to them from the books of the Salaf that agreed with ibn Taymiyyah's words (in question), and they were amazed.
= The assumption that Muslim scholars have reviewed all the books of the Salaf is an assumption that is not true.
Secondly (and most importantly): Most of the words of the Salaf are general and scarce, not detailed.
Even ibn Taymiyyah himself has rhetorical matters whose apparent meaning contradicts the position of the Salaf. Examples include the "generic pre-existence" or "sequence of events" - although we see that this was what is also implicated (lazim) by the words of Salaf - the apparent meaning of their words are different.
Examples include: The issue of the [hell] fire's extinction, to the extent that some Salafees refuted him in this, like as-San'aani and al-Albaani.
Another example: That the Qur'an is "haadith" (recent), while the apparent words of the Salaf prohibit recency. In fact, many of the Ahlul-Hadith say "the Qur'an is eternal", like al-Asbahaani, al-Laalikaa'i, Hasan ibn Haamid, and others.
I emphasize (the apparent words of them) so as not to be mistaken and divert from the intended point. (See details English fatwa here)
So your reply to these (apparent) issues (of ibn taymiyyah) and similar matters are same replies for an-Nawawi's and the likes of him, to what they thought were their madhhab, which was his interpretation.
What shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah displayed were rhetorical theology (kalaamiyyah), and despite this, the Salafis believed in their validity and were reassured because of the desperate need for refuting rhetorics after their sciences became well grounded.
Similarly, the scholars of Ashaa'irah - especially non-mutakallimeen who followed with good niyyah - thought that their foundations were the rational translation of the manhaj of the Salaf, so they believed that what they were on: was what the work of fuqahaa' settled on after the time of codifying and controlling the sciences.
They thought that al-Ash'ari was the verifier of their sayings, similar to the Salafis' view of ibn Taymiyya in those theological issues who's (examples as noted above) outwardly contradict the words of the Salaf.. so reflect.
We don't say as the sophists [السفسطائية] do, that the truth has been divided and lost, and that this and that are alike. But the truth is with ibn Taymiyyah, insha'Allah, but the difference is between excusing and understanding the opponent's words and way of thinking, and between verifying the issue itself, so be aware.
In this regard, ibn Taymiyyah says what means: "For anyone who knows what led them to those (incorrect) statements and what they based their words on and their sources, they would excuses them for that."
3) "Shurayh al-Qaadi is not same as an-Nawawi, because Shurayh denied a single attribute [of Allah]."
Some of the virtuous people were vary of ibn Taymiyyah's reasoning of using Shurayh al-Qaadi's denial of the attribute of Amazement and (qiyas) analogizing that to the (issues of) later scholars. Their reason being, Shurayh was correct in fundamentals (usool), unlike an-Nawawi and his likes.
The response is as follows:
First: Shurayh's stance is more severe than others, because he denied a mutawaatir recitation and the report reached him in a correct way, yet he insisted on his position.
Also, he didn't provide a ta'weel but denied the existence of the attribute itself. Scholars agreed that denying the attribute is more heinous than interpreting it, because the interpreter is not a denier of the Qur'an, whereas the denier is. However, Shurayh's denial of the attribute of amazement and the recitation was based on his ta'weel.
Ibn Taymiyyah used Shurayh al-Qaadi as evidence in the context of differences between the Ash'ariyyah and others, so ibn Taymiyyah's use of this as an excuse for his opponents was not arbitrary, but was based on solid knowledge and understanding.
Second: There is no difference between denying or interpreting a single attribute and interpreting ten attributes. The issue is not about quantity – as the common saying goes!
Imam Ahmad considered the interpretation of a single attribute as a deviation (being an innovator).
And he declared those who interpret the hadith of the image as deviant, despite ibn Khuzaymah falling into this. This is because those who interpreted the attributes in the time of Ahmad were mainly guided by their self desires and prioritized their own understanding, hence Ahmad's sayings took the dominant route. Pay good attention to this.
The determining factor is "following desires" (hawaa). Inability to understanding this factor and its rulings resulting from it = is the cause of fault among the disputing parties today on both sides.
Third: Every era is judged according to its own context, so the era when Sunnah spread with the denial of a single attribute differs from the era when the madhhab of the Ashaa'irah spread as the madhhab of the Ahlus-Sunnah. (Editor: And this was what Shaykh Naasir al-Fahd stated in Fataawa al-Haairiyya, Q. 6 and also see Q. 4)
4) "If we do not declare an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar as innovators, why do we declare az-Zamakhshari as an innovator, even though he is a scholar and also has his own (academic) compositions?"
The answer: az-Zamakhshari knows that he opposes the imams, the scholars of hadith books, the majority of Muslims, and departs from their Jamaa'ah.
He knows for certain that he opposes Ahmad and others. Yet, he insists that what he believes in from rationality is superior to them and claims that they are merely laymen who don't understand the realities of matters.
Hence this person, he knows that he is opposing them, but the one who does not know, and thinks that what his mashaayikh are upon is the madhhab of the Ahlus-Sunnah (which he believed to be the established practice), is not an innovator if the matter is not made clear to him.
And Allah knows best.