Seeking Sacred Sunni Knowledge

Imam An-Nawawi was an Asha’ri, A Refutation of the Claims of the Pseudo-salafis

compiled by Abu Layth

One of the many fraudulent claims of the pseudo-salafi movement is that Imam An-Nawawi was not an Asha’ri in creed. This is yet another example of their attempt to rewrite history to be in their favor. Before we prove that Imam an-Nawawi (rahmatullah ‘alayh) was an Asha’ri, we must first analyze why the pseudo-salafis would make such an unprecedented claim. Imam An-Nawawi is a Mujtahid in the Shafi’i school, having the most authority after Imam ash-Shafi’i! Imam An-Nawawi is respected by all Sunni ‘ulama‘, and indeed even non-Sunnis. His books are read, memorized, and preserved by each generation after him. He is, arguably, one of the most remembered and well-known scholars of the entire Muslim ummah. His commentary upon the Sahih Muslim is considered by many to be the best ever done in Muslim history, his Majmu‘  is considered only challenged in status by Ibn Qudamah’s Al-Mughni.  If the pseudo-salafis can claim him to be an anthropomorphist and inline with their literalist views in creed, they have on their side a highly respected scholar, of whom no disagreement exists regarding his high status in Islam. It is for this reason that the deviant pseudo-salafis will do anything they can, especially lie, to claim Imam an-Nawawi as one of “them“.

Recently a pseudo-salafi neo-Muqatili said on our site,

“…An-Nawawee is not accepted in aqeedah. One of hte [sic.] principles in the extraction of aqeedah is that there [sic.] views mirror the views of the predecessors. If there is a lack of congruity between the articulator and what has been established in unequivocal terms by the predecessors, then this disqualifies the person as being an authoritative figure by which their statements can be accepted in whatever field be spoken about. Thus ahlu-sunnah reserve an-Nawawee and utilize [sic.] him in hwere [sic.] he specialized in i.e. fiqh, usoolul-fiqh, lugha, shurooh of hadeeth, uloomul-hadeeth, and the basics of tassawwuf, but not in terms of al-Asmaai wa Sifaat.

it is also incorrect to call an-Nawawee an ash’ari particularly if an-Nawawee’s asl was in bringing arguments in refutation of kalaam and ilmul-kalaam. We say that he inclines towards the madhaab of the ashaa’irah, but he was not an actual ash’ari. Ash’aris are mutakalimoon like ar-Razi. Juwaynee, and the above individuals whom I’ve named in previous posts.”

Summing up this pseudo-salafi’s arguments:

1) Imam an-Nawawi is not quoted in ‘Aqidah because, as he claims, he is not inline with the method of the Salaf us-Salih in creed. Or in other words he is not inline with what the commenter believes is the creed of ahlus Sunnah! Imam An-Nawawi refutes this claim himself as you shall come to see.

2) That An-Nawawi “refuted” kalam/’ilm-ul-kalam. He argues that an Asha’ri can only adopt the way of “kalaam” in order to be deemed an Asha’ri. This is not entirely true either, as there are two well-known schools (methods) of the Asha’ris in dealing with the attributes of Allah.

The Position of Imam An-Nawawi According to Ahlus-Sunnah

There are three ways to determine the status in creed of Imam an-Nawawi.

1) Analyze what his contemporaries, such as his students, comrades, co-teachers etc. said regarding him.

2) Analyze what the scholars after him said regarding his creed and status amongst the Sunnis.

3) Review his works and determine what he said regarding kalam.

This will be the method of this article.

What did his students, Comrades, and those After Him Say of Accepting his Creed

Shaykh ‘Alā’ud-Dīn ibn Al-‘Attār (d. 724 a.h), the student of Imām An-Nawawī and one of his many biographers who witnessed karamāt as well as sat in his many circles of knowledge, stated about him

“…he was an ‘Ālim, a Rabbānī, upon whom agreement [of the scholars] is there upon his knowledge and his Imāmship…”

He also said,

“My Shaykh narrated to me that he held twelve classes a day explaining and reading the texts. Two classes go over the Wasit, one class going over the Muhadhdhab, a class going over both of the two Sahih works [i.e. Bukhari and Muslim], a class specifically covering Sahih Muslim, a class over the Luma’ of ibn Al-Jnni, a class reviewing Islah al-Mantiq (logic) by Ibn As-Sikkit, class on language, a class in Tasrif, a class in Usul al-Fiqh [foundations of jurisprudence], a class regarding the “names of men” in hadith (أسماء الرجال), and a dars in the Usul [foundations] of the Religion. ((See Al-Minhaj As-Sawi fi Tarjamat Imam An-Nawawi page 57-60 ))

He also reported the many books of hadith to his students as narrated by Ibn ‘Attar.

There are two points that we are to take from these words of Ibn ‘Attar (rahmatullah ‘alayh) that concern our topic:

  • There was agreement in his time regarding his Imamship and his knowledge, unlike what the pseudo-salafis would have us to believe – that he is not to taken from in issues of creed – yet here ibn ‘Attar is making it very clear that there was ittifaq (agreement) of the scholars regarding his knowledge, and so he was trusted and taken from. This point will be further elaborated upon further down.
  • That he learned and taught kalam ((see the introduction to Kitab At-Tahqiq published by Dar Al-Jil page 18 )) and logic (mantiq), a fundamental of Sunni Kalam. Within the Sunni school, no one could teach this science if he was not knowledgeable and well rehearsed in the subject. This refutes the assertion that he was not knowledgeable in the field of kalam!

His Agreed upon Title of Shaykh ul-Islam proves He is to be taken from in ‘Aqidah and His Teaching of Asha’ri Works

Imam An-Nawawi was given the title of “Shaykh ul-Islam” by his students, comrades, and those Imams after him. The title Shaykh ul-Islam is of import to this discussion because it denotes that he mastered all of the sciences of Islam and if such is the case, then the argument of the pseudo-salafis that he is not taken from in creed is rejected by the scholars, for his status denotes that he is to be taken from in all matters. We should note here that we are arguing for “agreement” of the Muslims regarding this title. It is true that some individuals overly praise certain Shuyukh with this title, as Imam as-Sakhawi points out, and they do not meet the criterion for this honorific.

Imām ash-Sakhāwī states that “Shaykh ul-Islām” signifies one who follows the Kitāb and the Sunnah, has mastered the Usūl of the religion, who has plunged deep into the differences of the amongst the scholars, and has become able to extract the legal evidences from the texts, and has understood the rational and transmitted texts at a good level. [al-jawahir wad-durar]

Imam ash-Sharif Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan Al-Wasiti al-Husayni (d. 776 A.H) said in his al-Matalib Al-’Aliyyah fit-Tabaqat ash-Shafi’iyyah regarding Imam An-Nawawi,

“The Shaykh, The Imam, The ‘Alim (scholar), the Rabbani, the Hafith (master of Hadith), the Faqih (jurist), the Shaykh ul-Islam of his time, and after his time. He was from the scholars who implemented [their knowledge], and from the Imams of immense knowledge, from the friends of Allah who know (‘arifin), and from the true ascetics…”

Imam Muhammad Al-Wasiti also mentions what Ibn Al- ‘Attar mentioned of his many classes he had within a day, except that he clarifies that in Usul al-Fiqh he would review al-Luma’ of Abi Ishaq and the Muntakhib of Imam Fakhrud-Din ar-Razi, and in Usul ad-Din he would go over the Irshad of Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni! The Irshad’s title is: الإرشاد إلى قواطع الأدلة في أصول الاعتقاد al-Irshad ila qawati’ Al-Adillat fi Usual al-’Itiqad. The Irshad is a work of Sunni Kalam theology by one of the heads of the Asha’ris, Imam Al-Haramayn Abdul Malik Al-Juwayni, a book mastered, taught, and propagated by Imam An-Nawawi within his circles of knowledge.

Click the Thumbnail Scan to See for Yourself!

Three points are extracted from the above texts related to our discussion:

  • Imam an-Nawawi learned and taught Asha’ri texts, specifically from Imam al-Haramayn,  and received ijazaat (permission to teach others). This is clear proof that he supported the Asha’ri school, as he could have easily learned and taught other works.
  • He had mastered Kalam, as teaching the Irshad certainly takes a Mutakallim to teach correctly! Hence he was relied upon in ‘Aqidah by the masses of Muslim in his time, as they did not object to him teaching these works, and he (rahmatullah ‘alayh) was clearly promulgating the positions of the Asha’ri school.
  • He was a master of all the sciences of religion, including Usul ad-Din, and here we are referring to Tawhid, or what is commonly called ” ‘Aqidah“. This point squelches the argument of the pseudo-salafis that he is not to be trusted in this science. He was labeled “Shaykh ul-Islam” by his contemporaries, students, and those after him.

Others who gave him the title “Shaykh ul-Islam” include but are not restricted to, Imam as-Sakhawi ((Hayat Al-Imam an-Nawawi )), Imam Suyuti [who was given the title by others as well] ((See his Minhaj as-Sawi )), Imam as-Subki in his Tabaqat,  Ibn Qadi Shuhbah, and many others.

His Statements in Creed Overwhelmingly Match the School of Abul-Hasan Al-Asha’ri

The school of Abul Hasan Al-Asha’ri regarding the Sifat (attributes) of Allah is, according to Imam as-Subki one of the two methods, which he also ascribed to Imam Al-Juwayni in his Risalat an-Nithamiyyah:

  • Imrar (passing the texts on as they have come) and relegating the knowledge/meaning of the texts to Allah, while denying anything that would not befit Allah, such as the likenesses of created attributes, anthropomorphism etc. This method is generally known as tafwid.
  • Ta’wil which is to interpret the texts that are problematic in the sense that they literally seem anthropomorphic, while having precedent in the language of Arabic to do so.

[Tabaqat Ash-Shafi'iyyah 5/191]

Imam An-Nawawi (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) followed both of these paths and stated that both of these paths were the way of the salaf (predecessors) with regard to the texts. He NEVER stated that the literal meaning was intended by these texts, as the pseudo-salafis say, and he even denied such as you will come to know below. You will also see further down that Imam An-Nawawi adopted the kalam method in refuting the anthropomorphists by using their creedal nomenclature and rational proofs.

His commentary in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim regarding the narration of “descent/an-Nuzul”:

هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصفات، وفيه مذهبان مشهوران للعلماء: أحدهما وهو مذهب السلف وبعض المتكلمين أنه يؤمن بأنها حق على ما يليق بالله تعالى وأن ظاهرها المتعارف في حقنا غير مراد، ولا يتكلم في تأويلها مع اعتقاد تنزيه الله تعالى عن صفات المخلوق وعن الانتقال والحركات وسائر سمات الخلق، والثاني مذهب أكثر المتكلمين وجماعات من السلف وهو محكي هنا عن مالك والأوزاعي على أنها تتأول على ما يليق بها بحسب مواطنها، فعلى هذا تأولوا هذا الحديث تأويلين أحدهما: تأويل مالك بن أنس وغيره، معناه تنزل رحمته وأمره وملائكته، كما يقال فعل السلطان كذا إذا فعله أتباعه بأمره، والثاني: أنه على الاستعارة ومعناه الإقبال على الداعين بالإجابة واللطف.

This hadith is from the hadith of the Sifat (of Allah), and regarding it there are two well known madhdhabs: the first, and it is the madhhab of the salaf and some of the Mutakallimin (scholars of kalam) that it is believe in their [i.e. the attributs] reality according to what befits Allāh ta’ala, and that the literal meaning that we commonly apply to ourselves is not what is meant, and that one does not speak regarding its interpretation while holding the belief that Allah ta’alā is free from the attributes of the created, and from translocation, and movement, and the rest of the attributes of created beings. The second is the madhdhab of the majority of the Mutakallimīn, and a group from amongst the Salaf, and it is what is reported from Mālik and al-Awzā’ī that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings. On this basis there are two interpretations (ta’wils). The first is the ta’wil of Imam Malik ibn Anas and other than he, that its meaning is the descent of His mercy and decree and His angels. [as is said regarding the Sultan ...] and the Second interpretation is that it is an Isti’arah (metaphor) to signifiy turning to (iqbal) to those who supplicate to Him with fulfillment by answering [the du'aa] and showing lutf (kindness, generosity) [to those beseeching Him].

[Sharh Sahih Muslim; Kitab Salat al-Musafirin]

Take notice that Imam an-Nawawi denies the literal meaning, the method of the pseudo-salafis, for Allah’s descent, and says the way of the salaf and the Mutakallimin is both tafwid and ta’wil. Notice here that he is only adopting the two methods of the Asha’ris and denying any other madhdhab in this matter, as he states there are “two madhdhabs”, in other words, and no more!

Imam An-Nawawi also quoted Imam Malik elsewhere in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim regarding this issue of the “descent” of Allah,

فقد سئل الإمام مالك رحمه الله عن نزول الرب عزّ وجلّ، فقال “ينزل أمره تعالى كل سَحَر، فأما هو عزّوجلّ فإنه دائم لا يزول ولا ينتقل سبحانه لا إله إلى هو

Imam Malik was asked about the “descent” of Allah and he said, “His, the majestic’s, command descends every night, and as for Allah ‘azza wa jall, then he is eternal, he does not move or displace, glorified be He, and there is no god but He!”[6/37]

He says regarding the hadith of the “slave girl”:

هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصِّفات، وفيها مذهبان تقدَّم ذكرهما مرَّات في كتاب الإيمان: أحدهما:الإيمان به من غير خوض في معناه، مع اعتقاد أنَّ الله ليس كمثله شيء،وتنزيهه عن سمات المخلوقات.

والثَّاني:تأويله بما يليق به. فمن قال بهذا – أي التأويل – قال: كان المراد امتحانها هل هي موحِّدة تقرُّ بأنَّ الخالق المدبِّر الفعَّال هو الله وحده، وهو الَّذي إذا دعاه الدَّاعي استقبل السَّماء،كما إذاصلَّى المصلِّي استقبل الكعبة،وليس ذلك لأنَّه منحصر في السَّماء، كما أنَّه ليس منحصراً في جهة الكعبة، بل ذلك لأنَّ السَّماء قبلة الدَّاعين، كما أنَّ الكعبة قبلة المصلِّين.

أو هي من عبدة الأوثان العابدين للأوثان الَّتي بين أيديهم، فلمَّا قالت: في السَّماء علم أنَّها موحِّدة وليست عابدة للأوثان.

“This hadith is from the narrations of the attributes of Allah, and there are two madhdhabs regarding this, and I have mentioned them both in the chapter of Iman. The first is to believe in it without delving into its meaning, while believing that Allah has no similitude to Him at all, and negating for him the attributes of created beings. And the second school is that it is interpreted in a manner that befits Him.” [...then he gives the interpretations...]

Again, Imam an-Nawawi makes no mention of the madhdhab of the literalists who delve into the literal meaning and affirm it for Allah! He is stating here the two schools of the Asha’ris!

He also says in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:

إن الله تعالى ليس كمثله شيء وإنه منزّه عن التجسيم والانتقال والتحيز في الجهة وعن سائر صفات المخلوق

“Verily there is nothing like Allah ta’ala, and he is free from tajsim (corporeality), and displacement, and being within direction, and from the rest of the attributes of the created beings.” [3/19]

This is the exact wording of the Asha’ris within their texts when talking of Allah.

This is in direct contradiction to the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah who said that he does not deny “jism – body/corporeality – for Allah. He said,

“It is well known that the Book , the Sunnah, and the Consensus nowhere say that all bodies (ajsaam) are created, and nowhere say that Allah Himself is not a body! Nor did any of the Imams of the Muslims ever say such a thing. Therefore if I also choose not to say it, it does not expel me from fitra nor from Shari’ah!” ((At-Ta’sis 1:118 ))

Such stupidity only shows the ignorance of Ibn Taymiyyah in issues of creed! “The Book” does say He is not a body when He says “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is As-Sami’ al-Basir!” This is a verse of denial of everything in similitude with creation! For jism (corporeality/body) is an attribute of the created, and is thus tamthil. Allah never ascribes himself with a body (jism), yet Ibn Taymiyyah is more than happy to do so for Him, exalted is He above what this deviant ascribed to Him! Ibn Jahbal refuted such kufristic insinuations in his refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah that has been translated and published and this paper’s goal is not to discuss this matter. However, take note that even Imam An-Nawawi disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah, and this is a clear refutation of the claim of “Ijma’” by Ibn Taymiyyah in the quote above.

As Allah says in the Qur’an,

فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ

“And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses?” [7:37]

So the Qur’an does say He is not a body. But a question to ask the proponents of Tajsim (and this is what it is): Where does Allah ascribe to Himself a “body”? What proof do you have? Or is it that you do take the literal meaning of hand, shin, waist, foot, eyes, and with your sensual perception imagine Allah as the pagan Christians do as a body (jism), unlike other bodies – in other words with a bigger hand than humans. These folk have invented a lie upon Allah by saying about Him what He has denied about Himself!

Imam An-Nawawi is the complete opposite in creed of Ibn Taymiyyah. In fact, Imam An-Nawawi does not even recognize the school of Ibn Taymiyyah as being from Ahlus Sunnah, as you can see from his commentary in Sahih Muslim, rejecting the “literal” meanings as what is intended.

Imam An-Nawawi also said in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:

من العلماء من يمسك عن تأويلها ويقول نؤمن بأنها حق وأن ظاهرها غير مراد ولها معنى يليق بها وهذا مذهب جمهور السلف وهو أحوط وأسلم والثاني أنها تتأول على حسب ما يليق بتنزيه الله تعالى وإنه ليس كمثله شيء

“And from the scholars are those who refrain from interpretating [the narratives of attirbutess]. They say we believe that they are real and that the literal meanings of the texts are not what are intended, and the meaning is what befits His majesty and this is the madhhab of the majority of the Salaf, and it is most upright, and safest. The second school is one of interpretation of the texts in a manner which befits His Majesty, while denying any imperfections from Allah ta’ala, as there is nothing like unto Him!” [16/166]

Also Imam An-Nawawi quotes Imam Al-Mazari, the Maliki Asha’ri, in refutation of Ibn Qutaybah regarding his belief that Allah has an “image unlike other images” regarding the hadith “Allah created Adam in His image…”. He said,

ال المازري وقد غلط بن قتيبة في هذا الحديث فأجراه على ظاهره وقال لله تعالى صورة لا كالصور وهذا الذي قاله ظاهر الفساد لأن الصورة تفيد التركيب وكل مركب محدث والله تعالى ليس بمحدث فليس هو مركبا فليس مصورا قال وهذا كقول المجسمة جسم لا كالأجسام لما رأوا أهل السنة يقولون الباري سبحانه وتعالى شئ لا كالأشياء طردوا الاستعمال فقالوا جسم لا كالأجسام والفرق أن لفظ شئ لا يفيد الحدوث ولا يتضمن ما يقتضيه وأما جسم وصورة فيتضمنان التأليف والتركيب وذلك دليل الحدوث قال العجب من بن قتيبة في قوله صورة لا كالصور مع أن ظاهر الحديث على رأيه يقتضي خلق آدم على صورته فالصورتان على رأيه سواء فإذا قال لا كالصور تناقض قوله ويقال له أيضاً إن أردت بقولك صورة لا كالصور أنه ليس بمؤلف ولا مركب فليس بصورة حقيقة وليست اللفظة على ظاهرها وحينئذ يكون موافقا على افتقاره إلى التأويل واختلف العلماء في تأويله فقالت طائفة الضمير في صورته عائد على الأخ المضروب وهذا ظاهر رواية مسلم وقالت طائفة يعود إلى آدم وفيه ضعف وقالت طائفة يعود إلى الله تعالى ويكون المراد إضافة تشريف واختصاص كقوله تعالى ناقة الله وكما يقال في الكعبة بيت الله ونظائره والله اعلم

He also denies the literalists’, such as Ibn Qutaybah, approach to this hadith. Notice he utilizes the Asha’ri Sunni kalami argument that an image necessitates tarkib, and anything that has tarkib is muhdath, and Allah ta’ala is not muhdath. This is a rational Kalami argument that is proof against the anthropomorphists, and is utilized here by Imam an-Nawawi to refute such creedal impudence!

Another clear text from Imam An-Nawawi professing the Asha’ri doctrine with regards to the attributes of Allah is what he said in his masterpiece “Majmu‘”.

اختلفوا في آيات الصفات وأخبارها هل يخاض فيها بالتأويل أم لا؟ فقال قائلون تتأول على ما يليق بها، وهذا أشهر المذهبين للمتكلمين، وقال آخرون: لا تتأول بل يمسك عن الكلام في معناها ويوكل علمها إلى الله تعالى ويعتقد مع ذلك تنزيه الله تعالى وانتفاء صفات الحوادث عنه، فيقال مثلاً: نؤمن بأن الرحمن على العرش استوى، ولا نعلم حقيقة معنى ذلك والمراد به، مع أنا نعتقد أن الله تعالى ليس كمثله شيء، وأنه منزه عن الحلول وسمات الحدوث، وهذه طريقة السلف أو جماهيرهم وهي أسلم

“There is disagreement regarding the verses of the attributes of Allāh and their narrations. Do we delve into its interpretation or not? And some of the scholars have said that they are to be interpreted according to what befits Allāh, and this is the most known opinion of the two schools of the Mutakallimīn. Another group said that it is not interpreted, rather one refrains from speaking about its meanings and entrusts its knowledge to Allāh while believing in the denial of the attributes of created beings from Him. And so they said, for example, “We believe that ar-Rahman ‘alal ‘arsh istāwa – (literally translated here as: that the merciful rose upon the throne), and we do not know its real meaning that was intended by it, and we believe this while believing there is nothing like unto Allāh, and while He is free from Hulūl and the attributes of the originated matters (al-ḥudūth), and this is the path of the Salaf, and the majority of them, and it is the safest [path].”

Hulul is indwelling or incarnation of the Divine into a created being, place, or quality. Here he also states the two schools of the Asha’ris as well, that of tafwid and that of ta’wil, while denying the literal purport of these texts. Notice here that Shaykh ul-Islam Imam an-Nawawi deems the school of the righteous Salaf the path of tafwid, not the path of literalism!

Another indication of Imam an-Nawawi being an Asha’ri is his praise of the madhdhab of Imam Abul Hasan al-Asha’ri in his Tahdhib al-Asma’i wal-Lughat under the entry of Ustadh Abū Isḥāq Al-Isfrā’īnīi:

وكان الأستاذ أحد الثلاثة الذين اجتمعوا في عصر واحد على نصر مذهب الحديث والسنة في المسائل الكلامية , القائمين بنصر مذهب الشيخ أبي الحسن الأشعري , وهم الأستاذ أبو إسحاق الإسفراييني والقاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني والإمام أبو بكر بن فورك

“This teacher was one of the three who gathered in one era upon supporting the madhdhab of the Hadīth and the Sunnah in the issues of Kalām, and they were steadfast in supporting the madhhab of the Shaykh Abil Hasan Al-Asha’rī, and they [the three] were the ustādh Abū Isḥāq Al-Isfrā’īnī, Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Bāqilānī, and the Imām Abū Bakr ibn Fūrak.”

He deemed this madhdhab the madhdhab of the hadith and the Sunnah in the issues of kalam, an obvious praise for the madhdhab of the Asha’ris!

Conclusion: The Statement of Imam Adh-Dhahabi and Sakhawi

Imām adh-Dhahabī said in his tārīkh al-Islām about Imām an-Nawawī:

إن مذهبه في الصفات السمعية السكوت ، وإمرارها كما جاءت ،وربما تأول قليلاً في شرح مسلم.

‘Verily his madhdhab regarding the attributes as-sam’iyyah was as-sukūt (to remain silent regarding them). And he narrated them as they came, and maybe he interpreted them a small number of times in his Sharḥ of Saḥīḥ Muslim!”

Imam As-Sakhawi quoted these words and said after them in his bio of Imam An-Nawawi,

كذا قال، و التأويل كثير في كلامه

“This is what he says! And there is a lot of ta’wīl (interpretations) in what he said!”

He also said on page 36,

وصرح اليافعي والتاج السُّبكي  رحمهما الله  أنه أشعري

“It was forwarded by Imams al-Yafi’i and At-Taj As-Subki (may Allah have mercy upon them both), that he was an Asha’ri!”

As-Subki’s exact words in his Tabaqat ash-Shafi’yyah are:

فإن النووي أشعري العقيدة

“…and verily An-Nawawi was an Asha’ri in creed!”

A Response to a Claim Made by The Pseudo-Salafis

We came upon an article that presupposes that Imam An-Nawawi (rahimahullah) was not an Asha’ri because he criticizes some of the Mutakallimin that argue that one must use Kalam to arrive at knowing Allah. Imam An-Nawawi slams this position, no doubt, and says it is not the majority position. However, in his condemnation of those Mutakallimin who hold this view, is proof that Imam an-Nawawi considered himself an Asha’ri and a Mutakallim.

“…and this opinion (qawl) is held by many of the Mu’tazilah, and some of our companions [of] the Mutakallimin, and this is an apparent mistake…”

He deems here the “Mutakallimin” as those who are “our companions”. Imam an-Nawawi in his Majmu’ uses “As-habnaa” to refer to those of his same madhdhab, that of the Shafi’is, and he is doing the same here! This is clearly an ascription of Himself to the same school as they are upon, the school of Kalam!

He does this multiple times in his Sharh of the Sahih of Imam Muslim. He says as well in another place,

ومنها إثبات كرامات الأولياء وهو مذهب أهل السنة خلافاً للمعتزلة ، وفيه أنّ كرامات الأولياء قد تقع باختيارهم وطلبهم ، وهذا هو الصحيح عند أصحابنا المتكلمين

“…and from it [i.e. the text] is the affirmation of the charismatic acts [karamaat] of the friends of Allah (awliya’), and this is the madhhab of ahlus Sunnah, which contradicts that of the Mu’tazilah [...] and this is what is correct (sahih) according to our companions of the Mutakallimin!”

He also stated in his Sharh of the Muhadhdhab,

قال أصحابنا المتكلمون

“Our companions of the Mutakallimin said…” (1/174)

This is inline with what we have forwarded throughout this article; that he taught the works of Kalam, quoted them, endorsed the Asha’ri and Kalam methods in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim as well as within his Majmu’ when discussing how the Sunnis treat the issue of Allah’s attributes. He is, undoubtedly, as professed by Imam al-Yafi’i and Taj As-Subki, an Asha’ri!

All of this is clear proof that the pseudo-salafis have lied upon Imam An-Nawawi  – just as some of them took out entire sections from his works such as his Adhkaar! Such is necessary for them, considering the Imams of Islam do not hold to their creed, and so they must distort the Imams’ states in order to justify their anthropomorphic tendencies! And as Allah has said: the curse of Allah is upon the liars!

Imam An-Nawawi on Warning the Laity of Learning Sunni Kalaam

Imam an-Nawawi, just as Imam al-Ghazzali, warned the laity about delving into kalaam, unless a doubt were to raise in their minds regarding it.

He said as translated by the Asha’ri and Sufi, Shaykh Nuh Keller in his “Reliance of the Traveller”, “A:” in brackets is the commentary of Shaykh Abdul-Wakil Durubi.

“As for the basic obligation of Islam, and what relates to tenets of faith, it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and to credit it with absolute conviction free of any doubt. Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidences of the scholastic . The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not require of anyone anything but what we have just mentioned, nor did the first four caliphs, the other prophetic Companions, nor others of the early Muslim community who came after them. Rather, what befits the common people and vast majority of those learning or possessing Sacred Knowledge is to retrain from discussing the subtleties of scholastic theology, lest corruption difficult to eliminate find its way into their basic religious convictions. Rather, it is fitter for them to confine themselves to contentment with the above mentioned absolute certainly.Our Imam Shafi’i (Allah Most High have mercy on him) went to the greatest possible lengths in asserting that engaging in scholastic theology is forbidden. [A: What he meant thereby was the heretical scholastic theology that proliferated in his time and put rationalistic theories ahead of the Koran and sunna, not the science of theology (`ilm al-tawhid) by which Ash'ari and Maturidi scholars (dis: x47] have clarified and detailed the tenets of faith of Sunni Islam, which is an important part of the Islamic sciences.) He insistently emphasized its unlawfulness, the severity of the punishment awaiting those who engage in it, the disgrace of doing it, and the enormity of the sin therein by saying,

“For a servant to meet Allah with any other sin than idolatry (shirk) is better than to meet Him guilty of anything of scholastic theology.”

His other statements expressing the same meaning are numerous and well known. But if someone has doubts (Allah be our refuge) about any of the tenets of faith in which belief is obligatory (def: books u and v), and his doubt cannot be eliminated except by learning one of the theologians’ proofs, then it is obligatory for him to learn it in order to remove the doubt and acquire the belief in question.

To see Imam ash-Shafi’i utilizing Kalam for need read the following article: A Discussion Regarding Sunni Kalaam wherein the following story is narrated:

Something of this is illustrated in a story narrated by Imām ash-Shāfi’i’s student al-Muzanī that demonstrates both the necessity of defending the Truth in an equivalent and in the differences of intellect and understanding that Allah has alloted:

“I debated a certain man who asked me questions that almost caused me to doubt my religion. I came to Ash-Shafi’i and recounted to him the whole matter. He said to me: “Where are you?!” I replied, “In the masjid!” He said, “Nay! You are in taran [a whirlpool in the red sea] and its waves are crashing down upon you! This is a favourite issue of the atheists and is such and such [he gave Muzani the answer]. It would be better for someone to be tried with all the harms that Allah has created rather than to be tried with Kalaam!”

Imam Al-Bayhaqi commented on this story said in his Manāqib,

“This shows ash-Shāfi’i’s excellent knowledge of the issue and the obligation of exposing the distortions of atheists whenever needed. By kalam, he meant the atheism of the atheists and the heresies of the innovators, and Allah knows best!” [Manaqib Al-Imam Ash-Shafi'i page 458]

So when the need arose, Imam An-Nawawi not only recommended Kalam, but he deemed it wajib – an obligation! Let those who say Imam An-Nawawi was not an Asha’ri take heed of this point: He obligated the Sunni Kalaam of the Asha’ris when it was needed, so how could he deem it to be falsehood if he deemed it obligatory based upon the need? In other words, Imam An-Nawawi was an Asha’ri, supported the madhhab, utilized its proofs in his works, quoted from its scholars, and held that it was necessary to learn the arguments if need arose.

To read more on Kalam and Islam see this article.

And with Allah is our Supreme Success!

And May Allah send his blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his followers! Amin!

Note: This article will be added to and updated as references and translations become available insha’allah!

Updated July 21st 2010

35 Responses to “Imam An-Nawawi was an Asha’ri, A Refutation of the Claims of the Pseudo-salafis”

  1. Harun says:

    Salam,

    This was just what I needed alhamdulillah. May Allah reward you for this thorough research. See here what Ibn ‘Uthaymin wrote on an-Nawawi subhanallah: http://1bnothaimeen.blogspot.com/2008/03/blog-post_31.html

    Your article is a clear refutation.

    Please continue as they claim the same about Ibn Hajar.

    Take care wa salam,

    H.

    • admin says:

      Wa’alaykum Salam Harun,

      The Pseudo-salafis want it both ways. They want to utilize this great Imam to their benefit, claim him for their cause, all the while ascribe to him kufr and heresy in the same breath.

      What Sunnis are certain of is that Imam An-Nawawi, qaddasa Allahu Ruhuhu, well forever be remembered as Shaykh ul Islam, the Wali of Allah, one at whose hands the masses have been guided by, and whom the Muslims have trusted and loved for over 700 years. The pseudo-salafis and their khariji da’wah laced with kufr and anthropomorphism was defeated in the past, and their brief bump to knowness at the expense of dirty oil money will all go up in flames soon enough. The masses have seen the treachery of their ways, and they are learning of their anthropomorphism, and that their slogans of “salaf” and “tawhid” really are just that – empty slogans, as shown by Imam An-Nawawi himself!

      Ibn Uthaymin was an evil man who many times stepped outside of the ijma’, who promoted slaughtering women and children ‘because the kuffar do so to us’ – a premise unheard of in Islamic law. We have compiled a refutation of him utilizing the dafa’ of Ibn Al-Jawzi to refute his batil here:

      Part 1: http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/105
      Part 2: http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/119

      A research paper defending Ibn Hajr is also due insha’allah. Make du’aa Allah blesses us with the time to do so!

  2. al-boriqee says:

    asalamu alaikum

    Abu Layth
    the article was a mass deception to say the least and more importantly, the material you present is a sidetrack of the actual argument state “pseudo salafi” stated (which was me)

    no one disputes his Imaamship or even his shaykhul-IslamNESS if you will, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he blind followed (meaning he followed the mutaklimoon and not that he was actually a mutakalim, thus he was not an ash’ari, but merely followed their opinions on some matters).

    this is like Shaykhul-Islam ibnul-Jawzi, no one disputes his repute, Imaamship, Ilm, or his shaykhul-Islamness, but none of this deals with the fact that ahlu-sunnah Imaams considered Ibnul-Jawzi matrook in matters of sifaat, everyone deposed his views on sifaat as a heterodox tangent of the actual sunni creed. Likewise, Imaam an-Nawawee’s fame and repute is due to that which he specializes like his shurooh mainly of hadeeth, his expertise in fiqh and usoolul-fiqh and as well as qawaa’id al-fiqhiyyah, and as well as raqaa’iq, but he was NOT an expert in matters of sifaat which would explain WHY he resorted to jot down the opinion of his teachers on aqeedah rather than offering it himself, most of whom were unfortunately ash’ari at the time.

    however, what I really want to know is how on the planet did you manage to compare al-Mazari, an ash’ari, with THE Ibn Qutaybah, who does not even reach the dust in the nostrils of Ibn Qutaybah.

    I also find it strange how you would use Mukhtasir an-Nawawee (Ibn Attar), whom you failed to relay to your audience that he came across the sunni scholars and learned aqeedah only to have contradicted his shaykh and here is what he has to say about your madhaab in his tract on creed

    “It is obligatory to believe that what Allaah has affirmed in His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger (SAW) is the truth….” (pg.22)

    “And when it is affirmed in the Great Book and the Prophetic Sunnah that He, Free form Imperfection and Exalted, created Adam with His Hand, and that He said to Iblees,’what prevented you from prostrating to one who I created with My Two Hands?’ And it is established in the Saheeh regarding the dispute between Moses and Adam, that Moses said to him,’Allaah created you with His Hand’. And he, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said relating from his Lord, ‘ I do not make from the progeny of one who I created with my Two Hands like one to whom I said Be and it was.’ [Reported by ad-Dailamee and it is da'eef as stated by Shaykh Mashur Salmaan in 'Rudood wat-Ta'qubaat' (pg.15 fn.1)]

    And he, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said, ‘Allaah created Firdaus with His Hand, and the Gardens of Paradise with His Hand, and wrote the Taurah with His Hand,’ and narrations other than these. It is obligatory upon us to believe that this is the truth, and forbidden upon us that we say: that Allaah has spoken to us with what we understand, and we do not understand hand except something possessing a palm and fingers and therefore liken it to the creation and arrive at tajseem. Allaah is Exalted above what the unjust say. Likewise it is forbidden that we say: the meaning is favour and power, because it s unfeasible to take it to mean the hand we understand, so it necessitates taking it to mean that fearing tashbeeh!

    Such a stance is tahreef (distortion) containing ta’teel (negation), how is this possible when the consensus is that the Attributes are to be believed in exactly as revealed by the Sharee’ah (tawqeefiyyah). Furthermore the meaning of what they make ta’weel of is not established, and ta’weel is the way of the Mu’tazila and the Jahmiyyah, we seek refuge with Allaah from that. And it is necessary to absolve the Creator from tashbeeh and ta’teel by staying away from tahreef and takyeef and tamtheel, and by taking to His saying, ‘there is nothing like Him, and He is the Hearing and Seeing’

    May Allaah grant us understanding and cognisance upon the road of tawheed and eliminating anthropomorphism. And this is the saying on all that is affirmed from the Attributes. And Allaah knows that corrupt from those that purify.” (pp.’s 24-26)

    “So when the Book and authentic narrations affirm the Attributes of Hearing, Seeing, Eye, Face, Knowledge, Power, Strength, Greatness, Will, Desire, Words, Speech, Pleasure, Displeasure, Love, Hatred, Delight, Laughing – it is obligatory to believe in them literally without likening to the creation, and to stop at what Allaah said (about Himself), without adding, increasing, takyeef, tahreef, tabdeel and tagyeer (changing)…” (pp.’s 26-27)

    “And some of them negated Nuzool (the descent of Allaah to the lowest heaven at the last third of the night), and weakened the ahaadeeth or made ta’weel fearing confinement of Allaah (tahayyuz), movement or transmission that would necessitate a body. But the researching scholars affirmed them and obligated faith in them as Allaah wills.” (pg. 19)

    “And all of the verses and ahaadeeth affirming the Attributes of Coming, Nuzool, Face and other than these, the scholars obligated faith in them, and leaving contemplation of them and depicting a form for them.” (pg. 19) [Extracts from 'I'tiqaad al-Khaalis' of ibn al-Attaar published with notes by Shaykh Alee Hasan]

    Last, but not least, your rampage on bringing forth “ashaabunaa” stated by an-Nawawee for the mutakalimoon is in my belief, fueled with some compounded ignorance. I don;t think you are fully aware of how or the manner in which our shaykh an-Nawawee speaks, his style so to speak. an example of this is found here

    Imaam an-Nawawee’s Refutation of the Asha’rite Theologians on This Issue

    (I can’t post the arabic because its in a picture)
    Commenting on the hadeeth, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah (alone) and until they believe in me and what I have brought…” (Saheeh Muslim), an-Nawawee says in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim (1/210-211):

    In (the hadeeth) is a clear evidence for the madhhab of the muhaqqiqeen (those verifying what is correct) and the majority amongst the Salaf and the Khalaf that when a person believes in the religion of Islaam with a firm and resolute belief devoid of any doubt, that this is sufficient for him, and he is a believer amongst the Muhawahhideen. [And that] it is not obligatory upon him to learn the evidences of the Theologians and knowing Allaah, the Exalted, through them. [This being] in opposition to the one who made it obligatory and made it a condition of a person being from the the people of the qiblah [and who] claimed that he does not have the ruling [applicable to] the Muslims except through this. And this madhhab is the saying of many of the Mu’tazilah and some of our associates, the Mutakallimoon, and it is a manifest error…”

    END QUOTE. He sure does put his “associates” on blast in the manner he impugns them with repugnant errors such as your kalaami based premise for the issue of tawheed to Allah.

    Actually Im not finished, as I continue reading, the greater the befuddlement of truth has been practiced in your research that originally has nothing to do with his being matrook in sifaat.

    You tried to end your inapplicable research to my argument by utilizing Haafidh adh-Dhahabee and Haafidh as-Sakhaawee (two ardent atharis i.e. salafis). I find this laughable to say the least because these quotes very well PROVE my case in point of what I originally claimed (which in reality was not a claim but a view that was expressed by ahlu-sunnah Imaams) which was that an-Nawawee was unreliable regarding giving exegesis to the doctrine of Asmaa’i was-Sifaat.

    lets look again at both of their statements

    adh-Dhahabee says

    إن مذهبه في الصفات السمعية السكوت ، وإمرارها كما جاءت ،وربما تأول قليلاً في شرح مسلم.

    ‘Verily his madhdhab regarding the attributes as-sam’iyyah was as-sukūt (to remain silent regarding them). And he narrated them as they came, and maybe he interpreted them a small number of times in his Sharḥ of Saḥīḥ Muslim!”

    adh-Dhahabee is an atharee, and when he says “he interpreted them” this is a statement that denotes a depraiseable action. It also seems like adh-Dhahabee was holding back, which is understandable considering the immense fadhl that an-Nawawee had and brought to the fore. However, as-Sakhaawee was more vehement in his language.

    Imam As-Sakhawi quoted these words and said after them in his bio of Imam An-Nawawi,
    كذا قال، و التأويل كثير في كلامه

    “This is what he says! And there is a lot of ta’wīl (interpretations) in what he said!”

    again, coming from an athari, when we say “he does t’awil” or “does a lot of t’awil” all of it is pointing towards a despised position or path to tread upon. Thus these statements are jarh against an-Nawawee and the only jarh that sunnis ever imposed on Nawawee rahimahullah.

    Thus their statement indicates, as I initially regurgitated the view of ahlu-sunnah, that with regard to his speech concerning the Names and Attributes, then his words are not to be relied upon.

    thank you for proving my point, jazakallahu khairan

    asalamu alaikum

    • admin says:

      asalamu alaikum

      Abu Layth
      the article was a mass deception to say the least and more importantly, the material you present is a sidetrack of the actual argument state “pseudo salafi” stated (which was me)

      no one disputes his Imaamship or even his shaykhul-IslamNESS if you will, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he blind followed (meaning he followed the mutaklimoon and not that he was actually a mutakalim, thus he was not an ash’ari, but merely followed their opinions on some matters).

      The only mass deception is your sad and ignorant response which shows you are grasping at thin air in hopes to respond to the arguments presented. You have been squelched and now you must bark at the caravan as much as you can, so as to attempt to cast aspersion upon the claim of this article, That Nawawi was an Asha’ri!

      al-Boriqee, either you did not read the article, or you are truly, and without a doubt, stupid. In the article I refuted your assertion that Imam An-Nawawi is not taken from in ‘aqidah – an aspersion you cast in your comment. Hence, I utilized the very fact that there is agreement upon his title of “Shaykh Ul-Islam” to refute you, which we did only by Allah’s grace. If you look at what shaykh ul Islam denotes, you will see that your claim of his abandonment in ‘aqidah is squelched, and your argument is debunked – as all Sunnis knew anyway!

      this is like Shaykhul-Islam ibnul-Jawzi, no one disputes his repute, Imaamship, Ilm, or his shaykhul-Islamness, but none of this deals with the fact that ahlu-sunnah Imaams considered Ibnul-Jawzi matrook in matters of sifaat, everyone deposed his views on sifaat as a heterodox tangent of the actual sunni creed. Likewise, Imaam an-Nawawee’s fame and repute is due to that which he specializes like his shurooh mainly of hadeeth, his expertise in fiqh and usoolul-fiqh and as well as qawaa’id al-fiqhiyyah, and as well as raqaa’iq, but he was NOT an expert in matters of sifaat which would explain WHY he resorted to jot down the opinion of his teachers on aqeedah rather than offering it himself, most of whom were unfortunately ash’ari at the time.

      This also shows your lack of knowledge of History. Ibn al-Jawzi was not rejected by “everyone”, and in fact he was praised in matters of ‘aqidah by many. Needless to say, your scope of knowledge is lacking, so I am not shocked that you would not know such! You are trying to rewrite history here, just as you have tried to rewrite the history of Imam an-Nawawi!

      This article though, is not about Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, and making an analogy between Ibn al-Jawzi and Imam An-Nawawi is preposterous for many reasons, among them being:

      1) Nawawi attributed himself to the people of Kalam, whereas Ibn al-Jawzi did not, as we proved in this article.

      2) Nawawi taught the works of kalaam, such as the Irshad, propogated them, where Ibn Al-Jawzi did not.

      3) Nawawi quoted the scholars of Kalam, the Asha’ris, such as Mazari and others, to squelch the deviances of Hanbali anthropomorphism. Ibn al-Jawzi did not!

      4) Ibn al-Jawzi castigated the Asha’ris in his Sayd al-Khatir, even though much of what he held regarding the Sifaat were the same views. Imam an-Nawawi always respected the forefathers of the asha’ris, quoted their scholars, and only quoted their opinions in issues of creed – never quoting the anthropomorphic creed of the Hanbalis of old such as Zaghuni or Abu Ya’ala.

      Thus your analogy between the two are night and day. Ibn al-Jawzi was not a man of kalaam and never claimed to be, whereas Imam An-Nawawi did ascribe himself to the Mutakallimin as we showed in the article. He was, though, one well acquainted with Ibn ‘Aqil’s creed, who turned against Mu’tazilism and refuted them using their same principles, just as Abul Hasan Al-Asha’ri had.

      So you are refuted once again oh pseudo-salafi! Let us continue to show your deceit and lies…

      however, what I really want to know is how on the planet did you manage to compare al-Mazari, an ash’ari, with THE Ibn Qutaybah, who does not even reach the dust in the nostrils of Ibn Qutaybah.

      Has nothing to do with the topic, and this is an attempt to distract the audience from what really matters in the quote I presented. What I presented was Imam an-Nawawi using the arguments of the asha’ri scholars to refute, YES REFUTE, the statement of Ibn Qutaybah.

      I know that it squelched your anthropomorphic argument, and it hurts you, but this fact refutes your pseudo-salafi lies on Imam an-Nawawi! Imam an-Nawawi was an asha’ri, quoted their Imams and their arguments in refutation of the anthropomorphic creed. Yes, it upsets you, but it is truth and the truth always hurts the arrogant Hashawi!

      I also find it strange how you would use Mukhtasir an-Nawawee (Ibn Attar), whom you failed to relay to your audience that he came across the sunni scholars and learned aqeedah only to have contradicted his shaykh and here is what he has to say about your madhaab in his tract on creed

      “It is obligatory to believe that what Allaah has affirmed in His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger (SAW) is the truth….” (pg.22)

      It is too bad that you Hashawis do not believe as Ibn Attar believed. For you believe that Allah is above his throne in PERSON – whereas “bi dhatihi” was never said by The Nabi ‘alayhis salam.

      You pseudo-salafis delve into the meanings of these narratives, whereas the Nabi ‘alayhis salam or His companions did not either. All this goes to show you are really dodging the bullet. I did not quote Ibn Attar, as in reality his only worth is that he studied beneath Imam An-Nawawi, and no more.

      Quoting Ibn Attar was to show WHO Imam An-Nawawi was, not who YOU want HIM to be! Yes it refutes you, squelches your bida’ah, and destroys your claims about Imam An-Nawawi, nevertheless it is true, and the truth always upsets the Hashawi mujassim!

      Last, but not least, your rampage on bringing forth “ashaabunaa” stated by an-Nawawee for the mutakalimoon is in my belief, fueled with some compounded ignorance. I don;t think you are fully aware of how or the manner in which our shaykh an-Nawawee speaks, his style so to speak. an example of this is found here

      Imaam an-Nawawee’s Refutation of the Asha’rite Theologians on This Issue

      (I can’t post the arabic because its in a picture)
      Commenting on the hadeeth, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah (alone) and until they believe in me and what I have brought…” (Saheeh Muslim), an-Nawawee says in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim (1/210-211):

      In (the hadeeth) is a clear evidence for the madhhab of the muhaqqiqeen (those verifying what is correct) and the majority amongst the Salaf and the Khalaf that when a person believes in the religion of Islaam with a firm and resolute belief devoid of any doubt, that this is sufficient for him, and he is a believer amongst the Muhawahhideen. [And that] it is not obligatory upon him to learn the evidences of the Theologians and knowing Allaah, the Exalted, through them. [This being] in opposition to the one who made it obligatory and made it a condition of a person being from the the people of the qiblah [and who] claimed that he does not have the ruling [applicable to] the Muslims except through this. And this madhhab is the saying of many of the Mu’tazilah and some of our associates, the Mutakallimoon, and it is a manifest error…”

      END QUOTE. He sure does put his “associates” on blast in the manner he impugns them with repugnant errors such as your kalaami based premise for the issue of tawheed to Allah.

      Absolutely laughable! This proves to me that you are either absolutely lacking in intelligence, insane, or just did not read the article.

      1) We quoted this quote in arabic above, and I even used the quote from your pathetic website full of lies and manipulations!

      2) He said “some of the Mutakallimin”, not All! So his refutation is not against ALL of the Mutakallimin, it against some of them, and yet he still called them “ our companions” and ascribed himself to their school by doing so! Apparently, and it does not shock me as your lack of intelligence shows throughout this response, you do not understand that a man can disagree with SOME people in his school without abandoning the SCHOOL itself! One can disagree with SOME of your companions of your school, and still be part of the school!

      You and your comrades of evil have tried to Hijack Imam an-Nawawi, yet he refutes your arguments and he shows your kufr in Allah ta’ala’s transcendence repeatedly!

      3) Nothing of what you have said refutes the fact that Imam an-Nawawi is calling them his “companions, associates in religion“, and in fact continues to follow their way throughout his works. This quote is refutation of your lies and distortions, not in your favor, as any rational person can see.

      You tried to end your inapplicable research to my argument by utilizing Haafidh adh-Dhahabee and Haafidh as-Sakhaawee (two ardent atharis i.e. salafis). I find this laughable to say the least because these quotes very well PROVE my case in point of what I originally claimed (which in reality was not a claim but a view that was expressed by ahlu-sunnah Imaams) which was that an-Nawawee was unreliable regarding giving exegesis to the doctrine of Asmaa’i was-Sifaat.

      lets look again at both of their statements

      adh-Dhahabee says

      إن مذهبه في الصفات السمعية السكوت ، وإمرارها كما جاءت ،وربما تأول قليلاً في شرح مسلم.

      ‘Verily his madhdhab regarding the attributes as-sam’iyyah was as-sukūt (to remain silent regarding them). And he narrated them as they came, and maybe he interpreted them a small number of times in his Sharḥ of Saḥīḥ Muslim!”

      adh-Dhahabee is an atharee, and when he says “he interpreted them” this is a statement that denotes a depraiseable action. It also seems like adh-Dhahabee was holding back, which is understandable considering the immense fadhl that an-Nawawee had and brought to the fore. However, as-Sakhaawee was more vehement in his language.

      Imam As-Sakhawi quoted these words and said after them in his bio of Imam An-Nawawi,
      كذا قال، و التأويل كثير في كلامه

      “This is what he says! And there is a lot of ta’wīl (interpretations) in what he said!”

      again, coming from an athari, when we say “he does t’awil” or “does a lot of t’awil” all of it is pointing towards a despised position or path to tread upon. Thus these statements are jarh against an-Nawawee and the only jarh that sunnis ever imposed on Nawawee rahimahullah.

      Yes, this quote does squelch you indeed! And again you can’t handle the truth, as most Mujassim Hashawis in their ignorance and arrogance can not. We quoted this quote within our article itself!

      1) ta’wil is established in the law and as Imam an-Nawawi shows is the way of many of the salaf, including Imam Malik ibn Anas and Awza’i, as we quoted him saying in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim! Notice, and I know you can’t because you lack reason, that Imam An-Nawawi in nearly all of the quotes we have presented above says that “Ta’wil” is one of the ways of the early Muslims! I know, it refutes you, and it hurts, but its the truth and you are squelched by Imam An-Nawawi, an Imam who is free of you and your likes!

      2) Sakhawi is refuting Dhahabi’s words of a “little”, because Nawawi does do ta’wil just as many of the salaf did! A fact that shows Shaykh ul Islam, Imam Nawawi took the way of the Asha’ris, the way of the salaf! So we hope you hold as Imam as-Sakhawi did, that Imam An-Nawawi was an Asha’ri, as he quotes Imam al-Yafi’i and Taj As-Subki as saying (as we clarified in the article which you did not read or are just to stupid to understand)! Also if you think Imam As-Sakhawi was on your side, then take note of his warning against Al-Harawi Al-Ansari’s works! But of course you wouldn’t share such with anyone as it would debunk your madhdhab of deviance!

      If you disagree with Imam An-Nawawi’s approach, we don’t care. But do not lie upon Imam an-Nawawi by expelling him from a madhdhab he himself attributed himself to!

      3) Where is the explicit blame for such from Sakhawi? Proof demanded! Unless of course it exists only in your sick imagination – the same imagination who believes in a pagan god of limbs, parts, and place, with literal hands, feet, shins, waist, eyes, etc etc etc…who you call “Allah” but who you really mean to be:

      http://www.eborg2.com/PaganGods/GreekGods/Greek-GroupGods.jpg

      Thus their statement indicates, as I initially regurgitated the view of ahlu-sunnah, that with regard to his speech concerning the Names and Attributes, then his words are not to be relied upon.

      Rather, Sakhawi’s statement is that Nawawi was an Asha’ri, as we quoted. He endorsed this view, and it only shows that you are trying to deceive the world over by rewriting History to your own sad and deviant cultist school.

      But since you think Sakhawi is on your creed, oh Hashawi, please check out this youtube video in which Imam as-Sakhawi’s work “al-Maqasid” is being read from. Come back insha’allah and tell me if he is still upon your creed oh pseudo-salafi!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-5l16y9FYQ

      والله سبحانه وتعالى منزه عن الحلول في الأماكن فإنه سبحانه وتعالى كان قبل أن تحدث الأماكن

      “And Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala is free from Hulul (indwelling) in places, for verily He (swt) was before the very invention of “places”.”

      Creed of pseudo-salafis: “That Allah is in a place, above His throne (some say in, on, sitting on -istiqrr as ibn uthaymin did), and thus in the direction of ‘up’.”

      You are squelched, and your attempt to demean Imam an-Nawawi is thrown into the wind. He refutes your creed, and he follows the salaf, just as the Asha’ris did!

      May Allah grant us all tawfiq amin!

      was-salam

  3. al-boriqee says:

    Oh, I can’t wait until you blunder with Ibn Hajr.

    make sure you also include his annihilation of the mutakalimoon from his fath but I wouldn’t encourage the muslims to hold their breath on it.

    asalamu alaikum

  4. faqir says:

    as-salamu `alaikum sidi,

    Hope you are well and may Allah reward your efforts.

    Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki mentioned in his Tabaqat al-Shafiyya al-Kubra how the innovators from the shameless anthropomorphists in his days had cut up the words of the great Ash’arite Shafi’i Imam relating to the Sifat of Allah:

    وقد وصل حال بعض المجسمة فى زماننا إلى أن كتب شرح صحيح مسلم للشيخ محيى الدين النووى وحذف من كلام النووى ما تكلم به على أحاديث الصفات فإن النووى أشعرى العقيدة فلم تحمل قوى هذا الكاتب أن يكتب الكتاب على الوضع الذى صنفه مصنفه
    وهذا عندى من كبائر الذنوب فإنه تحريف للشريعة وفتح باب لا يؤمن معه بكتب الناس وما فى أيديهم من المصنفات فقبح الله فاعله وأخزاه وقد كان فى غنية عن كتابة هذا الشرح وكان الشرح فى غنية عنه

    The same words remain unpalatable to the salafis of today – surprise ! surprise!

  5. admin says:

    SubhanAllah! This quote is an amazing one indeed. That Shaykh ul Islam Taj As-Subki is clearly saying that the Mujassimah in his time tried to use the Sharh of Sahih Muslim in their favor for their tajsim, is exactly what is occurring in our time! As Imam Taj said, “and this is from the enormous sins, as it is distortion of the Shari’ah…”

    I am seriously bewildered at the fact that anyone lets these evil anthropomorphists get away with such clear distortion of the facts. On the one hand they tell us that Imam An-Nawawi is not to be taken from in ‘Aqidah – a claim unfounded amongst the Muslim scholars throughout the times – and on the other hand they try their utmost to utilize Shaykh Ul-Islam An-Nawawi to their benefit, when he clearly and explicitly calls their belief tajsim and deviant. He always says “and the apparent meaning is not what is intended”, yet these Hashawiy neo-Muqatili pseudo-salafi rif-raf tell us that such is the “Way of the Salaf”, even though they have not one Sahabi stating such!

    Why do they not just shut up and adopt the school of the Sahabah, if they claim to follow them, and simply not discuss this issue and adopt Imrar and Sukut, and abstaining from entertaining with their sick minds the literal meanings!

    But then again, their definition of thaahir is all over the place! I read one of them saying that the thaahir of yad (hand) is “power”! Which once upon a time got me wondering if this was simply a semantical difference on what “thaahir” was, but then I realized that the reality is they do adopt literal meanings and establish Allah within place and space – on, over, in, sitting on, the throne, literally. Just listen to what they say when the speak of “up” – a clear direction and Allah’s “being in his essence on the throne”. Exalted is Allah from what these people say!

  6. Despite a valiant attempt at presenting the great Imam an-Nawawi as Ash’ari, this paper is not really convincing. Scholars like our Shaykh, Shaykh Mashhur Hasan have noted Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) has abundant statements clearly disagreeing with Ash’ari dialectic such as in regards to the Ash’ari Kalam concept of the ‘First Obligation’, which Imam an-Nawawi clearly rejected. Yet, in keeping with contemporary Ash’ari polemics intellectual denial is the modus operandi unfortunately.

    Salafis do not claim that Imam an-Nawawi was Salafi in creed, except at the end of his life, for his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim is full of tafwidh of the ma’na along with ta’wil at times, then at other times leaving the Attributes as they have arrived. Remember, Imam an-Nawawi relied heavily what has previously relayed by the pure Ash’ari al-Ma’zari in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, hence the agreement with the Ash’aris in much of Imam an-Nawawi’s Sharh.

    Mantiq by the way is not exclusively the right of Ilm ul-Kalam, which has been assumed in this article, it has been studied by many who have also at the same time totally rejected Ilm ul-Kalam. The assertions also that Imam an-Nawawi actively “taught” Ilm ul-Kalam also seem a tad dubious, as even if Imam an-Nawawi did “teach” such works he obviously did not take all of the ideas on board! As seen within his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim! Imam an-Nawawi never declared himself an “Ash’ari” and this itself is a damning indictment, for in the absence of this we need to refer to their writings and assess whether there is Ash’arism found therein.

    But to claim that the Imam was a pure Ash’ari who died upon that creed, which his student Ibn Attar says he did not die upon, and that Imam an-Nawawi agreed with Ash’ari concepts such as the:
    - First Obligation
    - Aritotle’s Ten Categories vis-a-vis the Ash’ari notion of Huduth ul-Ajsam (which the Ash’aris took from the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah)
    - Jawhar and Arad
    - agreement with the Mu’tazilah that the Qur’an is Created
    - Kalam Nafsi
    - Non-acceptance of Khabar ul-Ahad narrations in creedal issues
    - denial of Allah’ s ‘Uluww
    …and so on – is quite frankly intellectual denial as is so common in contemporary Ash’ari discourse.

    Finally, leave the “neo-Muqatili” jibes and stick to a serious academic presentation, otherwise it is just polemical. I realize that the Ash’ari discourse is waning, and its creedal discrepancies are being robustly rejected by many, but this is no way to vent one’s frustration with the incoherence of the Ash’ari creed and its contrary principles to what was outlined by the Salaf.

    AbdulHaq al-Ashanti

    • Rafael says:

      Your shaykh should fear Allah and repent if he taught such gibberish as the Asharis say that the Speech of Allah or the Quran is created. Some would call that an untruth, but I prefer to label such libel for what it is: a lie. Have you ever actually read a single Ashari text, a real book, and not something your shaykh vomited for you to digest?

      Furthermore I am personally offended by this term of yours, “intellectual denial”. It sounds significant until one asks why “intellectual denial” would be any different than regular denial. What is it that you are even accusing us of — that we accept your polemic on an emotional level and deny it on an intellectual level? Maybe the peerless Imam Nawawi was having “intellectual denial” when he taught all those works with which he disagreed.

      So what you are telling us is that Imam Nawawi was a non-Ashari who repented from his Asharism. I am thinking of a word that begins with an i and ends with a diocy.

    • admin says:

      Bismillah

      Salamu ‘alaykum,

      Despite a valiant attempt at presenting the great Imam an-Nawawi as Ash’ari, this paper is not really convincing. Scholars like our Shaykh, Shaykh Mashhur Hasan have noted Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) has abundant statements clearly disagreeing with Ash’ari dialectic such as in regards to the Ash’ari Kalam concept of the ‘First Obligation’, which Imam an-Nawawi clearly rejected. Yet, in keeping with contemporary Ash’ari polemics intellectual denial is the modus operandi unfortunately.

      Not all Asha’ris believed that it was necessary for the ‘Awamm (laity) to utilize Sunni Kalaam in believing in Allah. This is why, and it seems to have slipped your mind, that Imam An-Nawawi said “some” of the Mutakallimin held the opposing view. Imam Al-Ghazzali also seems to hold the same view in his Iljaam. So Imam an-Nawawi did not step outside of the madhdhab in this affair. Furthemore, your claim that he “rejected” is not true. He did not reject the opinion as valid, he called it Khata’ – as you can see from the very quote you pseudo-salafis cling to, mistaken. If he deemed it rejected he would have said “mardud” and “Batil”. This is a point that those lacking in knowledge of the nomenclature of the Fuquha’ do not know. Imam an-Nawawi was much harsher on other opinions that he deemed baatil and rejected. See for example:

      http://www.seekingilm.com/responses/nawawicallingmalikitawilbatil.pdf

      Wherein his harshness is severe. Compare that to the softer term “khata’”! This is of course never to be mentioned by the pseudo-salafis as they must act as if this is a huge issue. They only deceive themselves with this weak argument, and you cannot make it one of validity, considering Imam An-Nawawi himself admits that some of the Mutakallimin hold his view as well, a refutation of your own words that he abandoned the school! Your argument is squelched!

      Salafis do not claim that Imam an-Nawawi was Salafi in creed, except at the end of his life, for his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim is full of tafwidh of the ma’na along with ta’wil at times, then at other times leaving the Attributes as they have arrived. Remember, Imam an-Nawawi relied heavily what has previously relayed by the pure Ash’ari al-Ma’zari in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, hence the agreement with the Ash’aris in much of Imam an-Nawawi’s Sharh.

      We have responded to this elsewhere, and you are just repeating yourself while barking at the caravan! This claim regarding the salafis not claiming such is not true. I have heard with my own ears pseudo-salafis claim it, especially in the late 90s and early 2000s when their claims were left mostly unchallenged in English by the Sunnis. And if one simply does a simple search on Shaykh Google, they will find plenty of pseudo-salafis arguing that he held the view of the pseudo-salafis. It is possible though that you simply have not encountered what we have, so you are excused for ignorance of it.

      Mantiq by the way is not exclusively the right of Ilm ul-Kalam, which has been assumed in this article, it has been studied by many who have also at the same time totally rejected Ilm ul-Kalam. The assertions also that Imam an-Nawawi actively “taught” Ilm ul-Kalam also seem a tad dubious, as even if Imam an-Nawawi did “teach” such works he obviously did not take all of the ideas on board! As seen within his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim! Imam an-Nawawi never declared himself an “Ash’ari” and this itself is a damning indictment, for in the absence of this we need to refer to their writings and assess whether there is Ash’arism found therein.

      It was not assumed in this article that mantiq is only the exclusive right of Sunni Kalaam. Such was not said in this article, and it only shows that you are lacking in understanding to say such. Our words were clear:

      “That he taught kalam ((see the introduction to Kitab At-Tahqiq published by Dar Al-Jil page 18 )) and logic (mantiq), a fundamental of Sunni Kalam. ”

      We called it a fundamental of Sunni Kalaam, and that is all. This alludes to the fact that while Imam An-Nawawi studied and taught the Irshaad, he also studied and taught – as can be seen throughout his works – mantiq as Kalaam is not Kalaam without mantiq!

      Furthemore, He did ascribe himself to the Mutakallimin – a damning fact you cannot refute oh pseudo-salafi, and therefore he did call himself an Asha’ri by implication – labelling those of the Asha’ris his “companions” – and such was only used by him when ascribing himself to what the others were upon just as he did multiple times with the Shafi’is throughout his works of Rawdat and Majmu’ etc. One must also consider the very damning fact to your argument, that he believed as the Mutakallimin did, as he himself professes to throughout his works! He did learn and teach the works, and he mastered them, and such can be seen in his utilization of their nomenclature throughout his works, as we clarified in the article – and seen in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim and his Majmu’.

      But their lays in your deficient argument deceit and blatant untruth! For you have said that he “never claimed” ascription to the Asha’ris. The fact is you cannot claim such, for you do not know his words outside of his works, that is everything he ever said. In fact, not even Ibn al-’Attar DENIED for him being an Asha’ri! He did not say explicitly that he was, but he did not deny it either. Whereas other of the Sunni Imams did affirm him as an Asha’ri. So your claim of “never” is an impossibility for you to have certain knowledge to say “never” – and you do not know if he did or did not as he did not every explicitly literally say “I am not an Asha’ri” or “I am an Asha’ri” based upon the works we have of his and of him. We are only left with what he implied and inferred, and his works are full of kalaam and quotes from the Asha’ris!

      So your arguments are refuted and laid to rest!

      But to claim that the Imam was a pure Ash’ari who died upon that creed, which his student Ibn Attar says he did not die upon, and that Imam an-Nawawi agreed with Ash’ari concepts such as the:
      - First Obligation
      - Aritotle’s Ten Categories vis-a-vis the Ash’ari notion of Huduth ul-Ajsam (which the Ash’aris took from the Jahmiyyah and Mu’tazilah)
      - Jawhar and Arad
      - agreement with the Mu’tazilah that the Qur’an is Created
      - Kalam Nafsi
      - Non-acceptance of Khabar ul-Ahad narrations in creedal issues
      - denial of Allah ’ s ‘Uluww
      …and so on – is quite frankly intellectual denial as is so common in contemporary Ash’ari discourse.

      This again is deceit. Ibn al-’Attar did not say he was not an Asha’ri in his Tuhfat. This is your claim, and such was never said by him. He did not say that he was an Asha’ri, but the detailed issues of his ‘Aqidah was not covered by ibn Al-’Attar in his Tuhfah either, so your claim is frivilous and quite frankly intellectual dishonesty! No suprise though, as such is “so common in contemporary pseudo-salafi discourse”!

      As for the issue of huduth al-ajsaam, this is utilized by Imam An-Nawawi in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim and we showed such above, again showing he was a Mutakallim. It is also preposterous of you to claim that the Asha’ris deny Allah’s ‘Uluww, oh liar! We deny the ‘Uluww that lays within your messed up mind, the literal form that involves place, direction, and placing Allah within creation. ‘Uluww is transcendence, and it refers to Allah’s majesty, not that he is in created place, literally sitting on a throne with his essence! Imam An-Nawawi refutes these notions of your created mind in his Sharh of the Sahih Muslim, and it only goes to show that your creed is much different than his! Alhamdulillah that Allah preserved his words for the Sunnis to see for themselves, or else the pseudo-salafi deceivers would have gotten away with their lies! However, it is not the purpose of this article to refute your rejected insinuations against the Asha’ris, rather it is to refute those who reject that Imam an-Nawawi was an Asha’ri, and we have squelched your aspersions!

      Finally, leave the “neo-Muqatili” jibes and stick to a serious academic presentation, otherwise it is just polemical. I realize that the Ash’ari discourse is waning, and its creedal discrepancies are being robustly rejected by many, but this is no way to vent one’s frustration with the incoherence of the Ash’ari creed and its contrary principles to what was outlined by the Salaf.

      AbdulHaq al-Ashanti

      Stop parroting the creed of Muqatil and we would not have to label you and your cult as such. Abu Yusuf warned against your sect a thousand years ago:

      http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/289

      This of course is your literalist school, and of course it irritates you to be exposed for your deceit of the Muslims! It also upsets you that your sect cannot refute Imam an-Nawawi’s creed, and the creed of the righetous Salaf who interpreted the texts away from their literal import, as shown by Imam An-Nawawi several times in the article above!

      Your arguments have been squelched and your claims shown as unsatisfactory, not just by us, but by Imam Al-Yafi’i, Taj As-Subki, Imam As-Sakhawi and a host of others who hold Imam An-Nawawi to be an Asha’ri. It was a valiant attempt, but nonetheless, lacking in proofs against the article, and exposing your deceitful methodology in debate.

      was-salam!

  7. admin says:

    Salamu ‘alaykum,

    We have edited and added more content to the original article. Most importantly Imam An-Nawawi’s declaring OBLIGATORY Sunni kalaam for those who may have doubts.

    This is clear support that what Asha’ri Sunni Kalam holds, was considered truth by Imam An-Nawawi, and not falsehood. He warned the laymen because of their ignorance and the possibility that confusion would arise.

    So basically the argument goes like this:

    If Imam an-Nawawi was not an Asha’ri, and held kalaam to be false, how could he hold it to be obligatory for someone in need of it? Such would not make rational sense, and such proves that Imam An-Nawawi was an Asha’ri.

    was-salam

  8. JustaMuslim says:

    Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

    Could you akhil Kareem Abul Laith or some other brother or sister look up if the quoted Statement of Imam Malik from the Fathu-l-Bary is authentic? Here again the Statement I am talking about:

    “Imam Malik was asked about the “descent” of Allah (SWT) and he said, “His, the majestic’s, command descends every night, and as for Allah (SWT) ‘azza wa jall, then he is eternal, he does not move or displace, glorified be He, and there is no god but He!”[6/37]”

    Jazakumullahu khairan

  9. admin says:

    I suppose by “authentic” you mean chain? or if it is reported in Fathul-Bari of al-Hafith?

  10. JustaMuslim says:

    Sorry brother I made a mistake, I meant the sharh of sahih Muslim by Shaykhu-l-Islam Imam Nawawi as you stated. And my question was concerning the chain of transmission as I don`t doubt your words that it is found in Sharh Sahih Muslim.

    Barakallahu feekum

  11. Zhulfiqar says:

    السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته JustaMuslim

    And my question was concerning the chain of transmission as I don`t doubt your words that it is found in Sharh Sahih Muslim.

    To my knowledge, I just looked up in Sharh Sahih Muslim of Imâm Nawawi (رحمه الله) and he didn’t mention the sanad. But the narration can be found in other works like Siyâr A’lam al-Nubalâ, al-Tamhîd etc. in which there are weakness in the isnâd.

  12. admin says:

    Salamu ‘alaykum br. Just,

    Shaykhul Islam An-Nawawi was not the only one who narrated this ta’wil of Imam Malik ibn Anas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu). Nevertheless it seems weak. I have written a paper analyzing the two chains of the athar and hope it helps.

    http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/962

  13. Harun says:

    Salam,

    A Salafi brother just told me that imam an-Nawawi was not an Ash’ari and that he left the Ash’ari school just before he died and that he refuted the Ash’ari ‘aqidah in his last work (he didn’t mention which work). This is fresh from the press.

    Now, after reading this I know and am convinced that imam an-Nawawi was an Ash’ari but what about these brother last two statements? How would I answer that brother?

    Your help please.

    H.

    • Rafael says:

      Wa `alaykum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

      In your search for a refutation, have you actually read the post on which you’re commenting?

  14. Abul Layth says:

    As I said in the beginning of my post the pseudo-salafis always attempt to rewrite history to their benefit. They did the same to Imam Al-Ghazzali, who never recanted the ‘aqidah of Imam Abul Hasan Al-Asha’ri and the Sunnis. The truth is the Imams do not believe as they do, and thus they must reach for straws in attempting to justify their creed of anthropomorphism.

  15. Lumumba K. Shakur says:

    As salamu `alaykum,

    Why is it mentioned by friend and foe alike that Imam Nawawi was one of the scholars who was generally against mantiq if his own students stated that he himself taught logical texts?

  16. admin says:

    Wa’alaykum Salam,

    Who said he was againt Mantiq sidi Lumumba?

  17. Muhammad says:

    Assalam-u-alaikum,

    I am an Ash’ari myself, AlhamduLillah, and I commend Seeking Ilm for this very important clarification regarding Imam Nawawi (Allah bless him).

    What I am curious about, however, is what Ustadh Abdullah (the contemporary Ahl as-Sunnah/Maliki scholar) said regarding the “direction” of Allah:

    “But, know that the belief that Allah has direction is also attributed to Imam Ahmad, and Sunnis accommodate him as one of their own. Imam al-Ghazali points out this issue in his Qanun al-Ta’wil about Ahmad, and further highlights that Sunnis accommodated this view, though it is unpopular.”
    (Source: http://www.lamppostproductions.com/node/240)

    See the second answer from the bottom when you see the website above.

    My concern: I thought the whole issue of Allah’s “direction” was a pseudo-Hanbali understanding that was unrepresentative of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal or his school. However, an Ahl as-Sunnah Maliki scholar seems to be saying that literal direction was a valid understanding of Imam Ahmad.

    If possible, can you please clear this matter because it seems to stand against what Ahl as-Sunnah has stood for all along regarding issues of “direction”.

    BarakAllahu-feekum.

    Wassalam,
    Muhammad

  18. faqir says:

    regarding the quote I’d posted above:

    طبقات الشافعية الكبرى ـ هجر للطباعة والنشر والتوزيع – 1413هـ – (2 / 19): وقد وصل حال بعض المجسمة فى زماننا إلى أن كتب شرح صحيح مسلم للشيخ محيى الدين النووى وحذف من كلام النووى ما تكلم به على أحاديث الصفات فإن النووى أشعرى العقيدة فلم تحمل قوى هذا الكاتب أن يكتب الكتاب على الوضع الذى صنفه مصنفه. وهذا عندى من كبائر الذنوب فإنه تحريف للشريعة وفتح باب لا يؤمن معه بكتب الناس وما فى أيديهم من المصنفات فقبح الله فاعله وأخزاه

    I found this translated as follows:

    The state of some anthropomorphists have reached the stage in our time where they wrote a copy of An-Nawawiyy’s commentary on Şaĥiiĥ Muslim, and took out the parts where An-Nawawiyy spoke about ĥadiitħs mentioning attributes. For verily An-Nawawiyy is an Asħˆariyy in belief, so this writer did not find it in himself to copy the book as it was composed by its author. This is an enormous sin, for it is perverting the religion, and opening the door for the loss of confidence in what is written in what people have of books, so may Aļļaah make the one who does that ugly and humiliated.

    http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/category/attributes/ambiguitiesmutashabihat/istawa/#_ftn16_1942

  19. admin says:

    http://www.aslein.net/showthread.php?t=4209&highlight=%C7%E1%E4%C4%C4%EC+%DF%E1%C7%E3.

    Refutation by Shaykh Sa’id Al-Fawdah of the supposed attribution of the treatise “جزء في الحرف والصوت” as has been attributed to Imam an-Nawawi.

    The pseudo-salafi propoganda is easily dispelled, and their claims are planted in futile satanic whispers.

    and with Allah is our success!
    was-salam

  20. al-boriqee says:

    Abu Layth says

    Firstly, this is not true and if you want to go by experience, i never experienced what you experienced.
    Secondly, because experiences do not own that much value on this kind of topic, the overriding factor here has to be based on what is established.
    With that being said, The position that the ahlul-ilm among those ascribed to the millah of the salaf (who are deemed the wahhabi mujassims) is that an-Nawawee was definitely not salafi in his understanding of the Attributes of Allah, and anyone who knows his manhaj knows this. Thus you hearing or seeing posts of some idiots saying otherwise is basically that, nothing but a bunch of juhaal.

    At any rate, based on your analysis, I can concur to the arguments you presented. Based on this, would it be correct for me to assume that an-Nawawee stood at odds with some of the mutakalimeen for their stances.

    The reason why I says this is because it seems as if an-Nawawee was the last standing original ash’ari, upon the madhaab of al-Ash’ari himself and Baqilaani, all of whom agreed with what you guys label as the “wahhabi mujassimi creed” while going into t’awil on some of the sifaat.

    asalamu alaikum

  21. al-boriqee says:

    may bad
    I don;t know how to use the html tags. the reply above is MY words, not Abu Layth’s. That reply by me was in response to this quote from Abu Layth which is

    “This claim regarding the salafis not claiming such is not true. I have heard with my own ears pseudo-salafis claim it, especially in the late 90s and early 2000s when their claims were left mostly unchallenged in English by the Sunnis. And if one simply does a simple search on Shaykh Google, they will find plenty of pseudo-salafis arguing that he held the view of the pseudo-salafis. ”

    asalamu alaikum

  22. admin says:

    We commend you Al-Boriqee for admitting that Imam An-Nawawi was an Asha’ri, as attested to by the Imams of Islam. You should repent to Allah – beg His forgiveness for demeaning and lying upon a Wali of Allah.

    Your claim though that somehow the Asha’ris – as well as An-Nawawi agree with the wahhabi/pseudo-salafi doctrine is again laughable, just as your above claims regarding An Nawawi were too. Your claim begs many questions, and I do not feel like responding to such batil in detail – as this article refutes you well enough. Simply read the article and see for yourself how Imam An-Nawawi disagrees with the deviant creed of the wahhabi/pseudo-salafis on several points:

    a) He practices tafweed – deemed deviance by Ibn Uthaymin and co.
    b) He rejects the literal meaning – affirmed by Ibn Uthaymin and co.
    c) He promotes tafweed when needed versus the wahhabi baatil of rejecting it completely.
    d) He quotes the Mutakallimin and supports them, even calls them “Our companions”, hardly in line with the wahhabi pseudo-salafi puke.
    e) He learned and taught works of kalaam – a certain no no in wahhabi doctrine.
    f) He does not believe that Allah has place, and is ‘sitting’ upon the throne as stated by Ibn Uthaymin.

    and the list continues…

    was-salam

  23. tru_Qur'an says:

    As salamu ‘alaykum,

    Any response to brother Muhammad’s post regarding Imam Ahmad’s (ra) position on ‘direction of Allah’?

  24. admin says:

    Wa’alaykum Salam wa Rahmatullah @ Tru,

    The best response is what Sidi Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali actually translated from Dafa’ Shubah wat-Tashbeeh of the Hanbali Ibn Al-Jawzi. It is certainly true that the Hanbalis defamed Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal with their anthropomorphism – and to be honest – most of it is much worse than the common pseudo-salafi/wahhabi belief. Note the words of Sidi Abdullah carefully:

    “that the belief that Allah has direction is also attributed to Imam Ahmad”

    What is attributed to Imam Ahmad does not mean it is a) authentic and thus b) accepted as his true doctrine. Ibn Qudamah quotes Imam Ahmad as saying regarding affirming the attributes of Allah – “without how, and without meaning!” [Lum'at al-'Itiqad of Ibn Qudamah. Note that the pseudo-Hanbalis, particularly the pseudo-salafis, attempt in vain to deny this authentic report either by weakening (hardly truth) or by making disgusting ta'weel of Imam Ahmad's words which they have no proof for!]

    Imam Ibn ‘Asakir narrated in his Tabyin from Imam ibn Shahin Al-Hanbali (d. 385) said:

    “Two righteous men have been afflicted due to evil people: Ja‘far ibn Muhammad and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.”

    Ibn al-Salah (d. 643), the man praised at length by the Jurists and Muhaddithin alike, said:

    “Two imams have been afflicted because of their followers although they are innocent of them: Ahmad ibn Hanbal was tried with the anthropomorphists (al-mujassima), and Ja‘far al-Sadiq with the [Shi‘i] Rejectionists (al-Râfida).” [Quoted by Shaykh Tajud-Din al-Subki in his Qa‘ida (p. 43), and in his Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyya al-Kubra (2:17). ]

    see: http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/440

    Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (radiya Allahu anhu) – who was nothing more than a student of Imam Ahmad (words of Imam Ibn Khuzaymah) – was free of anthropomorphism. His madhhab that was later to be attributed to him, however, was not.

    was-salam

  25. faqir says:

    al-salam `alaikum. Ramadan Karim. The scan thumbnail links are not working. Can you kindly correct that.

  26. admin says:

    Wa’alaykum Salam,

    Ramadan Mubarak to you sidi! I have updated the images. Jazakum Allahu khayran for the heads up!

  27. hidayath says:

    Assalamu ‘alaykum,

    Does Ibn Taymiyya hold anthropomorphic views about Allah ‘azzawajal?

    Or is it wrongly attributed to him. Because, Imams like Ad-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar Asqalaniyy have good words regarding him

    Allah Hafiz
    Hidayath

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>