Mufti Muhammad Taha Karaan (RA) on Imam Nawawi’s Ikhtiyarat

I will answer your questions in reverse order.

3) Is al Nawawi the only Imam who holds Ikhtiyar views ?

Imam Nawawi is not the only imam of the madhhab to hold ikhtiyarat of
his own. Several other imams of the madhhab, all of whom possessed
some degree of ijtihad, hold ikhtiyarat. These include (amongst the
latter scholars of the madhhab) Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Siraj al-Din
al-Bulqini, `Izz al-Din Ibn `Abd al-Salam, Taqi al-Din Ibn Daqiq
al-`Id and Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti.

2) When it says that al Nawawi preferred another view over the view of
the Madhhab in light of Dalil, why is this exactly ? Given that Imam
Shafi'i was a Mujtahid and was succeded by greats like Muzani, Imam
Haramayn etc, what are the reasons why these earlier Imams didn't hold
contrary views also ?

The answer to this question requires some understanding of the areas
in which a faqih operates.

The faqih of a madhhab operates at several levels:

Firstly, the level of preservation and transmission. At this level his
concern is with accuracy in his reception and conceptualization of the
body of fiqhi opinions that form the madhhab, and then transmitting
that corpus with the same level of accuracy. At this level the proof
upon which those opinions rest is of negligible consequence. This
level of fiqh is best represented in the mukhtasarat such as
al-Minhaj, al-Wajiz, `Umdat al-Salik, etc.
Secondly, the level of establishing proof. The objective here is not
to comparatively assess the proof against the views and proofs of
other madhahib, but rather only to ascertain the basis upon which the
views of the madhhab rests. This level of fiqh does at times include
comparative assessment, but it would be restricted to views within the
madhhab, i.e. aqwal and wujuh. A good example may be seen in Shaykh
Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi's al-Muhadhdhab.

Thirdly, the level of external comparative assessment of proof. This
is the stage at which the foundation of proof upon which the views of
a madhhab rest are compared to that other madhahib. This level used to
be referred to as `ilm al-khilaf. Today it is more commonly referred
to as al-fiqh al-muqaran.

The phenomenon of ikhtiyarat tends to be almost exclusively associated
with fuqaha who were active at the last level. Being active at that
level does not indicate inactivity at other levels; on the contrary,
fuqaha tended to be active in more than one field. However, the degree
of focus upon the various levels tended to vary. Furthermore, the
degree of attention given to a particular level by a particular faqih
would also not necessarily be consistent throughout.

To use some examples:

Imam Muzani deals with with levels 1 and 2 in his Mukhtasar: he
preserves and transmits Imam Shafi'i's opinion (that being the main
stated purpose of his book) and he states the proof. Does he
comparatively assess the proof? Comparative fiqh certainly does not
form a regular feature of the Mukhtasar, but the fact that he duly
states his divergence from Imam Shafi'i's views on the basis of proof
is sufficient indication of at least a certain degree of level 3. But
does he maintain consistency at level throughout the book? My reading
of the situation says no.
Imam al-Haramayn's major achievement in Nihayat al-Matlab was the
systematic documentation of the accumulated views of the madhhab and
it proofs--in other words, level 1 and 2. That he does indeed make
comparative reference to other madhahib is undisputed, but he does so
in a somewhat irregular manner and with a fluctuation degree of
intensity.
Imam Nawawi deals with level 3 in al-Majmu'. However, the degree of
focus and intensity with which he deals with comparative assessment of
proof fluctuates (as remarked by Imam Suyuti in treatise Daw'
al-Sham'ah).

From the above you might be able to deduct that the mere fact that
there were other great fuqaha before Imam Nawawi does not of necessity
mean that all latitude for dalil-based departure from the madhhab has
been removed--simply the assumption that those previous great fuqaha
have comparatively assessed the proof of every point in the madhhab is
unwarranted. And then, even where they did for a fact treat the proof
comparatively, by no means should such treatment be raised to the
level of a final word after which nothing more may be said.

In my opinion Imam Nawawi's knowledge of hadith specifically was
superior to that of both Imam Muzani and Imam al-Haramayn. In fact, a
simple glance at the list of ikhtiyar holders in the madhhab would
indicate the presence of a high degree of hadith proficiency as a
common element. The existence in the Shafi'i madhhab of mujtahids with
excellent hadith credentials has been laudingly noted by Shah
Waliyyullah in al-Insaf fi Bayan Sabab al-Ikhtilaf. Therefore, the
fact that Imam Nawawi was preceded by the likes of Imam Muzani and
Imam al-Haramayn should in no way be intepreted to detract from the
value of his ikhtiyarat, especially since those those ikhtiyarat tend
to be hadith-orientated.

1) What bearing does al Nawawi's "Ikhtiyar" have in the Madhhab ?

1. An ikhtiyar is the result of ijtihad exercised by a mujtahid faqih
of the madhhab. Now, when such a mujtahid faqih exercises ijtihad, it
generally leads him to a position that conforms to the madhhab. This
is what al-Qaffal and others referred to when they said, "We do not
make taqlid of Imam Shafi'i; rather, our ijtihad concurred with his."
There is no specific term given to this form of concurrence between
the imam of the madhhab and a mujtahid faqih of the madhhab. It is
only when the latter's ijtihad leads him to a position divergent from
that of the imam of the madhhab that the term ikhtiyar is used.

The status of the ikhtiyar is the same as that accorded to any valid
ijtihad: it may be followed by the muqallid, even if he happens to be
following a madhhab. Followers of a madhhab are of course permitted to
subscribe to alternative opinions: sometimes the opinions of other
madhahib, sometimes marjuh opinions within the madhhab. The ikhtiyar
falls exactly between the opinions of other madhahib, and marjuh
opinions of our madhhab: Since they originate with fuqaha of our
madhhab, they are not foreign to our madhhab; but at the same time
they are not quite the rajih view of the madhhab either. Subscribing
to an ikhtiyar, in my opinion, is better than subscribing to a marjuh
opinion within the madhhab. As for whether it would be better to
subscribe to an ikhtiyar or to the view of another madhhab, here
opinions have differed. I am inclined to the view that an ikhtiyar
takes precedence over the view of another madhhab since chances of
talfiq are less with an ikhtiyar. If memory serves me correctly, this
is also the view expressed by al-Saqqaf in the introduction to Tarshih
al-Mustafidin.

The existence of ikhtiyarat testifies to the perpetuation of that
spirit which was promoted and embodied by Imam Shafi'i himself, and
which was the most fundamental cornerstone of his madhhab: the spirit
of consistent and persistent adherence to the sources of the Shari'ah
and resistance to alternative forms of loyalty, be they regional (Ahl
al-Madinah, Ahl al-`Iraq), or collegial. It testifies to the
predominance of loyalty to Allah and His Rasul sallaLlahu `alayhi
wasallam over loyalty to school of thought or provenance. In the
preservation of this spirit lies the best panacea against that
exaggerated and fanatic devotion to madhhab called ta'assub. And the
fact that such a spirit could exist within a madhhab denies credence
to the argument for the total abandonment of madhahib.