[QysnZWB4]

When Imam al-Nawawi quotes the 'Ashaab', he refers to the Ashaabul Wujuh, the students and grand-students of Imam Shafi'i, from around 200AH to around 500AH, who were essentially the Madhab itself. All of them were from amongst the highest ranks of Mujtahid. Examples of the Ashaab, whose biographies can be found in Tahdhibul Asma of al-Nawawi, are Abu al-Hasan al-Marwazi (d. 286), Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi (d. 249), Al-Anmati (d.288), Ibn Surayj (d.248-306), Abu al-Tayyib ibn Salamah (d. 308), Ibn Harbawayh (d. 319), Abu Bakr al-Naysaburi (d. 324) and others.

As an example, Imam al-Nawawi said:

ومع هذا الذى ذكرته من كون أبى ثور من أصحاب الشافعى، وأحد تلامذته والمنتفعين به، والآخذين عنه، والناقلين كتابه وأقواله، فهو صاحب مذهب مستقل، لا يُعد تفرده وجهًا فى المذهب بخلاف أبى القاسم الأنماطى، وابن سريج، وغيرهما من أصحابنا أصحاب الوجوه، هذا هو الصحيح المشهور

"Despite this, what I mentioned, of Abu Thawr being from the companions of al-Shafi'i, and one of his students and those who derived benefit from him and took from him and transmitted his book and opinions, he is the founder of an independent madhhab, his isolated positions are not regarded as acceptable opinions within the madhhab, as opposed to Abu al-Qasim al-Anmati, Ibn Surayj and others from our companions the Ashaabul Wujuh. This is the correct and famous [view]." (Tahdhibul Asma' wa l-Lughat, 2:200-1)

As an example of their standing, here is a brief biography of the two mentioned above who make up part of the Ashaab:

Al-Anmati (d.288)
He is the great imam Abu’l-Qasim ‘Uthman b. Sa’id b. Bashar al-Anmati. He studied the madhhab under two of the greatest students of Imam al-Shafi’i, namely al-Muzani and al-Rabi’.

He was crucial in transmitting the madhhab in Baghdad, where he is known to have written books on the madhab, as well as teaching numerous renowned students, including Ibn Surayj.

Ibn Surayj (d.248-306)
He is the famous imam of the madhhab, who played an essential role in its dissemination, Abu’l-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Umar b. Surayj al-Baghdadi. His grandfather, al-Surayj (d.235), was a scholar of hadith known for his piety. Ibn al-Surayj is known as Shaykh al-Madhhab and Imam al-Ashab to indicate his great renown. Indeed, after the direct disciples of Imam al-Shafi’I himself, Ibn Surayj takes the primary rank. Some even consider him greater than al-Muzani, and al-Suyuti considered him to be the mujaddid of the third century.

Ibn Surayj studied the madhhab under al-Anmati (d.288), who in turn had studied under al-Muzani and al-Rabi’, two of al-Shafi’is greatest direct disciples in Egypt. He was appointed Qadi of Shiraz early in his life, but later refused official positions.

There are some more biographies in the following link, although not all of them were regarded by Imam al-Nawawi to be amongst the Ashaab, but rather were regarded as founders of independent Madhabs, whose isolated opinions did not constitute the Shafi'i madhab:

http://islamclass.wordpress.com/2012...shafii-madhab/

I'm not sure whether al-Qaffal, another early Mujtahid from the Shafi'i madhab, was part of the Ashaab, but Imam al-Nawawi explicitly states that he held the same opinion. The fact that Imam an-Nawawi attributes the view of Taqleed Shaksi to the Ashaab as a whole without qualification, indicates that there was some degree of agreement amongst them, if not a complete consensus.

Furthermore, the fact that the early Shafi'i Mujtahids from 200AH to 500AH, whose views constituted the madhab, held such a view on Taqleed Shaksi, corroborates Shah Waliullah's claim that adherence to one Madhab became prevalent after the second century and that it was the obligation at the time. Shah Waliullah concedes to this, despite the fact that he himself appeared to have held varying views regarding Taqleed during his lifetime:

http://www.deoband.org/2012/07/gener...ing-a-madhhab/

Shaykh Wali Allah al-Dihlawi (Allah – Exalted is He – have mercy on him) said: “Know that the people in the first and second centuries were not united on taqlid of one specified madhhab, and after the second century, there appeared amongst them adherence to the madhhabs of specific mujtahids, and those who did not rely on the madhhab of a specific mujtahid became few – and this was the obligation of that time. If you say: How is it that one thing is not obligatory at one time, but obligatory at another time, although the Shari‘ah is one? I say: The original obligation is that there are those in the ummah who are aware of the corollary rulings from their detailed evidences. The people of truth are united on this. And the prelude to an obligation is obligatory. When there are many avenues to that obligation, it is necessary to acquire any avenue from those avenues without particularisation, but when one avenue becomes specified, that one avenue itself becomes obligatory…Based on this, it should be that the result is the obligation of taqlid of a specific imam.” (al-Insaf fi Bayan Asbab al-Ikhtilaf, p. 68, 70)

Since the reasons given by the Ashaab for the necessity of adopting a specific Madhab, transcends a particular Madhab, it would seem quite strange if this viewpoint was not also held by the early Mujtahids of the other Madhabs. It'll be useful to further corroborate Shah Walilullah's claim by verifying whether there occurred a similar degree of agreement amongst the early Mutahids of the other Madhabs.

A question that naturally arises from all this is how does a regulatory measure introduced in order to prevent the people of a relatively pious and blessed era from following their desires, by the major Mujtahids of that time who constituted at least one of the major Madhabs, become discarded widely today and even become regarded as extreme by some quarters, in an era when impiety and abject slavery to desires has reached unprecedented levels?