Regarding Al Fiqh al Akbar and Shaykh al Khumayyis...

[aboosafar]

As salamu 'alaykum,
Could someone please let me know what Shaykh Muhammad 'Abdur Rahman al Khumayyis offered as an explanation for his strengthening of the riwayah of al Fiqh al Akbar 'an Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah?

I would love if someone could post the arabic text of what he said.

I read it before and no longer own the book and have been struggling to remember what he said for months.

Anyone who relieves this burden from me may Allah relive him or her of their burdens on the day of Qiyamah, aameen.

If someone can at least tell me what he said in summary even if they can't post the arabic text, that will be more than enough as long as it's at least precise in meaning.

Allah yajzeekumul khair.

Ma'as salamah,
Yousef Abus Safar

[knowrass]

hope this helps a bit in shaa Allah...

حول كتاب الفقه الأكبر لأبي حنيفة بحوث أوسع من هذا تجدها في كتاب أصول الدين عن أبي حنيفة لمحمد عبد الرحمن الخميس،وشرح الطحاوية للشيخ سفر الحوالي وقد ذهب الشيخان الفاضلان إلى التفصيل في أمر الكتاب بما معناه أن في الكتاب أشياء كثيرة تصح نسبتها لأبي حنيفة وفيه أشياء من وضع أبي مطيع البلخي.

يقول الشيخ سفر -عافاه الله- : ((الواقع أن الإمام أبو حنيفة رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ نُسِبَتْ إليهِ بعضُ الكتبِ التي لم يكتبها ولم يؤلفها، وإنما كتبها عَلَى ما يبدو أحد أئمة الحنفية المسمى أبي مطيع البلخي الحكم بن عبد الله ، ونسبها إِلَى الإمام أبي حنيفة .
وفيها حق كثير لاشك فيه، لكن يهمنا أن نعرف أنها ليست لـأبي حنيفة ، فرسالة العالم والمتعلم ، ورسالة الفقه الأكبر وإن كَانَ أكثرها صحيح، وشرحت عَلَى أنها للإمام أبي حنيفة ، لكنها من الناحية العلمية توثيقاً للكتاب ليست لـأبي حنيفة .
والحكم نفسه ضعيف؛ بل هو متهم بالوضع.
ولأن المؤلف حنفي -والحنفية هم أكثر الْمُسْلِمِينَ في ذلك العصر بل هم الدولة- انطلق المُصْنِّف في شرحه عَلَى أن هَؤُلاءِ الحنفية يُثبتون ويعتقدون أن الفقه الأكبر صحيح وثابت عن أبي حنيفة ، وربما يقولون: إن الحكَم -وهو أبو مطيع البلخي - ثقة.))

والبحث أوسع وأتم في كتاب الشيخ محمد الخميس.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipress/index.php?showtopic=200&view=getnewpost

this might be useful

[aboosafar]

Allah yajzeekumul khair, however I neither of those posts contained the info I was looking for.

I had read in Shaykh al Khumayyis's version of al Fiqh al Akbar/al Fiqh al Absat, that he held that the text of al Fiqh al Akbar could be attributed to Imam Abi Hanifah, whilst at the same time he held that the isnad was dha'if.

He mentioned another justification for attributing it to Abi Hanifah, but I don't remember what it was. This was in the intro.

It may have been since he was Abu Hanifah's son, that he held that he should have been reliable, if not in general, at least in narrating this book from his father, but I don't remember what I read anymore.

If anyone knows please get back to me.

[Abuz Zubair]

I had read in Shaykh al Khumayyis's version of al Fiqh al Akbar/al Fiqh al Absat, that he held that the text of al Fiqh al Akbar could be attributed to Imam Abi Hanifah, whilst at the same time he held that the isnad was dha'if.

I am not sure about his comments in his edition of al-fiqh al-akbar. But in his Usul al-Din 'Ind al-Imam Abi Hanifa he does seem to lean towards doubting the attribution of the book to Imam Abu Hanifa.

From those who doubted it was the modern Hanafi-Azhari scholar Abu Zahra.

[Abu Maryam PK]

I remember that sheikh al khumayyis said that his son Hammad bin abi hanifah is weak, but since hanafis generally accept this, they should adhere (to what is correct: my addition) to it.

[Tauheed]

I am not sure about his comments in his edition of al-fiqh al-akbar. But in his Usul al-Din 'Ind al-Imam Abi Hanifa he does seem to lean towards doubting the attribution of the book to Imam Abu Hanifa.

From those who doubted it was the modern Hanafi-Azhari scholar Abu Zahra.

Asalaam alaikum Akh,

I don't know if you come across this before, but just incase http://lamppostproductions.org/articles/abdullah_ali/pdf/abuhanifa_salafis.pdf

Always interested to here your views ;-)

[Abuz Zubair]

Asalaam alaikum Akh,

I don't know if you come across this before, but just incase http://lamppostproductions.org/articles/abdullah_ali/pdf/abuhanifa_salafis.pdf

Always interested to here your views ;-)
My humble opinion is that what he has written is complete nonsense.

Imam Abu Hanifa is explicitly stating that Allah has a hand, and it is NOT to be said that hands refer to power, i.e. rendered metaphorical references. This runs contrary to the assertion by the author that 'hand' is metaphorical.

Most of it has been refuted ten times over, anyway.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Also the claims about accepting either Fiqh al-Akbar or al-Ibanah is nonsense. Its comparing apples with oranges.. and we know to what that may lead.

The author in question is full of nonsense, as show elsewhere. How else, when he translate the lies and ignorance of the number one misinterpreter of the past century: Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari.

The Ibanah is authentic and the last book. Nothing in it concerning Imam Abu Hanifah has been invented by al-Ash'ari or a later hand. He may disagree with the impact of those reports, as several scholars do, but he should not ventilate the lies of liars!

[ali]

could someone with better arabic adress some shubuhaat of this repugnant fool or should i. Im tired of their continual dishonesty to the ummah and the half way informing to the english speakers in their cleverly disguised talbis.