İki Hâşiyenin Serencamı -Hayâlî ve İbn Ebî Şerîf’in Şerhu’l-Akāid Hâşiyeleri
The Fate of Two Hāshiyahs -Khayālī and Ibn Abī Sharīf's Hāshiyahs on Sharḥ alʿAḳāʾid-

Summary/Abstract: One of the prominent texts of Kalām's commentary and hāshiyah period is Taftāzānī's commentary called Sharḥ al-ʿAḳāʾid. As a matter of fact, numerous hāshiyah studies have been carried out by scholars in various regions of the Islamic world. The most important text that stands out among these is the hāshiyah known as Hāshiyah alā Sharḥ al-ʿAḳāʾid ’al-Nasafiyya authored by Khayālī. Khayālī's hāshiyah stands out as the most extensively annotated work among those produced on the hāshiyahs of Sharḥ al-ʿAḳāʾid. Many scholars such as Kātib Chalabi, Lak̲h̲nawī and Ṭas̲h̲köprīzāde use praising expressions about Khayālī's hāshiyah. Furthermore, Khayālī's hāshiyah has been positioned as a superior text within the hierarchy of Ottoman theological literature, surpassing Sharḥ al-ʿAḳāʾid. A claim mentioned by Kātib Chalabi regarding this highly acclaimed annotation draws attention. In fact, Kātib Chalabi provides information that the source of the Khayālī’s hāshiyah is the Sharḥ al-ʿAḳāʾid hāshiyah of Ibn Abī Sharīf, one of the Mamluk scholars. Therefore, Khayālī wrote his hāshiyah by quoting from the hāshiyah of Ibn Abī Sharīf. The investigation of this claim constitutes the core subject of the study. While doing this, the life processes of the two commentators (muḥashshī) and the times when they wrote their works were investigated. On the other hand, conducting a content analysis of two hāshiyahs is a fundamental criterion for examining the claim. Thus, similarities and differences were presented based on the core subject, enabling a comparison of two hāshiyahs. In the content analysis, seven subject headings were preferred: the realities of things, the reasons for knowledge, the fundamental components of the universe, the attributes of God, Ruʾyat Allāh (the vision of God), human actions and issues related to the afterlife. Under these headings, the topics are not presented in detail and it is deemed sufficient to give only selected passages to reveal the similarities and differences. Document analysis was used as a method in the study. Ultimately, when this claim is scrutinized, it was seen that the situation is not as Kātib Chalabi conveyed. Examining the birth and death dates of two commentators (muḥashshī), and the dates of their annotation compositions reveals that the claim is not plausible. Khayālī wrote his hāshiyah approximately in 862/1458, while İbn Abī Sharīf wrote it in 889/1484 or 895/1490. Therefore, it does not seem historically possible for Khayālī to quote Ibn Abī Sharīf. The falsification of the information conveyed by Kātib Chalabi brings up the possibility of the opposite situation. In other words, Ibn Abī Sharif may have benefited from Khayālī while writing his hāshiyah. To confirm or refute this idea, a content analysis is necessary. When the contents of two hāshiyahs are compared, significant similarities are observed. So much so that in some places the sentences are exactly the same, while in other places similar expressions are used. However, Ibn Abī Sharīf's hāshiyah is longer than Khayālī's hāshiyah. It appears that Ibn Abī Sharīf constructed his hāshiyah on the basis of the Khayālī’s one.

• Details
• Contents