Muhtelefü'r-Rivâye.
(مختلف الرواية.)

Name: Muhtelefü'r-Rivâye.
Author: Üsmendi

Title	Muhtelefü'r-Rivâye.
Title Original	مختلف الرواية.
Author	Üsmendi
Author Original	الأسمندي، أبو الفتح علاء الدين محمد بن عبد الحميد بن حسين الأسمندي السمرقندي
Subject	Fiqh science / Islamic religion and Islamic sciences.
Type	kitap
Language	Arabic
Digital	Yes
Manuscript	Yes
Physical Dimensions	263x175-193x130 mm.
Library:	Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency
Library Asset ID	308716
Record ID	308716
Library Location	Süleymaniye Library/Molla Çelebi
Date	655.
Notes	The name of the work was determined from page 1b in the introduction. Although the name of the work is mentioned as "Hasru'l-Mesâil ve Kasru'd-Delâil" in some sources, this name is not correct. Hasru'l-Mesâil is a different work. Although the author of the work is given as Üsmendî in the manuscripts of most copies, in some copies (for example, Fazıl Ahmed 650, Aşir Efendi 117, Fatih 2141, Şehid Ali Pasha 967) it is given as Ebu'l-Leys es-Samarkandî. The owner of Keşfu'z-Zunûn also mentioned two works named Muhtelefu'r-Rivâye, one by Ebu'l-Leys es-Samerkandî and the other by Alaeddin (Üsmendî). Although the introductory sentences given by the discoverer for each work seem different, in fact, they are found in two, one being the hamdele part and the other being the emmâ ba'd part, both in the copies attributed to Üsmendî and in those attributed to Ebu'l-Leys. Abdurrahman Mubârek el-Ferec, who made the investigative publication of the work, compiled the original of this work to Ebu'l-Leys. and the narration belongs to Üsmendi. In order to clarify the issue, the author's statement at the beginning of the work, "Unlike what a master before me ('our masters' in some copies) did, who listed all the books (topics) in each chapter (belonging to the imam), I will list all the chapters (imams) under each book (topic)." We examined whether the arrangement was the same. When we compared the copies, we saw that there were two types of arrangements. In the copies with the first type of arrangement (Molla Çelebi 69, 70, Fazıl Ahmed Pasha 650, Fatih 2141, 2142, 2143, Süleymaniye 604, etc.), after the relevant imam's disagreements on each subject (book) were listed and finished, based on the imam, the other imam's disagreements on each issue were started. In the copies with the second type of arrangement (Molla Çelebi 71, Şehid Ali Pasha 967, Aşir Efendi 117, Carullah 874, Damad İbrahim 573 etc.), the disagreement of all imams on a subject was mentioned based on the subject (book) and then moved on to the other subject. (Note: When comparing the copies of this work, one should not be satisfied with only the beginning and the end of the copies. Because both arrangements start with Abu Hanifa and end with Imam Malik, the difference cannot be understood without looking at the inner parts of the work.) The second arrangement we mentioned matches the author's statement in the introduction we quoted above. Therefore, this second composition belongs to Üsmendi, whose death date is later. The first arrangement belongs to Ebu'l-Leys. Based on all this information, we can say that the work was first written by Ebu'l-Leys, and Üsmendi rewrote the same work with a different arrangement. It is certain that the copies containing the second arrangement belong to Üsmendi. In the copies with the first order, although the order is different, the content and introduction are the same, so we attributed them to Üsmendi. Although Üsmendî says in his introduction, "... and we will have the last word on every issue (in addition)", the texts of both arrangements are the same. Regarding the statement that this work is a commentary of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî in some sources and zahriyes, the following can be said: This work has the same content as Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî. However, the arrangement of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî does not match the copies containing the second type of arrangement belonging to Üsmendî. However, it is compatible with the copies containing the first type of arrangement belonging to Abu'l-Leys. Therefore - since the author of the poem, Nesefî, lived after Ebu'l-Leys - this work cannot be the commentary of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî. On the contrary, the poem in question should be a version of this work translated into verse. Abdurrahman Mubârek, who researched the work, is also of this opinion. On page Ia, there are records of appropriation, and on page Ib, there is a subject index and a useful hadith. In addition to the name of the work and the author, the zahriye contains the foundation record and the title. At the beginning, on the inner cover, there are hadiths and a note saying "The gold coin in the bezistan of His Majesty Sultan Selim is 3044". There are corrections on the page edges. In the first 10 pages, in addition to the corrections, there are also the relevant couplets of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî. There are no reddatations in the copy. The corners of the first few pages are torn. It is a work in which the views of the imams of the Hanafi sect, Imam Zufar, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Malik, each opposing the others, are conveyed.
Sample Text	(1b) In the name of God... Praise be to God, the One who is strengthened by Himself, the Most Powerful... And after that, I intended to mention the issues of the various narrations and draw the disagreement with each of the imams with a chapter in the order that some of our professors, may God have mercy on them, arranged. However, they listed all the books in each chapter, and I cite all the arab [chapters] in each book, and I mention in each issue a satisfactory joke (275b). He said, “The dhimmi is prohibited from entering every mosque because the text that we recited was in the Sacred Mosque, but it is Reasoning that it is impure, and maintaining every mosque from impurity is obligatory. There is a disagreement between us and Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, regarding entering the Sacred Mosque, and our argument and answer is about attachment to the text, and it has been mentioned, and God knows best what is correct.
Eser türü	Şerh.
Tasnif numarası/Konu	297.52 / Hilâfiyât
Koleksiyon no.	00071
Yaprak, satır, sütun sayısı	273 yk., 23 st. ;
Cilt özellikleri	Tam meşin kaplı miklepli.
Yazım şekli (Mensur/Manzum)	Mensur.
Alfabe ve yazı türü	Arap harfli-Nesih.
Kaynak/Referans	Katib Çelebi, Keşfü’z-Zunûn, II, 1636.Ebu'l-Leys es-Semerkandî, Muhtelefu'r-Rivâye, thk. Abdurrahman b. Mübârek el-Ferec (Riyad: Mektebetü'r-Rüşd, 2005), 1: 33-38.
Temellük ve Vakıf kayıtları	Vakıf kaydı, “Vakf“, 1b.Temellük kaydı, Ömer b. ... el-Hanefî, Ia.Temellük kaydı, Sirâculümme İzzuddin ... b. Ömer b. ..., Ia.
İstinsah kaydı (Arap harfli)	(275b)تم الكتاب بحمد الله رب العالمين... على يد العبد الضعيف المحتاج إلى رحمة ربه اللطيف علي بن محمد (..) الخوارزمي سنة خمس وخمسين وستمائة

View in source Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency

Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency

Muhtelefü'r-Rivâye.

(مختلف الرواية.)

Author Üsmendi

Author Original الأسمندي، أبو الفتح علاء الدين محمد بن عبد الحميد بن حسين الأسمندي السمرقندي

Subject Fiqh science / Islamic religion and Islamic sciences.

Type kitap

Language Arabic

Digital Yes

Manuscript Yes

Physical Dimensions 263x175-193x130 mm.

Library Turkish Manuscripts Association Presidency

Library Asset ID 308716

Record ID 308716

Library Location Süleymaniye Library/Molla Çelebi

Date 655.

Notes The name of the work was determined from page 1b in the introduction. Although the name of the work is mentioned as "Hasru'l-Mesâil ve Kasru'd-Delâil" in some sources, this name is not correct. Hasru'l-Mesâil is a different work. Although the author of the work is given as Üsmendî in the manuscripts of most copies, in some copies (for example, Fazıl Ahmed 650, Aşir Efendi 117, Fatih 2141, Şehid Ali Pasha 967) it is given as Ebu'l-Leys es-Samarkandî. The owner of Keşfu'z-Zunûn also mentioned two works named Muhtelefu'r-Rivâye, one by Ebu'l-Leys es-Samerkandî and the other by Alaeddin (Üsmendî). Although the introductory sentences given by the discoverer for each work seem different, in fact, they are found in two, one being the hamdele part and the other being the emmâ ba'd part, both in the copies attributed to Üsmendî and in those attributed to Ebu'l-Leys. Abdurrahman Mubârek el-Ferec, who made the investigative publication of the work, compiled the original of this work to Ebu'l-Leys. and the narration belongs to Üsmendi. In order to clarify the issue, the author's statement at the beginning of the work, "Unlike what a master before me ('our masters' in some copies) did, who listed all the books (topics) in each chapter (belonging to the imam), I will list all the chapters (imams) under each book (topic)." We examined whether the arrangement was the same. When we compared the copies, we saw that there were two types of arrangements. In the copies with the first type of arrangement (Molla Çelebi 69, 70, Fazıl Ahmed Pasha 650, Fatih 2141, 2142, 2143, Süleymaniye 604, etc.), after the relevant imam's disagreements on each subject (book) were listed and finished, based on the imam, the other imam's disagreements on each issue were started. In the copies with the second type of arrangement (Molla Çelebi 71, Şehid Ali Pasha 967, Aşir Efendi 117, Carullah 874, Damad İbrahim 573 etc.), the disagreement of all imams on a subject was mentioned based on the subject (book) and then moved on to the other subject. (Note: When comparing the copies of this work, one should not be satisfied with only the beginning and the end of the copies. Because both arrangements start with Abu Hanifa and end with Imam Malik, the difference cannot be understood without looking at the inner parts of the work.) The second arrangement we mentioned matches the author's statement in the introduction we quoted above. Therefore, this second composition belongs to Üsmendi, whose death date is later. The first arrangement belongs to Ebu'l-Leys. Based on all this information, we can say that the work was first written by Ebu'l-Leys, and Üsmendi rewrote the same work with a different arrangement. It is certain that the copies containing the second arrangement belong to Üsmendi. In the copies with the first order, although the order is different, the content and introduction are the same, so we attributed them to Üsmendi. Although Üsmendî says in his introduction, "... and we will have the last word on every issue (in addition)", the texts of both arrangements are the same. Regarding the statement that this work is a commentary of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî in some sources and zahriyes, the following can be said: This work has the same content as Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî. However, the arrangement of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî does not match the copies containing the second type of arrangement belonging to Üsmendî. However, it is compatible with the copies containing the first type of arrangement belonging to Abu'l-Leys. Therefore - since the author of the poem, Nesefî, lived after Ebu'l-Leys - this work cannot be the commentary of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî. On the contrary, the poem in question should be a version of this work translated into verse. Abdurrahman Mubârek, who researched the work, is also of this opinion. On page Ia, there are records of appropriation, and on page Ib, there is a subject index and a useful hadith. In addition to the name of the work and the author, the zahriye contains the foundation record and the title. At the beginning, on the inner cover, there are hadiths and a note saying "The gold coin in the bezistan of His Majesty Sultan Selim is 3044". There are corrections on the page edges. In the first 10 pages, in addition to the corrections, there are also the relevant couplets of Manzûmetü'n-Nesefî. There are no reddatations in the copy. The corners of the first few pages are torn. It is a work in which the views of the imams of the Hanafi sect, Imam Zufar, Imam Shafi'i and Imam Malik, each opposing the others, are conveyed.

Sample Text (1b) In the name of God... Praise be to God, the One who is strengthened by Himself, the Most Powerful... And after that, I intended to mention the issues of the various narrations and draw the disagreement with each of the imams with a chapter in the order that some of our professors, may God have mercy on them, arranged. However, they listed all the books in each chapter, and I cite all the arab [chapters] in each book, and I mention in each issue a satisfactory joke (275b). He said, “The dhimmi is prohibited from entering every mosque because the text that we recited was in the Sacred Mosque, but it is Reasoning that it is impure, and maintaining every mosque from impurity is obligatory. There is a disagreement between us and Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, regarding entering the Sacred Mosque, and our argument and answer is about attachment to the text, and it has been mentioned, and God knows best what is correct.

Eser türü Şerh.

Tasnif numarası/Konu 297.52 / Hilâfiyât

Koleksiyon no. 00071

Yaprak, satır, sütun sayısı 273 yk., 23 st. ;

Cilt özellikleri Tam meşin kaplı miklepli.

Yazım şekli (Mensur/Manzum) Mensur.

Alfabe ve yazı türü Arap harfli-Nesih.

Kaynak/Referans Katib Çelebi, Keşfü’z-Zunûn, II, 1636.Ebu'l-Leys es-Semerkandî, Muhtelefu'r-Rivâye, thk. Abdurrahman b. Mübârek el-Ferec (Riyad: Mektebetü'r-Rüşd, 2005), 1: 33-38.

Temellük ve Vakıf kayıtları Vakıf kaydı, “Vakf“, 1b.Temellük kaydı, Ömer b. ... el-Hanefî, Ia.Temellük kaydı, Sirâculümme İzzuddin ... b. Ömer b. ..., Ia.

İstinsah kaydı (Arap harfli) (275b)تم الكتاب بحمد الله رب العالمين... على يد العبد الضعيف المحتاج إلى رحمة ربه اللطيف علي بن محمد (..) الخوارزمي سنة خمس وخمسين وستمائة