Comparison Between the Ibn Hajar's Gloss Nuzhat al-Nazar and Kamaluddîn as-Shumunnî's Gloss Natîcat an-Nazar

The science of hadith methodology, which reveals the methods of distinguishing the sahih hadith from the weak one, emerged as an independent field by the middle of the fourth century. This discipline passed through certain stages until Ibn Salāh (d. 643/1245) and reached its peak with Ibn Salāh. Almost all of the books of hadith methodology written after Ibn Salāh rely on him. One of the most important works of this discipline is surely Ibn Hajar al-Askalānī's (d. 852/1449) short work Nuḫbet alFiker fī Mustalahi Ahl al-Asar. A commentary on this work was written by its author Ibn Hajar in 818 (1415) Hijri under the title Nuzhat al-naẓar fī tawżīḥi Nuḫbet al-fiker. However, a year before Ibn Ḥajar, a commentary on Nuḫbet al-Fiker was written by Kamāl al-Dīn al-Shumunnī (d. 821/1421), with whom Ibn Ḥajar had a friendship. This is the first commentary on Nuḫbet al-Fiker. Shumunnī, who wrote the commentary entitled Natījat al-naẓar fī Sharḥi Nuḫbati al-fiker, presented his work to Ibn Ḥajar. Ibn Ḥajar did not like the commentary and commented on his own book himself, saying "the owner of the house knows better what is in the house" as stated in the introduction of Nuzha. When Ibn Hajar's and Shumannī's commentaries are compared in terms of content, the similarities between them stand out. The fact that Ibn Hajar produced a similar work with a commentary that he stated that he did not like make it is necessary to compare and research these two commentaries. As a result of the vii findings, some conclusions will be obtained by considering the historical background and conceptual framework of the reason for the composition of Nuzhat al-naẓar and the relationship between it and the first commentary. The results show us that Ibn Ḥajar put al-Shumnī's work in the right direction, but they may also reveal the possibility that Ibn Ḥajar wanted his own work to be famous under his own name. The thesis, which is built on revealing the reasons for the similarity between the two commentaries, consists of three chapters, except for the introduction and conclusion. The first chapter presents the conceptual framework and historical background by introducing the two works and the lives of their authors. In the other chapters, the two works are compared in terms of content. The similarities and differences between the two works are evaluated as findings that lead us to possible conclusions.