The work al-Jawhara al-Munīfa fi Şarhi Waṣiyyati Abū Hanīfa’ which is written by Ottoman scholar Molla Husain b. Iskendar al-Rūmī (d.1084/1673) is a commentary (sharh) on Abū Hanīfah’s al-Vasiyya. It is stated that there are “thirty-six copies” of al-Jawhara al-Munīfa in Turkish libraries. The treatises attributed to Abu Hanifa became popular soon after they were written. These works, which can be seen as texts of social consensus, contain the basic issues of creed and kalam. These issues were discussed Abu Hanifa’s assembly were debated by the leading figures, and they reached to the final points. Among the leading figures of this assembly, such as, Imam Zufar (d. 158/775), Abu Yūsuf (d. 182/798), Imam Muhammad (d. 189/805), Hasan b. Ziyād (d. 204/819), Afiye b. Yazīd and others. These treatises were widely accepted after Abū Hanifa; and dozens of studies were conducted on the aforementioned texts. The treatises of Abū Hanīfa deeply influenced the later period. His works played a role as the founding text for Ahl as-Sunnah and Jamaat. In this regard, especially, al-Fiqh al-Akbar and al-Vasiyya had a special place. Depending on number of written documents and the copies of commentaries, it could be said that the works of Abū Hanīfa used in Ottoman lands all those indicate that al-Vasiyye was used more widely than of al-Fiqh al-Akbar. On the other hand, al-Jawhara al-Munīfa is one of the most popular commentaries among the studies on al-Vasiyya. al-Jawhara al-Munīfa is one of the most popular commentaries among the studies on al-Vasiyya. Mullah Husain b. Iskendar al-Rūmī commented on the work with the classical method. Here, particularly, Bâbertî’s (d. 786/1384) commentary on al-Vasiyya copied a bit more than Nesefī’s (d. 508/1114) Bahru’l-Kelâm, Abdürrahim b. Ahmed’s Dekāiku’l-ahbār and Suyûtî's (d. 911/1505) al-Hayʾetü’s-seniyye fi’l-hey’eti’s-sunniyye. Along with these, at the end of the commentary, the commentator narrated many hadiths about heaven and hell from et-Tergīb ve’t-terhīb. At the end of the text, it is seen that the author has included the narrations are weak, fabricated or in the form of Israiliyyat and points to the Kasasu’l-anbiyâ of Saʻlebî (d. 427/1035) as a source. However, it is needed to be noted that it is not appropriate to include such narrations in the text of the creed. Because the presence of such expressions in the issues related to the creed brings with it some problems. However, the transfers laid out by the author should be evaluated under the language of knowledge in his own period and the existing conditions of that time. The copy that written by the author or the copy that corresponded to the copy of the author was not found in the Süleymaniye library. Four different manuscripts were used in the examination of this treatise. In the selection of the manuscript, the earliest dated manuscript constituted the main text. However, in cases where the errors are obvious or the phrases in other copies are more accurate, that copy is preferred, and the differences are indicated in the footnote. The rules of the Islamic Studies Center (ISAM) were taken as the basis for the investigation (tahqīq).