NoStandard
Friday 1 November 2024
KFEs
There are two very different editions of the King Fuʾād Edition.
Although since 1952 the main text (pp.2‒827) is different to the text of 1951 and before,
many experts are not aware of it, because it is the same type, the same page layout
(12 lines on 826 pages, with signs for ǧuz, ḥizb, saǧada and saktha on the margin);
there are almost thousand differences: mostly pauses and changes in the title boxes, only one clear mistake (7:137 kalima was with a knotted tāʾ; since 1952 it has an open one)
this was the 1924 text; here comes the corrected one:
there are differences between editions 1924‒51 and post-1952:
the only change in the qurʾānic text being الن or ين لن in 73:20,
there are changes in the twenty or so pages after p.827
One concerns the very first page after an-nās: is it paginated (ا) or unpaginated
1924:
1952 ‒ with an added (ا):
is it about the King or about the king and his heir,
1924 AND 1952:
1347/1928/9:
or is it empty (after 1952)
(plus: in the official Egyptian editions after 1952 it is counted although absent, the first page after the qur'anic text being ج
, in private or foreign editions it is ا or 828);
there are two differences on page س : only the names of the only real editor, a šaiḫ, the man who initiated the project, a bey,
and two effendis, teachers at the teachers training college, or four signets
and did Šaiḫ al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād "write the book" or did he "write the origin of the book" i.e. the leaves which the
type setters set.I like the German word for aṣl: Vorlage, modell, template, literally: what was in front of the type setter when he worked.
There is a stupid mistake in the large 1952 print (which I call KFE IIa). The editors reprinted all the material of 1924: the dedication to the king,
the information about the ʿUṯmānic maḥāṣif al-amṣār, the numbering of verses, the distinguishing of Mekka and Madinan suras etc, the pause signs,
the signatures of the four men mentioned, the impressum, information about the setting and printing of the text.
While reprinting the first parts is fine, the original impressum should not have been repeated (or be it in small, informing the reader that that was stated in 1924) [as it is, some libraries took the 1924 impressum for the impressum of their copy],
and the signatures guaranteeing the correctness of the above is at the wrong place: Instead of being after the informations of 1924
it is after the text about the changes made in 1952, even after the impressum of 1952:
which lets people who did not know a thing about making a muṣḥaf (the professors at the pedagogical college) or were dead (Šaiḫ al-Ḥusaini and Ḥifnī Bey) guarantee for an edition they had no idea about.
Which let to a second mistake, one that makes the Amīriyya look stupid. They had given the ḫātima the pagina ف which would have been right after page س and an empty ع ‒
but after page ض makes one wonder whether they can not count or just do know the abjad.
This mistake could not happen in the small edition because here the editors pass the changes 1924-1952 in silence.
Let me repeat: There are two major editions: KFE I and KFE II with almost thousand small differences.
There are KFE I a, b , c, d one after the other, because
‒ there is a correction: added اصله
two pages with signets instead of just the names
dedication mentioning the heir to the throne
a change in the qur'anic text: لن لن for الن
There are two KFE IIs: II a (big) and II b (small) both from 1953 on
plus the original (big) KFEII'52 ‒
only KFE'52 has the 1924 dedication to King Fuʾād,
the big ones have no sura-numbers in the table of suras, only names, but seven pages on changes to the 1924 edition,
plus a wrongly placed ḫātima: after the text about the 1952 edition, instead of where it originally stood);
the small ones lack any information on the new edition, but have both names and numbers of suras in the table.
Monday 21 October 2024
522
Looking at maṣāḥif there are more dimensions than
Ḥafṣ or Qālūn, Azraq or Iṣbahānī, Dūrī or Sūsī,
rasm according to Ibn Najāḥ or ad-Dānī or Ārkatī,
long vowlels written by extra vowel signs or a lengthening vowel׃
by page layout:
there is not only the Ottoman berkenar layout on 604 pages,
the 13 lines on 848 pages common in South Africa,
but the 15 line on 522 as well ‒ very common in Egypt.
It seems to have started 1308/1891 in Istanbul (al-Maṭbaʻa al-ʻUṯmāniyya)
with a muṣḥaf written by Muṣṭafa Naẓīf (d. 1913)
reprinted in Bairut with tafsir
in Q52 by the publisher Aḥmad Šamarlī
in a pocket edition in Tehran
in 1975 Aḥmad Šamarlī published a line by line copy of MHQ's 522 pages written
by Muḥammad Saʿd Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaddād, a muṣḥaf that became famous as "the Šamarlī"
pocket version by Šamarlī or other publishers:
colour version
1966 Maktaba al-Ǧumhuriyya al-ʿArabiyya
1956 nochmal in der alten Orthographie, einzig die Zahlen am Versende sind nicht original
1962
there are many more editions:
القرآن الكريم / بخط مصطفى نظيف الشهير بقدروغلي، لا يمسه الا المطهرون تنزيل من رب العالمين
القرآن. ١٩٣٤
٤٩٦ص. مصر : عبد الحميد احمد حنفي
Notes رقم الطلب للنسخة الاولى والرابعة: 6843 C 53، ورقم الطلب للنسخة الثانية: 5532 AP، ورقم الطلب للنسخة الثالثة: 1165.
نسخة واحدة أو أكثر من هذا الكتاب تابعة لمجموعة أملاك الغائبين AP.
עותק אחד או יותר של ספר זה שייכים לאוסף נכסי נפקדים AP.
One copy or more of this book belong to the Absentee Property Collection (AP)
القرآن
نظيف، مصطفي
مصر : المكتبة الملكية،
1980؟
"طبع باذن من مشخة المقارئ رقم 170"
522 صفحة.
القرآن الكريم / بخط السيد مصطفى نظيف الشهير بقدروغلي.; al-Qurʼān al-Karīm / bi-khaṭ al-Sayyid Muṣṭafá Naẓīf al-Shahīr bi-Qadarūghalī
Miṣr : ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd Aḥmad Ḥanafī; مصر : عبد الحميد احمد حنفي
1934
قرآن كريم : في كتاب مكنون لا يمسه الا المطهرون تنزيل من رب العالمين
Qurʼān Karīm : fī kitāb maknūn lā yamassuhu illā al-muṭahharūn tanzīl min Rabb al-ʻĀlamīn
Marriott Library Rare Books Collection
قدرغهلي، مصتفى نظيف
Qadurghahʹlī, Muṣtafá Naẓīf
197-?
522 pages ; 14 cm.
Housed in a decorated, leather-covered wooden clamshell box with feet, and enclosed in a cardboard gift box.
Cairo, Egypt : Dār al-Kutub al-Dīnīyah lil-Ṭibāʻah wa-al-Nashr, Muḥammad ʻAbd al-Muʻṭī wa-awlāduh; [القاهرة، مصر] : دار الكتب الدينية للطباعة والنشر، محمد عبد المعطي واولاده،
القرآن الكريم : لا يمسه اللا المطهرون
al-Qurʼān al-karīm : lā yamassahu illā al-muṭahharūn
Muṣḥaf al-Ḥaramayn al-Sharīfayn
Marriott Library Rare Books Collection
نظيف، مصطفى
Naẓīf, Muṣṭafá.
1964
486, [8] pages ; 20 cm.
"Al-rasm muwāfiq li-muṣḥaf sayyidinā ʻUthmān raḍiya Allāh ʻanhu."
"Ṭubiʻa bi-idhn mashyakhat al-Jāmiʻ al-Azhar taḥta murāqabat Idārat al-Buḥūth al-Islāmīyah bi-al-Azhar."
al-Qāhirah : Maktabat wa-Maṭbaʻat al-Mashhad al-Ḥusaynī; القاهرة : مكتبة ومطبعة المشهد الحسيني،
1373/1953:
1977 the Government Press started to compete with a type set muṣḥaf on 525 pages,
the Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf:
After ten years, the Azhar publishes a Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf pirating MNQ:
The King Fahd Complex (KFC) for printing the muṣḥaf had asked ʿUṯmān Ṭaha to
write a version of the reading of Dūrī in the MNQ522 layout.
Then asked him to write one of Ḥafṣ
Friday 18 October 2024
editions and race
Most Germans find it strange that Americans are obsessed with race.
Yes, some skin is darker, some hair frizzy, but after a beach holiday, a Greek's skin can be darker then that of her African-American neighbour. In 2000 for the first time Americans could
be officialy multiracial or "mixed" as the British say.
For Germans, the very idea of human races is absurd, why should character corelative with skin colour?How can most "white" Americans forget that not long ago, Italians, Irish and
Jews were obviously non-White, that only the numerical decline of English, Scandinavian, Protestant Dutch and Germans brought them to admit that Serbs and Jews are white alright.
It's not because of the Nazis ‒ who by the way did not write a lot about die "weiße Rasse", but about nordische, westische/mittelmeerische, ostische/alpine, dinarische, (ost)baltische, fälische, sudetische, vorderasiatische, orientalische Rasse und deren Mischungen (cf. Hans F. K. Günther: Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes) ‒
but because in German "Rasse" is not only "race" but "breed" --> in German dogs and horses
come in races, not humans; despite US and ZA laws against miscegenation, there are no Kör- und Stutbücher (lists of recognized males and females of a certain human race) regulating the status
of "true White", "true Jewish", or "true Sephardic").
The language we normally speak shapes the way we think:
For German speakers there is a clear difference between "Auflagen" (runs of an identical book) and "Ausgaben" (fresh/changed editions) ‒ in English both can be called "editions", although the difference between "run", "reprint" "revised and expanded/ new edition" exists: there is a fog not existing in German. From the 1940s onward, one can spot on the copyright page/impressum a printer's key
"10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1" or often "1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2".
In Germany mostly two rows of numbers like „26 27 28 29 · 97 96 95 94“ ‒ this is the 26th run in 1994, from the first row each time one numbers is/was scratched from the plate, for the second row
the last year was taken away (unless there was a second run in the same year).
at the bottom right "1": first edition,
left "15": 2015
For me the two pages above are from two different Ausgaben: not the same edition.
When you look at the last page/impressum of different Amīriyya editions,
you find: Gizā+Būlāq, Būlāq, Maṣr, al-Qahira ‒ to me this is not
just "second run" and different year, the text before the year is so different
that it is not the SAME edition.
And in the second edition 1925/6 the word "its origin" (= its modell, seine Vorlage)
and ten signets were added.
Later the dedication page was changed
later yet,
الن in 73:20 was changed to ان لن
.
When you have in the 1952 aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ Amīriyya edition seven pages
that are missing in the small 1955 aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ Amīriyya edition,
they ARE not the same edition, although by the same editor(s), the same printer-publisher!
Yes, there are people who do not care to distinguish between at least four different editions
between the first and 1951, nor between at least two different editions starting from 1952 ((I am
willing not to count different year, different place of publication, different name of the same
printer, different authorities vouchsaving the correctness)), not even between the editions made
by al-Ḥusaini al-Ḥaddād and those made by aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ and colleagues, but they should not
hold a conference on book editions.
IDEO held a conference on the 1924 edition but used something like the 1952 title box. They just
don't care, do not know, do not even want to know.
‒
Thursday 10 October 2024
Būlāq 1299/1881/2
As far as we know the first Egyptian muṣḥaf was type set in 1299/1881/2 in der
Government Press Būlāq
it did not have verse numbers but empty space to
be filled out by scribes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
KFEs
There are two very different editions of the King Fuʾād Edition. Although since 1952 the main text (pp.2‒827) is different to the text of 1...
-
At the start of this year's Ramaḍān Saima Yacoob, Charlotte, North Carolina published a book on differences between printed maṣāḥi...
-
There is a text in the web Chahdi is an expert on The Qur’an, its Transmission and Textual Variants: Confronting Early Manuscripts and Wri...
-
There are several types of madd sign in the Qurʾān, in South Asian masāhif: madd al-muttasil for a longer lengthening of the vowel used...