KFE again

>Although I have posted about the King Fuʾād Edition several times, here again.
First some sorts to demonstrate that the KFE was more linear than the Ottoman maṣāḥif,
it was not as linear as ʿUṯmān Ṭaha (always below with yellowish background):

And here is page alif from 1924:

and 1952:

Did you notice: the 1952 has (ا), where 1924 counted ا , but did not print it.

Angelika Neuwirth

Whatever she writes about prints is wrong.
Sometimes the translator, Samuel Wilder, improves the text: In the original she renders qiraʾa as "Vo­ka­li­sie­rung" (S.30), Weber has "the textual tra­di­tion of Ḥafṣ" (p.8)

Sometimes he makes it even worse.

Lithographien des Hafs-Textes näherten sich im Laufe der Zeit mehr und mehr der stan­dardisier­ten Ortho­graphie pro­faner Texte an. Die erste im Nahen Osten ge­druckte Koran­ausgabe sollte dieser Tendenz mit puris­ti­schen Prin­zipien ent­gegen­wir­ken. (S.275)
Lithographs of the Ḥafṣ [text] over time as­si­mi­lated more and more to the stan­dar­dized orthog­raphy of secular texts. The first printed Qur’an edition in the Near East (Qurʾān Karīm, 1344/ 1925) backed this tend­ency with purist prin­ciples

To begin with, something only libra­rians fuss over:
No Qurʾān Karīm was published in 1344/1925.
The King Fuʾād Edition has no title page, no half-title, no­thing on the spine, the title is infered = it is the pre­fered title = has to be in brackets:
[al-Qurʾān al-Karīm] 1342/ 1924 – dropping the definite article is a no no for Arabs, Persian might say Qurʾān-e Karīm, but the King Fuʾād Edition was published in Egypt ...

The translator rendered "sollte ... ent­gegen­wir­ken/ should coun­ter" with "backed", which is the opposite of what AN said.

Lets look at her first state­ment, the gradu­al secu­la­ri­sa­tion of lithog­raphies.
AN gives no source, cites no example.
Is not correct.
And I am not sure what exactely she means. Indian lithog­raphs (since 1829), Persian one (since 1827), Ottoman lithog­raphs or Cairene one (both starting around 1975)? Does she mean what she says – that the lithog­raphs gradually adopted a more common orthog­raphy for the Qurʾānic text, or that they used a text more standard than the manus­cripts had three hundred years earlier?
Below you see that the last 500 years did not mean secu­la­ri­sa­tion (year by year until 1342h.)

In any case, she is wrong: Even in the latest Ottoman lithog­raphes, or the last Egyptian one before 1342 you find ṣalāt  صَلَوٰة , zakāt زَكَوٰة , ḥayāt حَيَوٰة , الرِّبَوٰا ar-ribā, مِشْكَوٰة miškāt
and both كلمت and كلمة and نعمت and نعمة at the same places as in Indian, Morroccan and modern Sa'udi prints.
Neuwirth writes complete nonsence: the orthog­raphy has nothing to to with the technique (hand writing, lithography, offset).
Yes, there is a difference: While Indian and Moroccan maṣāḥif (callig­raphed or printed) follow Abū Dāʾūd Sulaimān Ibn Naǧāḥ resp. al-ʾĀrkātī faith­fully, Persian and Ottoman scribes have about 43543 alifs while Indian and Moroccans have 5157 less (in ʿalāmin, kitāb, ṣirāt but not in rahmān, ṣalāt, ribā etc.)
And if you look at the recent history in Egypt before 1924, there was an important lithog­raphy that was not more secular than the one before, but less:

So far I was in my field, the printed maṣāḥif. Now a bit on what is important to her:
Angelika Neuwirth’s project rests on three major pillars. Only the first is broadly ac­cepted; the other two are highly debated. To­gether, they form her attempt to place the Qur’an within the cultural and literary world of Late Anti­quity.

1.) The Qur’an emerged within a Late Antique environment
Islam belongs to the shared intellectual, religious, and literary world of Late Antiquity—a world shaped by:
- Jewish exegetical traditions
- Christian liturgy and homiletics
- Syriac and Arabic poetic culture
- expectations of the end of the world
- Scriptural reasoning as a cultural practice
Hence
- The Qur’an participates in the same discursive universe as other Late Antique texts.
- It responds to, reworks, and debates themes circulating in that world.
- It is not foreign but a scripture among other scriptures.

Pillar One: The Qur’an in Late Antiquity
Strengths
- It rightly rejects the outdated view of the Qur’an as an “Arabian anomaly.”
- It highlights real intertextual resonances with Jewish, Christian, and Syriac tra­ditions.
- It situates the Qur’an within a shared scriptural culture.

But “Late Antiquity” can mean:
- a period (3rd–7th century)
- a cultural formation
- a set of literary practices
- a theological discourse
Neuwirth shifts between these meanings without clarifying which one is operative.

The direction of influence is often assumed, not demonstrated
Parallels are frequently treated as evidence of dependence, but:
- parallels do not prove borrowing
- shared motifs may reflect a broader Near Eastern repertoire
- some supposed parallels are generic rather than specific

The pillar is broadly correct, but its explanatory power is sometimes overstated.

2) Early Meccan surahs as a form of “Arabic psalmody”
(Highly controversial)

Neuwirth argues that the earliest Meccan passages are psalm-like.
She sees them as:
- short, rhythmic, highly allusive
- focused on praise, divine majesty, eschatology
- structurally similar to Late Antique hymnody and psalmody
Calling early surahs “psalmody” risks:
- importing biblical categories into an Arabic context
- flattening differences between Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic traditions
- ignoring indigenous Arabian poetic forms
The analogy is evocative but not philologically rigorous.
The comparison is typological, not genetic
Neuwirth moves from “this resembles a psalm” to “this is modelled on psalm.”
The model underestimates the autonomy of Arabic poetic culture

Michael Zwettler’s work on oral Arabic poetry shows that early Qur’anic style can be explained within Arabic oral poetics without invoking biblical psalmody.
Devin Stewart’s analysis of saǧʿ (rhymed prose) de­monstra­tes that the Qur’an’s early style fits Arabic rhetorical tra­ditions, not psalmic ones.
Fred Donner sees early Qur’anic proclamations as prophetic oracles, not psalms.

3.) Middle Meccan surahs as “communal productions”
(Even more controversial)

Neuwirth proposes that as the early com­munity around Muhammad formed, the Qur’an’s discourse became:
- more dialogical
- more argumentative
- more engaged with communal identity formation

She interprets some middle Meccan passages as reflec­ting the voice and con­cerns of an emerging com­munity, not solely the voice of a single pro­phetic figure.

- The Qur’an becomes a site of communal reflection.
- The text incorporates responses to internal debates and external challenges.
- Revelation is seen as a process invol­ving inter­action between the pro­phet and his audience.

- It challenges traditional Islamic views of revelation as top-down.
- It raises questions about author­ship and com­po­sitional layers.

Nicolai Sinai sees the Qur’an as a prophetic discourse, not a communal one.
Guillaume Dye criti­cizes Neuwirth for under­estimating re­dac­tional com­plexity.
He argues that the Qur’an shows signs of later editorial activity, not com­munal co-pro­duc­tion in Mecca.
Fred Donner sees the early com­munity as mono­theistic but not yet distinctly Islamic.
Sean Anthony stresses the pro­phetic autho­rity structure of early Islam.

Der Text des Koran liegt mitt­ler­weile in zahl­reichen Druck­ausgaben vor, unter denen der für seine Vokali­sierung nach der Tradition des Ḥafṣ (gest. 180/796) von ʿAṣim (gest. 128/ 745), Hafs ʿan ʿAsim, zurück­ge­führ­te Text dank des einfluß­reichen ersten inner­islamischen Koran­druckes der Azhar-Hoch­schule (Kairo 1925) besondere Ver­brei­tung erfahren hat (S.30)
the Ḥafs ʿan ʿĀṣim text, has become par­ti­cular­ly wide­spread due to the impact of the first inner-Islamic Qur’an printing prompted by the Azhar school (Cairo 1925)(p.8)

She writes twice that the 1924 edition was the first by Muslims, and the first in the Middle East – some­thing sooooooo absurd for the readers of this blog, that I abstain from dis­pro­ving her.

Ḥafṣ became dominate after non-Arabic empires (Ottoman, Safa­vid, Timu­rid) pre­fered it be­cause it is closest to common Arabic.



–­

UTs with colour

The Quranic Universal Library speaks of four variants of Madina-UT:
KFGQPC V1 layout (1405h print) – written in Damas­cus without the mistakes
KFGQPC V2 layout (1421h print) – written in Madina after UT had writ­ten his first Warš
leaving out V3(UT3 1438h) = no end-of-aya at the start of a line, no sura-title-box at the bottom of a page, and:
KFGQPC V4 layout (1441h print) – with the proper sequential fatḥatan.

These images are from QUL. Whether the marks are made by them or by the KFGQPC I do not know.
Anyhow they are close to Dār al-Maʿrifah (grey = mute, red = very long, orange = long, green = nasal, blue = clear ....) and sign that are in a grey box must be ignor­ed when no pause is made (again: as in later DaM)

the same pages as printed in Madina:

There are two more maṣāḥif on the net. They follow more or less muṣḥaf Wāṯiq allaḥ Brunai 2006, but with­out the green dots above, after, and below alif, but without an extra colour for hamza with­out kursī.

Asma Hilali again

A.H. writes in the intro­duction of the journal that the KFE was both edited and calli­graphed by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī,
who had nothing to do with it. It was edited by al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād. It was set with about half of the sorts designed by Muḥammad Ǧaʿfar Bey (m. 1916) ‒ stacked ligatures, and mīm without white in the middle were used in the afterwords, but not in the qurʾānic text because Ḥifnī Bey Nāṣif wanted it to be clear = easily readable (and with space between words, and between lines).
And she give a sources:

La décision du roi Fuʾād de confier au cheikh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī (m. 1936) la tâche d’éditer le Coran a-t-elle représenté une initiative marginale aux yeux des historiens de l’islam moderne² ?   ²ʿAzab, Ḫālid & Ḥasan, Muḥammad, Diwān al-Ḫaṭṭ al-ʿarabī fī Miṣr. Dirāsa waṯāʾiqiyya li-l-kitābāt wa-ahamm al-ḫaṭṭāṭīn fī ʿaṣr Usrat Muḥammad ʿAlī, al-Iskandariyya, Maktabat al-Iskandariyya, 2010, p. 383.
... Muḥammad ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī (m. 1936), ce dernier étant le calligraphe du Coran du Roi Fuʾād.

On p. 383 there is nothing of what Asma claims. Just that ar-Rifāʿī wrote a muṣḥaf for the king – nothing about the Amīrīya edition of 1924!

Both her claims are typical Asma Hilali = her imagintion without factual base.
And for a typeset muṣḥaf, for a muṣḥaf famous for being typeset, that it was calligrahped is even more Asma-like than ordinary.



–­

Nairīzī

Mirza Aḥmad an-Nairīzī (ca. 1650–1747) is the last of the classical Iranian calligrahers. Informations are hard to find, because often under Neyrizi or Nayrizi.

(the last image shows on the right:   part of a page (start of Surat an-Nisāʾ) from the splendid reprint offered to important guests of the Islamic Republic.

unlike the reprints above the images below are from Merkaz Ṭab-o-Našr in their reformed spelling:

on the right: the letters in light brown are not pronounced "as such":
either not at all or not as ī, but ā, not as ū, but u ...
(note that the "typesetter" on the right made a typical Persian mistake:
he typed "space" after /wa-/und – may he'll find forgive­ness)

–­

UT0.5 + UT2.5

There are two maṣāḥif written by ʿUṯman Ṭaha not produced by the King Fahd Complex (KFC), nor being a predecessor of theirs (the Dār aš-Šāmiyya muṣḥaf), nor pirated versions of a Medina Mushaf:
Muṣḥaf ar-Risāla, Bairut 1986

and the Global Foundation Mushaf from Saudia by الوقف العالمي للقـرآن الكريـم

note that the basmala which is not part of the sura is in blue, while it is in black in the fatiḥa, a tiny improvement, and verses ending at the end of a line
btw with the end of verse sign at the end of the line as in UT4

(above 16 end-mīm, not a single one with short tail)

on this one line (above) you do not see, what I want to show, that UT0,5 is closer to MNQ (top line) than all the other UTs, that are more in line with KFE (second line).
The image below shows clear cases of this on the left margin (and the whole page): While UT "normally" avoids stacked liga­ture, in this ex­cep­tion­ale muṣ­ḥaf ʿUṯmān Ṭaha is closer to tradi­tional calli­graphy, a bit away from news­paper style (i.e. base­line orientated):

UT puts into maṣāḥif he writes for "others" some­thing special to make them iden­tifi­able, like using on one page only end-mīm with a short tail to the left (instead of alter­ing between short tails and long verti­cal tails). In muṣ­ḥaf ar-risāla the mark is the curved fatḥa – not always, but most of the time:
Muhammad Hozien pointed this out. He provided the images as well – thanks.

–­

Merkaz Ṭab-o Našr

from a German blog coPilot made this English one

Iranian Qur'an Orthography: Editorial Principles and Variants

The Iranian مرکز طبع و نشر قرآن کریم has introduced a new rasm standard aimed at im­prov­ing read­abi­lity and con­sistency like reduc­ing missing, re­dund­ant or un­expected let­ters and standardiz­ing soellings that vary within the qurʾān. Most of the time they adopt spell­ings used in re­cog­nized editions (even of Warš or Qā­lūn) or one that is mentioned by a know authori­ty (ad-Dānī, Ibn Na­ǧāḥ, al-Ḫarrāz, and al-Ār­kātī) but 17 words (on 36 ülaces) are im­proved with­out a good autho­rity, just for a good reason.

1. Editorial Philosophy

• Focus on clarity and uniformity
• Preference for recognized editions (e.g., Warsh, Qalun) or rasm authori­ties (e.g., Ibn Najah, ad-Dani)
• Willingness to simplify even without precedent

2. 17 Words Changed at 36 Loca­tions

These changes are made for ease of reading and are not based on tra­di­tional models:

Verse	Iranian Form	Traditional Form	Rationale
اِنّ ما	إِنَّمَا	8:41, 16:95	easier to understand
فيما	فِى مَا	2:240	the opposite: because it is written like this elsewhere
فيما	فِى مَا	5:48	the opposite: because it is written like this elsewhere
مِمّا	مِن مَّا	30:28, 63:10	because like this elsewhere
اَبناۤءُ	أَبۡنَٰۤؤُ۠ا۠	5:18	Avoid silent alif-hamza
اَنباۤءُ	أَنْبَاؤُا	26:6	Same as above
يُنَبَّاُ	يُنَبَّؤُا *	75:13	Simplified passive

* in 57:13, AryaMehr Nairīzī forgot an alif, whether alif wiqāya or the alif of the de­finite artic­le is not clear

تَراني	تَرَىٰنِى	7:143	Avoid yāʾ for alif
اَرانيۤ	اَرَىٰنِىۤ	12:36	dagger alif avoidance
اؚجتَباهُ	ٱجۡتَبَىٰهُ	16:121, 22:78	Hamza-alif simplification
ءاتانِي	ءَاَتَىٰنِى	19:30
خَطايٰكم	خَطَٰيَٰكُمۡ	2:58, 20:73	dagger alif avoidance
لَساحِرٌ	لَسَٰحِرٌ	7:109, 26:34	Simplified form
قُرءانًا	قُرۡءَٰنًا	12:2	Hamza-alif simplification
نادانا	نَادَىٰنَا	37:75	Simplified verb form
اِحسانًا	إِحۡسَٰنًا	46:15	dagger/replacement alif avoidance
جِمالَتٌ	جِمَٰلَتٌۭ	77:33	Simplified plural
كِذّابًا	كِذَّٰنًۭا	78:35	Simplified exaggeration

3. Additional Plene Spellings Found

These were discovered in a 10% sample and are found in Persian/Ottoman Mushafs but not in cited authorities:

• بِخَازِنِينَ (15:22)
• بَارِزُونَ (40:16)
• كَاظِمِينَ (40:18)
• ظَاهِرِينَ (40:29)

4. Phonetic Simplification

• Hamza markers on initial alifs are omitted
• No sukūn signs
• Assimilation not marked (e.g. mir rabbihi in 2:5)
• Small vowel signs replace red pause markers

5. Tanwīn and Vowel Logic

• Mini-nūn + kasra used for tanwīn-i (e.g. 23:38)
• Vowel letters represent full vowels, not length
• Fatḥa before alif, kasra before yāʾ, ḍamma before wāw = vowel letter is silent

6. Modern Iranian Editions

• Over 100 orthographic variants across media
• Includes Solṭānī, Hirīsī, Nairizī, Arsanjānī, and Uthman Taha adaptations
• Fatḥas over “Allah” are straight

Ferner hat das مكز طبع و نشر einen neuen rasm fest­gelegt. Es geht Ṭab-o Našr um Les­barkeit und Einheit­lich­keit, also weniger feh­len­de, über­flüssige oder un­ge­wöhn­liche Buch­sta­ben, sowie weniger Aus­drü­cke, die mal so, mal an­de­res ge­schrieben wer­den. Am liebsten stützen sie sich da­bei auf an­er­kann­te Aus­gaben (auch von Warš und Qā­lūn) oder eine rasm-Auto­ri­tät. Not­falls ver­ein­fachen sie aber auch ohne gute Stütze. Sie geben an, dass sie 17 Worte an 36 Stellen „ein­fach“ schreiben ohne Vor­bild.
Die 17 Wörter sind recht unter­schied­lich:
leichtere Ver­ständ­lich­keit (6:41,16:95) اِنّ ما statt إِنَّمَا ,
das Gegenteil (2:240,5:48): فيما statt فِى مَا – wegen Parallel­stellen;
aus dem gleichen Grund (30:28, 63:10): مِمّا statt مِن مَّا ;
Vermeidung eines stummen Alifs اَبناۤءُ statt أَبۡنَٰۤؤُ۠ا۠ (5:18),
اَنباۤءُ statt أَنۢبَٰٓؤُا۟ (26:6),
يُنَبَّاُ statt يُنَبَّؤُا (75:13),
Ver­meidung eines yāʾ für Alif تَراني statt تَرَىٰنِى (7:143),
اَرانيۤ statt اَرَىٰنِىۤ (12:36),
اؚجتَباهُ statt ٱجۡتَبَىٰهُ (16:121, 22:78);
statt ءَاَتَىٰنِى (19:30) ءاتانِي – entspricht Solṭānī/Hirīsī/17Zeilen,476Seiten,1366/1947, Nairizī und Arsan­ǧā­nī, nicht aber Faḍāʾilī;
اَرانيۤ statt اَرَىٰنِىۤ (12:36);
Ver­meidung nor­ma­ler Er­satz­alifs خَطايٰكم statt خَطَٰيَٰكُمۡ (2:58, 20:73),
لَساحِرٌ statt لَسَٰحِرٌ (7:109, 26:34),
قُرءانًا statt قُرۡءَٰنًا (12:2),
نادانا statt نَادَىٰنَا (37:75),
اِحسانًا statt إِحۡسَٰنًا (46:15),
جِمالَتٌ statt جِمَٰلَتٌۭ (77:33).
كِذّابًا statt كِذَّٰنًۭا (78:35).
Von den 17 Wör­tern folgen acht nOsm.
Bei einer Stich­probe von 10% des Koran­textes habe ich vier weitere Plene-Schrei­bun­gen 15:22 biḫāzinīna, 40:16 bāri­zūna, 40:18 kāẓimīna, 40:29 ẓāhirīna ent­deckt, die zwar in al­ten per­sischen oder os­ma­ni­schen maṣāhif vor­kom­men, aber nicht in den vom Zen­trum ge­nann­ten Aus­gaben oder Auto­ri­tä­ten (al-Ārkātī, ad-Dānī, Ibn Naǧāḥ). Mit anderen Worten: Man schreibt wie man will. Ich vermute, dass „Fehler“, Archa­is­men bei Ara­ber den „hei­li­gen Cha­rak­ter“ der Schrift ver­stärken. Da Ara­bisch für Perser aber ohnehin „die hei­lige Spra­che“ ist, brauchen sie die Fehler nicht, um das als un­pro­fan = außer­all­täglich zu em­pfin­den.
In den ersten zwanzig Versen von al-Baqara schreiben sie gegen Q24 al-kitābu (2:2), razaqnā­hum (3), tujā­diʿūn (9), aḍ-ḍalālaha (16), ẓulu­mā­tin (17), ẓulumātun, ʾaṣābiʿa­hum (19) und bil-kāfirīna (20) wie Q52, ʾabṣārihim, ġišā­watub (7), ṭuġyāni­him (15), tiǧāra­tu­hum (16), aṣ-ṣwāʿiqi (19), ʾabṣāra­hum und wa-abṣāri­him (20) wie iPak und Lib in Solṭānī und Osm außer­dem šayā­ṭīni­him (2:14) mit alif.
Zweitens lassen sie meist alles weg, was bei der Schreibung des Persi­schen weg­gelassen wird, also Hamza­zeichen auf oder unter Anfangs­alif (fatḥa, ḍamma, kasra schließen Hamza ein), Ḥasan ibn ʿAbdal­karīm Hirīsī al-Arwāna­qī bei der Schrei­bung von /ʾā/ jedoch folgt nIran Q24: isolier­tes hamza+alif nicht alif+Lang-fatḥa – fatḥa vor alif, kasra vor yāʾ, ḍamma vor wau (Lang­vo­kal­buch­staben bezeichnen nicht wie im Ara­bi­schen die Längung des Vokals, sondern den Lang­vokal selbst); steht doch ein Kurz­vokal­zeichen vor dem Vokal­buch­staben, gilt dieses: der Vokal­buch­stabe ist stumm; ferner fehlen sukūn-Zeichen (steht kein Vokal­zeichen, ist der Kon­sonant vo­kal­los), sowie Hin­weise auf As­simi­lation, die über das im Standard­arabi­schen hinaus­gehen,
Türken, Perser sind die ein­zigen, die Assi­milation – im Wort und über Wort­grenzen – nicht notieren. (etwa von vo­kal­losem nūn an rāʾ: mir rabbihi in 2:5 Andererseits steht in 75:27 das Nicht-Assimi­lieren!-Zeichen: راقٍ مَنۜ ). oder im Wort 77:20 /naḫ­luqkum/ statt /naḫ­lukkum/), auch die unter­schied­lichen tanwīn-For­men – nIran folgt darin Solṭānī und Osm gegen IPak, Mag und Q24.
Es wird ein kleines-nūn + kasra ge­setzt, wenn das nūn des voraus­gehenden tanwīn mit i gelesen wird (z.B. 23:38). Aus den einst roten Vokal­zeichen auf alif waṣl, das nach obliga­ter Pause mit Hamza und Anlaut zu sprechen ist, wird in diesen Aus­gaben Klein-fatḥa (z.B. 2:15), Klein-ḍamma (38:42) oder Klein-kasra (58:16,19). Wie auch in den in­do­ne­si­schen Adap­ta­tionen von UT1 sind in den moder­nen ira­ni­schen Aus­gaben – sowohl jene im Duktus ʿUṯmān Ṭāhās wie die im Stile Naizī­rīs – die Fatḥas über allāh gerade. Daneben findet man zig Aus­gaben von ʿUṯ­mān Ta­ha zu unter­schied­lichen Graden nach Soltani oder nach nIran um­ge­arbeitet. Zählt man die Schrei­bungen im Fern­sehn, auf dem Smart­phone und dem Web (etwa makarem.ir/quran) mit, kommt man auf über hundert ver­schie­dene Ortho­gra­phien.