Ḥafṣified Warš copy

How can I be sure that Muḥam­mad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥusai­nī al-Mālikī aṣ-Ṣaʿīdī al‑Ǧir­ǧāwī al-Ḥad­dād did not recon­struct the writing of his muṣḥaf, the 1924 KFE, by applying the at-Tabyīn of Abū Dāwūd Sulaimān Ibn Naǧāḥ, the Muqnī of Abū ʿAmr ad-Dānī and the Maurid aẓ-ẓamʾān of Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-ʾUmawī aš-Šarīšī al-Ḫarrāz (and its extentions by ʿAbd al-Wāḥid b. ʿĀšir al-Anṣārī al-Anda­lusī), but simply adapted a Warš copy from Fāz to Ḥafṣ?

although he did not say so?
Because his rasm is not ad-Dānī's, nor al-Ḫarrāz's, nor Ibn Naǧāḥ's ‒ as admitted by the King Fahd Complex ‒ but to more than 99% that of s standard Moroccan muṣḥaf.
But there is an even stronger argument:
In the taʿrīf he gives his sources for the reading, for the ḍabṭ, for the counting of verses, the for the the ǧuzʾ and ḥizb divison, for the pause system (his own streamlined Abū l‑Faḍl Muḥammad b. Ṭaifūr as‑Saǧā­wandī al‑Ġaz­nawī system) he gives the sources. Some aspects like as­simila­tion (a one‑to‑one copy from Morocco) and the signes for mute letter (a refined Moroc­can system) he describes in detail. But there are many aspects he does not explain, neither his source, not the function. All of these things he copied from a Warš muṣ­ḥaf:

    ‒ the Maghrebī small substitute vowels for elongation
        (needed because long vowel signs
        do not exist in the West)

          top: India: a long vowel sign



          2^nd Fāz print with ḍamma above + small waw below



          3^d Muḫallalātī !!



          KFE 1342/1924



         

    ‒ the Maghrebian base­line hamzae before Alif at the begin­ning of the word (ءادم instead of اٰدم).
My four examples show two important things. First, for /ʾā/ Abū ʿĪd Riḍwān al‑Muḫallalātī already placed the hamza before the alif in 1308/1890, thirty‑five years before the KFE. He was a muṣḥaf scholar, whereas al‑Ḥaddād was an expert reciter: he had studied the Muqniʿ and generally followed ad‑Dānī, while al‑Ḥaddād simply adapted a Moroccan muṣḥaf to Ḥafṣ. Moroccan printed muṣḥafs were available by 1905, but since the first Fassi print dates to 1879, it is unlikely that al‑Muḫallalātī ever saw a copy.

The second point concerns the Maghribī analysis of the sign: the two vertical strokes are not lām‑alif but alif‑lām. In this system, a mark placed before the first stroke corresponds to a hamza sign before the second shaft in the common writing styles (= before alif) — exactly as in the Cairo 1308/1890 print.

    ‒ the Maghrebī distinc­tion into three kinds of tan­wīn (above each other, one after the other, with mīm)
    ‒ the Maghrebī spelling at the end of the sura, which assumes that the next sura is spoken imme­diate­ly after­wards (and with­out basmala): tanwin is modified ac­cording­ly.
    ‒ the Maghrebī absence of nūn quṭni.
    ‒ the Maghrebī non-spelling of the vowel shortening.
    ‒ the Maghrebī (wrong) spelling of ʾallāh.

Uighurs are the only ones, who spell /ʾallāh/ properly ‒ above from web qurn web sote and a children's book.
India, Persia, Indonesia, South Africa, the Ottomans (and all reasonable people) write a dagger:

That al-Ḥaddad copied the strange Moroccan way

and that he switched from وَمَلَا۠ئِهٖ to وَمَلَإِي۠هِۦ , and from افَا۠ئِنْ to اَفإي۠ن , should be proof enough, that he uncrtically copied Morocco.
I do not claim that al‑Ḥaddād is wrong; I merely note that he offers no argument for his choice.
Now alif hosts the hamza while the yāʾ is silent, whereas previously the alif was silent and the yāʾ served as the seat for both the hamza and the /i/ vowel.








Incidentally, MNQ once forgets to write the otiose letter:

    ‒ the Maghrebī (and Indian) attraction of the hamza sign by kasra

in G24 hamza with kasra is below the baseline ‒ in the Ottoman Empire (include Egypt) and Iran the hamza stays above the line

‒ noted assimi­lation like in the Magh­reb (an in India, Indo­nesia):

In both examples the first three lines are Ottoman
    (Rušdī, Ḥasan Riḍā in ʿIrāqī state editions, Muṣ­ṭafā Naẓīf Qairġalī Cairo 1911),
in the middle Giza 1924
bellow Maġribī Warš editions ‒ note that in the older edition the second stem (vertical stroke) of لا is lam+šadda, while in the modern Algerian one, it is the first stroke

A new feature was the differentiation of the Maghrebic sukūn into three signs:
    ‒ the ǧazm in the form of an ǧīms without a tail and with­out a dot for vowel-lessness,
    ‒ the circle for never to be pronounced,
    ‒ the (oval) zero for "only pronounced if paused".
(while before ‒ as in IPak‒ the absence of any sign signifies "not to be pro­nounced").
Further, word spacing,
baseline orientation and
exact placement of dots and dashes.
    ‒ die maghrebischen kleinen Ersatz­vokale zur Längung

    ‒ die maghrebischen Schreibung von führendem Alif/hamza+Vokal am Wortanfang mit einem Hamza-Zeichen auf oder unter dem Alif, während Asien auf das Alif nur ein Vokalzeichen setzt;
    ‒ die maghrebischen Schreibung von Alif-waṣl mit einem waṣl-Zeichen während in diesem fall in Asien nichts stehr, wodurch das Alif/hamza stumm ist

    (im Gizeh-Koran haben ḥurūf al-madd kein sukūn wie in Asien, außer sie sind Teil eines Diphtongs, nicht bloß längend)     ‒ die maghrebischen Unter­teilung der Dreißig­stel (jedoch ohne Achtel-ḥizb)
    ‒ die maghrebischen Grund­linien­hamzae vor Alif am Wort­anfang (ءادم statt اٰدم).
    ‒ die maghrebischen Falsch­schreibung von /allāh/ als /allah/
    ‒ die maghrebische Schrei­bung am Suren­ende, die davon aus­geht, dass unmit­tel­bar danach die nächste Sure ge­spro­chen wird (und zwar ohne Bas­mala): tan­win wird dann tanmīm
    ‒ die maghrebinischen Unter­schei­dung in drei Sorten tan­win (über­ein­ander, nach­einander, mit mīm)
    ‒ die maghrebischen Abwesenheit von nūn quṭni.
    ‒ die maghrebischen Nicht-Schreibung der Vokal­kürzung
    ‒ das maghrebinisch (und indische) Her­unter­ziehen des hamaza-Zei­chens durch kasra

nach G24 zieht kasra das Hamza runter, während es im Osmanischen und Per­sischen oben bleibt.












    ‒ das maghrebische Fehler von ع im Text und ع am Rand mit Zahlen darin für ruqūʿāt
    ‒ die maghrebische Schreibung der Assimi­lation
      während in Osm die Assimilation nicht notiert wird
(in den drei osmanischen Beispielen (Muḥ. ʾAmīn ar-Rušdī, Ḥasan Riḍā, Muṣṭafa Naẓīf Qadirġalī) bekommt der assimilierte Buch­staben ein Sukūn, in G24 wie in den Warš-Ausgaben darunter (Fez, Algiers) bekommt der assimierende Buchstabe ein šadda, der assimiiierte nichts.
Neu war die Differenzierung des maghre­bischen Sukūn in drei Zeichen:
‒ das ǧazm in Form eines ǧīms ohne Schwanz und ohne Punkt für Vokal­losig­keit,
‒ den Kreis für „immer zu über­lesend“,
‒ die Null für „hier zu über­lesend“.
‒ plus der Abwesenheit jedes Zeichen für Nicht-zu-Sprechend, da assimi­liert.

In 7:103 und 3:144+21:34 11:97+ 10:75+23:46+28:32+ 43:46 sind trotz Schreib­unterschiede Laute und rasm gleich:
wa-malaʾihī
IPak: وَمَلَا۠ئِهٖ
Q52: وَمَلَإِي۠هِۦ
Im rasm steht je eine mater für /a/ und /i/ ‒ ja wirklich für KURZE VOKALE,
weil die allerersten Schreiber keine andere Mög­lich­keit hatten, das zu notieren.
in Indien ist das alif stumm (längt das fatḥa nicht), das yāʾ trägt das Hamza,
in Arabien trägt das alif das Hamza, das yāʾ ist stumm.

In 3:144 + 21:34 ʾa-faʾin
IPak: افَا۠ئِنْ
Q52: اَفإي۠ن
Inder und Türken machen das alif stumm
(früher setzten die Inder NICHTS auf das alif, heute den Stumm-Kreis,
die Türken das Wort qaṣr darunter)
die Araber sehen das alif als Hamza-Träger, das yāʾ als stumm.
Muṣṭafā Naẓīf lässt das stumme yāʾ in seinem (in Deutsch­land und Indo­nesia nach­ge­drucktem) 604er berkenar muṣḥaf in 21:34 weg: اَفَإنْ
Sonst hat er ‒ wie üblich ‒ alif und yā, aber in dem 604er fehlt das yāʾ und die meisten Heraus­geber der Re­prints stört(e) das nicht.

In 21:34 ʾa-faʾin
IPak: افَا۠ئِنْ
Q52: اَفإي۠ن
India and osm/Tur make the alif silent
(Indians used to leave the alif without any sign, now they put the silent making circle,
Turks write qaṣr underneath)
for Arabs alif carries hamza, yāʾ is silent.
Muṣṭafā Naẓīf in one of his manu­scripts (the 604 pages berkenar one) just drops the otiose letter. اَفَإنْ
It does not help to observe that in his other maṣāḥif he has the super­fluous letter. The 604 page muṣḥaf is often re­printed (not as often as the 522 page one, but in different countries) without "correc­tion".
Similar 6:24 min-nabaʾi

Hier zwei Seiten mit der gleichen Stelle aus Sura Ḥūḍ, damit Sie sehen, dass das keine Idiosynkrasie des Schreibers war, sondern ein durchdachtes System ‒ Achtung: das umgedrehte ḍamma steht meist über dem waw, gehört aber zum Konsonaten davor, das waw ist stumm.

–­

Warš

The best post so far is here, just about Morcco here.

–­

2026 Kazan muṣḥaf

A new Kazan muṣḥaf is in print. (May 2026)

It was written by Artur V. Pisa­renko, but there is no complete manu­script, no hand­written muṣ­ḥaf on paper.
Modern as Russian Tatars are, they approached the project digitally rather than through a traditional handwritten manu­script: Pisa­ren­ko did not write all 77 430 words of the qurʾān, but only over 14 900 different word­forms (or some more because of long nūn or kāf). What he wrote, was trans­formed into vector graphics, which he fine-tuned and assembled into the final pages (often by cutting and pasting).
The original are files, not a hand­written book.



















–­

some numbers

There are (at least) seven different King Fuʾād editions:
KFEI 1342/1924 printed in Giza + second print 1343/1924
kfeI 1343/1925 printed in Būlāq with six added seals/signatures and added أصله
kfeIb 1344/1926 Būlāq + second print/run stamped 1345/1927: two lines س saktah on (س)
kfeIc 1346/1928 ?????
kfeId 1347/1929 Būlāq this edition has TWO more changes: an added nūn on 775 ان لن for الن
whether 1347 brought this changes in one go or whether 1346 had one of them, I do not know since I have not seen a kfeIc (1346/1928); maybe it does not exist, maybe there was a third run of kfeIb in that year,     and a changed dedication page mentioning the crown prince as well

KFEII 1371/1952 printed by Dār al-Kutub in Lubūdīya St.
KFEIIa same as above with torn out alif and bāʾ (one leaf)
KFEIII 1952–1965 (or so) same as KFEII but without alif and bāʾ (skipped)
KFEII has about 950 changes to KFEI:
– about 850 changed pauses
– 114 changed sura title boxes
– 33 changed tanwīn at the end of the suras (i.e. fore the basmala)
– 4 changes in the rasm
– seven pages on these changes including the signatures of the 1952 editors
– س saktah on (س) – the only change taken from the Būlāq editions, neither
    the seals, the changed dedication, ان لن , nor أصله are adopted
later KFE edition (III, IV, V) have just different men standing for the correctness of the edition, and different dates (nor either just runs, nor fresh editions)

kfeII is an unimportant "school edition"; the Amīrīya reused the plates of 1347/1929 with 37 changes made on the plates:
37 of the 950 made in the large edition, of course without the added text on the changes,
without the leaner sura title boxes, without the new pauses.
kfaII is so bad that the Amiriyya made two efforts for a better small/cheap edition with the correct Q52 text (and pauses), before finally making a freshly set edition on 525 pages
with for possible pauses melted three into one (ۚ   ۗ   ۖ   ۛ →  ۚ ) latter KFE edition (III, IV, V) have just different men standing for the correctness of the edition, and different dates (nor either just runs, nor fresh editions)

kfaII is an unimportant "school edition"; the Amīrīya reused the plates of 1347/1929 with 37 changes made on the plates:
37 of the 950 made in the large edition, of course without the added text on the changes,
without the leaner sura title boxes, without the new pauses.
kfaII is so bad that the Amiriyya made two efforts for a better small/cheap edition with the correct Q52 text (and pauses), before finally making a freshly set edition on 525 pages
with for possible pauses melted three into one (ۚ   ۗ   ۖ   ۛ →  ۚ ) latter KFA edition (III, IV, V) have just different men standing for the correctness of the edition, and different dates (nor either just runs, nor fresh editions)

btw, the 1952 change section has the same structure of signatures as the 1924 edition:
first, the Chief Qārī of Egypt.
At the end, simply attesting to the correctness:
the chief copy‑editor of the Amīriyya Press and the Shaykh al‑Azhar.
And in between, three more men, one of them an Arabist.
The only difference is: while in 1924 there were three men from the educational sector,
in 1952 three come from the religious sphere.

This picture from Muhammad Hozien shows that KFAII has 54 gatherings with 16 pages each. Probably KFAI has the same binding.































–­