NoStandard
Thursday 7 September 2023
Bombay with a difference
In the middle of the 20th century Bombay publishers did not only print
maṣāḥif for the subcontinent, for Indonesia, but for Central Asia as well:
Wednesday 2 February 2022
early Malay world, Singapore II
In Cairo + Surabya I
refer to Ali Akbars blog on the first printed muṣḥaf in Nusantara. Among his pictures are the opening pages
In recent posts he shows Singapore prints from 1868 and 1969 with hand colored opening pages.
He shows and quotes the Kolophones Qad tammat hāḏihi [sic] al-Qur’ān al-‘azīm fī 1 min šahri Šawwāl hiǧūrat an-Nabī salla Allāhu ‘alaihi wa sallam sanat 1284 ‘alā yadi al-faqīr ad-da‘īf ilā maulāhu al-ġaniyy Haǧǧ Muḥammad bin al-marhūm Sulaimān Sumbāwī ma‘a sāhib al-Qur’ān aš-Šaiḫ Muhammad ‘Alī bin Muṣṭafā ... Ǧawa Purbalingga qaryat makan c-h-y-a-n ṭubi‘a fī Bandar Singapura qudum Masǧid Sulṭān ‘Alī bin Maulānā as-Sulṭān Ḥusain Iskandar ġafara Allāhu lahum al-ḫatā’ wa-an-nišān wa li-wālidaihim wa-li-ǧamī‘i al-muslimīn. Āmīn yā Rabb al-‘ālamīn, la‘alla ... al-Qur’ān fa-yazīdukum man qara’ahā, tammat, wallāhu a‘lam bi's-sawāb. Qad hasala al-firāġ min tahrīri hāḏā al-Qur’ān al-Maǧīd bi-fadlillāhi al-Qādir bi-yadi aqalli al-kuttāb Muḥammad Ḥanafi bin as-Sulaimān as-Sumbāwī fī awā’il aš-wahr min Ša‘bān fī yaum al-Iṯnain al-mubārak fī hilāl s-l-s sanat 1286 sitt wa-samānīn wa-mi’atain ba‘da 'l-alif min hiǧrat al-muqaddasa an-nabawiyya liš-Šaiḫ Muḥammad ‘Alī bin al-Marhūm al-Muṣṭafā min bilād Purbalinqa (f-r-b-l-n-q-a) fī qaryat as-Sirr an-Nūr wa natba‘ [?] fī maṭba‘at al-Amān fī bilād as-Sinqāpūr fī'z-zamān ad-daulat as-Sulṭān ‘Alī bin al-Marhūm as-Sultān Husain Iskandar Šāh ġafarallāhu lī wa lakum wa li-sāhibi at-tab‘i al-iḫwān al-maṯāni' min al-muslimīn wal-mu’minīn aǧma’īn. Āmīn. And here is another Ali Akbar, discovered in the State Library of Victoria As the first and last leaves are missing, we can not be sure, when it was printed. A.A. thinks it was Muḥammad Saliḥ bin Surdin ar-Rambanī (from Central Java), in 1970-71.
In recent posts he shows Singapore prints from 1868 and 1969 with hand colored opening pages.
He shows and quotes the Kolophones Qad tammat hāḏihi [sic] al-Qur’ān al-‘azīm fī 1 min šahri Šawwāl hiǧūrat an-Nabī salla Allāhu ‘alaihi wa sallam sanat 1284 ‘alā yadi al-faqīr ad-da‘īf ilā maulāhu al-ġaniyy Haǧǧ Muḥammad bin al-marhūm Sulaimān Sumbāwī ma‘a sāhib al-Qur’ān aš-Šaiḫ Muhammad ‘Alī bin Muṣṭafā ... Ǧawa Purbalingga qaryat makan c-h-y-a-n ṭubi‘a fī Bandar Singapura qudum Masǧid Sulṭān ‘Alī bin Maulānā as-Sulṭān Ḥusain Iskandar ġafara Allāhu lahum al-ḫatā’ wa-an-nišān wa li-wālidaihim wa-li-ǧamī‘i al-muslimīn. Āmīn yā Rabb al-‘ālamīn, la‘alla ... al-Qur’ān fa-yazīdukum man qara’ahā, tammat, wallāhu a‘lam bi's-sawāb. Qad hasala al-firāġ min tahrīri hāḏā al-Qur’ān al-Maǧīd bi-fadlillāhi al-Qādir bi-yadi aqalli al-kuttāb Muḥammad Ḥanafi bin as-Sulaimān as-Sumbāwī fī awā’il aš-wahr min Ša‘bān fī yaum al-Iṯnain al-mubārak fī hilāl s-l-s sanat 1286 sitt wa-samānīn wa-mi’atain ba‘da 'l-alif min hiǧrat al-muqaddasa an-nabawiyya liš-Šaiḫ Muḥammad ‘Alī bin al-Marhūm al-Muṣṭafā min bilād Purbalinqa (f-r-b-l-n-q-a) fī qaryat as-Sirr an-Nūr wa natba‘ [?] fī maṭba‘at al-Amān fī bilād as-Sinqāpūr fī'z-zamān ad-daulat as-Sulṭān ‘Alī bin al-Marhūm as-Sultān Husain Iskandar Šāh ġafarallāhu lī wa lakum wa li-sāhibi at-tab‘i al-iḫwān al-maṯāni' min al-muslimīn wal-mu’minīn aǧma’īn. Āmīn. And here is another Ali Akbar, discovered in the State Library of Victoria As the first and last leaves are missing, we can not be sure, when it was printed. A.A. thinks it was Muḥammad Saliḥ bin Surdin ar-Rambanī (from Central Java), in 1970-71.
Wednesday 22 December 2021
LXXI ‒ Marijn van Putten
On the basis of some of the oldest manuscripts Marijn van Putten publishes
a muṣḥaf that comes as close as possible to the ʿUṯmānic rasm ‒
not to be confused with the «ʿUṯmānic rasm», that is 300 years younger: deviced by
ad-Dānī.
I compare it with the common Maġribian/Andalusian/Egyptian rasm (in an edition from Brunai) and the Indian one (in the South-African WII edition):
Now, that you have seen what "good" editions have made out of the old text, here the same from two "bad" editions: Ottoman from 300 years ago (next to the old text), and Turkish from this century: I prefer the "Indian" editions, but even Turkish (and Persian) editions are fine.
I compare it with the common Maġribian/Andalusian/Egyptian rasm (in an edition from Brunai) and the Indian one (in the South-African WII edition):
Now, that you have seen what "good" editions have made out of the old text, here the same from two "bad" editions: Ottoman from 300 years ago (next to the old text), and Turkish from this century: I prefer the "Indian" editions, but even Turkish (and Persian) editions are fine.
Sunday 28 November 2021
a map of Zamalek, Gizeh, Bulaq
My first post on the 1924/5 King Fuʾād Edition included a map of Cairo 1920, on which I had marked the Amīriyya Press and the Land Registry (Egyptian Survey Authority) with arrows in the Nil, as well as Midan Tahrir and the place where the government printing press is located since 1972. Also the Ministry of Education and the Nāṣirīya Pedagogical College, where three of the editors worked. The area between Bab al-Luq (in the south-east) and Taufiqia (north of the main railway station) is called Ismailia: the area between the Nile and al-Qāhira (proper) was built up (copying Baron Hausmann's Paris) under Ismail Pascha (1863‒1879 Wali/Governor; in 1867 the Sublime Port recognized the title of "Khedive" for him and his successors); today simply: Downtown.
Everything to the right of the Nile plus the islands is Cairo, everything to the left (Imbaba, Doqqi, Giza) not only does not belong to the city of Cairo, but is in another province.
The two Arabic texts are the 1924 and 1952 printer's notes, both from the copies in the Prussian State Library, which owns five editions.
Important: the typesetting workshop and the offset workshop were well connected by car, tram and boat. The assembled pages did not have a long way to go. Nevertheless: typesetting the text in Būlāq, making a rough proof (Bürstenabzug), making adjustments on the proof (like placing kasra withIN the tails of end-ḥāʾ/ǧīm/ḫāʾ and end-ʿain/ġain, sometimes reducing the space before kāf and after rāʾ/zain and waw); transporting the adjusted proofs to Giza, making plates, printing; transporting the bodies of the book to Būlāq where it was bound and embossed, took more time than planned: Although printed "1342" in the book (see top insert on the map) it was 1343 by the time the books were ready. So the first edition was embossed:
Everything to the right of the Nile plus the islands is Cairo, everything to the left (Imbaba, Doqqi, Giza) not only does not belong to the city of Cairo, but is in another province.
The two Arabic texts are the 1924 and 1952 printer's notes, both from the copies in the Prussian State Library, which owns five editions.
Important: the typesetting workshop and the offset workshop were well connected by car, tram and boat. The assembled pages did not have a long way to go. Nevertheless: typesetting the text in Būlāq, making a rough proof (Bürstenabzug), making adjustments on the proof (like placing kasra withIN the tails of end-ḥāʾ/ǧīm/ḫāʾ and end-ʿain/ġain, sometimes reducing the space before kāf and after rāʾ/zain and waw); transporting the adjusted proofs to Giza, making plates, printing; transporting the bodies of the book to Būlāq where it was bound and embossed, took more time than planned: Although printed "1342" in the book (see top insert on the map) it was 1343 by the time the books were ready. So the first edition was embossed:
Wednesday 24 November 2021
riʾāʾa ‒ sometimes like this; sometimes like that
Already Otto Pretzl had noticed that in Gizeh1924 riʾāʾa was not written the same at the three places it occurs ‒ without the authorities prescribing that.
Iranians and UT2-KFC have the first hamza always after the tooth.
Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf (Cairo 1978‒1986?) has it always on the tooth:
The others have it sometimes on, sometimes after the tooth.
In 2:264 it is normally on the tooth, except UT2-KFC and Iran.
In 4:38 it is normally after the tooth, except Taj-KFC ‒ probably changed in the next edition (?).
In 8:47 all have it after the tooth except Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf.
Iranians and UT2-KFC have the first hamza always after the tooth.
Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf (Cairo 1978‒1986?) has it always on the tooth:
The others have it sometimes on, sometimes after the tooth.
In 2:264 it is normally on the tooth, except UT2-KFC and Iran.
In 4:38 it is normally after the tooth, except Taj-KFC ‒ probably changed in the next edition (?).
In 8:47 all have it after the tooth except Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf.
Saturday 20 November 2021
aš-šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ
Just as the KFE of 1924 was prepared by the šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ, the New KFE of 1952 was
prepared by the chief reader of Egypt. But because it was a generation later, it is not
al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī (d. 22.1. 1939) anymore, but ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ(1304/1886-1380/1960).
Unlike before 1924, when al-Ḥaddād was the only ʿālim who signed the explanations after the qurʾānic text (which means that there wasn't really a committee: the other three stood just for the involvement of the Ministry of Education; they didn't know enough of the Qurʾān to help al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī), aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ was assisted by ʿulamā'; it was not an Azhār-committee, but one of Azharites, created by the Government Press adviced by the šaiḫ al-Azhar.
They ordered only three changes in the rasm, one graphical nicety,
114 changes in the sura title boxes, forty or so changes at the end of suras with unvoyelled consonants (mostly tanwin) and the beginning of the next (with is now the basmala ‒ unlike 1924 when the first word of the next sura was assumed to follow directly the last one of the preceding sura),
and about 800 changed pauses.
1952 (left) like 1924 (right):
Unlike before 1924, when al-Ḥaddād was the only ʿālim who signed the explanations after the qurʾānic text (which means that there wasn't really a committee: the other three stood just for the involvement of the Ministry of Education; they didn't know enough of the Qurʾān to help al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī), aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ was assisted by ʿulamā'; it was not an Azhār-committee, but one of Azharites, created by the Government Press adviced by the šaiḫ al-Azhar.
They ordered only three changes in the rasm, one graphical nicety,
114 changes in the sura title boxes, forty or so changes at the end of suras with unvoyelled consonants (mostly tanwin) and the beginning of the next (with is now the basmala ‒ unlike 1924 when the first word of the next sura was assumed to follow directly the last one of the preceding sura),
and about 800 changed pauses.
1952 (left) like 1924 (right):
Friday 19 November 2021
... and it was never reprinted. And hardly any Egyptian bought it.
It sold so badly that five year later Gotthelf Bergsträßer still could buy copies of the first
print both for himself and for the Bavarian National Library.
Strange that the experts write again and again of THE King Fuʾād Edition,
although there are many, different ones ‒ different not only in size and binding, but in content.
The first one ‒ lets called it KFE Ia was printed in Giza because only the Egyptian Survey could make offset prints ‒ they had experience in the technique because they produced colour maps.
The second one ‒ KFE Ib ‒ was produced in Būlāq, since the Government Press had aquired offset presses.
There are changes on two pages ‒ both times: right the Giza print, left the first Būlāq print:
At least as important as seals/stamps instead of signatures is an added word. Because there were no gaps between sorts as was typical in Būlāq prints, readers had assumed handwritten pages. The word "model" made clear that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī had "only" written a copy for the type setters.
In the third edition ‒ KFE Ic ‒ one more page was changed: the first page afer the qurʾānic text: In the fourth edition ‒ KFE Id ‒ one more page was changed, the only change IN the qurʾānic text before 1952 (in the first line a (silent) nūn was added): Let's resume:
all KFEs were Amīriyya editions,
the first one was printed 1924 in Giza
from 1925 to 1972 they were printed in Būlāq
from 1972 to 1975 print was in Imbaba.
All KFEs have 827 pages of qurʾānic text with 12 lines
+ 24 (or 22) paginated backmatter pages + four unpaginated pages
(until 1952 24 pages, after the revolution without the leaf mentioning King Fuʾād)
None of the KFEs has a title page, nor a title on the cover, nor on the spine,
they are all hardcover and octavo size (not excately the same)
All KFE-like editions by commercial Egyptian presses and forgein editions (except one) do have title pages, most of them have one continuous pagination.
There was one minuature reprint of KFEI and at least two private editions + the 1955 Peking reprint; of KFEII there were many re-editions, many rearranged with 14 or 15 longer lines ‒ in many sizes, on thinner paper and with different covers ‒ from Bairut to Taschkent.
In Egypt all the time editions with 522, 525 (later 604) pages of qurʾānic text were more popular.
The changes of the second, third and fourth edition did not survive the big change of 1952, which had about 900 changes, but reverted in all things just mentioned ("dedication", seals, aṣl, extra nūn in allan) to the first print.
Most private and foreign reprints (and later ʿUṯnān Ṭaha) keep the silent nūn.
Strange that the experts write again and again of THE King Fuʾād Edition,
although there are many, different ones ‒ different not only in size and binding, but in content.
The first one ‒ lets called it KFE Ia was printed in Giza because only the Egyptian Survey could make offset prints ‒ they had experience in the technique because they produced colour maps.
The second one ‒ KFE Ib ‒ was produced in Būlāq, since the Government Press had aquired offset presses.
There are changes on two pages ‒ both times: right the Giza print, left the first Būlāq print:
At least as important as seals/stamps instead of signatures is an added word. Because there were no gaps between sorts as was typical in Būlāq prints, readers had assumed handwritten pages. The word "model" made clear that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī had "only" written a copy for the type setters.
In the third edition ‒ KFE Ic ‒ one more page was changed: the first page afer the qurʾānic text: In the fourth edition ‒ KFE Id ‒ one more page was changed, the only change IN the qurʾānic text before 1952 (in the first line a (silent) nūn was added): Let's resume:
all KFEs were Amīriyya editions,
the first one was printed 1924 in Giza
from 1925 to 1972 they were printed in Būlāq
from 1972 to 1975 print was in Imbaba.
All KFEs have 827 pages of qurʾānic text with 12 lines
+ 24 (or 22) paginated backmatter pages + four unpaginated pages
(until 1952 24 pages, after the revolution without the leaf mentioning King Fuʾād)
None of the KFEs has a title page, nor a title on the cover, nor on the spine,
they are all hardcover and octavo size (not excately the same)
All KFE-like editions by commercial Egyptian presses and forgein editions (except one) do have title pages, most of them have one continuous pagination.
There was one minuature reprint of KFEI and at least two private editions + the 1955 Peking reprint; of KFEII there were many re-editions, many rearranged with 14 or 15 longer lines ‒ in many sizes, on thinner paper and with different covers ‒ from Bairut to Taschkent.
In Egypt all the time editions with 522, 525 (later 604) pages of qurʾānic text were more popular.
The changes of the second, third and fourth edition did not survive the big change of 1952, which had about 900 changes, but reverted in all things just mentioned ("dedication", seals, aṣl, extra nūn in allan) to the first print.
Most private and foreign reprints (and later ʿUṯnān Ṭaha) keep the silent nūn.
Thursday 18 November 2021
The Sanaʿāʾ Palimpsest
When I started to blog,
I said that the times are exciting because of
old Arabic inscriptions being deciphered,
the Sanaʿāʾ fragments, esp. the S.P.,
and because we understand that manuscripts belonging to different collections
once were one muṣḥaf.
One of the first who had access to the high-resolution and to the ultra-violett images of the S.P. made by Sergio Noja Noseda and Christian Robin was Asma Hilali. She was (one of) the first who published about them not on the basis of the UNESCO CD and the Bothmer/Puin black and white images.
She made two mistakes:
She only looked with her eyes, not with her brain.
But where the scriptio superior covers the scriptio inferior
one has to connected the visible parts assuming possible letterforms,
one has to speculate in order to fill gaps ‒ knowing the quranic vocabulary one has to try to put in as many letters as are fitting.
Because Asma Hilali lacks phantasy or abhors speculation she reads less than a third of what has been written.
And she mistakes a library signature, a collection convolute for a meaningful document.
As an introduction into the study of Islamic manuscripts one should read Islamic-Awarness.org.
Please read 3. Ḥijāzī & Kufic Manuscripts Of The Qur'ān From 1st Century Of Hijra Present In Various Collections; in the first column you see up to seven "Designations" for parts of the same document.
for the Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I
Only if you look at the document as as a whole, you have a chance to make sense of the parts.
Not only did Asma Hilali only study 36 folios of the 81 folios of the surving fragments of the document, she did not sort out the four fragments that do not belong to it that are classified as parts of DAM 01-27.1
That Asma Hilali made these two essential mistakes, is not that bad.
At least she was quick.
But that she refused to learn, declined to revise her findings in light of what others had found out, is a sign of stupidity.
I know: Everybody is polite, just says that she is (overtly) cautious.
I say: She is blind, cowish, mad.
Everybody (Elisabeth, Mohsen, Behnam, Alba, Eléonore, and in the second row Marijn, Nicolai, Franҫois) agree that both levels are part of a muṣḥaf. The quire structure is proof enough, the pages continue where the page before had ended. Asma Ḥilali is alone in postulating "scribal exercises".
That different scribes wrote different pages, is no a valid argument against all being part of one muṣḥaf, because Fr. Deroche had found out, that that was common in the frist two centuries.
A positive reviewer, J.A. Gilcher, wrote about The Sanaa Palimpsest The Transmission of the Qur'an in the First Centuries AH Oxford University Press 2017 wrote:
It would be nice to see the Documenta Coranica tome by Hadiya Gurtmann once annouced by Corpus Coranicum, to see how wrong she is. I can only speculate why Michael Marx waits with the publication.
Here is an image of the backside of the second folio of DAM 1.27.1 And here Hadiya Gurtmann's reconstruction of the lower text (image taken from Fr. Deroche's Le Coran, une histoire plurielle : essai sur la formation du texte coranique, Paris, 2019 ‒ he got it from Michael Marx; Hadiya Gurtmann had worked at Corpus Coranicum)
I say that A.H. is mad too, because she refuses to learn in the field of Koran prints, too.
In "her" conference the Egyptian librarians all the time spoke of "muṣḥaf al-malik Fuʾād", "muṣḥaf al-Amīriyya", "muṣḥaf al-ḥukūma", she alone refered to "muṣḥaf al-Qāhira" and "ṭabʿa al-Qāhira", although the first term is used for manuscripts and the 1924 copy was printed in Giza, which belongs not even to the governorate of Cairo, not printed in al-Qāhira, not even in Cairo.
Above are Cairo editions shown during the conference.
In this blog I have shown many more ‒ especially Cairo editions of riwāya Warš because I find it remarkable that most experts take it for granted that a muṣḥaf contains Ḥafṣ, basta!
And this is the page at the end of the object of the conference
informing everybody willing to take note
that it was printed in Giza. And that's not all.
Not only that it is NOT a Cairo print,
it is not even a 1924 edition.
In 1924 the quranic text was printed,
but after that the backmatter had to be set, made into plates, and printed.
Then the book had to be bound.
By the time it was published, the year was 1925.
Therefore the first edition was embossed:
طبعة الحكومية المصرّية
-- . --
١٣٤٣ هجرّية
سـنة
old Arabic inscriptions being deciphered,
the Sanaʿāʾ fragments, esp. the S.P.,
and because we understand that manuscripts belonging to different collections
once were one muṣḥaf.
One of the first who had access to the high-resolution and to the ultra-violett images of the S.P. made by Sergio Noja Noseda and Christian Robin was Asma Hilali. She was (one of) the first who published about them not on the basis of the UNESCO CD and the Bothmer/Puin black and white images.
She made two mistakes:
She only looked with her eyes, not with her brain.
But where the scriptio superior covers the scriptio inferior
one has to connected the visible parts assuming possible letterforms,
one has to speculate in order to fill gaps ‒ knowing the quranic vocabulary one has to try to put in as many letters as are fitting.
Because Asma Hilali lacks phantasy or abhors speculation she reads less than a third of what has been written.
And she mistakes a library signature, a collection convolute for a meaningful document.
As an introduction into the study of Islamic manuscripts one should read Islamic-Awarness.org.
Please read 3. Ḥijāzī & Kufic Manuscripts Of The Qur'ān From 1st Century Of Hijra Present In Various Collections; in the first column you see up to seven "Designations" for parts of the same document.
for the Codex Ṣanʿāʾ I
Only if you look at the document as as a whole, you have a chance to make sense of the parts.
Not only did Asma Hilali only study 36 folios of the 81 folios of the surving fragments of the document, she did not sort out the four fragments that do not belong to it that are classified as parts of DAM 01-27.1
That Asma Hilali made these two essential mistakes, is not that bad.
At least she was quick.
But that she refused to learn, declined to revise her findings in light of what others had found out, is a sign of stupidity.
I know: Everybody is polite, just says that she is (overtly) cautious.
I say: She is blind, cowish, mad.
Everybody (Elisabeth, Mohsen, Behnam, Alba, Eléonore, and in the second row Marijn, Nicolai, Franҫois) agree that both levels are part of a muṣḥaf. The quire structure is proof enough, the pages continue where the page before had ended. Asma Ḥilali is alone in postulating "scribal exercises".
That different scribes wrote different pages, is no a valid argument against all being part of one muṣḥaf, because Fr. Deroche had found out, that that was common in the frist two centuries.
A positive reviewer, J.A. Gilcher, wrote about The Sanaa Palimpsest The Transmission of the Qur'an in the First Centuries AH Oxford University Press 2017 wrote:
All Work in Progress mistakes, corrections, fragmented readings, its intended use written in a fragmentary fashion consisting of multiple sessions of teaching or dictation circle intended for experimental use in workshop-like circles, always destined to be destroyed, didactic techniques of a circle of teaching sessions,Given the fact, that her base asumption is wrong, I see no point in going through the 4000 letters were her reading (or absence of reading) differs from that of others. I am sure that in over 98% she is wrong.
for Hilali, the fact that the parchment was eventually used as a palimpsest for later text is proof of its purpose from the beginning to be recycled in the future
It would be nice to see the Documenta Coranica tome by Hadiya Gurtmann once annouced by Corpus Coranicum, to see how wrong she is. I can only speculate why Michael Marx waits with the publication.
Here is an image of the backside of the second folio of DAM 1.27.1 And here Hadiya Gurtmann's reconstruction of the lower text (image taken from Fr. Deroche's Le Coran, une histoire plurielle : essai sur la formation du texte coranique, Paris, 2019 ‒ he got it from Michael Marx; Hadiya Gurtmann had worked at Corpus Coranicum)
I say that A.H. is mad too, because she refuses to learn in the field of Koran prints, too.
In "her" conference the Egyptian librarians all the time spoke of "muṣḥaf al-malik Fuʾād", "muṣḥaf al-Amīriyya", "muṣḥaf al-ḥukūma", she alone refered to "muṣḥaf al-Qāhira" and "ṭabʿa al-Qāhira", although the first term is used for manuscripts and the 1924 copy was printed in Giza, which belongs not even to the governorate of Cairo, not printed in al-Qāhira, not even in Cairo.
Above are Cairo editions shown during the conference.
In this blog I have shown many more ‒ especially Cairo editions of riwāya Warš because I find it remarkable that most experts take it for granted that a muṣḥaf contains Ḥafṣ, basta!
And this is the page at the end of the object of the conference
informing everybody willing to take note
that it was printed in Giza. And that's not all.
Not only that it is NOT a Cairo print,
it is not even a 1924 edition.
In 1924 the quranic text was printed,
but after that the backmatter had to be set, made into plates, and printed.
Then the book had to be bound.
By the time it was published, the year was 1925.
Therefore the first edition was embossed:
طبعة الحكومية المصرّية
-- . --
١٣٤٣ هجرّية
سـنة
Saturday 13 November 2021
Muṣṭafā / ʿĪsā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī
1858 Aḥmad from al-Bāb, north-east of Aleppo, came to Cairo and together with others
opened a publishing house. Having no children he invited his cousins to join him and
they took over the enterprise becoming Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī
al-Muḫallalātī
Many think that the 1924 print was the first with the ʿUṯmānic rasm.
That's not correct.
Already for a long time India had producecd maṣāḥif with the defective rasm.
So had Morocco.
And in 1308/1890 in Egypt a muṣḥaf with the ʿUṯmānic rasm according to ad-Dānī was printed.
That's not correct.
Already for a long time India had producecd maṣāḥif with the defective rasm.
So had Morocco.
And in 1308/1890 in Egypt a muṣḥaf with the ʿUṯmānic rasm according to ad-Dānī was printed.
Monday 8 November 2021
Tom Milo ‒ mushafmuscat.om ‒ mushaf oman
God news about Tom Milos mushafmuscat.om
Bad news for Tom Milo
Thomas Milo analysed the best examples of high Ottoman calligraphy = court calligraphy, synthesized its Grammar (term coined by him) ‒ ignoring all other (lesser) Ottoman calligraphers.
He and his team succeded in aping human writing: first the stroke, then the dots, at last the additional signs. Like the writers of old, the signs of each category have to be in the right order, but they don't have to be exactely above resp. below the character that they modify.
In Kein Standard I critisized a word in 4:4, where Milo placed a madda above a consonant, although according to G24 (followed strictly by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha) madda can only sit above a vowel ‒ šadda "lengthening" consonants.
Today I looked at 4:4 again and low and behold, the wrongly placed (blue) madda was moved to its proper place: Thomas Milo had to be flexible all the time. In his view dots belong to letters including its connection to the next resp. its tail signaling: End Letter. But the Omanis thought that the dots belong to the "heart" of the letter, the tooth resp. the defining part.
Milo wanted staked lettergroups, Omanis prefered baseline letters with a clear right-to-left order. Milo agreed to half way solutions.
His elektronic Muṣḥaf is marvellous!
But Oman never had it printed. A printed, a bound codex does not exist.
Instead a Muṣḥaf ʿOmān was calligraphed and printed ‒ by the way not as strictly simplified as ʿUṯmān Ṭaha, hardly less Ottoman than Milo's electronic muṣḥaf. How disappointing that his did not became THE muṣḥaf of the sultanat.
Bad news for Tom Milo
Thomas Milo analysed the best examples of high Ottoman calligraphy = court calligraphy, synthesized its Grammar (term coined by him) ‒ ignoring all other (lesser) Ottoman calligraphers.
He and his team succeded in aping human writing: first the stroke, then the dots, at last the additional signs. Like the writers of old, the signs of each category have to be in the right order, but they don't have to be exactely above resp. below the character that they modify.
In Kein Standard I critisized a word in 4:4, where Milo placed a madda above a consonant, although according to G24 (followed strictly by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha) madda can only sit above a vowel ‒ šadda "lengthening" consonants.
Today I looked at 4:4 again and low and behold, the wrongly placed (blue) madda was moved to its proper place: Thomas Milo had to be flexible all the time. In his view dots belong to letters including its connection to the next resp. its tail signaling: End Letter. But the Omanis thought that the dots belong to the "heart" of the letter, the tooth resp. the defining part.
Milo wanted staked lettergroups, Omanis prefered baseline letters with a clear right-to-left order. Milo agreed to half way solutions.
His elektronic Muṣḥaf is marvellous!
But Oman never had it printed. A printed, a bound codex does not exist.
Instead a Muṣḥaf ʿOmān was calligraphed and printed ‒ by the way not as strictly simplified as ʿUṯmān Ṭaha, hardly less Ottoman than Milo's electronic muṣḥaf. How disappointing that his did not became THE muṣḥaf of the sultanat.
Saturday 6 November 2021
"the Cairo Edition"
Ik bedoel jou, de beste Curanoloog, als wat er met Gotthelf, Otto, Theo en Pim is gebeurd, niet met jou gebeurt.
Als het op transcriberen aankomt, ben je erg precies. Als het gaat om edities, drukken, versies, recensies, ben je slordig.
editie betekent = "bepaalde druk van een ... boek"
uitgave, exemplaren die in één keer gedrukt worden, druk van een boek
1) Aantal gedrukte exemplaren 2) Aantal te drukken exemplaren 3) Aflevering 4) Boekuitgave 5) Deel van een krantenoplage 6) Druk 7) Druk van een boek 8) Oplaag 9) Oplaag van een boek 10) Oplage 11) Oplage van boeken
Is verschillend van "teksteditie/ tekstuitgave".
edition = The entire number of copies of a publication issued at one time or from a single set of type. / The entire number of like or identical items issued or produced as a set
Édition (Nom commun)
[e.di.sjɔ̃] / Féminin
Impression, publication et diffusion d’une œuvre artistique (livre, musique, objet d’art, etc). soit qu’elle paraisse pour la première fois, soit qu’elle ait déjà été imprimé ; ou les séries successives des exemplaires qu’on imprime pour cette publication.
Totalité des exemplaires de tel ou tel ouvrage publié et mis en vente.
Par extension, l’industrie qui a pour objet la publication d’ouvrage.
Tirage spécifique de la même édition d’un ouvrage.
Exemplaire faisant partie d’un tirage dans une édition.
(Journalisme) Tirage strictement identique de l’édition du jour d’un quotidien.
In het Frans is het bijzonder duidelijk: « maison d'édition » betekent een uitgeverij.
"editie" is niet wat an editor/een redacteur doet, maar wat an publisher/een uitgever doet.
Als je naar klassieke Arabische werken kijkt, waren er tot voor kort meestal twee of drie edities: één uit Leiden en één uit Cairo, één uit Göttingen en één uit Oxford. Hier, "the Cairo edition" maakt geen probleem.
Maar met de Koran is het anders: er zijn tegenwoordig duizenden edities. Alleen al uit Cairo zijn er tien belangrijke uitgaven van de Warš lezing.
Here two images from a 1929 Cairo Warš Edition ‒ without a title page, as was common at the time:
And here from two of the oldest al-Qahira publishers, i.e. not from Bab al-Khalq, al-Faggala, from Bulaq or even Giza but from "behind" al-Azhar:
Apart from these 100% Cairo Editions, there are editions conceaved in Morocco resp. Algeria, but produced in Cairo ‒ the Moroccan ones without production place, the Algerian ones with an Algerian publisher's name. (Only the third edition of the third sherifian muṣḥaf was produced in Morocco.)
Er is niet meer "de editie van Caïro" dan er "de Ayatollah" of "de roman van Parijs" is.
Alleen drukwerkspecialisten zijn geïnteresseerd in drukwerk (hoeveel regels per pagina, hoeveel pagina's per ǧuz, aanduiding van chronologie, saǧadat, sakatāt, typografie, kalligrafie...). Curanaloogen zijn geïnteresseerd in de rasmen, de verzendingen, de orthografie.
Zelfs als we alleen kijken naar de belangrijkste Ḥafṣ uitgaven, zijn er enkele uit 1881, 1890, 1924, 1952, 1975, 1976. Zelfs de uitgaven van de Amīriyya uit 1926 en 1929 verschillen van de Gizeh-prent uit 1924.
Ik weet niet welke editie bedoeld wordt ‒ zou kunnen bedoeld worden ‒ met "cairo edition".
Ik heb de indruk dat u de Uthman rasm bedoelt, het gebruikelijke schrift zonder extra alifen, dat gebruikelijk werd in het Ottomaanse Rijk en Iran.
De prent van Gizeh uit 1924 is bijna nergens in de islamitische wereld te vinden, maar vaak wel in Duitse, Nederlandse en Zwitserse bibliotheken.
80% van de Moslims gebruiken totaal verschillende uitgaven, zij het verschillende lezingen, zij het verschillende spellingen. Tot in de jaren tachtig gebruikten de Arabers van Mašriq ook overwegend Ottoaanse edities.
Tegenwoordig gebruiken veel Arabieren, Maleisiërs en Salafisten edities in de spelling van de 1952 editie van de Koran, maar alleen Oriëntalisten hebben ooit de Amīriyya editie gebruikt.
Een derde van de moslims is afkomstig van het Indiase subcontinent, zodat Indiase kwesties wereldwijd het meest voorkomen.
Bijna een zesde van de moslims gebruikt Indonesische edities.
Turkije heeft zijn eigen standaard, Iran heeft er meerdere.
Als het op transcriberen aankomt, ben je erg precies. Als het gaat om edities, drukken, versies, recensies, ben je slordig.
editie betekent = "bepaalde druk van een ... boek"
uitgave, exemplaren die in één keer gedrukt worden, druk van een boek
1) Aantal gedrukte exemplaren 2) Aantal te drukken exemplaren 3) Aflevering 4) Boekuitgave 5) Deel van een krantenoplage 6) Druk 7) Druk van een boek 8) Oplaag 9) Oplaag van een boek 10) Oplage 11) Oplage van boeken
Is verschillend van "teksteditie/ tekstuitgave".
edition = The entire number of copies of a publication issued at one time or from a single set of type. / The entire number of like or identical items issued or produced as a set
Édition (Nom commun)
[e.di.sjɔ̃] / Féminin
Impression, publication et diffusion d’une œuvre artistique (livre, musique, objet d’art, etc). soit qu’elle paraisse pour la première fois, soit qu’elle ait déjà été imprimé ; ou les séries successives des exemplaires qu’on imprime pour cette publication.
Totalité des exemplaires de tel ou tel ouvrage publié et mis en vente.
Par extension, l’industrie qui a pour objet la publication d’ouvrage.
Tirage spécifique de la même édition d’un ouvrage.
Exemplaire faisant partie d’un tirage dans une édition.
(Journalisme) Tirage strictement identique de l’édition du jour d’un quotidien.
In het Frans is het bijzonder duidelijk: « maison d'édition » betekent een uitgeverij.
"editie" is niet wat an editor/een redacteur doet, maar wat an publisher/een uitgever doet.
Als je naar klassieke Arabische werken kijkt, waren er tot voor kort meestal twee of drie edities: één uit Leiden en één uit Cairo, één uit Göttingen en één uit Oxford. Hier, "the Cairo edition" maakt geen probleem.
Maar met de Koran is het anders: er zijn tegenwoordig duizenden edities. Alleen al uit Cairo zijn er tien belangrijke uitgaven van de Warš lezing.
Here two images from a 1929 Cairo Warš Edition ‒ without a title page, as was common at the time:
And here from two of the oldest al-Qahira publishers, i.e. not from Bab al-Khalq, al-Faggala, from Bulaq or even Giza but from "behind" al-Azhar:
Apart from these 100% Cairo Editions, there are editions conceaved in Morocco resp. Algeria, but produced in Cairo ‒ the Moroccan ones without production place, the Algerian ones with an Algerian publisher's name. (Only the third edition of the third sherifian muṣḥaf was produced in Morocco.)
Er is niet meer "de editie van Caïro" dan er "de Ayatollah" of "de roman van Parijs" is.
Alleen drukwerkspecialisten zijn geïnteresseerd in drukwerk (hoeveel regels per pagina, hoeveel pagina's per ǧuz, aanduiding van chronologie, saǧadat, sakatāt, typografie, kalligrafie...). Curanaloogen zijn geïnteresseerd in de rasmen, de verzendingen, de orthografie.
Zelfs als we alleen kijken naar de belangrijkste Ḥafṣ uitgaven, zijn er enkele uit 1881, 1890, 1924, 1952, 1975, 1976. Zelfs de uitgaven van de Amīriyya uit 1926 en 1929 verschillen van de Gizeh-prent uit 1924.
Ik weet niet welke editie bedoeld wordt ‒ zou kunnen bedoeld worden ‒ met "cairo edition".
Ik heb de indruk dat u de Uthman rasm bedoelt, het gebruikelijke schrift zonder extra alifen, dat gebruikelijk werd in het Ottomaanse Rijk en Iran.
De prent van Gizeh uit 1924 is bijna nergens in de islamitische wereld te vinden, maar vaak wel in Duitse, Nederlandse en Zwitserse bibliotheken.
80% van de Moslims gebruiken totaal verschillende uitgaven, zij het verschillende lezingen, zij het verschillende spellingen. Tot in de jaren tachtig gebruikten de Arabers van Mašriq ook overwegend Ottoaanse edities.
Tegenwoordig gebruiken veel Arabieren, Maleisiërs en Salafisten edities in de spelling van de 1952 editie van de Koran, maar alleen Oriëntalisten hebben ooit de Amīriyya editie gebruikt.
Een derde van de moslims is afkomstig van het Indiase subcontinent, zodat Indiase kwesties wereldwijd het meest voorkomen.
Bijna een zesde van de moslims gebruikt Indonesische edities.
Turkije heeft zijn eigen standaard, Iran heeft er meerdere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bombay with a difference
In the middle of the 20th century Bombay publishers did not only print maṣāḥif for the subcontinent, for Indonesia, but for Central Asia as ...
-
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...
-
Gabriel Said Reynolds and others say that all Qur'anic texts are identical: letter for letter. the various editions of the Qur'an pr...
-
I have just published an essay on Koran prints on Amazon : I want to blog about that and from it here. (this is my German post translated...