In "Kein Srandard" I call that a clear mistake.
But what is 100% clear?
The Arab advocates of the 1924 reform might say:
Even Ibn al-Bawwāb wrote like this

I reply: yes, but raḥmān is also with short a and ḏālika too.

If there is no long /ā/ sign in the whole codex, then you don't need one in ʾaḷḷāh.
But in the Giza Qur'an there is Long-ā (fatḥa + dagger-alif) everywhere where needed!
As explained in "Kein Standard" Bergsträßer and experts have overlooked that the 1924 orthography is not an invention, but just copied from a Warš muṣḥaf:

And just as these do not spell ʾaḷḷāh correctly but incorrectly,

so does G24 and since 1990 all Arabs (esp. Madina).
At least, they write ʾallah all the time: instead of ʾaḷḷāh: the Nizām of Hyderabad had it corrected (1938, reprinted by the Islamic Call Society 1976f.): but not in allahumma (nowhere, and in none of the bilingual editions ‒ cf. first line)
Two examples from Dalīl al-Ḫairāt, one from Mali without long /ā/, one from the Ottoman Empire with long /ā/:
No comments:
Post a Comment