Friday 4 October 2024
one change made
while 2:264 was a mistake made inadvertently in Cairo
on 56:2 Qaṭar made a conscious change
Because 55:2 is written without alif in Al-Mushaf Al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman Bin Affan in the Topkapı Palace published by Tayyar Altıkulaç (İSAM) who adviced the Qaṭāris they followed the old manuscript.
mistake corrected
A mistake made in Cairo in 1924 got corrected in Madina.
The typesetter in Būlāq made a mistake in 2:264.
ʿUṯmān Ṭaha copied it faithfully.
The King Fahd Complex corrected it.
The hamza should not sit on the tooth.
Tuesday 1 October 2024
UT1 UT2 UT3
After the King Fahd Complex had printed millions of UT1 they invited
him to Madina to write for them a Warsh muṣḥaf, then an improved Ḥafṣ
‒ and later Qālūn, an other Warsh (this tome on 604 pages), ad-Dūrī and Šuʿba.
The new script is a bit more cursive, bigger (i.e. there is less empty space between
lines) and has less letter variants. On the image above middle-hāʾ has three forms
on the left, only one on the right, rāʾ (and zai) have two forms on the left,
one on the right, tāʾ can have the two dots verticaly on the left, not on the right,
and the two forms of final mīm are equally distributed on the left, while on the
right the short stroke to the left predominates.
Here the page layout differs (with two more verses on the left), but, if I am not mistaken
that occurs only in the last ǧuz: all in all minor changes.
The change from UT2 to UT3 brought:
headlines (sura titel boxes) never come at the bottom of a page,
rather as the head of the next;
end-of-aya-numbers never come at the beginning of a line
rather at the end of the line before.
And now comes a difference that is connected to
one of MY per observations that is missed my most "experts".
I say: Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥusainī al-Mālikī aṣ-Ṣaʿīdī al-Ḥaddād (1282/1865‒1357/ 22.1.1939) adopted many Andalusian/Maġribī/Western things without mentioning it in the postscript,
which makes me thing that he copied a Moroccon muṣḥaf.
One of the points: Ottoman Egypt, Persia, India and Nusantara have one kind of tanwīn (one an,
one un, one in) independant Egypt has three just as Morocco,
but there is a problem. Ottomans did not know how fathatan is written.
When one compares the Warš muṣḥaf and the early Ḥafṣ maṣāḥif by UT the fathatan are different
Because UT is not only a good scribe but also a good observer:
he noticed that the second fatha (the left one) is above the first in Morroco,
but below in the KFE ‒ I assume that the type setter just used kasratans lifted up.
A couple of years ago Madina noticed the mistake and asked UT to correct it,
which is done in UT3:
‒
Monday 30 September 2024
UT0 UT1 UT2 UT3
It is common knowledge that the King Fuʾād Edition of the Ḥafṣ qirāʾa was an immediate success
in the Muslim world. common knowledge, but not true. Orientalists bought it, but hardly an Egyptian
because with almost 850 big pages it is too bulky ‒ they prefered the edition written by
Muṣṭafā Naẓīf Qadirġalī on 522 pages. Because the government pushed the new orthography, adaptations of the old muṣḥaf with 15 lines on 522 pages but
with the new orthography were published. Later Shamarly paid
Muḥammad Saʿd
Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaddād to copy the MNQ line by line but in the new orthography and had it
printed in different sizes and with different covers.
In the Sixties the
Government produced a type set muṣḥaf on 525 pages. So, althought the King Fuʾād Edition was not
a bestseller, its orthography was established in Egypt by 1975.
But for the Andalusian orthography of Ḥafṣ to conquer the Arab world, the genius of a scribe and some
oil money were needed. ʿUṯmān Ṭaha had learned calligraphy in Aleppo and Istanbul, were Hamid Aytaç / Ḥāmid al-Āmidī taught him.
He works precisely, not artistically, he follows the lead of the KFE by using stacked forms (earlier letters above later ones) only if and when the vowel signs can be places exactly
above or below its seat, and each letter being always the same ‒ swash forms of rāʾ, zai, kāf, elongated
nūn and end yāʾ being the exception.
He copied the qurʾānic text (not the taʿrīf) of the KFE of 1952 (i.e. the Moroccan text of al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī with the modifications (esp. pause signs) by ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbā) with even less stacked forms
on 604 pages as made common by Haǧǧ Ḥāfiẓ
ʿUṯmān Ḫalīfa QayišZāde an-Nūrī al-Burdurī (d. 1894) (each ǧuz ‒ except the last because
of the many sura title boxes ‒ on twenty pages, all verses ending in the bottom left corner including 2:282) ‒ this template is called ber kenar/one edge.
Although his manuscript got several seals of being without mistakes (see above),
it had five minor mistakes; a part from them it is a faithful reproduction of the KFE of 1952
with all its features (notably pause signs).
I call all versions that have one to five of these mistakes "ʿŪṯmān Ṭaha 0" (UT0) to mark the
difference to the Madina prints in which these mistakes are corrected. As Muḥammad Hozien has
pointed out, the are three different styles printed by the KFC. I call them UT1, UT2 and UT3
But first UT0, the versions with scribal errors. On page 11 there is no error. I include it only
because UT0 follows the KFE, but Madina (KFC) changes the writing: putting the hamza on a small alif
a practice common in Tunisian manuscripts and prints of Qālūn.
on the next page a fatha WAS missing, the editor added it above the mīm; it is different from
the ones written by UT himself:
on the next page we have هٰذان instead of هٰذٰن :
here a sukūn/ǧazm is missing on a final he
here at the end of the second but last line there is a lazim sign (م) that shoudn't be there
The Istanbul Çağrı publisher publishes many translations with UT0 next to the translation,
till today with only one of the mistakes corrected.
on the bottom of the next page the missing sukūn was added:
In the time before Medina/UT1 there is even a UT0 from Suʿudia: the World Association of Muslim Youth in ar-Riʾāḍ published it, likely printed in Damascus by a publisher who have
made one before. The WAMY-version has most of the mistakes
on the next two pages I compare UTo with UT1:
in the titel boxes most information is gone
the numbers (1 to 114) ‒ both in the page header and in the title boxes ‒ are gone
the pause لا signs are gone:
the last mistake, the mīm/lazim that should not be there:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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...
-
At the start of this year's Ramaḍān Saima Yacoob, Charlotte, North Carolina published a book on differences between printed maṣāḥi...
-
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...
-
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...