a bombshell

Morteza Karimi-Nia has pub­lished a book: Codex Mash­had, and a web site.
Most inter­est­ing:
Sura order like Codex Masʿud
and
Orthography
The orthographic rules in the main body of Codex Mash­had exhibit a clear pro­pensity towards scrip­tio de­fec­tiva, signaling palae­o­gra­phic anti­quity of the codex. Its style neither con­forms to the modern ortho­graphy, nor aligns with the “Uthmānic rasm” de­scribed by Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī (in the Muqni) and Abū Dāʾūd Su­lai­mān ibn Naǧāḥ (Muḫ­ta­ṣar at-Tabyīn). For instan­ce, šaiʾشئ is al­ways written with an addi­tional alif as شای, ḏūذو with an additional alif as ذوا; and the word ʾulūاولوا with waw for /u/, and with­out waw for /ū/ as اولا.

The most salient orthographic feature of Codex Mashhad is the omission of alif as the sign of long vowel /ā/; examples of this can be found on nearly every page, at a pro­por­tion far sur­passing other known ḥijāzī codices. Several notable cases rarely seen in early ḥijāzī manu­scripts from the first century are briefly mentioned here:
The words قرآن and عذاب are almost always written with­out alif as قرن and عذب ‒ very rare and strange in three-letter words. Apart from many occur­rences of قل/قلوا instead of قال/قالوا and کن/کنوا instead of کان/کانوا, we come across مل (f. A16a) for مال (2:247), and صل (f. B60b) for صال (37:163). Other examples are: ایما (f. A20b) for ایاما (Q. 3:24), امما (f. A8b) for اماما (2:124), الذن (f. A31b) for الذان (4:16), اطع (f. A35a) for اطاع in (4:80), ارد (f. A42b) for اراد (5:17), مئدة (f. A49b) for مائدة (5:114), ثنی (f. A77b) for ثانی (9:40), این (f. B29b) for ایان (27:65), اینا (f. A85a) for ایانا (10:28) اعنه (f. B19a) for اعانه (25:4), and فودک (f. B20b) for فؤادک (25:32).

The addition of alif in some words seems to indi­cate the vowel kasra, e.g. جایتَهم (f. A49a) for جِئتَهم (5:110) جایتُکم (twice on f. A22a) for جِئتُکم (3:49 + 50) ,شايتَ (f. A67a) for شِئتَ (7:155), جایتُکَ (f. B22b), for جِئتُکَ (26:26), جاینکَ (f. B20b), for جِئنٰکَ (25:33), and قد جايتُکم (f. B80a) for قد جِئتُکم (43:63). cf. Ahmad al-Jallad suggests that after kasra ىا stands for hamza.

The omission of alif while con­nec­t­ing two words, in such cases as بلحق (f. A58b) for بالحق (6:151), بلبینت (ff. A103a, B80a & B103a) for بالبینت (14:9, 43:63, & 57:25), and بلغیب (f. B56a) for بالغیب (36:11), is indica­tive of the oral trans­mission of the Qurʾān in the first/se­ven­th century. To this, one can add the omis­sion of yāʾ in such cases as اوف الکیل (A96a) instead of اوفی الکیل (Q. 12:59).

The omission of alif as a bearer of ḥamza is also common in Codex Mashhad. Examples include: اطمننتم (4:103) on f. A36b; وامرتن (2:282) on f. A19b; أطفها (5:64) on f. A46a; اطمنوا (10:7) on f. A83b; لاملن (11:11, and 32:13) on ff. A98a & B44a, امتلت (50:30), on f. B92b; اطمن (Q. 22:11) on f. B7a; انشنا (23:19, and 28:45) on f. B13a & B23b; and اشمزت (39:45) on f. B67b.

On the other hand, the addition of alif as a symbol of ḥamza is common in the codex; examples include: نباونی (6:143) on f. A57a; راوس (Q. 2:279) on f. A19b; راوسهم (17:51 & 22:19) on f. A116a & B7b; افادة (14:37 & 16:78) on ff. A102a & A104b; الافادة (67:23) on f. B114b; سیاه (2:81) on f. A5b; and لا یاوده (2:255) on f. A17a.

The omission of nūn while linking to another letter such as lam is very note­worthy, for examples in إلم یکن (ff. A31a & A40b) for إن لم یکن (4:12 & 176), إلم تفعل (f. A46a) for إن لم تفعل (5:67), إلم ینتهوا (f. A46b) for إن لم ینتهوا (5:73), and ألا تعبدوا (f. A90a) for أن لا تعبدوا (11:26).

The omission of wāw in the words like الا (f. A25b) instead of اولاء (Q. 3:119), ابنا الله (f. A42b) instead of ابنوا الله (5:18), نبا (ff. B62a & B111a) instead of نبوا (Q. 38:21 and 64:5), دعا (f. B70b) instead of دعوا (40:50), الی (f. B53a) instead of اولی (35:1), and البلا (f. B60a) instead of البلوا (37:106) is also notable.

Using a denticl ىـ to show /ā/ was common in the early ḥijāzī Qurʾāns but faded over time. There are ample instances of such usage in Codex Mashhad: إليه (f. A46b) for إله (Q. 5:73), دیرهم (f. A101a) for دارهم (Q. 13:31), قرطيس (f. A50b) for قرطاس (Q. 6:7), and جنتین (f. B51a) for جنتان (Q. 34:15).

I see two main pheno­mena: alif is hamza (more than /ā/), and: The ortho­graphy reflects phono­logi­cal realiza­tion rather than mor­pho­logical structure.

Folio	Qur’an	KFE	C. Mashhad	pic
A34a	IV 59	شئ	شای
A16b	II 251	ذو فضل	ذوا فضل
A57b	VI 133	ذو الرحمة	ذوا الرحمة
A20a	III 7	اولوا الالبب	اولا الالبب
A103b	XIV 17	من ورائه	من وراه
A46a	V 64	اطفأها	اطفها
A98a	XI 119	لاملأن	لاملن
A19b	II 279	رءوس	راوس
A102a	XVI 78	والافـدة	والافادة
A5b	II 81	کسب سیئة	کسب سیاة
A17a	II 255	لا یؤده	لا یاوده
A25b	III 119	هانتم اولاء	هانتم الا
A78a	IX 52	الحسنیین	الحسنین
A116b	XVII 62	قال ارءیتک	قل اریتک
A23a	III 72	قالت	قلت
A80b	IX 95	بما کانوا یکسبون	بما کنوا یکسبون
A85a	X 28	ایانا	اینا
A22a	III 49	جِئتُکم	جایتکم
A67a	VII 155	شِئتَ	شایت
A46b	V 73	ما من اله	ما من الیه
A101a	XIII 31	دارهم	دیرهم
B51a	XXXIV 15	جنتان	جنتین
A103a	XIV 9	بالبینت	بلبینت
A40b	IV 176	ان لم یکن	الم یکن

­ ‒ ­

don't confuse = don't mix

I started to blog six years ago.
So I sometimes: I repeat myself ‒ because some do not get it.
I said & I say: Most aspects are independent = can be freely combined.

This is Ḥafs: this Qālūn:

here some words in Ḥafṣ, Qālūn, and (mostly) Warš

To say it clearly:
Never confuse rasm and reading (or transmission, or path or variant)!
There is neither a Qālūn rasm, nor a Ḥafṣ rasm ‒ how competent those who say so, might (otherwise) be.
­ ­ ‒ ­

7:137 ‒ the main change from al-Ḥaddād to aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ

I don't get tired of repeating: al-Ḥaddād copied many thinks from a Faz print.
allah without written /ā/ is most striking.

كلمة in 7:137 is remark­able too. ad-Ḍabbāʿ writes ت; the Libyian muṣḥaf has ت, but all Warš copies and the two Tunisian Qālūn maṣā­ḥif have ـة. I don't see a com­pelling reason for the 1952 change. ad-Dānī does not mention the Kufan muṣḥaf, the one ʿĀṣim follows.

You might say: "These are just 16 manuscripts, probably there are 16 others with tāʾ." I looked at the manuscripts, in which Marijn van Putten found niʿmah and niʿmat, raḥmah and raḥmat in iḍāfah/status constructus, and I found only one form.
Compare this to 52:29

Only two later mss. have ـة and one of them adds the ‌ـت spelling for good measure. Okay, ad-Dānī says: "-t", and Ibn Naǧāḥ: "-h"

So it should be "-h" =

aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ's reason is this:

(السَّادِسُ) مَعْصِيتِ الرَّسُولِ فِي الْمَوْضِعَيْنِ مِنَ الْمُجَادِلَةِ، وَغَيْرِ الْمُكَرَّرِ سَبْعَةٌ، وَهِيَ " كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ الْحُسْنَى " فِي الْأَعْرَافِ وَ " بَقِيَّتُ اللَّهِ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ " فِي هُودٍ وَ قُرَّتُ عَيْنٍ " فِي الْقَصَصِ وَ " فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ " فِي الرُّومِ وَ " شَجَرَتُ الزَّقُّومِ " فِي الدُّخَانِ وَ " جَنَّتُ نَعِيمٍ " فِي الْوَاقِعَةِ وَ " ابْنَتَ عِمْرَانَ " فِي التَّحْرِيمِ. فَوَقَفَ عَلَى هَذِهِ الْمَوَاضِعِ بِالْهَاءِ خِلَافًا لِلرَّسْمِ ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ وَأَبُو عَمْرٍو وَالْكِسَائِيُّ وَيَعْقُوبُ، هَذَا هُوَ الَّذِي قَرَأْنَا بِهِ وَنَأْخُذُ بِهِ، وَهُوَ مُقْتَضَى نُصُوصِهِمْ، وَنُصُوصِ أَئِمَّتِنَا الْمُحَقِّقِينَ عَنْهُمْ وَقِيَاسُ مَا ثَبَتَ نَصًّا عَنْهُمْ وَإِنْ كَانَ أَكْثَرُ الْمُؤَلِّفِينَ لَمْ يَتَعَرَّضُوا لِذَلِكَ فَيَقْتَضِي عَدَمُ ذِكْرِهِمْ لَهُ وَالْكَثِيرُ مِنْ هَذَا الْبَابِ أَنْ تَكُونَ الْجَمَاعَةُ كُلُّهُمْ فِيهِ عَلَى الرَّسْمِ فَلَا يَكُونُ فِيهِ خِلَافُ الْوَقْفِ عَلَيْهِ بِالتَّاءِ. فَإِنَّ مَنْ حَفِظَ حُجَّةٌ عَلَى مَنْ لَمْ يَحْفَظْ وَغَايَةُ مَنْ لَمْ يَذْكُرْ ذَلِكَ السُّكُوتُ، وَلَا حُجَّةَ فِيهِ، وَفِي الْكَافِي الْوَقْفُ فِي ذَلِكَ بِالْهَاءِ لِأَبِي عَمْرٍو وَالْكِسَائِيِّ، وَفِي الْهِدَايَةِ لِلْكِسَائِيِّ وَحْدَهُ، وَفِي الْكَنْزِ لِابْنِ كَثِيرٍ وَأَبِي عَمْرٍو وَالْكِسَائِيِّ، فَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ يَعْقُوبَ.

وَالْقِسْمُ الَّذِي قُرِئَ بِالْإِفْرَادِ وَبِالْجَمْعِ ثَمَانِيَةُ أَحْرُفٍ، وَهِيَ " كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ " فِي الْأَنْعَامِ " وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا "، وَفِي يُونُسَ " وَكَذَلِكَ حَقَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ "، وَ " إِنَّ الَّذِينَ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِمْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ "، وَفِي غَافِرٍ " وَكَذَلِكَ حَقَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ "، وَ " آيَاتٌ لِلسَّائِلِينَ " فِي يُوسُفَ وَ " فِي غَيَابَتِ الْجُبِّ " فِي الْمَوْضِعَيْنِ مِنْ يُوسُفَ وَ " آيَاتٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِ " فِي الْعَنْكَبُوتِ وَفِي الْفُرْقَانِ " آمِنُونَ "، وَفِي سَبَأٍ وَ " عَلَى بَيِّنَتٍ مِنْهُ " فِي فَاطِرٍ " وَمَا تَخْرُجُ مِنْ ثَمَرَاتٍ " فِي فُصِّلَتْ وَ " جِمَالَتٌ " فِي الْمُرْسَلَاتِ. فَمَنْ

(Sixth): maʿṣiyat ar‑rasūl (“disobedience to the Messenger”) in the two places in al‑Mujādilah (58:8, 58:20).
And the non‑repeated items are seven, namely:
- “kalimatu rabbika al‑ḥusnā” in al‑Aʿrāf ,
- “baqiyyatu llāhi khayrun lakum” in Hūd ,
- “qurratu ʿayn” in al‑Qaṣaṣ ,
- “fiṭratu llāh” in al‑Rūm ,
- “shajarat az‑zaqqūm” in ad‑Dukhān ,
- “jannatu naʿīm” in al‑Wāqiʿah ,
- “ibnat ʿImrān” in at‑Taḥrīm .

At these places, the stop (waqf) is made with hāʾ , contrary to the rasm , by Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʿAmr, al‑Kisāʾī, and Yaʿqūb.
This is what we have read and what we adopt, and it is required by their transmitted texts, and by the texts of our verifying imams from them, and by analogy with what is explicitly established from them — even though most authors did not address this, and their silence implies nothing.

And much of this chapter is of the type where the entire group follows the rasm , so there is no disagreement regarding stopping on it with tā.
For the one who has preserved (the transmission) is a proof against the one who has not , and the utmost that can be said about those who did not mention it is that they remained silent — and silence is no proof.

In al‑Kāfī , the stop with hāʾ is reported for Abū ʿAmr and al‑Kisāʾī.
In al‑Hidāyah , it is reported for al‑Kisāʾī alone.
In al‑Kanz , it is reported for Ibn Kathīr, Abū ʿAmr, and al‑Kisāʾī, and Yaʿqūb is not mentioned.


about words read both in singular and plural
The category that is read both in the singular and in the plural consists of eight words, namely:
“kalimatu rabbika” in al‑An‘ām: “And the word of your Lord was fulfilled in truth.”
And in Yūnus: “And thus the word of your Lord was fulfilled,” and: “Indeed, those upon whom the word of your Lord has been fulfilled.”
And in Ghāfir: “And thus the word of your Lord was fulfilled.”
And “āyātun li‑s‑sā’ilīn” in Yūsuf.
And “fī ghayābat al‑jubb” in the two places in Yūsuf.
And “āyātun min rabbihī” in al‑‘Ankabūt.
And “āminūn” in al‑Furqān and in Saba’.
And “ʿalā bayyinatin minhu” in Fāṭir.
And “wa‑mā takhruju min thamarātin” in Fuṣṣilat.
And “jimālatun” in al‑Mursalāt.


In view of the old manuscripts I say: al-Ḥaddād is right, and aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ is wrong.
And I am not astonished seeing that in all Warš maṣāḥif only the one with his seal of approval (left middle, with the verse number) writes /waliyyiya/ (7:196) with a nor­mal tooth (with the normal stroke instead with a straight stroke after­wards) for the gem­minated yāʾ: only the Algerian print super­vised by the chief reciter of Egypt does not "know" that it does not belong to the rasm.

‒ ­