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 will briefly be 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. Examples are: 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, contrary to current usage, the addition of alif as a symbol of Arabic ḥamza is common in the codex; examples include: نباونی (6:143) on f. A57a; راوس (Q. 2:279) on f. A19b; راوسهم (17:51 and 22:19) on f. A116a & B7b; افادة (14:37 and 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.





­ ‒ ­

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 get not tired to repeat: 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.
Okay, ad-Dānī says: "-t", and Ibn Naǧāḥ: "-h"

So it should be "-h" =

aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ's reason is this:

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.

‒ ­