reprint

leaving the meaning partial reprint / offprint aside
"reprint" has two distinct meanings:
1. a reissue of a printed work using the same type, plates, etc, as the original
a new printing that is identical to an original; a reimpression.
a facsimile, a copy or reproduction of an old book, manuscript, map, art print
that is as true to the original source as possible.
a new impression, without alteration, of a book or other printed work.

2. a reproduction in print of matter already printed, a new impression, with minor alterations.

We have seen that there are no reprints in the strict sense of the King Fuʾād Edition of 1924 at all.
The editions 1925 to 1929 are different in size and (slightly) in content.
The large KFE II of 1952 has the same size but has almost a thousand changes in content (but not those of 1925 to '29).
The small kfe II after 1952 are made with the 1925 plates but with about a hundred changes introduced in 1952. ‒ I'd say: their text is with­out value, because it is a mix of two different editions, the one made by al-Husainī al-Ḥaddād and the one made under the auspicies of aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ.

Now, let's have a look as the Hyderabad edition of 1938.
It is a double reprint in the second meaning:
double, because of the English trans­lation from 1930 by M.M. Pickthall, and the 1924 Amiriyya print, the KFE I.
But there are imp­rovements in both part:
The English text has four minor changes in verse numbering:

with a kind of justification in English and Urdu

The Arab text is page and line identical with KFE I,
but has a technical dis­ad­vant­age (kasra being below the letters instead being inte­grated into the des­cen­ders like م)





kasra, kasratan, sequential kasratan, kasratan+mīm, and other signs below the base line (like sīn)











and minor improvement to make it acceptable to Indian Muslims.

/ʾallah/ with (short) kasra is changed into /ʾallāh/ with a (long) dagger;
ruquʿāt are added.

While there was no second impression in Hyderabad, in 1976, the year of a huge The World of Islam Festival in London, George Allen & Unwin made a reprint: with the unchanged original and an added foreword

this was reprinted in 1979, and in 1980 for Sharjah.

In the 1970s there were "reprints" in the second meaning (with slight changes) in Bairut:
Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnāni/al-Maṣrī printed (in one volume on Bible paper, just as in London) bilingual editions (with Pickthall's English trans­lation, and with the French one by Denise Masson) for the Lybian World Islamic Call Society.
In these "reprints" some mis­takes in the 1924 text mentioned in KFE II 1952 are changed: like (/ka­limat, qāʾim/ ...)

whether kasra draws the ham­za sign below the base­line has no­thing to do with the rasm, it is a con­ven­tion, but it must be the same in all places. While both the Maġ­rib and India have hamza near kasra, Otto­mans, Turks and Per­sians have it above the base­line.

and most of the time (some were forgotten) when a sura ends with tan­wīn it is changed to tanwīm
because in 1924 it was assumed that after a sura the next one is recited without a fresh basmala. Since 1952 a basmala is assumed, hence in­stead of /an, un, in/ now: /am, um, im/.

I will end with a horrific discovery for a German.
In the English language there is a proper term for our "Flachdruck":
pla·nog·ra·phy (plə-nŏg′rə-fē, plā-) n.
A process for printing from a smooth surface, as litho­graphy or offset.
And there is a wrong one:
li·thog·ra·phy (lĭ-thŏg′rə-fē) n.
A printing process in which the image to be printed is rendered on a flat surface, as on sheet zinc or aluminum, and treated to retain ink while the non­image areas are treated to repel ink.

This is just wrong: "lithos" meaning "stone", not "zinc", nor "aluminum"
The same mistake differently put:
lithography
1. the art or process of producing an image on a flat, specially prepared stone, treating the items to be printed with a greasy substance to which ink adheres, and of taking impressions from this on paper.
2. a similar process in which the stone is replaced by a zinc or aluminum plate, often provided with a photo­sensitive surface for reproduc­ing an image photo­graphical­ly.

While the first definition is fine, the second is stupidly wrong. Why use a word with "stone" in it   for a process with a metall plate, although there are proper terms for the process?
Since the language has the specific "offset" and the general "planography", there is no need to use "lithography" for printing with metall plates.

As much as I am happy with this 1980 reprint for Sharjah informing us of the printer, and the fact that it is an un­changed reproduc­tion, I am horrified by the use of "lithography" for "offset" (knowing that it is not a personal idiocracy).
thanks to Muhammad I. Hozien for providing this (and other images) from his huge collec­tions of maṣā­ḥif.
    ‒
­‒

Why are kasras flater in Hyderabad than in Būlāq?

In 1938 the 1342 Giza muṣḥaf was reset in Hyderabad:
the same text in lines as long as in Būlāq but slightly higher
although kasras and kasratain are not as steep as in the original.

While in Giza kasras are integrated into the descender of the main (letter) line,
in Hyderabad they are ‒ like the pause-sign-top-line, the Ḍamma-Fatḥa-Šadda-Ǧazm-line ‒
in a line of their own below the letters.
This is normal in type set/type printed maṣāḥif

It would be possible to inte­grate kasras into the letter line, see these words in the 1299 Būlāq print, but it is not worth it for signs as common as kasras and kas­ra­tain
So, what was done in Giza is getting rough proofs of the set text from Būlāq, and cutting the kasra line (either all of the line or the piece bet­ween two des­cen­ders) and paste it higher;
sometime a single kasra gets pasted into the tail of ح ع or kasra­tain descends below the descen­der line.

All of this was too com­pli­cated for the makers of the Hyder­abad muṣḥaf, so in order to get 12 lines into al­most the same size frame as in Giza, they had to make kasras and kas­ratain smaller, not short­er but flater ‒ and al­though there was enough place for a "steep" fatḥa in the ḍamma-line, they adapted the fatḥa to the same angle.

For those still unconvinced
let me repeat the facts:
Offset had only been used for maps, posters, postcards.
All over Cairo, no book publisher had offset equipment.
The 1343 muṣḥaf was the first offset printed book in Egypt.
So, the Amiriyya had to transport the material over the Nile forth and back again;
and they had to pay the Survey of Egypt for their services.
Why would they do that when they did not do something they could hardly do the traditional way?











­‒

Mistake in the Andalusian/Maghribi/Arab Style

One of the errors in the 1924 Qur'an that Indians, Indone­sians, Persians and Turks take ex­ception to is that "God" is written with a short a: ʾallah instead of ʾaḷḷāh.
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/:

Kūfī verse numbering

It is not wise to repeat hearsay.
But sometimes we do it never­the­less.
Somewhere I had read that in India the Kufī numbering system
has five more verses than the Egyptian Kufī system ‒
with­out moving any end of verse (there­fore both being Kufī),
just by splitting five long verses.
Adrian Alan Brockett wrote that in the 20th cen­tury the dif­feren­ces have been reduced
‒ with­out giving chapter and verse.

But here are four places where India used to differ from Arabia:
4:173,       6:73,               36:34+5 were
4:173+4 , 6:73+4 resp. 36:34.

In Encyclopedia of Islam II A.T.Welch writes that in India 18:18 was split in two. I can not confirm this. He further writes that Pickthall has this split verse ‒ correct ‒, and that it was only changed in 1976 ‒ it was changed in 1938.

BTW, the Ottomans did not have here an addi­tional end of verse:

added later:
2:246 and 41:45 can be different in India from Gizeh24 (Brockett p.29)
BHO had both Kufī and Baṣrī, known 100% like "modern" Kufī.
HOQz, MNQ, (HaRi and ar-Rušdi) had exactly the same Kufī numbers as we have today ‒ like Muṣḥaf al-Muḫal­la­lātī and KFE.
al-Muḫal­la­lātī is even one of the four authorities giving in Hyderabad38: