Nairīzī

Mirza Aḥmad an-Nairīzī (ca. 1650–1747) is the last of the classical Iranian calligrahers. Informations are hard to find, because often under Neyrizi or Nayrizi.

(the last image shows on the right:   part of a page (start of Surat an-Nisāʾ) from the splendid reprint offered to important guests of the Islamic Republic.

unlike the reprints above the images below are from Merkaz Ṭab-o-Našr in their reformed spelling:

on the right: the letters in light brown are not pronounced "as such":
either not at all or not as ī, but ā, not as ū, but u ...
(note that the "typesetter" on the right made a typical Persian mistake:
he typed "space" after /wa-/und – may he'll find forgive­ness)

–­

Merkaz Ṭab-o Našr

from a German blog coPilot made this English one

Iranian Qur'an Orthography: Editorial Principles and Variants

The Iranian مرکز طبع و نشر قرآن کریم has introduced a new rasm standard aimed at improving readability and consistency like reducing missing, redundant or un­expected let­ters and standardiz­ing soellings that vary within the qurʾān. Most of the time they adopt spellings used in recognized editions (even of Warš or Qā­lūn) or one that is mentioned by a know authority (ad-Dānī, Ibn Naǧāḥ, al-Ḫarrāz, and al-Ār­kātī) but 17 words (on 36 ülaces) are improved without a good authority, just for a good reason.

1. Editorial Philosophy

• Focus on clarity and uniformity
• Preference for recognized editions (e.g., Warsh, Qalun) or rasm authorities (e.g., Ibn Najah, ad-Dani)
• Willingness to simplify even without precedent

2. 17 Words Changed at 36 Locations

These changes are made for ease of reading and are not based on traditional models:

Verse	Iranian Form	Traditional Form	Rationale
اِنّ ما	إِنَّمَا	8:41, 16:95	easier to understand
فيما	فِى مَا	2:240	the opposite: because it is written like this elsewhere
فيما	فِى مَا	5:48	the opposite: because it is written like this elsewhere
مِمّا	مِن مَّا	30:28, 63:10	because like this elsewhere
اَبناۤءُ	أَبۡنَٰۤؤُ۠ا۠	5:18	Avoid silent alif-hamza
اَنباۤءُ	أَنْبَاؤُا	26:6	Same as above
يُنَبَّاُ	يُنَبَّؤُا *	75:13	Simplified passive

* in 57:13, AryaMehr Nairīzī forgot an alif, whether alif wiqāya or the alif of the definite article is not clear

تَراني	تَرَىٰنِى	7:143	Avoid yāʾ for alif
اَرانيۤ	اَرَىٰنِىۤ	12:36	dagger alif avoidance
اؚجتَباهُ	ٱجۡتَبَىٰهُ	16:121, 22:78	Hamza-alif simplification
ءاتانِي	ءَاَتَىٰنِى	19:30
خَطايٰكم	خَطَٰيَٰكُمۡ	2:58, 20:73	dagger alif avoidance
لَساحِرٌ	لَسَٰحِرٌ	7:109, 26:34	Simplified form
قُرءانًا	قُرۡءَٰنًا	12:2	Hamza-alif simplification
نادانا	نَادَىٰنَا	37:75	Simplified verb form
اِحسانًا	إِحۡسَٰنًا	46:15	dagger/replacement alif avoidance
جِمالَتٌ	جِمَٰلَتٌۭ	77:33	Simplified plural
كِذّابًا	كِذَّٰنًۭا	78:35	Simplified exaggeration

3. Additional Plene Spellings Found

These were discovered in a 10% sample and are found in Persian/Ottoman Mushafs but not in cited authorities:

• بِخَازِنِينَ (15:22)
• بَارِزُونَ (40:16)
• كَاظِمِينَ (40:18)
• ظَاهِرِينَ (40:29)

4. Phonetic Simplification

• Hamza markers on initial alifs are omitted
• No sukūn signs
• Assimilation not marked (e.g. mir rabbihi in 2:5)
• Small vowel signs replace red pause markers

5. Tanwīn and Vowel Logic

• Mini-nūn + kasra used for tanwīn-i (e.g. 23:38)
• Vowel letters represent full vowels, not length
• Fatḥa before alif, kasra before yāʾ, ḍamma before wāw = vowel letter is silent

6. Modern Iranian Editions

• Over 100 orthographic variants across media
• Includes Solṭānī, Hirīsī, Nairizī, Arsanjānī, and Uthman Taha adaptations
• Fatḥas over “Allah” are straight

Ferner hat das مكز طبع و نشر einen neuen rasm fest­gelegt. Es geht Ṭab-o Našr um Les­barkeit und Einheit­lich­keit, also weniger feh­len­de, über­flüssige oder un­ge­wöhn­liche Buch­sta­ben, sowie weniger Aus­drü­cke, die mal so, mal an­de­res ge­schrieben wer­den. Am liebsten stützen sie sich da­bei auf an­er­kann­te Aus­gaben (auch von Warš und Qā­lūn) oder eine rasm-Auto­ri­tät. Not­falls ver­ein­fachen sie aber auch ohne gute Stütze. Sie geben an, dass sie 17 Worte an 36 Stellen „ein­fach“ schreiben ohne Vor­bild.
Die 17 Wörter sind recht unter­schied­lich:
leichtere Ver­ständ­lich­keit (6:41,16:95) اِنّ ما statt إِنَّمَا ,
das Gegenteil (2:240,5:58): فيما statt فِى مَا – wegen Parallel­stellen;
aus dem gleichen Grund (30:28, 63:10): مِمّا statt مِن مَّا ;
Vermeidung eines stummen Alifs اَبناۤءُ statt أَبۡنَٰۤؤُ۠ا۠ (5:18),
اَنباۤءُ statt أَنۢبَٰٓؤُا۟ (26:6),
يُنَبَّاُ statt يُنَبَّؤُا (75:13),
Ver­meidung eines yāʾ für Alif تَراني statt تَرَىٰنِى (7:143),
اَرانيۤ statt اَرَىٰنِىۤ (12:36),
اؚجتَباهُ statt ٱجۡتَبَىٰهُ (16:121, 22:78);
statt ءَاَتَىٰنِى (19:30) ءاتانِي – entspricht Solṭānī/Hirīsī/17Zeilen,476Seiten,1366/1947, Nairizī und Arsan­ǧā­nī, nicht aber Faḍāʾilī;
اَرانيۤ statt اَرَىٰنِىۤ (12:36);
Ver­meidung nor­ma­ler Er­satz­alifs خَطايٰكم statt خَطَٰيَٰكُمۡ (2:58, 20:73),
لَساحِرٌ statt لَسَٰحِرٌ (7:109, 26:34),
قُرءانًا statt قُرۡءَٰنًا (12:2),
نادانا statt نَادَىٰنَا (37:75),
اِحسانًا statt إِحۡسَٰنًا (46:15),
جِمالَتٌ statt جِمَٰلَتٌۭ (77:33).
كِذّابًا statt كِذَّٰنًۭا (78:35).
Von den 17 Wör­tern folgen acht nOsm.
Bei einer Stich­probe von 10% des Koran­textes habe ich vier weitere Plene-Schrei­bun­gen 15:22 biḫāzinīna, 40:16 bāri­zūna, 40:18 kāẓimīna, 40:29 ẓāhirīna ent­deckt, die zwar in al­ten per­sischen oder os­ma­ni­schen maṣāhif vor­kom­men, aber nicht in den vom Zen­trum ge­nann­ten Aus­gaben oder Auto­ri­tä­ten (al-Ārkātī, ad-Dānī, Ibn Naǧāḥ). Mit anderen Worten: Man schreibt wie man will. Ich vermute, dass „Fehler“, Archa­is­men bei Ara­ber den „hei­li­gen Cha­rak­ter“ der Schrift verstärken. Da Ara­bisch für Perser aber ohnehin „die hei­lige Spra­che“ ist, brauchen sie die Fehler nicht, um das als un­pro­fan = außer­all­täglich zu em­pfin­den.
In den ersten zwanzig Versen von al-Baqara schreiben sie gegen Q24 al-kitābu (2:2), razaqnā­hum (3), tujā­diʿūn (9), aḍ-ḍalālaha (16), ẓulu­mā­tin (17), ẓulumātun, ʾaṣābiʿa­hum (19) und bil-kāfirīna (20) wie Q52, ʾabṣārihim, ġišā­watub (7), ṭuġyāni­him (15), tiǧāra­tu­hum (16), aṣ-ṣwāʿiqi (19), ʾabṣāra­hum und wa-abṣāri­him (20) wie iPak und Lib in Solṭānī und Osm außer­dem šayā­ṭīni­him (2:14) mit alif.
Zweitens lassen sie meist alles weg, was bei der Schreibung des Persi­schen weg­gelassen wird, also Hamza­zeichen auf oder unter Anfangs­alif (fatḥa, ḍamma, kasra schließen Hamza ein), Ḥasan ibn ʿAbdalkarīm Hirīsī al-Arwānaqī bei der Schreibung von /ʾā/ jedoch folgt nIran Q24: isolier­tes hamza+alif nicht alif+Lang-fatḥa – fatḥa vor alif, kasra vor yāʾ, ḍamma vor wau (Lang­vo­kal­buch­staben bezeichnen nicht wie im Ara­bi­schen die Längung des Vokals, sondern den Lang­vokal selbst); steht doch ein Kurz­vokal­zeichen vor dem Vokal­buch­staben, gilt dieses: der Vokal­buch­stabe ist stumm; ferner fehlen sukūn-Zeichen (steht kein Vokal­zeichen, ist der Kon­sonant vo­kal­los), sowie Hin­weise auf As­simi­lation, die über das im Standard­arabi­schen hinaus­gehen,
Türken, Perser sind die ein­zigen, die Assi­milation – im Wort und über Wort­grenzen – nicht notieren. (etwa von vo­kal­losem nūn an rāʾ: mir rabbihi in 2:5 Andererseits steht in 75:27 das Nicht-Assimi­lieren!-Zeichen: راقٍ مَنۜ ). oder im Wort 77:20 /naḫ­luqkum/ statt /naḫ­lukkum/), auch die unter­schied­lichen tanwīn-For­men – nIran folgt darin Solṭānī und Osm gegen IPak, Mag und Q24.
Es wird ein kleines-nūn + kasra ge­setzt, wenn das nūn des voraus­gehenden tanwīn mit i gelesen wird (z.B. 23:38). Aus den einst roten Vokal­zeichen auf alif waṣl, das nach obliga­ter Pause mit Hamza und Anlaut zu sprechen ist, wird in diesen Aus­gaben Klein-fatḥa (z.B. 2:15), Klein-ḍamma (38:42) oder Klein-kasra (58:16,19). Wie auch in den in­do­ne­si­schen Adap­ta­tionen von UT1 sind in den moder­nen ira­ni­schen Aus­gaben – sowohl jene im Duktus ʿUṯmān Ṭāhās wie die im Stile Naizī­rīs – die Fatḥas über allāh gerade. Daneben findet man zig Aus­gaben von ʿUṯ­mān Ta­ha zu unter­schied­lichen Graden nach Soltani oder nach nIran um­ge­arbeitet. Zählt man die Schrei­bungen im Fern­sehn, auf dem Smart­phone und dem Web (etwa makarem.ir/quran) mit, kommt man auf über hundert ver­schie­dene Ortho­gra­phien.

Iran (chronologically)

after the page with links to posts about Indian maṣāḥif, here about Iran:
1827+1829
1830
1832
1846
1850(the last in that post)
1850
1886

1940 (second in the post)
1957 +'67
1973
2004 (second part of the post)
Persian calligraphy

all features are independent of each other

One of the ten most im­por­tant dis­cove­ries in this blog:
When producing a muṣḥaf all features are inde­pendent of each other.
true, most maṣāḥif written in Maġ­ribī style have the text accord­ing to Warš,
but in Tunis e.g. there were Ḥafs copies written in Maġ­ribī style.
True, the first ber­Kenar co­pies with 15 lines on 604 pages were in (Ottoman) naskh,
but today there are copies with that page layout in other styles.
The Iranian Center for Printing and Dis­tribut­ing the Qurʾān has deviced a new system of voyelling without sukūn in which vowel letters with­out ḥarkāt stand for long vowels; they are not leng­thening the cor­res­ponding vowel sign (hence in that system the con­sonant before a vowel letter has no vowel sign ‒ vowel signs standing only for short vowels) ‒ and a new rasm.
In this post I show that this "neo-Iranian" (or Ṭab-o Našr-)rasm can occur with any writing style.
The Center has pub­lished a list of 17 words that they write as they see fit (of course respecting the sound) not following old manu­scripts or estab­lished maṣāḥif.
While in the first two colums from the left the words are both in the new Iranian vowelling and in the new Iranian rasm, the third column is written in the "Lahorī" style just as the next two columns.
The last column is from the first Iranian print (type set Tehran 1827), and the one with light yellow back­ground is Uṭmān Taha/Q52.

The other discoveries are:
there is no single standard
there is not THE Cairo edition, but hundreds
there are Eastern vs. Western ways of writ­ing of long vowels, of lead­ing alif, of pro­nounced nūn sākin   being among the dif­ferences
the main features of the KFE were
‒ adoption of the Moroc­con rasm
‒ adoption of many Moroccon features (like marking mute letters, noting assimi­lation, having three kinds of tanwīn)
‒ droping of Eastern features (like nun quṭnī, having three kinds of madd sign, making for shortened vowels)
‒ easy readabiliy (clear base line, clear right-to-left), vowel sign exactely above/below base letter
that the KFE did not FIX the text: both within Amiriyya prints, reprints and the great child in Medina there are changes
If anything is not clear, leave a comment!
The Centre for the Printing and Distribution of the Qur'an, which reports to the leader/rahbar, has intro­duced three improvements:
First, three lower­case vowel signs at the places where there used to be red vowel signs (VS) in manuscripts: for words that begin with alif-waṣl, but before which the reader pauses, i.e. which are to be read with Hamza, the initial alif is given a small VS.
Then a completely new spelling of long vowels: While in Africa it is VS + ḥarf al-madd (stretching letter),
according to neoIran, the vowel letter is read as such, there is no VS (because there is no /a/, /i/, /u/ to ne read, only /ā/, /ī/, /ū/.
If there is no sign and no vowel letter follows, the con­sonant is vowel­less = there is no sukūn sign. Letters that are not read at all   are in a different colour:
(In the centre of the excerpt: /fĭl-ardi/ with a short i the kasra is to be read, not the yāʾ)

This simplified vocalisa­tion is based on the con­vent­ions of Persian writing.

Furthermore, the مكز طبع و نشر has established a new rasm. Ṭab-o Našr is con­cerned with legibili­ty and uniformi­ty, i.e. fewer missing, super­fluous or unusual letters, fewer expressions that are some­times written one way and some­times another.
They prefer to rely on recognis­ed editions (including Warš and Qālūn editions) or a rasm authority.
If necessary, however, they also simplify with­out good support. They state that they write 17 words in 36 places ‘simply’ with­out a model.
The 17 words are quite different:
easier to understand (6:41,16:95) اِنّ ما instead of إِنَّمَا ,
the opposite (2:240,5:58): فيما instead of فِى مَا – because of parallel passages;
for the same reason (30:28, 63:10): مِمّا instead of مِن مَّا ;
Avoiding a silent Alifs اَبناۤءُ instead of أَبۡنَٰٓؤُا۟۟ (5:18),
اَنباۤءُ instead of أَنۢبَٰٓؤُا۟ (26:6),
يُنَبَّاُ instead of يُنَبَّؤُا (75:13),
Avoiding a silent yāʾ for /ā/ تَراني instead of تَرَىٰنِى (7:143),
اَرانيۤ instead of اَرَىٰنِىۤ (12:36),
اؚجتَباهُ instead of ٱجۡتَبَىٰهُ (16:121, 22:78);
statt ءَاَتَىٰنِى (19:30) ءاتانِي – like Solṭānī/Hirīsī, Nairizī und Arsan­ǧā­nī, but not Faḍāʾilī;
اَرانيۤ instead of اَرَىٰنِىۤ (12:36);
Avoiding some "dagger alifs" خَطايٰكم instead of خَطَٰيَٰكُمۡ (2:58, 20:73),
لَساحِرٌ instead of لَسَٰحِرٌ (7:109, 26:34),
قُرءانًا instead of قُرۡءَٰنًا (12:2),
نادانا instead of نَادَىٰنَا (37:75),
اِحسانًا instead of إِحۡسَٰنًا (46:15),
جِمالَتٌ instead of جِمَٰلَتٌۭ (77:33).
كِذّابًا instead of كِذَّٰنًۭا (78:35).
Of the 17 words, eight follow nOsm/CT.
In a random sample of 10% of the Qur'anic text, I dis­covered four more plene spellings 15:22 biḫāzinīna, 40:16 bāri­zūna, 40:18 kāẓimīna, 40:29 ẓāhirī­na, which occur in old Persian or Ottoman maṣā­hif, but not in the editions or authori­ties cited by the Centre (al-Ārkātī, ad-Dānī, Ibn Naǧāḥ). In other words, they write as they like it. I suspect that ‘mis­takes’, archa­isms in Arabic re­inforce the ‘sacred char­acter’ of the script. But since Arabic is ‘the sacred language’ for Persians any­way, they don't need the mis­takes to per­ceive it as un­pro­fane = out of the ordinary.
In the first twenty verses of al-Baqara they write against Q24 al-kitābu (2: 2), razaqnāhum (3), tujādiʿūn (9), aḍ-ḍalālaha (16), ẓulumātin (17), ẓulumātun, ʾaṣābiʿahum (19) and bil-kāfirīna (20) like Q52, ʾabṣārihim, ġišāwatub (7), ṭuġyānihim (15), tiǧāratuhum (16), aṣ-ṣwāʿiqi (19), ʾabṣāra­hum and wa-abṣāri­him (20) such as iPak and Lib in Solṭānī and Osm also šayāṭīni­him (2:14) with alif.
Secondly, they usually omit every­thing that is omitted when writ­ing Persian, i.e. hamza signs on or under the initial alif (fatḥa, ḍamma, kasra include hamza), - but when writ­ing /ʾā/, nIran Q24 follows: isolated hamza+alif not alif+long-fatḥa - fatḥa before alif, kasra before yāʾ, ḍamma before wau (long vowel letters do not denote the elongation of the vowel as in Arabic, but the long vowel itself); how­ever, if a short vowel sign precedes the vowel letter, this applies: the vowel letter is silent; further­more, sukūn signs are miss­ing (if there is no vowel sign, the con­sonant is vowel­less), as well as indi­ca­tions of as­simi­la­tion that go beyond that in Standard Arabic.
Turks and Persians are the only ones who do not note assimi­lation – in the word and across word boundaries. (for example, from vowel­less nūn to rāʾ: mir rabbihi in 2:5 On the other hand, in 75:27 there is the non-assimilation sign: مَنۜ راقٍ). or in the word 77:20 /naḫluqkum/ instead of /naḫlukkum/), also the different tanwīn forms - nIran follows Solṭānī and Osm against IPak, Mag and Q24.

A small-nūn + kasra is placed when the nūn of the preceding tanwīn is read with i (e.g. 23:38). In these editions, the once red vowel signs on alif waṣl, which is to be spoken after an obligatory pause with hamza and initial sound, become small-fatḥa (e.g. 2:15), small-ḍamma (38:42) or small-kasra (58:16,19). As in the Indonesian adaptations of UT1, in the modern Iranian editions - both those in the style of ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā and those in the style of Naizīrī - the Fatḥas are straight across allāh. In addition, there are countless editions of ʿUṯmān Taha reworked to different degrees according to Soltani or nIran. If you count the spellings on TV, smartphones and the web (e.g. makarem.ir/quran), you end up with over a hundred different orthographies.
Es wird ein kleines-nūn + kasra ge­setzt, wenn das nūn des voraus­gehenden tanwīn mit i gelesen wird (z.B. 23:38). Aus den einst roten Vokal­zeichen auf alif waṣl, das nach obliga­ter Pause mit Hamza und Anlaut zu sprechen ist, wird in diesen Aus­gaben Klein-fatḥa (z.B. 2:15), Klein-ḍamma (38:42) oder Klein-kasra (58:16,19). Wie auch in den in­do­ne­si­schen Adap­ta­tionen von UT1 sind in den moder­nen ira­ni­schen Aus­gaben – sowohl jene im Duktus ʿUṯmān Ṭāhās wie die im Stile Naizī­rīs – die Fatḥas über allāh gerade. Daneben findet man zig Aus­gaben von ʿUṯ­mān Ta­ha zu unter­schied­lichen Graden nach Soltani oder nach nIran um­ge­arbeitet. Zählt man die Schrei­bungen im Fern­sehn, auf dem Smart­phone und dem Web (etwa makarem.ir/quran) mit, kommt man auf über hundert ver­schie­dene Ortho­gra­phien.
Turks, Arabs and Indians have fixed standards; Indians have had them for two hundred years, Arabs since around 1980, Turks since 1950 - or a little later.
Indonesians, Persians and Tunisians are looking for improvements. Tunisia is part of the Maghreb, and most of what is written here follows Qālūn ʿan Nāfiʿ. However, from the end of the 16th century until the end of the 19th century, the Ottomans maintained a garrison in Tunis.
Türken, Araber und Inder haben feste Standards; die Inder schon zwei­hundert Jahre, die Araber seit etwa 1980, die Türken seit 1950 – oder etwas später.
Qurans were written on site for their officers. At least two of them are facsimiles: one on sixty pages - Qurʾān Karīm, scribe: Zubair ibn ʿAbdallah al-Ḥanafī. Tunis: ad-Dār at-Tūnisīya lin-Našr n.d. - and one in which opposite pages repeatedly show the same words. Muṣḥaf Šarīf written by Zuhair Bāš Mamlūk 1305/1885, Tunis: ʿAbd al-Karīm Bin ʿAbdallah 1403/1983 (printed in Verona). Both record the reading Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim in Maghrebi scribal conventions.
Two words from 2:8 according to five different standards, all Ḥafṣ. The top (Q52) and bottom (nIran) look similar but are fundamentally different, the bottom two (nOsm and nIran) are the same although they look different. Both are due to the fact that nIran completely dispenses with sukūn characters: the nūn in the bottom one is therefore with sukūn and the qāf with ū (both as in nOsm directly above). In the uppermost, the nūn has kéin sukūn and according to the rules of Q24 this means: not to speak as nūn; the word sounds: ‘mai’. The same situation (incomplete assimilation) is expressed by IPak (third from bottom) and Standar Indonesia (2nd-4th line) with sukūn above the nūn (i.e.: not mute) and šadda above the yāʾ (i.e.: doubling mai yaqūl). nOsm and nIran never note (half and full) assimilation.


‒­

Tehran 1827 (+ 1831)

Here images from the first Persian type set mushaf.

... and an illustration from a book by Borna Izad­panah:

... and three from a 1831 print set with the same types from Borna Izad­panah's twitter account (the Royal Asiatic Society holds it). First a page with the beginning of sura XV ‒ note that there is empty space for a colour title box.

here 2:138 and the next verse

last a fake: in the first line I have moved a turned kasra /ī/ from under yāʾ for­ward under its letter. In the second line 2:15 is interest­ing because /ʾallāh/ HERE gets a fatha (which includes a hamza) because of the pause before it:

‒­

Tebriz 1870

Shiraz 1830

lithography British Library

‒­

Persian / Iran

In one of my first German posts I show that ʿUṯmān Ṭaha writes less calligraphicly than the 1924 Egyptian government print: UT has a strict base line, no mīm without white space in the middle = no mīm below lām: the next letter is always to the left. In the UT style vowel signs are always near "their" letter <--> in traditional Ottoman and Persian style they must only be in the right order.
All in all, ʿUṯmān Ṭaha is very close to the style of the Amiriyya = a simple Ottoman style.
In a German text I focus on orthography, giving most attention to the Maghrebian-Arab and to the Pakistani-Indian ones
and consequently on the new Arab calligraphic style and the new Pakistani-Indian one. Of course, I display examples from Morocco, from the Sudān, from Russia-Tartaristan as well -- and the earlier Indian style from Lucknow plus example from Punjab, from Bengal and Kerala.
I show many examples from Turkey and the Mašriq, but from Iran, I show mainly Nastaʿliq ones.
Here you see the normal Persian "qur'anic" style, taken from old maṣāḥif, all recently reproduced.

although written by three different (famous) writers, they are similar.
Note in the bottom right, that (like sometimes in India) wa is separated from the word to which it "belongs", something forbidden in Arabic.

Here two more examples of wrong wa- at the end of a line. I find the first example shocking because the silent alif-waṣl is separated from its vowel /a/.

Fist images from four Iranian ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā editions:
Now an Arab-Persian version which the original ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā writing, but in 11 lines instead of 15 -- and again twice the grave sin against Arab orthography: wa- at the end of line:

Here a more traditional print: 604 pages, a Persan style close to ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā, mostly with the Persian help signs: