wa-malaʾihī

Here a case against my argument that al-Ḥaddād just adopted a Faz print. Sometimes he did not copy Faz, nor al-Muḫal­la­lātī, not the Ottoman practise, ad-Dāni. /wa-mala­ʾihī/ (7:103, 10:75+83, 11:97, 23:46, 28:32, 43:46) is written with alif for /a/ plus yāʾ for /i/. Given the ḥarakāt-signs, one of these letters is super­fluous. "Every­body" puts the hamza on/below the yāʾ, but al-Ḥaddād below the alif. Algiers 1911 follows the KFE.

Imam aš-Šāṭibī: ʿAqīlat Atrāb al-Qaṣāʾid (the premier didactic poem on the rasm, the Uthmanic ortho­graphy).
Vers 190
وَمَلأً كَيْفَمَا جَا لَامُهُ أَلِفٌ
وَالْيَاءُ بَعْدُ عَنِ الْأَعْلَامِ قَدْ نُقِلَا
And Malaʾ [the noun "elite/chiefs"], however it occurs, its Lām is followed by an Alif,
and the Yāʾ [written] after it has been trans­mitted on the authority of the pro­minent scholars (al-aʿlām).
Explanation:
"however it occurs" (kayfamā ǧā): regard­less of its gramma­tical case or suffix — whether it has a singular pronoun (malaʾihī) or a plural pronoun (malaʾihim).
"and the Yāʾ after it" (wa-l-yāʾu baʿdu): Alif is written directly after the Lam. The early scholars put a Yāʾimmediately after the alif.
Aš-Šāṭibī declares that this is not a later invention but was securely transmitted by the primary early codex-authorities (al-aʿlām), such as al-Ġāzī ibn Qais and ad-Dānī.
Vers 192
فَالْيَاءُ شَرْطُهُمُ هِيَ الْهَمْزَةُ     الزَّائِدُ
الْأَلِفُ الْمُقَدَّمُ أَوْ عَكْسٌ فَقَدْ جُعِلَا
Thus, the Ya, according to their stipulation, is the seat of the Hamza, while the preceding Alif is the extra letter; or the reverse has likewise been established.
Explanation: One school treats the Ya as the kursi of the hamza and considers the Alif silent. The other school does the reverse, treating the Alif as the kursi and the Yāʾ as silent.
Vers 193
وَفِي سِوَى الْأَوَّلَيْنِ الْأَلِفَ فِيهِ رَأَى
أَبُو عُبَيْدٍ وَهَذَا الْعَكْسُ قَدْ فُصِلَا
And in all positions except the first two [which are Surah 7:103 and Surah 10:75], [Abu Ubayd] chose the Alif as the true holder of the Hamza within it [meaning from Surah 10:83 onwards among the seven places].
Abu Ubayd [held this view]; and this reverse position has been detailed [in the classical reference texts].
Vers 192
فَالْيَاءُ شَرْطُهُمُ هِيَ الْهَمْزَةُ     الزَّائِدُ
الْأَلِفُ الْمُقَدَّمُ أَوْ عَكْسٌ فَقَدْ جُعِلَا
Thus, the Yāʾ—according to their stipulation—is the [seat of the] Hamza, while the preceding Alif is the extra [silent] letter; or the reverse (ʿaks) has [likewise] been established.
This is the absolute apex of the entire ortho­graphic battle between the Kairo/Medina and the rest of the world. Aš-Šāṭibī perfectly captures the two competing classical linguistic schools:
School 1 (Abū Dāʾūd): The Yāʾ is the kursī of the hamza. Consequently, the preceding written Alif is rendered "extra" (zāʾid) and silent. It gets a sifr/ circle.
School 2 (aw ʿaksun/or the reverse): Other early masters es­tab­lished the opposite theory (the basis for the KFE). They argue that the Alif is the genuine, etymo­logical seat of the Hamza, rendering the trailing Yāʾ as the extra, silent character. This is why the KFE stamps the silent circle onto the Yāʾ.
Vers 193
وَفِي سِوَى الْأَوَّلَيْنِ الْأَلِفَ فِيهِ رَأَى
أَبُو عُبَيْدٍ وَهَذَا الْعَكْسُ قَدْ فُصِلَا
And in cases other than the first two [positions], Abū ʿUbayd regarded the Alif as the [seat of the Hamza] within it; and this reverse position has been detailed [in the reference texts].
Abū ʿUbayd refers to Abū ʿUbaid al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 838 AD), one of the earliest rasm chroniclers.
"cases other than the first two" (fī siwā l-awwalayni): He is referencing specific textual positions within the chronological layout of these 7 critical malaʾih locations across the Qur'anic text.
Aš-Šāṭibī uses this verse to document that ancient, authori­tative pioneers like Abū ʿUbayd explicitly broke away from uniform execution at certain points, actively viewing the Alif as the dominant holder of the phoneme. This historical flipping back and forth (al-ʿaks) was meticu­lously recorded in the classical specialized manuals (fuṣṣilā), providing the raw, conflicting material that later allowed Lahore and Kairo to pick two completely different ways to use their silent circles.
As I see it: alif stood in for /a/, yāʾ for a glide /yi/. Only when later authorities hamzified the qurʾānic text, the problem arose.

­ ‒

the Cairo Committee ‒ ha ha ha

Some time ago I started a blog against the German Orienta­list myth of the King Fuʾād Edition as The Standard: Kein Standard. I had no idea that there are scholars out­side Germany too, who ascribe this and that to this edition.
Let me admit that the edition printed 1924 in Giza, bound and blind-stamped in Būlāq "ṭabʿat al-ḥukūma al-miṣrīya sanat 1343 hijrīya" (1924/5), with­out a title on the cover, the spine, with­out a title page, is im­por­tant, but not as im­por­tant as many think and not for the reasons given.
طبعة الحكومية المصرّية
        -- . --
    ١٣٤٣ هجرّية
                سـنة

The edition is not and never was The Standard, it has not spread Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim (BTW it is not an "Azhar Edition," and no "King Farūq edition" was published in 1936 or any­time). It was not the first that pro­claims to follow the ʿUṯmānic rasm, and it is not type printed ‒ it is type­set, off­set printed (plano­graphic prin­ting just as litho­graphy). It is not the first with a post­script (Luck­now copies from the 1870s onward and the Mu­ḫalla­lātī Cairo 1890 print have post­scripts ‒ although the latter is some­times bound as pre­face ‒ the numbers on the gatherings {malā­zim, sg.: mul­zama} show that it was to be the last section).
Whatever is written by "experts," the 1924 edition was not "im­mense­ly popular": the people of Egypt always pre­ferred other editions: in the 1920s and '30s 522 pages written by Muṣṭfā Naẓīf Qadir­ghali (still reprinted in its Otto­man gestalt in the 1950s), since 1975 (till today) the Šamar­lī (as well on 522 pages), after 1976 for a decade Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf (525 pages, several sizes), since 1980 editions written by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha (on 604 pages). The people of Egypt never took to the 844 pages of the "revolu­tio­nary" King Fuʾād Edition (18,5 x 26 x 5 cm). The 1924 edition was never re­printed (the 1955 Peking edition has the same text for the qur'ān and the information, but adds a title page, sup­presses the de­di­cation to the king, has different headers, different frames etc).
To understand what went on, it helps to know that Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire from January 1517 to November 1914. Soon after, the govern­ment found "faults" in Ottoman maṣā­ḥif and asked the chief qārī of Egypt to pre­pare a modern Egyptian edition; a former direc­tor of the Arabic depart­ment of the Ministry of Education and two pro­fessors from the Teachers Training Center Nāṣa­rīya (located next door) were to assist him.
It is important to note that India and the Maghreb had largely kept the qurʾān ortho­graphy of the tenth century, or they had reverted to the old spelling already sometime before.
When Hythem Sidky writes in his review article:

"the [modern] ortho­gra­phic standard of clas­sical Arabic ... charac­te­rized nearly all muṣḥafs" before 1924 (Book Review of Daniel Alan Bru­baker, Cor­rec­tions in Early Qurʾānic Manus­cripts in Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 27, 2019. p. 276),

he is com­pletely wrong: There was not a single muṣ­ḥaf written like clas­si­cal Arabic and the majo­rity (in Africa, in India, in Nusan­tara, in Central Asia) wrote accord­ing to ad-Dānī or close to his Muqniʿ. Egyptian ʿulamāʾ had been aware of the old spel­ling; books of ad-Dānī (on the rasm, on the readings, on verse num­bers) were taught and studied.
On the other hand, in Persia and (to a lesser extent) in the Otto­man Empire, the spell­ing had become closer to the "normal" spelling of Arabic ‒ this process has been labelled "clas­si­fi­cation" = writ­ing as if the qurʾān had been put on vellum by Sībawaih & Co.
1924 brought no revo­lution. Already in 1890, a muṣḥaf had been printed that was pretty close to the spel­ling of 1924 ‒ actually closer to ad-Dānī (not to his pupil Ibn Naǧaḥ, preferred in the Maghrib).
Five years later a qurʾān "bir-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī" was type printed on the margin of a com­mentary.

The scholar behind the reform Abū ʿId Riḍ­wān al-Muḫalla­lātī had died the year before, but the makers of the King Fuʾād Edition pay tribute to him.
In 1930 Gotthelf Bergsträßer met Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ḫalaf al-Ḥusainī al-Mālikī aṣ-Ṣaʿīdī al-Ḥaddād (and his suc­ces­sor ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥasan b. Ibrāhīm al-Maṣrī aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ d.1380/ 1961). In "Die Koran­lesung in Kairo" (Der Islam XX, 1932. p. 5) he writes:

Quelle für diesen Konsonanten­text sind natürlich nicht Koran­hand­schriften, sondern die Literatur über ihn; er ist also eine Rekon­struk­tion, das Ergeb­nis einer Um­schrei­bung des üb­lichen Kon­sonan­ten­textes in die alte Ortho­graphie nach den An­gaben der Litera­tur. Benützt ist dafür ...
of course the source for the con­sonan­tal text are not manu­scripts, but the lite­ra­ture about it; hence it is a re­con­struc­tion, the result of trans­forming the [then a.s.] common con­sonan­tal text into the old ortho­graphy ac­cording to the lite­ra­ture, fore­most Maurid aẓ-Ẓamʾān by [abu ʿAbdallāh] Muḥam­mad ibn Muḥam­mad [ibn Ibrāhīm] al-Ummawī aš-Šarīšī known as al-Ḫarrāz and its com­men­tary by ... and a further com­men­tary for the marks (ḍabṭ)

I think Bergsträßer is wrong, and Sidky is wrong, when he writes that the 1924 Gizeh print relied on rasm works. Yes, its makers write in the post­face, that they did, but I am convinced, that in practice al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddad al-Mālikī just copies a Warš muṣ­ḥaf changing it to Ḥafṣ ‒ which is easy for the chief qārī, he knows the dif­feren­ces bet­ween the two readings by heart; the pause signs are his creation, the verse numbers are Kufic based on works by aš-Šāṭibī and al-Mu­ḫalla­lātī.
Marijn van Putten recently tweeted:

The Cairo Edition clearly attempted to get to the original rasm, and was suc­cess­ful to a remark­able extent, but oc­casional­ly failed to get it right, as is clear from manu­script eviden­ce. [Some­times] Rasm works (or, at least those con­sulted by the commit­tee of the Cairo edition) con­sistent­ly get it wrong in com­parison with the actual manu­script evi­dence.

As I see it, MvP makes several mis­takes: there was no committee work; of the four editors men­tioned there was only ONE ʿālim, the others had not the slightest idea about writ­ing and read­ing a muṣ­ḥaf, they just stood for the Giza print as "govern­ment/min­istry of edu­cation muṣ­ḥaf". The editor al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād did not scruti­nize qurʾān manu­scripts, either ancient nor recent. He just adapted a Warš muṣḥaf with verse numbers according to Medina II to the trans­mis­sion of Ḥafṣ with Kūfī num­bers and his own pause signs (based on the system used in the East). Al­though he writes in the after­word that the rasm is based on Ibn Najāḥ, it does not follow him all the time; I have the im­pres­sion that it is not pri­marily based on rasm works (by ad-Dānī, Ibn Najāḥ, al-Ḫar­rāz, aš-Šā­ṭibī, al-Saḫāwī or al-Murādī al-Balansī, nor the Indian al-Arkātī) but on a con­tem­porary muṣ­ḥaf.
I go further: al-Ḥaddād was not even aware of the "Ḥijāzī" manu­scripts. He didn't "get it wrong", because he did not try to do what MvP thinks he tried. He assumed that the Maġribī scholars had pre­served the ʿUṯmānic rasm.

Don't get me wrong. I am contra­dicting PvM not because he is parti­cularly stupid, but because he is especially important. Whereas most scholars are just Nöldeke IV or Spitalerin 1.6 (or try to become those), MvP prepares new paths.

But MvP's "The Cairo Edition" (and Sidky's "CE") is stupidity pure:
There are more than a thousand Cairo editions, but the King Fuʾād / Survey Authority Edition is a Giza edition, not Cairo.
Marijn van Putten and Hythem Sidky are not stupid, they are just like the people of Tiznit, who call Duc Anh Vu, the only Vietnamese in town, "Chinese", they do not know from which city he is, they do not need to know, "Asia some­thing" is good enough for them. Experts in early qur­anic frag­ments do not have to visit the hun­dreds of book­shops in Cairo, Karachi or Jakarta ‒ but still    it would be nice if they stopped calling Duc Anh Vu "Chinese" (or the King Fuʾād Edition "CE") ‒ he/it is not.

Came across a quote by Martha C. Nussbaum, an excellent philosopher and essayist, referring to Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini as "the Ayatollah," because she does not know that there are more than 5000 Ayatollahs in Iran. It seems that some do not know that there are more than a thousand Cairo editions ‒ or they just don't care.