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.

‒ ­

new maṣāḥif from Gaza, from Egypt

maṣāḥif

muṣḥaf

gullible or sceptical

Although the title is "Reciting the Qurʾān in Cairo" ("Koran­lesung in Kairo") the first part of G. Berg­sträßer's article in Der Islam XX (1932) is largely on the "official" Egyptian edition of the Qurʾān, der "amtliche", the Govern­ment edition, the King Fuʾād Edition called the "12 liner (muṣḥaf 12 saṭr") by the book sellers or Muṣḥaf al-Amiriyya after the Govern­ment Press ((never The Cairo Edition, nor the Azhar Qurʾān, and please not Mushaf Amiri/Royal Edition)) and about the chief recitor of the time and the one who followed him in that function (which Bergsträßer did not know of course). The article is rich in informa­tion, both what the two men have told him and what is written in the explana­tions (taʿrīf), the afterword of the book.
First Bergsträßer informs the reader on the 22 pages that follow the 827 pages of the qurʾānic text. Then he tells us what is written in an advertising brochure/ leaflet (Pro­spekt); he uses the sub­junc­tive mode of indirect speech leaving it to the reader to believe what is written ‒ or not.
I do not believe one of the type­written words.

In recent times the government had to destroy many imported copies because of mistakes, notably 25 years ago sinking a whole load in the Nile.

As no year is given, no information of the kind of mis­takes, no informa­tion on the printer ("Aus­land") nor the importer, nothing on whom paid an compen­sa­tion for the capital destroyed to whom (how much?), I do not believe it.
The are serveral kind of mistakes possible:
‒ those that are not mistakes at all, just different con­vention (like whether a leading unpro­nounced alif carries a head of ṣād as waṣl-sign or not, or some otiose letters ‒ see earlier posts)
‒ type errors, that can be remedied by including a "list of errors" or by correcting them by hand
‒ binding error: several copies lack a quire having another one twice, or quires in the wrong order.
Copies with binding error can not be sold. That you have to destroy hun­dreds of copies, there must be so many mis­takes that it is virtually im­possible to correct them by hand.
So far Bergstäßer just reports what was written in the brochure.
Now he tells us what the šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ Muḥammad ʿAlī Ḫalaf al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād told him, but here he does not use the sub­junctive of indirect speech, he gives obvious ("natürlich") facts.

Quelle für den Konsonaten­text sind natürlich nicht Koran­hand­schriften, sondern die Litera­tur über ihn; er ist also eine Rekon­struk­tion, das Ergebnis einer Umschrei­bung des üblichen Konsonanten­textes
Of course, the source for the consonant text are not manuscripts, but the literature about it; it is therefore a reconstruction, the result of a rewriting of the usual consonant text

The source given for the rasm is a didactic poem Maurid aẓ-ẓamʾān by al-Ḫarrāz based on Abū Dāʾūd Sulaimān ibn Naǧāḥ's ʿAqīla
but
the Indonesian Abdul Hakim ("Comparison of Rasm in Indonesian Standard Mushaf, Pakistan Mushaf and Medinan Mushaf: Analysis of word with the formulation of ḥażf al-ḥuruf" in Suhuf X,2 12.2017), the Iranian Center for Printing and Spreading the Quran and the scholars advis­ing the Tunisian publisher Han­bal/Nous-Mêmes have checked the text (either all of it or "just" a tenth ‒ from dif­ferent parts) and found out, that the text of the King Fuʾād Edi­tion and the King Fahd Edition do not tally with the ʿAqīla.
While the Muṣḥaf al-Jamā­hī­riyya follows ad-Dānī's Muqniʿ all the time and the Iranian Center and the Indo­nesian Com­mit­tee publish lists with words where they follow which au­thority (or in the case of the Iranian center even apply a dif­ferent logic) al-Ḥu­sainī al-Ḥad­dād and the Medi­nese King Fahd Complex claimed (!) to follow Abū Dāʿūd.
As this is clearly not the case "Medina" and "Tunis" inserted a word in the ex­plana­tions: ġāli­ban or fil-ġālib (mostly) and a caveat "or other experts."
So the KFC admitts that they do NOT follow Abū Dāʾūd all the time.
Al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād had told Berg­sträßer what the orientalist wanted to hear.
All professional recitors in Egypt know the dif­feren­ces bet­ween Ḥafs, Warš and Qālūn by heart.
Being the chief recitor and a Mali­kite, he knew Warš even better than most.
So what he really did: he copied a Warš copy into a Ḥafs script ‒ largely Abu Dāʾūd, but not 100 %.
Hence the KFE was not a revolution, just a switch from Asia to Africa: a "no" to the Ottomans, a "yes" to the Maġrib.
As I have already said, I recomment an old text.

Gabriel Said Reynolds writes rubbish:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, un­am­bigu­ous reading ... is above all due to the terrific suc­cess of the stan­dard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first pub­lished on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now wide­ly seen as the official text of the Qur’an. ... Minor ad­just­ments were sub­sequent­ly made to this text in follow­ing edi­tions, one pub­lished later in 1924 and an­other in 1936. The text re­leased in 1936 became known as the Farūq edi­tion in honor of the Egypt­ian king, Farūq (The Qur’an in Its Histo­rical Con­text, Lon­don New York 2008. p. 2)

All wrong. The King Fuʾād Edition was not published on July 10, 1924, but the print­ing of its qurʾānic text was finished on that day. It was really only pu­blished after the book was bound in the next year ac­cord­ing to the embossed stamp on its first page ‒ or just the second run of the first edi­tion was stamp like this (?).
طبعة الحكومية المصرّية
        -- . --
    ١٣٤٣ هجرّية
                سـنة

There were minor changes between 1343/1925 and 1347/1929 either in the qur­anic text or in the informa­tion that follows it, but there were no changes in 1936; there never was an Faruq (or Farūq) edition; until the revo­lu­tion of 1952 all full editions of the qurʾān by the Government Press were dedicated to King Fuʾād.



How comes that some youngster call the "King Fuʾād Edition"
"The Cairo Edition" or "the Azhar Edition"?
My guess: because they are so young,
too young to have spent days in the book shops and publishers around the Azhar.
From 1976 to 1985 the most common edition was the "muṣ­ḥaf al-Azhar aš-šarīf" printed by the Amiriyya in many different format, big and small, cheap and ex­penisve ‒ all with the qurʾānic text on 525 pages with 15 lines and only three pause signs (not to be confused with the "muṣ­ḥaf al-Azhar aš-šarīf" by the Azhar, which is a reprint of the 522 page muṣḥaf written by Muṣṭafa Naẓīf.)
But these youngster do not know that there is an "Azhar edition" that came 50 years after the KFE saw the light of day.

And "muṣḥaf al-Qāhira" was the huge manuscript attributed to ʿUṯmān kept at al-Ḥusainī Mosque north of al-Azhar.
From 1880 to today there were more than a hundred editions produced in al-Qāhira, in an industial area nearby, around the main railway station and in Bulāq, no person aware of this could imagine "The Cairo edition",


‒­