Asma Hilali again

A.H. writes in the intro­duction of the journal that the KFE was both edited and calli­graphed by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī,
who had nothing to do with it. It was edited by al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād. It was set with about half of the sorts designed by Muḥammad Ǧaʿfar Bey (m. 1916) ‒ stacked ligatures, and mīm without white in the middle were used in the afterwords, but not in the qurʾānic text because Ḥifnī Bey Nāṣif wanted it to be clear = easily readable (and with space between words, and between lines).
And she give a sources:

La décision du roi Fuʾād de confier au cheikh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī (m. 1936) la tâche d’éditer le Coran a-t-elle représenté une initiative marginale aux yeux des historiens de l’islam moderne² ?   ²ʿAzab, Ḫālid & Ḥasan, Muḥammad, Diwān al-Ḫaṭṭ al-ʿarabī fī Miṣr. Dirāsa waṯāʾiqiyya li-l-kitābāt wa-ahamm al-ḫaṭṭāṭīn fī ʿaṣr Usrat Muḥammad ʿAlī, al-Iskandariyya, Maktabat al-Iskandariyya, 2010, p. 383.
... Muḥammad ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī (m. 1936), ce dernier étant le calligraphe du Coran du Roi Fuʾād.

On p. 383 there is nothing of what Asma claims. Just that ar-Rifāʿī wrote a muṣḥaf for the king – nothing about the Amīrīya edition of 1924!

Both her claims are typical Asma Hilali = her imagintion without factual base.
And for a typeset muṣḥaf, for a muṣḥaf famous for being typeset, that it was calligrahped is even more Asma-like than ordinary.

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?











­‒

India 1837

The next years saw more typographical masahif, and the first printed in the principality of Avdadh/Oudh: in Kanpur.

That's the part that interests me, the Arabic part. But the readers/buyers were most intrested in the Persian part, or let's say in the whole page:

India 1831

The first qurʾān prints were made in the Calcutta area ‒ Hugli/Hooghli and Serampore lay a bit north, are part of the metropolitan area.
In 1831 a fine Arabic muṣḥaf was printed, good type, quality paper, and unlike the earlier and most later prints without (Persian/Urdu) translation nor commentary:

after the first pages, the last two:






‒­

India 1829-1880

For hundreds of years German Orientalists, German Islamologists ignored South Asian and Malay Islam ‒ even the Maghrib lay outside their interest.
Many German Islamologists had never seen an Indian, Indonesian, or Moroccan muṣ­ḥaf. When they wrote about Indian prints, they relied on lists made by Chau­vin (Bobzin) or claimed to have seen books in a library that has no such books (R. Schulze, Bonn univer­sity library).
The only early Indian maṣāḥif I had seen, were copies given by the great publisher Munshi Naval Kishore to Oxford Univer­sity Library and scanned by Google ‒ in the wrong order.
Now there are hundreds of early Indian prints held by the British Libray and scanned by Gale avail­able.
So here are some of these holdings.

this is the beginning of the qurʾān taken from a 1829 print with translation and commentary by Shah ʿAbdul Qadir, a younger son of Shah Waliullah Dihlavi called Mūẓiḥ al-Qurʾān

A Calcutta print of 1256/1840 is remarably similar:

from Sahib Alam (Egypt, Qatar)

Before I will show more early prints from India, let me give the global picture.
At the time maṣā­ḥif were printed in Kazan and Persia (Tehran 1829, Shiraz 1830 Tebriz 1832) ‒ see the next post
In Istanbul there were officially prints from 1875 on;
from Cairo we have prints from that period, a bit later (1879,'81,'91, '92,'93,'94, '95,'99, 1900 and 1905)
from Faz.



­

Kabul 1352 /1934

Gizeh 1924 is important because,
‒ with it Egypt by and large switched to the Maġribian rasm ‒ roughly Ibn Naǧāḥ,
‒ switched to the Maġribian way of writing long vowels, signalling muteness,
     differenciating between three forms of tanwīn, but having one form of madd-sign only
‒ the afterword explained the principles of the edition
     like in the Lucknow editions since the 1870s and the Muxalallātī lithographiy of 1890
‒ there was extra space between words and there were few ligatures,
     base line oriented
‒ the text was type set, printed once; the print was adjusted before plates are made for offset printing.

The new orthography is quickly adopted by private Egyptian printers, in the mašriq only after 1980.
Šamarlī and the new ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā editions have almost no space between words,


while most newer Turkish maṣāḥif separte the words.


There is just one muṣḥaf that is type set and offset printed
‒ just like Gizeh 1924. It went largely unnoticed:
Kabul 1352/1934

Gizeh 1924 and Kabul 1934 side by side.

Kein Standard

In 1914 a few English- and Scotsmen controlled more than half of the globe (most of the seas and chunks of land too, includ­ing millions of Indians).
Kaiser Wilhelm found that unfair. He started a war.
Five years later Germany had shrunk.
Adolf Hitler found that unfair. He started a war.
As one of the results, German is not understood (less written) by most scholars and scien­tists anymore.
So today, there are people reading books and blogs that do not under­stand German.
Therefore, I will repeat in the Lingua Franca of the age, what I have written in German.
In 1834, years after an adequate copy of the Qur'ān was set and printed in St. Peters­burg (later in Kazan)
and when lithograph copies began to be produced in India and Persia,
the German orientalist Gustav Flügel came up with a new typeset copy,
with a text of his own ‒ not very different from rasm, ḍabṭ and ḥarakat recognized by Muslims, but different from the can­on­ized variants never­theless,
and with a numbering system of his Hamburg col­league Abraham Hinckel­mann (which diverges from all Muslim systems and places the numbers BEFORE the verse).


Already the cover shows Flügel incompetence: the little hā' above hā' signals "not a tā' marbuṭa", but in this position (above hā' in hudā), hāʾ can not be tāʾ, so it can not carry an ihmal sign:

The alif (before lām mīm) has no madda. raḥmān and ḏālika should have a dagger alif, Flügel's font doesn't have one. How could any scholar use such a print?

Although it came 50 years too late, it became the standard edition of European orientalists ‒ for about a century.
Later the Egyptian King Fuʾād Edition became the standard ‒ not as I see it ‒ because it was really better than most others, but because it was much better than the orienta­list sorry effort, and because most (Central European) orien­talists ignored the Magh­rebian and Indian prints (Ottoman and Persian prints had a few hundred more alifs as matres lectionis which does not make them inferior, but serves as an argument against them, besides them not indi­cating as­simila­tion of nūn sākin. ‒ Although most Muslims in Germany use Turkish prints, these are avoided by the scholars.)


This was typeset in 1299/1881/2 in the Egyptian Government Press and printed both in one volume (Prince­ton library 2273) and in ten and/or thirty leather bound volumes (on the market and "Exhibi­tion Islam," London).
13 years later printed in Bulaq as well:

In 1914 ‒ when the United Kingdom was at war with the Ottoman Empire ‒ Egypt declared its indepen­dence, the ruler changed from Wālī/Governor to Sulṭān ‒ Khedive had been the personal title, not a function or an office.
Now it was urgent that Egypt printed its own maṣāḥif. The statement that the "foreign ones" (Istan­bul was the capital, not foreign before 1915) had mistakes ‒ without given further informa­tion what and where ‒ is propaganda, no real informa­tion. Repetition does not turn it into fact.