My main thesis ‒ on earth there is not THE Standard printed Qurʾān ‒ was already proven by him:
the "official" text of 1342/1924 is not official.
He showed:
the qurʾān was transmitted through the ages both orally and in writing.
the two tansmissions support each other, controll each other.
and: Differences between transmissions are minor.
The sound form (maṣāḥif murattal) and the graphic form of written/printed maṣāḥif differ, but there is only ONE qurʾān.
He wrote this before the age of the internet, of Unicode, before ʿUṭmān Ṭāha, and editions of Qālūn from Damascus, Dubai, Tripoli und Tunis, before one could listen to fourteen riwayāt on CD and TV.
He collected many editions of Ḥafṣ and Warš from Egypt, Iran and Tunisia, and consulted a few manuscripts (in Edinburgh)
At the time, there were no critical editions neither of Zamaḫšarī's Kaššāf nor Sībawaihī's Kitāb. So when a word was given with a different spelling he had to find out, whether it was a typo or a "real" difference.
Neither with typewriters nor on the computer it was easy to write text that had both Latin and Arabic script. Therefore he used a "transliteration" of his own making (not as good as the one deviced by Rüdiger Puin later.
Unfortunately he did not known what a transliteration is, confused it with transcription.
transliteration renders the letters of the original unambiguously/objectivly, best one-to-one and onto
hence it is reversable (without deep knowledge of the languages)does not need to be speakable. transcription renders the sounds of the original in the second language; should be pronouncable after a short instruction: is not reversable without knowing the languages well,
which is not the case for Brockett's "transliteration".
I can't read it, I have to rely on chapter and verse.
The tilde sometimes stands for "not in the rasm" sometimes for "extra-long".
Some of his terms are just stupid.
At least he defines them before using them.
"graphic" signifies "written in the rasm,"
"vocal" for "not in the rasm" ‒
"The term 'vocal form', with respect to the Qur'ān, is used throughout to signify the letter skeleton fully fleshed out with diacritical marks, vowels, and so on."
is nonsense:
1. his "vocal" is not the sceleton fully fleshed out"
but; "only the flesh (= diacritics) without the sceleton"
2. in the Qurʾān there are no consonats, but just letters
3. the letter sceleton is not mute (avocal) and dots, strokes and signs are not all and only about sound,
both are written AND spoken, are both graphic and phonetic.
What he wants to say is: some signs are there from the beginnings ,
others were added later: diacritical dots (although some dots were there in the earliest mss.), vowel signs (harakat), tašdīd, hamza sign, waṣla sign, signs for , signs for Imala, Išmām, assimilation, non-pronounciation (either always or when no pause is made) of written letters, consonats having no vowel ("unmoved" as they say in Arabic), emphasis, hamza easing, hyper‑lengthening.
Since his dissertation remains the most substantial treatment of the subject available in English, and since I intend to make systematic use of it, I begin with the necessary critical remarks.
The major errors are attributable to the nature of the work: it is a doctoral dissertation, not a publication. The author was young and inexperienced, and he was not permitted to submit the text to others for correction, revision, or discussion. The purpose was not to produce a finished study, but to demonstrate the ability to conduct scholarly research. This he did, as shown by his dating of manuscripts through watermarks, his critical notes on the secondary literature, and the formulation and documentation of his own hypotheses.
It is noteworthy that he regarded the 1924 edition as a reproduction of a manuscript; that he assumed the 1982 Qatari reprint to be a reprint of that edition, although it is in fact a reprint of the 1952 edition, which diverges from the 1924 text in more than 900 places; and that he cites a colophon naming Ḥasan Riḍā as scribe, yet identifies “Āyat Barkenār” — unfamiliar to him — as the calligrapher.
His assumption that printing plates were transported from Pakistan to Johannesburg in 1978 in order to reprint a Tāj edition indicates a complete lack of familiarity with printing technology. For this reason, I disregard his numerous remarks on this topic. (If I had access to the editions he consulted, or if I knew the basis of his comments, the situation would be different.)
Fortunately, I possess almost all the editions he mentions, either in bound form or as PDFs. For the editions from Delhi, Bombay, and Calcutta I have at least equivalent copies. I am therefore able to verify most of his statements, and for other points I have additional evidence. In no case do I reach different conclusions.
Ging es bisher hauptsächlich um Ḥafṣ-Ausgaben, wollen wir jetzt noch einen Blick auf andere Lesarten werfen, dabei geht es vor allem um Äußerlichkeiten. Beginnen wir mit den „unerheblichen Buchstaben“ (al-ḥurūf al-yasīra): den ganz wenigen Unterschieden, die nicht durch šadda, fatḥa, kasra, ḍamma, hamza, madda oder diakritische Punkte ausgedrückt werden, sondern im rasm.
Während der Vers bei Ḥafṣ mit wa- beginnt, fehlt dies bei Qālūn.
Beide Male hat Ḥafṣ ein alif mehr: erst in der Mitte der Zeile, auf der nächsten Seite in Zeile Zwo (ʾauʾan vs. waʾan). Man beachte das winklige ḍamma, in Unicode ein anderes Zeichen.
Ḥafṣ Warš Stelle
-kum, -hum, -him, -kumu, -humu, -himu,
-tum, -tumu bzw. -kumū xxx …
Ḥafṣ Warš Stelle
yaḥsabuhumu yaḥsibuhuma 2:273
taḥsabanna taḥsibanna 3:169
أَتُحَـٰٓجُّوٓنِّي أَتُحَـٰٓجُّونِي 6:80
سَوَآءٌ عَلَيۡهِمۡ ءَأَنذَرۡتَهُمۡ سَوَآءٌ عَلَيۡهِمُۥ ءَآنذَرۡتَهُم 2:6
أَتُمِدُّونَنِ أَتُمِدُّونَنِۦ 27:36
قُلۡ ءَأَنتُمۡ أَعۡلَمُ ڧُل̱ۡ آنتُمۡۥۤ أَعۡلَمُ 2:140
وَإِنِّيٓ أُعِيذُهَا وَإِنِّيَ أُعِيذُهَا 3:36
هَـٰٓأَنتُمۡ هَآنتُمُۥۤ 3:119
إِنِّيٓ أَعۡلَمُ إِنِّيَ أَعۡلَمُ 2:30
هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ إِن هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ ؈ں 2:31
5:3 faman iḍṭurra faman uḍṭurra
أَوۡ إِثۡمًۭا أَواِثۡمًۭا 2:182
أَوِ ٱخۡرُجُواْ أَوِ ﰩخۡرُجُواْ 4:66
قَرِيبٌ أُجِيبُ ڧَرِيبٌ اجِيبُ 2:186
6:10 ..qad istuhziʾa ..qad ustuhziʾa
بِئۡسَمَا يَأۡمُرُكُم بِيسَمَا يَامُرُكُم 2:93
نَبِيًّۭا نَبِيـًۭٔا 3:39
وَٱلصَّـٰبِـِٔينَ وَالصَّـٰبِـيںَ 2:62
ٱلنَّبِيَّ ؇لنَّبِيٓءَ 7:157
تُسۡـَٔلُ تَسۡـَٔلۡ 2:119
أَؤُنَبِّئُكُم اَو۟ ۬ نَبِّئُكُم 3:15
تُسَوَّىٰ تَسَّوّٜىٰ 4:42
Warš-Drucke erscheinen 1879 und 1891 als großformatige, dreifarbige Steindrucke in Fez; in den 1890ger gibt es jährlich kleinere Drucke in schwarz-weiß. Um 1900 erscheint der erste in Algerien.
The first muṣḥaf printed in Morocco was printed in 1296/1879 in Faz. It has 19 lines on a page, and uses black, red and blue
no changes
The next one has 25 lines per page:
the ʿanwān of the first edition
As often, THE Zwīten does not exist, the original one is divided into four parts, and has before the quranic text faḍl al-qurʾān and ādāb at-tilāwa; all is handwritten, the last four pages in eastern nasḫ pointed like in the east (no dots on final nūn, fā' and qāf, fā'-dot below, single qāf-dot above), all other parts in maġribi masbūṭ, while the Lissabon copy (in halves) lacks most additions. Maybe these two strange pages are due to merging quarters into halves (??) Or to have the ḥizb start on a new page?
