A.A.Brockett --- Warš

40 years ago Adrian Alan Brockett submitted his Ph.D. to the Uni­versi­ty of St.Andrews: Studies in Two Trans­missions of the Qurʾān. Now he was a doctor of philosophy but he did not get tenure at a university ‒ for a living he became an argicultural advisor in the UAE.
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 tran­scrip­tion.
trans­liter­at­ion renders the letters of the original unambiguous­ly/bi­jective, 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'ãn, is used throughout to signify the consonantal 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 (like diacritics) without the sceleton"
2. in the Qurʾān there are non 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, Vokal­losig­keit, Ignorieren bei der Aus­sprache (absolut oder nur im Kontext), Nachdruck, Ab­schwä­chung, Über­dehnung.
Es gibt also auch Zeichen, die geschrie­ben wurden, aber nicht gesprochen; außerdem Aus­sprache­phäno­mene, die nur in guten Aus­gaben ge­schrieben werden (wie Nasa­lierung, Assimi­lation, Deut­lich­keit, Nach­druck) <beim Letzt­genann­ten ist zu unter­scheiden: Buch­staben, die immer nach­drücklich sind, welche, die in der Umgebung nach­drück­lich sind und solchen, die aus­nahms­weise nach­drücklich sind ‒ nur das Dritte muss notiert werden>
3.) Obwohl er "definiert": The term 'graphic form' refers to the bare consonantal skeleton, meint er auch dies nicht; er meint rasm+diakrit.Punkte ‒ und "vocal" für den Rest.

Da seine Arbeit immer noch das Beste ist, was auf Englisch dazu vorliegt
und ich sie auch au­schlachten will,
erst die Kritik ‒ das haben wir dann hinter uns.
Die eklatanten Fehler liegen daran, dass es eine Doktor­arbeit ist, keine Pub­likation.
Der Autor war jung und uner­fahren und er durfte sie niemandem zur Korrektur, Aus­bessern, Aus­diskutieren vorlegen. Es sollte ja keine fertige Arbeit sein, sondern nur ein Nach­weis dafür, dass er wissen­schaft­lich arbeiten könnte,
und das zeigte er nicht nur bei der Manu­skript­datierung anhand der Wasser­zeichen und den kriti­schen Fuß­noten zur ver­wende­;ten Literatur, sondern auch mit dem Aufstellen und Belegen von Thesen.

Kurios ist, dass er den 1924er Druck für die Wieder­gabe einer Hand­schrift hielt.
dass er den 1982er qatarischen Reprint für den Reprint dieses Druckes hielt,
obwohl es sich um einen Reprint des (an über 900 Stellen abweichenden) 1952er Druckes handelt,
dass er ein Kolophon zitiert, in dem Ḥasan Riḍā als Schreiber genannt wird, er aber "Āyat Barkenār" für den ‒ ihm unbe­kannten ‒ Kalli­graphen hält.
Dass er glaubt, dass man 1978 aus Pakistan Druck­platten nach Johannes­burg trans­portierte, um einen Tāj-Ausgabe nachzu­drucken, zeigt, dass er von Drucktechnik null Ahnung hatte, weshalb ich die vielen Anmerkungen zu diesem Aspekt völlig ignoriere (wenn ich die von ihm kon­sultierten Ausgaben zur Hand hätte oder von ihm erfahren könnte, worauf er seine Bemerkungen stüzt, wäre es anders.)
Zum Glück habe ich fast alle von ihm erwähnte Ausgaben ‒ sei es gebunden, sei es als pdf. Für die Aus­gaben aus Delhi, Bombay und Calcutta habe ich immer­hin äqui­valente. Ich kann deshalb die meisten seiner Angaben nachvoll­ziehen. Und für Anderes habe ich zusätzliche Belege.
Nirgends komme ich zu anderen Schluss­folgerungen.

‒ ­ Ging es bisher hauptsächlich um Ḥafṣ-Ausgaben, wollen wir jetzt noch einen Blick auf andere Les¬arten werfen, dabei geht es vor allem um Äußerlichkeiten. Beginnen wir mit den „unerheblichen Buch¬sta¬ben“ (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.

Ibrāhīm hat bei Ḥafṣ weder alif noch yāʾ, bei Nāfīʿ jedoch yāʾ – ich sage nicht Warš, weil es in den drei Zeilen nicht den geringsten Unterschied zwischen beiden riwāyāt gibt – für dies hier ein Beispiel: Während Qālūn mit hamza zu sprechen ist, ist es bei Warš geschwächt. (Schrei¬bungen von Uṭmān Ṭaha für den KFK.)
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 an¬de¬res Zei¬chen.

Im Netz findet man Viel zu Unterschieden zwischen Ḥafṣ und Warš. Viele wollen damit be¬wei¬sen, dass die muslimische Überlieferung unzuverlässig ist. Oder sie wollen herausbekommen, wel¬ches der rich¬ti¬ge qurʾān ist. Oder sie behaupten, die Unterschiede seien nur phonetisch. Wirklich gut bei der Dar¬stel¬lung der Unterschiede und bei deren Bewertung ist Adrian A. Brockett. Hier einige seiner Unter¬schiede.
Ḥafṣ     Warš   Stelle
-kum, -hum, -him, -kumu, -humu, -himu,
-tum     -tumu bzw. -kumū ʾxxx …
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

keine Änderungen

The next one has 25 lines per page:

one from 1313/1895/6 1331/1911/2 ar-Rūdūsī bn Murād at-Turkī from the island of Rhodes living in Algiers prints a muṣḥaf with 14 lines in his maṭbCat aṯ-ṯaCAlibiyya

The edition of 1350/1931 can be downloaded in the net at several sides.
Instead of the counting "Madina 2" "Kufa" is used

((these days, other publisher both in Damascus and in Algiers use the Kufī numbering -- on the right the Tijani print:

Qurʾān Ma¬ǧīd, Alger: Ma¬ṭbaʿa aṯ-Ṯa­ʿā­li­bīya 1356/1937 mit farbigem ʿanwān

another one from the web site of the Foundation du Roi Abelaziz in Casablanca:

first pages and last of a muṣḥaf in two volumes, 19 lines per page

In der Zeit zwischen den Weltkriegen stiegen ägyptische Verlage in das Geschäft ein, hier Beispiele aus einer Werbebroschüre von Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī.

In Algeria Sufi fraternities had editions of their own:
Šaḏilī

Tijani

printed on salmon paper, printed at the expense of Tijani al-Muhammadi, owner of the al-Manar Press and Library, who was also responsible for calligraphy and decoration Tunisia 1365/1945/6

‒ ­

No Standard ‒ Main Points

there is no standard copy of the qurʾān.
There are 14 readings (seven recognized by all, three more, and four (or five) of contested status).
there are 14 canonical transmissions (riwājāt) (two of each of the Seven),
each of which has ways/paths (ṭuruq) and versions/faces (wuǧuh).

All of this is not our main interest, because
‒ except in the greater Maghrib, Sudan, Somalia and Yaman and among the Bohras ‒
rank and file Muslims read only one riwāja: Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim.

The second big dif­ference between copies of the qurʾān that does not inter­est us here, is the rasm: there are three main rasm au­tho­ri­ties to follow: ad-Dānī, Ibn Naǧāḥ, al-Ḫarrāz, and al-Ār­kātī

As far as I know most editions follow a mix of diverent authorities ‒ the Lybian Qālūn Edition (muṣḥaf al-jamāhīriya, 1987, second ed. 1989, Libyan after the death of the prophet 1399) fol­low­ing ad-Dānī being an ex­ception. Authorities in Iran and Indo­ne­sia publish lists where they follow whom, others just have their (secret) way.

What interests me is
the spelling and
the layout.
Other points are important, like the
pauses and
the divisions (juz, ḥizb, para, manzil, niṣf ...),
but I do not know enough to post about them.

There are two main spellings: western and eastern
IPak is THE eastern spelling;
Ottoman, Persian, Turk, Tartar, NeoIran, Indonesian are eastern sub-spellings.
G24 and Q52 are realisation of the western spelling, Mag being their "mother".

The main difference between West and East is the writing of long vowel.

While in the East the (short) signs are turned to make them long,

in the West a leng­then­ing vowel has to follow: either one that is part of the rasm or a small sub­stitute.










G24/Q52 differentiate between /a/ and /ā/, but not between /i/ and /ī/ when there is a yāʾ in the text.
IPak always makes the difference.
(just to make clear: in the middle column, in /hāḏā/ the dagger in IPak is a vowel sign, in Mag it is a small letter leng­thening the sign before it ‒ al­though they look the same, they are dif­ferent things)

Mag, G24, Q52 have three kinds of tanwin, Bombay instead has izhar nun, IPak, Osm ... have nothing

Maybe the most remarkable difference are the initial alif: the Africa they have ḥamza-sign or a waṣl-sign. In Asia a voyell-sign includes ḥamza, absence of all sign signifies "mute" or waṣl.

Because letters without any sign the four yāʾs in the three lines standing for ī need a sukūn not to be ignored.
all in all: a large part of the letters have a different sign in Africa and Asia.

Another differences lies in as­simila­tion: both Mag and IPak do mark assimi­la­tion, Osm, Turk, Pers, NIran do not.

While IPak has three different madd signs, Mag/G24/Q52 have only one.

The main feature of page layout is the number of lines per page.
Leaving the layout with a page for a thirtieth or sixtieth on the side
there are layouts with nine to twenty lines per page,
the berkenar with 604 pages of 15 lines being the most common
  (due to Hafiz Osman and ʿUṯmān Ṭaha).

My motivation was anger about old German orientalists calling the King Fuʾād Edition "the Standard Edition";
later I came across young orientalist calling it "CE" / "the Cairo Edition",
althought there are more than a thousand maṣāḥif printed in Cairo,
more than a hundred conceived in Cairo,
so calling one of these the "CE" is madness, ignorance, carelessness.
The only new thing about the KFE: it is type set, but offset printed;
its text is not new, but a switch.
It turns out that there are different KFEs, 27 cm high ones printed 1924, 1925, 1952, 1953 in the Survey of Egypt in Giza, later in the press of Dar al-Kutub in Gamāmīz,
and 20 cm high oneS printed in Būlāq;
there is one written by Muḥam­mad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥusai­nī al-Mālikī aṣ-Ṣaʿīdī al-Ḥad­dād
and one revised under the guidance of ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. Ḥasan b. Ibrāhīm al-Maṣrī aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ.
The text of 1924 is history,
the text of 1952 survives in the "Shamarly" written by Muḥammad Saʿd Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaddād
and in the Ḥafṣ 604 page maṣāḥif written by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha.
The Amīriyya itself printed the text of 1952 in the large KFE printed in Gamāmīz
and the Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf (with four in-between-pause-signs merged into one) printed in Būlāq;
but their small kfes have the '24 text with a few '52 changes ‒ a strange mix that stayed largely unnoticed.

Just as there are seven different KFE/kfe, there are four different UTs:
UT0 1399‒1404 with (up to) five mistakes, basically KFE II, without after­word ‒ printed in Damascus, Istanbul, Tehran
UT1 1405‒1421 without mistakes, with a dagger under hamza in 2:72, and the small sīn under ṣād elimi­nated in 8:22 ("photo­shopded") ‒ first with the 1924 after­word, later with "mostly" added ‒ printed in Madina and many places
UT2 1422‒'38 without space between words and no lead­ing bet­ween lines (written by UT in Madina) ‒ and printed in Madina
UT3 since 1438 without headers at the bottom of pages, with­out end if aya at the beginn­ing of lines, with cor­rected sequen­tial fathatan ‒ rearranged and printed in Madina

When you compare UT2 (above) with UT3 you see:
they are very similar;
but while there are small differences between the same words in UT2
the same word in UT3 is identical.

Another difference: in UT2 sometimes there is zero space between words;
that does not occur in UT3.

­‒