orthography (two for one)

In this blog I treat the quranic ortho­graphy ‒ not the extremely few dif­fer­ent letters and the few differen­ces in vowell­ing, doubling of letters due to the different qirāʾāt ‒ but only the different con­ventions of writing Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim.
The main points you find here

In several posts I make clear that the Arabic script has just letters, not con­sonants and vowels. Many assume that the earliest "Hiǧāzī" manu­scripts had neither diacri­tical dots nor vowel marks ‒ both "invented" later. This is not the case. About 200 years later ‒ when the text was already well estab­lished ‒ Kufic manu­scripts (on land­scape parch­ments) were pro­duced with­out dots, but the earliest (portrait) parch­ments had dia­cri­tical strokes where necess­ary. But because vowel­ling was not yet establi­shed sometimes alif, yāʾ, and wāw were used for long or short (!) vowels.

Once vowelling (and "hamza-ing") were common, some of the added letters were super­fluous ‒ see on the left and below.
Orthographic differen­ces concern mostly alif, yāʾ, wāw and hamza (whether it is represented in the rasm by one of these vowel letters <because in the original Hiǧāzi pro­noun­cia­tion the "vanished hamza" had pro­longated the ori­ginaly short vowels> or by the inde­pen­dent letter head of ʿain.)

In the King Fuad Edition, the Šamarlī edition, in the edi­tions written by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha silent letters (that are not muted by pro­sody) are marked with a circel, when they are always silent, by an ovale, when pro­nounced when the reader stops after them ‒ for what­ever reason; silent when connected to the next word.

Here a reason why: because the pure rasm could be read in different ways. So before the "invention" of vowel signs/dots and the head of ʿAin for hamza, a vowel letter was added ‒ this by the way ‒ is a reason for adding a vowel letter for a short vowel. The personal pronoun انا (I) is an other example: you could say it has two alifs, but normally no /ā/, the first is hamza, the last helps not to confuse it with the particles ʾinna, ʾanna, ʾin ان










Here 4:83 with two words one after the other with the same rasm where it not for an "added" letter

In the next word yāʾ was "added" before kasra was common, to signal to the reader that the hamza is to be read as /ʾi/ ‒ /ʾī/ when the reader stops after it ‒ for whatever reason.

In the 1970 the Tāǧ Ltd Co added a page at the end of their editions

here as always you have to click on the image, then with the secondary mouse on it, choose "open in a new tab" and then "+"
Because the type writer is not the best:
المصاحف بجدة من زيادة الالف في كلمة "الانتم“ من الاية رقم ١٣ سورة الحشر
نحيطكم انه بالمقارنه بين طبعة هذا المصحف وطبعات المصاحف الاخرى ظهر أن زيادة الالف
تنفرد بها الطبعة المذكوره ومن الجائز ان تكون من قبيل الكلمات التي زيدت فيها الالف رسمًا لا نطقًا مثل
لااوضعو" [التوبة: 47] "او لاذبحنه" [النمل: 21] وغيرها من الكلمات التى سردها ابو عمر الداني في المقنع حيث قال

The pioneer on the matter was Brockett .... I have already posted on this matter. Allow me to added from the mentioned Muqnī

Interestingly the mufti (a decendent of ʿAbdal-Wahhāb) does not only mention an early authority (as orientalist scholars do), but adds a recent authority, the chief Reader/Recitor of Egypt al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād who had made the King Fuad Edition of 1924/5

But not only alif can be otiose. So can yāʾ.

the monster fatḥa is no vowel sign, bur signals that there is a note on that word on the margin (see above)

now from Morocco, the model for the Gizeh print of 1024/5 ‒ if I am right

in prints/mss. from the Ottoman empire and Persia there is only one yāʾ

On 51:47 با يٮد al-Arkati writes:

The first MSI (Muṣḥaf Standar Indonesia 1983) had only one tooth بايۡدٍ
the second (MSI 2002) two: بايۡٮدٍ
I have to check what the third (MSI 2016) has.

Bombay with a difference

In the middle of the 20th century Bombay publishers did not only print maṣāḥif for the subcontinent, for Indonesia, but for Central Asia as well (1375/1956):

early Malay world, Singapore II

In Cairo + Surabya I refer to Ali Akbars blog on the first printed muṣḥaf in Nusan­tara. Among his pictures are the opening pages

In recent posts he shows Singapore prints from 1868 and 1969 with hand colored opening pages.

He shows and quotes the Kolo­phones

Qad tammat hāḏihi [sic] al-Qur’ān al-‘azīm fī 1 min šahri Šawwāl hiǧūrat an-Nabī salla Allāhu ‘alaihi wa sallam sanat 1284 ‘alā yadi al-faqīr ad-da‘īf ilā maulāhu al-ġaniyy Haǧǧ Muḥammad bin al-mar­hūm Sulaimān Sumbāwī ma‘a sāhib al-Qur’ān aš-Šaiḫ Muhammad ‘Alī bin Muṣṭafā ... Ǧawa Pur­ba­lingga qaryat makan c-h-y-a-n ṭubi‘a fī Bandar Singapura qudum Masǧid Sulṭān ‘Alī bin Maulānā as-Sul­ṭān Ḥusain Iskandar ġafara Allāhu lahum al-ḫatā’ wa-an-nišān wa li-wālidaihim wa-li-ǧamī‘i al-muslimīn. Āmīn yā Rabb al-‘ālamīn, la‘alla ... al-Qur’ān fa-yazīdukum man qara’ahā, tammat, wallāhu a‘lam bi's-sawāb.

Qad hasala al-firāġ min tahrīri hāḏā al-Qur’ān al-Maǧīd bi-fadlillāhi al-Qādir bi-yadi aqalli al-kuttāb Muḥammad Ḥanafi bin as-Sulaimān as-Sumbāwī fī awā’il aš-wahr min Ša‘bān fī yaum al-Iṯnain al-mubārak fī hilāl s-l-s sanat 1286 sitt wa-samānīn wa-mi’atain ba‘da 'l-alif min hiǧrat al-mu­qaddasa an-nabawiyya liš-Šaiḫ Muḥammad ‘Alī bin al-Marhūm al-Muṣṭafā min bilād Purba­linqa (f-r-b-l-n-q-a) fī qaryat as-Sirr an-Nūr wa natba‘ [?] fī maṭba‘at al-Amān fī bilād as-Sinqāpūr fī'z-zamān ad-daulat as-Sulṭān ‘Alī bin al-Marhūm as-Sultān Husain Iskandar Šāh ġafarallāhu lī wa lakum wa li-sāhibi at-tab‘i al-iḫwān al-maṯāni' min al-mus­limīn wal-mu’minīn aǧma’īn. Āmīn.
And here is another Ali Akbar, discovered in the State Library of Victoria

As the first and last leaves are missing, we can not be sure, when it was printed. A.A. thinks it was Muḥammad Saliḥ bin Surdin ar-Rambanī (from Central Java), in 1970-71.

LXXI ‒ Marijn van Putten

On the basis of some of the oldest manuscripts Marijn van Putten publishes a muṣḥaf that comes as close as possible to the ʿUṯmānic rasm ‒ not to be confused with the «ʿUṯmānic rasm», that is 300 years younger: de­viced by ad-Dānī.
I compare it with the common Maġri­bian/Anda­lusian/Egyp­tian rasm (in an edi­tion from Brunai) and the Indian one (in edition with 848 pages with 13 lines written by Ḫalīq (al-)Asadī):

Now, that you have seen what "good" edi­tions have made out of the old text, here the same from two "bad" edi­tions: Otto­man from 300 years ago (next to the old text), and Tur­kish from this cen­tury:

I prefer the "Indian" editions, but even Turkish (and Persian) editions are fine.

a map of Zamalek, Gizeh, Bulaq

My first post on the 1924/5 King Fuʾād Edition included a map of Cairo 1920, on which I had marked the Amīriyya Press and the Land Registry (Egyptian Survey Authority) with arrows in the Nile, as well as Midan Tahrir and the place where the govern­ment printing press is located since 1972. Also the Ministry of Edu­ca­tion and the Nāṣi­rīya Peda­go­gi­cal College, where three of the editors worked. The area bet­ween Bab al-Luq (in the south-east) and Taufiqia (north of the main railway station) is called Isma­ilia: the area bet­ween the Nile and al-Qāhira (proper) was built up (copying Baron Haus­mann's Paris) under Ismail Pascha (1863‒1879 Wali/Go­ver­nor; in 1867 the Sublime Port recogni­zed the title of "Khedive" for him and his suc­cessors); today simply: Down­town.
Everything to the right of the Nile plus the islands is Cairo, everything to the left (Imbaba, Doqqi, Giza) not only does not belong to the city of Cairo, but is in another province.

The two Arabic texts are the 1924 and 1952 printer's notes, both from the copies in the Prus­sian State Library, which owns copies from five editions.
Important: the typesetting workshop and the offset work­shop were well connected by car, tram and boat. The assembled pages did not have a long way to go. Nevertheless: typesetting the text in Būlāq, making a rough proof (Bürstenabzug), making adjustments on the proof (like placing kasra withIN the tails of end-ḥāʾ/ǧīm/ḫāʾ and end-ʿain/ġain, sometimes reducing the space before kāf and after rāʾ/zain and waw); transporting the adjusted proofs to Giza, making plates, printing; transporting the bodies of the book to Būlāq where it was bound and embossed, took more time than planned: Although printed "1342" in the book (see top insert on the map) it was 1343 by the time the books were ready. So the first edition was embossed:

riʾāʾa ‒ sometimes like this; sometimes like that

Already Otto Pretzl had noticed that in Gizeh1924 riʾāʾa was not written the same at the three places it occurs ‒ without the authorities pre­scrib­ing that.
Iranians and UT2-KFC have the first hamza always after the tooth.
Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf (Cairo 1978‒1986?) has it always on the tooth:

The others have it sometimes on, sometimes after the tooth.
In 2:264 it is normally on the tooth, except UT2-KFC and Iran.
In 4:38 it is normally after the tooth, except Taj-KFC ‒ probably changed in the next edition (1440h. it is still on the tooth).
In 8:47 all have it after the tooth except Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf.

aš-šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ

Just as the KFE of 1924 was prepared by the šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ, the New KFE of 1952 was pre­pared by the chief reader of Egypt. But because it was a genera­tion later, it is not al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī (d. 22.1. 1939) anymore, but ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ(1304/1886-1380/1960).
Unlike before 1924, when al-Ḥaddād was the only ʿālim who signed the explanations after the qurʾānic text (which means that there wasn't really a committee: the other three stood just for the involve­ment of the Ministry of Educa­tion; they didn't know enough of the Qurʾān to help al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī), aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ was assisted by ʿulamā'; it was not an Azhār-committee, but one of Azhari­tes, created by the Govern­ment Press adviced by the šaiḫ al-Azhar.
They ordered only three changes in the rasm, one gra­phical nicety,
114 changes in the sura title boxes, forty or so changes at the end of suras with un­voyelled con­sonants (mostly tanwin) and the beginning of the next (with is now the basmala ‒ unlike 1924 when the first word of the next sura was assumed to follow directly the last one of the pre­ceding sura),
and about 800 changed pauses.

1952 (left) like 1924 (right):

... and it was never reprinted. And hardly any Egyptian bought it.

It sold so badly that five year later Gotthelf Berg­sträßer still could buy copies of the first print both for him­self and for the Bavarian National Library.
Strange that the experts write again and again of THE King Fuʾād Edition,
al­though there are many, differ­ent ones ‒ differ­ent not only in size and bind­ing, but in content.
The first one ‒ lets called it KFE I was printed in Giza because only the Egyp­tian Survey could make offset prints ‒ they had expe­rience in the tech­nique because they pro­duced colour maps.
The second one ‒ KFE Ib ‒ was produced in Būlāq, since the Govern­ment Press had aquired offset presses.

Like KFE I ...

... kfe Ib was stamped after bind­ing because the year of pub­lica­tion giv­ing in the book could not be met, so a stamp indi­cat­ing the next year was put on the bound copy.

There are changes on two pages ‒ both times: right the Giza print, left the first Būlāq print:

At least as important as seals/stamps instead of signa­tures is an added word.

Because there were no gaps between sorts as was typical in Būlāq prints, readers had assumed hand­written pages. The word "model" made clear that al-Ḥusai­nī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī had "only" written a copy for the type setters.
In the third edition ‒ kfe Ic ‒ one more page was changed: the first page afer the qurʾānic text:

In the fourth edition ‒ kfe Id ‒ one more page was changed, the only change IN the qurʾānic text before 1952 (in the first line a (silent) nūn was added):

Sorry, here the Gizeh print is on the left.
Note, that the the second edition, printed in Bulaq is smaller, but largely due to smaller margins.
After 1952, for many years there will be two editions:
‒ a bigger one with seven pages on differences between the edition of 1924/5 and the present one (starting 1952) and with all these changes (almost a thousand) being implemented
‒ a smaller one without this information ‒ and with only a small part of the changes made (on the plate of kfe Ib) .

Note that the fourth edition is not printed in Gīza (as the fist), not in Būlāq (as the second), but "in Miṣr" ‒ later yet it will be "in al-Qāhira".
Let's resume:
all KFEs were Amīriyya editions,
the first one was printed 1924 in Giza
from 1925 to 1972 they were printed in Būlāq
but a 1961 print was made in Darb al-Gamāmīz
whether by a private printer or a second factory of the press, I do not know,
from 1972 to 1975 print was in Imbāba.
All KFEs have 827 pages of qurʾānic text with 12 lines
+ 24 (or 22) pagi­nated back­matter pages + four unpagi­nated pages for the tables of content.
(until 1952: 24 pages, after the revolu­tion: with­out the leaf mention­ing King Fuʾād)
None of the KFEs has a title page;
they are all hard­cover and octavo size (20x28 cm the big one, 17x22 cm the small one ‒ the difference is more in the margin than in the text itself)

All KFE-like editions by commer­cial Egyptian presses and forgein editions (except the Frommann edition) do have title pages, most of them have one con­tinuous pagination.
There was one miniature reprint of KFE I and at least two pri­vate editions + the 1955 Peking reprint; of KFE II there were many re-editions, many re­arranged with 14 or 15 (often longer) lines ‒ in many sizes, on thinner paper and with different covers ‒ from Bairut to Tasch­kent.
In Egypt all the time, editions with 522, 525 (later 604) pages of qurʾānic text were more popular.
For the 15 lines, 525 page, type set Amīriyya print (Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf) follow the link.
The changes of the second, third and fourth edition did not survive the big change of 1952, which had about 900 changes, but reverted in things just mentioned ("dedication", aṣl, extra nūn in allan) to the first print.
Many private and foreign reprints (and later ʿUṯmān Ṭaha) keep the silent nūn.