and I often stress that Turkey has an orthography of its own.
But look at this: from Kazan, from Istanbul and from Madina Ḥafṣ, Dūrī and Qumbul:
Tuesday, 11 February 2025
page layout in our time
This blog is called "No Standard"
and I often stress that Turkey has an orthography of its own.
But look at this: from Kazan, from Istanbul and from Madina Ḥafṣ, Dūrī and Qumbul:
and I often stress that Turkey has an orthography of its own.
But look at this: from Kazan, from Istanbul and from Madina Ḥafṣ, Dūrī and Qumbul:
Saturday, 8 February 2025
Monday, 27 January 2025
When was the KFE made?
Aziz Hilal's article Le Coran de 1924, histoire et enjeux politiques is excellent, well researched and important,
but I see a problem, that I see with many authors:
he often takes what is said/written at face value.
E.g. he believes that already in 1912 the government wanted an new mushaf, that "the committee" started to work long before 1919.
And he believes that its publication in 1924 had to do with Fu'ad's ambition to become caliph.
So he has to assume that the project got "forgotten"(oublié) and later revived (évoqué à nouveau),
As I see it, he overlooks three important points:
that Egypt declared its independence from the Ottoman Empire at the end of 1914 (after 300 years),
that the KFE was not a newly deviced written version as the Muḫallalati, but that the initiators wanted a non-Ottoman version (in a different spelling and not in high-court-nasḫ), that the main objective of (modernists in the Ministry of Education like) Hifni Bey was an easily readable version:
baseline,
clear (positional) link between vowel sign and base letter,
space between words,
space between lines
I assume that the date of 12/13. January 1919 when the members of the commitee, the proof reader of the press and the Shaikh al-azhar signed is fictious, it is a couple of days before Hifni Bey died.
I assume that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād wrote the muṣḥaf to be set half a year or so before the book got printed, but that the government wanted to include the initiator of the project among the signiatories, so it had to be dated before his death.
Aziz Hilal is better than his fellows because he puts the emergence of the muṣḥaf into a historical context
‒ the power struggle between king/the palace, parliament/the bourgeoisie (and azhar/the ʿulemaʾ) and
‒ the caliphal aspirations after the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate on 3.3.1924,
forgetting Egypt's having left the Ottoman Empire after the start of WWI
His most original discovery is, that the only discussion of the KFE is by a German, by Gotthelf Bergsträßer,
that Egyptian, Turkish, Arab, Indian, Indonesian and Persian ʿulemaʾ, politicans and intellectuals ignore it, or ‒ at least ‒ were silent and mute about it.
As important examples he cites
‒ the Diary/Journal by Muḥammad al-Aḥmadī al-Ẓawāhirī, Šaiḫ al-Azhar 1929‒1935
‒ al-Azhar by ʿUṯmān Tawfīq and ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Yūnus, 1946
‒ al-Muslimūn wa-l-Aqbāṭ fī iṭār al-ǧamāʿa al-waṭaniyya, by Ṭāriq al-Bišrī, 1981, 899pp.
None mentions the KFE at all.
Omar Hamdan's article is almost useless.
His conlusion ‒ that the KFE does not closely follow the old mss, but either ad-Dānī/Abu Daʾud or a modern print (maybe the Muḫallalātī), was obvious before he started looking at it.
If he had compared the KFE with both the Muqniʿ and the Tanzīl, and with an Indian print, a Maġribī print and the Muḫallalātī (plus an Ottoman print) instead of only with mss., the paper would have been useful.
I assume that it would have shown that it follows most closely the Maġrib (indirctly Abu Daʾud Sulaimān Ibn Naǧāḥ).
some quotes from Azīz Hial's article:
Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl al-Ǧīzāwī (1874-1927), en poste entre 1917 et 1927
Signalons que son nom est mystérieusement remplacé par « ṣāḥib al-faḍīla, šayḫ ǧāmiʿ al-Azhar ».
((In the first small edition there is a seal: Muḥammad ʿAbu'l-faḍl))
Dès 1912, le gouvernement égyptien comptait éditer un muṣḥaf qui dépasse en qualité et en précision celui de Riḍwān al-Muḫallalātī.
La postface à la première édition date du 10 rabīʿ al-ṯānī 1337 (13 janvier 1919)
Pourquoi ne pas se contenter de reprendre le muṣḥaf de Riḍwān al-Muḫallalātī et le corriger ?
si la postface de ce muṣḥaf porte la date du 13 janvier 1919, pourquoi attendre le 10 juillet 1924 pour le publier ?
C’est dans ce contexte que le muṣḥaf, oublié depuis 1919, est à nouveau évoqué, afin de fournir un supplément de légitimité à la candidature du roi Fuʿād.
The paper by Asma Hilali can be reduced to one sentence:
While in the 19th century, the Flügel edition served many Orientalists as text of reference,
now the text of the KFE, the Madina Mushaf (Ḥafṣ by the KFComplex) and the simplified text of tanzil.net serve as reference.
Here I have to congratulate. Three years ago, in the inviation to (her) conference, she had written
he often takes what is said/written at face value.
E.g. he believes that already in 1912 the government wanted an new mushaf, that "the committee" started to work long before 1919.
Asma Hilal writes in her introduction/"Liminaire" to the journal the opposite, that King Fu'ad initiated the book in 1924
So he has to assume that the project got "forgotten"(oublié) and later revived (évoqué à nouveau),
As I see it, he overlooks three important points:
that Egypt declared its independence from the Ottoman Empire at the end of 1914 (after 300 years),
that the KFE was not a newly deviced written version as the Muḫallalati, but that the initiators wanted a non-Ottoman version (in a different spelling and not in high-court-nasḫ), that the main objective of (modernists in the Ministry of Education like) Hifni Bey was an easily readable version:
baseline,
clear (positional) link between vowel sign and base letter,
space between words,
space between lines
I assume that the date of 12/13. January 1919 when the members of the commitee, the proof reader of the press and the Shaikh al-azhar signed is fictious, it is a couple of days before Hifni Bey died.
I assume that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād wrote the muṣḥaf to be set half a year or so before the book got printed, but that the government wanted to include the initiator of the project among the signiatories, so it had to be dated before his death.
Aziz Hilal is better than his fellows because he puts the emergence of the muṣḥaf into a historical context
‒ the power struggle between king/the palace, parliament/the bourgeoisie (and azhar/the ʿulemaʾ) and
‒ the caliphal aspirations after the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate on 3.3.1924,
forgetting Egypt's having left the Ottoman Empire after the start of WWI
His most original discovery is, that the only discussion of the KFE is by a German, by Gotthelf Bergsträßer,
that Egyptian, Turkish, Arab, Indian, Indonesian and Persian ʿulemaʾ, politicans and intellectuals ignore it, or ‒ at least ‒ were silent and mute about it.
As important examples he cites
‒ the Diary/Journal by Muḥammad al-Aḥmadī al-Ẓawāhirī, Šaiḫ al-Azhar 1929‒1935
‒ al-Azhar by ʿUṯmān Tawfīq and ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Yūnus, 1946
‒ al-Muslimūn wa-l-Aqbāṭ fī iṭār al-ǧamāʿa al-waṭaniyya, by Ṭāriq al-Bišrī, 1981, 899pp.
None mentions the KFE at all.
Omar Hamdan's article is almost useless.
His conlusion ‒ that the KFE does not closely follow the old mss, but either ad-Dānī/Abu Daʾud or a modern print (maybe the Muḫallalātī), was obvious before he started looking at it.
If he had compared the KFE with both the Muqniʿ and the Tanzīl, and with an Indian print, a Maġribī print and the Muḫallalātī (plus an Ottoman print) instead of only with mss., the paper would have been useful.
I assume that it would have shown that it follows most closely the Maġrib (indirctly Abu Daʾud Sulaimān Ibn Naǧāḥ).
some quotes from Azīz Hial's article:
Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl al-Ǧīzāwī (1874-1927), en poste entre 1917 et 1927
Signalons que son nom est mystérieusement remplacé par « ṣāḥib al-faḍīla, šayḫ ǧāmiʿ al-Azhar ».
((In the first small edition there is a seal: Muḥammad ʿAbu'l-faḍl))
Dès 1912, le gouvernement égyptien comptait éditer un muṣḥaf qui dépasse en qualité et en précision celui de Riḍwān al-Muḫallalātī.
La postface à la première édition date du 10 rabīʿ al-ṯānī 1337 (13 janvier 1919)
Pourquoi ne pas se contenter de reprendre le muṣḥaf de Riḍwān al-Muḫallalātī et le corriger ?
si la postface de ce muṣḥaf porte la date du 13 janvier 1919, pourquoi attendre le 10 juillet 1924 pour le publier ?
C’est dans ce contexte que le muṣḥaf, oublié depuis 1919, est à nouveau évoqué, afin de fournir un supplément de légitimité à la candidature du roi Fuʿād.
The paper by Asma Hilali can be reduced to one sentence:
While in the 19th century, the Flügel edition served many Orientalists as text of reference,
now the text of the KFE, the Madina Mushaf (Ḥafṣ by the KFComplex) and the simplified text of tanzil.net serve as reference.
Here I have to congratulate. Three years ago, in the inviation to (her) conference, she had written
... l’édition du Coran du Caire ... est d’une importance capitale dans la société musulmane moderne et contemporaine ... L’édition du Caire met à disposition des musulmans ... une version du texte coranique qui deviendra progressivement la référence religieuse, liturgique ... la plus populaire dans le monde islamique. ... la popularité du Coran du Caire n’a jamais été remise en cause. ... un événement religieux s’adressant aux musulmans ... Ainsi, l’avènement du Coran du Caire a une portée qui dépasse la sphère de la croyance et qui prend sa place dans l’histoire de la civilisation islamique : histoire des institutions, histoire matérielle, histoire de la pensée religieuse et des études islamiques.All this bla-bla is gone. Al-ḥamdu-llāh
So one can't say that A.H. has learned NOTHING in the four years that she prepared the conference and journal nummer.
But although she thanks Alba Fedeli, Antoinette Ferrand and Dennis Halft for commenting and correcting her text,
she still gets most things about the KFE wrong,
and she lies: She writes that Ali Akbar had said that the KFE has no singular place, is just one among maṣāḥif from Singapore, Bombay, Lucknow and Istanbul.
During the conference Ali Akbar had said: There is no trace what so ever of the KFE. Maybe, students in Cairo or Mekka Pilmgrims have brought a copy, but we do not know!
There are unbelievable statements by A.H.:
Although the KFE is important, because it is the first type set offset print of the qurʾān,
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.
Is it that A.H. is stupid or is this the consequence of the fact that she has never held a copy in her hands, that the IDEO did not acquire one of the many copies on the market?
That she calls putting a number after each verse « versification » (instead of « numérotation » ) suggests the former.
She claims that there was a special Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir edition, which I doubt because she does not give the date of publication, and a King Fārūq Edition, which is definetly wrong.
‒
Sunday, 12 January 2025
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 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.
"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. (Schreibungen 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 anderes Zeichen.
On the internet one finds a great deal of material on the differences between Ḥafṣ and Warš. Much of it is produced with the aim of demonstrating that the Muslim transmission is unreliable; others seek to determine which version represents the “correct” Qurʾān; still others claim that the differences are merely phonetic. The most accurate and methodologically sound presentation and assessment of these differences is that of Adrian A. Brockett. The following are several of the differences he identifies.
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:
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 period between the "World Wars" several publishers published Warš maṣāḥif. Here some by
Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī.
1929 in Egypt, where it was printed ‒ dedicated to Sulṭan Muḥmmad [V.] bn Yūsuf
This Cairo Warš Edition, Cairo 1929 Edition, al-Ḥabbābī edition, Zwīten edition is the first Moroccan edition with
numbers after each verse, and ‒ a revolution of sorts ‒ Kufī numbers;
so ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ (1304/1886-1380/1960) writes four pages on the differences between (second) Madani and Kufi mumbering (pages 8-11):
the cover of the first edition
the first three pages:
instead of a title page:
(this is from the copy of the Academy of Sciences in Lissabon that is not paginated in quarters, but in halves; its index and the duʿāʾ are set in normal Arabic letters, while handwritten in the original.)
the ʿanwān of the first edition
So are no pagination.
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?
Normal pages have 15 lines
last page of first half
With a book seller I found a last quarter printed in 1990.
And other Cairo edition of Warš is by the famous publisher ʿAbdarRaḥmān Muḥammad often called the "Unified Maġribī edition" / muṣḥaf bil-ḫaṭṭ al-maġribī al-muwaḥḥad
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
‒
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
40 years ago Adrian Alan Brockett submitted his Ph.D. to the University of St.Andrews: Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qurʾān . Now... -
Although it is often written that the King Fuʾād Edition fixed a somehow unclear text, and established the reading of Ḥafṣ according to ʿĀ... -
from a German blog coPilot made this English one Iranian Qur'an Orthography: Editorial Principles and Variants The Iranian مرکز...