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:

Bombay 1299/1882

from the holdings of Michigan University library

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.

Asma Hilal writes in her intro­duc­tion/"Liminaire" to the journal the opposite, that King Fu'ad initiated the book in 1924

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

... 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.

‒ ­

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

‒ ­