|
Part 2: The True State Of The Qur'an Back To Main Index h/ Other Consonants Missing Or Added - Yas, Waws & Nuns As we proceed with these topics we begin to see more clearly the purpose of the content of the Note IX of the 1938 Hyderabad text31 which we reproduce again here [see to right]. We begin by noting what Hamidullah has written concerning Egypt’s contribution to what he calls "the profuse markings of pronunciation (i‘rab) in the usual copies of the Qur’an". Under the heading "Egypt’s share in the development of Arabic script" he notes: "In recent years, especially in Egypt, some new signs have been added to the list, in order to facilitate the marking of the assimilation of sounds and other subtleties of the Arabic phonetics." (Orthographical..., p. 76) The Notes, then, were necessary since in 1938 Pickthall’s text was printed alongside an Arabic text almost identical to32 the 1924 Royal Cairo Edition which contained Egypt’s "new features". The Notes were thus intended to orient people to certain new features, many of which had never been seen in a text in India before33. We have already noted the dagger alif which Hamidullah listed and which is also included in this Note. It should not surprise us, then, to find that the other examples in this Note are also admitted by M. Hamidullah and included in his list of yas, waws and nuns omitted from the ‘Uthmanic texts. 1/ yas omitted Yet there are also words without yas of which Hamidullah says: "It is not written in the [case of] which occur altogether 69 times and could be written  . The case of the word (  ) is curious: in the Qur’an it is written sometimes  and other times even  . In these cases a small ee is supplied as a sign of vocalisation for the help of the reader." (Orthographical..., p.78f, emphasis added)34.
Again, it should not be called ‘curious’ that any word, let alone the name Ibrahim (Abraham), is spelled in two different ways, but NOT EVER in the right way which requires another alif ( 151 |
whereas the Pakistani Taj uses the short vertical stroke underneath 
to indicate "something is missing here!". The Warsh (Medinan) text was written correctly, with ya
but is also without the alif. 
. This is what the Turkish 
(and Iranian 
) graphic form is like. Yet, when we look at the Egyptian text it has a small ‘ya’ above the text 
thus indicating another reason why the Egyptians had to reject the Turkish text - to re-instate the errors. 
), actually raises our suspicions, for it doesn’t match the ‘corrected’ graphic form of, for example, the Iranian text which joined everything together 
as also the Indian 
both showing signs of the Warsh graphic form35, indicating once again that they are a mixture of the Warsh (Medinan) and Hafs (Kufan) graphic forms. 
despite ad-Dani’s declaration that the ya in Q106:2 was missing from all the ‘Uthmanic manuscripts! 
but which is obviously meant to ‘replace’ the missing ya. However, all the texts have the same word spelled correctly in Q106:1
. 
. 
and 
require to be written 
and 
) is added just after the first one in order to distinguish it from the text, as if the second were a sign of vocalization and not a letter of the alphabet." (Orthographical..., p.78; emphasis added).
. 
; as does the Turkish (in red ink) 
; and the Warsh 
. The Taj, however, has its own form of correction 
. 
. 
but under the word in the Warsh 
although also issued by al-Azhar. The Taj (and Indian) text has 
. 
and Iranian 
texts. 
which the Egyptians have omitted from their Edition 
. 
(the word nUnji is formed by ‘correcting’ through ‘false vocalisation’).
is for what one would expect 
; and the want is supplied by an additional but small (
) as a vocalisation sign." (Orthographical..., p. 79; emphasis added)
, while the Taj text (as in the Swahili) from Karachi includes a sukun above the nun
.37 However, as the following indicate, the Turkish 
, Iranian 
and Indian 
texts ALL correct the error by inserting this nun into the graphic form. Here is yet another reason the Egyptians had to reject the Turkish text. We note that the Warsh also has 
indicating that this nun was included in the Medinan manuscript. 
, the actual printing of Q12:11 in the main Arabic text agrees with the 1924 Egyptian Edition and is 
. In both 
and 
[diamond] has been added just after the now vacant stem! Its purpose is perhaps to subtly draw attention away from the intrusion of the ‘diamond’ which indicates that a 3rd nun is being introduced to a text that has only one! The diamond is thus "made to appear" to be seated on the stem! 
indicating that the ‘Uthmanic text has been used ‘as is’38, one realises that it is the reading of Hafs which has demanded that Islam ‘stretches’ the single nun to 3 nuns! It can’t do this with only one shadda and to add a non-existing ‘original’ would, as we have seen, bring a conflict between the vocal form and the text (!), so Islam had to devise a method whereby it could accept this ‘new reading’ - which it assures us is among its "best transmitted and most reliable" and is ‘almost close to the ‘Uthmanic text’!! This is the Hafs reading, the most widely used reading in Islam! Brockett notes the reading with 3 nuns as tamannna39. 
is to be found also in the Turkish 
Iranian 
Indian 
and Pakistani Taj (as in the Swahili) 
texts, even the 1975 Islamic Foundation (83 Amana) text omits the little diamond sign 
40 , thus agreeing with the Warsh reading ( 2 nuns) instead of the Hafs reading (3 nuns). In agreement with this, our Indian transliteration reads 
, showing the 2 nuns of that text. 
indicating that the original graphic form of Kufah had a sad in the text. However, the Iranian text has replaced the graphic sad in Q2:245 with the sin 
. 
in Q2:245. His documentation reflects the fact that the same word is spelled correctly in 
; 
; 
; 
; 
; 
; 
; 
; 
in Q2:247 43 and in Q7:69. He spells both with sin. In the 1924 Egyptian we find 
in Q2:247, but in Q7:69 as mentioned, we find the small ‘vocal’ sin above the sad
. 
and Q7:69 
, thus concurring that these are spelling mistakes. 
