Additional reading marks in Kufic manuscripts

This uncorrected author manuscript (pre-print) has been made available online in accordance with the
policies of Oxford University Press, the publishers of the version of record. The latter is available on the
publishers’ website, and may be accessed using the URL given below.

The citation for the version of record is as follows:

Muehlhaeusler, Mark. “Additional Reading Marks in Kufic Manuscripts.” Journal of Islamic Studies 26, no.
3 (2015): [PAGES]. Accessed [DATE]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jis/etv086.
Additional reading marks in Kufic manuscripts

Abstract:

This article contains a catalog of reading marks in Kufic manuscripts of the Qurʾan. It compares these
marks with accounts found in pre-modern works on qirāʾāt, in particular those of Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī (d.
444/1053). It will be shown that the traditional account is largely accurate, even though some
unpredicted variation occurs in the manuscripts. The concluding discussion focuses on the
development of Arabic writing, as evidenced in these manuscripts, and on al-Dānī’s perceptions of the
nature of writing.

Keywords:

Qurʾan – variants – qirāʾāt – vocalization – writing – alphabet – manuscripts

Kufic manuscripts of the Qur’ān have been an object of study and research for many years now. We
have some general studies, such as Deroche’s fundamental work, The Abbasid Tradition,1 as well as
specialized articles. Some scholars have turned their interest to individual features of Kufic
manuscripts: Several years ago, Yasin Dutton described the use of colour-coded dashes—to distinguish
the otherwise identical letters bāʾ, tāʾ, ṯāʾ, nūn and yāʾ—and the use of similarly coded dots (for
vocalization and hamzah) in order to distinguish variant readings (qirāʾāt) in Kufic manuscripts of the
Qurʾān.2

In this note, I would like to expand on Dutton’s theme with some observations on additional reading
marks found in Kufic manuscripts at the University Library in Cambridge, 3 in the Khalili Collection,4 in

1
Déroche, François. The Abbasid tradition : Qur’ans of the 8th to 10th centuries. New York: Nour Foundation in
association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1992.

2
Yasin Dutton, “Red dots, green dots, yellow dots and blue: some reflections on the vocalisation of early Qur’anic
manuscripts - Part I,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies / Majallat al-Dirāsāt al-Qur’ānīya 1, no. 1 (1999): 115-140 (= Dutton I);
Yasin Dutton, “Red dots, green dots, yellow dots and blue: some reflections on the vocalisation of early Qur’anic
manuscripts. (Part II),” Journal of Qur’anic Studies / Majallat al-Dirāsāt al-Qur’ānīya 2, no. 1 (2000): 1-24 (=Dutton II).

3
In particular, MS Cantab. Add. 1124; one ought to point out that University Library has now digitized a selection
from its collection of Qur’ān manuscripts, and has published the images in its repository at
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/islamic; accessed 17 July 2012.

4
Déroche, op. cit.
the National Library of Morocco,5 and in manuscripts offered for sale at Sotheby’s during recent years. 6
Most of these reading marks have been observed before, but have not been listed—to the best of my
knowledge—in a systematic manner. As I proceed, I will attempt to correlate the reading marks that are
evident in the manuscripts with the information found in Abū ʿAmr ʿUṯmān b. Saʿīd al-Dānī’s (d.
444/1053)7 K. al-naqṭ wa-al-šakl,8 the K. al-Muḥkam fī naqṭ al-maṣāḥif9 by the same author, as well as some
other pre-modern works on qirāʾāt.

I will be referring to variant readings throughout, but all references to words and verses numbers will
be given according to the reading of Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, as found in the Egyptian standard edition.

A. Description of manuscripts and their readings

Ms Cantab. Add. 1124

This is a section of a small, but finely executed manuscript copy of a section of the Qurʾān, written on
vellum. It comprises 96 folios of roughly 17 x 11.3 cm, with seven lines of text per page, and covers the
text from Q. VII [al-Aʿrāf]: 202 to X [Yūnus]: 56.10 Though it contains no date, it would seem similar to
copies that were produced during the ninth or tenth century CE.

On the reading of the text: The manuscript contains several occurrences of colour-coded dashes. At the
beginning of verse 28 in S. Yūnus [X], 11 the manuscript has a single red dash above the initial hook for
naḥshuruhum and naqūl, respectively. In both cases, there are also two green dashes below to denote an
5
Ms Rabat 613 jīm. One folio is reproduced in: Afā, ʿUmar & Muḥammad al-Maġrāwī. al-Ḫaṭṭ al-Maġribī: Tārīḫ wa-
wāqiʿ wa-āfāq. Rabat: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-al-Šuʿūn al-Islāmīyah, 2007; p. 99

6
It may seem unorthodox to use source material that is not available to the public, but I hope that this
contribution will be seen as an attempt to save these manuscripts from oblivion in private collections. In any case,
the auction catalogue entries are available online: http://www.sothebys.com/en/catalogues/buybrowse.html;
accessed 17 October 2014.

7
EI2 s.v. “al-Dānī”

8
Published in one volume with K. al-Muqniʿ fi maʿrifat marsūm maṣāḥif al-amṣār. ed. by Muḥammad Aḥmad Dahmān.
Dimašq: Maṭbaʿat al-Šarq, 1940.

9
Abū ʿAmr ʿUṯmān b. Saʿīd al-Dānī, K. al-Muḥkam fī naqṭ al-maṣāḥif, ed. ʿIzzat Ḥasan. Dimašq: Wizārat al-Ṯaqāfah
wa-al-Iršād al-Qawmī, Mudīrīyat Iḥyāʾ al-Turāṯ al-Qadīm, 1960.

10
Browne’s Hand-list has the following provenance note: “Prof. E.H. Palmer and E.F. Tyrwhitt Drake (bought),
1878”. See Browne, Edward Granville. A hand-list of the Muhammadan manuscripts, including all those written in the
Arabic character, preserved in the library of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900.
p. 389.
initial yāʾ. These variants are listed in al-Qabāqibī’s Īḍāḥ12 as those of Ibn Muḥayṣin and al-Muṭawʿī ʿan
Sulaymān, who also read initial yāʾ in the similar verses Q. VI (al-Anʿām): 22 (against all others) and Q.
XXXIV (Sabaʾ): 40 (against all others except Ḥafṣ). The variant readings presented here are thus some
of the four ‘after the ten’.

The Nuruosmaniye or ‘Palermo’ Qurʾān

An oblong manuscript on vellum, copied in Palermo in 372/982-3. The folios are 17.6 x 25 cm large, and
carry 17 lines of text per page. One fragment of this mss is held in the Nuruosmaniye Library at
Istanbul under the shelfmark MS23, while two further fragments are part of the Khalili collection, and
bear the accession numbers QUR261 and 368, respectively. Déroche classifies the script as NS.III in his
scheme, and provides plates as well as a detailed description. 13 For our purposes, the most important
detail is the fact that the manuscript was produced in roughly the same area, and era, as al Dānī’s works
on the maṣāḥif, to which we will refer repeatedly below.

Sotheby’s L11220 #17914

This manuscript is attributed to the tenth century, and is similar in script to the manuscripts in
Déroche’s Group D.15 It consists of a fragment of six oblong leaves of parchment, measuring 19.5 by 26.8
cm, with nine lines per page. The manuscript contains the text from Q. LI (al-Ḏāriyāt): 19 to Q. LII (al-
Ṭūr): 37, but the images that are publicly accessible in the auction catalog only cover Q. LI: 51 through
LII: 20. Single verse endings are marked by a stack of dashes, while groups of verses are marked with
rosettes, or ornaments shaped like a kufic hāʾ. Some reading marks in red, yellow and green are present
to mark diactitics, vowels, šaddah, hamzat al-waṣl, sukūn, iḫfāʾor taḫfīf, as well as variants.

On the readings of the text: The heading for S. al-Ṭūr is followed by an explicit verse-count of twenty-
seven āyahs. According to later works on verse numbering, this is the number assigned in the Ḥijāzī

11
Ms Cantab. Add. 1124, f. 89 recto

12
Muḥammad ibn Ḫalīl Qabāqibī, Īḍ āḥ al-rumūz wa-miftāḥ al-kunūz fī al-qirāʾāt al-arbaʿ ʿašrah, ed. Aḥmad Ḫālid Šukrī.
ʿAmmān: Dār ʿAmmār lil-Našr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 2003; p. 370.

13
Déroche, Abbasid tradition, no. 81.

14
See online catalogue at: http://www.sothebys.com/en/catalogues/ecatalogue.html/2011/arts-of-the-islamic-
world-l11220#/r=/en/ecat.fhtml.L11220.html+r.m=/en/ecat.lot.L11220.html/179/

15
op. cit., pp. 36-37, 43-47
tradition.16 This tradition differs from that of Basrah, Kufah and Damascus in that it disregards the first
oath formula of the Sūrah (“wa-al-Tūr”), which is counted as a separate verse by the Iraqis and Syrians.
Indeed, the rosette that marks of the tenth verse (and was therefore undoubtedly written at the same
time as the main text) is placed after lil-mukaḏḏibīn (Q. LII: 11 in the Kūfan scheme). Assuming that the
verse counting schemes are intricately linked with the local traditions of variant readings, this leaves
us with the Meccan and Medinan readings. Of the former, one can exclude that of Ibn Muḥayṣin, who is
said to have read al-Rāziq for al-Razzāq in Q. LI: 57,17 while the manuscript clearly shows the latter
variant (see below, in the section on šaddah). Of the remaining readings, one can exclude that of Abū
Ǧaʿfar and probably that of Nāfiʿ, too, since the third-person plural pronouns are all clearly marked
with a ḍammah to indicate mīm al-jamʿ , which is the characteristic mark of the reading of Ibn Kaṯīr
(though this feature is also ascribed to Nāfiʿ, it is contested in his case, and more limited). 18

Sotheby’s L12220 #40419

The sales catalogue describes this fragment as “a monumental Qur’an leaf in kufic on vellum, North
Africa or near East, 850-950”. This single leaf in oblong format measures 39.5 x 53.5 cm, and contains
the text of S. Hūd [11], verses 17 through 41. There are eighteen lines per page. The text is written in
brown ink, in a style which the author of the catalogue places in the proximity of Déroche’s group D.I
and D.Va. Reading marks in red and green ink are present, and include vowel points, šaddah, hamzat al-
waṣl, sukūn, dagger alif, and maddah. On the recto, there are two insertions in red, where the original text
had omitted a word.

What is the base reading for this text? Later qirāʾāt works agree that the initial fatḥah of ʾannī lakum (Q
XI: 25) is peculiar to the reading of the Basran readers, as well as Ibn Kaṯīr, and al-Kisāʾī. 20 In l. 13, the

16
Mūsā, ʿAbd al-Razzāq ʿAli Ibrāhīm, al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz fī ʿadd āy al-Kitāb al-ʿazīz. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Maʿārif,
1988; pp. 151-152.

17
Qabāqibī, Īḍāḥ, p. 674

18
Ibid, p. 94-95. See also, Abū ʿAmr ʿUṯmān b. Saʿīd al-Dānī, Ǧāmiʿ al-bayān fī al-qirāʾāt al-sabʿ, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm
Ṭarhūnī & Yaḥyā Murād. Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīṯ, 2006; pp. 255-256; Ibn Muǧāhid, Aḥmad b. Mūsā, K. al- Sabʿah fī al-
qirāʾāt, ed. Šawqī Ḍayf. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 2010; pp. 108-110.

19
See online catalogue at: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/arts-of-the-islamic-
world/lot.404.lotnum.html

20
Qabāqibī, Īḍāḥ, p. 444 (who adds Abū Jaʿfar, Ḫalaf, and the second Meccan reader Ibn Muḥayṣin); Ṭāhir b. ʿAbd
al-Munʿim b. Ġalbūn, Kitāb al-taḏkirah fī al-qirāʾāt, ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Buḥayrī Ibrāhīm. Cairo: al-Zahrāʾ lil-Iʿlām al-
alif is clearly marked with a red dot below (= kasrah), so these readers can be excluded. Similarly, the
Kufan readers were said to have read ʿummiyat ʿalaykum (Q XI: 28), where the other readers read ʿamiyat
ʿalaykum.21 The latter variant is found in the manuscript, and one can therefore exclude the Kufan
readers, too. Now the sources claim that all Kufans except Šuʿbah read the ḏāl of taḏḏakkarūn (Q. XI: 24,
30) without šaddah.22 The reading without šaddah appears in line 13 of the recto, where a green šaddah
marker (see below) would seem to indicate a variant, while a faint, dotless šīn in red also appears above
the letter. On the other hand, the verso has taḏḏakkarūn (i.e. in Q. XI: 30) clearly marked with šaddah
markers in red. This apparent contradiction is not easily resolved, but may be due to an omission of the
šaddah in verse 24, where it was added at a later date. The canonical readers that are not excluded,
based on the account of the traditional sources, are Nāfiʿ, Abū Ǧaʿfar, and Ibn ʿĀmir. The tašdīd in verse
30 is consistent with their reading, but the occurrence of ḍammah in lan yuʾtiyahumu Llāhu (Q XI: 31) for
mīm al-ǧamʿ excludes Abū Ǧaʿfar.23 Since there are no other clear variants in the span of text covered by
the manuscript, it is not possible to identify the reading with precision.

MS Rabat 613 ‫ج‬

A manuscript in oblong format; 11 lines per page. As noted above, a folio is reproduced in colour in Afā
and Maġrāwī’s al-Ḫaṭṭ al-Maġribī, which shows clearly that the text is enhanced with a variety of
reading marks, including šaddah, maddah, sukūn, hamzat al-waṣl, and locations of pauses. The page
reproduced there covers S. al-Naḥl [XVI], verse 70 through 74. A description of the manuscript can be
found in that source.

The reading of the manuscript appears to follow that of Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ, since the mīm al-ǧamʿ is marked
in min anfusikumū azwāǧan (Q 16[al-Naḥl]: 72), but is not indicated in other instances where the third
person plural suffix is followed by a letter other than alif/hamzah.24

B. List of reading marks

Cancellation / joining marks

ʿArabī, 1990; vol. II, p. 457 (adding Ibn Kaṯīr).

21
Qabāqibī, Īḍāḥ, p. 445 (excluding Abū Bakr); Ibn Ġalbūn, Taḏkirah, vol. II, p. 457.

22
Qabāqibī, Īḍāḥ, p. 444.

23
Ibn Muǧāhid, K. al-Sabʿah, p. 109.

24
Ibn Muǧāhid, K. al-Sabʿah, p. 109.
In a number of cases, variant readings differ from the base text in which they are marked not only in
vowel markings, or diacritic signs, but in the structure of an entire word. The most common difference
of this type is the presence or absence of alif. If the base text does not contain alif, variants are simply
marked by superimposition of the letter. Conversely, if the base text contains an alif, whereas the
variant does not, it becomes necessary to mark the absence of alif, and to indicate the joining of parts of
the word that are separated by alif in the base text.

Examples for the insertion of alif are too numerous in Kufic manuscripts of the Qur’an to merit
extensive documentation. For the sake of completeness, note superscript alif in ḏanūbi aṣḥābihim (Q. [al-
Ḏāriyāt] 51: 59) in Sotheby’s L11220 #179. Examples of marks to indicate the absence of alif are rare, but
the Cambridge manuscript provides two examples—both in the same verse (Q IX: 19):

Ms Cantab. Add. 1124, f. 34 recto

‫احعلٮم سٯاٮه الحاح وعماره المسحد الحرام كمں امں ٮاللـه والٮوم الاحر‬

Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim:

‫َأ َج َع ْل ُت ْم ِس َقا َي َة ا ْل َحا ِّج َو ِع َما َر َة ا ْل َم ْس ِج ِد ا ْل َح َرا ِم َك َم ْن آ َم َن ِبال ّل ِه َوا ْل َي ْو ِم ال آ ِخ ِر‬

In the manuscript, the bases of siqāyah and ʿimārah are both modified by a number of additional marks
in green, in order to indicate a variant to the base reading (which concurs with Ḥafṣ), by changing the
morphological form from fiʿālah to faʿlah :

 a green dot for fatḥah above the first radical

 a green hook above the second radical, similar to the Hebrew letter resh—for sukūn?
 a horizontal line in green through the upper half of the alif, to indicate its absence in the variant
reading
 a horizontal connecting line in green between the second radical and the third, to join qāf and
yāʾ, which are separated by alif in the base text
 in ʿimārah only, a green dot above the rāʾ

The qirāʾāt diverge on the words which Ḥafṣ’ reading renders as siqāyah and ʿimārah. Ibn Ǧinnī (d. 392/
1002)25 devotes several paragraphs in his Muḥtasab to a morphological analysis of these two words as
found in the reading of Ḥafṣ, and its variants. He notes that al-Saʿdī, Ibn ʿAlī, and Abū Jaʿfar read suqāh

25
EI2, s.v. “Ibn Djinni”.
(as pl. of sāqin) and ʿamarah, (as pl. of ʿāmir – like kāfir/ kafarah) respectively.26 Some two centuries later,
al-ʿUkbari (d. 566/ 1219)27 listed these variants in his Iʿrāb al-qirāʾāt al-šawāḏḏ , adding that a variant
suqya (‘bi-ḍamm al-sīn wa-sukūn al-qāf wa-fatḥ al-yāʾ’) was also found (‘wa-yuqraʾ’)—though he does not
provide an attribution.28 More to the point, there is at least one other manuscript that display the forms
sqyh / ʿmrh—the so-called codex of ʿUṯmān that is preserved in Cairo. 29

Joining marks between letters that are separated by alif in variant readings are also attested
elsewhere.30 However, it is not clear whether in the examples provided by Dutton the absence of alif
was indicated with a cancellation mark.

Šaddah
Dutton also documented the use of color-coded dots for šaddah, noting that this use had been described
by the traditional authorities such as al-Dānī.31

In addition, there was a specific symbol to represent tašdīd: The use of a semicircle to mark the
presence of šaddah is described in K. al-Naqṭ wa-al-šakl by al-Dānī; 32 the latter distinguished between an
‘Eastern’ system where šaddah was indicated by a stylized šin—for ‘šadīd’—without dots (ّ), and a
‘Western’ one. For al-Dānī, the practice of the scribes of his native al-Andalus represented what had
been passed down from the people of al-Madīnah. Their system for marking šaddah can be summarized
as follows:

šaddah + faḥtah ᴗ above the letter

šaddah + ḍammah ᴖ above the letter
šaddah + kasrah ᴖ below the letter

26
Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUṯmān b. al-Ǧinnī, al-Muḥtasab fī tabyīn wuǧūh šawaḏḏ al-qirāʾāt wa-al-īḍāḥ ʿanhā, ed. ʿAlī al-Naǧdī
Nāṣif (et al.). Cairo: al-Maǧlis al-Aʿlā lil-Šuʾūn al-Islāmīyah, 1386-89 [1966-69], vol. 1, pp. 285-6.

27
EI2, s.v. “al-ʿUkbarī”.

28
ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Husayn al-ʿUkbari, Iʿrāb al-qirāʾāt al-šawāḏḏ. ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Sayyid ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd. Cairo: al-
Maktabah al-Azharīyah lil-Turāṯ, vol. 1, p. 319.

29
A digital version is available online: http://wadod.com/bookshelf/book/627

30
Dutton II, p. 15.

31
Dutton I, p. 119 (citing al-Dānī), p. 120; Dutton II, p. 12 (iii: red dots for šaddah; ii, c: green dots for the same).

32
al-Dānī, Muqniʿ. pp. 129-130.
This feature has been observed in manuscripts of the Qurʾān by Déroche, though only in passing. 33
Through a careful examination of the manuscripts Nuruosmaniye MS 23, Cantab. Add. 1124, and
Sotheby’s L11220 #179, we are able to expand on his observations, and corroborate the summary given
by al-Dānī.34

In the first of these, the ‘Palermo Qurʾān’, one finds the verse ending: ulāʾika šarrun makānan wa-aḍallu
sabīlan, (Q 25 [al-Furqān]: 34).35 The geminate letters in šarrun and aḍallu are marked with a red semicircle
above the letter, which opens to the bottom of the page, while the accompanying red dots which
indicate vocalization occupy their normal position in front of the letter (for ḍammah).

On one folio of Sotheby’s L11220 #179, we have the verses fa-tawallā ʿanhum fa-mā anta bi-malūmin /wa-
ḏakkir fa-inna ḏ-ḏikrā tanfaʿu ‘l-muʾminīna (Q 51 [al-Ḏāriyāt]: 55), where ḏakkir and (a)ḏ-ḏikrā each bear a red
semicircle below the doubled letter, which opens towards the bottom of the page. On the other hand,
tawallā carries on the lām a red semicircle the opens towards the top of the page.

In other words, the manuscript evidence confirms the description by al-Dānī of the use of šaddah. It is
particularly noteworthy that this applies to a codex that can be traced to the Western part of the
Islamic world, and the time of al-Dānī himself, though one must add that in the same codex, one also
finds instances of the conventional ‘Eastern’ notation for šaddah (e.g. in the basmalah of Q 23 [al-
Muʾminīn], QUR 261, fol. 7a)! In the reproduction, there is no discernible distinction in colour or ductus
between the two alternative šaddah signs. While the semicircle appears mostly in word-final positions,
the common Eastern šaddah sign occurs mostly with geminate letters, but the pattern is far from
consistent: in the examples given above, aḍallu was marked with a semicircle, while ṯumma (in Q 23: 15,
QUR 261, fol. 7a) has a common Eastern šaddah. One is left to suppose that the Eastern-type signs were
added at a later date; indeed they seem largely redundant, given that they occur in words that are
readily comprehensible without the additional reading marks.

Vocalization of šaddah

33
op. cit., no. 81 (p. 146) = Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye Library Ms 23; plates pp. 147-151.

34
Dutton (I, p. 119) does quote al-Dānī’s remark that ṣilāt, šaddah, and sukūn were marked ‘with a thin red line’,
but did apparently not observe the semicircle sign in his sample.

35
Khalili QUR 368, fol. 6b, in the fifth line from the bottom.
It is important to note that the Eastern system of marking šaddah, as described by al-Dānī, was a hybrid
one, which combined red dots (as used in the West for vocalization), and the Eastern form of šaddah. As
al-Dānī further notes, the semicircle sign for šaddah, though unambiguous in its sound value, was
sometimes supplemented by the conventional vowel marks (i.e. dots) by scribes in the Islamic West. 36 In
the case of fatḥah and kasrah, the position of the semicircle coincides with the placement of the vowel
sign, and the vocalization dot may therefore be positioned in the centre of the semicircle. In the case of
ḍammah, the semicircle was to be positioned above the corresponding letter (as in aḍallu above), but in
the manuscripts, we also find instances in which the semicircle encompasses both the letter and its
accompanying dot(s) placed in front of it, as in šarrun.

Types of šaddah
Now the instances of šaddah in the verses just cited have been largely structural (for the lack of a better
word), i.e. either due to a geminate consonant, or a sun letter that is preceded by the definite article.
However, in Kahlili QUR 368 (Q 25 [al-Furqān]: 34), there is also a semicircle above the mīm of ‘šarrun
makānan, as well as the following wāw. This shows that the doubling of letters in recitation was also
marked with a ‘šaddah’ sign, for in recitation the words are rendered šarrum- makānaw- wa-aḍallu … . In both
cases, this is due to idġām, which results in the assimilation of the /n/ of the tanwīn to the following
/m/ or /w/ sound.37

It is not surprising to see the same reading mark used to indicate šaddah and idġām, if one considers
that both result in a ‘doubled’ pronunciation; indeed the Arab grammarians considered gemination and
idġam to be closely related phenomena.38 What I find interesting is that some manuscripts appear to
distinguish between the ordinary ‘structural’ šaddah, and the šaddah in recitation. This seems to be true
for Sotheby’s L11220 #179, which used red semicircles in ‘ḏakkir’, but also has blueish-green semicircles
in and min qablihim min rasūlin (Q 51 [al-Ḏāriyāt]: 52), to indicate doubling of the mīm of the second ‘min’
and the rāʾ of ‘rasūlin’ due to idġām (or in order to indicate a deviation from the norm of the base
reading).

Absence of šaddah

36
op. cit., p. 130.

37
See Anna M. Gade, “Recitation of the Qurʾān.” Lemma in Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. ed. by Jane Dammen
McAuliffe. Brill Online , 2012. <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-
quran/recitation-of-the-quran-COM_00168>

38
EI2, s.v. “Idghām”
In some manuscripts, we find red circles (not dots) drawn with a thin line in positions that are marked
by their absence of šaddah. For example, in Sotheby’s L11220 #179, we have yawma yudaʿʿuna ʾilā nāri
jahannama daʿʿan (Q 52 [al-Ṭūr]: 12), where the verb appears with a circle above the first radical. Another
example appears in the in the same manuscript, in wa-waqāhum rabbuhum (Q 52 [al-Ṭūr]: 18), where the
qāf bears a red dot for fatḥah above, and a red circle to indicate that this is not to be read as ‘waqqāhum’.

Rather than indicate the absence of šaddah per se, the circle appears to indicate any type of ease in
pronunciation, such as taḫfīf. Elsewhere in the manuscript (i.e. L11220 #179), circles appear on the mīm
of the pronoun suffix –hum, in conjunction with sukūn, and on the first nūn in an yuṭʿimūn (Q 51 [al-
Ḏāriyāt]:57).

This tallies with the remark in al-Dānī’s Muḥkam, that the circle was used both to mark the absence of
šaddah, and letters that were not pronounced in recitation. Interestingly, the author traced the use of
the circle back to the symbol for zero in ġubār notation:

“wa-hāḏihi al-dārah allatī tuǧʿal ʿalā al-ḥurūf al-zawāʾid wa-ʿalā al-muḫaffaf hiya al-ṣifr al-laṭīf allaḏī
yaǧʿaluhu ahl al-ḥisāb ʿalā al-ʿadad al-maʿdūm fī al-ḥisāb […] fa-min al-ṣifr uḫiḏat al-dārah wa-huwa
aṣluhu.”

Sukūn
The absence of a vowel was marked with a short red line above the letter. In al-Dānī’s words, inna al-
sukūn yaqaʿ abadan jarrah bi-al-ḥamrāʾ ‘sukūn is always represented as a red dash’.39 Examples in the
manuscripts are common, e.g. miṯla ḏanūbi aṣḥābihim (Q 51 [al-Ḏāriyāt]: 59) in Sotheby’s L11220 #179. See
also the remarks on hamzat al-waṣl below.

Maddah
In some manuscripts, maddah was simply indicated by dots that are indistinguishable from vowel marks
or hamzah; for example, in Ms. Cantab Add. 1124 one finds that maddah was written as a single dot to the
upper left of alif (l. 6: āmana), or by a single dot in the open angle of the lām-alif digraph (l. 7: al-āḫiri).
However, a special reading mark was also in use. According to the account given by al-Dānī, maddah was
commonly marked by the scribes of al-Andalus with a red line (maṭṭah bi-al-ḥamrāʾ).40 This is consistent
with the evidence found in manuscripts; in Ms. Rabat 613 jīm, we have bi-rāddī rizqihim and sawāʾun (Q 16

39
Dānī, Muqniʿ, p. 129.

40
Dānī, Muqniʿ, p. 130-131.
[al-Naḥl]: 71), both written with a long red line placed horizontally above the alif. These examples are
also show that maddah was not to be written across its bearer, but rather placed above it. In al-Dānī’s
words, “it is not permissible to cross with (yuḫālaf bi-hā fī) [i.e. maddah] the alif, yāʾ, or wāw, but rather it
is placed above them”. Of course, the very fact that al-Dānī makes such an explicit statement shows
that there was some disagreement about the matter. Indeed, one finds that in Sotheby’s L12220 #404,
the maddah in man qad āmana (Q 11 [Hūd]: 36) is written as a red dot, as described above, but
supplemented by a red line across the upper part of the alif.

The same sign could also be used in other positions to indicate prolongation. An example of this occurs
in Ms. Rabat 613 jīm, in min anfusikumu ʾazwājan (Q 16 [al-Naḥl]: 72), where the mīm is clearly marked with
a red dot for ḍammah, and a red line above to mark the prolongation that is peculiar to this reading
(Warš ʿan Nāfiʿ). Likewise in Sotheby’s L10223 #9, a dash above alif maqṣūrah is used to indicate
prolongation of the alif in al-maṯal al-aʿlā (Q 30 [al-Rūm]: 27), where modern printed editions have a
dagger alif.

Waqf
A pause, or waqf, may occur at the end or in the middle of a verse. A single wāw above the line is used in
some manuscripts to indicate waqf. In MS Rabat 613 jīm, this sign appears in blue above most verse
endings, and at points where an optional pause is permissible, e.g. faḍḍala baʿḍakum ʿalā baʿḍin fī r-rizqi |
fa-mā …(Q 16 [al-Naḥl]: 71).

Hamzat al-waṣl
In some manuscripts, such as Ms Cantab. Add. 1124, hamzat al-waṣl is indicated by single dot to the
upper left of alif, and as such is indistinguishable from maddah (ll. 5-6: ʿimārata l-masjidi l-ḥarāmi).
However, a more complex notation for hamzat al-waṣl is also found: in this scheme, the hamzah is
marked by a dot at the very tip of the alif, and is supplemented by a short red stroke which is placed in
accordance with the quality of the preceding vowel, and which protrudes from the vertical part of alif
toward the right. Hence, after a preceding fatḥah, the stroke is placed at the top of alif just beneath the
dot, whereas after ḍammah and kasrah the stroke is placed in the middle and below the alif, respectively.
An example of all three combinations appears in Sotheby’s L11220 #179, inna Allāha huwa ‘r-razzāqu ḏū ‘l-
quwwati ‘l-mubīn (Q 51 [al-Ḏāriyāt]: 58). The short red line is indistinguishable from that used to
represent sukūn. Indeed, al-Dānī writes:41

41
al-Dānī, Muḥkam, p. 86.
“wa-ahl al-naqṭ yusammūna hāḏihi al-ǧarrah ṣilatan […] wa-innamā ǧaʿalahā nuqqāṭ ahl baladinā,
qadiman wa-ḥadīṯan, ǧarratan ka-al-ǧarrah allatī hiya ʿalāmat al-sukūn, min ḥayṯ iǧtamaʿat alif al-waṣl
maʿa al-sākin fī ʿadam al-ḥarakah fī ḥāl al-waṣl, wa-al-naqṭ—kamā qaddamnā—mabnī ʿalayhi.”

Earlier, the same author notes that after tanwīn, the ṣilah is always represented as a dash below the alif,
since the tanwīn forces what follows to be pronounced with kasrah. This brings us to consider the
representation of tanwīn in context.

Tanwīn in context
Nunation is represented by two dots in the appropriate position relative to the letter. Thus, the
nominative ending –un is written as two dots to the left of the letter, whereas the case endings –in and –
an are written with two dots below, and on the top of a final alif, respectively. This much has been taken
for granted throughout the first part of this article. In addition to the phonetic value –Vn, the dots for
tanwīn may also encode information about the context in which it occurs. In his K. al-Muḥkam, al-Dānī
noted that tanwīn, where it occurred before a guttural (hamzah, haʾ, ḥāʾ, ḫāʾ, ʿayn, ġayn) was written with
two dots stacked one above the other (“tuǧʿalān maʿa ḏālika mutarākibatayn, wāḥidah fawqa al-uḫrā”).42
The first of these dots, situated closer to the letter, was meant to represent the case vowel, whereas the
second was thought to represent the nunation. In all other instances, al-Dānī informs us, tanwīn was
written with two dots placed horizontally side by side.43

This description corresponds to the evidence found in manuscripts. For example, in Sotheby’s L11220
#179, we have ʾilā nāri jahannama daʿʿan hāḏihi … a-fa-siḥrun hāḏā (Q [al-Ṭūr] 52: 13 and 15), where the dots
for tanwīn are arranged vertically, because they are followed by the guttural hāʾ. On the same folio, one
finds wa-tamūru ‘s-samāʾu mawran | wa-tasīru ‘ǧ-ǧibālu sayran | fa-waylun yawmaʾiḏin lil-mukaḏḏibīna | … (Q [al-Ṭūr]
52: 9-11). In each instance, the tanwīn is represented by two dots arranged horizontally, because the
following letters are not gutturals (wāw, fāʾ, yāʾ and lām). Similarly, in Ms Cantab. Add. 1124, f. 87 verso,
one finds …amrunā laylan ʾaw nahāran fa-ǧaʿalnāhā … (Q. [Yūnus] 10: 24), where laylan has two dots arranged
vertically to the right of the upward stroke of the lām-alif to denote tanwīn fatḥah followed by a guttural
(l. 7; nahāran in the same verse lacks dots). Why is this distinction relevant? Presumably because only in
the case of a following guttural was any form of assimilation of the nunation excluded in recitation.

C. Discussion

42
al-Dānī, Muḥkam, p. 68.

43
Ibid., p. 69.
In the foregone section it has become clear that al-Dānī’s descriptions of the conventions used in
writing manuscripts of the Qurʾān are remarkably accurate, and that many minute details in his
descriptions can be verified on the basis of the evidence found in manuscripts. There are some
differences between al-Dānī’s normative statements on the one hand, and the evidence in the
manuscripts on the other hand, but even these are partly accounted for in al-Dānī’s descriptions of
objectionable practices (e.g. writing maddah across the alif). Furthermore, one can observe that the
idiosyncrasies of the various readings, as recorded in the manuscripts examined here, are consistently
marked in the text, and that they correspond with the accounts of the canonical readings given by al-
Dānī, his contemporaries, and later generations of scholars. Here, too, one encounters exceptions—such
as the largely unattested reading suqyat al-ḥaǧǧ in the Cambridge manuscript (see above)—but these
are exceedingly few in number. A complete catalog of such unattributed readings would be an
interesting contribution to Qurʾanic studies.

It is also clear that the system of reading signs that was in use at al-Dānī’s time was a highly complex
one, and that it was designed to encode several different layers in the text. In fact, one can divide the
additional reading marks described above into several groups, by the type of information which they
encode. First, there are reading marks that serve to disambiguate (such as short vowels and dashes for
diacritics). Then, there a signs that render morphological classes apparent (šaddah / taḫfīf), that encode
syntactic relationships (case marking and pauses), or document phonological peculiarities attributed to
particular speakers (mīm al-ǧamʿ, idġām, enjambements). Finally, colour-coding schemes allowed the
copyist to record variants in any of these classes.

The purpose of this system was presumably to represent, in graphic form, the oral recitation of the
Qurʾān according to the tradition established by one of the authorities in the field. I would argue,
however, that this purpose runs counter to the nature of Arabic script, which is largely analytical.
Consider, for example, that the definite article is always represented in script as alif-lām, irrespective of
the fact that the lām is not pronounced when followed by a sun letter, nor is the alif when preceded by a
short vowel. The writing system is clearly not phonetic in this case, but rather encodes grammatical
information in a uniform way. One could say that by adding the alif-lām, one assigns a noun to a class of
words, namely that of definite nouns. Similarly, the taʾ marbūṭah does not represent a particular
pronunciation per se, but indicates the class of the word (nouns of feminine grammatical gender). In
other words, the Arabic writing system is set up to consider each semantic element in isolation, with
regard to its membership in a particular class, and without regard for actual pronunciation.
There is therefore a real contradiction between a writing system that seeks to unify elements in classes
(while assigning the task of rendering the encoded string as spoken language to the proficient reader),
and a system of reading marks that seeks to represent minute variations in the recitation of words in
context (for the benefit of the reader who may not be proficient in the art of recitation). In an article on
the origins of Arabic script, Beatrice Gruendler notes:44

“Arabic script, unlike many other alphabetic scripts, retains a very high phonetic accuracy when it is
fully vocalized. Nonetheless, a paradigmatic-etymological counter trend of writing is visible in the non-
assimilation of the article in the script, and the segmental writing of assimilated verbal endings and
suffixes.”

It seems that al-Dānī himself was somewhat aware of this contradiction, because he felt the need to
justify the practice of adding reading marks so as to represent words in their non-pausal state, in order
to mimic the flow speech:45

“banaw ʿalā waṣl al-qāriʾ bi-al-kalim duna waqfihi ʿalayhinna; fa-aʿrabū awāḫirahinna li-ḏālik, li-anna
al-iškāl akṯar mā yadḫul ʿalā al-mubtadiʾ al-mutaʿallim wa-al-wahm akṯar mā yaʿraḍ li-man lā yubṣir al-
iʿrāb, wa-lā yaʿrif al-qirāʾah fī iʿrāb awāḫir al-asmāʾ wa-al-afʿāl, fa-li-ḏālik banaw al-naqṭ ʿalā al-waṣl
dūna al-waqf, wa-ayḍan fa-innā al-qāriʾ qad yaqraʾ al-āyah wa-akṯar fi nafas wāḥid wa-lā yaqṭaʿ ʿalā šayʾ
min kalimihā fa-lā budd min iʿrāb mā yaṣiluhu min ḏālik ḍarūratan.”

Let us consider a couple of examples to illustrate this issue. in MS Rabat 613 jīm, line 7, one finds mina ṭ-
ṭayyibāti (Q16: 72), where the definite article is of course represented by alif-lām, while its omission in
pronunciation is shown by fatḥah on the nūn of ‘min’, hamzat al-waṣl on the alif (see above), and a šaddah
on the ṭāʾ–a total of four additional reading marks. As for verbal endings, there is an example in
Sotheby’s L12220 #404, where the text reads aradtu an anṣaḥa (Q11: 34). While the spelling of the first
verb is analytical, adding the regular first person suffix after dāl, the word would be rendered as arat-tu,
not *arad-tu, in recitation. Again, the actual pronunciation is restored by addition of a šaddah and a
ḍammah on the tāʾ. Now, two things are evident:

44
Gruendler, Beatrice. “Arabic Alphabet: Origin.” In: Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed. Lutz Edzard
& Rudolf de Jong. Online. <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-arabic-language-and-
linguistics/arabic-alphabet-origin-EALL_COM_0022>

45
al-Dānī, Muḥkam, p. 19
First, that the system of additional reading marks described here was restricted to the domain of
Qurʾān manuscripts only: To the best of my knowledge, there are no other types of texts that were
enhanced with coloured dots, lines for sukūn, etc… .46 In most prose texts, such additional marks would
be redundant, much as vowel markers are, but reading marks could conceivably be of use in recording
poetry. The reason may be that the precise rendering of the text, complete with all phonological details
was only of interest where the Qurʾān was concerned—and even then, the ultimate goal may not have
been to record a particular reading accurately, but to exclude further, uncontrolled variation. Indeed,
al-Dānī states explicitly: 47

“wa-in kāna sabab ibtidāʿ al-naqṭ huwa taṣḥīḥ al-qirāʾah wa-al-ityān bihā ʿalā ḥaqqihā”

Second, that the system described by al-Dānī in painstaking detail did not remain in common use for
any length of time. The reason may be that the system was cumbersome, as it necessitated the use of at
least three colours of ink (black, red, yellow). With the addition of variant readings as additional layers,
it also became confusing. In his works, al-Dānī admits as much, because he cautions against the
insertion of variant readings, on account of the confusion (‘taḫlīṭ’) which it may cause the reader. 48 And
yet he notes that the representation of variant readings in the same manuscripts was a common
practice. 49 A particular issue, which Dutton already pointed to, is that there was no uniform standard
for the colour-coding of dots; one and the same colour was used for different purposes in different
codices. Ultimately, the cumbersome nature of the system may have led to its demise, while other
reading marks were adopted to render the same phenomena.

Interestingly, the development seems to have run a full circle, because recent years have seen the
publication of copies of the Qurʾān (maṣāḥif taǧwīd) where different elements of the reading, such as the
length of vowels, or the elision of letters, are represented in various colours. There are even texts of the
Qurʾān on the market in which the variant readings are marked with colour, and supplemented by a
commentary on the margin. While the former enjoy some popularity, for example in Egypt, where

46
Of course, other disambiguation marks were frequently used to disambiguate in manuscript, such as the háček
for sīn/šīn; dāl/ḏāl; etc… .

47
al-Dānī, Naqṭ (ed. Prezl), p. 138.

48
al-Dānī, Muḥkam, p. 21.

49
Ibid., p. 22.
lessons in the art of reciting the Qurʾān are frequently offered, the latter are far too specialized for a
general audience, and found only in select bookstores.