Jim Article p235 - 5

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
brill.com/jim
Editing mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c

The Oldest Qurʾān Fragments in Leiden University Library
Abdallah El-Khatib | orcid: 0000-0003-0904-0159

College of Sharia and Islamic studies, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
aelkhatib@qu.edu.qa
Received July 25, 2020 | Accepted November 1, 2022
Abstract
This article provides a description and edition of mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c. Radiocar-
bon dating (14C dating) pinpoints the manuscript to an early period in Islamic history,
and this is affirmed by its palaeographical and codicological features. As a result of its
dating, it has received considerable attention from scholars and the media. This study
confirms the manuscript’s direct relationship with mss Paris, BnF Arabe 331 and St.
Petersburg, National Library, Marcel 3. A verse count analysis was carried out in order
to establish its origin. There is evidence that the manuscript journeyed from al-Fusṭāṭ
in Old-Cairo to Beirut in Lebanon before finally settling in Leiden in the Netherlands.
For several reasons, it was difficult to determine the exact origin of the manuscript.
Keywords
Quranic manuscript – Leiden Or. 14.545 b – Leiden Or. 14.545 c – Paris BnF Arabe 331 –
St. Petersburg – National Library – Marcel 3 – verse count division
Published with license by Koninklijke Brill nv | doi:10.1163/1878464X-01401004

© Abdallah El-Khatib, 2023 | ISSN: 1878-4631 (print) 1878-464x (online)
Downloaded from Brill.com09/13/202307:16:24AM
via Leiden University
236 el-khatib
1 Introduction1
The study of the compilation of the Qurʾān as a text is an early Islamic science.2
Western scholars, too, have considered this topic from early on. However, fun-
damental studies of ancient Qurʾānic manuscripts and their palaeographical
features only began with the publications of Jacob Georg Christian Adler (1780)
and Michele Amari (1857).3 The “first ground-breaking, systematic palaeogra-
phy of Qurʾānic manuscripts was presented … in 1983 by François Déroche with
his catalogue of Qurʾān scriptures of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.”4
Through the combined studies of palaeographical characteristics, orthography,
codicology, and 14C measurements, we have begun to hear from many Western
libraries that they possess some of the oldest copies of the Qurʾān, consisting
of fragments on either parchment or papyrus. These institutions include the
University Library in Tübingen (ms Ma vi 165),5 Leiden University Library (ms
Or. 14.545 a),6 Berlin State Library (ms Or. Fol. 4313),7 and the Mingana Col-
1 I want to thank Prof. Jan Just Witkam (Leiden University), who suggested studying mss Leiden
Or. 14.545 b–c when I visited Leiden University in August 2019 and for inviting me to publish
the results of my research in jim. I am also much indebted to Dr Alba Fedeli (Hamburg Uni-
versity) and Dr Marijn van Putten (Leiden University) for their valuable comments on the first
draft of this article. Dr Arnoud Vrolijk, Curator of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Works at
the Leiden University Libraries sent me the unpublished official report of the 14C analysis of
the Leiden fragments, permitting me to publish the latter, for which I am most grateful.
2 See e.g. J. Burton, “Collection of the Qurʾān” in J. Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of
the Qurʾān, vol. 1 (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2001), 351–361.
3 F. Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition: Qur’ans of the 8th to the 10th Centuries ad (The Nasser
D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. Ed. J. Raby, vol. 1. London, Oxford: The Nour Foundation,
Oxford University Press, 1992), 12; M.J. Marx, “Introduction,” in A. Kaplony and M.J. Marx (eds),
Qurʾān Quotations Preserved on Papyrus Documents, 7th–10th Centuries: And the Problem of
Carbon Dating Early Qurʾāns (Leiden: Brill, 2019. Documenta Coranica, vol. 2), (1–41) 6.
4 M.J. Marx and T.J. Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” in Kaplony and
Marx, Qurʾān Quotations, 193; F. Déroche, Les manuscrits du Coran. Aux origines de la cal-
ligraphie coranique. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1983. Bibliothèque nationale, Département
de Manuscrits. Catalogue des manuscrits arabes: Deuxième Partie: Manuscrits musulmans,
Tome i, 1. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k229966g/f61.item (accessed 16-10-2022).
5 For a description, bibliographical references and images of this manuscript, see http://idb.ub
.uni‑tuebingen.de/opendigi/MaVI165#p=1 (consulted 17-10-2022).
6 J.J. Witkam, Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University of Leiden (25
vols. Leiden: Ter Lugt Press, 2002–2019), vol. 15, 253. For images, see https://corpuscoranicum
.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/2/verse/269/manuscripts/367 (four folios accessible through a
drop-down menu).
7 For a description of this manuscript, see R. Sellheim: Arabische Handschriften, Reihe A:
Materialien zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1976. Verzeichnis
der Orientalische Handschriften in Deutschland, vol. xvii), vol. 1, p. 1, No. 1 (where the shelf
Journal of Islamic Downloaded

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
from Brill.com09/13/2023 07:16:24AM
editing mss leiden or. 14.545 b–c 237
lection at the University of Birmingham (ms Mingana Isl. Ar. 1572 a and b).8
The oldest fragments’ carbon proved to date back to a period between 568 and
645 ce. They “[…] sparked a big media response […] In what appeared to be a
kind of competition, Birmingham turned out to hold the most ancient Qurʾānic
manuscript, although precise rankings are impossible to give. The university
had launched the press release in a professional way so that the discovery of
the ‘Birmingham Qurʾān’ was echoed in media around the globe.”9
These discoveries provide clear evidence that the Qurʾān was a book pre-
served in a written form from or before an early stage of the Umayyad period.
According to Déroche, these findings helped close the debate opened by the
‘hypercritical school’ of thought.10 For example, John Wansbrough (1928–2002)
doubted the existence of any written evidence of the Qurʾān before the third/
ninth century.11
2 Origin and Provenance of the Leiden Fragments
In a press release on July 23, 2014, Dr Arnoud Vrolijk, Curator of Oriental Manu-
scripts and Printed Works at the Leiden University Libraries, announced that
the oldest Qurʾānic fragments in their collection had been identified using
number is given as Ms. Or. Oct. 39.41); images at https://digital.staatsbibliothek‑berlin.de/

werkansicht?PPN=PPN644463252&view=overview‑toc&PHYSID=PHYS_0001&DMDID=
(accessed on 14-10-2022).
8 For images and descriptions, see http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/116/ (accessed on 23-08-2022).
See also A. Fedeli, “Collective Enthusiasm and the Cautious Scholar: The Birmingham
Qur’ān: The Case of the Discovery of the ‘Birmingham Qur’ān’,” in Marginalia, August 3,
2018 (https://themarginaliareview.com/collective‑enthusiasm/).
9 Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” 189–190. See also
A. Fedeli, Early Quranic Manuscripts, Their Text, and the Alphonse Mingana Papers Held in
the Department of Special Collections of the University of Birmingham (PhD Thesis, Birm-
ingham: Birmingham University, 2015), 47–50.
10 Déroche presented many other advantages of studying old Qurʾān manuscripts, for which
see F. Déroche, Qurʾans of the Umayyads, A First Overview (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 201, 14–15;
Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” 190.
11 W. Graham, review of J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural
Interpretation (Oxford, 1977), in jaos 100 (1980), 137–141. See also N. Sinai, “Historical
Criticism and Recent Trends in Western Scholarship on the Qur’an: Some Hermeneu-
tic Reflections,” Journal of College of Sharia and Islamic Studies 38/1 (July 2020), 136–
146, 137, 144–145; S. Rashwani, “Corpus Coranicum from Philology to Literary Analysis:
A Critical Vision,” in Journal of College of Sharia and Islamic Studies 38/1 (July 2020),
86.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/13/2023 07:16:24AM
238 el-khatib
radiocarbon 14C analysis.12 These fragments comprised six leaves of parchment,

purchased between 1974 and 1979 from an antique dealer, on the Rue Hamrah
in Beirut, by the Dutch Ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. H.C. Jorissen. In May 1979,
the then curator of Oriental Manuscripts, Jan Just Witkam, bought the leaves
from the ambassador on behalf of Leiden University Library for a sum close to
that of the ambassador’s original purchase.13 Witkam drew attention to these
significant parchment leaves, identifying one fragment in 2000 as part of the
same Qurʾān as fragments kept in the National Library in Paris, ms BnF Arabe
331.14 Dr M.-G. Guesdon, who had direct access to the manuscript in France,
confirmed this.15 Witkam also stated that the results of the 14C analysis made
it clear that the Leiden fragment (and therefore also the fragments in Paris)
are ancient, possibly dating back to some thirty years after the death of the
Prophet Muhammad.16 The 14C dating was carried out by the joint German-
French Coranica project.17 On the occasion of this important discovery, Prof.
Petra Sijpesteijn “[…] co-organised a panel of internationally renowned schol-
ars on December 9, 2014. Colleagues from Paris, Berlin and Oxford reflected on
the implications of this discovery, especially for our understanding of how the
Quran emerged as a book.”18 On April 20, 2015, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr
Shawqī ʿAllām, visited the university to look at the fragments.19
12 This press release may be consulted (in Dutch) at https://www.bibliotheek.universiteitlei

den.nl/nieuws/2014/07/oudste‑koranfragmenten‑in‑leiden (accessed on 18-10-2022).
13 Witkam, Inventory, vol. 15, 253; idem, “The Value of Old Paper” (a lecture held at the
American University of Beirut, April 22, 2015). http://islamicmanuscripts.info/Files/Beirut
‑Witkam‑2015‑Value‑of‑old‑paper.pdf), 22.
14 Witkam, loc. cit. (in his Inventory, vol. 15, 253, Witkam mistakenly writes “Paris, bnf, Arabe
131”).
15 In an email to Prof. François Déroche on May 19, 2020, I asked him about the relationship
between mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c and Paris, BnF Arabe 331, to which he replied: “As stated
by Prof. Jan Just Witkam, Dr Guesdon noted that mss Leiden ul Or. 14.545 b and c were
part of the same manuscript as Paris, BnF Arabe 331. When I published my catalogue of
the collection in Paris, […] the Leiden folios were not yet part of the collection, and I only
came to know of their existence at a later date […] Dr Guesdon noted that both fragments
shared the same codicological and palaeographical features. In addition, the text is con-
tinuous on one of the Leiden folios and the Parisian folios, which strongly support (sic)
the hypothesis that they were part of the same manuscript”. See also Witkam, Inventory,
vol. 15, 253.
16 Witkam, “The Value of Old Paper,” loc. cit.
17 Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” 188–189.
18 A. van Sandwijk and P. Sijpesteijn, lucis, Annual Report 2014 (Leiden: Universiteit Lei-
den), 8.
19 A. van Sandwijk and P. Sijpesteijn, lucis, Annual Report 2015 (Leiden: Universiteit Lei-
den), 11. Photograph in Jan Just Witkam, Values of Old Paper. Leiden: Ter Lugt Press, 2022,
43.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
There is no indication in the manuscript of its provenance, but it can at least

be traced to al-Fusṭāṭ because, as stated above, mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c are
from the same codex as ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331. The latter forms part of the
collection of Qurʾān fragments that was acquired in 1833 by the Bibliothèque
nationale from the estate of Jean-Louis Asselin de Cherville (d. 1822), who had
obtained them at the ʿAmr Mosque in al-Fusṭāṭ during his stay in Egypt.20 mss
Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c are part of a Qurʾān manuscript the remnants of which
are scattered across France, Russia, and the Netherlands:
– Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms Arabe 331 (56 fols.);21
– St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, ms Marcel 3 (26 fols.);22
– Leiden, University Library, mss Or. 14.545 b–c (2 fols.).23
Running to over 84 folios, these fragments together cover almost 40 per cent
of the text of the Qurʾān.24 Some have suggested that other fragments of the
same manuscript survive elsewhere, but evidence is lacking. These fragments
are (with my explanations in the footnotes):
– mss A 6959 and A 6990 at the Oriental Institute in Chicago;25
– ms E16264 R at the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia;26
20 F. Déroche, The Qur’ans of the Omayyads: A First Overview (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 1.
21 Déroche, Les manuscrits du Coran, 67, with Plate ix. For images and further descriptions
https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/2/verse/125/manuscripts/32/page/
1r.
22 For a description, see https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/4/verse/92/
manuscripts/331/page/1r.
23 Witkam, Inventory, vol. 15, 253. For images and other information, see: https://corpuscoran
icum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/16/verse/114/manuscripts/368/page/1v and https://corp
uscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/63/verse/1/manuscripts/369/page/1r.
24 See https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/4/verse/92/manuscripts/331/pa
ge/1r#catalogue_entry, Catalogue Entry.
25 For the claim, see https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/68/verse/9/manu
scripts/16/page/1r, Catalogue Entry, and https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/
sura/97/verse/4/manuscripts/17/page/1r, Catalogue Entry. For a complete description of
the fragments, see N. Abbott, The Rise of the North Arabic Script and Its Ḳurʾānic Develop-
ment, with a Full Description of the Ḳurʾān Manuscripts in the Oriental Institute (Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1939), 60–61, with plates. This unfounded identifica-
tion probably resulted from a misunderstanding of Déroche, Les manuscrits du Coran, 67,
where he says that ms BnF Arabe 331 is “à rapprocher du ms. Chicago 1,” meaning no more
than that mss BnF Arabe 331 and Or. Inst. Ch. A 6959 are comparable. Because Abbott
claimed that mss A 6959 and A 6990 must have belonged to the same codex (Abbot, op.
cit., 61), both fragments came to be considered as having belonged to the same codex as
mss Paris BnF Arabe 331, Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c and St Petersburg Marcel 3.
26 For the claim, see https://www.islamic‑awareness.org/quran/text/mss/arabe331.html,
“Size & Folios.” There is no basis for this claim, which likely results from the undue inter-
polation of the conjecture, at https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/002/

240 el-khatib
– One folio, sold at Nabécor Enchères (Nancy, France) on November 16, 2019.27
I was able to verify the relationship between mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c, Paris,
BnF Arabe 331, and St Petersburg, National Library of Russia, Marcel 3. Images
of the first two manuscripts are available on the website of Corpus Coranicum
http://www.corpuscoranicum.de. Moreover, I acquired images of the St Peters-
burg manuscript, which are absent from the Corpus Coranicum website.
ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b breaks off on the verso side at ‫ نعمت‬in Q 16:114. This
verse continues (starting with ‫ )الله‬in ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331, folio 30r, as also
mentioned by Déroche.28 There is no such continuation between ms Leiden
Or. 14.545 c and Paris, BnF Arabe 331 because the former covers Q 63:1 to 64:4
while Q 62 and Q 64 are absent for the latter (and also from ms St Petersburg,
National Library of Russia, Marcel 3).29 The place of copying of ms Leiden Or.
14.545 b–c (and also of mss Paris BnF Arabe 331 and St Petersburg, National
Library of Russia, Marcel 3) will be discussed below in the section on the verse
counting system.
ms Leiden Or. 14.545 a, purchased in Beirut together with mss Leiden Or.
14.545 b and Or. 14.545 c, comprises four folios: ff. 1a–b covering Q 2:269–282,
and ff. 2a–4b containing Q 17:40–110.30 It is not related to mss Leiden Or. 14.545
b–c described below. ms Leiden Or. 14.545 a has gone through the same 14C
dating process as mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c and was dated to the early years of
Islam.31 The Corpus Coranicum website32 indicates that ms Leiden Or. 14.545 a
is similar to the following manuscripts:
verse/125/manuscripts/32/page/1r, Catalogue Entry, that the fragment “possibly” (“mög-

licherweise”) stems from the same codex as mss Paris BnF Arabe 331, Leiden Or. 14.545
b–c, St. Petersburg Marcel 3, and Chicago A 6959 and A 6990.
27 The identification between this fragment and ms Paris BnF Arabe 331 was made by the auc-
tion’s expert, Mme Marie-Christine David, for which see the description (with plates) of
Lot no. 94 at https://www.gazette‑drouot.com/lots/11166127‑grand‑folio‑de‑coran‑fragme
ntaire‑‑‑‑ (accessed on 18-10-2022). The identification is wrong because the size of the frag-
ment is significantly different from the size of the folios of ms Paris BnF Arabe 331; because
it has 18 lines to the page instead of 19 as in ms Paris BnF Arabe 331; and also because it
has an ornamental frieze at the end of sūra 19 (Maryam), which is different from the orna-
mental separator that is visible at the end of sūra 25 (al-Furqān) in ms Paris BnF Arabe 331
fol. 33r.
28 See also the image at https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/16/verse/114/
manuscripts/32/page/30r.
29 See the transliterations of the folios provided at https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse
‑navigator/sura/4/verse/92/manuscripts/331/page/1r#catalogue_entry and further.
30 Witkam, Inventory, vol. 15, 253.
31 E.M. Youssef-Grob, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Early Islamic Documents: Background
and Prospects,” in Kaplony and Marx, Qurʾān Quotations…, 174; Marx and Jocham, “Radio-
carbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” 216.
32 https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/002/vers/270/handschrift/367.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
– Paris, BnF Arabe 335

– St. Petersburg, National Library, Marcel 5
– Chicago, Oriental Institute A 6958
– London, Nasser D. Khalili Collection, kfq50
– Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and An-
thropology, E16264
– Doha, Museum of Islamic Art, ms 27633
ms Doha 276 comprises a single folio’s recto and verso sides. Its recorded
dimensions are 23.4×21cm (H × W). The recto contains Q 2:60–64, and the
verso Q 2:68–75. There are similarities between mss Doha 276 and Leiden Or.
14.545 a in terms of their orthography and palaeographical features.
3 Description of mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c
mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c consists of two leaves of parchment containing
verses from the Qurʾān: ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b (recto Q 16:96–105, verso Q 16:
106–114) and ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c (recto Q 63:1–7, verso Q 63:8–11 and Q 64:1–
4).
3.1 Dimensions and Colour

3.1.1 Fragment Leiden Or. 14.545 b
This fragment consists of one leaf containing the following Qurʾānic verses:
recto Q 16:96–105 and verso Q 16:106–114. It measures 40 × 32 cm (“approxi-
mately the original measure of the parchment, beginning with the hair side,
with damaged edges”),34 with 19 lines per page, and there is 34 cm between the
base of line 1 to the base of line 19. Recto folio damaged top right, middle left,
and bottom left, with two small holes in the middle of the folio. Folios are kept
in a paper sheaf carrying the number 24536, likely referring to its place in an
earlier collection.35
33 I want to thank M. Marc Pelletreau, head of digital assets at the Museum of Islamic Art in
Doha, who gave me a copy of these folios on June 17, 2020.
34 Witkam, Inventory, vol. 15, 253; idem, Course of Islamic Paleography: Specimens of Arabic
Manuscripts, Scripts of the First Millenium, Qur’an in Hijazi-Like Script, ms Leiden, Or.
14.545 c and Or. 14.545 b (Leiden, 2007), 1. http://islamicmanuscripts.info/courses/arabic
_manuscripts/or14545b‑c.pdf.
35 Op. cit., 1, 5–6.

242 el-khatib
3.1.2 Fragment Leiden Or. 14.545 c

This fragment consists of one leaf containing the following Quranic verses:
recto, Q 63:1–7 and verso, Q 63:8–11 and Q 64:1–4. Its parchment folios measure
35×34cm (“not the original dimensions”), beginning with the hair side, with
damaged edges. It is presently bound with the verso side (flesh side) first.36
3.1.3 Colour
For ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c, the scribe used brownish ink. The script is clear
and legible on the flesh side (recto in both cases) but somewhat faded on the
hair side (verso in both cases).
3.2 Palaeography
As described by François Déroche, the script style of this muṣḥaf is Hijazi or
Hijazi-like script B 1 a, which is an upright māʾil script used to write the Qurʾān
during the first/seventh and possibly into the second/eighth century.37 The
mīm is circular, placed neatly astride the line, with a horizontal tail, and it often
curves neatly (almost imperceptibly) upwards. The alif slopes slightly to the
right, with an extended horizontal return and a blunt end almost perpendicu-
lar to the shaft. Dāl consists of two parallel horizontal strokes connected by a
curve, the upper stroke slightly shorter, with a short vertical onset tilting back-
wards. The final kāf ’s lower horizontal stroke runs slightly beyond the point at
which its upper horizontal stroke turns upwards, almost at a right angle. The
tail end of the final qāf takes the form of an appended horizontal letter U with
branches parallel to the baseline, comparable to the French cédille.
3.3 Rasm
The rasm (orthography) of this muṣḥaf follows the standard ʿUthmānī system.
As for the various forms of bi-āyāt, in which there is the prepositional prefix
bi, the rasm with two denticles ‫( باىىت‬e.g. ‫ باٮٮت‬in ms St Petersburg, National
Library, Marcel 3, folio 5v line 6 (Q 4:155); ‫ ٮاىىتنا‬in ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331 fol. 52v
line 1 (Q 57:19)) is dominant. Regarding this phenomenon, a yāʾ is added after
the alif in all forms of ‫ آية‬prefixed by bāʾ. However, this spelling practice is
absent for this word in the Medina and Cairo editions, where it always has the
form ‫بايت‬38 because these editions follow the conventions of Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī
36 Op. cit. 1–4.

37 Déroche, Les manuscrits du Coran, 37. Comparing ms Paris BnF Arabe 331 with Chicago,
Oriental Institute A 6959, Déroche (67) seems inclined to date it with Abbot (The Rise of
the North Arabic Script …, 60–61) to the beginning of the second/eighth century.
38 M. van Putten, “Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text,” in Orientalia 87/1 (2018), 109.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
and his student Ibn Najāḥ in their famous books on rasm and qirāʾāt. Al-Dānī
observed this phenomenon in an old Iraqi muṣḥaf but regarded it as an excep-
tion to the rule.39 Al-Sakhāwī also saw this phenomenon in the Shami muṣḥaf,
which seems to confirm that the addition of yāʾ was common practice in the old
maṣāḥif, even though al-Khwārizmī, the author of Hijāʾ al-muṣḥaf, stated that
these words are always written in the Qurʾān with two yāʾs, regardless of where
they occur.40 However, al-Dānī’s observations differed because he did not have
full access to all muṣḥaf s at the time. This phenomenon is widespread in old
muṣḥaf s, such as those from Ṣanʿāʾ, Tashkent, the Jāmiʿ ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, and the
Jāmiʿ al-Ḥusaynī, which contain 34, more than 30, 37, and 110 examples of the
use of two yāʾs, respectively.41
The reason for writing (‫ )بآيية‬with two yāʾs is, as al-Mahdawī explained,
related to its likeness to (‫)بأييد و بأييكم‬:
“According to the school that drops the hamza in both words, they replace it
with a pure yāʾ since it is followed by fatḥa and preceded by kasra. The hamza
should therefore be written as a yāʾ, while the alif is for those who pronounce
it. Thus, people wrote these words in two ways, representing the two practices
with two signs: the sign for pronouncing the hamza as an alif, and the sign for
pronouncing the hamza as a yāʾ.”42 This reasoning is also applicable to the addi-
39 Al-Shāṭibī holds the same view in his ʿAqīla. See Ghānim Qudūrī al-Ḥamad and Iyād
al-Sāmarrāʾī, Ẓawāhir kitābiyya fī maṣāḥif makhṭūṭa. Dirāsa wa-muʿjam (Damascus: Dār
al-Ghawthānī lil-Dirāsāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 2010), 48–51; al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif
al-amṣār (Ed. Muḥammad Qamḥāwī, Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyya, n.d.), 57;
Muḥammad b. Niẓām al-Dīn al-Nāʾiṭī al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān
(7 vols. Hyderabad: Maṭbaʿat ʿUthmān,—Shams al-Islām,—al-Aʿẓāmiyya, 1331–1348ah),
vol. 3, 494. Van Putten was right when he asserted that the word ‫ آية‬was not always written
with two denticles in the old maṣāḥif. See the discussion in footnote 22 in Van Putten’s
“Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text,” 109–110 and compare with G.-R. Puin, “Vowel
Letters and Ortho-Epic Writing in the Qurʾān,” in G. Reynolds (ed.), New Perspectives on
the Qur’an. The Qur’an in Its Historical Context 2 (London: Routledge, 2011), (147–190) 167.
40 Yūsuf b. Muḥammad al-Khwārizmī, Hijāʾ al-muṣḥaf (Ed. Ghānim Qudūrī al-Ḥamad, Am-
man: Jamʿiyyat al-muḥāfaẓa ʿalā al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2018/1443), 21–23, 124; compare with
al-Ḥamad and al-Sāmarrāʾī, Ẓawāhir kitābiyya fī maṣāḥif makhṭūṭa, 49.
41 For the above-mentioned comparisons of the entire text of the Qurʾān, see Ghānim
Qudūrī al-Ḥamad, ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān bayna al-maṣādir wal-maṣāḥif (Riyadh: Markaz Tafsīr
lil-Dirāsāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 2018), 35–36; al-Ḥamad and al-Sāmarrāʾī, Ẓawāhir kitābiyya fī
maṣāḥif makhṭūṭa, 48–51.
42 Abu ’l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿAmmār al-Mahdawī, Hijāʾ maṣāḥif al-amṣār (ed. Hātim al-Ḍāmin,
Riyadh: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī, 1430ah), 67; al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 54.
Here al-Dānī explains the addition of yāʾ to the word ‫باييد و بأييكم‬, and on page 57, he
describes why ‫ باييتنا‬is written with an additional denticle. See also al-Ḥamad, ʿUlūm al-
Qurʾān, 36. Van Putten gives a good explanation, similar to al-Mahdawī’s: “The spelling is

244 el-khatib
tion of yāʾ in (‫ )بآيية‬with its three forms. The explanation of al-Mahdawī is better
than that of al-Dānī, who regarded the additional yāʾ as belonging to the origi-
nal stem43 because the original form of ‫ آية‬was َ‫ أيـَ ية‬before people changed it to
‫آية‬.44
We can conclude that the addition of the yāʾ after the alif in the word ‫ آية‬in its
various guises was common in the old muṣḥaf s, which confirms that Abū ʿAmr
al-Dānī did not have complete access to many old muṣḥaf s.45 In the muṣḥaf
under investigation, an extra yāʾ also appears in ‫( فباىے‬see the repeated verse in
al-Raḥmān Q 55:1346 (‫ )ڡباٮے ]الا ر[بکما تکدٮں‬and Q 7:185 (‫)ڡٮاٮے حدٮث ٮعده ٮومنوں‬.47
3.4 Ends of Verses

The text is written with occasional diacritical strokes, and there is no vocaliza-
tion. Dividers between verses are always indicated by six or three small oblique
dashes arranged in a triangle. The latter is an old system used in the early time of
writing muṣḥaf s. Yaḥyā b. Kathīr (d. 129 ah) said, “[t]hey did not know any new
additions to the muṣḥaf s except the three strokes at the end of the verses.”48
probably a ‘mixed’ spelling, which simultaneously retains the ‫ ا‬of its isolated form, and
adds a ‫ ى‬to indicate that in this context the first consonant of the word is pronounced
with y, […] i.e., ‫ باييم‬/bi-yayyām/ in the days of […]bi-ʔāyāti ‘with the signs/verses of’, as
a rule, is spelt ‫( ”باييت‬Van Putten, “Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal,” 109). This way
of reading applies to one of the ways in which the well-known muqriʾ Ḥamzah reads it
by changing the alif into a yāʾ, thus turning it into ‫ بيياتنا‬bi-yāyātinā in Q 7:9. See Aḥmad
al-Maʿṣarāwī, al-Shāmil fī qirāʾāt al-aʾimma al-ʿashr al-kawāmil min ṭarīqay al-Shāṭibiyya
wa-l-Durra (Cairo: Dār al-Imām al-Shāṭibī, 2013/1434), 150.
43 Ibid.
44 An alif replaced the first yāʾ since it has a fatḥa and was preceded by a fatḥa. See Muḥam-
mad b. Makram Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, entry ‫ أیا‬: ،‫ وزنها فعَ َلةَ ٌفي قول الخليل‬،ُ ‫ العلَ ام َة‬:ُ ‫والآية‬
‫وذهب غيره ِإلى َأن َأصلها َأ َي ّة ٌ فعَ ْلةَ ٌ فقلبت الياء َألفا ً لانفتاح ما قبلها‬, in any edition, such as the
edition by the Wizārat al-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya wa-l-Awqāf wa-l-Daʿwa in Riyadh (20 vols.,
undated), vol. 18, 65; cf. al-Ḥamad, ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 36. I agree with Van Putten, who com-
mented on an earlier draft of this article: “I have noticed this too! This is, in fact, not just
this muṣḥaf ; I have yet to find a single exception to it. It’s always written with two yāʾs.”
45 Al-Ḥamad, ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 51; see also Bashīr al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī (7
vols. Riyadh: Markaz Tafsīr lil-Dirāsāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 1436/2010), vol. 1, 904–910. For more
information, see Van Putten, “Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal,” 109; idem, “Arabe
334a: A Vocalized Kufic Quran in a Non-Canonical Hijazi Reading,” in jim 10/3 (2019),
(327–375) 340.
46 ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331, 48v lines 1–2.
47 ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331, 13r line 19. For more information about the writing of ‫أي‬, see
al-Ḥamad and al-Sāmarrāʾī, Ẓawāhir kitābiyya fī maṣāḥif makhṭūṭa, 51.
48 Ibid.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
3.5 Taʿshīr System

The taʿshīr (indications of the end of ten verses) are written in black ink and
are probably later additions to the manuscript according to the North African
abjad system.49
table 1 Abjad numbers
Abjad numbers Value
‫ے‬ Ten
‫ڪ‬ Twenty
‫ل‬ Thirty
‫م‬ Forty
‫ن‬ Fifty
‫ص‬ Sixty
‫ع‬ Seventy
‫ف‬ Eighty
‫ض‬ Ninety
‫ق‬ One hundred
49 Scholars have used the abjad system to indicate the taʿshīr and takhmīs. “Abd̲ ja̲ d (or
Abad̲ ja̲ d or Abū D̲ j̲ad), the first of the eight mnemotechnical terms into which the 28 con-
sonants of the Arabic alphabet were divided. In the East, the whole series of these voces
memoriales is ordered and, in general, vocalized as follows: ʾabjad hawwaz ḥuṭṭī kalaman
saʿfaṣ qaras̲h̲at t̲h̲ak̲h̲ad̲ h̲ ḍaẓag̲ h̲ […]. From a practical point of view, this arrangement of
the alphabet has only one point of interest, namely that the Arabs (like the Greeks) gave
each letter a numerical value. The twenty-eight characters are thus divided into three suc-
cessive series of nine each: units (1 to 9) [i.e. from alif to ṭ, AKh], tens (10 to 90) [i.e. from
y to ṣ, AKh], hundreds (100 to 900) [i.e. from q to ẓ, AKh] and “thousand” [i.e. gh, AKh].
Naturally, the numerical value corresponding to each of the letters that belong to groups
nos. 5, 6 and 8 [i.e. from among the eight above-mentioned mnemotechnical terms, AKh]
differs in the Oriental and the Occidental systems.” Cf. G. Weil, “Abd̲ ja̲ d”, in ei2, vol. 1, 79;
G.S. Colin, “Ḥisāb al-D̲ j̲ummal”, in ei2, vol. 3, 468; T. Fahd, “Ḥurūf”, in ei2, vol. 3, 595–596.
For the different letter values in the North African and Eastern Arab abjad systems, see,
e.g. G. Ifrah, The Universal History of Numbers: From Pre-History to the Invention of the
Computer (New York, etc.: Wiley and Sons, 2000), 242. In his Mubhij al-asrār, Abu ’l-ʿAlāʾ
al-ʿAṭṭār uses this system both for takhmīs and taʿshīr in sūras like sūrat al-Isrāʾ, the letter
hāʾ = 5 for takhmīs, and the other letters to indicate each of the ten verses. See al-Ḥamad,
ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 154–155.

246 el-khatib
table 2 The use of the abjad system for taʿshīr in ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331, sūra 56
Abjad Taʿshīr abjad in Verse numbers in the Medinan print of

ms BnF Arabe 331 Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, which uses the Kufan
fols. 49v–50v verse count
‫ے‬ 10 ‫ السبقون‬in Q 56:10

‫ك‬ 20 ‫ يشتهون‬in Q 56:21
‫ل‬ 30 ‫ مرفوعة‬in Q 56:34
‫م‬ 40 ‫ لمبعوثون‬in Q 56:47
‫ن‬ 50 ‫ تصّدقون‬in Q 56:57
‫ص‬ 60 ‫ محرومون‬in Q 56:67
‫ع‬ 70 ‫ كر يم‬in Q 56:77
For example, to indicate the taʿshīr, verse Q 16:101 in ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b
displays the letter ‫ ٯ‬at the end, which equals 100.50 On the verso side of the
same folio, at the end of verse Q 16:111, two letters, viz. ‫ے ٯ‬, which together
equal 110, indicate the end of the last ten verses.51
In ms BnF Arabe 331, which derives from the same codex as mss Leiden
14.545 b–c, we find the same abjad system, this time in another hand. For exam-
ple, in Q 8 (75 verses), we find the following taʿshīr numbers: from the beginning
of the sūra until the end of verse 10 ‫( ان الله عزٮز حکٮم‬fol. 15r line 6) we find ‫ے‬,
indicating ten; at the end of verse Q 8:20 ‫( واٮتم تسمعو ں‬fol. 15v lines 10–11) we find
‫ڪ‬, indicating twenty; at the end of Q 8:30 ‫( والله خٮر المکرٮں‬fol. 16r lines 12–13)
we find ‫ل‬, indicating thirty; at the end of Q 8:39 ‫( ٯاں الله ٮما ٮعملون بصٮر‬fol. 16v
line 15) we find ‫م‬, indicating forty: at the end of Q 8:48 ‫( العٯاٮ‬fol. 17v line 6)
we find a ‫ ن‬for fifty; at the end of Q 8:58 (fol. 18r line 7) we find a ‫ ص‬indicating
sixty, and at the end of Q 8:68 (fol. 18v line 12) we find an ‫ ع‬for seventy.
Comparing sūra 56 (al-Wāqiʿa, 96 verses) with the verse count found in the
Medinan print of the Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim reading, which uses the Kufan verse count,
we can see that, in many cases, our muṣḥaf diverges from the Kufan count (after
the number 70, no more taʿshīr is marked in this sūra).52
50 ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b recto line 11.

51 ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b verso line 13.
52 It should be noted here that the verse count in this manuscript is different from that in
the Medinan print of Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim, which uses a Kufan verse count and which I relied
on in editing this text. On the Kufan verse count of sūra 56, see e.g. Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī, al-

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
‫ے‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬
‫م‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ص‬
‫ع‬
plate 1 Illustration of the use of abjad numbers for taʿshīr in ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331, sūra
56
plate 2
Total verse count (eleven) in abjad numbers and end marker
for sūra 63 in ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c verso line 8
Furthermore, the abjad system was also used at the end of each sūra to indi-
cate the total count. For example, at the end of Q 63, al-Munāfiqūn, which has
eleven verses according to all the main schools (Basran, Kufan, Shami, Med-
inan, and Iraqi),53 we find two letters, i.e. ‫ ے‬and ‫ا‬, which together indicate
eleven, followed by the phrase ‫ حتمه سوره المنڡٯىں‬, “end of sūrat al-Munāfiqīn”
(ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c verso line 8; see above, Plate 2).
In mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c, the counting of the verses of the sūras is similar
in its inconsistency to ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331. For example, sūrat Ibrāhīm Q 14
has 51 verses according to the Basran school, 52 according to the Kufan school,
54 according to Meccan and Medinan schools, and 55 according to the Shami
school. In this case, the number of verses in this muṣḥaf concurs with the Bas-
ran counting method; therefore, ‫ ن‬and ‫ أ‬represent the ‘Basran’ number 51 in the
abjad system at ms Paris BnF Arabe 331 fol. 24r line 12. However, at the end of
Q 16 (sūrat al-Naḥl), which all schools agree has 128 verses, this muṣḥaf indi-
cates that the number of verses for this sūra is 127, marking this with the abjad
number ‫ ق ك ز‬at the end.54 The reason seems to be that no verse separator was
Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān (Ed. Ghānim Qudūrī al-Ḥamad, Kuwait: Markaz al-Makhṭūṭāṭ
wal-turāth wal-wathāʾiq, 1994), 239–240.
53 al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān, 247.
54 ms Paris BnF Arabe 331 fol. 30v line 9.

248 el-khatib
inserted between the end of verse 20 and the beginning of verse 21; thus, in the
remainder of the text, units of ten were counted from verse 22 onwards.55 Fur-
thermore, this muṣḥaf does not follow the Kufan school of counting because
there are 110 verses in sūrat al-Isrāʾ (Q 17) according to all schools and our codex,
but not according to the school of Kufa, which counts 111 verses in this sūra.56
In some cases, our codex counts the verses differently from all schools. This
applies for instance to sūra 16 mentioned above and sūrat al-Zukhruf (Q 43),
which has 89 verses according to the Shami school and 88 according to the oth-
ers.57 In our codex, however, the number is 90, as indicated at the end of this
sūra, where we find the abjad number ‫ض‬.58 Because we only have the upper
part of one side of a folio with the last nine verses of this sūra, it is not possi-
ble to determine where our codex started to diverge. More will be said on this
below in section 5, A and B.
There is always a space between sūras, at times filled with a simple ornamen-
tal separator like the one at the end of sūra 25 in ms Paris BnF Arabe 331 fol. 33r.
The basmala is written at the beginning of each sūra but does not count as a
verse.59 The scribe uses six or three small oblique dashes arranged in a triangle
as a verse divider.
3.6 Diacritical Dotting

For diacritical dotting, we sometimes observe tiny strokes for certain letters.
For example, there are three vertical strokes above the letters shīn and thāʾ, two
strokes above the tāʾ and one above the nūn and under the bāʾ and the yāʾ. There
is one stroke above the ghayn, fāʾ and beneath the qāf. A stroke marks the jīm
below at the beginning of the letter.
3.7 Number of Lines

ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b consists of 19 lines that are wholly or partially legible.
For the dividers of the verses, there is sometimes “a sort of small figure drawn
in a blue-grey colour over the original strokes clearly from a later date.”60 What

57 al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān, 223.
58 Written with three dots above it like ḍād ‫ ڞ‬and inside a circle (ms Paris BnF Arabe 331
fol. 34r line 13).
59 Al-Suyūṭī says that this way of counting the basmala as part of the Qurʾān but not as part of
each sūra is followed by several scholars. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, Itmām al-dirāya li-qurrāʾ
al-niqāya (Ed. Ibrāhīm al-ʿAyūz. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1985), 20–21. Compare
al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān, 112.
60 Witkam, Course of Islamic Paleography, 1.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
is left of ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c consists of 17 lines that are wholly or partially
legible.
3.8 Added Text

There is no writing in the margins except for the following sentence, which
is unique to this codex and was probably added by a different hand, either in
the margins or at the end of a sūra: ‫ حبس لله عز وجل‬or ‫حبس لله جل وعز‬, “[This
muṣḥaf ] is an endowment for [the sake of] God the Almighty.”61
We usually find the following sentence at the end of each sūra, preceded
by the number of its verses using the abjad notation, e.g. ‫=ع د ختمة سورة الرحمن‬
74 “the end of sūrat al-Raḥmān.”62 In his famous collection of traditions about
the Qurʾān, the Kitāb al-maṣāḥif, Abū Bakr ʿAbdallāh b. Sulaymān al-Sijistānī
(d. 316/928) reports on Abu ’l-ʿĀliya Rufayʿ b. Mihrān al-Riyāḥī (d. c. 93/712),
a Basran Successor (tābiʿī), faqīh and Qurʾān expert: “he used to dislike using
al-jummal (i.e. abjad numbers) to count the number of verses in each sūra,
indicating the beginning or end of a sūra, and he used to say, ‘jarridū al-Qurʾān,’
(‘strip the Qurʾān’ [of anything extra]).”63
Thus, we can conclude that counting the number of verses and indicating
the beginning and end of the sūra in the Qurʾānic text was common practice
during the first century of Hijra; hence Abu ’l-ʿĀliya issued the above opinion,
which his well-known successor ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ (25 or 27–115 or 114/646 or
648–733 or 732) also supported.64
3.9 Handwriting Style

The handwriting styles in mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c, Paris, BnF Arabe 331 and
St Petersburg, National Library, Marcel 3 were analysed using hat65 software to
measure their similarities. The results indicate an apparent similarity between
the handwriting styles of the three manuscripts. Nevertheless, a higher degree
of similarity has been measured between mss Paris, BnF Arabe 331 and St
Petersburg, National Library, Marcel 3. It is possible that the degradation level
61 E.g. at ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331 fols. 1r and 39r.

63 Abū Bakr ʿAbdullāh b. Sulaymān b. al-Ashʿath al-Sijistānī, Kitāb al-maṣāḥif (Ed. Muḥibb
al-Dīn Wāʿiẓ. Qaṭar: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya, 1995) vol. 1, 471, No. 418.
64 Ibid., No. 419.
65 H. Mohammed et. al., “Pattern Analysis Software Tools (past) for Written Artefacts,” in
S. Uchida et al. (eds), Document Analysis Systems (5th iapr International Workshop,
das 2022, La Rochelle, France, May 22–25, 2022, Proceedings. Cham: Springer, 2022. Lec-
ture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13237), (214–229) 214–229. I thank my colleague Dr
Hussein Mohammed of Hamburg University for analysing the above mss.

250 el-khatib
of the mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c led to the inclusion of non-palaeographic
visual features in the calculations.66
4 Radiocarbon (14C) Dating
Old muṣḥaf s in Hijazi and Kufan scripts did not feature colophons indicat-
ing their date of copying, the scribe’s name, or the place of manufacture. It
is thus difficult to determine their dates.67 Consequently, in 2014, mss Leiden
14.545 a, b, and c underwent 14C measurement within the framework of the
joint German-French Coranica project, which conducted large-scale radiocar-
bon tests for comparative purposes on samples from old Qurʾānic parchments
and papyri from the first- and second-century of the Hijra found in differ-
ent Western libraries. M.J. Marx, E.M. Youssef-Grob, T.J. Jocham, and I. Haj-
das carried out the research.68 The curator in the Leiden University Library,
Dr Arnoud Vrolijk,69 and the staff helped to extract the samples from mss
Leiden Or. 14.545 b and c. Figures 1 and 2 below show the 14C measurement
results from the official but unpublished report, kindly sent to me by Dr Arnoud
Vrolijk.
66 I have seen ms Marcel 3 in the National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, during my visit
to Russia from 24 May to 10 June 2022.
67 Déroche, Qur’ans of the Umayyads, 6.
68 See the following articles: Youssef-Grob, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Early Islamic Doc-
uments,” 173–174; Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,”
188–221; idem, “Zu den Datierungen von Koranhandschriften durch die 14C Methode,” in
Frankfurter Zeitschrift für Islamisch-Theologische Studien 2 (2015), (9–43) 24, 34; M. Marx,
E.M. Youssef-Grob et al., “The Chronology of Holy Scriptures, Writing Surfaces from the
Middle East dated—Parchment & Papyrus,” in Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, eth Zurich,
Annual Report 2014 (Zurich: eth Zurich, 2014), 37.
69 In emails from June 3 and 23, 2020, Dr Arnoud Vrolijk wrote, “The 14C dating of the Lei-
den Qur’an fragments was carried out under the supervision of Michael Marx and Tobias
Jocham. In 2015 they published their preliminary findings in German in the Frankfurter
Zeitschrift für Islamisch-Theologische Studien, and more recently, in 2019, they published
an updated version of this contribution in English […]. Furthermore, I enclose the official
report of the analysis of the Leiden fragments. I hope that you will find these documents
useful for your research, and this unpublished official report, the data contained in it were
used by Michael Marx and Tobias Jocham in their scholarly publications, but I do not
remember having seen it published in extenso.”

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
figure 1 14C measurement results for ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b
figure 2 14C measurement results for ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c
The 14C measurement showed that these parchments date from 43–122/652–
763,70 i.e. quite early in Islam’s history.71 Marx believed that Déroche had clas-
sified ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331 (which belongs to the same codex as mss Leiden
70 Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” 211–213.

71 In the summary of the unpublished official report of the analysis of the Leiden fragments,
we find the following: “The two ḥijāzī manuscripts Or. 14.545 a and 14.545 b and c (the
latter two single folia are considered to originate from the same codex) both show a very
high probability to have been made in the 50 years between 650 and 700 […] So, these
manuscripts (or at least the parchment) have been produced between 30 or 70 years after

252 el-khatib
Or. 14.545 b–c) as “Kufic B 1 a, considering [it] as [a] type of script related to
Ḥiǧāzī.”72 Disagreeing, he classified it as Hijazi rather than Kufic since “14C dat-
ing raises questions regarding the fragments’ classification as Kufic because
such an old age would better match a parchment in Ḥiǧāzī style, with its upright
format and its slightly non-calligraphic appearance.”73 Therefore, 14C dating
was used alongside other palaeographic and orthographic features to deter-
mine whether these manuscripts were from the seventh and early-eighth cen-
tury ce rather than the mid- or late eighth century.74
In general, 14C dating is reliable evidence if it aligns with palaeographic,
stylistic, or internal textual information;75 hence Déroche said, “as a conclu-
sion, and although recent publications seem overconfident in their reliance on
the C14 method, the last word should stay with the philologist, the historian or
the palaeographer.”76
5 Regional Provenance of the muṣḥaf : Verse Totals, Verse Breaks,

and rasm
According to Van Putten, “[e]xamining the verse division is an important tool

for identifying the regional provenance of a manuscript. This is especially true
when the verse division aligns with the regional rasm variants, in which case
we can identify a clear regional signal of a manuscript.”77 In a recent publica-
tion, Hythem Sidky carried out a statistical analysis of a collection of ancient
the death of Muḥammad”. See 14C measurement results for mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b and c
in Figures 1 and 2 above.
72 Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” 206. But see Dé-
roche, Les Manuscrits du Coran, 37, 67, where he classifies the hand as Hijazi iv, B i a; idem,
Qur’ans of the Umayyads, 10, with note 51. I agree with Dr Van Putten, who commented as
follows on the draft of my article: “This is a bizarre opinion and doesn’t counter Déroche’s
classification. If anything: if we accept B i a as being a type of Kufic, it just means Kufic
is earlier than was previously thought. The real problem is that the definition of ‘Hijazi’ is
bad. Further, […] the manuscript looks highly calligraphic to me,” contrary to what Marx
and Jocham said later in their article [i.e. op. cit., 211]. However, when I consulted Déroche’s
classification, I did not find that he says it is Kufic.
73 Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” vol. 2, 211; Youssef-
Grob, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Early Islamic Documents,” 148, 173–174, See also page
165 there for an essential discussion about the time between production and use.
74 Marx and Jocham, loc. cit.
75 Youssef-Grob, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Early Islamic Documents,” 174–176.
76 Déroche, Qur’ans of the Umayyads, 13.
77 Van Putten, “Arabe 334a,” 340.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
Qurʾān fragments and manuscripts and “[…] combining philological, literary,

and phylogenetic analysis, a stemma of early qurʾānic manuscripts [was] con-
structed and compared against idealised representations.”78 In this interesting
study, Sidky concludes that the orthography of the codex to which the Leiden,
Paris, and St Petersburg fragments belong indicates with ninety per cent cer-
tainty that it originated from the Basran region.79 Taking this conclusion as a
given, let us see what is revealed by our codex’s total verse counts and verse
breaks, which are both known to distribute unevenly regionally. In other words:
do they also align with the Basran school in this respect or with any of the other
dominant regional schools (Kufa, Ḥims, Shām, Medina i, or Medina ii)? More-
over, whatever the outcome, what does the outcome mean? Below is the data
on total verse counts and verse breaks known to distribute unevenly regionally.
These data only cover the text of the Qurʾān as it survives in the three fragments
of our codex.
5.1 Total Verse Counts Distributed Unevenly Regionally

The scribe used the ḥisāb al-jummal (= abjad) system to indicate the number
of verses for each sūra, writing this number at the end. Table 3 shows the data
extracted from mss Paris, BnF Arabe 331, Leiden Or. 14.545 c, and St. Peterburg,
National Library, Marcel 3 (abbreviated as plm; for other abbreviations used,
see Table 3, end). Differences between plm and the Basra school appear in
grey.80
We do not know which counting system this muṣḥaf follows. As stated ear-
lier, it appears to be an extinct counting system now lost but in use at a time
before the standardization (or canonization) of the counting systems of the
abovementioned regional schools. The total count of sūra 53 was not men-
tioned in this muṣḥaf due to insufficient space at the end of the folio; therefore,
the scribe wrote ‫“( خاتمة النجم‬the end of al-Najm”) only, omitting the word sūra
and the letters of ḥisāb al-jummal, which represent the total number of verses.
However, I counted the taʿshīr in this sūra at the word aṭghā, where the scribe
wrote a nūn, which equals 50; then I counted the dividers after this division, and
there were seven verses, which puts the total number of verses of this sūra at
57. This number is inconsistent with the count of 62 given by Kufan or 61 given
78 Hythem Sidky, “On the Regionality of the Qurʾānic Codices,” in Journal of the International
Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 5/1 (2020), (133–210), Abstract.
79 Sidky, op. cit., 157, Table 3, 159.
80 These total verse counts are all to be found in the respective chapters in al-Dānī, al-Bayān
fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān and/or al-Jaʿbarī, Ḥusn al-madad fī fann al-ʿadad.

254 el-khatib
by the other methods.81 This muṣḥaf contradicts all the well-known regional
counts in some sūras, at times by as much as five (e.g. Q 48) verses. A detailed
verse count of each sūra in relation to each regional counting system will con-
firm this conclusion.
The data can be summarized as follows, the total of the measurements being
40:
plm = B and others 17

Alone plm = B 1
plm and others ≠ B 11
plm ≠ Any school 11
So, even if plm corresponds with B in 18 cases, only in one case is this corre-
spondence exclusive to plm and B. On the other hand, plm does not corre-
spond to B in 22 cases, eleven of which are also exclusive to B. ‘Others’ means
here: ‘others’ = ≥ 1.
For further conclusions based on this and other data, see section 6 below.
table 3 Verse totals
Sūra M K B D Ḥ i ii plm Abjad
Q4M 175 176 175 177 175 175 175 176 ‫قعو‬
Q5M Not mentioned (end missing)
Q6M Not mentioned (end missing)
Q7P 206 206 205 205 205 206 206 205 ‫ره‬
Q8P 76 75 76 77 77 76 76 77 ‫عز‬
Q 14 P 54 52 51 55 55 54 54 51 ‫نا‬
Q 15 P 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 82‫ضط‬
Q 16 P 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 127 ‫قكز‬
Q 17 P 110 111 110 110 110 110 110 110 ‫قے‬
Q 25 P 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 ‫عز‬
81 Al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān, 234.

82 Written with three dots above it, like ḍād ‫( ڞ‬fol. 26v line 10).

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
table 3 Verse totals (cont.)
Q 43 P 89 89 89 88 88 89 89 90 83‫ض‬
Q 45 P 36 37 36 36 36 36 36 36 ‫لو‬
Q 46 P 34 35 34 34 34 34 34 34 ‫لد‬
Q 47 P 39 38 40 39 39 39 39 43 ‫م ح‬84
Q 48 P 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 34 ‫لد‬
Q 49 P 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 ‫ےط‬
Q 50 P 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 47 ‫مز‬
Q 51 P 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 ‫ص‬
Q 52 P 47 49 48 49 49 47 47 47 ‫مز‬
Q 53 P 61 62 61 61 61 61 61 5785 missing
Q 54 P 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 58 ‫ن ح‬86
Q 55 P 77 78 76 78 78 77 77 74 ‫عد‬
Q 56 P 99 96 97 99 99 99 99 90 87‫ض‬
Q 57 P 28 29 29 28 28 28 28 31 ‫لأ‬
Q 58 P 21 22 22 22 22 22 21 22 ‫كب‬
Q 59 P 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 ‫كد‬
Q 63 L 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ‫ےأ‬
83 Written with three dots above it like ḍād ‫ ڞ‬and inside a circle (fol. 34r line 13).
84 Fol. 39r line 7. The scribe does not differentiate between ‫ ح‬and ‫ ج‬by adding a dot (see also
No. 18 in this list) but there is probably a ‫ ج‬here, the number being 43.
85 This is not mentioned due to space concerns, but there are 57 according to my counting,
as he put nun ‫ = ن‬50 after wa-aṭghā at the end of verse 52 in the Medina and Cairo editions
(fol. 47v line 15), indicating taʿshīr. The Kufan count is 62, and the others have 61.
86 As the scribe does not distinguish ‫ ح‬from ‫ ج‬by adding a dot (see also note 84 above), I
counted the taʿshīr before this āyā on the word ‫( وسعر‬fol. 48r line 6, the end of verse 48
in the Medina and Cairo editions), which had the letter ‫ ن‬indicating 50; then, I counted
eight subsequent verses (fol. 48r line 12).
87 Written with one dot above it, like ḍād ‫( ض‬fol. 51r line 8).

256 el-khatib
table 3 Verse totals (cont.)
Q 70 M 44 44 44 43 44 44 44 40 ‫م‬
Q 71 M 30 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 ‫ل‬
Q 72 M 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 ‫كح‬
Q 73 M 19 20 19 20 19 20 18 19 ‫يط‬
Q 74 M 55 56 56 55 56 56 55 58 ‫نح‬
Q 75 M 39 40 39 39 40 39 39 40 ‫م‬
Q 76 M 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 ‫لأ‬
Q 77 M 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 ‫ن‬
Q 78 M 41 40 41 40 40 40 40 40 ‫م‬
Q 79 M 45 46 45 45 45 45 45 45 ‫م هـ‬
Q 80 M 42 42 41 40 41 41 42 40 ‫م‬
Q 81 M 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 ‫كط‬
Q 82 M 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 ‫يط‬
Q 83 M 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 35 ‫ل هـ‬
Q 84 M 25 25 25 23 23 24 25 23 ‫كج‬
Q 85 M Not mentioned (end missing)
M = Meccan; K = Kufan; B = Basran; D = Damascene (Shami); Ḥ = Ḥimṣī; i = Old Medinan; ii =

New Medinan; plm = mss Paris, BnF Arabe 331, Leiden Or. 14.545 c, M = St. Petersburg, Marcel 3.
Differences between plm and the ‘Basra school’ appear in grey.
5.2 Verse Breaks Distributed Unevenly Regionally

As stated above, this muṣḥaf uses dividers between verses in the form of six
or three small oblique dashes forming a triangle. These dividers also mark off
the basmala, which does not count as a verse.88 Furthermore, the taʿshīr (an
indication of the end of ten verses) is written in black ink, probably by another
88 Compare with François Déroche, Qur’ans of the Umayyads, 27–28.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
hand, and according to the abjad system. In comparison, takhmīs (an indica-
tion of the end of five verses) is absent in this muṣḥaf. Taʿshīr is used in all the
sūras in this muṣḥaf.
To relate this muṣḥaf to one or more of the famous verse counting meth-
ods (i.e. Kufan, Basran, Meccan, Old Medinan, New Medinan,89 Damascene
(Shami), Ḥimṣī), I tracked verse breaks in plm that distribute unevenly across
schools. Each of these breaks relates to plm exclusively, to plm and the Bas-
ran school alone, to plm and the Basran and one or more other schools, or
plm and one or more of the other schools, to the exclusion of the Basran one.
These breaks are for the most part visible in the transliterated text on the cor-
pus coranicum website, marked in green or yellow to indicate the presence or
the absence of a break. Table 4 shows the available data.90
Consistent with the case for the total verse counts discussed above, in the
case of verse breaks, too, this muṣḥaf does not follow any specific regional
counting system. Moreover, as was the case for the verse totals, there are also
verse breaks (whether added or omitted) that do not adhere to any known
school. As can be seen in the second column under plm only, there are forty-
eight of them: twenty-seven breaks were added, against twenty-one breaks
omitted. In the case of Q 48:27, the existence of a verse break here follows
from the taʿshīr. According to al-Dānī, the verse break at taḍḥakūna (‫)تضحكون‬
in Q 53:60 (fol. 47v) in our codex looks like a verse break, but it is not.91 The
same also applies to the verse break at ʿadhābun shadīdun (‫ )عذاب شديد‬in
Q 57:20.92
Comparing plm and the Basran school for verse breaks that distribute un-
evenly regionally, the data can be summarized as follows, the total of the mea-
surements being 67:
plm 48
plm and B 6
plm, B and others 11
plm and other than B 2
89 It should be noted here that there is no objective material evidence that there was an
Old Medinan and New Medinan “muṣḥaf, ” and there is scant evidence for a Meccan ver-
sion.
90 These verse breaks are all to be found in the respective chapters in al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī
ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān and/or al-Jaʿbarī, Ḥusn al-madad fī fann al-ʿadad.

258 el-khatib
So, even if plm corresponds to B in seventeen cases, only in six cases is this
correspondence exclusive to plm and B. On the other hand, plm does not cor-
respond to B in 50 cases, 48 of which are also exclusive to B. Here, too, ‘other(s)’
means: ‘other(s)’ = ≥ 1.
For further conclusions based on this and the other data, see section 6 below.
table 4 Verse breaks in plm distributing unevenly across schools. A = verse break lacking
Sūra, āya plm only plm & B plm & B plm & other
& other than B
Q 2: 174 َ ‫ِإ َلّا ٱل َن ّار‬

Q 2: 185 ‫فيِ ه ِ ٱل ْق ُر ْء َان‬
Q 2: 185 ‫ن‬
ِ ‫و َٱل ْف ُر ْق َا‬
Q 2: 235 ‫قوَ ل ًا َمّعْر ُوف ًا‬
Q 4: 173 ً‫َأل ِيم ۭا‬
Q 5: 1 ِ‫بٱِ ل ْع ُق ُود‬
Q 5: 3 ‫بٱِ ْلَأْزل َِٰم‬
Q 5: 3 ‫ن‬
ِ ْ ‫خشَو‬
ْ ‫و َٱ‬
Q 6: 47 A ّ َ ‫ٱل‬
َ‫ظٰلمِ وُ ن‬
Q 6: 70 ‫شف ِيٌۭع‬
َ ‫و َل َا‬
Q 6: 126 ‫ستقَ ِيم ًا‬

ْ ُ ‫ۗم‬
Q 6: 134 َ‫توُ ع َد ُون‬
Q 8: 36 َ‫ث ُ َم ّ يغُ ْل َبوُ ن‬
Q 8: 42 ‫ك َانَ م َْفع ُول ًا‬
Q 14: 44 ‫ب‬
ُ ‫ٱل ْع َذ َا‬
Q 16: 11 َ‫و َٱل َز ّي ْتوُ ن‬
Q 16: 62 َ‫م َا يكَ ْر َه ُون‬
Q 47: 2 ‫ۙ َرّ ّبِه ِْم‬

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
table 4 Verse breaks in plm distributing unevenly across schools (cont.)
& other than B
Q 47: 4 ۚ َ‫َأْوز َار َها‬

Q 47: 15 ّ َ ‫ل ّ ِل‬
َ‫شٰرِ ب ِين‬
Q 48: 16 ۖ َ‫َأْو ي ُْسلمِ وُ ن‬

Q 48: 27 َ‫شٓا ء َ ٱل َل ّه ُء َام ِن ِين‬
َ ‫ِإن‬
Q 48: 27 ‫ن‬
َ ‫و َم ُق َص ِّر ِ ي‬
Q 48: 29 ِ‫جود‬ ّ ُ ‫ٱل‬
ُ ‫س‬
Q 48: 29 ‫ل‬
ِ ‫ف ِى ٱْلِإنج ِي‬
Q 49: 11 ‫ب‬
ِ َٰ ‫بٱِ ْلَأل ْق‬
Q 50: 11 ِ‫ۖ ل ّ ِل ْعبِ َاد‬
Q 50: 45 َ‫ۖ ب ِم َا يقَ ُولوُ ن‬

Q 53: 60 َ‫ضح َكُون‬
ْ َ ‫و َت‬
Q 55: 43 A َ‫ٱل ْم ُْجرِم ُون‬
Q 55: 66 ‫ن‬
ِ ‫فيِ ه ِم َا ع َي ْن َا‬
Q 56: 27 ِ‫ب ٱل ْيم َ ِين‬
ُ َٰ‫صح‬
ْ ‫َأ‬
Q 56: 35 A ً ‫ِإنش َٓا ء‬
Q 57: 19 َ‫صّدِيق ُون‬

ِّ ‫ۖ ه ُم ُ ٱل‬
Q 57: 20 ٌۭ‫شدِيد‬
َ ‫ب‬
ٌ ۭ ‫ع َذ َا‬
Q 57: 20 ٌۭ ٰ َ ‫ضو‬
‫ن‬ ْ ِ‫ۚ و َر‬
Q 57: 27 ‫ل‬
َ ‫ٱْلِإنج ِي‬
Q 71: 15 A ‫طِب َاق ًا‬
Q 71: 17 A ً‫ن َب َاتا‬

260 el-khatib
& other than B
Q 71: 23 ۭ‫و َ ًدّا‬

Q 71: 23 ‫سو َاع ًا‬
ُ
Q 71: 24 ‫كثيِ ر ًا‬
َ
Q 72: 19 A ‫ل ِب َدًا‬
Q 73: 1 A ُ ِ ّ‫ي َٰٓ َأُّيه َا ٱل ْمزُ َ ّم‬
‫ل‬
Q 73: 12 A ‫ج مۭ ًا‬َ‫َأنك َال ً ۭا و َ يِح‬
Q 74: 1 A ُ ‫ي َٰٓ َأُّيه َا ٱل ْم َُّدث ّ ِر‬
Q 74: 15 A َ ‫َأْن َأزِ يد‬
Q 74: 25 A ِ ‫ل ٱلبْ َش َر‬
ُ ْ َ‫قو‬
Q 74: 31 َ ‫ۙٱل َ ّذ ِي‬

‫ن ء َام َن ٓوُ ا ۟ ِإ يم َٰن ۭ ًا‬
Q 74: 38 A ٌ َ‫ت ر َه ِينة‬
ْ َ ‫كسَب‬
َ
Q 74: 40 ٍ ۢ ّٰ ‫ج َن‬
َ‫ت ي َت َسَٓا ء َلوُ ن‬ َ
Q 74: 54 A ٌ َ‫ِإ َن ّه ُ ت َْذك ِرة‬
Q 75: 13 A ّ َ ‫قَّدم َ و َ َأ‬
َ ‫خر‬
Q 75: 16 A ِ ‫ل ب ِه‬
َ َ ‫ك ل ِتعَ ْج‬
َ َ ‫ل ِسَان‬
Q 75: 18 A ُ َ‫ف َٱ َت ّبـِ ْع قرُ ْء َانه‬
Q 75: 22 A ٌ ‫َن ّاض ِر َة‬
Q 75: 24 A ٌۭ ‫باَ س ِر َة‬
Q 77: 23 A َ‫ف َن ِعْم َ ٱل ْق َٰدِر ُون‬
Q 78: 1 A َ‫ي َت َسَٓا ء َلوُ ن‬
Q 78: 40 ‫قرَ ِ يب ًا‬
Q 79: 23 A ‫و َلأِ َ ن ْعَٰ مِك ُْم‬

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
& other than B
Q 79: 32 A ‫سىٰه َا‬

َ ‫ل َأْر‬
َ ‫و َٱْلجبِ َا‬
Q 80: 5 A ‫ن ٱْستغَ ْن َى‬ ِ َ‫م‬
ٰ
Q 80: 8 A ‫ي َْسع َى‬
ٰ
Q 80: 40 A ٌۭ ‫ع َليَ ْه َا غ َبرَ َة‬
Q 81: 15 A ِ ّ ُ ‫ُأق ْس ِم ُ بٱِ ْلخ َن‬
‫س‬
Q 84: 7 A ِ ‫ب ِيمَيِن ِه‬
6 Verse Count, Verse Breaks or rasm Insufficient as Regional

Identifiers
As mentioned at the beginning of section 5, Hythem Sidky has studied the

regionality of this muṣḥaf through its rasm, and he attributed it to the Basra
school, regarding it as being 90 per cent compatible with this school. The pre-
vious section reviewed data on plm’s total verse counts and its scores on region-
ally unevenly distributed verse breaks in order to test Sidky’s findings and con-
clusion. Looking at the data and despite many shared elements with the Basra
school, we must conclude that, as a whole, this codex’s unique properties in the
areas under consideration do not fit any of the seven schools’ systems. On the
contrary, the only conclusion that the available data allow is that this muṣḥaf
belongs to an extinct school of verse counting. In that sense, it can be called
shādhdh, in a way comparable to the well-known al-qirāʾāt al-shādhdha.93 Still,
it is not unique in this regard, as recent studies of the Tübingen and Topkapı
muṣḥaf s have shown.94 Before the verse counting systems of the dominant
93 See e.g. R. Paret, “Ḳirāʾa” in ei2, vol. 5, 127–129.

94 The verse count divisions of old muṣḥafs, such as the Tübingen and Topkapı muṣḥafs, were
not consistent with any of the regional divisions except for the Paris Arabe 5122 muṣḥaf,
which was consistent with the Basran count. Bashīr al-Ḥimyarī, “Nisbat ʿadad al-āyāt fī al-
maṣāḥif al-qadīma ilā aḥad al-aʿdād al-mashhūra. Muṣḥaf maktabat al-Matḥaf al-Barīṭānī
2165,” in al-Qurʾān al-Karīm min al-Tanzīl ilā al-Tadwīn (London: Al-Furqān Islamic Her-
itage Foundation, 2018), 343, 367–369.

262 el-khatib
schools, there were many other counting systems, now extinct. Likewise, there
were many more versions of the Qurʾān used before the standardization of the
qirāʾāt than are currently known.95 The standardization of the qirāʾāt took place
during the fourth/tenth century by Ibn Mujāhid (d. 324/936), who considered
the seven qirāʾāt as the authentic ones.96 Also, the scribe who writes a muṣḥaf
and follows a specific school of rasm does not need to stick to the same school
in his counting system.97 Finally, instead of recognizing these schools in parts
of this ancient codex, it may be worthwhile to turn things around and consider
looking at these parts as present in the systems of some of these schools.
7 Conclusion
Studying the palaeographical features and 14C dating of the plm codex helped
to determine its likely time of manufacture. The codex dates from the first cen-
tury of Islam (between 43 and 122/652 and 763), and it was written by one scribe,
with the later addition of a taʿshīr verse count to indicate the ḥisāb al-jummal.
Some two hundred years ago, the codex was still more or less intact and kept
in the ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ Mosque in al-Fusṭāṭ in Old-Cairo. From there, parts of it
found their way to Leiden, Paris, and St. Petersburg. While its ‘recent’ prove-
nance is relatively easy to establish, it was much more challenging to determine
its place of manufacture. Sidky argues for a ‘Basran’ origin based on orthogra-
phy and state-of-the-art statistics, with arguments borrowed from evolutionary
biology. A detailed analysis of regionally unevenly distributed verse totals and
verse breaks in our codex did not confirm Sidky’s conclusion. Indeed, on these
scores, the available data does not point to any specific region of manufacture
at all. This manuscript follows a unique verse counting and division system that
is now extinct, even if it shares a number of characteristics with the school of
Basra, though mostly simultaneously with one or more from among the other
schools.
95 See, for example, Van Putten, “Arabe 334a,” 327–375.

96 Ghānim Qudūrī al-Ḥamad, “al-Qirāʾāt al-qurʾāniyya fi ’l-maṣāḥif al-manqūṭa: Istikshāf wa
taʾṣīl,” in al-Qurʾān al-karīm min al-tanzīl ila ’l-tadwīn (London: Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage
Foundation, 2018), 217–222, 223–241, 256–262.
97 I thank my colleagues Prof. Ghānim Qudūrī al-Ḥamad of Iraq and Dr Bashīr al-Ḥimyarī of
ksa for sharing their views on this issue.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
8 Edition
8.1 Manuscripts Consulted

– mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c
– ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331
– ms St. Petersburg, National Library, Marcel 3.
– ms 1913 We, State Library in Berlin, Germany, edition of Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-
Muṣḥaf al-sharīf (the Copy of Berlin)
– mss Paris bnf Arabe 328 a–b, edition of Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf
(the Copy of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris)
– ms Or. 2165 British Library, edition of Tayyar Altıkulaç, Al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf
(the Copy of British Library, London)
[Figures 3–6 are at the end of the article]
8.2 Sigla
⟨…⟩ added by the editor (only verse markers)
[…] illegible
{} difficult to read
‫۝‬ verse marker; verse counts have been added to the verse markers;
these follow the Kufan verse count found in the Medina Muṣḥaf Edi-
tion printed at the King Fahd Complex in Medina, ksa
۞‫ ۞۝‬ten-verse marker
8.2 Text
8.2.1 ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b, Recto
Q 16:96–105
98‫ما عند ڪم ىنفد و ما عند ا لله با ق ولـىحـر ىن‬ .1
‫]ا[ لذ ىن صبر و ا ا حر هم با حسن ما ڪا نو ا‬ .2
[‫ مں ذڪر ا و ا ںثے و هـ]ـو‬99‫۝ مں عمل صلحا‬

٩٦ ‫]ىعـ[ ـملون‬ .3
98 Wa-la-najziyanna is the reading of Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Dhakwān (one of his readings), ʿĀṣim,
and Abū Jaʿfar, but others, such as Ibn Dhakwān (in another reading), read it as wa-la-
yajziyanna. See Rājiḥ, al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿashr al-mutawātira …, 278.
99 ‫ صلحا‬in the Medina edition. In most cases, it is written with an alif after the ṣād in
the Qurʾān, but al-Jazarī deletes it, going against convention; on the other hand, al-Dānī
declared that it had to be written when used as an adjective. Al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī
rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 3, 489.

264 el-khatib
{‫ طىبه و لنـ}ـحـ{ـر ىنهم ا حر }هم‬100‫مو من ڡلنحىىنه حىو ه‬ .4
[‫۝ فا ذ ا ٯر }ا{ ت ا ]لقر‬

٩٧ ‫ٮا حسن ما ڪا نو ا ىعملو ں‬ .5
[‫۝ ا ںـ]ـه لىس‬

٩٨ ‫ ا لر حىم‬101‫ا ن فا ستعد ٮا لله من ا لشىطں‬ .6
[‫ ا لذ ىن ا منو ا و علے ر ]ٮهم ىىو‬103‫ علے‬102‫له سلطں‬ .7
[‫۝ ا نما سلطنه علے الد ىن ىتو ]لو ىه و‬

٩٩ ‫ڪلو ں‬ .8
[‫۝ و ا ذ ا بـ]ـدلنا ا ىه‬

١٠٠ 104‫ا لذ ىں هم به مشر كو ں‬ .9
[‫ ٯا ]لو ا‬105‫مڪا ن ا ىه و ا لله ا علم ٮما ىنز ل‬ .10
100 ‫ حيوة‬in the Medina edition of the Topkapı and Paris BnF Arabe 5122 muṣḥafs. It is writ-
ten in all muṣḥafs with a wāw instead of an alif, like ‫الصلوة والزكوة والغدوة والر بوا‬, but
al-Mahdawī reports that some muṣḥafs wrote ‫ حيوة‬in Q 16:97 with a wāw, and others with
an alif ; it is written in all muṣḥafs with a wāw unless it is joined to another word, and then
it is written with an alif in most cases ‫حياتنا‬, though sometimes also without an alif ‫حيتنا‬,
as found in some old Iraqi muṣḥafs. The reason for writing it with a wāw instead of alif
is that the latter was originally a wāw; for example, the word ‫ الحيوان‬is evidence that the
alif originally was a wāw. In his muṣḥaf, Ibn al-Jazarī discussed the above matter, indicat-
ing whether ‘ā’ is written as an alif or not by adding a yellow alif next to the wāw. See
al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 3, 490; Bashīr al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam
al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 3, 1348–1351; al-Mahdawī, Hijāʾ maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 51–52, 55; al-
Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 60.
101 ‫ الشيطن‬in the Medina edition. It is always written without an alif, as al-Dānī stated. Al-
Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 3, 490.
102 ‫ سلطن‬in the Medina edition. According to al-Dānī, it is always written without an alif after
ṭāʾ. See al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 27; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm
naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 3, 491.
103 Spelled ‫ على‬in the Medina edition. It is always written with an alif maqṣūra. In some
muṣḥafs, we find ‫علا‬. See al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 70–71; Abū Dāwūd
Sulaymān b. Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl (Ed. Aḥmad al-Shirshshāl, Med-
ina: Majmaʿ al-Malik Fahd li-ṭibāʿat al-Muṣḥaf al-Sharīf, 1421–1423/2000–2002. 5 vols.),
vol. 2, 75; Van Putten, “Arabe 334a,” 356; al-Ḥimyarī, “Nisbat ʿadad al-āyāt fī al-maṣāḥif al-
qadīma ilā aḥad al-aʿdād al-mashhūra. Muṣḥaf maktabat al-Matḥaf al-Barīṭānī 2165,” 343,
367–369.
104 According to Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān b. Najāḥ, taʿshīr should count one hundred here, but
as discussed above, there were differences among the major schools regarding verse divi-
sion and counting. Therefore, this muṣḥaf regarded the following verse as marking the
taʿshīr. See Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl, vol. 3, 780.
105 Because this muṣḥaf does not have any diacritical marks indicating how to read the text,
this word could be read with or without a tashshdīd over the letter zāʾ. The former is the
reading of Ibn Kathīr and Abū ʿAmr, the latter the reading of the others. See Rājiḥ, al-
Qirāʾāt al-ʿashr al-mutawātira …, 281.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
‫۝۞ ٯل نز‬
١٠١ ۞ 106‫ا نما ا نت مفتر بل ا ڪثر هم لا ىعلمو ں‬ .11
‫ و ح الٯد س مں ر ٮڪ با لحٯ لىثبت ا‬107‫له ر‬ .12
‫۝‬
١٠٢ ‫لذ ىں ا منو ا و هدے و ٮشرے للمسلمىں‬ .13
‫و لٯد نعلم ا نهم ىٯو لو ن ا نما ىعلمه بشر‬ .14
‫ الذے ىلحد و ن ا لىه ا عجمے ]و[ هذ‬108‫لسا ں‬ .15
[‫۝ ا ن ا الذ ]ىں[ لا ]ىو منو ں ٮا‬

١٠٣ ‫ا لسا ں عربے مبىن‬ .16
[‫ ا لله لا ىهد ىهم ا للـ}ـه{ ]و لهم عداب‬109‫ىىت‬ .17
[‫۝ا نما ىفترے ا لـكذ ]ب الذ ىں لا ىو‬

١٠٤ ‫ا لىم‬ .18
‫۝‬
١٠٥ [‫ ا لله و ا ]و لىك هم الـكد بو ں‬110‫مںو ں با ىىت‬ .19
8.2.2 ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b, Verso

Q 16:106–114
[‫مں ڪ}ـڡـ{ر ٮا لله مں بعد ا ىمنه ا لا مں ا كر ه و ٯـ}ـلـ{ـ]ـٮه‬ .1
[‫مطمىں با لا ىمں و لڪں مں شر ح با لڪفر صد ر ]ا‬ .2
‫۝د‬
١٠٦ ‫]ڡـ[ـعـلىهم غصب من ا لله و لهم عذ ا ب عطىم‬ .3
‫ ىا نهم ا ستحبو ا الحىو ه ا لد نىا علے‬111[‫]لڪ‬ .4
106 In this muṣḥaf, the scribe added the taʿshīr at the end of this verse, with the letter ‫ ق‬rep-
resenting verse one hundred.
107 In the original manuscript, there are two dots, one above the letter rā ‫ ر‬and the other
beneath it. I was not able to determine their purpose. Is the dot beneath the letter rāʾ a
form of ihmāl to differentiate it from zāy? Or is it a mistake by the scribe? See Jan Just
Witkam “The Neglect Neglected. To Point or Not to Point, That is the Question” in jim
vol. 6/2–3 (2015), 376–408.
108 ‫ لسان‬in the Medina edition. In this verse, most old muṣḥafs put an alif, but in some, we
find it with and without an alif, in different verses. Furthermore, all the qurrāʾ read ‫لسان‬,
but we have a shādhdh (deviant form) attributed to al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī: ‫اللسان‬. See al-Arkātī,
Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 3, 493; Bashīr al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam al-rasm al-
ʿUthmānī, vol. 6, 2902.
109 ‫ بايت‬in the Medina edition. For the extra denticle in this word, see section 3.3 above.
This phenomenon was a common practice in the old muṣḥafs. See for instance al-Ḥamad,
ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 51; al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam al-Rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 1, 904–910. For more
information, see Van Putten, “Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal,” 109; idem, “Arabe
334a,” 351.
110 ‫ بايت‬in the Medina edition.
111 The letters are gone because the edge of this folio was damaged.

266 el-khatib
‫]ا[ لا حر ه و ا ں ا لله لا ىهدے ا لٯو م ا لڪڡر‬ .5
‫۝[ ا و لىڪ ا لد ىں طبع ا لله علے ٯلو بهم و‬

١٠٧ ‫]ىں‬ .6
‫۝‬
١٠٨ ‫ و ا و لىڪ هم ا لعفلو ن‬113‫هـم‬112{ ‫]سمعهـ[ـم و ا }ٮصر‬ .7
‫۝‬ ١٠٩ ‫]لا حرم [ا نهم ڡے ا لا خر ه هم ا لخسر و ن‬ .8
‫ مں ٮعد ما فتنو ا‬114‫]ىم ا ن ر[بڪ للدىں هجر و ا‬ .9
‫]ىم[ جهد و ا و صبر وا ا ن ر بڪ من بعد ها‬ .10
‫ عن‬116‫۝ ىو م تا تے ڪل نفس ٮحد ل‬

١١٠ 115‫لعفو ر ر حىم‬ .11
‫نفسها و توفے ڪل نفس ما عملت و هم لا‬ .12
‫۝۞ و ض َر ب ا لله مثلا ٯر ىه ڪا نت‬

١١١ ۞117‫}ىظلـ{ـمو ں‬ .13
‫ ر عد ا من كل مكا‬118‫}ا مںه{ مطمىںه ىا تىها ر ز ڢها‬ .14
112 There is a hole in the folio here.

113 ‫ ابصرهم‬in the Medina edition. The alif after ṣād is retained in most places, but al-Jazarī
deleted it and wrote it in yellow to indicate that it is disputed. Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān b.
Najāḥ deleted the alif in ‫ ابصرهم‬in Q 2:7 and all other places. However, according to al-
Dānī, it should be retained because it was added based on the word construction:‫وتثبت‬
‫ الالف على ضابط الداني لأنها زائدة للبناء‬. See al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 50–
51; Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl, vol. 2, 89; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī
rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 7, 462; Altıkulaç, Al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf (the copy of Berlin. Istan-
bul: ircica, 2019), 427.
114 ‫ هاجروا‬in the Medina edition. Abū Dāwūd always writes this alif between the hāʾ and the
jīm in Q 2 and Q 8; al-Dānī adds it following its structure ‫للبناء‬, but al-Jazarī deletes it. Al-
Ḥimayrī says that he has seen it without an alif in both the al-Ḥusaynī and Ṣanʿāʾ muṣḥafs,
but in the Topkapı muṣḥaf, he saw it with an alif in Q 16 and without one in other places.
On the other hand, in muṣḥaf ms Paris, BnF Arabe 5122, al-Ḥimyarī saw the alif in Q 16
and other places, but it was absent in Q 8 and Q 9. All muṣḥafs add the alif at the end after
the wāw. See Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān b. Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl, vol. 2,
107, 267; al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 50–51; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī
rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 3, 497; Bashīr al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 7,
3336; Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 427.
115 According to Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān b. Najāḥ, the taʿshīr of this verse count is one hundred
and ten. See Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl, vol. 3, 780.
116 ‫ تج ٰدل‬in the Medina edition. According to al-Dānī’s rule, the alif should be retained,
although he never expressed a specific opinion about this word; in contrast, Abū Dāwūd
Sulaymān b. Najāḥ deletes it in all verbal forms, retaining it in all nominal forms, except
in Q 10:32 ( ‫ )فاكثرت جدلنا‬and in Q 2: 196 (‫ )ولا جدال في الحج‬the alif is also retained. See
al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 50–51; Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ
al-tanzīl, vol. 2, 416; Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 427.
117 The scribe indicated the taʿshīr of this verse count by the letters ‫ق ي‬, indicating 110.
118 The rasm of the qāf ‫ ق‬here and in line 15 ( fa-adhāqahum) is with one dot beneath it.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
‫ ا لله لبا س‬119‫]ں ڡڪر[ }ٮ{ با ںعم ا لله ڡا د ڢها‬ .15
‫۝‬
١١٢ ‫]الحو ع و الحـ[ـو ف بما ڪا نو ا ىصنعو ں‬ .16
‫]و لٯد حا هم ر سـ[ـو ل مںهم فڪد بو ه فا خذ‬ .17
‫۝ فكلو ا مما ر‬
١١٣ 120‫]هم ا لعد ا ٮ [ }و{ هم طلمو ں‬ .18
121‫]ز ٯڪم ا لله حللا[ طىبا و ا شكر و ا نعمت‬ .19
8.2.3 ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c, Recto

Q 63:1–7
[‫] اد ا حا ڪ ا[ لمنفٯو ن ٯا لو ا نشهد ا نڪ }لـ{ـر سو ]ل الله و‬ .1
‫ا لله ىعلم ا نڪ لر سوله و ا لله ىشهد ا ں ا‬ .2
‫۝ ا تخد و ا ىمنهم حنه فصدو‬

١ ‫لمنفٯىں لڪد بو ں‬ .3
‫۝‬
٢ ‫ا عں سٮىل ا لله ا نهم سا ما ڪا نو ا ىعملو ں‬ .4
According to https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/verse‑navigator/sura/16/verse/106/manusc
ripts/368/page/1v, there are three dots in both places.
119 There is a dot underneath the qāf. For more information about the development of the
diacritical system in the early stages of the writing of muṣḥafs, see Adam Bursi, “Connect-
ing the Dots: Diacritics, Scribal Cultural and the Quran in the First/Seventh Century,” in
Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association 3 (2018), 111–157. ‫ فاذقها‬in the Med-
ina edition. Abū Dāwūd says that this alif is deleted in Q 16:112, but according to al-Dānī,
the alif is retained because it transformed from wāw. Furthermore, al-Ḥimyarī found that
the alif was retained in the Ṣanʿāʾ and Topkapı muṣḥafs but absent from the Ḥusaynī and
Paris Arabe 5122 muṣḥafs. Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl, vol. 3, 780; al-
Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 50–51; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm
al-Qurʾān, vol. 3, 499; al-Ḥimyarī, Muʾjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 3, 1618; Altıkulaç, al-
Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 427.
120 ‫ ٰظلمون‬in the Medina edition. Al-Dānī said that there is agreement about removing the
alif from masculine and feminine plurals that are in regular use, such as ‫ظلمون‬
ٰ ‫العٰلمين وال‬
‫صبر ين والمسلم ٰت والخبيث ٰت والغرف ٰت‬
ٰ ‫وال‬. Al-Mahdawī added that if the alif is followed in the
plural by a hamza then the alif is not deleted, but in some Iraqi muṣḥafs, the alif is deleted.
Al-Ḥimyarī saw this word without alif in the Ṣanʿāʾ and Paris Arabe 5122 muṣḥafs, no alif
in the al-Ḥusaynī muṣḥaf except in Q 16, and no alif in the Topkapı muṣḥaf, except in
Q 16. See Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl, vol. 2, 30–34; al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī
rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 30–31; al-Mahdawī, Hijāʾ maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 77; Bashīr al-Ḥimyarī,
Muʿjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 5, 2334–2335; Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 429.
121 The verse continues in ms Paris BnF Arabe 331, fol. 30 r with the remainder of Q 16:114 ‫الله‬
‫إن كنتم به تؤمنون‬.

268 el-khatib
‫ذ لك ٮا نهم ا منو ا ثم كفر و ا ڡطبع علے ٯلو‬ .5
‫۝ و ا ذ ا ر ا ىتهم تعحبڪ ا‬
٣ ‫بهم ڡهم لا يڡٯهو ں‬ .6
‫ و ا ن ىٯو لو ا تسمع لٯو لهم ڪا نهم‬122‫حسمهم‬ .7
‫حسب مسند ه ىحسبون ڪل صىحه علىهم هم ا لعد‬ .8
‫۝‬
٤ ‫ ا لله انے ىو ڡڪو ں‬123‫و ڡا حد ر هم ٯتلهم‬ .9
‫ ىستغڡر لڪم ر سو‬124‫و ا د ا ٯىل لهم تعا لو ا‬ .10
‫ ر و سهم و ر ا ىتهم ىصد و‬125‫ل ا لله لو و‬ .11
‫۝ سو ا علىهم ا ستغڡر ت‬
٥ ‫ن و هم مستڪبر و ں‬ .12
‫لهم ا م لم تستغفر لهم لن ىعفر ا لله لهم ا ن‬ .13
‫۝ هم ا لد ىں‬
٦ ‫ا لله لا ىهدے ا لٯو م ا لڡسٯىں‬ .14
122 ‫ أجسامهم‬in the Medina edition. Abū Dāwūd does not say anything about this word, but
according to al-Dānī, the alif is retained because it was added to the structure ‫وتثبت الفه‬
‫على ضابط الداني لأنها زائدة للبناء‬. Al-Nāʾiṭī says that the yāʾ is added in most cases, but al-Jazarī
does not include it. The alif was written in the Ḥusaynī and Paris Arabe 5122 muṣḥafs but
is absent from the Topkapı muṣḥaf. See al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 51;
al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 7, 350; al-Ḥimyarī, Muʾjam al-rasm
al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 3, 1178; Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 791.
123 ‫ قتٰ لهم‬in the Medina edition. According to al-Dānī, the alif is retained because it was added
to the structure; however, al-Nāʾiṭī says that the alif is written after the qāf in most places,
while al-Jazarī does not include it. It was written in the Ḥusaynī muṣḥaf in Q 63 but not in
the Topkapı and Paris Arabe 5122 muṣḥafs. See al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār,
51; Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl, vol. 5, 1205; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān
fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 7, 351; al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 3, 1178;
Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 791.
124 ‫ تعالوا‬in the Medina edition. Abū Dāwūd does not mention anything about this word,
but according to al-Dānī, the alif after the ʿayn is written because it was added for ‫تثبت‬
‫ لأنها زائدة للبناء‬،‫… الفه على ضابط الداني‬. Al-Nāʾiṭī said that the alif after the ʿayn is writ-
ten in most places, but al-Jazarī does not include it. The alif is absent from most old
muṣḥafs, but not the Topkapı and Paris Arabe 5122 muṣḥafs. See al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī
rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 51; Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān b. Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ
al-tanzīl, vol. 5, 1205–1206; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 7,
352; al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 7, 2447; Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf,
791.
125 ‫ لووا‬in the Medina edition. The alif that comes after a plural wāw is always written in the
Qurʾān, according to al-Dānī and Abū Dāwūd, except for some verbs. It was also written in
the Ḥusaynī muṣḥaf but not in the Topkapı and Paris Arabe 5122 muṣḥafs. See al-Dānī, al-
Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 34–35; Ibn Najāḥ, Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl,
vol. 2, 79–80; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 7, 352; al-Ḥimyarī,
Muʾjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 6, 2957; Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 791.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
‫‪editing mss leiden or. 14.545 b–c‬‬ ‫‪269‬‬
‫ىٯو لو ں لا تنڡٯو ا علے ]مـں عںد ر سو ل ا لله[‬ ‫‪.15‬‬
‫حتے ىنفضو ا و لله حز ىں ا]لـسمو ٮ و ا لا ر ص[‬ ‫‪.16‬‬
‫۝⟨ ىٯو لو ں لىں ر حعںا‬

‫و لڪن ا لـ}ـمنفٯىـ{ـ]ـن[ لا }يفٯهو{ ]ں ⟩ ‪٧‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬
‫ا لے ا لمد ىںه لىحر حں ا لا عز مںها ا لا د ل‬ ‫‪.18‬‬
‫و لله ا لعز ه و لر سو له و للمو مںىں[‬ ‫‪.19‬‬
‫‪8.2.3‬‬ ‫‪ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c, Verso‬‬

‫‪Q 63:8–11; Q 64:1–4‬‬
‫۝ ىا ىها ا لد ىں }ا{ مـ}ـنـ{ـو‬

‫]و لڪں ا[لمنفٯىں لا ىعلمو ں ‪٨‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬
‫ا لا ىلهڪم ا مو لڪم و لا ا و لد ڪم عن ذ ڪر‬ ‫‪.2‬‬
‫۝‬
‫ا لله و من ىفعل د لڪ ڡا و لىڪ هم ا لخسر و ں ‪٩‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬
‫و ا نفٯو ا من ما ر ٯنڪم من ٯبل ا ن ىا تے‬ ‫‪.4‬‬
‫ا حد ڪم ا لمو ت ڡىٯو ل ر ٮ لو لا ا خرتنے‬ ‫‪.5‬‬
‫۝‬
‫ا لے ا حل ٯر ىب فا صد ٯ و ا ڪں من ا لصلحىں ‪١٠‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬
‫و لں ىو خر ا لله ںفسا ا ذ ا جا ا جلها و ا‬ ‫‪.7‬‬
‫۝‪126‬‬
‫لله حبىر ٮما ٮعملو ں ‪١١‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬
‫ٮسم ا لله ا لر حمں ا لر حىم⟩۝⟨ ىسٮح لله ما فے‬ ‫‪.9‬‬
‫ا لسمو ٮ و ما فے ا لا ر ض له ا لملڪ و له‬ ‫‪.10‬‬
‫۝ هو ا لذے‬
‫ا لحمد و هو علے ڪل شے ٯد ىر ‪١‬‬ ‫‪.11‬‬
‫حلڢڪم ڡمںڪم ڪفر‪ 127‬و منڪم مو مں و ا لله بما‬ ‫‪.12‬‬
‫۝ حلـ}ـٯ{ ا لسمو ت و ا لا }ر{ض با‬

‫ٮعملو ن ىصىر ‪٢‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬
‫]لحٯ وصو ر ڪم ڡا حسں[صو ر ڪم و ا لىه ا‬ ‫‪.14‬‬
‫‪126‬‬ ‫‪.‬ے ‪At the end of sūrat al-Munāfiqūn, we find a yāʾ (10) + alif (1) followed by this phrase:‬‬
‫ا حتمه سوره المنڡٯىں‬
‫‪127‬‬ ‫‪ in the Medina edition. al-Dānī, al-Mahdawī, and Abū Dāwūd retain the alif in this‬كافر‬
‫‪word because it is in the fāʿil metre, but al-Jazarī deletes it. The alif was also deleted in‬‬
‫‪the Ṣanʿāʾ, Paris Arabe 5122, Topkapı and al-Ḥusaynī muṣḥafs. See al-Dānī, al-Muqniʿ fī rasm‬‬
‫‪maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 50; al-Mahdawī, Hijāʾ maṣāḥif al-amṣār, 84; al-Arkātī, Nathr al-marjān‬‬
‫;‪fī rasm naẓm al-Qurʾān, vol. 7, 364; al-Ḥimyarī, Muʿjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī, vol. 6, 2823‬‬
‫‪Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf, 793.‬‬
‫‪Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278‬‬

‫‪Downloaded‬‬ ‫‪from Brill.com09/13/2023 07:16:24AM‬‬
‫‪via Leiden University‬‬
270 el-khatib
‫۝ ىعلم ما ڡے[ا لسمو ت و ا لا ر ص و‬

٣ ‫]لمصىر‬ .15
‫]ىعلم ما ٮسر و ں و مـ[ـا تعلنـو }ں{ و ا لله علىم‬ .16
[‫۝ الم ٮاٮکم ٮٮوا ال دٮں‬

٤ ‫]ٮداٮ الصدور‬ .17
Conspectus of Manuscripts
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek London, Khalili Collection

Or. Fol. 4313 kfq 50
Or. Oct. 39.41
We. 1913 Nancy, Nabécor Enchères
Auction November 16, 2019, No. 94
Birmingham, University
Mingana Isl. Ar. 1572 a Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de
Mingana Isl. Ar. 1572 b France
Arabe 328 a
Cairo, Jāmiʿ ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ Arabe 328 b
Not specified Arabe 331
Arabe 5122
Cairo, al-Jāmiʿ al-Ḥusaynī
Not specified Philadelphia, University of Pennsyl-
vania Museum
Chicago, Oriental Institute E 16264 R
A 6959
A 6990 Ṣanʿāʾ
Not specified
Doha, Museum of Islamic Art
No. 276 St. Petersburg, National Library of
Russia
Istanbul, Topkapi Marcel 3
Not specified
Tashkent
Leiden, University Library Not specified
Or. 14.545 a
Or. 14.545 b Tübingen, University Library
Or. 14.545 c Ma vi 165
London, British Library

Or. 2165

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
Works Cited
Abbott, N. The Rise of the North Arabic Script and Its Ḳurʾānic Development, with a Full
Description of the Ḳur’ān Manuscripts in the Oriental Institute. Chicago, IL: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1939.
Altıkulaç, T. al-Muṣḥaf al-sharīf (the Copy of Berlin). Istanbul: ircica, 2019.
Al-Arkātī, Muḥammad b. Niẓām al-Dīn al-Nāʾiṭī. Nathr al-marjān fī rasm naẓm al-
Qurʾān. 7 vols. Hyderabad: Maṭbaʿat ʿUthmān,—Shams al-Islām,—al-Aʿẓāmiyya,
1331–1348 ah.
Bursi, A. “Connecting the Dots: Diacritics, Scribal Culture, and the Qurʾān in the First/
Seventh Century.” Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association 3 (2018),
111–157.
Burton, J. “Collection of the Qurʾān.” In J. Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of
the Qurʾān, vol. 1 (Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2001), 351–361.
Colin, G.S. “Ḥisāb al-D̲ j̲ummal.” In ei2, vol. 3, 468.
Al-Dānī, Abū ʿAmr. al-Bayān fī ʿAdd āy al-Qurʾān. Ed. Ghānim Qudūrī al-Ḥamad, Kuwait:
Markaz al-Makhṭūṭāṭ wal-turāth wal-wathāʾiq, 1994.
Al-Dānī, Abū ʿAmr. al-Muqniʿ fī rasm maṣāḥif al-amṣār. Ed. Muḥammad Qamḥāwī,
Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyya, n.d.
David, Marie-Christine. Description of Lot nº 94, consisting of a single ancient Qurʾān
folio, sold at Nabécor Enchères (Nancy, France) on November 16, 2019 https://www
.gazette‑drouot.com/lots/11166127‑grand‑folio‑de‑coran‑fragmentaire‑‑‑‑ (accessed
on 18-10-2022).
Déroche, François. Les manuscrits du Coran. Aux origines de la calligraphie coranique.
Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1983. Bibliothèque Nationale, Département de Manu-
scrits. Catalogue des manuscrits arabes: Deuxième Partie: Manuscrits musulmans,
Tome i, 1.
Déroche, François. The Abbasid Tradition. Qur’ans of the 8th to the 10th Centuries ad.
The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. Ed. J. Raby, vol. 1. Oxford: The Nour
Foundation, Oxford University Press, 1992.
Déroche, François. Qur’ans of the Umayyads. A First Overview. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Fahd, T. “Ḥurūf.” In ei2, vol. 3, 595–596.
Fedeli, A. Early Quranic Manuscripts, Their Text, and the Alphonse Mingana Papers Held
in the Department of Special collections of the University of Birmingham. PhD Thesis,
Birmingham: Birmingham University, 2015. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/
5864/1/Fedeli15PhD.pdf (accessed 16-10-2022).
Fedeli, A. “Collective Enthusiasm and the Cautious Scholar: The Birmingham Qur’ān:
The Case of the Discovery of the ‘Birmingham Qur’ān’.” In Marginalia, August 3, 2018.
https://themarginaliareview.com/collective‑enthusiasm/.
Graham, W. Review of J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scrip-

272 el-khatib
tural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977). jaos 100 (1980), 137–
141.
Al-Ḥamad, Ghānim Qudūrī. ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān. Bayna al-maṣādir wal-maṣāḥif. Riyadh:
Markaz Tafsīr lil-Dirāsāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 2018.
Al-Ḥamad, Ghānim Qudūrī. “Al-Qirāʾāt al-qurʾāniyya fi ’l-maṣāḥif al-manqūṭa: Istik-
shāf wa taʾṣīl,” in al-Qurʾān al-Karīm min al-Tanzīl ilā al-Tadwīn (London: Al-Furqān
Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2018), 213–266. Ḥamdān, ʿUmar. “Mashrūʿ al-maṣāḥif
al-ʿUthmāniyya wal-ikhtilāf al-wāqiʿ fī taḥdīd taʾrīkhihi wa-ʿadadi nusakhihi.” In al-
Qurʾān al-karīm min al-tanzīl ilā ’l-tadwīn, (London: Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage
Foundation, 2018), 23–82.
Al-Ḥamad, Ghānim Qudūrī and Iyād al-Sāmarrāʾī. Ẓawāhir kitābiyya fī maṣāḥif makhṭū-
ṭa. Dirāsa wa-muʿjam. Damascus: Dār al-Ghawthānī lil-Dirāsāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 2010.
Al-Ḥimyarī, Bashīr. Muʿjam al-rasm al-ʿUthmānī. 7 vols. Riyadh: Markaz Tafsīr lil-Dirāsāt
al-Qurʾāniyya, 1436/2010.
Al-Ḥimyarī, Bashīr. “Nisbat ʿadad al-āyāt fi ’l-maṣāḥif al-qadīma ilā aḥad al-aʿdād al-
mashhūra. Muṣḥaf maktabat al-Matḥaf al-Barīṭānī 2165.” In al-Qurʾān al-karīm min
al-tanzīl ilā ’l-tadwīn, (London: Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2018), 339–
381.
Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad b. Makram. Lisān al-ʿArab. Riyadh: Wizārat al-Shuʾūn al-
Islāmiyya wal-Awqāf wal-Daʿwah, n.d. 20 vols.
Ibn Najāḥ, Abū Dāwūd Sulaymān. Mukhtaṣar al-Tabyīn li-hijāʾ al-tanzīl. 5 vols. Ed.
Aḥmad al-Shirshshāl, Medina: Majmaʿ al-Malik Fahd li-Ṭibāʿat al-Muṣḥaf al-Sharīf,
1421–1423/2000–2002.
Ifrah, G. The Universal History of Numbers: From Pre-History to the Invention of the Com-
puter. New York, etc.: Wiley and Sons, 2000. Translation from the French (Histoire
universelle des chiffres. Paris: Robert Laffont, 1994).
Al-Jaʿbarī, Ibrāhīm b. ʿUmar. Ḥusn al-madad fī fann al-ʿadad. Ed. Jamāl al-Shāyib, Cairo:
Maktabat Awlād al-Shaykh li-al-Turāth, 2005.
Kaplony, A. and M.J. Marx (eds.), Qurʾān Quotations Preserved on Papyrus Documents,
7th–10th Centuries: And the Problem of Carbon Dating Early Qurʾāns. Leiden: Brill,
2019. Documenta Coranica, vol. 2.
Al-Khwārizmī, Yūsuf b. Muḥammad. Hijāʾ al-muṣḥaf. Ed. Ghānim Qudūrī al-Ḥamad,
Amman: Jamʿiyyat al-muḥāfaẓa ʿalā al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2018/1443.
Al-Mahdawī, Abu ’l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿAmmār. Hijāʾ maṣāḥif al-amṣār. Ed. Ḥātim al-
Ḍāmin, Riyadh: Dār Ibn al-Jawzī, 1430ah.
Marx, M.J. “Introduction” In A. Kaplony and M.J. Marx (eds), Qurʾān Quotations Pre-
served on Papyrus Documents, 7th–10th Centuries, Leiden: Brill, 2019, 1–41.
Marx, M.J. and T.J. Jocham. “Zu den Datierungen von Koranhandschriften durch die
14C Methode.” Frankfurter Zeitschrift für Islamisch-Theologische Studien 2 (2015), 9–
43.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
Marx, M.J. and T.J. Jocham. “Radio-carbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts.” In
Kaplony, A. and M.J. Marx (eds), Qurʾān Quotations Preserved on Papyrus Documents,
7th–10th Centuries, Leiden: Brill, 2019, 188–221.
Marx, M.J. and E.M. Youssef-Grob, T.J. Jocham, and I. Hajdas. “The Chronology of Holy
Scriptures, Writing Surfaces from the Middle East dated—Parchment & Papyrus.”
In Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, eth Zurich, Annual Report 2014 (Zurich: eth
Zurich, 2014).
Al-Maʿṣarāwī, Ahmad. al-Shāmil fī qirāʾāt al-aʾimma al-ʿashr al-kawāmil min ṭarīqay al-
Shāṭibiyya wal-Durra. Cairo: Dār al-Imām al-Shāṭibī, 2013/1434.
Mohammed, H., A. Helman-Wazny, C. Colini, W. Beyer, and S. Bosch. “Pattern Analysis
Software Tools (past) for Written Artefacts.” In S. Uchida, E. Barney and V. Eglin
(eds), Document Analysis Systems. 5th iapr International Workshop, das 2022,
La Rochelle, France, May 22–25, 2022, Proceedings (Cham: Springer, 2022. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13237), 214–229.
Mūsā, ʿAbd al-Razzāq. Al-Muḥarrar al-wajīz fī ʿadd āy al-kitāb al-ʿazīz. Riyadh: Makta-
bat al-maʿārif, 1988.
Paret, R. “Ḳirāʾa” in ei2, vol. 5, 127–129.
Puin, Gerd-R. “Vowel Letters and Ortho-Epic Writing in the Qurʾān.” In G. Reynolds
(ed.), New Perspectives on the Qur’an: The Qur’an in its Historical Context 2, London:
Routledge, 2011, 147–190.
Al-Qāḍī, ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ. al-Farāʾid al-ḥisān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān. Medina: Maktabat al-
Dār, 1403 ah.
Rājiḥ, Muḥammad Kurayyim. Al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿashr al-mutawātira min ṭarīq al-Shāṭibiyya
wal-Durra fī hāmish al-Qurʾān al-karīm. Damascus, Dār al-Muhājir, 1994, 3rd ed.
Rashwani, Samer. “Corpus Coranicum from Philology to Literary Analysis: A Critical
Vision.” Journal of College of Sharia and Islamic Studies 38/1 (July 2020), 72–90.
https://journals.qu.edu.qa/index.php/sharia/article/view/1590/1126.
Reynolds, G. (ed.). New Perspectives on the Qur’an: The Qur’an in its Historical Context 2.
London: Routledge, 2011.
Sellheim, R. Arabische Handschriften. Reihe A: Materialien zur arabischen Literaturge-
schichte, vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1976. Verzeichnis der Orientalischen
Handschriften in Deutschland, vol. xvii.
Sidky, Hythem. “On the regionality of the Qurʾānic codices.” In Journal of the Interna-
tional Qur’anic Studies Association, vol. 5/1 (2020), 133–210.
Al-Sijistānī, Abū Bakr ʿAbdullāh b. Sulaymān b. al-Ashʿath. Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif. Ed. Mu-
ḥibb al-Dīn Wāʿiẓ. Qaṭar: Wizārat al-Awqāf wa-l-Shuʾūn al-Islāmiyya, 1995.
Sinai, N. “Historical Criticism and Recent Trends in Western Scholarship on the Qur’an:
Some Hermeneutic Reflections.” Journal of College of Sharia and Islamic Studies
38/1 (July 2020), 136–146. https://journals.qu.edu.qa/index.php/sharia/article/view/
1594/1129.

274 el-khatib
Al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn. Itmām al-dirāya li-qurrāʾ al-nuqāya. Ed. Ibrāhīm al-ʿAyūz. Beirut:
Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1985.
Van Putten, Marijn. “Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text.” Orientalia 87/1 (2018),
93–120.
Van Putten, Marijn. “Arabe 334a: A Vocalised Kufic Quran in a Non-Canonical Hijazi
Reading.” jim 10/3 (2019): 327–375.
Van Sandwijk, A. and P. Sijpesteijn, Leiden University Centre for the Study of Islam
and Society (lucis), Annual Report 2014, 2015. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, 2014–
2015.
Weil, G. [G.S. Colin]. “Abd̲ ja̲ d.” In ei2, vol. 1, 79.
Witkam, Jan Just. Values of Old Paper. Leiden: Ter Lugt Press, 2022 http://islamicmanus
cripts.info/Files/witkam‑2022‑value‑old‑paper.pdf.
Witkam, Jan Just. Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University
of Leiden. 25 vols. Leiden: Ter Lugt Press, 2002–2019. http://www.islamicmanuscripts
.info/inventories/leiden/.
Witkam, Jan Just. “The Value of Old Paper.” Lecture at the American University of
Beirut, April 22, 2015. http://islamicmanuscripts.info/Files/Beirut‑Witkam‑2015‑Val
ue‑of‑old‑paper.pdf.
Witkam, Jan Just. “The Neglect Neglected. To Point or Not to Point, That is the Ques-
tion.” jim vol. 6/2–3 (2015): 376–408.
Witkam, Jan Just. Course of Islamic Paleography: Specimens of Arabic Manuscripts.
Scripts of the First Millenium. Qur’an in Hijazi-Like Script. ms Leiden, Or. 14.545 c and
Or. 14.545 b. Leiden, 2007. http://islamicmanuscripts.info/courses/arabic_manuscri
pts/or14545b‑c.pdf
Youssef-Grob, E.M. “Radio-Carbon (14C) Dating of Early Islamic Documents: Back-
ground and Prospects.” In Kaplony, A. and M.J. Marx (eds), Qurʾān Quotations Pre-
served on Papyrus Documents, 7th–10th Centuries, Leiden: Brill, 2019, 139–187.

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278
figure 3 Leaf of a Qurʾān manuscript in Ḥijāzī-like script on parchment. ms Leiden Or.

14.545 b, recto side (Q 16:96–105)
© photo jan just witkam, leiden, the netherlands, 2007

276 el-khatib

14.545 b, verso side (Q 16:106–114)

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

14.545 c, recto side (Q 63:1–7)

278 el-khatib

14.545 c, verso side (Q 63:8–64:4)

Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

Jim Article p235 - 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jim Article p235 - 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

Editing mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c

Abdallah El-Khatib | orcid: 0000-0003-0904-0159

Received July 25, 2020 | Accepted November 1, 2022

Published with license by Koninklijke Brill nv | doi:10.1163/1878464X-01401004

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

2 Origin and Provenance of the Leiden Fragments

number is given as Ms. Or. Oct. 39.41); images at https://digital.staatsbibliothek‑berlin.de/​

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

radiocarbon 14C analysis.12 These fragments comprised six leaves of parchment,

12 This press release may be consulted (in Dutch) at https://www.bibliotheek.universiteitlei

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

There is no indication in the manuscript of its provenance, but it can at least

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

verse/125/manuscripts/32/page/1r, Catalogue Entry, that the fragment “possibly” (“mög-

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

– Paris, BnF Arabe 335

3 Description of mss Leiden Or. 14.545 b–c

3.1 Dimensions and Colour

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

3.1.2 Fragment Leiden Or. 14.545 c

36 Op. cit. 1–4.

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

3.4 Ends of Verses

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

3.5 Taʿshīr System

table 1 Abjad numbers

Abjad numbers Value

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

Abjad Taʿshīr abjad in Verse numbers in the Medinan print of

‫ے‬ 10 ‫ السبقون‬in Q 56:10

50 ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b recto line 11.

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

‫ے‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬

‫م‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ص‬

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

3.6 Diacritical Dotting

3.7 Number of Lines

55 ms Paris BnF Arabe 331 fol. 27v line 6.

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

3.8 Added Text

3.9 Handwriting Style

61 E.g. at ms Paris, BnF Arabe 331 fols. 1r and 39r.

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

4 Radiocarbon (14C) Dating

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

figure 1 14C measurement results for ms Leiden Or. 14.545 b

figure 2 14C measurement results for ms Leiden Or. 14.545 c

70 Marx and Jocham, “Radiocarbon (14C) Dating of Qurʾān Manuscripts,” 211–213.

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

5 Regional Provenance of the muṣḥaf : Verse Totals, Verse Breaks,

According to Van Putten, “[e]xamining the verse division is an important tool

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

Qurʾān fragments and manuscripts and “[…] combining philological, literary,

5.1 Total Verse Counts Distributed Unevenly Regionally

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 14 (2023) 235–278

plm = B and others 17

table 3 Verse totals

Sūra M K B D Ḥ i ii plm Abjad

81 Al-Dānī, al-Bayān fī ʿadd āy al-Qurʾān, 234.

Journal of Islamic Downloaded

table 3 Verse totals (cont.)

number is given as Ms. Or. Oct. 39.41); images at https://digital.staatsbibliothek‑berlin.de/