A Survey of Personal-Use Qur'an Manuscripts Based on Fragments from the Cairo Genizah

A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts Based on Fragments from the Cairo Genizah

Magdalen M. Connolly and Nick Posegay

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

1. Introduction1

A genizah2 is a secure location, often in a synagogue or cemetery, where Jewish communities place old or damaged texts that are considered too sacred to simply dispose of.3 The most common determining factor for inclusion in a genizah is the occurrence of a Hebrew name of God in a text, but the use of Hebrew script may also suffice. The ‘Cairo Genizah’ refers to the storeroom in the Ben ʿEzra Synagogue of al-Fusṭāṭwhere the Cairene Jewish community stored hundreds of thousands of manuscript fragments between the fifth/eleventh and thirteenth/nineteenth centuries. In the late 1890s, Cambridge scholars acquired approximately 190,000 of over 300,000 total fragments from this genizah chamber, the synagogue grounds, the nearby al-Basātīn cemetery, and manuscript dealers in Cairo.4 These fragments have since been conserved and catalogued in the Cambridge University Library,5 while smaller collections reside in other institutions, including the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, the Bodleian Library in Oxford, the Russian National Library in St Petersburg, and the John Rylands Library in Manchester. Most Genizah manuscripts are written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Judaeo-Arabic,6 but a substantial portion is in Arabic script,7 and there is a small amount of Qur’anic material in both Arabic8 and Hebrew transcription.9

The inclusion of Arabic-script Qur’an fragments in the Cairo Genizah is particularly noteworthy. Since they are neither Hebrew script nor canonically sacred in Judaism, there is no obvious reason why they came to rest in a synagogue storeroom or a Jewish cemetery. There are at least 35 such fragments in the Cambridge University Library, the Jewish Theological Seminary, and the John Rylands Library,10 comprising parts of 25 discrete manuscripts.11 Geoffrey Khan has hypothesised that much of the

Journal of Qur’anic Studies 23.2 (2021): 1–40 Edinburgh University Press DOI: 10.3366/jqs.2021.0465 © Magdalen M. Connolly and Nick Posegay. The online version of this article is published as Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the original work is cited. www.euppublishing.com/jqs 2 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Arabic-script material in the Genizah was once part of personal collections – likely owned by affluent members of the Cairene Jewish community – and when they moved or died those entire collections were placed in genizot, regardless of the script of their contents.12 Such a process may well have transferred Qur’anic material into the Ben ʿEzra Synagogue and al-Basātīn cemetery, but this explanation only raises a further question: why would Egyptian Jews possess pieces of the Qur’an in the first place?

This question may be answered by examining which features these 25 manuscripts have in common – and which features they do not share. In fact, they are broadly diverse in almost every way that we assess manuscripts. In terms of timing alone, the earliest fragments date to the late third/ninth or early fourth/tenth century, while the latest was written in the last quarter of the thirteenth/nineteenth century. Their script styles vary considerably, ranging between early Abbasid scripts on the one hand, and later naskhī and muhaqqaq̣ scripts on the other. Their vocalisation and diacritic systems are likewise mixed, with some completely unpointed, and others containing fully complex systems of diacritic dots, vowels, and ihmāl signs.13 They are written variously on parchment and paper types of vastly different qualities, in both horizontal and vertical formats. Some are clearly composed by well-trained calligraphers, while others are rough and imprecise. Some are from codices, some are writing exercises, and some have been recycled from their original purposes. There is only one factor that unites the fragments: they are from relatively small manuscripts, probably meant for private use. It seems then that these personal-use manuscripts ended up in the Cairene Jewish community for a variety of different reasons.

One notable observation is that fourteen of the manuscripts contain passages related to Biblical figures – or would contain them if the extant fragments were intact.14 Such passages may have interested Jewish owners for polemical purposes, or perhaps just because they offer greater insight into the relationship between Judaism and Islam. On the other hand, Biblical prophets are quite common in the Qur’an, and these fragments may simply represent a random distribution of verses.15

Similarly, some manuscripts contain passages that discuss non-Muslims more broadly. T-S Ar.40.97, for example, mentions ahl al-kitāb and al-mushrikīn (Q. 98:1–6).16 T-S AS 176.492/T-S AS 179.333 also refers to ahl al-kitāb (Q. 3:199), while T-S NS 327.46 addresses those who say ‘We believe in God and the Last Day’, but they are not believers (Q. 2:8–11). T-S Ar.41.84 includes all of Q. 109 (al-Kāfirūn), which concludes, for you is your religion, and for me is my religion (Q. 109:6). Then T-S AS 178.345/AS 178.346 reads: O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them, nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames (Q. 49:11). Perhaps these verses would have been useful for a Jew living under Muslim rule to have on hand. A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 3

A number of these manuscripts contain verses that are recited in the presence of the sick, dead, and dying, and are also frequently copied as talismans: T-S Ar.41.84 (Q. 1, Q. 112–4), T-S Ar.42.145 (Q. 36), T-S NS 306.214/T-S NS 306.232, T-S AS 177.582, and T-S AS 183.76 (all of Q. 67).17 T-S Ar.41.84 and T-S AS 177.582 have been folded several times, suggesting that they were carried on someone’s person, perhaps for protection. T-S Ar.19.7 contains only Q. 2:255, and it has also been deliberately folded several times. A further two fragments – T-S Ar.38.8 and T-S Ar.51.74 – appear to have been removed from codices and then carefully folded up; again, likely indicating they were carried as talismans.18

Four of the manuscripts – T-S Ar.42.145, T-S NS 327.31, T-S NS 327.46, and JTS ENA 3691.5/ENA 3961.6 – show signs of having been repurposed for bookbinding. It was customary among Muslim binders to recycle old Qur’an leaves to create the pasteboard covers of new codices.19 This was considered more respectful to the fragment and its sacred contents than simply discarding it.20 Thus, it is possible that these four fragments constituted the inner lining of codices purchased by Jews which have since fallen apart, either before they were consigned to the Genizah or after the Genizah was emptied.

Additionally, before it was used for bookbinding, it seems that T-S Ar.42.145 was originally a writing exercise, showing the joint writing of a student and a master. T-S Ar.41.93/T-S NS 192.11a-c/T-S NS 306.145 is also a writing exercise, produced at an Egyptian public school.21

One further consideration is related to the medieval Karaite Jewish practice of transcribing the Hebrew Bible into Arabic script. A considerable number of Arabic-script Hebrew Bible manuscripts are extant from Cairo genizot, seemingly the by-products of a Karaite desire to distinguish their recitation tradition from that of their Rabbanite peers.22 Codicologically, these manuscripts have more in common with Arabic-script Qur’an manuscripts than they do with Hebrew-script Bibles. In contrast to typical two- and three-column Bibles, they are all arranged in single columns, and many include verse-dividing rosettes or red vowel marks that are directly analogous with those found in medieval Qur’ans.23 It is likely that Karaite scribes had Qur’anic exemplars from which they modelled their work, including – perhaps – a few that now reside in these Genizah collections.

Whatever their original purpose, it is probable that most of these Qur’an manuscripts made their way to the Cairo Genizah as a result of ownership by Jews.24 Given the palaeographic and codicological variation in the fragments, these owners must have lived at many different times throughout the history of the Ben ʿEzra Synagogue. However, it remains uncertain as to whether any of these Jews owned entire copies of the Qur’an or only select pages.25 4 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Also uncertain is the identity of the people who wrote these manuscripts. Most of them were probably Muslims who copied the Qur’an for themselves or for commercial sale, but it is not impossible that one of the writing exercises was undertaken by a Jew. None of the fragments contains any Hebrew script, and there is no evidence that they were produced in an irregular manner. In fact, in terms of codicology and palaeography, the Genizah Qur’an fragments are practically indistinguishable from Qur’an manuscripts known from other contexts.26 They thus serve as a valuable diachronic corpus for tracing the history of Qur’anic composition between the fourth/tenth and thirteenth/nineteenth centuries.

The following paper presents the 25 known Qur’an manuscripts in Cairo Genizah collections. Part 2 describes their physical features and proposes a chronology of their production. Part 3 then utilises them as a diachronic corpus to examine the orthography of personal-use Qur’an manuscripts between the fourth/tenth and thirteenth/nineteenth centuries.

2. Codicology and Chronology

This section describes each manuscript’s size, material, condition, palaeography,27 and decoration. It also notes any evidence of binding, and whether a manuscript was composed by a trained hand with some skill in calligraphy or a relatively untrained hand. These details inform the approximate chronological order of the manuscripts’ production (table 1). No fragment is explicitly dated, so this list must be regarded as provisional.

Approximate date Trained hands Untrained hands 3rd/9th–4th/10th i. T-S Ar.38.8 centuries ii. T-S Ar.51.74 iii. T-S AS 176.492, AS 179.333 4th/10th–8th/14th iv. T-S Ar.40.177 ix. T-S NS 327.46 centuries v. T-S AS 183.332 x. T-S Ar.38.39 vi. T-S NS 306.214, xi. T-S AS 178.345, NS 306.232 AS 178.346 vii. T-S Ar.38.64 viii. T-S AS 176.491, AS 177.638 8th/14th–10th/16th xii. T-S Ar.40.97 xv. T-S AS 177.582 centuries xiii. T-S NS 183.79 xiv. T-S Ar.41.119 A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 5

Table 1: Continued Approximate date Trained hands Untrained hands 10th/16th–13th/19th xvi. T-S NS 327.31 xxiii. T-S Ar.41.84 centuries29 xvii. JTS ENA 1177.69, xxiv. T-S AS 183.76 ENA 1177.70 xviii. T-S Ar.42.193 xix. Rylands Ar.7 xx. T-S Ar.19.7 xxi. JTS ENA 3961.5, ENA 3961.6 xxii. T-S Ar.42.145 13th/19th century xxv. T-S Ar.41.93, NS 192.11 a/b/c, NS 306.145 Table 1: Cairo Genizah Qur’an fragments in approximate chronological order

2.1. Third/Ninth to Fourth/Tenth Centuries

(i) T-S Ar.38.8

Content Q. 11:43–50 Material Parchment; one leaf; holes, slightly rubbed, slightly stained, recto is hair side; evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 10.2 × 15.2 cm; eight lines; horizontal format Palaeography Script type Abbasid Bookhand28 Hands One trained hand Diacritic Partial diacritic dots: bāʾ, tāʾ; and especially nūn, yāʾ; dots tāʾ marbūtạunmarked Vocalisation Partial red-dot vocalisation Ink Polychrome: brown (main text); red (vocalisation)

This leaf has substantial margins and the elongation of individual graphemes maintains a neat text area. The extant leaf was cleanly cut from a bifolium, the stub of which remains, and four sewing stations indicate it was removed from a sewn quire. The separated leaf was folded vertically six times, most likely to be carried as a talisman. Its script is an Abbasid bookhand, similar to the Leiden University library’s Gharīb al-ḥadīth manuscript (MS Or.298), part of which is dated to 252/866.30 This script 6 Journal of Qur’anic Studies style, parchment support, and horizontal format indicate a late third/ninth- or early fourth/tenth-century date.

(ii) T-S Ar.51.74

Content Q. 52:44–53:43 Material Parchment; one leaf; torn, holes, badly rubbed, badly faded, stained; evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 13.8 × 8.9 cm; fourteen lines; likely horizontal format Palaeography Script type Early Abbasid script-style; sura heading similar to C-group styles31 Hands One or two trained hands; one for main text, possibly another for sura heading Diacritic dots No discernible diacritic dots or strokes Vocalisation Partial red-dot vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black/brown (main text), brown (sura heading), red (vocalisation) Decoration Sura 53 heading in larger block script, including verse count ([ithnayn] wa-sittūn āyāt)

T-S Ar.51.74 is so badly rubbed and stained that it is practically illegible. Roughly half the leaf is missing, but the reconstruction of line lengths suggests it was originally arranged in horizontal format. At least four tiny holes may be sewing stations, indicating that the leaf was carefully removed from its binding. It was then folded horizontally at regular intervals, probably to be carried as a talisman. The surviving text is written in an early Abbasid style,32 but the damage to the leaf makes a more precise designation difficult. The outline of the sura heading resembles C-group scripts. This combination of early script types, parchment support, and horizontal format indicates a third/ninth- or fourth/tenth-century date.

(iii) T-S AS 176.492, AS 179.333

Content Q. 3:188–200 Material Parchment; one leaf; torn, holes, badly rubbed, badly faded, badly stained; the two fragments join to form a single folio; evidence of binding

Dimensions & Format Combined leaf 6.9 × 11.5 cm; seven lines; likely horizontal format A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 7

Palaeography Script type Close to D.IV33

Hands One trained hand Diacritic dots No discernible diacritic dots or strokes Vocalisation Sporadic red-dot vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black/brown (main text), red (vocalisation, sura heading) Decoration Remnants of rubricated heading for Sura 4 (al-Nisāʾ)

The script style of these fragments resembles D.IV, but it is difficult to be sure, as the text is so badly rubbed that only a handful of words are legible. Likewise, only a few flecks of red ink remain from the vocalisation and rubricated sura heading. No diacritic dots or strokes are visible, although they may also have rubbed off. Reconstruction of the missing sections suggests that the height of the original leaf was roughly twice that of the extant fragments and its width was also substantially longer, likely in horizontal format. Notably, there are no indications of verse divisions. Several small sewing stations on the inner margin indicate the leaf was originally part of a bifolium bound in a quire. The parchment support, horizontal format, and D-group34 script-style point to a third/ninth- or fourth/tenth-century date.

2.2. Fourth/Tenth – Eighth/Fourteenth Centuries

(iv) T-S Ar.40.177

Content Q. 2:177–188; Q. 2:235–247

Material Paper; two leaves (bifolium); torn, holes, slightly rubbed, slightly stained, folded three times horizontally; wove paper; evidence of binding

Dimensions & Format 10.4 × 17.3 cm (bifolium); 19–20 lines; vertical format

Palaeography Script type NS.I, with some NS.III features35

Hands One trained hand

Diacritic Sporadic diacritic dots: tāʾ, nūn, khāʾ, fāʾ; tāʾ marbūtạ dots unmarked

Vocalisation Near-full red-dot vocalisation

Ink Polychrome: black (main text); red (vocalisation); gold (verse dividers)

Decoration Gold verse dividers in shape of hāʾ; one circular floral divider 8 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Centrally-placed holes indicate that this bifolium was removed from a sewn quire. The red ink of vocalisation has smudged on the last four lines of F2 verso, but the black ink of the consonants is unaffected, showing that the red dots were added after the black ink had set. A few omitted words were added in the margins. The paper support and vertical format imply a fourth/tenth-century date or later, while the well-trained NS.I script-style and red vowel dots indicate a date no later than the seventh/thirteenth century.

(v) T-S AS 183.332

Content Q. 22:37–47 Material Paper; one leaf; torn, badly rubbed, badly faded, stained; wove paper; evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 17.3 × 9.8 cm; thirteen lines; vertical format Palaeography Script type NS.III Hands One trained hand Diacritic Sporadic diacritic dots, unclear; one supralinear dot dots marks fā; two dots mark qāf Vocalisation Partial red-dot vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black/brown (main text); red (vocalisation); black/dark blue (verse divider) Decoration Large roundel with concentric circles and dark centre after Q. 22:42

Small holes and a narrow stub reveal that this leaf was removed from a sewn quire and was once part of a bifolium. The vertical-format paper support suggests a date not earlier than the fourth/tenth century, while the red-dot vocalisation and NS.III script-style suggest a date no later than the seventh/thirteenth century.

(vi) T-S NS 306.214; T-S NS 306.232

Content Q. 67:1–5 (NS 306.232); unidentified (NS 306.214) Material Paper; badly torn, holes, badly rubbed, stained; wove paper Dimensions & Format 9.4 × 3.8 cm (NS 306.214); 17.3 × 7.0 cm (NS 306.232); four lines (recto); seven lines (verso); vertical format A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 9

Palaeography Script type Close to NS.III Hands Two hands; one (trained) for Qur’anic text, and one for overwritten jottings Diacritic dots Partial diacritic dots Vocalisation Partial modern vocalisation Ink Monochrome: black

These two fragments are little more than slivers and not enough paper remains to say if they were originally bound. The text is composed in a trained if slightly scrawling style similar to NS.III. Several inverted lines of less-calligraphic script overlap the Qur’anic passage, but their text is too faded to decipher. The modern vocalisation signs imply a post-fourth/tenth-century date,36 though these could have been added later. The script style is likely not later than the seventh/thirteenth century, but the damage to the fragments makes it difficult to be sure. The extant text contains sections of Sūrat al-Mulk, which is commonly recited over the sick and reproduced in amulets and talismans. As such, this leaf may have been used in this way.

(vii) T-S Ar.38.64

Content Q. 77:27–50; Q. 78:1–12; Q. 79:40–46; Q. 80:1–37 Material Parchment; two leaves (bifolium); torn, holes, rubbed, stained, F2 recto and verso are hair side; evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 12.8 × 29.9 cm; seven lines; horizontal format Palaeography Script type Maghribī (mabsūt);̣ close to C.1b37 (sura headings) Hands One trained hand Diacritic Near-full diacritic dots; one sublinear dot for fāʾ; one dots supralinear dot for qāf; tāʾ marbūtạunmarked Vocalisation Partial maghribī vocalisation; red alifs inserted for medial /ā/ Ink Polychrome: black/brown (main text and heading outline); red (vocalisation and diacritic signs); gold (heading) Decoration A triangle of three small dots marks the end of a verse 10 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Four sewing stations along the central fold of this bifolium indicate that it was removed from a sewn quire. The horizontal format, parchment support, and maghribī script style38 suggest that it was produced between the fifth/eleventh and eighth/fourteenth centuries in the Maghrib, or at least by a scribe who had maghribī training. The textlines are straight and the small margins are uniform. Although not part of a model Qur’an codex, it is nonetheless well-executed.

(viii) T-S AS 176.491; T-S AS 177.638

Content Q. 26:115–135; Q. 26:145–163; Q. 26:184–185; Q. 27:84–85; Q. 27:92–93; Q. 28:1–3: Q. 28:10–1239 Material Parchment; four leaves (two bifolia); torn, holes, faded, stained; evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 14.2 × 16.5 cm (AS 176.491); 7.2 × 12.4 (AS 177.638); eleven lines; vertical format Palaeography Script type Maghribī Hands One trained hand Diacritic Near-full diacritic dots; one sublinear dot for fāʾ; one dots supralinear dot for qāf; tāʾ marbūtạunmarked Vocalisation Near-full maghribī vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black (main text); red (vocalisation and diacritic signs)

These two bifolia each sport three sewing stations along their central fold, indicating that they were once bound within a quire. The intact leaves probably had six sewing stations (i.e. three-link stitches). The brown ink of the rasm has faded, and some ink of the red vocalisation signs has oxidised to black. The parchment support, modern vocalisation signs, and maghribī script style suggest it was produced by a Maghribī scribe between the fifth/eleventh and eighth/fourteenth centuries.

(ix) T-S NS 327.46

Content Q. 1:1–7; Q. 2:1–11 Material Paper; two leaves (one bifolium); torn, holes, badly rubbed, stained; flecked with white mould spores; wove paper; evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 13.1 × 16.5 cm; ten–eleven lines; vertical format A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 11

Palaeography Script type Close to NS.III Hands One untrained hand Diacritic dots Sporadic diacritic dots; one supralinear dot for qāf; fāʾ unclear; tāʾ marbūtạunmarked Vocalisation Unvocalised Ink Monochrome: black/brown (main text)

The varying proportions of the rasm and unruled textlines suggest that the scribe was untrained, but was nonetheless familiar with NS script-styles. The omission of rabb (F1 recto, line 2) from the opening of al-Fātihạadds to the impression of imprecise execution. Twelve small sewing stations are arranged in groups of six pairs at the top and bottom of the bifolium’s central fold, revealing that it once formed part of a quire. The NS script-style and vertical-format paper support indicate a date between the fourth/tenth and seventh/thirteenth centuries. The fragment appears to have been recycled for bookbinding, as the bottom edge was folded upwards, and twelve large sewing stations were added on either side of this new fold.40

(x) T-S Ar.38.39

Content Q. 17:31–50; Q. 18:10–27 Material Parchment; one leaf, with stub attached; torn, holes, rubbed, stained, water damage, verso is hair side; evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 10.7 × 19.7 cm; eleven lines (recto); thirteen lines (verso); horizontal format Palaeography Script type Mixed style; possibly naskhī, with elements of maghribī script Hands One untrained hand Diacritic dots Unpointed Vocalisation Unvocalised Ink Monochrome: black

Four sewing stations arranged in pairs at the top and bottom reveal that this bifolium was originally bound. Modern conservators have secured the leaves together with white thread. The script is stylistically inconsistent, most likely written by someone who was not a trained scribe, and accordingly, the lines are unruled. The horizontal format on 12 Journal of Qur’anic Studies parchment suggests a date no later than the seventh/thirteenth century, and perhaps as early as the fourth/tenth century, depending on where it was produced.41

(xi) T-S AS 178.345; T-S AS 178.346

Content Q. 48:9–17; Q. 49:6–14 Material Parchment; two leaves, with stub on T-S AS 178.346; torn, holes, badly rubbed, faded, badly stained; evidence of binding; both fragments belong to same quire, but different bifolia Dimensions & Format 9.3 × 11 cm (AS 178.345); 8.6 × 12 cm (AS 178.346); eight lines; horizontal format Palaeography Script type Mixed style; possibly naskhī, with elements of maghribī script Hands One untrained hand, possibly a second hand for restoration Diacritic dots Sporadic diacritic dots, unclear; possibly one dot for qāf Vocalisation Partial modern vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black (main text); grey (restoration); red (vocalisation)

These two fragments are so badly damaged that they each contain only a few legible words. Their script style is similar to T-S Ar.38.39, and all three may belong together. However, unlike T-S Ar.38.39, this manuscript is partially vocalised with modern vowel signs in red ink. Given that these are the modern signs, it is unlikely that these were added earlier than the end of the fourth/tenth century, though they could be from any time thereafter. Two sewing stations are visible along T-S AS 178.346’s central fold. The horizontal format and parchment support suggest a production date no later than the seventh/thirteenth century.

2.3. Eighth/Fourteenth to Tenth/Sixteenth Centuries

(xii) T-S Ar.40.97

Content Q. 96: 10–19; Q. 97; Q. 98:1–6 Material Paper; one leaf, with stub; torn, holes, slightly rubbed, slightly faded, stained; vertical laid lines; evidence of binding A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 13

Dimensions & Format 13.7 × 10.5 cm; nine lines (recto); eleven lines (verso); vertical format Palaeography Script type Taʿlīq (main text); musalsal (marginalia) Hands Two hands; one (trained) for main text, one (untrained) for recto marginalia Diacritic dots Partial diacritic dots; tāʾ marbūtạunmarked Vocalisation Partial modern vocalisation

This leaf was once part of a bifolium, but only a stub of the second folio remains. Small sewing stations in the interior margin suggest the bifolium was once sewn into a quire. The paper support is vertical format and has visible laid lines. The main text is taʿlīq script, with its characteristic ‘hanging’ feature of initial letters sitting a little higher than final letters in the same word, as well as suprascription of the last word of each textline. This style emerged in fifth/eleventh-century Iran, reaching the height of its popularity in the seventh/thirteenth century. It also began as a chancellery script,42 so it may have taken some time for its use in Qur’anic compositions to be considered acceptable. Its performance here is adequate, if not elegant, and the lines are unruled. The fragment contains ihmāl signs in the form of a miniature ʿayn under the letter ʿayn.43

(xiii) T-S NS 183.79

Content Q. 2:25–31; Q. 2:36–49 Material Paper; one leaf; torn, holes, badly rubbed, faded, stained; folded once vertically and once horizontally in the centre; wove paper; possible evidence of binding Dimensions & Format 8.9 × 8.3 cm; fourteen lines; vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī Hands One trained hand Diacritic dots Full diacritic dots; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ Vocalisation Full modern vocalisation Ink Monochrome: black

This diminutive fragment is packed with the miniscule writing of a reasonably well-trained hand. The script-style is hard to place, sitting somewhere between naskhī, 14 Journal of Qur’anic Studies muhaqqaq̣ , and Indian bihārī styles. It also bears some resemblance to the script of a late ninth/fifteenth century Yemeni Qur’an.44 If we take the thinner vertical strokes with thick horizontal strokes to be bihārī influence, this would indicate an eighth/fourteenth- to tenth/sixteenth-century date.45 However, the oblique vocalisation signs do not match the straight horizontal lines favoured in bihārī. The scribe tended to superscribe the final letters at the end of each textline.

(xiv) T-S Ar.41.119

Content Q. 17:47–57 Material Paper; one leaf; slightly torn, holes, slightly rubbed, slightly stained, folded once horizontally in the centre, horizontal laid lines; possible remnants of binding Dimensions & Format 24.7 × 17.7 cm; nine lines + marginalia; vertical format Palaeography Script type Muhaqqaq̣ (masāhif̣) Hands Two hands: one trained for main text; one for marginalia Diacritic dots Full diacritic dots; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ; miniature hāʾ marks final hāʾ; miniature ‘s’-shaped kāf marks medial and final kāf Vocalisation Full modern vocalisation Ink Monochrome: brown Decoration One floral/circular design (recto)

This elegant folio displays signs of previous binding, from which it was removed and then folded once horizontally. There may also be remnants of a stub from a bifolium. Its large size – relative to many of the other fragments in this corpus – is similar to some smaller model Qur’an codices produced during the late Mamluk and early Ottoman eras.46 Although it largely lacks decoration, its straight, even textlines, well- proportioned script, and sizeable margins are all in accordance with a Qur’an produced by a professional scribe for sale. The use of a finer nib for vocalisation and diacritic signs (including ihmāl) also occurs in late Mamluk and early Ottoman-era Qur’an manuscripts.47 A second hand has noted the end of Q. 17:50 with a single dot in an inverted heart shape enclosed by an approximate circle and has written the noun nisf̣ (‘middle’) in the right-hand margin. A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 15

(xv) T-S AS 177.582

Content Q. 67:1–6 (recto); blessings (verso)

Material Paper; one leaf; badly torn, holes, rubbed, slightly stained; wove paper; folded four times vertically and twice horizontally; evidence of binding

Dimensions & Format 13.9 × 13.4 cm; ten lines; vertical format

Palaeography Script type Naskhī

Hands Two untrained hands; one for recto, one for verso

Diacritic dots Near-full diacritic dots; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ

Vocalisation Near-full modern vocalisation

Ink Monochrome: black/brown

A single, untrained hand copied Sūrat al-Mulk (Q. 67) on the recto of this leaf in an inconsistent naskhī script. The lines and margins are uneven, yet the text has near-full diacritic dots and vocalisation signs. A second untrained hand – even less consistent than the first – wrote the text on verso, which is not a Qur’anic passage, but nevertheless begins with the basmala and a series of praises or blessings. Several holes in the margin may be sewing stations, revealing that the leaf was torn from its binding. It was then folded several times, likely to be carried. This detail combined with its content (i.e. Sūrat al-Mulk) suggest that the manuscript was created as a talisman or memorisation exercise rather than as part of a Qur’an codex. Naskhī scripts were especially popular in the Mamluk period,48 though not exclusively so, and the damage to the paper and inconsistent script make dating difficult.

2.4. Tenth/Sixteenth to Thirteenth/Nineteenth Centuries

(xvi) T-S NS 327.31

Content Q. 42:12–14; Q. 42:22–24

Material Paper; one leaf; badly torn, rubbed, slightly stained; cut from larger leaf; wove paper

Dimensions & Format 5.1 × 8.9 cm; four lines; unknown format

Palaeography Script type Naskhī

Hands One trained hand

Diacritic dots Near-full diacritic dots; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ

Vocalisation Full modern vocalisation

Ink Monochrome: black/brown 16 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

The scribe was proficient, producing well-proportioned naskhī script with straight textlines, but the fragment has been cut into a long pentagonal ‘envelope-flap’ shape, similar to the kind used in Type II bindings.49 As such, too little remains to allow confident dating. Its wove paper support reveals scant information, other than that it is non-European. One possible indication of the dating is a red dot between Q. 42:13 and Q. 42:14 (recto, line 4). Red-dot verse separators appear as early as the seventh/ thirteenth century50 but seem to have become increasingly common during the late Mamluk and Ottoman eras.51 If this style of verse divider originated in non-Qur’anic texts, it may have taken some time before it was considered acceptable in Qur’anic manuscripts. Its inclusion here may indicate a post-tenth/sixteenth-century date, although it is possible that the dividers were inserted long after the consonantal text was copied.

(xvii) JTS ENA 1177.69; JTS ENA 1177.70

Content Q. 63:1–11; Q. 64:15–18; Q. 65:1–552 Material Paper; two leaves; torn, holes, rubbed, badly stained; ENA 1177.70 cut along one margin; both leaves mounted on larger paper Dimensions & Format 14.4 × 12.8cm (ENA 1177.69); 14.6 × 10.3 cm (ENA 1177.70); eleven lines; vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī Hands One trained hand Diacritic dots Full diacritic dots; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ; miniature kāf marks final kāf Vocalisation Full modern vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black (main text); red (verse dividers; some diacritic signs; sura heading; remnants of border) Decoration Red dots separate verses

The text is neat naskhī script, with straight margins and textlines, and the last letter of each line may be superscripted. Remnants of red lines in the margins indicate that these leaves may once have sported simple rubricated borders. The paper quality is hard to assess, as it has been reinforced with industrial paper as part of the conservation process. Sura headings are rubricated, and red dots separate verses. Red diacritic marks occur intermittently. The main text is fully vocalised and pointed with diacritical dots. These features point to a date between the tenth/sixteenth and thirteenth/nineteenth centuries. A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 17

(xviii) T-S Ar.42.193

Content Q. 20:109 – Q. 21:35 Material Paper; two leaves (bifolium); torn, holes, badly rubbed, badly stained, vertical laid lines; folded once horizontally in the centre; remnants of binding Dimensions & Format 24.9 × 34.1 cm; nineteen–twenty lines; vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī (?) Hands Two hands; one (trained) for main text, one for additional vocalisation signs Diacritic dots Partial diacritic dots; nūn especially consistent; yāʾ and jīm especially inconsistent; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ; miniature kāf marks final kāf Vocalisation Near-full modern vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black (main text, vocalisation); brown (additional vocalisation); red (verse dividers, sura heading) Decoration Large red dots separate verses

This large bifolium retains signs of being bound within a quire, from which it was removed and then folded horizontally. There are two sewing stations at the top and bottom and four in the centre. The paper has visible, uniform vertical laid lines, consistent with European papermaking. The hand is trained, if slightly inconsistent. A later vocaliser has supplemented the original copyist’s sporadic vocalisation with additional brown vowel signs. Decoration appears in the form of red-dot verse-dividers and a rubricated sura heading (F1 verso, line 17). With regards to the latter, it has been written twice – once in red ink and once in black ink. It is unclear, however, whether the red ink predates the black or vice versa. With the exception of marginal corrections, superscripted final letters maintain a neat text area. The European paper and red verse- dividers may indicate a post-tenth/sixteenth-century date.

(xix) Rylands Ar. 7

Content Q. 76:7–14; Q. 76:27–31, heading and basmala of Q. 77 Material Paper; one leaf; torn, holes, faded 18 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Dimensions & Format 7.2 × 17.9 cm; six lines; unknown format Palaeography Script type Maghribī Hands Two – three hands Diacritic Partial diacritic dots; one sublinear dot for fāʾ; one dots supralinear dot for qāf; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ; sura heading unpointed Vocalisation Partial vocalisation in red ink Ink Polychrome: brown (main text); black (waslạ); red (vocalisation and diacritics); yellow/gold (sura heading) Decoration Sura heading with title (al-Mursalāt)

This fragment comprises the upper portion of a folio that has been torn horizontally in the centre. Its paper is light-coloured with unwavering vertical laid lines. The inner margin has a slight indent and tearing along the edge, suggesting that it may have been part of a bound bifolium. The rasm is written in brown ink, which has faded and was later touched up. Many of the red vocalisation signs are elongated.

(xx) T-S Ar.19.7

Content Q. 2:255 Material Paper; one leaf; badly torn, holes, slightly rubbed, slightly stained, horizontal laid lines, vertical chain lines Dimensions & Format 13.7 × 22.7 cm; two lines + marginalia (recto, verso is blank); unknown format Palaeography Script type Thuluth Hands Two hands; one (trained) for main text, one (untrained) for marginalia Diacritic dots Near-full diacritic dots; two dots for qāf Vocalisation Partial modern vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black (main text); red (marginalia and decoration) Decoration Some spaces between letters filled with red ink A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 19

The large dimensions of the extant fragment, which is torn on all sides, indicate that it was once part of a sizeable folio. Uniform vertical chain lines and horizontal laid lines are visible on the light-coloured paper. The primary text is well-executed, but a second, untrained hand has repeated the basmala in red between the two remaining lines of text and has filled some spaces between graphemes with red ink. Since the recto contains the basmala (line 1) followed by āyat al-kursī, and the verso has no extant text, it is unlikely that this leaf was part of a Qur’an codex. The fragment has been folded once horizontally and several times vertically, perhaps to be carried as a talisman.

(xxi) JTS ENA 3961.5; JTS ENA 3961.6

Content Q. 40:51–58; Q. 40:61–66; Q. 64:16–18, Q. 65:1–11 Material Paper; two leaves; torn, holes, badly rubbed, faded, stained Dimensions & Format 13.7 × 14.6 cm (ENA 3961.5); 17.0 × 13.4 cm (ENA 3961.6); nine lines (ENA 3961.5); twelve lines (ENA 3961.6); vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī Hands One trained hand Diacritic dots Full diacritic dots; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ; miniature hamza/kāf marks final kāf Vocalisation Full modern vocalisation Ink Polychrome: black (main text); red (sura heading and diacritic signs) Decoration Rubricated sura heading (al-Ṭalāq) with verse count

These two paper leaves are light-hued and exhibit uniform vertical laid lines. The extant fragments show signs of recycling for bookbinding, perhaps to make paper pasteboard. The inner margin of ENA 3961.5 has a long series of holes spaced approximately 0.3 cm apart, revealing that it was re-sewn. The original text is well-executed: the script is consistent, the lines are ruled, and the narrow margins are neat. The text is fully pointed and vocalised by the same hand as the rasm and there are additional red diacritic signs, throughout. 20 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

(xxii) T-S Ar.42.145

Content Q. 36:1–26; Q. 37:12–64; Q. 37:121–138 Material Paper; four leaves (two bifolia); torn, holes, rubbed, stained, vertical laid lines, horizontal chain lines Dimensions & Format 21.5 × 31.6 cm; ten–eleven lines; vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī Hands Two hands, one trained and one in training Diacritic dots Full diacritic dots; two dots mark tāʾ marbūtạ Vocalisation Full modern vocalisation Ink Monochrome: black/brown

The mirrored creases of these two bifolia suggest they were re-used for bookbinding. Prior to that, the Qur’anic passages appear to be a writing exercise. Two hands composed the text, the first of which (F1) is considerably more proficient than the second (F2–F4). The former hand superscribes final letters in order to ensure the text- area’s uniformity, although no ruling is visible. The second hand frequently strays into the margins. Both hands show a slight predisposition towards the superscription of the first few letters of each word evident in taʿlīq and nastaʿlīq scripts. The leaves show no signs of binding, supporting the notion that they were part of an exercise, rather than a codex. The light-hued paper, with regular horizontal chain lines and vertical laid lines, likely post-dates the tenth/sixteenth century. The near-full inclusion of diacritical dots and modern vocalisation signs supports this assessment.

(xxiii) T-S Ar.41.84

Content Q. 1:1–7; Q. 114:1 – Q. 109:5 in reverse order; Q. 108:1 – Q. 103:3 in reverse order Material Paper; one leaf; torn, holes, slightly rubbed; slightly stained, vertical laid lines; folded horizontally at regular intervals Dimensions & Format 21.2 × 16.9 cm; twelve lines (recto); fifteen lines (verso); vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī Hands One untrained hand Diacritic dots Near-full diacritic dots; tāʾ marbūtạunmarked Vocalisation Isolated modern vocalisation Ink Monochrome: black Decoration Two or three consecutive hāʾs mark the end of a verse (verso only) A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 21

This single leaf was never bound. The light-coloured paper support, with visible vertical laid lines, is vertical format. The text was composed by an untrained hand, without a mastarạ and seemingly with scant concern for margins or textline justification. Its contents – including Q. 1 and Q. 112–114 – combined with the fact that it has been folded five times horizontally at regular intervals, suggest that it was used as a talisman.53 The uniformity of the laid lines indicates that the paper is European, in turn suggesting a post-eighth/fourteenth or ninth/fifteenth-century date.

(xxiv) T-S AS 183.76

Content Q. 67:1–11 Material Paper; one leaf;54 torn, holes, rubbed, slightly stained; wide vertical chain lines, horizontal laid lines Dimensions & Format 9.3 × 7.1 cm; ten–eleven lines; vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī, with frequent musalsal and taʿlīq features Hands One untrained hand Diacritic dots Near-full diacritic dots; tāʾ marbūtạunmarked Vocalisation Sporadic modern vocalisation Ink Monochrome: black

This single folio shows no signs of binding. Vertical chain lines and horizontal laid lines are both visible on the light-hued paper. The performance of the script suggests that it was executed by an untrained hand, without a mastarạ , and with little regard for margins or textline justification. The script shows signs of musalsal influence in the conjoining of usually independent graphemes, and taʿlīq in its tendency to raise the first letters of a word above its final letters. The passage – Sūrat al-Mulk – is one of the most commonly copied in amulets, and is often recited over the dead.55 It is likely that this fragment was produced as an independent unit, and used as a talisman or memorisation exercise. 2.5. Thirteenth/Nineteenth Century

(xxv) T-S Ar.41.93; T-S NS 192.11 a, b, c; T-S NS 306.145

Content Q. 2:19–41 Material Industrial paper; four leaves; torn, slightly rubbed, slightly stained 22 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Dimensions & Format 23.3 × 16.9 cm; nine lines with catchword; vertical format Palaeography Script type Naskhī Hands Two or three hands; main text (trained), red marginalia (likely trained), and colophon (possibly trained) Diacritic Full diacritic dots; two dots for tāʾ marbūtạ; final kāf dots marked with hamza sign Vocalisation Isolated, modern vocalisation in red ink (Ar.41.93); full modern vocalisation in black ink (NS 192.11b and c) Ink Polychrome: black (main text); red (marginalia, some vocalisation and diacritic signs, jottings on colophon); purple (stains on colophon) Decoration Six-line colophon in large triangle on NS 192.11a verso

T-S Ar.41.93 joins NS 306.145 to form a single folio which belongs to the same manuscript as NS 192.11a, b, and c. These folios are parts of two drafts of the same section of al-Baqara, with T-S Ar.41.93 and NS 192.11a representing an initial draft, and NS 192.11b and c representing a final draft. T-S NS 192.11a verso includes a colophon, written in a much messier script than the main text. It notes that this exercise was written at madrasat al-Qarabiyya, referring to one of two Cairene primary schools that operated in the last quarter of the thirteenth/nineteenth century.56 T-S Ar.41.93 recto has several marginal notes in red ink.

3. Orthography

Orthography has long occupied a central position in discussions of the Qur’an’s origins. The earliest extant Qur’an manuscripts display a consonantal rasm largely bare of the diacritical dots, vocalisation signs, and matres lectionis to which we are now accustomed. The absence of these markings – on which we so often rely for geographical, temporal, and phonetic information – has led to much debate about the relationship between Qur’anic orthography, its variant reading traditions (qirāʾāt), and the Arabic dialects.57

However, discussions of Qur’anic orthography are predominantly limited to pre-fourth/tenth-century Qur’an manuscripts. Even though later variations in A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 23

Qur’anic orthography are clearly evident,58 studies of Qur’ans from the medieval and early modern periods are more concerned with the development of palaeographic styles and changes in material production.59 Here, we begin to remedy this desideratum by diachronically examining representations of medial /ā/ (§3.1) and the glottal stop (§3.2) in the Qur’an fragments of the Cairo Genizah collections.

3.1 Orthography of Medial /ā/ 60

As Diem (and Nöldeke et al. before him) notes, the pre-Islamic Arabic script, derived as it was from the Nabataean script, had no clear means of representing medial /ā/.61 In Nabataean, alef – the graphemic cognate of Arabic alif – indicated the glottal stop reflex [ʔ](hamz), while medial /ā/ went unrepresented.62 He thus draws attention to the hij̣āzī-Arabic phenomenon of alif in words where it once expressed hamz but could be interpreted as representing medial /ā/.63

This use of alif for medial /ā/ became increasingly widespread in non-Qur’anic classical Arabic during the first three centuries of Islam, until all but a few words – such as Allāh, al-raḥmān, and demonstrative pronouns (dhālika, hādhihi, and so forth) – were usually written plene.64 Meanwhile, tajwīd scholars, such as Abū ʿAmr al-Dānī (d. 444/1053), stipulated a semi-defective orthography for the Qur’an, along similar lines to that found in the 1342/1924 Cairo edition.65

More extensive plene spelling of medial /ā/ has, however, been noted in pre-ninth-century papyri Qur’an manuscripts.66 Khan attributes this orthography to the manuscripts’ function: as aide-mémoires intended for personal use and private study. Such manuscripts would not have been subjected to the same standards as model Qur’an codices produced for recitation in a mosque.67 As yet, no study has examined the extent to which this orthographic discrepancy between model and personal-use Qur’an manuscripts continued after the fourth/tenth century. In the following sections, we examine the representation of medial /ā/ in fragments performed by both trained (§3.1.1) and untrained (§3.1.2) hands. The former category includes manuscripts which seem to be executed by scribes who had calligraphy training, while the latter includes those which do not.

3.1.1. Medial /ā/in‘Trained Hands’

The three earliest manuscripts, T-S Ar.38.8, Ar.51.74, and AS 176.492/AS 179.333 are similar in their representation of medial /ā/. In T-S Ar.38.8, medial /ā/isplene, with only one exception, sạ̄liḥ(recto, line 7). However, the vocative particle (yā, ‘O’)is consistently defective, and its yāʾ is bound to the following noun (recto line 7; verso, line 8).68 T-S AS 176.492/AS 179.333 mixes plene (e.g. al-ʿadhāb, recto, line 1) and defective (e.g. li’l-abrār, verso, line 3) spelling, as does T-S Ar.51.74, although the latter shows a strong preference for plene forms. 24 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

T-S AS 183.332 and T-S Ar.40.177, datable between the fourth/tenth and seventh/thirteenth centuries, show a similar preference for plene medial /ā/, although some defective forms do occur. For example, T-S AS 183.332 has al-kāfirīna (verso, line 6). As for T-S Ar.40.177, the scribe (or a later editor) seems to have been undecided about the orthography of matāʿ. In all three instances where it occurs, a medial alif has been rubbed out (fig. 1–3). In the final example (fig. 3), it appears the scribe began to write a medial alif and a non-ligatured final ʿayn, but the gap between the two graphemes has been closed. At some point, a scribe or editor re-inserted an alif near the preceding tāʾ, but this letter has also been erased.

Little remains of T-S NS 306.214/NS 306.232, yet from the extant text we can glean that its scribe also preferred plene spelling of medial /ā/.

Among the medieval fragments are two maghribī manuscripts: T-S Ar.38.64 and T-S AS 176.491/AS 177.638. Plene spelling of medial /ā/ is consistent in both, but T-S Ar.38.64 also regularly supplants alif maqsụ̄ra with alif taẉ īla (F2 recto, lines 1, 5, and 6) in word-final position.69

Fig. 1: T-S Ar.40.177 F2 recto, line 5

Fig. 2: T-S Ar.40.177 F2 recto, line 15

Fig. 3: T-S Ar.40.177 F2 recto, line 18 A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 25

The three late medieval manuscripts (T-S NS 183.79, T-S Ar.41.119, and T-S Ar.40.97) generally continue the previous trend, with near-ubiquitous plene spelling of medial /ā/. Exceptions occur only in specific words (see below).

The early modern manuscripts display a more varied representation of medial /ā/than the medieval and late medieval fragments. Some manuscripts revert to defective spelling, for example, JTS ENA 1177.69/ENA 1177.70, Rylands Ar.7, and (to a much lesser extent) T-S Ar.42.193. Plene spelling continues in T-S NS 327.31, JTS ENA 3961.5/ENA 3961.6, and T-S Ar.42.145.

T-S Ar.41.93/NS 192.11a-c/NS 306.145 is the one fragment that can be confidently dated to the thirteenth/nineteenth century. In this calligraphy exercise, alif often, but not always, represents medial /ā/. Defective spelling occurs in the plural noun al-malāʾika (see fig. 4), although on another leaf it appears plene with alif taẉ īla, dagger alif, and a rubricated madda (fig. 5).

Overall, the corpus reveals a diachronic increase in the plene representation of medial /ā/ in personal-use Qur’an manuscripts of all types until the (late?) early modern period, when defective spelling underwent a moderate resurgence. In two of these later manuscripts (JTS ENA 1177.69/ENA 1177.70 and Rylands Ar.7) defective spelling occurs exclusively.

The orthography of demonstrative pronouns demands some further remarks. The overwhelming tendency is towards defective spelling (see table 3). All but two of the manuscripts copied by trained hands spell demonstrative pronouns defectively, even when they otherwise display plene medial /ā/. This practice is consistent with the

Fig. 4: T-S NS 192.11a recto, line 1

Fig. 5: T-S NS 192.11b recto, line 1 26 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Classmark Plene Defective Mixed medial medial /ā/ plene and /ā/ defective 3rd/9th–4th/10th T-S Ar.38.8 ✔ centuries T-S Ar.51.74 ✔ T-S AS 176.492, ✔ AS 179.333 4th/10th–8th/14th T-S Ar.40.177 ✔ centuries T-S AS 183.332 ✔ T-S NS 306.214, ✔ —— NS 306.232 T-S Ar.38.64 ✔ —— T-S AS 176.491, ✔ —— AS 177.638 8th/14th–10th/16th T-S NS 183.79 ✔ —— centuries T-S Ar.41.119 ✔ —— 10th/16th–13th/19th T-S Ar.42.193 ✔ centuries Rylands Ar.7 — ✔ — T-S NS 327.31 ✔ —— T-S Ar.40.97 ✔ —— JTS ENA — ✔ — 1177.69, ENA 1177.70 T-S Ar.19.7 —— — JTS ENA 3961.5, ✔ —— ENA 3961.6 T-S Ar.42.145 ✔ —— 13th/19th century T-S Ar.41.93, ✔ NS 192.11a/b/c, NS 306.145 Table 2: Medial /ā/in‘trained hands’70 A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 27

Classmark Defective dem. Plene dem. Red alif in dem. Defective Defective pronouns pronouns pronouns al-raḥmān al-samawāt

3rd/9th–4th/10th T-S Ar.38.8 ✔ ———— centuries T-S Ar.51.74 ✔ ———✔

T-S AS 176.492, —— — —— AS 179.333

4th/10th–8th/14th T-S Ar.40.177 ✔ ———— centuries T-S AS 183.332 ✔ ————

T-S NS 306.214, —— — ✔ – NS 306.232

T-S Ar.38.64 ✔ ——✔ —

T-S AS 176.491, — ✔ ——— AS 177.638

8th/14th–10th/16th T-S NS 183.79 ✔ ———✔ centuries T-S Ar.41.119 ✔ ———✔

10th/16th–13th/19th T-S Ar.42.193 ✔ ——✔✔ centuries Rylands Ar.7 —— ✔ ——

T-S NS 327.31 —— — —✔

T-S Ar.40.97 ✔ ————

JTS ENA 1177.69, ✔ ——✔ — ENA 1177.70

T-S Ar.19.773 —— — ✔✔

JTS ENA 3961.5, ✔ ———✔ ENA 3961.6

T-S Ar.42.145 ✔ ——✔ —

13th/19th century T-S Ar.41.93, ✔ ———— NS 192.11a/b/c, NS 306.145

Table 3: Medial /ā/ in demonstrative pronouns, al-raḥmān, and al-samawāt for trained hands

orthography of second/eighth- and third/ninth-century papyri Qur’ans.71 The two manuscripts that do not conform to this trend are maghribī: in T-S AS 176.491/AS 177.638, medial /ā/ is written in demonstrative pronouns with alif as part of the rasm, while a rubricated vertical stroke – either an elongated dagger alif or alif taẉ īla – appears in Rylands Ar.7.

Additionally, two nouns are universally written with defective medial /ā/: al-raḥmān and al-samāwāt. Their seemingly standardised defective representation likely results from their high rates of recurrence in the Qur’an. It is worth noting, however, that alif 28 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Classmark Plene Defective Mixed medial /ā/ medial /ā/ plene and defective 4th/10th–8th/14th T-S NS 327.46 ——✔ centuries T-S Ar.38.39 ——✔ T-S AS 178.345, ——— AS 178.346 8th/14th–10th/16th T-S AS 177.582 ✔ —— centuries 10th/16th–13th/19th T-S Ar.41.84 ✔ —— centuries T-S AS 183.76 ✔ —— Table 4: Medial /ā/in‘untrained hands’

Date Classmark Defective dem. Plene dem. Defective Defective pronouns pronouns al-raḥmān al-samawāt

4th/10th–8th/14th T-S NS 327.46 ✔ — ✔ — centuries T-S Ar.38.39 ✔ ——✔

T-S AS 178.345, ———— AS 178.346

8th/14th–10th/16th T-S AS 177.582 ——✔✔ centuries

10th/16th–13th/19th T-S Ar.41.84 ——✔ — centuries T-S AS 183.76 ——✔✔

Table 5: Medial /ā/ in demonstrative pronouns, al-raḥmān and al-samawāt for untrained hands always appears in the f.pl. ending -āt of al-samāwāt. This practice contradicts the 1342/1924 Cairo edition as well as early parchment Qur’ans,72 where both alifsare .(ﭐﻟ َّﺴ ۖﻤ ۖﻮ ُﺕ ,.consistently omitted from the rasm (i.e

3.1.2 Medial /ā/in‘Untrained Hands’

T-S NS 327.46 and T-S Ar.38.39, both late medieval fragments, appear to be written in untrained hands.74 They contain mixed defective and plene spelling of medial /ā/. The two untrained early modern fragments, T-S Ar.41.48 and T-S Ar. 183.76, demonstrate a decided preference for plene spelling (see table 4). A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 29

As with the previous manuscripts, al-raḥmān is written defectively in these fragments, and al-samāwāt is written with a defective first alif and plene second alif. Only two of the untrained manuscripts – T-S NS 327.46 and T-S Ar.38.39 – contain demonstrative pronouns in their extant fragments. These are written defectively (see table 5).

These untrained hands show the same general diachronic trend towards increased plene representation of /ā/ as encountered with the trained hands. However, while some of the trained hands revert to defective spelling in the early modern period, the untrained hands do not. It should be noted that there are far fewer extant texts written in untrained hands, so this difference may not hold for a larger corpus.

3.2. Orthography of hamz

The Qur’anic rasm as it appears in the first/seventh-second/eighth centuries does not mark hamz, that is, the glottal stop. Gruendler dates the first inclusion of a symbol for hamz, be it a single dot, a semi-circle, or a miniature ʿayn (i.e., hamza), to the third/ninth century.75 Here, we examine the extent to which hamz was marked in personal-use Qur’an manuscripts from the fourth/tenth-century onwards.

3.2.1. Hamz in ‘Trained Hands’

None of the scribes of T-S Ar.38.8, Ar.51.74, and AS 183.332 appear to have marked hamz, though the latter two fragments are so badly rubbed as to be almost illegible. In instances where one would expect medial alif as a seat for hamza, no such seat is found (e.g. T-S Ar.38.8 recto, line 8; verso, line 1). T-S AS 178.345/T-S AS 178.346 is similarly difficult to read, but it does include an unpointed yāʾ seat in biʾsa (Q. 3:197; T-S AS 176.492 recto, line 1). T-S Ar.40.177 also lacks a mark for hamz, although it includes yāʾ, wāw, and alif seats. T-S NS 306.214 and NS 306.232 are vocalised using the modern system, but also show no sign for hamz.

Hamza appears in only two of the eight medieval-era manuscripts that were executed by trained hands: T-S Ar.38.64 and AS 176.491/AS 177.232. In both, hamz (a miniature ʿayn) is written in red ink along with the vocalisation signs, while the consonantal rasm and sporadic diacritical dots are in brown ink. This pattern suggests that the hamza was considered a vocalisation sign rather than part of the rasm. The more recent maghribī fragment, Rylands Ar.7, also follows this notation style.

The late medieval T-S NS 183.79 intermittently uses a small hamza sign, the size of which may indicate that it was considered ancillary to the rasm. Likewise, in T-S Ar.41.119, hamza is written like the vocalisation signs, with a thinner nib than the rasm. It is also occasionally omitted. 30 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

As for the early modern fragments, hamza rarely appears in T-S Ar. 42.193. It is omitted in word-final position, although its seat (an undotted yāʾ) and a supralinear fathạappear in medial position (F2 recto, line 7; F2 verso, line 4). When immediately following alif, yāʾ appears to represent hamza, both with (F1 recto, line 9) or without (F2 verso, line 18) two sublinear dots. Hamza appears once in initial position as a full letter, sitting on the textline and preceding an alif (F1 recto, line 11), but its frequent absence suggests that the scribe did not consider it fully part of the consonantal text. T-S Ar.40.97 displays similarly intermittent notation of hamza.

So little remains of T-S NS 327.31 that it is difficult to ascertain hamza’s treatment for certain, but it is frequently included in all positions. Its height relative to the rasm may indicate that it was still regarded as a vocalisation or diacritic sign, rather than a full letter (verso, line 1).

The use of hamza varies across the two bifolia which comprise T-S Ar.42.145 according to the two different hands. The first (more sophisticated) hand uses hamza with far greater regularity than the second hand. The first hand includes hamza in word-final position, while the second hand omits it. In word-medial positions, hamza appears above yāʾ, which acts as its seat, but with two sublinear dots, indicating medial vowel /ī/ in the second hand. In only one instance does the second hand use yāʾ as a seat for hamza without the two dots. This tendency suggests that the second copyist was not entirely familiar with hamza’s formal function.

In JTS ENA 1177.69/ENA 1177.70 and ENA 3961.5/ENA 3961.6, we witness a shift in the use of hamza in comparison to the previous fragments. These two manuscripts include hamza above wāw in word-medial position, and on the textline in word-final position. Its size in the latter position has also increased relative to the rasm.

T-S Ar.41.93/NS 192.11a-c/NS 306.145, the late nineteenth-century calligraphy exercise, also demonstrates hamza’s shift from diacritic to full letter. Although occasionally omitted, hamza is written in both the vocalised and non-vocalised leaves, suggesting that the copyist regarded it as a letter, rather than a vocalisation sign or diacritic.

Hamz follows a clear trajectory from omission to full consonantal representation between the third/tenth and fourteenth/nineteenth centuries. It develops from a symbol that acts much like a vocalisation sign – designated either by its red ink (T-S Ar.38.64, T-S AS 176.491/AS 177.638, and Rylands Ar.7) or its size and placement (T-S NS 183.79, T-S Ar.41.119, T-S Ar.42.193, T-S NS 327.31, T-S Ar.40.97, and T-S Ar.42.145) – to part of the consonantal text (JTS ENA 3961.5/ENA 3961.6, JTS ENA 1177.69/ENA 1177.70, and T-S Ar.41.93/NS 192.11a-c/NS 306.145). A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 31

Classmark Omission of Hamza as Hamza as hamza diacritic full letter sign 3rd/9th–4th/10th T-S Ar.38.8 ✔ —— centuries T-S Ar.51.74 ✔ —— T-S AS 176.492, ✔ —— AS 179.333 4th/10th–8th/14th T-S Ar.40.177 ✔ —— centuries T-S AS 183.332 ✔ —— T-S NS 306.214, ✔ —— NS 306.232 T-S Ar.38.64 — ✔ — T-S AS 176.491, — ✔ — AS 177.638 8th/14th–10th/16th T-S NS 183.79 — ✔ — centuries T-S Ar.41.119 — ✔ — 10th/16th–13th/19th T-S Ar.42.193 — ✔ — centuries Rylands Ar.7 — ✔ — T-S NS 327.31 — ✔ — T-S Ar.40.97 — ✔ — JTS ENA ——✔ 1177.69, ENA 1177.70 T-S Ar.19.7 ✔ —— JTS ENA 3961.5, ——✔ ENA 3961.6 T-S Ar.42.145 — ✔ — 13th/19th century T-S Ar.41.93, ——✔ NS 192.11a/b/c, NS 306.145 Table 6: Hamz in ‘trained hands’ 32 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Classmark Omission Hamza as Hamza as of hamza diacritic full letter sign 4th/10th–8th/14th T-S NS 327.46 ✔ —— centuries T-S Ar.38.39 ✔ —— T-S AS 178.345, —— T-S AS 178.346 ✔ 8th/14th–10th/16th T-S AS 177.582 ✔ —— centuries 10th/16th–13th/19th T-S Ar.41.84 ✔ —— centuries T-S AS 183.76 ✔ —— Table 7: Hamz in ‘untrained hands’

3.2.2. Hamz in ‘Untrained Hands’

The same diachronic trend does not occur in Qur’an manuscripts produced by untrained hands. Although they are fewer in number, hamza is absent in all such manuscripts (see table 6). This absence may indicate the colloquial dialects of the writers, in which [ʔ] was not pronounced in word-medial and word-final positions.76

4. Conclusion

We have examined the codicological, palaeographic, and orthographic features of 35 fragments from 25 personal-use Qur’an manuscripts discovered in Cairo Genizah collections, with particular attention given to diachronic developments in their representation of medial /ā/ and the glottal stop. Although few in number, their leaves reflect several shifts in orthographic practices. First, the increased plene representation of medial /ā/ continues beyond the ninth century well into the early modern era. Only towards the end of the early modern era (during the thirteenth/nineteenth century) do we begin to witness a return to a semi-defective orthography, as favoured in the 1342/1924 Cairo edition of the Qur’an. Second, the hamza sign that represents the glottal stop is largely absent in these personal-use fragments until the mid to late medieval period. Thereafter, its use increases gradually over time. In the earliest texts in which it appears, hamza seems to function as a diacritical dot or vocalisation sign, but by the thirteenth/nineteenth century, its function has shifted to that of a full letter. Third, all copies performed by untrained hands omit hamza. This pattern may be indicative of colloquial pronunciations, such as in Cairene Arabic, where [ʔ] is generally not pronounced. A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 33

Besides orthography, this corpus can provide evidence for other developments in Qur’anic writing, for example, the diacritic dots. In both trained and untrained hands, the frequency of diacritic dots increases over time, and only in the (late?) early modern period does full or near-full pointing become the standard. The two dots of tāʾ marbūtạ first appear in trained hands of the late medieval period, and they too become nearly universal by early modern times. However, even while the later untrained hands make near-full use of diacritic dots, only one of them (T-S AS 177.582) includes the dots of tāʾ marbūtạ. Further analysis of these fragments, especially in the context of contemporaneous non-Genizah manuscripts, may yield additional information on the development of diacritic dots, material supports, and script-styles in personal-use manuscripts of the Qur’an.

These findings raise questions about what may have provoked these orthographic developments, which emerged in the (late) early modern era. Are they the result of the increased regulation of writing standards and the explosion of typed texts produced by the printing press?77 Or did the increased use of vocalisation signs and diacritic dots in Qur’ans render plene spelling less important as a pronunciation aid?

A significant historical dimension to this study is the insight it grants into Jewish engagement with the Qur’an in the Islamicate world from the Fatimid era onwards. We know from previous scholarship that some Jewish Cairenes read the Qur’an in Judaeo-Arabic transcription, and a small amount of haḍīth literature is also housed in Cairo genizah collections. It has generally been assumed that these fragments’ presence in the Cairo Genizah was the result of polemical interests. Yet, the codicological examination of these fragments reveals a more complex situation. At least five of the manuscripts appear to have been used as talismans, whether written expressly with this purpose in mind or purchased as such. Four show signs of having been recycled for bookbinding, at least one is a calligraphic exercise, and the majority contain references to Biblical figures. These uses suggest that the Cairene Jewish community’s encounters with the Qur’an were not solely polemical: we must entertain the possibility of more positive, albeit popular, interactions.

ORCID iD

Nick Posegay https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1336-9520

NOTES 1 This work was made possible by the generous support of the Leverhulme Trust in the form of a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship (Connolly) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1144] (Posegay). 2 Plural genizot; from the root gnz, ‘storing up, reserving, hiding’ (Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, p. 258). 34 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

3 Although not called genizot, similar storerooms for old, but sacred texts are found in mosques and churches throughout the Middle East (Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition, pp. 12–13; James, The Master Scribes, p. 12; Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, p. 101). 4 Jefferson, ‘Deconstructing “the Cairo Genizah”’, pp. 428–429, 441–442; Hoffman and Cole, Sacred Trash, pp. 77–78. 5 The Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit has managed this work since the 1970s. For introductions to the Genizah and its history, see Reif, A Jewish Archive; Hoffman and Cole, Sacred Trash; and Jefferson, ‘Deconstructing the “Cairo Genizah”’. 6 The term ‘Judaeo-Arabic’ is used here to refer to Arabic written in Hebrew script. See Khan, ‘Judaeo-Arabic’. 7 Khan, ‘The Arabic Fragments’; Khan, Arabic Legal and Administrative Documents. 8 Baker and Polliack, Arabic and Judeo-Arabic Manuscripts, p. 614; Shivtiel and Niessen, Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts, pp. 674–675. 9 See, for example, T-S Ar.51.62. For an overview of this phenomenon, see Paudice, ‘On Three Extant Sources’. 10 Many were previously unidentified (e.g. T-S Ar.51.74; T-S AS 177.638; T-S AS 176.492/T-S AS 179.333; T-S AS 177.582; T-S AS 178.345/T-S AS 178.346; T-S AS 183.76; and T-S AS 183.332) or misidentified as non-Qur’anic (T-S Ar.38.64; T-S AS 176.491). There are likely more unidentified Qur’an fragments in the Taylor-Schechter collections, and possibly other collections. The authors of the present study also examined Arabic manuscripts of the Lewis-Gibson collection (Cambridge/Oxford), but found no Qur’an fragments among them. 11 Full list of known Arabic-script Qur’an manuscripts in Genizah collections: T-S Ar.19.7; T-S Ar.38.8; T-S Ar.38.39; T-S Ar.38.64; T-S Ar.40.97; T-S Ar.40.177; T-S Ar.41.84; T-S Ar.41.93/T-S NS 192.11a-c/T-S NS 306.145; T-S Ar.41.119; T-S Ar.42.145; T-S Ar.42.193; T-S Ar.51.74; T-S NS 183.79; T-S NS 306.214/T-S NS 306.232; T-S NS 327.31; T-S NS 327.46; T-S AS 176.491/T-S AS 177.638; T-S AS 176.492/T-S AS 179.333; T-S AS 177.582; T-S AS 178.345; T-S AS 178.346; T-S AS 183.76; T-S AS 183.332; JTS ENA 3961.5/JTS ENA 3961.6; JTS ENA 1177.69/JTS ENA 1177.70; Rylands Ar. 7. For a palaeographic survey of the fragments in the T-S Ar. collection, see Connolly and Posegay, ‘An Arabic Qurʾan’; Connolly, ‘A Maghribī-Script Qurʾān Fragment’. 12 Khan, ‘The Arabic Fragments’, p. 54. See also, Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, vol. 1. p. 14. The contents of the Cairo Genizah are thought to predominantly represent the lives of al-Fusṭāt’̣s elite. 13 See Witkam, ‘The Neglect Neglected’. 14 T-S Ar.38.8 (Noah, Q. 11:43–50), T-S Ar.38.39 (David, Q. 17:55; Adam, Q. 17:61), T-S Ar.38.64 (Moses, Pharaoh, Q. 79:15–26), T-S Ar.40.177 (Saul, Q. 2:246–247), T-S Ar.41.93, NS 306.145, NS 192.11a-c (Adam, Q. 2:29–34; children of Israel, Q. 2:40), T-S Ar.41.119 (David, Q. 17:55), T-S Ar.42.145 (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Q. 37:75–120; Elijah, Lot, Q. 37:121–137), T-S Ar.42.193 (Adam, Q. 20:115–123), T-S Ar.51.74 (Moses, Abraham, Q. 53:36–37), T-S NS 183.79 (Adam, Q. 2:31–37; children of Israel, Q. 2:40 and Q. 2:47; Moses, Pharaoh, Q. 2:49–55), T-S NS 327.31 (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Q. 42:13), T-S AS 176.491/T-S AS 177.638 (Noah, Q. 26:116–121; Lot, Q. 26:160–174 and Q. 27:54–58; Shuʿayb/Jethro, Q. 26:177–189; children of Israel, Q. 26:197 and Q. 27:76; Moses, Pharaoh, Q. 27:7–12; David, Solomon, Queen of Sheba, Q. 27:15–44; Moses, Pharaoh, Miriam, Q. 28:3– 12), T-S AS 183.332 (Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, people of Midian, Q. 22:42–44), and JTS ENA 3961.5/ENA 3961.6 (Moses, children of Israel, Q. 40:56). 15 We are grateful to Dr Andrew Marsham for alerting us to this point, and for the opportunity to present our findings at his Late Antique and Medieval Middle East work-in-progress A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 35 seminar at the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge (22 January 2020). 16 Translated verses quoted from the Sahih International Translation (2010). 17 Malczycki, ‘AQurānic Amulet on Papyrus’, p. 235; Schaefer, ‘Eleven Medieval Arabic Block Prints’. 18 There is precedent for the Jewish ownership of amulets with Qur’anic passages during the late medieval period. Schaefer notes five block-printed amulets containing Qur’anic passages in the Cairo Genizah’s T-S collections, and these specimens are similar in style and content to amulets found in non-Genizah collections. See Schaefer, ‘Eleven Medieval Arabic Block Prints’. 19 Déroche, Islamic Codicology, p. 264. 20 James, The Master Scribes; al-Sufyānī records Ibn ʿArdūn stating that leaves on which the name of God or the Prophet Muḥammad are written can only be re-used for this purpose if the pasteboard cover is intended for a Qur’an codex (see Déroche, Islamic Codicology, p. 264 n. 38). Depending on how widely bookbinders adhered to this stipulation, it would then indicate that the codices bought by Jews, in which these recycled leaves were found, were Qur’an codices. 21 See Posegay, ‘Following the Links’. 22 See Khan, ‘Medieval Karaite Transcriptions’; Khan, Karaite Bible Manuscripts, pp. 20–21. 23 Khan, ‘Medieval Karaite Transcriptions’, 4, 21, 137. See, for example, Khan’s nos 1–4 and 7–10 (plates 1–4 and 7–10). 24 Some of the later fragments, particularly T-S NS 192.11, may have been disposed of by Muslims in al-Fusṭāṭand then accidentally mixed into the Genizah store when the Ben ʿEzra Synagogue was rebuilt between 1889 and 1892. The older fragments were likely placed into the Genizah before that time. See Jefferson, ‘Deconstructing “the Cairo Genizah”’, pp. 441–443; Posegay, ‘Following the Links’. 25 The unbinding and dispersal of leaves from Qur’an codices was a common practice among Muslims throughout the Genizah period. See George, ‘Coloured Dots’,p.1. 26 See Connolly and Posegay, ‘An Arabic Qurʾān’. 27 We employ Déroche’s terminology for the palaeography of the earliest manuscripts; see Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition. For detailed palaeographic descriptions of each T-S Ar. manuscript (except T-S Ar.51.74, which we identified later), see Connolly and Posegay, ‘An Arabic Qurʾan’. 28 See Gacek, Arabic Manuscripts, pp. 1–2. 29 This period is referred to here as ‘the early modern’ period (i.e. c. 906/1500–1318/1900). Although some attempt has been made to further refine the delineation with the addition of ‘(late)’ when referring to texts that may be dated from c. 1163–1164/1750s onwards. 30 See Gacek, Arabic Manuscripts, pp. 1–2; Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, pp. 146 and 150; Witkam, ‘The Neglect Neglected’, pp. 383–538. 31 See Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition, pp. 40–41. 32 Compare the script found in Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition, pp. 130–131 n. 74, which he classes as an ‘Early Abbasid script’, but does not further define. 33 See Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition, pp. 44–47. 34 Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition, p. 37. 35 See Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition, pp. 132–182. 36 Déroche, ‘Manuscripts of the Qurʾān’. 37 See Déroche, The Abbasid Tradition, pp. 40–41. 36 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

38 For a full analysis of this fragment’s palaeography, see Connolly, ‘A Maghribī-Script Qurʾān Fragment’. 39 Q. 27:1–85 missing due to lacunae. 40 See Déroche, Islamic Codicology, pp. 266, 274. 41 Horizontal- and square-format parchment continued to see use in the Maghrib several centuries after it ceased to be used in the Eastern provinces of the Islamicate world. Examples of such codices have been dated as late as the eighth/fourteenth century (Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, p. 46). 42 See Gacek, Arabic Manuscripts, p. 263. 43 See Witkam, ‘The Neglect Neglected’; Revell, ‘The Diacritical Dots’, pp. 180–181. 44 See James, After Timur, pp. 52, 54–55. 45 See Gacek, Arabic Manuscripts, p. 19. 46 See, for example, James, After Timur, pp. 96, 98–99. 47 See, for examples, James, After Timur, pp. 58–61, 238, 240–241. See also, Witkam, ‘The Neglect Neglected’, p. 404 n. 51. 48 Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, pp. 329–336. 49 Déroche, Islamic Codicology, pp. 260–261. 50 For example: DIYR 133, F303v, (dated 636/1239); CFMM 346, F182r (664/1266); CFMM 389, F108r (693/1294), all of which are Christian Arabic literary texts (Virtual Hill Museum and Manuscript Library: https:// www.vhmmlschool.org/arabic-11-13-centuries, accessed May 21 2020). Red dots are also commonly used as dividers in Syriac manuscripts from the same period. 51 See, for example, several leaves of Ottoman-era Turkish prayer instructions (T-S Ar.39.153 and T-S NS 297.51), and the dividers in T-S NS 192.11b and c (late fourteenth/nineteenth century). Red-dot verse dividers, among other styles, were also used in haḍīth literature of the tenth/sixteenth century (Gacek, Arabic Manuscripts, p. 269). 52 The middle section of Q. 65:1 is missing. 53 Malczycki, ‘AQurānic Amulet on Papyrus’, p. 235. 54 T-S NS 306.92 was written by the same hand on the same type of paper, but appears to be a separate text. 55 Malczycki, ‘AQurānic Amulet on Papyrus’, p. 235. 56 Sami, al-Taʿlīmfī Misṛ, pp. 25, 30; Yousef, Composing Egypt, p. 55. For a full discussion of this manuscript, see Posegay, ‘Following the Links’. 57 Donner, ‘The Qur’ān in Recent Scholarship’, p. 35; see also: Nöldeke et al, The History of the Qurʾan; Jeffrey and Mendelsohn, ‘The Orthography of the Samarqand Qur’ān Codex’; Vollers, Volkssprache und Schriftsprache; Fück, Arabīya; Diem, ‘Some Glimpses’; Khan, ‘Standardisation and Variation’; Dutton, ‘An Umayyad Fragment’; Déroche, Qurʾans of the Umayyads; Déroche, ‘AQurʾanic Script from Umayyad Times’; van Putten, ‘Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text’; Durie, ‘On the Origin of Qur’ānic Arabic’. 58 Al-Azhar University’s 1342/1924 Cairo edition highlights how late orthographic variation persisted. It is based on Abū ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāz’s Mawrid al-zamān, which in turn relies heavily on al-Dānī’s Kitāb al-muqniʿ. 59 See, for examples, James, After Timur;James,The Master Scribes;Blair,Islamic Calligraphy. 60 We have chosen to use the terms alif taẉ īla to designate alif in medial and final forms and alif maqsụ̄ra to refer to the final-form dot-less yāʾ. A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 37

61 Diem, ‘Some Glimpses’; Nöldeke et al, The History of the Qurʾan, p. 403. 62 Diem, ‘Some Glimpses’, p. 256. 63 Diem, ‘Some Glimpses’, p. 258. 64 Diem, ‘Some Glimpses’, pp. 259–260. 65 Khan, ‘Standardisation and Variation’, p. 57. 66 See Khan, ‘Standardisation and Variation’. 67 Khan, ‘Standardisation and Variation’. 68 Nöldeke et al note this orthography as a ubiquitous feature of the early Uthmanic rasm. As such, its appearance may support the early (third/ninth century) dating of this fragment (Nöldeke et al, The History of the Qurʾan, p. 411). 69 The substitution of alif taẉ īla for alif maqsụ̄ra is common in so-called ‘kufic’ Qur’an manuscripts, and may be a means of representing an alternative pronunciation tradition (see Luxenberg, Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart). Nöldeke et al. note that this practice continues in maghribī scripts well after the early period of ‘kufic’ Qur’ans (The History of the Qurʾan, p. 417). 70 In tables 2–6, an en-dash (–) indicates that the listed feature or word does not occur in that manuscript. 71 Khan, ‘Standardisation and Variation’, p. 57. See also Marx, ‘Introduction’, pp. 14–38 for images of early Qur’an papyri, in which the plene spelling of medial /ā/ increases during the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries. 72 For example, Leiden Or.14.545c verso, lines 10 and 15. 73 The third late medieval manuscript (T-S AS 178.345/T-S AS 178.346) is too badly damaged to ascertain how its scribe represented medial /ā/. 74 The word al-raḥmān only occurs in this fragment in a later hand. 75 Gruendler, ‘Arabic Script’, p. 140. 76 See Watson, The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic, pp. 18–19 for a succinct summary of the realisation of the glottal stop in present-day Cairene Arabic (and other dialects). 77 The first state-sponsored Egyptian printing press was established in Būlāqin 1235/1819–1820 (Glaß, ‘Creating a Modern Standard Language’, pp. 836–837).

Bibliography Baker, Colin F., and Meira Polliack, Arabic and Judeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections: Arabic Old Series (T-S Ar.1a–54) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Blair, Sheila, Islamic Calligraphy (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006). Connolly, Magdalen M., ‘T-S Ar.38.64: A Maġribī-Script Qurʾān Fragment’, Fragment of the Month (Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit: Cambridge University Library, 2019). [https://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/departments/ taylor-schechter-genizah-research-unit/fragment-month/fotm-2019/fragment-4, accessed 9 June 2020]. Connolly, Magdalen M., and Nick Posegay, ‘“An Arabic Qurʾān, That You Might Understand”:Qurʾān Fragments in the T-S Arabic Cairo Genizah Collection’, Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 11:3 (2020), pp. 292–351. 38 Journal of Qur’anic Studies al-Dānī,Abū-ʿAmr ʿUthmānb.Saʿīd, Kitāb al-Muqniʿ fī rasm masạ̄hif̣ al-amṣārmaʿa kitāb al-naqṭ, ed. Otto Pretzl (Beirut: Orient-Institut, 2009). Déroche, François, The Abbasid Tradition: Qur’ans of the 8th to the 10th centuries AD (London: The Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1992). ——, Qurʾans of the Umayyads: A First Overview (Leiden: Brill, 2014). ——, Islamic Codicology: An Introduction to the Study of Manuscripts in Arabic Script, tr. Ayman Fuʾad Sayyid (London: al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2015). ——, ‘AQurʾanic Script from Umayyad Times: Around the Codex of Fustat’, in Alain George and Andrew Marsham (eds), Power, Patronage and Memory in Early Islam (Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 69–81. ——, art. ‘Manuscripts of the Qurʾān’,inEncyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Diem, Werner, ‘Some Glimpses at the Rise and Early Development of the Arabic Orthography’, Orientalia 45 (1976), pp. 251–261. Donner, Fred M., ‘The Qur’ān in Recent Scholarship: Challenges and Desiderata’,in Gabriel Said Reynolds (ed.), The Qur’ān in its Historical Context (London– New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 29–50. Durie, Mark, ‘On the Origin of Qur’ānic Arabic’ (draft paper, 11 November 2018). [https:// www.academia.edu/37743814/On_the_Origin_of_Qurʾānic_Arabic]. Dutton, Yasin, ‘An Umayyad Fragment of the Qur’an and its Dating’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 9:2 (2007), pp. 57–87. Fück, Johann, Arabīya: Untersuchungen zur arabischen Sprach – und Stilgeschichte (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1950). Gacek, Adam, Arabic Manuscripts: A Vademecum for Readers (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2012). George, Alain, ‘Coloured Dots and the Question of Regional Origins in Early Qur’ans (Part I)’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 17:1 (2015), pp. 1–44. ——, ‘Coloured Dots and the Question of Regional Origins in Early Qur’ans (Part II)’, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 17:2 (2015), pp. 75–102. Glaß, Dagmar, ‘Creating a Modern Standard Language from Medieval Tradition: The Nahḍa and the Arabic Academies’, in S. Weninger (ed) Semitic Languages: An International Handbook (Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2012), pp. 835–844. Goitein, S.D., A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, Vol. 1: Economic Foundations (Berkeley–London: University of California Press, 1967). Gruendler, Beatrice, art. ‘Arabic Script’,inEncyclopedia of the Qur’an. Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, ‘Arabic Scripts: 11th–13th Centuries’, VHMML School [https://www.vhmmlschool.org/arabic-11-13-centuries, accessed 9 June 2020]. A Survey of Personal-Use Qur’an Manuscripts 39

Hoffman, Adina, and Peter Cole, Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza (New York: Nextbook, Schocken, 2011). James, David, The Master Scribes: Qur’ans of the 10th to 14th Centuries AD (London: The Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1992). ——, After Timur: Qur’ans of the 15th and 16th Centuries (London: The Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1992). Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature: With an Index of Scriptural Quotations, Vol. 1. (London–New York: Luzac & Co., 1903). Jefferson, Rebecca, J.W., ‘Deconstructing “the Cairo Genizah”: A Fresh Look at Genizah Manuscript Discoveries in Cairo Before 1897’, Jewish Quarterly Review 108:4 (2018), pp. 422–448. Jeffrey, A., and I. Mendelsohn, ‘The Orthography of the Samarqand Qur’ān Codex’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 62:3 (1942), pp. 175–95. Khan, Geoffrey, ‘The Arabic Fragments in the Cambridge Genizah Collections’, Manuscripts of the Middle East 1 (1986), pp. 54–60. ——, Karaite Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). ——, ‘Standardisation and Variation in the Orthography of Hebrew Bible and Arabic Qur’ān Manuscripts’, Manuscripts of the Middle East 5 (1990–1991) (Leiden: Ter Lugt Press, 1993), pp. 53–58. ——, ‘Medieval Karaite Transcriptions of Hebrew into Arabic Script’, in Joel Kraemer (ed.), Israel Oriental Studies XII (Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 157–176. ——, Arabic Legal and Administrative Documents in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). ——, art. ‘Judaeo-Arabic’, in Kees Versteegh et al. (eds), Enyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 526–536. Luxenberg, Christoph, Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran: ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2000). Malczycki, W. Matt, ‘AQurānic Amulet on Papyrus: P.Utah.Ar.342’, in Petra M. Sijpesteijn and Alexander T. Schubert (eds), Documents and the History of the Early Islamic World (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 235–246. Marx, Michael J., ‘Introduction’, in Andreas Kaplony and Michael J. Marx (eds), Qur’an Quotations Preserved on Papyrus Documents, 7th–10th Centuries (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2019), pp. 1–41. Mehri, A.B. (ed.), The Qurʼān, with Sūrah Introductions and Appendices: Saheeh International Translation (Birmingham: Maktabah Booksellers and Publishers, 2010). 40 Journal of Qur’anic Studies

Nöldeke, Theodor, Friedrich Schwally, Gotthelf Bergsträßer, and Otto Pretzl, The History of the Qurʾān, tr. Wolfgang H. Behn (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2013). Paudice, Aleida, ‘On Three Extant Sources of the Qur’an Transcribed in Hebrew’, European Journal of Jewish Studies 2:2 (2008), pp. 213–257. Posegay, Nick, ‘Following the Links in T-S NS 192.11: A Qur’anic Exercise from a Cairene Public School’, Fragment of the Month (Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit: Cambridge University Library, 2019) [https://www.lib.cam.ac. uk/collections/departments/taylor-schechter-genizah-research-unit/fragment- month/fotm-2020/fragment, accessed 9 June 2020]. van Putten, Marijn, ‘Hamzah in the Quranic Consonantal Text’, Orientalia 87:1 (2018), pp. 93–120. Reif, Stefan, A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: The History of Cambridge University’s Genizah Collection (Richmond: Curzon, 2000). Revell, E.J., ‘The Diacritical Dots and the Development of the Arabic Alphabet’, Journal of Semitic Studies 20:2 (1975), pp. 178–190. Sami, Amin, al-Taʿlīmfī Misrf̣ī sanatay 1914 wa-1915 (Cairo: Matbạʿat al-Maʿārif, 1917). Schaefer, Karl, ‘Eleven Medieval Arabic Block Prints in the Cambridge University Library’, Arabica 48:2 (2001), pp. 210–239. Shivtiel, Avihai, and Friedrich Niessen, Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Taylor-Schechter New Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Vollers, Karl, Volkssprache und Schriftsprache im alten Arabien (Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trubner, 1906). Watson, Janet, C.E., The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic (Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). Witkam, Jan Just, ‘The Neglect Neglected: To Point or Not to Point: That is the Question’, Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 6:2–3 (2015), pp. 376–408. Yousef, Hoda A., Composing Egypt: Reading, Writing, and the Emergence of a Modern Nation 1870–1930 (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 2016).