بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم وبه نستعين وصلى الله على نبينا محمد وعلى اله واصحابه اجمعين ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين.

الحمد لله الذي علم بالقلم وعلم الانسان ما لم يعلم. أما بعد:

The Arabic script has undergone many changes and developments over the centuries. I thought that I’d summarize my research into a chronological note on how Arabic writing has reached us in its current form. I began studying the development of Arabic writing about 4 years ago due to my interest in learning to read and analyze Islamic Manuscripts. This note is just a summarized compilation of the results of my study, it’s not an academic research paper or a detailed discussion. Although I’ve chosen to focus on the views of the Muslim scholars of the past, I also studied the works of modern academic researchers, namely the Orientalists- including paleographers, anthropologists, philologists, and other academics. Their narratives are often quite different to what the ‘Ulemaa of Islaam have stated regarding the earlier pre-Islamic Arabic scripts, and I chose to avoid a detailed discussion of much of their contentious views and points on this note. The following points are my conclusions after studying both the works of the Muslims and the Orientalists, others may arrive at different conclusions or agree with one or the other in completion. With such a deep and detailed subject, I’ve really tried my best to keep it short and summarized; leaving the bulk of the research and references out.

Introduction

Writing is an ancient skill that has been taught and learned as long as mankind has existed. Allaah تعالى said in the first few verses revealed to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, from Surah Al-’Alaq (96:3-4): “اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ الَّذِي عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ” “Read! And your Lord is most Generous. The One who has taught (writing) by the pen.” This is an evidence from the Speech of Allaah تعالى that the concept of writing was taught by the Creator to mankind. Imaam Al-Qurtubi states in his Tafseer (20/120): “ الذي علم بالقلم يعني الخط والكتابة، أي علم الإنسان الخط بالقلم. وروى سعيد عن قتادة قال: القلم نعمة من الله تعالى عظيمة، لولا ذلك لم يقم دين، ولم يصلح عيش. فدل على كمال كرمه سبحانه، بأنه علم عباده ما لم يعلموا، ونقلهم من ظلمة الجهل إلى نور العلم، ونبه على فضل علم الكتابة، لما فيه من المنافع العظيمة، التي لا يحيط بها إلا هو. وما دونت العلوم، ولا قيدت الحكم، ولا ضبطت أخبار الأولين ومقالاتهم، ولا كتب الله المنزلة إلا بالكتابة، ولولا هي ما استقامت أمور الدين والدنيا.” “‘The One who has taught (writing) by the pen”, meaning: writing and script. This means that He taught mankind how to write with the pen. Sa’eed narrated from Qatadah that he said: The pen is a great blessing from Allaah. Were it not for that, then the religion would not be established and it would not be fit to live. This demonstrates the extent of His Kindness- that He taught His slaves what they did not know and took them from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge, and He pointed to the virtue of learning to write for its great benefits that cannot be encompassed except by Him. The sciences would not be compiled, nor would the rulings be captured in writing, nor would the narratives and statements of the earlier ones be accurately transcribed, nor the revelations from Allaah except by writing. Without it, the matters of the religion and the worldly life would not be established.” The ‘pen’ in this instance is any instrument used to write down language as the scholars of Tafseer implied, and not just the reed pen used to write on paper, therefore encompassing inscriptions on stones or bones. As-Suyuti (Al-Mazhar, 2/293-297) discussed the issue of whether the alphabet, particularly the Arabic letters, were revelation (توفيق) or not and mentioned that the view of Ibn Faaris was that it’s taught by Allah تعالى as revelation to the Prophets. This view would affirm that Aadam عليه السلام was the first to write, but it could be said about other Prophets after him. Ibn Faaris reasoned that the verse “علمه البيان” attests to this notion as he argues: “ فهل يكون أولُ البيان إلا علم الحروف التي يقع بها البيان ولم لا يكون الذي علم آدم الأسماء كلَّها هو الذي علمه الألف والباء والجيم والدال” “So could it not be that the start of eloquent speech is the knowledge of the letters that make up this eloquent speech? And could it not be that the One who taught Aadam all the names is the One who taught him Alif, Baa, Jeem, and Daal?” The specific language of Aadam عليه السلام cannot be stated with certainty, and that does not prevent the numerous theories to his language(s).

Western anthropologists generally agreed that the earliest known writing discovered was the work of the Sumerians of ancient Sumer in Mesopotamia (the region of ‘Iraq), which was written in Cuneiform script. The generally accepted Western theory is that Sumerian is the oldest written language, dated to roughly 3500 B.C. to 3100 B.C in Southern Mesopotamia in Ur and Kish (Cooper, 1996; Cunningham, 2013; Thomsen, 1984). Independently, Ancient Egyptians wrote with Hieroglyphics around the same time period (3500 B.C. to 3000 B.C ).

While this is the case in Western Academic study, Islamic scholarly literature tells an older story, which Western sources do not consider in their research due to the lack of physical discovery and often a disdain for the sources (AbulHaab, 2011). Imaam Al-Qurtubi explained (20/120): “وفيمن علمه بالقلم ثلاثة أقاويل: أحدها: أنه آدم عليه السلام، لأنه أول من كتب، قاله كعب الأحبار. الثاني: أنه إدريس، وهو أول من كتب. قاله الضحاك. الثالث: أنه أدخل كل من كتب بالقلم، لأنه ما علم إلا بتعليم الله سبحانه.” “There are three opinions on who was the first to be taught how to write. The first: it was Aadam عليه السلام, because he was the first to write according to Ka’ab al Ahbaar. The second: It was Idrees, and he was the first to write according to Adh-Dhahaak. The third: All of those who wrote with the pen are considered in this, because they did not know it except by learning from Allaah سبحانه [..]”

The general narrative in Islamic literature follows the view that Idrees عليه السلام was the first to write. Imaam Al-Qurtubi mentioned (11/ 117) that Idrees عليه السلام was the first to write with the pen. Shaykh Muhammad Ameen Ash-Shanqeetee cited the Hadeeth of Abi Dharr al-Ghifaaree رضي الله عنه that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “أَوَّلُ مَنْ خَطَّ بِالْقَلَمِ إِدْرِيسُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ” “The first to write with the pen was Idrees عليه السلام” (Adhwaa al Bayaan, 9/24). This Hadeeth has been reported with several chains with weak narrators. Ash-Shanqeetee notes (9/25) that there are no authentic attributions for this narration to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Ibn Katheer discusses this narration in his Tafseer (2/418) referencing the narrators from Ibn Hibban’s record and cited that Ibnul Jawzee recorded it in his Mawdhoo’aat because of Ibraaheem bin Hishaam bin Yahya Al-Ghassaani who has been spoken about by others among the People of Knowledge. Al-Albaanee mentioned this Hadeeth is severely weak (Dha’eef Mawarid adh-Dham’aan, pg 15).

Therefore, it’s safe to say that writing is an ancient concept taught to mankind by Allaah عز وجل. It cannot be conclusively stated that the first to write was Idrees عليه السلام, as some of the Mufassiroon and Mu’arikhoon have mentioned (As-Suhayli, Rawdh al Unuf 1/78 from Ibn Is-haaq, Qassas al Anbiyaa li Ibn Katheer, 1/71, and As-Saalihi in Seerah Shaamiyyah, 1/318, Ibn Qutaybah in Al-Ma’aarif 1/552) nor can it be stated that the Sumerians and/or ancient Egyptians invented writing and scripts. However, it is clear from the statements of the scholars that the skill of writing dates back to the earliest eras of mankind, whether physical discoveries have been made or not.

The ‘Arab, ‘Arabic and Writing Tradition

Much has been said about the origins of the Arabic language and its writing. The ‘Arab were not known to be writers as they maintained oral tradition. Imaam Al-Qurtubi stated in his Tafseer (20/121): “قال علماؤنا: كانت العرب أقل الخلق معرفة بالكتاب” “Our scholars have said: The Arabs had the least understanding in writing from the creation [..]”. This statement coincides with the implementation of oral traditions and memorization among the ‘Arab since the earliest times. This trait among the ‘Arab is highly problematic for Orientalists and Anthropologists since the 19th century who disregard oral traditions or speak of them with disdain. This methodology has even led some of the leading Western researchers (Orientalists) in this field to claim that the Pre-Islamic Poetry (Shi’r al-Jaahili) was a fabrication of the zealous ‘Abbaasi scholars, long after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم (AbulHaab, 2011; Retsö, 2013a)!

There are two distinct approaches one can find when researching the Arabic scripts before Islam: (1) the understanding and reports of the Arab and Muslim scholars of the past, and (2) the methodology of the Orientalists and their results, which tell a very different story than the People of Knowledge of Islaam.

The Orientalists and their views:

The Orientalists, which include the anthropologists, paleographers, and philologists approached the study based on Biblical study in the 18th and 19th centuries. Later, they adapted the names and terms from Biblical references into the development of their research. Around the late 19th and 20th centuries, many began to strongly prefer archaeological findings and their ‘scientific approach’. Not all of their approach is truly scientific as it is derived from hypotheses that have not been decisively proven based on scientific methods. Hence, you will find many assumptions within their research that is presented as factual. Most of the Orientalists, especially the 18th and 19th century ones, attempted to discredit Islamic references and targeted Islam in their writings. This became much less obvious in later studies, but the overall approach remained intact.

They have claimed that Classical Arabic (Fus-ha) is a fairly young language, developing and popularizing around a century before the birth of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم based on other different non-Arabic languages spoken in the region (AbulHab, 2011; Retsö, 2013a; Retsö, 2013b). The popular notion is that the Arabs were a small group among the people of the Middle East that arose around the 9th century B.C. and their language was not Arabic until closer to the time of the rise of Islaam (Retsö, 2013a). The only reason that these particular Orientalists accept the existence of the Arab dating to that age is the Akkadian inscriptions that mention the ‘Arab. Were it not for that discovery, they would be quick to dismiss the existence of the ‘Arab entirely at this time period. This is shown in Retsö’s argument that the Muslims revived the term ‘Arab after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The arguments of the Orientalists and their followers are frivolous, often making claims that Muslim historians and Islamic scholars did not have a proper understanding of the formation of the Arabic language or languages in general, they were biased, or simply didn’t have access to the inscriptions discovered by the 19th century archaeologists. The Orientalists differed between themselves in their approach and discussion on the Arabic language. Some differentiated their discussion of the script and the spoken language stating that Arabic is an old language and its script is a later derivative of Aramaic, while others considered the development one in the same (Abbott, 1939; AbulHab, 2011; O’Conner, 1996). The former is actually the view of many of the Islamic scholars as the written script had a different development than the language itself- but the Muslim scholars differed on where the script and language derived. Regrettably, many modern Muslim academic researchers have become afflicted with these theories and began to spread them among the Muslims leading to greater confusion as it conflicts with what the traditional Muslim scholars of the past have recorded in their books. The most difficult task within academics is to attempt to publish theories that contradict the mainstream academic view that was formulated in the 19th century and carried on until today.

The generality of the Orientalists push a narrative that the majority of the languages spoken in Arabia were not Arabic, including the language spoken by the Yemeni tribes- often considered the origin of Arabic by the Muslim scholars. This bizarre approach is based on (1) their agendas of de-Arabizing the Arabic language and its speakers, (2) their anthropological studies in linguistics and human history, and (3) their misunderstanding or false interpretations of works of Muslim scholars. This is a detailed subject, which can be dealt with at a later time. If one studies the works of these Orientalists on the Arabic language, the agenda of discrediting the Qur’an becomes very clear. This has led many to doubt the verses in the Qur’aan about its verses being clear Arabic, or stating that there is plagiarism from the other languages in the region, and many other attacks of this nature.

The arguments of the Orientalists can be broken down into two main groups: (1) The Arabic language in its entirety derived from Nabatean Aramaic or a Central Semitic/Northern Arabian; and (2) The Arabic script developed from Nabatean script (an Aramaic -based script/language), but the language derived from a Northern Arabian or a Central Semitic language much earlier than its script. Without extending much time in this subject, both arguments claim that Norther and Southern Arabian languages are decisively not Arabic (MacDonald, 2000, 2009, 2010). This is because many of these Orientalists consider Fus-ha (classical Arabic) as the father of modern Arabic, which was the language of Quraysh. They vehemently deny that the languages of Yemen, such as Himyari or Saba’i, are Arabic languages. They become viscously defensive and aggressive over any claims that assert the Arabic origins in Yemeni ‘languages’. This can be seen in their verbal attacks on the scholars of the Salaf who made these statements (such as accusations of ignorance and bias). However, stating that Fus-ha was the language of the Quraysh and not the rest of the inhabitants of the Peninsula is contradictory to the Qur’an. Badawi (1995) noted that were Fus-ha the language of the Quraysh, Allaah would have stated that the Qur’an was revealed in Qurashi and not Arabic.

In this note, I don’t want to delve into refuting the Orientalists, as the objective of this note is to provide a summarized – yet comprehensive- background into Arabic scripts used by the Muslims in the Manuscripts. The short answer is that the Arabs themselves were far more knowledgeable about their own language and cultures than the Orientalists who wrote about them in disdain of their roots. This is a topic for another day, one that has been tackled by Ulemaa like Shaykh Rabee’ bin Haadi, Shaykh Al-Albaanee as well as many researchers and writers like Dr.Edward Said (1978), Sa’ad AbulHab (2011), Dr.Muhammad Al Julaynid, and others.

The Muslim Scholars of the Past:

As-Suyuti cites Ibn Faaris saying that the narrations regarding the first to write Arabic are numerous and differ (Al-Mazhar 2/293). It’s been reported that the first to write Arabic and Syriac was Aadam عليه السلام and after the flood, the first to revive its writing was Isma’eel عليه السلام. The statement of Ibn ‘Abbaas reported from ‘Ikrimah notes that Ismaa’eel عليه السلام was the first to write and speak Arabic and the letters were joined and later separated by his sons Hamyasa’ and Qaydhar. Ibn Katheer in his Bidaayah (1/192) emphasizes: وإنه أول من تكلم بالعربية الفصيحة البليغة وكان قد تعلمها من العرب العاربة “And he (Isma’eel) was the first who spoke with eloquent Fus-ha Arabic, and he learned it from the ‘Arab al ‘Aariba [..]“. This Jurhum was Jurhum bin Qahtaan (Tarikh at-Tabari 1/256), not Jurhum from Al ‘Arab al Badi’ah who lived in Makkah during the time of ‘Aad and Thamud whom were all completely destroyed. Jurhum bin Qahtan was the brother of Ya’rab bin Qahtan (‘Umdatul Qari of Al ‘Ayni 12/297). As-Suyuti cites Ibn ‘Abbaas by way of ‘Ataa that he said: “كَانَ هود أول من تكلم بالعربيه ” “Hud was the first to speak Arabic” (Ad-Durr al Manthoor, 3/484).

Therefore, we can understand that the language of Arabic was of two general types based on the writings of the Salaf: (1) Fus-ha, classical Arabic spoken first by Isma’eel عليه السلام, which our Arabic with all its modern dialects derive from, and (2) Old Arabic, which is the language of Yemen with all its variations, which was spoken first by either Hud عليه السلام (Al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah, 1/121) or Ya’rab bin Qahtan (Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 1/283), Jurhum al Oula and ‘Imleeq bin lawidh (Tarikh at-Tabari, 1/207) [Note: Others have been cited as being the first to speak Arabic, but I’ve only mentioned the most oft-reported]. Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaanee and others explained that stating Ismaa’eel عليه السلام is the first to speak Arabic as a new language is weak because of the narration that he learned Arabic from Jurhum (Fathul-Baari (6/403); Irshaad as Saari of Al-Qastalaani (5/355); ‘Umdatul Qaari (15/258); Rawdh al Unuf lis Suhayli (1/40)). Al-Mas’oodi mentioned in his Akhbaar az-Zaman (pg. 102) that Ya’rab bin Qahtaan was the first to speak Arabic when previously their language was Syriac. Likwise, this would be weak if the lineage of Qahtan comes after Hud عليه السلام. Al-Musta’sami in his Durrar (1/84) mentioned that Iram bin Sam was the first to speak Arabic after the great flood when the languages began to formulate in Babylon. As-Suyuti also discussed the issue of the alphabets (ابجد هوز حطي كلمن سعفص قرشيات) and the narrative around how they came to be used based on names of individuals, with some like Ash-Sharqi bin Al-Qatami stating that they were names of Murami bin Murrah’s children, and others stating that they were names of Arab kings and many other theories (Al-Mazhar, 2/296-298). However, the most oft-repeated is Hud and Isma’eel عليهم السلام.

As a side-note: A number of brothers have cited a statement from Dawud Adib that there is a scholarly opinion that Arabic came from Ethiopia (Habasha), but I have not come across a single statement from any of the Salaf or modern-day scholars, or even the Orientalists, making that statement. I have yet to find any scholarly reference for Arabic being a derivative of any of the Ethiopian languages. In fact, the popular Orientalist theme is that the Ethiopian languages derived from Southern Arabian and not vice versa.ِ The Orientalists further state that there is evidence that Saba’ extended its influence into Habasha (Ethiopia) in terms of its script and Saba’ic Musnad inscriptions were found in Ethiopia that prove this claim and the appearance of Ge’ez and Amharic clearly show an influence of the Yemeni Saba’ian script (O’Connor, 1996). As far as the Muslim scholars, I have yet to come across a statement asserting that Arabic derived from the Ethiopian languages, but rather the influence of Saba’ in Ethiopia long before the Ethiopian armies invaded Yemen before the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Ibn Qutaybah mentions the Kings of Yemen in his Al-Ma’aarif (1/625-630). The Yemeni kings began with Qahtan, who all of Yemen is ascribed to ( Subh Al-A’shaa Fi Sinaa’ah al Inshaa, 1/367-369). His son, Ya’rab succeeded him and subsequently Yashjab succeeded Ya’rab. It was Yashjab who had a son named Saba’, the King of Yemen whose name became synonymous with the region. The first son of Saba’ to rule Yemen was Himyar. The reign of Yemen was strong such that they were not attacked by others until Al-Haarith expanded the Kingdom generations after Himyar. This continued with Ar-Raa’ish, who further spread the dominion of Saba’. His son, Abrahah bin Ar-Raa’ish began further expansion, leading to his son, Ifriqees (or Ifriqeesh) bin Abrahah bin Ar-Raa’ish expanded into the West, the land of the Berber until he reached Tangier. Ibn Qutaybah (1/628) notes that Africa attained this name because of the conquest and dominion of Ifriqees. Bilqees, the daughter of Hadaad bin Sharhabeel bin ‘Amr bin Ar-Raa’ish eventually ruled Saba’. The books of Arabic history mentioned different lineages of Bilqees, but all return to Saba’. However, I have not yet come across any mention of the dominion of Habasha over Yemen in this time period until Abrahah Al Ashram (Al-Ma’aarif, 1/638), nor have I found Ahl Al-Ansaab ascribing Bilqees to Habasha as some of the Ahbaash have mentioned in some Christian and Jewish books. Ibn Atheer (Al-Kaamil, 1/385) mentioned that there was a period of 70 years where the Ethiopians ruled Yemen until they were fought out in the time of Khosrow the First (Anusharwan) of the Sassanid Empire in the 6th Century C.E.

The last King of Himyar in Yemen was Dhu Nawwaas, the one who killed the Christian people of Ukhdud in Najran (As-Salihi, Subul Al Huda wa Ar-Rashad, 1/214). Dhu Tha’laban survived the onslaught and went to Caesar in Rome and informed him of what Dhu Nawwaas did. Caesar wrote to An-Najashi, who was the Christian ruler of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) as he was closest to Yemen. An-Najashi sent two princes, Aryaat and Abrahah bin As-Sabaah Aba Yaksoom and they destroyed the armies of Dhu Nawwaas, who drowned in the sea. Abrahah challenged Aryaat to a duel for rulership of Yemen and was injured. Abrahah’s slave killed Aryaat to defend his master and thereafter Yemen was ruled by Abrahah, the Ethiopian (Subul al-Huda wa Ar-Rashad, 1/214-215).

The Arabic Script before the time of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم:

Note that this discussion is on the script and not the language itself (another topic altogether). The Orientalists argued that the Arabic script derived solely from the Nabatean script, which is an Aramaic script. Their arguments are solely based on comparison of the letter shapes of Nabatean inscriptions (such as the Al-Namara inscription) with the early script of the Quraysh, Al-Jazm. Muslim scholars of the past argued that the script was developed based on cursive Musnad, but it is clear that the Nabatean script had an influence on its development (Afa & Maghrawi, 2007). The problem is that the Western anthropologists inflated the influence of the Nabateans in the region and considered them the forefathers of the Arabic script. Some took this to the point of stating that the language itself derived by way of the Nabateans.

However, the Arabs did not consider the Nabateans to be completely Arab, so how could they take their language from them? They were referred to as Ajam (non-Arabs), because they did not know their lineages or that they mixed with others. I believe this is an important point because of the narratives spread by the Orientalists regarding the Nabatean influence in the Arabian Peninsula. Ibn Al-Athir mentioned in his Al-Lubab (3/295): “ الأنباط قوم من الْعَجم ” “The Nabateans are a people from the ‘Ajam”. An-Nawawi stated that they were farmers of the Ajam (Sharh Saheeh Muslim, 16/167). Al-Jawhari stated, as cited by ‘Adheema Badi in Al Awn Al Ma’bood (9/351): “ وأصلهم قوم من العرب دخلوا في العجم واختلطت أنسابهم وفسدت ألسنتهم ” “Their origins are a people from the ‘Arab that entered upon the ‘Ajam and mixed their lineage and corrupted their language”. Based on this, and many more references from the Salaf, it is clear that the Nabateans could not have influenced the core language of the ‘Arab or changed their language completely as some Orientalists claim.

This is regarding the language in general: spoken, grammar, etc. What about the script? The Orientalists at this point don’t consider the Yemeni script Arabic, nor do they consider the Southern Arabian languages to be Arabic. The Nabateans had also spoken Arabic, as some were of mixed Arab lineage. This is abundantly clear, but the total disregard of the Orientalists of the role of Yemen is in complete contradiction to the overwhelming opinion of the Arab themselves, with the Salaf in the forefront.

The Musnad scripts of Yemeni Arabic

To understand this more, we must understand what script the ‘Arab used. The old Arabic script of the Yemeni tribes of Thamud, Saba’, Himyar, and others were written in Musnad. The origin of Musnad has a few opinions, with the Orientalists arguing that it either came from a Proto-Sinaic script or Canaanite script to Southern Arabia (Yemen) and then spread back upwards to the North (O’Connor, 1996). These theories are not based on historical references, but are built off of their other theories of migration. Among the Arabs, there were other theories based on oral traditions (Al-Ya’rabi, 2013). For instance, As-Suyuti narrates in Al-Mazhar (2/299) from Al-Khateeb who narrated with the chain of narration that Ibn ‘Abbaas was asked about where the Quraysh took the Arabic script before Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was granted Prophethood. After describing the chain of Jazm script to the people of Al-Heerah, he mentions: “ من طارئ طرأ عليهم من اليمن من كندة. قال: فممن أخذه ذلك الطارئ؟ قال: الخفلجان بن الوهم كاتب الوحي لهود, عليه السلام” “From a traveler to brought it to them from Yemen to Kindah. He asked: And where did that traveler take it from? He replied: From Al-Khaflajaan bin Al-Wahm, the scribe of the revelation to Hud عليه السلام.” This theory argues that the first Arab, Yemeni tribe of ‘Aad wrote in Arabic script, and of course had spoken Arabic (Ad-Durr al Manthoor, 3/484). Several other theories were discussed by Dr. Jawad ‘Ali in his ‘al-Mufassal fi Tarikh al ‘Arab Qabl al Islam’.

Ibn Khaldoun stated in his Tarikh (1/526): “وكان لحمير كتابة تسمّى المسند حروفها منفصلة وكانوا يمنعون من تعلّمها إلّا بإذنهم. ومن حمير تعلّمت مضر الكتابة العربيّة إلّا أنّهم لم يكونوا مجيدين لها شأن الصّنائع ” “Himyar had a script known as Al-Musnad, its letters were isolated. They used to prevent people from learning it except by their permission. Mudhar learned how to write in Arabic from Himyar, except that they weren’t good at it was the case with their crafts.” One passage from Ibn Khaldun (1/730) that seems to be troublesome for the Orientalists uses the term “لغة” or language when speaking about Old Yemen and what they spoke. It is known in Arabic that the term لغة, or language, and لسان tongue are used to refer to different dialects within a language. It’s because of this we find some Orientalists fighting to claim that the language of Yemen was a completely different language than Arabic and is not considered Arabic.

Himyar, where the term “Himyari” comes from, was the son of Saba’, where the term “Saba’ic” comes from. The tribes of Yemen, closely related, did not speak drastically different languages. Rather, it is more likely that these were dialects, matching the use of the term “language” or “tongues” to describe their dialects (AbulHab, 2011). The root language is one in the same: Arabic. Kinda and other tribes had taken the Musnad script from Southern Arabia to the North with modifications. These modifications can be seen when comparing the scripts of Northern and Southern Arabia. In fact, some researchers theorized that Aramaic and Syriac scripts may have derived from these Musnad scripts rather than Phoenician (AbulHab, 2011). Refer to my note on the translation of Al-Qalqashendi’s breakdown of the Arab, their types, and origins and movements around the Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

There was not a single standard of Musnad, with the different tribes and regions having nuances to the script (AbulHab, 2011; Al-Ya’rabi, 2013). For instance, the Lihyani script has three sub-types with the oldest of its era being the Daydani Kingdom that ruled in the Hijr region (where Thamud lived) and its oldest script is dated to 2000 B.C.. The Lihyani script continued until the Nabateans populated the region of Hijr around 108 CE. The tribe of Thamud, who lived in Hijr and were its original inhabitants do not leave behind inscriptions of that era, which has led some Orientalists to cast doubts upon the Qur’an in relation to Thamud with inscriptions dating to 30 B.C.! The Safa’ic script is found as far up as Southern Syria, while the furthest South is the Saba’ic and Hadhramic scripts. Musnad inscriptions dating to around 325 B.C. were discovered in Ethiopia (Habash) from the Saba’ian Kingdoms and the Uksum Kingdom.

Ibn Khaldun said: “ ثمّ الكتابة مختلفة باصطلاحات البشر في رسومها وأشكالها، ويسمّى ذلك قلما وخطّا. فمنها الخطّ الحميريّ، ويسمّى المسند، وهو كتابة حمير وأهل اليمن الأقدمين، وهو يخالف كتابة العرب المتأخّرين من مضر، كما يخالف لغتهم. وإنّ الكلّ عربيّا. إلّا أنّ ملكة هؤلاء في اللّسان والعبارة غير ملكة أولئك. ولكلّ منهما قوانين كلّيّة مستقرأة من عبارتهم غير قوانين الآخرين. وربّما يغلط في ذلك من لا يعرف ملكات العبارة. ومنها الخطّ السّريانيّ، وهو كتابة النّبط والكلدانيّين. وربّما يزعم بعض أهل الجهل أنّه الخطّ الطبيعيّ لقدمه فإنّهم كانوا أقدم الأمم، وهذا وهم، ومذهب عامّي. لأنّ الأفعال الاختياريّة كلّها ليس شيء منها بالطبع، وإنّما هو يستمرّ بالقدم والمران حتّى يصير ملكة راسخة، فيظنّها المشاهد طبيعيّة كما هو رأي كثير من البلداء في اللّغة العربيّة، فيقولون: العرب كانت تعرب بالطبع وتنطق بالطبع، وهذا وهم” “Writing of mankind differs based on its shapes and forms, and that is known as pens and scripts. From them is the Himyari Script, which is known as Al-Musnad. It is the writing of Himyar and the ancient people of Yemen. It differs from the writing of the later Arabs from Mudhar, just as their language differs- even though it is all Arabic. Except that their habits regarding their linguistic usage and expressions is different from the other. Each of them has rules that govern their expressions that differ from the others. Perhaps one my err in that if they don’t know the normal expressions. There is also the Syriac script, and it’s the writing of the Nabateans and the Chaldeans. Some ignorant people claim that it’s the natural script because of its antiquity, since they were from the oldest of peoples and this is a delusion and an uneducated view as the actions resulting from one’s choice are not dictated by nature. Instead, it was used for such a long time that it became a norm leading the observer to think that it is a natural inclination. Likewise, this is a view some simpletons hold about the Arabic language. They say that the Arabs are naturally Arabs and speak (Arabic) naturally, and this is a delusion.”

The Musnad script was closely protected by the people of Yemen, not being taught to the laymen. Imaam adh-Dhahabee mentioned in his Tarikh (28/330): “ قال: وكان لحمير كتابة تسمى المسند، وحروفها متصلة. وكانوا يمنعون العامة تعلمها. فلما جاء الإسلام لم يكن بجميع اليمن من يقرأ ويكتب.قلت: وهذا فيه نظر، فإن اليمن كان بها خلق من أهل الكتاب يكتبون بالقلم بالعبراني.إلى أن قال: فجميع كتابات الأمم اثنا عشر كتابة وهي العربية، والحميرية، واليونانية، والفارسية، والسريانية، والعبرانية، والرومية، والقبطية، والبربرية، والأندلسية، والهندية، والصينية. فخمس منها ذهبت: الحميرية، واليونانية، والقبطية، والبربرية، والأندلسية.وثلاث لا تعرف ببلاد الإسلام: الصينية، والرومية، والهندية.” “(Ibn Khalikaan) said: Himyar had their own writing known as Al-Musnad and its letters were connected. They used to prevent the laymen from learning it. When Islaam came, there was no one in Yemen who could read or write. I say: this is contentious, for Yemen has a group of people from the People of the Book who can write in Hebrew script. Until he (Ibn Khalikaan) said: All the scripts of the nations are 12 types: Arabic, Himyari, Greek, Persian, Syriac, Hebrew, Roman, Coptic, Berber, Andalusian, Indian, Chinese. Five of them have gone extinct: Himyari, Greek, Coptic, Berber, and Andalusian. Three are not known in the lands of Islaam: Chinese, Roman, Indian.” Ibn Katheer repeated this narrative in his Bidaayah (15/595).

Al-Hamadani and Al-Nadim had seen the Musnad inscriptions on walls and other surfaces and were able to read them. This refutes the notion that some people have that the Muslim scholars did not know about these scripts and therefore could not have known their history or derivations. Al-Hamadani sketched out the Musnad script in his Al-Iklil as early as the 4th century Hijri (he died in 334H). There have been discoveries in Najran and other areas in the Peninsula that demonstrate the ability of the Arabs to continue using Musnad even after the advent of Kufic/Abbasid script (Al-Said, 2004). This proves the use of Musnad as an Arabic script until at least the 3rd century Hijri.

The Musnad inscriptions were used until the dominance of Jazm and its spread. Examples can be seen in Yemen discussing events such as the battle that took place with Abrahah of Yemen (the Christian Ethiopian King of Yemen just before the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم).

Because Himyar did not teach writing to others, it became necessary for another Arabic script to emerge. This is where the Orientalists differ, as they say that the forefather of the modern Arabic script, known as Jazm, derived purely from Nabatean and not Musnad. Their reasoning is solely based on the visual similarities between the two scripts since Musnad is isolated and not connected. However, there is evidence of a cursive, connected Musand script. It appears to me that the Jazm script took from both the Nabatean and cursive Musnad script. It must be noted that even the Academic Western research is incomplete and not conclusive. There are hundreds of unstudied Musnad inscriptions that can give more insight into the script and its development. The argument of derivation cannot solely be made on a handful of inscriptions. It should be noted that the Musnad script traveled to the North of the Arabian Peninsula as far up as Sham. As it is well-known that the Yemeni tribes migrated northward, such that Ghassan established itself in Sham. The Smithsonian Natural History Museum indicates that other scripts like Aramaic derived from the Northern Musnad scripts. Regrettably, they follow the Orientalist narrative of considering Musnad a separate non-Arabic script.

The Arabic Jazm script and the Quraysh

The Arabic script that was used by the early Muslims during the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was known as Jazm. The alphabet we use today is Jazm script. Ibn Mandhoor mentioned from Al-Jawhari: “ الجوهري: والعرب تسمي خطنا هذا جزما” “The ‘Arab call our script Jazm” (Lisaanul ‘Arab, 12/97). Muramir bin Murrah at-Taa’iee ( مُرَامِرُ بْنُ مُرَّةَ) is credited with being the first to write in the Jazm script. Three others from Tay’i are also considered among the first who scripted Jazm: Salamah bin Hazrah (سَلَمَةُ بْنُ حَزْرَةَ), ‘Aamir bin Hadrah (عَامِرُ بْنُ حَدْرَةَ), and Aslam bin Sidrah (وَأَسْلَمُ بْنُ سِدْرَةَ). Az-Zirkili mentioned (Al-I’laam 7/200) that it’s said that Aslam bin Sidrah converted Musnad to Jazm. Jazm originated in Tai’y (طَيِّئٍ) in the ‘Asir region of modern Saudi Arabia who were from Bulaan (بُولَانَ ) from the people of Anbaar (الأنبار) in Iraq.

It is famously reported that Bishr (or Bushr in some reports) bin ‘AbdulMalik Al-Kindi ( بِشْرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ الْكِنْدِيُّ ), the brother of Ukaydar (أُكَيْدِرُ ) from Dumah Al-Jadal (دومة الجدل), learned it from the people of Anbaar and brought it to Makkah after marrying As-Sahbaa bint Harb (الصَّهْبَاءَ بِنْتَ حَرْبٍ). He was close to Harb bin Umayyah ( حَرْبِ بْنِ أُمَيَّةَ). He taught it the script to Sufyaan bin Harb ( سُفْيَانَ بْنَ حَرْبٍ) and this is how the Quraysh learned how to write in Jazm. Adh-Dhahabi reported in his Taarikhul Islaam (28/330) from Ibn Khalikaan: روى ابن الكلبي والهيثم بن عدي أن الناقل للكتابة العربية من الحيرة إلى الحجاز حرب بن أمية، فقيل لأبي سفيان: ممن أخذ أبوك الكتابة؟ فقال: من ابن سدرة. وأخبره أنه أخذها من واضعها مرامر بن مرة. “Ibn al-Kalbi and Al-Haytham bin ‘Adiyy narrated that the one who transmitted the Arabic handwriting from Al-Heirah to Al-Hijaaz was Harb bin Umayyah. It was said to Abi Sufyaan: where did your father learn writing? He replied: from Ibn Sidrah. He informed him that he had taken it from the one who placed it, Muraamir bin Murrah.” Ibn Katheer in his Bidaayah wan Nihaayah (15/595) noted that Ibn Khalikaan mentioned that the first to write in Arabic was Ismaa’eel عليه السلام, but the first to bring the Arabic writing to the Quraysh was Harb bin Umayyah bin Abdushams who took it from Aslam bin Sidrah. Ibn Abi Dawud narrates in his Masahif (pg 46 to 47): “ حَدَّثَنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الزُّهْرِيُّ، إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ مُجَالِدٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ قَالَ: ” سَأَلْتُ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ مِنْ أَيْنَ تَعَلَّمْتُمُ الْكِتَابَةَ؟ قَالُوا: مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحِيرَةِ وَسَأَلْنَا أَهْلَ الْحِيرَةِ مِنْ أَيْنَ تَعَلَّمْتُمُ الْكِتَابَةَ؟ قَالُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْأَنْبَارِ ” “‘Abdullah narrated to us that ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad Az-Zuhri narrated to us, by the Will of Allah, that Sufyaan narrated to us from Mujaalid from Ash-Sha’bi saying: I asked the Muhajireen about where they learned to write. They said: from the people of Al-Heerah, and we asked the people of al-Heerah where they learned to write, and they said from the people of Al-Anbaar.”

Al-Baladhari stated in Futuh al Buldan (pg. 453): “ حدثني عَبَّاس بْن هِشَام بْن مُحَمَّد السائب الكلبي عن أبيه عن جده وعن الشرقي بن القطامي، قَالَ: اجتمع ثلاثة نفر من طيء ببقة، وهم مرامر بْن مرة وأسلم بْن سدرة، وعامر بْن جدرة فوضعوا الحظ وقاسوا هجاء العربية عَلَى هجاء السريانية، فتعلمه منهم قوم من أهل الأنبار، ثُمَّ تعلمه أهل الحيرة من أهل الأنبار، وكان بشر بْن عَبْد الملك أخو أكيدر بْن عَبْد الملك بْن عَبْد الجن الكندي ثُمَّ السكوني صاحب دومة الجندل يأتي الحيرة فيقيم بها الحين، وكان نصرانيا فتعلم بشر الخط العربي من أهل الحيرة، ثُمَّ أتى مكة في بعض شأنه فرآه سُفْيَان بْن أمية بْن عَبْد شمس، وأبو قيس بْن عَبْد مناف بْن زهرة بْن كلاب يكتب فسألاه أن يعلمهما الخط فعلمهما الهجاء، ثُمَّ أراهما الخط، فكتبا، ثم ان بشرا وسُفْيَان وأبا قيس أتوا الطائف في تجارة فصحبهم غيلان بْن سلمة الثقفي فتعلم الخط منهم وفارقهم بشر ومضى إِلَى ديار مضر، فتعلم الخط منه عَمْرو بْن زرارة ابن عدس فسمى عَمْرو الكاتب، ثُمَّ أتى بشر الشام فتعلم الخط منه ناس هناك وتعلم الخط منَ الثلاثة الطائيين أيضا رجل من طابخة كلب فعلمه رجلا من أهل وادي القرى فأتى الوادي يتردد فأقام بها وعلم الخط قوما من أهلها.” “‘Abbaas bin Hishaam bin Muhammad as-Saa’ib al-Kalbi narrated to me from his father from his grandfather and from Ash-Sharqee bin Al-Qitaami saying: Three people from Tay’ gathered together and they were: Muramir bin Murrah, Aslam bin Sidrah, and ‘Aamir bin Jadrah (or Hadrah in some reports) and they invented the script and they scaled the Arabic letters according to the letters of Syriac. The people of Anbaar learned it from them and then the people of Heerah learned it from the people of Anbaar. Bishr (or Bushr in some reports) bin ‘Abd Al Malik, the brother of Ukaydaar bin ‘Abdul Malik bin ‘Abdul Jinn Al-Kindi- the military leader of Dawmah al Jandal (capitol of Kinda) came to Heerah and stayed there for some time. Bishr was a Christian and had learned the Arabic script from the people of Heerah. He then went to Makkah for some matters. Sufyan bin Umayyah bin ‘Abd Ash-Shams (some reports mention Harb bin Umayyah) and Abu Qays bin ‘Abd Manaf bin Zahra bin Kilaab saw him writing and asked him to teach them, so he taught them the letters. He showed them the letters and they wrote. Bishr, Sufyan, and Aba Qays went to Ta’if for trade and Ghaylaan bin Salamah ath-Thaqafee accompanied them and learned the script from them. Bishr separated from them to go to the lands of Mudhar where ‘Amr bin Zararah bin ‘Adas learned the script from him and was known as Amr the scribe. Bishr had then gone to Shaam (the Levant) and taught the people there the script. A man from Tabikha Kalb learned the script from the three Taa’iee’s and a man from the inhabitents of Wadi Al Qura had learned it and then gone to the Wadi where it was established and taught to its people.”

When comparing the scripts together, it’s clear that the Jazm script has closer visual similarities to Nabatean, but it’s also clear that there are some vast differences that show the script itself did not solely derive from Nabatean as the Orientalists claim. From my research, it appears that both the closely guarded Arabic Musnad, specifically the connected form, and the Nabatean merchants had an influence in the formation of Jazm. Ibn Khaldoun asserted that the Jazm script derived from the Musnad script of Himyar. The Nabatean script clearly had influence on the Jazm Arabic script (Al-Ya’rabi, 2013). One argument that many who deny the connection of Musnad to Jazm make is the difference in connection and isolation (munfassil or mutassil), but it’s clear based on the existence of Mutassil Musnad, that Musnad played a strong role in the development of Jazm. It is also clear that elements of Nabatean, such as being solely written from right to left, had an influence on Jazm; whereas Musnad was bi-directional. Sultan Al-Maqtari proposes that the Jazm script derived from the Himyari Musnad scripts and later into the scripts of Hijaz during Islaam, while concurrently the scripts of Al-Heerah and Al-Anbaar derived from Nabatean and later turned into Kufic scripts parallel to the scripts of Hijaz (Al-Ya’rabi, 2013). This theory does not complement any of the evidence found in the writings of the Salaf and even those of Orientalist Paleographers of Islamic-era scripts.

In my opinion, the Nabatean Aramaic script had a definite influence on the development of Arabic Jazm, but I also believe that Musnad played a strong role as the scholars mentioned. The Muslim scholars put forth the theory that the Jazm script was derived from Musnad (Dhanun, 1998). Ibn Mandhoor cited Abi Haatim saying: “سمي جزما لأنه جزم عن المسند، وهو خط حمير في أيام ملكهم، أي قطع.” “It’s known as Jazm because it was cut from Musnad, and that was the script of Himyar during their rule, meaning to cut” (Lisaanul ‘Arab, 12/97). This was the position of Ibn Durayd (Jamharah Al-Lugha 2/104), Ibn Jinni (Sirr Sina’ah Al-I’raab, 1/45) (referenced by Al-Hamad, 1982), Az-Zamakhshari (Al-Faa’iq fi Gharib al Hadith, 1/212), Ibn Seedah (Al-Muhkam, 7/302), and Az-Zubaydi (Taj al ‘Uroos, 31/403). However, due to Himyar’s guarding of the Musnad script, it’s likely the reason that the other ‘Arab tribes and the Layman among the Yemenis looked to other scripts like the Nabatean traders who used the Aramaic script. Al-Hamad (1982) noted that others like Al-Jawhari signaled the obvious differences in the script (As-Sihaah 1/487) and Al-Hamad (1982) noted that some narrations mention that the Jazm script was measured against the Syriac script by Muraamir at Taa’i. Therefore, it’s safe to say that the Arabic Jazm script, was influenced by the Arabic cursive Musnad of Himyar and the Nabatean Aramaic script, but was not a sole derivative of one or the other and comes from a decisively Arabic language- not a recent Aramaic derivate.

The Early Islamic Era and its scripts (7th to 12th Century/1st to 6th Hijri)

The earliest script that was used in the 7th to 9th century (1st to 3rd century Hijri) originated in the Hijaz, logically to where the Islamic empire began to spread. The Orientalist Paleography, Francois Deroche (1992), noted that the commonly used term “kufic” was applied to all early Islamic scripts in the first two centuries by the 18th/19th century Orientalist, Jacob Georg Christian Adler who took the word from Al-Fayruzabadi and Ibn Khalliqaan. Applying the term “Kufic” to all scripts of the early Islamic period is problematic. Firstly, the script did not originate in Kufah. Deroche (1992) specified that Adler’s approach had only been applied to 5 fragments of the Copenhagen Qur’an collection. Secondly, the term ‘Kufic’ blankets a term on scripts that are obviously different for the first two to three centuries of Islamic manuscripts. Only after Al-Nadim’s Fihrisit was published did the knowledge of different styles of the early Islamic period become known, although it did not lead to proper categorization of the scripts by the Western Orientalists. Sicilian Orientalist, Michele Amari attempted to refine Adler’s classification after gaining access to the collection at Bibliotheque Nationale Paris (BNP) and had identified the Makkan script apart from Kufic (Deroche, 1992). Al-Nadim can be accredited as the reason the term “Hijazi” manifested as the earliest script of the Islamic period based on its transition from Jazm. He stated in Fihrisit (pg.16): “قال محمد بن إسحاق فأول الخطوط العربية الخط المكي وبعده المدني ثم البصري ثم الكوفي فأما المكي والمدني ففي ألفاته تعويج إلى يمنة اليد وأعلا الأصابع وفي شكله انضجاع يسير وهذا مثاله.” “Muhammad ibn Is-haaq said: the first Arabic script was the Makkan script, then the Madani script, then the Basri, then the Kufi. As for the Makkan and Madani, then its Alif is slanted to the right of the hand with elongation of the strokes, with one form having a slight slant.”

One of the key problems with the studies of early Orientalists on Arabic scripts of this time period is how they ignored actual Arabic Manuscripts (Deroche, 1992). This is what makes Deroche’s analysis foundational and monumental. He meticulously categorized the early scripts in the Islamic period based on analysis of Islamic manuscripts and the writings of Muslim scholars. One example of this is how the term Mashq is considered by many to be a distinct script (Mousavi, Jazyeri, Michelli, & AbulHab; 2018) whereas Deroche (1992) argued that based on Al-Nadim’s discourse, Mashq is a technique that can be applied to any script as it is elongation and sizing of shapes and letters. In this case, it would be similar to Ma’il (slanting) style that has been applied to some very early Hijazi manuscripts and is mentioned by Al-Nadim (pg. 17). Abbott (1939) described Mashq as a bold and elongated script. Gacek (1990) argued that this description doesn’t match that of Ibn Abi Dawood’s and Al-Baghdadi’s descriptions of Mashq. A point Ibn Abu Dawood mentioned (al-Masahif, pg 304): “عَنِ ابْنِ سِيرِينَ، أَنَّهُ كَرِهَ أَنْ تُكْتَبَ الْمَصَاحِفُ مَشَقًا وَزَادَ الْمُسَيَّبُ: قِيلَ لِابْنِ سِيرِينَ: لَمْ كَرِهَ ذَلِكَ؟ قَالَ: لِأَنَّ فِيهِ نَقْصٌ، أَلَا تَرَى الْأَلِفَ كَيْفَ يُغْرِقُهَا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ تُرَدَّ” “(it’s reported from) Ibn Seereen that he disliked that the Masahif were written in ‘mashq’ and elongated. It was said to Ibn Seereen, why do you dislike that? He said: Because it has deficiency, don’t you see how th Alif drowns? It should be returned upwards.”

Unlike the discourse of Al-Nadim, who died in the 10th or 11th century CE, much of the evidence is not available to us. Al-Nadim talks about the scripts based on the Qur’an Masahif that he has seen himself from the early periods. Regrettably, much of what is available to us today is in the form of fragments or single folios or bifolum and rarely extant manuscripts of the Qur’an. Another challenge is that none of the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts are actually dated- a practice that only arose after the 4th Hijri/10th century C.E.. The best way to determine the relative age, is by studying the scripts (Paleographic analysis) and the manuscript itself- carbon dating is rarely used or accurate. This makes classification of scripts challenging, especially with later-added colophons that falsely attribute dates to these manuscript fragments.

While the debate on terminologies of Kufic may continue, Deroche’s approach to classify the early scripts based on their relation to eras makes more sense. Deroche (1992) argued that this general assessment into three categories allows for easier classification based on the available data. Deroche followed a similar method as Al-Nadim in identifying the differences in certain letters, such as Alif or the Laam al Waraqiyyah, to assist in categorizing types based on actual manuscripts. The first of the three categories is the Makkan and Madani scripts, which Nabia Abbott (1939) labeled as “Hijazi”. The general ascription, “Hijazi” is fair considering we do not know the differences between the Makkan and Madani scripts used in the first two centuries of the Hijri calendar (7th and 8th century C.E.). The next two styles are categorized generally as “Abbasi”, but more specifically: Early Abbasi and New Abbasi- each of which have sub-styles. Deroche (1992) pioneered this term, which has gained momentum in Islamic Paleography. Many still consider “Kufic” and “Eastern Kufic” the correct terminology for these styles. Whether you consider “Abbaasi” or “Kufic” the correct term, both terms were popularized by the Orientalists. For instance, Nabia Abbott (1939) had theorized that the Arabic Jazm of the people of Heerah learned from Syriac script, which may justify “Kufic”. This is unlikely according to a comparison of Kufic and Jazm. Deroche’s study appears to be the most accurate of the two and allows for new additions and classifications upon greater research.

It is extremely important to note that there are no confirmed copies of the Qur’an that date to the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the first half of the 7th century C.E.. Although there are many claims, such as the recent “Birmingham” Qur’an, it is not definitive and is mere speculation. Paleographer and specialist in Islamic manuscripts, Professor Qasim as-Samara’i of Leiden University argued that his analysis showed that the Birmingham Qur’an was a Palimpsest (when old text is erased and written over) and the C-14 dating is meaningless in light of this (As-Samara’i, 2015). These attempts at false claims are not restricted to Orientalists, Muslim collectors and booksellers in the past have falsely ascribed Qur’an manuscripts as the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan رضي الله عنه (Deroche, 1992).

The Hijazi Script

During the reign of the Ummawi’s, the Arabic script was not systematic, each scribe having their own style. The earliest account identifying this script is found in Al-Nadim’s Fihrisit as being scripts of Makkah and Madinah. Deroche (1992) noted that the first Orientalist to take this into account was the Sicilian Orientalist Michele Amari in the mid-19th century. The term “Hijazi” later came to use a century later by Nabia Abbott in in 1939. Deroche (1992) notes that the small number of early fragments available demonstrate varying hands and styles, and this is likely because there was a lack of codification of calligraphy and scripts. Analyzing the Hijazi script shows a likeness to the Jazm script taught to the Quryash by Bishr bin Abdul-Malik Al Kindi.

A key indicator of the Hijazi Qur’an is the lack of vocalization, which only entered into the Arabic script during the time of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib رضي الله عنه. While there was rare use of papyrus, most early Qur’ans and manuscripts were written in Parchment (made from the skin of animals, likely goats or gazelles). This continued until the prevalence of paper in the 11th century, with the except of Al-Maghrib- where parchment was continued until centuries later. The oldest Qur’an manuscript adopts a vertical shape of the page (as it seen in modern times). The more horizontal format became popular with Qur’an manuscripts in the 8th to 9th centuries (2nd to 3rd century hijri). The earliest script depicted the Ma’il style (slanted).

In other 8th Century C.E. Qur’ans that are not in Ma’il style of Hijazi I., one can notice several similar traits and a more defined letter form. For instance, one can notice the slant on the isolated Alif and the straightness of the Laam in the Hijazi script and the change in the final Meem.

A key factor to note is that there are no vocalizations within the words. Around the mid-7th century, ‘Ali bin Abi Taalib رضي الله عنه ordered Abul Aswad Dhalim bin ‘Amr ad-Du’ali (or ad-Deeli) to formulate Nahw (Arabic Grammar) and create the vocalization. Adh-Dhahabee mentioned in his Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa (4/83) that he heard someone erring in his recitation of “أَنَّ اللهَ بَرِيْءٌ مِنَ المُشْرِكِيْنَ وَرَسُوْلِهِ” and recited the laam with a Kasrah instead of a Dhammah. Abul Aswad called for a scribe and said to him: “إِذَا رَأَيْتَنِي قَدْ فَتَحْتُ فَمِي بِالحَرْفِ، فَانْقُطْ نُقْطَةً أَعْلاَهُ، وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَنِي قَدْ ضَمَمْتُ فَمِي، فَانْقُطْ نُقْطَةً بَيْنَ يَدَيِ الحَرْفِ، وَإِنْ كَسَرْتُ، فَانْقُطْ نُقْطَةً تَحْتَ الحَرْفِ، فَإِذَا أَتْبَعْتُ شَيْئاً مِنْ ذَلِكَ غُنَّةً، فَاجْعَلْ مَكَانَ النُّقْطَةِ نُقْطَتَيْنِ، فَهَذَا نَقْطُ أَبِي الأَسْوَدِ” “If you see me open my mouth when saying a letter (with a Fath-ha sound), then place a dot above it (the letter), if you see me bring my lips together (with a Dhammah sound), place a dot between the letter. If I make the Kasrah sound, then place a dot below the letter. If I follow any of that with a Ghunnah, then place two dots instead of one. This is the dot (system) of Abil Aswad.” He further states that Abul Aswad was the one responsible for placing the dots in the Qur’an. Abul Aswad ad-Du’ali died in 69H (688C.E.) towards the end of the 7th century (Wafiyaat al A’yaan, 2/535). Any ascriptions of the Qur’an that claim to be the Mus-haf of ‘Uthman that have the vocalization are clearly fabricated ascriptions and the Qur’an may come from a later period.

Early Abbasi Script

Around the mid-8th century, after the fall of the Ummawiyeen in 750C.E, the Hijazi script began to standardize into what may be called the Early Abbasi script. Deroche (1992) argued that the application of Kufic to all the scripts of this era should be avoided because it is incorrect to credit Kufah, a geographic location, for scripts that developed around the region. This is the reason that Deroche (1992) coined the term “Abbasi” script, which he admits suffers similar issues to Kufic, just not as problematic as Kufic. Deroche (1992) argued that most of the script standardization for Hijazi occurred during the Abbasi reign, but was probably kick-started by Abdul-Malik Marwan’s formation of the Chancery in the late 7th/early 8th century.

Based on Deroche’s classification system, the Early Abbasi Groups A to F have unique differences that require in-depth study. I won’t mention the details in this note, one can refer to Deroche’s extensive explanation for the sub-groups. A key point to note is that colophons with Waqf notes (endowments) appeared in Group D manuscripts that dated to the 3rd century Hijri/9th Century CE (200’s/800’s). Red dots for vocalization appear on some manuscripts in this period. The Groups E and F show the greatest difference from their counterparts and often date around the 9th and 10th centuries CE (3rd and 4th centuries Hijri).

It is clear that by the 8th century, the Muslims began to formulate calligraphy and beautify the Qur’an with writing styles. One example is the beautiful “Blue Qur’an” of the 9th century or 10th century (according to Jonathan Bloom), of Qayrawan, Tunisia or Sicily or Cordoba (according to some Orientalists). It’s most likely Qayrawani as Bloom asserted (Bloom, 1986). A single folio of the Blue Qur’an can sell for upwards of $550,000 (Sotheby’s Islamic Art Sale, London, April 22, 2015). The Blue Qur’an demonstrates the art of chrysography (using gold ink), which was already in use in the 8th century as Al-Nadeem states (pg. 17): “قال محمد بن إسحاق أول من كتب المصاحف في الصدر الأول ويوصف بحسن الخط خالد بن أبي الهياج رأيت مصحفا بخطه وكان سعد نصبه لكتب المصاحف والشعر والأخبار للوليد بن عبد الملك وهو الذي كتب الكتاب الذي في قبلة مسجد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالذهب” “Muhammad bin Is-haaq said: The first to scribe a Qur’an as a Mus-haf that was described with beautiful script was Khalid bin Abil-Hayyaaj. I saw a Mus-haf with his handwriting and Sa’ad cast him to scribe the Masahif, poetry, and narratives for Waleed bin ‘Abdul Malik. He was the one who scribed the book that is in the Qiblah of Masjid An-Nabiyy صلى الله عليه وسلم in gold.” Ibn Abi Dawood narrated (Al-Masahif, pg. 339) that Ibrahim (an-Nakha’ee) disliked that the Qur’an be written in gold. Likewise, he narrated from several of the salaf that it was disliked to beautify the Qur’an and that it should be beautified with recitation. However, he also recorded that there is excuse for it and it was reported from ibn ‘Awn from ‘Abdullaah that he was asked about decorating the Masa’hif and he said there’s no problem with it and he liked to beautify it (pg. 339 to 345).

There are many examples of variations in style within the scripts of the 9th and 10th century C.E.. For instance, larger script is indicative of the D.I style of ‘Abbasi. This proves that the generic label of “Kufic” does not do justice to the variations of scripts in this early period. Notice in the picture below how the Alif differs in the elongation of the lower-end and its curvature (Tarwees). Notice how the end-Noon differs in this script from other styles in the Early Abbasi script.

Around the 10th century C.E. (4th Century Hijri- 300’s), a change in this Abbasi style can be seen in the disappearance of the lower-end curve on the Alifs (in E-style script) and more pronounced curves and dips in the final Noon (in D.vc script), which some Orientalists called the “Western Kufic” or “Damascus School” both of which have no merit according to Deroche (1992). The field of Early Islamic Paleography is still very much open to development with many manuscripts undated and unclassified. Another contributor to this challenge is the dispersion of manuscripts in private collections or inaccessible due to numerous reasons such as war. The Abbasi style was not just used in the Qur’anic manuscripts, but also played a role in the development of styles like Naskh and Maghribi (Gacek, 2009).

New Style (New Abbasi)

The ‘New Abbasi Style’, as Deroche (1992) argued, cannot be ascertained with a great level of confidence due to the inadequate documentation of materials. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately date manuscripts of this style with complete certainty. A number of terms have been used to describe this style. Deroche denotes the terms that have been used as: Eastern Kufic, Eastern Persian Kufic, Broken Kufic, Naskhi Kufic, Western Kufic, and Broken Cursive. I found Deroche’s approach much more convincing than the orientalists that applied a variant kufic to these scripts. Especially considering the inaccuracy of ascribing the styles of Kufah, Iraq (take “Persian Kufic” for example).

The New-Style, in two groups (NS.I, NS.III) were in use around the 9th century, and particularly used in non-Qur’anic manuscripts in the NS.III style. The New-Style subsequently became more popular after the 10th century for its ease. Variations in writing surfaces contributed to this rise in popularity. There is evidence from manuscripts in libraries and collections that indicate that the New Style was in use in the 10th century in Persia and Iraq, hence some of the labels given by orientalists to the variations of Kufic (Eastern, Persian, etc).

The New Style scripts favored an alif without the lower return (uptick on the lower-end) and had a more angular design. This can be seen in the Taa’ ط of the New Style and the Meem in both middle and end forms. The Noon also took on an appearance that resembles a modern Raa. The Laam al Waraqiyyah also took on many different forms and can differ greatly from the Early Abbasi style. One example can be seen in the folio shown below of an Isfahani Qur’an.

The popularity of the New Style extended across the Muslim empire, which is why the location-based naming convention is misleading. An example of this can be seen in the first Qur’an manuscript known to us that has been scribed in Sicily, Italy (Palermo) from the 10th century. The beautifully scribed manuscript applies the New Style script (NS.III) and was written on parchment.

The development of the New Style script is what many people today associate with “Kufic” and is what used to be commonly found as the “Kufic Font”. Its block-like appearance is instantly recognizable and substantially easier for people in modern times to read. Vowel signs in the form of modern “Tashkeel” can be seen in the 11th century Qur’an examples in place of the dot-system of Abul Aswad ad-Du’ali.

As excellent and rare example of the New Style in the East can be seen with the Seljuk (Seljuq) empire. Written on Buff paper, the example below demonstrates the angular forms and an interesting waviness of the Laam al Waraqiyyah.

The 12th century manuscripts in the New Style Abbasi show how quickly the scripts formed into a systematic practice. In the Islamic East, paper was already utilized as a writing surface, unlike the West (Maghrib) where parchment continued its use. A minute New Style developed and is commonly found in this period.

The Qur’an Masahif produced in the early Abbasi and New ‘Abbasi Styles were quite large due to these types of scripts. This is especially the case when Mashq was applied. There are very few complete Qur’an manuscript examples from this period, many of which are claimed to be the “Uthmani Qur’an”, but have no confirmed evidence to support it. In fact, many have evidence that contradict its placement in the time period of the Khulafa ar-Rashidoon.

The Six Pens (4th H/10th C.E. to Present)

The 300s to 400s Hijri (3rd/4th century Hijri- 9th/10th C.E.) was the period wherein Islamic scripts took a systematic turn with Khatt al-Mansub (proportioned script) becoming popular after its invention by the Wazeer (minister) and master calligrapher, Abu ‘Ali Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Hasan, known as Ibn Muqleh (d.328H/940C.E.). In this period (late 4th/10th and early 5th/11th century), three script families were born: Thuluth, Muhaqqaq, and Tawqi’. From these three script families, there are three others closely related: Thuluth (ثلث) -> Naskh (نسخ); Muhaqqaq (محقق) -> Rayhani (ريحاني); and Tawqi’ (توقيع): Riqa’ (رقاع). These six styles became known as القلم الستة (the six hands/pens) that became popularized in the 7th/13th century (Gacek, 2009). These styles are born from the innovations of Ibn Muqleh, as Al-Qalqashendi and others described. Adh-Dhahabi mentioned (Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa, 15/226) that he wrote in a beautiful handwriting and wrote with his left hand after his right had was cut off. He mentioned later (15/229) that there’s a difference of opinion on who was the calligrapher, him or his brother Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali. Adh-Dhahabee held that it was his brother Al-Hasan who was the calligrapher and he was the first to develop this style from the “Kufic script” (the term used by Adh-Dhahabee). Ibn Khalikaan stated that both him and his brother were calligraphers (Waafiyaat al A’yaan, 5/117). Ibn Muqleh was often caught up in the Fitnah during his term as Wazeer for Ali bin Yalbaq and had tried to arrest the Imaam of Ahlus Sunnah- Abu Muhammad Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali Al-Barbahaaree (Ibn Muflih, Al-Maqsad Al-Irshaad (1/no. 344)) [Refer to my note on Imaam Al-Barbaharee for more on this]. Ibn Muqleh had served as Wazeer numerous times and spanned the leadership of Al-Muqtadir, Al-Qaahir, and Ar-Radhibillah.

The meaning of “Mansub” (proportioned) is in reference to measuring the size and proportions by means of a “diamond-shaped dot”, which one obtains by use of a Qalamus (reed pen) with a slanted tip.

One of the most famous styles to be born from this proportioned script was the Naskh script, literally meaning “copyist” script. It is ascribed to Ibn Muqleh, although the earliest dated example of Naskh was in 1000 C.E., after his death.

Even though there are attributions, there are no confirmed evidences of Ibn Muqleh’s work that has reached us, making it difficult to decipher the innovations introduced by Ibn Muqleh in the proportioned scripts (Hillenbrand, 2014). However, there are numerous narratives reported regarding his methodology in calligraphy. For instance, Al-Qalqashendi reported that Ibn Muqleh said: “خير الأقلام ما كان طوله من ستة عشر إصبعا إلى اثني عشر، وامتلاؤه ما بين غلظ السّبّابة إلى الخنصر. وهذا وصف جامع لسائر أنواع الأقلام على اختلافها” “The best pens are those that are 16 finger-length and its thickness (width) is between the thickness of the index finger and the pinky. This is a comprehensive description for all types of pens.” (Subuh al-A’shaa, 2/484). Al-Qalqashendi cites much of Ibn Muqleh’s description of proportioned Arabic letters.

The Thuluth and Naskh scripts gained popularity in the end of the the 4/10th century (Gacek, 2009). In the 4th/10th century and 5th/11th century, another calligrapher brought additional popularity to the proportioned scripts. Abul Hasan ‘Ali bin Hilaal Ibn Al-Bawwaab (d. 413H/1022C.E.) was a master calligrapher who cemented the early proportioned scripts after Ibn Muqleh. He was  a companion of Ibn Sam’oon. Al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi mentioned that he was a leader in calligraphy and beautiful writing, and that he had initiated his style and the people followed him and imitated it thereafter (Tarikh Baghdad 19/185). Imaam adh-Dhahabi mentioned in his Siyar A’laam an-Nubalaa (17/316) that he had canonized the style of Ibn Muqleh, refined it and beautified it. The oldest dated copy of the Naskh is in his hand (Gacek, 2009) and on a newly popular writing surface in the Muslim world: paper (Hillenbrand, 2014). Hillenbrand (1014) argued that Ibn Al-Bawwab is one of the first, if not the first, to codify calligraphy of Arabic scripts and was the most famous of the calligraphers in Baghdad and beyond, until this day. Many later scribes attempted to copy his work and ascribe it to him, such was his popularity throughout the Islamic lands until today. Al-Qalqashendi said (3/19): “ثم أخذ عن ابن مقلة محمد بن السمسماني ومحمد بن أسد؛ وعنهما أخذ الأستاذ أبو الحسن عليّ بن هلال المعروف بابن البوّاب، وهو الذي أكمل قواعد الخط وتممها واخترع غالب الأقلام التي أسسها ابن مقلة” “Afterwards, Muhammad bin As-Samsamaani and Muhammad bin Asad learned from Ibn Muqleh and Ustadh Abul Hasan ‘Ali bin Hilaal, known as Ibn Al-Bawwaab, learned from them. He is the one who completed the principles of calligraphy and invented the general calligraphic styles that Ibn Muqleh founded.”

The key feature of Thuluth is in the bent Alif with the lower end slightly turning left. Additionally the dips in the letters like Jeem, Raa, Daal, etc have a slight upward curve at the end. Specific proportions differentiate Thuluth from other scripts. Details on these proportions is not the purpose of this note, so I would reference specific works on these pens like Al-Qalqashendi’s Subuh Al A’shaa.

The earliest Muhaqqaq style Qur’an was written 499H/1160C.E in Iran, but it was well-known much earlier as Al-Nadeem mentioned that it was written in his time: “ فأما الوراقون الذين يكتبون المصاحف بالخط المحقق والمشق وما شاكل ذلك فمنهم بن أبي حسان وابن الحضرمي وابن زيد والفريابي وابن أبي فاطمة وابن مجالد وشراشير المصري وابن سير وابن حسن المليح والحسن بن النعالي وابن حديدة وأبو عقيل وأبو محمد الأصفهاني وأبو بكر أحمد بن نصر وابنه أبو الحسين ورأيتهما جميعا” “As for the scribes that wrote the Masahif in the scripts of Muhaqqaq and Mashq and what resembles that, from them was bin Abi Hassan, ibn Al-Hadhrami, ibn Zayd, Al-Faryaabi, bin Abi Fatimah, ibn Majalid, Sharasheer al Misri, ibn Seer, ibn Hasan al-Malih, Al-Hasan bin An-Na’ali, ibn Hadidah, Abu ‘Aqeel, Abu Muhammad Al Isfahani, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Nasr and his son Abul Hussain, and I have seen all of them.” Unlike the Thuluth script, Muhaqqaq has uniquely identifiable Laam waraqiyyah and no upward curvature in the dips on the Raa, Jeem, Meen, etc.

These styles persisted until today gaining its prime popularity in the 7th century Hijri (13th C.E.) due to the third most famous Islamic calligrapher Abu-AdDurr Jamaluddeen Ya’qut bin ‘Abdillaah al-Musta’simi ar-Rumi (d.698H/1298C.E.) who refined the proportioned scripts and established schools to teach the art (Tarikh al-Islaam, 15/888). Adh-Dhahabi mentioned that he became an Imaam in this regard and had many imitators. Az-Zirkili stated that he was a servant of the Khalifah Al-Musta’sim billaah Al-’Abbaasi (Al-I’laam, 8/131) and he was raised in the household of the Khaleefah wherein he developed a love for calligraphy (Tarikh al-Islaam, 15/888). He wrote a treatise entitled “Risaalah fi ‘ilm al Khatt” wherein he explained the different techniques and styles.

Yaqut al-Musta’simi had several famous students, as it is narrated, were granted permission to sign in his name (Gacek, 2009). Therefore, many imitations ascribing to Yaqut are found in libraries and collections today. His famous students were: Ahmad bin ‘Ali As-Sahrawardi (Tayyib Shah), Abdullah As-Sayrafi, Muhammad bin Haydar al-Hussayni, Arghoon al-Kamaali, Mubarakshah bin Qutub, and Yahya as-Sufi (Az-Zubaydi: Hikmat al Ishraaq ila Kutaab al Aafaaq, 1/95; Gacek, 2009).

Some styles became less popular and went out of use later in the Ottoman empire and Iran after the 10th H/16th CE century, such as Rayhan and Muhaqqaq (Gacek, 2009)

The Muhaqqaq and Rayhan style was a preference for scribing the Qur’an within the Egyptian Mamluk empire and the Ilkhanid empire of the East in the 13th to 15th centuries (7th to 9th Hijri). The Mamluk empire used a large and small Muhaqqaq technique Khafi and Jalli).

The Ilkhanid Qur’ans often had interlinear translation in Persian between the Muhaqqaq text. Many large and highly decorated Ilkhanid Qur’ans have reached us leading to much study into their methods of scribing the Qur’an.

Several other styles applied unique qualities to Naskh and leading to a different classification. One example is the Sudani Naskh, prevalent in Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Nigeria; which is easily distinctive and recognizable. A key feature in the Sudani Naskh is the contrast in boldness and thinness of the script. The Sudani script often allocates more space between lines for notes and interlinear text.

Another example is the Ghubar script, which is more of a technique like Ma’il werein the author writes in a very small script. The Ghubar script was used for miniatures and small writing for messages (Qalqashendi, 3/17). Many other styles have been left out of this note for brevity. Refer to Qalqashendi’s Subh al A’shaa, Zubaydi’s Hikmat al Ishraaq, and Nadeem’s Fihrisit for a wider discussion on the styles and their nuances.

The Maghribi Scripts (4th H/10th C.E. to Present)

Soon after the advent of death of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, the Khulafa’ ar-Rashidoon began to expand into different regions and Islam spread to Iraq, Persia, and Egypt. The expansion into North Africa and Spain was spearheaded by the Umawwiyeen. The empire stretched from Spain to the Western regions of China. The Battle of Talas, for instance, in 751C.E. is often credited with bringing the art of Paper-making from China into the Muslim world. During the first two centuries of Hijrah, the Hijazi script and ‘Abbasi script (what is often called Kufic) prevailed in all regions including the Islamic Maghrib.

The Term “Maghribi” is applied to the general scripts of North Africa and Spain (Andalus). Gacek (2009) opined that the Maghribi scripts still lack detailed research into its history, development, and categorization. This is clear from researching the Maghribi script. However, it’s likely that it started entering the realm of Islamic scripts before the 4th century Hijri/10th century C.E.. The oldest dated Qur’an in the Maghribi script to our knowledge is dated 398H/1000-1C.E., while the earliest dated Maghribi manuscript, according to Gacek (2009), is Kitaab Ma’rifat al Bawl wa Aqsaamihi dated 345H/957 C.E.. Notice the similarity of this early Maghribi script to the New Style Abbasi.

It’s evident upon analysis that it derives from the earliest Islamic scripts, but leaves a gap for various theories to develop. For instance, the individual Alif in the Maghribi script very closely resembles that of the New ‘Abbasi Style: NSIII. However, a clear difference of the Maghribi script is the pen (Qalam) used and its rounded tip as opposed to the Eastern slanted tip. There are elements that resemble another script, which Umar and Al-Maghrawi (2007) argued was a “Iraqi Kufi script”. Van den Boogert (1989) mentioned that the Maghribi script likely developed in the 7th to 10th century (1st to 4th century Hijri) in the Western Islamic empire as a direct opposer to the Eastern scripts (of Naskh) from the official book-hands (or chancery scripts of the empire).

Umar and Al-Maghrawi (2007) argued that from the combination of Hijazi and Iraqi Kufic, three scripts were born: the Maghribi script (that related to the Andalusian script) and the Qayrawani script (that later bore the African script). They continued to state that the Andalusi script combined with the Faasi script led to four scripts: (1) Sudani, (2) Tunisi, (3) Jaza’iri, and (4) Maghribi: (i) Kufi Maghribi, (ii) Thuluth Maghribi, (iii) Al-Mabsut, (iv) Al-Jawhar, (v) Al-Musnad/az-Zimami. Boogert (1989) also cited that the origin of Maghribi script points to the mis-named Kufic, specifically the Eastern Kufic (New Style ‘Abbasi) around the 8th/9th centuries. Dr. Muhammad Al-Manuni (1991) called the Kufic style that Umar and Al-Maghrawi called Iraqi Kufic: Al-Kufi al Mutamaghrib (Maghribized Kufic). Based on its appearance, it matches the New Style Abbasi script as Gacek (2009) noted.

Al-Manuni (1991) asserted that the origin of the Maghribi script was in the 1st H/7th C.E. century with Salih bin Turayf Al-Berberi Al-Berghuwati attempting to improve his script around 127H. The origins, he notes, started in Fez (Faas) during the reign of the Imaam Al-Idreesi Yahya the Fourth and its style resembled that of the East. Citing Shamsuddeen Al-Bishaari (d. ~381H) in his Ahsan at-Taqaseem fi Ma’rifat al Aqaleem (pg. 239), he notes that the Andalusian script was beautiful. However, it’s not clear that this was any different from the Kufic script. Al-Manuni (1991) also agreed that this script was not the Andalusian script we know today. It is likely that the Maghribized Kufic was the style in use until the 3rd/4th Century Hijri (9th/10th C.E.). During the era of the Muraabiteen and the Muwahiddeen, the script underwent alterations leading to changes in the Andalusian script used in Maghrib verses that in Andalus. Umar and Al-Maghrawi (2007) stated that it was during the time of the Muraizi that the Faas script was born.

The Maghribi scripts are uniquely different from the Eastern scripts due to several factors. Boogert (1989) states these differences as the final Alif being drawn from top to bottom; the stems of the Alif, Laam waraqiyyah, Laam, and Ta/dha have a rounding “club-like extension” to the left of the upper point; the Saad/Dhaad/ has a similar appearance to the Ta/Dha; the stem of ta/dha are diagonal; and the Qaf is written with a single dot on top while the Faa has a dot below. The differences in the Maghribi and Eastern scripts are obviously clear- especially the later scripts. One of the most striking features of the Maghribi scripts is the use of multiple colors such as red, green, blue, and yellow throughout the manuscript along with many decorations in these colors and inks.

The general categorization in the Maghribi scripts are: (1) Faasi, (2) Andalusi, (3), Qayrawani, and (4) Sudani. Sadly, the terms that tie the script to a specific location can be problematic and confusing since the art of the script traveled throughout regions. Since it would create a significantly lengthier note, I would rather suggest Al-Manuni’s compelling history and description of the Maghribi scripts.

However, I would like to pay special focus on the Sudani script, which is said to have originated in West African Mali (Timbuktu) or in Mauritania. The term “Sudani” to describe this script was coined by Octave Houdas in 1886 (Blair, 2008). This script differs from the Sudani script derived from Naskh, which is commonly found in manuscripts of Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Nigera. This script still requires a lot of investigation as we’re only recently learning more about these scripts as the interest in West African manuscripts has gained traction (Blair, 2008). The Sudani script is distinguished by its “blocky” letters resembling a bold font. There is a stark variation between the thickness and thinness of letters. The Sudani script is instantly recognizable among its Maghribi counterparts.

The Persian Scripts (8th H/14th C.E. to present)

While many of the Eastern scripts were in use in the Islamic Persia, a unique style emerged in the late 8th century (Gacek, 2009) known as Nasta’liq (al-Khatt al Faarisi). The Ottomans referred to this script as Ta’leeq, although the general thought among Orientalist Paleographers is that it developed as a “hanging Naskh”, hence the name derived from “Naskh Ta’leeq”. Around the 9th century Hijri (15th Century C.E.), Nasta’liq began to replace Naskh as the regular script for writing manuscripts. In many manuscripts, Naskh would be reserved for the main text, while Nasta’liq served as the marginal notes. Nasta’liq influenced scripts in the Ottoman lands and in Mughal India. It is not uncommon to find manuscripts written in India or the Ottoman lands with the Nasta’liq script. However, its usage for Qur’ans is rare. Urdu and Farsi adopted the style of Nasta’liq as a main script. Other styles like Shikasta are said to be born of Nasta’liq (Gacek, 2009, Ali, 1984)

One of the most famous Persian Calligraphers was Meerza Ahmad An-Nayrizi who wrote in Naskh around the 17th century C.E.. He wrote in a larger style Naskh and had influenced many later Persian scribes.

The Ottoman Era (10th Hijri/ 16th C.E. to present)

The Ottomans began their rule in the late 7th century Hijri/ 14th Century C.E.. The most well-known Ottoman calligraphy was Hamdullaah Ibn Ash-Shaykh Mustafa Dede Al-Amaasi (d.926H/1520C.E.). Hamdullah Al-Amasi further refined Yaqut al-Musta’simi’s development of the six pens/styles and popularized them further across the Ottoman Empire. Hamdullah was known as Ibn ash-Shaykh because his father, Mustafa Dede was the leader of the Sufi order of the Sahrawardiyyah who migrated from Bukhara to Amasya. Many of the Ottomans at this time were deeply entrenched in Sufism, mostly within the Naqshibandi and Helveti orders. Hamdullah, known as Qiblat al Kuttaab, studied calligraphy and the six pens from his teacher Khayr-uddeen Al-Mar’ashi (d.896H) who had studied from ‘Abdullah as-Sayrafi who learned from Ahmad bin ‘Ali, known as Tayyib Shah as-Sahrawardi (Hikmat al Ishraaq ila Kutaab al Aafaaq of az-Zubaydi, 1/95). Az-Zubaydi stated that he scribed 44 Qur’ans, Al-Masabeeh of Al Baghawi, and numerous other books.

The Ottoman Sultans were eager to commission lavish copies of the Qur’an with beautiful illumination and precise calligraphy (Hanash, n.d.). Professor Idham Muhamamd Hanash (n.d.) wrote a study on the efforts of the Ottomans in scribing the Qur’an. I will not make this note detailed in this regard as Dr. Idham’s study suffices for further research. Likewise, for a detailed list of the calligraphers in their time periods, Az-Zubaydi’s Hikmat al Ishraaq is a good reference.

Mughal India (8th Hijri /14th C.E. until 10th Hijri/16th C.E.)

The Mughal Indian empire developed an intriguing style of writing that modern researchers have rarely explored. The Bihari script seems to have come into existence in the Bihar region of India around the 7th or 8th century Hijri (13th/14 C.E.) with the oldest dated manuscript of a Qur’an written by Mahmood Sha’baan in 801H/1399 (Gacek, 2009). Some believe that it developed from Muhaqqaq and an old form of Naskh. It is a distinctive script that has bold and elongated dips and unique writing of Saad, Dhaad, Taa, and Dhaa. There is also noticeable spacing between the words. I have not yet come across any non-Qur’anic manuscripts with this script. This style disappeared when the Shah’s of the Mughal empire began to prefer the Nasta’liq style.

Conclusion

The Arabic script has undergone many changes in the past three thousand years. One thing that has not changed is the beauty of the script and its art form. The importance given to the written word became greater known after the first century in the Hijri calendar. I have not done justice to the field with such a short and brief summary. I simply wanted to write down a summary of my research for my brothers to benefit from. This is not a conclusive observation as I’m constantly researching and reading into the subject.

Academic References:

• Abbott, N. (1939). The Rise of the North Arabic Script and Its Kuranic Development with a Full Description of the Kuran Manuscripts in the Oriental Institute. University of Chicago Press.
• Abulhab, S. D. (2011). DeArabizing Arabia: Tracing Western Scholarship on the History of the Arabs and Arabic Language and Script. Blautopf Publishing.
• Afa, U., Maghrawi, M. (2007). Al-Khatt Al Maghribi Tarikh wa Waqi’ wa Afaq. Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Dar Al Baidha, Morocco.
• Ali, A. Y. (1984). Muslim Calligraphy: Its Beginning and Major Styles. Islamic Studies, 23(4), 373-379.
• Al-Hamad, G.Q. (1982). Rasm Al-Mushaf, Dirasat Lughawiyyah Tarikhiyyah. Al-Jamhuriyah Al Iraqiyah: Al-Lajnah al Wataniyah. Baghdad, Iraq.
• Al-Manunu, M. (1991). Tarikh al-Wiraqah Al-Maghribiyyah: Sina’ah Al-Makhtut al Maghribi bin Al ‘Asr al Waseet ila Fatra Mu’asirrah. College of Literature and Anthropology. Muhammad Al-Khamis University, Ar-Ribaat, Morocco.
• Al‐Said, S. (2004). Early South Arabian‐Islamic bilingual inscription from Najran. Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, 15(1), 84-88.
• Al-Ya’rabi, S. (2013). Bahth ‘an Khatt al Musnad. Published under the Supervision of Dr. Muhammad Al Uraymi. Center for Research, culture, and conservation. Middle East College.
• As-Samara’i, Q. (2015). Qur’an Palaeography & The Fragments of the University of Birmingham. AlFurqan Heritage. London, UK- Interview.
• Badawi, A.M (1995). Ahammiyyah Ta’allum Al ‘Arabiyyah. Hawliyah Kuliya al Adab. University of Kuwait. Al-Khalidiyah, Kuwait.
• Blair, S. S. (2008). Arabic calligraphy in West Africa. The Meanings of Timbuktu, 59-75.
• Bloom, J. M. (1986). Al-Mamun’s Blue Koran?. Extrait De La Revue Des Etudes Islamiques, 54, 59-65.
• Boogert, N. van den. 1989. ‘Some Notes on Maghribi Script’. Manuscripts of the Middle East 4: 30-43.
• Cooper, J. S. (1996). Sumerian and Akkadian. The world’s writing systems, 37-72.
• Cunningham, G. (2013). The Sumerian Language. In The Sumerian World (pp. 119-134). Routledge.
• Déroche, F. (1992). The Abbasid tradition: Qur’ans of the 8th to the 10th centuries AD, in the The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islami art, 1. Oxford University Press.
• Dhannoon, Y. (1998). Qira’ah Jadeedah fi Asl Al-Kitaabah Al Arabiyyah. Afaq al Arabiyah.
• Gacek, A. (1990). Early Qur’anic Fragments. Fontanus, 3, 45-64.
• Gacek, A. (2009). Arabic manuscripts: a vademecum for readers (Vol. 98). Brill.
• Hanash, I.M. (n.d.). Kitaabah al-Mus-haf ash-Shareef ‘ind al Khattateen al ‘Uthmaniyyeen. Journal of Qur’anic Studies, Qur’an Complex.
• Hillenbrand, R. (2014). Ibn Al-Bawwab. Hamad bin Khalifa University, Qatar Faculty of Islamic Studies.
• Macdonald, M. C. (2009). Arabs, Arabias and Arabic before Late Antiquity. Topoi, 16(1), 277-332.
• Macdonald, M. C. (2000). Reflections on the linguistic map of pre‐Islamic Arabia. Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, 11(1), 28-79.
• Macdonald, M. C. (2010). The development of Arabic as a written language. In Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies (Vol. 40).
• Mousavi Jazayeri, S. M. V., Michelli, P. E., & Abulhab, S. D. (2017). A Handbook of Early Arabic Kufic Script: Reading, Writing, Calligraphy, Typography, Monograms.
• O’Connor, M. (1996). Epigraphic Semitic scripts. The world’s writing systems, 88-107.
• Retso, J. (2013a). The Arabs in antiquity: Their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. Routledge.
• Retsö, J. (2013b). What is Arabic. The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, 433.
• Said, E. (1978). Orientalism London. Pantheon.
• Thomsen, M. L. (1984). The Sumerian Language.