Read on Twitter
Thread : The Ṣan‘ā’ palimpsest – lower text (SI) – and the basmala of sūra at-Tawba
1/10. Dār al-Maḫṭūṭāt, 01-27.1, f.5A, SI, holds the end of sūra 8 and the beginning of sūra 9. Here the copyist wrote the basmala at the beginning of sūra at-Tawba.
1/10. Dār al-Maḫṭūṭāt, 01-27.1, f.5A, SI, holds the end of sūra 8 and the beginning of sūra 9. Here the copyist wrote the basmala at the beginning of sūra at-Tawba.
2/10. This differs from the standard Edition, in which this sūra is the only one to begin without the basmala. According to the Islamic reports, this distinctive feature goes back to caliph ‘Uthman and its arrangement of the sūras.
3/10. All the material evidence published until today goes in the same direction. https://twitter.com/Sohailah12/status/1189038756151681024?s=20">https://twitter.com/Sohailah1...
4/10. But the special feature found in the Ṣan‘ā’ palimpsest is hard to interpret. Actually, it depends on how you read the few words following the basmala.
5/10. For F. Déroche and A. Hilali : the copyist makes a mistake and explicitely condemns it on the line below where he writes "don’t say (lā taqul) bi-smi-l lāh".
6/10. For B. Sadeghi & M. Goudarzi @MohsenGT: this word is rather[a]l-’anfal, end of the title formula which begins on the previous line (hāḏihi ḫātima [al-’anfāl] sūra ’a-). But the "lā taqul" is still intended.
![6/10. For B. Sadeghi & M. Goudarzi @MohsenGT: this word is rather[a]l-’anfal, end of the title formula which begins on the previous line (hāḏihi ḫātima [al-’anfāl] sūra ’a-). But the "lā taqul" is still intended.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJLqevYWkAA9xOS.jpg "6/10. For B. Sadeghi & M. Goudarzi @MohsenGT: this word is rather[a]l-’anfal, end of the title formula which begins on the previous line (hāḏihi ḫātima [al-’anfāl] sūra ’a-). But the \"lā taqul\" is still intended.")
7/10. For E. Puin, the word is also [a]l-’anfal, end of the title formula. But it’s followed by a short basmala for marking the separation with the content of sūra 9. E. Puin links that feature to Ibn Mas’ud codex, in which sūra 9 had probably the basmala.
![7/10. For E. Puin, the word is also [a]l-’anfal, end of the title formula. But it’s followed by a short basmala for marking the separation with the content of sūra 9. E. Puin links that feature to Ibn Mas’ud codex, in which sūra 9 had probably the basmala.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJLqm-NXsAA6U8s.png "7/10. For E. Puin, the word is also [a]l-’anfal, end of the title formula. But it’s followed by a short basmala for marking the separation with the content of sūra 9. E. Puin links that feature to Ibn Mas’ud codex, in which sūra 9 had probably the basmala.")
8/10. So, my question is: if the copyist did a mistake, why he didn’t simply erase the basmala? As I see it, the copyist didn& #39;t consider the basmala as a mistake. His main concern was rather the title formula of the previous sūra 8, which he forgot to write in the right position.
9/10. A title formula which refers to the ending sūra should obviously occur after the last word of this sūra, or, at least, before the beginning of the next one. In our case, the copyist used a short basmala certainly for marking the separation.
10/10. Why did he forget the formula in this particular transition? Why did he make a mistake in this formula, omitting the word "sūra" (and never elsewhere)? Are these issues meaningful or not? Who knows? Now, just wait for another material evidence…
