i read somewhere that alahazrat has also said similarly. some pious person must have had a habit of reading a juzu' every day; and he divided the pages of his muS'Haf into 30 parts and thus in the subcontinent mus'haf one verse of surah al-Hijr ends in part 13 and the rest of the surah is in part 14; whereas madinah muS'Haf* starts the 14th part with the first verse. this muS'Haf has been used everywhere: even this site makes use of it. this MS is dated 1322 (acc. KSU) and notice that juz is not standard or even marked; at (470x2=) 940 pages, if there were parts, they would be 30 pages for each juzu' on an average. sample page. --- but this MS, dated 1095 marks the juz. see the page here. also notice the marking of hamzah is not consistent - it is used in the second and third lines (ya'kulu - amal) but not for some others (ahlakna, illa, inna) --- this undated MS has juzu' marking but hamzah markings are absent. --- this MS dated 1088, has hizb markings and juzu' as well in gold ink. ----- this MS dated 8th or 9th hijri - has hamzah markings, and surah name. it also has hizb markings but on a quick inspection, did not see juzu' marking. ====================== other notable things about madinah muS'Haf is that ayats don't spill over to the next page - every page ends with ayat. every juzu' is 20 pages. (so one can read a page in tarawiH and thus complete the whole juzu' in 20 raka'ah) spacing is even and only upon careful examination one can tell that it is hand-written - the accuracy and consistency is remarkable. ======================= *of uthman TaHa's calligraphy - which is absolutely beautiful and has been the standard so far; wahabis have started replacing it with a different script these days - dunno if that too is uthman's. in the the vicinity of Haram of Madinah, one can hardly find the old muS'Haf; instead it is full of new copies from the king fahd complex.
this is not a difference actually. alif doesn't carry a vowel sign, rather it is used for elongation (long vowel sound) for example in kitaab (كتاب). when you pronounce Allah (الله) then the first letter is not alif but hamzah with a fathah (zabar) on it and alif only acts as a chair for hamzah, it is actually ألله. in arabic mushaif they write a hamzah on alif to indicate that, but in indian prints they have shortened it with a vowel sign directly on alif. the alif which has a hamzah on it with it's vowel sign is called hamzat'ul qata'ah (همزة القطع), it is always pronounced. in arabic mushaif you will also note an alif which has a symbol similar to letter saad, it is called hamza'tul wasl (همزة الوصل). when another word precedes a word starting with hamza'tul wasl then this hamzat'ul wasl is not pronounced. for example if you bring the letter waow before al-qamar (والقمر) then you'll read it as wal-qamar without pronouncing the alif. in indian prints we don't mention it. this confuses many people from the subcontinent when they try to read arabic mushaif.
Najdis will freak out at that Lol. Just read that the script of the Arab published Masaahif are Naskh, most in Indopak are also Naskh with some variation, and that some in pakistan are Nastaliq, However what reference i still cant seem to find is, from which sources do the Arab published Masaahif get their Para Marks, and ruku markrs etc and where do the indopak versions source the Para Markers Ruku Marks etc.
Do a search on the forum (and elsewhere online and offline) regarding the different ahruf. According to the riwayah of Hafs through 3Asem, it is with fat'ha. According to other riwayahs it is with dhamma. See here to compare the different riwayahs. http://nquran.net/index.php?group=AyatCompare&sora=30&aya=54
Why is there difference in the print of the Quran Sharief such as those printed in Hijaz and those printed in the indopak subcontinent, Notable differences are the point where Ruku markers are, and some differ in even the Para/Juz markers. The Prints of Saudi, also have a difference in vowels, Example in Surah Rum, Ayah no: 54, have fatha whilst the indian prints have dhamma, Also indian prints have Alif without a hamza above them, whilst Arab prints have Alif with the hamza above the alif. Could anyone explain please.
