Manuscript

Sep 2018
82
Russia
#41
The writing style is pain in the arse. It appears to be in Arabic moving slightly upwards for whatever reasons. I could pickup alot of sentences (تتبع اثار السلف, التطوع وطول القنوت etc.).
And what is the content of the text there))? comments?



By the way, once the style of writing differs greatly, probably the main text and subsequent comments were written at different times?

By the way, what about the text))?

As I understand, you are sure that the main text was written in Egypt, judging by the style of the letter))?
 

Tulun

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
3,767
Western Eurasia
#42
The writing style is pain in the arse. It appears to be in Arabic moving slightly upwards for whatever reasons. I could pickup alot of sentences (تتبع اثار السلف, التطوع وطول القنوت etc.).
oh then i could be wrong, it seemed to me that i see some pe letters (like be but with three dots پ) which obviously can't be Arabic and از (Persian preposition "from") in the text, but it can be i'm too sleepy now :D thank you
 
May 2016
974
Nabataea
#44
oh then i could be wrong, it seemed to me that i see some pe letters (like be but with three dots پ) which obviously can't be Arabic and از (Persian preposition "from") in the text, but it can be i'm too sleepy now :D thank you
It could be both. As many are absolutely unintelligible for me, but I could strangely pick numerous Arabic sentences.
 
Sep 2018
82
Russia
#45
I found that exact sentences with alteration, it is related to wealth distribution I believe. From; السراجية في الميراث.


https://arabicdawateislami.net/bookslibrary/3465/page/52


It is clear that someone is writing a quote on an empty sheet. I think the handwriting is different from the main text of the manuscript.

Well, people often make notes on empty sheets.

And what about the main text did not find anything new? Did not find such a comment?

Thank you very much for your efforts!
 
May 2016
974
Nabataea
#46
It is clear that someone is writing a quote on an empty sheet. I think the handwriting is different from the main text of the manuscript.

Well, people often make notes on empty sheets.

And what about the main text did not find anything new? Did not find such a comment?

Thank you very much for your efforts!
I tried searching the Arabic side of the internet but sadly with no luck. Maybe I'll take a look tomorrow.
 

Tulun

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
3,767
Western Eurasia
#49
1) i still have no new info on the manuscript, but i had a closer look on the seal you posted

http://www.picshare.ru/uploads/180912/98JZvAp69e.jpg

on the top side (above the long line in the center of the seal) it is written Muhammad محمد something, can't be spelled out properly the other part, and i think below the line it is written ibn Muhammad Rajab ابن محمد رجب (son of Muhammad Rajab) or maybe ibn Muhammad ibn Rajab (son of Muhammad son of Rajab) ? i couldn't figure out anything more who could be this person.

2) The other thing, the page, which lists the Sufi masters of the Naqshbandi order

http://www.picshare.ru/uploads/180912/g0ahsLz7O4.jpg

I don't understand it entirely and i start to be quite sure it is Persian (at least i could recognize some definietly Persian phrases in it like اخذ نموده) but in the second line from the top, it mentiones a "honorable seykh Muhammed 'Ayed محمد عايد (or Ayir? ), May Allah be pleased with him ", and i think the later part of the text could explain that he was initiated to the Naqshbandi order and then lists the chain of the masters of the order back to the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) . Now unfortunetly i couldn't spell out the name of all sheykhs, but as i see it starts with a 1) sheykh al kamil al mukammal (the most perfect sheykh) Abdullah (?) something (i couldn't spell out), then 2) 1 or 2 sheykhs whose name i couldn't read, then continues with a 3) sheykh Muhammed Sa'eed and then 4) sheykh Muhammed Baqi Billah ... and so on back to the Prophet peace be upon him. Now the reason i mention this because Muhammed Baqi Billah died in 1603 and i think this Muhammed Sa'eed in the 1660s-1670. So the chronology points to that this list could be written in the 18th, maybe early 19th century?
 
Last edited:
Sep 2018
82
Russia
#50
1) i still have no new info on the manuscript, but i had a closer look on the seal you posted

http://www.picshare.ru/uploads/180912/98JZvAp69e.jpg

on the top side (above the long line in the center of the seal) it is written Muhammad محمد something, can't be spelled out properly the other part, and i think below the line it is written ibn Muhammad Rajab ابن محمد رجب (son of Muhammad Rajab) or maybe ibn Muhammad ibn Rajab (son of Muhammad son of Rajab) ? i couldn't figure out anything more who could be this person.

2) The other thing, the page, which lists the Sufi masters of the Naqshbandi order

http://www.picshare.ru/uploads/180912/g0ahsLz7O4.jpg

I don't understand it entirely and i start to be quite sure it is Persian (at least i could recognize some definietly Persian phrases in it like اخذ نموده) but in the second line from the top, it mentiones a "honorable seykh Muhammed 'Ayed محمد عايد (or Ayir? ), May Allah be pleased with him ", and i think the later part of the text could explain that he was initiated to the Naqshbandi order and then lists the chain of the masters of the order back to the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) . Now unfortunetly i couldn't spell out the name of all sheykhs, but as i see it starts with a 1) sheykh al kamil al mukammal (the most perfect sheykh) Abdullah (?) something (i couldn't spell out), then 2) 1 or 2 sheykhs whose name i couldn't read, then continues with a 3) sheykh Muhammed Sa'eed and then 4) sheykh Muhammed Baqi Billah ... and so on back to the Prophet peace be upon him. Now the reason i mention this because Muhammed Baqi Billah died in 1603 and i think this Muhammed Sa'eed in the 1660s-1670. So the chronology points to that this list could be written in the 18th, maybe early 19th century?
It is possible and so.

But this list looks like it was written after the main text of the manuscript was written.

There are comments in different handwritings, as I understood)).

Perhaps in the 18th century or early 19 the manuscript was in the Persians))?

Thank you very much for the answer.

I will try to lay out today the full version of the manuscript)).
 

Similar History Discussions