Epigraph

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ 

Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian. (Al Quran 15:9)

Presented by Zia H Shah MD with the help of Gemini

When it comes to the preservation of the Glorious Quran over the last 14 centuries and counting, the detractors want to obsess over subtle details of fonts and style:

1. Introduction: The Divergence of the Digital Mushaf

The transcription of the Quran from the oral tradition to the written manuscript (Mushaf) was a defining moment in early Islamic history, culminating in the Uthmanic codex (Al-Mushaf Al-Imam). Today, a similar transformation is occurring as the sacred text migrates from the printed page to the digital interface. In this modern era, two platforms have emerged as the de facto authorities for digital Quranic access: Quran.com and Tanzil.net. While to the casual observer the Arabic text presented on these platforms may appear identical—representing the unalterable word of God—a rigorous philological and forensic technical examination reveals a complex landscape of orthographic variances, encoding strategies, and distinct scriptural lineages.

The user’s query demands a catalogue of differences between these two platforms, specifically regarding the Arabic text across Surahs, including accents and diacritics. This report asserts that the differences observed are not errors, but rather deliberate choices reflecting two distinct approaches to digital preservation. Tanzil.net operates as a “Purist Archive,” focusing on the mathematical integrity of Unicode characters and offering distinct “Uthmani” (historical) and “Imla’i” (modern) text streams.¹ In contrast, Quran.com functions as a “Visual Liturgy,” leveraging proprietary font technologies to replicate the aesthetic nuance of the King Fahd Glorious Quran Printing Complex (KFGQPC) in Medina, often prioritizing visual fidelity over raw character searchability in its primary display.³

This comprehensive analysis catalogues these differences, ranging from the macro-level script choices (Uthmani vs. IndoPak) to the micro-level placement of vowels (Shadda and Kasra) and the specific orthographic anomalies found in Surahs such as Al-Baqarah and Al-A’raf. By dissecting the underlying data structures, font renderings, and theological commitments of each platform, we illuminate the profound challenges inherent in digitizing a seventh-century text for a twenty-first-century audience.

2. Foundations of Digital Orthography: Rasm and Encoding

To understand the variations between Quran.com and Tanzil.net, one must first establish the philological framework of Quranic writing (Rasm) and the technical framework of digital text encoding (Unicode). The friction between these two systems is the primary source of the differences observed by users.

2.1 The Theology of Script: Rasm ‘Uthmānī vs. Rasm Imlā’ī

The Quranic text is not written in standard modern Arabic. It adheres to Rasm ‘Uthmānī (the Uthmanic Orthography), a specific scribal convention established during the Caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan. This script is characterized by unique spelling rules that often deviate from phonetic pronunciation to accommodate various Qira’at (canonical readings) or to preserve the visual archetype of the early codices. Conversely, Rasm Imlā’ī (Dictation Script) represents the modern standard of Arabic orthography, where spelling matches pronunciation.¹

The divergence between the two platforms begins here:

• Tanzil.net offers the user an explicit choice. The default web view often utilizes a “Simple” script (closely aligned with Rasm Imlā’ī) to facilitate readability and browser compatibility, while offering the “Uthmani” script as a separate, selectable mode.¹
• Quran.com defaults to the Uthmani script, specifically the version used by the Madinah Mushaf. This commitment to the archaic script means that the default text on Quran.com will visually and structurally differ from the “Simple” text on Tanzil, particularly in the spelling of long vowels and certain proper nouns.³

The implications of this are profound. A user reading Surah Al-Fatiha on Tanzil’s simple view sees text that adheres to modern grammatical rules. A user on Quran.com sees text that adheres to ancient scribal tradition. These are not merely font differences; they are differences in the presence or absence of letters within the digital skeleton of the word.

2.2 The Technical Architecture: Unicode vs. Font Glyphs

The second layer of divergence is technical. How does a computer represent complex Arabic calligraphy?

Tanzil.net: The Unicode Rationalist

Tanzil’s project philosophy is rooted in the creation of a “highly-verified precise Quran text” using standard Unicode.2 Unicode is the international standard for text representation. Tanzil’s approach is to use the specific code points assigned to Arabic letters.

• Advantage: The text is “pure” data. It can be copied, pasted, and searched easily because it uses standard codes (e.g., U+0627 for Alef).
• Disadvantage: Standard Unicode struggles with the complex vertical stacking of diacritics found in the Quran. For example, placing a Shadda (doubling mark), a Fatha (vowel), and a Waqf (pause mark) on a single letter can cause visual clutter or rendering errors on standard devices.⁸

Quran.com: The Visual Perfectionist

Quran.com prioritizes the visual experience of the Madinah Mushaf. To achieve this, it utilizes the King Fahd Complex’s (KFGQPC) font files.9

• Mechanism: These fonts often utilize the Private Use Area (PUA) of Unicode.¹¹ PUA codepoints are “empty” slots in the Unicode standard that developers can define themselves.
• The Difference: On Quran.com, a complex ligature (like a specific combination of Lam and Alif with a Hamza and a vowel) might be represented by a single PUA codepoint (e.g., U+E000) rather than a string of standard Arabic letters. This ensures the shape is perfect because it is pre-drawn by a calligrapher, not assembled by the browser.
• Implication: If a user copies text from Quran.com, they might technically be copying a PUA character that looks like gibberish if pasted into a text editor that lacks the specific font. Tanzil’s text, being standard Unicode, remains readable. This fundamental architectural difference drives many of the “accent” and visual discrepancies users notice.⁸

3. Catalogue of Differences: The Early Surahs (Al-Fatiha & Al-Baqarah)

The most significant orthographic variances occur in the foundational chapters of the Quran. These differences highlight the distinction between the Imla’i tendency to explicit spelling and the Uthmani tendency to elusive, multi-valent spelling.

3.1 Surah Al-Fatiha: The Case of the King and the Worlds

In the very first chapter, Surah Al-Fatiha, we encounter immediate distinctions between the default views of the two platforms.

Verse 1:2 – “The Worlds” (Al-Alamin)

• Tanzil (Simple/Imla’i): The word is spelled العالمين. Note the presence of the full Alif (the vertical line) after the Ayn. This is the modern standard spelling.
• Quran.com (Uthmani): The word is spelled العٰلمين. The Alif is removed from the skeletal text (a process called Hadhf) and replaced by a small superscript dagger alif (Alif Khanjariyah).
  • Significance: This omission constitutes a difference in the “Rasm” (skeleton). The Uthmani script frequently omits the medial Alif, a characteristic of early Hijazi orthography. While both are pronounced identical, the visual representation differs significantly.

Verse 1:4 – “Master of the Day of Judgment” (Maliki Yawm ad-Din)

• Tanzil (Simple): Typically rendered as مالك (Malik with Alif). This follows the reading of Hafs (the most common recitation) and modern spelling rules.
• Quran.com (Uthmani): Rendered as مٰلك. The skeleton is ملك (M-L-K), with a superscript dagger alif added.
  • Theological Insight: The Uthmanic skeleton ملك is polyvalent. It can be read as Malik (Owner/Master – with a long ‘a’) or Malik (King – with a short ‘a’). By removing the Alif from the skeleton, the Uthmani script accommodates both canonical Qira’at (readings). Warsh and Qalun reciters read it as “King,” while Hafs reads it as “Owner.” Quran.com’s Uthmani display preserves this canonical flexibility, whereas Tanzil’s simple script often locks the text into the specific Hafs pronunciation.¹⁴

3.2 Surah Al-Baqarah: The Ibrahim Anomaly

One of the most specific and technically fascinating differences occurs in Surah Al-Baqarah regarding the spelling of the Prophet Abraham’s name (Ibrahim). This is a critical touchpoint for any catalogue of differences.

The Phenomenon

In the standard Arabic language and in the majority of the Quran, “Ibrahim” is spelled إبراهيم (Alef-Ba-Ra-Alef-Ha-Ya-Mim). However, in Surah Al-Baqarah, the Uthmani Mushaf spells it differently.

The Catalogue Entry

Feature	Quran.com (Uthmani)	Tanzil.net (Simple/Imla’i)
Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2)	Spelled إبرۧهۧم (Skeleton: إبرهم). The letter Ya is omitted. A small diacritic indicates the vowel.	Often standardized to إبراهيم (with Ya) for consistency, or follows the Uthmani rules depending on the user’s toggle.
Other Surahs (e.g., Surah Ibrahim, Maryam)	Spelled إبراهيم (with Ya).	Spelled إبراهيم (with Ya).

Deep Dive Analysis

Why does this difference exist?

• Qira’at Variance: The omission of the Ya in Al-Baqarah is specific to the Uthmanic codices sent to the Levant (Sham). The reciter Ibn Amir (and specifically the transmitter Hisham) reads the name in Al-Baqarah as Ibraham (with a Fatha) rather than Ibrahim. The skeletal removal of the Ya (إبرهم) allows for both readings (“Ibraham” and “Ibrahim”) to be validly superimposed onto the text.
• Platform Behavior: Quran.com, being strictly bound to the Medina Mushaf (which follows the Uthmani Rasm), preserves this visual anomaly faithfully. Users will notice the “missing” letter Ya in Baqarah. Tanzil, in its “Simple” text mode, often normalizes this to the standard إبراهيم to avoid confusing readers who are not experts in Qira’at, effectively “correcting” the text for modern readability while obscuring the historical orthography.¹⁵

3.3 The Ritual Vocabulary: Salah, Zakah, and Riba

A pervasive difference across Surah Al-Baqarah and the entire Quran involves the spelling of key Islamic terms. The Uthmani script uses a substitution rule (Badal) where the letter Alif is replaced by the letter Waw in specific words.

The Catalogue Entry

Word	Meaning	Tanzil (Simple/Imla’i)	Quran.com (Uthmani)	Surah Examples
As-Salah	The Prayer	الصلاة (Standard Alif)	الصلوة (Waw with dagger Alif)	2:3, 2:43, 2:110
Az-Zakah	The Alms	الزكاة (Standard Alif)	الزكوة (Waw with dagger Alif)	2:43, 2:110, 9:60
Ar-Riba	Usury	الربا (Standard Alif)	الربوا (Waw with dagger Alif)	2:275, 3:130, 30:39
Al-Hayat	The Life	الحياة (Standard Alif)	الحيوة (Waw with dagger Alif)	2:96, 3:14, 67:2

Analysis of the Difference

• Visual Impact: A user on Quran.com will see the letter Waw (و) in these words. A small dagger alif is placed on top to indicate that it should be pronounced as ‘aa’, not ‘uu’. This is a classic feature of Rasm Uthmānī.
• Search Implication: If a user searches for “Salat” using standard Arabic typing (الصلاة), Tanzil’s engine (designed for simple text) will find it immediately. Quran.com must employ a “normalization” layer in its backend to map the user’s standard query to the Uthmani text (الصلوة). Without this mapping, the search would fail. This highlights the functional trade-off: Tanzil optimizes the text itself for search; Quran.com optimizes the text for tradition and fixes the search via software.²

4. Structural Variations: The Open Taa and Pausal Marks

Moving beyond word spelling, we encounter structural differences that affect the recitation rules, specifically regarding where and how a reader stops (Waqf).

4.1 The Open Taa (Taa Mabsutah) vs. Taa Marbuta

In standard Arabic, feminine nouns end with Taa Marbuta (ة), which is pronounced as ‘h’ when stopping. However, the Quran contains specific instances where these are written with an “Open Taa” (ت), necessitating a ‘t’ sound when stopping.

Catalogue of Occurrences

• Surah Al-A’raf (7:56): “The Mercy of Allah” (Rahmat Allah).
  • Quran.com (Uthmani): Written as رحمت (Open Taa). This indicates that the historical Uthmani codex wrote it this way.
  • Tanzil (Simple): Often converted to رحمة (Taa Marbuta) in non-Uthmani views.
• Surah Hud (11:73): “The Mercy of Allah and His Blessings”.
  • Quran.com: رحمت (Open Taa).
• Surah Maryam (19:2): “A mention of the Mercy of your Lord”.
  • Quran.com: رحمت (Open Taa).
• Surah Al-Rum (30:50): “Look at the effects of the Mercy of Allah”.
  • Quran.com: رحمت (Open Taa).

Significance

This difference is subtle but critical for Tajweed (recitation rules). A student reading from Tanzil’s “Simple” text might mistakenly stop on these words with a ‘Ha’ sound (Rahmah), whereas the Uthmani script on Quran.com visually instructs them to stop with a ‘Ta’ sound (Rahmat). This preservation of the Open Taa is one of the hallmarks of the KFGQPC text used by Quran.com.6

4.2 The System of Pausal Marks (Al-Waqf)

The snippets indicate differences in “accents,” which encompasses the small letters floating above the text indicating where to pause.

Medina vs. IndoPak/Turkish Systems

• Quran.com (Default): Uses the standard Medina Pausal System.
  • م (Meem): Mandatory stop (Waqf Lazim).
  • لا (Laa): Prohibition of stopping (Waqf Mamnu’).
  • ج (Jeem): Permissible stop (Waqf Ja’iz).
  • صلى (Sala): Preference to continue.
  • قلى (Qala): Preference to stop.
  • ∴ (Mu’anaqah): The “embracing” stops. Three dots appear twice; you stop at one or the other, but not both.²²
• Tanzil.net: While Tanzil supports the Medina signs, its text downloads and some community-contributed translations may reflect Turkish or Indo-Pak pausal signs, which are different.
  • Indo-Pak Signs: Include ط (Ta) for a normal stop (Waqf Mutlaq), ز (Zai) for a permissible stop (Waqf Mujawwaz), and ع (Ayn) in the margins to denote the end of a Ruku (section).
  • Variance: A user might see a ط on a printed Indo-Pak Quran or a derived text on Tanzil, while Quran.com’s default view will show a قلى or ج in the same location. This is a difference in scholarly adjudication (Ijtihad) regarding the syntax of the verse, not a textual error.²³

Verse Ending Markers

• Quran.com: Uses ornate, floral markers with the verse number inside, rendered via the KFGQPC font.
• Tanzil: In “Simple” text views, these may appear as simple brackets (1) or “, or as distinct Unicode characters ۝ (U+06DD). The visual complexity of the verse marker on Quran.com often carries information about Hizb and Juz boundaries that is simplified in Tanzil’s text output.²⁵

5. Regional Scripts: IndoPak vs. Uthmani (Madani)

The user query alludes to differences in “accents.” The most dramatic accentual difference is the script style itself. Both sites allow users to toggle between Uthmani (Madani) and IndoPak scripts, but their implementations reveal significant underlying differences.

5.1 The Visual Catalogue of IndoPak Differences

The IndoPak script (Nastaliq style) is designed for non-Arab learners and contains more explicit vocalization (Dabt) than the Madani script.

1. The “Empty” Waw vs. Sifr Mustadir

• Context: Words like Ula’ika (Those) contain a Waw that is written but not pronounced.
• Madani (Quran.com Default): The silent Waw is marked with a small circle (o) called Sifr Mustadir (Rounded Zero). This indicates the letter is silent in all conditions.
• IndoPak (Option): The silent Waw is often left completely bare (no vowel, no sign). The lack of a sign is the indicator of silence. This can confuse users switching between views.²⁷

2. The Hamza Orthography

• Madani: The Hamza is treated as a distinct letter shape (ء) that “sits” on a carrier (Alif, Waw, Ya) or on the line.
• IndoPak: The Hamza is often integrated more fluidly into the carrier. For example, a Ya carrying a Hamza might look distinctively different, sometimes omitting the dots of the Ya entirely to prioritize the Hamza.²³

3. Tanween Variants (The “Sequential” vs. “Stacked” Accent)

This is a critical “accent” difference mentioned in the research.

• Madani (Quran.com): Uses visual spacing of Tanween (double vowels) to indicate Tajweed rules.
  • Sequential (Offset): ــًـ (The two dashes are not aligned). This indicates Idgham (merging) or Ikhfa (hiding). The reader must look at the next letter to know what to do.
  • Stacked (Aligned): ــً (The two dashes are perfectly on top of each other). This indicates Izhar (clear pronunciation).
• IndoPak: Typically uses the Stacked form for all cases. The reader is expected to know the Tajweed rule based on the letters, not the vowel shape.
• Tanzil: In its “Simple” Unicode text, the Tanween is almost always Stacked. The font rendering usually does not support the complex offset logic of the Madani script unless a specific font (like Me_Quran) is forced. Thus, a learner relying on visual Tanween cues will find them missing on Tanzil’s default view.⁸

6. Technical Micro-Variances: Shadda and Kasra

A precise “catalogue of differences” must include the rendering of the Shadda (doubling mark) combined with the Kasra (short ‘i’ vowel). This is a known issue in digital Arabic typography.

6.1 The Collision Problem

• The Issue: When a letter has both a Shadda (ّ) and a Kasra (ِ), standard Arabic rules allow the Kasra to be placed either:
  1. Under the letter (standard modern).
  2. Under the Shadda but above the letter (traditional calligraphic).
• Tanzil (Standard Fonts): Depending on the user’s browser and font, a Kasra placed under a Shadda might look like a Fatha (short ‘a’) because it sits above the letter body. This creates ambiguity: is the word Rabbi or Rabba? Tanzil’s documentation warns about this and suggests using specific fonts like Scheherazade or Me_Quran to resolve it.⁸
• Quran.com (KFGQPC Fonts): By using the dedicated KFGQPC fonts, Quran.com forces the “Under Shadda” placement but renders it with extreme precision. The Kasra is visually distinct and trapped directly beneath the Shadda curves, preserving the traditional aesthetic while attempting to mitigate confusion. However, for a user accustomed to modern Arabic (where Kasra is always under the letter), Quran.com’s display might initially look like a Fatha.⁹

7. Implications of Data Sources

The differences catalogued above stem from the distinct data lineages of the two projects.

Tanzil.net: The Checksum Guardians

Tanzil’s primary contribution is the “verified” text. They have run checksum algorithms on every letter and diacritic to ensure the Unicode values are correct.2 Their data is the “Gold Standard” for developers. When you see text in an app like Muslim Pro, it is likely Tanzil’s text. Their focus is on the character code.

Quran.com: The Client-Side Compositors

Quran.com credits Tanzil for data but credits the King Fahd Complex (QuranComplex) for the text/fonts.3 This suggests a hybrid model:

• Backend: Uses Tanzil-like data for indexing and search.
• Frontend: Displays KFGQPC vector data.
• The Gap: This can theoretically lead to “ghost” differences where the searchable text (hidden in the code) differs slightly from the visible text (the font). For example, searching for “Ibrahim” in Baqarah might match the standardized إبراهيم (with Ya) in the index, even though the screen shows إبرهم (without Ya). This sophisticated decoupling allows Quran.com to offer the best of both worlds: the searchability of Imla’i and the sanctity of Uthmani.⁴

8. Conclusion: Two Paths to Preservation

The catalogue of differences between Quran.com and Tanzil.net reveals two complementary philosophies of digital preservation.

Tanzil.net is the Archivist. It prioritizes the Code. Its differences (Standard spelling, full Alifs, stacked Tanweens) favor accessibility, searchability, and cross-platform compatibility. It is the tool for the researcher who needs to copy-paste a verse into a Word document without breaking the formatting.

Quran.com is the Calligrapher. It prioritizes the Image. Its differences (Uthmani spelling, PUA characters, sequential Tanweens, Open Taas) favor liturgical accuracy, recitation training, and adherence to the physical Mushaf tradition. It is the tool for the reciter (Qari) who seeks to replicate the experience of the Halaqa (study circle) on a screen.

Summary Catalogue of Key Differences:

Feature	Quran.com (Default View)	Tanzil.net (Default/Simple View)	Key Surahs/Examples
Script Style	Uthmani (Madani)	Imla’i (Simple)	Entire Quran
Ibrahim	إبرهم (No Ya)	إبراهيم (With Ya)	Al-Baqarah (2:124)
Ritual Words	الصلوة (Waw)	الصلاة (Alif)	Al-Baqarah, Al-Nisa
Malik (1:4)	مٰلك (Dagger Alif)	مالك (Full Alif)	Al-Fatiha
Feminine ‘T’	رحمت (Open Ta)	رحمة (Marbuta)	Al-A’raf, Maryam
Tanween	Sequential (Tajweed)	Stacked (Generic)	Entire Quran
Kasra	Under Shadda	Under Letter	Entire Quran
Pause Marks	Medina (م, لا, ج, صلى, قلى)	Variable (can include IndoPak/Turkish)	Entire Quran

In the final analysis, both platforms have succeeded in their respective missions. The differences are not contradictions, but specialized adaptations: one for the machine, and one for the eye.

If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file: