The following manuscript page contains Arabic Ghebari numerals from the eighteenth century (1750 AD, in average). It is by Ahmad Ben-Solaiman Arrasmooki, from Tumbuktu (where a lot of Arabic scholars had settled), Mali, preserved in: Mamma Haidara Commemorative Library, Timbuktu, Mali (11). It reads:
| 1- | which is fifty sacks of wheat above the second channel [third column], then you put after it the meant headings | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2- | by them in this sort, putting first two headings as "Aswa'" [plural of (Sa'), an Arabic measure of varying magnitude] whose sacks are six, then | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3- | five, then you put after them four which are the number of quarters in a single Sa', then five [which are] the number of "Qabdatt" [handfuls] in a quarter of | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4- | a Sa'. Then you put like these meant headings on (the top of the table), and you put | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5- | under them the question's (results), been bound with putting every result that has a like in the previous headings under its like. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6- | Then you match between the two sides. You find six and five twice in both sides, you erase those | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7- | three from both sides, then you look at the rest of the results of the question where you find not | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8- | a like for the remaining four on the other side, you make that four [illegible] two and two, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9- | then there are two in each side, you erase them both, and then one result remains, which is two | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10- | of the meant results, and that has no like of the two remaining results of the question | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11- | which are nine and seven, then you multiply the remaining two of the meant four by the money | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12- | which is fifty, then you get a hundred which you add to the question in order to be [illegible] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13- | their two shares, and you make after the meant results the nine and seven, then you multiply what | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14- | is at every one's hand by the hundred, and you divide the result by the headings, starting with the last as before. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15- | Then, Zaid gets 18 sacks, 13 Sa', 3 quarters, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16- | seven ninth of a handful, and six ninth of a handful. And Amr gets 13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17- | sacks, 13 Sa', 1 quarter, 1 handful, and six ninth of a handful. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18- | And Bakr gets 18 sacks, 12 Sa', 3 quarters, and five | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19- | ninth of a handful. Opposite is its illustration. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20- | Such Sa' have been taken out from the fractions of | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21- | the two first headings by making out-taking whose numerator [illegible] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| N.B.: | 1- | Translation of the above page of manuscripts is not alleged to be quite sound. |
| 2- | For those who are familiar with the Arabic alphabet, they could notice that even some alphabetic characters have undergone some slight changes between Arabic-East and Arabic-West, being represented in writing the letter: FAA ف with its dot beneath it in this Arabic-Western manuscript, and the letter QAFF ق with a single dot above it. And the letter DALL has preserved its ancient origin as in: , which is still in use in numbering and in the mathematical notations in the Arabic-East. The modern Eastern shape of it is: د.
|

Those ancient (Ghebari) numerals found in the table are as follows, in a clearer illustration:
, two
, four
, and nine
, while the five
maintained its ancient origin before its tail get rounded in the Arabic-East. The five here is resembled by the five in four Indian scripts - with different italicization - as I have exhibited.
The logic rejects that Arab traders (and, with all the more reason, scholars or even globetrotters) have selected their numerals out of the variant digits in Indian scripts - if these were the origin - while the logical and the reasonable view is that some Indian scripts vary among themselves in figuring some of their numerals than they are in the Arabic figures. This outweighs that Arabs were the source of such numerals.
It is worth noting here how mercantile dealings have necessitated - in this example case - detailed arithmetic applications in a society that have not been paying care - or perhaps have not known - astronomical, geometrical or natural sciences.. the thing that confirms that Arabic mercantilism has been the mother of inventing the Arabic numerals!
