Ṣaddām Ḥusain prints

During the reign of Ṣaddām Ḥusain the (joined Sunni-Šiʿi) Diwān of Auqāf
reissued two Ottoman manuscripts:
the one written by Muḥammad ʾAmīn Rušdī (MAR)
and the one by Ḥasan Riḍā (ḤR) both non-berKenar.

A close look at the fatiḥa shows that they are identical.
Above on the left from a Turkish facsimile edition of Ḥasan Riḍa,
in the Middle the ʿIrāqī "ḤR", on the right the ʿIrāqī "MAR"
next page 3 from the two ʿIrāqī prints:

As the fatiḥa is identical, it is likely that it was written in both prints by the "improver" Hāšim Muḥammad al-Baġdādī, who fixed everything that was deamed "wrong" by al-Wāʾiẓ.

Two remarks:
ʿIrāq was not affected by the "revolution" of 1924.
While MAR differentites between /fī qulūbihim/ and /fĭ'l arḍi/, ḤR gets it all wrong
‒ I say: "wrong" because from Istanbul to Batavia the differentiation is the rule.

Last a comparison between the two Ottoman scribes and ʿUṯmān Ṭaha:
both place vowel signs often to the left of their base letter, the sukūn of the final mīm even before the kasra of the letter before!
(and ḤR's hā' has both a ǧazm and a kasra ‒ ???)
UT, on the other hand, places all signs at the proper place ‒ and the final mīm gets not sukūn, that is implied in the šadda on the following mīm.
Below from two early Moroccan prints, to show one of my points:
KFE was a switch from Asian to African.
‒­

oddity from Pakistan

While India has a long tradition of spelling maṣāḥif,
there is one šaiḫ, Ẓafār Iqbāl as-Sīālkōtī, who published a mix of Indian and African spelling:
he keeps the long vowel signs
he adds hamza sign (which in IPak is included in vowel sign)
he adds differenciated tanwin signs (an improvement, but not necessary: determined by the following letter)
he does not differentiate between ī and ĭ (determined by the following letters)
he has both the normal ǧazm/head of ǧim without dot and the "Calcutta" angle for sukūn (why?)

Qālūn ‒ Tripolitania

100 years ago there were few maṣāḥif in Tripolitana, but many men knew the qurʾān by heart.
50 years ago there were Warš copies in the mosques, and reciters knew the dif­ferences bet­ween the two main transmissions of Imām Nāfiʿ by heart ‒ mostly by general rules (usul), few specific dif­feren­ces (furuʿ)
In 1975 the Education Secretari­at of the Rule of the Libyan Masses issued a muṣ­ḥaf establish­ed by a com­mitee of scholars, mainly Tunesi­ans, but a Moroccan and two Libyans as well.

(catch word on the right ‒ unlike other Libyan editions)

In the 1980s Šaiḫ Ṣāliḥ ʿAmmār Daḫīl al-Ǧalaṣī wrote a muṣḥaf published in one, four and ten volumes;   Šaiḫ Muṣṭafa Aḥmad Qašqaš and Šaiḫ Šukrī Aḥmad Ḥāmadī signed it:

1987 Muṣḥaf al-Jamahiriya, a Libyan Quran in the trans­mission of Qalun from Nafi', the path of Abū Našīṭ Muḥammad ibn Hārūn, written by Šaiḫ Abū Bakr Sāsī al-Maġribī (b.1917) was published. Among the scholars involved were Šaiḫ Muḥammad Aḥmad Mišāri and Šaiḫ Muṣṭafa Aḥmad Qašqaš. They signed in Lailat al-Qadr 1404/1983
berKenar except five pages
catch words on both right and left

The (New) Libyan (Miṣrata) Muṣḥaf

The Muṣḥaf was prepared by a 7-men committee headed by Šaiḫ at-Tihāmi az-Zaitūnī. It was writ­ten by Šaiḫ aš-Šarīf Grira/Quraira az-Zanāti (picture on the left).
It includes emergen­cy pauses when running out of breath.

there is a PC set version as well

and one in 30 booklets

Because many orientalists knew only Muʿammār al-Qaḏḏafī's muṣḥaf, they thought: Qālūn has a spefic spelling.
Nonsense!
Here a few places which differ from G24, but agrees with IPak (from the book Kein Standard) (p.55) in differet Libyan editions;
there are all Qālūn, but follow different rasm authorities: Ibn Ḫarrāz before and after Muṣḥaf al-Ǧamahariyya, which follows ad-Dānī;
plus some versions from the www. The sound is the same for all, all follow the first Madani numbering, but the rasm differs:

"Uthmani" is from here: مصحف ليبيا برواية قالون عن ناف
last but one is from the web/screen
KFC UT is ʿUṯmān Ṭaha on 604 pages.

‒­