When was the KFE made?

Aziz Hilal's article Le Coran de 1924, histoire et enjeux politiques is excellent, well researched and important,
but I see a problem, that I see with many authors:
he takes often what is said/writ­ten at face value.
E.g. he believes that already in 1912 the govern­ment wanted an new mushaf, that "the committee" started to work long before 1919.

And he believes that its publication in 1924 had to do with Fuad's am­bition to become calife.
So he has to assume that the project got "forgotten"(oublié) and got revived (évoqué à nouveau),
As I see it, he overlooks three important points:
that Egypt declared its independance from the Ottoman Empire at the end of 1914 (after 300 years),
that the KFE was not a newly deviced written version as the Muḫalla­lati, but that the initiators wanted a readable and non-Ottoman version,
that the main objective of (the modernists in the Ministry of Education like) Hifni Bey was a read­able version:
  baseline,
  clear (positional) link between vowel sign and base letter,
  space between words,
  space between lines
I assume that the date of 12/13. Januar 1919 when the members of the commitee, the proof reader of the press and the Shaikh al-azhar signed is fictious, it is a couple of days before Hifni Bey died.
I assume that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād wrote the muṣḥaf to be set half a year or so before the book got printed, but that the government wanted to include the initiator of the project among the signiatories, so it had to be dated before his death.

Aziz Hilal is better than his fellows because he puts the emergence of the muṣḥaf in a histori­cal context
‒ the struggle for power between king/the palace, parliament/the bourgeoisie (and azhar/the ʿulemaʾ) and
‒ the califal aspirations after the abolition of the Ottoman califat 3.3.1924,
forgetting Egypt's having left the Ottoman Empire after the start of WWI
His most original discovery is, that the only discussion of the KFE is by a German, by Gotthelf Bergsträßer,
that Egyptian, Turkish, Arab, Indian, Indonesian and Persian ʿulemaʾ, politicans and intellectuals ignore it, or ‒ at least ‒ were silent and mute about it.
As important examples he cites
‒ the Journal by Muḥammad al-Aḥmadī al-Ẓawāhirī, Šaiḫ al-Azhar 1929‒1935
‒ al-Azhar by ʿUṯmān Tawfīq and ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Yūnus, 1946
‒ al-Muslimūn wa-l-Aqbāṭ fī iṭār al-ǧamāʿa al-waṭaniyya, by Ṭāriq al-Bišrī, 1981, 899pp.
None mentions the KFE at all.


The paper by Asma Hilali can be reduced to one sentence:
While in the 19th century, the Flügel edition served many Orientalists as text of reference,
now the text of the KFE, the Madina Mushaf (Ḥafṣ by the KFComplex) and the simplified text of tanzil.net serve as reference.
Here I have to congratulate. Three years ago, in the inviation to (her) conference, she had written

... l’édition du Coran du Caire ... est d’une importance capitale *dans la société musul­mane* moderne et con­tempo­raine ... L’édition du Caire met à dis­position des musulmans ... une version du texte coranique qui deviendra pro­gressive­ment *la référence reli­gieuse, litur­gique ... la plus populaire dans le monde islamique*. ... la *popu­larité* du Coran du Caire n’a jamais été remise en cause. ... un événement religieux s’adressant aux musul­mans ... Ainsi, l’avène­ment du Coran du Caire a une portée qui dépasse la sphère de la croyance et qui prend sa place dans l’histoire de la civi­lisation islamique : histoire des institu­tions, histoire maté­rielle, histoire de la pensée reli­gieuse et des études isla­miques.

All this bla-bla is gone. Al-ḥamdu-llāh

Omar Hamdan's article is almost useless.
His conlusion ‒ that the KFE does not follow closely the old mss, but either ad-Dānī/Abu Daʾud or a modern print (maybe the Mu­ḫalla­lātī), was evident before he started to look at it.
If he had compared the KFE with both the Muqniʿ and the Tanzīl, and with an Indian print, a Maġribī print and the Mu­ḫalla­lātī (plus an Ottoman print, as well as with the mss.), the paper would have been useful.
I assume that it would have shown that it follows most closely the Maġrib (indirct­ly Abu Daʾud Sulaimān Ibn Naǧāḥ).




Aziz Hilal asks quel lien y aurait-t-il entre l’édition du muṣḥaf du roi Fuʾād en 1924 et la question du califat en Islam ?

Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl al-Ǧīzāwī (1874-1927), en poste entre 1917 et 1927 Signalons que son nom est mystérieu­sement remplacé par « ṣāḥib al-faḍīla, šayḫ ǧāmiʿ al-Azhar ». AS: kfe1 Stempel Muḥ ʿAbu'l-faḍl einerseits Dès 1912, le gouvernement égyptien comptait éditer un muṣḥaf qui dépasse en qualité et en précision celui de Riḍ­wān al-Muḫalla­lātī. La postface à la première édition date du 10 rabīʿ al-ṯānī 1337 (13 janvier 1919) Pourquoi ne pas se contenter de reprendre le muṣḥaf de Riḍwān al-Muḫallalātī et le corriger ? si la postface de ce muṣḥaf porte la date du 13 janvier 1919, pourquoi attendre le 10 juillet 1924 pour le publier C’est dans ce contexte que le muṣḥaf, oublié depuis 1919, est à nouveau évoqué, afin de fournir un supplément de légitimité à la candidature du roi Fuʿād. Le symbole d’al-Azhar, le poids ‒ ­