Ṣaddām Ḥusain prints

During the reign of Ṣaddām Ḥusain the (joined Sunni-Šiʿi) Diwān of Auqāf
reissued two Ottoman manuscripts:
one written by Muḥammad ʾAmīn Rušdī (MAR) +
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?)