Cairo 1924

Many things experts present as remarkable about the 1924 Egyptian Government print of the Qurʾān, the King Fuʾād Edition, are wrong:
it was not the first print made by Muslims for Muslims (Neuwirth),
it did not finally fix a fluid text (Bobzin),
it did not spread Ḥafṣ through­out the Muslim world (Bauer),
it was not an immediate success with Sunnis and Šiʿites (Reynolds),
its spelling did not impose itself everywhere "(with only extra­ordinary exceptions)" (Reynolds),
it was not edited and calligraphed by a Turkish/Ot­to­man calligrapher (Asma Hilali),
it was not produced to increase King Fuʾād chances to become caliph (Aziz Hilal),
its spelling was not due to the technical constraints of metal type (Milo),
it was not the first in Egypt in "ar-rasm ʿuṯmānī" instead of "imlāʾī",
nor the first world-wide claiming to do so on its title page,
it was not an Azhar Qurʾān,
nor the result of 17 years of delibarations of a committee,
it is not "the Cairo Edition" — not even a Cairo print,
it is not the restoration of the original written text by applying the works of ad-Dānī and Ibn Naǧāḥ to the Ḥafṣ oral text (Bergsträßer).

Muslims had printed maṣāḥif since 1803 (Kazan), 1827, 1829 in Iran and India (from the 1860s on in high runs).
The oral text had been fixed for centuries.
It did not produce a frozen written text (far from becoming the standard):
‒ the Amīrīya itself (resp. its editors al-Ḥaddād and aḍ.Ḍabbāʿ) changed it,
‒ private publisher and foreign states changed their "reprints",
‒ "heirs" like the King Fahd Complex (KFC) and Qaṭar made changes.
Ḥafṣ — being the closest to the standard pronun­ciation — was made the standard reading long before 1924 by the non‑Arab Mamluks, Safavids, Ottomans, and Timurids: thus becoming the reading in Asia.
The 827 page KFE never was a com­mer­i­cal success any­where, not even in Egypt.
Its spelling became a success due to the 522 page Šamarlī (calli­graphed 1975 by Muḥammad Saʿd Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaddād following the page lay­out of Muṣṭafa Naẓīf Qadir­ġalī) and the 604 page Ma­dina Muṣ­ḥaf (calli­graphed 1978 by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha following the page layout of Ḥafiz ʿUṯ­man/Os­man Qayš­zade/Kaış­zade) ‒ the first just in Egypt, the second in the Arab word and in Malaysia (and among Sala­fites) ‒ decenies after 1924 and only for a tiny minority of Muslims (Indo­ne­sians, Indians, Bengalis, Pak­ista­nis, Turks, Iranians, Africans are often over­looked or under­estimated).
pace Reynolds, Iran never reprinted the KFE, nor adopted its spelling; they just adopted the Ottoman 604 pages berkenar layout used by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha.
Asma Hilali demonstrates a misunder­standing of almost regal grandeur regarding the material history of the King Fuʾād Edition. In her concluding remarks to the proceedings of Le Coran du Caire 1924, she claimed that it had been ‘edited and calli­graphed by ʿAbd al‑ʿAzīz al‑Rifāʿī’, although the one thing to know about the KFE is that it was typeset.
There is not the slightest indica­tion that the muṣḥaf should push King Fuʾād to the cali­phat; it was not dis­tri­buted (nor dis­played) at any of the caliphal promotion con­ferences.
Ḥifnī Bey, the initiator of the project, sought a Qurʾān that was easy to read ‒ with a strict right-to-left sequence of charac­ters, determining the temporal order of pronun­ciation, plus exact po­si­tioning of ḥara­kāt ‒ not only in the right order of marks, but also with each sign exactely above, below, or within its letter. ‒ Looking at /alʾān/ (4:18), Muḫalla­lātī and the Indians have the dagger for /ā/ above the hamza, the normal place of a vowel sign. KFE has it to the left: a tiny bit clearer.Type did not force him, he wanted it that way.
In the first years of the 20^th century the normal muṣḥaf in Egypt had been Ottoman (Muṣḥaf Tawfiq 1299 [13 lines 601 pp.], reprints of Hafiz Osman, the Elder [11 lines, 815 pp.] and of Muṣṭafà Naẓīf Qadirġalī [15 lines, 522 pp.]): with proper اللٰه , with both original alif (i.e. hamz when with a haraka-sign), and often alif as mater lectio­nis (5 150 times more often than in the "ʿUṯmānic rasm" ‒ which has 5 150 more dagger alifs). ‒ “Imlāʾī” suggests the modern standard ortho­graphy of MSA, which it is not: This becomes imme­dia­tely clear from the spelling of words such as raḥmn (for raḥmān) and ṣalū (for ṣalāt), forms that deli­be­ra­tely diverge from normal. al-Ribā; 2:275 (3x);276;278; 3:130; 4:161; al-Ṣalāt; 70 x ṣalātī; 6:162; ṣalāti r-rasūli; 9:99; ṣalātaka; 9:103; a-ṣalātuka; 11:87; ṣalātihim; 107:5; al-Zakāt; 32x from 2:43 to 98:5; al-Ḥayāt; 55x from 2:85 to 89:24; wa-Manāta; 53:20; al-Najāt; 40:41; ka-miškātin; 24:35; bi-l-ghadāti; 6:52; 18:28;

The King Fuʾād Edition of 1924 is in the "ʿUṯmānic rasm" but not as the result of tedious, year long dis­cus­sions by a committee (as many experts claim), but as a simple switch. All Fāzī prints are ʿuṭmāni, all Indian prints have /al-ʿalāmīn, mālik, razaq­nā­hum/ with dagger alifs; so has the Būlāq type of 1895 and the very im­portant Cairo Edition of 1308/1890 by Muḫal­lalātī. When you compare a Fāzī print from the 19^th cen­tury, a muṣ­ḥaf by Hafiẓ Osman Kayş­zāde, the 1895 Būlāq print with­out vocal signs, the 1931 Algiers print, and 1890 Muḫal­la­lātī CE with the 1924 KFE, and last a Naval Kishore (नवल किशोर نولکشور) print from 1890 you see, that 1924 did not introduce the rasm ʿuṯmānī to Egypt.
(as always: click the image and choose "open in a new tab" after having clicked the image with the secondary mouse resp. ⌃(Control)-click. In the new tab you can zoom with Ctrl-+ resp. ⌘ + )
(Būlāq 1895 uses madda for /ʾā/ not for extra long elonga­tion)

So what was new?
‒ offset print: technical important, but without consequences for the content, nor for the book form,
‒ streamlined Saǧāwandī pauses signs,
‒ no more references to readings other than Ḥafṣ,
‒ no more references to verse ends other than Kufan → number after each verse,
(( no tafsīr ))
‒ more space between lines, between words,
‒ baseline ductus (no stapled ligatures; all harakat sign excately above/below letter)
    (this is standard now),
‒ three "mute"/not to be prounced-signs: waṣla at the start, zero and circle at the end of words.

So there were many switches:
‒ from scholarly to for state school students and foreigners (base­line, numbers, no alter­natives),
‒ from "isolated words" (Ottoman and Persian) to "words in context" (Ipak and And), i.e. notating assi­mi­la­tion between words,
‒ from having short and long vowel signs to needing always ḥuruf al-madd, there­fore intro­ducing small, sub­stitu­tion vowel letters ( ٰ ࣳ ۧ ), when there are none in the rasm; already Muḫal­la­lātī had this Western system, which follows the Arab grammar,
‒ from "imlāʾī" to "ʿuṯmānī" (rasm),
‒ from Asian to African (spelling):
    ‒ اللَه instead of اللٰه
    ‒ ءادم instead of اٰدم
    ‒إِ أَ instead of اَ   اِ (in Asia alif is hamza, in Africa its "just" the seat of hamza)
    ‒ sequential tanwīn (for iḫfāʾ or id­ġām) instead of iẓhār nūn
    ‒ from notating the difference between spoken /ī/ and shortened /ĭ/ to writing them the same.

But there was no leap from Ottoman to the KFE.
Two developments preceded the KFA (of al-Ḥaddād, of the government or more precisely the Ministry of Education). Between 1904 and 1906 the Būlāq Press improved the sorts, made them inter­locking (the Ministry of Finance had asked for this, Muḥammad Ǧaʿfar Bey was the artis­tique director: he removed more than hundred stapled ligatures, see bottom):

In 1890 and in 1895 two maṣāḥif with the "rasm al-ʿuṯmānī" appeared in Cairo, the muṣḥaf al-Mu­ḫal­la­lātī in al-Qāhira, and a type­set one in Būlāq (both above in the big com­parison table). al-Mu­ḫal­la­lā­tī worked with ad-Dānī's Muqniʿ, and may­be with an Indian print ‒ Indian printers sold lots of books in Egypt, ships needed about ten days from Bom­bay to Ismaʿilia. So the switch from imlāʾī to ʿuṯmānī was made in 1308/1890, not in 1342/1924.
al-Ḥaddād did not copy al-Mu­ḫal­la­lā­tī' s rasm, but to more than 95% the Moroc­can one, and ‒ which was more revo­lu­tio­nary ‒ the Moroc­can ortho­graphy (alifs did not have an inherent hamza = needed a hamza or waṣl-sign; vowel-signs needed lengthening letters to became long, hence sup­plemen­tary small ( ٰ ۦ ۦࣳ ۦ ) letters were written, when the rasm had not a ḥarf al-madd. Of course he did not copy the Western particu­larities about fāʾ, qāf, some end froms (with­out dot having a distinct form) and lām-alif (vs. alif-lām).

What we have in chronolo­gical order, is
‒ (1) the original spelling that we find in the scriptio inferior of the Sana'a palimp­est and in Codex Mash­had
‒ (2) the spelling that we find in the (true) ʿUṯmānic maṣāḥif, like the CPP, or CA1 or other early mss.
‒ (3) the "ʿuṯmānic rasm" as de­scribed by ad-Dānī and collea­guges
‒ (4) the "imlāʾī" text as found in Otto­man and Persian maṣāḥif
‒ (5) the modern spelling (MSA)

Although we find (3) in all Western (Andalus, Morocco, West Africa, Libya) and all Eastern (India, Pakistan, Indo­nesia, South Africa, Ceylon, their dia­sporas) maṣā­ḥif, experts and geniuses call (3) "Cairo": not excact, and the result of flagrant ignorance (what was under­standable for a German scholar in 1930 is inexcus­able for www-verse youngster today. BTW, Bergsträßer calls the KFE explicitly "the offical Egyptian qurʾān" and implictely "the al-Ḥusainī-al-Ḥaddād-muṣ­ḥaf", never any­thing with Cairo ← he and Jeffrey know that there were hundreds of different CEs, no "CE".).

Bobzin, Berg­sträßer, Brockett, Puin, van Putten know a thousand times more about Arabic, the Qurʾān or Islām than I do. Yet, I dare to say: this sentence by XY is nonsense. ‒ Because they do not know enough about printing, or because they do not keep the oral form, the text, the graphic form and the book gestalt apart.¹

Clarification
When we talk about a muṣḥaf (i.e. a written or printed qurʾān) we must keep different things apart:
‒ 1 the oral form, i.e. its reading, a system of reci­ta­tion. It defines how the text is pro­nounced, some­times a dif­ferent vowel, a doubled con­sonant, how hamza is treated, elon­ga­tions, as­simi­lation, where pauses are man­da­tory, possible, or for­bidden. (Ibn al-Ǧazarī treats in his Kitāb an-Našr not only the rasm, the letters, but the pauses as well.)
It is transmitted orally, corrected oral­ly, and mastered orally.
It can be written differently ‒ fixing most aspects or leav­ing them to be taught orally (and in scholarly books about it).
In our case it is Ḥafs ʿan ʿĀṣim.
‒ 2a the text: The written form is the con­crete reali­zation of ortho­graphy: the spell­ing system for re­present­ing Ḥafṣ on the page (or in the data stream), a bundle of deci­sions:
‒ the rasm, the letter skele­ton;
‒ the spelling of long vowels;
‒ the spelling of initial hamza;
‒ mute/otiose letters;
‒ the writing of (partial) assi­mi­la­tion;
‒ auxiliary signs: verse numbers, signs for pause, saǧa­da, juzʾ, ḥizb and saktah.
Some aspects follow early manu­scripts (in which alif, waw and yāʾ were not only written for /ʾ, w, y/ and /ā, ū, ī/, but for /a, u, i/ as well, dif­feren­tiat­ing between words that would be homo­graphs with­out a con­ven­tionally intro­duced spelling dis­tinc­tion (where one form viola­tes phono­graphic expec­ta­tions) and for marking the end of a word ending with a letter with­out an explicit end-of-word-form (waw, dāl, ḏāl, rāʾ, zai).
In Asia/India/Indone­sia long vowels are written by long-vowel-signs while Africa/Anda­lu­sia/the Maġrib has only three short vowel signs, needing extra length­en­ing letters: when there is no ḥarf al-madd in the rasm a small vowel letter is added. (Al­though the dagger/alif ḫan­ǧa­rīya has the same shape ‒ even has the same uni­code code point ‒ in the East it is a vowel sign (khaṛā zabar), where­as in the West it is a small letter.)
In Asia alif never has a hamza-sign above (nor below) because it is hamza: the ḥara­ka acti­va­tes its hamza­ness: /ʾa, ʾi, ʾu/, while in the West a small head of ʿain is needed
Two remarrks:
‒ In Arab grammar the first letter is hamza (just calli­graphers call it alif)
‒ both vowel dots/stro­kes and the ham­za sign did not exist when spelling was fixed.
This layer is often mis­under­stood. It is a spell­ing system, chosen and applied by human editors. Dif­ferent systems can re­pre­sent the same reci­ta­tion; the same system can be used for dif­ferent reci­ta­tions.

‒ 2b: the graphic form
While the text (2a) represents the under­lying data, graphic form is how the text is rendered. The text is basic; the graphic forms are variants. Linguistically and com­pu­ta­tionally, a ḍamma re­mains a ḍamma, and a sukūn re­mains a sukūn, regard­less of regional vari­a­tions.
For a visual gallery (including Otto­man, East African, and Indian forms of ḍamma and sukūn), see: A Visual Guide to Quranic Graphic Variants.

‒ 3: The book is the physical rea­li­za­tion: page size, margins, type­face, lay­out, title pages, appen­dices, indices, catch­words, headers .... This layer answers questions like:
‒ Are rukūʿāt marked in the text? On the margin?
‒ How many lines per page?
‒ Is there extra space bet­ween words?
‒ Are there numbers after each verse, and are alter­native ends of verse in­di­cated?
‒ Must each juzʾ begin on a right‑hand page?
‒ Does every page finish with a verse-end?
‒ Is there an index? A colo­phon? A table of aḥzāb?
‒ Are the cartouches on the margin for aǧāzʾ, sa­ǧadāt, sakta?
‒ Are the suras counted or named only?
‒ Is the chronology of revelation indicated?
This layer is the most visible to readers, yet the least under­stood in scholar­ship. It is also the layer in which printers, not scholars, often have the final word.
↩︎ return

The Azhar Koran prompted a veritable flood of printed editions of the Koran through­out the Islamic world, as there was now a recognized authority on which the Koran text could be based.
Hartmut Bobzin: “Von Venice to Cairo: On the History of Arabic Edi­tions of the Koran” in Spra­chen des Nahen Ostens und die Druck­revo­lu­tion, eds.: Eva Hane­butt-Benz, Dagmar Glaß, Geoffrey Roper West­hofen 2002. p. 171

Bobzin's statement that Muslims did not have a text before 1924 is absurd, mis­taking the switch from Otto­man spell­ing to Maġribī spell­ing, from Ottoman calligraphy to base­line type, and from informing about several end-of-verse-systems to simple Kufan numbering with the final stan­dar­tiza­tion of the text. His base mistake: He does not see (does not hear), that the oral form was fixed cen­turies ago, and that the graphic ele­ments are not of equal impor­tance: ductus and sura title boxes are not as impor­tant as the rasm, and while some rasm dif­ferences are dis­cussed for a single word (ḥarf → farš al-ḥurūf), others for gramma­tical categories (uṣūl) ‒ and: The King Fuʾād Edition of 1924 is no Azhar Koran!

the various editions of the Qur’an printed today (with only extra-ordinary excep­tions) are identical, word for word, letter for letter.
Gabriel Said Rey­nolds "Introduction" to The Qur'ān in its Histori­cal Context, Abingdon: Routledge 2008, p. 1

Yes, there is less varity than hundred years ago, but maṣāḥif from Kazan, Bakū, Ankara and Istan­bul are very different from those from Dja­karta; those from Casa­blanca, Dakar, Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Kano are not only different from each other, but very different from those from Khartum or Karachi. In Bairut, Medina, Tehran maṣāḥif with different spellings are produced.

Quelle für den Konsona­ten­text sind natür­lich nicht Koran­hand­schriften, sondern die Litera­tur über ihn; er ist also eine Rekon­struk­tion, das Ergebnis einer Um­schrei­bung des üblichen Konso­nanten­textes
Of course, the source for the consonant text are not manu­scripts, but the litera­ture about it; it is therefore a recon­struc­tion, the result of a recasting of the usual consonant text
Gotthelf Bergsträßer: "Reciting the Qurʾān in Cairo" in Der Islam XX (1932)

Bergsträßer valued al-Ḥaddād and held his muṣ­ḥaf in high esteem, although it was not a critical edition based on the oldest manu­scripts (something he had wanted to achieve). Seeing that it was not ‒ as is common ‒ an adaptation of a recent print, and having noticed a Tabyīn by Ibn Naǧāḥ in his study, he assumed that the Chief Recitor had recon­structed the old written form by applying the rules of ad-Dānī and Abū Dāʾūd Sulaimān Ibn Naǧāḥ to the oral text he knew by heart.
Yes, al-Ḥaddād had not just adopted an Ottoman muṣ­ḥaf, not even Muḫalla­lātī's of 1308/1890, but his work was based an an existing muṣḥaf, a Warš print from Faz, which he "just" ḥafṣi­fied.
In which treatise, Dr. Bergsträßer, you suppose al-Ḥaddād found that there are three kinds of tanwīn? Where the rule that alifs must have a waṣl-sign or a hamza? Where that he must add sub­stitute vowel letters to lenghten fatḥa, kasra or ḍamma? Where, for God's sake, did he find the rule that /ʾallāh/ must be written as /ʾallah/?? Where did he find that nūn aṣ-ṣilā, rukuʿā signs, and iẓhār nūn do not belong to a proper muṣ­ḥāf?
The only possible explanation I see, is that he adopted a Faz print to the Eastern oral form.
Here the shift from 1911 to 1924:
some big alif are replace by daggers,
some naked alifs get a waṣl-sign,
kaṣra draws the hamza-sign,
sequental tanwīn.

	seq. tanwīn	Assimil	أ	ٱ	ا۟	sub.vow.	long vow.signs
And Maġ	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
1911	✘	✘		(✔)	✘	✘
KFE	✔	✔		✔	✔	✔
Otto	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✔
IPak		✔
Kaš

And+Maġ and IPak+Kaš have been opposites for some time. KFE adopted And/Maġ completely. 1911 and Muḫallalātī made part of the switch, as you can see here:

Why do the orientalists like the KFE? ‒ It is easy to read ← baseline, space between word, clear right-to-left
‒ easy to navigate ← numbers after each verse
‒ uncluttered (no marginal notes, streamlined pause signs, nothing on alternatve readings)
  (the KFE has space for interlinear remarks and for notes on the margin)

Not the text itself? Not the spendid result of deliberations on the spelling of particular words?
I don't think so. The Naval Kishore (Lucknow) prints were just as good.
And I'm not convinced that on the few places al-Ḥaddād boke with the Moroccan prints, his deviations were well-advised.

it becomes evident that the 1924 edition did not invent a new orthography, but executed a radical geopolitical and text-critical switch. For four centuries, from 1513 to 1914, Egypt had been part of the Ottoman Empire, firmly embedded in the Asian/Ottoman school of orthography and long-vowel notation. The 1924 edition marks the moment Egypt consciously broke with Asia and turned back to its African roots—brutally pivoting away from the Ottoman rasm in favor of the Maghrebian tradition, and replacing the Asian long-vowel marks with the classical system of short vowels lengthened by ḥurūf al-madd. It was not a technological evolution; it was a structural switch.















­ ‒ ­ → ←

Giza1924, KFE I

The Giza Qurʾān
‒ is not an Azhar Qurʾān
‒ did not trigger a wave of printings of Qurʾāns,
    because there was finally a fixed, authorized text
‒ the King Fuʾād Edition was not immediate­ly accepted by Sunnis and Shiites
‒ did not contribute signifi­cantly to the spread of the reading of Ḥafṣ, it was neither pub­lished in 1923 nor on 10 July 1924.
But it drove the abysmally bad Gustav Flügel edition out of German study rooms,
‒ had an afterword by named editors,
‒ gave its sources,
‒ took over ‒ apart from the Kufic counting,
    and the pause signs, which were based on Eastern sources
    ‒ the Maghrebi rasm (mostly/ġāliban) accord­ing to Abū Dāʾūd Ibn Naǧāḥ
    ‒ the Maghrebi small fall back vowels for lengthening
    ‒ the Maghrebi sub­division of the thirtieths (but without eighth-ḥizb)
    ‒ the Maghrebi baseline hamzae before leading Alif (ءادم instead of اٰدم).
    ‒ the Maghrebi mis­sspelling of /allāh/ as /allah/
    ‒ the Maghrebi spelling at the end of the sura, which assumes that the next sura is recited immediately afterwards (without Basmala): tanwin is modified accordingly.
    ‒ the Maghrebi distinction between three types of tanwin (one above the other, one after the other, with mīm)
    ‒ the Maghrebi absence of nūn quṭni.
    ‒ the Maghreb non-writing of vowel shortening
    ‒ the Maghrebī (and Indian) notation of assimilation
    ‒ the Maghrebī (and Indian) attraction of the hamza sign by kasra

in G24 the hamza is below the baseline ‒ in the Ottoman Empire (include Egypt) and Iran the hamza stays above the line



















New was the differentiation of the Maghreb Sukūn into three characters:
‒ the ǧazm in the form of a ǧīm without a tail and without a dot for no vowels,
‒ the circle as sign: should always be ignored,
‒ the (ovale) zero for sign: should be ignored unless one pauses thereafter.
‒ plus the absence of any mute (unpronounced) character.
‒ word spacing,
‒ Baseline orientation and
‒ exact placement of diacritical dots and ḥarakāt.

It was also not the first "inner-Muslim Qurʾān print" (A.Neuwirth).
Neuwirth may know a lot about the Qurʾān, but she has no idea about Qurʾān prints,
since there have been many prints by Muslims since 1830, and very, very many since 1875
and Muslims were already heavily involved in the six St. Petersburg prints from 1787-98.
It was not a type print either, but - like all except Venice, Hamburg, Padua, Leipzig, St. Peters­burg, Kazan, one in Tehrān, two in Hoogh­li, two in Calcutta and one in Kanpur - plano­graphic print­ing, al­though no longer with a stone plate, but with a metal plate.

It was also not the first to declare to adhere to "the rasm al-ʿUṯmānī“.
Two title pages from Lucknow prints of 1870 and 1877.

Yes, it had 5150 alif al-madd less than the Ottoman standard, but compared to the switch from Asian to African spelling of initial alifs and long vowels (almost 32 000) that is a small change.

In 1895 appeared in Būlāq a muṣ­ḥaf in the ʿUthmani rasm, which perhaps meant "unvocalized." Kitāb Tāj at-tafāsīr li-kalām al-malik al-kabīr taʼlīf Muḥam­mad ʿUthman ibn as-Saiyid Muḥam­mad Abī Bakr ibn as-Saiyid ʻAbd­Allāh al-Mīrġanī al-Maḥǧūb al-Makkī. a-bi-hāmišihi al-Qurʼān al-Maǧīd mar­sūman bi’r-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī.
Except for the sequence IsoHamza+Alif, which was adopted from the Magh­reb in 1890 and 1924 (alif+madda didn't work because madda had already been taken for leng­thening), every­thing here is as it was in 1924.

The text of the KFA is not a recon­struc­tion, as al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī had told G.Berg­sträßer: It does not exactly follow Abū Dāʾūd Sulaiman Ibn Naǧāḥ al-Andalusī (d. 496/1103) nor Abu ʿAbdallah Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ḫarrāz (d. 718/1318), but (except in about 100 places) the common Warš editions.
The adoption of many Moroccan pecu­lia­rities (see above), some of which were revised in 1952, plus the dropping of Asian characters ‒ plus the fact that the afterword is silent on both ‒ is a clear sign that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī adapted a Warš edition.
All Egyptian readers knew the read­ings Warš and Qālun. As a Malikī, al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād probably knew Warš editions even better than most.
The text, supposedly established in 1924, was not only available in the Magh­reb and in Cairo Warš prints, but also in Būlāq in the century before.

Now to the publication date.
You can find 1919, 1923, 1924 and 1926 in libraries and among scholars.
According to today's library rules, 1924 applies because that is what it says in the first print

But it is not true. It says in the work itself that its printing was on 10.7.1924. But that can only mean that the printing of the Qurʾānic text was completed on that day. The dedication to the king, the message about the com­pletion of printing, could only have been set afterwards; it and the entire epilogue were only printed after­wards, and the work - without a title page, without a prayer at the end - was only bound after­wards - pro­bably again in Būlāq, where it had already been set and assembled - and that was not until 1925, unless ten copies were bound first and then "published", which is not likely.

Because Wikipedia lists Fuʾād's royal monogram as that of his son, here is his (although completely irrelevant):
this is a Google translation of one of my German posts

Giza 1342/3 1924/5

The Giza print
‒ is not an Azhar Quran
‒ did not trigger a wave of Quran printings
    because there was finally a fixed, authorised text.
‒ did not immediately become the Qur'an accepted by both Sunnis and Shiites

‒ did not contribute significantly to the spread of Ḥafṣ reading;
‒ was not published in 1923 or on 10/7/1924.
But it drove the grotty Flügel edition out of German study rooms,
‒ had an epilogue by named editors (although ... see below), ;
‒ stated its sources (although ... see below),
‒ adopted ‒ except for the Kufic counting,
    and the pause signs, which were based on Eastern sources.
    ‒ the Maghrebi rasm (largely after Abū Dāʾūd Ibn Naġāḥ)
    ‒ the Maghrebi small substitute vowels for elongation
    ‒ the Maghrebian baseline hamzae before Alif at the begin­ning of the word (ءادم instead of اٰدم).
    ‒ the Maghrebic distinction into three kinds of tanwin (above each other, one after the other, with mīm)
    ‒ the Maghrebic spelling at the end of the sura, which assumes that the next sura is spoken imme­diate­ly after­wards (and with­out basmala): tanwin is modified accordingly.
    ‒ the Maghrebic absence of nūn quṭni.
    ‒ the Maghrebic non-spelling of the vowel shortening.
    ‒ the Maghrebic (wrong) spelling of ʾallāh.
    ‒ the Maghrebī (and Indian) attraction of the hamza sign by kasra

in G24 hamza with kasra is below the baseline ‒ in the Ottoman Empire (include Egypt) and Iran the hamza stays above the line

‒ noted assimi­lation like in the Magh­reb (an in India, Indo­nesia):

In both examples the first three lines are Ottoman
    (Rušdī, Ḥasan Riḍā in ʿIrāqī state editions, Muṣṭafā Naẓīf Qairġalī Cairo 1911),
in the middle Giza 1924
bellow Maġribī Warš editions ‒ note that in the older edition the second stem (vertical stroke) of لا is lam+šadda, while in the modern Algerian one, it is the first stroke

A new feature was the differentiation of the Maghrebic sukūn into three signs:
    ‒ the ǧazm in the form of an ǧīms without a tail and without a dot for vowel-lessness,
    ‒ the circle for never to be pronounced,
    ‒ the (oval) zero for "only pronounced if paused".
(while before ‒ as in IPak‒ the absence of any sign signifies "not to be pro­nounced").
Further, word spacing,
baseline orientation and
exact placement of dots and dashes.

Nor was it the first "inner-Muslim Koran print".
Neuwirth may know a lot about the Koran, but she has no idea about Koran prints,
because since 1830 there have been many, many Koran prints by Muslims.
and Muslims were already heavily involved in the six St. Petersburg prints of 1787-98.
It was not a type print either, but ‒ like all except Venice, Hamburg, Padua, Leipzig, St.Petersburg, Kazan and the earliest Calcutta ‒ planographic printing, albeit no longer with a stone plate but a metal plate.

Nor was it the first to claim to reproduce "the rasm al-ʿUṯmānī".
Two title pages of Lucknow prints from 1870 and 1877.

In 1895, a Qur'an appeared in Būlāq in ʿuṯmānī rasm, which perhaps meant "unvocalised". Kitāb Tāj at-tafāsīr li-kalām al-malik al-kabīr taʼlīf Muḥammad ʿUṯmān ibn as-Saiyid Muḥammad Abī Bakr ibn as-Saiyid ʻAbdAllāh al-Mīrġanī al-Maḥǧūb al-Makkī. Wa-bi-hāmišihi al-Qurʼān al-Maǧīd marsūman bi'r-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī.

Except for the sequence IsoHamza+Alif, which was adopted from the Maghreb in 1890 and 1924 (alif+madda was not possible, since madda was already taken for elongation), everything here is already as it was in 1924.

Incidentally, the text of the KFA is not a reconstruction, as claimed by al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād (and believed by Bergsträßer); the text does not follow Abū Dāʾūd Sulaiman Ibn Naǧāḥ al-Andalusī (d. 496/1103) exactly, nor Abu ʿAbdallah Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ḫarrāz (d. 718/1318), but (except in about 100 places) the common Warš editions.
Also, the adoption of many Moroccan peculiarities (see above), some of which were revised in 1952, plus the dropping of Asian characters ‒ plus the fact that the epilogue is silent on both ‒ is a clear sign that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī adapted a Warš edition.
All Egyptian readers/recitors knew the Warš and Qālun readings. As a Malikī, al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād ‒ not to be confused with the scribe Muḥammad Saʿd Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaddād ‒ probably knew Warš editions even better than most.
There was the text, sup­posedly establi­shed in 1924, not only in the Maghreb and in Cairene Warš prints, but also already set in Būlāq in the century before.

Now to the date of publication.
One finds 1919, 1923, 1924 and 1926 in libraries and among scholars.
According to today's library rules, 1924 is valid, because that is what is written in the first printing.

But maybe it was a bit later. It says in the work it­self that its print­ing was com­pleted on 10.7.1924. But that can only mean that the print­ing of the Qurʾānic text was com­pleted on that day. The dedication to the king, the mes­sage about the com­pletion of the print­ing, can only have been set after­wards; it and the entire epilogue were only printed after­wards, and the work ‒ without a title page, without a prayer at the end ‒ was only bound after­wards ‒ probably again in Būlāq, where it had already been set and mounted ‒ and that was only in 1925, unless ten copies were first bound and then "published", which is not likely.
Or the first run was indeed published in 1924, and only the second run (again in Giza) was stamped: