The Moroccan Qurʾān / Le Coran maroccain (Anouk Cohen)

For the last fifteen years, Anouk Cohen writes the same article again and again.
There is nothing wrong, with having found one's field.
Everything is wrong when one finds the same mistakes from the first article to the last.
In my view, the last one (Seeing and Hearing the Book: A Moroccan Edition of the Qurʾan) is just a string of errors, not worth listing them.
In it she compares "the Saudi edition" with "the Moroccan Qur'an" aka "the muṣḥaf muḥam­madī" although there are more than a hundred Saudi editions, more than hundred Moroccan Qur'an editions and three very dif­ferent "Muṣḥaf Muḥam­madī" (about ten with minor dif­ferences).
The "differences between THE Saudi and THE Morroccan" do not exist:
Moroccan editions are the trans­mission of Warš following Nafīʿ, with saǧadā signs accord­ing to the Malikī maḏhab, Madinī verse counting, Maġribī hand­writ­ing/font.
What Cohen shows as THE Saudi edition is the trans­mission of Ḥafṣ following ʿĀṣim, with saġadā signs according to the Hambalī maḏhab, Kūfī counting, nasḫī handwriting/font by ʿUṯmān Ṭaha, printed by KFC.
But there are Moroccan reprints of Saudi editions ...

... and the Suʿudī "King Fahd Glorious Quran Printing Complex" (KFC) publishes the Warš transmission in Maġribī hand­writing.

Suʿudī is not always the same. The KFC publishes editions for North-West Africa and for India (but not for Turkey, Iran, nor Indo­nesia).
Here images that show that there is no clear cit between muṣḥaf muḥam­madī"-Malikī and the rest-non-Maliki

According to Cohen this is THE muṣḥaf muḥam­madī fatiḥa:

But this is a muṣḥaf muḥammadī fatiḥa as well:

According to Cohen this is THE Saudi one

But these are two more (out of many) from Madina

To put it bluntly. What Cohen writes is based on 90% ignorance resp. blindness.
p.142: "According to the protocol defined in the 1920s in Cairo by al-Azhar each stage of pro­uction should be sub­ject to control."
    ‒ no source given, de­finetly wrong
p.144: "the Egyptian copy [of the Qurʾān] developed at al-Azhar in 1924
    ‒ just wrong
p.144: "Contrary to the muṣḥaf ḥassanī, which was to be offered to dis­tin­guished guests, the muṣ­ḥaf muḥam­madī was placed under serial and industri­al pro­duction."
    ‒ wrong, both maṣā­ḥif have expen­si­ve (big, colour, glossy paper) versions and cheaper ones, and none is gift only: one could buy them.

Before I move on to the Warš muṣḥaf of 1929: A.Cohen writes three pp. 145-148 on the calli­graphy of the "Mo­roc­can muṣ­ḥaf" incl. strange things like "'The line should not be so long, even if it does not change the meaning. There should be no ex­cessive read­ing.'” quoting a "cleric".
‒ first, the cleric says: "There should be no ex­ten­ded line because that could lead to pro­longa­tion in recit­ing."
‒ second, "of course" there are extended lines in Maġ­ri­bī maṣāḥif to justify lines. The first word /ḏālika/ is from Cohen's text, showing what is forbidden. All others are from Muṣḥaf al-Ḥasanī.

Three pages, but she does not mention THE most important fact:

Muṣḥaf Muḥammadī is not handwritten by PC set!






Let's move to what she calls "the 'Qurʾan of Zwiten,'26 26 ... Until recent­ly, the rights to it be­longed to Dar al-muṣḥaf al-sharīf, in Cairo. See Abdul­razak Fawzi, The King­dom of the Book: The History of Printing as an Agency of Change in Morocco bet­ween 1865 and 1912 (PhD diss., Uni­ver­sity of Boston, 1990)."
Of course A. Fawzi says no­thing of the kind. Why else do we not get a page number, where he would say so? A.Cohen is making it up as in most of her publi­cations: Hot air or lies!
Of course we do not get any infor­ma­tion about this print of re­ference, not even a picture of the cover, nor of any of the pages! ‒ just as in her ear­lier articles she wrote that it was very often re­printed without giving years, nor pub­lishers!
As often, Bergsträßer tells us a lot

He quotes the "Maghribian book sellers" (two members of the al-Ḥabbābī familiy) that Egyptian printers and Šaiḫs could improve the edition, written by Aḥmad bn Ḥasan Zwīten, checked by Moroccan šaiḫs, and again in Egypt, where it was printed ‒ dedicated to Sulṭan Muḥmmad [V.] bn Yūsuf

This Cairo Warš Edition, Cairo 1929 Edition, al-Ḥabbābī edition, Zwīten edition is the first Moroccan edition with numbers after each verse, and ‒ a revolution of sorts ‒ Kufī numbers;
so ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ (1304/1886-1380/1960) writes four pages on the differences between (second) Madani and Kufi mumbering (pages 8-11):

the cover of the first edition

the first three pages:

instead of a title page:

(this is from the copy of the Academy of Sciences in Lissa­bon that is not paginated in quarters, but in halves; its index and the duʿāʾ are set in normal Arabic letters, while hand­written in the original.)
the ʿanwān of the first edition

So are no pagination.
As often, THE Zwīten does not exist, the original one is divided into four parts, and has before the quranic text faḍl al-qurʾān and ādāb at-tilāwa; all is hand­written, the last four pages in eastern nasḫ pointed like in the east (no dots on final nūn, fā' and qāf, fā'-dot below, single qāf-dot above), all other parts in maġribi masbūṭ, while the Lissa­bon copy (in halves) lacks most additions.
Maybe these two strange pages are due to merging quarters into halves (??) Or to have the ḥizb start on a new page?

Normal pages have 15 lines

last page of first half

With a book seller I found a last quarter printed in 1990.

She does not know that most Western readers need the number of suras.
"al-Naml (the Ants)" should be "XXVII" or "an-Naml (27)".
ḫaṭṭ is handwriting, script, not calligraphy which is fann al-ḫaṭṭ.
taḏhīb is gilding, not illuminations.
taškīl is vocalization, not "vocalization signs"; vowel signs are harakāt.
the commander of the believers, not commanders of believers:
Why does she call his function "myth"?
She translates her French "encore" (in Voir et entendre le Livre. Une édition maro­caine du Coran. 2017) (which means here « en outre »/"fur­ther­more, more­over") as "still"/ « tou­jours » « quand même » .

The article feels like written by a large language model artifi­cial intel­ligence.
Some sentences sound reasonable, others like halu­cina­tions

Sometimes the connection is missing: first [he writes] "on paper plates",
which are then "calligraphic tablets".
lawḥ, a wooden tablet, is defined as "a Qurʾanic tablet that com­bines writ­ing and recita­tion"
‒ it has no loud speakers.
First she writes ‒ correctly ‒ of "the seven canonical readings (qirāʾa)",
then ‒ in­correct­ly ‒ of "the seven Moroccan reci­tations";
the seven qirāʾāt (proper plural form) neither being Moroccan, nor reci­tations.
similarly: "the dominant recitation in Morocco (Warsh)" ‒ the ways of recitation (taḥzzabt, muǧawwd, murattal) have nothing special to do with Warš ‒ no more than "high way" with Chrys­ler and Tesla.
her note 2: muṣḥaf = volume, Qurʾān = revelation, while the first is "codex", the second "reading, reci­tation"
In note 20 she cites Gérard Trou­peau with: "To indicate the three short vowels, [Arabic] borrowed three Syriac signs" although Trou­peau has not written this, and it is cer­tainly wrong.


‒ ­

gullible or sceptical

Although the title is "Reciting the Qurʾān in Cairo" ("Koran­lesung in Kairo") the first part of G. Berg­sträßer's article in Der Islam XX (1932) is largely on the "official" Egyptian edition of the Qurʾān, der "amtliche", the Govern­ment edition, the King Fuʾād Edition called the "12 liner (muṣḥaf 12 saṭr") by the book sellers or Muṣḥaf al-Amiriyya after the Govern­ment Press ((never The Cairo Edition, nor the Azhar Qurʾān, and please not Mushaf Amiri/Royal Edition)) and about the chief recitor of the time and the one who followed him in that function (which Bergsträßer did not know of course). The article is rich in informa­tion, both what the two men have told him and what is written in the explana­tions (taʿrīf), the afterword of the book.
First Bergsträßer informs the reader on the 22 pages that follow the 827 pages of the qurʾānic text. Then he tells us what is written in an advertising brochure/ leaflet (Pro­spekt); he uses the sub­junc­tive mode of indirect speech leaving it to the reader to believe what is written ‒ or not.
I do not believe one of the type­written words.

In recent times the government had to destroy many imported copies because of mistakes, notably 25 years ago sinking a whole load in the Nile.

As no year is given, no information of the kind of mis­takes, no informa­tion on the printer ("Aus­land") nor the importer, nothing on whom paid an compen­sa­tion for the capital destroyed to whom (how much?), I do not believe it.
The are serveral kind of mistakes possible:
‒ those that are not mistakes at all, just different con­vention (like whether a leading unpro­nounced alif carries a head of ṣād as waṣl-sign or not, or some otiose letters ‒ see earlier posts)
‒ type errors, that can be remedied by including a "list of errors" or by correcting them by hand
‒ binding error: several copies lack a quire having another one twice, or quires in the wrong order.
Copies with binding error can not be sold. That you have to destroy hun­dreds of copies, there must be so many mis­takes that it is virtually im­possible to correct them by hand.
So far Bergstäßer just reports what was written in the brochure.
Now he tells us what the šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ Muḥammad ʿAlī Ḫalaf al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād told him, but here he does not use the sub­junctive of indirect speech, he gives obvious ("natürlich") facts.

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 rewriting of the usual consonant text

The source given for the rasm is a didactic poem Maurid aẓ-ẓamʾān by al-Ḫarrāz based on Abū Dāʾūd Sulaimān ibn Naǧāḥ's ʿAqīla
but
the Indonesian Abdul Hakim ("Comparison of Rasm in Indonesian Standard Mushaf, Pakistan Mushaf and Medinan Mushaf: Analysis of word with the formulation of ḥażf al-ḥuruf" in Suhuf X,2 12.2017), the Iranian Center for Printing and Spreading the Quran and the scholars advising the Tunisian publisher Hanbal/Nous-Mêmes have checked the text (either all of it or "just" a tenth ‒ from different parts) and found out, that the text of the King Fuʾād Edition and the King Fahd Edition do not tally with the ʿAqīla.
While the Muṣḥaf al-Jamāhīriyya follows ad-Dānī's Muqniʿ all the time and the Iranian Center and the Indo­nesian Committee publish lists with words where they follow which authority (or in the case of the Iranian center even apply a different logic) al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād and the Medi­nese King Fahd Complex claimed (!) to follow Abū Dāʿūd. As this is clearly not the case "Medina" and "Tunis" inserted a word in the explanations: ġāliban or fil-ġālib (mostly) and a caveat "or other experts."
So: the KFC admitts that they do NOT follow Abū Dāʾūd all the time.
Al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād had told Bergsträßer what the orientalist wanted to hear. All professional recitors in Egypt know the differences between Ḥafs, Warš and Qālūn by heart. Being the chief recitor and a Malikite, he knew Warš even better than most. So what he really did, he copied an Warš copy into a Ḥafs script ‒ largely Abu Dāʾūd, but not 100 %.
So the KFE was not a revolution, just a switch from Asia to Africa: a "no" to the Ottomans, a "yes" to the Maġrib.
As I have already said, I recomment an old text.

Gabriel Said Reynolds writes rubbish:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, un­ambiguous reading ... is above all due to the terrific success of the standard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first pub­lished on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now widely seen as the official text of the Qur’an. ... Minor ad­just­ments were sub­sequently made to this text in follow­ing editions, one pub­lished later in 1924 and an­other in 1936. The text re­leased in 1936 became known as the Faruq edition in honor of the Egypt­ian king, Faruq (The Qur’an in Its Histo­rical Con­text, Lon­don New York 2008. p. 2)

All wrong. The King Fuʾād Edition was not published on July 10, 1924, but the printing of its qurʾānic text was finished on that day. It was really only published after the book was bound in the next year according to the embossed stamp on its first page ‒ or just the second run of the first edition was stamp like this (?).
طبعة الحكومية المصرّية
        -- . --
    ١٣٤٣ هجرّية
                سـنة

There were minor changes between 1343/1925 and 1347/1929 either in the quranic text or in the information that follows it, but there were no changes in 1936; there never was an Faruq (or Farūq) edition; until the revolution of 1952 all full editions of the qurʾān by the Government Press were dedicated to King Fuʾād.



How comes that some youngster call the "King Fuʾād Edition"
"The Cairo Edition" or "the Azhar Edition"?
My guess: because they are so young,
too young to have spent days in the book shops and publishers around the Azhar.
From 1976 to 1985 the most common edition was the "muṣ­ḥaf al-Azhar aš-šarīf" printed by the Amiriyya in many different format, big and small, cheap and ex­penisve ‒ all with the qurʾānic text on 525 pages with 15 lines and only three pause signs (not to be confused with the "muṣ­ḥaf al-Azhar aš-šarīf" by the Azhar, which is a reprint of the 522 page muṣḥaf written by Muṣṭafa Naẓīf.)
But these youngster do not know that there is an "Azhar edition" that came 50 years after the KFE saw the light of day.

And "muṣḥaf al-Qāhira" was the huge manuscript attributed to ʿUṯmān kept at al-Ḥusainī Mosque north of al-Azhar.
From 1880 to today there were more than a hundred editions produced in al-Qāhira, in an industial area nearby, around the main railway station and in Bulāq, no person aware of this could imagine "The Cairo edition",


‒­

E.Conidi on the KFE

In her thesis e.Conidi writes on the King Fuʾād Edition:

The seventeen years required by Egyptian scholars for the preparation of the Fuʾād Qurʾān, from 1907 to 1924, were necessary to ensure the correctness of the text in adherence to ‘the approved norms in terms of content and orthography’, which was an indispensable precondition for accepting the duplication of the sacred text. (Sabev, ‘Waiting for Godot’, 109.)

there is no book Waiting for Godot by O.Sabev, and in his Waiting for Müteferrika there is nothing on the KFE, not on page 109, nor anywhere else.
But in G.Bergsträßer's article Koranlesung in Kairo Part 1 he writes, that a typewritten leaflet claimed that the preparations (Vorbereitungen) started in 1907, that the text was set, checked, revised by the chief recitor ordered to do so by the Azhar (im Auftrag der Direktion der Azhar). That the plan was to have printing plates being made in Germany, but that the outbreak of war had made that impossible, therefore the book was printed in Giza.
First, I do not see what Conidi writes, that seventeen years were necessary to establish a correct text (in Egypt the text could only be the reading of Ḥafs; its oral text is fixed for centuries, and whether one uses the letters defined by ad-Dānī ((as al-Muḫallalātī did in 1890 and much later editors in Lybia)) or the ones defined by his pupil Abu Daʾûd ((as common in Morocco)) is of minor importance -- as I see it, the chief recitor choose the letters used in the Moroccan prints just changing the very few letters special to the reading of Warsh;
(BTW, Indonesian scholar work 1974-84 for there standard, but first they came from all over the country, while Egypt is rather dentralized, and they work on three standards at the time, among them a Braille standard, something completely new.)
and I do not see what scholars were involved beside the chief recitor.
Second, I do not understand what happened between 1907 and the outbreak of the war, and what happened between 1915 and 1924.
It all does not make sense.
As I see it: after November 1914 when Egypt ceased to be a province of the Ottoman empire and the (hitherto) Governor took the same title as his (erstwhile) overlord: sulṭān, Egypt wanted to have a copy of the qurʾān different from the Ottoman model.
And Abū Mālik Ḥifnī Bey ibn Muḥammad ibn Ismaʿīl ibn Ḫalīl Nāṣif (16.12.1855‒25.2.1919) , responsible for state run schools, expressed the wish for a print easier to read for "his" secular students. While the students at religous madrasas were used to the calligraphic style of qurʾān manuscripts, the modern students were used to school book, novels and news papers.
He wanted a print with a clear base line, and clear right-to-left, not top-to bottom as in elegant calligraphy.
For all of this no lengthy deliberations were necessary.

Differences in maṣāḥif al-amṣār II

Recently two article appeared on the regional differences in qurʾān manu­scripts:
Hythem Sidky: “On the Regionality of Qurʾānic Codices” in
Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Associa­tion Vol 5, 1 (2020).
and
Ala Vahidnia: “Whence Come Qurʾān Manuscripts?
Determining the Regional Provenance of Early Qurʾānic Codices” in
Der Islam Bd. 98, 2 (2021)
I will not discuss them here, but I highly recomment them.
Unfortunely in Vahidina's article there is a stupid mistake:
Again and again she refers to "Nöldeke", "Nöldeke, et.al. ... he"; she is kind of right
assuming that "N and others" is a "he" not "they": it is Gotthelf Berg­sträßer.
((She only refers to the third book: Die Geschichte des Koran­textes.))
It is Brill's or Behn's fault.
They produced ONE book written by four authors:

For German readers, it's quite different:
There is a book Über den Ursprung des Qorâns by Nöldeke, later revised by Schwally:

Later a book Die Sammlung des Qorāns by Schwally:
and even later a book Die Geschichte des Korantexts by Berg­sträßer (finished by Otto Pretzl):

So what is evident for readers of the three German books is obscured by the trans­lator and the publi­sher; they do have litte indi­ca­tions like "II, 1" on the margin; they should have inserted new title pages.

Morocco before 1924

Bergsträßer saw the similarities bet­ween Warš editions and the Gizeh print.
Because he did not question al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād's asser­tion that "his" edition was a recon­struction based on the oral text and the litera­ture about How to Write a Muṣḥaf, he assumed an immediate influence from Gizeh/Cairo to Fèz/Alger.
For me it was clear that it was the other way around.
But I had no proof.
I did not have an early print from the Maġrib (nor a Warš edition from Cairo from before 1920).
Finally, I can proof it. I have images from Faz prints from 1879,'81,'91, '92,'93,'94, '95,'99, 1900 and 1905.
The two oldes are in big format and still have red dots for hamza:

On the left the (presumably) first print by Ḥaǧǧ aṭ-Ṭaiyib al-Azraq 1879,
on the right the same text from Alger 1350/ 1931 (Maṭbaʿa aṯ-Ṯāʿlibiyya of Rūdūsī Quddūr ben Murād at-Turkī, likely ʿAbdal Qādir from Rhodes)
one from 1881:

Later they are without colour and smaller:

But Bergsträßer said it was the best

No, no, no
Bergsträßer wrote: It's better than Flügel.
And he is right.
But he did not know a thing about printed maṣāḥif, had never seen a Moroccan one, nor an Indian, just a few Ottoman prints and one Persian.
On pages 11, 13 of his article in Der Islam he points out a few mistakes in the King Fuʾād edition:
two wrongly placed hamza,
too many big alifs denoting dual,
hamza on the line + alif instead of alif-hamza + long-fatḥa.
He does not mention that on all three points Indian maṣāḥif follow his ideas (or are much closer to his than the 1924 print).
The reason: he had never studied an Indian muṣḥaf.

For us the 1930 world Bergsträßer lived in, is hard to imagine.
Based in Munich   Berlin, Leiden, Paris were far away.
He made it to Istanbul and to Cairo
-- but Baghdaḍ was too far (or too British?).
Karachi, Lahore, Bombay or Delhi were outside his word.
In 2020 one would advise him to fly to London, spent a month in India Office,
but even today I observe that young scholars mistake the 20% of Islamdom between Cairo and Baghdad for the Muslim World.

The Shape of the Qur'ān ‒ Guide for Publishers

When I started to write "Kein Standard", I wanted to show that the King Fuʾād Edition of 1924 is not the standard,
that the maṣāḥif printed by the Tāj Company Ltd. are 100 times more often printed, reprinted in other countries and copied in Pakistan and elsewhere.
The 1924 copy was only reprinted once: 1955 by the Communist govern­ment of China ‒
to be precise its text was reproduced, but put into a new frame, with new page headers, with new sura title boxes, new signs on the margin for divi­sions, saǧadāt and sakatāt.
A title page was added ‒ the original didn't have one.
And two pages were thrown out, because King Fuʾād was men­tioned ‒ not republican enough.
In Cairo, it was never reproduced, but some­what improved ‒ its margin reduced.
1952 the Egyptian Govern­ment Press (Amiriyya) pro­duced a "second print,"
different from the 1924 edition at about 900 places.
"That Tāj was more success­ful commer­cially is ir­rele­vant.
The King Fuʾād Edition is superior," one might say.
The opposite is true.
Even if we take the ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā edition printed in Medina, which com­bines 99,8% of the orthography of the 1952 (!) Cairo print with the dis­tri­bution of the text on 604 pages popular in Istanbul around 1900, with a clear and easy to read calligraphy, it is NOT superior to the Tāj Company Ltd edi­tions, it is just as good ‒ see here.

By the time I had finished the book, something else had caught my eye.
First I discovered, that in Cairo more than ten printers (as well as others in Bairut and Tehran) repro­duced the 522-page-muṣḥaf written by Muṣṭafā Naẓīf Qādir­ġalī
‒ as it was written (in the Ottoman ortho­graphy) still in the 1950s,
‒ in the new orthography (with I have called Q24).
So I learned that publishers just change the masora (little signs around the rasm), verse num­bers, sura title, divisions (juz, ḥizb ...) ‒ and even the rasm (elimi­nating a ḥarf al-madd from time to time) without much ado, with­out informing the public.
Then I noticed that a printer (Aḥmad Šamarlī) had a calligrapher (Muḥ Saʿd al-Haddād) copy the 522-muṣḥaf line by line calli­graphi­cally very similar but in the new (African) orthography.

At first, I had believed what the chief editor of the 1924 edition had told G.Berg­sträßer, that he had recon­structed the spelling by tran­scrib­ing the text that he knew by heart according to the Andalu­sian manuals on the writing of the qurʾān by Abū ʿAmr ʿUṯmān ibn Saʿīd ad-Dānī and his pupil Abū Daʾūd Sulaiman Ibn Naǧāḥ, following Ibn Naǧāḥ, when he disagreed with his teacher.
Later I discovered that the editors of the Medina muṣḥaf written by ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā, wrote that they followed "mostly" Ibn Naǧāḥ, which means ‒ if the 10% of the text that I com­pared are re­presen­ta­tive ‒ in 95% of cases.
And that they (i.e. al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddad al-Mālikī) some­times follow neither Abū ʿAmr nor Abū Daʾūd (maybe Abu'l Hasan ʿAlī bin Muḥammad al-Murādi al-Andalusī al-Balansī [d. 546 h] in al-Munṣif or Abū'l Qāsim ibn Firruh ibn Ḫalaf ibn Aḥmad al-Ruʿaynī aš-Šāṭibī (أبو القاسم بن فره بن خلف بن أحمد الرعيني الشاطبي ) [d. 590 h] in al-ʿAqīlat Atrāf al-Qaṣāʾid or in ar-Rāʾiyya الرائية
or as-Suyūtī's [d.849 h] Itqān fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān 1999
2019

Then I learnt that some editions follow Mawrid al-Ẓamʾān by al-Kharrāz, which is based on both ad-Dānī and Ibn Naǧāḥ;
and that Gizeh 1924 just follows the most common Moroccan rasm,
the Libyan muṣḥaf al-jamāhīriya follows always ad-Dānī,
and Tāj Company mostly ad-Dānī, because the Indian rasm authority, al-Ārkātī follows ad-Dānī,
that Indonesia had copied several Ottoman and Indian (notably pre-Tāj from Bombay) maṣāḥif, that 1983/4 the government committee (Lajnah Pentashihan Mushaf al-Qurʾan established in 1957) published a standard to bring them together (e.g. introducing an "Indian" sign for /ū/ missing in Turkish and Persian manuscripts), reducing the pause signs to seven, imposing one system of verse numbering (Kūfī with 6236 verses)
that the Committee changed the standard after 19 years ‒ not secretly but in the open AND stating which authority they follow in each case.
September 2018 a list with 186 words to be written differently again was published.
In 171 cases a straight fatḥa will stand, where none was before, but there are 11 cases were it is the other way around.
Three cases concern raʾā = he saw. 1983 it was written as in Bombay and in Bahrije (the two prints reprinted in Indonesia): راٰ In 2002 the scholars changed it to رأى like in Modern Standard Arabic, in 2018 they switched to the African way of writing: رءا
In Tunis there are lots of editions following the transmission of Qālūn, some following the normal Maghrebian rasm, other al-Kharrāz, some in the writing style of ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā, others a "mild" form of Maghribī (not as difficult to read as Fāsī), none copying the Libyan (ad-Dānī) rasm, since that book is readily available.
So I discovered that one must keep the different dimensions apart:
not assuming that there are fixed/necessary links between rasm, reading/trans­mission, verse counting, names of Sura, liturgical divisions, calligraphic style, page layout (like: each Juz must start on top of a right page, or: verses may not straddle pages {or very rarely} ...)

Yes, the 1924 KFE brought several innovations:
letters are on a baseline, few ligatures, space between words, numbers after each verse (not just an end-of-verse-marker, and signs every fifth verse),
a streamlined system of pause signs;
the reading helps were largely Maghrebian, but a common sign for vowelless and for unpronounced became differen­tiated.
Strangely most orientalists still assume that the "Cairo/Azhar committee" came up with lots of innovations.
There were some improvements (streamlined Sajawandi pause signs, differentiated sukun signs for vowellessness vs. unpronouncedness), but the main revolution happened with the 1308/1890 al-Muḫallalātī muṣḥaf:
a difficient rasm,
the Maġribi way for writing long vowels:
having always two signs: a vowel sign + ḥarf al-madd
writing if necessary a small (or red) ḥarf al-madd.
Yes, the Iranian Center for Printing and Publication of Qurʾān, came up with a new (simplified) rasm
and at the same time a new (simple) system of vowel signs, pause signs and so on.
One must keep these aspects apart. There are Iranian prints with the new rasm, with the tradi­tional signs, there are prints with the calligraphy of ʿUṯmān Ṭāhā, but with a different rasm from the Medina print.
Most prints published by the Center do not differen­tiate between iẓhār vs. idġām, of nūn sākin (esp. tanwīn), but some do!
Most Iranian prints do not show assi­mila­tion that go further than in MSA, but some do.
The Damascus publisher Dar al-Maʿrifa prints Medinese transmissions (Qālūn, Azraq, Isbahani) with Kufian verse numbers ‒ to make it easier to compare.
Instead of talking of "la version du Maghreb" one should say "the trans­mission of Warsh", "the verse numbering of Medina II," "the rasm of Ibn Naǧāḥ" or "Q52 rasm aka KFC rasm" (different at two places from Q52) or "the rasm of Muṣḥaf Qaṭar" (different at one place from ʿUṬ/KFC); in other cases of "an elaborated Saǧā­wandī pause system with 15 signs" or a "simplified Saǧā­wandī pause system with five signs."
True, that is longer, but assuming that these aspects go toghether, is wrong.
Publishers are free to come up with new devices.
Almost 50 years ago the Iranian Center for Printing and Publica­tion of Quran intro­duced three new signs: small fatḥa, small ḍamma, small kasra where in old Ottoman and Safavid maṣāḥif we find red fatḥa/ḍamma/kasra (just waṣl-sign in Q24).
Ten years later the Center introduced grey for silent letters (later yet, blue or red instead of grey). When it had become cheap and simple to print a second colour they did not go back on their earlier invention: red letters were un­pronounc­ed/silent and the fatḥa at the beginning of a word normally starting with hamzatu l-waṣl after a pause, hence spoken as hamzatu l-qaṭʿ stayed small and black.
Yes, there are traditions of qurʾān writing, some aspects normally come together, but not necessarily.
Note:
The publishers do not change the (oral) text of the qurʾān, they just try to make it easier to read or to pronounce it correctly.

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

















    ‒ noted assimilation like in the Maghreb:

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: