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.















­ ‒ ­ → ←

A.A.Brockett --- Warš

40 years ago Adrian Alan Brockett submitted his Ph.D. to the Uni­versi­ty of St.Andrews: Studies in Two Trans­missions of the Qurʾān. Now he was a doctor of philo­sophy but he did not get tenure at a university ‒ for a living he became an argicul­tural advisor in the UAE.
My main thesis ‒ on earth there is not THE Standard printed Qurʾān ‒ was already proven by him:
the "official" text of 1342/1924 is not official.
He showed:
the qurʾān was trans­mitted through the ages both orally and in writing.
the two modes support each other, controll each other.
and: Differences between trans­missions are minor.
The sound form (maṣā­ḥif murat­tal) and the graphic form of writ­ten/printed maṣā­ḥif differ, but there is only ONE qurʾān.

He wrote this before the age of the internet, of Unicode, before ʿUṭmān Ṭāha, and editions of Qālūn from Damas­cus, Dubai, Tripoli und Tunis, before one could listen to fourteen riwayāt on CD and TV.
He collected many editions of Ḥafṣ and Warš from Egypt, Iran and Tunisia, and consulted a few manu­scripts (in Edin­burgh)
At the time, there were no critical editions neither of Zamaḫ­šarī's Kaššāf nor Sība­waihī's Kitāb. So when a word was given with a different spelling he had to find out, whether it was a typo or a "real" dif­ference.
Neither with type­writers nor on the com­puter it was easy to write text that had both Latin and Arabic script. Therefore he used a "trans­liter­a­t­ion" of his own making (not as good as the one deviced by Rüdiger Puin later).
Unfortunately he did not know what a trans­li­te­ration is, con­fused it with tran­scrip­tion.
trans­liter­at­ion renders the letters of the original unam­biguous­ly/ob­jec­tivly, best one-to-one
hence it is revers­able (with­out deep knowledge of the langu­ages),
does not need to be speak­able.
tran­scrip­tion renders the sounds of the original in the target language;
should be pro­nounc­able after a short instruc­tion:
is not revers­able without knowing the langu­ages well,
which is not the case for Brockett's "trans­literation".
I can't read it, I have to rely on chapter and verse.
The tilde sometimes stands for "not in the rasm" some­times for "extra-long".
Some of his terms are just stupid.
At least he defines them before using them.
"graphic" signifies "written in the rasm,"
"vocal" or "oral" for "not in the rasm" ‒
"The term 'vocal form', with respect to the Qur'ān, is used to signify the letter skele­ton fully fleshed out with dia­criti­cal marks, vowels, and so on."
is nonsense:
1. his "vocal" is not the skeleton fully fleshed out"
  but; "only the flesh (= diacritics) without the skeleton"
2. in the Qurʾān there are no consonats, just letters
3. the letter skeleton is not mute (avocal) and dots, strokes and signs are not all and only about sound,
both are written AND spoken, are both graphic and phonetic.
What he wants to say is: some signs are there from the beginnings ,
others were added later: diacri­tical dots (although some dots were there in the earliest mss.), vowel signs (harakat), tašdīd, hamza sign, waṣla sign, signs for , signs for Imala, Išmām, assimi­lation, non-pro­noun­ciation (either always or when no pause is made) of written letters, con­sonats having no vowel ("unmoved" as they say in Arabic), emphasis, hamza eas­ing, hyper‑lengthen­ing.

He makes horrible mistakes, (a) because he has no idea about printing, (b) he believes what good people wrote, (c) he just makes mistakes.
a) about a 1398/1978 South African reprint he writes "The plates were pre­sumably provided by the Tāj Company." (p.28) ignoring that in that period publishers started to scan printed books (either dis­bound or over-opened). When traditio­nally photo­graphed or scanned; shipping lime plates from Karachi to Johan­nis­burg shows that Brocket had no idea of the business.
b) about his Qatari reprint of KFE52 1/8/1402 / 24/5/1982 he writes:

It is the same facsi­mile as the one that was used for the Cairo text printed 7/12/1342 (10/7/1924), and is there­fore in the hand of Šayx al-Maqārī of the time, Muhammad "al-Ḥaddãd" ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥusayni. ‒ Born 1281/1864-5 (Berg­sträßer 'Koran­lesung', pp.131.) and still apparent­ly alive in the early 1960's That the 1342 Cairo text is in his hand is noted in paren­theses on, p.842 of the 1402 Qatari text and in the Xātima of the 1371 Matba'a Amiriyya copy

How could he believe that this typeset muṣḥaf was handwritten? Just because the ḫātima states وهو الذى كتنه بخطه
In 1978 it was not so easy to find out that al-Ḥusain al-Ḥaddād had died on 22.1.1939, as it was for me. But he should have known that he was succeeded in the office of chief reader of Egypt by ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ.
c) When he writes

The reason for pro­ducing the 1342 Cairo text, given in the colophon, was that Qur'ãn copies for schools had pre­vious­ly mostly been imported. from abroad, and many of these had con­tained errors and so had to be destroyed.

he halluzi­nates. Which collophone is he writing about, the 1342 one, the 1371 one or the 1402 one ‒ none mentions the destruc­tion of imported maṣā­ḥif.
Since his dis­sertation remains the most sub­stantial treat­ment of the subject available in English, and since I intend to make systematic use of it, I begin with the necessary critical remarks.
The major errors are attributable to the nature of the work: it is a doctoral dis­sertation, not a publication. The author was young and in­experienced, and he was not per­mitted to submit the text to others for cor­rection, re­vi­sion, or discus­sion. The pur­pose was not to produce a finished study, but to demon­strate the ability to conduct scholarly research. This he did, as shown by his dating of manuscripts through water­marks, his critical notes on the secondary literature, and the formulation and documen­tation of his own hypo­theses.
It is noteworthy that he regarded the 1924 edition as a repro­duction of a manu­script; that he assumed the 1982 Qatari reprint to be a reprint of that edition, although it is in fact a reprint of the 1952 edition, which diverges from the 1924 text in more than 600 places; and that he cites a colo­phon naming Ḥasan Riḍā as scribe, yet identifies “Āyat Barkenār” — unfamiliar to him — as the calligrapher.
His assumption that printing plates were trans­ported from Pakistan to Johannes­burg in 1978 in order to reprint a Tāj edition indicates a complete lack of familiarity with printing technology. For this reason, I disregard his numerous remarks on this topic. (If I had access to the editions he consulted, or if I knew the basis of his comments, the situation would be different.)
Fortunately, I possess almost all the editions he mentions, either in bound form or as PDFs. For the editions from Delhi, Bombay, and Calcutta I have at least equivalent copies. I am therefore able to verify most of his statements, and for other points I have additional evidence. In no case do I reach different conclusions.

This blog is mainly about differences between Ḥafṣ-copies. Thanks you Brockett's Ph.D. we are able to study the differences between Ḥafṣ and Warš Ging es bisher haupt­sächlich um Ḥafṣ-Ausgaben, wollen wir jetzt noch einen Blick auf andere Les­arten werfen, dabei geht es vor allem um Äußer­lich­keiten. Beginnen wir mit den „inconsequential letters“ (al-ḥurūf al-yasīra): den ganz wenigen Unter­schie­den, die nicht durch šadda, fatḥa, kasra, ḍamma, hamza, madda oder diakritische Punkte ausgedrückt werden, sondern im rasm.

"Ibrāhīm" hat bei Ḥafṣ weder alif noch yāʾ, bei Nāfīʿ jedoch yāʾ – ich sage nicht Warš, weil es in den drei Zeilen nicht den geringsten Unterschied zwischen beiden riwāyāt gibt – für dies hier ein Bei­spiel: Während Qālūn mit hamza zu sprechen ist, ist es bei Warš ge­schwächt. (Schrei­bungen von Uṭmān Ṭaha für den KFK.)

next images:
Während der Vers bei Ḥafṣ mit wa- beginnt, fehlt dies bei Qālūn.
Beide Male hat Ḥafṣ ein alif mehr: erst in der Mitte der Zeile, auf der nächsten Seite in Zeile Zwo (ʾauʾan vs. waʾan). Man beachte das winklige ḍamma, in Uni­code ein an­de­res Zei­chen.

On the internet one finds a great deal of material on the differences between Ḥafṣ and Warš. Much of it is produced with the aim of demonstrating that the Muslim transmission is unreliable; others seek to determine which version represents the “correct” Qurʾān; still others claim that the differences are merely phonetic. The most accurate and methodologically sound presentation and assessment of these differences is that of Adrian A. Brockett. The following are several of the differences he identifies.
Ḥafṣ                 Warš           Stelle
-kum, -hum, -him,     -kumu, -humu, -himu,
-tum, -tumu bzw. -kumū    xxx …
Ḥafṣ                 Warš             Stelle
yaḥsabuhumu yaḥsibuhuma 2:273
taḥsabanna taḥsibanna 3:169
أَتُحَـٰٓجُّوٓنِّي أَتُحَـٰٓجُّونِي 6:80
سَوَآءٌ عَلَيۡهِمۡ ءَأَنذَرۡتَهُمۡ سَوَآءٌ عَلَيۡهِمُۥ ءَآنذَرۡتَهُم 2:6
أَتُمِدُّونَنِ أَتُمِدُّونَنِۦ 27:36
قُلۡ ءَأَنتُمۡ أَعۡلَمُ ڧُل̱ۡ آنتُمۡۥۤ أَعۡلَمُ 2:140
وَإِنِّيٓ أُعِيذُهَا وَإِنِّيَ أُعِيذُهَا 3:36
هَـٰٓأَنتُمۡ هَآنتُمُۥۤ 3:119
إِنِّيٓ أَعۡلَمُ إِنِّيَ أَعۡلَمُ 2:30
هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ إِن هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ ؈ں 2:31
5:3 faman iḍṭurra faman uḍṭurra
أَوۡ إِثۡمًۭا أَواِثۡمًۭا 2:182
أَوِ ٱخۡرُجُواْ أَوِ ﰩخۡرُجُواْ 4:66
قَرِيبٌ‌ أُجِيبُ ڧَرِيبٌ‌ اجِيبُ 2:186
6:10 ..qad istuhziʾa ..qad ustuhziʾa
بِئۡسَمَا يَأۡمُرُكُم بِيسَمَا يَامُرُكُم 2:93
نَبِيًّۭا نَبِيـًۭٔا 3:39
وَٱلصَّـٰبِـِٔينَ وَالصَّـٰبِـيںَ 2:62
ٱلنَّبِيَّ ؇لنَّبِيٓءَ 7:157
تُسۡـَٔلُ تَسۡـَٔلۡ 2:119
أَؤُنَبِّئُكُم اَو۟ ۬ نَبِّئُكُم 3:15
تُسَوَّىٰ تَسَّوّٜىٰ 4:42
Warš-Drucke erscheinen 1879 und 1891 als groß­formatige, drei­farbige Steindrucke in Fez; in den 1890ger gibt es jährlich kleinere Drucke in schwarz-weiß. Um 1900 erscheint der erste in Algerien.
Tayyib al-Azraq printed the first Moroccan muṣḥaf in 1296/1879 in Faz. It has 19 lines on a page, and uses black, red, green and blue

no changes

The next one, 1299/1881 was made by al-Arabī al-Azraq (Tayyib's brother I guess) has 25 lines per page:

one from 1313/1895/6 1331/1911/2 ar-Rūdūsī bn Murād at-Turkī from the island of Rhodes living in Algiers prints a muṣ­ḥaf with 14 lines in his maṭbCat aṯ-ṯaCA­libiyya

The edition of 1350/1931 can be downloaded in the net at several sites.
Instead of the counting "Madina 2" "Kufa" is used

((these days, other publisher both in Damascus and in Algiers use the Kufī numbering – on the right the Tijani print:

Qurʾān Maǧīd, Alger: Maṭbaʿa aṯ-Ṯa­ʿā­li­bīya 1356/1937 mit farbigem ʿanwān

another one from the web site of the Foundation du Roi Abelaziz in Casablanca:

first pages and last of a muṣḥaf in two volumes, 19 lines per page

In der period between the "World Wars" several publishers published Warš maṣāḥif. Here some by Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī.

1929 in Egypt, where it was printed ‒ dedicated to Sulṭan Muḥammad [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

they are no paginated.
So 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; maġrib. kāf, but ṣād/ḍād with the tooth/nabra), all other parts in maġribi mas­būṭ, while the Lissa­bon copy (in halves) lacks most addi­tions.

The next pages are the end of the 29^th ǧuzʾ and the start of the 30^th.

Normal pages have 15 lines

last page of first half

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

Another Cairo edition of Warš is by the famous publisher MuḥammadʿAbdarRaḥmān Muḥammad often called the "Unified Maġribī edition" / muṣḥaf bil-ḫaṭṭ al-maġribī al-muwaḥḥad

In Algeria Sufi fraternities had editions of their own:
Šaḏilī

reprinted in Qaṭar

Tiǧanīya

printed on salmon paper, printed at the expense of Tijani al-Muhammadi, owner of the al-Manar Press and Library, who was also responsible for calligraphy and decoration Tunisia 1365/1945/6

‒ ­