Ṣaddām Ḥusain prints

During the reign of Ṣaddām Ḥusain the (joined Sunni-Šiʿi) Diwān of Auqāf
reissued two Ottoman manuscripts:
one written by Muḥammad ʾAmīn Rušdī (MAR) +
one by Ḥasan Riḍā (ḤR) both non-berKenar.

A close look at the fatiḥa shows that they are identical.
Above on the left from a Turkish facsimile edition of Ḥasan Riḍa,
in the Middle the ʿIrāqī "ḤR", on the right the ʿIrāqī "MAR",
next page 3 from the two ʿIrāqī prints:

As the fatiḥa is identical, it is likely that it was written in both prints by the "improver" Hāšim Muḥammad al-Baġdādī, who fixed everything that was deamed "wrong" by al-Wāʾiẓ.

Two remarks:
ʿIrāq was not affected by the "revolution" of 1924.
While MAR differentites between /fī qulūbihim/ and /fĭ'l arḍi/, ḤR gets it all wrong
‒ I say: "wrong" because from Istanbul to Batavia the differentiation is the rule.

Last a comparison between the two Ottoman scribes and ʿUṯmān Ṭaha:
both place vowel signs often to the left of their base letter, the sukūn of the final mīm even before the kasra of the letter before!
(and ḤR's hā' has both a ǧazm and a kasra ‒ ???)
UT, on the other hand, places all signs at the proper place ‒ and the final mīm gets not sukūn, that is implied in the šadda on the following mīm.
Below from two early Moroccan prints, to show one of my points:
KFE was a switch from Asian to African.
‒­

UT0 (UT1 UT2 UT3)

It is common know­ledge that the King Fuʾād Edition of the Ḥafṣ qirāʾa was an imme­diate success in the Muslim world. Common know­ledge, but not true. Orien­t­alists bought it, but hardly an Egyp­tian because with almost 850 big pages it is too bulky ‒ they pre­fered the edition written by Muṣ­ṭafā Naẓīf Qadir­ġalī on 522 pages. Because the govern­ment pushed the new ortho­graphy, adap­ta­tions of the old muṣ­ḥaf with 15 lines on 522 pages but with the new ortho­graphy were published.
Later Aḥmad Šamarlī paid Muḥammad Saʿd Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaddād to copy the MNQ line by line but in the 1952 ortho­graphy (I call Q52) and printed it in dif­ferent sizes and with dif­ferent covers.
In 1976 the Govern­ment pro­duced a type set muṣ­ḥaf on 525 pages. So, althought the King Fuʾād Edition was not a best­seller, its ortho­graphies G24 and Q52 were estab­lished in Egypt within sixty years.
But for the Andalu­sian ortho­graphy of Ḥafṣ to con­quer the Arab world, the genius of a scribe and some oil money were needed. ʿUṯmān Ṭaha had learned calli­graphy in Aleppo and Istan­bul, were Hamid Aytaç / Ḥāmid al-Āmidī taught him. In Damascus he met Hāšim Muḥammad al-Ḫaṭṭāt al-Baġdādī.
He works precisely, not artistically, he follows the lead of the KFE by using stacked forms (earlier letters above later ones) only if and when the vowel signs can be places exactly above or below its seat, and each letter being always the same ‒ swash forms of rāʾ, zai, kāf, elon­ga­ted nūn and end yāʾ being the excep­tion.

ad-Dār aš-Šāmiyya li'l-Maʻārifad-Dār aš-Šāmiyya li'l-Maʻārif

He copied the qurʾānic text (not the taʿrīf) of the KFE of 1952 (i.e. the Moroccanly written text of al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥad­dād al-Mālikī with the modi­fica­tions (esp. pause signs) by ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ) with even less stacked forms on 604 pages as made common by Haǧǧ Ḥāfiẓ ʿUṯmān Ḫalīfa Qayiš­Zāde an-Nūrī al-Bur­du­rī (d. 1894) (each ǧuz ‒ except the last because of the many sura title boxes ‒ on twenty pages, all verses ending in the bottom left cor­ner includ­ing 2:282) ‒ this tem­plate is called ber kenar/one edge/cor­ner in Tur­kish (pojok in Indo­ne­sian) and maḫ­tūm in Arabic.

الدار الشامية للمعارف بالإشتراك مع مكتبة دار الملاح, دمشق ١٣٩٩ ١٩٧٩,
ad-Dār aš-Šāmiyya li'l-Maʻārif bi-al-ištirāk maʻa Maktabah Dār al-Mallāḥ, Dimašq, ¹1399/1979
ad-Dār aš-Šamiyya li'l-Maʿarif bi-Dimašq, Dimašq ²1983

Although his manu­script got several seals of being with­out mis­takes (see above), it had three minor mis­takes; apart from them it is a faith­ful re­pro­duction of Q52, the text of the KFE of 1952 with all its fea­tures (notab­ly pause signs).
I call all ver­sions that have one to three of these mis­takes "ʿŪṯmān Ṭaha 0" (UT0) to mark the dif­ference to the Madina prints in which these mis­takes are cor­rected plus two inno­va­tions! So from 1405/1985 the KFC prints UT1 with­out the mis­takes, and many publi­sher around the world repro­duce the Madina text, e.g. Baḥ­rain and Dār al-Maʿrif (both taǧ­wīd and read­ings other than Ḥafṣ).
As Muḥammad Hozien has pointed out, there are three dif­fe­rent styles printed by the KFC. I call them UT1, UT2 and UT3 But first UT0, the versions with scri­bal errors. On page 11 and 567 there is no error, just dif­fe­ren­ces to the 1985 Madina editon. Here UT0 follows the KFE 52, but Madina (KFC) changes the writ­ing: putting the hamzaʾ on a small alif a prac­tice common in Tuni­sian manus­cripts and prints of Qālūn. Next a sukūn/ǧazm is "missing" on a final he it was not a mis­take by UT, but one of the changes by the KFC in Ma­dina (like in 2:72 p.11, and 88:22 p.593). The KFEs and UT0 assi­mi­late the final hā' to the ini­tial ha' of the next verse. the KFC in Madina has the hāʾ pro­noun­ced with­out as­simi­lation (p.567:) on the next page a fatha WAS missing, some­one added it with a blue pen above the mīm: /riʾāʾa/ in 2:264 is a diffe­rent problem. Indians, Indonesians and Maġri­bians put the first hamza on a (dot­less) yāʾ; since 1439/2018 KFC lets it hover after the dot­less yāʾ; the rasm autho­ri­ties are silent about the word. Otto Pretzl de­clared that it was a mis­take in KFE to write it one way in 4:38 and 8:47, but an­other in 2:264. ad-Dānī and Ibn Naǧāḥ are silent.
The Kuwaiti print of 1429/2008 was the first UT with /riʾāʾa/ written the same at all three occurences. KFC followed with UT3 in 1439/2018:
Just like al-Ḥusai­nī al-Ḥad­dād in 1924, al-Muḫalla­lātī in 1890 some like this, other like that.
on the next page we have هٰذان instead of هٰذٰن :

here a sukūn/ǧazm is missing on a final he

but this was not a mistake by UT, but one of the changes by the KFC in Madina (like in 2:72, and 88:22)

here at the end of the second but last line there is a lazim sign (م) that shoudn't be there

The Istanbul Çağrı Yayınları ...

... publishes many trans​la­tions with UT0 next to the trans​lation, till today with only one of the mis­takes cor­rected.

on the bottom of the next page the missing sukūn was added:

Tehran 1404/1982

Here the big alif is replace by a dagger, but one sees the larger than necessry space.

Dār al-Faiḥāʾ 1400/1980

Maktabat al-Ġazzālī 1409/1989

Mu'asasa ʿulūm al-qurʾān (with Dar aš-Šāmalīya) 1404/1984

Dār Ibn Kaṯīr 1404/1984

the slipcase

Dār Ibn Kaṯīr Tafsīr 1409/1988

WAMY

In the time before Medina/UT1 there is even a UT0 from Suʿudia: the World As​socia​tion of Muslim Youth in ar-Riʾāḍ published it, likely printed in Damas​cus by a publisher who have made one before. The WAMY-version has most of the mis​takes

Let me summarize:
ʿUṯmān Ṭaha made four mistakes when he wanted to write Q52 in the berKenar layout:
in 2:121 (p.19) a fatḥa (in /man/) is missing,
in 18:97 (p.203) a ǧazm/sukūn is missing,
in 20:63 (p.210) he wrote /hāḏāni/ like in 22:19 with a full alif instead with an alif ḥanǧārīya.
in 111:4 there is small mīm (lāzim) which does not belong there.
In the six years between 1399/1879 and 1404/1985 when the KFC published UT1, there were five Damascus publisher, a Riyaḍ publisher, one in Istanbul an one in Tehrān publishing UT0. Two of which (Çağrı und Dār Ibn kaṯīr) continued publishing the original UT0 even after 1985, which most switched to UT1 of which KFC made high resolution images and vector files available free of charge.
In 2:264 there is a mistake in KFE: hamza sits on the tooth instead of after it (as in 4:38 and 8:47) ‒ a mistake Otto Pretzl had spotted at once.
In 73:20 KFE and UT have الن, but Madina/KFC have:ان لن .
Madina/KFC made two more changes from UT1 on:
in 2:72 (p.11) they put an alif ḥanǧārīya underneath an hamza, an innovation in a Ḥafṣ copy.
in 69:28 they added saktah and ǧazm and deleted the šadda over the heh of the next word (in the next verse).
And in 8:22 the deleted the small sīn below the ṣād in the second edition of UT1!

In the next two pages I compare UTo with UT1:
in the titel boxes most infor­mation is gone
the numbers (1 to 114) ‒ both in the page header and in the title boxes ‒ are gone
the pause لا signs are gone:

the last mistake, the mīm/lazim that should not be there:

دار الجيل Bayrūt Lubnān 2-1983
Dār al-Ḫayr, Bayrūt, 4-1402/[4-1982]
ترجمة نور الدين بن محمود ; مراجعة وتصحيح فوزي شعبان ; نال شرف كتابته الخطاط عثمان طه, ابن محمود، نور الدين / tarjamat Nūr al-Dīn ibn Maḥmūd ; murājaʿah wa taṣḥīḥ Fawzī Shaʿbān ; nāla sharaf kitābatih al-khaṭṭāṭ ʿUthmān Ṭāhā., Nūr al-Dīn. Ibn Maḥmūd دار الفكر, [Bayrūt?] 1984