Asma Hilali again

A.H. writes in the intro­duction of the journal that the KFE was both edited and calli­graphed by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī,
who had nothing to do with it. It was edited by al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād. It was set with about half of the sorts designed by Muḥammad Ǧaʿfar Bey (m. 1916) ‒ stacked ligatures, and mīm without white in the middle were used in the afterwords, but not in the qurʾānic text because Ḥifnī Bey Nāṣif wanted it to be clear = easily readable (and with space between words, and between lines).
And she give a sources:

La décision du roi Fuʾād de confier au cheikh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī (m. 1936) la tâche d’éditer le Coran a-t-elle représenté une initiative marginale aux yeux des historiens de l’islam moderne² ?   ²ʿAzab, Ḫālid & Ḥasan, Muḥammad, Diwān al-Ḫaṭṭ al-ʿarabī fī Miṣr. Dirāsa waṯāʾiqiyya li-l-kitābāt wa-ahamm al-ḫaṭṭāṭīn fī ʿaṣr Usrat Muḥammad ʿAlī, al-Iskandariyya, Maktabat al-Iskandariyya, 2010, p. 383.
... Muḥammad ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī (m. 1936), ce dernier étant le calligraphe du Coran du Roi Fuʾād.

On p. 383 there is nothing of what Asma claims. Just that ar-Rifāʿī wrote a muṣḥaf for the king – nothing about the Amīrīya edition of 1924!

Both her claims are typical Asma Hilali = her imagintion without factual base.
And for a typeset muṣḥaf, for a muṣḥaf famous for being typeset, that it was calligrahped is even more Asma-like than ordinary.

When was the KFE made?

Aziz Hilal's article Le Coran de 1924, histoire et enjeux politiques is excellent, well researched and important, but I see a problem, that I see with many authors:
he often takes what is said/writ­ten at face value.
E.g. he believes that already in 1912 the govern­ment wanted an new mushaf, that "the committee" started to work long before 1919.

Asma Hilal writes in her intro­duc­tion/"Liminaire" to the journal the opposite, that King Fu'ad initiated the book in 1924

And he believes that its publica­tion in 1924 had to do with Fu'ad's am­bition to become caliph.
So he has to assume that the project got "for­gotten"(oublié) and later revived (évoqué à nouveau),
As I see it, he overlooks three important points:
that Egypt declared its inde­pen­den­ce from the Ottoman Empire at the end of 1914 (after 300 years),
that the KFE was not a newly deviced written version as the Muḫalla­lati, but that the initi­ators wanted a non-Ottoman ver­sion (in a dif­ferent spelling and not in high-court-nasḫ),
that the main objective of (modernists in the Ministry of Educa­tion like) Hifni Bey was an easily read­able version:
  baseline,
  clear (positional) link between vowel sign and base letter,
  space between words,
  space between lines
I assume that the date of 12/13. January 1919 when the members of the commitee, the proof reader of the press and the Shaikh al-azhar signed is fictious, it is a couple of days before Hifni Bey died.
I assume that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād wrote the muṣ­ḥaf to be set half a year or so before the book got printed, but that the govern­ment wanted to include the ini­tiator of the pro­ject among the signia­tories, so it had to be dated before his death.

---

Aziz Hilal is better than his fellows because he puts the emergence of the muṣḥaf into a histori­cal context
‒ the power struggle between king/the palace, parlia­ment/the bour­geoisie (and azhar/the ʿulemaʾ) and
‒ the caliphal aspirations after the abolition of the Otto­man cali­phate on 3.3.1924,
forgetting Egypt's having left the Ottoman Empire after the start of WWI
His most original discovery is, that the only discussion of the KFE is by a German, by Gotthelf Bergsträßer,
that Egyptian, Turkish, Arab, Indian, Indo­nesian and Persian ʿulemaʾ, politicans and intel­lectu­als ignore it, or ‒ at least ‒ were silent and mute about it.
As important examples he cites
‒ the Diary/Journal by Muḥammad al-Aḥmadī al-Ẓawā­hirī, Šaiḫ al-Azhar 1929‒1935
‒ al-Azhar by ʿUṯmān Tawfīq and ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Yūnus, 1946
‒ al-Muslimūn wa-l-Aqbāṭ fī iṭār al-ǧamāʿa al-waṭaniyya, by Ṭāriq al-Bišrī, 1981, 899pp.
None mentions the KFE at all.

---

Omar Hamdan's article is almost useless.
His conlusion ‒ that the KFE does not closely follow the old mss, but either ad-Dānī/Abu Daʾud or a modern print (maybe the Mu­ḫalla­lātī), was obvious before he started looking at it.
If he had compared the KFE with both the Muqniʿ and the Tanzīl, and with an Indian print, a Maġribī print and the Mu­ḫalla­lātī (plus an Ottoman print) instead of only with mss., the paper would have been useful.
I assume that it would have shown that it follows most closely the Maġrib (indirct­ly Abu Daʾud Sulaimān Ibn Naǧāḥ).

---

some quotes from Azīz Hial's article:
Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl al-Ǧīzāwī (1874-1927), en poste entre 1917 et 1927
Signalons que son nom est mystérieu­sement remplacé par « ṣāḥib al-faḍīla, šayḫ ǧāmiʿ al-Azhar ».
((In the first small edition there is a seal: Muḥammad ʿAbu'l-faḍl))
Dès 1912, le gouvernement égyptien comptait éditer un muṣḥaf qui dépasse en qualité et en précision celui de Riḍ­wān al-Muḫalla­lātī.
La postface à la première édition date du 10 rabīʿ al-ṯānī 1337 (13 janvier 1919)
Pourquoi ne pas se contenter de reprendre le muṣḥaf de Riḍwān al-Muḫallalātī et le corriger ?
si la postface de ce muṣḥaf porte la date du 13 janvier 1919, pourquoi attendre le 10 juillet 1924 pour le publier ?
C’est dans ce contexte que le muṣḥaf, oublié depuis 1919, est à nouveau évoqué, afin de fournir un supplément de légitimité à la candidature du roi Fuʿād.

---

The paper by Asma Hilali can be reduced to one sentence:
While in the 19th century, the Flügel edition served many Orien­ta­lists as text of reference,
now the text of the KFE, the Madina Mushaf (Ḥafṣ by the KFCom­plex) and the simplified text of tanzil.net serve as reference.
Here I have to congratulate. Three years ago, in the inviation to (her) conference, she had written

... l’édition du Coran du Caire ... est d’une importance capitale dans la société musul­mane moderne et con­tem­po­raine ... L’édition du Caire met à dis­position des musul­mans ... une version du texte corani­que qui devien­dra pro­gressive­ment la ré­férence reli­gieu­se, litur­gique ... la plus popu­laire dans le monde isla­mi­que. ... la popu­larité du Coran du Caire n’a jamais été remise en cause. ... un événe­ment religieux s’adressant aux musul­mans ... Ainsi, l’avène­ment du Coran du Caire a une portée qui dépasse la sphère de la croyance et qui prend sa place dans l’histoire de la civi­li­sation islamique : histoire des institu­tions, histoire maté­rielle, histoire de la pensée reli­gieuse et des études isla­miques.

All this bla-bla is gone. Al-ḥamdu-llāh

So one can't say that A.H. has learned NOTHING in the four years that she prepared the conference and journal nummer.
But although she thanks Alba Fedeli, Antoinette Ferrand and Dennis Halft for commenting and correcting her text,
she still gets most things about the KFE wrong,
and she lies: She writes that Ali Akbar had said that the KFE has no singular place, is just one among maṣāḥif from Singapore, Bombay, Lucknow and Istanbul.
During the conference Ali Akbar had said: There is no trace what so ever of the KFE. Maybe, students in Cairo or Mekka Pilmgrims have brought a copy, but we do not know!
There are unbelievable statements by A.H.:
Although the KFE is important, because it is the first type set offset print of the qurʾān,
A.H. writes in the intro­duction of the journal that the KFE was both edited and calli­graphed by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Rifāʿī,
who had nothing to do with it. It was edited by al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād. It was set with about half of the sorts designed by Muḥammad Ǧaʿfar Bey (m. 1916) ‒ stacked ligatures, and mīm without white in the middle were used in the afterwords, but not in the qurʾānic text because Ḥifnī Bey Nāṣif wanted it to be clear = easily readable.
Is it that A.H. is stupid or is this the con­sequence of the fact that she has never held a copy in her hands, that the IDEO did not acquire one of the many copies on the market?
That she calls putting a number after each verse « versification » (instead of « numérotation » ) suggests the former.
She claims that there was a special Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir edition, which I doubt because she does not give the date of publi­cation, and a King Fārūq Edition, which is definetly wrong.

‒ ­

The October-Conference on The Cairo Edition

Last weekend the conference on "the Cairo Edition of the Qurʾān, 1924" took place in a room of the AUinC.
While the Arab titel مصخف الملك فؤاد ١٩٢٤م is fine, the English title (the French one pro­minent at the beginning of the year had dis­apperead) is a testimony to utter ignorance ‒
ignorance either of logic, ignoring the func­tion of the definite article
or ignorance of the world of Cairo prints and book­shops ‒ there are thou­sands of Cairo Edi­tions of the Qurʾān a few miles east of the AUC, even fewer miles south-west of the IDEO.
(Anyhow, I find it strange that the English title is not "the 1924 King Fuʾād Edition of the Qurʾān in the Ḥafṣ trans­mission" ‒ multi­lingual con­feren­ces should have the same title in all its lanugages.)
    Sadly, I find both reasons ‒ carelessly calling an edition "the edition"
    and calling an edition "the edition" because s/he never bothered to study different editions,
    plausible.
    It is common among these young scholars to speak of "the palimp­sest"
    for the scriptio inferior of the pamlimpset or the lower text
    ‒ why should they make a difference between "a" and "the"?
    And because they are not interested in having a look into the maṣā­ḥif
    local Muslims use, they just assume that all Muslims have some­thing very
    similar to what most Orienta­lists have. Many scholars explicite­ly wrote that
    the KFE is most common in the Muslim word and for religious purposes.
    Shows that they have no idea of the real Muslim world.
    Sorry: Do not confuse the KFE with Islam on the ground(s).
    Unfortunalely Islamology is 90% theology and philology,
    only 10% social anthropology and sociology of religions.

In the "Call for Papers" (anony­mous, hence offi­cially by the IDEO, in fact by Asma Hilali) one can read about 50 times "l'édition du Cairo, le coran du Caire, ظبعة القاهرة etc.), during the conference all except the Blind African herself spoke of the Govern­ment Copy, the print of the Amī­riyya, the KFE ... ‒ unfor­tunatly the official English title is still the old one, the il­lo­gical one; the IDEO hasn't even made up its mind whether there should be a comma bet­ween "the Cairo Edition of the Qurʾān" and "1924" (cf. the image above) ‒ in both cases the year is an ac­ciden­tal property not an essen­tial one, while in "the 1924 Cairo Edition of the Qurʾān" the year would be es­sential, defining.
Here I repeat what I wrote to the guys in charge in Cairo ten times:
There are about a thousand "Cairo Edition of the Qurʾān" ‒ to put the definite article in front defies logic ‒:
at least ten editions of the Warš trans­mission, one being THE Warš Edition for decades;
here are two of the four title pages (normally bound in one volume):

Here two images from a 1929 Cairo Warš Edition ‒ without a title page, as was common at the time:

And here from two of the oldest al-Qahira pub­lishers, i.e. not from Bab al-Khalq, al-Faggala, from Bulaq or even Giza but from "behind" al-Azhar, first one from Subīḥ:

than from Muṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, first from 1930 for Maġribian Arabs:

others:

Apart from these 100% Cairo Editions, there are editions con­ceaved in Morocco resp. Algeria, but pro­duced in Cairo ‒ the Moroccan ones without pro­duction place, the Algerian ones with an Algerian publisher's name. (Only the third edition of the third sherifian muṣ­ḥaf was produced in Morocco.)
In the literature another one is mentioned, which I have not seen ‒ so I rest sceptical:
al-Qurʼān al-karīm : innahu li-Qurʼān karīm fī kitāb maknūn
Majmaʻ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmīyah. Lajnah Murājaʻat al-Maṣaḥif
[Cairo]: [Jāmiʻ al-Azhar], [1964]
OCLC-No: 22354261
"Aqarrat hādha al-muṣḥaf al-sharīf wa-diqqah rasmihi wa-ḍabṭihi wa-ʻaddaʼa ayātaha Lajnah Murājaʻat al-Maṣāḥif bi-Majmaʻa al-Buḥūth al-Islāmīyah bi-al-Jāmiʻ al-Azhar bi-al-Qarār ... 1964."
qāf is written with a dot above the letter, fāʼ with one below the letter, and no dot over final nūn 518 pages ; 25 cm
Of two "Cairo Edition"s before 1924 I do have image:
the one written by the same calligrapher as the 1308/1890 edition, ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq Ḥaqqi (?) Ibn al-Ḫawaǧa, produced by a famous printer around the turn of the century (-1919) behind al-Azhar: aš-Ṣaiḫ Aḥmad ʿAlī al-Melīǧī al-Kutubī:

Plus one printed in al-Maṭbaʻa al-ʻĀmiriyya:
InnahuLi-Qurʾān Karīm, 1318/1900:

One of the talks in the IDEO conference led from Venice and Ham­burg, Kazan and Leipzig to the first com­plete Qurʾān printed in Cairo, the Bulaq 1881/2 print ‒ both in one volume in in several (possibly both in 10 and in 30) leather­bound parts. It is well known both from the Enyclo­pedia of the Quran and from Kein Standard:

It has 13 lines per page, 603 pages in the one-volume-edition.

In 1308/1890 the most important of all Cairo editions was published ‒ it was mentioned but no copy was shown ((even the Geburtstagskind, the 1924 Gizeh print was not there)). It was not analysed or discribed in detail. Good heavens!

In 1885 an other important Cairo edition saw the light of day ‒ this one as well with "ar-rasm al-ʿuṯmānī":

Let's mention two more early "Cairo Editions":
One written by they same calli­grapher who wrote the tremend­ously import 1308/1890 edition, ʿAbd al-Ḫālliq Ḥaqqi (?) Ibn al-Ḫawaǧa, by the editor Šaiḫ Aḥmad bin ʿAlī al-Melīǧī al-Kutbī, who had a press near al-Azhar until 1919.

Innahu li-Qurʾān karīm fī kitāb maknūn lā yamassahu illā al-muṭahhirūn tanzīl min ...
Miṣr : al-Maṭbaʻah al-ʻĀmirīyah, 1318 [1900]
364 p. ; 20 cm.

Only one of the participants has made research for the con­ference. Aziz Hilal dis­covered, that he did not find any reports on the pre­para­tions for the edition, nor reports on its pub­li­cations or its re­per­cussions. It was a non-event at the time.
Ali Akbar had to report, that in Indo­nesia (+ Singa­pore, Malaysia, southern Thai­land) no copies of the KFE were sold. Nor could he locate a survving copy Azhar students or pil­grims to Mecca might have brought into the area.
Necmettin Gökkır informed the par­ticipants, that in the Turkish Republic very few experts took note of the edition. Neither the state religious autho­ri­ties nor normal Muslims were inter­ested in the KFE.
Michael Marx's “Inno­vation, Mile­stone, Stan­dard? Remarks and Reflec­tions about the Cairo 1924 Print from a Histo­ri­cal Per­spective” is wrong because there is NO Cairo 1924 Print, the copy was printed in Gizeh, and he did not explain what the ino­vation(s) was resp. were. As for the "standard" he refered to Arno Schmitt.
I could not detect for all the papers which of the topics named in the Call for Papers they dealt with. Only A.Hilali's concluding remarks belonged clearly to a tailor-made topic.
Interesting that the three languages English+French+Arabic
had turned to Egyptian+English+Arabic and that Hilal's talk consisted to 38% in imala (eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh).

100 years ago

The King Fuʾād Edition of the Ḥafṣ transmission of the Qurʾān is soon cele­brating its 100^th anniversary ‒ that's what the Domini­can Insti­tute in Cairo (IDEO) says.
Actually Orientalists are doing it, the edition has nothing to do with the cele­bration.
It is not even there. The two Cairo insti­tutions with func­tioning online catalogs ‒ IDEO and AUC ‒ do not have a copy. And the two insti­tutions that might have one ‒ al-Azhar and the National Library (Dar al-Kutub) ‒ have no online catalogue for the time being.
Fortuately, both the Prussian and the Bavarian Staats­biblothek have a copy of the original print of 1342/1924 (the Bavarian Academy of Sciences has another copy).
The French Biblo­thèque National (BnF) claimed to have five copies printed in 1919.
When I wrote them that this was im­possible, they dis­covered that three of their catalog entries refered to the same physi­cal object and stream­lined it to this:

Originaly they wrote that it was printed in Al-Qāhiraẗ : al-Maṭbaʿaẗ al-Amīriyyaẗ, 1919 القاهرة : المطبعة الأميريّة, 1919 But in their copy one can read

المطبعة العربية ١١ شارع اللبودية درب الجماميز Šārʿ Darb al-Ǧamāmīz con­nect­ing Bab al-Ḫalq (in the north-east) and es-Sayeda Zainab (in the south-west) ‒ in the 1930s and '40s its southern part was named separetly as Šārʿ al-Labūdīya ‒
definetly not in Būlāq, were the Govern­ment Press was located for 150 years before it was trans­fered to Imbaba in 1972.
I don't know why the 1961 edition of the KFE was not printed in Būlāq, but it seems to the case. My first idea, that the edition was not made by a government subsiduary, but a private enterprise, is unlikely because the 1961 has not a continuous pagination (1-855), but three deparat one (2-827, ا ب غ د ه و , (1) ...(4)) When one reads IN the FRIST (and post '52) print(s)

that the print was ac­complished by 7. Ḏul­ḥigga 1342 (= 10.7.1924), this can not be the date of the pub­lication. It can only be the day when printing of the qurʾānic text was finished. After that this note had to be set, the plates had to be made, the gathe­ring(s) with this note and the infor­ma­tion that follow it in the book had to be printed, all had to be made into a book block and had to be bound (con­nected with the case).
By the time the book was published it was 1343/1925. The cover of the first edition was stamped ṭabʿat al-ḥukūma al-Miṣrīya sanat 1343 hiǧriyya.

Bibligraphicaly speaking, the date given on page [ص] can be used, but in real life, the book was pub­lished only in the following year.
The Hounds of God and their handmaid did not know a thing about the King Fuʾād Edition, they even used a picture from the 1952 edition to illustrate the 1924 one.
Okay, not everybody knows the 1924 Gizeh print has never been reprinted, that the next edition was made in Būlāq on newly aquired machines with newly made plates in a different formate and with changes in the back matter, that the third edition had a word spelled differently,
but almost every­body not ignorant of all things qur'anic knows, that the 1952 edition is a new edition ‒ dif­ferent at 900 places.
Normally it is best to con­centrate on the editions itselfs, to scan them for dif­feren­ces, to read their back­matter carefuly, but there are two texts on the 1924 edition worth studying:
Gotthelf Bergsträßer's "Koran­lesung in Kairo" in Der Islam 20,1, (1932) pp. 1-42
and Abd al-Fattāḥ (ibn ʿAbd al-Ġanī) al-Qāḍī's Tārīḫ al-Muṣ­ḥaf aš-Šarīf (esp. pp. 59-66 in the 1952 edition by Maktabat al-Jundī).
Abd al-Fattāḥ al-Qāḍī writes of three editions:
al-Muḫallalātī's of 1308/1890
al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād's of 1342/1924
aḍ-Ḍabbāġ's of 1371/1952 on which he participated as one of the editors.

Back to the copies at our disposale: IDEO has one from 1354/1935
the first edition can be found in Berlin, Munich (BsB and in the Academy of Sciences), Bonn, Kiel, Basel, Zürich (UZH), Nijme­gen, Leiden
the 1344/1925 edition in Münster, Berlin (FUB), Kiel
1346/1927/8 in Leiden, Tübingen, Freiburg
1347/1928/9 in Würzburg, Munich, Erlangen-N, Bayreuth, Hamburg, Halle, Berlin (HU), Greifs­wald, Bamberg, Gießen, Kiel, Wien, Kopenhagen, Provo UT (BYU),
1936 Beirut (USJ)
many have a copy of the NEW King Fuʾād Edition of 1952
Berlin has two from 1952, one from before the revolu­tion mentioning King Fuʾād on page [alif], one with the page and its empty verso thrown out

Jena, Erfurt, Göttingen, Hamburg, Bamberg, Erlangen-N, Marburg, Eichstätt, Bonn, Mannheim, Munich (BSB & LMU) Stuttgart, Tübingen, Leiden, Freiburg, Stockholm, VicAlbert, Aix-Marseille, Madrid, Edinburgh U, Oxford, Binghamton NY, Allegheny PA, Columbus (OSU)

The second edition (1344) was reprinted by Maṭbaʿa al-ʿarabiyya in the 1930s, by the Chinese Muslim Society in Bakīn 1955 (without the page mention­ing the king and with chinized graphics and probably by Mak­ta­bat al-Šarq al-Islā­miyya wa-Maṭbaʻa­tuhā in 1357/1938 ‒ I say "probably" because it could be a repro­duction of the third or even later edition.
In 1938 the Nizam of Hyderabad had the text set with sorts he had bought from Būlāq, it was printed in two volumes along Pickthall's English translation in two volumes and reprinted by Gaddafi's Islamic Call Society ‒ plus a French version alongside D.Masson's translation.

The 1952 edition, aḍ-Ḍabbāġ's edition, was reprinted a lot:
1379/1960 in Taš­kent/Ṭaš­qend
in Bairut/Damas­cus often mostly with an added ن in 73:20 (one of these was reprinted in ʿAmmān and made it into the web archive There were reproduction on less than 827 pages: the 1952 edition was photo­graphed 1:1, the film was cut and re­arranged on a light table. Instead of 12 lines per page, we get 14 or 15 longer lines,

1983 in Qaṭar and in Germany. The German edition was made to­gether with the Islamic Text Society (ITS), Cambridge.
Since its ISBN is a German one, I guess, the pub­lishing place is Stutt­gart, not Cam­bridge or London.

There were three editions: big and medium size leather bound, and a big one in cloth. The qurʾānic text is a reprint of the 1952 al-Amīriyya edition, the back matter was fresh­ly set (not as neat as the original ‒ a pity!
As a rule, 827 page editions without title page are by the Govern­ment Press,
those with a title page are by private or non-Egyptian pub­lishers ‒
the From­mann-Holz­boog/ITS is the only non-Amīriy­ya one with­out title page, no titel on the cover, nor the spine.

The text of 1952 was published by the Government Press after 1976 for about ten years freshly set on 525 pages in several formats: with plastic cover, cartboard, leather, small, medium and large ‒ quite a success for a decade ‒ the last reprint was 1988 in Qaṭar.
And then came ʿUṯmān Ṭaha on 604 pages ‒ first with 100% the same text, later with different spelling at 2:72 and 73:20 and (most ? all ?) lāʾ pauses gone.

Asmāʾ Ḥilālī

Asmāʾ Ḥilālī:

Despite the proliferation of scholarly editions of old Qurʾānic manu­scripts
over the last twenty years,
the popularity of the Cairo edition of the Qurʾān has never been challenged.

What can this mean?
What is the connection between scholarly editions of qurʾānic fragments and
the ‒ supposed! ‒ popularity of the King Fuʾād Edition of the qurʾān,
called by her "the Cairo edition,"
which on its own shows that she is weak on logic.
Since there are more than a thousand Cairo editions of the qurʾān,
to call a particular one "THE Cairo edition" (TCE)
betrays madness ‒ unless one assumes that she ignores
the function of the definite article.

It's like:

Despite the proliferation of sub­urban gardens
the popula­rity of the Amazonas forest has not declined.

or

Despite the popularity of Mara­dona and Rinaldo
the greatness of Maria Callas is unchallenged.

The use of TCE instead of the many good (or less good) names for
the Gizeh print,
the 1924 Amīriyya edition,
the 1924 King Fuʾād edition,
the Amīri edition = here s.o. did not see that Amīriy­ya is short for al-maṭbaʿa
  al-amīriyya, thought that it refered to King Fuʾād ‒>
  corrected it to amīrī, because the King is not a Queen
the 1924 muṣḥaf al-mesāḥa
the Government print, der amtliche ägyptische ...
the 12 liner (مصحف ١٢ سطر) of 1924
shows that Asma Hilali did not know a thing about the Egyptian Govern­ment
Edition of 1924/5 at the time of writing the "Call for proposals".
TCE is a recent coinage by non-English speakers.
The Gizeh print is the ONLY muṣḥaf ever printed in Gizeh proper.
Only the 827plus page editions ‒ without titel page, but more than twenty pages AFTER the qurʾānic text ‒ by the Amīriyya (1924-1975) have 12 lines,
but they are not all the same: the 1952 edition is quite different from the 1924 one:
(and the second and third edition have a few changes NOT included in the 1952 edition)
about 900 differences between 1924/5 and 1952!

During the conference Asma Hilali was the only one who spoke of "muṣḥaf al-Qāhira" (Omar Hamdan spoke of al-Qāhira-print, most spoke of "muṣḥaf al-malik Fuʾād") ignoring that the Amīriyya never refers to al-Qāhira, but to Miṣr, Būlāq, and Gizā.
Before 1920 all private publishers were situated south-west of al-Azhar, late comers were situated in al-Faggāla St.

IDEO's call for papers

The Dominican Institute for Oriental Studies in Cairo calls for papers for two conferences, one in October, the second in three years.

Strangely the Arabic call is first for a conference on the King Fuʾād Edition (1924) of the qurʾān, then for one of the "al-Qāhira print,"
the French conference is on « le Coran du Caire »/ « l'édition du Caire »,
the English one on "The Cairo Edition".
As there are about a thousand editions of the qurʾān published in Cairo, it just does not make sense to call a particular edition "l'édition du Caire".
Of course, once the edition is intro­duced correc­te­ly ‒ as the King Fuʾād Edition (KFE), the Egyptian Govern­ment Edition of 1924, the Educa­tion Ministry Edition (because there later was a Minsitry of the Interior Edition), the Amīriyya Edition (of 1924), (or wongly) the Amīrī Edition (taking Fuʾād as the Amīr, instead of refering to the Govern­ment Press/ مطبعة), the Gizeh print, the Survey of Egypt Gizeh 1924 print [at the time its name was مصلة المسحة , now it is الهيئة المصرية العامة للمساحة , hence it is named simply مصحف المسحة ], the 12-line-edition of the Qurʾān / المصحف ١٢ سظر, the official Egyptian edition of 1924, the edition pre­pared by Egypt's šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥusainī al-Mālikī aṣ-Ṣaʿīdī al-Ḥaddād (1282/1865‒1357/ 22.1.1939) ‒ one can refer to it as "Cairo edition", or "the 1924 edition", but not to "The Cairo Edition," nor "al-Qāhira print," nor "Azhar Edition".
The Azhar had almost nothing to do with it.
It was prepared by one man alone; of the four men that signed three are not called "šaiḫ", are not ʿulamāʾ, are not expert qurʾāno­logists, have never written anything on religious sub­jects.
Abū Mālik Ḥifnī Bey ibn Muḥammad ibn Ismaʿīl ibn Ḫalīl Nāṣif (16.12.1855‒25.2.1919) had been chief inspector of the Arabic depart­ment in the min­istery of edu­ca­tion. In his youth he had learned the qurʾān by heart, later he became a lawyer, was part of the modern intel­li­gen­tzia of the capital.
Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn ʿUmar al-Iskandarī (1292‒1357/1875‒1938) and Muṣṭafā (al-)ʿInānī (d. 1362/ 1943) were teachers at the Peda­go­cial Seminary next to the Ministery of Educa­tion and have jointe­ly written books on educa­tional matters.

When you make a multi­lingual con­ference on "der Erste Welt‎krieg," it should be about "la Pre­mière Guerre Mondiale" (not about "La Grande Guerre"), one on the July Revolu­tion 1830 should be on la Révolu­tion de Juillet 1830 (not Les Trois Glori­euses), and one on World War II, should be on вторая мировая война (not on Великая Отече­ствен­ная Война).
But in the English call for papers 16 times "the Cairo edition" is used, a term for which no Arabic equi­valent exists. (( When you google the Arabic term that come first to your mind "muṣḥaf al-Qāhira" you get hits, but nothing near the KFE.)) Hence in the Arabic call first ten times "the King Fuʾād muṣḥaf" is used and then six times the "Qāhira print", alt­hough al-Qāhira is the Old City founded by the Fati­mides, where most private printers reside (have their siège social) and most had their work­shop too, Būlāq lying out­side, Gizeh, where the King Fuʾād Edi­tion WAS printed even on the other side of the Nile: in an other Gou­ver­ne­ment /muḥā­faẓa. Twice "the Cairo edition" has as ac­ciden­tal quali­fica­tion "of 1924", which is not good enough ‒ "the 1924 Cairo edition" with "1924" as neces­sary at­tribute, as defining pro­perty would be acceptable, but the Domini­cans never use that term, nor "the 1924 Egyptian Govern­ment edition," nor "the edition of the Min­istry of Educa­tion"(the Ministery of Interior had later maṣāḥif printed as well), nor "the edition pre­pared by the Šaiḫ al-maqāriʿ al-maṣrīya."

Strangely the Domanican Institute manipulates the image of the title box of the Fatīḥa:
Only the top and right side are okay, the bottom and left side (below in lighter yellow) are mirrored by software,
and more important: the text in the middle is NOT from the 1924 Gizeh print! The original is not self centred, but stands in rela­tion with the title box of al-baqara on the oppo‎site page.