tajwīd maṣāḥif

The letters of the qurʾān do not exactely tell you how to pronounce the text.
Some vowels have to be lengthened, others naselized,
some consonants are emphati­cal or esp. clearly pro­nounced.
Quite a lot of written letters are not pro­nounced.
Some of these oral phenonema are reflected in the "normal" text.
According to Q52 a waṣl-sign above an alif and a circle above any letter say: Do not pronounce!
This is expressed in Indo-Pak by absence of any sign.

– Unfortunately today some Indians set the silent-circle, thus deluting their own clear system.

(Waterfaal Islamic Institute wants to make it better, using NO sign for the Q52 circle, putting a circle for the Q52 ovale, but some­times they put the wrong sign ‒ alas.)

There are many different prints that use colour to distinguish how to pro­nounce:

The image above is from Dar al-Maʿrifa in Bairut, formally Damascus. In Verse 16 not all silent letters are grey (they think the waṣl says it, so they leave the alif black, al­thought it is mute (by the same logic letters below a circle would have to be black):

In verse 8 DaM (Dar al-Maʾrifa), Nous-mêmes (Nm) from Tunis, and Hasenat from Turkey colour the nūn from /man/ before /yaqūl/ because it is assimi­lated (and Nm puts a šadda above the yāʾ to which the nūn is assimilated).
On the other hand, DaM and Nm do not grey out the alif of [al-nās] marked as silent by Hasenat and Merkaz Ṭabo­Našr, which does not bother about assimila­tion. (Nm does not even grey the lām assimilated to nūn!)

the two above are from Nous-mêmes/Hanibal and from Tehran.
Here four times [min/man] from Indonesia, Bairut/Damascus (Muʾassasat al-Īmān) and twice from Lahore, Pakistani Punjab (Qudratullah and Hammad) plus the 13liner from Taj coloured by Madrasah.co.uk

in these examples all silent letters are coloured as silent:

The two pages above are from Turkey (Hasenat) and from Indo­nesia (Mushaf Indo­nesia Standar Warna).
In the first line on the next image (Nm) do not mark the diffe­ren­ce bet­ween /fī/ and /fĭ/ assuming that their (Arab) readers make it auto­matically right.
Muʾassasat al-Īmān (in Bairut), Indonesians and Iranians do make the difference.
(Note that the Indonesians do not use colour for silent letters trusting the Indian system: absence of any sign = mute.) (Note that the Iranians in the last line do not mark the assimilation of mīm to mīm.)

above the pages from Lahore, and the page written for the 13liner of Taj Com Ltd. coloured for Madrasah.co.uk.

And for good measure from yet another Lahore company: Pak:

and from the Islamic Academy in Texas (text written by Mahmud Ahmad ʿAbdal-Ḥaqq)

­‒

keinStandard XXII taǧwīd editions

A first impression: the beginning of al-Baqara from a Turkish online edition on the right
the same from a typical Indian edition on the left (plus one line from page 3 tucked in below the Turkish page),
three lines from the pioneer of taǧwīd editions; Dār al-Maʿrifa, Damascus
and at the bottom a line from Nous-mêmes-Édition (Tunis),
on the right a line each from two Indonesian
und Dar ar-Riyāḍa, Damascus.

Then the original edition by Dar al-Maʿrifa, then their clear edition with space between words, then the Dār ar-Riyāḍa, Damascus edition with arrows above.





finally from France, quite different:


Now in detail:


At first look: just different colours.
Really different systems.
Maybe some differences correlate with language.
Turks and Indians colour both "assimilating" letters the same way.
For them the letters assimilate each other.
Arabs colour the assimilated (passive) letter as silent.
Actually they to not see the assimilator as active, as annihilating the assimilated letter,
but the now-silent letter as having taken refuge under the assimilator,
as having become similar to it.
The important point is: the two letters function differently (hence different colour),
whereas Turks and Indians stress they having become similar.
I have to admit: I see it the Arab way: the first letter has (kind of) disappeared,
the second is doubled.


From Karbala: