Qālūn ‒ Tripolitania

100 years ago there were few maṣāḥif in Tripolitania, but many men knew the qurʾān by heart.
50 years ago there were Warš copies in the mosques, and reciters knew the dif­ferences bet­ween the two main transmissions of Imām Nāfiʿ by heart ‒ mostly by general rules (usul), few specific dif­feren­ces (furuʿ)
In 1975 the Education Secretari­at of the Rule of the Libyan Masses issued a muṣ­ḥaf establish­ed by a com­mitee of scholars, mainly Tunesi­ans, but a Moroccan and two Libyans as well.

(catch word on the right ‒ unlike other Libyan editions)

In the 1980s Šaiḫ Ṣāliḥ ʿAmmār Daḫīl al-Ǧalaṣī wrote a muṣḥaf published in one, four and ten volumes;   Šaiḫ Muṣṭafa Aḥmad Qašqaš and Šaiḫ Šukrī Aḥmad Ḥāmadī signed it:

1987 Muṣḥaf al-Jamahiriya, a Libyan Quran in the trans­mission of Qalun from Nafi', the path of Abū Našīṭ Muḥammad ibn Hārūn, written by Šaiḫ Abū Bakr Sāsī al-Maġribī (b.1917) was published. Among the scholars involved were Šaiḫ Muḥammad Aḥmad Mišāri and Šaiḫ Muṣṭafa Aḥmad Qašqaš. They signed in Lailat al-Qadr 1404/1983
berKenar except five pages
catch words on both right and left

The (New) Libyan (Miṣrata) Muṣḥaf

The Muṣḥaf was prepared by a 7-men committee headed by Šaiḫ at-Tihāmi az-Zaitūnī. It was writ­ten by Šaiḫ aš-Šarīf Grira/Quraira az-Zanāti (picture on the left).
It includes emergen­cy pauses when running out of breath.

there is a PC set version as well

and one in 30 booklets

Because many orientalists knew only Muʿammār al-Qaḏḏafī's muṣḥaf, they thought: Qālūn has a spefic spelling.
Nonsense!
Here a few places which differ from G24, but agree with IPak (from the book Kein Standard) (p.55) in differet Libyan editions;
there are all Qālūn, but follow different rasm authorities: Ibn Ḫarrāz before and after Muṣḥaf al-Ǧamahariyya, which follows ad-Dānī;
plus some versions from the www. The sound is the same for all, all follow the first Madani numbering, but the rasm differs:

"Uthmani" is from here: مصحف ليبيا برواية قالون عن ناف
last but one is from the web/screen
KFC UT is ʿUṯmān Ṭaha on 604 pages.

‒­

Categorization of maṣāḥif ‒ spelling

I look at muṣḥaf-printing (and seldom muṣ­ḥaf-writing before) worldwide.
So one of my interests are features to dif­ferenti­ate:
reading, transmission,
rasm authority,
layout (like 15-604, 15-522, 11-815, 12-827, 13-848)
with catchword?
whats in the header (r:name of guz,l:name of guz vs. name+num­ber of guz ...)
titel page, title on cover?, on spine?
duʿāʾ?
dedication?
guarantor (mušayaḫa, named šuyūḫ, chief qārī, minstry of inter­ior, au­qāf ‒ page with stamps)
By far the most important features are
‒ the writing of long vowels,
‒ whether assimilation is noted.

For long vowels there are two systems (with some leeway):
in the West two signs are needed: a vowel sign and a letter
in the East there are short and long vowel signs (vowel letters can be ignored).

In the West (Mag), when there is not the proper vowel letter in the rasm after con­sonant + (short) vowel sign, a small letter is inserted.
When the following vowel is the wrong one, it gets converted by a sign into the proper one.

In the East, THE main system (IPak, Taj Comp Ltd) has three short, three long vowel signs + sukūn.
There was a system in India ‒ not in print ‒ (Hind) which always uses the long vowel sign, when the vowel is long.

traces of this system on the walls of Aleppo ...

... and a famous Persian muṣḥaf

The standard IPak uses the short vowel sign (for a long vowel), when the con­sonant is followed by the right vowel letter (like in the West),
writing the long vowel sign only when no or wrong vowel letter follows.
Osm (Ottoman) lacks long /ū/, so CT (Turkey) adds "madd" under­neath waw when leng­then­ing, "qaṣr" when not.
Per(sia) lacks long /ū/-sign, too.
nIran (developped my the Center for Printing and Distributing "Ṭabo Našr") has six vowel signs and NO sukūn.

in a way it is the opposite of the old Indian system in which the vowel letter (when not carrying a vowel sign that turns it into a consonant: /wa, ya, wi .../) is ignored; in it the vowel letter is read without the need of a vowel sign before it.
When a letter has no sign it is "unmoved" (like having a sukūn in other systems).

Indonesia has the IPak system. As they often reprinted Ottoman maṣāḥif, they added the Indian turned ḍamma where­ever needed.
The second BIG difference:
the West has three kinds of tanwīn (iẓhār, idġām/iḫfāʾ, tanmīm), the East just one
(compensated in some sub-systems by iẓhār nūn and having quṭni nūn/silsa nūn)

While both Mag and IPak note assimilation
both Turks (Osm and CT) and Persians (Per and nIran) do not.

While all Eastern systems show when a written vowel is not pronounce long (/ĭ ă ŭ/ in trans­cription), Mag and G24 (that is all Arabs nowadays) do not show when letter yāʾ is not /ī/.
‒ but show when alif maqṣūrā is not /ā/ but /ă/.
While Mag and Brunai have three kinds of waṣl signs (showing the vowel that is used IN CASE of a pause before it),
G24 and Q52 have only one, IPak was no wasl sign, has it has no hamza sign on/below lead­ing alif; here a vowel sign includes hamz; no sign = waṣl

Before 1924 Egypt used Osm, since then more and more G24 (later Q52)
which are both improvements of Mag: the Maġribian spelling (with reduced Saǧa­wandi pause signs) and a differentiation:
Unlike Osm, where the sukūn-circle means un-moved (with vowel), it can stand in Maġ vor un-pronounced (mute) as well.
Here G24 introduced a three-fold differentiation: head of ǧīm (ǧazm): unmoved, circle: always un-pronounced, oval (zero): unpronounced unless when the reader stps here.
(waṣla-sign means unpronounce unless the reader has stopped before.

In Kein Standard I make a witty remark: With the KFE Egypt after four­hundred years belonging to the Ottoman empire returns to Africa.

So, IPak, Hind and nIran are the only good systems ‒
unless you accept the Arab excuse: EVERYbody knows when to shorten a vowel.

For those not knowing the muṣḥaf Brunai, here a page that
has both a-waṣl an (on the bottom) u-waṣl
‒ note that wa'l and fa'l dot not get the green waṣl-dot, because after /wa-/ and /fa-/ a pause is impossible.

‒­