Delhi 1895 Tafsīr-i Ḥusaini

Tafsīr-i Ḥusainī by Ḥusain Waʿiẓ Kāšifī

Delhi 1867 Tafsīr-i Ḥusaini

Tafsīr-i Ḥusainī by Ḥusain Waʿiẓ Kāšifī
The Koran, accompanied by the Hindustani interlineary translation by رفيع الدين دهلوي Rafīʻ ud-dīn Dihlavī, 1749-1818, with the Persian commentary of Ḥusayn Vāʿiz Kāshifī كاشفي، حسين واعظ d. 1505 or 1504 on the margin.

for comparison

Bombay 1880 Tafsīr-i Ḥusaini

Tafsīr-i Ḥusainī by Ḥusain Waʿiẓ Kāšifī

Four pages are missing in the digital version (British Library, Gale)

Bombay 1862 Tafsīr-i Ḥusaini

Tafsīr-i Ḥusainī by Ḥusain Waʿiẓ Kāšifī

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.
‒­