In the famous King Fahd Complex Uthmānī Madīnah Muṣḥaf, Allāh is written with the following diacritics:
Source: https://read.quranexplorer.com/2/7/7/Usmani/Mishari-Rashid/Hide/Tajweed-OFF
In the Indo-Pāk Muṣḥaf, Allāh is written with the following diacritics:
Source: https://read.quranexplorer.com/2/7/7/IndoPak/Mishari-Rashid/Hide/Tajweed-OFF
In this question, I am only concerned with the difference between fatḥah (in the Uthmānī script) and superscript alif (in the Indo-Pāk script) on the lām. According to the Tajwīd rules of both scripts, the fatḥah and superscript alif are supposed to produce different elongations, the former is supposed to be shorter while the latter is supposed to be elongated. It seems that according to the Uthmānī script, the "la" is supposed to be kept short (as in Al-lah), while according to the Indo-Pak script, the "la" is supposed to be elongated (as in Al-laah).
My question is, according to Tajwīd rules, which version of diacritics is more correct in terms of the accurate pronunciation of the word Allāh?
And is there any reason why the potentially less correct version chose the diacritics of Allāh as they did? There must be some reasoning behind it, due to the painstaking amount of research, effort, artistry, and calligraphy involved in designing each word and letter in the Muṣḥaf. For instance, if one sees the work and years spent in writing the Madīnah Muṣḥaf (here, and here), a potential error in the diacritics of Allāh has to be intentional and not mistaken. What could be the reason behind selecting them as they are? Is there any official explanation available?
Thank you and jazākAllāhu khairā for your guidance.
