https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a5/dc/27/34d036c...
My understanding of Arabic is that this would be _exceedingly_ hard to generalize into individual, discrete glyphs that could not only be broken out into their own segments but then repeated in a way that makes sense.
The only way I could personally think of is with matrix displays, which act more like normal displays.
This is because even though it is an alphabetic script, the blending between characters is non-trivial and highly dependent on the sequence of glyphs, which causes an explosion of possible combinations depending on what's being written.
That said, you can always design segmented displays that show _any_ shape or script, assuming you don't need to change them.
I'm going to guess the various shifts you allude to are simple transformations for a pen-plotter, perhaps accumulating some "context" offsets to the initial position or flipping some glyph etc. Not sure how to translate that to segments, unless you can electro-mechanically adjust the segments...?...
But it doesn't end there. Fonts have a crazy number of different lookup tables that can affect how glyphs are drawn. While not Turing complete they're certainly very close.
In Arabic, how the baseline blends affecting the base shape of the glyph, plus lots of kerning rules, etc. would make Arabic very difficult to replicate on a segmented display.
A 7 segment display would have nowhere close to enough resolution to properly render Arabic script. Digital signage would at least be using a low-resolution LED matrix but more likely you'd see LED/LCD displays in places that are affluent and plain analog signage where they are not.
I wonder how Arabic ended up with characters that differ only by dot positioning (like ب ت ث, and also ن whose combining form is especially similar to the combining forms of those). By contrast, the most similar Latin characters might be EF / CG / IJ / MN / UV which I think are clearly more different than the Arabic characters that differ only by dot quantity and positioning.
(The Il1| are also famously confusable in some Latin fonts, but one could say having to worry about these comes late in the history of Latin script writing. Although the scribal minim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography) used at some points to write u, i, m, and n is every bit as confusing as any Arabic character.)
Much like latin characters, at some point a segmented display is just going to have to compromise on the tradeoff between correct an the number of parts. We see it work just fine casting the curvy latin letters to squares. So the real question I reckon is how much can you mangle the diacritics / curves / other parts and still read it? In other words, what is the bandwidth redundancy of this writing system?
Other commenter nailed the real technical hurdle. Context dependent spacing system. How do monotypes do it (or do those not exist)?
A 7-segment display works by turning on and off each of the segments in order to render a glyph that is supposed to represent English alphanumeric characters. It mostly accomplishes this, though just barely and honestly a lot of characters do not render well at all (like the lowercase "i"). How would you shape the segments in such a way that could accomplish at least that level of clarity in Arabic?
I personally think that what you'd end up with would very closely resemble a dot matrix.