I, for one, prefer having dedicated glyph slots for differently connected forms of a letter. For instance, these are the /fehDotless-ar.medi and /fehDotless-ar.init from my Quinoa Black:
I've had to apply some trickery to the former to make it look like a circle sitting on top of a continuous baseline, when in fact the counter dips below the baseline's top and the circle is optically adjusted to avoid blotting. For the latter, of course, much of that adjustment was unnecessary or would have been counterproductive on its right side.
You can't do this sort of thing if you use the same glyph for connecting and non-connecting instances. Note that Quinoa is a geometric typeface whose Arabic has even been called «more progressive» (as in non-traditional) than its Roman. The vast majority of Arabic typefaces are going to be less geometric, more organic and thus even much less amenable to this kind of treatment than Quinoa.
It works well IMHO — though not necessarily better than the teardrops; it's mostly a flavor rather than a quality decision.
I like what you did with the new /g. Maybe the ear could be turned a bit more horizontal to match the new style? Currently it seems to be pointing downwards.
I also notice some inconsistencies in stroke widths on this example. The thick stroke of /y is fatter than anything else, whereas the /o feels very light. The flag of /r might also benefit from some more weight.
Your replacement of ball terminals suspended on thin curves with solid flags now shifts the perceived contrast philosophy away from vertical and more towards the humanist philosophy. I'm wondering whether that line of thinking could be taken a little further. Might it be possible to introduce some diagonal stress to the /o as well...?