Asim Iqbal 2nd

1st June, 2011

Root should be : suad ya tuay ra

Form should be : Q.I (i.e. 1st form of the quadriliteral)

Lane's Lexicon doesn't cover root suad ya tuay ra but instead covers siin ya tuay ra and on it in Volume 4, page 1358, column 3 states musaytir with both siin and suad and also states musattir i.e. all 3 words having similar meaning.

Dictionary of the Qur'an also states musaytir as a quad, but uses siin instead of suad.

If with suad and siin the word has the same meaning then why write in strange style with suad and then a small siin on top of this suad is written on some Arabic texts today? Can anyone give any justification?

Asim Iqbal 2nd

1st June, 2011

Also correct following entry based on the discussion here:

(52:37:7) l-muṣayṭirūna the controllers

http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(52:37:7)

Abdul Rahman

2nd June, 2011

Muhammad Fuad Abd el-Baqi's al-Mu3jam al-Mufahras also lists this word under the root sin ta ra. Hans Wehr however marks this out as a four-letter root word -- sin ya ta ra. The meanings are not related, so I would agree that they are not of the same root.

My preference is for it to be listed as 1st form quadliteral.

In the Quranic mushaf, the word is written with a sad, but a small sin written UNDER it (not on top as stated by Bro. Asim Iqbal). The reason is most likely because this is "qira'ah al-jumhur" -- the majority of reciters with isnad to the Prophet s.a.w reporting a recitation with a "sad" rather than "sin" and also because the "sad" was wriiten in the mushafs prepared under Caliph Usman r.a. (although lexically, the word should be spelt with a "sin") Wallahu a3lam.

Asim Iqbal 2nd

2nd June, 2011

I think this classical lexicons listing under roots, needs some thought and all words written under the headings should not be treaded as all belonging to the triliteral root as shown in Lane's Lexicon also.

Different lexicons list words under different headings e.g. Lane lists letters in which 2nd and 3rd letter is same under 2 letter root, but when we read the contents under the heading , we find that it also covers 3 letter root.

Similarly Lane lists 4 letter roots under 3 letter root headings, but in the content itself clarifies and lists them as 4 letter roots e.g. he writes tuay miim alif nuun under tuay miim nuun heading but calls tuay miim alif nuun as a quadriliteral root

I saw siin written at the top on a subcontinent online mushaf, anyway, both ways are used as corpus site lists siin under.

Qur'an is perfectly preserved by ALLAH to the letter. So I find it very odd that we agree that suad is written in the classical Mushafs but still , just to satisfy lexicons etc. i.e. not finding suad but siin in lexicon entries, we start spelling it also with a siin and even start writing small siin with the suad. The meaning is similar for both siin and suad , so I suggest we trust the Mushaf and use Qur'an as the criterion.

Asim Iqbal 2nd

2nd June, 2011

Similarly there is a discussion regarding alif and hamza i.e. grammarians preferring hamza and basing their rules using hamza.

I prefer Alif as root letter instead of hamza,

Haroof e Muqat'aat contain Alif , e.g. alif laam miim, alif laam ra, alif laam miim suad

Seal of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) contains alif in ALLAH

Old manuscripts contain alif instead of hamza

It is attributed to be opinion of Hazrat Ibn ‘Abbās and Hazrat Ibn Mas’aūd that the letters Alif Laam Miim represent ana Allāhu a'lam (أَنَا اللهُ أعلمُ) and is formed by taking alif from the 1st word i.e. ana , laam from the 2nd word i.e. ALLAH, and miim from the 3rd word i.e. a'lam . The opinion is just quated as a further evidence for alif as a root letter.