wa-malaʾihī

Here a case against my argument that al-Ḥaddād just adopted a Faz print. Sometimes he did not copy Faz, nor al-Muḫallalātī, not the Ottoman practise, but India or propably ad-Dāni. /wa-malaʾihī/ (7:103, 10:75+83, 11:97, 23:46, 28:32, 43:46) is written with alif (for the hamza) plus yāʾ (for the kasra-/i/-sound). Given the ḥarakāt-signs one of these letters is superfluous. "Everybody" puts the hamza on/below the yāʾ, but al-Ḥaddād below the alif. Algiers 1911 follows the KFE.

Imam aš-Šāṭibī: ʿAqīlat Atrāb al-Qaṣāʾid (the premier medieval didactic poem on rasm, the Uthmanic ortho­graphy).
As you noted, these verses are highly dense, coded mnemo­technics (using the al-Basīṭ poetic meter) meant for memori­zation by scholars, not for casual reading.
Vers 190
وَمَلأً كَيْفَمَا جَا لَامُهُ أَلِفٌ
وَالْيَاءُ بَعْدُ عَنِ الْأَعْلَامِ قَدْ نُقِلَا

And Malaʾ [the noun "elite/chiefs"], however it occurs, its Lām is followed by an Alif,
and the Yāʾ [written] after it has been transmitted on the authority of the prominent scholars (al-aʿlām).
Explanation:
"however it occurs" (kayfamā ǧā): regardless of its grammatical case or suffix — whether it has a singular pronoun (malaʾihī) or a plural pronoun (malaʾihim).
"and the Yāʾ after it" (wa-l-yāʾu baʿdu): Alif is written directly after the Lam. The early scholars put a Yāʾimmediately after the alif.
Aš-Šāṭibī declares that this is not a later invention but was securely transmitted by the primary early codex-authorities (al-aʿlām), such as al-Ġāzī ibn Qais and ad-Dānī.
Vers 192

فَالْيَاءُ شَرْطُهُمُ هِيَ الْهَمْزَةُ الزَّائِدُ
الْأَلِفُ الْمُقَدَّمُ أَوْ عَكْسٌ فَقَدْ جُعِلَا
Thus, the Ya, according to their stipulation, is the seat of the Hamza, while the preceding Alif is the extra letter; or the reverse has likewise been established. Explanation: One school treats the Ya as the true holder of the Hamza and considers the Alif silent. The other school does the exact reverse, treating the Alif as the holder and the Ya as silent.
Vers 193


وَفِي سِوَى الْأَوَّلَيْنِ الْأَلِفَ فِيهِ رَأَى

أَبُو عُبَيْدٍ وَهَذَا الْعَكْسُ قَدْ فُصِلَا And in cases other than the first two positions, Abu Ubayd regarded the Alif as the seat of the Hamza within it; and this reverse position has been detailed in the reference texts.
Explanation: Abu Ubayd chose the reverse view for specific words among the seven places. This proves that the oldest authorities already disagreed on which letter was silent.
Vers 192

فَالْيَاءُ شَرْطُهُمُ هِيَ الْهَمْزَةُ الزَّائِدُ
الْأَلِفُ الْمُقَدَّمُ أَوْ عَكْسٌ فَقَدْ جُعِلَا ## Faithful English Translation Thus, the Yāʾ—according to their stipulation—is the [seat of the] Hamza, while the preceding Alif is the extra [silent] letter; or the reverse (ʿaks) has [likewise] been established. Explanation This is the absolute apex of the entire orthographic battle between the Kairo/Medina and Lahore schools. Aš-Šāṭibī perfectly captures the two competing classical linguistic schools: * School 1 (The basis for the Lahore/Abū Dāwūd system): The Yāʾ is considered the true seat/chair (kursī) of the Hamza. Consequently, the preceding structural Alif inside the Lām-Alif ligature is rendered completely "extra" (zāʾid) and silent. This is why Lahore stamps the silent circle directly onto the Alif. * School 2 (aw ʿaksun / "or the reverse"): Other early masters established exactly the opposite theory (the basis for the Kairo/ad-Dānī system). They argue that the Alif is the genuine, etymological seat of the Hamza, rendering the trailing Yāʾ as the extra, silent character. This is why the Kairo standard (KFA) stamps the silent circle onto the Yāʾ. Vers 193

وَفِي سِوَى الْأَوَّلَيْنِ الْأَلِفَ فِيهِ رَأَى
أَبُو عُبَيْدٍ وَهَذَا الْعَكْسُ قَدْ فُصِلَا ## Faithful English Translation And in cases other than the first two [positions], Abū ʿUbayd regarded the Alif as the [seat of the Hamza] within it; and this reverse position has been detailed [in the reference texts]. ## Explanation * "Abū ʿUbayd" (Abū ʿUbaydin): Refers to Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 838 AD), one of the absolute earliest philological and Rasm chroniclers of the Islamic world. * "cases other than the first two" (fī siwā l-awwalayni): He is referencing specific textual positions within the chronological layout of these 7 critical Malaʾ locations across the Qur'anic text. * The structural point: Aš-Šāṭibī uses this verse to document that ancient, authoritative pioneers like Abū ʿUbayd explicitly broke away from uniform execution at certain points, actively viewing the Alif as the dominant holder of the phoneme. This historical flipping back and forth (al-ʿaks) was meticulously recorded in the classical specialized manuals (fuṣṣilā), providing the raw, conflicting material that later allowed Lahore and Kairo to pick two completely different ways to use their silent circles. Should we now turn our eyes to the very bottom of your page, where the Taʿrīf lists the exact seven instances textually, to see if the Lahoris followed the chronological order or slipped up there too?

­ ‒