Bismi is not from the root وسم instead it is from the root بسم
The commonly explained roots for the word بسم are اسم and وسم , which are both wrong, so here is a finding that was covered over for 1400 years. The root وسم when attached to the harf e Jar Ba becomes بِوِسْم . If you dont consider the transformations along side the baselines of فعل you can easily get confused. The root Wasm does loose a "Wao" when it is used as a command, and this the word Sanyasimhu used in the Quran, and that is a legitimate transformation like the word وعد that becomes عِدْ which is same transformation as سِمْ which is the basis for the word Sanasimhu used in the Quran to mean to mark or brand.
The Word Bism that we use all the time is infact from the root بسم which means to be pleased, yes you heard it right Smile 😊. Here is the proof from the Arabic grammar.
There you go. Now rethink the meaning everytime you recite Bismillah :).
GuIfam DhiIlon
So your hypothesis is that the bism in "بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ" does not mean "in the symbolism" but rather "in the pleasure"?
Arrogance or witty speech?
Who are you to judge.
Shahran Radi
if I use بسم as a mudhaf for بِسْمِ اللهِ, how to explain why بسم is in the state of jarr, in this idhafa?
if I try to see it as a verb, then the lafazul-jalalah must be marfu3, as faa3il for the verb بسم, certaintly بسم cannot be a verb in this construction. Care to elaborate more?
Shahran Radi
Brother Zia, with all due respect, I applaud you for your work on the table. I inspected your table and cross referenced with what I have. I'm not convinced, how a noun derived from common 3-letter-verb, yields a kasrah for its last letter without any particular reason.
In بِسْمِ اللهِ I can explain that ب is harf jarr, it renders the word اسم to become majrur. The lafazul jalalah is majrur because it is a mudhaf elayh, so the phrase make sense grammatically. The letter ا is hamzah al-wasl in the word اسم and is not pronoun when there is any letter preceding it, and also dropped in writing.
In your table, you magically turn hamzah al-wasl to hamzah al-qat3 without any explanation. Was it an error or do you have explanation for that I was missing?
Also in your table, the 3rd last column that you label اسم/Noun you also magically turn the first letter of these words in this column to have a kasrah to match the column (الوزن) prior. This also was given without explanation.
I'm not convinced your method this way is correct according to the established grammatical rules and morphology.
Dritan Kardhashi
You are wrong in the pronounciation not "Sanyasimhu", but "Sanasimhu"
Dritan Kardhashi
I made a mistake, senasimuhu
Ishtiaq Hossain Miraj
SA,
There are two stories in the Qur’an where بسم is mentioned and defined within a context. Only اسم or وسم is appropriate in those context.
۞ وَقَالَ ٱرۡكَبُوا۟ فِیهَا بِسۡمِ ٱللَّهِ مَجۡرٜىٰهَا وَمُرۡسَىٰهَاۤۚ إِنَّ رَبِّی لَغَفُورࣱ رَّحِیمࣱ﴿ ٤١ ﴾
Hūd, Ayah 41
إِنَّهُۥ مِن سُلَیۡمَـٰنَ وَإِنَّهُۥ بِسۡمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِیمِ﴿ ٣٠ ﴾
An-Naml, Ayah 30
Also, initiating the ayat of the Qur’aan with بسم الله is more coherent if interpreted in the symbolism of Allah. This concept is quite impenetrable. اسم is supported by many other اجنحة:
وَلِلَّهِ ٱلۡأَسۡمَاۤءُ ٱلۡحُسۡنَىٰ فَٱدۡعُوهُ بِهَاۖ وَذَرُوا۟ ٱلَّذِینَ یُلۡحِدُونَ فِیۤ أَسۡمَـٰۤىِٕهِۦۚ سَیُجۡزَوۡنَ مَا كَانُوا۟ یَعۡمَلُونَ﴿ ١٨٠ ﴾
Al-Aʿrāf, Ayah 180
فَكُلُوا۟ مِمَّا ذُكِرَ ٱسۡمُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَیۡهِ إِن كُنتُم بِـَٔایَـٰتِهِۦ مُؤۡمِنِینَ﴿ ١١٨ ﴾
Al-Anʿām, Ayah 118
وَمَا لَكُمۡ أَلَّا تَأۡكُلُوا۟ مِمَّا ذُكِرَ ٱسۡمُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَیۡهِ وَقَدۡ فَصَّلَ لَكُم مَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَیۡكُمۡ إِلَّا مَا ٱضۡطُرِرۡتُمۡ إِلَیۡهِۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِیرࣰا لَّیُضِلُّونَ بِأَهۡوَاۤىِٕهِم بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعۡلَمُ بِٱلۡمُعۡتَدِینَ﴿ ١١٩ ﴾
Al-Anʿām, Ayah 119
وَلَا تَأۡكُلُوا۟ مِمَّا لَمۡ یُذۡكَرِ ٱسۡمُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَیۡهِ وَإِنَّهُۥ لَفِسۡقࣱۗ وَإِنَّ ٱلشَّیَـٰطِینَ لَیُوحُونَ إِلَىٰۤ أَوۡلِیَاۤىِٕهِمۡ لِیُجَـٰدِلُوكُمۡۖ وَإِنۡ أَطَعۡتُمُوهُمۡ إِنَّكُمۡ لَمُشۡرِكُونَ﴿ ١٢١ ﴾
Al-Anʿām, Ayah 121
مَا تَعۡبُدُونَ مِن دُونِهِۦۤ إِلَّاۤ أَسۡمَاۤءࣰ سَمَّیۡتُمُوهَاۤ أَنتُمۡ وَءَابَاۤؤُكُم مَّاۤ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلۡطَـٰنٍۚ إِنِ ٱلۡحُكۡمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعۡبُدُوۤا۟ إِلَّاۤ إِیَّاهُۚ ذَ ٰلِكَ ٱلدِّینُ ٱلۡقَیِّمُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكۡثَرَ ٱلنَّاسِ لَا یَعۡلَمُونَ﴿ ٤٠ ﴾
Yūsuf, Ayah 40
فَسَبِّحۡ بِٱسۡمِ رَبِّكَ ٱلۡعَظِیمِ﴿ ٧٤ ﴾
Al-Wāqiʿah, Ayah 74
The list goes on… the word بَسَمَ does not yield such evidence from the Qur’aan. And linguistic approach (root analysis) alone cannot be considered as evidence.
Ishtiaq Hossain Miraj
Salamun 3alaikum,
This is what it’s all about encouraging each other in observing, contemplating, and presenting hypotheses and evidence. رب زدني علما
Marvelous Quran
For the records, Br. Zia, on his own, decided to cancel his account.