It is commonly said that its hamzah is a hamzah of qatʿ. This was explicitly stated by Imām al-Kirmānī in his commentary on al-Bukhārī. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar refuted this in his commentary (Fatḥ al-Bārī) by concluding that he did not see anyone from the linguists explicitly state this. Al-Badr al-ʿAynī contested him in his commentary as well, arguing that not seeing or being aware of such a statement does not negate its existence. I say: analogy supports what al-Ḥāfiẓ said, for it is from the triliteral roots, and its hamzahs are [hamzah] of waṣl, and al-ʿAynī's contestation does not establish the claim. Yes, one might say, out of good opinion of Imām al-Kirmānī, that he would not say this from his own opinion, especially when it contradicts analogy with its counterparts, unless he had come across a reliable source on this matter. Some scholars explicitly stated that it is commonly known to be a hamzah of qatʿ and that it contradicts analogy. This supports what al-Kirmānī said. And Allāh, the Exalted, knows best the true state of affairs. Then I saw in "al-Sharḥ al-Kabīr" (217) by the scholar al-Damāmīnī on "al-Mughnī" at his statement