Read on Twitter
So in Urdu, as far as I can tell, when CvCvCv(C) words are borrowed from Arabic and the medial vowel is a short vowel, it is deleted. So we get things like ḥanafī > hanfī; barakah > barkat; ʿaẓamah > azmat. This phenomenon can create interesting conundrums for Indo-Arabists.
Take the last example listed above: ʿaẓamah عَظَمَة which means grandeur or majesty, often used in reference to Allah ﷻ. Urdu borrows the word with the same meaning but shifts it to azmat عَظْمَت. Here’s where things get a little messy.
The word ʿaẓmah عَظْمَة with a sukūn on the ظ also exists in Arabic, meaning “a piece of bone.” This has escaped the knowledge of many Arabists in the subcontinent who, due to the excessive use of azmat in Urdu, have assumed that the original Arabic word is also ʿaẓmah.
Take the famous tasbīḥ of tarāwīḥ that is recited very commonly during Ramadan in the subcontinent. A quick google showed the mistake in almost all the results, though I did find one that made a note to stress the correct reading.
One can see how it could be theologically problematic to call Allah “dhū l-ʿaẓmah” (possessor of a piece of bone) as opposed to “possessor of majesty” because it would basically suggest borderline anthropomorphism.
I have this Qaṣīda on the Beautiful Names of Allah written by a scholar from the Subcontinent. In the third pic, you can see that the author writes ʿaẓmatihī as opposed to ʿaẓamatihī. I can’t tell whether this was an intended change to fit the wāfir meter or simply an error.
I’m not too well-versed in the subject of ḍarūrāt/jawāzāt of poetry to know whether such a change would even be allowed considering the implications of the other meaning. Perhaps someone better read on the subject can shed some light!
