The meaning of “judge me” is executed justice on my behalf against my oppressor.
M-ʿ-D is associated with a sentence about humans when it states “
I have trusted in the Lord I have not faltered” and for his feet “
his feet do not slip”
(Ps. 37:31) and “
unsteady leg (
mûʿāḏęṯ)”
(Prov. 25:19).
ʾAbû Zakarîyyaʾ states that the passive participle (
Pāʿûl) follows the morphology of the (passive perfect verb) -
Puʿal. This is a mistake as his colleagues includes with, I mean;
ʾuKKāL (Ex. 3:2),
LuQQāḤ (II Kings 2:10) and
yûQāŠîm (Eccles. 9:12) a transitive, whereas each passive participle (
Pāʿûl) has an object, for
yûQāŠ is a perfect transitive verb “
I set a snare for you” (
yaQoŠtî lāḵ)
(Jer. 50:24).
Now since M-ʿ-D is not transitive, it cannot be
MūʿāḎâ, though he is correct to read it as
MeʿūḎâ. However, it is better to say it is
MôʿāḎęṯ with an Ô (
Ḥôlām). Its active participle is intransitive, its perfect verb is like
YôŠâḆęṯ (II Kings 4:13). Now the Ô (
Ḥôlām) is without a doubt equivalent to a Û (
Šûrûq), since they are both Û vowels.
I am surprised by the Masters of this Science; may God have mercy upon them. How did they not pay heed to the contradiction, when the author of al-Mustalḥaq adds another example “was born (ha-YûLLāḎ)” (Jud.13:8)? If only he had removed MûʿāḎęṯ and included YûLLāḎ then it would be correct.
I am surprised by the Masters of this Science; may God have mercy upon them. How did they not pay heed to the contradiction, when the author of al-Mustalḥaq adds another example “was born (ha-YûLLāḎ)” (Jud.13:8)? If only he had removed MûʿāḎęṯ and included YûLLāḎ then it would be correct. Also, the author of Rasâʾîl al-Rifâq (The Epistle of the Companions) reached the same conclusion as him (Ibn Janâḥ). If (only) he (Ibn Naḡrîla) had not denied it, as ha-YûLLāḎ matches them, intending “will be born (ha-YûLLāḎ)” leading to a contradiction with MûʿāḎęṯ. They retain it (MûʿāḎęṯ) among the first (group of Pāʿûl) lexemes [alfâẓ], but it is incorrect to include it. It is worse to claim that “was born (ha-YûLLāḎ)” means [maʿnâ] “will be born (ha-YāLûḎ)” (I Kings, 3:26).
A better meaning [maʿnâ] than this is “which will be born (ʾašęr YāLûḎ),” as stated because it is the meaning [maʿnā] of “born (ha-YāLûḎ)” – the H [Hē] defines an attribute of “the lad (la-NʿaR),” similar ‘which’ is definitive.
But this is worthless, as ʾAbû Zakarîyyaʾ states the passive participle (Pāʿûl) is derived from the stem Puʿal, though it can only be a passive participle (MaFʿûl) without an object (Pāʿûl). Do you not see, MûʿāḎęṯ is a feminine passive participle [maFʿûLa] and not included with Pāʿûl? If ʾAbû Zakarîyyaʾ desired others aside from this, then he would have made another mistake, consequently we launch this attack against the majority by way of (morpho-syntactic) analogy [‘ala sabîl al-majâz].
Now their correct (form) [al-ḥaqîqa] is PuʿāLîm and it (MûʿāḎęṯ) is a maFʿûLa and there is no reason to think of it as stem as PāʿūLîm, as it already includes the intended object and it is accounted for by it. It correlates with it the true [ḥâqq] form “the lad who will (lit. was) born (la-NaʿaR YûLLāḎ)” as necessary. Then it has multiple meanings [maʿanât], although it intends [maʿnâ] “lad who will be born.” Consequently, the affect is two-fold; they claim it (YûLLāḎ) H (Hē) means ‘which’ alongside the possibility that it is identical to the definite article of “the lad (la-NaʿaR),” who’s true (morphology) [ḥaqqahu] is ‘for the lad’ (le-ha-NaʿaR). Similarly, the attribute (NaʿaR) is linked to the attributive (by YûLLāḎ) and connects the qualifier with what is qualified. Furthermore, it is a perfect in place of the imperfect, as in the way he (Ibn Naḡrîla) explains and verifies it. This is also worthwhile!
It states M-ʿ-D is also connected to “
collapse continually (
ha-MʿaḎ)”
(Ps. 69:24), but reverses its middle radical “
And make all their loins unsteady” (Ez. 29:7).