The second objection is that, if this is claimed as a general rule, it is false. If it is claimed only for particular cases, what determines its application, and what distinguishes cases in which this usage is permissible from those in which it is not?

The third objection is that the Arabs used faʿīl with the tāʾ when it had a passive meaning, and without the tāʾ when it had an active meaning. Jarīr said, lamenting his maternal aunt:

“What a fine companion you were, a treasure jealously cherished,
whom weathered stones at Naq now conceal.”

Here he omitted the tāʾ from qarīn (companion), although it has an active meaning. He also said:

“May a cloud rumbling on its evening course, and steady, unceasing rain,
water you wherever you lie, never forgotten.”

Here he attached the tāʾ to faqīdah, which follows the pattern faʿīl with a passive meaning: ‘not forgotten.’ Al-Farazdaq said:

“For two years I tended it, while she was near;
I would see her, she would draw near repeatedly, and I would kiss her lips.”

They also describe a woman as fatīn, sarīh, or harīt, omitting the tāʾ even though these words have an active meaning. Likewise, they describe a woman as farūk (hating her husband), halūk (lustful), rashūf (sweet-mouthed), anūf (pleasantly scented), or radūf, omitting the tāʾ although these words have an active meaning, like sabūr (patient). They also say imraʾah ʿarūb (a woman affectionate toward her husband), again omitting it. Yet they say imraʾah malūlah (a woman prone to boredom) and farūqah (fearful), attaching the tāʾ although these too have an active meaning. There is no evidence for the claim that the tāʾ here expresses intensity.

You have thus seen that both faʿūl and faʿīl occur with and without the tāʾ. The claim that the forms without it are regular and those with it exceptional can therefore be met by the opposite claim. Moreover, that opposing claim is supported by the regular grammatical practice of attaching the tāʾ to feminine forms and omitting it from masculine ones.

As for the evidence you cited in the words of Allah Most High:

“Who will give life to bones when they have crumbled away?”

This accords with the regular rules of Arabic. For ʿizām (bones) is the plural of ʿazm (bone), which is masculine. Its plural, however, is a broken plural, and a broken plural may be treated as feminine in consideration of its collective sense. It is on this basis that He said hiya, the feminine pronoun, rather than huwa, the masculine pronoun. Alternatively, the gender of its singular may be taken into account; on this basis He said ramīm (crumbled), just as one says ʿazm ramīm (a crumbled bone). Furthermore, ramīm is used of masculine nouns in both the singular and the plural. Jarīr said:

“The house of al-Muhallab—may Allah cut off their line!—
have become crumbled remains, with neither root nor branch.”