This approach dispenses with those strained explanations and interpretations.
Yet this approach is also weak. Among those who rejected it was Abū ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mālik, who said:
This view is weak, because its proponent must mean either that fa‘īl, here and elsewhere, shares with fa‘ūl the property of applying unchanged to masculine and feminine alike, or that fa‘īl is treated like fa‘ūl in this particular instance alone.
The first possibility is refuted by the consensus of Arabic grammarians that the feminine ending is obligatory in zarīfa (graceful), sharīfa (noble), and words resembling them in pattern and meaning. Accordingly, their scholars had to explain, concerning the Almighty’s words, “Your mother was not unchaste,” and “nor have I been unchaste,” that the underlying form of baghiyy (unchaste) is baghūy, on the pattern fa‘ūl. That is why it does not take the feminine ending. It then underwent a phonological change: the wāw was replaced with a yā’, and the damma with a kasra, making its form resemble fa‘īl. Had it originally been fa‘īl, it would have taken the feminine ending, yielding lam aku baghiyya (“I have not been unchaste”).
The second possibility is likewise refuted, because fa‘īl has advantages over fa‘ūl that make it inappropriate to treat it as subordinate to that pattern. The reverse would be more fitting: fa‘ūl should be treated as subordinate to fa‘īl. Moreover, this explanation entails treating fa‘īl like fa‘ūl, although they differ in both form and meaning. Their formal difference is obvious. As for meaning, qarīb (near) conveys no intensification, since it describes anything possessing nearness, however slight; fa‘ūl, by contrast, necessarily conveys intensification.
Furthermore, an intensive form must have a corresponding non-intensive form whose pattern is then altered to express intensification, as with dārib (one who strikes) and darūb (one who strikes frequently), or ‘ālim (knowledgeable) and ‘alīm (deeply knowledgeable). Qarīb is not like this and therefore conveys no intensification.
As for the verse of Imru’ al-Qays, it provides no evidence, for several reasons.
First, its usage is rare and thus cannot establish a rule. Its instances are neither numerous nor consistent with an underlying form of the kind found in istahwadha, istawthaqa al-ba‘īr, aghyamat al-samā’, aghwara, and ahwala. A usage of this kind cannot establish a rule.
Second, he may have intended qatī‘at al-qiyām (“languid when rising”), then omitted the feminine ending because the word stands in a possessive construction. Al-Farrā’ and others permit its omission in such a construction. On this basis, the Almighty’s words have been interpreted:
“and establishing prayer”