Question regarding Fi'l Laazim and Fi'l Muta'addi

Fi'l Laazim (The intransitive verb):
A verb is intransitive if the action does not pass on to an object e.g. ذهب الولد (the boy went) The sense is complete without placing any object after the verb "went". So the verb "went" is intransitive.

Fi'l Muta'addi (The transitive verb):
A verb is transitive if the action has an object without which the sense would be incomplete. e.g. قتل الكلب القط (The dog killed the cat) The sense would be incomplete without mentioning "cat". So the verb "kill" is transitive.

A Fi'l Muta'addi can be made into Ma'roof (past active tense) e.g. قَتَلَ (qatala "he killed") and majhool (past passive tense e.g. قُتِلَ (qutila "ke was killed")

Question:
Until recently I have known that a Fi'l Laazim CANNOT come in the Majhool sense. e.g. ذَهَبَ (dhahaba) CANNOT be made into ذُهِبَ (dhuhiba) as I have been taught by my teachers, also due to the fact that there is no Fi'l Laazim mentioned in the Qur'an and Ahaadeeth in the Majhool sense. However the full Gardaan (paradigm) of ذُهِبَ is mentioned in "Imdaad-us-sarf" page9.

Is this an error in the kitaab or have I just misunderstood the rule?

Faqat al-Aan
al-'abd
11/10/10

I believe the form of the verb with the 'ب' preposition is not lazim as its meaning changes and in that meaning there is in an object- the one that's being 'taken'. ذهبتُ بالكأس إلى أبي- i took the cup to my father. ذُهب بالكأس - the cup was taken- by who? we don't know.

Fi'l Laazim CANNOT come in the Majhool sense when a preposition etc isn't present.



Please remember me in your duas
Khalil ibn Ilyas Laher

usman qamar asked a similar question a while back, here's the link:

https://askmuallim.forumotion.net/arabic-f6/f-il-laazim-t77.htm