Mewlood: father and son?!
-
One of confusing translations is of a passive mewlood مَوْلُودٌ, used twice in 2233 and once in 3133. In 2233 is translated as "father" and in 3133 as "son".
Passive participle means that there's some active participle who's doing something in relation to passive. In English we can understand this on example of a verb "to kick"; where active participle is "a kicker" and passive participle is "kicked (one)".
In order to understand mewlood we should first understand a verb welede وَلَدَ, which is understood as "to beget" or "to bore", to give a birth. If we accept this that active participle waalid for male and waalidet for female should mean one's parents. Then we have a word "weled", taken as "a child", but also a passive participle should mean "child" as in 3133 is understood as "son". No chance that mewlood could be "father", as understood in 2233. We can see that there's something wrong with our understanding of this "simple word".
I noticed that Nooh said in 7127 "... and they won't yelidoo, except faajir (wicked), keffaar (unbeliever)." This was a reason for him to ask total destruction of his people, but I know that Nooh knew what he's talking about, and I know that he didn't mean that newborns from his people would be faajir, keffaar. So, I tried to rethink about this and came to a conclusion that this root is not about giving a birth, but about rising, rearing, nurturing, taking care of kids. Nooh saw that his people are extremely kaafiroon and he thought that their offspring could be risen but as wicked, unbelieving once, they cannot learn anything better then people who'll teach them.
Weled as a potential is one that can be taken care of. Potential is used because we can give our best and weled wouldn't be what we want him/her to be. Weled doesn't mean only own kids, but can be any kid one takes care of, as foster kids spouse's kids or any other kid to whom male can be waalid and female waalida.
We can see that 2233 starts with "And waalidaat (f. pl.) are nursing their (f. pl.) ewlaad (pl. of weled)..." First, we have to see that ebnaa' (own kids) is not used, but ewlaad, which includes any kid one's taking care of. Second, we have to see that only feminine waalid is nursing ewlaad, males are excluded. This can be connected with 43 when a male has yetaamaa (orphans, motherless), but that can be another topic. In this case waalidaat are only active participle for a period mentioned. Normally there would be waalid and waalida, both, but male waalid is excluded for this period. Due to this, not only kid she's nursing is her passive, but also one who's normally acitve as waalid is now passive, so waalid is during this period mewlood. This is why mewlood in 2233 is "father" if kids are his, or foster father or stepfather in other cases. In any case some sort of father, which should be noted in translations to avoid misunderstanding.
3133 is talking about some horrible Day, and it's said "... waalid is not paying of off his weled, nor mewlood that he's payer of anything off his waalid..." (sorry if my English is poor here, I hope it can be understood what I'm trying to say)
No matter how we understand this, it's clear that it's saying that all of us are paying our own sins. What can be confusing here is that "weled" is not used twice as "waalid", but "mewlood" is used as "payer of". The reason is that mewlood in this case is one who's risen successfully by his waalid, but that means nothing to waalid, it can't pay of his sins. If weled was used twice, as a potential that wouldn't tell that this kids was risen as meant to. I also think that this is an example, and waalid can be waalida also, and weled and mewlood can be both males and females.
So, I hope that this will explain how come same word can mean "father" and "son".