Verse 41816aarhai


G1

1
only/emphatically he, for the deep intoxication of every sand-grain, is himself excuse-needing
2
with whose glory/manifestation from earth to sky is saturated/intoxicated

'Excuse, apology, plea; pretext'.
'Wishing, willing, desiring, soliciting, requiring, wanting'.
'Overflowing, brimful, full.... steeped, soaked (in, ); intoxicated, drunk'.

References
Arshi, Imtiyaz Ali Ghazal# 159
Raza, Kalidas Gupta 240-41
Nuskhah-e-Hamidiyah 233-234
Asi, Abdul Bari 237-238
Gyan Chand 364-366
Hamid Ali Khan Open Image

Every 'sand-grain' glitters unpredictably, flashes intermittently in the sun, slides around with every footstep, is blown here and there with the breeze. (Or perhaps they are 'dust-grains' that seem to dance in a beam of sunlight; the word can be used for them too.) By invoking the device of ' elegance in assigning a cause ', Nazm takes the verse to mean that the real cause of their movement is deep intoxication. But surely the verse goes beyond merely that assertion. God-- since a divine Beloved seems to work better here (on this see 20,10 )-- has deeply intoxicated all Creation, by making it, in a beautifully chosen adjective, 'overflowing, saturated, intoxicated' [] with his own manifestation/glory. His glory thus appears as a kind of liquid flood, like wine. So since he himself, Islamically speaking, forbade intoxication, naturally he's looking for reasons to excuse the intoxication that he himself created. The intriguing ambiguity in the verse thus becomes: is he 'excuse-seeking' on behalf of the sand-grains in their drunkenness; or is he 'excuse-seeking' for his own behavior in intoxicating them? Moreover, in between God and the sand-grains, what about the rest of us? Does the first line imply that he is looking to excuse even the very sand-grains-- and thus, by extension, the rest of his creatures-- from blame? Or are the sand-grains uniquely excusable, because of their unique vulnerability? Or are we ourselves metaphorically sand-grains? Bekhud Mohani seems to suggest an excessively broad and (conveniently?) deterministic reading; but even if it's true that intoxication is excused, it doesn't follow from the verse that everything is excused. Maybe the rest of us are supposed to become Sufis? As Arshi says, 95,3 and 138,2 are good verses for comparison. graphics/sandglitter.jpg