Faruqi makes an enjoyable point about the implications of the second line: if there's nobody whom everybody calls good, then it follows that the Preacher isn't such a person either-- so how bothered should one be about his opinion? The commentators, including Faruqi, read the second line as if there were a in front of it, to mark it as a yes-or-no question-- a rhetorical question, of course, in this case (2a). That's a perfectly satisfactory thing to do. But why should we entirely ignore the straightforward grammar of the line, which is that of a flat factual statement (2b)? Why should we settle for only one meaning, when the verse clearly offers us two? And the second meaning is piquant in its own way. It looks to be religious, but not explicitly so. Doesn't it seem to suggest that the speaker is comforting himself with thoughts of the Prophet or the members of his family, such as Hazrat Ali? The contrast with the Preacher in the first line is thus made, on this reading, highly meaningful: the Preacher may condemn Ghalib, but there's someone else, someone far higher and better, who is his refuge and who will not join in the vilification. On this reading, we're back to the battle between the 'external' religion of (hypocritical) appearance, and the 'internal' religion of mystical intoxication, that is so deeply part of the terrain of the ghazal. This possible second meaning is certainly a subordinate one; it's not rhetorically foregrounded the way the primary meaning is. But still, it seems worth mentioning, as a small extra pleasure of the verse. graphics/durer.jpg