Such as are familiar with Hamzah Moin's allusions, will find his comments invariably humorous. Such as mistake comicality for self-deprecation, will find no wit in his writings; and such as have been taught not to laugh, will, needless to say, not understand. Here is another excerpt of his jocularity:- Last week, local Imam Abdullah Saif, missed his first congregational Fajr prayer in years at Masjid Al-Akbar. "We were all standing in a line after the iqama (call to prayer) was called and we didn't know what to do." said a regular Fajr goer. "We stood there for 5 minutes until we pushed that guy with that really huge beard up." Imam Abdullah was devastated. "I can't believe it," he said, "I shouldn't have stayed up all night after Isha to argue with those Progressives in that Islamic chatroom. We argued about the permissability of Skittles all night long." http://www.maniacmuslim.com/missprayer.html

We have characters that fit this profile on this very Fora.

Waxa jira mashruuc aan la gelin lagana maansoonne Dibnahaa maroorsama ninkii mawqifkaa gala'e Ma macaasho kii ceeb hablaha ugu miciinaaye Maanshaa-Allee dumarku waa ma-hurtadeenniiye Midda aad qabtiyo hooyadaa laga mataalaaye Waa Xikmad lugo leh!

OG_Girl, check your PM!

Fidel:- I have been encouraged, or rather pressured, by freinds and colleagues to write a short and compendious book on the Theory of Evolution. Hence, I am reviewing the primary literature for my notes. You say you believe in the theory of evolution and the premises derived therefrom. That is nice. People believe in a wide array of theories; certainly, evolution is not as preposterous as theories on psychosexual development. In any case, I am an opponent and not a proponent of evolution via Natural Selection (or any other theory of evolution for that matter). In fact, I shall go as far as saying that is untenable and unscientific. Wherefore does it enjoy overwhelming support in academia? I shall leave such speculation for others as I am only interested in the logical strength of the argument proposed. If you feel so inclined, I shall pose save one objection to the theory, if you are able to dissolve it, then kolkaas ayaan madaafiicda goobta lasoo baxayaa. Maandhoow, runta lama inkiro beense waa la asaraaraaye. With Salaams PK

اغر مكان ÙÙŠ الدنى سرج سابح وخير جليس ÙÙŠ الزمان كتاب Ah, caku Semenka , woe is time as it befreinds no man. For those of you who read and also write, I need not explain the taxing nature of trying to do both. The current content of my Ziploc bag is thus:- 1. Moby Dick by Herman Melveille 2. On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (third time) Note: : Needs must I say that it is a far fruitful use of your time, which, in the nature of things, is limited, to read books with far reaching political, philosophical, islamic, and literary import. I say this because I have recently come across a grown woman (gender is inconsequential here) reading a book called "He's Just not that into you". After reading the reviews on Amazon, I experienced symptoms akin to those of a brain stroke. O! how powerful is the mind. If there is only a limited amount of money, and supposing you want to eat meat, I would say that it is better that you spend your money on a decent steak than a McDonald's hamburger. (Although it is being outrageously unfair to McDonald's to classify "He's just not that into you" with their hamburgers) With Salaams PK

Show JB waa fiilasuuf weyn, faseexa uun baa ka maqane Xiinfaniin:- Though the replies of JB are ill expressed and poorly phrased, he has apprehended the truth of the central argument. My eyes are not, good Xiinfaniin, newly educated; thusly, your attempt of buttressing your post with scholastic references is a peculiar admixuture of naivete and sophistry. I am not fond of redundancy, so I will not re-write the argument. Till you address the argument, I shall remain unresponsive. I can provide you with an argument; however, I cannot provide you with intelligence. With Salaams PK

قل كل يعمل على شاكلته Ùربكم اعلم بمن هو أهدى سبيلاً

^^ Halkaa ka wada Soomaaliyeey...

Xiinfaniinoow, dood aan mandaq ku saleysaneyn baa ii cuntamaheyn. Bal hadal misaan leh la imow, cayaayirka ha inoo danbeeyo. P.S. Should you have a bona fide interest- not a mala fide one- in the continuation of the discussion, then I shall oblige; however, you must shew your capacity for detached discourse. With Salaams PK

^^^Inaan caruuraha yar yari u jawaabaa way macno la'aane

ومن البلية عذل من لا يرعوي عن جهله وخطاب من لا ÙŠÙهم Xiinfaniin et al: I must own, that apologies are due for my belated reply. However, it seems that the intial arguments, hitherto presented, have not yet been duly acknowledged and addressed. No matter. This shall be my last reply to this topic. The key of hearts are in God's hand ; He opens hearts when He wills, as He wills, and How he wills, and the only thing opening up at this moment is a supplementation. Now, (correct me here if these two do not represent your argument) the first argument has two gaping holes in it, saaxiib. For one it makes a false analogy by equating a solid and well-seated (in terms of it’s sources) theology with a fabricated one (trinity that is); that lacks both sourcing and REASON [emphasis is mine] Walaal, waan saluugay qoraalkaa What we have are two notions of God: I: The notion of a God who is three in one (ostensibly biblical) II: The notion of a God with hand, face, and eye (ostensibly quranic) Now, if you accept II on the basis that it is in the Quran and reject I on the basis that it is in the bible, then you have begged the question. On what grounds have you accepted II? One cannot accept the Quran itself without ratiocination. In the intial stages of enquiry, to the seeker of truth, the Bible and the Quran of equal solidity and authenticity. One cannot make suppostions about either book at this stage. The conclusion only comes after enquiry, and not at the begginning of enquiry. One must closely inspect the claims of both books to ascertain which book engenders contradictions, inconsistencies, and incongruities. I find it most peculiar and counter-intuitive for one to argue that the belief in Trinity is wrong not in itself, but it is false because the bible is the source thereof, while the belief in a God with a hand and shin is correct because the source of such a belief is the Quran. Oh, how foul is the fallacy! With what tool does one come to know that the Quran is "well-seated" and "solid". In fact, what does it mean to say some such thing? Am I the only one who percieves the "ideal circle" of our esteemed Nomad? Indeed, if the Quran supported the concept of Trinity, or any other illogical concept, I would not be a muslim. After many moons of reflection and pondering, I have not found the slightest notion of discrepancy and contradiction. Yes, it is a formidable book of reason and logic. اÙلا يتبدرون القران ولو كان من غير عند الله لوجدوا Ùيه اختلاÙا كثيرا In this vein, Allah challenges Man to duplicate a book, which includes a conception of Godhood, that is not only free of contradictions and inconsistencies, but is the pink of eloquence and articulation. A game of cheap score keeping where one wins not by the weight and credence of his case, but by the style and eloquence with which he presents it! I wonder how that benchmark scale to the measured words of our مصطÙÙ‰; say when he came back from his ascendancy اسري to the heavens in that blessed night and responded to the doubters that he was indeed telling the simple truth. Unlike logicians, ابوبكر الصديق settled to accept the revealed truth. Would that I see you answer the intial query, good Xiinfaniin? Why do you ascribe divinity to a God with a hand and face, and not to a God that is three in one? Do you know why prophet Abraham, the Knower of God, refused to ascribe divinity to the Sun and Moon? You are, good Xiinfaniin, I reckon, intelligent enough to understand my passing references without there being any need for me to explain the matter at length. Indeed, to do so would be to show the Sun with a lamp; the obvious I shall not labor. Finally, it has been a consensus between theologians of different camps of articulation, that there are some literal meanings which cannot be used with respect to God(مستحيلة ÙÙŠ حق الله). If such meanings were not impossible, then would have no means by which to know God. In reference to your comment about the domain of faith, I shall say that one can believe in a propositon in asmuch as the proposition does not commit an illogicality. Hence, the Journey by Night, Al-Isra Wa Al-Mi'raaj, is not in any manner illogical, rather it is "possible" (ممكن). The belief in a possible proposition does not lead to an intellectual incompatability. Brevity is the soul of wit, so I will give you a cursory instance of my statement: If I place three coins in a drawer, close it, come later to check it, and find four coins, then there is no problem in logic. There is only a problem in ontology, because a fourth coin appeared. I must guess, "how did this happen"?. Obviously, the normal explanation is that somebody put a fourth coin there; however, I can also imagine many other possible explanations (coins are actually reproducing in the full moon, ants brought another coin, God put the coin there miraculously, etc.). Compare these possible explanations with impossible explanations (e.g. somebody took two coins out of the drawer, so that the result is four coins: 3-2=4). The first kind of explanation is possible while the second is inconsistent with logic. Now you see, the Journey of the Night is "Mumkin" and not "Mustaxiil", and as such no logical anamoly arises. That God has parts (hand, face, eye) is an impossible explanation, which results in the assertion of a limited or multiple Gods. You must not confuse ontological possibility with logical possibilty. I think I have expounded this subject matter in the foregoing posts with utmost clarity. It shall appeal to all critical and understanding minds. لعمرك ان الحق ابيض ناصح ولكن حظ المعاند اسود With Salaams PK

Oh, how want of islamic erudtion is the hadith brigade.

كل يدعي وصلا بليلى***وليلى لا تقر لهم بذاك Nomads, In response to a rhetorical question of the "identity" of God, which I had posed to an old freind of mine today, whilst on our weekly walk, as is our esteemed peripatetic tradtion, he said, "were it not for the rational glorification (Tanzih 'Aqli) of God, then it would be possible to espouse any conception of God". God could be Jesus, the Sun, or the Moon, or any of the other various notions of diety. Be that as it may, Ibn Taymiyyah, who has written extensively about theology, shall tell you that God has a hand, and a face; intellectual conundrums ought not arise because His Majesty is above logic. Fayaa lillaahi al-cajab! That God has not a body (جسم), substance(جوهر), accident (عرض)and like descriptions are necessary postulates for a transcendent God. Yeeynaan runta ka sineysan . It is an exercise in duplicity to allude to sayings of scholars without adequate substantiation and explication. The arguments that I have penned have not been addressed much less confuted. At the risk of sounding dogmatically certain, I do not expect to read any counter-arguments. Now, why do I waste my time penning polemical posts with the knowledge that the audience is ill equipped to apprehend it? Well, good Nomads, the rationale behind these posts is to force the ignorant but intelligent persons of these fora to ruminate, read, and ratiocinate about the validity and legitimacy of their most cherished axioms and beliefs. With Salaams PK

لله اعمى يقود المبصرين ضحا**يمشي امامهم والمبصرون ورا

ليهلك من هلك عن بينة ويحيى من حي عن بينة Nomads, The purpose of this thread is not to compare and contrast the various theological positions of the Ahlu Sunnah, because perusing the books of Shaharstani (الملل والنحل) and Al-Baghdadi (الÙرق بين الÙرق) would be sufficient in this regard; the query of this thread, however, is fundementally foundational. In the next fortnight, I shall start a thread explicating, on a grand scale, the meaning and legitimacy of religous doctrines. It is a general theory of religion that the perspicacious amongst you shall find immediately agreeable. With Salaams PK

Ù‚Ùبْحاً Ù„Ùمَنْ نَبَذَ الكّÙتابَ وراءَهÙ** وإذا اسْتَدَلَّ يقول٠قالَ الأخطَـل٠War yaad warankan u dan leedahay Perhaps relating the story of the Dufayli is germane at this juncture. نظر Ø·Ùيلي الى قوم ذاهبين Ùلم يشك انهم ÙÙŠ دعوة ذاهبون الى وليمة, Ùقام وتبعهم. Ùاذا شعراء قد قصدوا السلطان بمدائح لهم. Ùلما انشد كل واحد شعره, واخذ جائزته, لم ييق الا الطÙيلي وهو جالس ساكت, Ùقال له: انشد شعرك. Ùقال: لست بشاعر. قيل: Ùمن انت؟ قال:من الذين قال الله تعالى ÙÙŠ حقهم: والشعراء يتبعهم الغاوون.Ùضحك السلطان وامر له بجائزة الشعراء Now you see, in my salad days, like the Dufayli, I perversely followed the literary creations of arabic, somali, and english poets. Though I learned later on, that the poet is a source of awe and perchance inspiration, and not a source of truth. Know the men by the truth, and not the truth by the men, I was told. I do not believe any of the contributors to this thread have quoted poets to support an argument, but some have expressed ill conceieved remarks which necissatated the use of the prowess of poetry to better instruct them. As regards the Lamiyyah of Ibn Taymiyyah, I will say that Subuki, the Shafi' Jurist and theologian, in his طبقات الشاÙعية , has related a poetic rebuttal to both Ibn Taymiyyah's "L poem" and Ibn Al-Qayyim's "N Poem",(نونية ابن الاقيم). Subki initiates the poem by saying: كذب ابن Ùاعلة يقول لجهله الله جسم ليس كالجسمان لو كان جسما كان كالاجسام يا مجنون Ùاصدع وعد عن البهتان I shall post both Ibn Al-Qayyim's "N poem" and Subki's poetic rebuttal in thier entirety, if He so wills. With Salaams PK

^^^Qubxan liwajihka Yaa Zamaanu! Qalbigaa dabool laga geshaa duul hadduu lumo e Ruuxii damiin ahi qalbiga waa ka daar xidhane Adan Arab himself did not expend energy in addressing those sham personalities. His response to the pretender (Omar Egal) to his poetic throne was thus "Qumbulad maskiin lagu ridaa maaha qeeynuune". I shall do the same. Intaa igu filan yooyootan. Nomads, this thread is suppose to be an illuminating thread; if you think about the arguments presented herein, then you shall find the truth in its midst. Yaa Layta Qawmii Yaclamuun!

Haddaad :- I would suggest that your research be more than mere "googling". If you want to conduct your research online, then you must, minimally, search the catalogues of the online libraries of islamic universities. It is most unread, good Hadaad, to use online search engines (google, yahoo, alta vista etc.) as the sole means of "research". Intaa waa afeef mawduucana haka leexan adeer In any given month, islamic universities publish thousands of treatises or Rasaa'il on Aqaa'id (Islamic doctrines), Fiqh (Jurisprudence), Akhlaq (Moral constitution) and the like. Among the published treatises are "dialectics" on the tenets of Islamic and Christian theology. What irks me is the duplicity of authors who claim that christian or Buddhist beliefs are to be rejected because such beliefs are "false" or "illogical" while they adopt equally contradictory beliefs. Why should not a christian believe in a created God if you believe in a composed God? 1. قواعد الرد على النصارى -جمعا ودراسة محمد نور عبدالله Madeenah Al-Munawwarah Library Catalogue. You must read this treatise to see how laughable are the arguments of the author. 2. المسيحية والعقل ابراهيم بشار ÙŽQatar University Libaray Catalogue. I am familair with Ibrahim Bashar because I have read another treastise he has written on "comparative religion". The treatise as you shall find out is bloated with fallacious arguments. Of course, you can always read the hollow writings of Ibn Taymiyyah and his desciple, Ibn Al-Qayyim on Christianty. Almost all the writings of these men are available on the Niche Library "Maktabah Mishkaah Al-Islamiyyah". 4.الرد على اليهود والنصارى لابن تيمية الجواب الصحيح لمن بدل دين المسيح لابن تيمية Both these works are available on the Niche Library. Ibn Taymiyyah uses the language of logic by calling christian beliefs "illogical", "contradictory" and "impossible". Logic, according to the Sheikh of Islam, only applies to other religon. Islam need not be logical at all. 5.هداية الحيارى ÙÙŠ أجوبة اليهود والنصارى ابن الاقيم You need not read Ibn Qayyim's book in its entirety. I shall only direct your attention to two chapters: i) Christians believe in a Christ who does not exist and ii) Christians are dogmatists. Xiinfaniin :- The belief in a God who is three in one is acceptable if the belief in a God with parts is acceptable (hand, eye, shin). You cannot challenge a christian, or for that matter any person of a non islamic denomination, on grounds of logic, if you are going to pronounce that your "God is above reason". The christian conception of God is above reason; hence He is created and uncreated. Is this a contradiction? Well, this is the bound of reason. Do not apply logic to the christian God if you will not apply logic to your God. How do I know which belief to espouse? Shall I base it upon my sentiments, or shall I perchance adhere to the precepts of my upbrininging. انا وجدنا ءابانا على امة وانا على ءاثارهم مهتدون Tell me, good Xiinfaniin, with what tool do we distinguish the various concepts of deities if not with logic. If every concept of God is "above logic", then it is impossible to tell which one is correct. Why choose one over the other? The analogy between islamic and christian beliefs is not, in all honesty, the product my own meditation. In his polemical Risaalah, Al-Iqtisaadu Fil Ictiqaad , Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, the Ashari theologian, , writes that the claims of different religons are equally acceptable if there is no Reason . A belief in a created God is not anymore far fetched than a belief in a God with a hand and leg. We shall tell the christians and others, he says, that our notion of God is correct, because it is logical. If logic is not applied, a person can concieve of a God who is three in one or a God with multiple parts- ad infinitum. With no use of logic, a person would be left to guess which is the correct conception. Sophist:- Walaal, miyaad garaneeysaa wuxuu Shariif Rida ku yidhi gocorkii caayay وللحلم اوقات وللجهل مثلها ولكن ايامي الى الحلم اقرب يصول علي الجاهلون واعتلي ويعجم ÙÙ‰ القائلون واعرب لساني حصاة يقرع الجهل بالحجا اذا نال مني العاضة المتوثب ولست براض ان تمس عزائمي Ùضالات ما يعطي الزمان ويسلب غرائب اداب حباني بحÙظها زماني وصر٠الدهر نعم المؤدب

وكم من عائب قولا صحيحا واÙته من الÙهم السقيم Why do some dogmatists accuse Christians of idiocy and illogicality when the beliefs of the dogmatists are equally illogical? Is not this the epitome of intellectual chicanery? The belief in a God that is simultaneously the Creator and the Created and a God with parts (hand, face, eye) are equally illogical. Why does one think he/she is justified in espousing the latter but not the former. Can a muslim employ the "argument from paradox"--AlKayfu Majuul. If yes, then what will stop people of every faith from employing the same expression of paradox. When you ask a christian about Incarnation, he/she will reply "AlKayfu Majuul". The dogmatist perhaps thinks that only muslims are allowed to espouse paradoxical beliefs (e.g. a God that has parts). Nonsense. At the risk of sounding redundant, I shall say that it is counter-intuitive to selectively apply logic to other religons. 1. Chrisitan Belief: God is finite and infinite, created and uncreated. (necessary consequences of Incarnation) 2.Muslim Belief: A God with parts (hand, face, eye). The beliefs of the christian are, needless to say, in dire want of logic, but what about the belief of this particular muslim? If God has parts (eye, hand, face), then the parts are either infinite or finite. If the parts are infinite, then we run into the problem of "multiple infinites". For instance, if there are two distinct parts (i.e. a face and a hand), then we have two infinite parts, and as such two Gods. If the parts are not distinct, then God cannot have a face and a hand. Does he have a combination of both, a face-hand? Is God a face-hand, or does God have a face-hand?(هل لله يد ام هو يد؟) If God is not a face-hand, then God has a face hand; that is, there is an infinite God, and an infinite face hand. Which one is God? Both? On the other hand, if God has finite parts, then God is finite because he is composed of finite parts. When you add a finite numbers of chocolate you get a finite number of chocolates, not an infinite number of chocolates. In like manner, the aggregate of finite parts, is a finite whole. The dastardly dogmatist will perhaps retort: you are comparing God to other things. We do not know how the parts are related to Allah, or if, indeed, the parts are Him. The Kayf is Majhuul. To which the christian can just as well reply, God the Son existed before he existed, or God the Son existed before he was created; the Kayf, as it were, is unintelligible. With Salaams PK

Xiinfaniin: Perhaps I need to clarify the context of this reply, as my reply in the Islamic section was met with dogmatic vengenence. This is a reply that was written by a Nomad addressing our puppet Christian nomad. According to celestial mathematics, one times three is one, and three times one is three...[this is the most] idiotic and illogical concept a person can have. Now you see, one cannot challenge christians on logical grounds (by arguing that three and one are not the same) while one himself is a vessel of illogicality. Granted, a christian cannot answer the query as to how a God can have a finite form (God the Son, Jesus, was limted spatio-temporally), and at the same time possess the attribute of infinitude. The axiom of non contradiction (مبدا عدم التناقض) is enough to confute the most fundemental of christian beliefs. However, can a "muslim" believe in a god that has parts (hand, face, shin, eye) and then accuse a christians of illogicality. If the muslim replies with the much riduculed notion of "the-how-is-unknown", then what makes you think that the chrisitan cannot use this same "expression of paradox" when challenged on logical grounds. A christian could easily answer that God is one and three, and three and one but the "Kayf is Majhuul". If you draw bounds for logic, then proponents for every religion can draw bounds; this will bring to a halt any intellectual discussions on religion as every proponent will claim ridiculous beliefs such as a "created and uncreated", "composed", or even "an existing but non-existing " God. Of course, the answer of such proponents when challenged intellectually will be, "the how is unknown". With Salaams PK

Modesty: Thanks for posting such a spiritually inebriating piece. Sakina: You can find all the sermons of Imam Ali in the famous compilation called Nahjul Balaaqah. As good as the english translation is, I would recommend the original arabic version as it is far superior.

Nomads, There are some general guidelines one must take heed of upon emabarking on theological, philosophical, or juridical discussions. One cannot, for instance, refute the doctrines of Christianity on rational grounds whilst adopting preposterously contradictory beliefs. That is to say, one cannot confute the beliefs of Christians in a simultaneously finite and infinite , created and uncreated God, if one believes in a composite God. Is it not intellectual duplicity to accuse others of having illogical beliefs while you espouse equally contradictory notions of God. Many so-called muslim apologists attack the creeds of other religons all the while unaware of the incongrous tenets of their adulterated version of Islam. They argue that other beliefs are illogical and irrational, and once they are asked to explain the concept of a God with parts (eye, hand, leg, face) they respond with the infamous expression of paradox, to wit, "the 'how' is unknown" (Al-Kayfu Majhuul). This is where the bounds of reason are ostensibly cut short. I wonder what these ill righteous men would say to a Buddhist or a Christian who utilizes this same "puzzling expression", viz., the how is unknown. Can you possibly refute any belief if your opponent argues that logic does not apply, because the "how is unknown". According to this expression, Trinity is irrefutable. God is one and three; the meaning of one and three are clear but "the how" is obscure. This is another clear reason why it is utterly naive to say that logic has bounds. P.S. It is disappointing to see that dogmatists will even use puppet personalites to refute the non-islamic conceptions of God. Oh well, I suppose it is necessary to create straw Nomads to instill untenable dogma. With Salaams PK

علم التصو٠علم ليس يدركه إلا أخو Ùطنة بالحـق معـرو٠وكي٠يعرÙÙ‡ من ليس يشهـده وكي٠يشهد ضوء الشمس مكÙÙˆÙ The knowledge of gnosis is not abstract, rather it is existential. Any mortal can engage in mental meanderings and juridical joustings; however, it takes a 'Arif to see the world as it really is. Postive (Awakener) has given a superb albiet rudimentary treatment of this subject. With Salaams PK

The following poem is the most eloquently tormenting, agonizing, and distressing eulogy written in the arabic language. بكاؤكما ÙŠÙŽØ´ÙÙŠ وإن كان لا ÙŠÙجدي Ùجودا Ùقد أودى نظيرÙÙƒÙما عندي بÙنيَّ الذي أهدَته٠كÙّاي للثرى Ùيا عزة المÙهدَى ويا حسرة المَهدي ألا قاتل الله المنايا ورَميَها من القوم حبّات٠القلوب على عَمد توخَّى Ø­Ùمام الموت أوسط صبيتي Ùللّه كي٠اختار واسطة العÙقد؟ على حينَ Ø´Ùمت٠الخير من لمحاتÙه٠وآنست٠من Ø£Ùعاله آية الرشد طواه الردى عني Ùَأضحى مزاره بعيداً على قرب٠قريباً على بعد لقد أنجَزَت Ùيه المنايا وعيدَها وأخلَÙَت٠الآمال ما كان من وعد لقد قلّ بين المهد والحد Ù„ÙبثÙÙ‡Ù Ùلم يَنسَ عهدَ المهد إذ ضÙمّ ÙÙŠ اللحد تَنَغَّص قبل الرّÙيّ٠ماء٠حياتÙÙ‡Ù ÙˆÙÙجّÙع منه بالعذوبة والبرد ألحَّ عليه النز٠حتى أحالَه٠إلى صÙرة الجاديّ٠عن حمرة الورد وظلَّ على الأيدي تَساقَط٠نَÙسÙه٠ويذوي كما يذوي القضيب من الرّند Ùيالك٠من Ù†Ùس٠تَساقَط٠أنÙساً تَساقÙØ·ÙŽ درٌّ من نظامÙ٠بلا عÙقد٠عجبت٠لقلبي كي٠لم ينÙطر له ولو أنه أقسى من الحجر الصَّلد بودّÙÙŠ أني كنت Ù‚ÙدّÙمت٠قبلَه٠وأنّ المنايا دونه صَمدَت صَمدي ولكنّ ربي شاء غير مشيئتي وللرب إمضاء٠المشيئة لا العبد وما سرَّني أن بعتÙÙ‡ بثوابÙه٠ولو أنه التخليد ÙÙŠ جنة الخلد ولا بعتÙه٠طوعاً ولكن غÙصÙبتÙه٠وليس على ظلم الحوادث من Ù…Ùعدي وإني وإن Ù…ÙتّÙعت٠بابنيَّ بعده لَذاكÙرÙه٠ما حنّت٠النّÙيَب٠ÙÙŠ نجد وأولادنا مثل الجوارح أيها Ùقدناه كان الÙاجعَ البَيّÙÙ†ÙŽ الÙَقد لكلٌّ مكانٌ لا يَسÙدّ٠اختلالَه٠مكان٠أخيه ÙÙŠ جَزوع٠ولا جَلد هل العين٠بعد السمع تكÙÙŠ مكانَه٠أم السمع٠بعد العين يهدي كما تَهدي؟ لعمري: لقد حالت بيَ الحال٠بعده Ùياليت شعري كي٠حالت به بَعدي؟ ثكÙلت٠سروري كلّه إذ ثَكلتÙÙ‡ وأصبحت٠ÙÙŠ لذات عيشي أخا زهد أريحانةَ العينين والأن٠والحشا: ألا ليت شعري هل تغيرتَ عن عهدي سأسقيك ماء العين ما أسعَدَت به وإن كانت السّÙقيا من الدمع لا تÙجدي أعينيَّ جودا لي Ùقدا جÙدت٠للثّرى بأنÙَسَ مما تÙسألان من الرّÙÙد أعينيَّ: إن لا تÙسعداني Ø£ÙŽÙ„ÙمكÙما وإن تÙسعداني اليوم تستوجبا حمدي عذرتÙÙƒÙما لو تÙشغَلان عن البكا بنومÙØŒ وما نوم الشجيّ أخي الجهد؟! أقÙرَّة عيني: قد أطلْتَ بÙكاءها وغادَرتَها أقذى من الأعين الرّÙمد أقرة عيني: لو Ùدى الحيّ٠ميّÙتاً ÙديتÙÙƒÙŽ بالحوباء أوّلَ من ÙŠÙŽÙدي كأنيَ ما استمتعت٠منك بنظرة٠ولا Ù‚Ùبلةٌ أحلى مذاقاً من الشّهد كأنيَ ما استمتعت٠منك بضمَّة٠ولا شمّة٠ÙÙŠ ملعب٠لك أو مَهد Ø£Ùلام لما Ø£Ùبدي عليك من الأسى وإني لأÙØ®ÙÙŠ منه أضعا٠ما Ø£Ùبدي محمّدÙ: ما شيء تÙÙˆÙهّÙم٠سَلوةً لقلبيَ إلا زاد قلبي من الوَجد أرى أخَوَيكَ الباقيين٠Ùإنما يكونان للأحزان أورى من الزند إذا لعبا ÙÙŠ ملعب٠لك لذّعا Ùؤادي بمثل النار عن غير ما قصد Ùما Ùيهما لي سَلوةٌ بل حزازةٌ يَهيجانÙها دوني وأشقى بها وحدي وأنتَ وإن Ø£ÙÙردتَ ÙÙŠ دار وحشة٠Ùإني بدار الأÙنس ÙÙŠ وحشة الÙرد أودّ٠إذا ما الموت٠أوÙَدَ معشراً إلى عسكر الأموات أني من الوÙد ومَن كان يستهدي حبيباً هديةً ÙطيÙ٠خيال٠منك ÙÙŠ النوم أستهدي عليك سلام الله مني تحيةً ومن كل غيث٠صادق البرق والرعد Source With Salaams PK