A Commentary on a Verse by Hafez, as Narrated by Mostafa Malekian

In this conversation, which is a commentary on one of Hafez's famous verses, Professor Mostafa Malekian has raised several noteworthy points; among them, one is that the reading

Professor Malekian, we would like to hear your commentary on this famous verse by Hafez: کشتی نشستگانیم ای باد شرطه برخیز باشد که باز ببینیم دیدار آشنا را There is a difference of opinion regarding the recording of "کشتی نشستگانیم" (We are the ship-sitters) and "کشتی شکستگانیم" (We are the shipwrecked). Which recording do you consider more appropriate? Since ancient times, it has been a matter of debate whether "کشتی نشستگانیم" is correct or "کشتی شکستگانیم." بعضی «نشسته» خوانند بعضی «شکسته» خوانند چون نیست خواجه حافظ معذوردار ما را Firstly, a favorable wind for a ship's movement is called "باد شُرطه" (shurta wind). From the Arabs' perspective, this wind is called the shurta wind because it has "shart" (stipulated/guaranteed) to deliver the travelers to their destination; that is, a favorable wind. Hence, "shurta" is not the name of a specific wind; for example, if x wants to go from east to west, the wind must blow towards the west for it to be a shurta wind; but if they want to come from west to east, the wind must blow towards the east. Therefore, the shurta wind differs depending on the direction you want to travel. Thus, unlike the north wind, south wind, samum wind, and saba wind, which were names of specific winds, the shurta wind is not the name of a particular wind. In other words, the same wind is a shurta wind for one ship and a non-shurta wind for another. Suppose two ships pass by each other in opposite directions and a wind is blowing in the air; is this wind a shurta wind or not? It might be a shurta wind for one of them and not for the other, or for neither of them. So, the shurta wind is a wind that is named based on the ship's situation. Depending on, for instance, where you want to go, any wind that is favorable to your direction of movement becomes shurta. Now, Hafez says: کشتی نشستگانیم ای باد شرطه برخیز باشد که باز ببینیم دیدار آشنا را Regarding your question, I must say that I prefer the recording "کشتی نشستگانیم" (We are the ship-sitters). You certainly have reasons for this preference and choice. What is your reasoning in this regard? I can mention two reasons for this choice; one is that when someone's ship is broken, their fate is no longer in the hands of the wind but in the hands of the waves, yet Hafez's address here is to the wind. In my opinion, this is the first indication. When someone is dealing with a plank [i.e., a broken ship], they must say to the waves, "O waves, do something for me," and cannot say anything to the wind. Why? The wind can do something for the ship because the ship—unlike a plank—has a sail. Since a plank has no sail, it is captive to the waves, and the poet should address the waves. But the second reason is that usually, when a ship breaks, everyone clings to a plank, and therefore, a group of people cannot speak together, whereas in this verse, we see that Hafez has said, "کشتی نشستگانیم ای باد شرطه برخیز" (We are the ship-sitters, O shurta wind, arise). In my opinion, this verse does not suit the atmosphere of the shipwrecked, especially coming from someone like Hafez, who is the master of speech. When a ship breaks, everyone individually screams and shouts, and if Hafez's intention here was "کشتی شکسته" (broken ship), he should have spoken in a way that recounted the state and condition of one person (each individual). But when everyone is sitting in the ship and no wind has set the ship in motion for three days, then it is meaningful for the poet to say, "کشتی نشستگانیم ای باد شرطه برخیز" (We are the ship-sitters, O shurta wind, arise). According to some commentators of Hafez, "باشد که باز بینیم دیدار آشنا را" (Perhaps we may see the face of the familiar one again) is a very despairing phrase, and a "ship-sitter" does not have such a wish; rather, it is the "shipwrecked" who has such a wish. The ship-sitter says, "Well, if we don't arrive today, we'll arrive some other time"; but the shipwrecked fears perishing at sea and therefore has a greater longing for union with the beloved. In my opinion, if someone is a lover, they would not say, "Well, if we don't arrive today, we'll arrive tomorrow." The objection that can be raised against this view is that a lover truly wants to see the beloved as soon as possible and, so to speak, their heart does not allow them to say that they will eventually see their beloved one day and that seeing the beloved sooner or later makes no difference. But in the next hemistich, he says: باشد که باز بینیم دیدار آشنا را. "دیدار" (didar) in classical literature means "face," although today we take didar to mean meeting. "باشد که" (bashad ke) also means "in the hope that"; that is, may it be that we see the face of the familiar one again. In my opinion, this verse is very consistent with Hafez's Ash'arite perspective. You know that Hafez, theologically, is of the Ash'arite persuasion and not Mu'tazilite. The Ash'arites believed in absolute predestination or something close to absolute predestination. In my opinion, this verse demonstrates that not all matters are within our own control, whether we read "کشتی نشستگان" (ship-sitters) or "کشتی شکستگان" (shipwrecked).

In fact, there are three points in this verse: 1. Everything depends on the favorable wind; 2. Even if the favorable wind blows, he still says “may it be that” we see the familiar face again. That is, “perhaps” we will see the familiar face again. Yes! In this regard, the Ash‘arites relied on words like “‘asā” (perhaps) that appear in the Qur’an; for instance, they would say that even God told the Prophet (PBUH), “It may be that your Lord will raise you to a praiseworthy station” (Maqām Maḥmūdā); perhaps you will attain a praiseworthy station. In their view, even God did not tell the Prophet (PBUH) that he would certainly attain a praiseworthy station, because everything depends on God’s overwhelming will. And the third point about this verse is that there is a kind of supplication in it, which is also very important for the Ash‘arites, and that is the distinction I draw between “whispered prayer” (munājāt) and “supplication” (du‘ā): “Whispered prayer” first differs from “supplication,” and then it must take precedence over supplication. In this verse, you see that this is exactly the case (We are ship-wrecked, O favorable wind, arise). This is supplication because in “whispered prayer” we only depict our own condition, but in “supplication” we ask something of the other party to change this condition. In my opinion, Hafez has done this here: first he said, “We are ship-wrecked, O favorable wind,” and then he supplicated: “arise.” “Arise” is an imperative, and of course, it is a supplicatory imperative. It is for these three reasons that I believe this verse conveys Hafez’s “Ash‘arite perspective,” indicating that we are sorely the playthings of fate and destiny, that matters are far less in our own hands than we suppose, and that we are dragged from this side to that; and it has been said that the believer’s heart is overturned between two of the Merciful’s fingers. Indeed, according to the Arabs, the heart (qalb) is called qalb because it is overturned. Qalb means overturning. It is called the heart only because of its constant overturning. Why? Because it is between two of the Merciful’s fingers, meaning just as wax changes shape between two fingers and takes on a new form, so too the heart is between two of God’s fingers and constantly changes, and when the heart changes, everything in life changes. Can we say, based on this verse, that Hafez sees union as something otherworldly? Yes! But we must note that the striving the lover undertakes is, from the perspective of the Mu‘tazilites in the Islamic world or Thomas Aquinas in the West, the necessary and sufficient condition for union; but in the Ash‘arite view, it may be a necessary condition and not a sufficient one. It may not even be a necessary condition. Of course, most Ash‘arites considered it a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Apparently, Hafez, in a verse, considers it a necessary condition: Whatever effort I may show in seeking you, This much is certain, that one cannot alter destiny. Yes! He considers it a necessary condition: for X to reach his beloved, his striving is a necessary condition and not a sufficient one. Through toil, no one reached the treasure of union with him, And yet, strange it is, that without toil, no one saw that treasure. In this verse by Jami as well, “toil” is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. (Through toil, no one reached the treasure of union with him) means one must not suppose that if we endure toil, we will certainly attain union. But the wonder is that everyone who attained union with him had endured toil. So, toil is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one: And yet, strange it is, that without toil, no one saw that treasure. In fact, Jami in this verse also reflects the Ash‘arite view that our strivings are a necessary condition for changing our state, but not a sufficient condition. When he says, “Through toil, no one reached the treasure of union with him,” it means do not think that everyone who endures toil attains union, but the converse is that everyone who attained union, know that they endured toil. In another verse, Hafez also says: Although union with him is not granted through striving, Strive, O heart, as much as you are able. Here, does Hafez again emphasize the “necessary condition” of human striving? When he says (Strive, O heart, as much as you are able), his meaning is that this striving is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. It seems that in human love, the lover’s striving is certainly not a sufficient condition, but as to whether it is a necessary condition or not even a necessary condition, one cannot make a definitive judgment.

 pdf of this conversation in Iran newspaper

Iran newspaper | 20 Mehr 1394 | Page 17