us aaftaab-e ;husn ke ham daa;G-e sharm hai;N
aise :zuhuur par bhii vuh mu;Nh ko chhupaa rahe

1) on/'of' that sun of beauty, we are a stain/scar of shame
2) even/also upon/despite such a manifestation, he/she would/might remain with his/her face hidden



daa;G : 'A mark burnt in, a brand, cautery; mark, spot, speck; stain; stigma; blemish; iron-mould; freckle; pock; scar, cicatrix; wound, sore; grief, sorrow; misfortune, calamity; loss, injury, damage'. (Platts p.501)


:zuhuur : 'Appearing, arising, springing up; appearance, manifestation, visibility; coming to pass'. (Platts p.756)

S. R. Faruqi:

This theme is common-- that God's glory/appearance is everywhere, but he himself is not seen anywhere. Achal Das has well said [in Persian],

'I saw no place to be empty of the glory/appearance of that traceless one,
The six directions are brimful of his beauty, and nevertheless his place is empty.'

Mir advanced this idea further and interposed the idea of shame, as if in the divine glory/appearance there is a beloved-like style, and if in this world mankind does not obtain the Divine Face, then the reason for this is 'shame'. Thus he endows God Most High with the quality of 'honor/shame' [;Gairat]; for this reason this theme is also not entirely inappropriate.

In the second line the word :zuhuur is very appropriate, because it is used for God Most High, and its dictionary meaning too is suitable. In aise :zuhuur there's apparently an unexplained antecedent, but in fact here there's that special style of Mir's through which he establishes himself as seemingly deprived of speech-- and in this way says everything.

Then, aaftaab-e ;husn itself is a very beautiful construction, and through affinity with it daa;G too is superb, because there are considered to be spots on the sun. These are called 'sun spots', and the ancient masters of physics too knew that there are marks on the sun, and that many things are such that if they are placed in the sun, spots or marks appear on them.

The theme too is fine-- that through this coquetry of 'shame' we see his manifestation in every direction, but we don't see Him. Maulana-e Rum says [in Persian],

'Oh Friend, through friendship we are near to you,
Wherever you place your foot, we are the earth to you.
According to the religion of lover-ship, how is it proper
That we see the world through you, and do not see you?'

In Mir's verse too is the same 'mood' as in Maulana-e Rum's quatrain. Or rather, with regard to its affinities Mir's verse is more compact. We have already mentioned the affinity of aaftaab with daa;G ; its affinity with :zuhuur is apparent from the whole theme. Then, the sun's light everyone sees, but the sun itself can't be gazed at by anyone. In this way too it appears proper that despite this ebullience and rush of manifestation, its face remains hidden.

In Maulana-e Rum's quatrain, rather than proof and affinity there's more of an absorption in lover-ship, and a humility and attachment toward the Sun of absolute being. In Mir's verse too there's attachment to the Sun of absolute being, but it has been presented on the level of proof. Rumi's quatrain is in the Persian style, and Mir's verse is in the 'Sabk-i Hindi' style. Both of them are 'tumult-arousing'.



Surely it's extraordinary-- and theologically highly dubious-- to claim that we humans are a daa;G-e sharm on the face of God? Does God actually keep his face hidden, despite his manifest beauty, because he's so ashamed or embarrassed by our presence on his face? The suggestion is of someone with a skin condition, who feels blemished and unattractive; every single meaning of daa;G is negative (see the definition above). But theologically speaking, how could we mere humans possibly have such a dire effect on God Most High? It might work a bit more plausibly for a human beloved, but still the imagery is not very satisfactory.

The image of sunspots doesn't work well in a practical way either. Sunspots don't hide or veil the face of the sun; they don't prevent us from seeing it (to whatever extent that we can see it). I'm surprised that SRF doesn't discuss any of this.