diin-o-dil ke ;Gam ko aasaa;N naa-tavaa;N mai;N le gayaa
yaa mu;habbat kah'h ke yih baar-e giraa;N mai;N le gayaa

1) the grief of religion and the heart-- easy-- weak, I {mastered/ 'bore away'}
2) having said 'oh Love!', this heavy burden I 'bore away'



aasaan : 'Easy, facile; smooth; light; feasible; manageable; convenient, commodious; unencumbered, disencumbered (affair)'. (Platts p.47)


naa-tavaa;N : 'Weak, feeble, infirm, powerless, impotent; decrepit; frail'. (Platts 1109-10)


le jaanaa : 'To go away with, to take away; to carry, convey (to); ... to carry off or away, bear off; to run away with; to win; to conquer, master'. (Platts p.973)

S. R. Faruqi:

When people lift some heavy burden, or try to escape from some danger, or when there's an attempt to emerge from some difficulty, then many Muslims call on Hazrat Ali (who is called the 'Remover of difficulties') by saying 'oh Ali!' [yaa ((alii]. In this context the slogan 'oh Love!' is very interesting. Especially since he has enumerated 'religion' too-- calling on love instead of Hazrat Ali seems even more appropriate.

The dictionary meaning of naa-tavaa;N is 'not possessing strength'; the word can be used for both body and mind. In this context, from the use of naa-tavaa;N a suggestion of both types of weakness (bodily and mental) has come into the verse. The juxtaposition of aasaa;N and naa-tavaa;N is fine, and there's an extremely subtle point: that if one would take refuge in love, then every kind of grief would have to be endured.

Another subtlety is that he has construed the going of religion and the heart as a heavy burden. Usually, if something would emerge from somewhere, then the weight becomes lighter. Here the case is the reverse: the heart went from the body, and religion left the spirit, and their going proved to be a heavy burden.

[See also {1176,1}.]



Does naa-tavaa;N describe the grief? It's easy to think this, because it seems to make such a nice pair with the preceding adjective: aasaa;N naa-tavaa;N ; a burden of 'grief'could well be imagined as easy to lift and also as frail or flimsy in its power over the speaker. But naa-tavaa;N is normally an adjective for a person, as SRF notes, so that in retrospect 'I, the weak one' seems a better reading.

In either case, the warpedly idiomatic yaa mu;habbat is surely the chief charm of the verse, as SRF notes. But it's also enjoyable to find that the 'grief of religion and the heart' suddenly seems, between the first line and the second, to have changed its qualities. The first line minimizes it as a form of boastfulness-- it was easy to lift, it was flimsy and/or I was weak and still lifted it. But in the second line, the boastfulness requires it to be maximized (it was a heavy burden, and I still lifted it).

And of course, there's the vision of the strong man showing his weight-lifting powers. He grasps the 'heavy burden', ostentatiously lifts it swiftly over his head, calling on his source of strength with a sudden loud shout of exertion; then he carries it a certain distance, until he triumphantly, dismissively flings it down. It's all very well to overcome 'grief' like this, but what if the removal of the 'grief of religion and heart' includes the removal of 'religion and heart' as well? What is the nature of the 'love' that the lifter boasts of having invoked to help him in his feat? With 'love' for his patron, what further ominous feats will he have to perform?