hu))aa jo dil ;xuu;N ;xaraabii aa))ii har ek a((.zaa me;N hai futuur ab
;havaas gum hai;N dimaa;G gum hai rahaa-sahaa bhii gayaa shu((uur ab

1) when the heart became blood, ruination came; in every single organ is weakness/languour now
2) the senses are lost, the mind is lost; even/also the remnant of awareness/understanding has gone, now



;xuun-;xaraabah : 'Bloodshed, bloody work, deeds of death; mutual slaughter'. (Platts p.497)


futuur : 'Languor, weakness, infirmity; defect, imperfection, unsoundness; irregularity'. (Platts p.776)


rahaa-sahaa : 'Remained, left, escaped; —s.m. Leavings, savings'. (Platts p.609)

S. R. Faruqi:

The opening-verse is by way of introduction, but the casualness of 'every single organ' is fine.



In ;xuu;N ;xaraabii , on first hearing, how can we fail to (almost) hear the mortal bloodiness of ;xuu;N - ;xaraabah (see the definition above)? Of course the final syllable alerts us, and the grammar of the line veers off in an entirely different direction. But not until we've had time to make the association. And if a latecomer and outsider like me couldn't help but notice the effect, how could Mir have failed to notice it (if indeed he didn't put it there deliberately, as I suspect that he did)? And if he noticed it and left it built into the structure of the verse, surely he meant for us, however momentarily and peripherally, to notice it too. Would the first line not be just a bit the poorer without it?