voiceofthewhiteangelontheprotagonist’sshoulder,accurateandpertinent,but
alsopainfullysoftanddistant.Andinline3,Ḥāfiẓgivesfullironicvoicetothebit-
terly hopeless, despairing anger that such sober, abstract reasonableness tends to
evokeamongthose(andeachpartofourself)stillhelplesslyattachedtothesepass-
ing tavern-ruins. Surprisingly, then, line 4 unexpectedly provides the beginning of
areal,effective–andnecessarilyindividual–answertothatironicquery,pointing
towardstheradicaltransformationofperspectivearticulatedinthefirstpersonin
verses5–6.Appropriatelyenoughfortheturning-pointoftheentirepoem,thefirst
half-line of verse 4 (together with the beginning of the second half) offers what is
stillapoignantlyabstractreminderofthosedozensofQur’ānicversesemphasizing
theomnipresenceofthedivineSigns,ineverydomainandinstantofourinnerand
outerexperience,andofthe‘gladtidings’(bishārat/bushrā)necessarilyflowingfrom
theirproperappreciationandunderstanding.
Hence the conclusion of this line, marking the climactic transition of the whole
ghazal,isapoignantlypersonalquestion,perhapseventhevoiceofanentirelydif-
ferentspeaker(alreadythe‘I’oflines5–6?).Foreachofus,thereisonlyonepossi-
bleandindispensable‘intimateofspiritualsecrets’,andnorealchoice(orwayout
ofthisdilemma)buttoturninthedirectionofthatFriend.
Lines5–6:TheHeart’sEssential‘Work’ofIandThouInline5,Ḥāfiẓ,atleast,openlytakesthatinevitableturninward,fromtheabstract,
critical intellect to the necessarily personal and uniquely individual – powerfully
markedherebytheveryfirstmentionof‘I’andthedivine,Buberian‘Thou’–tothe
Heart(dil/qalb), the dynamic, mutual meeting place of the divine Spirit and all its
individualmanifestations,andtheuniquelocusofthedefininghumanWorkofcre-
ation,spiritualtransformationandawakening.Asthesecondhalfofline5indicates,
those who are consciously busy with that infinite sacred Work of the divine-
individual‘We’areindeedinaradicallydifferentplacefromthatcomplaining,crit-
ical, fault-finding ‘ego-self’ whose many inner voices (already richly amplified in
lines1–4)arealltoofamiliartoeachofus.Theforcefullyemphasized‘We’opening
the second half of line 5 is not a polite rhetorical substitute for Ḥāfiẓ’s or our own
ego-self(muchlessavaguebunchofpeople),butratheraradicalandfar-reaching,
trulytransforminginsightintothispoet’sowndistinctivereadingandunderstand-
ing of that peculiarly mysterious divine ‘We’-voice which so intimately speaks so
much of the Qur’ān. The essential identity of this profoundly personal divine/
human ‘We’ with the transforming presence of theWalī/Friend is highlighted
here by its explicit opposition to the censorious ‘blamer’ (malāmatgar, the inner
ego-‘blamer’). That opposition here is meant to openly echo the famous Qur’ānic
verse5:54onthesaving,restorativedivinefunctionofallthesaintlyFriendsofGod,
‘...whodonotfeartheblameofanyblamer’.
Line6thenmovesontodescribemorecompletelythedecisiveinnertransforma-
tion – and the constantly available spiritual choice – between the real ‘We’ of the
Ḥāfiẓ’sRomanticImageryandLanguageofLove 237