S. R. Faruqi:

In this verse the theme is nothing, but the charm of the wordplay shows forth well. For da((v;aa means 'quarrel', and :tara;h ;Daalnaa means 'to begin'. Then, shaa;x nikaalnaa means 'to bring out a fault, to bring forth something new (usually used in a bad sense), to create some affair or quarrel'. Thus the meaning becomes that since the beloved has begun some new quarrel with the rose flower, is it because the flower brought forth something new in its own praise, or because it brought out against the beloved some new fault?

Another meaning is that the flower that is again on the verge of quarreling with the beloved-- this time has the rose obtained any new thing, on the strength of which it would begin a war with the beloved? The theme is thus that between the beloved and the rose (because of beauty and delicacy) there is mutual confrontation and rivalry.

It's obvious that the theme is nothing, and apart from the two layers of meaning nothing special can be seen in the verse. But now let's consider the wordplay. Between ;Daalii and shaa;x there's the relationship of a zila (see {1598,1}). There's also the connection of a zila between :tara;h ;Daalnaa with the meaning of 'to lay a foundation', and taazah shaa;x nikaalnaa . And between :tara;h and taazah too there's a zila, because :tara;h-kash means 'making a portrait/likeness', and if a portrait has no freshness then it's worthless.

The wordplay and affinity between taazah and gul is obvious; between gul and shaa;x the wordplay is evident. There's also the connection of a zila between da((v;aa (meaning 'quarrel') and shaa;x (because shaa;x nikaalnaa = to find fault, etc.). And there's a zila between gul and nikaalii as well, because a flower emerges [nikalnaa] on a branch. In short, the whole verse is colorful with instances of wordplay.

FWP:

SETS == IDIOMS; KYA; SUBJECT?
MOTIFS == BELOVED IS NOT GOD
NAMES
TERMS == WORDPLAY; ZILA

In the first line, we learn that someone unspecified (since the subject has been colloquially omitted) has started something like a quarrel with 'that one'. All we can tell is that there are two parties involved in the dispute. In proper mushairah-verse style, we're made to wait and hope for clarification in the second line. And then of course, as SRF notes, it's not clear whether the beloved, the supreme Rose, is quarreling with the flower-rose, or the other way around. We are made to think of a state of mutual envy and cattiness between two beautiful women. (Although in principle it could be that neither of them is a woman, since the quarrel could be between God and a flower; but it doesn't feel that way.)

And of course in the second line the 'kya effect' is there in all its multivalent glory. It could mark a question: 'Has the rose in fact brought out some fresh claim, or not?'. Or it could mark an affirmative exclamation: 'What a fresh claim the rose has brought out-- how remarkable!'. Or it could mark an indignant repudiation: 'As if the rose has brought out some fresh claim-- of course it hasn't!'. When combined with the unanswered (and unanswerable) question of who has started the quarrel with whom, the effect is to leave us quite uncertain of what's going on.

But of course, as SRF excellently explains, the verse's real delight is its lavishly intertwined wordplay, in which every single significant word participates. My favorite part is the brilliant use of shaa;x nikaalnaa , which idiomatically means 'to create some fault or quarrel'-- and also means, with perfect rose-like literalness, 'to put out a branch'.