=== |
![]() |
vājib : 'Necessary, obligatory, binding, incumbent (on); expedient; proper, worthy; convenient; fit'. (Platts p.1172)
mumkin : 'Possible, practicable, feasible; contingent; liable'. (Platts p.1068)
maṣdar : 'Place whence one returns, or goes, or turns away'; place of issuing or proceeding; origin, source, spring, theme'. (Platts p.1041)
ṡanā : 'Praise, eulogy, commendation, applause (it differs from ḥamd in having for its object either the Deity or man, whereas ḥamd is restricted to the Deity)'. (Platts p.369)
qudrat : 'Power, ability, potency, vigour, force, authority, virtue; divine power, omnipotence; —the creation, the universe, nature'. (Platts p.788)
FWP:
SETS
MOTIFS
NAMES == LORD
TERMSWhat a monstrous first line! It's really tortuous, grammatically speaking. It's true that the words flow along so elegantly, rhythmically, even smugly-- you feel that the awkwardness must be your own fault. But this time, it's not. Here's my best attempt at explication, based mostly on SRF's reading:
vājib kā ho nah mumkin = Of/from the necessary, the contingent would not [come to] be [that is, something necessary would not become something merely possible or 'contingent'; it would always remain necessary].
ṡanā kā maṣdar ṣifat = Like the source/origin/ground of praise. (The ṣifat has to apply to the whole phrase ṣanā kā maṣdar , because otherwise the kā is left dangling.)
The first half of the first line is in fact doubly confusing because the normal, least-marked meaning of mumkin is not 'contingent' (in a philosophical sense) but 'possible', in a plain everyday sense, so that nah mumkin readily suggests nā-mumkin , 'impossible'. The reader's mind plays with ways that some necessary thing might prove also to be impossible, a (Ghalib-like) paradox so enjoyable that it's hard to let go of it. But that kā forces the expression to become, 'to make of the necessary, the contingent' and thus denies us the chance to read 'the necessary would not be possible'.
As SRF observes, the verse locates all power in the Lord: if we can't praise him without his willing it so, then how are we at fault if we don't praise him? That's an enjoyable little twist of the otherwise mainly clunky rhetorical/theological content. But I don't find that enough. As far as I'm concerned, SRF could well have omitted this verse from SSA. That first line is like a chunk of gristle, your mind can chew and chew on it but it never repays the effort.