Groupthink – Pitfalls of In-Group Consensus

When a group tries to arrive at a decision, it is deemed by default necessary to have a consensus among the group members. This requirement of consensus, most of the time becomes an instrument to undermine the dissenting minority opinion without due deliberation, which most often than not turns out to be disastrous.

So the culture we need to develop around us is that nobody feels intimidated to voice his/her concerns or to challenge a certain design ideology. Progress and development is a collaborative and not an authoritative enterprise.

Here is an excerpt from a book titled “The Wisdom of Psychopaths – What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success” by Kevin Dutton, which points to such pitfalls of group thinking.

In 1952, the sociologist William H. Whyte coined the term “groupthink” to conceptualize the mechanism by which tightly knit groups, cut off from outside influence, rapidly converge on normatively “correct” positions, becoming, as they do so, institutionally impervious to criticism: indifferent to out-group opposition, averse to in-group dissent, and ever more confident of their own unimpeachable rectitude.

The psychologist Irving Janis, who conducted much of the empirical work on the phenomenon, describes the process as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” It’s not exactly conducive to good decision making.

As a case in point, take the space shuttle Challenger fiasco. Under considerable political pressure to get things under way (Congress, at the time, was seeking a large slice of revenue in furtherance of the space program, and a series of problems had already delayed the launch), scientists and engineers at NASA appeared systemically immune to concerns raised by a coworker, just twenty-four hours before liftoff, over the O-rings in the booster rockets. Though a string of conference calls had specifically been convened to discuss the problem in detail, the decision, incomprehensible in hindsight, was made to press on. The goal, after all, was to get the show on the road.

In the event, it proved disastrous. Inquests revealed, as the villains of the piece, not just the O-rings, but another, more viral, more insidiously carcinogenic culprit: a musty, asphyxiating psychology. The Rogers Commission, a dedicated task force set up by then President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident, confirmed the nagging, unspoken fears of social psychologists the world over: that NASA’s organizational culture and decision-making processes had played a significant role in the lead-up to the tragedy. Pressure to conform, discounted warnings, sense of invulnerability. It was all there, plain as day.[2]

[2] The complete inventory of groupthink symptoms runs as follows: feelings of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking; discounting of warnings that might challenge assumptions; unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions; stereotyped views of enemy leaders; pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree; shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus; illusion of unanimity; “mindguards”—self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions (Janis, 1972).

Pakistan does not need a ‘Strategy’

Lt Gen (r) Asad Durrani, the former ISI chief, concludes in his memoir, that the way our ‘Uniformed Rulers’ with all the wherewithal of statecraft could not come up with a ‘Grand Design’ for our Nation, the civilian rulers stand no chance of any worthwhile progress.

Here is an excerpt from his memoir ‘Pakistan Adrift’:

“Given the odds Pakistan had to face right from its inception, we may not have done too badly if we have, in fact, managed to muddle through. On this subject, I have often recalled a statement made to me by a Bedouin prince, who was seldom sober, “There is no need for a strategy”. He did not elaborate, and perhaps thinking that he had had one too many, I did not ask him to. But there was no way anyone trained in the military art could take such a brazen decree seriously. As one who had once headed the NDC, an institution that breathes and oozes strategy, for me the Prince’s assertion was blasphemous. A few years later, when I had to reflect on my days in the corridors of power, I wished I had drunk from the same fountain of knowledge. I think what the wise man from the desert was trying to convey to me was that, even if we had a strategy, our actions would still be dictated by the totality of the environment, one’s ability indeed being an important part of it. How did Pakistan fare on that account? All our Bonapartes were different in their disposition and their putsches occurred in different circumstances. If they took similar paths to gain legitimacy and acceptance—such as hiring a legal wizard and assembling a bunch of political opportunists—one could have understood their compulsion, but if they did not have a strategy, in fact, a grand strategy, to live up to the greatness thrust upon them, one could only bow one’s head in deference to the drunken prince. All of them were convinced that they had found the “scarlet thread”, the idea around which a strategic web was woven, and followed it more or less diligently. For Ayub Khan, the focus was on economy; Zia believed in the centrality of religion, even if was only as an expedient tool of politics; and whenever Musharraf talked of strategy—and he did that all the time— he actually meant stratagem. Strategy is indeed all-embracing. Economic development, ideological moorings, and “enlightened moderation”, which was Musharraf’s proclaimed recipe to achieve our Nirvana, might all be essential elements of nation-building, but they are only parts of a strategic whole. Since our uniformed rulers did not have the time, the patience, or the vision to follow a comprehensive course, the gains they made in their selected fields did not endure. (Though Ayub Khan’s achievements were spectacular: the country sustained an economic growth rate of six per cent or more, for three decades—the only country at that time to do so.) If, when exercising total control over all the instruments of state, the military could not come up with a grand design, it would be foolish to expect that while only playing a role from the side-lines, it could do any better than have hit and miss success.”

What actually is Terrorism

The quest for a consistent definition of an idea is invariably marred with the cultural, social and linguistic biases of it’s invokers. And this is what has been happening with the word ‘Terrorism’. When a person of colored skin does it, it is ‘Terrorism’ while if a white guy does the same or worse, it’s an ‘Act of Violence’. The word ‘Terrorism’ is more of a political tool to divide people into ‘us’ and ‘them’ rather than an academically consistent idea.

Dr Jonathan Brown makes an indepth analysis of the problem of defining Terrorism. Here is an excerpt from his marvellous book ‘Slavery and Islam’.

“A common definition of terrorism (there is no agreed upon definition), similar to those used by the US government, is that it is the use or threat of violence by non-state actors against non-combatants for an ideological cause.25 We can test our definition by inverting it: what is ‘an act of violence by non-state actors against non-combatants for an ideological cause’? It’s terrorism. That seems obvious enough, and the abstraction seems accurate. Except, as in the case of tomatoes, when it is not.

In 2015 Canadian police foiled the plot of several young, white Canadians to open fire in a crowd. When asked if law enforcement considered this an attempted act of terrorism, a police spokesman replied that these were individuals who ‘had some beliefs and were willing to carry out violent acts against citizens’ but that it was not terrorism. ‘It’s not culturally based,’ he explained.26 The next day Canada’s Justice Minister reiterated this point: ‘The attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated, therefore [it’s] not linked to terrorism.’27 In 2010 an American man seeking to strike a blow against  government  tyranny crashed his plane into an IRS building. When a government spokesperson announced that the attack was not terrorism, experts objected that this did indeed fit the standard definitions of terrorism. A Fox News anchor interjected to interpret the comment for the audience: ‘This does not appear to be terrorism in any way that that word is conventionally understood’ (emphasis mine).28

So why are definitions of terrorism as an abstract concept failing when applied to situations they should fit? Because the test for the ‘correct’ definition of terrorism is not whether it encompasses the essence of some external reality, an abstraction ‘out there’ in the world. Terrorism is a word that we have shaped and deployed. It is a category we have called into existence. The definition of terrorism is correct if, and only if, it corresponds to what we mean by terrorism and how we use the word, as the Canadian Minister of Justice, the US Department of Homeland Security and the Fox anchor showed. Even if we come up with a well-crafted definition for the abstract category of terrorism, it is whether a particular incident strikes our speech community as ‘terrorism,’ not whether it fits under our abstract definition, that ultimately governs how we label it.

‘We’ think of terrorism as a bundle of associated features, and ‘we’ identify something as terrorism when it is analogous to what ‘we’ have dubbed terrorism in the past. Scholarly definitions of terrorism, of which there are more than 109 by one count, are all abstractions.29 They make no mention of the race, background, religion or culture of the actors. But when ‘we’ say terrorist ‘we’ think of non-whites and non-Christians, in short, not real Westerners.30 Abstraction here is supposed to discover or inaugurate a category that transcends particular interests or loyalties. But definition carries with it an evaluation. And, as some scholars of terrorism have cynically observed, when ‘we’ think of terrorism what we really mean is ‘violence of which we do not approve,’31 or certainly violence done by people of whom we do not approve.

The act of assertion embodied in abstraction and definition is a preliminary step in a larger process, one by which we give shape and features to our reality. They form part of what Michel Foucault (d. 1984) and others have described as discourses, or those constellations of words, terms, propositions and maxims that form our thought and intellectual cultures. These discourses make up the reality that we ‘know’ around us. They are the background of our minds.32 This is not a neutral process. Reality is made by powerful and dominant forces and interests. Terrorism as a defined concept makes up terrorism discourse, which is used to condemn and delegitimize events and actors. Terrorist is an eminently political label, used to draw lines, exclude and vilify. Governments and policy makers molded the term for just this purpose.33 Of course, this does not mean that a violent act done by a ‘terrorist’ is fabricated or did not really occur, any less than an animal we call a dog does not exist simply because the category of dog is something that we have made up. But that we have a category called terrorism, with its own loaded meaning and purpose, and that we apply it to certain things and not others, is a reality we have manufactured.”

---

25. See Jonathan R . White, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Alex Schmid (2012) offered this definition: ‘Terrorism refers, on the one hand, to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral  restraints,  targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties’; see http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/ schmid-terrorism-definition/html.  See  also  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror_08.pdf; http:// www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005; http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31880.htm.
26.  ‘Alleged Halifax mass shooting plot “not culturally based” say police,’ CBC News, Feb. 13, 2015, http:// www.cbc.ca/news/canada/novascotia/alleged-halifax-massshooting-plot-not-culturallybased-say-police-1.2957446.
27. Anna  Mehler  Paperny, ‘Halifax plot: So what is “terrorism,” anyway?,’ Global News, Feb. 14, 2015, https://globalnews.ca/ news/1830795/halifax-plot-sowhat-is-terrorism-anyway/.
28. Devin Neiwert, ‘Huh? Since When is Attempting to Blow Up a Federal Building NOT an Act of Domestic Terrorism?’ Crooks and Liars, Feb. 18, 2010, https:// web.archive.org/ web/20190317023152/https:// crook sandliars.com/david-neiwert/huh-when-attempting-blowfederal-bui. More recently, a young, white, conservative Christian man was found to be behind a spate of package bombings in Austin, Texas. The White House spokesperson stated that the attacks has ‘no known links to terrorism’; ‘No known link to terrorism in Texas bombings: White House,’ Reuters, US, March 20,  2018,  https:// www.reuters.com/article/ustexas-blast-whitehouse/noknown-link-to-terrorism-intexas-bombings-white-houseidUSKBN1GW293. 
29.  Simon Mabon, ‘Locating Terrorism Studies,’ 5–17.
30.  Jana Winter and Sharon Weinberger, ‘The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: “Black Identity Extremists,” ’ Foreign Policy, Oct. 6, 2017, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/06/the-fbi-has-identified-a-new-domestic-terrorist-threat-and-itsblack-identity-extremists/; Timothy McGrath, ‘Turns out people get angry when you say white Americans are terrorists, too,’ PRI,  July  8,  2015,  https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-08/turns-out-people-get-angry-when-you-saywhite-americans-are-terroriststoo.
31. Alex P. Schmid and Albert J. Longman, Political Terrorism, 3; Schmid, ‘Terrorism – The Definitional Problem,’ 375–420.
32. See Michel Foucault, ‘The Order of Discourse,’ 48–78.
33. See the work of Rémi Brulin, ‘Le discours Américain sur le terrorisme: Constitution, evolution et contextes d’enonciation (1972–1992).’ For an admission that US courts see using the label terrorist as ‘prejudicial’ for acts of violence carried out by White Americans, see Ryan J. Reilly, ‘There’s A Good Reason Feds Don’t Call White Guys Terrorists, Says DOJ Domestic Terror Chief,’ Huffpost, Jan. 11, 2018, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-terrorists-domestic-extremists_us_5a550158e4b003133ecceb74?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004.

The Power of the Powerless

When resistance in its militant sense is impossible then what to do. Christopher Hitchens gives a sound advice to a “Young Contrarian”.

“Vaclav Havel, then working as a marginal playwright and poet in a society and state that truly merited the title of Absurd, realised that “resistance” in its original insurgent and militant sense was impossible in the Central Europe of the day. He therefore proposed living “as if ” he were a citizen of a free society, “as if ” lying and cowardice were not mandatory patriotic duties, “as if” his government had actually signed (which it actually had) the various treaties and agreements that enshrine universal human rights. He called this tactic “The Power of the Powerless” because, even when disagreement can be almost forbidden, a state that insists on actually compelling assent can be relatively easily made to look stupid. You can’t achieve 100 percent control over humans, and if you could, you could not go on doing so. It is—fortunately—too much responsibility for any human to assume, not that this keeps the control freaks from continuing to try.

At around the same time and alarmed in a different way by many of the same things (the morbid relationship of the Cold War to the nuclear arms race), Professor E.P. Thompson, whom I recommended to you earlier, proposed that we live “as if ” a free and independent Europe already existed. Some people are still offended if one mentions these two men in the same breath—and Thompson would never have claimed that they both ran the same risks—but actually the two movements for human rights and disarmament were latently symbiotic at the beginning and had become quite closely related by the end. And we know with certainty, from the memoirs of some of the “statesmen” of the period, that it was the stubborn, nonviolent, cultural and political rebellions of those years that impelled them to recast their assumptions. The process often involved an inversion in the usual relationship between the ironic and the literal. The “People Power” moment of 1989, when whole populations brought down their absurd rulers by an exercise of arm-folding and sarcasm, had its origins partly in the Philippines in 1985, when the dictator Marcos called an opportunist “snap election” and the voters decided to take him seriously. They acted “as if” the vote were free and fair, and they made it so. (The forgotten fact that the Soviet ambassador to Manila took the side of Marcos was also a portent of a kind.)

Again, I’ve slipped into recounting these legendary moments as if they vindicated dissenters, as they most certainly do, and as if they were self-evident “good, brave causes,” which they most certainly were. But it’s important to remember the many dreary years when the prospect of victory appeared quite unattainable. On every day of those years, the “as if ” pose had to be kept up, until its cumulative effect could be felt. Many of the greatest “as if ” practitioners—including Thompson himself, and men like Frantisek Kriegel in then Czechoslovakia—did not live long enough to see the grand production for which they had kept up the optimistic but phlegmatic rehearsals.

One could add further examples. In the late Victorian period, Oscar Wilde —master of the pose but not a mere poseur—decided to live and act “as if ” moral hypocrisy were not regnant. In the Deep South in the early 1960s, Rosa Parks (after some arduous dress rehearsals of her own) decided to act “as if” a hardworking black woman could sit down on a bus at the end of the day’s labor. In Moscow in the 1970s, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn resolved to write “as if ” an individual scholar could investigate the history of his own country, and publish his findings. They all, by behaving literally, acted ironically. In each case, as we know now, the authorities were forced first to act crassly and then to look crass, and eventually to fall victim to stern verdicts from posterity. However, this was by no means the guaranteed outcome and there must have been days when the “as if” style was exceedingly hard to keep up.

All I can recommend, therefore (apart from the study of these and other good examples) is that you try to cultivate some of this attitude. In an average day, you may well be confronted with some species of bullying or bigotry, or some ill-phrased appeal to the general will, or some petty abuse of authority. If you have a political loyalty, you may be offered a shady reason for agreeing to a lie or a half-truth that serves some short-term purpose. Everybody devises tactics for getting through such moments; try behaving “as if” they need not be tolerated and are not inevitable.”

(Christopher Hitchens – Letters to a Young Contrarian)

Leadership Lessons

The autobiography of A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, rightly known as the “Missile Man” of India, titled “Wings of Fire” is replete with leadership and management lessons. I particularly fancied his methodology of facing failure with magnanimity and learning from it instead of name calling or passing the buck. Here, I share few such lessons in Leadership and Management from his book.

Wings of Fire – An Autobiography

“I laid the foundation for Stage IV (of SLV-3) on two rocks—sensible approximation and unawed support. I have always considered the price of perfection prohibitive and allowed mistakes as a part of the learning process. I prefer a dash of daring and persistence to perfection. I have always supported learning on the part of my team members by paying vigilant attention to each of their attempts, be they successful or unsuccessful. In my group, progress was recognized and reinforced at every tiny step. Although I provided access to all the information that my co-workers in Stage IV needed, I found I could not spend enough time to be a useful facilitator and a source of support. I wondered if there was something wrong with the way in which I managed my time. At this stage, Prof. Sarabhai brought a French visitor to our work centre to point out the problem to me. This gentleman was Prof. Curien, President of CNES (Centre Nationale de Etudes Spatiales), our counterpart in France. They were then developing the Diamont launch vehicles. Prof. Curien was a thorough professional. Together, Prof. Sarabhai and Prof. Curien helped me set a target. While they discussed the means by which I could reach it, they also cautioned me about the possibilities of failure. While I arrived at a better awareness of Stage IV problems through the supportive counselling of Prof. Curien, Prof. Sarabhai’s catalytic intervention led Prof. Curien to reinterpret his own progress in the Diamont programme. Prof. Curien advised Prof. Sarabhai to relieve me of all the minor jobs which posed little challenge and to give me more opportunities for achievement. He was so impressed by our well-planned efforts that he inquired if we could make the Diamont’s fourth stage. I recall how this brought a subtle smile to Prof. Sarabhai’s face. As a matter of fact, the Diamont and SLV airframes were incompatible. The diameters were quite different and to attain interchangeability, some radical innovations were required. I wondered where I should start. I decided to look around for solutions among my own colleagues. I used to carefully observe my colleagues to see if their daily routine reflected their desire to constantly experiment. I also started asking and listening to anyone who showed the slightest promise. Some of my friends cautioned me about what they termed as my naivete. I made it an unfailing routine to make notes on individual suggestions and gave handwritten notes to colleagues in engineering and design, requesting concrete follow-up action within five or ten days. This method worked wonderfully well. Prof. Curien testified, while reviewing our progress, that we had achieved in a year’s time what our counterparts in Europe could barely manage in three years. Our plus point, he noted, was that each of us worked with those below and above in the hierarchy. I made it a point to have the team meet at least once every week. Though it took up time and energy, I considered it essential. How good is a leader? No better than his people and their commitment and participation in the project as full partners! The fact that I got them all together to share whatever little development had been achieved— results, experiences, small successes, and the like —seemed to me worth putting all my energy and time into. It was a very small price to pay for that commitment and sense of teamwork, which could in fact be called trust. Within my own small group of people I found leaders, and learned that leaders exist at every level. This was another important aspect of management that I learned.
We had modified the existing SLV-IV Stage design to suit the Diamont airframe. It was reconfigured and upgraded from a 250 kg, 400 mm diameter stage to a 600 kg, 650 mm diameter stage. After two years’ effort, when we were about to deliver it to CNES, the French suddenly cancelled their Diamont BC programme. They told us that they did not need our Stage IV anymore. It was a great shock, making me re-live the earlier disappointments at Dehra Dun, when I failed to get into the Air Force, and at Bangalore, when the Nandi project was aborted at ADE. I had invested great hope and effort in the fourth stage, so that it could be flown with a Diamont rocket. The other three stages of SLV, involving enormous work in the area of rocket propulsion were at least five years away. However, it did not take me long to shelve the disappointment of Diamont BC Stage IV. After all, I had thoroughly enjoyed working on this project. In time, RATO filled the vacuum created in me by the Diamont BC Stage. When the RATO project was underway, the SLV project slowly started taking shape. Competence for all major systems of a launch vehicle had been established in Thumba by now. Through their outstanding efforts, Vasant Gowarikar, MR Kurup and Muthunayagam prepared TERLS for a big leap in rocketry.
Prof. Sarabhai was an exemplar in the art of team-building. On one occasion, he had to identify a person who could be given the responsibility for developing a telecommand system for the SLV. Two men were competent to carry out this task—one was the seasoned and sophisticated UR Rao and the other was a relatively unknown experimenter, G Madhavan Nair. Although I was deeply impressed by Madhavan Nair’s dedication and abilities, I did not rate his chances as very good. During one of Prof. Sarabhai’s routine visits, Madhavan Nair boldly demonstrated his improvised but highly reliable telecommand system. Prof. Sarabhai did not take much time to back the young experimenter in preference to an established expert. Madhavan Nair not only lived up to the expectations of his leader but even went beyond them. He was to later become the project director of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV).
SLVs and missiles can be called first cousins: they are different in concept and purpose, but come from the same bloodline of rocketry. A massive missile development project had been taken up by DRDO at the Defence Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad. As the pace of this surface-to-air missile development project increased, the frequency of the Missile Panel meetings and my interaction with Gp Capt Narayanan also increased. In 1968, Prof. Sarabhai came to Thumba on one of his routine visits. He was shown the operation of the nosecone jettisoning mechanism. As always, we were all anxious to share the results of our work with Prof. Sarabhai. We requested Prof. Sarabhai to formally activate the pyro system through a timer circuit. Prof. Sarabhai smiled, and pressed the button. To our horror, nothing happened. We were dumbstruck. I looked at Pramod Kale, who had designed and integrated the timer circuit. In a flash each of us mentally went through an anlysis of the failure. We requested Prof. Sarabhai to wait for a few minutes, then we detached the timer device, giving direct connection to the pyros. Prof. Sarabhai pressed the button again. The pyros were fired and the nose cone was jettisoned. Prof. Sarabhai congratulated Kale and me; but his expression suggested that his thoughts were elsewhere. We could not guess what was on his mind. The suspense did not last for long and I got a call from Prof. Sarabhai’s secretary to meet him after dinner for an important discussion. Prof. Sarabhai was staying at the Kovalam Palace Hotel, his usual home whenever he was in Trivandrum. I was slightly perplexed by the summons. Prof. Sarabhai greeted me with his customary warmth. He talked of the rocket launching station, envisaging facilities like launch pads, block houses, radar, telemetry and so on—things which are taken for granted in Indian space research today. Then he brought up the incident that had occurred that morning. This was exactly what I had feared. My apprehension of a reproach from my leader, however, was unfounded. Prof. Sarabhai did not conclude that the failure of the pyro timer circuit was the outcome of insufficient knowledge and lack of skill on the part of his people or of faulty understanding at the direction stage. He asked me instead, if we were unenthused by a job that did not pose sufficient challenge. He also asked me to consider if my work was possibly being affected by any problem of which I was hitherto unaware. He finally put his finger on the key issue. We lacked a single roof to carry out system integration of all our rocket stages and rocket systems. Electrical and mechanical integration work was going on with a significant phase difference—both in time and in space. There was little effort to bring together the disparate work on electrical and mechanical integration. Prof. Sarabhai spent the next hour in redefining our tasks, and, in the small hours of the morning, the decision to set up a Rocket Engineering Section was taken. Mistakes can delay or prevent the proper achievement of the objectives of individuals and organizations, but a visionary like Prof. Sarabhai can use errors as opportunities to promote innovation and the development of new ideas. He was not especially concerned with the mistake in the timer circuit, least of all with pinning the blame for it. Prof. Sarabhai’s approach to mistakes rested on the assumption that they were inevitable but generally manageable. It was in the handling of the crises that arose as a consequence that talent could often be revealed. I later realised by experience, that the best way to prevent errors was to anticipate them. But this time, by a strange twist of fate, the failure of the timer circuit led to the birth of a rocket engineering laboratory.
It was my usual practice to brief Prof. Sarabhai after every Missile Panel Meeting. After attending one such meeting in Delhi on 30 December 1971, I was returning to Trivandrum. Prof. Sarabhai was visiting Thumba that very day to review the SLV design. I spoke to him on the telephone from the airport lounge about the salient points that had emerged at the panel meeting. He instructed me to wait at Trivandrum Airport after disembarking from the Delhi flight, and to meet him there before his departure for Bombay the same night. When I reached Trivandrum, a pall of gloom hung in the air. The aircraft ladder operator Kutty told me in a choked voice that Prof. Sarabhai was no more. He had passed away a few hours ago, following a cardiac arrest. I was shocked to the core; it had happened within an hour of our conversation. It was a great blow to me and a huge loss to Indian science. That night passed in preparations for airlifting Prof. Sarabhai’s body for the cremation in Ahmedabad. For five years, between 1966 to 1971, about 22 scientists and engineers had worked closely with Prof. Sarabhai. All of them were later to take charge of important scientific projects. Not only was Prof. Sarabhai a great scientist, but also a great leader. I still remember him reviewing the bi-monthly progress of the design projects of SLV-3 in June 1970. Presentations on Stages I to IV were arranged. The first three presentations went through smoothly. Mine was the last presentation. I introduced five of my team members who had contributed in various ways to the design. To everybody’s surprise, each of them presented his portion of the work with authority and confidence. The presentations were discussed at length and the conclusion was that satisfactory progress had been made. Suddenly, a senior scientist who worked closely with Prof. Sarabhai turned to me and enquired, “Well, the presentations for your project were made by your team members based on their work. But what did you do for the project?” That was the first time I saw Prof. Sarabhai really annoyed. He told his colleague, “You ought to know what project management is all about. We just witnessed an excellent example. It was an outstanding demonstration of team work. I have always seen a project leader as an integrator of people and that is precisely what Kalam is.” I consider Prof. Sarabhai as the Mahatma Gandhi of Indian science—generating leadership qualities in his team and inspiring them through both ideas and example.”

– Wings of Fire: An Autobiography, pp 51-55

“Anyone who has taken up the responsibility to lead a team can be successful only if he is sufficiently independent, powerful and influential in his own right to become a person to reckon with. This is perhaps also the path to individual satisfaction in life, for freedom with responsibility is the only sound basis for personal happiness. What can one do to strengthen personal freedom? I would like to share with you two techniques I adopt in this regard.
First, by building your own education and skills. Knowledge is a tangible asset, quite often the most important tool in your work. The more up-to-date the knowledge you possess, the freer you are. Knowledge cannot be taken away from anyone except by obsolescence. A leader can only be free to lead his team if he keeps abreast of all that is happening around him—in real time. To lead, in a way, is to engage in continuing education. In many countries, it is normal for professionals to go to college several nights every week. To be a successful team leader, one has to stay back after the din and clutter of a working day to emerge better-equipped and ready to face a new day. The second way is to develop a passion for personal responsibility. The sovereign way to personal freedom is to help determine the forces that determine you. Be active! Take on responsibility! Work for the things you believe in. If you do not, you are surrendering your fate to others. The historian Edith Hamilton wrote of ancient Greece, “When the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again”. The truth is that there is a great deal that most of us can individually do to increase our freedom. We can combat the forces that threaten to oppress us. We can fortify ourselves with the qualities and conditions that promote individual freedom. In doing so, we help to create a stronger organization, capable of achieving unprecedented goals.”

– Wings of Fire: An Autobiography, pp 63-64

“The pursuit of science is a combination of great elation and great despair. I went over many such episodes in my mind. Johannes Kepler, whose three orbital laws form the basis of space research, took nearly 17 years after formulating the two laws about planetary motion around the sun, to enunciate his third law which gives the relation between the size of the elliptical orbit and the length of time it takes for the planet to go around the sun. How many failures and frustrations must he have gone through? The idea that man could land on the moon, developed by the Russian mathematician Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, was realised after nearly four decades —and by the United States, at that. Prof. Chandrasekhar had to wait nearly 50 years before receiving the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the ‘Chandrasekhar Limit’, a discovery made while he was a graduate student at Cambridge in the 1930s. If his work had been recognized then, it could have led to the discovery of the Black Hole decades earlier. How many failures must von Braun have gone through before his Saturn launch vehicle put man on the moon? These thoughts helped to give me the ability to withstand apparently irreversible setbacks.”

– Wings of Fire: An Autobiography, pp 76-77

“A basic aspect of a person’s working style is how he plans and organizes tasks. At one extreme is the cautious planner, who carefully spells out each step before making any move. With a sharp eye for what can possibly go wrong, he tries to cover all contingencies. At the other end is the fast mover, who weaves and dodges without a plan. Inspired by an idea, the fast mover is always ready for action. Another aspect of a person’s working style is control—the energy and attention devoted to ensuring that things happen in a certain way. At one extreme is the tight controller, a strict administrator with frequent checkpoints. Rules and policies are to be followed with religious fervour. At the opposite end are those who move with freedom and flexibility. They have little patience for bureaucracy. They delegate easily and give their subordinates wide latitude for movement. I wanted leaders who tread the middle path, those who could control without stifling dissent or being rigid. I wanted men who had the capability to grow with possibilities, with the patience to explore all possible alternatives, with the wisdom to apply old principles to new situations; people with the skill to negotiate their way forward. I wanted them to be accommodating, to be willing to share their power with others and work in teams, delegating good jobs, assimilating fresh opinions, respecting intelligent people, and listening to wise counsel. They would have to be able to sort out things amicably, and take responsibility for slip-ups. Above all, they should be able to take failure in their stride and share in both success and failure.”

– Wings of Fire: An Autobiography, pp 101-102

What makes a productive leader? In my opinion, a productive leader must be very competent in staffing. He should continually introduce new blood into the organization. He must be adept at dealing with problems and new concepts. The problems encountered by an R&D organization typically involve trade-offs among a wide variety of known and unknown parameters. Skill in handling these complex entities is important in achieving high productivity. The leader must be capable of instilling enthusiasm in his team. He should give appropriate credit where it is due; praise publicly, but criticize privately.

– Wings of Fire: An Autobiography, p 103

“We had our home-grown, but effective, management techniques. One such technique was concerned with followup of project activities. It basically consisted of analysing the technical as well as procedural applicability of a possible solution, testing it with the work centres, discussing it with the general body of associates and implementing it after enlisting everybody’s support. A large number of original ideas sprung up from the grass root level of participating work centres. If you were to ask me to indicate the single most important managerial tactic in this successful programme, I would point to the pro-active follow-up. Through follow-up on the work done at different laboratories on design, planning, supporting services, and by the inspection agencies and academic institutions, rapid progress has been achieved in the most harmonious manner. In fact, the work code in the Guided Missile Programme Office was: if you need to write a letter to a work centre, send a fax; if you need to send a telex or fax, telephone; and if the need arises for telephonic discussions, visit the place personally.”

– Wings of Fire: An Autobiography, p 108

Importance of Al Adab Al Jahiliyya in Understanding the Qur’an

Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه said, “O people, hold tightly onto your Divan, the verse of Al Jahiliyya. Because in it, is the Tafseer of your Book and meaning of your words.

فَقَالَ عُمَرُ: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ، عَلَيْكُمْ بِدِيوَانِكُمْ شِعْرِ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ فَإِنَّ فِيهِ تَفْسِيرَ كِتَابِكُمْ وَمَعَانِيَ كَلَامِكُمْ.
تفسير قرطبي ج١٠ ص١١١

I quote a dialogue between Abdullah bin Abbaas raziallahuanhuma and Naafi’ bin Al Azraq regrading meanings of different words of the holy Qur’an from the second volume of Al Itqaan fi Uloom il Quran (Arabic) by Imaam Jalal ud Din Suyuti rahimahullah.

ﻋﻦ ﺣﻤﻴﺪ اﻷﻋﺮﺝ ﻭﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺑﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺟﺎﻟﺲ ﺑﻔﻨﺎء اﻟﻜﻌﺒﺔ ﻗﺪ اﻛﺘﻨﻔﻪ اﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﺴﺄﻟﻮﻧﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ: ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﺑﻦ اﻷﺯﺭﻕ ﻟﻨﺠﺪﺓ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻮﻳﻤﺮ: ﻗﻢ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺠﺘﺮﺉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ اﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﺑﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ: ﻓﻘﺎﻣﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﺎﻻ: ﺇﻧﺎ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺄﻟﻚ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺷﻴﺎء ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﺘﻔﺴﺮﻫﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺗﺄﺗﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﻤﺼﺎﺩﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻼﻡ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻓﺈﻥ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﺰﻝ اﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﺑﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﺮﺑﻲ ﻣﺒﻴﻦ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ: ﺳﻼﻧﻲ ﻋﻤﺎ ﺑﺪا ﻟﻜﻤﺎ

ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻋﻦ اﻟﻴﻤﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﻦ اﻟﺸﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﺰﻳﻦ}
، ﻗﺎﻝ اﻟﻌﺰﻭﻥ: اﻟﺤﻠﻖ اﻟﺮﻓﺎﻕ، ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﻷﺑﺮﺹ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻓﺠﺎﺅا ﻳﻬﺮﻋﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺣﺖ
ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮا ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻨﺒﺮﻩ ﻋﺰﻳﻨﺎ

Nafi’ said: Tell me about the saying of Allah Ta’aala: {ﻋﻦ اﻟﻴﻤﻴﻦ ﻭﻋﻦ اﻟﺸﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﺰﻳﻦ}

Abdullah ra said: Al ‘Izoon means encircling by friends.

Nafi’ asked: Does the Arab people know that?

Abdullah ra said: Yes. Haven’t you heard Ubaid bin Al Abras, He says:

They came running towards him until they gathered around his pulpit encircling him. 

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: {ﻭاﺑﺘﻐﻮا ﺇﻟﻴﻪ اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﺟﺔ، ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻋﻨﺘﺮﺓ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺇﻥ اﻟﺮﺟﺎﻝ ﻟﻬﻢ ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ
ﺇﻥ ﻳﺄﺧﺬﻭﻙ ﺗﻜﺤﻠﻲ ﻭﺗﺨﻀﺒﻲ

Nafi’ said: Tell me about the saying of Allah Ta’aala: {ﻭاﺑﺘﻐﻮا ﺇﻟﻴﻪ اﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ}

Abdullah ra said: Al Waseela means the need.

Nafi’ asked: Does the Arab people know that?

Abdullah ra said: Yes. Haven’t you heard ‘Antara, He says:

Men have a need for you to take you, so put on kohl and henna.

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: {ﺷﺮﻋﺔ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎﺟﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺸﺮﻋﺔ: اﻟﺪﻳﻦ، ﻭاﻟﻤﻨﻬﺎﺝ: اﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ. ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﺃﺑﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ اﺑﻦ اﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻤﻄﻠﺐ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﻄﻖ اﻟﻤﺄﻣﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﻭاﻟﻬﺪﻯ
ﻭﺑﻴﻦ ﻟﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎﺟﺎ

Nafi’ said: Tell me about the saying of Allah Ta’aala: {ﺷﺮﻋﺔ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎﺟﺎ}

Abdullah ra said: Al Shir’atan means the religion and Al Minhaaj means the path or way.

Nafi’ asked: Does the Arab people know that?

Abdullah ra said: Yes. Haven’t you heard Abu Sufyan bin Al Haris bin Abdul Muttalib, He says:

The saved one has talked with the truth and guidance and he has explained a religion and path for Islam.

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ: {ﺇﺫا ﺃﺛﻤﺮ ﻭﻳﻨﻌﻪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻀﺠﻪ ﻭﺑﻼﻏﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺇﺫا ﻣﺎ ﻣﺸﺖ ﻭﺳﻂ اﻟﻨﺴﺎء ﺗﺄﻭﺩﺕ
ﻛﻤﺎ اﻫﺘﺰ ﻏﺼﻦ ﻧﺎﻋﻢ اﻟﻨﺒﺖ ﻳﺎﻧﻊ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺭﻳﺸﺎ}
، ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺮﻳﺶ اﻟﻤﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻓﺮﺷﻨﻲ ﺑﺨﻴﺮ ﻃﺎﻟﻤﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺑﺮﻳﺘﻨﻲ
ﻭﺧﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻮاﻟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﻳﺶ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺒﺮﻱ

ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ: ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﻠﻘﻨﺎ اﻷﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺒﺪ}
، ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻓﻲ اﻋﺘﺪاﻝ ﻭاﺳﺘﻘﺎﻣﺔ، ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻳﺎ ﻋﻴﻦ ﻫﻼ ﺑﻜﻴﺖ ﺃﺭﺑﺪ ﺇﺫ
ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ اﻟﺨﺼﻮﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺒﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﻜﺎﺩ ﺳﻨﺎ ﺑﺮﻗﻪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺴﻨﺎ اﻟﻀﻮء، ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﺃﺑﺎ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﺇﻟﻰ اﻟﺤﻖ ﻻ ﻳﺒﻐﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺪﻻ
ﻳﺠﻠﻮ ﺑﻀﻮء ﺳﻨﺎﻩ ﺩاﺟﻲ اﻟﻈﻠﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺣﻔﺪﺓ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻟﺪ اﻟﻮﻟﺪ ﻭﻫﻢ اﻷﻋﻮاﻥ، ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺣﻔﺪ اﻟﻮﻻﺋﺪ ﺣﻮﻟﻬﻦ ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻤﺖ
ﺑﺄﻛﻔﻬﻦ ﺃﺯﻣﺔ اﻷﺟﻤﺎﻝ

ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺣﻨﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﺪﻧﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺃﺑﺎ ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﺃﻓﻨﻴﺖ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﺒﻖ ﺑﻌﻀﻨﺎ
ﺣﻨﺎﻧﻴﻚ ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺸﺮ ﺃﻫﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺾ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻴﺄﺱ اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺁﻣﻨﻮا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ اﺑﻦ ﻋﻮﻑ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻟﻘﺪ ﻳﺌﺲ اﻷﻗﻮاﻡ ﺃﻧﻲ ﺃﻧﺎ اﺑﻨﻪ
ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺭﺽ اﻟﻌﺸﻴﺮﺓ ﻧﺎﺋﺒﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﺜﺒﻮﺭا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﺒﻮﺳﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺨﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺰﺑﻌﺮﻯ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺇﺫ ﺃﺗﺎﻧﻲ اﻟﺸﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ اﻟﻨﻮﻡ
ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﻝ ﻣﻴﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﺒﻮﺭا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﺄﺟﺎءﻫﺎ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﺽ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﻟﺠﺄﻫﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺇﺫ ﺷﺪﺩﻧﺎ ﺷﺪﺓ ﺻﺎﺩﻗﺔ
ﻓﺄﺟﺄﻧﺎﻛﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺳﻔﺢ اﻟﺠﺒﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻧﺪﻳﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﺎﺩﻱ اﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻳﻮﻣﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻧﺪﻳﺔ
ﻭﻳﻮﻡ ﺳﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ اﻷﻋﺪاء ﺗﺄﻭﻳﺐ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﺛﺎﺛﺎ ﻭﺭﺋﻴﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻷﺛﺎﺙ اﻟﻤﺘﺎﻉ، ﻭاﻟﺮﺋﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺸﺮاﺏ. ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﻛﺄﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺤﻤﻮﻝ ﻏﺪاﺓ ﻭﻟﻮا
ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮﺋﻲ اﻟﻜﺮﻳﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻷﺛﺎﺙ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻴﺬﺭﻫﺎ ﻗﺎﻋﺎ ﺻﻔﺼﻔﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻘﺎﻉ اﻷﻣﻠﺲ، ﻭاﻟﺼﻔﺼﻒ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻱ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺑﻤﻠﻤﻮﻣﺔ ﺷﻬﺒﺎء ﻟﻮ ﻗﺬﻓﻮا ﺑﻬﺎ
ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺿﻮﻯ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺻﻔﺼﻔﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺃﻧﻚ ﻻ ﺗﻈﻤﺄ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻀﺤﻰ}
،
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﺗﻌﺮﻕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ ﺣﺮ اﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺭﺃﺕ ﺭﺟﻼ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﺫا اﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻋﺎﺭﺿﺖ
ﻓﻴﻀﺤﻰ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺸﻲ ﻓﻴﺨﺼﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻟﻪ ﺧﻮاﺭ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻟﻪ ﺻﻴﺎﺡ، ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ: ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻛﺄﻥ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺑﻜﺮ
ﺇﻟﻰ اﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﺻﺎﺋﺤﺔ ﺗﺨﻮﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻻ ﺗﻨﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻛﺮﻱ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﺗﻀﻌﻔﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻣﺮﻱ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺇﻧﻲ ﻭﺟﺪﻙ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻧﻴﺖ ﻭﻟﻢ ﺃﺯﻝ
ﺃﺑﻐﻲ اﻟﻔﻜﺎﻙ ﻟﻪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﻟﻘﺎﻧﻊ ﻭاﻟﻤﻌﺘﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻘﺎﻧﻊ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻨﻊ ﺑﻤﺎ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﻭاﻟﻤﻌﺘﺮ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﺽ اﻷﺑﻮاﺏ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻜﺜﺮﻳﻬﻢ ﺣﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻳﻬﻢ
ﻭﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻤﻘﻠﻴﻦ اﻟﺴﻤﺎﺣﺔ ﻭاﻟﺒﺬﻝ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻗﺼﺮ ﻣﺸﻴﺪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﺸﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﺺ ﻭاﻵﺧﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻋﺪﻱ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ:
ﺷﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﺮﻣﺮا ﻭﺟﻠﻠﻪ ﻛﻠﺴﺎ
ﻓﻠﻠﻄﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺫﺭاﻩ ﻭﻛﻮﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺷﻮاﻅ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺸﻮاﻅ اﻟﻠﻬﺐ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﺩﺧﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ اﻟﺼﻠﺖ:
ﻳﻈﻞ ﻳﺸﺐ ﻛﻴﺮا ﺑﻌﺪ ﻛﻴﺮ
ﻭﻳﻨﻔﺦ ﺩاﺋﺒﺎ ﻟﻬﺐ اﻟﺸﻮاﻅ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻗﺪ ﺃﻓﻠﺢ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻓﺎﺯﻭا ﻭﺳﻌﺪﻭا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻴﻌﺔ:
ﻓﺎﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻘﻠﻲ
ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻓﻠﺢ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻘﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﺆﻳﺪ ﺑﻨﺼﺮﻩ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺸﺎء}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﻘﻮﻱ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ:
ﺑﺮﺟﺎﻝ ﻟﺴﺘﻤﻮا ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻟﻬﻢ
ﺃﻳﺪﻭا ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻧﺼﺮا ﻓﻨﺰﻝ

ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻧﺤﺎﺱ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻫﻮ اﻟﺪﺧﺎﻥ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻟﻬﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻳﻀﻲء ﻛﻀﻮء ﺳﺮاﺝ اﻟﺴﻠﻴﻂ
ﻟﻢ ﻳﺠﻌﻞ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻧﺤﺎﺳﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻣﺸﺎﺝ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﺧﺘﻼﻁ ﻣﺎء اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻭﻣﺎء اﻟﻤﺮﺃﺓ ﺇﺫا ﻭﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺮﺣﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺫﺅﻳﺐ:
ﻛﺄﻥ اﻟﺮﻳﺶ ﻭاﻟﻔﻮﻕ ﻣﻨﻪ
ﺧﻼﻝ اﻟﻨﺼﻞ ﺧﺎﻟﻄﻪ ﻣﺸﻴﺞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻓﻮﻣﻬﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺤﻨﻄﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻣﺤﺠﻦ اﻟﺜﻘﻔﻲ:
ﻗﺪ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺃﺣﺴﺒﻨﻲ ﻛﺄﻏﻨﻰ ﻭاﺣﺪ
ﻗﺪﻡ اﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺯﺭاﻋﺔ ﻓﻮﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺳﺎﻣﺪﻭﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺴﻤﻮﺩ اﻟﻠﻬﻮ ﻭاﻟﺒﺎﻃﻞ. ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻫﺰﻳﻠﺔ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺑﻜﺮ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺒﻜﻲ ﻗﻮﻡ ﻋﺎﺩ:
ﻟﻴﺖ ﻋﺎﺩا ﻗﺒﻠﻮا اﻟﺤﻖ
ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺒﺪﻭا ﺟﺤﻮﺩا
ﻗﻴﻞ ﻓﻘﻢ ﻓﺎﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ
ﺛﻢ ﺩﻉ ﻋﻨﻚ اﻟﺴﻤﻮﺩا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻏﻮﻝ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﺘﻦ ﻭﻻ ﻛﺮاﻫﻴﺔ ﻛﺨﻤﺮ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻣﺮﺉ اﻟﻘﻴﺲ:
ﺭﺏ ﻛﺄﺱ ﺷﺮﺑﺖ ﻻ ﻏﻮﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ
ﻭﺳﻘﻴﺖ اﻟﻨﺪﻳﻢ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺰاﺟﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭاﻟﻘﻤﺮ ﺇﺫا اﺗﺴﻖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﺗﺴﺎﻗﻪ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ:
ﺇﻥ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﻼﺋﺼﺎ ﻧﻘﺎﻧﻘﺎ
ﻣﺴﺘﻮﺳﻘﺎﺕ ﻟﻮ ﺗﺠﺪﻥ ﺳﺎﺋﻘﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻫﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺪﻭﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺑﺎﻗﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻳﺨﺮﺟﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺑﺪا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻱ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ:
ﻓﻬﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺇﻣﺎ ﻫﻠﻜﻨﺎ
ﻭﻫﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻮﺕ ﻳﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺟﻔﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻟﺠﻮاﺏ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﺎﻟﺤﻴﺎﺽ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ:
ﻛﺎﻟﺠﻮاﺑﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻲ ﻣﺘﺮﻋﺔ
ﻟﻘﺮﻯ اﻷﺿﻴﺎﻑ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺘﻀﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻴﻄﻤﻊ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﻣﺮﺽ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻔﺠﻮﺭ ﻭاﻟﺰﻧﻰ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺝ ﺭاﺽ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻘﻰ
ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻤﻦ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﺮﺽ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻦ ﻃﻴﻦ ﻻﺯﺏ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻤﻠﺘﺰﻕ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﻨﺎﺑﻐﺔ:
ﻓﻼ ﻳﺤﺴﺒﻮﻥ اﻟﺨﻴﺮ ﻻ ﺷﺮ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ
ﻭﻻ ﻳﺤﺴﺒﻮﻥ اﻟﺸﺮ ﺿﺮﺑﺔ ﻻﺯﺏ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻧﺪاﺩا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻷﺷﺒﺎﻩ ﻭاﻷﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻴﻌﺔ:
ﺃﺣﻤﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻓﻼ ﻧﺪ ﻟﻪ
ﺑﻴﺪﻳﻪ اﻟﺨﻴﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺷﺎء ﻓﻌﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻟﺸﻮﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻤﻴﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺨﻠﻂ اﻟﺤﻤﻴﻢ ﻭاﻟﻐﺴﺎﻕ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺗﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﻜﺎﺭﻡ ﻻ ﻗﻌﺒﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻟﺒﻦ
ﺷﻴﺒﺎ ﺑﻤﺎء ﻓﻌﺎﺩا ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﺑﻮاﻻ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻋﺠﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﻄﻨﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻘﻂ اﻟﺠﺰاء ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﻭﻻ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻟﻘﻴﺘﻪ
ﺑﻨﻌﻤﺘﻪ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ اﻟﻘﻄﻮﻁ ﻭﻳﻄﻠﻖ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻦ ﺣﻤﺄ ﻣﺴﻨﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺤﻤﺄ اﻟﺴﻮاﺩ ﻭاﻟﻤﺴﻨﻮﻥ اﻟﻤﺼﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﻤﺰﺓ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻤﻄﻠﺐ:
ﺃﻏﺮ ﻛﺄﻥ اﻟﺒﺪﺭ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ
ﺟﻼ اﻟﻐﻴﻢ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺿﻮءﻩ ﻓﺘﺒﺪﺩا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻓﺄﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﻟﺒﺎﺋﺲ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺠﺪ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ اﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ:
ﻳﻐﺸﺎﻫﻢ اﻟﺒﺎﺋﺲ اﻟﻤﺪﻗﻊ
ﻭاﻟﻀﻴﻒ ﻭﺟﺎﺭ ﻣﺠﺎﻭﺭ ﺟﻨﺐ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﺎء ﻏﺪﻗﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﺜﻴﺮا ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺗﺪﻧﻲ ﻛﺮاﺩﻳﺲ ﻣﻠﺘﻔﺎ ﺣﺪاﺋﻘﻬﺎ
ﻛﺎﻟﻨﺒﺖ ﺟﺎﺩﺕ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺃﻧﻬﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻏﺪﻗﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺑﺸﻬﺎﺏ ﻗﺒﺲ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺷﻌﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺭ ﻳﻘﺘﺒﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻃﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻦ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ:
ﻫﻢ ﻋﺮاﻧﻲ ﻓﺒﺖ ﺃﺩﻓﻌﻪ
ﺩﻭﻥ ﺳﻬﺎﺩﻱ ﻛﺸﻌﻠﺔ اﻟﻘﺒﺲ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻋﺬاﺏ ﺃﻟﻴﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻷﻟﻴﻢ اﻟﻮﺟﻴﻊ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻧﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺧﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻟﻢ
ﻭﺑﻘﻴﺖ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﻃﻮﻻ ﻟﻢ ﺃﻧﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻗﻔﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻫﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺗﺒﻌﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ اﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎء ﺃﻱ ﺑﻌﺜﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻱ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ:
ﻳﻮﻡ ﻗﻔﺖ ﻋﻴﺮﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻴﺮﻧﺎ
ﻭاﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ اﻟﺤﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺼﺒﺢ ﻓﻠﻖ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﺫا ﺗﺮﺩﻯ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺇﺫا ﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﺮﺩﻯ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻱ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ:
ﺧﻄﻔﺘﻪ ﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﺘﺮﺩﻯ
ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﻳﺄﻣﻞ اﻟﺘﻌﻤﻴﺮا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻲ ﺟﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﻧﻬﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﻬﺮ اﻟﺴﻌﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻴﻌﺔ:
ﻣﻠﻜﺖ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻛﻔﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﻬﺮﺕ ﻓﺘﻘﻬﺎ
ﻳﺮﻯ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻭﺭاءﻫﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﻷﻧﺎﻡ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻴﻌﺔ:
ﻓﺈﻥ ﺗﺴﺄﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻢ ﻧﺤﻦ ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ
ﻋﺼﺎﻓﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻱ اﻷﻧﺎﻡ اﻟﻤﺴﺤﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻥ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺤﻮﺭ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﻥ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﺤﺒﺸﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻣﺎ اﻟﻤﺮء ﺇﻻ ﻛﺎﻟﺸﻬﺎﺏ ﻭﺿﻮﺋﻪ
ﻳﺤﻮﺭ ﺭﻣﺎﺩا ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﺫ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺎﻃﻊ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﺩﻧﻰ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻌﻮﻟﻮا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺟﺪﻯ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻤﻴﻠﻮا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺇﻧﺎ ﺗﺒﻌﻨﺎ ﻭاﻃﺮﺣﻮا
ﻗﻮﻝ ﻭﻋﺎﻟﻮا ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻮاﺯﻳﻦ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻠﻴﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻤﺴﻲء اﻟﻤﺬﻧﺐ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ اﻟﺼﻠﺖ:
ﻣﻦ اﻵﻓﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻫﻞ
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﻲء ﻫﻮ اﻟﻤﻠﻴﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﺫ ﺗﺤﺴﻮﻧﻬﻢ ﺑﺈﺫﻧﻪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺗﻘﺘﻠﻮﻧﻬﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻣﻨﺎ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻻﻗﻰ ﺑﺴﻴﻒ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ
ﻓﺤﺲ ﺑﻪ اﻷﻋﺪاء ﻋﺮﺽ اﻟﻌﺴﺎﻛﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﺎ ﺃﻟﻔﻴﻨﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﺑﻐﺔ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺫﺑﻴﺎﻥ:
ﻓﺤﺴﺒﻮﻩ ﻓﺄﻟﻔﻮﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺯﻋﻤﺖ
ﺗﺴﻌﺎ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻨﻘﺺ ﻭﻟﻢ ﺗﺰﺩ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺟﻨﻔﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺠﻮﺭ ﻭاﻟﻤﻴﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻱ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ:
ﺃﻣﻚ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻌﻤﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺧﻮاﺗﻬﺎ
ﺗﺄﺗﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻨﻪ ﺟﻨﻔﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺄﺳﺎء ﻭاﻟﻀﺮاء}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺒﺄﺳﺎء اﻟﺨﺼﺐ ﻭاﻟﻀﺮاء اﻟﺠﺪﺏ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺯﻳﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ:
ﺇﻥ اﻹﻟﻪ ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﻭاﺳﻊ ﺣﻜﻢ
ﺑﻜﻔﻪ اﻟﻀﺮ ﻭاﻟﺒﺄﺳﺎء ﻭاﻟﻨﻌﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﻻ ﺭﻣﺰا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﻭاﻟﻮﺣﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﻣﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﻣﺮﺗﻤﺰ
ﺇﻻ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻷﺭﺽ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺯﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻘﺪ ﻓﺎﺯ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺳﻌﺪ ﻭﻧﺠﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺭﻭاﺣﺔ:
ﻭﻋﺴﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻓﻮﺯ ﺛﻤﺖ ﺃﻟﻘﻰ
ﺣﺠﺔ ﺃﺗﻘﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ اﻟﻔﺘﺎﻧﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺳﻮاء ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﻴﻨﻜﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻋﺪﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺗﻼﻗﻴﻨﺎ ﻓﻘﺎﺿﻴﻨﺎ ﺳﻮاء
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺟﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﺤﺎﻝ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﻟﻔﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﺸﺤﻮﻥ}
، ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﻮﻗﺮﺓ اﻟﻤﻤﺘﻠﺌﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﻷﺑﺮﺹ:
ﺷﺤﻨﺎ ﺃﺭﺿﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺨﻴﻞ ﺣﺘﻰ
ﺗﺮﻛﻨﺎﻫﻢ ﺃﺫﻝ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺼﺮاﻁ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺯﻧﻴﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻟﺪ اﻟﺰﻧﻰ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺯﻧﻴﻢ ﺗﺪاﻋﺘﻪ اﻟﺮﺟﺎﻝ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ
ﻛﻤﺎ ﺯﻳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺮﺽ اﻷﺩﻳﻢ اﻷﻛﺎﺭﻉ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻃﺮاﺋﻖ ﻗﺪﺩا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻤﻨﻘﻄﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻭﺯﻳﺪ ﺣﺎﺳﺮ
ﻳﻮﻡ ﻭﻟﺖ ﺧﻴﻞ ﺯﻳﺪ ﻗﺪﺩا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺑﺮﺏ اﻟﻔﻠﻖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺼﺒﺢ ﺇﺫا اﻧﻔﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻇﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻠﻤﻰ:
اﻟﻔﺎﺭﺝ اﻟﻬﻢ ﻣﺴﺪﻭﻻ ﻋﺴﺎﻛﺮﻩ
ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺮﺝ ﻏﻢ اﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ اﻟﻔﻠﻖ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻕ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ اﻟﺼﻠﺖ:
ﻳﺪﻋﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻳﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺧﻼﻕ ﻟﻬﻢ.
ﺇﻻ ﺳﺮاﺑﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻄﺮ ﻭﺃﻏﻼﻝ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﻞ ﻟﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﺘﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻘﺮﻭﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻱ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ:
ﻗﺎﻧﺘﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ ﻳﺮﺟﻮ ﻋﻔﻮﻩ
ﻳﻮﻡ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﻣﺎ اﺩﺧﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺟﺪ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻋﻈﻤﺔ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ اﻟﺼﻠﺖ:
ﻟﻚ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ ﻭاﻟﻨﻌﻤﺎء ﻭاﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺭﺑﻨﺎ
ﻓﻼ ﺷﻲء ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻚ ﺟﺪا ﻭﺃﻣﺠﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺣﻤﻴﻢ ﺁﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻵﻥ اﻟﺬﻱ اﻧﺘﻬﻰ ﻃﺒﺨﻪ ﻭﺣﺮﻩ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﺑﻐﺔ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺫﺑﻴﺎﻥ:
ﻭﻳﺨﻀﺐ ﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﻏﺪﺭﺕ ﻭﺣﺎﻧﺖ
ﺑﺄﺣﻤﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺠﻴﻊ اﻟﺨﻮﻑ ﺁﻥ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺳﻠﻘﻮﻛﻢ ﺑﺄﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺣﺪاﺩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻄﻌﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﻓﻴﻬﻢ اﻟﺨﺼﺐ ﻭاﻟﺴﻤﺎﺣﺔ ﻭاﻟﻨﺠﺪﺓ
ﻓﻴﻬﻢ ﻭاﻟﺨﺎﻃﺐ اﻟﻤﺴﻼﻕ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺃﻛﺪﻯ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﺪﺭﻩ ﺑﻤﻨﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺃﻋﻄﻰ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ﺛﻢ ﺃﻛﺪﻯ ﺑﻤﻨﻪ
ﻭﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﺸﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﺤﻤﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﻭﺯﺭ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻮﺯﺭ اﻟﻤﻠﺠﺄ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﻛﻠﺜﻮﻡ:
ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻙ ﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺻﺨﺮﺓ
ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻙ ﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺯﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻗﻀﻰ ﻧﺤﺒﻪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺟﻠﻪ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﺭ ﻟﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺑﻴﻌﺔ:
ﺃﻻ ﺗﺴﺄﻻﻥ اﻟﻤﺮء ﻣﺎﺫا ﻳﺤﺎﻭﻝ
ﺃﻧﺤﺐ ﻓﻴﻘﻀﻰ ﺃﻡ ﺿﻼﻝ ﻭﺑﺎﻃﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺫﻭ ﻣﺮﺓ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺫﻭ ﺷﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻣﺮ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﺑﻐﺔ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺫﺑﻴﺎﻥ:
ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻗﺮﻯ ﺫﻱ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺣﺎﺯﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﻟﻤﻌﺼﺮاﺕ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺴﺤﺎﺏ ﻳﻌﺼﺮ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻀﺎ ﻓﻴﺨﺮﺝ اﻟﻤﺎء ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺴﺤﺎﺑﺘﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﻨﺎﺑﻐﺔ:
ﺗﺠﺮ ﺑﻬﺎ اﻷﺭﻭاﺡ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﻤﺄﻝ
ﻭﺑﻴﻦ ﺻﺒﺎﻫﺎ اﻟﻤﻌﺼﺮاﺕ اﻟﺪﻭاﻣﺲ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺳﻨﺸﺪ ﻋﻀﺪﻙ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻌﻀﺪ اﻟﻤﻌﻴﻦ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﻨﺎﺑﻐﺔ:
ﻓﻲ ﺫﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻮﺱ ﻣﻨﻘﺬﺓ
ﻟﻠﺨﺎﺋﻔﻴﻦ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻀﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻲ اﻟﻐﺎﺑﺮﻳﻦ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﺎﻗﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﻷﺑﺮﺹ:
ﺫﻫﺒﻮا ﻭﺧﻠﻔﻨﻲ اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻒ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ
ﻓﻜﺄﻧﻨﻲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻐﺎﺑﺮﻳﻦ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻼ ﺗﺄﺱ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﺗﺤﺰﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻣﺮﺉ اﻟﻘﻴﺲ:
ﻭﻗﻮﻓﺎ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺻﺤﺒﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﻄﻴﻬﻢ
ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﻻ ﺗﻬﻠﻚ ﺃﺳﻰ ﻭﺗﺠﻤﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﺼﺪﻓﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﻌﺮﺿﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﻖ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ:
ﻋﺠﺒﺖ ﻟﺤﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﺎ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﺪا
ﻟﻪ ﺻﺪﻓﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻖ ﻣﻨﺰﻝ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﺴﻞ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺗﺤﺒﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ:
ﻭﻓﺎﺭﻗﺘﻚ ﺑﺮﻫﻦ ﻻ ﻓﻜﺎﻙ ﻟﻪ
ﻳﻮﻡ اﻟﻮﺩاﻉ ﻓﻘﻠﺒﻲ ﻣﺒﺴﻞ ﻏﻠﻘﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻓﻠﺖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺯاﻟﺖ اﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺒﺪ اﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻛﻌﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ:
ﻓﺘﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻘﻤﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﻴﺮ ﻟﻔﻘﺪﻩ
ﻭاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺴﻔﺖ ﻭﻛﺎﺩﺕ ﺗﺄﻓﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﺎﻟﺼﺮﻳﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺬاﻫﺐ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻏﺪﻭﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻏﺪﻭﺓ ﻓﻮﺟﺪﺗﻪ
ﻗﻌﻮﺩا ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﺮﻳﻢ ﻋﻮاﺫﻟﻪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺗﻔﺘﺄ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﺗﺰاﻝ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻙ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﺄ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﺧﺎﻟﺪا
ﻭﻗﺪ ﻏﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻏﺎﻝ ﺗﺒﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺧﺸﻴﺔ ﺇﻣﻼﻕ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﺨﺎﻓﺔ اﻟﻔﻘﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺇﻧﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻹﻣﻼﻕ ﻳﺎ ﻗﻮﻡ ﻣﺎﺟﺪ
ﺃﻋﺪ ﻷﺿﻴﺎﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﻮاء اﻟﻤﻀﻬﺒﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺣﺪاﺋﻖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺒﺴﺎﺗﻴﻦ ﻓﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺑﻼﺩ ﺳﻘﺎﻫﺎ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻬﻮﻟﻬﺎ
ﻓﻘﻀﺐ ﻭﺩﺭ ﻣﻐﺪﻕ ﻭﺣﺪاﺋﻖ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻘﻴﺘﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻗﺎﺩﺭا ﻣﻘﺘﺪﺭا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺣﻴﺤﺔ اﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ:
ﻭﺫﻱ ﺿﻐﻦ ﻛﻔﻔﺖ اﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻋﻨﻪ
ﻭﻛﻨﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺎءﺗﻪ ﻣﻘﻴﺘﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻻ ﻳﺆﻭﺩﻩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﻳﺜﻘﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻳﻌﻄﻲ اﻟﻤﺌﻴﻦ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺆﻭﺩﻩ ﺣﻤﻠﻬﺎ
ﻣﺤﺾ اﻟﻀﺮاﺋﺐ ﻣﺎﺟﺪ اﻷﺧﻼﻕ

ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺳﺮﻳﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﻬﺮ اﻟﺼﻐﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺳﻬﻞ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎﺟﺪ ﺫﻭ ﻧﺎﺋﻞ
ﻣﺜﻞ اﻟﺴﺮﻱ ﺗﻤﺪﻩ اﻷﻧﻬﺎﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻛﺄﺳﺎ ﺩﻫﺎﻗﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻸﻯ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺃﺗﺎﻧﺎ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﻳﺮﺟﻮ ﻗﺮاﻧﺎ
ﻓﺄﺗﺮﻋﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻛﺄﺳﺎ ﺩﻫﺎﻗﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻟﻜﻨﻮﺩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﻔﻮﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﻌﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﻛﻞ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻭﻳﻤﻨﻊ ﺭﻓﺪﻩ ﻭﻳﺠﻴﻊ ﻋﺒﺪﻩ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺷﻜﺮﺕ ﻟﻪ ﻳﻮﻡ اﻟﻌﻜﺎﻅ ﻧﻮاﻟﻪ
ﻭﻟﻢ ﺃﻙ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺛﻢ ﻛﻨﻮﺩا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﺴﻴﻨﻐﻀﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﺭﺅﻭﺳﻬﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﺤﺮﻛﻮﻥ ﺭﺅﻭﺳﻬﻢ اﺳﺘﻬﺰاء ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺃﺗﻨﻐﺾ ﻟﻲ ﻳﻮﻡ اﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﻯ
ﺧﻴﻮﻻ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﺿﻮاﺭﻳﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﻬﺮﻋﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﻘﺒﻠﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻀﺐ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺃﺗﻮﻧﺎ ﻳﻬﺮﻋﻮﻥ ﻭﻫﻢ ﺃﺳﺎﺭﻯ
ﻧﺴﻮﻗﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻏﻢ اﻷﻧﻮﻑ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺑﺌﺲ اﻟﺮﻓﺪ اﻟﻤﺮﻓﻮﺩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺑﺌﺲ اﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﻠﻌﻨﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻻ ﺗﻘﺬﻓﻦ ﺑﺮﻛﻦ ﻻ ﻛﻔﺎء ﻟﻪ
ﻭﺇﻥ ﺗﺄﺛﻔﻚ اﻷﻋﺪاء ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻓﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻏﻴﺮ ﺗﺘﺒﻴﺐ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺗﺨﺴﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﺸﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺣﺎﺯﻡ:
ﻫﻢ ﺟﺪﻋﻮا اﻷﻧﻮﻑ ﻓﺄﻭﻋﺒﻮﻫﺎ
ﻭﻫﻢ ﺗﺮﻛﻮا ﺑﻨﻲ ﺳﻌﺪ ﺗﺒﺎﺑﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﺄﺳﺮ ﺑﺄﻫﻠﻚ ﺑﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ}
ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻄﻊ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺁﺧﺮ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﺳﺤﺮا، ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ ﺑﻦ ﻛﻨﺎﻧﺔ:
ﻭﻧﺎﺋﺤﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻘﻄﻊ ﻟﻴﻞ
ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺟﻞ ﺃﺻﺎﺑﺘﻪ ﺷﻌﻮﺏ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻫﻴﺖ ﻟﻚ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺗﻬﻴﺄﺕ ﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺣﻴﺤﺔ اﻷﻧﺼﺎﺭﻱ:
ﺑﻪ ﺃﺣﻤﻲ اﻟﻤﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﺫا ﺩﻋﺎﻧﻲ
ﺇﺫا ﻣﺎ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻟﻷﺑﻄﺎﻝ ﻫﻴﺘﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﻮﻡ ﻋﺼﻴﺐ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻫﻢ ﺿﺮﺑﻮا ﻗﻮاﻧﺲ ﺧﻴﻞ ﺣﺠﺮ
ﺑﺠﻨﺐ اﻟﺮﺩﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻋﺼﻴﺐ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﺆﺻﺪﺓ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺗﺤﻦ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺟﺒﺎﻝ ﻣﻜﺔ ﻧﺎﻗﺘﻲ
ﻭﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﺑﻮاﺏ ﺻﻨﻌﺎء ﻣﺆﺻﺪﺓ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﻳﺴﺄﻣﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﻭﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻣﻦ اﻟﺨﻮﻑ ﻻ ﺫﻭ ﺳﺄﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺩﺓ
ﻭﻻ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻃﻮﻝ اﻟﺘﻌﺒﺪ ﻳﺠﻬﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻃﻴﺮا ﺃﺑﺎﺑﻴﻞ}
ﻗﺎﻝ ﺫاﻫﺒﺔ ﻭﺟﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻘﻞ اﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻤﻨﺎﻗﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﺃﺭﺟﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﺘﺒﻠﺒﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺭﺅﻭﺳﻬﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻔﻮاﺭﺱ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﻗﺎء ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﻮا
ﺃﺣﻼﺱ ﺧﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺮﺩ ﺃﺑﺎﺑﻴﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺛﻘﻔﺘﻤﻮﻫﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﺟﺪﺗﻤﻮﻫﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ:
ﻓﺈﻣﺎ ﺗﺜﻘﻔﻦ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻟﺆﻱ
ﺟﺬﻳﻤﺔ ﺇﻥ ﻗﺘﻠﻬﻢ ﺩﻭاء

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﺄﺛﺮﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﻌﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﻘﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻄﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻮاﻓﺮ اﻟﺨﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ:
ﻋﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﺧﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺮﻭﻫﺎ
ﺗﺜﻴﺮ اﻟﻨﻘﻊ ﻣﻮﻋﺪﻫﺎ ﻛﺪاء

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻲ ﺳﻮاء اﻟﺠﺤﻴﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﺳﻂ اﻟﺠﺤﻴﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺭﻣﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺴﻬﻢ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﻮﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻮاﺋﻬﺎ
ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺒﻮﻻ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻯ ﺫﻱ اﻟﻄﻮاﺭﻕ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻲ ﺳﺪﺭ ﻣﺨﻀﻮﺩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺷﻮﻙ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ اﻟﺼﻠﺖ:
ﺇﻥ اﻟﺤﺪاﺋﻖ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻨﺎﻥ ﻇﻠﻴﻠﺔ
ﻓﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﻜﻮاﻋﺐ ﺳﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﺨﻀﻮﺩ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻃﻠﻌﻬﺎ ﻫﻀﻴﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻨﻬﻀﻢ ﺑﻌﻀﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻣﺮﺉ اﻟﻘﻴﺲ:
ﺩاﺭ ﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎء اﻟﻌﻮاﺭﺽ ﻃﻔﻠﺔ
ﻣﻬﻀﻮﻣﺔ اﻟﻜﺸﺤﻴﻦ ﺭﻳﺎ اﻟﻤﻌﺼﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻗﻮﻻ ﺳﺪﻳﺪا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻗﻮﻻ ﻋﺪﻻ ﺣﻘﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﻤﺰﺓ:
ﺃﻣﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ اﺳﺘﻮﺩﻉ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ
ﻓﺈﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﻮﻻ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﺴﺪﺩا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﻻ ﻭﻻ ﺫﻣﺔ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻹﻝ اﻟﻘﺮاﺑﺔ ﻭاﻟﺬﻣﺔ اﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺟﺰﻯ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺇﻻ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﻭﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ
ﺟﺰاء ﻇﻠﻮﻡ ﻻ ﻳﺆﺧﺮ ﻋﺎﺟﻼ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺧﺎﻣﺪﻳﻦ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ:
ﺣﻠﻮا ﺛﻴﺎﺑﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻮﺭاﺗﻬﻢ
ﻓﻬﻢ ﺑﺄﻓﻨﻴﺔ اﻟﺒﻴﻮﺕ ﺧﻤﻮﺩ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺯﺑﺮ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻗﻄﻊ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻛﻌﺐ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ:
ﺗﻠﻈﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺷﺪ ﺣﻤﻴﻬﺎ
ﺑﺰﺑﺮ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻭاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺳﺎﺟﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﺴﺤﻘﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺑﻌﺪا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ:
ﺃﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﻠﻎ ﻋﻨﻲ ﺃﺑﻴﺎ
ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻟﻘﻴﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺤﻖ اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﻻ ﻓﻲ ﻏﺮﻭﺭ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﻃﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ:
ﺗﻤﻨﺘﻚ اﻷﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ
ﻭﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻏﺮﻭﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺣﺼﻮﺭا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺄﺗﻲ اﻟﻨﺴﺎء ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺣﺼﻮﺭ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺨﻨﺎ ﻳﺄﻣﺮاﻟﻨﺎ
ﺳ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ اﻟﺨﻴﺮاﺕ ﻭاﻟﺘﺸﻤﻴﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻋﺒﻮﺳﺎ ﻗﻤﻄﺮﻳﺮا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻘﺒﺾ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ اﻟﻮﺟﻊ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻻ ﻳﻮﻡ اﻟﺤﺴﺎﺏ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﻣﺎ
ﻋﺒﻮﺳﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺪاﺋﺪ ﻗﻤﻄﺮﻳﺮا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﻮﻡ ﻳﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺎﻕ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻋﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ اﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺑﻨﺎ اﻟﺤﺮﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺎﻕ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﻳﺎﺑﻬﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻹﻳﺎﺏ اﻟﻤﺮﺟﻊ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﻷﺑﺮﺹ:
ﻭﻛﻞ ﺫﻱ ﻏﻴﺒﺔ ﻳﺆﻭﺏ
ﻭﻏﺎﺋﺐ اﻟﻤﻮﺕ ﻻ ﻳﺆﻭﺏ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺣﻮﺑﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺇﺛﻤﺎ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﺤﺒﺸﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻧﻌﻢ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﻓﺈﻧﻲ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻔﺘﻤﻮﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺮﻛﻢ
ﻟﻴﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺴﻰ ﺃﻋﻖ ﻭﺃﺣﻮﺑﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﻟﻌﻨﺖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻹﺛﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺭﺃﻳﺘﻚ ﺗﺒﺘﻐﻲ ﻋﻨﺘﻲ ﻭﺗﺴﻌﻰ
ﻣﻊ اﻟﺴﺎﻋﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ ﺫﺣﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﺘﻴﻼ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻖ اﻟﻨﻮاﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﻨﺎﺑﻐﺔ:
ﻳﺠﻤﻊ اﻟﺠﻴﺶ ﺫا اﻷﻟﻮﻑ ﻭﻳﻐﺰﻭ
ﺛﻢ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺯﺃ اﻷﻋﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﺘﻴﻼ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻦ ﻗﻄﻤﻴﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺠﻠﺪﺓ اﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎء اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﻮاﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ اﻟﺼﻠﺖ:
ﻟﻢ ﺃﻧﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻓﺴﻴﻄﺎ ﻭﻻ ﺯﺑﺪا
ﻭﻻ ﻓﻮﻓﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻄﻤﻴﺮا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﺭﻛﺴﻬﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺣﺒﺴﻬﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ:
ﺃﺭﻛﺴﻮا ﻓﻲ ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ﺇﻧﻬﻢ ﻛﺎ
ﻧﻮاﻋﺘﺎﺓ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﻛﺬﺑﺎ ﻭﺯﻭﺭا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻣﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﺘﺮﻓﻴﻬﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ:
ﺇﻥ ﻳﻐﺒﻄﻮا ﻳﻴﺴﺮﻭا ﻭﺇﻥ ﺃﻣﺮﻭا
ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻴﺮﻭا ﻟﻠﻬﻠﻚ ﻭاﻟﻔﻘﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﻨﻜﻢ اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﻔﺮﻭا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﻀﻠﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺬاﺏ ﻭاﻟﺠﻬﺪ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻫﻮاﺯﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻛﻞ اﻣﺮﺉ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺩ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻀﻄﻬﺪ
ﺑﺒﻄﻦ ﻣﻜﺔ ﻣﻘﻬﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﻔﺘﻮﻥ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﺄﻥ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻐﻨﻮا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﺄﻥ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ:
ﻭﻏﻨﻴﺖ ﺳﺒﺘﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺠﺮﻯ ﺩاﺣﺲ
ﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺲ اﻟﻠﺠﻮﺝ ﺧﻠﻮﺩ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻋﺬاﺏ اﻟﻬﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻬﻮاﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺇﻧﺎ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺑﻼﺩ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻭاﺳﻌﺔ
ﺗﻨﺠﻲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺬﻝ ﻭاﻟﻤﺨﺰاﺓ ﻭاﻟﻬﻮﻥ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻻ ﻳﻈﻠﻤﻮﻥ ﻧﻘﻴﺮا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﻘﻴﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻖ اﻟﻨﻮاﺓ ﻭﻣﻨﻪ ﺗﻨﺒﺖ اﻟﻨﺨﻠﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻟﻴﺲ اﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﻌﺪﻙ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻘﻴﺮ
ﻭﻟﻴﺴﻮا ﻏﻴﺮ ﺃﺻﺪاء ﻭﻫﺎﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﻓﺎﺭﺽ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻬﺮﻣﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻟﻌﻤﺮﻱ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻴﺖ ﺿﻴﻔﻚ ﻓﺎﺭﺿﺎ
ﻳﺴﺎﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺟﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﻟﺨﻴﻂ اﻷﺑﻴﺾ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺨﻴﻂ اﻷﺳﻮﺩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺑﻴﺎﺽ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮاﺩ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﻫﻮ اﻟﺼﺒﺢ ﺇﺫا اﻧﻔﻠﻖ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ:
اﻟﺨﻴﻂ اﻷﺑﻴﺾ ﺿﻮء اﻟﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﻨﻔﻠﻖ
ﻭاﻟﺨﻴﻂ اﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﻟﻮﻥ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻜﻤﻮﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺑﺌﺴﻤﺎ اﺷﺘﺮﻭا ﺑﻪ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺑﺎﻋﻮا ﻧﺼﻴﺒﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻵﺧﺮﺓ ﺑﻄﻤﻊ ﻳﺴﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻳﻌﻄﻰ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺛﻤﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﻨﻌﻬﺎ
ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻬﺎ ﺃﻻ ﺗﺸﺮﻱ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺣﺴﺒﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﻤﺎء}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ:
ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺸﺮ ﺻﺒﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ
ﺷﺂﺑﻴﺐ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﺴﺒﺎﻥ ﺷﻬﺐ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻋﻨﺖ اﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﺳﺘﺴﻠﻤﺖ ﻭﺧﻀﻌﺖ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻟﻴﺒﻚ ﻋﻠﻴﻚ ﻛﻞ ﻋﺎﻥ ﺑﻜﺮﺑﺔ
ﻭﺁﻝ ﻗﺼﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﻞ ﻭﺫﻱ ﻭﻓﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻌﻴﺸﺔ ﺿﻨﻜﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻀﻨﻚ اﻟﻀﻴﻖ اﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭاﻟﺨﻴﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻟﺤﻘﺖ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺄﺯﻕ
ﺿﻨﻚ ﻧﻮاﺣﻴﻪ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ اﻟﻤﻘﺪﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻓﺞ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺣﺎﺯﻭا اﻟﻌﻴﺎﻝ ﻭﺳﺪﻭا اﻟﻔﺠﺎﺝ
ﺑﺄﺟﺴﺎﺩ ﻋﺎﺩ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺁﻳﺪاﻥ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺫاﺕ اﻟﺤﺒﻚ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺫاﺕ ﻃﺮاﺋﻖ ﻭاﻟﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺳﻠﻤﻰ:
ﻫﻢ ﻳﻀﺮﺑﻮﻥ ﺣﺒﻴﻚ اﻟﺒﻴﺾ ﺇﺫ ﻟﺤﻘﻮا
ﻻ ﻳﻨﻜﺼﻮﻥ ﺇﺫا ﻣﺎ اﺳﺘﺮﺣﻤﻮا ﺭﺣﻤﻮا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺣﺮﺿﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻤﺪﻧﻒ اﻟﻬﺎﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺪﺓ اﻟﻮﺟﻊ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺃﻣﻦ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻟﻴﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﺕ ﻏﺮﺑﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ
ﻛﺄﻧﻚ ﺟﻢ ﻟﻷﻃﺒﺎء ﻣﺤﺮﺽ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﺪﻉ اﻟﻴﺘﻴﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ:
ﻳﻘﺴﻢ ﺣﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻴﺘﻴﻢ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ
ﻳﺪﻉ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺃﻳﺴﺎﺭﻫﻦ اﻷﺻﺎﻏﺮا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﻣﻨﻔﻄﺮ ﺑﻪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻨﺼﺪﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻮﻑ ﻳﻮﻡ اﻟﻘﻴﺎﻣﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻇﺒﺎﻫﻦ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺃﻋﺮﺽ اﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻭﻧﻬﺎ
ﺃﻓﺎﻃﻴﺮ ﻭﺳﻤﻲ ﺭﻭاء ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻫﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻬﻢ ﻳﻮﺯﻋﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﺤﺒﺲ ﺃﻭﻟﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﺧﺮﻫﻢ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺗﻨﺎﻡ اﻟﻄﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺯﻋﺖ ﺭﻋﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻗﺐ ﻧﻬﺪ
ﺇﺫا ﻣﺎ اﻟﻘﻮﻡ ﺷﺪﻭا ﺑﻌﺪ ﺧﻤﺲ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺧﺒﺖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺨﺒﻮ اﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﻔﺄ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﻳﺴﻌﺮ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺗﺨﺒﻮ اﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺁﺫاﻥ ﻗﻮﻣﻲ
ﻭﺃﺿﺮﻣﻬﺎ ﺇﺫا اﺑﺘﺮﺩﻭا ﺳﻌﻴﺮا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﺎﻟﻤﻬﻞ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﺪﺭﺩﻱ اﻟﺰﻳﺖ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺗﺒﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﻬﺎ اﻟﻌﻴﺲ اﻟﺴﻤﻮﻡ ﻛﺄﻧﻬﺎ
ﺗﺒﻄﻨﺖ اﻷﻗﺮاﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺮﻕ ﻣﻬﻼ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﺧﺬا ﻭﺑﻴﻼ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺷﺪﻳﺪا ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻠﺠﺄ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺧﺰﻱ اﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺧﺰﻱ اﻟﻤﻤﺎﺕ
ﻭﻛﻼ ﺃﺭاﻩ ﻃﻌﺎﻣﺎ ﻭﺑﻴﻼ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻨﻘﺒﻮا ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻼﺩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻫﺮﺑﻮا ﺑﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻴﻤﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺪﻱ ﺑﻦ ﺯﻳﺪ:
ﻧﻘﺒﻮا ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻼﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺬﺭ اﻟﻤﻮ
ﺗ ﻭﺟﺎﻟﻮا ﻓﻲ اﻷﺭﺽ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﻻ ﻫﻤﺴﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻮﻁء اﻟﺨﻔﻲ ﻭاﻟﻜﻼﻡ اﻟﺨﻔﻲ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻓﺒﺎﺗﻮا ﻳﺪﻟﺠﻮﻥ ﻭﺑﺎﺕ ﻳﺴﺮﻱ
ﺑﺼﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺟﺎ ﻫﺎﺩ ﻫﻤﻮﺱ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻘﻤﺤﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻤﻘﻤﺢ اﻟﺸﺎﻣﺦ ﺑﺄﻧﻔﻪ اﻟﻤﻨﻜﺲ ﺭﺃﺳﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻧﺤﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻮاﻧﺒﻬﺎ ﻗﻌﻮﺩ
ﻧﻐﺾ اﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﻛﺎﻹﺑﻞ اﻟﻘﻤﺎﺡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻲ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺮﻳﺞ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻤﺮﻳﺞ اﻟﺒﺎﻃﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻓﺮاﻋﺖ ﻓﺎﺑﺘﺪﺭﺕ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺣﺸﺎﻫﺎ
ﻓﺨﺮ ﻛﺄﻧﻪ ﺧﻮﻁ ﻣﺮﻳﺞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺣﺘﻤﺎ ﻣﻘﻀﻴﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺤﺘﻢ اﻟﻮاﺟﺐ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ:
ﻋﺒﺎﺩﻙ ﻳﺨﻄﺌﻮﻥ ﻭﺃﻧﺖ ﺭﺏ
ﺑﻜﻔﻴﻚ اﻟﻤﻨﺎﻳﺎ ﻭاﻟﺤﺘﻮﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺃﻛﻮاﺏ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻘﻼﻝ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻋﺮﻯ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﻬﺬﻟﻲ:
ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻨﻄﻖ اﻟﺪﻳﻚ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻣﻸﺕ
ﻛﺆﻭﺏ اﻟﺪﻧﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻓﺎﺳﺘﺪاﺭا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻻ ﻫﻢ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﻨﺰﻓﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﻳﺴﻜﺮﻭﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦ ﺭﻭاﺣﺔ:
ﺛﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺰﻓﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ
ﻳﺬﻫﺐ اﻟﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ﻭاﻟﻐﻠﻴﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﺎﻥ ﻏﺮاﻣﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻼﺯﻣﺎ ﺷﺪﻳﺪا ﻛﻠﺰﻭﻡ اﻟﻐﺮﻳﻢ اﻟﻐﺮﻳﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﺸﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺣﺎﺯﻡ:
ﻭﻳﻮﻡ اﻟﻨﺴﺎﺭ ﻭﻳﻮﻡ اﻟﺠﻔﺎ
ﺭﻛﺎﻧﺎ ﻋﺬاﺑﺎ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺎ ﻏﺮاﻣﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭاﻟﺘﺮاﺋﺐ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ اﻟﻘﻼﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺮﺃﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭاﻟﺰﻋﻔﺮاﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮاﺋﺒﻬﺎ
ﺷﺮﻗﺎ ﺑﻪ اﻟﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻭاﻟﻨﺤﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻛﻨﺘﻢ ﻗﻮﻣﺎ ﺑﻮﺭا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻫﻠﻜﻰ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻴﻤﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻓﻼ ﺗﻜﻔﺮﻭا ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺻﻨﻌﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻜﻤﻮ
ﻭﻛﺎﻓﻮا ﺑﻪ ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻔﺮ ﺑﻮﺭ ﻟﺼﺎﻧﻌﻪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻧﻔﺸﺖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﻔﺶ اﻟﺮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ:
ﺑﺪﻟﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟﻨﻔﺶ اﻟﻮ ﺟﻴﻔﺎ
ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻃﻮﻝ اﻟﺠﺮﺓ اﻟﺼﺮﻳﻔﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻟﺪ اﻟﺨﺼﺎﻡ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺠﺪﻝ اﻟﻤﺨﺎﺻﻢ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﺎﻃﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻣﻬﻠﻬﻞ:
ﺇﻥ ﺗﺤﺖ اﻷﺣﺠﺎﺭ ﺣﺰﻣﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩا
ﻭﺧﺼﻴﻤﺎ ﺃﻟﺪ ﺫا ﻣﻌﻼﻕ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺑﻌﺠﻞ ﺣﻨﻴﺬ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﻀﻴﺞ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻮﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻟﻬﻢ ﺭاﺡ ﻭﻓﺎﺭ اﻟﻤﺴﻚ ﻓﻴﻬﻢ
ﻭﺷﺎﻭﻳﻬﻢ ﺇﺫا ﺷﺎﺅﻭا ﺣﻨﻴﺬا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻦ اﻷﺟﺪاﺙ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻘﺒﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﺑﻦ ﺭﻭاﺣﺔ:
ﺣﻴﻨﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ ﺇﺫ ﻣﺮﻭا ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺪﺛﻲ
ﺃﺭﺷﺪﻩ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﻥ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﺷﺪا

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻫﻠﻮﻋﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺿﺠﺮا ﺟﺰﻭﻋﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﺸﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺣﺎﺯﻡ:
ﻻ ﻣﺎﻧﻌﺎ ﻟﻠﻴﺘﻴﻢ ﻧﺤﻠﺘﻪ
ﻭﻻ ﻣﻜﺒﺎ ﻟﺨﻠﻘﻪ ﻫﻠﻌﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻻﺕ ﺣﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﺹ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺤﻴﻦ ﻓﺮاﺭ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﺗﺬﻛﺮﺕ ﻟﻴﻠﻰ ﺣﻴﻦ ﻻﺕ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ
ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻨﺖ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻭاﻟﻤﻨﺎﺹ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺩﺳﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺪﺳﺮ اﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺨﺮﺯ ﺑﻪ اﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺳﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﻧﻮﺗﻲ ﻗﺪ اﺣﻜﻢ ﺻﻨﻌﻬﺎ
ﻣﺜﺨﻨﺔ اﻷﻟﻮاﺡ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺟﺔ اﻟﺪﺳﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺭﻛﺰا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺣﺴﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺟﺲ ﺭﻛﺰا ﻣﻘﻔﺮ ﻧﺪﺱ
ﺑﻨﺒﺄﺓ اﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻤﻌﻪ ﻛﺬﺏ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺑﺎﺳﺮﺓ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﺎﻟﺤﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ اﻷﺑﺮﺹ:
ﺻﺒﺤﻨﺎ ﺗﻤﻴﻤﺎ ﻏﺪاﺓ اﻟﻨﺴﺎﺭ
ﺷﻬﺒﺎء ﻣﻠﻤﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺮﺓ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺿﻴﺰﻯ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺟﺎﺋﺮﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻣﺮﺉ اﻟﻘﻴﺲ:
ﺿﺎﺯﺕ ﺑﻨﻮ ﺃﺳﺪ ﺑﺤﻜﻤﻬﻢ
ﺇﺫ ﻳﻌﺪﻟﻮﻥ اﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻧﺐ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﺴﻨﻪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻟﻢ ﺗﻐﻴﺮﻩ اﻟﺴﻨﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻃﺎﺏ ﻣﻨﻪ اﻟﻄﻌﻢ ﻭاﻟﺮﻳﺢ ﻣﻌﺎ
ﻟﻦ ﺗﺮا ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮا ﻣﻦ ﺁﺳﻦ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺧﺘﺎﺭ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻐﺪاﺭ اﻟﻈﻠﻮﻡ اﻟﻐﺸﻮﻡ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻟﻘﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﻭاﺳﺘﻴﻘﻨﺖ ﺫاﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ
ﺑﺄﻻ ﺗﺨﺎﻑ اﻟﺪﻫﺮ ﺻﺮﻣﻲ ﻭﻻ ﺧﺘﺮﻱ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻋﻴﻦ اﻟﻘﻄﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺼﻔﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻓﺄﻟﻘﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮاﺟﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺪ
ﻗﺪﻭﺭ اﻟﻘﻄﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺒﺮاﺓ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻛﻞ ﺧﻤﻂ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻷﺭاﻙ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﻣﺎ ﻣﻐﺰﻝ ﻓﺮﺩ ﺗﺮاﻋﻲ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ
ﺃﻏﻦ ﻏﻀﻴﺾ اﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻠﻞ اﻟﺨﻤﻂ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {اﺷﻤﺄﺯﺕ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻔﺮﺕ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ﺑﻦ ﻛﻠﺜﻮﻡ:
ﺇﺫا ﻋﺾ اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻑ ﺑﻬﺎ اﺷﻤﺄﺯﺕ
ﻭﻭﻟﺘﻪ ﻋﺸﻮ ﺯﻧﺔ ﺯﺑﻮﻧﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺟﺪﺩ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻃﺮاﺋﻖ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻗﺪ ﻏﺎﺩﺭ اﻟﻨﺴﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺻﻔﺤﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﺟﺪﺩا
ﻛﺄﻧﻬﺎ ﻃﺮﻕ ﻻﺣﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻛﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺃﻏﻨﻰ ﻭﺃﻗﻨﻰ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﻏﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﻘﺮ ﻭﺃﻗﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻐﻨﻰ ﻓﻘﻨﻊ ﺑﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﺘﺮﺓ اﻟﻌﺒﺴﻲ:
ﻓﺄﻗﻨﻲ ﺣﻴﺎءﻙ ﻻ ﺃﺑﺎﻟﻚ ﻭاﻋﻠﻤﻲ
ﺃﻧﻲ اﻣﺮﺅ ﺳﺄﻣﻮﺕ ﺇﻥ ﻟﻢ ﺃﻗﺘﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﻳﻠﺘﻜﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﻳﻨﻘﺼﻜﻢ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻋﺒﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺤﻄﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﻌﺒﺴﻲ:
ﺃﺑﻠﻎ ﺳﺮاﺓ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻣﻐﻠﻐﻠﺔ
ﺟﻬﺪ اﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻻ ﺃﻟﺘﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻛﺬﺑﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﺃﺑﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻷﺏ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻨﻪ اﻟﺪﻭاﺏ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺗﺮﻯ ﺑﻪ اﻷﺏ ﻭاﻟﻴﻘﻄﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻄﺎ
ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ ﻳﺠﺮﻱ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ اﻟﻐﺮﺏ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﺗﻮاﻋﺪﻭﻫﻦ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺴﺮ اﻟﺠﻤﺎﻉ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻣﺮﺉ اﻟﻘﻴﺲ:
ﺃﻻ ﺯﻋﻤﺖ ﺑﺴﺒﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺃﻧﻨﻲ
ﻛﺒﺮﺕ ﻭﺃﻻ ﻳﺤﺴﻦ اﻟﺴﺮ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻟﻲ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻴﻪ ﺗﺴﻴﻤﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺗﺮﻋﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﻭﻣﺸﻰ اﻟﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﺎﺩ ﺇﻟﻰ اﻟﺮﺯ
ﺣﻰ ﻭﺃﻋﻴﺎ اﻟﻤﺴﻴﻢ ﺃﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﻕ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﺗﺮﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﺭا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﺗﺨﺸﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻈﻤﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺫﺅﻳﺐ:
ﺇﺫا ﻟﺴﻌﺘﻪ اﻟﻨﺤﻞ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺮﺝ ﻟﺴﻌﻬﺎ
ﻭﺧﺎﻟﻔﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻴﺖ ﻧﻮﺏ ﻋﻮاﺳﻞ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺫا ﻣﺘﺮﺑﺔ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺫا ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻭﺟﻬﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺗﺮﺑﺖ ﻳﺪاﻙ ﺛﻢ ﻗﻞ ﻧﻮاﻟﻬﺎ
ﻭﺗﺮﻓﻌﺖ ﻋﻨﻚ اﻟﺴﻤﺎء ﺳﺠﺎﻟﻬﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﻬﻄﻌﻴﻦ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﺬﻋﻨﻴﻦ ﺧﺎﺿﻌﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺗﺒﻊ:
ﺗﻌﺒﺪﻧﻲ ﻧﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺩﺭﻯ
ﻭﻧﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﺪ ﻟﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﻬﻄﻊ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻟﻪ ﺳﻤﻴﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻟﺪا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺃﻣﺎ اﻟﺴﻤﻲ ﻓﺄﻧﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﻜﺜﺮ
ﻭاﻟﻤﺎﻝ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺗﻐﺘﺪﻱ ﻭﺗﺮﻭﺡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﺼﻬﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ ﻳﺬاﺏ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺳﺨﻨﺖ ﺻﻬﺎﺭﺗﻪ ﻓﻈﻞ ﻋﺜﺎﻧﻪ
ﻓﻲ ﺳﻴﻄﻞ ﻛﻔﻴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻳﺘﺮﺩﺩ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻟﺘﻨﻮء ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺼﺒﺔ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻟﺘﺜﻘﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻣﺮﺉ اﻟﻘﻴﺲ:
ﺗﻤﺸﻲ ﻓﺘﺜﻘﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﺠﻴﺰﺗﻬﺎ
ﻣﺸﻲ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﻮء ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺳﻖ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﻞ ﺑﻨﺎﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﻃﺮاﻑ اﻷﺻﺎﺑﻊ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﺘﺮﺓ:
ﻓﻨﻌﻢ ﻓﻮاﺭﺱ اﻟﻬﻴﺠﺎء ﻗﻮﻣﻲ
ﺇﺫا ﻋﻠﻘﻮا اﻷﺳﻨﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﻋﺼﺎﺭ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺮﻳﺢ اﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻓﻠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻫﻦ ﺧﻮاﺭ
ﻭﺣﻔﻴﻒ ﻛﺄﻧﻪ ﺇﻋﺼﺎﺭ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﺮاﻏﻤﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﻨﻔﺴﺤﺎ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻫﺬﻳﻞ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﻭﺃﺗﺮﻙ ﺃﺭﺽ ﻫﺠﺮﺓ ﺇﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ
ﺭﺟﺎء ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺮاﻏﻢ ﻭاﻟﺘﻌﺎﺩﻱ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺻﻠﺪا}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﻣﻠﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺐ:
ﻭﺇﻧﻲ ﻟﻘﺮﻡ ﻭاﺑﻦ ﻗﺮﻡ ﻟﻬﺎﺷﻢ
ﻵﺑﺎء ﺻﺪﻕ ﻣﺠﺪﻫﻢ ﻣﻌﻘﻞ ﺻﻠﺪ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻷﺟﺮا ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻤﻨﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﻘﻮﺹ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ:
ﻓﻀﻞ اﻟﺠﻮاﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻴﻞ اﻟﺒﻄﺎء ﻓﻼ
ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻤﻨﻮﻧﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻧﺰﻗﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺟﺎﺑﻮا اﻟﺼﺨﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻘﺒﻮا اﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﺒﺎﻝ ﻓﺎﺗﺨﺬﻭﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﻮﺗﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ:
ﻭﺷﻖ ﺃﺑﺼﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻛﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﻌﻴﺶ ﺑﻬﺎ
ﻭﺟﺎﺏ ﻟﻠﺴﻤﻊ ﺃﺻﻤﺎﺧﺎ ﻭﺁﺫاﻧﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺣﺒﺎ ﺟﻤﺎ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻛﺜﻴﺮا ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻣﻴﺔ:
ﺇﻥ ﺗﻐﻔﺮ اﻟﻠﻬﻢ ﺗﻐﻔﺮ ﺟﻤﺎ
ﻭﺃﻱ ﻋﺒﺪ ﻟﻚ ﻻ ﺃﻟﻤﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻏﺎﺳﻖ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺯﻫﻴﺮ:
ﻇﻠﺖ ﺗﺠﻮﺏ ﻳﺪاﻫﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻﻫﻴﺔ
ﺣﺘﻰ ﺇﺫا ﺟﻨﺢ اﻹﻇﻼﻡ ﻭاﻟﻐﺴﻖ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻲ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻬﻢ ﻣﺮﺽ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ:
ﺃﺟﺎﻣﻞ ﺃﻗﻮاﻣﺎ ﺣﻴﺎء ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺭﻯ
ﺻﺪﻭﺭﻫﻢ ﺗﻐﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﺮاﺿﻬﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻳﻌﻤﻬﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﻠﻌﺒﻮﻥ ﻭﻳﺘﺮﺩﺩﻭﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﺃﺭاﻧﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻤﻬﺖ ﻭﺷﺎﺏ ﺭﺃﺳﻲ
ﻭﻫﺬا اﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﺷﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﺎﺭﺋﻜﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺧﺎﻟﻘﻜﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺗﺒﻊ:
ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ
ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﺭﻱ اﻟﻨﺴﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻻ ﺭﻳﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻻ ﺷﻚ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﺑﻦ اﻟﺰﺑﻌﺮﻯ:
ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﻖ ﻳﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﺔ ﺭﻳﺐ
ﺇﻧﻤﺎ اﻟﺮﻳﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ اﻟﻜﺬﻭﺏ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺧﺘﻢ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻬﻢ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻃﺒﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﻭﺻﻬﺒﺎء ﻃﺎﻑ ﻳﻬﻮﺩ ﺑﻬﺎ
ﻓﺄﺑﺮﺯﻫﺎ ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺧﺘﻢ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻛﻤﺜﻞ ﺻﻔﻮاﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: اﻟﺤﺠﺮ اﻷﻣﻠﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻭﺱ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺠﺮ:
ﻋﻠﻰ ﻇﻬﺮ ﺻﻔﻮاﻥ ﻛﺄﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﻧﻪ
ﻋﻠﻠﻦ ﺑﺪﻫﻦ ﻳﺰﻟﻖ اﻟﻤﺘﻨﺰﻻ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺻﺮ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺑﺮﺩ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﺑﻐﺔ:
ﻻ ﻳﺒﺮﻣﻮﻥ ﺇﺫا ﻣﺎ اﻷﺭﺽ ﺟﻠﻠﻬﺎ
ﺻﺮ اﻟﺸﺘﺎء ﻣﻦ اﻹﻣﺤﺎﻝ ﻛﺎﻷﺩﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺗﺒﻮﺉ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻋﺪ ﻟﻠﻘﺘﺎﻝ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺗﻮﻃﻦ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻮﺃ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺑﻴﺘﻚ ﻣﻨﺰﻻ
ﺑﺄﺟﻴﺎﺩ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ اﻟﺼﻔﺎ ﻭاﻟﻤﺤﺮﻡ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﺭﺑﻴﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺟﻤﻮﻉ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺎﻥ:
ﻭﺇﺫ ﻣﻌﺸﺮ ﺗﺠﺎﻓﻮا ﻋﻦ اﻟﻘﺼﺪ
ﺣﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺭﺑﻴﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻣﺨﻤﺼﺔ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻣﺠﺎﻋﺔ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ اﻷﻋﺸﻰ:
ﺗﺒﻴﺘﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﺸﺘﻰ ﻣﻼء ﺑﻄﻮﻧﻜﻢ
ﻭﺟﺎﺭاﺗﻜﻢ ﻏﺮﺛﻰ ﻳﺒﺘﻦ ﺧﻤﺎﺋﺼﺎ

ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ: {ﻭﻟﻴﻘﺘﺮﻓﻮا ﻣﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻘﺘﺮﻓﻮﻥ}
ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻟﻴﻜﺘﺴﺒﻮا ﻣﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻜﺘﺴﺒﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻭﻫﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ اﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻧﻌﻢ، ﺃﻣﺎ ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﺒﻴﺪ:
ﻭﺇﻧﻲ ﻵﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺗﻴﺖ ﻭﺇﻧﻨﻲ
ﻟﻤﺎ اﻗﺘﺮﻓﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻟﺮاﻫﺐ

ﻫﺬا ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻧﺎﻓﻊ ﺑﻦ اﻷﺯﺭﻕ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺣﺬﻓﺖ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﺴﻴﺮا ﻧﺤﻮ ﺑﻀﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺳﺆاﻻ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺃﺧﺮﺝ اﻷﺋﻤﺔ ﺃﻓﺮاﺩا ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﺳﺎﻧﻴﺪ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ.

الاتقان في علوم القرآن للسيوطي رحمه الله ج٢ اﻟﻨﻮﻉ اﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻭاﻟﺜﻼﺛﻮﻥ: ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﻪ

The Burden of Conscience

I think this can be a good reminder to someone going the Military control way of the statecraft, that soon after the climax, it invariably is an unfathomable chasm of regret.

Air Marshal Asghar Khan former CAS (23 July 1957 – 22 July 1965), known for writing a letter to General Zia ul Haq to take over the country’s affairs from the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, writes in his book ‘We Have Learnt Nothing from History’:

The second time when I had the opportunity to meet Mr Jinnah and to hear his views on an important subject was on 14 August 1947 in Karachi. As the Governor-General of Pakistan, he had given a large reception on the lawns of the Governor-General’s House, now the Governor’s House, in Karachi. I was among the dozen or so officers of the armed forces invited and one of the others was Lt Colonel (later Major-General) Akbar Khan of ‘Rawalpindi Conspiracy’ fame. Akbar Khan suggested that we should talk with the Quaid-i-Azam. The Quaid was moving around meeting his guests and when he came near us he asked us how we were. Akbar Khan replied that we were very happy that he had succeeded in creating a free and independent country and we had hoped that under his leadership our genius will be allowed to flower’. He went on to say that we were, however, disappointed that higher posts in the armed forces had been given to British officer who still controlled our destiny. The Quaid who had been listening patiently raised his finger and said, Never forget that you are the servants of the state. You do not make policy. It is we, the people’s representatives, who decide how the country is to be run. Your job is only to obey the decisions of your civilian masters.

Lt. Gen. Gul Hasan, former COAS (20 December 1970 – 2 March 1972), in his Memoirs writes:

In an army, effective leadership at the top makes all the difference between success and failure: so it is with the Pakistan Army. Our environment went askew because Martial Law became a part and parcel of our very existence, thereby burdening the army with the dual tasks of administering the country and defending it in any emergency. I shall frankly state that we failed miserably in both these undertakings. Our commitment to Martial Law was total in 1971, when in spite of the fact that the Army was all-in-all, there was no communication whatsoever between the Government and the General Headquarters. The void was absolute, and it had to be experienced to be believed.
As far as I can foresee, the spectre of Martial Law will be ever-present in Pakistan, unless she produces political leaders who can look beyond provincial horizons, be above-board possess honesty of purpose, command the solid support of the masses, and be genuinely concerned with their welfare and, last but by no means least, be patriots. (The meaning of the last word is a person who loves, supports, and defends his country and its interests.) This would be a tall order for our political community to fulfill, and it will be equally wishful to console ourselves that one fine day the leadership of the Army may decide to devote themselves wholly to their profession. I am not for one moment bracketing the junior officers with the top ranks. In both the wars with India their performance was magnificent, especially those who were in East Pakistan in 1971. In spite of being utterly isolated from the West Wing, harassed by a not-too-friendly population and surrounded by an implacable neighbour, they stood up to the unremitting strain for over six months with a courage and resolve that is not easy to find in the pages of military history. They were let down by their Government and General Head-quarters and their own senior-most commanders.

General K. M. Arif Vice COAS (1984-1987), in Khaki Shadows has this to say:

The Yahya interregnum, traumatic and turbulent, witnessed Pakistan’s defeat in war and the amputation of its Eastem wing. This monumental tragedy has remained an unexplained affair and the truth has still not emerged regarding Pakistan’s disintegration and military surrender. This would expose the political and military blunders made since 1947, a risk not acceptable to the policy makers. The details of the 1971 war have been written by the winning side in which facts have been falsified, with bias injected in the narration rather generously.
The history of failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too late. Pakistan lagged behind events in East Pakistan, lost the initiative, chased shadows and met her doom. Under the inspiring leadership of Sir Winston Churchill, Great Britain had converted the defeat at Dunkirk into victory. Conversely, Pakistan, reeling under the impact of defeat and the stigma of surrender in 1971, naively consigned its political, diplomatic and military skeletons to the safety closets and marked them TOP SECRET.

Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani former DG ISI (1990 – 1991), in Pakistan Adrift says:

By a strange coincidence, I was again in Kohat (on my way to Bannu where I was posted), when in March 1969 Yahya Khan imposed martial law. Something didn’t seem quite right, but it gave me my first taste, or illusion, of power over civilians. For the next few months, I was heading a summary military court and taking to task anyone carrying an unlicensed weapon—the Army’s pet procedure to restore law and order in the country. The problem was that in the two districts under my jurisdiction, Bannu and Dera Ismail Khan, this covered almost everyone. Of course, only those who were on the wrong side of the law (or its enforcers) were charged and produced before me. I don’t think it did much good for law or order, but it did help the civil administration to show khaki rule in a bad light. That the Army lets itself be duped every time it assumes political power, I was to learn much later. That, as a cog in the military machine, one was contributing to such a design became a pretty discomforting thought.

He also says:

The Army’s takeover of political power, whatever else it may have done to the country, never did any good to the service … After the putsch of 1999, [Musharraf] had all the country’s resources at his disposal, but since he mainly trusted the military, he planted members of the armed forces in many important civil institutions, and thus undid most of the good work done in the previous years to cleanse the armed forces of the unmilitary traits… When serving generals started falling for prime land offered at bargain prices and their palatial houses were built by government contractors, one knew that the fish was now rotting from its head.

Favorite books of Great Scholars

I being a bibliophile always relish in the idea of knowing what are the books that were read by great men whilst they were not so great or rather were unknown. I have read some books about the subject like “Mashaheer ahl e Ilm ki Muhsin Kitabain” and “Ulama e Deoband ki Ilmi aur Mutaliati Zindagi“. I have yet to read Yaadgar e Zamana Shakhsiyat Ka Ahwal e Mutala (not a pdf link) by Ibnul Hasan Abbasi. This article about Maulana Anwar Badakhshani’s favorite books, which is also the part of previous book is available on the internet.

Mufti Zar Wali rahimahullah used to say that among more than a thousand books of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi rahimahullah, I like four books the most.

1.  Tafseer Bayan ul Qur’an
2.  At Takashshuf an Muhimmaatit Tasawwuf
3.  Bawadir un Nawadir
4.  Islah e Inqilab e Ummat

While I was searching for something I came across Imam Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion about best Tafseer, Hadith book and different books of Tasawwuf. This passage also contains other gems of wisdom.

Somebody asked him about a person who wants to make copies of Qur’an and Hadith books by writing them, that will this writing be beneficial for him in the Hereafter? He answered, Yes he would be rewarded, whether he writes it for himself or for selling. He cited a Hadith in support of his statement that it is narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that “Allah will enter three person into Jannat due to one arrow; the one who makes it, the one who gives to the archer, the one who shoots it.”

Then he is asked, which Tafseer is nearer to Kitab o Sunnat among few named Tafaseer. This is what he says about different Tafaseer.

“The truest Tafseer is Tafseer e Tabari, since it cites the narrations of Salaf with sound chains of narrators and it does not contain any Bid’ah and it does not cite from the accused like Muqatil bin Bukair and Kalbi.

And their are many Tafaseer that contain narrations with chains of narrators. Like Tafseer of Abdur Razzaq, ‘Abd bin Humaid, Wakee’ bin Abu Qutaibah, Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Is’haq bin Rahway.

‮[مسألة جندي له إقطاع ونسخ بيده صحيح مسلم والبخاري والقرآن وهو ناو كتابة الحديث والقرآن العظيم]
‮‮٢‮٤‮٠‮١ – ‮٨‮١ مسألة:
‮سئل شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية عن جندي له إقطاع ونسخ بيده صحيح مسلم والبخاري والقرآن وهو ناو كتابة الحديث والقرآن العظيم.
‮وإن سمع بورق أو أقلام اشترى بألف درهم وقال أنا إن شاء الله أكتب في جميع هذا الورق أحاديث الرسول والقرآن ويؤمل آمالا بعيدة، فهل يأثم أم لا؟ وأي التفاسير أقرب إلى الكتاب والسنة: الزمخشري، أم القرطبي، أم البغوي، أو غير هؤلاء.
‮وإذا نسخ الإنسان لنفسه أو للبيع يكون له أجر وثواب مثل إحياء علوم الدين وقوت القلوب ومثل كتاب المنطق أفتونا.

‮الجواب: ليس عليه إثم فيما ينويه ويفعله من كتابة العلوم الشرعية فإن كتابة القرآن والأحاديث الصحيحة والتفاسير الموجودة الثابتة من أعظم القربات والطاعات.
‮وأما التفاسير التي في أيدي الناس فأصحها تفسير محمد بن جرير الطبري فإنه يذكر مقالات السلف بالأسانيد الثابتة وليس فيه بدعة ولا ينقل عن المتهمين مقاتل بن بكير والكلبي.
‮والتفاسير المأثورة بالأسانيد كثيرة، كتفسير عبد الرزاق، وعبد بن حميد، ووكيع بن أبي قتيبة، وأحمد بن حنبل، وإسحاق بن راهويه.
‮وأما التفاسير الثلاثة المسئول عنها فأسلمها من البدعة والأحاديث الضعيفة البغوي، لكنه مختصر في تفسير الثعلبي وحذف منه الأحاديث الموضوعة والبدع التي فيه وحذف أشياء غير ذلك.
‮وأما الواحدي فإنه تلميذ الثعلبي، وهو أخبر منه بالعربية، لكن الثعلبي فيه سلامة من البدع وإن ذكرها تقليدا لغيره، وتفسيره وتفسير الواحدي البسيط والوسيط والوجيز فيها فوائد جليلة، وفيها غث كثير من المنقولات الباطلة وغيرها.
‮وأما الزمخشري فتفسيره محشو بالبدعة، وعلى طريقة المعتزلة، من إنكار الصفات والرؤية والقول بخلق القرآن وأنكر أن الله مريد للكائنات وخالق لأفعال العباد وغير ذلك من أصول المعتزلة.
‮وأصولهم خمسة يسمونها التوحيد والعدل والمنزلة بين المنزلتين وإنفاذ الوعيد والأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، لكن معنى التوحيد عندهم يتضمن نفي الصفات ولهذا سمى ابن التومرت أصحابه الموحدين، وهذا إنما هو إلحاد في أسماء الله وآياته، ومعنى العدل عندهم يتضمن التكذيب بالقدر، وهو خلق أفعال العباد وإرادة الكائنات والقدرة على شيء، ومنهم من ينكر مقدم العلم والكتاب لكن هذا قول أئمتهم وهؤلاء منصب الزمخشري فإن مذهبه مذهب المغيرة بن علي وأبي هاشم وأتباعهم ومذهب أبي الحسين.
‮والمعتزلة الذين على طريقته نوعان مسايخية وخشبية، وأما المنزلة بين المنزلتين فهي عندهم أن الفاسق لا يسمى مؤمنا بوجه من الوجوه كما لا يسمى كافرا فنزلوه بين منزلتين وإنفاذ الوعيد عندهم معناه أن فساق الملة مخلدون في النار لا يخرجون منها بشفاعة ولا غير ذلك كما تقوله الخوارج، والأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر يتضمن عندهم جواز الخروج على الأئمة وقتالهم بالسيف – وهذه الأصول حشا كتابه بعبارة لا يهتدي أكثر الناس إليها ولا لمقاصده فيها، مع ما فيه من الأحاديث الموضوعة ومن قلة النقل عن الصحابة والتابعين.
‮وتفسير القرطبي خير منه بكثير وأقرب إلى طريقة أهل الكتاب والسنة وأبعد عن البدع، وإن كان كل من كتب هذه الكتب لا بد أن تشتمل على ما ينقد لكن يجب العدل بينها وإعطاء كل ذي حق حقه.
‮وتفسير ابن عطية خير من تفسير الزمخشري وأصح نقلا وبحثا وأبعد عن البدع وإن اشتمل على بعضها بل هو خير منه بكثير بل لعله أرجح هذه التفاسير لكن تفسير ابن جرير أصح من هذه كلها.
وثم تفاسير أخر كثيرة جدا كتفسير ابن الجوزي والماوردي.
‮وأما كتاب قوت القلوب، وكتاب الإحياء تبع له فيما يذكره من أعمال القلوب، مثل الصبر، والشكر، والحب، والتوكل، والتوحيد، ونحو ذلك.
‮وأبو طالب أعلم بالحديث والأثر وكلام أهل علوم القلوب من الصوفية وغيرهم من أبي حامد الغزالي وكلامه أشد وأجود تحقيقا وأبعد عن البدعة مع أن في قوت القلوب أحاديث ضعيفة وموضوعة وأشياء مردودة كثيرة.
‮وأما ما في الإحياء من المهلكات مثل الكلام على الكبر، والعجب، والرياء، والحسد ونحو ذلك فغالبه منقول من كلام الحارث المحاسبي في ” الرعاية ” – ومنه ما هو مقبول ومنه ما هو مردود ومنه ما هو متنازع فيه، والإحياء فيه فوائد كثيرة، لكن فيه مواد مذمومة، فإن فيه مواد فاسدة من كلام الفلاسفة تتعلق بالتوحيد والنبوة والمعاد – فإذا ذكرت معارف الصوفية كان بمنزلة من أخذ عدوا للمسلمين ألبسه ثياب المسلمين وقد أنكر أئمة الدين على أبي حامد هذا في كتبه وقالوا: أمرضه الشفاء يعني شفاء ابن سينا في الفلسفة – وفيه أحاديث وآثار ضعيفة، بل موضوعة كثيرة وفيه أشياء من أغاليط الصوفية وترهاتهم، وفيه مع ذلك من كلام المشايخ الصوفية العارفين المستقيمين في أعمال القلوب الموافق للكتاب والسنة ومن غير ذلك من العبادات والأدب ما هو موافق للكتاب والسنة ما هو أكثر مما يرد منه فلهذا اختلف فيه اجتهاد الناس وتنازعوا فيه.
‮وأما كتب الحديث المعروفة مثل البخاري ومسلم فليس تحت أديم السماء كتاب أصح من البخاري ومسلم بعد القرآن وبعدهما ما جمع بينهما، مثل الجمع بين الصحيحين للحميدي، ولعبد الحق الإشبيلي، وبعد ذلك كتب السنن كسنن أبي داود، والنسائي، وجامع الترمذي، والمسانيد كمسند الشافعي، ومسند الإمام أحمد، وموطإ مالك فيه الأحاديث والآثار وغير ذلك وهو من أجل الكتب حتى قال الشافعي: ليس تحت أديم السماء بعد كتاب الله أصح من موطإ مالك يعني بذلك ما صنف على طريقته، فإن المتقدمين كانوا يجمعون في الباب بين المأثور عن النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – والصحابة والتابعين ولم تكن وضعت كتب الرأي التي تسمى كتب الفقه.
‮وبعد هذا جمع الحديث المسند في جمع الصحيح للبخاري ومسلم والكتب التي تحب ويؤجر الإنسان على كتابتها سواء كتبها لنفسه أو كتبها لبيعها، كما قال النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم -: «إن الله يدخل بالسهم الواحد ثلاثة الجنة: صانعه، والرامي به، والممد به» فالكتابة كذلك لينتفع به أو لينتفع به غيره كلاهما يثاب عليه.
‮وأما كتب المنطق فتلك لا تشتمل على علم يؤمر به شرعا، وإن كان قد أدى اجتهاد بعض الناس إلى أنه فرض على الكفاية، وقال بعض الناس إن العلوم لا تقوم إلا به كما ذكر ذلك أبو حامد فهذا غلط عظيم عقلا وشرعا – أما عقلا فإن جميع عقلاء بني آدم من جميع أصناف المتكلمين في العلم حرزوا علومهم بدون المنطق اليوناني – وأما شرعا فإنه من المعلوم بالاضطرار في دين الإسلام أن الله لم يوجب تعلم هذا المنطق اليوناني على أهل العلم والإيمان – وأما هو في نفسه فبعضه حق وبعضه باطل والحق الذي فيه كثير منه أو أكثره لا يحتاج إليه والقدر الذي يحتاج إليه منه فأكثر الفطر السليمة تستقل به والبليد لا ينتفع به والذكي لا يحتاج إليه، ومضرته على من لم يكن خبيرا بعلوم الأنبياء أكثر من نفعه فإن فيه من القواعد السلبية الفاسدة ما راجت على كثير من الفضلاء وكانت سبب نفاقهم وفساد علومهم – قول من قال إنه كله حق كلام باطل بل في كلامه في الحد والصفات الذاتية والعرضية وأقسام القياس والبرهان وموارده من الفساد ما قد بيناه في غير هذا الموضع وقد بين ذلك علماء المسلمين والله أعلم.

– امام ابن تيمية في الفتاوى الكبرى ج٥ ص٨٤-٨٧

How Israel stole Nuclear material from the US

This is an excerpt from the book “The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton” by Jefferson Morley, which discusses in detail how Israel managed to steal fissile material from the US and how top officials in the US intelligence appartus turned a blind eye to this heist.

“ANGLETON’S LOYALTY TO ISRAEL betrayed U.S. policy on an epic scale, and his former colleague John Hadden knew it. In 1978, Hadden, the retired Tel Aviv station chief, made the long trip from his home in Brunswick, Maine, to Washington, D.C. He had a story he needed to tell the right people: how Israel stole nuclear material from the United States government on Angleton’s watch. The story of the great uranium heist at the NUMEC plant in Pennsylvania continued to attract official interest. Over the years, the story of the loss of hundreds of pounds of fissionable material from the Apollo facility had been examined by several government agencies. The question was whether the Israelis had used NUMEC to divert enriched uranium to Dimona and then used it to build their nuclear arsenal. The CIA’s scientists reviewed the evidence. Without judging the legal questions, they all agreed that enriched uranium from NUMEC had been obtained by the Israelis. “I believe that all of my senior analysts who worked on the problem agreed with me fully,” said Carl Duckett, deputy director of the CIA responsible for technical and nuclear intelligence. “[T]he clear consensus in the CIA was that indeed NUMEC material had been diverted and had been used by the Israelis in fabricating weapons.”138

The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission looked into the matter and found their efforts stymied by a lack of cooperation from the CIA and from NUMEC president Zalman Shapiro, as well as by a studious lack of interest from Capitol Hill. The investigators found no proof of diversion, but they did not have access to all the classified information available to the CIA scientists. When former NRC staffer Roger Mattson managed to get access to the CIA records, he concluded that NUMEC was the only possible source of Israel’s fissionable material.139

John Hadden said the same thing. “A crime was committed 10 or 20 years ago,” he wrote in a memo for the record, “a crime considered so serious that for its commission the death penalty is mandatory and no statute of limitations applies.” A good CIA man, Hadden never spilled classified information, never reported out of channels. He spoke only with the senior staff of the AEC or the House Interior Committee.140 He prepared twenty-nine talking points to support his memo’s conclusion: that NUMEC was a front company deployed in an Israeli-American criminal conspiracy to evade U.S. nonproliferation laws and supply the Israeli nuclear arsenal. “If the crime had been committed intentionally and was not the result of carelessness,” Hadden went on, “then the circumstances warranted a finding of high treason with a mandatory death penalty.” The only other explanation, he wrote, was “gross incompetence on the part of those responsible for security in certain areas.” It was either treason or incompetence, Hadden said. If one of those terms applied to his former boss, Jim Angleton, so be it.141

Angleton had regular professional and personal contact with at least six men aware of Israel’s secret plan to build a bomb. From Asher Ben-Natan to Amos de Shalit to Isser Harel to Meir Amit to Moshe Dayan to Yval Ne’eman, his friends were involved in the building of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. If he learned anything of the secret program at Dimona, he reported very little of it. If he didn’t ask questions about Israel’s actions, he wasn’t doing his job. Instead of supporting U.S. nuclear security policy, he ignored it. Angleton thought collaboration with the Israeli intelligence services was more important. And the results proved his point, he believed. When Angleton started as chief of the Counterintelligence Staff in 1954, the state of Israel and its leaders were regarded warily in Washington, especially at the State Department. When Angleton left government service twenty years later, Israel held twice as much territory as it had in 1948, the CIA and the Mossad collaborated on a daily basis, and the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies, knit together by expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts, and coordinated diplomacy. The failure of the U.S. nonproliferation policy to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons to the Middle East in the 1960s is part of Angleton’s legacy, and its effects will be felt for decades, if not centuries. He was a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel that endures and dominates the region to this day. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, “the biggest Zionist of the lot.””

---

138. Transcript of “Near Armageddon: The Spread of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East,” 14, ABC News Closeup, broadcast April 28, 1981. See also “Only CIA Believed Uranium Diverted,” Washington Post, February 26, 1978.
139.  Author’s interview with Roger Mattson, December 10, 2015.
140.  One of them was investigator Peter Stockton, who said Hadden had showed him “a binder of stuff” when they met at a CIA safe house. “He would pull out a 25 foot makeshift scroll of paper that contained the case against NUMEC,” Stockton told a reporter. “This was before computers, and the thing was long and pasted together and that was his evidence. We’d sit there in the safe house and he’d read me portions.” See Scott Johnson, “What Lies Beneath,” Foreign Policy, March 23, 2015.
141.  When the NUMEC investigation petered out in the late 1970s, Hadden let the matter drop. He was intelligence officer, not a crusader. He had done what he could as a CIA officer and a citizen. He filed his findings about NUMEC among his personal papers, where his son found them after his death in 2013.

Operation Northwoods – A plan to create justification for U.S. to attack Cuba.

Operation Northwoods was indeed a plan which entailed use of violence in the streets of the US to create a pretext for waging war against another sovereign country. Some people say that Pearl Harbor and 911 attacks were the manifestation of this plan, but one can never be certain about things until they are declassified. So after the declassification of Operation Northwoods we can say that such a plan was not just a remote possibility. Here I present an excerpt from the book, The Ghost – The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton by Jefferson Morley about this operation.

“The situation was urgent. In a meeting on May 1, 1963, the Joint Chiefs resurrected a secret plan known by the deceptively bucolic code name of NORTHWOODS. The NORTHWOODS plan, first developed after the Bay of Pigs, sought to create a justification, a pretext, for a U.S. invasion of Cuba. Since Castro could no longer be overthrown from within (thanks to Kennedy’s weakness), the only solution was to remove him from without. The idea was to orchestrate a crime that placed the U.S. government “in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government in Havana.” Then the president could declare war and send in the Eighty-second Airborne Division. One NORTHWOODS scenario envisioned the use of violence on the streets of America. “We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities, and even in Washington.… The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated).”19 That merciless parenthetical makes it clear that the Pentagon’s planners were willing to kill innocent persons who opposed Castro and to blame their deaths on the Cuban leader in order to justify a U.S. invasion. Kennedy wasn’t interested in socalled pretext operations. When Lyman Lemnitzer had first presented the NORTHWOODS concept at a White House meeting in March 1962, JFK had brusquely rejected it.20 With Castro emboldened in the spring of 1963, the Joint Chiefs revived the NORTHWOODS option. They recommended an “engineered provocation,” which would provide advantages in “control, timing, simplicity, and security.” The chiefs passed their recommendation to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who ignored it. The Kennedy White House preferred the idea of “autonomous operations” against Castro.”

19. The NORTHWOODS schemes are contained in “Northwoods,” a 197-page compilation of documents from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discovered and made public by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997. See NARA JFK JCS RIF 202-10002-10104.
20. Brig. Gen. Edwin Lansdale, “Memorandum for the Record, Meeting with the President,” March 16, 1962, U.S. Department of the Army, Califano Papers, NARA CIA JFK RIF 198-10004-10020.

A Brief History of Lawns

I have always been interested in finding out, why people do something and have been doing it over the centuries, to act upon it with clear grasp of utility/futility. So while I was reading Homo Deus, I came across an intriguing discovery about why people make Lawns. Here is the excerpt.

The lawns of Château de Chambord, in the Loire Valley. King François I built it in the
early sixteenth century. This is where it all began. (Courtesy: Homo Deus)

A young couple building a new home for themselves may ask the architect for a nice lawn in the front yard. Why a lawn? ‘Because lawns are beautiful,’ the couple might explain. But why do they think so? It has a history behind it.

Stone Age hunter-gatherers did not cultivate grass at the entrance to their caves. No green meadow welcomed the visitors to the Athenian Acropolis, the Roman Capitol, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem or the Forbidden City in Beijing. The idea of nurturing a lawn at the entrance to private residences and public buildings was born in the castles of French and English aristocrats in the late Middle Ages. In the early modern age this habit struck deep roots, and became the trademark of nobility.

Well-kept lawns demanded land and a lot of work, particularly in the days before lawnmowers and automatic water sprinklers. In exchange, they produce nothing of value. You can’t even graze animals on them, because they would eat and trample the grass. Poor peasants could not afford wasting precious land or time on lawns. The neat turf at the entrance to chateaux was accordingly a status symbol nobody could fake. It boldly proclaimed to every passerby: ‘I am so rich and powerful, and I have so many acres and serfs, that I can afford this green extravaganza.’ The bigger and neater the lawn, the more powerful the dynasty. If you came to visit a duke and saw that his lawn was in bad shape, you knew he was in trouble.⁵⁰

The precious lawn was often the setting for important celebrations and social events, and at all other times was strictly off-limits. To this day, in countless palaces, government buildings and public venues a stern sign commands people to ‘Keep off the grass’. In my former Oxford college the entire quad was formed of a large, attractive lawn, on which we were allowed to walk or sit on only one day a year. On any other day, woe to the poor student whose foot desecrated the holy turf.

Royal palaces and ducal chateaux turned the lawn into a symbol of authority. When in the late modern period kings were toppled and dukes were guillotined, the new presidents and prime ministers kept the lawns. Parliaments, supreme courts, presidential residences and other public buildings increasingly proclaimed their power in row upon row of neat green blades. Simultaneously, lawns conquered the world of sports. For thousands of years humans played on almost every conceivable kind of ground, from ice to desert. Yet in the last two centuries, the really important games – such as football and tennis – are played on lawns. Provided, of course, you have money. In the favelas of Rio de Janeiro the future generation of Brazilian football is kicking makeshift balls over sand and dirt. But in the wealthy suburbs, the sons of the rich are enjoying themselves over meticulously kept lawns.

Humans thereby came to identify lawns with political power, social status and economic wealth. No wonder that in the nineteenth century the rising bourgeoisie enthusiastically adopted the lawn. At first only bankers, lawyers and industrialists could afford such luxuries at their private residences. Yet when the Industrial Revolution broadened the middle class and gave rise to the lawn-mower and then the automatic sprinkler, millions of families could suddenly afford a home turf. In American suburbia a spick-and-span lawn switched from being a rich person’s luxury into a middle-class necessity.

This was when a new rite was added to the suburban liturgy. After Sunday morning service at church, many people devotedly mowed their lawns. Walking along the streets, you could quickly ascertain the wealth and position of every family by the size and quality of their turf. There is no surer sign that something is wrong at the Joneses’ than a neglected lawn in the front yard. Grass is nowadays the most widespread crop in the USA after maize and wheat, and the lawn industry (plants, manure, mowers, sprinklers, gardeners) accounts for billions of dollars every year.⁵¹

The lawn did not remain solely a European or American craze. Even people who have never visited the Loire Valley see US presidents giving speeches on the White House lawn, important football games played out in green stadiums, and Homer and Bart Simpson quarrelling about whose turn it is to mow the grass. People all over the globe associate lawns with power, money and prestige. The lawn has therefore spread far and wide, and is now set to conquer even the heart of the Muslim world. Qatar’s newly built Museum of Islamic Art is flanked by magnificent lawns that hark back to Louis XIV’s Versailles much more than to Haroun al-Rashid’s Baghdad. They were designed and constructed by an American company, and their more than 100,000 square metres of grass– in the midst of the Arabian desert – require a stupendous amount of fresh water each day to stay green. Meanwhile, in the suburbs of Doha and Dubai, middle-class families pride themselves on their lawns. If it were not for the white robes and black hijabs, you could easily think you were in the Midwest rather than the Middle East.

Having read this short history of the lawn, when you now come to plan your dream house you might think twice about having a lawn in the front yard. You are of course still free to do it. But you are also free to shake off the cultural cargo bequeathed to you by European dukes, capitalist moguls and the Simpsons – and imagine for yourself a Japanese rock garden, or some altogether new creation. This is the best reason to learn history: not in order to predict the future, but to free yourself of the past and imagine alternative destinies. Of course this is not total freedom – we cannot avoid being shaped by the past. But some freedom is better than none.

---

50 Lionel S. Smith and Mark D. E. Fellowes, ‘Towards a Lawn without Grass: The Journey of the Imperfect Lawn and Its Analogues’, Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscape 33:3 (2013),  158–9; John Dixon Hunt and Peter Willis (eds), The Genius of the Place: The English Landscape Garden 1620–1820, 5th edn (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 1–45; Anne Helmriech, The English Garden and National Identity: The Competing Styles of Garden Design 1870–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 1–6.

51 Robert J. Lake, ‘Social Class, Etiquette and Behavioral Restraint in British Lawn Tennis’, International Journal of the History of Sport 28:6 (2011) 876–94; Beatriz Colomina, ‘The Lawn at War: 1941–1961’, in The American Lawn, ed. Georges Teyssot (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999), 135–53; Virginia Scott Jenkins, The Lawn: History of an American Obsession (Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1994)

Israel’s botched Attack on Pakistani Nuclear Installments

Following is an excerpt from the book “Deception – Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons” written by Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark . It is taken from the book’s sixth chapter titled “A Figment of the Zionist Mind”.

[Sharifuddin] Pirzada remembered well Khan’s proclivity for speaking out. The flurry of interviews in January and February 1984 had a purpose. “Khan found it hard to keep his trap shut. This is true. But these prolonged interviews were for a reason. Zia believed in nuclear ambiguity, a strategy whereby it could be inferred that Pakistan had the bomb without Pakistan losing its lucrative US aid. The plan was to give the impression that Pakistan’s nuclear mission was unstoppable in order to bring about its international acceptance and to warn India that should they choose to strike we were ready to respond.”19

Khan had spoken out on Zia’s instruction, the CIA having warned Islamabad that India had finally snapped and was planning a preemptive military strike against Kahuta.20

“The problem with Khan was that he always set out to do one thing and then invariably achieved another,” Pirzada recalled. “Khan went further than his brief and sent our American friends apoplectic.” Zia was advised to draft a clarification, carried by state television and the newspapers. Gilded in semantics, the president’s statement made no mention of Khan’s claim that Pakistan had enriched uranium to weapons grade and the president insisted there were no plans to build a bomb, even though Khan had been right to say that “Pakistan could build a bomb if it needed to.”21

The Pakistanis were masterful word-smiths and there were many in the West who were glad that they were. The timing of Khan’s outpourings could not have been worse. Reagan was due in Beijing. The aid package to Pakistan was up for renewal on Capitol Hill. In New Delhi, too, there was anger at Khan and at the US. The talk was that Washington had betrayed India’s secret plans to strike at Pakistan’s nuclear project. K. Subrahmanyam, chairman of India’s joint intelligence committee, picked over the Khan interviews. “We knew we were being challenged by Islamabad,” Subrahmanyam recalled.22

“Our intelligence people also had evidence of the Pakistan air force increasing their levels of readiness, further proof, if any more were needed, that our covert intentions to hit Kahuta were not secret any more.” But what made India’s joint intelligence committee livid was that it had been sitting on the plan to strike KRL for a year. A committee of soldiers and intelligence people had first come together to discuss what became known as “the Osirak contingency” in 1981, after Lieutenant General Krishnaswami Sundarji had published his Pakistan war-gaming manual. Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had consented and placed Air Marshal Dilbagh Singh, chief of air staff, in charge of the operation. He had ordered Indian Air Force Jaguar squadrons to practice low-level flying, simulating runs with 2,000-lb bombs.23

In February 1983, with the strike plan at an advanced stage, Indian military officials had travelled secretly to Israel, which had a common interest in eliminating Khan, to buy electronic warfare equipment to neutralize Kahuta’s air defenses.24

On 25 February 1983, Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had accused Pakistan of “covertly attempting to make nuclear weapons,” and three days later, Raja Ramanna, director of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center, had revealed that India, too, was developing a uranium enrichment facility.25

Suspecting something was brewing, the ISI sent a message to their Indian intelligence counterparts in RAW that autumn, and as a result Munir Ahmed Khan of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission met Dr. Ramanna at the Imperial Hotel in Vienna. 26

He warned Ramanna that if India were to strike at Kahuta, Pakistan would hit India’s nuclear facilities at Trombay. It lay downwind from the teeming Indian city of Mumbai and an attack would result in the release of “massive amounts of radiation to a large populated area, causing a disaster.”27

New Delhi paused. Israel stepped in, suggesting that it carry out the raid, using India’s airbase at Jamnagar to launch Israeli air force jets and a second base in northern India to refuel. A senior Israeli analyst close to the operation recalled that the plan was to enter Pakistan beneath the radar, with jets tracking the line of the Himalayas through Kashmir. As Reagan’s staff finalized arrangements for the president’s visit to China in March 1984, prime minister Indira Gandhi signed off the Israeli-led operation, bringing India, Pakistan and Israel to within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear conflagration. It was at this point that the CIA tipped off President Zia, hoping the chain reaction would defuse the situation. And after Khan’s outbursts in the Pakistani newspapers, India and Israel had backed off. But these were high-stakes games, played between a known nuclear nation—India—and another— Pakistan—that Reagan continued to insist had no capability, the US deception bringing the region even further towards an apocalyptic conflagration.

General retd. Mirza Aslam Baig recounting another Israeli/Indian botched attempt on Pakistani Nuclear Installations during Benazir era.

---

19 Author interview with Sharifuddin Pirzada, Islamabad, spring 2006.

20 Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi had ordered her chief of air staff to draw up plans for such an operation. For details on the planning and US intervention in the raid, see below.

21 Zia’s statement was issued on 13 February 1984.

22 Author interview with K. Subrahmanyam, New Delhi, spring 2006.

23 Bharat Karnad, Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy (Macmillan, New Delhi, 2002), pp. 346–7.

24 During this shopping trip, the Israelis had proposed a trade. If New Delhi gave Jerusalem technical data on the MiG-23 combat aircraft supplied to India by the Soviet Union, the Israelis would pass to India classified manuals it had obtained from the US that would enable New Delhi to jam the radar frequencies used by the new F-16 fighters that had recently arrived in Islamabad from Fort Worth, Texas. The electronic warfare equipment bought from Israel arrived at the Indian air force’s Jamnagar base in Gujarat in March 1983. See Karnad, p. 346.

25 An interview with Raja Ramanna, director of India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center, appeared in “India Is Pursuing Uranium Enrichment Technology,” Nuclear Fuel, 28 February 1983, pp 3–4.

26 They met during an IAEA session in the autumn of 1983.

27 Author interviews in New Delhi in the winter and summer of 2006. For another account, see George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999), p. 241.

---

Have we failed as a Nation?

Mohammed Ali Jinnah at Mian Bashir Ahmed’s Lahore residence in March 1940, with the founding fathers of Pakistan. (Photo courtesy: m-a-jinnah.blogspot.com)

I had a theory that the dismal political state of affairs of Pakistan is due primarily to the fact that the people who struggled for and gave their sweat and blood in the making of Pakistan could not and did not participate in her infantile years. After Quaid e Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan we don’t see any person at the helms of affairs who could be credited with any role in the freedom movement. Those who could make to the top were thoroughly disgraced; Khawaja Nazimuddin, Huseyn Shaheed Suharwardy, Feroz Khan Noon, Miss Fatima Jinnah. Without naming names and going into details that who did this or why this happened, as this has been well researched and written about, I would like to elaborate a little about my theory.

Just as when a baby is born if she is nurtured by her mother and father, she grows up to be a healthy child and later a balanced person, a nation, right after its birth, needs to be nurtured and sustained by its founding fathers; if that does not happen the nation fails.

While reading the book ‘Why Nations Fail’, this theory of mine was vindicated. This book is a must read for anyone who wants to know in simple terms, why the rich nations are rich and the poor, poor. I share a chapter from the book which juxtaposes two nations US and Mexico, which got independence almost in the same era, in terms of their constitutions. And then elaborates upon the reasons that made the difference between their prosperity and growth. The title of the chapter is “A Tale of Two Constitutions”.

A TALE OF TWO CONSTITUTIONS

It should now be apparent that it is not a coincidence that the United States, and not Mexico, adopted and enforced a constitution that espoused democratic principles, created limitations on the use of political power, and distributed that power broadly in society. The document that the delegates sat down to write in Philadelphia in May 1787 was the outcome of a long process initiated by the formation of the General Assembly in Jamestown in 1619.

The contrast between the constitutional process that took place at the time of the independence of the United States and the one that took place a little afterward in Mexico is stark. In February 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte’s French armies invaded Spain. By May they had taken Madrid, the Spanish capital. By September the Spanish king Ferdinand had been captured and had abdicated. A national junta, the Junta Central, took his place, taking the torch in the fight against the French. The Junta met first at Aranjuez, but retreated south in the face of the French armies. Finally it reached the port of Cádiz, which, though besieged by Napoleonic forces, held out. Here the Junta formed a parliament, called the Cortes. In 1812 the Cortes produced what became known as the Cádiz Constitution, which called for the introduction of a constitutional monarchy based on notions of popular sovereignty. It also called for the end of special privileges and the introduction of equality before the law. These demands were all anathema to the elites of South America, who were still ruling an institutional environment shaped by the encomienda, forced labor, and absolute power vested in them and the colonial state.

The collapse of the Spanish state with the Napoleonic invasion created a constitutional crisis throughout colonial Latin America. There was much dispute about whether to recognize the authority of the Junta Central, and in response, many Latin Americans began to form their own juntas. It was only a matter of time before they began to sense the possibility of becoming truly independent from Spain. The first declaration of independence took place in La Paz, Bolivia, in 1809, though it was quickly crushed by Spanish troops sent from Peru. In Mexico the political attitudes of the elite had been shaped by the 1810 Hidalgo Revolt, led by a priest, Father Miguel Hidalgo. When Hidalgo’s army sacked Guanajuato on September 23, they killed the intendant, the senior colonial official, and then started indiscriminately to kill white people. It was more like class or even ethnic warfare than an independence movement, and it united all the elites in opposition. If independence allowed popular participation in politics, the local elites, not just Spaniards, were against it. Consequentially, Mexican elites viewed the Cádiz Constitution, which opened the way to popular participation, with extreme skepticism; they would never recognize its legitimacy.

In 1815, as Napoleon’s European empire collapsed, King Ferdinand VII returned to power and the Cádiz Constitution was abrogated. As the Spanish Crown began trying to reclaim its American colonies, it did not face a problem with loyalist Mexico. Yet, in 1820, a Spanish army that had assembled in Cádiz to sail to the Americas to help restore Spanish authority mutinied against Ferdinand VII. They were soon joined by army units throughout the country, and Ferdinand was forced to restore the Cádiz Constitution and recall the Cortes. This Cortes was even more radical than the one that had written the Cádiz Constitution, and it proposed abolishing all forms of labor coercion. It also attacked special privileges—for example, the right of the military to be tried for crimes in their own courts. Faced finally with the imposition of this document in Mexico, the elites there decided that it was better to go it alone and declare independence.

This independence movement was led by Augustín de Iturbide, who had been an officer in the Spanish army. On February 24, 1821, he published the Plan de Iguala, his vision for an independent Mexico. The plan featured a constitutional monarchy with a Mexican emperor, and removed the provisions of the Cádiz Constitution that Mexican elites found so threatening to their status and privileges. It received instantaneous support, and Spain quickly realized that it could not stop the inevitable. But Iturbide did not just organize Mexican secession. Recognizing the power vacuum, he quickly took advantage of his military backing to have himself declared emperor, a position that the great leader of South American independence Simón Bolivar described as “by the grace of God and of bayonets.” Iturbide was not constrained by the same political institutions that constrained presidents of the United States; he quickly made himself a dictator, and by October 1822 he had dismissed the constitutionally sanctioned congress and replaced it with a junta of his choosing. Though Iturbide did not last long, this pattern of events was to be repeated time and time again in nineteenth-century Mexico.

The Constitution of the United States did not create a democracy by modern standards. Who could vote in elections was left up to the individual states to determine. While northern states quickly conceded the vote to all white men irrespective of how much income they earned or property they owned, southern states did so only gradually. No state enfranchised women or slaves, and as property and wealth restrictions were lifted on white men, racial franchises explicitly disenfranchising black men were introduced. Slavery, of course, was deemed constitutional when the Constitution of the United States was written in Philadelphia, and the most sordid negotiation concerned the division of the seats in the House of Representatives among the states. These were to be allocated on the basis of a state’s population, but the congressional representatives of southern states then demanded that the slaves be counted. Northerners objected. The compromise was that in apportioning seats to the House of Representatives, a slave would count as three-fifths of a free person. The conflicts between the North and South of the United States were repressed during the constitutional process as the three-fifths rule and other compromises were worked out. New fixes were added over time—for example, the Missouri Compromise, an arrangement where one proslavery and one antislavery state were always added to the union together, to keep the balance in the Senate between those for and those against slavery. These fudges kept the political institutions of the United States working peacefully until the Civil War finally resolved the conflicts in favor of the North.

The Civil War was bloody and destructive. But both before and after it there were ample economic opportunities for a large fraction of the population, especially in the northern and western United States. The situation in Mexico was very different. If the United States experienced five years of political instability between 1860 and 1865, Mexico experienced almost nonstop instability for the first fifty years of independence. This is best illustrated via the career of Antonio López de Santa Ana.

Santa Ana, son of a colonial official in Veracruz, came to prominence as a soldier fighting for the Spanish in the independence wars. In 1821 he switched sides with Iturbide and never looked back. He became president of Mexico for the first time in May of 1833, though he exercised power for less than a month, preferring to let Valentín Gómez Farías act as president. Gómez Farías’s presidency lasted fifteen days, after which Santa Ana retook power. This was as brief as his first spell, however, and he was again replaced by Gómez Farías, in early July. Santa Ana and Gómez Farías continued this dance until the middle of 1835, when Santa Ana was replaced by Miguel Barragán. But Santa Ana was not a quitter. He was back as president in 1839, 1841, 1844, 1847, and, finally, between 1853 and 1855. In all, he was president eleven times, during which he presided over the loss of the Alamo and Texas and the disastrous Mexican-American War, which led to the loss of what became New Mexico and Arizona. Between 1824 and 1867 there were fifty-two presidents in Mexico, few of whom assumed power according to any constitutionally sanctioned procedure.

The consequence of this unprecedented political instability for economic institutions and incentives should be obvious. Such instability led to highly insecure property rights. It also led to a severe weakening of the Mexican state, which now had little authority and little ability to raise taxes or provide public services. Indeed, even though Santa Ana was president in Mexico, large parts of the country were not under his control, which enabled the annexation of Texas by the United States. In addition, as we just saw, the motivation behind the Mexican declaration of independence was to protect the set of economic institutions developed during the colonial period, which had made Mexico, in the words of the great German explorer and geographer of Latin America Alexander von Humbolt, “the country of inequality.” These institutions, by basing the society on the exploitation of indigenous people and the creation of monopolies, blocked the economic incentives and initiatives of the great mass of the population. As the United States began to experience the Industrial Revolution in the first half of the nineteenth century, Mexico got poorer.

ABANDONING INDIA

(This is a transcript of a speech delivered by Winston Churchill on 18 March 1931 at Royal Albert Hall, London. In this speech he is talking about the inherent communal and at times ferocious divide between Hindus and Muslims of India. One is at a loss when he sees that this chasm was obvious to even the Englishmen but the Muslims of Congress and her allies were oblivious of this fact. A video of Winston Churchill around the same era shows the same concerns of Hindu Muslim communal tensions.)

Churchill, who had had many years experience of India as a soldier, was firmly convinced that the effective removal of British power would lead, not only to the demise of the British Empire, but to large scale inter-communal violence and bloodshed between Hindus and Muslims. Tragically, he was to be proved right in this. Nonetheless, by his stand he alienated a large element of the Conservative Party, at a time when, shortly, he would need every friend and political ally he could muster.

To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence. It would shame for ever those who bore its guilt. These Brahmins who mouth and patter the principles of Western Liberalism, and pose as philosophic and democratic politicians, are the same Brahmins who deny the primary rights of existence to nearly sixty millions of their own fellow-countrymen whom they call ‘untouchable’, and whom they have by thousands of years of oppression actually taught to accept this sad position. They will not eat with these sixty millions, nor drink with them, nor treat them as human beings. They consider themselves contaminated even by their approach. And then in a moment they turn round and begin chopping logic with John Stuart Mill, or pleading the rights of man with Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

While any community, social or religious, endorses such practices and asserts itself resolved to keep sixty millions of fellow-countrymen perpetually and eternally in a state of sub-human bondage, we cannot recognise their claim to the title-deeds of democracy. Still less can we hand over to their unfettered sway those helpless millions they despise. Side by side with this Brahmin theocracy and the immense Hindu population – angelic and untouchable castes alike -there dwell in India seventy millions of Muslims, a race of far greater physical vigour and fierceness, armed with a religion which lends itself only too readily to war and conquest. While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Muslim sharpens his sword. Between these two races and creeds, containing as they do so many gifted and charming beings in all the glory of youth, there is no intermarriage.

The gulf is impassable. If you took the antagonisms of France and Germany, and the antagonisms of Catholics and Protestants, and compounded them and multiplied them ten-fold, you would not equal the division which separates these two races intermingled by scores of millions in the cities and plains of India. But over both of them the impartial rule of Britain has hitherto lifted its appeasing sceptre. Until the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms began to raise the question of local sovereignty and domination, they had got used to dwelling side by side in comparative toleration. But step by step, as it is believed we are going to clear out or be thrust out of India, so this tremendous rivalry and hatred of races springs into life again. It is becoming more acute every day. Where we to wash our hands of all responsibility and divest ourselves of all our powers, as our sentimentalists desire, ferocious civil wars would speedily break out between the Muslims and the Hindus. No one who knows India will dispute this.[i]

[i] Winston S Churchill – Never Give In – The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches, Pimlico, 2004, pp 97-99

The Train Tracks

A great passage from the novel ‘The Zahir’ by Paulo Coelho about the importance of critical thinking. It is no spoiler. Enjoy.

“I apologize for not being as direct as the two previous speakers, but I nevertheless have something to say. I went to a train station today and learned that the distance between railway tracks is always 143.5 centimeters, or 4 feet 8½ inches. Why this absurd measurement? I asked my girlfriend to find out and this is what she discovered. When they built the first train carriages, they used the same tools as they had for building horse drawn carriages. And why that distance between the wheels on carriages? Because that was the width of the old roads along which the carriages had to travel. And who decided that roads should be that width? Well, suddenly, we are plunged back into the distant past. It was the Romans, the first great road builders, who decided to make their roads that width. And why? Because their war chariots were pulled by two horses, and when placed side by side, the horses they used at the time took up 143.5 centimeters.
“So the distance between the tracks I saw today, used by our state-of-the-art high-speed trains, was determined by the Romans. When people went to the United States and started building railways there, it didn’t occur to them to change the width and so it stayed as it was. This even affected the building of space shuttles. American engineers thought the fuel tanks should be wider, but the tanks were built in Utah and had to be transported by train to the Space Center in Florida, and the tunnels couldn’t take anything wider. And so they had to accept the measurement that the Romans had decided was the ideal. But what has all this to do with marriage?”
I paused. Some people were not in the slightest bit interested in railway tracks and had started talking among themselves. Others were listening attentively, among them Marie and Mikhail.
“It has everything to do with marriage and with the two stories we have just heard. At some point in history, someone turned up and said: When two people get married, they must stay frozen like that for the rest of their lives. You will move along side by side like two tracks, keeping always that same distance apart. Even if sometimes one of you needs to be a little farther away or a little closer, that is against the rules. The rules say: Be sensible, think of the future, think of your children. You can’t change, you must be like two railway tracks that remain the same distance apart all the way from their point of departure to their destination. The rules don’t allow for love to change, or to grow at the start and diminish halfway through—it’s too dangerous. And so, after the enthusiasm of the first few years, they maintain the same distance, the same solidity, the same functional nature. Your purpose is to allow the train bearing the survival of the species to head off into the future: your children will only be happy if you stay just as you were—143.5 centimeters apart. If you’re not happy with something that never changes, think of them, think of the children you brought into the world.
“Think of your neighbors. Show them that you’re happy, eat roast beef on Sundays, watch television, help the community. Think of society. Dress in such a way that everyone knows you’re in perfect harmony. Never glance to the side, someone might be watching you, and that could bring temptation; it could mean divorce, crisis, depression.
Smile in all the photos. Put the photos in the living room, so that everyone can see them.
Cut the grass, practice a sport—oh, yes, you must practice a sport in order to stay frozen in time. When sport isn’t enough, have plastic surgery. But never forget, these rules were established long ago and must be respected. Who established these rules? That doesn’t matter. Don’t question them, because they will always apply, even if you don’t agree with them.”
/blockquote>

We must rationalize what we do before we do it. Critical thinking is a must for the collective human progress and individual satisfaction.