In class, we discussed how the two ancient poets, Rumi and Hafez, separated by about a hundred years, were both a part of the small Suni sect within Islam. As such, they both held to a lifestyle of asceticism, whereby withholding from the many pleasures of life in order to reap the rewards in the next life. This believe was prevalent within Rumi’s prose in, The Question, where Rumi details of a scenario where he is caught between water and fire, and while water seems to be the easier path and fire the burning one, he writes the more rewarding is the fire in the end. This coincides with the Suni belief that the more painful option leads to the path of glory. While Rumi seems to coincide with the ascetic beliefs of his Islamic practice, Hafez seems to do the opposite. In, Thanks be to God, Hafez seems to be thanking god for opening the wine-shops and talks of the pleasure of women and the like. While Hafez might be a self ascribed ascetic, it doesn’t seem as though he is so devout in his practice. And therein lies the biggest difference between the two, while both ascribe themselves to life without pleasure, Rumi seems to be the only one to actually live and write about it.
One thought on “Compare Rumi and Hafez”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I really enjoyed how we discussed this in class it made a lot more sense. I personally only thought of fire as a destructive thing that just burns down anything. But it does make sense if you actually think about it, fire is almost an essential to our life because it does bring life. Mixing elements with fire and mixing even molten fire with even water creates land! I was fully convinced after reading this that fire is a good thing we just look at is as humans to be a bad thing and cause destruction in society. You never hear in the paper how fire saved lives, or fire was the reason they were able to escape the building. You only read about fire in society in a semi negative way which I thought this reading brought light to fire and its abilities.