The Dimyāṭī Maqāmah: Abū Ḥabīb’s Poetic Reply

1. Abū Ḥabīb answers in verse

Two contrasting speeches have been delivered. The first advocates kindness even when mistreated; the second insists on fairness and a measured response. A poem now gives the second view a memorable form.

«وَأَيُّ حُرٍّ رَضِيَ بِخُطَّةِ خَسْفٍ؟ وَلِلَّهِ أَبُو حَبِيبٍ حَيْثُ يَقُولُ»
What free and dignified person would accept a degrading position? How fine are Abū Ḥabīb’s words when he says the following.

Khiṭṭat khasf denotes a condition of humiliation. The poem asks how generosity can coexist with the protection of one’s dignity and legitimate interests.

2. How the poem makes its argument

Each couplet strengthens the argument with another image. The progression moves from the foundations of friendship to measures, cultivation, trade, debts, the grave, and clothing.

The images do real argumentative work. To measure affection fairly is to think about giving and receiving; the fruit of cultivation makes conduct resemble a harvest.

Read each verse at two levels: first identify the literal object, then the human relationship represented by it. This makes the difficult vocabulary an active part of the story rather than a separate list to memorize.

3. Love must rest on a foundation

«جَزَيْتُ مَنْ أَعْلَقَ بِي وُدَّهُ / جَزَاءَ مَنْ بَنَى عَلَى أُسِّهِ»
I repaid the person who attached his affection to me as one builds upon a firm foundation.

Aʿlaqa conveys attachment; uss is a foundation. Affection answered with affection becomes a building resting on solid ground.

The poet is not rejecting sincere friendship. His first verse says that genuine attachment deserves a genuine response, and the building image presents this as stable rather than impulsive.

4. Friendship as a measured exchange

«وَكِلْتُ لِلْخِلِّ كَمَا كَالَ لِي / عَلَى وَفَاءِ الْكَيْلِ أَوْ بَخْسِهِ»
I measured out to my friend as he measured to me, whether the measure was full or diminished.

Al-khill means an intimate friend. Kāla/kiltu refers to measuring goods. The poet imports an ordinary market transaction into the language of friendship.

The idea is a response proportionate to what one receives. Yet the next verse qualifies this image: the speaker does not wish to shortchange another person. The poem must not be reduced to a simple demand for revenge.

5. Full measure and short measure

«وَفَاءِ الْكَيْلِ أَوْ بَخْسِهِ»
Whether completing the measure or diminishing it.

Wafāʾ al-kayl suggests giving a full measure; bakhs means diminishing what is due. The pair is first intelligible in ordinary commerce, then carries over into human relations.

Literal case: giving someone the full amount of grain promised.
Figurative case: fulfilling obligations of trust and loyalty in friendship.

This is a representative analogy: the known scene of commerce explains a less tangible moral relationship.

6. He refuses to be the one who cheats

«وَلَمْ أُخْسِرْهُ وَشَرُّ الْوَرَى / مَنْ يَوْمُهُ أَخْسَرُ مِنْ أَمْسِهِ»
I did not shortchange him; the worst of people is one whose today is worse than yesterday.

Ukhsirhu concerns causing another a loss or deficiency; akhsar is a comparative meaning “more at a loss.” Related forms of the same root create distinct nuances.

The first half qualifies the earlier reciprocity: the speaker denies initiating dishonesty. The second half broadens the focus by comparing a person's moral condition today with that of yesterday.

7. Lam and comparative form

«لَمْ أُخْسِرْهُ»
I did not shortchange him.

Lam negates a jussive imperfect with past-time meaning. “Ukhsir” is the jussive verb; “-hu” is its object pronoun.

«يَوْمُهُ أَخْسَرُ مِنْ أَمْسِهِ»
His today is worse than his yesterday.

Akhsar is a comparative adjective; min amsihi gives the comparison. Observing both the word form and its syntactic position makes the poet's logic clearer.

8. The fruit of what one plants

«وَكُلُّ مَنْ يَطْلُبُ عِنْدِي جَنًى / فَمَا لَهُ إِلَّا جَنَى غَرْسِهِ»
Anyone who seeks fruit from me receives only the fruit of what he himself planted.

Janā is fruit or a harvest; ghars is planting or the planted growth. The earlier image was measuring; now it is cultivation. Both express a connection between what is given and what is received.

This is not literally a lesson in horticulture. In the relationship the poet describes, sincerity, pretence, loyalty, and betrayal resemble seeds that yield different outcomes.

9. Janā: repeated sound, renewed meaning

«جَنًى ... جَنَى غَرْسِهِ»
Fruit ... the fruit of his planting.

The poem repeats janā, first as the result someone asks for, then in connection with what that person planted. The sound ties together a claim and its source: one cannot separate the desired harvest from the earlier cultivation.

«كُلُّ مَنْ ... فَمَا لَهُ إِلَّا ...»
Whoever ... then nothing is his except ... .

The construction mā ... illā creates restriction or exclusivity. It places the outcome, according to the poet's declared policy, in relation to the person's own conduct.

10. A transaction that leaves someone cheated

«لَا أَبْتَغِي الْغَبْنَ وَلَا أَنْثَنِي / بِصَفْقَةِ الْمَغْبُونِ فِي حَسِّهِ»
I do not seek unfair loss, nor do I wish to leave a transaction as a person knowingly cheated.

Ghabn is loss through an unfair bargain; ṣafqa a bargain; maghbūn someone disadvantaged or deceived. The market imagery speaks about choices in relationships.

The two negatives balance not wronging another person with not knowingly accepting unfair treatment oneself. This balanced concern is central to the speaker's position.

11. Two negative verbs

«لَا أَبْتَغِي الْغَبْنَ وَلَا أَنْثَنِي»
I do not seek injustice, nor do I turn back with a foolish bargain.

Abtaghī is a first-person imperfect from Form VIII, here meaning to seek. Anthani conveys turning away or returning. Both first-person verbs are negated by lā, presenting a claimed habitual stance.

The speaker is describing his own intentions, not demonstrating another person's conduct. In a maqāmah, distinguish a character's self-portrait from what the narrator has actually witnessed.

12. Rights and obligations in the poem

«وَلَسْتُ بِالْمُوجِبِ حَقًّا لِمَنْ / لَا يُوجِبُ الْحَقَّ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ»
I do not impose an obligation for someone who does not acknowledge obligations upon himself.

Awjaba means to make binding. The active participle al-mūjib and the imperfect yūjib produce both a sound pattern and a conceptual parallel.

This is the speaker's uncompromising position, not a universal rule abolishing legal or religious rights. Its immediate context is mutual expectations in companionship, where one party demands much but accepts no responsibility.

13. The mere taste of affection

«وَرُبَّ مَذَّاقِ الْهَوَى خَالَنِي / أَصْدُقُهُ الْوُدَّ عَلَى لَبْسِهِ»
Many a person who merely tastes affection has imagined that I offer him sincere love despite his pretence.

Madhdhāq al-hawā depicts a superficial participant in affection—someone who samples its pleasures without sincerity. Love is made tangible through the action of tasting.

Labs here means confusion, disguise or falsification. The poet claims that he can distinguish honest attachment from a performance, even if the other person assumes he cannot.

14. Khālanī: another person’s mistaken belief

«خَالَنِي أَصْدُقُهُ الْوُدَّ»
He imagined that I was offering him sincere affection.

Khāla here means to suppose or imagine. In “khālanī,” the suffix “-nī” is the first-person object—“he supposed me to be ...”. The following verbal clause states the content of that supposition.

The interest lies in the gap between what another person assumes and what the speaker claims is really going on. The poem presents an individual viewpoint, not an independently verified report.

15. From affection to settling a debt

«وَمَا دَرَى مِنْ جَهْلِهِ أَنَّنِي / أَقْضِي غَرِيمِيَ الدَّيْنَ مِنْ جِنْسِهِ»
In his ignorance he did not realize that I settle a claimant’s debt with something of its own kind.

Gharīm can refer to a party to a debt, creditor or debtor according to context; aqḍī al-dayn means to discharge a debt. The poem compares the treatment of a friend to settling an account.

Min jinsihi means “of its own kind.” The central image is that a response corresponds to the treatment received. This is the poet’s figurative argument, not a discussion of the detailed legal rules of debt.

16. The grammar of settling an account

«أَنَّنِي أَقْضِي غَرِيمِيَ الدَّيْنَ مِنْ جِنْسِهِ»
That I repay the obligation to the person concerned in its own kind.

Anna-nī combines the emphatic particle “anna” with the first-person pronoun; aqḍī is a first-person imperfect. “Gharīmī” identifies the person concerned and “al-dayn” the debt; “min jinsihi” specifies the kind of repayment.

At the literal level we hear about accounts and debts; at the rhetorical level it is conduct answered by conduct. Vocabulary becomes clear only when connected to the poem’s larger comparison.

17. An imperative and its verbal noun

«فَاهْجُرْ ... هَجْرَ الْقِلَى»
Then leave ... a leaving marked by profound estrangement.

Uhjur is a second-person masculine singular imperative; hajr is a verbal noun from the same root. The verbal noun intensifies or specifies the kind of act, an example of the cognate accusative pattern.

Here “wahabhu” means “suppose or consider him,” followed by the simile “kal-malḥūd.” The two imperatives create a forceful admonitory tone rather than a detached observation.

18. Labsa and libās: ambiguity and clothing

«وَالْبَسْ لِمَنْ فِي وَصْلِهِ لِبْسَةٌ / لِبَاسَ مَنْ يَرْغَبُ عَنْ أُنْسِهِ»
Toward one whose companionship is clouded by pretence, put on the manner of a person who no longer seeks his intimacy.

Libsa signifies ambiguity or confusion; libās is clothing; ilbas is the imperative “wear.” Three related forms create verbal artistry.

The line is not literally recommending a costume change. The garment becomes a metaphor for the outward manner of someone who withdraws from dubious intimacy.

19. The danger of money-based friendship

«وَلَا تَرْجُ الْوُدَّ مِمَّنْ يَرَى / أَنَّكَ مُحْتَاجٌ إِلَى فَلْسِهِ»
Do not expect loyal affection from someone who thinks you depend on even a small coin of his.

Fals is a small coin or trifling sum. Mentioning such a modest amount, rather than a treasure, is pointed: a person may become arrogant over even minor financial advantage.

The objection is not to poverty or needing help. It is to someone who uses assistance as a source of superiority and control. The poem ends with the importance of dignity in relationships.

20. Who hopes, and who judges?

«وَلَا تَرْجُ الْوُدَّ مِمَّنْ يَرَى»
Do not hope for affection from one who believes ... .

Tarju is an imperfect verb made jussive after prohibitive “lā”; it addresses the listener. Yarā is third-person singular: another person forms an opinion about the listener.

These verb forms mark two different perspectives: the person who hopes and the person who treats the other as dependent. That difference supplies the emotional pressure of the final verse.

21. Six images woven through one poem

ImagePhraseFunctionBuildingʿalā ussihiA firm basis for trustMeasurewafāʾ al-kayl / bakhsihiFullness or deficiencyCultivationjanā gharsihiThe consequence of conductTradeṣafqat al-maghbūnBeing unfairly disadvantagedDebtal-dayn min jinsihiA response in kindClothinglibsa / libāsDistancing oneself from pretence

Together the images reveal the poem’s unity: ordinary practical activities become ways of reasoning about how people treat one another.

22. Contrast, repetition, and exaggeration

The poet does not simply restate one opinion. Each couplet adds a different verbal device.

Contrast: “wafāʾ al-kayl / bakhsihi”—full versus diminished measure.
Related word forms: “ukhsirhu / akhsar”—one root serving different meanings.
Repetition with development: “janā / janā gharsihi”—result linked to its origin.
Exaggeration: “kal-malḥūd fī ramsihi”—estrangement likened to burial.

Literary analysis should explain what each device contributes to meaning, not merely classify it.

23. The two companions: where they disagree

First companionSecond companion / poemClaims patience even under mistreatmentInsists on boundaries in relationshipsKeeps his generosity independent of the other person's actsLinks his own response to conduct receivedEmphasizes forgiveness and forbearanceEmphasizes fairness and dignity

Both speeches are rhetorically persuasive, yet they express different ethical outlooks. The maqāmah becomes interesting because the listener can appreciate the artistry while still examining the claims. Declaring either speaker wholly correct in every circumstance would flatten the literary debate.

24. Literary claims are not universal rulings

Some lines are measured; others intentionally severe. “Lā abtaghī al-ghabn” rejects unfairness, but “fahjur ... kal-malḥūd” depicts cutting off a relationship as completely as death.

Literary reading requires distinctions: identify the speaker’s claim, the reasoning behind it, and any exaggeration used for effect. Someone’s anger or another person's poverty does not automatically cancel real obligations or rights.

The poem therefore offers more than a slogan about getting what one gives. It exposes tensions among sincerity, fairness, dignity, and the temptation to retaliate.

25. The verse ends; the story moves on

The poem closes with “annaka muḥtājun ilā falsihi”, exposing the way money can distort affection. This marks the end of Abū Ḥabīb’s poetic response in the chosen section.

Its central argument moved through foundations, measures, cultivation, trade, debt, and clothing. Each difficult word contributed to the imagery, and each image pushed the reasoning forward—the characteristic literary pleasure of al-Ḥarīrī’s maqāmāt.

The immediate story now raises a fresh question: who are these two eloquent men? In the next passage al-Ḥārith ibn Hammām seeks to discover their identities, opening the next stage of the narrative.