SHAMS TABRIZ - Life, divan and other works

dawlatshahchitrali · Post by **dawlatshahchitrali** » Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:12 pm

Divan i Shams Tabriz or Kulliyat i Shams Tabriz or Divan i Kabir as it is called, is a master piece of Mowlana Rumi contains 44,282 lines. The Divan is filled with ecstatic verses which Rumi expresses his mystical love for Shams as a symbol of his love for God. Rumi sees Shams every where and in every thing. He often uses the name of Shams his beloved spiritual master at the end of Ghazals instead of his name. There is no Divan or poetry written by Shams himself.
Translation of a Ghazal from Divan;

YOU ARE MY SULTAN, YOU ARE MY SULTAN
WITHIN MY HEART AND SOUL YOU ARE MY FAITH

(WHEN) YOU BREATHE INTO ME , I BECOME ALIVE
WHAT IS ONE SOUL FOR YOU ARE A GREAT MANY SOULS

POISON FROM YOU BECOMES AN ANTIDOTE TO ME
YOU ARE MY CANDY AND ABUNDANT SWEET (KAND O SHAKAR)

YOU ARE MY GARDEN MEADOW AND PARADISE
YOU ARE MY CYPRESS AND SMILING JASMINE

YOU ARE MY KING, AS WELL MY MOON
YOU ARE MY RUBY AS WELL AS MY MINE

I BECAME SILENT YOU TELL ITS INTERPRETATION
FOR IN SPEECH YOU ARE MY PROOF.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:10 am

Very nice poem, thanks for sharing. No wonder MSMS told us to read the books of Mowlana Rumi to get a better understanding of our faith.

As today is Christmas I would like to share an anecdote about Shams and Saint Francis of Assis through whom he established a bond with the Western World...

Once Shams was located in Damascus, in a tavern gambling at cards with a young westerner, who is traditionally identified as Francis of Assisi. Young Francis was cheating Shams. But when Rumi's son and his entourage entered paying homage to Shams as a great emperor of the spirit, Francis immediately confessed and gave Shams back the money. "No. You must keep it and give it to the Friends in the West." So a beautiful bond was made , acknowledging the truth at the core where all religions connect.

Source: Say I Am You
Poetry Interspersed with Stories of Rumi and Shams

Translated by John Moyne and Coleman Barks.

There is an interesting article about Rumi's relationship with Shams.

Excerpt:

Shams, apparently, was not such an easy person to get along with. He was reputedly rather arrogant with a sharp tongue. He even said himself that he prayed to find a single person who could bear his company and was thus “directed to Anatolia.” In spite of Shams personal qualities, it is clear that Rumi encountered in him the very embodiment of the divine itself. Rumi writes:

It is not right that I should call you human [banda, servant]
But I am afraid to call you God [khuda]! (Diwan-i 2768).

Shamsulhaqq [Sun of Divine Truth], if I see in your clear mirror
Nothing but God, I am worse than an infidel! (Diwan-i 1027).

Whether it be infidelity or Islam, listen:
You are either the light of God or God, [khuda]! (Diwan-i 2711). 3

To understand the scandalous nature of these verses, one needs to know that idolatry is the highest sin in Islam. To Muslims idolatry is shirk, associating God with something that is not God. When Rumi compares Shams to God, he could commit no greater sin from the conventional point of view.

http://www.explorefaith.org/mystery/poetsRumi_ext.html

There is an interesting review of the autobiography of Shams at:

Me and Rumi: The Autobiography of Shams-I Tabrizi
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... ams+tabriz

Shams has not written any work but there is a compilation of his sayings called Maqalat. One of them being:

"People say that human beings are microcosms and this outer universe a macrocosm, but for us the outer is a tiny wholeness and the inner life the vast reality."
(Shams Tabriz, "Maqalat")

Given that Shams was God to Rumi as alluded above, why do you have a problem with murids of the Imam calling him God? Isn't it the same understanding that Rumi is conveying to us through his poetry?

nuseri · Post by **nuseri** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 3:30 am

Ya Ali madad.
Is divan a tribute to Shams Tabriz or his own corpus or work.
what is work,sermons of Shams Tabriz,as we have one qasida/manqabat
DUM HUME DUM ALI ALI.
I have earlier explained the three level view of this one line.
I feel if one says this ,it would have same value as Ismaili Kalima.
The beauty of qasida sways one way.
His work n words need to be found more to know about the entity.
I read that Guru Nanak came across some Sufi on his search for true person to Arabia then

tret · Post by **tret** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:12 pm

kmaherali wrote: ...Given that Shams was God to Rumi

This is OBVIOUSLY your opinion and understanding!

First, we need to define how do we precieve God! Do you precieve God the same way as Rumi did?

Your above statement is such a simplistic way of thinking about Rumi. There is field of "Mawlana Shinasi" [those who research about Mawlana and his way of thinking and belief, especially regarding Shams Tabriz] within the Islamic schools of thought. It would be absurd [And greatest sin, from an Islamic point of view], should this be the conclusion that "Shams was God to Rumi"....

I think the way you concluded is from "A conventional point of view"

Similarly, those [Ismailis] who say MHI is God, take similar conventional approach, without truly understanding it.

nuseri · Post by **nuseri** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:25 pm

To tret:Ya Ali madad.
Most Khoja origin and other Ismailis from absolutes inspiration from last n current 4 imams farmans n Ginan are truly(haqiqati) platform in their belief,faith,conviction that MHI is God.
If rumi did see Shams Tabriz as one then the entity of Shams need to researched.
I see the the words of just one line like giving Ism Azam or Boli to the human mankind
I feel that writing can come from hands of heaven.
If Rumi expressed himself as an Ismaili and all his work being on noorani platform.
Is is by default that before noorani status he would have had baatin didar of Imam of the time/Ali.
It was Imam Shamsuddin then.
Many sing like canary in that phase of life.Most took name of Ali.
He took name of Shams Tabrizi.
It is possible to safeguard identity n life of an Imam.
It is better we stick to Shams Tabrizi origin, work,etc.
You should participate in input of his work as you are always forthcoming in Persian origin data of the past.
Most Ismailis truly know their Imam.

dawlatshahchitrali · Post by **dawlatshahchitrali** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:44 pm

kmaherali wrote:Very nice poem, thanks for sharing. No wonder MSMS told us to read the books of Mowlana Rumi to get a better understanding of our faith.

Given that Shams was God to Rumi as alluded above, why do you have a problem with murids of the Imam calling him God? Isn't it the same understanding that Rumi is conveying to us through his poetry?

Some time back an Ismaili in 50's was discussing Ismailism. I was stunned when he said about an Ismaili that 'he is my God' actually he was attending his saat sung. ( I do not want to name the person whom he called God. He is well known in our community and at present 90+ years old). I have heard people saying,' he is my Qibla or he is my Ka'ba, or he is like God' to me'. These kind of analogies are due to respect for that person.
Rumi has many times used the phrases like," he is my Shams, he is Shams of my life, I see Shams every where". Rumy used Shams analogy in terms of Noor, means for him Shams was Noorullah as we Ismailis say " Imam is Noor of Allah or Imam as Noor i Dhat i Illahi". Means he is not Dhat him self but his noor for guidance. That is what we say in 2nd part of our Du'a.
Obey Allah
Obey Rasul
Obey Ulil Amr, Imam of the time.
In many cases sufis under influence of ecstasy have claimed God themselves or called their murshid as God, but when they came in their senses they refuted that claim and said we do not remember.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 3:59 pm

dawlatshahchitrali wrote: Rumy used Shams analogy in terms of Noor, means for him Shams was Noorullah as we Ismailis say " Imam is Noor of Allah or Imam as Noor i Dhat i Illahi".

I think you have not read what Rumi said. I am quoting again...

It is not right that I should call you human [banda, servant]
But I am afraid to call you God [khuda]! (Diwan-i 2768).

Shamsulhaqq [Sun of Divine Truth], if I see in your clear mirror
Nothing but God, I am worse than an infidel! (Diwan-i 1027).

Whether it be infidelity or Islam, listen:
You are either the light of God or God, [khuda]! (Diwan-i 2711). 3

From the above it is quite clear that he is talking about Shams being God. Why would he mention infidelity if he meant something else? What would he be afraid of if he did not mean Shams was God?

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:26 pm

tret wrote:
kmaherali wrote: ...Given that Shams was God to Rumi
This is OBVIOUSLY your opinion and understanding!.

At least you should have quoted my whole sentence which was: "Given that Shams was God to Rumi as alluded above"

What I was alluding to was the verses of his Diwan that I quoted. Based on the verses explain why Shams was not God to Rumi. What reason would he have of being afraid of if he did not mean Shams was God? Why would he mention infidelity if he did not mean Shams was God?

tret wrote: First, we need to define how do we precieve God! Do you precieve God the same way as Rumi did?

Yes, God is perceived through Haqiqati eyes. There is a Farman of MSMS which states:

From the bottom of My heart, I make this prayer (du'a) to you:
“O God! Grant their hearts such strength that they become free (azad),
that they become Haqiqati, that they turn away from evil, that they
take the path in the right direction and follow the straight path.
O God! Grant them Haqiqati eyes.”
This prayer (du'a) carries more value than any other prayers.

.....Dar-es-salaam, 29-09-1899(MSMS)Farman No: 160)

There is a verse of a Ginan which states:

jeere vaalaa saravanne sunneaa te me(n) nayanne su(n) deetthaa,
hu(n) to bhav bhav daasee tamaaree re vaalaa;

O dear one, What I have heard much about, I have seen with my own eyes. From birth through birth I am Your handmaiden.

Another Ginan verse Pir Sadardeen says:

jeere vaalaa dev jugatmaa(n) me pari bhram deetthaa
te satgur saaheb soi - re vaalaa

In the world of spirits, I saw Him, as the Supreme Lord. He indeed is the True Guide, the Imaam.

So the Musheed can be perceived as God through Haqiqati eyes, not ordinary ones.

tret wrote:
Your above statement is such a simplistic way of thinking about Rumi. There is field of "Mawlana Shinasi" [those who research about Mawlana and his way of thinking and belief, especially regarding Shams Tabriz] within the Islamic schools of thought. It would be absurd [And greatest sin, from an Islamic point of view], should this be the conclusion that "Shams was God to Rumi"....

I think the way you concluded is from "A conventional point of view"

Similarly, those [Ismailis] who say MHI is God, take similar conventional approach, without truly understanding it.

I think most Ismailis are expected to accept the word of the Pir in regards to matters of faith. As alluded above our Pirs are quite clear in their understanding of the Imam and have faithfully conveyed it to their Jamats.

It is upto each murid to delve further into the matter and verify for him/herself.

dawlatshahchitrali · Post by **dawlatshahchitrali** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:38 pm

From Divan Shams Tabriz

I need a lover and a friend
All friendships you transcend
And impotent I remain

You are Noah and the Ark
You are the light and the dark
Behind the veil I remain

You are passion and are rage
You are the bird and the cage
Lost in flight I remain

You are the wine and the cup
You are the ocean and the drop
While afloat I remain

I said, "O Soul of the world
My desperation has taken hold!"
"I am thy essence," without scold,
"Value me much more than gold."

You are the bait and the trap
You are the path and the map
While in search I remain

You are poison and the sweet
You are defeated and defeat
Sword in hand I remain

You are the wood and the saw
You are cooked, and are raw
While in a pot I remain

You are sunshine and the fog
You are water and the jug
While thirsty I remain

Sweet fragrance of Shams is
The joy and pride of Tabriz
Perfume trader I remain.

dawlatshahchitrali · Post by **dawlatshahchitrali** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:11 pm

kmaherali wrote:
dawlatshahchitrali wrote: Rumy used Shams analogy in terms of Noor, means for him Shams was Noorullah as we Ismailis say " Imam is Noor of Allah or Imam as Noor i Dhat i Illahi".
I think you have not read what Rumi said. I am quoting again...

It is not right that I should call you human [banda, servant]
But I am afraid to call you God [khuda]! (Diwan-i 2768).

Shamsulhaqq [Sun of Divine Truth], if I see in your clear mirror
Nothing but God, I am worse than an infidel! (Diwan-i 1027).

Whether it be infidelity or Islam, listen:
You are either the light of God or God, [khuda]! (Diwan-i 2711). 3

From the above it is quite clear that he is talking about Shams being God. Why would he mention infidelity if he meant something else? What would he be afraid of if he did not mean Shams was God?

In the first couplet he wrote 'bandah' means servant or ghullam or slave. Also in Pesian khuda means master, maalik and can be used for a person,
like khuda e khana. It works both ways called zu ma'na.
In second couplet the phrase is 'shamsul Haqq' sun of Haqq. Now sun and Haqq are two different things or entities, like kitabul Haqq. Here shamsul Haqq is a medium through which Rumi sees God. His assertion is if I don't see God in every particle then I am an infidel.
In third couplet, Rumi is perplexed whether to call Shams Noor of God or God Himself.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:49 am

dawlatshahchitrali wrote:[In the first couplet he wrote 'bandah' means servant or ghullam or slave. Also in Pesian khuda means master, maalik and can be used for a person,
like khuda e khana. It works both ways called zu ma'na. .

Read carefully! He is saying that it is NOT right that I should call you banda, but I am afraid to call you God (because of the shariati thinking of shirk). For him Shams is God but he is afraid to say that.

dawlatshahchitrali wrote:[
In second couplet the phrase is 'shamsul Haqq' sun of Haqq. Now sun and Haqq are two different things or entities, like kitabul Haqq. Here shamsul Haqq is a medium through which Rumi sees God. His assertion is if I don't see God in every particle then I am an infidel..

Shams Ul Haqq is Shams. There is no mention of seeing God in every partcile. If he mentions God in every particle, there is no infidelity about it, because Qur'an says that Allah is the light of the heavens and earth.

dawlatshahchitrali wrote:[
In third couplet, Rumi is perplexed whether to call Shams Noor of God or God Himself.

But certainly not human.

If you combine the message of the 3 verses, it is quite clear that he means Shams is God.

nuseri · Post by **nuseri** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:37 am

To kmaherali:Ya Ali Madad.

Essence is all the divan is total submission to Shams Tabriz.
And expressing the existence of rumi into noor of shams Tabriz.
Every third line he calls Shams as God.
A human as noorani status of Rumi know to be fanaa one must exist in Noor of God
And not a person.
The most most beautiful aspect of faith to see an Living entity as God.
Who can speak,see and hear,guide,forgive and bless.

My question is on the status of Shams Tabriz and its co relation with Imam Shamsuddin Mohammed?
Bottom line Tabrizi said ALI ALI.
and Rumi said Shams Shams.
If both are true one being absolute n latter being implied truth. then co relation need to be searched. Was Shams indeed ALI ?
One has use the formula of 1+0=1.

Post by **Admin** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:11 am

There was a time of confusion that Imam Shamshuddin Muhammad and Pir Shams and Shams Tabriz were the same person. That time is gone. it is now known that these were 3 different entities.

In particular Shams Tabriz was confused with Pir Shams (who was also known by some as "Tabrizi")

nuseri · Post by **nuseri** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:17 pm

To Admin: Ya Ali Madad.
If Imam can be a Pir as well,so can m an Imam concealed in that phase to appear as a Pir/Sufi.
What are the exact wording of the farman of Imam SMS stating that Imam shamshuddin Mohammed and Shams Tabrizi were totally different entities.
Kmaherali made some posting extract of research scholars of this period.
No info needed for Pir Shams or words of Any Alwaez or anecdotes.
I am honestly not informed on status of Shams Tabrizi.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:45 am

According to the autobiography of Pir Shams in Ginans by Pir Shams it is stated:

"Here, it is extremely important to clarify that the great Sufi saint Hadrat Shams Tabriz who was Jalal al-Din Ruml's spiritual guide, and who lived during the time of our twenty-eighth Imam, Hadrat Mawlana Imam Shah Shams al-Din Muhammad, was not the same person who was our twenty-third pir, Pir Shams al-Din Sabzawarl, who was also called Pir Shams Tabrizi. These were two different individuals. Pir Shams al-Din died in Multan in the year 757 A.H."

http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... hams+tazim

Alwaez Abually in his book stated:

Pi'r Shams was Shams Sabzwa'ri and not Shams Tabriz who was the Master of Jala'luddi'n Ru'mi. Shams Tabriz was the son of Ima'm Ala'uddi'n Mohammed and the brother of Ima'm Ruknuddi'n Khorshah. Both were Isma'ili saints. They were contemporaries.
Pi'r Shams died in Multan in about 757 A.H. during the Ima'mat of Ima'm Qa'sim Shah. He was succeeded by his eldest son Sayyid Naseeruddi'n.

http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... ams+tabriz

tret · Post by **tret** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:38 am

kmaherali wrote: ...Shams Tabriz was the son of Ima'm Ala'uddi'n Mohammed and the brother of Ima'm Ruknuddi'n Khorshah

You should also note, that Imamate was in concealment [dawr-e sattr] at the time of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammad. The identity of the Imam was not known to public. The Imam was given to his uncle [Ala'uddin Mohammad] who was also the Da'i at the time and as such the historian has recorded him [Shams] as Ala'uddin Mohammad's son. If you read about biography of Shams Tabriz, not much is know and mysterious. His death is very mysterious and no one knows to date really where/when did he die and how.

As reference, do you believe that the infamouse qasida of "Ta surat-e paiwand-e jahan bood Ali bood..." can be said to anyone other than the Imam? Food for thought....

ismaili103 · Post by **ismaili103** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:46 am

You should also note, that Imamate was in concealment [dawr-e sattr] at the time of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammad.

It is incorrect, at the time of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammad Imamat was in Al-mout period.

Post by **Admin** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:36 pm

Alamut fall is 1256 AD during the Imamat of Mowlana Rukhnudin Khair Shah.

tret · Post by **tret** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:41 pm

ismaili103 wrote:
You should also note, that Imamate was in concealment [dawr-e sattr] at the time of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammad.
It is incorrect, at the time of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammad Imamat was in Al-mout period.

According to who?

As far as I understand, 8 Imams were during the Alamut period starting from Mauwlana Hadi. The last Imam was Mauwlana Ruknudding Khairsha [Khurshah] when halaku invaded Alamut. The Imam had to protect the identity of the next Imam [Shamsuddin Mohammad], and gave him [Shamsuddin Mohammad] to his brother [Ala Al-din] who was also a Da'i. To the public eyes.

Please read Ismaili history, before making any claims.

tret · Post by **tret** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:42 pm

ismaili103 wrote:
You should also note, that Imamate was in concealment [dawr-e sattr] at the time of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammad.
It is incorrect, at the time of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammad Imamat was in Al-mout period.

According to who?

As far as I understand, 8 Imams were during the Alamut period starting from Mauwlana Hadi. The last Imam was Mauwlana Ruknudding Khairsha [Khurshah] when halaku invaded Alamut. The Imam had to protect the identity of the next Imam [Shamsuddin Mohammad], and gave him [Shamsuddin Mohammad] to his brother [Ala Al-din] who was also a Da'i. To the public eyes, Shams [Tabrizi] was known to be son of Ala Aldin. Historians and scholars take that into account.

Please read Ismaili history, before making any claims.

nuseri · Post by **nuseri** » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:31 pm

Ya Ali madad.
The post of kmaherali.first states that Shams Tabriz n Pir shams were different entities.
Now the second one the blood relation of shams Tabriz to other imams
What was the BLOOD RELATION of Imam Shamsuddin Mohammed.
Besides being Able Bayt as described.
What are matching points where blood relation is concerned of Shams Tabriz and Imam Shamsuddin Mohd?

agakhani_1 · Post by **agakhani_1** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:18 am

Read the Ismaili history and specially the history book name 'NOORAN MUBIN" you will find all the answer in that particular book!

ismaili103 · Post by **ismaili103** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 1:41 pm

Admin wrote:Alamut fall is 1256 AD during the Imamat of Mowlana Rukhnudin Khair Shah.

Thanks for the correction.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:48 pm

tret wrote:As reference, do you believe that the infamouse qasida of "Ta surat-e paiwand-e jahan bood Ali bood..." can be said to anyone other than the Imam? Food for thought....

Are you suggesting that Shams Tabriz was the Imam himself? MSMS had said in his 1945 Ismailia Association Conference speech that Rumi was not an Ismaili but a murid of an Ismaili not the Imam.

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:57 pm

tret wrote:As reference, do you believe that the infamouse qasida of "Ta surat-e paiwand-e jahan bood Ali bood..." can be said to anyone other than the Imam? Food for thought....

Can you please post the qasida here if you have access to it. Thanks!

Post by **Admin** » Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:10 pm

kmaherali wrote:
tret wrote:As reference, do you believe that the infamouse qasida of "Ta surat-e paiwand-e jahan bood Ali bood..." can be said to anyone other than the Imam? Food for thought....
Can you please post the qasida here if you have access to it. Thanks!

The Qasida is here:

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/13073

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/31227

kmaherali · Post by **kmaherali** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 2:51 am

Thanks, any chance of a trsnslation?

tret · Post by **tret** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:28 am

kmaherali wrote: ...Rumi was not an Ismaili but a murid of an Ismaili not the Imam.

Are you differenciating between Ismaili and Imam? In other words, are you suggesting that Imam is not Ismaili?
Second, please quote the exact passage of what MSMS said. Did he say exactly this: "a murid of an Ismaili not the Imam"
or the underlined is your insertion?

Post by **Admin** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:32 pm

The key message is that Rumi was himself not an Ismaili.

The Imam in my opinion can never be Ismaili or Muslim or whatever, he is beyond those names as all those Faiths [Sirat al Mustaqueem] follow the Imam and not the other way round. This is obviously on a Batini perspective since we are called Batini.

If Rumi was the pupil of an Ismaili and was not Ismaili, it is obvious that his Master was NOT the Imam. A pupil of the Imam is called ISMAILI

tret · Post by **tret** » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:04 pm

Admin wrote:The key message is that Rumi was himself not an Ismaili.

The Imam in my opinion can never be Ismaili or Muslim or whatever, he is beyond those names as all those Faiths [Sirat al Mustaqueem] follow the Imam and not the other way round. This is obviously on a Batini perspective since we are called Batini.

If Rumi was the pupil of an Ismaili and was not Ismaili, it is obvious that his Master was NOT the Imam. A pupil of the Imam is called ISMAILI

Admin wrote: If Rumi was the pupil of an Ismaili and was not Ismaili, it is obvious that his Master was NOT the Imam. A pupil of the Imam is called ISMAILI

Formally, maybe yes. Formally, even as I said, when Imam was in Satrr [concealment], his identity was hidden to public.

Ask yourself, when Rumi was totally devoted and submitted to every word of Shams Tabriz, then I wonder how can he not believe [spiritualy] what Shams believed? You find his beliefs in his works [namly Masnavi and Divan-e-Shams], which is obviously manifestation and reflection of Shams Tabrizi's teachings. And btw, you can find most of Ismailis concepts in Masnavi.

Now, when MSMS said Rumi wasn't Ismaili, this is in the public and formal sense. He offically didn't not declare himself as Ismaili.
However, in his heart, neither you nor I understand what he believed. The only thing we can do now, is to look at his works that he has left behind and contemplate.

BTW, you need to make a correction about the link you provided to the Qasida. The author of the qasida "Ta surat-e paiwand-e Jahan..." is not Shams Tabriz, but it's Rumi.