وتكو قبل غداً اي يوم الثلاثاء 25/10/2005

انا بعد ابي

عن figo


..


His full name is Luis Filipe Madeira Caeiro 'FIGO', he was born in Almada(Portugal) in 4 November 1972 .
He is about 1.8 m height and he weight 75 kg. he plays now in real Madrid C.F. and he was play in Portugal. His first team was in Barcelona. His Marital status is Married she called Helene and his daughter is Daniela .
He speaks 4 langauges portuguese, english, spanish and a little of Swedish, and love Rock(Queen) music . the best food foe him Fried Chicken and Duck with rice. He love to do many things such as The beach, spending time with friends.
Felipe Madeira Figo was born on November 4, 1972, in the working-class district of Almada in the Portuguese capital of Lisbon. He first played football in the street team Os Pastilhas. Then, as an 11-year-old, he joined the junior section of legendary Sporting Lisbon. His former coach and great patron Carlos Queiroz, who later coached the Portuguese national team, recalls that: "Even then, Luis was ahead of all the rest."
In 1989, the wily, agile Figo was a member of the Portuguese team that finished third in the FIFA U16 World Championships in Scotland. Two years later, he won the FIFA World Junior Championships on home soil with the national U20 team. Then, as later in the national team, he formed the heart of the team with Rui Costa and Jo? Pinto.
Figo was 17 when he made his debut in the Portuguese championship. He earned his first international cap soon after turning 19, and was transferred to FC Barcelona in 1995. A few months earlier he had won the Portuguese Cup with Sporting, and finished second in the Portuguese Championship. In Barcelona, where he was coached by Johan Cruyff, Bobby Robson and Louis van Gaal, the five-times winner of "Portugal's Footballer of the Year" developed into a superstar. He was central to the team that won the 1997 Cup Winners Cup and the European Supercup, the 1998 and 1999 Spanish championship and the 1997 and 1998 Spanish Cup (Copa del Rey).
But Figo's most outstanding performance to date came in the 2000 European Championships in Belgium and Holland. Figo was both the head and heart of a Portuguese team that played the finest attacking football of the tournament, before succumbing in the semi-final to the eventual winner, France. Many regard Figo as the player of the tournament.
After EURO 2000, Figo, who has said that "without the ball, I am only half complete", moved for the then record sum of CHF100m to Real Madrid, where he immediately won the Spanish championship. Real fans adore Figo, because his style of football not only looks good - it works. Jupp Heynckes, former coach at Real, agrees: "Luis is technically perfect, quick off the mark and a great dribbler. He's a striker who pulls the crowds into the stadium."
Real Madrid's technical director, Jorge Valdano, is equally taken with the player in the Number 10 strip: "We are so used to Figo playing brilliantly that we think he's playing badly when he just plays normally."
Off the pitch, Figo enjoys a less spectacular existence, preferring to avoid the publicity that inevitably surrounds him. In his free time he reads, goes to the cinema, listens to music, rides horseback and plays golf. In April 2000, a book was published about Portugal's most famous and best footballer since the legendary Eusebio. Its title: "Figo - Born to Triumph".
I like luis because he is the important player in his team. He plays good, and he is good in the Midfielder and the best in Wing Forward

RECEPTION AND THE CATECHISM

Stephen F. Brett

How are Catholics in the United States receiving the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Has the response been warm or frosty? The answers to these questions will determine to a large extent the genuine pastoral unfolding of the often neglected or distorted teaching of the documents of Vatican II and indeed shape the theological literacy of the Catholic faithful. In the face of criticisms directed against the Catechism, we need to find a framework in which questions of magisterial teaching, the local church, inculturation and Apostolic Tradition can be integrated and studied. I believe that such a context exists in the concept of "reception," which has received serious scholarly attention since Vatican II, in large part because it serves to explain the impact of an ecumenical council upon the church throughout the world. We can apply its implications to different views of the Catechism.
I. The Meaning of "Reception"
A recent article on the meaning of reception distinguishes between its classical understanding as the acceptance by local churches of the teaching of a Council and, in more contemporary usage, an ecumenical consensus arrived at through dialogue between churches.[1] Ironically, each of the uses of the term has application to the Catechism. Its introduction into the experience of the Church in the United States is illustrative of the first sense of "reception" as the response of a local church to the ordinary papal magisterium of the universal Church. While the direct textual and thematic links between Vatican II, the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Catechism is apparent, the transmission of these texts (and the realities they describe) is not so apparent. An intense Romanophobic stance on the part of some has diluted, indeed distorted, the meaning of these historic documents and the sensus fidei which they authentically embody.
Current controversies also bring into play considerations that are virtually ecumenical, the more contemporary focus of "reception," for the perspectives of the Catechism and American catechetical presuppositions differ markedly, almost to the point where the respective positions amount to an "ecumenical" dialogue—two visions of church struggling to understand the other. It sometimes appears that theological critiques emanating from Western democracies propose a media-generated consensus fidelium rather than an interiorized sensus fidei in their response to authoritative ecclesial texts. The sociological starting point inevitably places a document in an "ecumenical" context that highlights differences and puts issues into an adversarial rather than integrative light.
This article will argue that the painstaking drafting and promulgation of the Catechism constitute a legitimate, authentic and indispensable "reception" of Vatican II. That is to say, its existence and teaching uniquely fulfill, in a substantive and not merely symbolic way, the magisterial identity of the Second Vatican Council. In proposing this argument, we will examine and critique alternative views which hold that the Catechism is (a) in some way unrelated to Vatican II, ( of minor significance, or © a flawed document in discontinuity with the Council.
Few contemporary theologians have spent as much time as Avery Dulles, S.J. in studying the ground-breaking text of Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. In an essay on tradition as a theological source, Dulles points out that Dei Verbum speaks for the most part of "tradition" in the singular, whereas Trent, stressing the importance of objective content, had spoken of "traditions." Demonstrating his awareness of the interaction of history and doctrine, Dulles attaches importance to the historical means or modalities of "traditioning." Dulles, along with scholars such as Aidan Nichols and Jaroslav Pelikan, reminds us of the critical importance of historical deeds and decisions connected with the transmission of doctrinal formulas.[2] Expressions of belief are not merely academic abstractions but an essential part of the life and fabric of faith of the Universal Church:
The Constitution on Divine Revelation . . . insists on the nonverbal elements in tradition: Christ communicates the gospel not by his words alone but also by his dealings with others and his behavior (DV 7). The apostles transmit the gospel not only by preaching but also by examples and ordinances (institutiones, ibid.).[3]
Obstacles thwart transmission
Just as the owner of an automobile should be greatly alarmed with any transmission problem, so too the prospect of obstacles that thwart the transmission of a vital text can only trouble a Church historically determined to connect liturgy and belief, doctrine and life.
Led by Yves Congar, O.P., recent efforts to specify more precisely the nonverbal or historical means of transmitting apostolic tradition have underscored the importance of "reception." Congar has described it as "the process by means of which a church (body) truly takes over as its own a resolution that it did not originate in regard to its self [sic], and acknowledges the measure it promulgates as a rule applicable to its own life."[4]
By way of example, Congar examined the historical setting of liturgical changes to determine whether reception, non-reception, or something between these two poles, occurred. Congar cites the replacement of the "Gallican" rites in France in the nineteenth century by the Roman liturgy as a legitimate instance of reception but, in contrast, believes that the manner of substitution of the Roman liturgy for the Mozarabic liturgy in Spain used by Pope Gregory VII does not provide an instance of genuine "reception."[5]
A vital link with Vatican II Congar affirms the importance of reception at the Second Vatican Council:
That the concept of reception is still valid was shown adequately by Vatican II in its envisaging a collegial initiative emanating from the bishops, which could be a 'verus actus collegialis' only if the pope approved it 'vel libere recipiat.' . . . This text speaks of the reception of the privilege of the bishop of Rome that Vatican II so firmly reaffirmed and to which history bears adequate witness. It constitutes an authentic statement regarding reception since it is a matter of consent (by means of judgment) by one church body to a resolution put forward by others. Apart from this, law as at present knows no case of reception (so far as I am aware) other than acceptance by the pope, and, after him, by the world episcopate, of new bishops of the Eastern rite elected to their patriarchate after a mere 'nihil obstat' from Rome, but neither named nor confirmed by the Holy See.[6]
One can readily find internal confirmation in the pages of the Catechism of its vital link with Vatican II. Hundreds of references to the documents of Vatican II are cited. These citations abound on each page, serving not as "proof-texts" but as the warp and woof of the Catechism. The Catechism is indebted for its themes to Vatican II to such an extent that it is no overstatement to say that there could not be a Catechism without the preceding Council.
This phenomenon is hardly without precedent when we recall that the Roman Catechism emerged as the direct legacy of the Council of Trent. It exercised an enormous impact upon the life of the Church in the era of the Counter-Reformation.
There are some surely who would concede to their dismay that the Roman Catechism did in fact incorporate the debates, decisions, texts, and expressions of Trent into the liturgy and catechesis of the Church. Such critics, lamenting what they would consider the polemical hard edges of the Roman Catechism, would invoke the second meaning of "reception" cited above, namely, ecumenical consensus, and argue that the Roman Catechism delayed or prevented real reception from occurring insofar as it precluded a genuine dialogue with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers.
But such an approach which attaches more weight to denominational debate than to the unfolding of apostolic teaching within the ambit of the Catholic communion does not situate the center of magisterial teaching in the matrix of papacy and council but seeks in a quixotic fashion for a hypothetical "consensus" to emerge from the mix of contrary views. In effect, consensus replaces communion. In suggesting that truth emerges from the clash of opposites rather than from the organic development of theology at the service of faith, such an ecclesiology is indebted far more to Hegel than to the Holy Spirit. It is true that dialogue with other points of view has a long and distinguished pedigree in the history of theology, not least of which are the varied responses to cultural currents found in patristic writings. But it ought not to be overlooked that an ecumenical council is itself a powerful dialogue with many perspectives. Trent did not merely "react" to Luther but attempted to find terms, methods and pastoral approaches that could validate its understanding of the Catholic heritage, including, of course, Apostolic Tradition. Not to permit a Council to implement and apply the fruit of extensive reflection and spirited discussion clearly sacrifices the historical integrity of the council on the altar of ideology. Genuine ecumenism is served best by allowing each tradition to unpack its own self-understanding. The Roman Catechism was in a sense the indispensable pastoral corollary of Trent, even as the Catechism of the Catholic Church constitutes the irreplaceable pastoral corollary of Vatican II. Notwithstanding the anxiety of its critics, its existence and promulgation demonstrate the development of doctrine identified by John Henry Newman, considered by many to be a precursor of Vatican II.
This is not to suggest that the theological opus of a Council can be considered monolithic; the historical accounts of Trent by Hubert Jedin and contemporary accounts of different perspectives document amply the presence of a healthy plurality of approaches. Nevertheless, the documents that emerge from conciliar debate represent not so much human consensus and political compromise but a theological synthesis, a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit, illuminating and directing the universal Church. We see in history the genuine Paradosis of the Paraclete, the development of monuments of tradition which contextualize the questions of a particular age.
Is the Catechism. marked by any explicit or even implicit rejection of the teaching of Vatican II? Assuredly not! The indebtedness of the Catechism to the Council is not merely citational but substantive: an ecclesiology of communion, a renewed sense of sacrament, a moral theology which stresses virtue and beatitude, an examination of prayer as public, mystical and intimately personal. Any purported clash with or diminution of the Council implicitly starts from the flawed premise that a disembodied "spirit" of Vatican II captured the Zeitgeist of the 1960s pop culture, a venture in revolution rather than renewal.
The kind of development recognized by Newman in his classic work has as its hallmark continuity, not rupture. It would appear that those who might criticize the Catechism as in some way at odds with Vatican II have an impossible burden of proof to meet when a continuity of participants, themes, texts, and texture links Council with Catechism.
II. The Reception of the Catechism: Damming with Feints of Praise
The sense of published responses to the <Catechism> by individuals long associated with what might be called "the catechetical establishment" have ranged from serious caveats to shrill alarms. One can see a weather reporter pointing grimly to the arrival of a wintry blast of dangerous storm patterns on the weather map. Some have suggested that the Catechism not be distributed widely to the faithful, that it is not designed for classroom use, that it is only a set of guidelines and certainly not a text to be read at home, that it is only a framework for adaptation and not the result of the adaptation, that it represents merely one ecclesiology among many rather than the fruit of the Council. We are told far more about what the Catechism is not, than what it is, what we are not to do, than what we might do. At this point we are ready to put on a trench coat and flee for the hurricane shelter.
What ecclesiology explains such a chilly reception? It would appear that many voices connected with the catechetical establishment are concerned that the Catechism proceeds along a different path than do their products and efforts since the Council. From a human standpoint one can understand the reluctance to take a second look at one's efforts, but mounting evidence testifies to the generic illiteracy of youngsters on matters of the greatest importance. To charge that such illiteracy exists is not to attack anyone, least of all individuals in search of fundamental truths or writers of textbooks seeking to address the problem. But a problem there is. A financial advisor who neglects to inform a client when bank records indicate bankruptcy is incompetent. A catechetical establishment that will not face up to failures of method and pedagogy is comparable to the S & L industry which too long denied the existence of failed financial institutions.
Two additional points should be made about the "knowledge deficit" on the part of many Catholics. First, secular scholars have recognized that, for different reasons, students have not learned essential lessons about cultural literacy. In his Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, E. D. Hirsch, Jr. began the task of alerting students at different levels of instruction about foundational concepts of culture. So the statement that Catholic students are unfamiliar with their faith is not an isolated datum nor in any way an attribution of bad faith to catechists but a frank acknowledgement of a phenomenon already confirmed by scholars in many disciplines.
Second, to say that Catholic students do not know their faith is not to charge them with being stupid. Students cannot be blamed for what they were never taught. At a time when former Secretary of Education William Bennett's The Book of Virtues has become a best-seller, one would be hard pressed to find a Catholic high school student who could identify the cardinal virtues. Ironically, CCD students, hectored on how to feel but neglected on how to think, can find in the Catholic tradition on the virtues a splendid contribution to the unity of head and heart so essential to real education. Our students, like the rest of us, are selectively educated. They have learned, or will be forced to learn, far more about high-tech gadgetry than preceding generations. But how they translate that knowledge into wise choices should be the concern of catechists. It is indeed the concern of the Pope.
Think of a patient going under the frightening MRI tube in a hospital. The patient knows nothing of what the doctors and technicians are observing but the images resonated provide a detailed, 3-D picture of the inner workings of the patient's metabolism! On one side, there is highly detailed information, on the other side, there is a lack of awareness, if not fear. Do we not find some troubling analogies in our catechetical landscape today? The "implementation" of the Catechism should not be permitted to dam up a potent source of Catholic thought. It should be permitted to flow without constraint into the minds, hearts and souls of the faithful. Anything that impedes the flow of this historic text into the lifeblood of the Church in America smacks of either elitism or gnosticism, neither a desirable option.

المتنبي




نشأته وحياته :

المتنبي هو أبو الطيب أحمد بن الحسين ، الكوفي الكندي ، ولد بمحلَّةِ كِنْدة بالكوفة سنة ( 203 هـ ـ 915 م ) ، ولهذا نسب إليها .
وقد اعتنى والده بتربيته منذ الصغر ، فأدخله مدرسة بالكوفة ، تعلم فيها مذهب الشيعة ، وشيئاً من العلوم والفلسفة ، ثم انتقل إلى الشام ، وعلمه في مكاتبها ، وطاف به على القبائل بالبادية ، فأخذ عنهم الفصاحة ، وبرع في نظم الشعر ، ولم تثنه وفاة أبيه عن متابعة التحصيل ، والأخذ عن اشهر اللغويين والأدباء ، حتى صار غزير العلم ، كثير الرواية عظيم الاطلاع .
ودفعه طموحه إلى الدعوة لنفسه بين القبائل في بادية الشام ، ولما عَلِمَ لُؤْلُؤُ أمير حمص بهذه الدعوة عجَّل بتفريق أصحابه عنه ، وأسره مدة ، كاد يموت فيها لولا أنه استعطفه فرَّق له ، وأطلق سراحه .
ويقال أنه ادَّعى النبوة ، ولكنه يتنصل من ذلك . وأخذ المتنبي يتكسب بشعره ، ووصلته الأقدار بسيف الدولة بن حمدان فصار من خاصة شعرائه المقربين ، وقد مدحه بمدائح صافية رائعة ، ولازمه في حلِّه وترحاله ، وتلقى عنه فنون الفروسية ، وخاض معه المعارك ضد الروم .
وظل مقيماً لدى سيف الدولة ، كريم المنزلة عنده ، حتى نَفسَ عليه مكانته منافسوه من الشعراء وبعض حاشية الأمير ، فدسوا له عنده ؛ حتى أسخطوا عليه .
قصدَ المتنبي إلى كافور الإِخشيدي ، متطلعاً أن ينال الحُظوة لديه ، وأن يظفر عنده بما لم يظفر به في رحاب سيف الدولة ، ومدحه بقصائد كثيرة ، ولكنه لم يظفر بأمنيته .
واستأْذن المتنبي كافوراً في الخروج من مصر فأًبى ، فانتهز فرصة ليلة عيد النحر سنة 370هـ وخرج إلى الكوفة ، ومنها إلى عضد الدولة بين بويه بفارس ، فمدحه ، ومدح وزيره ابن العميد ، وعاد إلى العراق ، فخرج عليه بعض الأعراب وفيهم فاتكُ ابن أبي جهل ـ وكان المتنبي هجاه ـ فقاتلهم قتالا شديداً ، حتى قتل هو وابن
وغلامه بمكان يسمى (( دير العقول )) ، على بعد خمسة عشر فرسخاً من بغداد ، سنة ( 354 هـ ـ 965 م ) .

شعره وخصائصه الفنية :

شعر المتنبي صورة صادقة لعصره ، وحياته ، فهو يحدثك عما كان في عصره من ثورات ، واضطرابات ، ويدلك على ما كان به من مذاهب ، وآراء ، ونضج العلم والفلسفة .
ويمثل شعره حياته المضطربة : ففيه يتجلى طموحه وعلمه ، وعقله وشجاعته ، وسخطه ورضاه ، وحرصه على المال ، كما تتجلى القوة في معانيه ، وأخيلته ، وألفاظه ، وعباراته .
وترى فيه شخصية واضحة ، حتى لتكاد تتبينها في كل بيت ، وفي كل لحظة ، بل هي تُضفي طابعاً خاصاً يميز شعره عن غيره .
فبناءُ القصيدة بناء محكم منطقي متسلسل ، وهو يتناول موضوعه مباشرة أن يقدم له بحكم تناسبه ، وقد ظهرت قصائده الموحَّدة الموضوع ، أو المتماسكة الموضوعات في كهولته ، حين كان في صحبة سيف الدولة ، وكافور ، وأما قصائده الأخرى فيسير فيها على نمط الشعر القديم ، ويمزج فيها بين فنون وأغراض مختلفة .
والمعاني تمتاز بقوتها وفخامتها ، وسموها غالباً ، وكثيراً ما يركزها في صورة حقائق عامة ، ويصوغها في قوالب حكمة بارعة .
وتختلف الأخيلة في شعره تبعاً لمراحل حياته ، ويمتاز خياله بالقوة والخصب : وألفاظه جزلة ، وعباراته رصينة ، تلائم قوة روحه ، وقوة معانيه ، وخصب أخيلته ، وهو ينطلق في عباراته انطلاقاً ولا يعنى فيها كثيراً بالمحسنات والصناعة .

أغراضه الشعرية :

اتسع شعر المتنبي لأكثر الأغراض ، ولكن كثُر فيه المدح ، الوصف ، والحكمة ، وإليك كلمة عن أغراضه :

المدح :

أكثر الشاعر في المدح ، وأشهر من مدحهم سيف الدولة الحمداني وكافور الإخشيدي ، ومدائحه في الأول تبلغ ثلث شعره ، وقد استكبر عن مدح كثير من الولاة والقواد حتى في حداثته ، وكان في مدحه حيّ الشعور ، غزير المعاني ، يكسب في مدائحه روحه الطامحة السامية حتى نراها مزيجاً بين المدح ، والحكمة ، وكان يبدؤها بالمدح تارة وبالحكمة ، وبالغزل ، وشكوى الدهر تارة أخرى ، وما سيق منها في سيف الدولة أصدق عاطفة ، وأفخم نسجاً ، لأنه كان يراه المثل الأعلى له ، وتبدو مدائحه متقاربة الأفكار ، ولكن له إلى جانب ذلك صوراً بديعية ، تبعث في نفس قارئها السمو والحماسة . وقد اخترنا لكم من القصيدة التي مدح فيها سيف الدولة :

وقفت وما في الموت شكٌّ لواقف كأنك في جفن الرَّدى وهو نائم
تمـر بك الأبطال كَلْمَى هزيمـةً ووجهك وضاحٌ ، وثغرُكَ باسم
تجاوزت مقدار الشجاعة والنهى إلى قول قومٍ أنت بالغيب عالم

الوصف :
أجاد المتنبي في وصف المعارك والحروب البارزة التي دارت في عصره ، فجاء شعره سجلاً تاريخياً خلدها وخلد أصحابها ، وإلى جانب ذلك وصف الطبيعة ، وأخلاق الناس ، ونوازعهم النفسية ، كما صور نفسه وطموحه أروع تصوير ، كانت القوة واضحة في كل أوصافه ، وهو فيها واقعي إلى حد كبير .
وقد قال يصف شِعب بوَّان ، وهو منتزه بالقرب من شيراز :

لها ثمر تشـير إليك منـه بأَشربـةٍ وقفن بـلا أوان
وأمواهٌ يصِلُّ بها حصاهـا صليل الحَلى في أيدي الغواني
إذا غنى الحمام الوُرْقُ فيها أجابتـه أغـانيُّ القيـان

الفخر :
المتنبي من شعراء الفخر ، وفخره يأتي غالباً في قصائده في سائر فنونه الشعرية ، فهو لا ينسى نفسه ، حين يمدح ، أو يهجو ، أ, يرثى ، ولهذا نرى روح الفخر شائعةً في شعره .
وإني لمـن قـوم كـأَن نفـوسهـم
بهـا أنَـفٌ أن تـسكـن اللحـم والعظمـا

الهجاء :
لم يكثر الشاعر من الهجاء لأنه لا يتلاءم مع نفسه المترفعة ، ولم ينظم فيه قصائد مستقلة إلا قليلاً ، وهو في هجائه يأتي بحكم يجعلها قواعد عامة ، تخضع لمبدأ أو خلق ، وكثيراً ما يلجأ إلى التهكم ، أو استعمال ألقاب تحمل في موسيقاها معناها ، وتشيع حولها جو السخرية بمجرد الفظ بها ، كما أن السخط يدفعه إلى الهجاء اللاذع في بعض الأحيان .
وقال يهجو طائفة من الشعراء الذين كانوا ينفسون عليه مكانته :

أفي كل يوم تحت ضِبني شُوَيْعرٌ ضعيف يقاويني ، قصير يطاول
لساني بنطقي صامت عنه عادل وقلبي بصمتي ضاحكُ منه هازل
وأَتْعَبُ مَن ناداك من لا تُجيبه وأَغيظُ مَن عاداك مَن لا تُشاكل
وما التِّيهُ طِبِّى فيهم ، غير أنني بغيـضٌ إِلىَّ الجاهـل المتعاقِـل

الرثاء :
للشاعر رثاء غلب فيه على عاطفته ، ورثاء سكب فيه دموعه صادقة ، وقد كثرت الحكمة في تضاعيف مراثية ، وانبعثت بعض النظرات الفلسفية فيها ، وقصائده العاطفية في الرثاء قوية مؤثرة تهز الشعور . وقال يرثى جدته :

أحِنُ إلى الكأس التي شربت بها وأهوى لمثواها التراب وما ضمَّا
بكيتُ عليها خِيفة في حياتهـا وذاق كلانا ثُكْلَ صاحبه قِدما
أتاها كتابي بعد يأس وتَرْحَـة فماتت سروراً بي ، ومِتُ بها غمَّا
حرامٌ على قلبي السرور ، فإنني أَعُدُّ الذي ماتت به بعدها سُمَّا

الحكمة :
اشتهر المتنبي بالحكمة وذهب كثير من أقواله مجرى الأمثال لأنه يتصل بالنفس الإنسانية ، ويردد نوازعها وآلامها . ومن حكمه ونظراته في الحياة :

ومراد النفوس أصغر من أن نتعادى فيـه وأن نتـفانى
غير أن الفتى يُلاقي المنايـا كالحات ، ويلاقي الهـوانا
ولـو أن الحياة تبقـى لحيٍّ لعددنا أضلـنا الشجـعانا
وإذا لم يكن من الموت بُـدٌّ فمن العجز أن تكون جبانا

منزلته الشعرية :
لأبي الطيب المتنبي مكانة سامية لم تتح مثلها لغيره من شعراء العربية ، فقد كان نادرة زمانه ، وأعجوبة عصره ، وظل شعره إلى اليوم مصدر إلهام ووحي للشعراء والأدباء ،يجدون فيه القوة ، والتدفق ، والشاعرية المرتكزة على الحس والتجربة الصادقة.

المراجع


1. مع المتنبي : للدكتور طه حسين .
2. ذكرى أبي الطيب بعد ألف عام : للدكتور عبد الوهاب عزام .
3. المتنبي : للدكتور زكي المحاسني .

حيا 213

http://bahrain2day.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=51163