No need to get all riled up, I was just asking a question, not that what you said addressed my question at all. First of all, I don't read wahdatul wujood in this poem. If it was wahdatul wujood, then he would have said that Allah was everywhere, and not just in his heart, wouldn't he? I think you're just seeing what you want to see. Regarding cursing the Prophet ...that has nothing to do with anything here. False analogy. Regarding this poem being filth about Allah and Islam...again, that's what you think. I don't see anything of that sort here. Regarding the kaa'bah should not be mentioned in the same sentence as hindu temples...another non sequitur, and that's your opinion. Prove to me that it's disrespectful to do this...that's, right, you can't. This is not equating the Ka'bah to hindu temples. I believe he is saying that merely visiting the Ka'bah is not enough to gain nearness to Allah. If that were the case, the mushrikeen of makkah would have "found" Allah— but they didn't. I don't see any kufr here, at least not in the English translation. To me, this poem is saying that Allah is so transcendant, one cannot "find" him or understand him only by outward actions and using the intellect. Rather, one can only fully experience nearness to Allah by rectifying his own heart (soul) as well. After all, the only part of the human being that has ever directly communicated with Allah is the ruh. People can visit the ka'bah, but if they don't have taqwa/consciousness of Allah (a condition of the heart), there is little benefit, for the same reason that there's only real benefit in the portion of salah where the musalli is attentive, for example. I don't know Farsi, so I don't know if the original poem has any other connotations. Anyway, that's just my interpretation. But my whole point in all of this was no need to see kufr where there is none.