Many interpretations have been made on the famous couplet of Arpaemîni-zâde Sâmî, which is considered as a “müşkilât” and also known as an “example of ta’kîd”, from the time it was written until today. The couplet in question; Although there is no anomaly in the syntax, there is an ambiguity arising from the meaning structure and therefore it allows different connotations and interpretations. In the words of Talat Onay, the debate that has been going on for two hundred and fifty years is still up-to-date with new findings. Among these, the meaning given to “penbe-i mina” by M. Rûhî and Müderris-zâde Sa’dullâh ‘İzzet, who is also a poet, and therefore the interpretation they bring to the couplet, are clearly different from the others. In this article, the interpretation of Sa’dullâh ‘İzzet, which has not been scientifically published before, on the concept of penbe-i mina is discussed in a comparative way with other interpretations. It has become necessary to refer to other examples in classical poetry of the composition in question, which is seen to be interpreted very differently from each other. For this purpose, 150 divans from Turkish poetry and 75 divans from Persian poetry were examined. Based on the couplets reached as a result of this examination, the dreams formed around the phrase “penbe-i mina” in classical Turkish and Persian poetry have been identified and classified. In the light of the findings obtained in Classical Turkish and Persian poetry, the validity of previous opinions about the couplet was discussed.

Sa’dullâh ‘İzzet, Arpaemîni-zâde Sâmî, Şevket-i Buhârî, Sabk-e Hindî, penbe-i mî