M6:528 — گفت من مضطرم و مجروح‌حال / هست مردار این زمان بر من حلال

Translation: The bird said: I am distressed and wounded in condition; at this moment, carrion is made lawful for me. Meaning: The bird, seeking to justify consumption of forbidden food (here, the property of an orphan), claims a state of extreme necessity and distress, thereby making the unlawful permissible for itself.

This verse exemplifies Mowlana's profound wisdom in critiquing hypocrisy and deceit through narrative. Here, a bird is confronted with the temptation of grain, cleverly presented by a cunning hunter as “orphan's property” (māl-e yatīm). The hunter, disguised as a shrewd jurist (faqih), argues that this grain belongs to an orphan without a guardian (waṣī), and thus its guardianship falls under the religious ruler (ḥākem-e sharʿ). Implicitly, the hunter positions himself as this ruler, claiming authority over the property.

However, the bird, to legitimize consuming this quasi-forbidden property (which it deems akin to carrion), resorts to a ḥīleh-ye sharʿī (legalistic trick). It invokes a jurisprudential principle rooted in the Quran: “Faman-iḍṭurra fī makhmaṣatin ghayra mutajānifin li-ithmin falā ithma ʿalayhi” (Whoever is forced by hunger, without inclining to sin, then there is no sin upon him). The bird explicitly declares, “I am distressed and wounded in condition,” meaning its dire situation has rendered this grain permissible for it.

Mowlana, with keen subtlety, alludes to the sophistry of certain jurists and religious figures who manipulate religious rules to justify illicit acts. This tale serves as a sharp and candid critique of the abuse of Sharia and religious discourse to render the forbidden permissible. As we observe, the hunter also sarcastically retorts to the bird: “You know best, but remember, if you eat without necessity, you become a sinner.” This indicates that both parties are caught in the web of cunning and are aware of its true nature. The hunter even offers a jurisprudential counter-argument: even in necessity, it is better to abstain, and if one consumes it, one must guarantee repayment once the necessity is lifted.

This story resonates with Hafez’s bitter satires, where he accused jurists of consuming endowment properties (māl-e awqāf) and abusing their positions, as in his famous ghazal: “Yesterday the school's jurist was drunk and gave a fatwa / That wine is forbidden, but better than consuming endowment funds.” Or Dehkhoda’s humorous anecdote about a cleric who, to make cat meat permissible, renders himself desperate in the desert. All these illustrate that the issue of “legalistic trickery” to justify personal desires has been an ancient phenomenon and a subject of critique for great figures of literature and mysticism. Through this story, Mowlana critiques not only jurisprudence but also the human heart, showing how it finds any seemingly religious pretext to rationalize its urges and succumbs to temptation.

Key takeaways

• Legalistic Trickery (Ḥīleh-ye Sharʿī): The use of jurisprudential rules to justify forbidden acts.
• Rule of Necessity (Iḍṭirār): The debate surrounding the permissibility of consuming forbidden things in dire straits and its potential abuse.
• Critique of Hypocrisy: Mowlana offers a subtle critique of hypocritical jurists and those who, under the guise of piety, exploit religion for personal gain.
• Surrender to Temptation: The story illustrates how, even with awareness of the deceit, carnal desire can lead to the exploitation of legalistic loopholes.
• Mowlana's Critical Stance on Sharia Abuse: Mowlana employs storytelling to expose moral and religious corruption within society.