M6:1644 — گفت صوفی که چه بودی کین جهان / ابروی رحمت گشادی جاودان

Translation: The Sufi asked: "What would it have been, if this world Had always opened the brow of mercy, eternally?" Meaning: This verse poses a Sufi's profound question regarding the admixture of suffering and displeasure with blessings and joy in the world, lamenting why existence has not always revolved around absolute, perpetual mercy.

This verse from the Masnavi, appearing within the tale of the Sufi, the ailing man, and the Qadi (judge), posits a fundamental and, as I would call it, a 'perennial' question: the problem of evil and suffering in the world. This query has haunted theology and philosophy from their dawn to the present day, with no definitive answer ever truly found. It fuels the unending debate between determinism and free will, as Mowlana himself states: "The war between determinists and free-will adherents / Continues until the Resurrection, O father." Immanuel Kant, the 18th-century German philosopher, also wrestled with this very conundrum.

Here, the Sufi asks: What if this world, instead of constantly knitting its brows and scowling, had "always opened the brow of mercy" and smiled eternally upon us? What if, instead of bitterness and tumult, there was always sweetness, and the world "had not always brought forth clamor in every breath"? Why must these "tahlīnāt" — these incessant changes and shifts of hue — always bring a "sting" (nīsh), mixing elixir with venom?

He further elaborates on this dual nature of the world with tangible examples: "Why did night not steal the light of day?" What if there were perpetual daylight and brightness, and the darkness of night never descended? "Why did winter not carry away the garden that teaches joy?" What if it were always spring, and the joy-imparting gardens never yielded to winter's grasp? This admixture, the Sufi notes, is evident even in human existence: "The cup of health, why was it not without the stone of fever? / Safety, why did fear not bring it sorrow?" Why must the crystal cup of health and well-being be shattered by the "stone of fever"? Why should "fear" and anguish (karb, meaning sufferings) descend upon safety and snatch it away?

The Sufi elevates his inquiry to its peak, asking: "What would have lessened from His generosity and mercy / If there were no flaw in His blessing?" What would have been lost or diminished from God's boundless generosity and mercy if His blessings were untainted by "khar-khasheh" (here meaning impurity or affliction)? What if joys came to us unmixed with any hardship or pain?

These questions reveal the profound human anguish in the face of the world's imperfections. Yet, what is remarkable is Mowlana's method of response. He does not immediately offer a direct philosophical or theological answer to these deep questions. Instead, he seemingly surveys his audience and deems it prudent, given their weariness from heavy debates, to introduce the story of the "Turk and the Tailor" (Darzī). This indicates that Mowlana is not only a profound thinker but also a masterful orator and psychologist, acutely aware of his audience's state. The Qadi, initially, labels the Sufi as "an empty-faced Sufi" (tahī-rū sūfī-ī) and "devoid of wisdom, like a Kufic KAF" (khālī az fitnat chū KĀF-e Kūfī); a sharp description that attributes a lack of understanding of the world's complexities to him, before engaging them with the tale of the cunning tailors.

Key takeaways

• The question of evil and the world's intertwining with suffering is a perennial issue that has preoccupied the human mind throughout history.
• The Sufi's inquiry embodies humanity's innate yearning for a world characterized by absolute mercy, utterly devoid of flaws or imperfections.
• Mowlana, as a mystical teacher, occasionally diverts from profound philosophical discussions to engaging anecdotes to allow his audience's minds to rest and maintain the session's vibrancy.
• From the Sufi's perspective, the world is a composite of antithetical elements: night and day, health and fever, security and fear, blending both bitterness and sweetness.
• This fundamental question is deeply interwoven with ancient theological and philosophical debates concerning free will versus determinism and the very nature of divine generosity.