M6:2065 — کین اباحت زین جماعت فاش شد / رخصت هر مفسد قلاش شد

Translation: For this permissiveness (ibāḥat) became manifest from this group, it became a license (rukhṣat) for every corrupt scoundrel (qallāsh). Meaning: Rumi, through the voice of a character, critiques certain Sufi groups who advocated radical 'permissiveness' (ibāḥat), claiming they were beyond religious law. He observes that this stance tragically served as a dangerous license for any morally corrupt individual or charlatan to disregard ethical and divine commands.

Here, Rumi, speaking through the insightful character of the Sheikh's wife, levels a sharp and unreserved critique against a particular group of Sufis – a critique that undeniably reflects Rumi's own profound concerns. He states explicitly that ibāḥat, meaning radical permissiveness or the deeming of all actions as lawful, became manifest and widespread among 'this group' of self-proclaimed Sufis. These ibāḥi-mashrab (permissiveness-minded) Sufis believed that upon reaching a high spiritual station, they were no longer bound by the dictates of Sharia, the divine law, or the distinctions of ḥalāl (lawful) and ḥarām (unlawful). They saw themselves as transcending religious constraints, akin to angels who are not subject to divine commands and prohibitions. This mindset represented one of the most perilous deviations within Sufism, fiercely combated by eminent scholars like Ghazali. Ghazali, in his Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn and Kīmiyā-yi Saʿādat, considered ibāḥiyyūn worse than infidels, even issuing a fatwa for their execution, because unlike infidels whose stance is clear, these individuals undermined religion from within, cloaked in the guise of Islam. Rumi draws a crucial distinction between these ibāḥiyyūn and the Malamatiyya or Qalandariyya Sufis. The Malamatiyya, including Hafez, whom I classify among them, deliberately engaged in outwardly scandalous or sinful acts. However, their motive was to incur public blame and shatter their own egoistic self-importance, not because they believed religious laws had been lifted for them. They sought to fall from public esteem to avoid pride and arrogance, whereas the ibāḥiyyūn, with a different intent, fundamentally cast off the bonds of Sharia altogether. The tragic consequence of this ibāḥat, as Rumi states, was that 'it became a license for every corrupt scoundrel.' This approach of deeming sins permissible became a pretext for any morally corrupt individual or charlatan (qallāsh) to easily abandon the bounds of divine law and ethics, justifying any transgression under the guise of mystical endeavor. This beyt demonstrates that Rumi, despite his profound emphasis on love and inner states, never overlooked the importance of sharʿ (divine law) and taqwā (piety). He regarded deviations like ibāḥat as a serious threat to both religion and morality, harshly condemning such hypocrisy and deviance.

Key takeaways

• Rumi views ibāḥat (radical permissiveness) as a dangerous deviation in Sufi practice.
• Ibāḥat signifies the claim of transcending the divine law (sharʿ) and the distinction between lawful (ḥalāl) and unlawful (ḥarām).
• This approach became a dangerous pretext for charlatans and corrupt individuals to justify their transgressions.
• Rumi distinguishes between ibāḥiyyūn and Malamatiyya/Qalandariyya, whose aim was ego-crushing, not violating the Sharia.
• Adherence to divine law (sharʿ) and piety (taqwā) remains a core concern for Rumi, even amidst his emphasis on love and inner states.