M6:527 — مال ایتام است امانت پیش من / زانک پندارند ما را مؤتمن

Translation: This is orphans' property, held in trust by me; For they deem us trustworthy. Meaning: The fowler, attempting to deceive the bird, claims the grain is property belonging to orphans that he is holding in trust, portraying himself as a reliable guardian of these funds.

In this verse, Mowlana, through the cunning fowler's words, subtly and intelligently critiques jurisprudential abuses. The fowler, in an attempt to trick the bird into pecking the grains and falling into his trap, claims that these grains are 'orphans' property' (māl-i aytām) and entrusted to him (amānat). He calls himself muʾtaman (trustworthy), implying that people regard him as reliable and entrust their possessions to him. This claim by the fowler is a 'religious stratagem' (ḥīleh-ye sharʿī) rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, as the property of an orphan without a guardian falls under the jurisdiction of the ḥākim-i sharʿ (religious judge). The fowler here positions himself as a religious authority to snare the bird with this trick.

I view this verse as a brilliant taunt from Mowlana against certain jurists of his time who exploited their positions of trust and authority. Mowlana here echoes Hafez, who in a verse accuses the school jurist of 'consuming endowment property' (when he says: 'The school jurist, drunk yesterday, issued a fatwa / That wine is forbidden, but better than consuming endowment property'). This demonstrates how some religious figures, by using religious concepts and rulings as pretexts, engaged in avarice and hypocrisy. This phenomenon, of how 'they assign a name to something and make it lawful for themselves,' has unfortunately been a common practice throughout history, and Mowlana intends to expose it through this tale. The fowler, who outwardly appears pious and trustworthy, uses this very jurisprudential language to ensnare the bird. This initiates a jurisprudential-like debate between the fowler and the bird, where both subsequently employ religious stratagems to justify their actions, showcasing the cunning of some jurists. In essence, Mowlana deliberately structured this dialogue to illustrate how 'religious tricks' can be used to unjustly consume people's property.

Key takeaways

• The exposition of legalistic stratagems and the instrumental use of religious rulings for deceit and entrapment.
• Mowlana's critique of religious figures who abuse their position of trust and public confidence.
• A reflection of the social and literary tradition of criticizing worldly and avaricious jurists, referencing Hafez and other poets.
• The depiction of a pseudo-jurisprudential debate that conceals hypocrisy and greed at its core.