M1:375 — در درون سینه مِهرش کاشتند / نایبِ عیسیش می‌پنداشتند

Translation: Within their hearts they planted his love / They took him for Jesus's deputy. Meaning: The gullible Christians gave their allegiance to this deceiver, mistakenly believing him to be the rightful representative of Jesus Christ.

This verse, “Within their hearts they planted his love / They took him for Jesus’s deputy,” stands as a poignant testament to what Rumi terms the “power of common imitation” (قوت تقلید عام). It recounts how the Christian populace, with their inherent simplicity and lack of critical insight, became enamored with a charlatan who feigned piety, mistakenly elevating him to the stature of Jesus’s rightful successor.

I view this beyt as emblematic of Rumi’s profound critique of the masses’ susceptibility to spiritual deception and their uncritical adherence. Rumi here bitterly observes how readily people are swayed by outward appearances, pledging allegiance to those who are utterly undeserving. This blind imitation is a destructive force, capable of establishing erroneous traditions that prove incredibly difficult to uproot. Within this very narrative, Rumi equates the cultivation of disciples for personal gain, or "murīd-parvarī," with "hunting swine" (شکار خوک)—an act that is both toilsome and forbidden in its outcome. This clearly demonstrates Rumi’s deep aversion to being a “murīd-bāz,” a manipulator of followers, and his apprehension towards uncritical throngs gathering around him. He was a staunch critic of institutionalized Sufism and the hypocrisy of pseudo-Sufis; his gatherings, in contrast, often embraced the underprivileged and unknown.

I have consistently emphasized that the divine project of human guidance cannot be permanently thwarted. The notion that any individual or group could fundamentally obstruct God’s path or wholly corrupt religion is incompatible with Rumi’s pluralistic worldview. Differences among religions, as Rumi himself articulates, stem from divergent “perspectives” (نظرگاه), akin to a singular light emanating through diverse lamps. Thus, in this narrative, Rumi is not suggesting that Christianity was permanently led astray, but rather illustrating how deceit can, at a particular juncture, mislead a segment of people.

Another crucial point is the narrative's subtle invocation of the concept of "Dajjāl," which Rumi further elaborates in subsequent verses. The Dajjāl, whether in Christian tradition (as the Antichrist) or Islamic narratives, symbolizes spiritual deceivers and highway robbers of the soul. His "one-eyed" nature is a mythic detail that can be interpreted as a metaphor for a one-sided, incomplete, or distorted perspective. This cunning minister, in essence, was a Dajjāl who presented himself as Jesus’s deputy. This story serves as an enduring warning across all epochs: one must always remain vigilant against those who, through artifice and deceit, masquerade as saints, capturing hearts in the name of religion. Such snares of deception exist in every era, and anyone who greedily rushes towards the “bait” (i.e., superficial comforts or apparent benefits) will readily fall into the “trap.”

Key takeaways

• The core message of the verse is a strong critique of blind imitation and common credulity in spiritual matters.
• Rumi views the cultivation of disciples (murīd-parvarī) as a forbidden and fruitless act.
• The story illustrates how mere appearances can lead to profound deception and spiritual misguidance.
• The cunning minister symbolizes the 'Dajjāl,' who deceitfully presents himself as a true divine representative.
• The snares of deception exist in every era, underscoring the necessity of vigilance against superficiality.