M6:1507 — اندر آوردش بر قاضی کشان / کین خر ادبار را بر خر نشان

Translation: So the claimant dragged him before the judge, saying, 'Seat this wretched ass upon the ass!' Meaning: This verse depicts a scene in a story where a plaintiff brings the defendant, termed a "wretched ass," before a judge to receive due punishment or to be put in his rightful place.

In this verse, Rumi clearly points to the necessity of an impartial arbiter in human disputes. Human beings, in the throes of self-interest and self-deception, are never honest mirrors or scales for judging themselves. Each individual perceives themselves as righteous and others as blameworthy; they weigh their own assets as heavier and their own faults as lesser. This unending conflict can only be resolved by resorting to a 'third party' who can judge objectively and impartially. This 'third party' might be the scale of justice, a truth-revealing mirror, or a judge seated on the bench of fairness.

The claimant brings the unfortunate accused – whom Rumi terms the 'wretched ass' (khar-e adbār) – dragging him before the judge. Adbār signifies the turning away of fortune or luck; an individual whom chance has not favored, or, in essence, a miserable and helpless person. Here, 'wretched ass' is a harsh term for the individual identified as the wrongdoer in this tale. The command 'seat him upon the ass' (bar khar nishān) clearly carries the meaning of punishment or public humiliation; that is, to make him ride his donkey, to make him realize his true place, and to deliver his due.

What follows in subsequent verses further emphasizes the judge's role: the judge has the authority to punish with the darra (lash), and if the accused dies as a result of the lash wounds, their blood is considered wasted (hadar) with no liability falling upon the judge. This legal ruling refers to the judge's discretion in imposing ta'zir. Hadd is a punishment whose measure is precisely fixed in religious law (such as the amputation of a thief's hand), while ta'zir is a punishment whose extent is left to the judge's discretion, although it must always be dūn al-ḥadd – less than the fixed limit. Rumi here calls the judge the 'representative of God' (nāyib-e ḥaqq) and the 'shadow of God's justice' (sāyeh-ye ʿadl-e ḥaqq), who must execute justice for the oppressed and not for personal gain or anger.

It is, of course, essential to note that I have previously alluded to the inappropriate use of the term ta'zir in contemporary times; when torture is justified under this religious label, it is itself an instance of 'conferring a sacred name upon an unholy act.' However, Rumi's intention in these verses is to express the philosophy of justice and the necessity of impartial judgment, not to justify oppression. He speaks of a judge who 'practices justice for the oppressed / not for greed, anger, income, or expense,' and this distinction is highly prominent in his view.

Key takeaways

• In any dispute, an impartial third-party arbiter is essential for truth and justice, as individuals are not honest mirrors for themselves.
• "Wretched ass" (khar-e adbār) is an ironic term for someone deserving punishment or public humiliation, and "seat him upon the ass" (bar khar nishān) symbolizes a corrective judgment or disgrace.
• Rumi elevates the role of the judge as the "representative of God" (nāyib-e ḥaqq) and the "shadow of God's justice" (sāyeh-ye ʿadl-e ḥaqq), whose aim is to enact justice for the oppressed, not for personal gain.
• The verse alludes to the jurisprudential concept of ta'zir (discretionary punishments determined by a judge), in contrast to hudūd (fixed Sharia punishments).
• Soroush highlights that the misuse of ta'zir to justify oppression and torture in contemporary times is an example of the abuse of religious concepts.