M6:1516 — زانک او را بهر کار خویش زد / خدمت او هست واجب بر ولد

Translation: Because he struck him for his own work; while his service is obligatory upon the child (and not vice-versa). Meaning: Within a discussion of legal judgments, this verse argues that a father who punishes his child for his own personal ends, leading to the child's death, is held liable. His action stems from his 'self' and private interest.

Here, Rumi, with remarkable subtlety, uses a jurisprudential (fiqh) issue to elucidate a profound principle in mysticism. His aim is to draw a clear distinction between actions that arise from the 'self' (khudi) and those performed in 'selflessness' (bi-khudi).

The discussion begins with a legal scenario: if a father disciplines his child and, as a result, the child dies, the father is liable for blood-money. The reason for this ruling, as Rumi explains in this very verse, is that "Zān-k-o rā ba-hār-e kār-e khīsh zad" — he struck the child for his own sake. That is, the father's motivation was to 'correct' the child for himself; for the child to obey him, to conform to his desires, or, in essence, to bolster the father's 'self' and satisfy his personal inclinations. It is here that Rumi unequivocally states: "Ān ke ba-hār-e khwud zanad, ū zāmin ast" (He who strikes for his own sake, he is responsible). Any action stemming from self-centeredness, personal gain, or the imposition of one's 'self' upon another incurs responsibility and liability. Even if, on the surface, "khidmat-e ū hast wājib bar walad" (the child's service is obligatory to him, i.e., the father), if the father uses this authority as an instrument for his 'own work,' he has deviated from justice.

In contrast, Rumi introduces the example of the 'teacher.' If a teacher disciplines a student and an accident leads to the student's death, "Bar mu'allim nīst chīzī, lā takhaf" (Nothing is on the teacher; fear not). Why? Because "K-ān mu'allim nāyib uftād-o amīn / Har amīn rā hast hukm-ash hamch-unīn" (That teacher was a deputy and a trustee; every trustee's ruling is thus). The teacher, acting as a 'deputy' of truth and a 'trustee' of education, does not strike for personal reasons; his aim is the student's development and the transmission of knowledge and ethics. His action is annihilated in a higher purpose, not born of his 'self.' This is the essential difference: the action of the selfish agent versus the action of the selfless and annihilated agent.

The fundamental lesson Rumi derives from these jurisprudential tales is nothing less than an invitation to 'selflessness' (bi-khudi). Immediately after these examples, he addresses the reader: "Pas khudi rā sar bubur ey Zū-l-faqār / Bī-khudī shō, fāniyyī darwīsh-wār" (So sever the head of your selfhood, O Dhu'l-faqar / Become selfless, be annihilated like a dervish). 'Dhu'l-faqar' here can refer to Imam Ali's sword, symbolizing the power to cut down falsehood, or it can be a metaphor for decisive will within the human soul. This means that if you wish to be secure and for your actions to become sacred, you must 'sever the head of your self.' You must completely detach from yourself, become devoid of emotion towards adversaries, and act with complete impartiality, like a silent scale or a feelingless mirror.

Rumi elucidates this 'selflessness' by drawing inspiration from the holy verse, "Wa mā ramayta idh ramayta wa lākinna-Llāha ramā" (And you did not throw when you threw, but Allah threw). When a person becomes 'selfless,' everything they do is, in reality, the work of God, not their own. They are not the agent; rather, they are an instrument in the hands of the true Agent. It is in such a state that a person becomes 'secure' (āmin); that is, protected from any worldly or otherworldly responsibility and liability, for there is no self in between to claim reward or punishment. This is the zenith of the servant's annihilation in God, where tongue, speech, and action become the tongue, speech, and action of the Divine.

Dr. Soroush emphasizes that despite engaging with jurisprudential discussions here, Rumi's ultimate goal is not to teach fiqh. "The Masnavi is a shop of spiritual destitution, O son," not a shop of fiqh. Rumi regarded fiqh as a science for regulating people's affairs and fostering social harmony, its importance limited to this world, with rulings that could be altered based on expediency. However, the path of love and spiritual destitution is beyond these concerns, relating instead to the 'human condition' and the eternal architecture of the soul and the Beloved. This distinction is key to understanding this section of the Masnavi: fiqh serves as a tool to lead one to mystical destitution.

Key takeaways

• Actions stemming from one's 'self' and personal interest incur liability, even if superficially lawful.
• Selflessness and acting as a deputy or trustee of truth lead to spiritual security and freedom from responsibility.
• Rumi's jurisprudential narratives are a prelude to inviting the annihilation of the 'self' and attaining the state of 'You did not throw when you threw'.
• The Masnavi is a 'shop of spiritual destitution,' not a 'shop of jurisprudence'; legal discussions serve to elucidate profound mystical principles.
• Only by severing the head of egoism and self-centeredness can one become an instrument in the hand of God and attain divine proximity.