M6:1506 — رفت صوفی سوی آن سیلی‌زنش / دست زد چون مدعی در دامنش

Translation: The Sufi went towards the one who had slapped him, and grasped his skirt like a plaintiff. Meaning: Instead of seeking personal revenge, the Sufi took the slapper, who was on the verge of death, to the judge for justice.

This verse follows the story of the Sufi and the slapper, a narrative Rumi employs to illuminate the complexities of judgment and human responsibility. The Sufi, despite being the one slapped, demonstrates immense magnanimity and prudence by refraining from personal vengeance. Why? Because he realizes the slapper is at death's door, and if the Sufi were to retaliate directly, the slapper's blood would be on his hands. It is at this juncture that the Sufi, instead of succumbing to anger, turns to reason and deliberation.

I have always emphasized that in disputes and judgments, we can never truly be our own mirror or hold our own scales. Our self-interest invariably prevents fair judgment of ourselves or others. For this reason, in a conflict between two individuals, there is always a need for a 'third party'—a third party that can act both as a mirror and as scales. In this story, the Sufi takes the slapper, 'like a plaintiff grasping his skirt,' and 'drags him before the judge.' That is, he brings him before an impartial arbiter, a judge, to render judgment. This is an absolutely responsible act; the Sufi does not claim a right to immediate retaliation but considers the consequences of his actions, understanding that fair judgment can only come through an impartial institution.

In the verses that follow, Rumi alludes to the judge's authority in determining ta'zir (discretionary punishment). Ta'zir is a punishment whose measure is not fixed in religious law, but rather left to the judge's discretion, unlike hadd (fixed punishment), whose measure is immutable. Rumi explicitly states that if a judge condemns someone to ta'zir, and that individual even dies from the wounds inflicted by the darra (lash), their blood is 'wasted' (hadar), and the judge is not held liable; for the judge 'is the vicegerent of God and the shadow of divine justice.' This demonstrates Rumi's profound respect for the judicial system and the necessity of an institution capable of objective and responsible arbitration. The Sufi's action is not merely a testament to his chivalry but an exemplary model of social and ethical responsibility that prevents the escalation of discord and conflict.

Key takeaways

• The Sufi's magnanimity and prudence in abstaining from personal revenge, even when faced with clear injustice.
• The necessity of recourse to an impartial arbiter or judge (a 'third party') for fair judgment, transcending individual self-interest.
• Considering the consequences of one's actions, particularly in sensitive situations (such as the slapper's impending death).
• The judge, as 'God's vicegerent' and enforcer of justice, holds discretionary power (ta'zir) and is not directly liable even if the accused dies.
• The importance of the judicial system in preventing discord (fitna) and arbitrary violence, and in establishing social and ethical order.