M6:2064 — شرع و تقوی را فکنده سوی پشت / کو عمر کو امر معروفی درشت

Translation: They have cast aside the Law (Sharʿ) and piety (taqwā) behind their back. Where is 'Umar? Where is a harsh enjoining of good? Meaning: Rumi here criticizes a group of ostentatious Sufis who claim spiritual insight yet abandon religious law and piety. He laments the absence of a strong leader, like 'Umar, to sternly guide them back to the right path.

This couplet is a sharp, biting critique of a distorted and aberrant current among some Sufis of Rumi's time. It is crucial to understand that Rumi's target is never genuine mystics or authentic Sufis, but rather those khanqah-dwellers who had traded true spiritual journeying for hypocrisy and pretense. Indeed, as we know, Hafez himself was no friend to these 'Sufis', casting scathing criticisms upon them with lines such as, 'The Sufi set a trap and unveiled his trickery'. This particular group, characterized by 'makr o tazvīr' (deceit and hypocrisy), claimed to have attained such a high spiritual station that they were exempt from the constraints of 'sharʿ' (religious law) and 'taqwā' (piety). This erroneous belief led to 'ibāḥat' (permissiveness), where they considered all actions, even prohibitions, to be 'mubāḥ' (permissible) for themselves. I must remind you that Ghazali, the illustrious jurist and theologian, in his works such as Iḥyāʾ al-ʿUlūm, vehemently condemned these 'abāḥī-mashrabān' (permissive-minded individuals), even deeming them worthy of execution. He believed them to be more dangerous than infidels, for an infidel's stance is clear, but these individuals claimed to be Muslims while adhering to no divine injunctions. Another striking feature of these pseudo-Sufis was their disdain for formal knowledge. They considered learning a sin, believing that their 'lawḥ-i dil' (tablet of the heart) would be polished through ascetic practices and 'ishrāqāt' (illuminations) to directly reflect divine truths, rendering formal knowledge unnecessary. Ghazali, in Iḥyāʾ al-ʿUlūm, even poses a jurisprudential question: whether a Sufi who secretly studied was entitled to receive khanqah endowments—a question that itself implies illiteracy was the default expectation for a Sufi. This attitude fostered an 'ujb-i khāneqāhī' (khanqah-based arrogance), where they regarded themselves as superior to others, often displaying a 'tursh-rū o ʿabūs' (morose and sullen) demeanor, a stark contrast to the 'khūsh-khūʾī' (good temper) that Hafez, through his metaphorical wine-drinking, championed. Rumi's invocation of 'Umar, the second Caliph, carries profound meaning here. 'Umar was renowned for his strictness and his active role as a 'muḥtasib' (market inspector and enforcer of public morals), wielding his 'darra-ye ʿUmarī' (Umar's whip) to uphold amr bi al-maʿrūf and nahy ʿan al-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding wrong). Rumi here expresses a longing for such a figure to restore these false claimants to the right path. It is quite astonishing that Rumi himself, in the well-known Story of the Minstrel (Book One of the Masnavi), depicts 'Umar being divinely instructed to aid a musician—a figure typically scorned by rigid religious adherents. This paradox highlights Rumi's nuanced perspective: while he valued genuine spiritual insight (like that of the minstrel) that could transcend superficial religious judgments, he also recognized that the pretense of such transcendence, leading to the abandonment of fundamental ethical and legal principles by these corrupt Sufis, required the stern hand of the Law. This critique is aimed at hypocrisy and pretense, not at authentic spiritual freedom.

Key takeaways

• Rumi delivers a sharp critique of hypocritical Sufis and khanqah-dwellers who abandon religious law and piety.
• The verse is a cry against 'permissive-minded' individuals who disregard lawful and unlawful acts under the guise of spiritual attainment.
• This false approach led to 'khanqah-based arrogance' and a disdain for formal knowledge and learning.
• 'Umar' symbolizes a powerful and stern ruler whose role is to enforce good and forbid wrong against such deviations.
• With this couplet, Rumi rejects pretense and hypocrisy cloaked in spirituality, not genuine spiritual freedom.