M6:2472 — ورنه کی اندر فتادی او به دام / مکر اندر آدمی باشد تمام

Translation: Otherwise, when would it (the prey) have fallen into the trap? Cunning is completely found in humans. Meaning: This verse states that the capacity for deception and entrapment is distinctly human; animals, by themselves, lack such complete guile and cunning.

This verse from the Masnavi illuminates Mowlana's profound distinction between humans and animals. Animals, without doubt, possess strength, claws, and teeth; they can tear and kill. However, what is inherently human and what animals utterly lack is 'cunning' (makr), 'guile' (ḥileh), and 'culture' (farhang) in its older sense of trickery and stratagem. Mowlana clearly states, "The dragon has strength, but it has no stratagem"; the dragon possesses brute force but lacks the capacity for calculated cunning. Animals inflict harm directly and without inhibition; you can, therefore, evade them through cunning, and even capture them, be they lions, tigers, or wolves.

But humans are cunning, and one must beware of their deception. Even if a human lacks physical strength, the very act of cunning itself constitutes a form of power added to them. This is a crucial point in Mowlana's thought, where he attributes certain qualities exclusively to humans, not to animals. Much like the analytical philosopher Gilbert Ryle, who divided actions into "first-order" and "second-order" activities, we can say that cunning, envy, criticism, and repentance are all second-order acts. These overlay first-order natural acts like eating or sleeping. Animals tear and eat – that's a first-order act. But do they eat "unjustly" or "oppressively"? These are second-order acts that hold no meaning for animals, precisely because the concepts of justice and oppression do not exist within them. When we describe a wolf as "oppressive," we are committing the error of projecting human qualities onto it. A wolf is predatory, but predation is not injustice; it is simply part of its nature.

Our inadequate understanding of animals stems from our inability to access their inner states. Our knowledge of animals is largely based on "anthropomorphism" or "projection onto self"; that is, we project our own attributes onto them. When we call a fox "cunning" (makkāreh), we are, in reality, attributing our own cunning to it. The same applies to "maternal love" in animals; we observe behaviors that resemble human maternal love, but we remain ignorant of its intrinsic reality. This closed door of knowledge exists even for other humans, let alone animals, and beyond that, God. It is for this reason that the Prophet (PBUH) declared, "Mā ʿarafnāka ḥaqqa maʿrifatik" (We have not known You as You ought to be known). The highest confession in knowing God is to acknowledge one's incapacity to fully comprehend Him.

Key takeaways

• The fundamental distinction between animals and humans lies in physical strength versus cunning and stratagem.
• Cunning and guile, even in the absence of physical power, are distinctively human strengths.
• Second-order acts such as deception and injustice are exclusive to humans, not animals.
• The projection of human traits onto animals (e.g., the cunning fox) stems from our inability to truly comprehend their inner states.
• Our limited knowledge of other beings, and even ourselves, culminates in the profound realization of our inability to fully grasp God.