M6:2474 — هر یکی تاریخ عمر ابدا کنید / پیرتر اولیست باقی تن زنید

Translation: Each of you, reveal the history of your life; The elder has precedence, the rest be silent. Meaning: This couplet sets the condition for a competition: whoever can prove themselves oldest will win, and others must defer.

In this couplet, Rumi begins a story that, in a sense, uncovers one of the most critical pathologies of power in human history. In a competition between a ram, a cow, and a camel over a bundle of grass, it is decided that whichever animal can prove its greater antiquity will take the grass. This beyt is the invitation to that very competition: “abidā konīd” means to reveal, to display the history of your life; “pīrtar owlāst”, the older one is primary and deserving of this bounty; “bāqī tan zanīd”, the rest of you remain silent and withdraw from the field. This in itself is a logic, a method of argument that the animals have established for themselves: historical precedence is the criterion for priority.

However, the story gains philosophical weight when the ram boasts of grazing with the ram sacrificed for Ishmael, and the cow makes an even grander claim: that it was the mate of the cow that Adam, the ancestor of humanity, brought to earth for farming. These two animals push history back to the very beginning of creation, and in their own estimation, close off all avenues of logical argument. It is at this point that the camel, lacking a rational way to surpass them, suddenly bypasses the path of logic and enters the arena not with reason, but with sheer force. With its long neck, it kicks the bundle of grass and declares: “Marā khod hājat-e tārikh nīst / K-īn chonīn jesmī-st o ʿālī gardanī-st.” “I have no need of your history or arguments; I have a mighty neck that gets my job done.” “I will take this bundle of grass, leave you hungry, and satisfy myself. You cannot stand against me.”

This is an extremely crucial point Rumi makes here. In the reality of human history, what has often prevailed is not logic, not philosophy, not reason, but brute force (zūr). When force enters the scene, all these are suspended. Even today, after World War II and the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—an attempt to replace violence with reason and human dignity—we still see this “precious and delicate commodity” fallen into the hands of oppressors. Because “they possess force,” they disregard human rights, making it a mere lip service (lagh-laghah-ye zabān). Rumi states elsewhere: “Khod bashar rā panjeh o nākhon mabād / Ke nah dīn andīshad ān-gah nah sadād.” “May humanity not possess sharp claws and nails, for then it would consider neither religion nor rectitude.” If humans acquire power, they cease to contemplate ethics or faith; they crumple everything in their fist.

For Rumi and mystics like Ghazali, the solution lay in “withdrawing from power.” They calculated that their force was insufficient against tyrannical governments, and rebellions only led to bloodshed, merely installing another strongman. Thus, at most, they offered advice to rulers to mitigate their oppression, viewing governance as a “necessary evil” inherently accompanied by tyranny. Yet, they never advocated armed insurrection to seize power, deeming such actions unethical.

This approach contrasts sharply with Marx’s view that “philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it.” Rumi believes that reason must replace force and logic must replace violence. However, we should not passively await the world's reform through politicians. Until a righteous ruler emerges, each individual must cultivate goodness and justice within their limited sphere—from their personal being to their family and workplace—serving as an example. Rumi asserts: “Every merchant in their shop strives for themselves, not for the reform of the world; but the world will also be reformed if all merchants are committed to ethics.” The reform of the world begins with the reform of the individual and the small community, not merely with rhetoric and grand political pronouncements while evading personal responsibilities. This beyt reminds us that logic and argumentation, when faced with material power, can sometimes prove ineffective, and power, in its most ruthless form, often has the final say.

Key takeaways

• In power struggles, historical argument and precedence eventually give way to brute force and material capability.
• Rumi emphasizes that historically, force, not logic or reason, has often been the ultimate arbiter.
• The camel's disregard for historical accounts and its reliance on physical might symbolizes the precedence of power over argument.
• When absolute power is gained, ethical and religious considerations are often discarded (as in: 'May humans not have sharp claws').
• Mystics like Rumi and Ghazali advocated for withdrawal from direct political power and focused on individual and local reform, rather than confronting tyrannical rulers directly.