M6:405 — خود بگفتی کین گناه از نفس بود / چون قضا این بود حزم ما چه سود

Translation: He (Adam) would have said: "This sin was due to my fate; / When divine decree (qazā) was thus, what use was our prudence (ḥazm)?" Meaning:* This verse, articulated from a deterministic viewpoint, suggests that if sin and error are preordained by destiny, then human foresight and effort are futile, implying no personal responsibility.

This beyt represents words that Mowlana imagines Adam would have uttered had he been a determinist. It emerges within the narrative of a king and his emirs, where the emirs attribute their shortcomings to divine grace and fate. The king, in his riposte, rejects this notion by citing Adam's repentance. It is here that Mowlana elucidates the fundamental distinction between Adam and Iblis.

As I have often emphasized, Mowlana's worldview fundamentally rejects determinism. This verse perfectly encapsulates the deterministic perspective that absolves human beings of responsibility, casting their errors upon divine decree (qazā) and fate (bakht). It articulates a logic that questions, "Since destiny is predetermined, what benefit can our effort and caution possibly yield?" Yet, Adam, defying this logic, did not declare, "This sin was due to my fate"; instead, with utmost accountability, he confessed, "Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves" (Rabbanā ẓalamnā anfusana). He attributed the fault to himself and sought forgiveness, rather than questioning the utility of prudence in the face of divine preordination.

From Mowlana's perspective, this very statement embodies the logic of Iblis. It was Iblis who, in defiance of God's command, attributed his transgression to God, declaring, "You led me astray" (aghwaytanī). This implies Iblis, too, reasoned: "Since You led me astray, what fault is mine, and what use was my discretion?" Mowlana reveals to us that the pivotal difference lies precisely here: Adam accepted responsibility for his actions and repented, whereas Iblis, employing this deterministic rationale, shifted the blame onto another and, out of arrogance, refused to yield.

Thus, this beyt, in essence, constitutes Mowlana's critique and rejection of the deterministic worldview. He indirectly conveys this perspective through Adam's hypothetical determinist utterance, thereby underscoring the power of human choice and accountability, even in the context of divine decree. We can act either through diligent effort (ijtehād) or through neglect (taqṣīr), and each path bears its own consequences. As the King subsequently asserts, whatever emanates from the self is either the 'fruit of our shortcomings' (riyʿ-i taqṣīr) or the 'income of our earnest endeavor' (dakhl-i ijtehād); this affirms that our choices are indeed impactful and definitive.

Key takeaways

• This verse articulates a deterministic stance, which Mowlana ultimately rejects.
• Mowlana uses this beyt to highlight the fundamental difference between accepting responsibility (Adam) and deflecting blame (Iblis).
• Human accountability, even in the face of divine decree, is a core tenet of Mowlana's teachings.
• Human prudence and effort (ḥazm and ijtehād) are meaningful and consequential, despite divine preordination.