M6:2569 — شه نگیرد آنک می‌رنجاندش / از چه گیرد آنک می‌خنداندش

Translation: The king does not seize one who displeases him; how could he seize one who makes him laugh? Meaning: In this couplet, the jester appeals to the king's magnanimity, arguing that if the king does not punish those who upset him, he certainly would not punish one who brings him joy.

This couplet, spoken by the jester in the story, is a plea in his defense against the vizier's accusations. The jester seeks to dissuade the king from punishing him by appealing to the king's renowned magnanimity and patience. He argues to the king: “Our monarch is so merciful and forgiving that he does not even punish those whose actions or words displease him; given this, how could I, who constantly strive to bring joy to his heart and laughter to his lips, possibly be subjected to his wrath and censure?” This is a powerful, emotional argument based on the logic of a fortiori or fawā al-khiṭāb, meaning if the lesser offense is overlooked, the greater (in this case, perceived “merit”) should certainly be rewarded or spared.

However, the deeper point here is that Rumi, by placing this statement in this context, simultaneously portrays the majesty and grandeur of the true King (a symbol of God) and implicitly recalls the complex nature of justice and judgment. The king in the story, who is supposed to embody justice, considers not only the jester's appearance but also the vizier's suspicions. The jester attempts to free the king from the vizier's “ill-will” by reminding him of his generous nature, arguing that suspicion is a sin upon which no one should be punished. This brings to mind the Quranic phrase, “Indeed, some suspicion is a sin,” serving as a warning that judging based on conjecture can lead to oppression.

Yet, beyond the jester’s defense, Rumi alludes to a more general truth about human nature. The vizier considers the jester inherently malicious, a sentiment Rumi expresses as “this human was kneaded with evil.” This perspective, that humans possess an intrinsic inclination towards baseness and wrongdoing unless an external force elevates them, resonates with philosophers like Freud, who viewed “civilization as a thin veneer over human savagery.” Prophets, too, have always sought to temper this inner malice. In contrast, liberal thought leans on the inherent goodness of humanity. Through the jester's mouth, Rumi describes a king who acts beyond superficial “good” and “evil”; he even overlooks evil, let alone good. But this mercy does not necessarily equate to “unquestioning acceptance of innocence claims”; rather, sometimes, the “evil” itself must be revealed through suffering and purified from one's essence. Ultimately, the king in the story not only rejects the jester's defense but orders him to be beaten “until he gives us information,” meaning his inner truth is revealed. This itself shows that the king's mercy is precisely his justice, and sometimes truth does not emerge from behind the veil except through suffering.

Key takeaways

• The jester uses an a fortiori argument, appealing to the king's mercy by stating that if he spares those who displease him, he surely would spare those who bring him joy.
• The couplet implicitly critiques judgments based on suspicion, referencing the Quranic notion that 'some suspicion is a sin.'
• Beyond the narrative, Rumi, through the vizier's perspective, highlights the 'evil-prone' nature of humanity, echoing philosophies like Freud's and prophetic teachings.
• The king's mercy in this story does not necessarily imply overlooking truth; rather, sometimes truth and inner purification are revealed only through suffering.
• Contrary to the jester's hopes, the king orders his punishment to unveil his hidden truth through beating, illustrating the complexity of justice.