M6:531 — ور ضرورت هست هم پرهیز به / ور خوری باری ضمان آن بده

Translation: And if there is indeed necessity, abstinence is better; / But if you must eat, then give a guarantee for it. Meaning: Even when faced with unavoidable necessity, moral restraint and abstinence are superior. Otherwise, one must provide a guarantee and compensate for the action when the necessity passes.

This verse, a pivotal point in the Masnavi, arises in the tale of a bird trying to justify eating wheat (which represents orphan's property) to a fowler through legalistic stratagems. The fowler here embodies a moral conscience or an insightful jurist, teaching the bird a profound lesson. This bird symbolizes those individuals who, under the guise of "necessity" (ḍarūrat), rationalize forbidden acts and use sophisticated interpretations to evade responsibility.

The core message, conveyed by Mawlana through the fowler, is: "And if there is indeed necessity, abstinence is better." This implies that even if a true state of exigency exists—and not merely a perceived necessity or a carnal desire—the superior and more ethical path is still abstinence and self-restraint. This is the station that mystics like Mawlana emphasize: transcending the minimum requirements of religious law and aspiring to a higher degree of piety and self-vigilance. It is not merely a jurisprudential recommendation but a mystical and ethical injunction, calling humanity towards "excellence" (iḥsān) and "scrupulousness" (waraʿ).

However, should the ego overcome this restraint, and one is compelled to avail oneself of this "necessity," then another condition arises: "But if you must eat, then give a guarantee for it." This means that consuming orphan's property (or performing any other forbidden act) during a time of necessity never absolves one of absolute responsibility. Such an act incurs a debt upon the individual; a commitment to compensate in the future, once the period of exigency has passed. This guarantee signifies that even rules of necessity are situated within a broader ethical framework and are never a permanent license to transgress. Unfortunately, throughout history, and even in our own time, we have often witnessed how individuals, using various pretexts and legalistic tricks, "legitimize" what their ego desires. This is precisely the approach Mawlana challenges through this story. Dehkhoda in his satires, and Hafez in his allusions to clerics who exploit endowments, have lamented this very social ailment. Mawlana, however, presents this not as a complaint against jurists, but as a deep psychological and ethical pathology. The bird ultimately succumbs to desire and falls into the trap, which itself foretells the consequence of ignoring these counsels. This verse is an invitation to cultivate insight, so that we may understand that no necessity absolves us from observing ethics and responsibility.

Key takeaways

• Even in extreme necessity, abstaining from forbidden acts represents the highest moral virtue.
• Necessity never equates to absolute absolution of responsibility; one must compensate and guarantee redress.
• The Masnavi critiques legalistic stratagems used to justify selfish desires.
• Self-restraint and scrupulousness, beyond mere adherence to religious law, define the mystical path.
• Succumbing to desire, even under the guise of necessity, leads to entrapment and dire consequences.