M6:1514 — آنک بهر خود زند او ضامنست / وآنک بهر حق زند او آمنست

Translation: Whoever strikes for self, he is accountable; And whoever strikes for Truth, he is safe.

Meaning: This couplet sharply distinguishes between actions driven by self-interest and those undertaken solely for the sake of divine Truth. It suggests that self-serving acts lead to accountability, while acts performed for God bring spiritual security and freedom from worldly consequences.

This couplet offers a profound lesson on the intention behind action and its ultimate consequences. While Rumi uses a jurisprudential example of liability (diya and ḍamānat) to illustrate his point, his ultimate purpose, as he explicitly states, is not legalistic but a journey towards selflessness and fanā (annihilation of self).

Rumi posits that whoever acts for their own 'self'—their personal interests and desires—is held accountable and responsible for their deeds. If they err or transgress, they must bear the consequences. However, one whose action stems from sincere devotion and is 'for the sake of Truth' (bahr-i ḥaqq), seeing themselves merely as an instrument of divine will with no intention other than God's pleasure, is safe from blame, reprisal, and negative outcomes.

To elucidate this, Rumi draws on legal examples: a father who punishes his son for personal reasons, such as demanding obedience to his own will, and inadvertently causes the son's death, is liable for blood money. This is because the father's motive was his 'own purpose' (kār-i khwīsh), not purely divine discipline. Conversely, a teacher who disciplines a student for the sake of education and an unfortunate incident occurs is not held liable; the teacher acts as a 'deputy and trustee' (nāʾib va amīn), fulfilling a higher, impersonal purpose. I should note, however, that the acceptance of this specific legal ruling (teacher's non-liability for severe harm) is debatable in Shi'i fiqh, though it held sway in Sunni fiqh and was certainly a practice of figures like Shams-i Tabrizi who were known for their harshness towards pupils.

Rumi's core philosophical and ethical command is: "Pas khwudī rā sar bubur ay Zulfiqār / bī-khwudī shō, fānīy-ī darwīsh-vār" (Therefore, behead the self, O Dhulfiqar; become selfless, annihilated like a dervish). He urges us to transcend the ego, to sever the head of this egoistic, self-seeking self, and attain a state of bī-khwudī (selflessness). This bī-khwudī implies an objective detachment, a complete emptying of self, much like an emotionless mirror reflecting truth or a silent scale weighing justly, without bias. In this state, one is liberated from personal affections, loves, and hatreds towards others.

This state of selflessness is precisely what Rumi connects to the Quranic verse, "Ma ramayta idh ramayta, wa lākinna Allāha ramā" (It was not you who threw when you threw, but Allah who threw). This verse symbolizes the annihilation of the servant in the Divine, a concept Rumi frequently invokes in the Mathnawi. In the state of fanā, God is the true agent, and the individual is merely His instrument. In such a state, the mystic's language often becomes paradoxical, as it describes a reality beyond the confines of worldly expression. As Mullā Ṣadrā beautifully states, contradictions cannot coexist in the narrow vessel of the material world, but in the expansive vessel of Being, they sit harmoniously side-by-side. The mystic, upon reaching that station, perceives that both he and God are casting the arrow, both he and God are speaking, because he is empty of self and full of Truth. Indeed, in my own discussions on the theory of revelation, I have argued that the Prophet (PBUH), when reciting the Quran, was empty of self and full of God, thus simultaneously speaking himself and having God speak through him.

Al-Ghazali also frequently referred to this verse in his works, seeing it as an inspiration for mystics to achieve the highest level of tawakkul (trust in God) – a state of such complete self-emptying and annihilation that one becomes like a corpse in the hands of the washer. In this condition, the human being is rendered 'safe' (āmin) from all fear and reckoning.

Rumi, however, after these detailed legal discussions, abruptly shifts focus, realizing he has strayed from the Mathnawi's core purpose: "Har dukkānī rā sawdāy-ī digar / Mathnawī dukkān-i faqr ast ay pisar" (Every shop has a different trade, O son; the Mathnawi is the shop of spiritual poverty). This admission highlights his view of fiqh as a worldly science for social order, whose significance pales in comparison to the path of love, spiritual poverty (faqr), and mystical journeying. Despite being a jurist himself and issuing fatwas, Rumi knew his Mathnawi's mission was to address profound spiritual matters, not legal disputes.

Key takeaways

• Actions for 'self' incur accountability; actions for 'Truth' bring safety and freedom from consequences.
• Rumi's core message is an invitation to 'selflessness' (bī-khwudī) and fanā, seeing oneself as an instrument of divine will.
• The Quranic verse "Ma ramayta idh ramayta" serves as a paradigm for this annihilation, where God is the true agent.
• Rumi uses jurisprudential examples (father vs. teacher) to illustrate distinctions in intention, not to advocate for fiqh itself.
• Rumi ultimately declares the Mathnawi a 'shop of spiritual poverty' (dukkān-i faqr), emphasizing its role in soul-training and love, rather than legal discourse.