Fathali Ghahremani Ghadjar

The Gulestan of Saadi, born 1210; died 1291 or 1292

Chapter One: On the Character of Kings

Story Number 1 (original in Persian)

I heard a Padishah giving orders to kill a captive.  In desperation, the powerless man using foul language began to insult the shah.  There is a saying that he who washes his hands of life, says whatever he has in his heart.

In time of need, when flight is impossible,
The hand will grasp the tip of a sharp sword

A desperate man says what he will
he is like a vanquished cat attacking a dog.

When the Shah asked what is the man saying, a kind hearted vizir replied: “My lord, he says: ‘ … and those who restrain anger, and those who forgive people. God loves the doers of good.’” 
(Quran, Sura 3, al Imran, verse 134)

The statement moved the Shah and he forgave the captive; but another vizir, who was against the first, said: “Men of our rank ought to speak nothing but the truth in the presence of the Shah. This fellow has insulted the Shah and spoken unbecomingly.” 

The Shah, was displeased with these words and said: “That lie was more acceptable to me than this truth you just said because it was with good intentions and this was with an evil intent; and wise men have said: "A conciliatory lie is better than a chaos producing truth”.

He whose advice the shah follows,
It is a pity if he says anything but virtuous words.

On the portico of the hall of Fereydun it was written:

O brother, the world remains with no one.
It is enough to give your heart to the Creator,

Do not depend on possessions and this world
Because it has raised and killed many like you.

When the pure soul is leaving the body,
What matters if one dies on a throne or in the dirt?

Commentary

I have given you a summary of this complex subject
You must see the whole story from this summary
(Oman Samani 1842-1904)

Based on the phrase "A conciliatory lie is better than a chaos producing truth”, this story from Saadi’s Gulestan is usually cited as a justification for ‘white lies’.  Yet, ‘lying’, whether for good or bad, has dire social consequences and is not a subject to be taken lightly، especially by a master such as Saadi!  So, a deeper analysis and interpretation of this story is necessary.

It is good to remember, we are not talking about just anyone, this is Saadi, perhaps one of the greatest social commentators of all time.  He does not delve lightly into any subject and there must be a reason why he chose to start the Gulstan’s First Chapter - which is about the character of kings - with this specific story.  Saadi is addressing a fundamental basis of society, i.e., governance (in this case, the society of 13th century Iran, the Mongol invasion period, where the very basis of government and society were in question).  This story is the foundation on which the whole chapter on advice to rulers is structured.

Unfortunately, society has reduced this fundamental story to a single phrase “A conciliatory lie is better than a chaos producing truth” which is often quoted to justify ‘white lies’.  Yet, lying, for whatever reason, can destroy social trust and it is dubious that Saadi would promote it on any level.

The above story can be summarized as follows:

A prisoner of war (not a criminal) is condemned to death by a Shah.  In desperation the captive curses him.  The Shah asks his vizir “What is this man saying”.

The vizir, on behalf of the prisoner, says he is quoting the Quran “… and those who restrain anger, and those who forgive people. God loves the doers of good.”).  The Shah is moved by this quotation and pardons the prisoner. 

A second vizir takes offense and tells the Shah that the prisoner was actually insulting the king.  In response, the Shah comments that the first vizir told a lie with good intentions and the truth you say is based on malice quoting

“Knowledgeable persons have said: 

"A conciliatory lie is better than a chaos producing truth."

The story ends with a line, purportedly from one of the ancient, mythical Iranian Kings -Fereydun- stating that everyone is equal in death.

While superficially it appears that Saadi is endorsing white lies, there is more to this tale - ‘context’ is important here.  Saadi is very careful about social issues such as:

Is ‘saving a life’ more important than ‘saving the integrity of society’? 
Are all humans equal or is a ruler superior to the ruled?

Or even on a broader scale, what is the relation between power, justice and the individual in society? 

While in the common vernacular, this whole story is reduced to a single line justifying a ‘white lie’, i.e., ‘A conciliatory lie is better than a chaos producing truth’, the scope is much greater and this ‘justification of white lies’ should not define the depth and layers of what Saadi is saying.  A deeper insight may invalidate the common ‘take’ on this story.

Multiple subjects are broached in this short story:

The first is the Shah:  Post Turkic/Mongol invasion of Iran, the issue of justice in society had degraded to the opinion of the conquering ‘sultan/warlord’.  The conqueror had absolute power and could dictate life and death for anyone and, for that matter, anything.  Such absolute power had to be controlled and, in this story, Saadi is raising the issue that the Shah is not and should not be an absolute arbiter of right and wrong and, further, in the last line he is stating that both the Shah and the accused are equal in death. 

The second point is the Law:  The quotation from the Quran Sura 3 verse 134 where the beneficent are rewarded by God is a - not so subtle - reference to the power of God over the Shah.  Before God, even the Shah is a subject, equal to all others.  The fact that Saadi chose this particular Sura and verse, is critical.  He is essentially warning the Shah that unjust decisions have consequences and God will judge him based on his actions, good decisions will be rewarded, bad ones will be punished.  Saadi is pointing out that the Quran and, by extension God, is the ultimate arbiter and that actions have consequences and political positions require responsibilities.

The third point is the Court:  The Shah apparently has multiple vizirs (advisers) and in this case two of them come forward. The two vizirs define two opposite takes on the given situation.  It is left to the Shah/judge, to make a decision based on what each puts forward.  In effect the first vizir is defending the accused and the second is acting on behalf of the state.  This dialectic between the two vizirs is implies the existence of a court of law with the responsibility of clarifying the ’truth’.

The fourth point is the Accused:  Although he is a captive (not a criminal) and at the mercy of a foreign Shah, he is not utterly broken.  He takes it upon himself to aggressively state his case (in his own language, i.e., to curse the Shah) in face of an injustice.  Had the captive meekly accepted his fate, without complaining, he would have been executed.  Yet his courage in confronting the Shah created a ‘Court’ where the two vizirs deliberated on his case.  Individual courage, regardless of position in society and in the face of adversity and potential injustice, is thus encouraged and rewarded. 

Now we come to the question of “Lying” instead of telling the “Truth”.  Without a question the first vizir, by quoting the Quran, is misrepresenting the words of the prisoner.  Being aware that the Shah has already made an unjust decision, the vizir confronts him by quoting the divine guidance (albeit through the medium of the captive).  In short, seeing the Shah’s lack of linguistic ability, the vizir could have chosen to say the captive is praising the Shah, or begging for forgiveness, etc., etc., but he chose to quote the Quran to him.  It is the Shah who, in order to save face and retreat from his original unjust decision, conflates the Quranic guidance with a comment by unknown ‘wise men’ about lying.  Note that neither vizir is implicated, dismissed or executed for their opinion since one quoted the Quran and the other stated the facts.  Saadi does not find fault with either vizir but puts onus of the decision directly on the Shah/judge who is responsible for meting out justice!

Finally, we must consider who Saadi was addressing in the Golestan: he is the Salghurid governor of Shiraz during the Mongol Invasions - Abū Bakr ibn Saʿd ibn Zangī (1231–1260).  This was a tumultuous period of Iranian history when warlords governed and military might determined who ruled, who dispensed justice and who died.  Note that in such a time Saadi deliberately uses the term ‘Shah’ in this story rather than ‘Sultan’ or ‘Khan’ or ‘Khaghan’ – the more ‘contemporary’ Turko-Mongolian royal title.  By using the word “Padishah” he is linking the ‘present’ to the mythical ‘past’ and by implication he is telling the Sultan that history records justice, not power, i.e., to be remembered - like Fereydun, the mythical shah/king and the very symbol of justice in Iranian mythology - be just, because power and position are ephemeral and short-lived!

So where does that leave the moral of the story?  First and foremost, using this story as an endorsement of ‘white lies’ is plainly wrong.  The story should not be defined by one quotation from the Shah (“A lie resulting in conciliation is better than a truth producing chaos.”) but must be taken as a whole.

Further, Saadi has, in one short story, outlined a judicial system where the law is above power, where the court is an open forum for decision making and where the rights of all individuals must be considered.  Saadi is not compromising the integrity of society (by justifying a ‘white lie’) but charging everyone - the Shah, vizirs and even prisoners - to act within the requirements of social justice, thus putting “Justice/ Law” and its defense as the greatest good for society. 

Saadi turns the Machiavellian comment that a ruler is ‘better to be feared than loved’ on its head and emphasizes Justice as the ruler’s greatest power.  He also shows that law is not arbitrary and outlines the fundamentals of a judicial system: a court with an ‘impartial’ judge, with ‘prosecuting and defense attorneys’ who are responsible to defend the law and facts, and an ‘accused’.  He notes that justice is not an absolute, but nuanced with shades of grey - both truths and lies - and the judge must look at the situation, consult and then discern what is best.  Further, using the specific quotation from the Quran, he is warning the judge that he too will be judged.

The final summation by Saadi himself gives the greatest advice to any ruler:

O brother, the world remains with no one.
It is enough to give your heart to the Creator,

Do not depend on possessions and this world
Because it has raised and killed many like you.

When the pure soul is leaving the body,
What matters if one dies on a throne or in the dirt?

The last statement, “What matters it if one dies on a throne or in the dirt?”, summarizes Saadi’s entire philosophy of government.  It is the ultimate, timeless admonishment of Saadi to all humans, rulers and ruled, to regard all mankind as equal and it is the government’s duty is to be responsible and JUST to all people equally.  Further, since everyone -rulers and ruled - will die and be judged; all humans are, de facto, equal in death but only the just will be remembered.

Final note, it is sad that such a tour de force by a master such as Saadi has been distorted and misrepresented by the politically expedient phrase that sometimes a ‘white lie’ is acceptable!