6.1 Mo''jizalarning mumkinligi - Oxirgi Payg'ambar | Quran Course

6.1 Mo''jizalarning mumkinligi - Oxirgi Payg'ambar | Quran Course

Oxir-oqibat, ular mo''jizaviy aralashuv har qanday ko''rinishiga chuqur nafrat bilan qarardilar. Mo''jizalar tushunchasi ko''pincha "ilmiy emas" deb rad etilardi. Bu qarashning eng taniqli himoyachilari, ehtimol, golland ratsionalisti Barux Spinoza (vafoti 1677) va shotlandiyalik empirist Devid Yum (vafoti 1776) edi. Ikkalasi ham mo''jizalarning imkoniyatini rad etish uchun turli dalillardan foydalandilar, ularning barchasi yo faktik xatolarga, yo mantiqiy izchillikning buzilishiga, yo Payg''ambar Muhammad ﷺ mo''jizalariga aloqasi yo''qligiga asoslangan. O''zining "Teologik-siyosiy risola" asarida Spinoza mo''jizalarga ishonishni faqat nafosat asrdagi sodda ongning, tabiat hodisalarini izohlay olmaslikning qoldig''i deb hisoblagan, Tavrotdagi matnlarning haqiqiy ma''nosi bu emas, deb ta''kidlagan. Uning mo''jizalarga nisbatan bunday nafratlanishi kutilgan edi, chunki "g''ayritabiiy aralashuv" g''oyasi uning davrida hukmron bo''lgan va keyinchalik Yevropa Ma''rifatparvarligini tug''dirgan ratsionalizm falsafiy qarashiga zid deb qaralardi. Biroq, Spinozaning mo''jizalarning mavjudligini rad etishga bo''lgan cheksiz g''ayrati uning odatdagi o''tkirligiga zid keladi. Masalan, u Injildagi mo''jizalar haqidagi har bir aniq hikoyani aslida mo''jiza bo''lmagan deb izohlashga urinadi. U hatto har bir sanalgan mo''jizani tushunilmagan tabiiy hodisa sifatida ko''rish mumkin, deb da''vo qilgan.

Ultimately, they had a profound aversion to any suggestion of miraculous intervention. The notion of miracles was commonly rejected because they were “unscientific.” Perhaps the most notable vanguards of this view were the Dutch rationalist Baruch Spinoza (d. 1677) and the Scottish empiricist David Hume (d. 1776). Both used various arguments to reject the possibility of miracles, all of which suffer from either factual errors, logical inconsistency, or irrelevance to the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad .صلى الله عليه وسلم In his Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza argued that belief in miracles was but a remnant of the naive premodern mind, its inability to interpret natural phenomena, and not the intended meaning behind passages in the Torah. His contempt for miracles is expected, as the idea of “supernatural intervention” was perceived to be at odds with the philosophical outlook of rationalism that dominated his era and soon produced the European Enlightenment. However, Spinoza’s unbridled zeal to disprove the very possibility of miracles is contrary to his usual astuteness. For instance, he attempts to explain away every explicit biblical account of miracles as not actually miraculous. He even claimed that every supposed miracle can be seen as a misunderstood natural phenomenon.

U shu bilan u bu fikrini yana bir narsa bilan asoslagan: har bir mo‘jizaga oid tarixiy dalil yo‘qligi va ularni o‘z ziddiyatli ta’limotlarini qo‘llab-quvvatlash uchun da’vo qiladigan ko‘plab e’tiqodlilar mavjudligi. Islomning bilim uzatish bo‘yicha o‘ziga xos mexanizmi tarixiy dalil mezonini qanday qondirishi tez orada muhokama qilinadi, ammo turli dinlar turlicha hisobotlar berishi ularning barchasini rad etishga asos bo‘la olmaydi. Bunday qilish tarixni o‘rganishning o‘zini befoyda qilib qo‘yar edi, chunki ziddiyatli xabarlarni saralash va ularni bir-biri bilan solishtirib tortish har bir tarixchining metodologiyasidir. Hatto Yum o‘zi ham mo‘jizalar haqidagi alohida hisobotlardan ko‘ra tabiatning davomli guvohligini kuchliroq deb hisoblab, shu qoidaga amal qilgan. Yumning empirik fanning tarixiy guvohlik ustidan ustunligi haqidagi dalillariga kelsak, bu uning falsafiy tizimidan kelib chiqadi, bu tizim amalda agnostik yoki ateistning tizimi edi. Teistlar esa mo‘jizalarni tabiiy hodisalar bilan aynan bir xil deb biladilar, chunki ikkalasi ham Xudodan kelib chiqadi. Koinot Xudoning amri bilan paydo bo‘lgani va uning qonunlari Xudo belgilagan tartibda harakat qilgani kabi, mo‘jizalar ham Xudoning irodasi bilan unda ba’zan sodir bo‘lishi mumkin. Mo‘jizaning haqiqati oxir-oqibat ilohiy haqiqatning davomidir: Xudo o‘zining mavjudligi va buyukligini tabiat qonunlarining go‘zal tartibi orqali ko‘rsatganidek, o‘zining qudratliligi va elchilarining sofligini ham ba’zan shu qonunlarni hayratlanarli tarzda buzish orqali ko‘rsatgan. Nihoyat, “tabiat qonunlari” dunyoning biz tajriba qilganimizdek tavsifi bo‘lib, uning qanday ishlashi kerakligi haqidagi zaruriy ko‘rsatma emas. Shuning uchun mo‘jizalar hukmron tabiiy tartibdan istisnolar bo‘lishi mumkin: unga zid, lekin unga mantiqan qarama-qarshi emas. Bu bizni Yumning o‘zaro kelishmovchilik haqidagi taxminidan xalos qilib, tekshiruvimizni mo‘jizalarning mantiqiy imkoniyatidan ularning tarixiy hujjatlanishiga o‘tkazadi.352

He further justified this by the lack of historical evidence for any one miracle, and by the multitude of the faithful who claim them in support of their conflicting doctrines. How Islam’s unique mechanism of knowledge transmission satisfies the criterion of historical evidence will be discussed shortly, but the fact that different religions offer different accounts does not justify dismissing them all. Doing so would render the very study of history useless, since sifting through conflicting reports and weighing them against one another is every historian’s methodology. Even Hume himself followed this protocol when he considered nature’s ongoing testimony stronger than individual accounts of miracles. As for Hume’s argument for the superiority of empirical science over historical testimony, this stems from his philosophical framework which was effectively that of an agnostic or atheist. Theists, on the other hand, perceive miracles as identical to natural phenomena, in that both originate with God. Just as the universe began by the command of God, and its laws run as ordered by God, miracles can sometimes occur in it by the will of God. The reality of miracles is ultimately an extension of the divine reality; just as God evidenced His existence and magnificence through the brilliant laws of nature, He evidenced His omnipotence and the integrity of His messengers through occasionally breaching these same laws in mind-boggling ways. Finally, the “laws of nature” are a mere description of the world as we experience it, not a necessary prescription for how it must function. Miracles can, therefore, simply be exceptions to the predominant natural order, contrary to it but not contradictory. That would deliver us from Hume’s presumption of irreconcilability and shift our investigation from the logical possibility to the historical documentation of miracles.352