Nega musulmon dunyosi "orqada qolmoqda"degan doimiy savol?

The perennial question: Why does the Muslim world “lag behind”?

"Doimiy javob": Islom tufayli! Bunday tahlilni biz orientalistlar, neokonservatorlar va Barak Obamadan kutamiz. Ammo afsuski, ba'zi musulmonlar ham shunday fikrlarni bo'lishadi. Mustamlaka davridan boshlab, o'zini yomon ko'radigan musulmonlar mustamlakachi ustozlari bilan kelishib, Islom muammo ekanini va oldinga yo'lning yagona yo'li Islomdan voz kechish ekanini aytib kelishgan.

The perennial answer: Because of Islam! We expect this kind of analysis from the likes of Orientalists, neoconservatives, and Barack Obama. But unfortunately, some Muslims also share such sentiments. From the beginning of the colonial period, self-hating Muslims have agreed with their colonial masters that Islam is the problem and the only way forward is to shed Islam.

Albatta, o'z dinidan nafratlanadigan musulmonlar "Islom muammo" deb ochiq aytmaydilar. Ular buning o'rniga, masalan, "Islom islohot qilinishi kerak", yoki "Klassik fiqhni qayta ko'rib chiqib, zarurat bo'lganda yangi ijtihod qo'llashimiz kerak", yoki "Klassik ilmiy merosda misogin unsurlar bo'lgan" kabi gaplarni aytadilar. Bu zamonaviylashtiruvchi musulmonlarning yashirin usuli bo'lib, ular ko'pincha o'zlari ham klassik ta'lim olgan bo'ladilar va an'anaviy olimlarning barcha belgilarini kiyib yuradilar. Hamma zamonaviylashtiruvchilar ham kostyum-galstuk kiymaydi.

Of course, the self-hating Muslims don’t come out and say, “Islam is the problem,” literally. They will, instead, say things like, “Islam needs to reform,” or, “We need to revisit classical fiqh and apply new ijtihad as needed,” or, “Classical scholarship had misogynistic elements.” This is the not-so-subtle approach of Muslim modernists, who oftentimes will be classically trained themselves and will wear all the trappings of traditional scholars. Not all modernists wear suits and ties.

Ba'zilar an'anaviy kiyim kiyadi.

Some wear more traditional garb.

Uch arbob islohotchi: Jamol ad-Din al-Afg'oniy, Muhammad Abduh, Sayyid Ahmad Xon.

Three arch-reformers: Jamal al-Din al-Afgani, Muhammad Abduh, Syed Ahmad Khan.

Ha.

Yes.

Diniy hokimiyatdan foydalanib va diniy tilni ishlatib, bu modernistlar o'rtacha musulmonga, ya'ni ulamo va muqaddas ilmga chuqur hurmat bilan qaraydigan kishiga, ko'proq ta'sir o'tkaza oladilar. Mustamlakachi kuchlar, albatta, buni payqadilar va ulardan ba'zi olimlarni Yevropa manfaatlarini himoya qilish uchun foydalanib, o'z xizmatiga oldilar. Bu jarayon bugungi kunda ham to'liq kuchda davom etmoqda.

By wielding religious authority and using religious language, these modernists are better able to influence the average Muslim, who generally has a deep respect for ulama and sacred knowledge. The colonial powers, of course, recognized this and took advantage by deputizing some of these scholars to advocate for European interests. This dynamic is still used in full force to this day.

Keyingi savolga o'tamiz, "orqada qolish" masalasini yanada chuqurroq o'ylab ko'raylik. Musulmonlarning dunyodagi yomon iqtisodiy ahvolini o'z diniy an'analarining natijasi deb qarashlari bundan kim foyda ko'radi?

Now let’s think more deeply about this question of “lagging behind.” Who stands to benefit when Muslims view their bad economic position in the world as a function of their own religious tradition?

Xo'sh, agar bu savol juda qiyin bo'lsa, dunyoning orqada qolgan boshqa mintaqalariga nazar tashlaylik.

Hmm… Well, if that question is too difficult, let’s look at other regions of the world that are lagging behind.

Yaqinda yangiliklarda Venesuela haqida gap ketmoqda.

In the news recently is Venezuela.

Nega Venesuela kabi davlatlar orqada qolmoqda? G'arb liberal sharhlovchilari, jumladan The New York Times va yaqinda Donald Tramp fikricha, javob oddiy:

Why do countries like Venezuela lag behind? According to Western liberal commentators, like the New York Times and, recently, Donald Trump, the answer is simple:

“Janob Maduro [Venesuela prezidenti] ketishi kerakligi bir muncha vaqtdan beri aniq edi. U 2013-yilda chap qarashli kuchli rahbar Ugo Chavesning o‘rniga kelganidan beri, uning noto‘g‘ri boshqaruvi, yaqinlarini homiylik qilishi va korrupsiyasi neft narxining tushishi bilan yanada kuchayib, Venesuelani, mamlakat daromadining asosiy manbai bo‘lgan neft sohasini hisobga olganda, halokatga olib keldi. Giperinflyatsiya ish haqini deyarli qadrsiz qilib qo‘ydi, odamlar ochlik va tibbiy yordam yetishmasligidan halok bo‘lmoqda, millionlab kishilar qo‘shni davlatlarga qochib ketdi.”40

“That Mr. Maduro [President of Venezuela] must go has been obvious for some time. Since he succeeded the leftist strongman Hugo Chávez in 2013, his mismanagement, cronyism and corruption, exacerbated by the drop in the price of oil, Venezuela’s dominant source of revenue, have brought the country to ruin. Hyperinflation has rendered wages virtually worthless, people are dying of starvation and lack of medical care, and millions have fled to neighboring countries.”40

Қаранг-а, Ғарб давлатлари Венесуэла халқининг манфаатини фақат ўйлайди! Бу бечора венесуэлаликлар оч қолиб ўлмоқда! Дори-дармон йўқ! Гиперинфляция бошлангач, нарх-навонинг чегараси йўқ! БИЗ НИМАДИР ҚИЛИШИМИЗ КЕРАК! "Режим алмаштириш"ни қўллаб-қувватлашимиз керак! Балки, босқин уюштиришимиз керакдир! Ҳозирги вазиятда бу ягона гуманитар йўл! Албатта, очлик, дори-дармоннинг етишмаслиги, гиперинфляция ва бошқа муаммолар йиллар давомида Венесуэлага қўйилган санкцияларнинг бевосита натижаси эканлиги ҳақида ҳеч ким оғиз очмайди. Қаранг-а, мамлакатга оғир иқтисодий санкциялар қўйилганда, у мамлакат иқтисодий жиҳатдан азият чекиши ажабмас! Кейин, қулай бўлганидек, иқтисодий қийинчиликларни хоҳлаган сиёсий гуруҳингизнинг зиммасига юклаб, ҳарбий тўнтариш ёки ҳатто quruqlik босқинини қўллаб-қувватлашни оқлашингиз мумкин. Бу New York Times ва бошқа Ғарб ОАВлари ўзларининг ўз-ўзини англашсиз такрорлайдиган доиравий мантиқдир.

See? Western powers only have the best interests of Venezuela’s people at heart. These poor Venezuelans are starving to death! They have no medicine! They’re experiencing hyperinflation! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! We have to support “regime change”! Perhaps, we need to invade! That is the only humanitarian option at this point! Of course, no mention of the fact that the starvation, the lack of medicine, the hyperinflation, etc., are the direct result of years of sanctions on Venezuela. Gee, isn’t it amazing how when you put severe economic sanctions on a country, that country will suffer economically? Then, conveniently, you can blame whatever political faction you want to get rid of for the economic hardship in order to justify supporting a military coup or even a ground invasion. This is the circular reasoning the New York Times and other Western media outlets trot out without a shred of self-awareness.

Venesuela bechora ushbu taktikaning yagona qurboni emas. Ko'plab boshqa Lotin Amerikasi mamlakatlari Amerikaning "gumanitarizmi" orqali tiz cho'kishga majbur qilingan. Dunyoni qutqaruvchi Amerika bu orqada qolgan mamlakatlarni o'zlarining layoqatsizligidan qutqarishi kerak. Boshqa yo'l yo'q.

Poor Venezuela is not the only victim of this tactic. Many other Latin American countries have been brought to their knees by way of American “humanitarianism.” America, the savior of the world, has to save these backwards countries from their own incompetence. It’s the only way.

Bu matn TruthDig nashri tomonidan xabar qilinadi, deb tarjima qilinadi. Ammo siz yuborgan matn faqat shu jumladan iborat, shuning uchun uni shunday tarjima qilaman: TruthDig xabar bermoqda:

TruthDig reports:

“The New York Times” arxivlari bo‘yicha o‘tkazilgan tadqiqot shuni ko‘rsatadiki, Times tahririyati Lotin Amerikasida Amerika tomonidan qo‘llab-quvvatlangan 12 ta to‘ntarishning 10 tasini ma’qullagan. Qolgan ikkita tahririyat maqolasi — 1983-yilgi Grenada bosqini va 2009-yilgi Gonduras to‘ntarishiga oid maqolalar — noaniq yondashuvdan tortib ikkilanib qarshi chiqishgacha bo‘lgan munosabatni ifodalagan.

“A survey of The New York Times archives shows the Times editorial board has supported 10 out of 12 American-backed coups in Latin America, with two editorials—those involving the 1983 Grenada invasion and the 2009 Honduras coup—ranging from ambiguous to reluctant opposition.

"Lotin Amerikasidagi hukumatlarni AQSh Markaziy razvedka boshqarmasi (CIA), AQSh harbiy kuchlari va ularning korporativ hamkorlari tarixan nishonga olishining sababi shundaki, bu hukumatlar AQSh kapitaliga va strategik manfaatlariga dushman bo‘lgan, demokratik emasligi sababli emas. Shuning uchun The Times nashrining illiberalizm haqida keltirgan fikrlari ba’zan to‘g‘ri bo‘lishi mumkin bo‘lsa-da, ular hozir sodir bo‘layotgan voqealar haqiqatini tahlil qilishda asosan mantiqqa mos kelmaydigan (non sequitur) fikrlardir."41

“The reason the CIA and U.S. military and its corporate partisans historically target governments in Latin America is because those governments are hostile to U.S. capital and strategic interests, not because they are undemocratic. So while the points the Times makes about illiberalism may sometimes be true, they’re mostly a non sequitur when analyzing the reality of what’s unfolding.”41

Shunday qilib, qisqacha aytganda, Amerika shunday ish tutadi. Birinchi o‘rinda Amerikaning iqtisodiy manfaatlari turadi. Kim o‘yinga qo‘shiladi? Kim Amerikaga va Amerika korporatsiyalariga o‘z xohishlariga ko‘ra ish yuritishga ruxsat berib, dunyo iqtisodiy resurslaridan arzon narxda foydalanishiga yo‘l qo‘yadi? Ko‘pgina davlatlar tezda eshiklarini ochadi, chunki Amerikani kim yaxshi ko‘rmaydi?

So, in short, this is how America does things. First priority is American economic interests. Who is going to play ball? Who is going to let America and American corporations have their way and enjoy the world’s economic resources for pennies on the dollar? Most countries will quickly open their doors because who doesn’t love America?

“G‘arbning hamma jihatdan ustunligi shunchalik ko‘p. Erkinlik, demokratiya, inson huquqlari. Iltimos, bizga o‘z yo‘llaringizni o‘rgating. Faqat otmang!” Lekin, albatta, dasturga moslasha olmaydigan bezovta qiluvchilar har doim bo‘ladi. Xo‘sh, Amerika nima qiladi? Aholini ochlikdan o‘ldiradigan, og‘ir va shafqatsiz sanksiyalar joriy qiladi. AQSh Davlat kotibi Madlen Olbrayt 500 000 iroqlik bolaning ochlikdan halok bo‘lishi “arziydi” degan gapini kim unutishi mumkin?

“The West is so superior in every way. Freedom, democracy, human rights. Please teach us your ways. Just don’t shoot!” But of course, there will always be the troublemakers who just can’t get with the program. So what does America do? Impose crippling sanctions, brutal sanctions that end up starving the population to death. Who can forget US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying 500,000 Iraqi children starving to death was “worth it”?

Keyin, Amerika ommaviy axborot vositalari insoniy azob-uqubatlar haqida sadoqat bilan xabar beradi va deydi: "Mana! Bu bechora odamlar o'lmoqda! Biz o'sha bechora, ochlikdan o'layotgan bolalar uchun nimadir qilishimiz kerak!" Albatta, Amerikaga do'st bo'lgan diktatorlarning zulmi tufayli ko'rilayotgan insoniy azob-uqubatlar esa e'tiborga olinmaydi va harakat qilish uchun sabab sifatida ko'rilmaydi.

Then, the American media dutifully reports on the human misery and says, “See! These poor people are dying! We have to do something for those poor starving children!” Of course, the human misery that is suffered due to the tyranny of American-friendly dictators is not commented upon or seen as a reason for action.

Shunday qilib, musulmon dunyosi “orqada qolishlik” jihatidan yagona emas. Umuman olganda. Shimoliy Amerika va G‘arbiy Yevropadan tashqaridagi ko‘plab mintaqalar ham iqtisodiy jihatdan xuddi shunday o‘sishdan to‘xtagan. Unday bo‘lsa, nega hamma ayblov Islomga qo‘yiladi? Nega Islom an’anasi va an’anaviy islomshunoslik ayblanadi? Nega musulmon erkaklarining hokimiyati ayblanadi? Bu mantiqqa to‘g‘ri kelmaydi.

So, the Muslim world is not unique in its “backwardness.” Not at all. Many regions outside of North America and Western Europe are economically stunted in the same way. So why does Islam get all the blame? Why does the Islamic tradition and traditional Islamic scholarship get the blame? Why does Muslim male authority get the blame? This makes no sense.

Biz nima bo'layotganini aniq tan olishimiz kerak: bu garovga olish holati. Bu mamlakatlarning hammasi boshiga qurol tiralgan holda. Biroz vaqt o'tgach, Stokgolm sindromi boshlanadi (ya'ni, garovga olingan odamning o'z garovga oluvchisiga mehr va yaqinlik his qila boshlashi bilan bog'liq psixologik hodisa).

We have to recognize what is really happening: A hostage situation. All these countries have the gun to their heads. After a while, Stockholm Syndrome sets in (i.e., a psychological phenomenon where the hostage starts to feel affection and affinity for the kidnapper).

Kad kimdir musulmon dunyosi orqada qolgani va buning sababi Islom ekani haqida gapira boshlasa, unga boshqa musulmon bo'lmagan mamlakatlarga qarashni taklif qiling. Ularning ahvolini nima izohlaydi? Bu shunchaki G'arbdagi bir qancha mamlakatlar ochlikdan qutulish va qashshoqlikda yashamaslik sirli formulasini topgan, dunyo aholisining qolgan 90 foizi esa bu haqda hech narsa bilmaydi, degani emasmi? G'arbiy Yevropaga bu formulani kashf etish imkonini bergan nima edi va nega dunyoning boshqa qismlari buni qila olmadi? Yevropaliklarda bu ishni amalga oshirishga imkon bergan biror irqiy ustunlik bormi? Oriy irqi oq tanlilar maxsus zotmi? New York Times va Donald Tramp bizga aynan shuni ishontirmoqchimi?

Whenever someone starts running his mouth about the Muslim world lagging behind and how that is a function of Islam, just point him to all these other non-Muslim countries. What explains their plight? Is it just that a handful of countries in the West figured out the magic formula for not starving to death and wallowing in squalor and the other 90% of the world’s population is utterly clueless? What allowed Western Europe to discover the magic formula and not the rest of the world? Is there some kind of racial superiority that Europeans have that allowed them to do this? Is the white aryan race special? Is that what the New York Times and Donald Trump want us to believe?