Boshqa kuni bir musulmon o'smir menga namozning maqsadi nima ekanligini so'radi. Nega biz Xudoga ishonishimiz kerak? Nega yaxshi odamlarga yomon narsalar yuz beradi? Ma'lum bo'lishicha, bu savollar yog'ini faqat katta va xavfli muz tog'ining uchi edi.

The other day, a Muslim teen asked me the purpose of prayer. Why should we believe in God? Why do bad things happen to good people? As it turns out, this barrage of questions only represented the tip of a big, ominous iceberg.

Bizning jamoamizda bunga o'xshash ko'plab savollar yuzaga kelmoqda va ular ko'pchilikda imon inqirozlarini keltirib chiqarmoqda. Achinarlisi shundaki, bu savollarga javob topilmagani sabab ba'zi musulmonlar Islomni tark etmoqda, va bu tendentsiya jamiyatda umuman olganda uyushgan dinning mashhurligi pasayib borayotgani bilan yanada kuchaymoqda.

There are a whole host of questions like this that are festering in our community and causing many crises of faith. The unfortunate reality is that some Muslims are leaving Islam due to these unanswered questions, a trend that is exacerbated by the decreasing popularity of organized religion in society at large.

Bu muammoga qanday yondashamiz?

How do we address this challenge?

Men 90-yillarda Amerikada voyaga yetgan o‘smir sifatida o‘sha paytdagi savollarim bolalarcha o‘yinlar edi, bugungi musulmon yoshlari duch kelayotgan jonni yeb qo‘yadigan masalalar bilan solishtirganda. Gomoseksualizm huquqlari, terrorizmga qarshi urush, Xudoning borligiga ilmiy isbot, ayollar huquqlari, iffatning qadri, jinsiy tiyilishning afzalliklari, insonning evolyutsiyasi, oilaning ahamiyati va hokazo — har qanday mavzu muhokama, tahlil va, oxir-oqibatda, rad etish uchun ochiq bo‘lib qolgan.

As someone who grew up as an American teenager in the 90s, the questions I had then were mere child’s play compared to the soul-swallowing issues that Muslim youth are struggling with today. Topics like gay rights, the war on terrorism, scientific proof for the existence of God, women’s rights, the value of modesty, the merits of sexual abstinence, human evolution, the importance of family, etc. — anything and everything is up for debate, analysis, and, ultimately, disavowal.

Xulosa qilib aytganda, din aqliy ishonchlilikka ega emas, deb qaraladi. Shubhalanayotgan ommaning ongida bu ishonchlilikni tiklashning yagona yo‘li — bu savollarga to‘g‘ridan-to‘g‘ri javob berishdir.

In sum, religion is seen as lacking any intellectual credibility. The only way to restore that credibility in the minds of the doubting masses is to address these questions head on.

Akademik yoki kasbiy sohada murakkab va bahsli savollarni hal qilishning eng samarali usuli — bir qadam orqaga chekinib, o‘sha savollar ostida yotgan yashirin taxminlarni aniqlashdir. Shunday qilinganda, savolning o‘zini muammoli qilib ko‘rsatish (yoki uning asossizligini fosh etish) mumkin bo‘ladi va shu tariqa uni o‘z shartlarimiz asosida faol ravishda hal qilish imkoniyati paydo bo‘ladi.

Whether in the academic or professional sphere, the most effective way to address complicated, controversial questions is to take a step back and pinpoint the hidden assumptions that underlie those questions. This way, one can problematize (or undermine) the question itself and, thus, proactively address it on one’s own terms.

An'anaviy ravishda, umumiy e'tiqodlarni shubha ostiga olish va ularni zaiflashtirish moyilligi skeptitsizm bilan bog'liq bo'lgan. Men ushbu atamani qo'llayotgan ma'noda, skeptik – bu fikriy tizimni uning ilmiy qimmatini baholash maqsadida to'xtab, uni tahlil qilib, tanqid qiladigan kishidir (bilimning imkoniyatini butunlay shubha ostiga qo'yadigan falsafiy skeptiklar bilan adashtirmaslik kerak).

Traditionally, this tendency to problematize and undermine common beliefs has been associated with skepticism. In the sense I am using the term, a skeptic is someone who will pause to deconstruct and critique a thought system in order to judge its intellectual merit (not to be confused with philosophical skeptics, who question the possibility of knowledge entirely).

Ko'pincha diniy e'tiqodlar shubha bilan so'roq qilinadigan nishonga aylanadi: Nega biz Xudoning mavjudligiga ishonishimiz kerak? Nega Qur'onni Xudoning kalomi deb hisoblashimiz kerak? Nega Muhammad ﷺ Xudoning elchisi ekaniga ishonishimiz kerak? Bunday shubhali savollar dastlab ateistlar va dinga qarshi chiquvchilar orasida paydo bo'lgan, ammo vaqt o'tishi bilan dunyoning barcha burchaklariga yoyilgan. Hozirgi kunda hatto dindorlar ham o'zlariga shunday savollar beradi va javob topa olmaganda yo dinni tark etadi, yoki savollarni butunlay e'tibordan chetda qoldiradi.

Oftentimes, it is religious beliefs that are the target of skeptical questioning: Why should we believe God exists? Why should we believe the Quran to be the word of God? Why should we believe Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was the messenger of God? Skeptical questioning of this nature originated with atheists and opponents of religion but, over time, has spread to all corners of the globe. Nowadays, even the faithful ask themselves these questions, and, when they cannot find answers, they either abandon the religion or ignore the questions entirely.

Lekin boshqa yo'l ham bor.

But there is another way.

Mening tajribamga ko'ra, dinga shubha bilan qaraydigan odamlar ko'pincha ikkiyuzlamachi bo'lishadi: ular barcha fikr tizimlarini teng darajada tanqid qilmaydi. Eng keskin tanqidlarini dinga, ayniqsa Islomga qaratishadi, diniy bo'lmagan ayrim e'tiqodlarga esa yengil munosabatda bo'lishadi.

From my experience, skeptics of religion often are hypocrites in that they do not attack all thought systems equally. They save their most rabid lines of critique for religion, especially Islam, but give certain non-religious beliefs a free pass.

Masalan, o'zini liberal deb ataydigan Bill Maher Islomni tanqid qilishda dushmanlikka to'la. Lekin u o'zining tanqidiy va shubhali fikrlash tarzini, masalan, liberalizmni baholashda ham qo'llaydimi? U televizorda liberal fikrning duch kelayotgan ko'plab tanqidlari va savollarini chuqur tahlil qilishga biror vaqt sarflaganmi? U zamonaviy liberalizm keltirib chiqargan zo'ravonlik va o'limning ko'pligini o'ylab ko'rishga dasturlarining biror qismini bag'ishlaganmi?

For example, someone like Bill Maher, a self-proclaimed liberal, has no shortage of animosity in critiquing Islam. But does he take that same critical, skeptical mindset to his evaluation of, say, liberalism? Has he spent any time on TV delving into the many different critiques and questions plaguing liberal thought? Has he dedicated any of his programming to contemplating the amount of violence and death modern liberalism has wrought?

Maher o'zini ob'ektiv, betaraf tahlilchi sifatida ko'rsatadi, haqiqatni topish uchun aql-idrok kuchidan foydalanadi, lekin aslida u targ'ibotchi bo'lib, masxara qilayotgan qizg'in Injil tarafdorlari kabi ob'ektivlik va oqilonalikdan uzoqdir. Farq faqat shundaki, u nasroniylik o'rniga liberalizmni targ'ib qiladi.

Maher portrays himself as an objective, neutral analyst using the power of rational thought to discover the truth, but, in actuality, he is a propagandist, as detached from objectivity and rationality as the fervent Bible-thumpers he lampoons. The only difference is he proselytizes liberalism instead of Christianity.

Demak, Musulmon skeptigi — bunday ikkiyuzlamachilarga o'zlarining dori-darmonini ichirib qo'yadigan odamdir. Nega musulmonlar liberalizm, millat-davlat paradigmasi, saentizm, gumanizm, progressivizm va zamonamizning shubhasiz qabul qilingan boshqa modernistik aqidalari haqida shubha bildirib, stolni o' girib qo'ya olmaydilar?

The Muslim Skeptic, then, is someone who gives such hypocrites a taste of their own medicine. Why can’t Muslims turn the tables by expressing skepticism about liberalism, the nation-state paradigm, scientism, humanism, progressivism, and the rest of the unquestioned modernist dogmas of our times?

The message you sent contains only a heading-like line: "Consider this small sample of “controversial” or “tough” questions:". It's a text to translate, so here is the Uzbek translation: Quyidagi kichik namunani ko‘rib chiqing — “bahsli” yoki “qiyin” savollar:

Consider this small sample of “controversial” or “tough” questions:

Ilmiy dalillar: Allohning borligi, farishtalar, oxirat, ruh va boshqalar uchun ilmiy isbot qanday?

• What is the scientific proof for the existence of Allah, angels, the afterlife, the soul, etc.?.

Nega Islom qonunchiligi ayollarga hijob kiyishni, erkaklarga esa buni talab qilmaydi?

• Why does Islamic Law require women to wear the hijab but not men?.

• Mehribon Xudo nega yomonlikning mavjud bo‘lishiga yo‘l qo‘yadi?

• Why would an all-merciful God allow evil to exist?.

Bizda o‘z tanlovlarimizni o‘zimiz qilish erkinligi bormi?

• Do we have free will to make our own choices?.

Nega Islom huquqi gomosekssual xatti-harakatlarni taqiqlaydi?

• Why does Islamic Law prohibit homosexual acts?.

Ko'pgina musulmonlar odamning kelib chiqishi haqidagi evolyutsion nazariyani nega qabul qilmaydilar?

• Why do many Muslims not accept the evolutionary theory of man’s origins?.

Biz ko‘pincha shunga e’tibor bermaymiz: bu savollar bo‘shliqda paydo bo‘lmaydi. Ularning aksariyati 30, 40 yoki 500 yil oldin musulmonlarning xayoliga kelmagan yoki ularni bezovta qilmagan savollardir. Bu savollar bizning davrimizga va 15/21-asr intellektual madaniyatiga xos savollardir. Shuning uchun ularning har birining ortida chuqur o‘rnashgan, murakkab taxminlar yotadi. Ular “qiyin” tuyulishining yagona sababi shundaki, biz o‘sha taxminlarni ko‘rmaymiz va ularni o‘z-o‘zidan tushunarli deb qabul qilamiz.

What we often fail to realize is that these questions do not arise in a vacuum. Most of these are not questions that troubled or even arose in the minds of Muslims 30, 40, or 500 years ago. These are questions that are characteristic of our time and intellectual culture in the 15th/21st century. As such, there are complex, deeply ingrained assumptions that underlie each of them. The only reason they may seem “tough” to address is that we are blind to those assumptions and take them for granted.

Sodda misol sifatida Xudoning mavjudligi masalasini olaylik. Ba'zi zamonaviy musulmon sharhlovchilar Xudoning mavjudligi uchun obyektiv dalil yo'qligini tan oladilar va hamma gap "imon sakrashi"ga borib taqaladi, deb hisoblaydilar. Musulmon skeptigining yondashuvi esa, aksincha, avvalo "obyektiv" so'zini tekshirishdan boshlanadi. Obyektivlik tushunchasining o'zi chigal va qiziqarli tarixga ega bo'lib, uni tayyor deb qabul qilib bo'lmaydi. Keyin musulmon skeptigi Xudoning mavjudligini rad etish uchun keng qo'llaniladigan dalil standartlarini, masalan, ilmiy dalillarni ko'rib chiqadi va ularning izchilligini baholaydi. Masalan, agar Xudoning mavjudligini ilmiy dalil yo'qligi sababli rad etishimiz kerak bo'lsa, vaqtning o'tishi, inson ongi, mavhum matematik mohiyatlar va shunga o'xshash, ilmiy yoki fizik ko'rinishga ega bo'lmagan narsalarni ham rad etishimiz kerakmi? Shubhasiz, aksariyat odamlar ilmiy dalil yo'qligiga qaramay, ravshan haqiqatga ega bo'lgan bunday narsalarni inkor etish darajasida haddan tashqari ketmaydilar. Va hokazo.

As a brief example, consider the question of God’s existence. Some modern Muslim commentators concede that there is no objective evidence for the existence of God, and it all boils down to a “leap of faith.” The Muslim Skeptic’s approach, in contrast, would be to first investigate the word “objective.” The concept of objectivity itself has a convoluted and interesting history that we cannot take for granted. Then, the Muslim Skeptic would reflect on widely accepted standards of evidence used to undermine belief in God, e.g., scientific evidence, and evaluate them for consistency. For example, if we are supposed to reject the existence of God due to an alleged lack of scientific evidence, should we also reject the existence of things like the passage of time, human consciousness, abstract mathematical entities, etc., that similarly lack scientific or physical modalities? Clearly, most people are not extreme enough to deny such things that clearly have a reality, despite a lack of scientific evidence. And so on.

Shu tariqa bilan, Musulmon skeptik mashhur va aziz e'tiqodlarni, masalan, ilmning nufuzini so'roq ostiga olishdan qo'rqmaydi, toki masalani xiralashtirib, odamlarni chalg'itadigan yashirin taxminlarni ochib berish uchun.

In this way, the Muslim Skeptic is not afraid to question widely held, cherished beliefs, such as the authority of science, in order to unpack hidden assumptions that cloud the issue and confuse people.

Bu strategiyaning eng yaxshi namunasi Ibrohim payg'ambarda uchraydi, u o'z davridagi butlarni so'zma-so'z va majoziy ma'noda parchalab tashladi va ularning asosiy aqlga sig'maydigan tabiatini ko'rsatib berdi.

The best example of this strategy is found with Prophet Ibrahim, who literally and metaphorically deconstructed the idols of his time, showing their fundamental irrationality

Albatta, shubhalanish (skeptitsizm) salbiy, buzuvchi mashg'ulotdir. Uning maqsadi ratsional dalillar orqali yolg'on butlarni ag'darib tashlash, shunda Haqiqat nuri porlashga imkon topishidir. Shu ma'noda, eng buyuk musulmon skeptiklaridan biri Ibrohim payg'ambar bo'lib, u o'z qavmining butparastligini aqlli usul bilan zaiflashtirgan, quyidagi oyatlarda shunday rivoyat qilinadi:

To be sure, skepticism is a negative, deconstructive exercise. Its purpose is to use rational argumentation to topple false idols so that the light of Truth has a chance to shine through. One of the greatest Muslim Skeptics then, in these terms, was Prophet Ibrahim who cleverly undermined the idolatry of his people, as related in the following verses:

Al-An'am (Q6:75-80)

Al-An’am (Q6:75-80)

Ibrohim yulduzga, oyga va quyoshga ishora qilib: «Mana bu mening Rabbim», deb aytish orqali, o‘z raqiblarining so‘zlarini aynan takrorladi va shu tariqa ularning e’tiqodlaridagi ichki ziddiyatni ochib berdi.

By pointing to a star, the moon, and the sun, saying, “This is my lord,” Ibrahim mirrored the discourse of his detractors in order to reveal the internal inconsistency of their beliefs.

Musulmon intellektual tarixi musulmon skeptiklar bilan to‘la bo‘lib, ular xavfli yoki buzg‘unchi deb hisoblagan falsafalarni baholash, zaiflashtirish, tanqid qilish va rad etish uchun turli aqliy usullardan foydalanganlar. Bu bugungi musulmonlar qayta tiklashga intilishi kerak bo‘lgan yo‘qolgan san’atdir, ayniqsa biz o‘z dinimizga ko‘p marta dushman bo‘lib chiqqan intellektual muhitda yashayotganimizni hisobga olsak. Hazrat Umar roziyallohu anhu bir paytlar savol tariqasida shunday degan edilar: “Biz haqda emasmizmi?” (Alasna ʿala al-haqq?)

Muslim intellectual history is full of Muslim Skeptics who employed all manner of rational stratagem to evaluate, undermine, critique, and overturn philosophies they deemed dangerous or subversive. This is a lost art Muslims today should be keen to revive, especially given that we find ourselves in an intellectual climate that has proved time and again to be hostile to our deen. As Sayyidina `Umar once asked, rhetorically, “Are we not on the Truth?” (Alasna `ala al-haqq?)

Endi biz shunga mos ravishda harakat qila boshlashimiz vaqti keldi.

It is time for us to start acting like it.