“Erkinlik “la ilaha illaAllah”dan muhimroqdir, chunki erkinliksiz biz xohlagan narsaga ishonish erkiga ega emasmiz”, deb aytgan edi bir suriyalik faol meni bir necha yil oldin Arab bahori haqida gapirganda. Bu ikkita narsani qarama-qarshi qo‘yish kabi tuyuldi, lekin u shunchaki erkinlikning boshqa barcha narsalar qatoridagi qadrini ta’kidlamoqchi edi.

“Freedom is more important than la ilaha illaAllah because without freedom we are not free to believe whatever we choose.” This is what one Syrian activist told me several years ago regarding the Arab Spring. It seemed like he was setting up a false dichotomy, but he was just trying to emphasize the place of freedom as a value, as compared to everything else.

Lekin erkinlik noto‘g‘ri tushunilgan tushuncha. Liberal falsafaga ko‘ra, XVIII–XIX asrlardagi ingliz empirist faylasuflaridan boshlab, haqiqatan erkin inson — bu tabula rasa, ya'ni bo‘sh lavha bilan boshlaydigan insondir. Bunday inson hech qanday oldindan mavjud e'tiqodlar yoki majburiyatlarga ega emas. Uning ongi dunyo, Xudo va tabiiy holat haqidagi ko‘ra qo‘yilgan noto‘g‘ri g‘oyalar bilan ifloslanmagan. Shunday erkin ong bilan u noldan o‘z haqiqiy e'tiqodlarini shakllantira oladi. Ideal holda, bu e'tiqodlar sog‘lom ilmiy tadqiqotga asoslanadi — empiristlar kamida o‘zlarining ong falsafasi va bilish nazariyasida shunga umid qilganlar. Lekin agar inson e'tiqodlarini ilmiy tarzda shakllantirmasa ham, kamida ularni haqiqiy tarzda, demak erkin ravishda shakllantiradi. Shu tariqa, inson dindor bo‘lishi mumkin, qachonki u bo‘sh lavhadan boshlagan bo‘lsa, bu esa barcha maqsadlar uchun dinsizlik nuqtasidir.

But freedom is a misunderstood concept. The truly free person, according to liberal philosophy beginning with the European empiricists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is the person who starts off with a blank slate, i.e., the tabula rasa. This person has no prior beliefs or commitments. His mind is not contaminated with falsely imposed ideas about the world, about God, about the state of nature. This person, with his free mind, is then able to form his own authentic beliefs from scratch. Ideally, those beliefs will be formed on the basis of sound scientific investigation — that’s what the empiricists hoped for at least in their philosophy of mind and epistemology. But, even if a person does not develop beliefs scientifically, at least he does so authentically and, hence, freely. In this way, it is OK for a person to be religious so long as that person started from a blank slate, which for all intents and purposes is a starting point of non-religion.

Agar men ma'lum bir din oilasida tug'ilib, o'sha din bilan birinchi kunimdan tarbiyalangan bo'lsam va shu imonda voyaga yetgan bo'lsam, bu men o'sha dinni erkin tanlamaganim degani emasmi? Men, katta yoshga yetganimda, ongli ravishda tanlov qilayotganimni va o'z irodamni ishga solib, shu dinga sodiq bo'lishga qaror qilayotganimni aytishim mumkin. Lekin unda, bu qaror haqiqatan "men"ning qarori ekanini, ma'lum bir uyda o'sgan va muayyan turdagi "diniy indoktrinatsiya"ning mahsuli bo'lgan "men"ning qarori emasligini qanday bilishim mumkin? Ehtimol, meni miyamni yuvgandirlar, bunday holda mening "tanlovim" aslida tanlov emas.

It is interesting when you put it like that. If I was born into a family with a certain religion and that family taught me that religion from Day 1, and I grow up professing that faith, does that mean I did not freely choose that faith for myself? I might argue that, as an adult, I am making a conscious choice and exercising my free will to commit to my particular faith. But, then, how can I know that it is really “me” making that choice and not the “me” that grew up in a certain household and is a product of a certain kind of “religious indoctrination”? Maybe I’ve been brainwashed, in which case my “choice” is not really a choice at all.

Agar bu bolalar diniy oilalarda o'sganda shunday bo'lsa, u holda xuddi shunday tarbiya go'dakliklaridan dinsiz oilalarda ham sodir bo'ladi. Bu faqat dinsiz xildagi miyani yuvishdir. Agar bola Yuqori Kuch(Qudrat)ga ishonmaslikka va sadoqatli ibodatni ko'p qadrlamaslikka o'rgatilsa, keyin u ulg'ayib, ateist bo'lishga va dinni masxara qilishga qaror qilsa, bu haqiqatan ham erkin tanlovmidi? Yoki u ham o'z muhitining mahsulimi?

But if that’s the case for children growing up in religious households, then the same kind of indoctrination happens in non-religious households too. It is just brainwashing of the non-religious variety. If a child is raised to not believe in a Higher Power and to not think much of faithful devotion, then if he grows up and decides to be an atheist and mock religion, etc., then was that truly a free choice? Or is he also the product of his environment?

Asosiy gap shundaki, tabula rasa mavjud emas, va liberal mutafakkirlar tasavvur qilgan, biz undan erkin ravishda e'tiqodlarimizni shakllantirishimiz mumkin bo'lgan neytral bo'sh lavha ham mavjud emas. Bo'sh lavha yo'q. Biz hammamiz ma'lum bir holatda tug'ilamiz va bolaligimizdan boshlab, keyin butun kattalik davrimiz davomida bizga majburan yuklangan ma'lum g'oya va qadriyatlarga ishonishga o'rgatilamiz. Yagona savol shu: o'sha g'oya va qadriyatlar haqiqiy va adolatlimi? Agar ha bo'lsa, unga erkinlik zaminida, ya'ni aslida mavjud bo'lmagan bo'sh lavha asosida kelgan-kelmaganining nima ahamiyati bor? Agar o'sha g'oya va qadriyatlar yolg'on va adolatsiz bo'lsa, unga qarshi kurashishning yagona yo'li haqiqat va adolat bilan bo'lishi kerak, Ma'rifat davrining xayoliy mahsuli bo'lgan mavhum erkinlik tushunchasi bilan emas. Qaysi holat bo'lmasin, haqiqat va adolatning eng oliy ifodasi sifatida "la ilaha illAllah" g'olib chiqadi.

Point being that the tabula rasa does not exist and neither does the neutral blank slate liberal thinkers imagined we could freely develop our beliefs from. There is no blank slate. We all are born into a certain condition and raised to believe certain ideas and values that are imposed on us as children and then throughout our adult lives. The only question is, are those ideas and values true and just? If yes, who cares if one arrives at them from a position of freedom, i.e., a blank slate that, in reality, does not exist? And if those ideas and values are false and unjust, then the only way to counter that is with truth and justice, not with an abstract notion of freedom, which again, is a figment of the Enlightenment’s imagination. Either way, la ilaha illaAllah, as the ultimate expression of truth and justice, comes out on top.

Boshqacha aytganda, dunyoviy davlatlardagi diniy erkinlik ko'pincha dinsizlik boshlang'ich nuqta ekanligi taxminiga tayanadi. Lekin nega dinsizlik boshlang'ich nuqta, neytral zamin hisoblanadi? Nega dinsiz qadriyatlar standart sifatida qabul qilinadi? Ba'zilar shunday deyishi mumkin: dinlar turli-tuman bo'lgani uchun dunyoviy davlat birortasini afzal ko'rish o'rniga hech qaysisini tanlamaydi. Ammo bu voqelikni jiddiy noto'g'ri tasvirlashdir. Dinsizlik ham muayyan e'tiqodlar to'plamidir. Agar dunyoviy davlat dinsizlikni tanlasa, u baribir boshqa e'tiqod tizimlaridan ustun qo'yib, ularni ma'qullagan bo'ladi. Bu esa o'zini boshqalardan ustun qo'yuvchi teokratik davlatdan deyarli farq qilmaydi. Farq shundaki, teokratik davlat o'zini neytral deb aldamaydi. Va, albatta, asosiy farq shuki, Islomga asoslangan teokratik davlat haqiqat va adolatni himoya qiladi, bu esa faqat Islomda topiladi.

Put another way, freedom of religion in secular nations assumes a starting point of non-religion. But why is non-religion the starting point, the neutral ground? Why are non-religious values the default? One might say, well, there are a variety of religious beliefs so rather than prefer or endorse one, the secular state chooses none. But this is a gross mischaracterization of the reality. Non-religion is also a particular set of beliefs. If the secular state chooses non-religion, it has still preferred and endorsed a particular belief system over others. This is essentially no different from a theocratic state that also chooses one particular set of beliefs over all others. The difference is, the theocratic state does not delude itself into thinking it is neutral. And of course, the primary difference is that the theocratic state based on Islam is upholding truth and justice, which can only be found in Islam.