Buni qanday tushunamiz? Bularning hammasini "majoziy" deb aytish oson. Ehtimol, ma'noda ular shunday, lekin bu juda shoshilinch xulosa. Boshqa "yo'l" bormi?
How do we understand all this? It is easy to say that these are all ‘metaphorical.’ Perhaps they are in some sense, but that’s too hasty. Is there any other ‘recourse’?
Tasavvur qiling, ikki kishi koinot haqida teng darajada to‘g‘ri bilimga ega. Ushbu ikki kishi o‘z bilimlarini turlicha bayon qilishi mumkin, ya’ni koinotni turli yo‘llar bilan tasvirlashi mumkin. Ular bir narsani tushuntirish uchun turli tilni, turli obrazlarni, turli tushunchalarni ishlatishi mumkin. Bundan tashqari, ular o‘z shaxsiy nuqtai nazaridan bevosita tasvirlayotgan narsalarni ham turlicha atamalar bilan ifodalashi mumkin.
Imagine two people have equally correct knowledge about the universe. Those two people can describe that knowledge in different ways, i.e., they can describe the universe in different ways. They can use different language, different images, different concepts to explain the same thing. Furthermore, they can use different terms even when they are describing things literally from their individual perspectives.
Ma'nosi shu. Masalan, Bedu arablarning "sher" (shernng) so'zi uchun turli atamalari bor, yoki eskimoslarning "qor" uchun turli atamalari bor. Arab bilan lev haqida gapirish usuli va eskimos bilan qor haqida gapirish usuli zoolog yoki meteorologning ushbu narsalar haqidagi gapirish usulidan juda farq qiladi. Bu shunday emaski, arab yoki eskimos metaforik gapirayotgan, zoolog/meteorolog esa haqiqiy ma'noda gapirayotgan bo'lsa. Yo'q, bu misolda hamma haqiqiy ma'noda gapiradi, ammo tilda va arab/eskimosning ixtiyorida shunday tushunchalar bor, ular zoolog/meteorologning tili va konseptual tuzilishida yo'q. Va aksincha. Bugungi kunda odamlar odatda ilmiy tilning narsalarni haqiqatda qanday bo'lsa shundayligicha tasvirlaydigan til ekanligini taxmin qilishadi. Ammo biz buni qabul qilishimiz shart emas. Aslida, qabul qilmasligimiz kerak, chunki ilmiy til doimo o'zgarib turadi. Buning ahamiyatini quyida tushuntiraman.
What do I mean by this? Well, a simple example is all the different terms that Bedouin Arabs have for “lion.” Or all the different terms that Eskimos have for “snow.” The way that an Arab talks about a lion and the way that an Eskimo talks about snow will be very different from how a zoologist or a meteorologist speaks about these things. It is not that the Arab or the Eskimo are speaking metaphorically while the zoologist/meteorologist are speaking literally. No, in this example, everyone is speaking literally but there are just certain concepts that are in the language and at the disposal of the Arab/Eskimo that are not found in the language and conceptual architecture of the zoologist/meteorologist. And vice versa. The assumption that people nowadays tend to make is that scientific language is the language that describes things as they really are. But we don’t have to accept that. In fact, we shouldn’t because scientific language is always changing. I explain the significance of this below.
Ikkinchi qatlam shu: ikki kishini tasavvur qiling, ulardan biri koinot haqida to‘g‘ri bilimga ega, ikkinchisi esa bunday bilimga ega emas, lekin o‘zini ega deb hisoblaydi. Bu yana bir murakkablik qo‘shadi. Oldingi misolda, sher yashaydigan muhitda asrlar va avlodlar davomida to‘plangan bilimga tayangan bedavi arab, o‘sha muhitdan tashqarida bo‘lib, har safarida bir necha oy dala tadqiqotini olib borgach uyiga qaytadigan xorijlik zoolog nisbatan shherlar haqida yaxshiroq tushunchaga ega bo‘lishi mumkin. Albatta, zoologiyaning o‘zi yangi fan. Shuning uchun bedaviylarning tili ularning ustun bilimini aks ettiradi.
Ammo zoolog bunga albatta rozi bo‘lmaydi. Aksincha, u bu bedaviylarni ancha johil deb hisoblaydi va ularning sherni tushunishi uning bilimi oldida arzimas, deb o‘ylaydi. Buni isbotlash uchun u bedaviylarning sher haqidagi tasvirlarini keltiradi va ular noto‘g‘ri, deb da’vo qiladi. Ammo bedaviylarning tasviri noto‘g‘ri ekanini qanday asosda da’vo qilishi mumkin? U buni faqat o‘zining bilimiga tayanib qila oladi, bu misolda esa uning bilimi noto‘g‘ri va bedaviylarnikidan albatta past ekani belgilab qo‘yilgan. Shunga qaramay, zoolog bu bedaviylar nima haqida gapirayotganini shunchaki bilmaydi, deb ishonchli aytadi.
The second layer is this: Imagine two people where one has correct knowledge about the universe and the other doesn’t but thinks he does. This adds another wrinkle. In the previous example, the Bedouin Arab relying on the accumulated knowledge of centuries and generations of Bedouins living in the environment of the lion arguably has a better understanding of lions than the foreign zoologist from outside that environment who travels to the location for a couple of months at a time, does his fieldwork, and goes back home. And of course zoology itself is a new discipline. So the language of the Bedouins will reflect their superior knowledge. But the zoologist will not necessarily accept this. In fact, the zoologist thinks that these Bedouins are fairly ignorant and their understanding of lions pales in comparison to his. And to prove that point, he will cite the Bedouin’s descriptions of the lion and claim that those descriptions are inaccurate. But on what basis can he claim that the Bedouin’s description is inaccurate? He can only do so on the basis of his own knowledge, which, in this example, we have stipulated is incorrect and certainly inferior to the knowledge of the Bedouins. Nonetheless, the zoologist is confident that these Bedouins simply do not know what they are talking about.
Bu zamonaviy fanning ahmoqligi va achinarli kibri. Birinchidan, ilmiy til dunyoni tasvirlashning yagona aniq, so‘zma-so‘z va qabul qilinadigan usuli deb hisoblanadi. Ikkinchidan, fan koinot aslida qanday ekanini bilishini o‘z-o‘zidan tasavvur qiladi. Bu ikki taxminni biz osongina, dastlabki qarashdayoq rad etamiz.
This is the folly and pitiful arrogance of modern science. First, scientific language is assumed to be the only accurate, literal, acceptable way to describe the world. Second, science assumes it knows what the universe is really like. Both these assumptions we easily reject out of hand.
Masalan, maktablarda fan, astronomiya va yer hamda boshqa osmon jismlarining shakli va harakati haqida o'qitiladigan ko'pchilik narsa Nyuton tilida ifodalanadi. Isaak Nyuton davridan to XIX asr oxirigacha, hozirgacha bo'lgan fiziklar koinot aslida uch fazoviy o'lchovdan ko'proq ekanligi haqida taxmin qilib kelishgan. Eynshteyn gravitatsiyani talqin qilishda Riman geometriyasi kabi Evklid bo'lmagan matematikani kiritib, fizikaga bunday fikrlash usulini boshlab bergan. O'tgan o'n yil ichida bir paytda, torlar nazariyasi tarafdorlari hatto 21 o'lchovli koinot haqida nazariya ilgari surishgan. Shubhasiz, bularning hammasi ularning taxminlari bo'lib, haqiqatni faqat Alloh biladi. Ammo qabul qilingan nazariy fizika doirasida ham dunyoni "tekis" deb ta'riflash yoki "osmonlarni o'rab qo'yish" kabi iboralar mutlaqo o'rinli ekanini ko'rishimiz mumkin. Masalan, to'rt fazoviy o'lchovda uch o'lchovli sharni o'rab qo'yish mumkin, xuddi uch fazoviy o'lchovda ikki o'lchovli aylanani o'rab qo'yish mumkin bo'lganidek. Va hokazo. Bu mening ilmiy tilning doimo o'zgarib turishi haqidagi fikrimga bog'liq. Buning bir qismi olimlarning dunyo haqidagi bilimlari, yoki ular bilim deb da'vo qilayotgan narsa, doimo o'zgarib turishidadir. Shundan keyin ularning tili ham shu asosda rivojlanadi. Unday bo'lsa, nima uchun biz o'sha tilni Allohning Kalomini baholash uchun mezon deb olishimiz kerak? Aslo olmasligimiz kerak.
Now, to give you a taste of this, consider that most of what they teach people in school about science, astronomy, and the shapes and the motions of the earth and other celestial bodies uses a Newtonian language. Since Isaac Newton’s time, physicists by the end of the nineteenth century till now have speculated that the universe is really more than 3 spatial dimensions. Einstein pioneered this way of thinking about physics when he incorporated non-Euclidean mathematics — such as Riemannian geometry — into his treatment of gravitation. At one point in the past decade, String Theorists were even theorizing a 21-dimensional universe. Obviously, this is all speculation on their part and only Allah knows the reality. But even within the bounds of accepted theoretical physics, we can see how describing the world as “flat” or “rolling up the heavens” and so on are perfectly apt. In 4 spatial dimensions, for example, a 3-dimensional sphere can be rolled up, just like how in 3 spatial dimensions a 2-dimensional circle can be rolled up. And so on. This goes back to my point about scientific language always changing. Part of this is because scientists’ knowledge about the world, or what they purport to be knowledge at any rate, is always changing. And then their language evolves on top of that. So why should we take that language as a benchmark for judging the Words of Allah? We decidedly should not.
Ruhiy jihatdan men Qur'ondagi va hadislardagi zamonaviy ilmiy tushunchalarga zid ko'rinadigan oyat va hadislarni juda qadrlayman. Ular men uchun qimmatbaho javohirlardir va menga eng katta xotirjamlik hamda imonimni mustahkamlaydi. Chunki bu holatlarda Allohning vahiysi menga dunyo haqida shunday narsalarni o'rgatmoqda yoki xabardor qilmoqda, ular hozirgi zamon odamlari va eng ilg'or fan bilmaydigan narsalardir (hozircha, balki kelajakda ham). Kahf surasidagi Zulqarnayn haqidagi oyatlar, masalan, quyosh botadigan joy haqida, shuningdek yuqorida keltirilgan hadis menga juda go'zal va kuchli ta'sir qiladi. Ularni majoziy yoki biror boshqa, pastroq ma'noda izohlashga shoshilishning hech qanday sababi yo'q; ular barcha haqiqatning Yaratuvchisi va Egasi bo'lgan Alloh tomonidan berilgan, sof, benuqson va bevosita reallikning tavsifidir.
On a spiritual level, I really cherish the passages in the Quran and the ahadith that conflict with modern scientific understandings. Those are gems for me and provide me the most peace and boost in iman. Because those are instances where revelation from Allah is teaching me something or making me aware of something about the world that modern people and the most advanced science is not privy to (at least for the time being, perhaps). The ayat about Dhul-Qarnayn in Surat al-Kahf about, e.g., the setting place of the sun as well as the hadith cited above are really beautiful and powerful to me and there is no reason to rush to interpret them metaphorically or somehow anything less than a pure, pristine, direct description of the reality given to us by Allah, the Creator and Master of all reality.
Alloh imonimizni mustahkamlasin, qalbimiz va aqlimizni Oʻzining oyatlari bilan yoritsin va bizni shaytonning vasvasasiga qarshi mustahkam qilsin.
May Allah strengthen our iman, illuminate our hearts and minds with His ayat, and fortify us against the whispering of Satan.