Is Science against the Creator?

کیا واقعی جدید سائنس خدا کی منکر ہوسکتی ہے؟ by مجیب الحق حقی الحاد،سائنس اور خالق: Science, Atheism & Creator دہریت درحقیقت کسی مضطرب ذہن کی ہٹ دھرمی اور ضد ہے ۔ جدید دور کے بڑے سائنسدان بھی الحاد کی قطار میں فکری شش و پنج کی وجہ سے ہیں۔ خدا سے انکار کسی بھی شخص کا ذاتی نظریہ ہی ہوتا ہے مگرجب کوئی عالم یا ماہر طبعیات اپنی علمی حیثیت میں اس کا اظہار کرتا ہے تو ایک تاثّر یہ بنتا ہے کہ اس کا علم بھی اس کی تائید کرتا ہوگا۔ یہ بات قابل ِذکر ہے کہ سائنس کا دائرہ کار میٹا فزکس نہیں ہے لیکن پھر بھی جدید اسکالر خدا کو بھی طبعی پیرایوں میں تلاش کرتے ہیں۔ جدید دور میں اکثرسائنسدان خدا کے وجود کے حوالے سے تذبذب کا شکار ہیں جس کی وجہ سے یہ خیال جڑ پکڑ رہا ہے کہ سائنس خدا کی منکر ہے، اس کا فائدہ اُٹھاتے ہوئے لادین طبقہ سائنسی نظریات کا سہارا لے کر لادینیت اور دہریت کی ترویج کرتا ہے اور یہ غلط تاثر پھیلا تا ہے کہ سائنس خدا یا اللہ کی منکر ہے۔ ہمیں دیکھنا ہوگا کہ کیا واقعی جدید سائنس منکر ِ خدا ہو سکتی ہے؟ جدید سائنسدانوں اور اسکالرز کا نقطہ نظر یہ ہے کہ آپ جو چاہے نظریہ رکھیں مگر اس کے سچّا ہونے کا دعویٰ نہ کریں کیونکہ جو دعویٰ تجربے سے ثابت نہ ہو وہ سائنسی طور پر غلط False ہے۔ یعنی آپ خدا پر یقین رکھتے ہیں تو رکھیں، یہ آپ کا ذاتی مسئلہ ہے لیکن اس کے سچ ہونے پر اصرار نہ کریں کیونکہ سائنس کے نظریات اورتجربات اس کی تائید نہیں کرتے۔ اکثر لادین دوست اپنی تحاریر میں ایسا ہی تاثر دیتے ہیں۔ اس طرح کی دلیل کے حوالے سے پہلے تو یہ تعیّن کرنا ہوگا کہ آیا سائنسی علوم اور ان کے حدود کار کی بنیاد پر یہ دلیل دی بھی جاسکتی ہے یا نہیں۔ سائنس بذات خود کوئی علم نہیں بلکہ طبعی دنیا کے ہر شعبے کے علوم کی عقلی اور تجرباتی بنیاد پر تصدیق ہی سائنس کہلاتی ہے۔ آئیے خدا کے حوالے سے مندرجہ بالا نقطۂ نظر کو عام فہمی یا کامن سینس سے دیکھتے ہیں کہ آیا یہ خود کتنا سائنسی، منطقی اور عقلی ہے۔ سوال یہ ہے کہ: ہم کسی مخصوص شخص کو کیسے پہچانتے ہیں؟ انسان کے دو رخ ہیں؛ ایک طبعی اوردوسرا تصورّاتی، جسمانی رخ کو طبعی طور پر ہم اپنے حواس سے محسوس کر لیتے ہیں جبکہ شخصیت person بمع نام یعنی مسٹر ایکس ایک غیر مرئی abstract ہے جس کو ہمارا شعور جو خود غیر مرئی ہے، ایک تصوّر کی شکل میں قبول کرتا ہے۔ اس طرح ہمارے حواس اور شعور مل کر ایک مخصوص شخص کو پہچانتے ہیں۔ کیا سائنسدان کوئی ایسا طریقہ دریافت کر پائے ہیں جو کسی انسان کی شخصیت کا تعّیّن کر سکے یا اس کا نام بتا سکے؟ یہ بات یقیناً دلچسپ ہے کہ جدید ترین سائنسی تجربات بھی کسی انسان کی شخصیت کی تصدیق نہیں کرسکتے۔ شخصیت کی کھوج میں کسی بھی سائنسی ٹیسٹ یا سائنسی تلاش میں ایک انسان کو محض خلیاتی انبار یا جنّیاتی مجموعہ یا a-bunch-of-molecules یا group-of-DNA ہی بتایا جائےگا۔ انسان کے حوالے سے کوئی بھی میڈیکل ٹیسٹ ایک مطلوبہ معلومات تو دیتا ہے لیکن یہ بتانے سے قاصر ہوتا ہے کہ یہ کس شخص سے متعلّق ہے۔ یہاں پر یہ انسان ہی ہوتا ہے جو رپورٹ پر نام لکھ کر متعلّقہ شخص سے منسوب کرتا ہے۔یعنی مسٹراسٹیون ہاکنگ Stephen-Hawking جو ببانگ دہل ایک بڑے دہریہ سائنسدان ہیں، ان کے اس دعویٰ کی تصدیق کوئی بھی سائنسی تجربہ نہیں کرسکتا کہ وہ اسٹیون ہاکنگ ہیں! ایک اور بڑے خدا کے منکر جناب رچرڈ ڈاکنز Richard-Dawkins چاہے کتنی کوشش کر ڈالیں، ان کی ممدوح سائنس ان کو بحیثیت مسٹر ڈاکنز پہچاننے سے ہمیشہ عاری رہے گی! سوال یہ ہے کہ: اگر ان کے بحیثیت ایک خاص انسان (Specific-Person) موجودگی کے دعویٰ کی تصدیق کرنے سے سائنس قاصر ہے تو کیا ان کا وجود نہیں ہے؟ ہر طرح کے سائنسی ٹیسٹ میں یہ دونوں ایک شخصیت کی حیثیت سے معدوم ہیں لیکن حقیقتاً موجود ہیں جس کی تصدیق انسان کے حواس اور شعور کرتے ہیں۔ یہیں پر آ کر جدید سائنس کی حدود کا حقیقی تعیّن ہوتا ہے جو محض طبعی ہیں۔ تخلیق کے مدارج : Phases of The Creation بنانے یا تخلیق کے تین مدارج ہوتے ہیں، ارادہ، عمل یا تخلیق اور ظہور۔ کسی بھی انسانی ایجاد یا تخلیق کا مطالعہ کریں یہ تین مرحلے لازماً موجود ہوں گے۔ تخیّل یا ارادہ طبعی تخلیقی مراحل یعنی عمل سے گزر کر ہی ایک مکمّل شے کی صورت میں عیاں ہوتا ہے۔ سائنس: کسی کار کو دیکھ کر ہم اس کے تخلیقی مراحل کو نہیں جان سکتے بلکہ اس کے لیے باقاعدہ تحقیق کی ضرورت ہوگی۔ اس کے پرزے پرزے کو جدا کرکے اور ان کی اندرونی ماہیت کو جان کر ہی ہم اس کی مینو فکچرنگ تکنیک کو سمجھ سکیں گے۔ یہی کاوش سائنس کہلاتی ہے۔ لیکن یہاں یہ واضح رہے کہ اس تمام پیداواری مراحل کے بارے میں سب کچھ جان کر بھی ہم اس کار کے تخلیق کار manufacturer کی شخصیت کو نہیں جان پائیں گے۔ اس کے لیے ایک دوسرا طریق کار اختیار کرنا ہوگا۔ اس طرح واضح ہوا کہ دو باتیں ہوتی ہیں ایک انسانی عمل اور دوسرا اس کا حاصل۔ عمل غیر مرئی اور ناقابل پیمائش ہے اس کی کوئی شکل نہیں ہوتی لیکن اس کا حاصل قابل گرفتِ حواس ہے یعنی انسان کسی عمل کی نہیں بلکہ اس کے نتیجے کی پیمائش کر سکتا ہے۔ عمل اور نتیجہ: انسان ایک دعویٰ کرتا ہے کہ میرا نام الف ہے تو اس کے اطراف موجود انسان اس کا دعویٰ اس لیے قبول کرتے ہیں کہ انسانی شعور طبعی حواس کی مدد سے اس کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں۔ انسانوں کا یہ دعویٰ قبول کرنا ہی اس شخص کے بحیثیت الف موجود ہونے کی دلیل بنتا ہے۔ حواس صرف اطّلاعات دیتے ہیں اور انسانی شعور عقل کے تناظر میں فیصلہ کرتا ہے۔ اس طرح یہ واضح ہوا ہے کہ کسی بھی تخلیق کار، جیسے کسی کار کے مینو فیکچرر، یا کسی فن پارے کی تخلیق کرنے والے مصوّر یاکسی ڈرامہ نویس کی کسی بھی جدید سائنسی ٹیسٹ سے تصدیق نہیں ہو سکتی بلکہ صرف اور صرف انسانی شعور ہی اس تصدیق کی قدرت رکھتا ہے یعنی سائنس انسان کی صرف ایک طبعی و حیاتی نظام physical/biological-system کی حیثیت سے ہی تصدیق کرسکتی ہے۔ اب بتائیے کہ جو علوم سامنے موجود انسان کی شخصیت کو نہ پہچان سکیں نہ تصدیق endorse کرسکیں یا ایک تخلیق کے محرّک Initiator کی نشان دہی تک نہ کرسکیں تو ان کا محدود ہونا تو ثابت ہوگیا۔ مزید یہ بھی معلوم ہوا کہ یہ انسانی شعور ہی ہے جو حاصل کردہ علوم کی بنیاد پر دوسرے انسان کی شخصیت اور اس سے وابستہ کسی عمل کی تصدیق کرتا ہے نہ کہ سائنسی. علوم! اب جدیدسائنس کے تجربات کو خدا کی پہچان کے لیے استعمال کرنا کتنا عقلی ہے، خود فیصلہ کرلیجے۔ گویا واضح ہوا کہ سائنس کا دائرہ کار کسی بھی چیز یا تخلیق کو پا کر اس کی تخلیقی ماہیّت، اس کے پیداواری یا ارتقائی مراحل اور منبع origin کو جاننا ہے یعنی تخلیق کے مذکورہ بالا تین میں سے آخر کے دو مراحل، جو عمل اور اس کا نتیجہ یا طبعی اظہار ہیں جبکہ اس سے قبل کا مرحلہ یعنی تخلیق کار Inventor/creator یا ارادے کے مآخذ کی نشاندہی میں صرف انسانی عقل اور موجود معلومات available-information کام آتی ہیں کہ کون ایسی صلاحیّت، علم، قوّت اور وسائل رکھتا ہے کہ یہ کار بنا سکے یا کوئی مخصوص کام کرسکے۔ خدا کی تصدیق: بالکل اسی طرح انسان حاصل علوم سے اپنی خرد اور دانش سے ہی خالق کائنات یعنی خدا یا اللہ تعالیٰ کے وجود کی تصدیق کرسکتا ہے۔ یہی ایمان کہلاتا ہے اور یہ عقل و شعور سے حقائق کی پرکھ کے بعد بالکل خالص ذاتی فیصلہ ہوتا ہے سائنسی نہیں۔ اسی طرح اللہ کا انکار کسی انسان کا ذاتی فیصلہ ہوتا ہے جو اس کا شعور متعیّن کرتا ہے۔ ایک بات واضح رہے کہ انسان خدا کو خود ہی تلاش نہیں کرتا بلکہ یہ خدا ہے جو کہ انسانوں کا خالق ہونے کا اعلان کرتا ہے اور دعویٰ کرتا ہے کہ میں تمہارا خالق ہوں، پھر انسان اپنی عقل و خرد اور علوم کی گواہی سے ہی اس کی تصدیق کرتا ہے۔ خدا کا دعویٰ اس کی طرف سے انسانی واسطے سے پیغام اور حیرت انگیز تحریر text کی شکل میں ظاہر ہوتا ہے، ایسی تحریر جس کا مصنّف ہونے کا کوئی بھی انسان دعوٰی نہیں کرتا۔ کیا سائنس کسی بھی کتاب کے مصنّف کا نام بتا سکتی ہے؟ سائنسی علوم صرف ایک محدود دائرے میں ہی انسان کی رہنمائی کرسکتے ہیں اور سائنس کے حوالے سے خدا کی تلاش یا اس بارے میں لب کشائی نہ سائنس اور نہ ہی سائنسدانوں کا کام ہے۔ سائنس محض علمی اوزار کا صندوق toolkit ہے ! یعنی سائنسی علوم محض وسائل اور ذریعہ ہیں جو معلومات مہیّا کرتے ہیں اوربس! تو کسی سائنس دان کا دعویٰ کہ وہ خدا پر یقین نہیں رکھتا اس کا ذاتی خیال ہوتا ہے، اس کا بہ حیثیت مجموعی سائنس کی دریافتوں اور سائنسی ٹیسٹ کے نتائج سے کوئی رشتہ نہیں ہوتا۔ اگر کوئی ایسا تاثّر دیتا ہے تو وہ حقائق کے برعکس ہے بلکہ دروغ گوئی ہے، معذرت کے ساتھ۔ سائنسی علوم تمام انسانیت کی میراث ہیں اور کسی بھی انسان کو ان سے فائدہ اٹھانے یا دلیل حاصل کرنے کا اتنا ہی حق ہے جتنا کسی بھی ماہر علم یا ماہر طبعیات کو۔ یہ بھی واضح ہوا کہ جدید سائنسدان کائنات کی ابتدا، تخلیق اور اس کے مراحل کے حوالے سے جتنی بھی تحقیق کریں اور اس کی سائنسی توجیہات پیش کریں، وہ بجا طور پر سائنس کے دائرہ کار میں آتی ہیں لیکن جس لمحے یہ سائنسدان ایک قدم آگے بڑھ کر یہ بتانے کی کوشش کرتے ہیں کہ کس نے کائنات نہیں بنائی ـ وہیں سے ان کی عقلیں بےراہرو ہو کر سائنس کے حدود کار سے باہر چلی جاتی ہیں۔ مختصراً یہ واضح ہوا کہ جدید ترین سائنسی علوم ، دریافتیں اور سائنسدان جو کسی میڈیکل ٹیسٹ، طبعی تخلیق، آرٹ کے فن پارے اور کسی کتاب سے متعلق انسان کا تعیّن اور تصدیق نہ کر سکیں بھلا وہ کائنات کے خالق یعنی اللہ کی تصدیق کرنے کے اہل کیسے ہوسکتے ہیں؟ ذرا سوچیں! (خدائی سرگوشیاں اور جدید نظریاتی اشکال سے اقتباس) مجیب الحق حقی

Religion &Liberal World

سمجھنے کی کوشش کرتے ہیں۔ لیکن خدا کے وجود"

New post on الحاد جدید کا علمی محاکمہ خدا کو کس نے بنایا ایک سائنسی رخ by مجیب الحق حقی شعور کے خوگرانسان کے لیے خدا کا وجود ہمیشہ ایک معمّہ ہی رہا ہے اور ہر دور میں علم، منطق اور عقل کی روشنی میں خدا کو جاننے کی کاوشیں جاری رہی ہیں۔ آئیے! اسی عقل، منطق، علم اور سائنس کی دریافتوں کی روشنی میں خدا کو سمجھنے کی کوشش کرتے ہیں۔ لیکن خدا کے وجود کا پیرایہ سمجھنے سے پہلے وجود کی ماہیّت سمجھنا ضروری ہے کہ وجودیت خود کیا ہے! وجود کا قفس : Cage of Existence انسان اور اس کی عقل و شعور کا موجود ہونا بذات خود ایک عجوبہ ہے۔ انسان جب کائنات کی تخلیق کے حوالے سے خدا کے وجود پر غور کرتا ہے تو اس کی عقل اس لیے معطّل ہوجاتی ہے کہ وہ وجودیت کے پیرائے کو اپنے شعور میں ایک فطری اور سختی سے پیوست تاثر کا پرتو ہی سمجھنے پر مجبور ہے۔ انسان طبعی وجودیت میں قید ہے اور اپنے محدود شعور کے باوصف وجود کے حوالے سے اسی طبعی وجودیت کو حرف آخر سمجھتا ہے۔ یہی ایسی بھول بھلیّاں ہے جس میں انسان صدیوں سے گھوم رہا ہے اور نکل نہیں پا رہا۔ جدید علوم اور نئی دریافتوں نے اس مخمصے میں اضافہ کیا ہے۔ حقیقت آشنائی کے لیے اب کسی اچھوتی سوچ کی ضرورت ہے جو اس طبعی وجودیت کے قفس کے قفل کو توڑدے جس میں انسانی تخیّل مقیّد ہے اور ایک عقلی اور شفّاف نقطۂ نظر سے کائنات، وجودیت اور خدا کو جانے۔ اس کے لیے سائنسی طریقہ کار اپنانا ہوگا کہ مفروضات hypothesis کا سہارا لے کر علم اورعقل کی کسوٹی پر ان کو پرکھاجائے۔ آئیں ہم غور کرتے ہیں کہ کیا وجودیت اور زندگی خود بھی مخلوق ہیں؟ زندگی کی ساخت: Fabric of Life وجود زندگی سے ہے اور زندگی کی ساخت ایٹم اور خلیے سے ہے۔ایک نکتہ یہ بھی مدّنظر رہے کہ ہر عنصر کی اکائی ( ایٹم) ایک پس پردہ فطرت اور جبلّت کی خوگر ہوتی ہے۔آکسیجن اگر آگ جلاتی ہے تو کاربن اسے بجھاتی ہے۔ یہ ان کی جبلّت ہے۔ سائنس اسے خاصیّت یا property کہتی ہے۔ کسی بھی عنصر کی کارکردگی اس کی جبلّت کے طابع اور متعیّن حدود میں ہی ہوگی۔ منطقی طور پر کسی بھی زندگی کی حواسی اور شعوری صلاحیّت اس کو پروان چڑھانے والے بنیادی عوامل کی جبلّت کے رنگ میں ہی عیاں ہوگی۔ اس کی وضاحت اس طرح کی جاسکتی ہے کہ اگر زندگی فوٹون سے ابھرتی ہے تو کیونکہ فوٹون غیرمرئی ہے اور اس کی جبلّت بے قراری ہے یعنی یہ ایک سیماب صفت اکائی ہے جو بہت رفتار سے چلتی ہے تو اس سے متعلق زندگی بھی غیرمرئی اور برق سے زیادہ تیز رفتار ہوسکتی ہے۔ اسی طرح عناصر اور کائناتی قوتوں کی اکائیاں بھی اپنی جدا خاصیّتوں کے ساتھ موجود ہیں۔ خلوی زندگی:Cellular Life سائنسی دریافتیں بتاتی ہیں کہ وجود میں آنے کے بعد کائنات رفتہ رفتہ ٹھنڈی ہونی شروع ہوئی، پھر ایک وقت میں زمین پر حالات ایسے سازگار ہوئے کہ پانی میں ایٹم سے بنے خلیے سے زندگی پھوٹ پڑی جس میں طویل ارتقائی منازل طے کرتے ہوئے بقول سائنسداں انسان اپنے شعور کے ساتھ جلوہ گر ہوا۔ سوال یہ ہے کہ زندگی کیا ہے؟ زندگی ایک فعّال اور بے چین معمّہ یا “چیز” ہے جو اپنے آپ کو خاص ماحول میں عیاں کرنے کی جبلّت رکھتی ہے۔ زندگی ایک آزاد اور کھلا راز ہے جو ہر طرح کے ماحول میں ابھرنے کی صلاحیّت رکھتا ہے۔ یہ ایک غیر مرئی سچّائی اور وقوعہ Phenomenon ہے جو موجود ہے۔ سائنس کے مطابق کائنات ایٹم سے بنی اور زندگی خَلیے cell میں شعور کا نام ہے۔ تو پھر شعور کیا ہے؟ شعور احساس زندگی ہے مگر سائنس کے مطابق شعور زندگی کی پہیلی کا ایک حصہ اور غیر حل شدہ عُقدہ ہے۔ اب سوال اٹھتے ہیں کہ: کیا حیات صرف خلیات ہی میں محصور ہے؟ کیا حیات صرف اور صرف پانی سے ہی ابھر سکتی ہے؟ اجنبی حرارتی اورمقناطیسی زندگی: Alien Thermal & Magnetic Life اب ایک دوسرا رخ بھی دیکھے۔ سائنس کے نظریے کے مطابق کائنات بگ بینگ سے وجود میں آئی۔ اس نظریے کا سادہ سا تجزیہ کریں تو ظاہر ہوتا ہے کہ اس ابتدائی وقت میں نہ صرف توانائی اور قوّتیں موجود تھیں بلکہ ہر طرح کے مادّے، اجرام فلکی اور ہر طرح کی حیات اور فطری قوانین بھی آپس میں ضم تھے۔ شروع میں ہر طرف آگ تھی جو ٹھنڈی ہونا شروع ہوئی اورجوں جوں کائنات پھیلی تو رفتہ رفتہ تمام چیزیں عیاں ہوتی گئیں۔ سمجھنے کی بات یہ ہے کہ اس دوران زندگی کی سچّائی بھی ایک غیرمرئی صورت میں موجود رہی ہوگی اور مختلف ادوار میں قدرتاً مختلف صورتوں میں عیاں ہوئی ہوگی۔ کیا ایسا ممکن نہیں کہ جس طرح عناصر خلیات بناتے ہیں اسی طرح کچھ مخصوص پارٹیکل یا قوّتیں مل کر ایسی چیز بناتے ہوں جس میں ایک بالکل جدا پیرائے کی حیات اور شعور ابھرتے یا ظاہر ہوتے ہوں! پانی سے پہلے کیا زندگی توانائی، قوّت اور حرارت کے پیرائے جیسے روشنی یا ثقل سے پیدا ہوکر کسی اجنبی شعور کے ساتھ ارتقاء پذیر نہ ہوئی ہوگی؟ ہم کس منطق یا علم کے تحت ایسی حیات کو مسترد کریں گے جو شاید کائنات کے کسی گوشے میں موجود بھی ہو۔ سوال یہ ہے کہ: ایسا کیوں نہیں ہوا ہوگا؟ کیونکہ زندگی موجودہ دور میں بھی زمین پر آتش فشانی ماحول میں ایک اچھوتے پیرائے میں خود کو ظاہر کر رہی ہے لہذٰا ثابت ہوتا ہے کہ زندگی میں خود کو آتشی ماحول میں عیاں کرنے کی قوّت ہمیشہ سے موجود ہے۔ ہماری زمین پر ہی سمندر کی گہرائی میں آتش فشانی وینٹ میں حالیہ دریافت شدہ ٹیوب وارم جو سورج کی روشنی کے بغیر زندہ ہیں اور توانائی حاصل کرنے کے لیے کیمیکل پر انحصار کرتے ہیں، ایک عجوبہ ہیں۔ یہ شعاع ِ ترکیبی photosynthesis کے بجائے کیمیا ترکیبی Chemosynthesis سے توانائی حاصل کرتے ہیں اور دلچسپ امر یہ ہے کہ گو کہ دونوں طریقوں میں کاربن ڈائی آکسائڈ اور پانی استعمال ہوتے ہیں لیکن کیمیا ترکیبی میں آکسیجن کے بجائے سلفر خارج ہوتی ہے۔ Instead of photosynthesis, vent ecosystems derive their energy from chemicals in a process called “chemosynthesis.” Both methods involve an energy source (1), carbon dioxide (2), and water to produce sugars (3). Photosynthesis gives off oxygen gas as a byproduct, while chemosynthesis produces sulfur. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast13apr_1/ اس سے ہمارے اس نظریہ کو تقویت ملتی ہے کہ کائنات میں حرارت اور روشنی سے مختلف حیات کاعیاں ہونا بعید از قیاس نہیں کیونکہ اِس وقت زمین پر معتدل حالات میں بھی مذکورہ بالا زندگی کاایک نئی طرز میں ظاہر ہونا زندگی کی اپنی طاقتور اور ہمہ جہت جبلّت اور وصف کا مظہر ہے۔ یعنی زندگی کا وقوعہ of Life Phenomenon مختلف ماحولیات میں اپنے آپ کو ظاہر کرنے کی صلاحیّت رکھتا ہے۔ گویا یہ کثیر الجہت dimensional Multi ہے۔ ایک منطقی بات یہ سامنے آتی ہے کہ اگر زندگی کی جہتیں ایک سے زیادہ ہوں گی تو وجود کی ماہیّت بھی مختلف ہوسکتی ہے کیونکہ ان کی آفرینش کے جبلّی پیرائے غیرطبعی اور عام انسانی حواس سے ماورا ہوں گے لہذا اس بنیاد پر پیدا ہونے والی زندگی بھی اپنے وجود کے حوالے سے انسان کے لیے نہ صرف غیرمرئی ہوگی بلکہ انسانی حواس سے ماورا ہوگی جیسے ثقل، مقناطیس، روشنی سے منسلک زندگی نامعلوم پیرائیوں میں موجود ہوسکتی ہے۔ وہ اپنے اپنے وجودی پیرائے میں زندہ ہوں گی اور اپنے اپنے شعوری اور عقلی دائرے میں علمی ارتقاء کی طرف گامزن بھی ہو سکتی ہیں۔ یعنی انسان ہی اپنے علم کے تئیں کائناتی زندگی کی ابتدا کو پانی تک محدود سمجھتا رہا ہے جبکہ حقیقت اس کے خلاف بھی ہوسکتی ہے۔ مشترک اور مختلف جبلّت : Common & Diverse Intrinsic ایک سوال یہ اٹھتا ہے کہ زندگی کے لیے مانوس ماحول ہائیڈروجن اور آکسیجن کے ملاپ سے پیدا ہوا تو اور دوسرے عناصر کے ملاپ سے کیوں نہ پیدا ہوا۔ اس کی وجہ یہ ہو سکتی ہے کہ یہ دو عناصر ایک ایسی چیز بناتے ہیں جس کی جبلّت سے زندگی کی مختلف جہتوں میں سے کوئی ایک جہت مانوس یا ہم آہنگ Compatable ہے جس کی وجہ سے حیوانی زندگی پانی میں نمودار ہوئی۔ ہم اس لیے اس زندگی کو بآسانی پہچانتے ہیں کہ زندگی اور ہمارے ذہن و دماغ ایک ہی مشترک خلوی منبع cellular origin سے ابھری ہیں اور یہ فطری اور جبلّی طور پر آپس میں ہم آہنگ ہیں۔ اسی طرح جب تخلیقی جبلّت مختلف ہوگی تو کسی غیر عنصر یا توانائی وحرارت سے متعلّق زندگی کا ادراک جبلّی ہم آہنگی کے فقدان کی وجہ سے ہمارے ذہن اور حواس سے ماوراء ہوگا اور وہ ہمارے لیے معدوم اور “بے وجود ” ہی رہے گی۔ اس کا منطقی اور اصولی نتیجہ یہ نکلتا ہے کہ ہر نامعلوم پیرائے کی زندگی ہمارے لیے طبعی طور پر معدوم رہے گی۔ شعورکی قسمیں : Forms of Conciousness اسی کرۂ ارض پر خلیات پر مبنی حیات جانور، پرند، حشرات الارض، درختوں اور پھولوں کی شکل میں بھی موجود ہے جو شعور کے حامل ہیں اور جوڑے pairs بھی رکھتے ہیں، گویا خلوی حیات کے کئی متوازی نظام ہمارے سامنے رواں دواں ہیں مگر اس کے باوجود ابھی انسان ان کے شعور اور آپس کے روابط کی حقیقت نہیں جان پایا جس سے انسان کی کم علمی بھی عیاں ہے۔ ثابت یہی ہوتا ہے کہ جب خلوی حیات اور اس سے منسلک شعور کی لا تعداد قسمیں ہمارے سامنے ہیں تو غیر خلوی حیات اور اس سے منسلک شعور اور وجود بعید از قیاس کیسے ہو سکتے ہیں۔ دیکھنا یہ ہے انسان کیوں کسی اجنبی پیرائے کی حیات کی تصدیق نہیں کر پاتا؟ وجود کا دائمی ذہنی ادراک: Constant Mental Perception of Existense اگر زندگی کسی توانائی مثلاً فوٹون Photon سے آشکارا یا نمودار ہو تو کیا ہم یہ جان سکتے ہیں کہ: اس کے شعور کے پیرامیٹر کیا ہوں گے؟ اس کے حواس کس طرز کے ہوں گے؟ اس کی قوتوں کے پیرائے کیا ہوں گے؟ اُس طرزِحیات کے ارتقاء کے مراحل کیسے ہوں گے اور اس کی عقل اگر ہوئی تواس کی ماہیّت کیا ہوگی؟ یقینا ہم یہ نہیں جان سکتے۔ اس کی وجہ یہ ہے کہ وجود کے حوالے سے ہمارے تصوّر اور تخیّل کے پیرائے ہماری اساس یعنی خلوی حیات cellular life سے نتھی یا منسلک ہیں، ہمارے ذہن میں وجود کا متعیّن ادراک فطری طور پر طبعی ہے۔ ہم کبھی بھی کسی اجنبی وجودیت یا اجنبی زندگی کے حقیقی پیرائے Alien Life Parameters کو اپنے تخیّل کے فطری خلوی پیرائے Cellular Thought Parameters Natural میں رہتے ہوئے نہیں سمجھ سکتے، کیونکہ یہ آپس میں مانوس اور ہم آہنگ compatible نہیں ہیں۔ اسی اساسی خلوی جبلّت کے پرتو ہمارے ذہن میں وجودیت ایک خاص طبعی پیرائے میں اس سختی سے ثبت ہے کہ یہ ادراک perception اب ایک جنّیاتی ورثے Genetic Heritage کی طرح ہر خاص و عام کا مستقل ذہنی وصف بن چکا ہے۔ تمام انسان بشمول اسکالر اور سائنسداں اپنے اطراف کے پُراثر طبعی ماحول کے پیدائشی اور مستقل اسیر ہوتے ہیں اور وجود اور عمل سے منسلک خیالات اور احساسات بھی خلوی شعور کے زیر اثر ایک خاص طبعی تاثر کے آفاقی دائرے میں گردش کرتے ہیں۔ اسی لیے ہمارے لیے کسی اجنبی پیرائے میں زندگی کا وجود ذہناً ناقابل قبول ہو جاتا ہے۔ اپنے شعور اور عقل کے با وصف ہم یہ نتیجہ تو اخذ کرسکتے ہیں کہ زندگی مختلف نہج Dimensions میں ظاہر ہوسکتی ہے یا ہوئی ہے لیکن جبلّی ہم آہنگی کے فقدان کی وجہ سے کیونکہ ہم اپنے تجربات، عقل اور علم کی روشنی میں کسی غیر خلوی حیات کی نمو پذیری کی تصدیق نہیں کر پاتے، اسی لیے ہم اس کو اپنی عقل کے پرتو مسترد کرتے رہے ہیں۔ خلوی شعور کے حوالے سے یہ واضح رہے کہ آگ سے ابھرنے والی زندگی اور اس کے شعوری پیرائے آتشی ہی ہوں گے، اسی طرح برقی جبلّت سے آشکارا یا نموپذیر زندگی کا شعور بھی برقی شعور ہی کہلائےگا کیونکہ اس کی اساس برقی ہوگی جبکہ روشنی کے پیرامیٹر کی زندگی کا شعور شُعاعی ہوگا۔ ایسی کسی حیات یا وجود کی طبعی یا سائنسی تصدیق فی الوقت ممکن نہیں بلکہ ان کی قبولیت ایمانیات اور عقائد کے زیر اثر ہی ہو سکتی ہے۔ وجودیت کے پیرائے : Parameters of Existence اس بحث سے صرف یہ اخذ کرنا تھا کہ ہم جسے وجود کہتے ہیں، وہ ایک مخصوص احساس یا تاثر ہے جو ہمیں کسی ایسی ہستی یا چیز کا ادراک دیتا ہے جس کا تعلّق کسی یکساں، مختلف یا منفردحیات سے ہوسکتا ہے۔ یہ بھی واضح ہوا کہ کائنات میں موجود مختلف عناصر اور توانائیوں میں حیات کے ابھرنے کے مواقع منطقی بنیاد پر دور از کار نہیں۔ گویا وجود مختلف دائروں میں مختلف جہتوں میں جلوہ گر ہو سکتا ہے۔ اس طرح وجود کے ایک دائرے میں رہائش پذیر حیات دوسرے دائرے کی حیات سے جدا خصوصیت کی حامل ہوگی۔ ان کا آپس میں ربط ان کے بنیادی اجزاء کی باہمی ہم آہنگی پر منحصر ہوگا۔ ہم نے ابھی یہ سمجھا کہ موجود ہونے کے بہت سے پیرائے یا رنگ ہو سکتے ہیں اور یہ مختلف دائروں میں عیاں ہو سکتے ہیں۔ کائنات اور خود انسانی تمدّن میں جاری نظم ایک آفاقی حقیقت ہے، اس کے بموجب یہ قیاس کرنا منطقی ہوگا کہ وجود یا موجود ہونے کے کائناتی نظام پر حاوی کوئی نظام ہوسکتا ہے جو وجودیت کو مختلف پیرائے اور رنگ دینے کی صلاحیّت رکھتا ہو ورنہ مختلف طبعئی حیات کا ہونا غیر حقیقی ہو جائے گا۔ اب اگر ایسا ہے تو یقیناً وہ حیات یانظم یا قوّت، جس نے وجود کے دائرے تخلیق کیے، وہ یقیناً تمام موجود کائناتی حیات سے انتہائی جدا اور برتر ہوگی۔ اسی نے انسان کو ایک ذہنی قید خانے محصور کر رکھا ہے۔ جب ہم ایک وائرلیس ریموٹ کے ذریعے بہت دور سے کسی مشین کو کنٹرول کرتے ہیں تو بظاہر کوئی واسطہ نظر نہیں آتا لیکن درحقیقت وہ مشین ایک نہ نظر آنے والے نظام سے منسلک ہوتی ہے۔ ایک لا علم کے لیے یہ ایک عجوبہ یا Baffle ہوگا جبکہ جاننے والوں کے لیے یہ ایک مربوط نظام ہے۔ بالکل اسی طرح انسان اطراف میں مخفی نظام ہائے کائنات کی ہیئت سمجھنے میں مشغول تو ہے لیکن مکمّل نظم System کو ابھی تک سمجھنے سے قاصر اور حقیقی کائناتی نظام سے بہت حد تک لاعلم ایک مخلوق ہے۔ مختصراً، اگر کائنات ایک تخلیق ہے تو اس میں موجود زندگی بھی ایک تخلیق ہی ہے اور انسان کے شعور کے بموجب وجودیت بھی ایک غیرمرئی مخلوق ہوئی الّا یہ کہ جدید علوم عملی طور پر Practically یہ ثابت کردیں کہ عدم سے وجود یا نیست سے ہست things from nothing خود بخود کیسے ظاہر ہوتا ہے۔ مزید یہ کہ اچانک کائناتی تخلیق spontaneous creation میں زندگی اور شعور کا عیاں ہونا بھی ایک ناقابل تشریح عجوبہ ہی ہے۔ وجود خدا کی حقیقت: Reality of Existence of God وجود ایک ذہنی تاثر ہے جس کی وجہ سے ہم موجود ہونے کو ہی وجود گردانتے ہیں کیونکہ ہماری نموپذیری شعور کے احساس وجود میں ہوتی ہے۔ خدا ایک ایسی ہستی ہے جس نے یہ نظام تخلیق کردیا جس میں موجود ہونے کا شعور ہی زندگی کہلایا۔ ہمارا خلوی شعور وجود کا ایک فطری طبعی تاثر ہمارے ذہن میں تخلیق کیے رہتا ہے۔ انسان خدا کو سمجھنے کی کوشش وجود اور عدم وجود یا حاضر اور غائب کے اُنھی طبعی پیرایوں میں کرتا ہے جو خلوی شعور کے بموجب مستقل فطری تاثر بن چکے ہیں۔ یہ سوال کہ خدا کو کس نے بنایا؟ تجسّس میں اسی فطری تاثر سے اٹھتا ہے اور انسان خدا کو بھی اپنی طرح کی زندگی اور وجود کا خوگر سمجھتے ہوئے جاننے کی کوشش کرتا ہے جو کہ خداکے حوالے سے ایک غیر حقیقی تصوّر illusion ہے۔ خدا یقیناً ایک زندہ ہستی ہے لیکن اس ہستی کا پیرایہ کیا ہوگا اُس کو انسان اپنی عقل کی خلوی ساخت Cellular Based Wisdom کی وجہ سے سمجھنے کا مکلّف ہی نہیں ہے۔ دیکھیے بجلی یا برق Electric کی ساخت کی بھی ایک جبلّت ہے جس کو قابو کر کے انسان نے کمپیوٹر اور روبوٹ بنا کر ان کو مصنوعی زندگی اور مصنوعی عقل دی۔ جس طرح انسان کے تخلیق کردہ الیکٹرانک ماحول میں مقیّد کوئی سپر روبوٹ بھی اپنی برقی Electronic جبلّت کی محدودیت اور نامانوس جبلّی ساخت کی وجہ سے خلوی زندگی Cellular life کے پیرائے نہیں سمجھ سکتا بلکہ اس کی رمق تک بھی نہیں پہنچ سکتا، اسی طرح انسان خدا کو طبعی اور خلوی پیرایوں میں مقیّد رہ کرشاید کبھی نہ سمجھ پائے۔ ریڈار ایک مصنوعی “حواس” کا خوگر نظام ہے کہ اس سے خارج ہونے والے سگنل کسی جسم سے ٹکرا کر اس کا الیکٹرونک تاثر لے کر واپس آتے ہیں اور اس کی موجودگی کو ظاہر کرتے ہیں لیکن اسٹیلتھ تکنیک Stealth Technology اس کو غیر مئوثر کردیتی ہے۔ یعنی اگر چار جہاز اُڑتے آرہے ہیں اور ان میں ایک اسٹیلتھ ساخت کا ہے تو ریڈار صرف تین جہاز دکھائے گا۔ اسٹیلتھ نظام سے آراستہ کوئی جسم اس کو نظر نہیں آئے گا۔ گویا جہاز، ایک ٹھوس جسم کھلی فضا میں موجود ہوتا ہے لیکن ایک مقیّد ماحول یعنی ریڈار کے کنٹرول روم، یعنی کسی خاص پیرائے میں موجود سے معدوم ہو جاتا ہے۔ یہی صورتحال انسان کے حواس اور تخیّلات کے بموجب خدا کے وجود کی ہے کہ انسان سب کچھ دیکھ سکتا لیکن خدا کو نہیں کیونکہ کائنات کا ماحول اسی ریڈار کے کنٹرول روم کی طرح ہے جس میں انسان اپنے حواس کے طابع ہر چیز کا شعور حاصل کرسکتا ہے جبکہ خدا کسی نامعلوم اسٹیلتھ جیسے پیرائے میں رہ کر ہر چیز پر حاوی ہے۔ اگر خدا اس طبعی ماحول سے کسی ایسے پیرائے میں بھی منسلک ہوتا جس کا فی الوقت انسان کو علم ہے توانسان اب تک خدا کے وجود کا پیرایہ جاننے کی طرف پیش قدمی کر چکا ہوتا۔ در حقیقت میٹافزکس جوں جوں فزکس میں ضم ہوتی رہے گی، خدا کو سائنسی طور پر قبول کرنے کے مواقع اتنے ہی بڑھیں گے۔ منکرین کے مخمصے : Confusion of Nonbeleivers الحاد دراصل کائنات اور وجود کی حقیقت کی تلاش میں سرگرداں سوچتے ہوئے انسانی ذہن کا مخمصہ ہے اور بس! کیونکہ کوئی بھی بڑے سے بڑا منکرخدا خواہ وہ کوئی عظیم اسکالر یاسائنسدان ہی کیوں نہ ہو، آج بھی کائنات اور زندگی کے عجوبے کی تشریح خدا کو خارج کر کے نہیں کرسکا۔ ان کے پاس نہ زندگی اور شعور کی سائنسی وضاحت ہے اور نہ ہی انسانی جذبات و خیالات کے اجراء کی توضیح ہے۔ علم، عقل اور منطق کے سہارے سائنسی نظریات کا دفاع کرتے ہوئے جہاں بےبس ہوجاتے ہیں تو کچھ اس طرح کہہ دیتے ہیں کہ یہ ایک حیران کن مسٹری ہے جس کا پتہ کبھی چل جائے گا۔ سائنس کی محدودیت اس بات سے ہی عیاں ہے کہ یہ صرف ان سوالات کا جواب دیتی ہے جو کیا اور کیسے سے شروع ہوتے ہیں اور بہت سے انتہائی ضروری ‘کیوں’ سے شروع ہونے والے سوالات کا جواب نہیں دے سکتی بلکہ لفظ کیوں اس کی لغت سے ہی خارج ہے۔ سائنس آج بھی جن سوالوں کے جواب نہیں دے سکتی ان میں سے چند یہ ہیں۔ کائنات عدم سے خود بخود کیسے ظاہر ہوئی؟ کائنات کیوں بنی؟ بگ بینگ سے پہلے کیا تھا؟ کائنات میں ہر جگہ ایک نظم کیسے ہے؟ اور کیوں ہے؟ زمین کے ہر گوشے میں پیدا ہونے والی زندگی اپنے گروپ میں یکساں اور آفاقی جبلّت کیوں رکھتی ہے؟ بےپایاں علوم بھی کیا بگ بینگ سے قبل موجود تھے؟ ان کا منبع کیا ہے؟ زندگی کیا ہے اور کیوں ہے؟ شعور کیا ہے اور کیوں ہے؟ اچھے برے خیالات کا اجراء کہاں سے اور کیوں ہوتا ہے؟ وغیرہ وغیرہ جدید علوم خدا کا متبادل پیش کرنے میں کھلے ناکام ہیں اسی لیے ہراسکالر، فلاسفر اور ہر دہریہ کسی بھی مباحثے میں مذکورہ بالا سوالات کے جوابات سے اپنی لاعلمی کا اعتراف کرتا ملے گا، جس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ سائنس اپنی محدودیت کی وجہ سے انسان کی صرف خادم بن سکتی ہے رہنمانہیں۔ ان گزارشات سے یہ امید کی جاسکتی ہے کہ خدا کے ناقد عقلی، منطقی اور سائنسی طور پر کسی حد تک یہ جان چکے ہوں گے کہ موجودہ فزیکل پیرایوں میں یہ سوال کہ خدا کو کس نے بنایا، غیر متعلّق Irrelevant ہو جاتا ہے۔ اس کے بجائے جو سوالات ابھرتے ہیں وہ یہ ہیں کہ: انسان کیوں ہے؟ کیسے بنا ؟ کس نے بنایا؟ ذرا سوچیے! (خدائی سرگوشیاں سے ماخوذ) .

Sufi Movement & Pakistan

THE SUFI MOVEMENT AND PAKISTAN



Progress in human life whether political, social or economic has depended upon and deeply indebted to the activities of a group of dedicated persons guided by leaders of exceptional qualities. The ushering in of the greatest monotheistic movement in history under the nomenclature of 'Islam' was possible and its success assured because of the sterling character, the imperishable faith and unfailing resolve of its leader, Prophet Mohammed, and his companions.

Muslim society has the distinction of initiating another unique movement in history which remains unparalleled by its wide-spread character covering the two continents of Asia and Africa; by the remarkable success it achieved in having its objectives fulfilled; by the enormous number of selfless workers it produced for the propagation of its ideals; by the depth of influence it exercised; by the revolutionary fervour it aroused, and by the indelible marks it left not only on Muslim society but on the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist societies as well. It provided succour and nourishment to such an extent that Muslims were able to withstand the Mongol catastrophy, fight it back with renewed vigour on religious plane and then to expand its horizons beyond the Sahara in Africa, across the Indus in India and over the oceans into Indonesia. This movement is known as"Sufism".

The beginning of sufi movement, its philosophy and the biographies of its leaders (saints) are too well-known, and dwelt upon at great length by a large number of scholars to be recapitulated here. I shall take up only those aspects which are relevant to our subject concerning the emergence of Pakistan. An important point to bear in mind is that there would have been no Pakistan without the sufi movement.

Pakistan and sufism are inter-related, inter-woven and inseparable from each other. If Pakistan's beginning is traced back to the conquest of this sub-continent by Muslims armies, as is erroneously done, then the whole sub-continent should have become Pakistan since Muslim arms were successful throughout the area. But Pakistan emerged only in those territories where sufism met with success. Pakistan, therefore, can be described as the fruit of sufi movement. "Pre-eminent among these problems relating to the life of the Muslim community in all regions since the twelfth century", writes Professor Gibb, "is the activity and influence of the sufi shaikhs and orders. It was into the sufi movement that the life blood of the community flowed ever more strongly. No adequate history of Islam can be written until it, with all its causes and effects, has been studied patiently and with scholarly integrity, In no region, moreover, is this study more fundamental or more urgently required than in that of Islam in Indian subcontinent". He further says: "From the 13th century A.D. sufism increasingly attracted the creative social and intellectual energies within the community, to become the bearer or instrument of a social or cultural revolution."

In its early stages sufism was an individual affair confined to intellectuals and spiritualists with hardly any appeal to the masses. But with the passage of time it acquired new dimensions and began to deal with the mundane aspects of life as well. Its beginning, popularity and propagation have been attributed to many causes among which may be mentioned:

1. to free religious thought from the rigidity imposed by the ulema;
2. to emphasise in the Islamic teachings the element of God's love and mercy for His creation rather than His wrath and retribution;
3. to practise what one professes and not merely indulge in slogans and soliloques;
4. to stress the essence of faith rather than mere observance of formalities;
5. to move away towards rural areas from the evil and debilitation effects of wealth, monarchy and bureaucracy concentrated in big cities;
6. to demolish the edifice of false values based on pelf and power and restore morality to its proper place in the niche of Muslim society;
7. to combat the fissiparous tendencies and centrifugal forces which were spreading their tentacles in the Muslim world;
8. to discourage parochial feelings and eliminate racial pride which had assumed primary importance in Muslim thinking relegating the ideal of brotherhood to a secondary place etc.

These factors which gave birth to organised sufism were indeed serious ailments which had afflicted Muslim society for some time and had assumed menacing proportions by the 12th century A.D. It was easily discernible that Muslim political structure was crumbling and its entire moral and social fabric facing extinction. The most redeeming feature of this dark and dismal period was that this challenge was successfully met by the Muslim society from its own resources and from its own inherent strength by employing its own moral and intellectual weapons. The answer to this grave challenge was the sufi movement. Sufism gave a new lease of life to the Muslims, provided them with a bright vision, opened up fresh vistas for them, and guided them towards unexplored horizons. It was a glorious and splendid performance, unparalleled and unsurpassed in human history.

Hundreds of devoted workers left their hearths and homes, spread out over unknown regions hazarding strange climes and conditions with hardly any material resources to aid and assist them. Poverty and privation stalked their efforts while distance and inaccessibility stood in their way. But undaunted and undeterred they marched forward demolishing the distances, breaking the barriers, conquering the climes. And lo! they succeeded. What was the secret of their success? They had both strength of character and courage of conviction, were selfless and devoted to a cause.



SUFISM IN ORGANISED FORM

Sufism became organised, and adopted a form and institution in the 12th and 13th centuries A.D. The two great pioneers in this field were Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani and Hazrat Shahabuddin Suhrawardy. By introducing the system of 'silsila' which was a sort of association/order, and takia/khankha, a lodge or hospice, they invested the movement with a sense of brotherhood and provided it with a meeting place. The 'silsila' and the takia/khankha were the king-pins of the organization. With a stream of selfless workers available and with no dearth of devoted and assiduous leadership, the movement made swift progress and spread far and wide.

It is incorrect to state that the sufis followed the Muslim conquerors in the sub-continent. They were here, though in small numbers, and had started their work even before the arrival and triumph of Muslim armies. "We now know that a sufi, Sh. Abdur Rahman, had settled in Ajmer even before Khwaja Moinuddin, and was the author of the first work in Hindi."( Indian Muslims, By Prof. M.Mujeeb.). At this time Ajmer was ruled by Rajput Rajas. Similarly, Shaikh Ismail Bukhari came to Pakistan before Mahmud Ghaznavi. Mohammed Alfi who came as early as Mohd. Bin Qasim's time began missionary work in Hindu-ruled Kashmir. "The Ismaili missionary Abdullah landed near Cambay in 1067A.D. and worked in Gujrat when the country was governed by Sidhraj Jai Singh. He and his Jain teacher Huma Charya are said to have been converted to Islam when there was no recorded Muslim invasion." (The Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister). Such instances can be multiplied without end.

The character of sufi movement was such that if did not require official patronage or military protection. It succeeded without both in a number of countries such as Malaya, Indonesia and East and West Africa. The same is true of their work in Pakistan. In fact, power was a hindrance rather than a help to the progress of Sufi mission. This is amply borne out by the fact that sufis achieved least success near the seats of power in the sub-contintent and had greater appeal where they had to fall upon their own moral and spiritual resources in which they were not wanting.

"Shaikh Daud of Lahore declined to meet Akbar although the Emperor was anxious to benefit from his guidance and blessings. Eminent Khalifas of Shaikh Nizamuddin refused to consider a proposal made by Mohammad Tughlaq to coordinate missionary activity with political expansion." (Indian Muslims, By Prof.M. Mujeeb.)

"Neither the succession of victories by Muslim armies nor the massacre of Hindu and the destruction of their temples brought many Hindus to the fold of Islam. On the contrary, as would be natural in the circumstances, conquest only built up Hindu resistance. The battles of Islam were won not by Muslim iconoclasts but by peaceful missionaries." (A History of the Sikhs, By Kushwant Singh.) What actually transpired was that the vigorous period of organised sufi movement merely coincided with the conquest of northern India by the Ilbari Turks early in the 13th century A.D.

Here we shall briefly narrate the work of sufis in Pakistan. Early in the 8th century A.D. when Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered Sind (which included most of Punjab) sufi movement had not taken any organised form, as already stated. In those days Islam was propagated mostly by merchants and individual preachers belonging to various trades. They were successful only to a limited extent; they did not spear-head a mass movement.

The first organised work in this region was started by Ismaili missionaries who achieved considerable success in Sind and southern Punjab where they gained political power as well by installing Ismaili rulers at Multan and Mansura. But the success of Ismaili missionaries was short-lived. Both Mahmud Ghaznavi (997-1030 A.D.) and, 150 years later, Mohammad Ghori (1175-1206 A.D.) defeated and smashed the power of the Ismaili rulers which resulted in the slow withering away of Ismaili Shiaism in Pakistan. Among the early Ismaili missionaries to gain ground in Pakistan were Pir Sadruddin, Pir Kabiruddin and Syed Yusufuddin.

The success of Ismailism in Pakistan coincided with its similar success in other parts of the Muslim world from the middle of the 10th to the middle of the 12th century A.D. During this period the Ismaili Caliphate of the Fatimids at Cairo had emerged the most powerful and Hasan Bin Sabbah's followers in the mountain fastnesses of northern Iran and Syria had become a factor to be reckoned with. But the Ghaznazvids, the Ghorids, The Seljuqs, the Ayubids and lastly the Mongols each in turn took steps to break their political power, while the sufis completely triumphed over them in the religious sphere. Southern Pakistan having become an integral part of the Muslim world from quite an early period, witnessed this rise and fall of the Ismailis in its own territories as well.

The Ghaznavid period was marked by the arrival in Lahore of the important spiritual figures of Hazrat Shaikh Ismail and Hazrat Ali Bin Osman Hujweri, popularly known as Data Ganj Baksh (died between 1072-79 A.D.) The latter was among the leading sufi philosophers of the day and since no organised 'silsilas' had started in his time, he did immense missionary work in an individual capacity and set an outstanding example for future generations.

"Shaikh Ismail was the first missionary who began preaching Islam in Lahore in 1005 A.D. He used to deliver 'khutbas' every Friday at which thousands of Hindus embraced Islam. Next came Hazrat Shaikh Ali Bin Osman Hujweri during the time of Masud Ghaznavi and was highly successful in converting large number of Hindus to Islam." (Tareekh-e-Sind By Ijazul Haq Quddusi.) He is reported to have converted Rai Raju, a Hindu General of the Ghaznavids, to Islam.

However, according to scholars, the general conversion to Islam in Pakistan started on a sizeable scale two hundred years later, from the 13th century, after the Ghorid rule. This period begins with the arrival of Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in this sub-continent followed by a large number of Chishti and Suhrawardy sufis. This period also saw the expansion of Muslim power across the Sutlej into northern India. "Muslim mysticism reached India when it had entered the last and the most important phase of its history- the organisation of silsilas in the 12th-13th centuries A.D. In the early period, only Suhrawardy and Chisti silsilas started their work." (Religion and Politics in India in the 13th Century A.D. By Khaliq Ahmad Nizami.)

"Sind claims the distinction of being the home of Indian sufism. According to Hasan Nizami, Suhrawardy sufis were the first to arrive in India and made their Headquarters in Sind. Suhrawardy order attained great influence in Pakistan under the leadership of Hazrat Bahauddin Zakaria of Multan. The famous Qadirya order entered India through Sind in 1482 A.D. Syed Bandagi Mohammad Ghouse, one of the descendants of the founder (Shaikh Abdul Qader Jilani 1078-1116) took up residence in Sind at Uch (now in Bahawalpur) and died in 1517 A.D." (An Introduction to History of Sufism By A.J.Arbery.)


THE PIONEERS

The great pioneers of this 13th century sufi movement in Pakistan were the four friends known as 'Chahar Yar': Hazrat Fariduddin Masud Ganj Shakar of Pak Pattan (1174-1266); Hazrat Syed Jalaluddin Bukhari of Uch-Bahawalpur (1196-1294); Hazrat Bahauddin Zakaria of Multan (1170-1267) and Hazrat Lal Shahbaz Qalandar of Sehwan (1177-1274). It is said that 17 leading tribes of the Punjab accepted Islam at the hands of Hazrat Fariduddin Masud Ganj Shakar. Among them were the Kharals, Dhudhyan, Tobiyan, etc. According to some , Wattu, a Rajput tribe was also converted by Baba Farid. Hazrat Jalaluddin Bukhari converted Sumras and Sammas of Sindh while Hazrat Zakaria and Shahbaz Qalandar attained great success in Multan and the northern areas of Sindh. Saqi Sarwar Sultan converted a large number of Jats and a group among them is still known as Sultani Jats.

But the Sufis did not do their work in a hurry. They first set an example of highest probity by their personal acts and explained the message of Islam in a simple, forceful manner without exerting any political or economic pressure so that the work of conversion continued for centuries throughout the Delhi Sultanate, through the Khilji, Tughlaq, Lodhi and Mughal periods down to the days of the British Raj. We learn that during the time of the Mughals a noted sufi, Shaikh Dawood of Chati (in Pakistan) was carrying on the work of conversion quite vigorously. The historian Badauni says: "Hindus to the number of 50 or more came each day with their families and relatives to pay their respects to the Saint (Shaikh Dawood) and under his spiritual influence embraced Islam."

Other notable sufis of Pakistan were: Hazrat Shah Mohammad Ghouse who migrated from Sindh and settled down in the Punjab; Hazrat Mian Mir, who was born in Sindh and migrated to Lahore where he is buried. (A personal friend of the 5th Sikh Guru Arjun, he laid the foundation of Hari Mandir in Amritsar). Hazrat Shah Jamal of Ichra, Lahore; Hazrat Shah Khairuddin Abul Maali of Lahore, Shaikh Ismail of Lahore; Hazrat Syed Yakub Zanjani (d. 604 H) Lahore, Hazrat Abdul Nabi Sham of Sham Chourasi who was originally a Hindu; Ruknuddin Rukne Alam of Multan who was grandson of Hazrat Bahauddin Zakaria whose family had also migrated from Sindh; Hazrat Jalaluddin Bukhari Makhdoom-e-Jahanian Jahan Gusht of Uch who was the grandson of Hazrat Jalaluddin Bukhari; Syed Ahmad Saqi Sarwer Sultan of D.G. Khan; Shaikh Yusuf Gardezi of Multan (1026-1152); Shaikh Safiuddin Haqqani of Uch; Pir Jalaluddin Qutub-al-Aqtab who died at Uch in 1293 AD converted the Mazaris and several other Baluch tribes to Islam; Channan Pir of Cholistan, Bahawalpur; Sharfuddin Bulbul Shah, Syed Ali Hamdani and Mir SyedHasan Samnani of Kashmir; Shaikh Badruddin Suleman and Shaikh Budruddin Ishaque of Pak Pattan; Shaikh Sadruddin Arif, Shaikh Ruknuddin Abul Fatah and Shams Subzwari of Multan; Alaul Aque; Hazrat Khardari Baba Mulla Taher of Ziarat; Pir Hunglaj on the coast of Makran; Pir Shori in Bugti territory; Shah Bilawal in Lasbela; Pir Omar in Khuzdar; Zinda Pir in Lund area, Chatan Shah near Kalat, Sultan Shah in Zehri territory. Pir Baba of Swat, Kaka Sahib of Nowshera; Khwaja Makhdum Chisti, Sakhi Sultan (Mangho Pir) and Hazrat Abdullah Shah of Karachi; Syed Shah Ali Makhi, Ghazi Baba, Makhdoom Mohammad Nooh, Hazrat Mohiuddin Gilani, Shah Khairuddin Gilani and Hazrat Shah Inayat of Sindh.

These sufis were great intellectuals, well-read and widely travelled. Most of them were speakers of high calibre, men of letters and poets of eminence. Because of their merits and morals coupled with their spiritual attainments they succeeded in making a powerful impact on the life of the people among whom they settled. It was no mean achievement to change the religion and transform the entire social life of millions of people in this subcontinent.


THE BLESSINGS OF THE SUFIS

The sufis performed a multitudinous role. Being proficient in learning, adept in medicine and steeped in spiritualism, they dispensed these possessions for the greatest good of the greatest number. Highest nobles of the state as well as lowest strata of society gathered in the Khankhas and the sufis showered their blessings upon them irrrespctive of rank and religion. They provided succour to the harassed and solace to the harrowed, made available food and shelter to the needy, preached against corruption, and admonished the harsh and oppressive rulers. There is hardly any social or moral crime against which the sufis did not raise their voice----slavery, hoarding, black-marketing, profiteering, wine, etc. Barni remarks that as a result of their teachings "vices among men had been reduced".

Hazrat Shah Baz Qalander's success in his campaign against the oppression of the local raja and against the vices prevailing in Sehwan is well-known.

When Khawaja Moinuddin Chisti was asked about the highest form of devotion, he replied that it was nothing but helping the poor, the distracted and the downtrodden. Infact Muslim mystics looked upon 'social service' as the supreme object of all their spiritual exercises. they did not believe in isolated, solitary life of contemplation. 'Live in society and bear the blows and buffets of the people' was the advice of most of them to their disciples.

Shaikh Ruknuddin Rukn-e-Alam of Multan is reported to have remarked that since all sorts of people visited a saint it was necessary for him to possess three things: 1. money; 2. learning; and 3. spiritual ability. With the first he could help those who needed monetary aid; with the second he could solve the problems of scholars and with the third he could provide spiritual guidance. It may be mentioned here that some of the sufis accepted gifts and donations from their rich disciples and distributed them among the poor visitors, thus serving as a media for fair distribution of wealth.

The sufis always advocated the path of peace and askd people to avoid rift and bloodshed. Shaikh Fariduddin Ganj Shakar of Pakpattan advised his disciples to placate one's enemies. He once told a vistor: "Do not give me a knife; give me a needle. The knife is an instrument for cutting asunder and the needle for sewing together."

Another aspect of sufi teachings was that they stressed God's love rather than His wrath; treated their enemies softly, sympathetically and never abused other systems or creeds. Though greatly instrumental in bringing back Ismailis of Sindh and Punjab into the fold of Sunni Islam, they always praised the services of Ismaili missionaries who preceded them. Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia had commended the work of the well-known Ismaili missionary Nur Turk although he was responsible for the rising against early Turkish Sultans in Delhi.

The sufis were so kind and considerate towards people of all cultures and creeds that they exercised profound influence on Hindu society. It was because of the sympathy and understanding shown by them to the Hindus, particularly of the lower strata, that in the 14th and 15th centuries AD the religious leadership of Bhakti movement rose from the lower sections. Never before in the long history of Hinduism, religious leaders had sprung from that strata of society to which Chaitanya, Kabir, Nanak, Dhannu, Dadu and others belonged. And what is more significant, there was hardly any leader of Bhakti school who had not passed some of his time in khankha.

Thus, khanqhas (hospices) not only brought non-Muslims and Muslims together but they also narrowed the gulf that divided the Muslims of foreign origin and local converts. If the sufis had not played this vital role of far reaching importance there would have hardly been a common meeting ground between some of the ruling classes obsessed with a superiority complex, and the ruled who comprised both non-Muslims and newly converts. Without sufis, most Muslim rulers of the early period would have remained isolated, lacking a broad base, always in danger of extinction.

As against the stiff, nonchalanat and contemptuous attitude of some Sultans towards converted Muslims, the sufis gave them a sense of pride and enhanced their social prestige by various means. They usually conferred on them such titles of nobility as Khwaja (also pronounced Khoja), Momin (Memon), Malik, Shaikh, Akhund, Khalifa, etc.

By adopting an attitude of river-like generosity, sun-like affection and earth-like hospitality, the sufis struck at the very roots of casteism and religious exclusiveness and paved the way for large-scale conversions to Islam.

Logic

LOGIC

Islam is based on the following foundations in order of importance:- Allah, Quran, Sunna (traditions of the Prophet), Aql (intelligence), Ijma (consensus). Priority is given to the Quran and Sunna because they constitute Guidance made necessary because the human faculties for perception, reason, and motivation were corrupted because of subjective desires, a condition symbolized by the Fall of Man. This article deals with Aql.
According to a Hadith, the first thing created by Allah was Intelligence. Intelligence may be regarded as “adaptability” which is a universal principle but different things contain different amounts of it and it may take different directions in different entities. When we press against something, and it offers resistance and changes its shape and then when pressure is released it regains its shape, this is a primitive form of intelligence. If the pressure is greater than the intelligence then the entity will be altered or destroyed. If the Universe is a Unity in which all things interact, then it is a system. It contains many sub-systems that contain further sub-systems and so on. All these systems must exist in harmony. If an impulse enters a system from its environment (which is a higher system) then that system must re-adjust itself and find another state of equilibrium. This may mean a rearrangement of its subsystems at various levels and may even involve the destruction and arising of other sub-systems. The sub-systems, therefore, exist because they have a function with respect to the System and maintain themselves by adaptation. This adaptability is defined here as Intelligence.
For the purposes of this article the word "Logic" will mean the principles and methods of correct thinking. In this sense it could be regarded as a branch of Ethics if this includes correct thinking, motivation and action. The phrase "Islamic Logic" is used only in the sense that certain ways of thinking are more compatible with Islam while others are not. It does not mean that Islam has a fully detailed system of Logic, though one could be constructed based on the following considerations. The opinions expressed here are mine and are suggestions only. A more detailed treatment of this subject will be found in Book 6 of the "Alternative Way".
Islam recognizes three levels of knowledge:- (1) empirical knowledge obtained by experience through the senses, feelings etc. (2) verbal or rational knowledge obtained through the mental processing (3) direct conscious knowledge obtained through insight, inspiration or revelation – knowledge in the heart which may be called gnosis. These correspond to Ayn-ul-Yaqin (102:7), Ilm-ul-Yaqin (102:5), Haq-ul-Yaqin (69:51).
The first is mostly concerned with the interactions between man and his physical environment and depends on how well his senses work. The second is concerned with communication between human beings and depends on the mental faculties, particularly the intellect. The third is concerned with the interactions between man and Reality, the Cosmos and himself and depends upon the degree of consciousness, receptivity and spiritual purity. There is a degree of inter-dependence between the three. Logic refers to the second, verbal knowledge and consists of rules by which communication can be made accurate and effective. But it is not independent of experiences and ideas of self and its nature.
Islamic Logic differs considerably from Greek or Western Logic. Greek Logic can be regarded as formal, verbal and artificial. By this is meant the fact that it is based, like all Philosophy, on definitions rather than observation, and is regulated by man-made rules of thought rather than nature. This could be attributed to the fact that Greek civilization was based on slaves who did the actual work but were not trained to think, while the masters were remote from reality and indulged in abstract intellectual games. There are today several versions of logic but they do not differ much in this respect. In one version we first have to define terms. Then we take three terms to make a premise, two are related by the third:- e.g. "All men are Mortal". Then we take two premises that have something in common and combine them to form the third, which is the inference: - e.g. "All men are Mortal". "Socrates is a man". Therefore "Socrates is Mortal". We see that "man" is part of "All men" and that since Socrates is a man we need only substitute "Socrates" for "All men" in the first proposition to obtain the third. Nothing exists in the inference that is not already contained in the premises. Thus logic appears to give us certainty, but nothing new.
But suppose we make some research and find somebody who is not mortal. Then we do not call him "man" but something else e.g. a god, otherwise the first premise would be false. Indeed, we cannot know "all men", so the premise is not a fact but has a certain probability. We see that the certainty is obtained only through definition. Thought is based on language and the manipulation of concepts and not on the experience of things. We can by choosing appropriate definitions and selecting appropriate sets of premises reach any conclusion we like. The argument is based on Axioms such as "A is A", "Either A or not-A", "Not both A and not-A". This refers to concepts. We are being told that if we use a concept "A" in an argument then it must always have the same meaning "A", and not something else "not-A". This is clearly an instruction and not a fact. The axioms on which Western Logic is based are not Truths but Values and these are man-made and false. In nature we not only find white and black but also a whole range of greys that are both white and black in various proportions. We also find that light is both corpuscular and wavelike. Therefore, the actual study of light turns out to flout Greek-based logic. We find also that things are known by their characteristics and these change according to the relationship with other things and according to the context or situation they are in.
From the Islamic point of view truth is the Word of Allah, and knowledge is something which cannot be created, but must be discovered or revealed and this requires a receptive mind. Correct thinking is not possible without (a) correct motives, and this means the love of truth or of Allah, (b) the capacity for perception including the fantasies, prejudices, addictions, idolatries, habits, rationalisations and other distorting mechanisms which operate within the mind, (c) the ability and will to control the mind. (d) All this requires the cultivation of a strong inner centre of stability and integration from which all this can take place.
Perception is controlled by certain inherent principles that govern the structure of thought. These have been called Categories and the world we see may be regarded as having been constructed by them. In Western Logic they are things like Quantity (unity, plurality, totality), Quality (affirmation, negation, limitation), Relation (causation, interaction, substance), Modality (necessity, possibility, existence). Note that here too, we have two opposites which combine to form the third. This led the Philosopher Hegel to describe all reality by the notions of Thesis, Anti-thesis, and Synthesis. This idea was taken up by Communism. But whereas the system of Hegel is called Dialectical Idealism because an idea creates a physical state which then leads to a synthesis in society, the Communist one is called Dialectical Materialism because here it is a physical state which creates the idea and leads to the synthesis in society. These two obviously form thesis/antithesis and ought to have led to a synthesis. In fact, however, both failed to understand that the pair of opposites are always present in all phenomena and are always producing the third.
From the Islamic point of view the real Categories of Thought should be the Attributes of Allah because it is these that also govern the rest of Creation - they were created by the Word of Allah. We are capable of knowing and understanding the world because the same principles that formed it also formed our minds, and we develop by association and interaction with it.
"And when thy Lord said unto the angels: I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth, they said: Wilt Thou place therein one who will do evil therein and shed blood? we celebrate Thy praise and hallow Thee." Said (the Lord): I know what ye know not. And He taught Adam the Names, all of them." 2:30-31
One of the central concepts in Islam is Unity. Allah is Unity and bestows unity on things. It is the main attribute of Allah that is manifest in the Universe. The implication is that all things are unities composed of unities, and belonging as parts to a higher unity. They are systems in which the whole is something more than the sum of the parts owing to the pattern or order. The parts have a function with respect to the system to which they belong and it is this that gives them meaning. The notion of “fact” refers to the part and the notion of “value” refers to the whole. Thus “meaning” arises by imposing values of facts, and facts by themselves are meaningless and valueless. The whole purpose of the search for knowledge is to progressively synthesize the facts and reach an ultimate Unity. Knowledge becomes like a pyramid.
We have three approaches: we can proceed from the parts to the wholes moving up the pyramid; we move down the pyramid from the top; we look at all the connections. The first gives us inductive reasoning, the second deduction reasoning and the third gives us Associative or relational reasoning. As shown above, from a premise “This A is B” we cannot jump to the conclusion that “All As are Bs”. We have to examine all cases of A. We cannot be sure that we know all cases of A unless we define A in a restricted sense. We can define it in terms of B or make a rule that will exclude other things. For instance, we can admit only a certain number of people into an organization called X-org, then what we say about one member will apply to all. But it may still not apply to all of them collectively. The whole has interactions between the parts and an organization that affects the parts, which cannot be discerned in the parts individually. But is also possible to make the assumption that something is true about the whole, and then to make deductions from it. If these deductions can be verified by observation then the assumption must be regarded as true. The greater the number of these deductions which are verified the more certain is the assumption. But it cannot be absolutely certain. The fact that the sun has risen everyday for centuries appears to make it certain that it will rise tomorrow. The greater the number of times it rises the greater the certainty. But the case may be the reverse. We could be getting closer to a time when it will explode and destroy the earth. In fact, we need more knowledge of the nature of things and the processes they undergo. It is necessary to understand the relationship between things.
But even if something contradicts the hypothesis or theory we need not discard it. What we can do is to find an explanation why it does not fit. We create another theory that takes these other facts into consideration. The theory of Gravity for instance requires that all things should fall to the earth. But this is contradicted by the fact that birds fly. So we have another theory why they can fly. We could perhaps have constructed a different theory that included the flying of birds. The point to be noted is that these theories are explanatory devices that allow us to manipulate things. They are not truths.

Things can be described best by their relationships and functions with respect to the system to which they belong and ultimately with respect to Allah. If we have a system "A" composed of several sub-systems, "B", each of which is composed of further sub-systems "C", then if we describe "B" by means of certain concepts "Bc", it is not possible to describe the System "A" or the system "C" wholly by means of "Bc". We need concepts that are particular to the system under consideration. Thus Physics has concepts other than mathematics, Chemistry has concepts other than Physics, Biology has concepts other than Chemistry, and so on with Psychology, and Sociology and we may regard Theology as the end of this series.
It will be necessary also, in order to understand any system, that we take them in sets of three. That is, we can understand the system B, say a human being, if we also take into consideration system A and C, in this case the society he is part of and the organs he is composed of.
If we consider a whole X, then in order to study it we will have to analyze it into a minimum of three aspects or parts which must be related to each other and understood relative to each other, otherwise we "kill" the object - the sum of the parts is not the object. We have two relata, A and C and a relating factor, B. This is the mystic number 3 which stands for relationships. But these can be combined in several ways according to which dominates, is passive or catalytic. We have an Octave: -
X1, ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA, X3.
Here X3 is a reflection of X1 and the 6 middle terms can be regarded as together forming X2, thus giving us another triad. If we exclude X1, the origin, we have 7 stages which gives us the mystic number standing for structure e.g. the 7 heavens or the 7 colours of the rainbow which are formed from the 3 primary colours. The sequence from X1 to X3 can be regarded as involution and the reverse, X3 to X1 can be regarded as evolution.

If we accept the principle of Tawhid (Unity), then rational thinking should take the following form:-
There is a fundamental Unity. We will denote this by "X".
If we wish to start thinking about experience, the first thing we have to do is to isolate some item, "A", the subject, about which thinking is done. But if we accept Tawhid, then by the act of isolation we have created an artificial world, an illusion. We must, therefore, negate this isolation by finding a relating factor, "B". The meaning of the terms "A" and "B" are relative to each other and to "X"
We now have a triad A-B-X. We can call this type of thinking Transcendental Thinking.
Its verbal form is:- An item "A" has a relationship, "B" with Life, Experience or Reality in general "X."
Not many people think consciously in this way, that is, in terms of the totality of experience, though it is probably carried out in the unconscious mind. For most people it is necessary to isolate another item, "C" to which "A" is to be related. The picture is built up by relating "A" to items "C1", "C2", "C3", ..... etc. The meaning of the terms "A", "B" and "C" are relative to each other.
The triad A - B - C represents Atomic Thinking. It is verbalized in the form:- An item, "A" has a relationship, "B", to an item, "C".
It is obvious, however, that by means of another isolation we have again created an artificial or illusory world. The item, "C" is a substitute for "X" and is itself related to it by some other factor. It is also clear that the relationship A-B-C is a snap shot at a particular time and situation. At some other time there may well be a change in the relationship, "B", or an item to which it is related by "B". If we wish to think in more than in an "atomic" fashion, that is, about events in a greater context and in a more generalized fashion, then we need a factor, "D", the conditions in which the relationship takes place. The factor "D" should represent the context in which the relationship exists, that is, the wholeness of experience, "X", including the observer and his actions. It negates the isolation of "C". The meaning of the terms is relative to "D".
We now have A - B - C - D. This is Formal Thinking. Its verbalized form is:- An item, "A" has a relationship, "B", to an item, "C" under a set of conditions "D".
Generally speaking the factor, "D" is ignored because it is assumed by the people in conversation that they are speaking about the same conditions or field. This, unfortunately, is often a mistake. Scientists tend to think that if they can find a relationship C between two factors A and B under condition D1, say in a laboratory, then this relationship will be true under condition D2, D3, D4 etc. in nature. This is false and causes them to make ridiculous statements. In fact, they will have to establish a relationship E, between D1 and D2 and a relationship F, between C1 and C2 and the relationship G between E and F.

Several consequences follow from this way of thinking.
1. If "A" is related to "C" then "C" is related to "A", but the relationship "Ba" (i.e. "B" to "A") and "Bc" (i.e. "B" to "C") is not the same. However, there will be a relationship between "Ba" and "Bc". This may be given by:- Ba - Bb - Bc.
2. The factors "A", "B", "C" and "D" are themselves wholes that can be further analyzed in the same way.
3. If the individual wishes to be objective, he will separate himself from the whole and then describe his relationship with it. Thus "A" represents the person, and he has the relationship, "B" with "X". This is formulated as " Man has the relationship of Vicegerent to Allah.". A two way relationship is implied from "A" to "X" and from "X" to "A", so that "Ba" and "Bx" are also related. This relationship is unfortunately overlooked and renders thinking unrealistic. It makes the difference between Islamic and non-islamic thinking.
4. If the individual wishes to study something, he will also have to isolate an object of attention. Thus, "A", "B", "C" and "D" represent the Observer, the Observation, the Object observed, and the Conditions under which this relationship is set up. It might be a Laboratory, an Office, a Field, a Factory, a Conference,
5. It is possible to place the emphasis of thought on any one of the above factors. But it should not be forgotten that each factor has meaning only with respect to the others.
6. Another thing we must do, if we are to think correctly, is to distinguish between the True, the Good, the Useful, the Beautiful, and the Unitary,
It is necessary to know whether the intention behind a statement relates to one of these values. Truth relates to the consistency with experience; the Good refers to the function of a thing with respect to the whole of which it is a part; Usefulness refers to the part and means appropriateness in fulfilling a purpose; Beauty implies harmony between the observer, observation and the thing observed. A statement of fact is not the same as a statement of values. Nor is an opinion about something the same as knowledge about it. When someone says that "A has a relationship, B, to C," he may not be talking about what he knows but rather about what he wishes. We may then argue about whether that wish is good or not, or how much good or bad there is in it. The statement may imply an instruction either to oneself or others. In that case we may argue about how useful it is, and for what purpose. A scientific statement is often an instruction. It implies that it is useful to think in such and such a way. The same is true of religious statements. But we have to establish in either case what purpose it is useful for. The same statement may have several aspects. A mathematical formula, for instance, is also constructed to be symmetrical or elegant. A statement may be constructed in a Unitary manner to include all these aspects. If we are speaking about knowledge in the real sense, that is, as that which enables us to live and develop then the four values are one and the same thing.
7. Since we regard "A" in isolation as being an illusion, we discard the fundamental axioms of Greek and Western Logic, namely that (a) " A is A", (b)"Either A or not-A", (c) "Not both A and not-A".
The Axiom of Identity, "A is A" can be stated in our terminology thus: - "A" has the relationship of identity with "A".
To discard it is to say, for instance, that we cannot make the following statements: - "Light (understood as a wave-form) is always light (understood as a wave-form)". "Light is corpuscular in nature. It cannot be both corpuscular and not corpuscular (i.e. a wave-form)." "It must be either corpuscular or not corpuscular". What we can say is that:- "Light appears corpuscular under such conditions, and Light appears wave like under such other conditions".

In Islam, Aql is the general name for intelligence. Reasoning is a more precise application of it. It is regarded as being based on comparisons. It is, therefore Analogical in nature. It is known as Qiyas, "measuring", that is, one thing by another. The justification for this is as follows:-
The human mind works by comparing things, isolating the similarities and differences. When different things are compared we again find some similarities and other differences. And as we continue to do this we not only analyze but also synthesize. Similarities allow us to construct concepts and classes. When we see differences we try to find links between them. We compare things more accurately by measuring which consists of using the same unit a number of times. This, too, is analogical in nature. This unit need not be a single dimension such as length or duration, but may be a pattern. Differences and similarities may lie at different levels. For instance, the ratio 2/3 is the same as the ratio 6/9 or 12/18, but the numbers are certainly all different. Again in the series 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 etc. the difference is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc., but the differences in this last series is exactly the same, i.e. 1. Not just numbers but also qualities and types of order can be arranged in such a series. These classes and concepts, in turn, belong to still higher classes and concepts, and so on until we have something including everything. Therefore, all things are similar in some respects and different in other respects. Everything arises by differentiation from a single original unity. The series not only links things together but can be extended indefinitely. The purpose of this kind of conceptualization, ordering and series making is to give us understanding rather than mere information. The numbers or objects in isolation or without order give us no understanding. But it is not possible to describe the whole of something by means of the parameters that distinguish the parts. Thus Allah remains indescribable, but
"He it is who begins the process of creation, then repeats it; for Him it is easy. He is the Sublime Similitude in the heavens and earth, for He is the Mighty, the Wise" 30:27
The implication is that there is an archetypal or universal pattern that is repeated as we go down the levels of creation. The phrase "As above so below" is well known and descends from very ancient times.
Analogical thinking also requires research. It consists of the following principles:-
(a) A thing has different aspects according to its various relationships.
(b) The same thing can be used as an analogy to describe an aspect of many other things, but not their whole nature.
(c) Several different things can be used as analogies to describe a single thing (objects, processes, relations, characteristics etc.) because of its different aspects.
(d) There will be some kind of relationship, direct or indirect, between all things, so that anything can be used as an analogy for anything else to various extents.
(e) A process or pattern at a lower level may be used as an analogy for one at a higher level, or vice versa.
(f) It is possible to understand what is normally outside our experience by the use of similitudes or analogies from things within experience.
Scientific thinking is basically analogical. But it is more certain than pure reason because it tests the conclusion by observation or experiment (which is also observation). First, the multiplicity of things in the world must be reduced and made manageable by putting them into classes. A class consists of numerous objects that have something basic in common, but they are also different from one another. In order to study something a class of objects O must be selected, say cats. One of these, O1, is examined and it is found that it has characteristics C1, C2, C3 etc. It is postulated that all the objects in class O may have these characteristics. That is “ C1, C2 etc. are associated with O1, O2, O3 etc.”. But this is not certain, except if C1 is part of the definition of O. We have to test this. Other objects in the class O2, O3 etc. must also be studied. The greater the number of times the same characteristics are discovered the greater the probability that the statement “C1 is associated with O” is true. But it might be falsified by a single case where C1 is not found. We need not, however, discard the hypothesis altogether. (a) We could redefine O. (b) Or we could say that “C1, C2, C3...Cn are associated with O, each to a different degree of probability.” In this way O is defined not rigidly but flexibly. It has a range of possible characteristics. (c) Another thing we can do is to find some kind of rule which determines the variation in O. That is, the Class O could be arranged in sub-classes O1, O2, O3 etc. In a series according to some rule R. E.g. cats into lions, tigers, leopards etc. etc. The rule itself may change according to some rule giving rise to sub-classes R1, R2, R3 etc.
Application of Qiyas in Islam can be illustrated as follows:-
Consider the following verse:-
"They will ask thee about khamr (fermented liquids) and elmaisar (getting something too easily, i.e. gambling, usury etc.), say, "In them both is great sin and some benefit to men; but the sin of both is greater than the benefit of the same........" 2:219
(1) Here we are given general terms which refer to classes of things which consist of any number of things, having something in common. That which applies to one member of a class applies to the others. It is a question of comparison.
(2) The verse tells us why these classes are forbidden:- because though there is both harm and benefit in them, the harm is greater. So it is a question of measuring each.
When the quantity of harm is greater than the quantity of benefit, then subtracting one from the other leaves us with a balance of harm. When benefit outweighs the harm, then the balance is beneficial. If we come across an item A1 that has less harm in it than benefit then it should not be forbidden.
This does not merely apply to the classes mentioned above but to all other things that might be allowed or disallowed. It is, for instance, also allowed to steal when driven by necessity, though it is an evil. Killing, which is an evil, is allowed in self-defense and war or for the sake of justice because not allowing it will cause more harm. Punishment of any kind inflicts pain, which is bad, but is permitted when the good it does outweighs the evil. However, it may be possible to do something which has greater benefits or less harm, then not to do so would be evil.
(3) It is all a question of assessment within a context. This can be better done if
(a) There is scientific research that can determine the facts.
(b) There is a method for utilizing the information - i.e. assessing, evaluating, constructing policies, applying the findings, distributing the information, and controlling things. There may not be adequate ways of determining whether someone is doing more good or evil or of ensuring that it is done.
(c) That there is a value system which defines what good and evil are. In Islam this is judged by whether it leads to spiritual growth or atrophication, to nearness or remoteness to Allah according to:-
"And the soul and Who fashioned it, and enlightened it with what is wrong and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies it)! . And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it! " 91:7-10

Western Logic can probably be criticized as follows:-
1. Western logic depends on classification on the basis of certain common characteristics. If something is true about one object in the class with respect to these characteristics then it is regarded as true about all the other objects in that class. This ignores their differences as well as the fact that all the characteristics of the object may be interlinked. It is not always possible to isolate the class characteristics. The object under consideration is not a real object. It is created by the definitions that describe it.
2. A great number of relationships can be found between two terms other than class inclusion. One may be greater than another, prior to another, more important in some way than the other. They may have cause effect relationships; one may be the opposite of the other; the variation in one may cause variation in another. The connection between them may be given to the senses, or be due to the way the terms are defined, or due to the way consciousness organizes them. We can, therefore, speak separately about relationship in general. Nowadays it is usual to use the word " implies" to refer to all these relationships. i.e A implies B.
3. Logical arguments can be called linear because only the connection between two terms is being considered. The whole of nature is being described by combinations of such units. Nature, however, shows variations and patterns and multiple relationships. This requires more than two terms. Supposing we have a relationship, "X" between "A" and "B", and another different relationship, "Y" between "B" and "C", then the relationship between "X" and "Y" will create a non-linear relationship between "A", "B" and "C". This will produce quite a different description of nature. We could multiply the number of terms, to add ever more complexity. We could also describe things at different levels examining the relationship between relationships and the relationships between these, and so on. But this complexity could always be reduced to such triads.
4. Thinking usually takes place in three stages. We gather sense data, then we interpret it by association with other memories, and then we organize it into patterns. We make models of the landscape. The interpretation itself has three aspects, a motor, an emotional and an intellectual. That is, the data is associated with actions, with feelings, motives and interests, and with other sense data. A deliberate critical look at each of these stages is required. The isolation of merely the intellectual content is unrealistic and perverts knowledge.
5. It is falsely assumed that it is possible for a verbal proposition to correspond exactly to an objective condition or even to an experience of an objective condition. Nor is it true that any proposition we make excludes subjective factors. The act and procedures of observation may have effects on the result of observation.
Many propositions can be made which are neither true nor false, but may be instructions or proposals or merely statements about how things appear to be or work rather than are. There is no point in excluding these from logic since they also give us information. A proposition need not be ether true or false but can have different combinations of each in between. Propositions can be true under certain conditions and for some people according to how they understand them and false under other conditions and for other people. A proposition does not have to mean the same thing or be true when conditions or contexts change. The truth of something depends on whether it fits in a consistent manner into the wholeness of a person's experiences. It is objective in this sense, but since this depends on the person, truth is a subjective experience. Nothing is true for a person who has not understood and integrated it. It is important to note that though this resembles the rational or scientific attitude of skepticism there is a big difference. The scientist tells us "Do not believe anything you have not observed or tested yourself" . Hence doubt is regarded as a virtue. Apart from the fact that he speaks only about sensory perception rather than experiences of all kinds, observations and experiences can be wrong. Beliefs based on these do not have a value. Doubt does not produce knowledge but only uncertainty, which is no basis for life. Nor does it produce any change in the individual himself. Isolated bits of observation merely lead to the disintegration of the mind. The Islamic view is that the data must be assimilated to produce an inner unity.
6. Western Logic assumes that the words or concepts are the truth whereas these stand for certain experiences and these experiences themselves stand for some reality about which we have experiences. The confusion between these things lead to several problems as indicated above. One of them is that we can, by defining terms suitably and choosing appropriate premises, prove anything we like. The purpose of this capacity should be action and technology not knowledge. We can avoid all these problems by defining terms tentatively, and leaving it to observation to establish the connection. We avoid both the rigidity of a generalization and the unreal abstraction of the formal concept. We have to transfer our awareness of what the words stand for from purely physical structures and shapes to patterns of behaviour and relationship. And we will have to have a social agreement that what our senses provide is not itself the truth but signs of it. The truth of something refers to it's relationships with everything else and this we do not know. We are seldom aware of the relationship that something has with even the totality of our limited experiences. In so far as there is no agreement on the context in which things are seen people mean quite different things when they assert that something is true or false.
7. When a Unit is analyzed into two parts or aspects, the basic form of analysis, then the product of the analysis cannot be the same as the original since the original did not have parts. Two half planks of wood cannot be used for the same purpose as a whole one. The same applies when we put things together to make something else. We must, therefore, always add a third factor which accounts for the unity, some reconciling factor.

Some people brought up on Greek/Western logic have found the ideas in this article difficult to understand. The following may help to clarify:-
(1) Correct thinking is defined here as thoughts that correspond to experiences when they correspond to reality. It is not defined as conformity to man-made rules. (2) The Axioms on which Western/Greek logic is based are not truths, but instructions on how words should be employed and, therefore, on how verbal thinking should be done. (3) The concepts used in an argument depend on the whole conceptual system a person employs and this depends on his education and provides certain presuppositions. (4) It is untrue that logic has nothing to do with motives and values. The definition of words, the selection of premises and the direction of an argument require motives and these are driven by values. (5) The actions and interactions of a person with his physical and social environment provides the experiences and these vary between people in kind, quality, amount, intensity and personal significance. (6) A person selects certain features of his experiences for attention according to his interests and the search, selection, organization and processing of this data also depends on interest, assumptions and actions, and these are usually sub-conscious. (7) This is affected by immediate stimuli coming from the surroundings or from within, impulses, habits, fixations, association of ideas in past experiences or accidental resemblance, expectancy, desires, the need to create symmetries and fill in gaps and so on.