Beared in Islam

Growing beard and adopting appearance resembling Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) shows the extreme love and reverence of a Muslim to the Sunnah. Beared is considered as religious identity by many Muslims. However the history reveals that beared keeping is not restricted to Muslims only. Presently the people wear some specific symbols to display their religious identity. 

Religious Symbols: 
A religious symbol is an iconic representation intended to represent a specific religion, or a specific concept within a given religion. The Christian cross has traditionally been a symbol representing Christianity or Christendom as a whole. Presently religious symbols  include; Star of David for Jews. Crescent and star for Islam, Om for Hinduism. In appearance and dress Sikhs are prominent with long untrimmed beard and turban.

Orthodox jews with long beard, skull cap or black hat, religious Muslims with beard and cap, Muslim women with Hijab. The dress is either according to local culture or Western, some religious person wear religious symbols like jewelry to display their religious identity.  The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public primary and secondary schools. The law does not mention any particular symbol, and thus bans all Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs.

Beard- Short History:
Throughout the course of history, societal attitudes toward male beards have varied widely depending on factors such as prevailing cultural-religious traditions and the current era's fashion trends. Islam and Sikhism have considered a full beard to be absolutely essential for all males able to grow one, and mandate it as part of their official dogma. Other cultures, even while not officially mandating it, view a beard as central to a man's virility, exemplifying such virtues as wisdom, strength, sexual prowess and high social status.

Greeks:
The ancient Greeks regarded the beard as a badge or sign of virility (manhood); in the Homeric epics it had almost sanctified significance, so that a common form of entreaty was to touch the beard of the person addressed. In the time of Alexander the Great the custom of smooth shaving was introduced. Reportedly, Alexander ordered his soldiers to be clean-shaven, fearing that their beards would serve as handles for their enemies to grab and to hold the soldier as he was killed.

In the Middle-Age Europe, a beard displayed a knight's virility and honour. The Castilian knight El Cid is described in The Lay of the Cid as "the one with the flowery beard". Holding somebody else's beard was a serious offence that had to be righted in a duel. While most noblemen and knights were bearded, the Catholic clergy were generally required to be clean-shaven. This was understood as a symbol of their celibacy (is the state of voluntarily being unmarried, sexually abstinent, or both, usually for religious reasons).

In the time of Alexander the Great the custom of smooth shaving was introduced.. Reportedly, Alexander ordered his soldiers to be clean-shaven, fearing that their beards would serve as handles for their enemies to grab and to hold the soldier as he was killed.

In Greek mythology and art, Zeus and Poseidon are always portrayed with beards, but Apollo never is. A bearded Hermes was replaced with the more familiar beardless youth in the 5th century BC. Zoroaster, the 11th/10th century BC era founder of Zoroastrianism is almost always depicted with a beard. In Norse mythology, Thor the god of thunder is portrayed wearing a red beard.

The "Philosopher's beard":

In Greco-Roman antiquity the beard was "seen as the defining characteristic of the philosopher; philosophers had to have beards, and anyone with a beard was assumed to be a philosopher." While one may be tempted to think that Socrates and Plato sported "philosopher's beards", such is not the case. Shaving was not widespread in Athens during fifth & fourth-century BCE and so they would not be distinguished from the general populace for having a beard. The popularity of shaving did not rise in the region until the example of Alexander the Great near the end of the fourth century BCE.

Egypt:
The highest ranking Ancient Egyptians grew hair on their chins which was often dyed or hennaed (reddish brown) and sometimes plaited with interwoven gold thread.

China:

Confucius held that the human body was a gift from one's parents to which no alterations should be made. Aside from abstaining from body modifications such as tattoos, Confucians were also discouraged from cutting their hair, fingernails or beards. To what extent people could actually comply with this ideal depended on their profession; farmers or soldiers could probably not grow long beards as it would have interfered with their work.

India:
In ancient India, the beard was allowed to grow long, a symbol of dignity and of wisdom (cf. sadhu). The nations in the east generally treated their beards with great care and veneration, and the punishment for licentiousness and adultery was to have the beard of the offending parties publicly cut off. They had such a sacred regard for the preservation of their beards that a man might pledge it for the payment of a debt.

Hinduism: The ancient text followed regarding beards depends on the Deva and other teachings, varying according to whom the devotee worships or follows. Many Sadhus, Yogis, or Yoga practitioners keep beards, and represent all situations of life. Shaivite ascetics generally have beards, as they are not permitted to own anything, which would include a razor. The beard is also a sign of a nomadic and ascetic lifestyle. Vaishnava men, typically of the ISKCON sect, are often clean-shaven as a sign of cleanliness.

Jews:
The Bible states in Leviticus 19:27 that "You shall not round off the corners of your heads nor mar the corners of your beard." Talmudic tradition explains this to mean that a man may not shave his beard with a razor with a single blade, since the cutting action of the blade against the skin "mars" the beard.

Traditional Jews refrain from shaving, trimming the beard, and haircuts during certain times of the year like Passover, Sukkot, the Counting of the Omer and the Three Weeks. Cutting the hair is also restricted during the 30-day mourning period after the death of a close relative, known in Hebrew as the Shloshim (thirty).

Christianity:
Iconography and art dating from the 4th century onward almost always portray Jesus with a beard. In paintings and statues most of the Old Testament Biblical characters such as Moses and Abraham and Jesus' New Testament disciples such as St Peter appear with beards, as does John the Baptist. However, Western European art generally depicts John the Apostle as clean-shaven, to emphasize his relative youth. Eight of the figures portrayed in the painting entitled The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci are bearded.

In Eastern Christianity, members of the priesthood and monastics often wear beards, and religious authorities at times have recommended or required beards for all male believers.

At various times in its history and depending on various circumstances, the Catholic Church in the West permitted or prohibited facial hair (barbae nutritio – literally meaning "nourishing a beard") for clergy.  A decree of the beginning of the 6th century in either Carthage or the south of Gaul forbade clerics to let their hair and beards grow freely. The phrase "nourishing a beard" was interpreted in different ways, either as imposing a clean-shaven face or only excluding a too-lengthy beard. In relatively modern times, the first pope to wear a beard was Pope Julius II, who in 1511–12 did so for a while as a sign of mourning for the loss of the city of Bologna.

Pope Clement VI let his beard grow at the time of the sack of Rome (1527) and kept it. All his successors did so until the death in 1700 of Pope Innocent XII. Since then, no pope has worn a beard. Most Latin-rite clergy are now clean-shaven, but Capuchins and some others are bearded. Present canon law is silent on the matter.
Although most Protestant Christians regard the beard as a matter of choice, some have taken the lead in fashion by openly encouraging its growth as "a habit most natural, scriptural, manly, and beneficial" (C. H. Spurgeon). Some Messianic Jews also wear beards to show their observance of the Old Testament.

Middle ages:
In the Middle-Age Europe, a beard displayed a knight's virility and honour. The Castilian knight El Cid is described in The Lay of the Cid as "the one with the flowery beard".

Holding somebody else's beard was a serious offence that had to be righted in a duel. While most noblemen and knights were bearded, the Catholic clergy were generally required to be clean-shaven. This was understood as a symbol of their celibacy.

Islam:
Presently we find majority of Muslims not growing beard and their appearance is not different form the non Muslims. if we go back  to the era of Makkah 1400 years ago, dress, appearance of Muslims and non Muslims was same. Growing a beard was considered normal and natural for a man at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saws), whether he was a believer or not. Even the enemies of Islam like Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab had beards!

And because every man naturally grew a beard, it was not necessary for the Prophet (saws) to give an explicit command exhorting the believers to grow a beard. there is no direct commandment in Quran for beard keeping. The specific saying of the Prophet (saws) regarding the keeping of beards arose when he saw that the pagans used to grow both their beards and their mustaches long; thus he (saws) said to the believers: Ibn `Umar related that the Messenger of Allah (saws) said: "Differ from the polytheists: let your beards (grow), and shave your moustache."Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim. [Note Muslims were not yet large in numbers as today] 

It was only a couple of centuries ago, when the Western culture and ideology became dominant over the world and Muslim lands, that it became a fashion to be clean shaven.

And as with any dominant culture, people are always ready to adopt its actions, whether they are of virtue, or of vice! But Islam has its own culture, and growing a beard is part of the Islamic culture and Sunnah.

The majority of Muslims have abandoned the practice of keeping beard, they could be categorized as follows:

1. Consider keeping beared as obligatory [Fardh, Wajib]. while some keep beared, the others don't but remaining guilty of sin.
2. Don't consider as obligatory, but optional. They think that the Prophet's commandment was related to the period of his time due to peculiar circumstance. In present ere it is does not remain symbol of Muslims, non Muslims like Sikhs keep it as religious obligation and many more as either religious obligation or just as a fashion.

Presently we see the society under decay, there  are many Muslims just by name, majority does not offer obligatory prayers 5 times a day, just once on Juma or once a year on Eid is considered ok. Cheating, lying, taking bribes, corruption,  indulging in immoral practices, sins, adultery (Zina), drinking ... almost every evil is now considered as normal.
"We have bestowed the Book on those of Our servants whom We have chosen. Some wrong their own souls, some keep half-way [between right and wrong]; some, by God's leave, excel others in good deeds. This is a great bounty of God: (Quran;35:32)

Under these circumstances if we start emphasising  the "appearance" ask the Muslims to first grow their beards and hope they will become good Muslims consequently, may be too simplistic approach.

The evil practices have gone to such an extent that we find many people using Sunnah to deceive the people. They look very religious but indulge in bad practices, cheating, fraud etc. Even the religious political leaders are found to be getting illegal gratifications, undue favours form the rulers to vote in their favour to pass a law or constitutional amendment.

The biggest issue today is the weakening of Faith AYMAN. If a Muslim truly believes in the accountability on Day of Judgment, will he indulge in anti Islamic, immoral practices?

It was rightly said that Islam focuses on Person, Individual. If individual is reformed the society will be reformed. The individual be reformed form easy to difficult, step by step. Not form difficult to easy. A person who becomes strong in FAITH, EYMAN,  will gradually start offering Salah, will start changing his appearance and finally becomes a good Muslim in Faith, in practice and in appearance. It could be slow process. Even if he does not adopt traditional Muslim appearance (due to any reason)  but offers Salah, is morally sound,  honest possessing all traits of good Muslims, we should not ridicule him. We should respect him and pray for him.

Conclusion:
We know many people around us who are regular in prayer in congregation since decades, have been good all along but did not have beared, now they have grown beard. Some say "Beared is in Islam, BUT slam in not in beard". [Many people grow beard but they are not Muslims].
But if a believer does not want to sport a beard for whatever reason, the other believers should not make an issue out of it. What is important in Islam and in the sight of Allah is that one truly believes and does good righteous deeds. And when that happens, it is expected that the beard, appearance  will follow soon after!
[Allah Knows Best]

Links/References: 
http://aftabkhan.blog.com
http://islam4humanite.blogspot.com
http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/6074
http://www.bestrightway.com/2014/04/excellent-answer-about-beard-in-urdu.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_symbol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Related:

Genesis of Terror & Road to Peace

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Time-Space Metaphysics: Was Einstein wrong?

 “We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth” [Quran; 41:53]

Read more >> Just One God >>  Universe,Science, God >>> Scientific Facts in Qur’an .

Last week's announcement of the direct detection of gravitational waves proved, once again, the enduring power of Albert Einstein's scientific vision. Once again, Einstein was right in that this theory accurately predicted the behavior of the world.

But with last week's triumph, a deep and fascinating question arises: Could Einstein be right about his science and still be wrong about the broader context into which we humans put that science?

Let me explain.

There are a lot of reasons thinking about physics is worth the effort. From GPS to 3-D printers, it's a subject yielding a lot of cool technology. And from flushing toilets to rising clouds, physics also explains a lot about the world around us.

But there's another reason people love physics — the world we can't see. Physics offers radical new perspectives on what lies beneath, behind and below our everyday experience. In this way, physics seems like more than just knowledge; it seems like truth with a capital T.

But when science reaches the hairy edges of our experience, when it reaches outward to the boundaries of our abilities to describe the world, is there something else coming along for the ride? Together with the powerful, abstract mathematics and the ingenious instrumentation, is there something beyond "just the facts" requiring special attention when physicists make their grandest claims about the cosmos?

To be exact, is there a philosophy — a "metaphysics" — that goes beyond what the math and the data support? And, if such background metaphysics exist, could it be wrong even if the theory itself is right in terms of experiments and data?

This question is at the heart of a fascinating book I've been reading called The Physicist and the Philosopher by Jimena Canales. It's a story about Albert Einstein (who needs no introduction) and Henri Bergson (who probably does).

The French philosopher Bergson was far more famous than Einstein in the first two decades of the 20th century. The reason most folks these days know Einstein's name but not Bergson's is, for Canales, an important story in itself. It's the story of how science seemed to become the last word on everything, even on a topic as subtle, slippery and difficult to pin down as time.

It all began in 1922, when Einstein and Bergson met in an unplanned but fateful debate. Einstein had been invited to give a presentation in Paris on his theory of relativity. Time was central to Einstein's work. It was, however, also the central issue in Bergson's philosophy. Their conflicting views on the meaning of time set the scholars on collision course.

In the debate, Bergson made it clear he had no problem with the mathematical logic of Einstein's theory or the data that supported it. But for Bergson, relativity was not a theory that addressed time on its most fundamental, philosophical level. Instead, he claimed, it was theory about clocks and their behavior. Bergson called Einstein out for missing the distinction.

In Bergson's philosophy, there was something greater to time than just measurements. Time was so central to human experience that fully unpacking it meant going beyond mere accounts of clocks or of even "psychological" perceptions. Instead, time was intimately connected to the bedrock of what it means to experience the world. It was, in some sense, the essence of human being and hence of being itself. For Bergson, that meant purely scientific accounts could not exhaust time's meaning or importance.

So, on that day in Paris, Bergson was not criticizing Einstein's theory. He was attacking a philosophy that had grown up around the theory — and that was being passed off as part of the science. It was the theory's hidden metaphysics that Bergson challenged. Bergson told Einstein that the only proper way to unpack the full meaning of time, in all its lived richness, was through explicit philosophical investigations.

Einstein, however, was not moved. In response to Bergson's challenges, the physicist lobbed his now famous grenade: "The time of the philosophers does not exist," he told the audience.

So what are the metaphysics of Einstein's theory? As you might imagine, one could fill a library with all the books out there trying to answer that question, but let's look at one powerful example. In relativity, space and time are no longer separate entities. Instead, they're replaced with a four-dimensional whole called space-time. But something very weird happens when you make that move.

The remarkable thing about space-time is that it contains all the events that ever happened. It also includes all the events that ever will happen. So, in this big, 4-D space-time representation of the universe, there's Julius Caesar getting stabbed and the Mets winning the 1969 World Series. But the coffee you are going to spill on your pants at that meeting next Tuesday is there, too. So is that moment when you watch the new president get inaugurated in January 2017. In fact, everything that will ever happen to you — including your death — is strung across space-time as a linked string of already existing events. Physicists call this your world line.

So, is this really how time works? Do all events already exist in this "block universe" of Einstein's relativity? Is everything that will ever happen already trapped in the 4-D chamber of space-time?

This view is sometimes called "chrono-geo-determinism" (the geo part comes because Einstein's theory is really about the geometry of space-time). It's one example of a philosophical theory about the nature of reality that grows out of a related, and validated, scientific theory. It is literally meta-physics and it's exactly the kind of thing Bergson was arguing against.

For Bergson, and others at the time, there was a difference between the mathematical physics/data and the higher-order interpretation — the philosophy — you glued on it. It's in this way that Einstein could be right and wrong at the same time. He is clearly right about the science, but he could be wrong about the interpretation of time attached to that science.

Now, what are we to make of Bergson's claims?

I don't know enough about Bergson's explicit philosophy of time to take a stand one way or another, but I do think his separation between valid scientific theories and the metaphysics that grows around them is worth considering.

The physicist David Mermin once pointed out that we physicists have a way of turning our mathematical equations into "things" existing in the world. We take their success at describing aspects of the world (like the behavior of read-outs in an experiment) to mean the equations are fully interchangeable for real things (often unseen) existing out there independently in the real world.

But for Mermin, the equations are always abstractions. They are immensely powerful and immensely useful stories we tell about the world that capture some essential truth but not all truth.

And in spite of what one may think of Bergson's specific ideas about time as an "elan vital" driving life and evolution forward, there are other philosophical perspectives that take experience to be irreducible.

In particular, the branch of philosophy called phenomenology takes the direct apprehension of the world as its main concern. From phenomenology's perspective, scientific theorizing and investigation must come after the raw fact of our embodied experience. Martin Heidegger, a German phenomenologist, emphasized that the problem of "being" — the problem of understanding the verb "to be" — remained unsolved by science or philosophy. From this perspective, the rush to make science the adjudicator of all questions meant the question of being had been entirely forgotten.

Taken together, these perspectives point to a possibility that I find really deeply intriguing.

This blog is dedicated to science and culture. In the debate between Bergson and Einstein, there is, perhaps, a different way to approach the question about where science fits into the entire fabric of human experience. In particular, it points to what might be a new way of understanding that fabric. In this discussion, we might begin to see a new relationship between our immense capacities for understanding the world through scientific practice, while never forgetting that it's always we who do the understanding.

Being human, being at the center of our own worlds, is an immense and beautiful mystery. The explanations of science are one route to plumb that mystery — but not the only route.

If this is true, then what step do we take next?

Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described "evangelist of science." You can keep up with more of what Adam is thinking on Facebook and Twitter: @adamfrank4
Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/02/16/466109612/was-einstein-wrong

More: The Long Wait For Detection Of Gravitational Waves

گذشتہ ہفتے کششِ ثقل کی لہروں کی براہِ راست دریافت نے ایک بار پھر البرٹ آئن اسٹائن کی سائنسی دور اندیشی کی طاقت کو ثابت کر دیا ہے۔ ایک بار پھر آئن اسٹائن درست ثابت ہوئے، کیونکہ انہوں نے کائنات کے اس مظہر کے بارے میں بالکل درست پیشگوئی کی تھی۔

مگر گذشتہ ہفتے کی کامیابی کے ساتھ ایک گہرا اور حیران کن سوال بھی پیدا ہوتا ہے: کیا ایسا ہوسکتا ہے کہ آئن اسٹائن سائنس کے بارے میں درست ہوں، مگر جس وسیع تر تناظر میں ہم انسان سائنس کو رکھتے ہیں، اس کے بارے میں غلط ہوں؟

میں سمجھاتا ہوں۔

فزکس کے بارے میں سوچنا کئی وجوہات کی وجہ سے اہمیت رکھتا ہے۔ یہ ایسا مضمون ہے جس سے جی پی ایس سے لے کر تھری ڈی پرنٹرز تک زبردست ٹیکنالوجیز جنم لے رہی ہیں، اور ٹوائلٹس فلش کرنے سے بادلوں کے اوپر اٹھنے تک یہ فزکس ہی ہے جو ہمارے اردگرد موجود دنیا کے بارے میں ہمارے سوالات کے بارے میں جوابات دیتی ہے۔

مگر فزکس کو پسند کرنے کے لیے ایک اور وجہ بھی ہے، یعنی وہ دنیا جو ہم نہیں دیکھ سکتے۔ ہمارے روز مرہ کے تجربات کے پسِ پردہ کیا چیزیں کارفرما ہیں، ان پر فزکس ہمیں نئے نکتہ نظر فراہم کرتی ہے۔ اس طرح دیکھیں تو فزکس صرف 'معلومات' نہیں بلکہ 'حقیقت' محسوس ہوتی ہے۔

مگر جب سائنس وہاں تک پہنچ جاتی ہے جس کے بعد ہم دنیا کو اپنے الفاظ میں بیان کرنے کی قابلیت کھو بیٹھتے ہیں، تو وہاں کیا کوئی اور چیز بھی موجود ہے جس سے کام لیا جا سکتا ہے؟ طاقتور مگر مجرد ریاضی اور مہارت سے تیار کیے گئے آلات کے علاوہ کیا 'صرف حقائق' سے آگے بھی کوئی چیز ہے جس کا ماہرینِ فزکس کو کائنات کے بارے میں عظیم الشان دعوے کرتے وقت خیال رکھنا چاہیے؟

واضح طور پر کہیں تو کیا ریاضی اور دستیاب ڈیٹا سے آگے کوئی فلسفہ، کوئی مافوق الطبعیات (میٹا فزکس) موجود ہے؟ اور اگر پس منظر میں کوئی میٹا فزکس موجود ہے، تو کیا ایسا ہوسکتا ہے کہ تھیوری کے تجربات اور ڈیٹا کی صورت میں درست ہونے کی صورت میں بھی یہ میٹا فزکس غلط ہو؟

یہ سوال جِمینا کینالیس کی تحریر کردہ اس حیران کن کتاب دی فزیسسٹ اینڈ دی فلاسفر کا بنیادی سوال ہے جو میں آج کل پڑھ رہا ہوں۔ یہ کہانی ہے البرٹ آئن اسٹائن کی (جنہیں تعارف کی کوئی ضرورت نہیں) اور ہینری برگسن کی (جنہیں شاید تعارف کی ضرورت ہے۔)

بیسویں صدی کی ابتدائی دو دہائیوں میں فرانسیسی فلسفی ہینری برگسن آئن اسٹائن سے کہیں زیادہ مشہور تھے۔ کینالیس کے نزدیک یہ بھی ایک دلچسپ کہانی ہے کہ آج کل لوگ آئن اسٹائن کو برگسن سے زیادہ کیوں جانتے ہیں۔ یہ کہانی اس بارے میں ہے کہ کس طرح سائنس کو دنیا کی ہر چیز پر حرفِ آخر تسلیم کیا جانے لگا، یہاں تک کہ 'وقت' جیسے باریک اور مشکل موضوع پر بھی۔

یہ 1922 میں تب شروع ہوا جب آئن اسٹائن اور برگسن ایک غیر متوقع مگر اہم مباحثے میں ملے۔ آئن اسٹائن کو پیرس میں ان کے نظریہ اضافت (تھیوری آف ریلیٹیویٹی) پر پریزنٹیشن دینے کے لیے بلایا گیا تھا۔ آئن اسٹائن کے کام میں وقت کو کلیدی اہمیت حاصل تھی مگر یہ برگسن کے فلسفے کا بھی کلیدی موضوع تھا۔ 'وقت کیا چیز ہے'، اس پر دونوں کے متضاد نظریوں نے انہیں تصادم کی راہ پر گامزن کر دیا۔

مباحثے میں برگسن نے یہ بات واضح کی کہ انہیں آئن اسٹائن کی تھیوری کی ریاضیاتی منطق پر، یا اس تھیوری کی تصدیق کرنے والے ڈیٹا پر کوئی اعتراض نہیں تھا۔ مگر برگسن کے نزدیک ریلیٹیویٹی ایسی تھیوری نہیں تھی جو وقت کو اس کی بنیادی، فلسفیانہ سطح پر بیان کرے۔ اس کے بجائے ان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ یہ تھیوری گھڑیوں اور ان کے رویے کے بارے میں ہے۔ برگسن نے آئن اسٹائن سے کہا کہ وہ اس باریکی کو نظرانداز کر رہے ہیں۔

برگسن کے فلسفے میں وقت کی اہمیت صرف پیمائش سے کہیں زیادہ ہے۔ ان کے نزدیک وقت انسانی زندگی کا اتنا اہم حصہ ہے کہ اسے سمجھنے کے لیے آپ کو گھڑیوں اور یہاں تک کہ نفسیاتی نقطہ نظر سے بھی آگے بڑھنا ہوگا۔ اس کے بجائے وقت دنیا کو محسوس کرنے سے جڑا ہوا ہے۔ ایک طرح سے دیکھیں تو وقت انسان کا جوہر ہے، اور یوں وجودیت کا جوہر۔ برگسن کے نزدیک اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ صرف سائنس وقت کے مطلب یا اہمیت کو بیان نہیں کر سکتی۔

تو پیرس میں اس دن برگسن آئن اسٹائن کی تھیوری پر تنقید نہیں کر رہے تھے بلکہ اس فلسفے پر تنقید کر رہے تھے جس نے اس تھیوری کے گرد جنم لینا شروع کر دیا تھا، اور جسے سائنس کا حصہ قرار دیا جا رہا تھا۔ یہ اس تھیوری کی پوشیدہ میٹا فزکس تھی جسے برگسن نے چیلنج کیا۔ برگسن نے آئن اسٹائن کو بتایا کہ وقت کے مطلب کو پوری طرح سمجھنے کے لیے یہ ضروری ہے کہ آپ اس کا فلسفے کی مدد سے جائزہ لیں۔

مگر آئن اسٹائن نہیں مانے۔ برگسن کے چیلنجز کے جواب میں مایہ ناز ماہرِ فزکس نے اپنا مشہور جملہ داغا: "فلسفیوں والا وقت وجود نہیں رکھتا۔"

تو آئن اسٹائن کی تھیوری کی میٹا فزکس کیا ہے؟ آپ تصور کر سکتے ہیں کہ اس سوال پر کتابوں کی کتابیں تحریر کی جا سکتی ہیں، مگر ایک مضبوط مثال پر غور کرتے ہیں۔ ریلیٹیویٹی میں زمان اور مکان دو الگ الگ چیزیں نہیں ہیں، بلکہ یہ ایک چار جہتی صورت اختیار کر لیتے ہیں جسے اسپیس ٹائم یعنی زمان مکان کہا جاتا ہے۔ مگر جب آپ ایسا کرتے ہیں، تو کچھ بہت عجیب سا ہوتا ہے۔

اسپیس ٹائم کی اہم بات یہ ہے کہ اس میں وہ تمام واقعات موجود ہیں، جو آج تک ہوئے ہیں۔ اس میں وہ واقعات بھی ہیں جو ہوں گے۔ تو کائنات کی اس بڑی، چار جہتی تصویر میں جولیئس سیزر کو خنجر بھی مارا جا رہا ہے، تو جو کافی آپ اگلے منگل کو اپنے کپڑوں پر گرانے والے ہیں، وہ بھی موجود ہے۔ اور وہ لمحہ بھی موجود ہے جب آپ جنوری 2017 میں امریکا کے نئے صدر کو حلف اٹھاتے ہوئے دیکھیں گے۔ حقیقت میں ہر واقعہ جو آپ کے ساتھ پیش آئے گا، یہاں تک کہ آپ کی موت بھی، ایک تار پر ٹنگے ہوئے کپڑوں کی طرح اسپیس ٹائم میں موجود ہے۔ ماہرینِ فزکس اسے آپ کی ورلڈ لائن کہتے ہیں۔


تو کیا واقعی وقت ایسے ہی کام کرتا ہے؟ کیا تمام واقعات آئن اسٹائن کی ریلیٹیویٹی کے مطابق اس کائنات (block universe) میں موجود ہیں؟ کیا ہر وہ واقعہ جو آپ کے ساتھ پیش آنے والا ہے، اس چار جہتی اسپیس ٹائم میں مقید ہے اور وقت آنے پر وہ واقعہ آپ تک پہنچ جائے گا؟

اس نظریے کو اکثر اوقات "chrono-geo-determinism" کہا جاتا ہے (جیو والا حصہ اس لیے ہے کیونکہ آئن اسٹائن کی تھیوری اسپیس ٹائم کی جیومیٹری کے بارے میں ہے۔) ایک ثابت شدہ سائنسی تھیوری سے جو حقیقت جنم لیتی ہے، اس کی فطرت کے بارے میں فلسفیانہ نظریے کی یہ ایک مثال ہے۔ یہی میٹا فزکس ہے اور یہ وہی چیز ہے جس کے خلاف برگسن نے دلائل پیش کیے تھے۔

برگسن اور اس دور میں موجود دوسرے لوگوں کے نزدیک ریاضیاتی فزکس/ڈیٹا اور بلند درجے کی تشریح، یعنی وہ فلسفہ جس کے تحت آپ وہ چیز سمجھائیں، میں فرق ہے۔ اور اس طرح آئن اسٹائن ایک ہی وقت میں صحیح بھی ہوسکتے ہیں اور غلط بھی۔ وہ سائنس کے بارے میں واضح طور پر درست ہیں، مگر وہ اس سائنس سے جڑی وقت کی تشریح کے متعلق غلط بھی ہوسکتے ہیں۔

تو پھر ہم برگسن کے دعووں سے کیا نتیجہ اخذ کریں؟

میں وقت کے حوالے سے برگسن کے فلسفے پر اتنی معلومات نہیں رکھتا کہ اس کی تائید یا مخالفت کروں، مگر مجھے لگتا ہے کہ درست سائنسی تھیوریز اور ان تھیوریز کے اطراف جو میٹا فزکس جنم لیتی ہے، ان میں علیحدگی کرنے کا برگسن کا خیال قابلِ غور ہے۔

ماہرِ فزکس ڈیوڈ مرمن نے ایک دفعہ کہا تھا کہ ہم ماہرینِ فزکس کے پاس ریاضیاتی فارمولوں کو دنیا میں وجود رکھنے والی حقیقی چیزوں میں بدلنے کا طریقہ موجود ہے۔ ہم دنیا میں ہونے والے واقعات سمجھانے میں ان کی کامیابی سے یہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ یہ فارمولے ان حقیقی چیزوں (اکثر اوقات نادیدہ) کا متبادل ہوسکتے ہیں جو دنیا میں موجود ہیں مگر نظر نہیں آتیں۔

مگر مرمن کے نزدیک فارمولے ہمیشہ ایک تجریدی حیثیت رکھتے ہیں۔ یہ انتہائی طاقتور اور انتہائی کارآمد کہانیاں ہوتی ہیں جو کچھ حقیقت کا احاطہ تو کرتی ہیں، مگر مکمل حقیقت کا نہیں۔

فلسفے کی شاخ جسے مظہریات (فینومینولوجی) کہا جاتا ہے، دنیا کی براہِ راست سمجھ پر زور دیتی ہے۔ مظہریات کے نظریے سے دیکھیں، تو سائنسی تھیوریاں اور تحقیق کسی چیز کا تجربہ کر لینے کے بعد ہونی چاہیئں۔ جرمن ماہرِ مظہریات مارٹن ہیڈیگر نے اس بات پر زور دیا تھا کہ "وجود"، یعنی "ہونے" (فعل) کو سمجھنے کا مسئلہ اب بھی سائنس یا فلسفے سے حل نہیں ہوا ہے۔ اس نقطہ نظر سے دیکھیں تو سائنس کو "تمام سوالات" کے جواب کے لیے کافی قرار دینے کا مطلب ہے کہ "وجود" کا سوال مکمل طور پر بھلا دیا گیا ہے۔

مجموعی طور پر دیکھیں تو یہ تمام نقطہ ہائے نظر ایک ایسے امکان کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہیں جو مجھے کافی پریشان کن لگتا ہے۔

یہ بلاگ سائنس اور کلچر کے نام ہے۔ برگسن اور آئن اسٹائن کے درمیان اس بحث میں شاید اس سوال کا جواب ڈھونڈنے کے لیے ایک مختلف طریقہ موجود ہو کہ سائنس انسانی تجربے میں کس طرح فٹ ہوتی ہے۔

انسان ہونا، دنیا کا مرکز ہونا ایک زبردست اور خوبصورت راز ہے۔ سائنس کی توجیہات اس راز کو سمجھنے کی ایک راہ ہے، مگر واحد راہ نہیں۔

اور اگر یہ سچ ہے، تو ہمارا اگلا قدم کیا ہوگا؟

یہ مضمون نیشنل پبلک ریڈیو کے بلاگ 13.7 پر شائع ہوا، اور بہ اجازت دوبارہ شائع کیا گیا ہے.

http://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1033720/20feb2016-was-einstein-wrong-adam-frank-bm

Related:

Genesis of Terror & Road to Peace

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Life waisted perusing non issues! (Urdu)

Scholars and devotees spend their lives in support of their sect and to undermine other sects/groups. No one will be questioned about the sects after death in the grave. Best is to pursue the "all agreed" settled issues by followers of all Imams, preach the real teachings of the Last Messenger (pbuh), invite to work for the good and avoid evils. The society is being degenerated, due to decline in morals, indulgence in corruption and idolatric practices. The scholars and Muslims should work on these pressing issues. 

Related:

Genesis of Terror & Road to Peace

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Peace for Humanity

“Real believers are those who walk (upon the earth) with modesty; And when the foolish ones address them with harsh words, They reply: Peace!” [Quran;25:63]

Related:

• Ethics, Peace in 99 verses  
• Genesis of Terror & Road to Peace

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum