Dangane da Ra'ayin Hankali (Rationalism), yana da ma'anoni da dama a al'adun Yammacin Duniya. Wannan ya hada da ma'anar falsafa ta musamman da ake ganin ta sabanta da Empiricism. Haka kuma ya hada da ma'ana ta gaba daya, kamar yadda John Cottingham ya ambata a littafinsa The Rationalists lokacin da ya ce, "masu Ra'ayin Hankali, wadanda Descartes, Spinoza, da Leibniz suka jagoranta, an dauke su a matsayin wadanda ke kokarin gina tsarin falsafarsu gaba daya ta hanyar a priori." Wannan ma'ana ta gaba daya ita ce abin da muke damuwa da shi a wannan maudu'i. Wannan saboda abin da duk masana falsafar Yammacin Duniya suka hada kansu a kai shi ne amincewa da sanya hankali a matsayin mai hukunci (hakim), ba tare da la'akari da kayan aikinsa na nazari da yanke hukunci ba; wato hankali ne ma'auni na yanke hukunci kan abubuwa da al'amura, ba addini ba. Clarence Crane Brinton a littafinsa The Shaping of the Modem Mind ya bayyana cewa: "Ra'ayin Hankali yana kaiwa ga korar Allah da abin da ke bayan dabi'a daga duniya. Ya bar kawai abin dabi'a, wanda mai Ra'ayin Hankali ke ganin za a iya fahimtarsa a karshe, kusan koyaushe ta hanyar abin da mafi yawan mu ke sani a matsayin hanyoyin binciken kimiyya." Ma'ajiyar europaeischewerte.info, a cikin wallafarta Definition of the most basic European Values, ta taƙaita cewa: "A zamanin Haskakawa (Age of Enlightenment), Descartes da sauran masana falsafa da kimiyya sun dogara da tunani da hankali... Hankali ya fi imani... Hankali ya zama tushen yanke shawara na karshe... Amfani da hankali yana hana haramcin addini da na cikakken iko kan tunani da ayyuka na 'yanci... 'Nagarta' ana bayyana ta da 'mai hankali'... Ana yin kima bisa la'akari da hukunci na hankali kan yanayi."

As for Rationalism, it has several meanings in the Western culture. This includes a particular philosophical meaning that appears in mention that is in contrast to Empiricism. This also includes the general meaning, as alluded to by John Cottingham in his book, The Rationalists when he said, “the 'rationalist', led by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, were seen as attempting to construct their philosophical systems purely a priori.” This general meaning is what we are concerned about in this subject. This is because the common denominator between all the Western thinkers is the agreement to make mind as the legislator (hakim), regardless of its tools for analysis and judgement i.e. the mind is the reference to judge upon things and matters and not religion. Clarence Crane Brinton in his book, The Shaping of the Modem Mind states “Rationalism tends then to banish God and the supernatural from the universe. It has left only the natural, which the rationalist holds to be ultimately understandable, almost always by what most of us know as the methods of scientific investigation.” The repository europaeischewerte.info summarizes, in its publication, Definition of the most basic European Values that “In the Age of Enlightenment, Descartes and other philosophers and scientists based their thinking on reason and rationality... Reason stands above faith... Reason becomes the ultimate source of decision... The use of reason overrules religious and absolutistic bans on free thought and acts... “Good” is defined as “reasonable”... Evaluation occurs on the basis of a rational consideration of the situation.”.

Ta haka Yammacin duniya ta zama mai akida ta hankali (rationalist) ta ma'anar cewa tana watsar da addini, kuma tana dogara ga hankali, kadai, a matsayin mai shimfida doka. Mamayar hankali tana bayyana a Yamma cikin abin da Yammacin duniya ke kira ka'idoji, dabi'u da ma'auni. Waɗannan su ne tushen tunanin Yamma gaba ɗaya, a matsayin akida, wayewa da al'ada. A gare su, dabi'u ma'ana ce kawai ta fahimtar abubuwa da ayyuka, ta fuskar kwatanta su da kyau (khair) ko mara kyau (sharr), mai daɗi (hasan) ko munana (qabeeh), daidai ko kuskure, da kuma na ɗabi'a ko rashin ɗabi'a. Saboda haka, ana kwatanta abubuwa da ayyuka a matsayin abin so ko abin ƙi. Ga Yamma, dabi'un da aka kafa aka karɓa ana ɗaukar su, a gefe ɗaya, a matsayin ma'auni na abin da yake da kyau (khair) ko mai daɗi (hasan) ga daidaikun mutane da ƙungiyoyi. A gefe ɗaya kuma, ana ɗaukar su a matsayin cikakkun ma'auni da ke jagora da shiryar da halayyar mutum da al'umma.

Thus the West is rationalist in the sense that it abandons religion and comes to rely on reason, and reason alone, as a legislator. The dominance of reason appears in the West within what the Westerners acknowledge as principles, values and norms. These constitute the foundations of Western thought as a whole, as an ideology, civilization and culture. For them, values are in the sense of mere comprehended perceptions about things and actions, in terms of describing them as good (khair) or bad (sharr), pleasant (hasan) or ugly (qabeeh), right or wrong and moral or immoral. Consequently, things and actions are described as desirable or undesirable. For the West, the established and adopted values are considered on the one side as criteria of what is good (khair) or pleasant (hasan) to the individuals and groups. On the other side, they are considered as comprehensive criteria that guide and direct the individual and societal behavior.

Game da ka'idoji, wasu daga cikin malamai suna bambance ka'idoji da dabi'u, yayin da wasu kuma ba sa bambance su a tsakaninsu. Bambancin da wasu suke yi ba ta fuskar ma'ana ba ce, sai dai ta fuskar dorewa da takamammen abu. Saboda haka, wasu dabi'u suna iya canzawa kuma suna dogara da yanayi. Amma game da ka'idoji, su ne dabi'u tabbatattu da ba sa canzawa. Ana ɗaukar su a matsayin na duniya ga dukan ɗan Adam, kamar 'yanci, daidaito da sekularism. Dangane da dokoki kuwa, bisa ga ra'ayin Yamma, su ne tarin hukunce-hukuncen hali waɗanda ba su cika ba kuma takamammu ne,ban da dokokin da yawanci suke fitowa daga dabi'u. Suna da alaƙa da ɗabi'u da al'adun da suka yi ruwa a cikin al'umma, waɗanda ke tantance ko hali abin karɓa ne ko abin ƙi. Waɗannan dabi'u, ka'idoji da dokoki na Yamma sun samo asali ne daga ra'ayin Yamma game da rayuwa, ko abin da ake kira akida. An gina su ne bisa raba addini da rayuwa da kuma yin hukunci da hankali kaɗai. Wannan ya sa amfani ya zama tushen bayyana ma'anar nagarta da mummuna, da kuma abin daɗi da abin ƙyama. Wannan yana bayyana ne daga falsafar Yamma game da abubuwa da ayyuka ta fuskar dokoki. Ya haɗa da kaurace wa aiki da aiwatarwa, ta fuskar hukunci wanda ya ƙunshi lada da azaba, da kuma niyya da dabi'u da ya kamata a yi la'akari da su yayin aiki.

As for the principles, some of them differentiate the principles from the values, whilst others do not differentiate amongst them. The differentiation made by some is not in the sense of meaning, but in the sense of continuity and particularity. So, some of the values are subject to change and relativity. However, as for the principles, they are fixed values that do not change. They are considered as humanly universal, including freedom, equality and secularism. As for the norms, they are - according to the West - the collection of rulings of conduct that are partial and specific, apart from the laws that usually emerge from values. They are related to the morals and traditions prevalent amongst the society, that determine whether the behavior is acceptable or rejected. These Western values, principles and norms emerged from the Western viewpoint about life or the so-called ideology. They are based on the separation of religion from life and the arbitration by the mind alone. This makes benefit as a basis to define the meaning of good and bad, as well as pleasant and ugly. This is expressed from the Western philosophy related to things and actions in terms of norms. It includes abstinence and performance, in terms of judgment that include reward and punishment, and in terms of the intent and values to be taken into account during action.

Sun dogara ga sakamako da sakamakon wani aiki wajen tabbatar da cewa aikin mai kyau ne ko mai daɗi. Bisa ga ra'ayinsu, ana kiran wannan da Consequentialism (Ka'idar Sakamako). Ka'idojin sakamako suna duba jin daɗi, rashin ciwo, biyan buƙatun mutum, da kuma ma'anoni masu faɗi na "amfanin gama gari." A cikin littafinsa, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham ya ce: "Ma'anar amfani (utility) ita ce wannan kadarar da ke cikin kowane abu, wadda ke sa ta haifar da fa'ida, amfani, jin daɗi, alheri, ko farin ciki." Saboda haka Utilitarianism ya ayyana manufar mutum da cewa ita ce neman cimma farin ciki. Ana ikirarin cewa ana samun farin ciki ta hanyar duk abin da ke amfani, kuma duk abin da ke amfani jin daɗi ne. Wannan ra'ayi ya yi yawa a tsakanin Yammacin duniya, kuma ya zama tushen fahimtar rayuwa ta zahiri a Yamma. Duk da haka, suna sake bayyana shi da ra'ayin jin dadin jama'a (welfare), kamar yadda suke cewa. Ana tantance aiki don karɓa ko ƙin yarda da shi a ɗabi'a, bisa la'akari da ko yana da daɗi ko mummuna, gwargwadon abin da aka cimma na jin dadin mutum a matsayin ɗaya ko a matsayin ƙungiya. Ana kafa dabi'u da ƙa'idoji ne kawai don cimma wannan manufa.

They relied on the consequence and result of an action to establish the action as being good or pleasant. This is called, according to them, Consequentialism. Consequentialist theories consider pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences and broader notions of the “general good.” In his book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham stated, “By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.” Thus Utilitarianism defines the objective of man to pursue the achieving happiness. It is claimed that happiness is realized by all that benefits, whilst all that benefits is pleasure. This view is prevalent amongst the West, forming the practical Western perception of life. Nevertheless, they express it anew, with the concept of welfare, as they say. The action is evaluated for moral acceptance or rejection, in consideration of its being pleasant or bad, according to what is achieved of the welfare of man as an individual or a group. Values and norms are set only to achieve that notion.

Ɗaya daga cikin abin da ya rage shi ne cewa amfani kawai shi ne abin da tunanin ɗan adam ya tabbatar. Babu tsoma baki daga addini ko Allah a cikin haka. Ta haka masu hankali (rationalists) suna tabbatar da ikon hankali na fahimtar abin da yake nagari da abin da yake mara kyau da kansa. Suna ikirarin cewa addini ba shi da amfani. Suna ambaton abin da ake kira matsalar Euthyphro, wadda ta fito a cikin tattaunawar Plato mai suna Euthyphro, inda Socrates ya tambayi Euthyphro cewa: "Shin mai tsoron Allah yana ƙaunatuwa ne da alloli saboda shi mai tsoron Allah ne, ko kuwa shi mai tsoron Allah ne saboda alloli suna ƙaunarsa?" Idan mutum ya tabbatar da zaɓi na farko, masu hankali za su ce ma'anar hakan ita ce aiki ba shi da wata daraja ta gaske. Maimakon haka, lamari ne na doka wanda ya dogara ga nufin Allah. Don haka idan Allah bai umurce ka ka zama mai adalci ba, da ba za ka kasance mai adalci ba, alhali adalci gaskiya ce ga dukkan ɗan adam, wadda ba tare da ita ba rayuwa ba za ta daidaita ba. Idan mutum ya tabbatar da zaɓi na biyu, za su ce idan aikin da ma'aunin sa suna da kyau a cikin kansu, to suna zaman kansu daga Allah. Hankalin ɗan adam yana iya fahimtar hakan ba tare da buƙatar Allah ba. Ta haka ne Yammacin duniya ya kafa tsarinsa na ƙimomi na hankali, yana keɓe addini ta hanyar amfani da Rationalism ɗin sa.

Thus the only result is benefit decided by the human mind. There is no interference of religion or God. Thus rationalists affirm the ability of the mind to comprehend what is good and bad on its own. They assert the redundancy of religion. They cite the so-called Euthyphro dilemma, which is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” If one asserts the first premise, the Rationalists would say that the meaning of this is that action has in fact no value at all. Instead it is a legal consideration subject to the will of God. Thus if God had not commanded you to be just, you would have not been just, whilst justice is a reality for all human beings, without which life will not be put in order. If one asserts the second premise, they would say that if the action and its criterion are intrinsically good, then it is independent of God. The human mind can comprehend it without the need for God. In this way, the West established its rational system of values, excluding religion by using its Rationalism.

Matsalar Euthyphro, wadda ra'ayin Yammacin duniya na hankali, ko na sakamako (consequentialism) ko na tunani (idealism), ya dogara a kanta wajen batun dabi'u da ka'idojin rayuwa baki daya, yana dauke su a matsayin hujja ta hankali da ke tabbatar da keban addini daga rayuwa, wata karya ce kawai. Wannan saboda, duk da kuskuren fahimtarsu game da Allah da lalacewar imaninsu, an gina ta ne a kan tushen karya na cewa ayyuka suna da kyau da mara kyau, ko masu dadi da munana, a cikin kansu, har hankali zai iya fahimtarsu, yana tantancewa ko suna da kyau a so ko a ki.

The Euthyphro dilemma upon which the Western rationalistic view, whether consequentialism or idealism, is built with respect to the subject of values and morals as a whole, considering them as a rational argument that justifies the exclusion of religion from life. This dilemma is nothing but a fallacy. This is because, regardless of their misperception of God and the corruption of their belief, it is established upon the false basis of recognition that actions are intrinsically good and bad, or pleasant and ugly, such that the mind can comprehend them, determining whether they are desirable or undesirable.

Game da abin da ya shafi nagarta da mugunta, to shi ne bayanin ayyuka dangane da tasirinsu, bisa ga mahangar mutum, ta fuskar kaucewa da aikatawa, bisa ga haka. Don haka mutum yana son abubuwan da ke cikin yankin da yake iko da shi ko kuma yankin da ke iko da shi. Haka kuma yana ƙin abubuwan da ke cikin yankunan biyu. Don haka yana ƙoƙarin fassara wannan so da ƙiyayya a matsayin nagarta da mugunta. Yana karkata ga kiran abin da yake so da nagarta, kuma abin da yake ƙi da mugunta. Hakazalika, yana kiran wasu ayyuka da nagarta, wasu kuma da mugunta, bisa ga abin da ke amfanar da shi ko abin da ke cutar da shi.

As for what is pertaining to good and bad, it is the characterization of actions in terms of its influence, according to the perspective of man, in terms of abstinence and performance, accordingly. Thus man likes things that fall under the sphere which either he dominates or the sphere that dominates him. Also he hates things within both spheres. So he attempts to interpret this love and hatred, as good and bad. He inclines to call what he loves, as good, and what he hates, as bad. Similarly, he calls some actions to be good, whilst others to be bad on the basis of what benefits him or what harms him.

A cikin hakika, ayyukan da suke fitowa daga mutum, a cikin yankin ikonsa, ba za a iya siffanta su da kyau ko mugunta a kansu ba. Wannan saboda su ayyuka ne kawai, waɗanda ba a siffanta su da kyau ko mugunta a kansu ba. Maimakon haka, siffantawa da kyau ko mugunta tana dogara ne akan abubuwan waje, waɗanda suke waje da yanayin ayyukan. Don haka, kashe rai na ɗan adam ba za a ce mai kyau ne ko mugu ba. Maimakon haka, ana kiran sa kisa kawai. Siffantawa da kyau ko mugunta tana waje da wannan aikin. Saboda haka, kashe wanda yake yaƙi kyakkyawan aiki ne, yayin da kashe ɗan ƙasa, ko wanda yake da yarjejeniya, ko wanda yake ƙarƙashin kariya (musta’min), mugun aiki ne. Mai kisan farko zai sami lada, yayin da mai kisan na biyu zai sami azaba, ko da yake dukkansu suna aikata aiki guda, na kisa, ba tare da bambanci ba. Abin da ke tantance kyau da mugunta su ne abubuwan da suke motsa mutum ya aikata wannan aiki, da kuma manufar da yake aiwatar da aikin domin ita. Don haka, abubuwan da suke motsa mutum ya aikata aikin da kuma manufar da yake aiwatar da aikin domin ita, su ne abubuwa biyu da suke tantance kyau da mugunta a cikin aiki. Wannan yana faruwa ko mutum yana son wannan aiki ko yana ƙinsa, kuma ko aikin yana amfanar da shi ko yana cutar da shi.

In reality, actions emanating from man, within his sphere of dominance, cannot be described as good or bad in themselves. This is because they are actions alone, that are not characterized as good or bad in themselves. Instead, the characterization of being good or bad is based on external considerations, outside of the nature of actions. So, killing a human soul cannot be called good or bad. Instead it is only called killing. The characterization of being good or bad is external to that action. Thus, killing the one who wages war is good, whilst killing the citizen, or covenanted person or the one who is under protection (musta’min), is bad. The first killer will be rewarded, whilst the second killer will be punished, although both are undertaking the same action, of killing, without differentiation. What decides the good and bad are the factors that drive man to do that action, as well as the objective for which he carries that action. Thus, the factors that drive man to do the action and the objective for which he carries out that action, are the two things that determine the good and bad in an action. This is irrespective of whether man likes or hates that action and whether the action benefits him or harms him.

Game da ayyukan da ke faruwa daga mutum ko a kansa a cikin fagen da ke mamayar sa, mutum yana siffanta su da cewa kyawawa ne ko munana bisa ga soyayyarsa ko ƙyamarsa a gare su, da kuma bisa ga amfanin su gare shi ko cutarwar su gare shi. Duk da haka, wannan siffantawa ba ta nufin cewa su suna da siffarsu ta gaskiya. Mutum na iya ganin wani abu a matsayin kyakkyawa, alhali a gaskiya mummuna ne. Mutum na iya ganin wani abu a matsayin mummuna, alhali a gaskiya kyakkyawa ne. Allah (SWT) ya ce,

As for the actions that occur from a person or against him in the sphere that dominates him, man describes them to be good or bad based on his love or hatred towards them and based on his benefit or harm from them. However, this characterization does not mean that they are characterized by their reality. Man may see something as good, whilst it is in fact bad. Man may see something as bad, whilst it is in fact good. Allah (swt) said,

“Amma watakila kuna ƙin wani abu alhali shi ne alheri a gare ku; kuma watakila kuna son wani abu alhali shi ne sharri a gare ku. Allah ne Yake sani, ku kuwa ba ku sani ba.” [TMQ Suratul Baqara 2: 216],

“But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 216],

Dangane da batun nagarta da mummuna. Dangane da batun abin da yake kyau (hasan) da abin da yake mummuna (qabeeh), ayyuka ana siffanta su ne da hukuncin mutum, da ladan su da azabar su. Ayyukan mutum abu ne kawai na zahiri, dangane da yanayin cikinsu, ga dukkan halayensu da la'akari da su. Yanayin kasancewar abu na zahiri ba ya siffanta kansa da kasancewa ko dai kyakkyawa ko mummuna. Maimakon haka, ayyukan ana bayyana su ta hanyar yanayin waje da la'akari da ke wajen ayyukan. Wannan al'amari na waje shi ne ke bayyana yanayin aiki a matsayin ko dai hasan ko qabeeh. Wannan ba zai iya zama hankali ba, domin hankali yana fuskantar sabani, bambanci da cin karo da juna. Kimantawar hankali game da hasan da qabeeh tana tasiri ne ta muhallin da mutum yake rayuwa a cikinsa. Hankali yana fuskantar sabani da bambanci a tsawon lokaci. Idan aka bar hankali ya tantance hasan da qabeeh, to abin da yake qabeeh ga wata ƙungiyar mutane zai zama hasan ga wata ƙungiyar. Abu ɗaya na iya zama hasan a lokaci ɗaya, kuma qabeeh a wasu lokutan. Siffanta aiki da cewa hasan ne ko qabeeh, bisa ga yanayinsa, dole ne ya dace da dukkan ɗan Adam, a kowane lokaci. Saboda haka, siffanta ayyuka da cewa hasan ne ko qabeeh, bisa ga yanayinsu, dole ne ya fito daga iko wanda ya fi hankali, wato Allah (SWT).

This is in relation to good and bad. As for the subject of pleasant/pretty (hasan) and ugly (qabeeh), actions are characterized by the judgment of man, by the reward and punishment of them. Actions of man are materialistic alone, with respect to their intrinsic nature, for all of their circumstances and considerations. The nature of being materialistic does not characterize itself as being either pleasant or ugly. Instead, the actions are described by their external circumstances and considerations external to the actions. This other matter is what explains the nature of action as being either hasan or qabeeh. This cannot be the mind because the mind is subject to disparity, difference and contradiction. The mind’s estimations of hasan and qabeeh are influenced by the environment in which a person lives. Minds are subject to disparity and difference over the passage of time. If the mind is left to determine hasan and qabeeh, then the thing that is qabeeh to one group of people will be hasan to another group. The same thing may be hasan at one time, whilst qabeeh at other times. The description of an action to be hasan or qabeeh must be applicable to all human beings, at all times. Accordingly, the characterization of actions being either hasan or qabeeh, by their nature, must come from a power that is beyond mind, which is Allah (swt).

Mutum yana ba wa kansa ikon yanke hukunci a kan ayyuka cewa suna hasan ne ko qabeeh ta hanyar yin qiyasi da abubuwa. Tunda mutum ya ga cewa yana iya yanke hukunci cewa abu mai ɗaci qabeeh ne, abu mai daɗi hasan ne, siffa mai banƙyama qabeeh ce, siffa mai kyau kuma hasan ce, sai ya yi tunanin cewa zai iya yanke hukunci cewa gaskiya hasan ce, ƙarya qabeeh ce, cika alkawari hasan ne, kuma cin amana qabeeh ce. Don haka ya ba wa kansa ikon yanke hukunci a kan ayyuka cewa hasan ne ko qabeeh. Bisa ga hukuncinsa, ya ƙayyade hukunci ga aikin da yake qabeeh da lada ga aikin da yake hasan. Ya yi haka duk da cewa ba za a iya kwatanta ayyuka da abubuwa ba. Wannan saboda abubuwa ana iya jin ɗacinsu, zakinsu, banƙyamarsu da kyawunsu, don haka za a iya yanke hukunci a kansu. Sabanin haka, babu wani abu a cikin ayyuka da mutum zai iya ji, balle ya yanke hukunci a kansu, ko suna qabeeh ne ko hasan ne. Saboda haka, ayyuka kansu ba za a iya yanke musu hukunci cewa qabeeh ne ko hasan ne a dunƙule ba.

Man gives himself the authority to judge actions to be either hasan or qabeeh by making analogies upon things. Since man finds that he is able to judge the bitter thing as ugly (qabeeh), the sweet thing as pleasant (hasan), the hideous form as ugly (qabeeh) and the beautiful form as pleasant (hasan), he thinks that he can judge truth as hasan, false as qabeeh, fulfilling the promise as hasan and treachery as qabeeh. So he gave himself the authority of judging actions as hasan or qabeeh. Based on his judgment, he determined penalty for the ugly action and reward for the pleasant action. He did so even though actions cannot be compared with things. This is because things can be sensed for their bitterness, sweetness, hideousness and beauty and so judgment can be passed upon them. In contrast, nothing can be found within actions that can be sensed by man, so that he can judge upon them, as to whether they are qabeeh or hasan. Thus, actions themselves cannot be judged as qabeeh or hasan absolutely.

Ra'ayoyin da mutum ya ƙirƙira game da abin kyau da abin mugunta, da kuma abin hasan da abin qabeeh, suna bambanta kuma suna karo da juna. Wannan saboda suna fitowa ne daga hankali mai iyaka, bisa ga abubuwan da hankula ke ji, waɗanda suke sabani kuma ba su da tabbas. Ba daidai ba ne a bar wa mutum auna abin kyau da abin mugunta, ko hasan da qabeeh. Wannan saboda abin da ke daɗi da abin da ke mummuna zai bambanta daga lokaci zuwa lokaci, daga ƙungiya zuwa ƙungiya. Wannan yana sabawa hakikanin cewa akida tana da ƙa'ida ta duniya, ta hanyar bayyana ayyuka ga dukkan ɗan adam, a dukkan zamuna. Saboda haka, wajibi ne bayyanawa ta kasance daga wani iko da ya wuce hankali, don ya bayyana wa mutum abin da yake kyau da abin da yake mugunta, da abin da yake hasan da abin da yake qabeeh, ta haka yana ƙayyade masa abin da ke kawo masa amfani da abin da ke hana cutarwa. Wannan iko shi ne Mahaliccin mutum, wato Allah (SWT). Allah (SWT) ya ce,

The analogies made by man for good and bad, and for hasan and qabeeh, are varying and contradicting analogies. This is because they emanate from a limited mind, based upon sensations that are contradictory and not definite. It is not correct to leave the measuring of good and bad, or hasan and qabeeh, to man. This is because pleasant and ugly will be different from one time to another, from one group to another. This contradicts the reality of ideology being universal, through its characterization of actions for the whole of humankind, for all ages. Therefore, the characterization must be from a power that is beyond the mind, to explain to man what is good and bad and what is hasan and qabeeh, thereby determining for him what brings him benefit and what prevents harm. This power is the Creator of Man who is Allah (swt). Allah (swt) said,

"Shin wanda ya halicce shi ba zai sani ba, alhali shi ne Mai lukufi, Masani?" [TMQ Suratul Mulk 67:14],

“Does He who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Acquainted?” [TMQ Surah Al-Mulk 67:14],

Ba za a ce anan cewa bambanci da rashin daidaito ba lallai ne su kasance a mummunar ma'ana ba, domin suna iya kasancewa a kyakkyawar ma'ana wadda ke nuna ci gaba, bunkasa da cigaba. Saboda haka, ci gaban dokokin Yammacin Duniya yana faruwa ne saboda ci gaban al'ummomi da mutane. Ba za a ce wannan ba, domin hanyoyin magance matsaloli, a asali, dokoki ne tsararru don biyan bukatar mutum, dangane da bukatunsa na halitta da dabi'unsa, yayin da ake la'akari da shi a matsayin mutum. Gaskiyar tsarin ita ce, ba ya magance matsalolin mutane ta hanyar duba su a kan kowane mutum daya, ko la'akari da wurin da lokacin da suke rayuwa a ciki. Maimakon haka, tsarin zai magance matsalolin Mutum ta hanyar duba shi a matsayin mutum, ko namiji ne ko mace, Balarabe ne ko wanda ba Balarabe ba, fari ne ko baki, kuma ko shi tsohon Mutum ne, Mutum na zamani ne ko Mutum na gaba. Tsarin zai yi wa mutum magani a matsayin mutum, ba tare da bambanta a lokaci da wuri ba. Babu bambanci tsakanin Mutum na yanzu da tsohon Mutum. Batun Mutum na zamani shi ne batun tsohon Mutum, domin dukansu za su ji yunwa, ƙishirwa, tsoro da sha'awa. Wannan saboda bukatun halitta da dabi'u iri daya ne ga kowane mutum. Ba sa bambanta daga mutum zuwa mutum, kuma ba sa canzawa daga lokaci zuwa lokaci. Abin da ake gani a matsayin canji a rayuwar mutane shi ne a fannin hakikanin rayuwa ta zahiri, ba a fannin yanayin mutane kansu ba. Canjin yana faruwa ne kawai a siffofin salon rayuwa. Don haka tsohon mutum yana zaune a cikin kogo yana hawan dawakai, yayin da mutum na zamani yana zaune a cikin gine-ginen gilasai masu tsayi yana tashi a jiragen sama. Idan muka yi nazari sosai, za mu ga cewa dalilin da ya sa tsohon Mutum ya zauna a kogo ya hau doki, shi ne dalili iri daya da ya sa mutum na zamani yake zama a gine-gine da tashi a jiragen sama. Saboda haka, tsarin da yake mai kyau ga kowane lokaci da wuri, shi ne tsarin da yake samar da maganin matsalolin da suka shafi dukkan 'yan Adam ba tare da la'akari da launinsu ba, jinsinsu, kabilarsu, wurinsu da lokacinsu.

It must not be said here that the difference and disparity do not necessarily have to be in a negative sense, as they may be in a positive sense indicating evolution, development and progress. Accordingly, the evolution of Western laws is because of the evolution of societies and people. This must not be said because the treatments, in origin, are the organized rulings to satisfy a human, with respect to his organic needs and instincts, whilst considering him as a human. The reality of the system is that it does not treat the problems of humans, by considering them on an individual basis, or considering the place and time in which they live. Instead, the system would address the problems of Man by considering him as a human, whether male or female, Arabs or non-Arab, white or black, as well as whether he is an ancient Man, contemporary Man or future Man. The system would treat him as a human, without differing over time and place. There is no difference between a current Man and ancient Man. The issue of the contemporary Man is the issue of ancient Man, as both would feel hunger, thirst, fear and lust. This is because the organic needs and instincts are the same for every human. They do not differ from one individual to another, nor do they vary from one time to another. What is seen as a change in human living is in terms of practical realities and not in terms of the nature of humans themselves. The change occurs only in the forms of lifestyle. So the ancient man lived in caves and rode on horses, whilst the contemporary man lives in skyscrapers and flies in airplanes. If we scrutinize closely, we will find that the motive for ancient Man to live in caves and ride on horses, is the same as the motive for contemporary man to live in buildings and fly over airplanes. Accordingly, the system that is good for all times and places, is the system that provides treatments for the problems applicable to all the human beings regardless of their color, sex, race, place and time.

Game da dabi'u, tunanin Yammacin Duniya ya yi kuskure a binciken da ya yi ta fuskoki huɗu:

As for the values, Western thought erred in its research in four aspects:.

Da farko, game da dabi'un da masana yammacin duniya suka tattauna a kansu kamar 'yanci, mutunci, adalci, daidaito, rahama, gaskiya da amana, haƙuri, alhaki da sauran su. Waɗannan ma'anoni ne kawai waɗanda ba a fahimtar ma'anarsu, sai idan an haɗa su da abubuwan da ake ji, watau da majiyoyin da aka yarda da su da kuma hanyoyin aiwatar da su. Saboda haka, muna ganin cewa mutane ba sa sabani a kan karɓar su a matsayin ra'ayoyi kawai. Sabanin da ke tsakaninsu yana kan majiyoyin da aka yarda da su da kuma yadda ake aiwatar da su a aikace. Saboda haka, yaudara ce a ce, misali, daidaito dabi'a ce ta duniya kuma buƙatar ɗan adam, alhali sanin abin da yake nufi ga bayamshe ya bambanta da abin da yake nufi ga musulmi. A Jari-hujja ana nufin sa ta wata hanya daban da abin da ake nufi da shi a Musulunci.

Firstly, regarding the values discussed by Western thinkers such as freedom, dignity, justice, equality, mercy, integrity, tolerance, liability and others. These are mere concepts whose meanings are not understood, unless they are connected with sensations, i.e. with the accepted sources and implemented treatments. Accordingly, we see that people do not differ over their adoption as mere concepts. Instead, they differ over the accepted sources and their practical implementations. Accordingly, it is fraudulent to say, for instance, that equality is a universal value and human requirement, knowing what it is means for a Westerner, is other than what it means for a Muslim. It is meant in Capitalism in a manner other than what is meant in Islam.

Na biyu, dabi'un da masu fada-aji na Yamma ke tattaunawa a kai, suna neman karfafa su a cikin al'ummominsu, ba za a iya cimma su ba. Wannan saboda suna karo da ra'ayin Yamma ko akidarsu wadda ke kallon rayuwa daga mahangar amfani da fa'ida. Don haka, idan dabi'u ba su dace da ra'ayin Yamma game da rayuwa ba, to kawai tunani ne da ba ya juyawa zuwa manufa da aiki. Wannan gaskiya ce da wasu masana falsafa na Yamma kansu suka sani. Hakan ne ya sa suka farfado da abin da ake kira ka'idar da'a ta aiki (deontological ethics), wato da'a mai tushe ga wajibci. Ma'ana, suna ganin yiwuwar Yammawa su bi dabi'u, ba tare da la'akari da sakamakonsu da amfaninsu ba. Don haka sun gani cewa Yammawa ba za su yi karya ba, saboda karya mummuna ce a kanta (qabeeh), kuma za su yi gaskiya saboda gaskiya, ta yanayinta, kyakkyawa ce (hasan). Wannan ra'ayi ne na mafarki mai kyau wanda ba zai yiwu a cimma shi ba a wani gungun mutane a Yamma, domin babu dalilin aiwatarwa. Kawai don mutum ya san cewa gaskiya kyakkyawa ce, ba ya nufin zai bi ta ta atomatik. Dole ne a sami dalili mai karfi, tare da yabo ko Allah-wadai. Saboda haka mutumin da akidarsa ta raba wannan duniya da abin da ke gabanta da abin da ke bayanta, ya mai da kansa cibiyar duniya, kuma ya zana masa rayuwa guda daya, wato rayuwar duniya, zai cinye jin dadin duniya gwargwadon iyawarsa. Irin wannan mutum ba zai kula da gaskiya ba, sai dai har zuwa inda ta amfane shi. Ba za a ce a nan dokoki da karfin hukuncinsu na iya zama abin hana aikata laifi da kuma abin karfafa bin doka ba. Ba za a iya cewa haka ba, domin dokoki ba sa iya sarrafa halayyar mutum a kowane lokaci da wuri. Maimakon haka, ikonsu a kan halayyar yana da rauni kuma tasirinsa takaitacce ne. Mutum yana bukatar wani abin karfafawa daban, idan ya yi sakaci da dokokin.

Secondly, the values discussed by the Westerners, seeking to emphasize them in their societies, are not achievable. This is because they contradict the Western viewpoint or ideology that depicts life from the utilitarian angle of benefits. Thus, if the values are not concordant to the Western viewpoint about life, then they are mere ideas that do not transform into purpose and practice. This reality is known by a group of the Western thinkers themselves. It prompted them to revive the so-called theory of deontological ethics (duty-based ethics). This means that they perceive the possibility of Western commitment to values, without considering their consequences and benefits. So they perceive that Westerners will not lie because lying is ugly (qabeeh) in itself and to be truthful because truth, by its nature, is good (hasan). This is a view of idealistic fantasy that is not achievable in any group of individuals in the West, as there is no motive for the implementation. Just because a Man knows that truthfulness is good, it does not automatically follow that he will adhere to it. There must be a binding motive, accompanied by praise or condemnation. So for a man whose creed separates this world from what is before and what is after, makes his individuality the center of the universe, depicts for him a single life which is the worldly life, he would devour the pleasures of this world as much as possible. This person will not pay any attention to truthfulness, except to the extent that it benefits him. It cannot be said here that the laws with their punitive authority could be a deterrent and stimulus for abiding. This cannot be said because the laws do not control human behavior at any time and place. Instead, their control over the behavior is deficient and has limited effect. The individual needs another stimulus, when neglecting the laws.

Thirdly, characterizing values is not a rational issue for Man to evaluate. This is because Man could simply focus on some concepts and values to validate them, whilst neglecting others, based on the viewpoint about life. For instance, the concept of honor has no meaning within the West, whilst it is amongst the basic concepts of Muslims. Spiritual value is not present in the Western system of values although millions of people are religious. Yet, the West ignores it because the West is secular and does not care about religious aspects. Also, it is up to a man to compare between values in order to choose the best of them, even if the values do not have comparison or equality. However, he would not be satisfied with that. He would still compare and equate between the values. However, the comparison and equation are not based on the virtue of the value itself, but based on how the value affects him. Accordingly, humankind builds comparison and equation between values, with respect to what the value bring of benefit or harm to him. Accordingly, he makes himself the criterion, or makes the effect of these values upon him, as the criterion. This is, in fact, the comparison between the effects of these values on himself, as opposed to between the values themselves. Since the constitutions of human beings differ with respect to the effects of values, they differ in their comparison between the values. Individuals who are dominated by materialistic inclinations, driven by lusts, would neglect values other than materialistic ones. They would prefer materialistic values and go out to achieve them, as is the reality perceived in the West.

Thirdly, characterizing values is not a rational issue for Man to evaluate. This is because Man could simply focus on some concepts and values to validate them, whilst neglecting others, based on the viewpoint about life. For instance, the concept of honor has no meaning within the West, whilst it is amongst the basic concepts of Muslims. Spiritual value is not present in the Western system of values although millions of people are religious. Yet, the West ignores it because the West is secular and does not care about religious aspects. Also, it is up to a man to compare between values in order to choose the best of them, even if the values do not have comparison or equality. However, he would not be satisfied with that. He would still compare and equate between the values. However, the comparison and equation are not based on the virtue of the value itself, but based on how the value affects him. Accordingly, humankind builds comparison and equation between values, with respect to what the value bring of benefit or harm to him. Accordingly, he makes himself the criterion, or makes the effect of these values upon him, as the criterion. This is, in fact, the comparison between the effects of these values on himself, as opposed to between the values themselves. Since the constitutions of human beings differ with respect to the effects of values, they differ in their comparison between the values. Individuals who are dominated by materialistic inclinations, driven by lusts, would neglect values other than materialistic ones. They would prefer materialistic values and go out to achieve them, as is the reality perceived in the West.

Na huɗu: Tsarin dabi'un Yammacin Duniya ba shi da tushe mai inganci tun daga asalinsa. Wannan saboda dukkan masana falsafar Yamma, duk da bambancin makarantunsu da akidunsu, idan suka duba daidaita halayen mutum, ba su bambance tsakanin ka'idojin da ke jagorantar halayen da manufar (qasd) wadannan ka'idoji ba. Binciken su ya mayar da hankali ne kan dabi'un da ke da alaka da masu daidaita halaye, ba kan manufarsu ba. Saboda haka, dabi'un da suke tattaunawa, wadanda yawansu ya kai daruruwa, kamar gaskiya da aminci, soyayya, maida hankali, tausayawa, horo, tawali'u, fahimta, hakuri, 'yanci, dimokuradiyya, jarumta, daidaito, ikhlasi, gaskiya da sauransu, su ne dabi'un da suka hada da abin da ke cikin ka'idojin daidaitawa da suka shafi daidaikun mutane, da kuma alakar da ke tsakanin mutane, wato ka'idojin daidaitawa da suka shafi kungiyoyi a cikin al'umma. Dabi'un Yamma sun hada da abin da ya shafi halayen mutum na kansa, wadanda ba su da wata alaka da dabi'un ayyuka. Wannan saboda mutum, a matsayinsa na dan Adam, yana aikata ayyuka ne domin biyan bukatun dabi'arsa da bukatun jikinsa, bisa wata akida ta musamman da ke tantance masa halaccin aikin ko kuma kaurace masa. Duk da haka, bai aikata ayyuka da ka'idojin daidaitawa kawai a zuciyarsa ba. A zahiri, yana kuma la'akari da cimma manufar aikin da yake yi. In ba haka ba, aikin zai zama banza. Manufar (qasd) aikin, wato domin me yake aikata aikin, ita ake kira darajar aiki.

Fourthly: The Western value system is invalid from its basis. This is because all the Western thinkers, irrespective of their different schools of thoughts and tendencies, when looking at the regulation of behavior, did not differentiate between the concepts that guide the behavior and the aim (qasd) of those concepts. Their research was all about the values related to the regulators of behavior and not their aim. Thus, the values which they discuss, which number in their hundreds such as integrity, love, focus, empathy, discipline, humility, understanding, tolerance, freedom, democracy, courage, equality, sincerity, honesty and others, are the values that include what falls within the concepts of regulation related to individuals, as well as relationships between the individuals, in other words, the regulatory concepts related to groups in a society. The Western values include what falls within the individual moral traits, which do not have any relation to the values of actions. This is because man as a human performs actions to satiate his instincts and organic needs, according to a specific concept that determines for him the permissibility of performing the action, or abstaining from the action. However, he does not perform actions with the regulatory concepts in mind alone. In fact, he also takes into account the realization of the aim of the action which he performs. Otherwise, the action would be in vain. The aim (qasd) of the action i.e. for what purpose he performs the action, is called the value of action.

Wayewar Yammacin duniya tana bisa tushe na raba addini da rayuwa, da musanta tasirin addini a kan rayuwa, da ɗaukar rayuwa a matsayin amfani, da kuma sanya amfani ya zama ma'auni na ayyuka. Saboda haka, ba ta da ƙimomin ɗabi'a ko na ruhaniya ko na ɗan Adam, sai dai ta hanyar al'ada kawai. A zahiri, wayewar Yammacin duniya tana da ƙimomin amfani da na abin duniya kawai. Wannan ra'ayin amfani da abin duniya shi ne ke kawo wahala ga ɗan Adam. Masanin falsafar Faransa, Emile Brehier, a cikin littafinsa, Jigogin Falsafa na Zamani (Faransanci: Les themes actuels de la philosophie), yana nuna baƙin ciki yadda ilimin kimiyyar abu ya kai ga wayewar masana'antu wadda ta nutsu sosai cikin abin duniya, ta kawar da ɗan Adam daga ɗan Adamtaka, har ta sa ya rasa asalin yanayinsa, ya mayar da shi abu ko inji. Dangane da ƙa'idojin daidaita halayya waɗanda ƙa'idodin ɗabi'a ne, waɗanda Yammacin duniya ma take kira ƙima, masu tunani na Yamma sun fara tattaunawa a kansu yayin da suka ga muhimmancinsu da buƙatar al'umma gare su. Duk da haka, gyare-gyare ne kawai ga akidar jari-hujja bayan gazawarta da mummunan tasirinta ga ɗan Adam ya bayyana. Duk da haka, waɗannan ƙimomi banda na abin duniya ba a nufin su ga ingancinsu a kansu ba. Maimakon haka, don amfani ne kawai, don hana wahala. Will Durant ya rubuta a cikin The Story of Civilization Volume 9, The Age of Voltaire, cewa, "Voltaire yana ganin abubuwa da yawa. Yana jayayya cewa ci gaban hankali a cikin ɗan Adam yana nuna hankali a cikin ko bayan duniya. A ƙarshe, ya koma ga shahararriyar maganarsa cewa 'idan Allah ba ya wanzuwa, sai an ƙirƙire shi' (Faransanci: Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait I'inventer); cewa ba tare da imani da Mai Iko Duka ba, da hikimarsa da adalcinsa, rayuwa da asirinta da wahalhalunta za ta zama abar ba za a iya jurewa ba. Ya haɗu da d'Holbach wajen raina tsafi, amma yana kare addini a matsayin bautar Ubangiji kawai." Don't we need morality for Western thought to achieve its interest or benefit?

The Western civilization is based on the basis of separating religion from life, denying the impact of religion on life, characterizing life as benefit and making utilitarianism the criterion for actions. Consequently, it does not possess moral or spiritual or human values, except by way of formality. In fact, the Western civilization possesses only utilitarian, materialistic values alone. This utilitarian materialistic view is what brings misery to human beings. The French philosopher, Emile Brehier, in his book, Contemporary Themes in Philosophy (French: Les themes actuels de la philosophie), laments as how material science has led to an industrial civilization that indulged deeply in materialism and eradicated the humanity of man, making him lose his intrinsic nature, turning him into an object or a machine. As for the regulatory concepts of behavior that are moral concepts, which the West also calls values, the Western thinkers began to discuss them as they see their necessity and the society’s need for them. However, they are only amendments to the capitalist ideology after its failure and catastrophic impact on humanity became obvious. Nevertheless, those values other than materialistic are not intended in themselves for their validity. Instead, they are only for the benefit, to prevent misery. Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization Volume 9, The Age of Voltaire, that, “Voltaire sees much. He argues that the development of intelligence in man indicates an intelligence in or behind the universe. Finally, he returns to his famous proposition that ‘if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him (French: Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait I'inventer)’; that without belief in a Supreme Being, in his intelligence and his justice, life with its mysteries and miseries would be unbearable. He joins d'Holbach in scorning superstition, but he defends religion as the simple adoration of a deity.” So, morality itself is necessary for the Western thought to achieve the interest or benefi