A cikin fahimtar Yammaci, kalmar akida (Faransanci: credo) tana da alaƙa da wasu ra'ayoyi marasa kyau. Ga Bayamme, akida tana nufin imanin addini wanda ya samo asali daga tushen metaphysics, wanda ke tilasta wa mutum ya yi imani da abubuwa ba tare da hujja ba. Ga Bayamme, akida kuma tana nuna karɓar tunanin gaskiyar al'ajabi, wacce ta fi ko ta wuce duniyar halitta, ba tare da hujja ko hankali ba.

In the Western perception, the word creed (French: credo) is associated with a number of negative concepts. For the Westerner, creed is synonymous with religious beliefs that emerge from a metaphysical source, which compels man to believe in things without evidence. To the Westerner, creed also implies an acceptance of the mind of the supernatural reality, that is above or beyond the natural world, without evidence or reasoning.

Imani Jacqueline Russ ta bayyana a cikin Dictionary of Philosophy (Faransanci: Dictionnaire de philosophie) cewa: "...daga mahangar ɗabi'a, imani shi ne imani mai ma'ana amma wanda ba a iya tabbatar da shi ba, wanda ya shafi kasancewar Allah, ƙarewar rai, da 'yanci... daga mahangar addini, imani shi ne karkatar da ruhi zuwa ga wahayi da gaskiyar akida (wadda ba a tabbatar da ita ba, ba tare da la'akari da jure wa wasu ra'ayoyi ba)." Saboda haka, dole ne mu duba lalacewar tunanin Yammacin duniya game da ra'ayin akida da ainihin ma'anarta, kafin mu yi bayanin lalacewar akidar Yammacin duniya kanta.

Faith is defined by Jacqueline Russ in her Dictionary of Philosophy (French: Dictionnaire de philosophie) “...from the moral perspective, it is the rational but unprovable belief related to the existence of God, immortality of souls and freedom... from the religious perspective, it is the spiritual orientation towards revelation and dogmatic reality (unproven with no consideration to tolerate other views).” Thus, we must evaluate the corruption of the Western intellectual view about the concept of creed and its essence, before clarifying the corruption of Western creed itself.

A cikin hakikaninta, akida tana ba wa mutane tabbaci mai tsayayye game da al'amuran da suka zama ginshiƙin tunani na asali. Wannan tabbaci yana iya kasancewa da alaƙa da addini ko kuma ba shi da alaƙa da shi, watau imani da Mahalicci da Ranar Tashin Alƙiyama. 'Yan Gurguzu sun yi imani, watau sun tabbatar da tabbaci mai tsayayye, da rashin Allah da kuma yanayin abin duniya na duniya. Musulmai sun yi imani, watau sun tabbatar da tabbaci mai tsayayye, da kasancewar Allah da kuma yanayin halitta da ke da Mahalicci. Saboda haka, tabbaci mai tsayayye shi ne tushen la'akari da akida. Wannan yana faruwa ba tare da la'akari da yanayin tabbacin kansa ba, ko yana na addini ne ko ba na addini ba. Tsayayyen tabbacin yana iya kasancewa ne kawai tare da hujja daga wanda ya tabbatar da shi. Saboda haka, akida ita ce tabbaci mai tsayayye na hujja, ba tare da la'akari da yanayin hujjar da mai tabbatarwa ya dogara da ita ba.

In its reality, creed grants human beings decisive affirmation over the issues that form fundamental thoughts. This affirmation may or may not be connected to religion i.e. the belief in the Creator and the Day of Resurrection. Communists believe, i.e. affirm decisively, in the absence of God and the materialistic nature of the universe. Muslims believe, i.e. affirm decisively, in the existence of God and the nature of creation having a Creator. So, decisive affirmation is the basis for consideration of creed. This is irrespective of the nature of the affirmation itself, as to whether it is religious or areligious. The decisiveness can only be with evidence by the one who affirms it. Accordingly, the creed is the decisive affirmation of the evidence, regardless of the nature of the evidence relied on by the one who affirms it.

Anan ne inda matsalar hujja ta taso, saboda Yamma tana takaita ma'anar hujja ga kimiyya kawai. Dominique Morin ya ce a littafinsa Dieu Existe-t-il? (Shin Allah Yana Wanzuwa?), "Idan maganar ta shafi wanzuwar Allah, masana falsafa da masana tauhidi na Kiristanci sun yarda cewa kalmar hujja, wadda tabbas a duniyarmu tana da alaka da daidaiton kimiyya, ba ta dace ba. Don haka da yawa, kamar Thomas Aquinas, sun fi son magana game da hanyoyin kaiwa ga Allah." Tsohon Fafaroma Benedict XVI, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, ya lura a littafinsa, Introduction to Christianity (Jamusanci: Einfuhrung in das Christentum), "Shin hankalin Kiristanci bai amince ba, a babban mataki, ba tare da sanin hakan ba, da halin nan cewa imani da Allah wani abu ne na zahiri?" Takaita hujja ga binciken kimiyya na gwaji kuskure ne. A zahiri, hujja tana nufin abin da ke nuna hanyar abin da ake bukata ko kaiwa ga fahimtar al'amura. Hujja ita ce hanyar da aka tabbatar don ingancin ɗaya daga cikin maganganu ko ɗaya daga cikin zato. Hujja ita ce ilimin da ake bukata don sanin wani ilimin. Wannan ita ce ma'anar hujja a tsakanin dukkan al'umma. Babu bambanci wajen bayyana hujja tsakanin maganganun Musulmi da na Bayamshe. A littafinsa Kitab Al-Kulliyat (cjLK1I), malamin Musulunci Abul Baqaa' Al-Kafaw ya ce: "Hujja (JaUI) ita ce abin da ke nuna hanyar abin da ake bukata. Abin da ake nufi da ita shi ne bayyana hujja... abin da ake nufi da nuninta shi ne abin da ake bayyanawa da hujja. Hayaki ana kiransa hujjar wuta. Don haka kalmar hujja ana kiranta ga duk abin da aka sani ta hanyar abin da hujja ke nunawa, ko abu ne da ake iya taɓawa ko al'amuran Shari'a, ko yana da tabbas ko babu tabbas..." Bayamshen nan, Dutsen H. Willemsen, ya ce a Kamus dinsa na Falsafa (Danish: Woordenboek Filosofie): "Hujjar kowace magana ita ce hanyar da ke tabbatar da ingancinta..." Bature, Faransawa mata, Jacqueline Russ a cikin Kamus ɗinta na Falsafa (Faransanci: Dictionnaire De Philosophie) ta ce: "Hujja... ita ce hanyar da ake tabbatar da ingancin zato." Don haka hujja wani abu ne da ta hanyarsa ake iya tabbatar da wani abu. Wannan ita ce hujja dangane da hakikaninta a tsakanin dukkan mutane. Amma batun kasancewarta ta kimiyya ko ta hankali ko ta dabaru ko ta fahimta ta ciki ko ta motsin rai ko wani abu banda waɗannan, shi ne maudu'in siffofinta da tsarinta, ba maudu'in ainihinta ba. A wata ma'ana, abin da ke jagorantar zuwa ga abin da ake buƙata, shi ne hujja. Yin la'akari da ita da ta samo asali daga kimiyya ko hankali ko motsin rai, a cikin bayanin abin da ke jagoranci, ba ya hana ta zama hujja a ainihinta da hakikanuwarta.

Herein rises an issue related to evidence as the West restricts the indication of evidence to science alone. Dominique Morin says in his book Dieu Existe-t-il? (God Exists), “If the matter is related to the existence of God, Christian philosophers and theologians have agreed that the word evidence, which is definitely in our world connected to the accuracy of science, is inappropriate. Thus, many, like Thomas Aquinas, prefer to speak of the ways to reach God.” The former Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger noted in his book, Introduction to Christianity (German: Einfuhrung in das Christentum), “Has not Christian consciousness acquiesced to a great extent—without being aware of it—in the attitude that faith in God is something subjective.” The restriction of evidence to that of scientific empiricism is wrong. In fact, evidence means that which guides to what is needed or the arrival at the comprehension of issues. Evidence is the affirmed methodology for the validity of one of the statements or one of the hypotheses. Evidence is the necessary knowledge to know another knowledge. This is the meaning of evidence amongst all peoples. There is no difference in defining the evidence between the sayings of the Muslims and the Westerner. In his book Kitab Al- Kulliyat (cjLK1I); the Muslim Aalim, Abul Baqaa' Al-Kafaw said: idence (JaUI) is that which guides to what is needed. What is intended and meant by it is the evidencing ... what is intended and meant by its indication is that which is evidenced. The smoke is termed as the evidence of the fire. Thus the term evidence i.e. evidence is called upon everything known by what the evidence indicates, whether it is tangible or Shariah matters, whether it is definite or indefinite...” The Westerner, the Dutchman, H. Willemsen, said in his Dictionary of Philosophy (Danish: Woordenboek Filosofie), “Evidence of any statement is the method that affirms its validity...” The Westerner, the French women, Jacqueline Russ in her Dictionary of Philosophy (French: Dictionnaire De Philosophic) said, “The evidence...is the process by which the validity of hypothesis is established.” Thus evidence is something by which it is possible to establish something else. This is the evidence in terms of its reality amongst all human beings. As for the condition of being scientific or rational or logical or intuitive or emotional or other than that, it is the subject of its characteristics and constitution, not the subject of its essence. In other words, that which guides to what is needed, is evidence. The consideration of it arising from science or reason or emotion, within the description of that which guides, never stops it from being an evidence in its essence and reality.

Lallai, dangane da kowane ɗaya ko fiye daga cikin halayensa, hujja tana bayyana tsarinta ne kawai, tana kuma nuna asalin samuwarta. Amma hakan ba ya hana ta zama hujja a zatinta. Saboda haka, ko masana falsafa, masana ilimin tauhidi ko masu tunanin Yammacin Duniya sun sanya wa hujja suna hanya, alama, nuni ko shaida, hakan ba ya canza hakikanin hujja da ainihinta. Haka kuma, ba ya da muhimmanci ko masana ilimin tauhidi suna ganin lamiri ne, masu aikin amfani suna ganin fa'ida ne, masana ɗabi'a suna ganin siffar ɗabi'a ce, ko masu tunanin hankali suna ganin hankali ne tushen imani da akida. Dukansu suna imani da hujja a zahirinta, ko da yake sun bambanta game da irin hujjar da yanayinta.

Indeed, with respect to any one or more of its characteristics, the evidence only expresses its constitution and identifies its source of formation. However, it does not prevent it from being an evidence per se. Therefore, whether the philosophers, theologians or Western thinkers name the evidence as method, denotation, indicator or sign, does not change the reality and essence of evidence. It is also regardless of whether the theologians consider conscience, pragmatists consider benefits, moralists consider the moral attribute or rationalists consider rationalism as the basis of belief and creed. All of them believe in evidence essentially, although they differ over the type of evidence and its nature.

Idan wannan ya fahimtu, za a iya ganin kuskuren da ake yi a matakin nazari da bincike a Yamma game da akida. Nazari ba zai karkata ga yanayin tabbatarwa da hujja ko abin da ba hujja ba ba. Wannan saboda gaskiyar akida a tsakanin ɗan Adam ita ce ba za a iya tabbatar da ita ba sai da hujja. Saboda haka ya zama wajibi bincike ya karkata ga ingancin hujjojin da akida ta dogara a kansu. Shin dole ne ya zama na kimiyya, na hankali, na ma'ana ko wani abu na hankali daban, la'akari da cewa tabbatarwa mai yanke hukunci a tsakanin ɗan Adam baki ɗaya na iya fitowa daga hujja kawai? Ya dace a yi la'akari da cewa dukkan hujjoji suna cimma tabbatarwa mai yanke hukunci ko a'a? Wannan yana a matakin nazari.

If this is comprehended, the error at the level of study and inquiry in the West for the creed can be seen. The study must not be devoted to the nature of affirmation of evidence or other than evidence. This is because the reality of creed amongst humankind is that it can only be affirmed by evidence. The research must therefore be devoted to the validity of the evidence upon which the creed depends. Does it have to be scientific, rationalistic, logical or rational something else, considering that decisive affirmation amongst the whole of humankind can only come from the evidence? Is it appropriate to consider that all evidences achieve the decisive affirmation or not? This is at the level of study.

Kimiyya ba ta dace a zama hujja ga akida ba, domin kimiyya ana iyakance ta ne ga al'amuran da ake iya taɓawa da ji, don bincike da gwaji. Duk da haka, wanzuwar Allah ba abu ne da ake iya taɓawa ba, koda yake ana iya jin tasirinsa, yayin da wanzuwar Aljanna, Wuta da mala'iku kuwa ba a iya jin su, don haka ba za a iya gwada su ba. Saboda haka kuskuren ra'ayin Yamma game da akida, ta fuskar ma'ana, sharaɗi da yanayi, ya bayyana a fili. Dangane da abin da ya dace a zama hujja ga tabbatar da kowane abu tabbatacce, watau hujja ga akida, shi ne hankali ko hanyar hankali. Kamar yadda muka bayyana a sama, ita ce kaɗai hanyar da ta dace a zama tushen tunani ga mutane, wadda ake gina hukunce-hukunce a kanta, kuma a kafa cikakkiyar fahimta game da wanzuwar mutum da manufarsa a rayuwa. Saboda haka, ra'ayinmu game da akidar Yamma, ta fuskar tabbatar da rashin ingancinta da lalacewarta, yana kan hankali. Yana kan hanyar hankali wajen yanke hukunci kan abubuwa da al'amura. Karkacewar akidar Yamma an tabbatar da ita ta hanyar hankali, kamar yadda wasu fannoni da yawa suka nuna, waɗanda sune:

Science is not suitable as evidence for creed because science is limited to issues that are tangible and sensed for research and experimentation. However, the existence of God is not tangible, though sensed, whilst the existence of paradise, hellfire and angels is not sensed and so they cannot be subjected to experimentation. Hence the error of the Western view of the creed, in terms of concept, stipulation and condition, becomes apparent. As for what is suitable as evidence for the decisive affirmation of anything, i.e. as evidence for creed, it is the intellect or the rational method. As we have clarified above, it is the only method that is suitable as a basis of thinking for humans, upon which the judgments are built and the comprehensive view of the existence of man and his purpose in life are established. Accordingly, our view towards the Western creed, in terms of establishing its invalidity and corruption is based on the intellect. It is based on the rational method to judge upon things and issues. The distortion of the Western creed is rationally established indicated by a number of aspects, which are:

1- Akidar Yammacin duniya a gaskiya sakamako ce ta yanayin zamantakewa, siyasa da tarihi na Yammaci kaɗai. Ta fito ne a matsayin mafita ta sulhu tsakanin rikicin Coci, a gefe guda, da masana da masu mulki, a ɗaya gefen. Ba ta samo asali ne daga tunani ba, kuma ba a gina ta a kan hankali da basira ba. Akida ce ta yarjejeniyar jama'a a kan yin aiki da ita, ba akidar hankali ba, wato mutanenta ba su kafa hujjarta ta hanyar hankali ba don tabbatar da ingancinta. Misali na wannan yana a Faransa. An gabatar da dokar LaTcite don kada kuri'ar rinjaye a Majalisar Wakilai (Chambre des deputes). A ranar 3/7/1905 LaTcite ta samu kuri'u 341 na goyon baya da 233 na adawa. Sannan aka gabatar da ita ga Majalisar Dokoki ta Sama a ranar 6/12/1905, sakamakon kuma ya kasance kuri'u 181 na goyon baya da 102 na adawa. Ta haka LaTcite ta zama doka mai ɗaure mutane, ba tare da la'akari da ingancinta ko rashin ingancinta daga mahangar hankali ba. Don haka, sekula'anci ba shi da hujjar hankali a bayansa. Maimakon haka, dukkan hujjojinsa tarihi kaɗai ne, a matsayin bayyana gogewar mutane. Lalacewar waɗannan hujjoji ba ta ɓoye ga kowane mutum mai hankali ba. Idan wani ya ce, "Yamma ta sha wahala daga addini, kuma ta ƙi shi. Lokacin da Yamma ta raba addini da rayuwa, sai Yamma ta farfado," to za a iya mayar masa da amsa da cewa, "Musulmai sun farfado kuma sun ɗaukaka tare da addini. Lokacin da suka yi rauni wajen fahimtar addininsu, lokacin da aka cire shi daga rayuwarsu, sai suka rasa ƙarfi." Saboda haka, hukunce-hukuncen tarihi da ke bayyana gogewar mutane ba su dace su zama hujjar hankali da ke tabbatar da ingancin akida ba. Dole ne a sami hujjoji na hankali da dalilai masu ma'ana, kuma sekula'anci ba shi da waɗannan.

1- The Western creed is in fact a result of the societal, political and historical circumstances of the West uniquely. It has emerged as a compromise solution for the conflict between the Church, on the one hand, and the thinkers and rulers, on the other. It did not result from a thinking nor was it built upon reason and intellect. It is the creed of popular consensus to act upon this creed and it is not the creed of reason, i.e. its people did not establish its evidence rationally for its validity. An example of this is in France. LaTcite was submitted for majority vote in the House of Representatives (Chambre des deputes). In 3/7/1905 LaTcite received 341 votes for and 233 votes against. Then it was submitted to the Upper Legislative House on 6/12/1905 and the result was 181 votes for and 102 votes against. Thus, LaTcite became law binding upon the people, regardless of its validity or invalidity from the intellectual perspective. So, secularism does not have an intellectual justification for it. Instead, all of its justifications are historical alone, as an expression of the experience of people. The corruption of these justifications are not hidden to any sane person. If someone were to say, ‘The West suffered from the religion, and it was declined by it. When the West separated religion from life, the West was revived.’ However, he can be rebutted by saying, ‘Muslims were revived and elevated with the religion. When they became weak in understanding their religion, when it was removed from their life, they declined.’ Therefore, the historical judgments expressing the experience of people is not suitable as a rational evidence to establish the validity of the creed. There must be intellectual justifications and rational evidence, and secularism lacks these.

2- Tun da sanin-dunia (secularism) ya fito a matsayin mafita ta sulhu a rikicin da ke tsakanin Coci a gefe guda, da masana da sarakuna a daya gefen, sai ya zama mafita ta sulhu, inda kowane bangare ya yi watsi da wani sashe na bukatunsa. A cikin wannan yanayi, muna bukatar nazari a kan gaskiyar wannan akida ta fuskar asalinta. Irin wannan nazari zai bayyana mana tsarin dabarun tunanin Yammacin zamani mai cike da karo-karo. Muna tambaya kamar haka: Kan wadanne al'amura ne malaman addini (clergy) suka yi watsi da bukatunsu? Shin malaman sun yi watsi da wani sashe na bukatar addini ne, ko kuwa bukatar malamai ce ta kansu?

2- Since secularism emerged as a compromise solution to the conflict between Church on one side, with thinkers and rulers on the other, it represented a compromise solution, whereby both parties conceded part of their demands. In this context, we are in need of study into the reality of this creed in terms of origin. Such a study would clarify the contradictory logic of modern Western thought for us. We ask the following questions: Over what matters did the clergy concede? Did the clergy concede a part of a religious demand or a clerical demand?

Idan aka ce malamai sun amince da wani ɓangare na buƙatar addini, wannan yana tabbatar da cewa addini yana da alaƙa da rayuwa a zahiri. Don haka a game da buƙatar addini bai dace a raba addini da rayuwa ba. Wannan zai nuna kuskuren akidar Yamma wajen dagewa kan raba addini. Sai dai idan aka ce malamai sun amince da wani ɓangare na buƙatun nasu na malamai, ba buƙatun addini ba, wannan zai nufin cewa addini, a zahiri, ba shi da alaƙa da rayuwa. Hakan kuma zai soke yarjejeniyar da ta gudana tsakanin malamai da masana, wadda ta tanadi raba addini da rayuwa. Hakan zai zama yarjejeniya kan wata takaddama wadda babu ita, domin a wannan yanayin babu alaƙar addini da rayuwa da za ta tilasta sharadin rabuwa.

If it is said that the clergy conceded part of a religious demand, this affirms that religion has, in fact, a relation to life. So in the case of the religious demand it is not appropriate to separate religion from life. This would show the error of Western creed in insisting on the separation of religion. However, if it is said that the clergy conceded part of its own clerical demands, not religious demands, this would mean that the religion has, in fact, no relation to life. This would also invalidate the agreement that took place between the clergymen and thinkers, stipulating the separation of religion from life. That is because it would be the agreement upon a non-existent dispute, as there would be no relation of religion to life in this case, to compel the condition of separation.

Ana iya cewa, daga mahangar Yammacin Duniya, addini na nufin malamai, saboda akwai alaka tsakanin Coci da addini. Saboda haka, Yammacin Duniya ba ya banbance tsakanin su biyun. Amma martanin zai kasance: wannan zai soke yanayin akidar sakularisanci a matsayin akida ta duniya, wadda ta dace da dukkan bil'adama. Hakan ya faru ne saboda an gina ta ne a kan kwarewar Yammacin Duniya game da addini, don haka bai dace a yi wa dukkan bil'adama hukunci da ita ba. Daga wani bangaren kuma, mafita ta sasantawa, sulhu ce ta hadin kai wadda ba za a iya amfani da ita wajen banbance tsakanin ra'ayoyi da tunani ba. Ana amfani da sasantawa ne domin sulhunta mutane masu sabanin muradu. Sai dai,

Here, one might say: ‘Religion means the clergy according to the Western perspective, as there existed a connection between the Church and religion. Accordingly, the West does not differentiate between both.’ However, the rebuttal would be: ‘this would invalidate the nature of secularism being a universal creed, appropriate for all of humankind. This is because it is based on the Western experience of religion and so it is not suitable to generalize upon the whole of humanity.’ This is from one aspect. From another aspect, the compromise solution is a compromising conciliation that cannot be used to discriminate between opinions and thoughts. Compromise is deployed for conciliation amongst peoples with conflicting interests. However,

hukunci a kan wani tunani yana bayyana halinsa ko dai na rashin inganci da kuskure, ko kuma na daidai da inganci. Hankali mai lafiya ba ya karɓar haɗa gaskiya da ƙarya, ko haske da duhu, a cikin sulhu mai sasantawa.

judgment upon a thought reveals its characteristic as either being invalid and wrong, or correct and valid. A sound mind does not accept combining truth and falsehood, light and darkness, in a compromising conciliation.

Saboda haka, sakularism a zahiri sulhu ne tsakanin ƙungiyoyi biyu masu sabani. Ƙungiya ta farko ita ce ta waɗanda suka ƙi addini, suna ba wa kansu ikon sasantawa da ra'ayin hankali. Ƙungiya ta biyu ita ce ta waɗanda suke riƙo da addini, suna ba wa kansu ikon yin sassauci ga ra'ayin addini. Wannan ya tabbatar da cewa sakularism ya samo asali ne sakamakon sulhu tsakanin mutane, a matsayin mafita ta sasantawa tsakanin ɓangarori biyu masu gaba da juna. Irin wannan mafita ko sasanci bai taɓa faruwa ba tsakanin tunanin hankali na gaskiya da addini kansa. Wannan yana nuna cewa rikici tsakanin addini da tunanin hankali yana ci gaba da wanzuwa har zuwa yau. Hakanan yana nuna cewa tunanin Yammacin Duniya bai samar da mafita ta hankali ga tushen matsalar ba. Ana iya ganin hakan a muhawarori game da addini da alakarsa da siyasa har zuwa yau a cikin al'ummar Yammacin Duniya.

Accordingly, secularism is in fact a compromise solution amongst two conflicting groups. One group is of those who reject religion, giving themselves the authority to compromise rationalist opinion. The other group is of those who adhere to religion, giving themselves the authority to concede religious opinion. This affirms that secularism emerged as a result of compromising conciliation between men, as a compromise resolution between two conflicting parties. Such a resolution or reconciliation did not occur between the actual rationalist thought and religion in themselves. This indicates that the conflict between religion and rationalist thought continues to exist until this day. This also indicates that Western thought did not provide a rational solution to the root of the problem. This can be observed in debates about religion and its relation to politics until this day within the Western society.

Ana iya cewa a nan: 'Yammacin duniya ta kawo ƙarshen jayayyar ta hanyar kin binciken ta, sai ta mayar da batun matsalar ya zama muradun mutane ɗaya-ɗaya.' Amsar wannan magana ita ce: 'Batun kasancewar Mahalicci, Ubangiji da addinin da yake tsara al'amuran ɗan Adam batu ne na ɗan Adam baki ɗaya, ba batun mutum ɗaya ba. Yana da alaƙa da mutum a matsayinsa na ɗan Adam, ba a matsayinsa na mutum ɗaya ba. Hujjar cewa batu ne na ɗan Adam baki ɗaya ita ce, ya shafi ɗan Adam gaba ɗaya. Wannan shi ne abin da ɗan Adam yake ba shi muhimmanci tun zamanin da har zuwa yau. Don haka addini ba batun mutum ɗaya ba ne. Sai dai Yammacin duniya ne ke son ya mayar da shi batun mutum ɗaya, duk da cewa batu ne na ɗan Adam baki ɗaya.'

It may be said here: ‘The West has ended the dispute by not examining it and made the subject of the problem the interests of individuals instead.’ The rebuttal to this is: ‘The issue of the existence of the Creator, the Lord and a religion that organizes the affairs of man is an issue of humanity in general and not an individualistic issue. It is related to man in his capacity as a human and not in his capacity as being an individual. The evidence for the issue being an issue of humanity is that it concerns the humans as a whole. It is this that is given importance by humankind, since ancient times until the present day. Thus religion is not an individualistic issue. However, it is the West that wants to make it an individualistic issue, even though it is an issue for all of humanity.

Haka kuma, Yammacin duniya ce take mayar da addini al'amarin mutum shi kaɗai, tana gudun matsalar. Don haka Yammacin duniya ba ta iya warware matsalar tsakani da tushe, ko dai ta amince da addini da matsayinsa a rayuwa da al'umma, ko kuma ta ba da shawarar kawar da addini gaba ɗaya, ta musanta shi. Maimakon haka, Yammacin duniya ta zaɓi sulhu na sasantawa ta hanyar raba addini da rayuwa, tana barinsa a matsayin lamarin imani da kafirci ga daidaikun mutane. Wannan yana nuna cewa Yammacin duniya ba ta warware matsalar ba a zahiri, a maimakon haka ta gudu daga matsalar. Gudun daga warware matsalar na nufin matsalar tana ci gaba da wanzuwa. Wannan ne ya sa shahararren masanin zamantakewa, Peter L. Berger, wanda yake ɗaya daga cikin masu goyon bayan sekularism mafi ƙarfi a shekarun 1960, ya bayyana a littafinsa, The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, cewa: "Duk da cewa kalmar "ka'idar sekularization" tana nufin ayyukan shekarun 1950 da 1960, babban ra'ayin wannan ka'ida hakika ana iya komawa da shi zuwa zamanin Haskakawa (Enlightenment). Wannan ra'ayi a sauƙaƙe yake: Zamanantarwa tana kai wa ga raguwar addini a dole, a cikin al'umma da kuma cikin zukatan daidaikun mutane. Kuma wannan ra'ayi ne ainihi ya zama kuskure. Lallai, zamanantarwa tana da wasu tasirin sekularization, a wasu wurare fiye da wasu. Amma kuma ta haifar da ƙungiyoyi masu ƙarfi na counter-secularization." Saboda haka, tambayar alaƙar addini da rayuwa tana ci gaba da wanzuwa, wadda tunanin Yammacin duniya bai riga ya yi nazari ba kuma bai samar da amsa a kanta ba tukuna.

Moreover, it is the West that makes religion a matter for individual concern alone, fleeing away from the problem. Thus the West is incapable of solving the problem radically, either by acknowledging religion and its role in life and society, or by advocating the elimination of religion completely, by denying it. Instead of that, the West chose the conciliatory compromise of separating religion from life, leaving it as an issue of belief and atheism for individuals. This reveals that the West did not actually solve the problem, fleeing away from the problem instead. Fleeing away from solving the problem means the problem still persists and continues to exist. This is what prompted the famous sociologist, Peter L. Berger, who was one of the most vocal advocates of secularism in the 1960s, to express in his book, The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, “Although the term “secularization theory” refers to works from the 1950s and 1960s, the key idea of the theory can indeed be traced to the Enlightenment. That idea is simple: Modernization necessarily leads to a decline of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. And it is precisely this key idea that has turned out to be wrong. To be sure, modernization has had some secularizing effects, more in some places than in others. But it has also provoked powerful movements of counter-secularization.” Accordingly, the question about the relation of religion to life still continues to exist, which the Western thinking has yet to study and provide an answer for.

3- Akidar raba addini da rayuwa tana karo da kanta. Wannan saboda tana tabbatarwa tare da musanta addini a lokaci guda. Ta hanyar bayar da shawarar raba addini da rayuwa, tana tabbatar da addini, domin rabuwa tsakanin abubuwa biyu tana amincewa da tabbatar da wanzuwar su duka. Rabuwa tana faruwa ne tsakanin abubuwa biyu da suke wanzuwa. Rabuwa ba ta faruwa tsakanin abubuwa biyu da ba su wanzu ba, kuma ba tsakanin abu mai wanzuwa da wanda ba ya wanzuwa ba. Dangane da musanta addini bayan tabbatar da shi, ana fahimtarsa ne daga hakikanin addinin kansa. Addini imani ne da Mahalicci da kuma Ranar Tashin Kiyama da Hisabi. Imani da Mahalicci yana wajabta amincewa da sifofin kamala ga Mahalicci kamar iko, mulki, tafiyar da dukkan al'amura da cikakken sani game da komai. Sai dai raba addini da rayuwa yana musanta wannan imani. Yana musanta sifofin Mahalicci da musanta ikonsa na mulki da tafiyar da dukkan al'amura. Tun da addini yana wajabta imani da Ranar Hisabi, rabuwar tana musanta shi, kamar yadda take musanta ayyuka domin ranar hisabi. Shin Mahalicci zai yi wa mutane hisabi ne a kan abin da Ya umarta da kuma abin da Ya hana, ko kuwa zai yi hisabi ne a kan abin da ake umarta da hanawa bisa ga hujjojin mutumin Yamma?

3- The creed of separating religion from life contradicts itself. This is because it both affirms and negates religion at the same time. By advocating the separation of religion from life, it affirms religion, since separation between two matters acknowledges and affirms the existence of both of them. Separation occurs between two existing things. Separation neither occurs between two non-existent things nor between an existing thing and a non-existent thing. As for the negation of religion after its affirmation, it is understood from the reality of religion itself. Religion is a belief in the Creator and in the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. Belief in the Creator mandates acknowledging of the attributes of perfection for the Creator such as ability, governance, managing all the affairs and complete knowledge of everything. However, the separation of religion from life negates this belief. It negates the attributes of the Creator and negates his ability of governance and managing all the affairs. Since religion mandates the belief in the Day of Judgment, the separation negates it, just as it negates the deeds for (the day of) judgment. Should the Creator account upon what He commands and prohibits or is he to account upon what is commanded and prohibited, by the reasoning of Western man?

Bugu da ƙari, tabbatar da Mahalicci yana wajabta ra'ayi game da dangantakarsa da halittunsa. Dangantakar Mahalicci da halitta ko dai Mahalicci ne zai ayyana ta, ko kuma halitta ce za ta ayyana ta. Game da halitta, bai dace ta ayyana dangantakarta da Mahalicci ba saboda rashin ikonta, kasawarta da iyakancewarta. Haka kuma, ba ta da sanin Nufin Mahalicci (Iradathul Khaliq) game da halitta, sai dai idan Mahalicci da kansa ya sanar da ita. Saboda haka, ayyana dangantakar Mahalicci da halitta haƙƙin Mahalicci ne shi kaɗai. Anan ne tambaya ta taso: wa zai ayyana dangantakar Mahalicci da halitta, idan bisa tunanin Yammacin Duniya za a raba addini, ko tsarin Mahalicci? Idan aka ce halitta ce ke ayyana ta, to wannan ba daidai ba ne, kamar yadda muka bayyana a sama. Idan kuma aka ce Mahalicci da kansa ne ya ayyana irin wannan dangantakar rabuwa, to ina hujjar hakan? Idan akwai wata hujja ta tunanin Yammacin Duniya, to ita ce maganar Littafi Mai Tsarki: "Ku ba Kaisar abin da yake na Kaisar, ku ba Allah abin da yake na Allah" (Girkanci: AttoSote ouv tci Kaioapog Kafoapi koi to toO OeoO to) 0£(jj).) Amma wannan hujja ba ta da inganci, domin ba hujja ce ta hankali ga dukan ɗan Adam baki ɗaya ba. Wannan saboda hujjar tana iya ba da halascin raba addini da rayuwa ga Kiristoci a mafi kyau, bisa ga fahimtarsu ta murɗaɗɗiyar Kiristanci. Duk da haka, wannan ba ya halasta raba addini ga wasu kamar Musulmai, domin Musulunci yana mayar da Kaisar (mai mulki) da dukiyoyinsa duka ga Allah (SWT). Saboda haka, ba shi da inganci sekularism ya zama akidar ɗan Adam baki ɗaya.

Furthermore, the affirmation of the Creator mandates a view about his relationship with the created. The relation of the Creator with the creation is to be either defined by the Creator, or by the creation. As for the creation, it is not suitable to define its relationship with the Creator due to its inability, deficiency and limitation. This is in addition to its lack of knowledge about the Will of the Creator (Iradathul Khaliq) pertaining to creation, unless the Creator Himself informs the creation. Accordingly, defining the relationship of the Creator with the creation is exclusive to the Creator Himself alone. Here the question arises: who else is to define the relationship of the Creator with creation, if, according to the Western conception, there is to be a separation of religion, or the system of the Creator? If it is said that the relationship is defined by the created, then it is invalid, as we have clarified above. If it is said that such a relationship of separation is defined by the Creator himself, then where is the evidence for it? If there is any evidence of the Western conception, then it is the expression of the Bible, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s (Greek: AttoSote ouv tci Kaioapog Kafoapi koi to toO OeoO to) 0£(jj).” However, this evidence is invalid because it is not rational evidence for all of humanity, universally. This is because the evidence may give legitimacy to separating the religion from the life for Christians at best, according to their distorted understanding of Christianity. However, this does not justify the separation of religion for others like Muslims, as Islam renders Caesar (the ruler) and all his possessions to Allah (swt). Thus, it is invalid for secularism to be the creed of humanity as a whole.

4- Akidar sakularizim akida ce da ta saba wa dabi'ar ɗan adam ta asali. Ta hanyar amincewa a fakaice da addini, tana amincewa da dabi'ar tsarkakewa ta addini, wadda ta halitta ce kuma ta asali a cikin mutum. Ta hanyar amincewa da addini, sakularizim yana amincewa da wajibcin biyan wannan dabi'ar tsarkakewa. Duk da haka, sai sakularizim ya takaita wannan biyan bukata ga tsarkakewa da ibada ta mutum kadai. Sai dai dabi'ar tsarkakewa ba ta bayyana a cikin ibada ta mutum kadai ba. Haka kuma za ta bayyana a fili a dukkan sauran al'amuran da mutum ba shi da iko a kansu kuma yana bukatar taimako. Tun da sakularizim ya raba addini da rayuwa, yana kore hakikanin rashin iko da bukatar mutum, watau yana watsi da musunta wani bangare na tsarin dabi'ar ɗan adam ta asali.

4- The creed of secularism is a creed that also contradicts the instinctual nature of humans. By implicitly acknowledging religion, it acknowledges the instinct of religious sanctification, which is natural and instinctive in humans. By acknowledging religion, secularism acknowledges the necessity of satiating the instinct of sanctification. Despite that, secularism then restricts that satiation to individual sanctification and worship alone. However, the instinct of sanctification does not appear in individual worship alone. It will also appear and be apparent in all other matters in which one is incapable and needy. Since secularism separates religion and life, it negates the reality of human incapability and need, i.e. it rejects and denies a part of the human instinctive constitution.

Sakularism ya mayar da addini zuwa dangantaka ta kashin kai da ta mutum ɗaya tsakanin Mahalicci da halitta. Sakularism ya amince, a gefe ɗaya, cewa addini don tsarkake mutum da bautarsa ne, amma a ɗaya gefen kuma, yana watsi da jin rashin iyawa da kasawar ɗan adam wajen tafiyar da al'amuran gama-gari na mutane da mulki. Mutum, wajen tafiyar da al'amuran rayuwarsa, watau wajen tsara halayensa da suka shafi biyan buƙatun sha'awoyinsa da bukatunsa na jiki, yana nuna bambance-bambance, rashin daidaito da sabani. Wannan yana nuna cewa mutum ba shi da iko, kuma yana buƙatar Mahalicci, Wanda ke tafiyar da dukkan al'amura. Saboda haka, addini ko tsarin da Mahalicci, Wanda ke tafiyar da dukkan al'amura, ya umarta, yana cikin abubuwan da ɗan adam yake da su a dabi'unsa. Mahalicci shi kaɗai ne Ya san asirin mutum, wanda shi ne tushen tafiyar da al'amuran mutum.

Secularism reduced religion to a personal, individualistic relationship between the Creator and the created. Secularism recognizes on the one hand that religion is for individual sanctification and worship, but on the other hand, it ignores the human feelings of inability and shortcomings in managing the collective affairs of humans and governance. Man in managing his own affairs of life, i.e. in organizing his behavior related to satiating his instincts and organic needs, shows differences, disparity and contradiction. This indicates that man is incapable and is in need of the Creator, the One who manages all the affairs. Accordingly, the religion or the system commanded by the Creator, the one who manages all the affairs, is amongst the human instincts. The Creator alone is the One who knows the secrets of man, which is the basis of managing the affairs of man.

A ƙarshe, akidar sekula (secularism) akida ce marar inganci saboda sabanin ta da hankali da dabi'a. Ba mu yi kuskure ba idan muka ce akidar sekula, kamar yadda mutum ya sani, akida ce ta ƙarya wacce tushenta rauni ne, hujjojinta na zahiri ne kawai, kuma ginin ilimin ta rauni ne.

In conclusion, the creed of secularism is an invalid creed because of its contradiction to reason and instinct. We are not wrong to say that the creed of secularism, known by man, is a false creed whose foundation is fragile, whose justifications are superficial and whose intellectual edifice is fragile.