Kalmar "individualism" ta samo asali daga kalmar "individual". Asalinta kuma ita ce kalmar Latin "individuum", wadda ke nufin abu mara rabuwa ko wanda ba a iya raba shi. A Yammacin duniya, wannan ma'ana a fannin falsafa tana nufin ra'ayin individualism da ake amfani da shi a kan abu mara rabuwa, wato mutum, a cikin halayen mutum na musamman a matsayin wanda ke jin 'yancin yin tunani, zaɓi da aiki. Ra'ayi ne da ke tabbatar da cewa mutum ya fi duk wani nau'in gaskiya daraja, kuma yana da mafi girman daraja ta asali. Ana kuma amfani da kalmar individualism wajen bambanta ta da mulkin kama-karya da akida ta gama-gari (collectivism). Tana samar da hangen nesa na siyasa wanda ke ba wa mutum da himmarsa ta kansa fifiko, tare da rage rawar gwamnati ko ma musanta ta. Haka kuma tana samar da hangen nesa na zamantakewa wanda ke mayar da hankali kan haƙƙoƙin mutum, sabanin al'umma, tare da sanya rawar gwamnati da cibiyoyin al'umma su yi wa mutum hidima da tabbatar da muradunsa. Ra'ayin individualism yana ƙunshe da gwagwarmayar mutanen Yamma kan gwamnatocin kama-karya da na mulkin danniya, kafin Haskakawa (Enlightenment) da zamani. Yana alamta sabon hangen nesa na duniyar Yamma, mai girma na siyasa, tattalin arziki da zamantakewa, wanda a cikinsa mutane sun zama masu mulki kuma cibiyar duniya, suna sarrafa wanzuwar duniya. Kowane mutum yana da 'yancin zaɓar salon rayuwarsa da halayensa, domin shi ne abin da ya riga gwamnati, al'umma da zamantakewa. Mutum yana haihuwa da haƙƙoƙi na halitta waɗanda dole ne ya more. Saboda haka, mutane su ne manufar gwamnati, wadda take kiyaye haƙƙoƙinsu da kare 'yancinsu. Individualism kuma ita ce manufar al'umma, inda al'umma take yi wa mutum hidima, ba inda mutum yake yi wa al'umma hidima ba.

The word individualism is derived from the word individual. Its origin is the Latin word individuum, which means an indivisible entity. In the West, this meaning in the philosophical sense, as the concept of individualism is applied on an entity that is indivisible, the human being, in the human's distinguished characteristics as one who enjoys independence to think, choose and act. It is the theory that asserts that an individual is superior to all forms of reality, with the greatest intrinsic worth. The term individualism is also used in contrast to totalitarianism and collectivism. It provides the political vision that lends preeminence to the individual and individual initiative, reducing, or even denying, the role of the state. It also provides the societal vision that focuses on the rights of the individual, as opposed to the community, whilst making the role of the state and societal institutions subservient to the individual and ensuring his interests. The concept of individualism encapsulates the reality of the struggle of the Western man against totalitarian and despotic regimes, before Enlightenment and modernity. It symbolizes the new Western universal view, with political, economic and social dimensions, in which individuals become both masters and the center of the universe, controlling the existence of the universe. Every individual has the freedom to choose his way of life and behavior, as he is the entity that precedes the entities of the state, community and society. The individual is born with natural rights which he must enjoy. Accordingly, individuals are the objective of the state, which preserves their rights and protects their freedom (liberty). Individualism is also the objective of society, where it is a society where the community serves the individual, and not where the individual serves the community.

Gaskiyar magana game da ra'ayin daidaikun mutane (individualism) ita ce tana fitowa ne daga akidar boye addini daga harkokin rayuwa (secularism). Wannan ra'ayi ya bayyana ne a lokacin da mutanen Yamma suka kubuta daga ikon Coci da sarakuna, wadanda suka danganta dukkan al'amuran duniyarsu da ayyukansu da Lahira. A cikin wannan tsari, ya ji an matsa masa kuma ana zalunce shi, ga yadda ake murkushe nufinsa da hakkokinsa a rayuwa. A wancan zamani, an tsara asalin kasancewarsa bisa al'adu da imanin al'umma. Lokacin da ya kubuta daga wannan iko, alakarsa da Lahira ta yanke. Sai ya mayar da dukkan hankalinsa ga al'amuran duniya. Don haka ya fara rayuwa a cikin wannan duniya ba a wajenta ba, kamar yadda ake fada. Maimakon haka, ya zama shugaban duniya. Muhimmancin daidaikun mutum da ikonsa sun samu karfi ta hanyar ka'idar hakkokin dabi'a (natural rights). Wannan ka'ida ta tabbatar da cewa daidaikun mutum yana da hakkokinsa ne da suka samo asali daga dabi'arsa, alhali al'umma ba ta ba shi irin wadannan hakkoki ba. Wadannan hakkoki an kayyade su a gare shi. Suna da na duniya baki daya, na asali, ba za a iya kwace su ba, kuma ba za a iya soke su ba.

The reality of the concept of individualism is that it emanates from secularism. The concept arose when the Western man rid himself of the authority of the Church and kings, that connected all of his worldly affairs and actions to the Hereafter. Within the system, he felt coerced and oppressed, with his will and rights within life, crushed. In that era, his identity was shaped according to the traditions and beliefs of the society. When he rid himself of this authority, his connection with the Hereafter was severed. He then turned his full attention towards worldly affairs. So he started living in this world and not outside of this world, as they say. Instead, he became master of this world. The centrality and sovereignty of the individual was reinforced by the theory of natural rights. This theory asserts that the individual has his rights derived from his nature, whilst the society does not grant him such rights. These rights are fixed for him. They are universal, fundamental, inalienable and cannot be repealed.

Don haka mutane suna haifuwa da haƙƙoƙinsu na asali, wato wanzuwarsu tare da haƙƙoƙinsu tana gabatar da wanzuwar al'umma, dokokinta, shari'unta da takurawarta. Saboda haka, 'yanci shi ne tushen wanzuwar ɗan Adam. Daidaikun mutane suna daidai a cikin waɗannan haƙƙoƙi. Babu ɗayansu da yake hana ko soke haƙƙoƙin wani. Tun da mutum ba mai zaman jama'a ba ne a asali da ɗabi'a, yana fuskantar husuma, rikici da hargitsi idan aka same shi cikin zamantakewa. Saboda haka, dole ne a samu tsari a irin wannan yanayi ta hanyar yin sulhu da wata al'umma ta daidaikun mutane. Manufar wannan al'umma ita ce kafa haƙƙin 'yanci da daidaito ga kowa, wato daidaikun mutum yana miƙa haƙƙoƙinsa ga nufin gama-gari, wanda jiha ke wakilta ta hanyar yarjejeniyar zamantakewa. Ta haka, ta hanyar yarjejeniyar juna, hukumar mulki ta zama cibiyar ɗan Adam wadda take samo dokokinta daga yarjejeniyar tsari da ke tsakanin mutane. Jiha tana daidaita haƙƙoƙi da 'yanci, wato jiha tana aiki bisa nufin ɗan Adam ba bisa nufin Allah ba, inda nufin daidaikun mutane shi ne tushe da asalin nufin gama-gari.

Thus individuals are born with their natural rights i.e. their existence with their rights precedes the existence of the society, its laws, legislations and constraints. Accordingly, freedom is the foundation of human existence. Individuals are equal in these rights. None of them deprives or repeals the rights of others. Since the individual is a non-social entity in terms of origin and nature, he is subjected to quarrel, conflict and chaos in the event of socialization. So there must be an organization in such a situation by making concessions with a community of individuals. This community's objective is to establish the right to freedom and equality for all i.e. the individual concedes his rights to the collective will, embodied by the state through social contract. In this way, through mutual contract, the ruling authority becomes a human institution that derives its legislations from the regulatory agreement between the people. The state then regulates the rights and freedoms, i.e. the state executes upon the basis of human will and not upon the basis of divine will, where the will of individuals is the root and basis of collective will.

Bisa ga masana na Yamma, ɗaiɗaikun mutum (individualism) yana cikin ginshiƙan da ke bayyana wayewar Yamma. A cikin littafinsa, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence In the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, masanin kimiyyar siyasa ɗan Amurka Charles Alan Murray ya ce: "Manufa da 'yancin kai suna haɗe da halayyar al'adu da ta bayyana wayewar Turai, wato ɗaiɗaikun mutum." Saboda haka, ana kwatanta jari-hujja a matsayin akida ta ɗaiɗaikun mutum. Wannan akida tana ganin cewa al'umma tarin ɗaiɗaikun mutane ne. Jari-hujja tana ganin al'umma ne kawai a matsayin abu na biyu, duk da cewa tana karkata ga ɗaiɗaikun mutane. Saboda haka, jari-hujja tana ɗaukar nauyin tabbatar da 'yancin ɗaiɗaikun mutane. Don haka, 'yancin addini yana cikin abubuwan da take ɗaukar su da tsarki. 'Yancin mallakar dukiya ma yana da tsarki, kuma bisa falsafarta ba a kamata a takura shi ba. Gwamnati tana sanya takura ne kawai don tabbatar da 'yanci. Gwamnati tana aiwatar da waɗannan takurawa da ƙarfin soji da tsauraran dokoki. Duk da haka, gwamnati hanya ce kawai zuwa ga manufa, ba manufa a kanta ba. Iko a ƙarshe yana hannun ɗaiɗaikun mutane, ba hannun gwamnati ba.

According to the Western thinkers, individualism is amongst the defining pillars of the Western civilization. In his book, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence In the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, American political scientist Charles Alan Murray states, “Purpose and autonomy are intertwined with the defining cultural characteristic of European civilization, individualism.” Thus capitalism is described as an individualistic ideology. The ideology views that society is a collection of individuals. Capitalism views society only as a secondary consideration, whilst being orientated towards individuals. Accordingly, capitalism is obliged to ensure individual freedoms. Hence, freedom of belief is within what it sanctifies. Freedom of economic ownership is also sacred and must not be restricted, according to its philosophy. The state makes restrictions only to ensure freedoms. The state executes these restrictions with the power of the army and strict laws. Nevertheless, the state is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. Sovereignty ultimately belongs to individuals and not to the state.

Jari-hujja ba ta da tushe a falsafar kasuwanci (Capitalism) wajen fahimtarta game da mutum, al'umma da ra'ayin haƙƙoƙi. Akwai hujjoji da yawa da ke nuna rashin ingancinta, ciki har da:

Capitalism is an invalid philosophy in its perception about man, society and the concept of rights. The evidence for its invalidity are many, including:

Da farko: A cikin littafin Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes ya bayyana haƙƙoƙin halitta waɗanda falsafar daidaikun mutane (individualism) ta dogara da su, inda ya ce: "Haƙƙin halitta, wanda marubuta sukan kira jus naturale, shi ne 'yancin da kowane mutum yake da shi na amfani da ikonsa yadda ya ga dama don kiyaye halittarsa; wato, rayuwarsa; saboda haka, na yin duk abin da, bisa ga hukuncinsa da hankalinsa, zai ɗauka shi ne hanya mafi dacewa da hakan." A cikin littafin Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant ya yi magana game da matsayin daidaikun mutum a matsayin mutum, inda ya ce: "Kawai ta abin da mutum yake aikatawa ba tare da damuwa da jin daɗi ba, cikin cikakken 'yanci kuma ba tare da dogaro da abin da yanayi zai iya samar masa ba tare da aiki ba, shi ne yake ba rayuwarsa, a matsayin wanzuwar mutum, daraja marar iyaka."

Firstly: In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes defined the natural rights upon which the philosophy of individualism is built, by saying, “The right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.” In the book, Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant spoke of the preeminence of the individual as a person, by saying, “Only by what one does heedless of enjoyment, in complete freedom and independently of what nature could passively procure for him, does he give to his life, as the existence of a person, an absolute worth.”.

Abin da suka nufa da wannan shi ne cewa mutum an haife shi da wata ƙayyadaddiyar fitira. Wannan fitira ita ce, wadda mutum yake haifuwa a kanta ko kuma aka same shi a kanta, ita ce dokar ɗabi'arsa da halayensa. Ma'ana, wannan fitira da kanta tana da ƙa'idoji tabbatattu, watau haƙƙoƙi. Ra'ayin shi ne cewa mutum yana da haƙƙoƙin halitta. Waɗannan haƙƙoƙin halitta haƙƙoƙi ne da suka riga siyasa ko kuma suka riga yarjejeniya, kamar yadda suke faɗa. Ana ɗauka cewa wannan fitira tana ƙunshe da haƙƙoƙin da suka gabaci al'umma tare da tsarinta, dokokinta da tsare-tsarenta, bisa tunanin yanayin halitta. Yanayin halitta wani hali ne na zato da tunani a zukatan wasu masana falsafa kamar Thomas Hobbes, John Locke da wasu. Ba shi da wata hakika, domin an gina shi ne kan hasashe, zato da fahimta kawai. Maudu'in nazari ba shi da alaƙa da ɗan Adam na farko, wanda hakikaninsa tunani ne kawai a zukatansu. Haka kuma ba shi da alaƙa da mutanen zamanin da kafin wayewa. Maimakon haka, yana da alaƙa da 'yan Adam ta fuskar abin da ake iya taɓawa da ji, ko dai a matsayin daidaikun mutane ko kuma a matsayin al'umma gaba ɗaya.

What they intended by this is that man is born with a specific nature. It is this nature, upon which he is born or he is found, that is his law of conduct and behavior. This means that this nature is by itself of fixed principles i.e. rights. The theory is that the individual possesses natural rights. These natural rights are pre-political rights or pre- contractual rights, as they say. This nature is supposed to constitute rights that precede the society with its systems, laws and legislations, based on the idea of state of nature. State of nature is the virtual and imaginary state in the minds of some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and others. It has no reality as it is based on speculations, assumptions and perceptions. The focus of study is not related to the first human being, whose reality is imagined in their minds. It is not related to prehistoric or pre-civilized humans either. Instead it is related to human beings in terms of being tangible and sensed, both as individuals or as a collective community.

Saboda haka, ba sai mun ɗauka cewa mutum yana da gaskiya ba don mu yi nazarinsa mu kuma yanke hukunci a kansa. Maimakon haka, dole ne mu fara daga gaskiyar da ke gabanmu, mu yi kwatanci da abin da ba ya gani da abin da ake gani, ba akasin haka ba. Yanayin ɗan Adam da suke magana a kai shi ne abin da aka halitta ko aka samu a cikin mutum. Ana iya nazarin mahallin mutum ta hanyar duba ayyukansa da halayensa. Idan aka duba ayyukan mutum, za a ga cewa a cikinsa akwai ƙarfin rai. Wannan ƙarfin rai yana da jin dadi na halitta wanda ke motsa mutum ya biya buƙatunsu. Wannan motsawa yana haifar da ji da jin dadi waɗanda ke buƙatar biyan buƙata. Daga cikin waɗannan ji da jin dadi akwai waɗanda suke wajaba a biya su. Idan ba a biya su ba, mutum zai mutu, domin suna da alaƙa da kasancewar ƙarfin rai, dangane da wanzuwar ɗan Adam. Sannan akwai ji da jin dadi da ke buƙatar biyan buƙata, amma ba sa wajabta jin dadi. Idan mutum bai biya waɗannan ba, zai shiga damuwa amma zai ci gaba da rayuwa. Wannan saboda suna da alaƙa da bukatun ƙarfin rai, amma ba da kasancewar ƙarfin ba. Saboda haka, ƙarfin rai yana da nau'i biyu: nau'i ɗaya yana buƙatar biyan buƙata ta wajibi, kuma ana kiransu bukatun halitta kamar yunwa, ƙishirwa da fitar da najasa. Ɗayan nau'in yana buƙatar biyan buƙata amma ba ta wajibi ba, kuma ana kiransu ilhami. Akwai ilhami uku: 1) Ilhamin rayuwa, wanda bayyanarsa shi ne tsoro, son mallaka, son mulki da sauran abubuwan da ke taimakawa wajen rayuwar ɗan Adam. 2) Ilhamin haihuwa, wanda bayyanarsa shi ne sha'awar jima'i, uwa, uba da sauran abubuwan da ke taimakawa wajen wanzuwar jinsin ɗan Adam. 3) Ilhamin tsarkakewa, wanda bayyanarsa shi ne jin rashi, rashin iya aiki, buƙata da girmamawa. Shi ne girmamawa mafi girma a zuciya ga wani abu daga cikin wasu abubuwan da ke motsa mutum ya nemi asalinsa, wanzuwarsa, da babbar matsalarsa wadda ke wakilta da tambayoyi masu muhimmanci: daga ina muka fito? Ina za mu je? Me ya sa haka yake?

So we do not need to assume the reality of a human in order to study him and then to make a judgment upon him. Instead, we must proceed from the existing reality to make analogy upon the absent, with what is witnessed. Not the other way around. The nature of humans which they discuss is what is created or found within humans. The essence of a man can be studied by looking at his actions and behaviors. When looking at the actions of a man, one can observe within him vital energy. This life energy has natural sensations that motivate man to satiate them. This motivation creates feelings and sensations that require to satiation. Amongst those feelings and sensations are those that mandate satiation. If they are not satiated, man will die because they are related to the existence of vital energy, in terms of the existence of humans. Then there are feelings and sensations that require satiation, but they do not mandate sensation. If a man does not satiate these, he will be agitated but he will remain alive. This is because they are related to the needs of the vital energy, but not the existence of the energy. Accordingly, life energy is of two kinds: one kind requires mandatory satiation and are called organic needs such as hunger, thirst and relieving the call of nature. The other kind requires satiation but not mandatorily and are called instincts. There are three instincts: 1) Survival instinct whose manifestations are fear, love to own, love to dominate and others that serve for the survival of humans. 2) Procreation instinct, whose manifestations are sexual inclinations, motherhood, fatherhood and others that serve for the existence of human species. 3) Sanctification instinct, whose manifestations are the feelings of deficiency, incapability, need and reverence. It is the ultimate respect in the heart for something amongst others that motivate man to search for his essence, existence and his greatest problem represented by the crucial questions, where are we from? Where shall we go? Why is it so?

Wannan shi ne yanayin ɗan Adam. Ya kamata a lura cewa idan mutum ya yi gaggawar biyan buƙatunsa ko abubuwan da ke motsa shi, yana yin hakan ne bisa fahimta ta hankali, wanda hakan ya bambanta shi da dabbobi, domin ba wani abu ne kawai na ɗabi'a ba. Saboda haka mutum yana buƙatar manufofi guda biyu game da wannan halayya: manufar game da abu dangane da ko yana biyan buƙata ko ba ya biyawa, da kuma manufar game da rayuwa dangane da ko abin halal ne a biya buƙata da shi ko a'a. Manufofin game da rayuwa ba sa samuwa daga cikin ainihin abubuwa ko daga cikin ainihin ɗan Adam. Maimakon haka, su al'amura ne na waje da ke da alaƙa da mahangar da ma'aunin ayyukan da aka karɓa. A takaice dai, suna da alaƙa da tsarin da ke fitowa daga akida, wanda ke ƙayyade haƙƙoƙi da wajibai ga mutum a matsayinsa na ɗaiɗai ko na al'umma.

This is the nature of humans. It is to be noted that when a man rushes to satiate his needs or instincts, he only does that based on the rational comprehension, distinguished from animals in that it is not a merely an instinctive reaction. Thus a man needs two concepts for the behavior: The concept about a thing in terms whether it satiates or does not satiate, and the concept about life in terms of whether the thing is permissible to satiate with or not. Concepts about life are not derived from the essence of things and not from the essence of humans. Instead they are external matters connected to the viewpoint and criterion of adopted actions. In other words, they are connected to the system emerging from the creed that defines rights and obligations for a man as an individual or community.

Babu haƙƙoƙin halitta da ke cikin mutum tun daga haihuwa. Wannan saboda haƙƙoƙi ana ƙayyade su ne ta hanyar ra'ayoyin wayewar kai da al'adu da daidaikun mutane suke karɓa. Wayewar kai sun bambanta game da duk abin da suke karɓa na ra'ayoyi da tsare-tsare, wanda ingancinsa ake auna shi gwargwadon yadda ya yi daidai da yanayin ɗan Adam (fitra). Misali, wayewar Turai ta Tsakiya ta saba wa yanayin ɗan Adam ta hanyar karɓar ra'ayin zaman kaɗaici na addini da danniya. Haka kuma, wayewar Turai ta Zamani ta saba wa yanayin ɗan Adam ta hanyar karɓar ra'ayin batsa da amincewa da luwaɗi. Amma wayewar Musulunci tana daidaita da yanayin ɗan Adam ta hanyar karɓar ra'ayin tsari da biyan buƙata, ba tare da danne ta ba ko barin ta ta wuce kima. Musulunci yana amincewa da sha'awa da biyan buƙatarta, a lokaci guda yana tsara yadda sha'awar za ta bayyana ba tare da an bar ta ba tare da iyaka.

There are no such thing as natural rights that exist within a person from birth. This is because rights are determined by the civilizational and cultural concepts, adopted by the individuals. Civilizations are distinct with regards to all that they adopt in terms of concepts and systems, whose validity is measured according to the extent of their agreement with the human nature (fitra). For example, Medieval European civilization contradicts human nature by adopting the idea of monasticism and repression. Likewise, Modern European Civilization contradicts human nature by its adoption of the idea of pornography and approving homosexuality. As for the Islamic civilization, it agrees with human nature by adopting the concept of organization and satiation, without repressing it or unleashing it to excess. Islam acknowledges the instinct and its satiation, whilst also organizing the manifestation of the instinct without unleashing it.

Na biyu: Tun da aka sani mutum yana rayuwa a cikin al'umma, yana zaune a cikin yanayin jiha mai tsari, kamar yadda ake fada, to bai ke cikin yanayin dabi'a ba. Gaskiya ita ce shi halitta ce ta zamantakewa, mai bin wani tsari a cikin al'umma da jiha wanda ke tsara hakkokinsa da wajibanci nasa. Amma da'awar cewa mutum yana canzawa daga yanayin dabi'a zuwa yanayin jiha, wayewa a cikin al'umma mai tsari, ta hanyar yarjejeniyar zamantakewa da ke tabbatar da hakkokin dabi'a na mutum daya-daya, ba ta da tushe, ta fuskar ilimi da kuma aiki. Haka nan da'awar cewa nufin mutum daya shi ne tushe kuma farkon al'umma, saboda haka dole a kiyaye daidaikun mutane ta hanyar kallon al'umma a matsayin tarin mutane daya-daya, wanda a cikinsa tsarin ke kafa dabi'un mutane ba al'umma ba, ita ma ba ta da tushe, ta fuskar ilimi da aiki. Gaskiyar al'umma ita ce tarin mutane masu dangantaka ta dindindin. Don haka mutane na iya haduwa har su kai miliyoyi don su samar da kungiya. Tarin mutane ne ke zama kungiya. Idan akwai dangantaka ta dindindin a tsakaninsu, to sai su zama al'umma. Idan babu dangantaka ta dindindin a tsakaninsu, to sai su kasance kungiya kawai. Ba za su iya zama al'umma ba sai idan akwai dangantaka ta dindindin a tsakaninsu.

Secondly: Since when man is known to live in a society, living in a civil state, as they say, he is not in a natural state. The reality is that he is a social being subjected to a system within the society and state that defines his rights and obligations. As for the claim that man turns from the state of nature into a civil state, civilized in a civil society, through a social contract that guarantees individualized natural rights, it is invalid both theoretically and practically. As for the claim that the individual’s will is the basis and precursor of community and so individuality must be preserved by looking at society as a collection of individuals, in which the system establishes the values of individuals and not the community, this is also invalid both theoretically and practically. The reality of society is that it is a collection of people with permanent relationships. Thus, individuals can come together even in millions to form a group. It is the collection of individuals that forms into a group. If there exist permanent relationships between them, then they become society. If there are no permanent relationships, between them, then they remain a group alone. They can form a society only when there are permanent relationships between them.

Abin da ke sa wani rukuni na mutane su zama al'umma shi ne kasancewar dangantaka mai ɗorewa ('alaaqaat) a tsakaninsu. Waɗannan dangantakoki suna tasowa ne sakamakon buƙatunsu (maSaalaH), domin mutane suna buƙatar juna don cika buƙatu iri-iri da suka bambanta. Saboda haka, buƙatu ita ce dalilin kafa dangantaka, kuma idan babu buƙatu, ba za a sami dangantaka ba. Duk da haka, irin waɗannan buƙatu ba su zama ainihin buƙatu ba, ko kuma ba su cika matsayinsu na buƙatu ba, sai ta hanyar tunanin mutum game da buƙatun. Tun da ra'ayoyi ma'anoni ne na tunani, to tunani ne yake tantance buƙatu. Saboda haka, kasancewar tunani da haɗuwarsa a tsakanin mutane ne yake haifar da dangantakarsu.

What makes a group of people form a society is the existence of permanent relationships ('alaaqaat) between them. These relationships emerge as a consequence of their interests (maSaalaH) because people need one another to fulfill their many, varied interests. Thus, interests are the motive for establishing relationships and if there are no interests, there will be no relationships. However, such interests are only real or corrupted, in terms of their nature as being interests, by the concept of man about the interests. Since concepts are the meanings of thoughts, thoughts determine the interests. Thus the existence of thoughts and their unification amongst a people, generates their relationships.

Kuma dole ne a sami mashaa'ir (ji-ji) baya ga tunani, kamar farin ciki, jin daɗi, fushi da sauran su, kuma dole waɗannan ji-ji su ma su haɗu cikin jituwa da maslaha. Amma ko tunani da ji-ji duka ba su isa su samar da alaƙa ta dindindin ba. Dole ne a sami tsari (nizaami) da zai kula da wannan maslaha, don alaƙar ta kasance a kan tushe na dindindin. Saboda haka, dole ne a cimma haɗin kai (wahda) na tunani, ji-ji da tsare-tsare a tsakanin al'umma, domin a kafa alaƙoƙi a tsakanin su. Idan babu haɗin kai na waɗannan abubuwa uku a tsakanin su, to babu alaƙoƙi. Don haka al'umma ita ce mutane tare da haɗin kai na tunani, ji-ji da tsare-tsare a tsakanin su. Al'umma ba kamar yadda masu jari-hujja ke iƙirari take ba. Ba kawai rukunin daidaikun mutane ba ne kowane ɗaya daga cikin su yake aiki don cimma moriyarsa ta kansa. A gare su, al'umma tana zama ne kawai sakamakon tarin nufin daidaikun mutane.

Since there must be emotions (mashaa'ir) in addition to thoughts, such as joy, pleasure, anger and others, such emotions must also be unified in harmony with the interest. Yet, even both thoughts and emotions are not sufficient to generate the relationship permanently. There must be a system to treat this interest, so that this relationship exists on a permanent basis. Accordingly, unification (waHdah) of thoughts, emotions and systems must be achieved amongst a people, in order to establish relationships between them. If there is no unification of these three matters amongst them, then there will be no relationships. Thus society is a people and the unification of thoughts, emotions and systems amongst them. Society is not as the capitalists claim. It is not merely a group of individuals in which each individual works to achieve his personal interest. According to them, society is a byproduct of the aggregate of the wills of individuals.

Ra'ayoyin Yammacin Duniya game da al'umma ba su canja ma'anar al'umma a matsayin gaskiya bayyananniya da ke wanzuwa ba. Maimakon haka, abin da ya canja a tsakaninsu shi ne aikin al'umma, domin an zana ra'ayin dangantaka da wani launi na musamman. Ra'ayin mutum-kawai (Individualism) yana nufin fifikon mutum shi kaɗai, tare da mai da hankali kan haƙƙoƙi da 'yancin daidaikun mutane. Wannan yana bisa siffanta daidaikun mutane a matsayin halittu masu cin gashin kansu, rabe da al'umma. A ra'ayin Yammacin Duniya, rayuwar al'umma ba komai ba ce face al'amarin zaɓin mutum ɗaya da zaɓin amfani, inda haɗin kai da alaƙa ake sanya su su biya buƙatun daidaikun mutane. Saboda haka al'umma ta jari-hujja al'umma ce da aka gina dangantakarta bisa moriya, wadda amfani (fa'ida) ke jagoranta, abin da ke haifar da keɓewa, kasancewa cikin kai, son kai, rashin kula, rashin haɗin kai, rashin daidaituwar dangantakar iyali, da asarar dabi'un iyali a cikin al'umma baki ɗaya.

Western views about society did not in fact change the definition of society as an evident, existing reality. Instead, it is only the function of society that has changed amongst them, as the concept of relationships was painted with a particular hue. Individualism constitutes preeminence of the individual, with a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individuals. This is upon the characterization of individuals being independent beings, separated from the community. In the Western view, societal life is nothing but an issue of individual decisions and utilitarian choices, in which connections and relations are conditioned to please the interests of individuals. Thus capitalist society is a society formed with relationships based on the interest, governed by utility (benefit), thereby resulting in isolation, introversion, selfishness, indifference, lack of cooperation and dysfunctional family relationships and the loss of family values within the society at large.

Wannan ya kai ga karuwar suka ga tsarin son kai (individualism) har ma a Yamma, da kuma fitowar kiraye-kiraye na farfado da tsarin gama-kai (collectivism) da hadin kai (solidarity), a matsayin dabi'u ga daidaikun mutane.

This in turn led to growing criticism of individualism even in the West and the emergence of calls to revive collectivism and solidarity, as values for individuals.

Bugu da kari, ƙasashen Yamma kansu sun fara shiga tsakani a yawancin al'amuran tattalin arziki, siyasa da zamantakewa, suna takaita 'yancin kai da son rai (individualism) da sunan samar da daidaito a cikin al'umma. Wannan amincewa ce da wanzuwar muradun jama'a, waɗanda aka fi fifita su a kan muradun kai na mutum ɗaya, har tsarin mulki ya fara kama da gwamnatocin kama-karya.

Moreover, the Western states themselves have actually begun to interfere in many of the economic, political and social matters, restricting individualism on the pretext of creating a balance in the society. It is a recognition of the existence of public interests, preferred over the private, individualistic interests, until the regimes began to resemble totalitarian regimes.

Na uku: Falsafar ɗaidaikun mutane (individualism) tana ganin cewa mutum yana cikin ƙoƙari mai ɗorewa da ci gaba don kiyaye kansa, 'yancinsa da haƙƙoƙinsa na mallaka da yanke hukunci da kansa, tare da tsoron narkewa cikin wata ƙungiyar gama-gari da aka ɗora masa da ƙarfi. Saboda haka, daidaikun mutane a cikin al'ummar jari-hujja abubuwa ne rabe-rabe ko halittu ɗaiɗai, waɗanda ke gasa da juna. Don haka kowane ɗan adam da aka raba yana zama abokin gaba ga wani ta hanyar ƙarfi ko aiki, wanda ke nufin cewa ɗaidaikun mutane suna ɗauka cewa akwai rikici tsakanin mutum da al'umma. A ra'ayin Yammacin Duniya, dole ne mutum ya zaɓi ɗaya daga cikin zaɓuɓɓuka biyu. Zaɓi na farko shi ne ɗaidaikun mutane (individualism), wanda a cikinsa mutum yana da daraja mafi girma, wanda ke ba shi damar tsara yanzu da gaba bisa ga sha'awarsa da nufinsa. Zaɓi na biyu shi ne gama-kai (collectivism), wanda a cikinsa ƙungiya ce take da daraja mafi girma, maimakon daidaikun mutane, wanda babu makawa kuma ba tare da wata matsala ba zai tsara, bisa ma'auni, sha'awa da nufin al'umma, kamar yadda wasu akidun siyasa, kamar gurguzanci (socialism), suke ikirari.

Thirdly: The philosophy of individualism perceives that an individual is in a persistent and continuous effort to preserve himself, his independence and rights to own and decide by himself, with a fear of dissolving into a collective identity imposed on him by coercion. Thus individuals in capitalist society are separated entities or individual beings, who compete with one another. So each separated individual is an enemy to another by force or action, which means individualism supposes the existence of conflict between the individual and the community. In the Western view man has to choose one of the two options. The first option is individualism in which he is of supreme value, allowing him to formulate his present and future, according to his desire and will. The second option is collectivism in which a group is of supreme value, instead of individuals, which would inevitably and automatically shape, based on the criterion, the desire and will of the community, as claimed by some ideological doctrines, such as socialism.

Amma, tun da mutum ya fi al'umma muhimmanci bisa ga falsafar Individualism, shi ne ya fi cancanta ya yi galaba, ya fi kowa a gaba, kuma ya fi kowa daraja, wannan kawai yana kiyaye yanayin rikici a cikin al'umma, wanda ke ci gaba da wanzuwa tsakanin daidaikun mutane da babbar al'umma.

However, since an individual takes precedence over a community, according to the philosophy of Individualism, one is more deserving to prevail, be first in preference and be of supreme value, this only maintains the state of conflict in a society, which continues to exist between the individuals and the wider community.

Individualism ba ya warware al'amuran mutane, kuma ba a tsara shi don tabbatar da farin ciki da gamsuwa ga mutum ba, ta hanyar kasancewarsa mutum guda a matsayin wani ɓangare na al'umma. Maimakon haka, yana raba ɓangare ɗaya da wani, kuma yana sa al'umma ta ci gaba da kasancewa cikin wutar rikici. Gaskiyar ita ce, dangantakar mutum da al'ummar cikin jama'a, watau mutane, tare da siffar kasancewarsu daidaikun mutane, duk kuwa da cewa suna cikin al'umma, dole ne a tsara ta ta yadda za a tabbatar da jituwa, daidaito, rashin rikici da rashin sabani tsakanin sha'awoyi da nufe-nufe, domin in ba haka ba hakan zai haifar da rikici, rarrabuwa da wargajewa. Saboda haka dole ne a dubi al'umma a matsayin gaba ɗaya mai sassa, sannan a dubi mutum a matsayin wani ɓangare na wannan al'umma, wanda ba za a iya raba shi da al'ummar gaba ɗaya ba. Sai dai kasancewar mutum wani ɓangare na al'umma ba yana nufin ɓangaren nan yana kama da sanda kawai a cikin dabaran keke ba. A'a, yana nufin wani muhimmin ɓangare ne na gaba ɗaya, kamar hannu da yake a matsayin wani ɓangare na jiki. Haka Musulunci ya kalli al'umma, har ma da dangantakar daidaikun mutane da al'umma. Saboda haka, Musulunci yana kula da mutum a matsayin wani ɓangare na al'umma, ba a matsayin mutum mai rabe da al'umma ba, wanda hakan ke kai ga kiyaye al'umma. A lokaci guda kuma, Musulunci yana kula da al'umma, ba a matsayin gaba ɗaya marar sassa ba, sai dai a matsayin gaba ɗaya da ya ƙunshi sassa waɗanda su ne daidaikun mutane, wanda hakan kuma ke kai ga kiyaye waɗannan mutane a matsayin sassan al'umma. Wannan kallon Musulunci ita ce kawai hanyar da ke tabbatar da kafuwar zaman lafiya, natsuwa, soyayya da tausayi a cikin al'umma. An karɓo daga Nu'mān bin Bashīr cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce.

Individualism does neither the affairs, nor are they organized to ensure happiness and contentment for a man, by being an individual as part of a community. Instead, it pits one party over another and keeps the society burning in the fires of conflict. The fact is that the relationships of an individual with the community of a society i.e. people, with the characterization of being individuals, whilst being part of a community, must be organized to ensure harmony, coherence, non-conflict and non-contradiction between desires and wills, which will lead to conflict, rupture and disintegration. So the community must be viewed as a whole having parts, whilst the individual must be viewed as a part of this community, inseparable from the community at large. However, the nature of an individual being a part of a community does not mean that it is a part is like a mere spoke in a wheel. Instead it means a significant part of the whole, like a hand being a part of the body. Such is the Islamic view about the society, including the relation of individuals with the community. Accordingly, Islam takes care of this individual as a part of a community and not as an individual separate from the community, which leads to the preservation of community. At the same time, Islam takes care of the community, not as a whole without having parts, but as a whole composed of parts who are individuals, which in turn leads to the preservation of those individuals as parts. This Islamic view is the only view that ensures the establishment of peace, tranquility, affection and compassion in society. Nu’man bin Bashir reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said.

Musulmai suna kama da jiki ɗaya na mutum; idan ido ya yi ciwo, dukan jiki yana jin zafi, kuma idan kai ya yi ciwo, dukan jiki yana jin zafi.” [Muslim ne ya ruwaito shi a cikin Sahihinsa],

Muslims are like one body of a person; if the eye is sore, the whole body aches, and if the head aches, the whole body aches.” [Narrated by Muslim in his Sahih],