Ma'anar 'yanci' ta asali ga dukkan bil'adama ita ce cewa ita ce kishiyar bauta ko bautar da mutum. Wannan ita ce ainihin ma'anar kalmar da aka ambata a cikin gadon harshe na bil'adama, tun daga lokacin da aka fara amfani da kalmar. Daga baya, a tsawon lokaci, ma'anarta ta faɗaɗa zuwa wasu al'amura. Saboda haka, an yi amfani da kalmar wajen bayyana ma'anoni na misali da ke nuna yanayin sabani na bauta bisa ga harsuna, al'adu da wayewar kan al'ummomi.

The original concept of freedom for all of humankind is that it is the opposite to slavery or enslavement. This is the real meaning of the term that has been mentioned in the linguistic heritage of humankind, since the term was first used. Then, over time, its connotation extended to other matters. So the term was used to express metaphorical meanings that express the paradox state of slavery according to the languages, cultures and civilizations of the nations.

A cikin ƙamusan Yammacin duniya, kalmar freedom (’yanci) tana da ma’anar abin da ya sha bamban da bauta. Jacqueline Russ ta bayyana a cikin littafinta Methods in Philosophy (Faransanci: Les methodes en philosophie), inda ta ce, “Jerin kalmomi da suka shafi kalmar liberte (’yanci) ya fi muhimmanci kuma ya fi wadata: dogaro, bauta, zaman bawa, mulkin wani, tilastawa, hana, zalunci, determinism (ƙaddara ta dole), kaddara, fatalism (imanin cewa komai an riga an ƙaddara shi), da sauransu, duk waɗannan kalmomi ne ko ra’ayoyi da ya kamata a bayyana su.” (Faransanci: La liste concernant le terme liberte est encore plus significative et plus riche: dependance, esclavage, servitude, assujettissement, contrainte, entrave, oppression, determinisme, destin, fatalite, etc., sont autant de termes ou concepts a cerner). ’Yanci yana da ma’anar rashin matsin lamba na waje. Mutanen Yamma sun lura cewa a cikinsa akwai ma’anar rashin takura, ko wajibcin tilastawa, ko tilastawa kan zaɓi ko aiki. Haka kuma ana amfani da shi a tsakanin mutanen Yamma da ma’anar ’yancin kai da mulki mallaka. Don haka mutum mai ’yanci shi ne wanda ba a tilasta masa daga waje ko ta ƙarfi daga wajensa ba. Ba ya bin wani ubangiji.

In the dictionaries of the West, the word freedom comes with the meaning of opposite to slavery. Jacqueline Russ states in Methods in Philosophy (French: Les methodes en philosophie), states, “The list concerning the term freedom is even more significant and richer: dependence, slavery, servitude, subjugation, constraint, hindrance, oppression, determinism, fate, fatalism, etc., are all terms or concepts to be defined.” (French: La liste concernant le terme liberte est encore plus significative et plus riche: dependance, esclavage, servitude, assujettissement, contrainte, entrave, oppression, determinisme, destin, fatalite, etc., sont autant de termes ou concepts a cerner). It has the meaning of the absence of external constraints. Westerners have noticed in it the meaning that gives the absence of constraints or necessity or coercion, over a choice or action. It is also used amongst Westerners with the meaning of independence and sovereignty. Thus a free man is the one who is not subjected to external constraints or coercive force from outside of him. He follows no master.

Daga amfani da kalmar a harshe, a wajen kusan dukkan ɗan adam, a bayyane yake cewa ma'anar da mutane suka amince da ita ta 'yanci ita ce 'yantuwa daga takura, ko ta jiki ce ko ta ɗabi'a. Tun zamanin da, ra'ayinta yana da alaƙa da takamaiman wayewa da al'adun da suka yi rinjaye a kowace al'umma. Duk da haka, an bayyana kalmar ne kawai da kishiyarta, wato bauta. Ma'anoninta na samo asali ko na zamani an gina su ne kawai ta hanyar lura da ma'anar 'yantuwa, sabanin bauta. Kamar yadda Aristotle ya faɗa a cikin littafinsa na Politics, ta hanyar cewa: "Me wannan yake nufi sai dai cewa sun bambance 'yanci da bauta, da haihuwa mai daraja da ta ƙasƙanci, ta hanyoyi biyu na nagarta da mugunta?"

From the linguistic usage of the word, amongst almost all of humankind, it is apparent that the consensus meaning of the word freedom is the emancipation from constraints, whether they are material or moral. Since ancient times, its concept has been associated with the specifics of the civilization and culture prevalent in any society. Despite that, the term was defined only with its opposite i.e. slavery. Its derivative or generated or modern meanings were only built by observing the meaning of emancipation, as opposed to slavery. As Aristotle states in his Politics, by saying, “What does this mean but that they distinguish freedom and slavery, noble and humble birth, by the two principles of good and evil?”.

Ɗan Adam bai fahimci ma'anar 'yanci ba sai bayan ya lura da ma'anar bautar ƙasa ko wasu ma'anoni makamantan su da ake haɗawa da ita kamar zalunci, tilastawa, matsin lamba da karfi, a cewar wasu masana falsafa. Masana falsafa na Yammacin duniya da masu tunani na zamanin Haskakawa ba su kauce wa wannan hanya ba lokacin da suka karɓi ra'ayin 'yanci, tare da ma'anoninsa na zamani na ilimi da siyasa, a ƙarni na sha takwas miladiyya. Sun kwatanta rayuwarsu a Zamanin Tsakiya a matsayin rayuwar bayi marasa nufi ko iko. Sun kwatanta Coci, tare da ikonta na addini, da sarakuna, tare da ikonsu na siyasa, a matsayin iyayen gida masu bautar da mutane, suna kwace ikon mutane na tunani, bayyanawa, mallakar abubuwa da jin daɗin rayuwa.

Humanity has perceived the meaning of freedom only after observing the meaning of slavery or other similar meanings attached to it such as oppression, coercion, compulsion and force, according to some of the philosophers. Western philosophers and thinkers of the Enlightenment era did not deviate from this method when they adopted the idea of freedom, with its modern intellectual and political concepts, in the eighteen century CE. They depicted their life in the Middle Ages as the life of slaves who have no will or power. They depicted the Church, with its religious authority, and kings, with their political authorities, as masters who enslave people, usurping the people’s will to think, express, possess and enjoy life.

Don haka, gwagwarmayarsu ta kasance ne saboda son rai da iko. Sun nemi 'yanci, watau 'yantar da kansu daga takurawar Coci da koyarwarta, da kuma 'yantar da kansu daga sarkokin sarakuna da zaluncinsu. Don haka kalmar 'yanci ta ƙunshi dukan waɗannan abubuwa. 'Yanci ya zama ɗaya daga cikin ginshiƙan wayewar Yammacin Duniya. Andrew Heywood ya bayyana a cikin littafinsa, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, cewa, "Ana yawan ɗaukar 'yanci a matsayin babbar ƙima ta siyasa a cikin al'ummomin liberal na Yamma. Falalarsa ita ce, idan aka haɗa shi da ra'ayin cewa mutane halittu ne masu son kai bisa hankali, yana alkawarin biyan buƙatun ɗan adam ko cimma damar ɗan adam. A takaice, 'yanci shi ne tushen farin ciki da walwala."

Thus, their struggle was for the sake of will and sovereignty. They sought liberation i.e. the emancipation from the constraints of the Church and its teachings, as well as the emancipation from the shackles of the rulers and their tyranny. So the word freedom encapsulated all of this. Freedom became one of the pillars of the Western civilization. Andrew Heywood states in his book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, that, “Freedom is often considered to be the supreme political value in Western liberal societies. Its virtue is that, attached to the idea that human beings are rationally self- willed creatures, it promises the satisfaction of human interests or the realization of human potential. In short, freedom is the basis for happiness and well-being.”.

Amma Yammaci, a zamanin Haske, bai mayar da hankali kan cikakken 'yanci ba. Maimakon haka, ya mayar da hankali kan 'yancin mutum na kashin kansa, wanda ya dace da akidar daidaikun mutane, wadda ta kafu bisa ginshiƙin cewa mutum a rayuwar duniya ana fara shi ne ta hanyar keɓe shi daga Lahira, domin shi ne shugaban duniya. Saboda haka, 'yancin da aka sani da 'yancin halitta ko 'yancin kai, wanda aka nema a ƙarni na sha takwas da sha tara miladiyya, ya bambanta da ma'anonin 'yancin da suka gabace shi, kamar 'yancin da Helenawa suka sani. Hakan ya bayyana, misali, a rubuce-rubucen Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Adam Smith da Bentham. Benjamin Constant ya jaddada hakan sosai a jawabinsa mashahuri, "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns" na shekarar 1819, inda ya nuna bambanci mai girma tsakanin 'yancin zamanin da da na zamani.

However, the West, in its era of Enlightenment, did not focus on absolute freedom. Instead, it focused on a personal freedom in harmony with the idea of individualism, which settled upon the launching point of man in this worldly life is through isolating him from the Hereafter, as he is the master of the universe. Accordingly, the freedom known to be natural liberty or personal freedom that was sought in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE, is distinct from the connotations of previous freedoms, such as freedom known by the Greeks. It is apparent, for example, in the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Adam Smith and Bentham. This is strongly emphasized by Benjamin Constant in his famous speech, “The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns” of 1819, highlighting the stark difference between ancient and modern freedom.

Don haka, bisa ga ra'ayin Yammacin duniya na karni na sha takwas da sha tara miladiyya, 'yanci shi ne cire takurawa daga kan mutum, ta barin al'amuransa ga kansa, don ya yi amfani da hakkokinsa na dabi'a, ya kuma cimma muradun kansa ta hanyar da yake so. Wannan kuwa ba zai yiwu ba sai an kange ikon gwamnati, an kuma takaita katsalandanta a harkokinsa na ilimi, tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da siyasa. Idan kuwa za a samu dokoki domin mayar da mutum daga yanayin dabi'a zuwa yanayin wayewa, suna tsara halayensa a cikin al'umma mai wayewa, to ya kamata su kasance ne kawai a iyakar abin da ya zama dole ba tare da wata shakka ba. Bisa wannan ra'ayi ne aka kafa hakkokin daidaikun mutane a cikin takardun kundin tsarin mulki na Yammacin duniya, bayan juyin juya halin Faransa, ta hanyar da take kare 'yancin mutum, a tsari da ya fi kusanci da cikakken 'yanci. Misali na wannan shi ne Sanarwar Hakkokin Mutum da na Ɗan Ƙasa ta Faransa ta 1789 (Faransanci: Declaration des droits de I'homme et du citoyen de 1789) wadda ta bayyana cewa: "Mataki na IV - 'Yanci shi ne aikata duk abin da ba zai cutar da wasu ba: don haka, amfani da hakkokin dabi'a na kowane mutum yana da iyakoki kawai da za su tabbatar wa sauran membobin al'umma jin daɗin waɗannan hakkoki iri ɗaya. Waɗannan iyakoki ba za a iya ƙayyade su ba sai ta doka."

Thus, according to the Western concept of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE, freedom is to lift restrictions upon an individual, by leaving his affairs to his self, to exercise his natural rights and to realize his personal interests in a way that he wishes. This can only be possible by curbing the hegemony of the state and limiting its interference in his intellectual, economic, social and political affairs. If there have to be laws to transform man from the state of nature into the civil state, regulating his behavior in a civil society, then they must be only to the extent that they are absolutely necessary. Based on this concept, the rights of the individual were established in the Western charters and constitutions, after the French revolution, in a manner that preserves individual freedom (liberty), in a form that is closer to absolute freedom. An example of this was France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (French: Declaration des droits de I'homme et du citoyen de 1789) which states, “Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.”.

A zahiri, wannan ra'ayin 'yanci na dabi'a ko na mutum ɗaya yana kama da ra'ayin individualism. Ya kasance kawai martani ne ga zaluncin da mutanen Yamma suka sha. Ba fahimta ce mai zurfi kuma mai tsari ta ilimi wadda ke la'akari da hakikanin mutum, al'umma, da yanayin dangantaka a tsakaninsu ba. Mutum ba zai iya rayuwa a cikin al'umma ba tare da takura ba, in ba haka ba al'umma za ta koma daji, inda masu karfi za su mamaye raunana. Yamma ta fahimci wannan lamari, don haka ta watsar da ra'ayin 'yanci kamar yadda aka fahimce shi a karnonin sha takwas da sha tara miladiyya. Ta kirkiro kalmar negative liberty ('yanci mara kyau) a matsayin akasin positive liberty ('yanci mai kyau) wanda aka sabon kafa ka'idarsa. Andrew Heywood ya bayyana a littafinsa, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, cewa, "masu sassaucin ra'ayi na zamani da masu gurguzu sun fi karkata ga ganin 'yanci a matsayin abin da ke ba da hujjar fadada nauyin gwamnati, musamman dangane da jin dadin jama'a da kula da tattalin arziki. Ana ganin gwamnati a matsayin abokiyar gaba ga 'yanci idan aka dauke ta a matsayin takura ta waje ga mutum, amma a matsayin garantin 'yanci idan ta shimfida sharuddan ci gaban mutum da cika kansa." A karni na ashirin miladiyya, bayan canjin yanayin siyasa, zamantakewa da tattalin arziki a duniya, tare da barkewar Yakin Duniya na Farko da nasarar Juyin Juya Halin Bolshevik a shekarar 1917, da kuma bullowar rikice-rikice iri-iri, Yamma ta fara sake duba ra'ayin 'yanci. Ta daidaita kan wani ra'ayi mai suna 'yancin jama'a (civil liberty), wanda a cikinsa ake hada 'yancin mutum, na addini, na tattalin arziki da na siyasa.

In fact, this concept of natural or individual freedom is like the idea of individualism. It was only a reaction to the oppression suffered by the Western individuals. It was not a deep and crystallized intellectual perception that takes account of the reality of man, society and the nature of relationships between them. Man cannot live within society, without restrictions, otherwise, society would turn into a jungle, where the strong would dominate the weak. This matter was realized by the West and so it abandoned the concept of freedom as perceived during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE. It coined the term negative liberty as opposed to a newly theorized positive liberty. Andrew Heywood states in his book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, that, “modern liberals and socialists have tended to subscribe to a positive view of freedom that justifies widening the responsibilities of the state, particularly in relation to welfare and economic management. The state is regarded as the enemy of freedom when it is viewed as an external constraint on the individual, but as a guarantee of freedom when it lays down the conditions for personal development and self­ realization.” In the twentieth century CE, after the change of global political, societal and economic conditions, with the outbreak of the First World War and the success of Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, as well as the emergence of various crises, the West began to review the concept of freedom. It settled on another concept called civil liberty, which in turn includes personal, religious, economic and political freedom.

Në littafinsa, Principles of Political Science, Robert Niven Gilchrist ya bayyana game da 'yancin jama'a cewa: "yana iya nufin Doka mai Mulki, wato takaita ikon gwamnati ta hanyar dokar da aka kafa, ko a cikin tsarin kundin tsarin mulki wanda ya ƙunshi ƙa'idodi na asali da ke jagora da takaita gwamnati, ko kuma, kamar a Ingila, gaskiyar cewa doka tana aiki daidai kuma ba tare da son rai ba ga kowa, mafi girma da mafi ƙanƙanta. Wannan ma'anar kalmar za a iya kiranta 'Yancin Jama'a." Ma'anar wannan magana ita ce, Yammacin duniya ya watsar da ra'ayin 'yanci kamar yadda aka tsara shi a zamanin Haske (Enlightenment). Yammacin duniya ya fara ganin wajibcin sanya takunkumi daga gwamnati ta hanyar dokokin daidaitawa, ko da sun zama dokoki da yawa. Ramsay Muir ya ce a cikin makalarsa "The Prospect for British Liberalism" cewa: "'yancin mutum na rayuwa irin rayuwarsa a yadda yake so ya dogara ne da kasancewar tsarin doka, wanda ake aiwatarwa bisa radin gama-gari, wanda zai iya hana masu karfi cin zarafin karfinsu a kan makwabtansu."

In his book, Principles of Political Science, Robert Niven Gilchrist states of civil liberty that “it may mean the Rule of Law, that is, the limitation of the powers of government by established law, whether it be in the form of a constitution which contains fundamental principles to guide and limit the government, or, as in England, the fact that law applies equally and impartially, to all, to the greatest and humblest alike. This sense of the term may be, called Civil Liberty.” The meaning of this statement is that the West abandoned the idea of freedom, as conceived in the era of Enlightenment. The West began to see the necessity of imposing restrictions by the state with regulatory laws, even if they became many laws. Ramsay Muir said in his essay “The Prospect for British Liberalism” that “the freedom of the individual to live his own life in his own way depends upon the existence of a system of law, enforced by the common will, which can restrain the strong from abuse of their strength at the expense of their neighbors.”.

Ta haka ne, 'yanci a Yamma ya zama yana ƙarƙashin wani tsarin zamantakewa, wanda ya ba mutane damar aiwatar da ayyukansu da harkokinsu cikin iyakoki. Ya zama 'yanci mai sharadi ko mai takurawa, wanda ake iyakance shi ta hanyar alaƙarsa da dokoki da gwamnati. Harold J Laski a cikin littafinsa, Reflection on the Revolution of Our Time, ya ce: "Wannan shi ne halin da mafi yawan bil'adama suke ciki, wanda tsarin zamantakewarmu na yanzu ya umarci talakawa su karɓa a matsayin 'yanci; kuma wannan hakika dole ne a kare shi da yaƙi daga wani mafarki mai ban tsoro har ma fiye da haka." Montesquieu kuwa, a cikin littafinsa, The Spirit of the Laws, ya goyi bayan ra'ayin takura wa 'yanci, yana cewa: "'Yancin kasuwanci ba iko ne da aka ba 'yan kasuwa su yi abin da suka ga dama ba: Wannan da an fi kiransa bauta. Takurawar ɗan kasuwa ba takurawar kasuwanci ba ce."

In this way, the freedom in the West became subject to a social order, which allowed individuals to exercise their actions and activities within limitations. It became a conditional or restricted freedom, limited by its connection with the laws and the state. Harold J Laski in his book, Reflection on the Revolution of Our Time, states “This is the reality for the mass of humankind which our present social order bids the common people accept as freedom; and even this reality must be defended by war against a nightmare even more hideous.” Montesquieu advocated, in his book, The Spirit of the Laws, the idea of constraint upon freedom saying, “The freedom of commerce is not a power granted to the merchants to do what they please: This would be more properly its slavery. The constraint of the merchant is not the constraint of commerce.”.

A hakika, wannan ra'ayin 'yanci na zamani na Yammacin duniya ba kawai ƙin tsohon ra'ayin 'yanci na yau da kullum ba ne. A zahiri, ƙi ne ga 'yancin kansa. Yana saba wa ainihin ma'anar 'yanci gaba ɗaya, duk da cewa Yammacin duniya yana musanta hakan. 'Yanci a zahiri shi ne 'yanci daga takurawa. 'Yanci ba za a iya kiransa da wannan suna ba sai a wannan ma'ana. Saboda haka, idan aka 'yantar da bawa daga hannun ubangijinsa, ana cewa ya samu 'yanci. Idan aka 'yantar da ƙasa daga hannun masu mulkin mallaka, ana cewa ƙasar ta samu 'yanci. Wannan ita ce ma'anar da ke zuwa zuciyar kowa idan aka ambaci kalmar 'yanci. Ita ce ma'anar da ƙamusai na Yammacin duniya suke ambata. Haka kuma ita ce ma'anar da masana da masu falsafa na Turai suke nufi, waɗanda suka yi gwagwarmaya saboda ita a lokacin rikicinsu da Coci da sarakuna.

In fact, this modern Western conception of freedom is not just aversion to the old formal conception. Instead, it is in fact an aversion to freedom itself. It is completely contradicting the essence of freedom, even though the West denies that. Freedom is in fact the emancipation from constraints. Freedom can only be called such in this sense. Thus, when a slave is emancipated from his master, he is said to be free. When a land is liberated from colonialists, it is said to be free. This is the meaning that comes to every mind when the word freedom is uttered. It is the quoted meaning in the dictionaries of the West. It is also the meaning intended by the thinkers and philosophers of Europe, for which they fought during their conflict with the Church and kings.

Saboda haka, matsayin Yamma a yanzu, cewa 'yanci ba yana nufin rashin takurawa ko 'yanta daga gare su ba, yana rusa tushen da wayewar Yamma ta gina a kansa, yana goge tarihinta wanda ya dogara da gwagwarmayar Aristotle ta mutumin Yamma na yin duk abin da ya ke so, yana 'yantar da kansa daga sarkokin dokar da ta hana sha'awoyinsa da burinsa. Idan 'yancin da ake da shi a yanzu a Yamma, wanda ake kira 'yancin jama'a, an bayyana shi a matsayin doka mai iko, kamar yadda aka ambata a littattafan ilimin siyasa na Yamma, watau idan an mayar da 'yanci ga doka kuma ana bin doka, to menene bambanci tsakanin irin wannan 'yanci da 'yancin Romawa, misali?

Hence, the current stance of the West, that freedom does not mean the absence of restrictions and emancipation from them, destroys the basis upon which the Western civilization was built, erasing its history based on an Aristotelian struggle for the Western individual to do whatever he wishes, liberating himself from the shackles of the law that restrained his desires and aspirations. If the current freedom in the West, called civil liberty, is defined as sovereign law, as mentioned in the books of Western political science, i.e. if freedom is subjected to the law and conformity with the law, then what is the difference between such a freedom and the freedom of the Romans for example?

Ba ashe ba ne ma'anar 'yanci ta Romawa kamar yadda aka bayyana ta a cikin The Digest of Justinian, a Volume 1, Book 1, karkashin "Human Status", wadda ta ce: "Freedom is one's natural power of doing what one pleases, save insofar as it is ruled out either by coercion or by law."? Shin wannan yana nufin cewa wayewar Roma ita ce wayewar 'yanci? Yana nufin cewa mutanen Turai sun riga sun kasance 'yantattu, kafin barkewar juyin juya halin neman 'yanci? Yana kuma nufin cewa sarakuna da Kaisar suna kare 'yanci ta hanyar sa mutane su mika wuya ga doka, suna kuma yakar masana wadanda suka kalubalanci doka? Idan 'yanci a cikin al'adar Yammacin zamani yana nufin mulkin doka, to yana nufin dukan mutanen duniya 'yantattu ne, kuma suna jin dadin 'yanci. To me ya sa ake sanya kambun duniya 'yantacciya ga duniyar jari-hujja kadai? Me ke akwai da za a yi alfahari da shi, alhali dukkan wayewa daidai suke a wannan? Bugu da kari, me ya sa juyin juya halin Yammacin neman Wayewa suka faru tun farko?

Is it not the Roman freedom as defined in The Digest of Justinian, in its Volume 1, Book 1, under “Human Status,” which states that, “Freedom is one’s natural power of doing what one pleases, save insofar as it is ruled out either by coercion or by law.”? Does this mean that Roman civilization is the civilization of freedom? Does it mean that European people were already free, before the outbreak of the revolution for liberty? Does it also mean that kings and Caesar used to defend freedom, by making people submit to the law and fighting thinkers who challenged the law? If freedom in the modern Western tradition is to mean sovereignty of the law, then it means that all the people of the world are free and they enjoy freedom. So why adorn the capitalist world alone with the title of the free world? What is there to boast about, when all civilizations are equal in this? Moreover, why did the Western revolutions for Enlightenment take place in the first place?

Ma'anar 'yanci', a cikin tarihin amfani da shi tsakanin mutane, ba zai yiwu a cimma shi ba cikin ayyukan halittu, duk abin da aka ce game da ma'anarsa. Ba zai yiwu mutum ya wanzu a cikin al'umma ba tare da ya sanya takurawa a kan halayensa ba, wadanda ake kira doka, tsari, ka'idoji, al'adu, nauyi ko wasu. Ba zai yiwu mutum ya zauna a cikin al'umma, yana rayuwa cikin 'yanci daga takurawar da ke tsara alakoki ba, sai dai idan ya zabi kadaici da zama shi kadai. Saboda haka, cikakken 'yanci yana wanzuwa ne kawai a cikin ma'anar yanayin halitta na tunani.

The term freedom, within the history of its usage amongst humankind, is unachievable in the actions of the created, whatever is said about its definition. It is not possible for an individual to exist in a society without imposing restrictions upon his behavior called law, order, rules, customs, responsibility or others. It is not possible for an individual to exist in a community, whilst living in a state of emancipation from the restrictions that organize the relationships, unless he chooses isolation and living alone. As such, absolute freedom exists only in the sense of an imaginary natural state.

Ainihin yanayin mutum, ko na dā ne ko na yau, ko a Gabas ko a Yamma, yanayin horo ne, watau yanayin rashin 'yanci. Saboda haka, ra'ayin 'yancin Yamma ba shi da inganci. Ana iya tantance ingancin ma'anarsa ne kawai ta hanyar haɗa tunanin Yammacin kansa da 'yanci, ma'ana, 'yancin Yamma ba a bayyana shi bisa sharuɗɗansa na kansa ba, illa an takaita shi cikin wani yanayi. Hakika, ra'ayi ne na dangantaka wanda yanayinsa na musamman ke bayyana shi, wato ra'ayin Yamma da ra'ayoyinsa, ko akidar Yamma da wayewarta. Don haka, mutum mai 'yanci a Yamma shi ne wanda ya karɓi sakulanci kuma ya rayu bisa tsarin Yamma, kamar yadda sarakunan kuɗi, kafafen watsa labarai da na jima'i suka takaita shi kuma suka sanya masa iyaka. Ruɗin 'yanci ana sanin sa ko a tsakanin mutanen Yamma kansu, waɗanda dokoki ba ɗari ba, illa dubbai ke takaita su. Mafi tsanani da nauyi daga cikinsu su ne dokokin haraji. Saboda haka, Yamma ta saki batsa a matsayin abin karkatarwa don ɓoye saɓanin da ke cikin Yamma, tana hana mutane neman madadin.

As for the real state of man, whether it is ancient or modern, whether in the East or the West, it is the state of discipline i.e. in the state of non-freedom. Accordingly, the concept of Western freedom is not credible. It is possible to determine its semantic validity only by linking the Western thought itself to freedom, meaning that Western freedom is not defined on its own absolute terms but is qualified within a context. Indeed, it is a relative idea defined by its particular context, which is the idea of the West and its concepts or the Western ideology and its civilization. Thus the free man in the west is the one who adopts secularism and lives according to the Western model, as limited and restricted by the barons of finance, media and sex. The delusion of freedom is known even amongst the Western man himself who is restricted by not hundreds, but thousands of laws. The hardest and heaviest of them are the tax laws. Thus, the West has unleashed pornography as a distraction to cover the contradiction within the West, preventing people from searching for the alternative.

Tun da yake gaskiyar mutum ita ce cewa shi halitta ce ta zamantakewa da ke rayuwa a cikin al'umma, ba zai yiwu ba, a hankali da kuma a aikace, ya kubuta daga takunkumin tsarin, ko dokokin da ke tsara rayuwa, domin ya rayu tare da wasu. Musulunci ya karkatar da mutum daga neman abin da ba zai yiwu ba zuwa karɓar abin da ya yiwu, wato bautar Allah (SWT) shi kaɗai. Don haka batun nazari ba ya da alaƙa da yiwuwar rayuwa ba tare da takunkumi ba, domin hakan ba zai yiwu ba. Maimakon haka, yana da alaƙa da wanda ke sanya irin wannan takunkumi. Saboda haka, Musulunci yana 'yantar da mutum daga bautar mutane, ta hanyar ba shi damar miƙa wuya ga Mulkin Allah (SWT). Musulunci yana ɗaukaka mutum zuwa ga darajar bautar Mahalicci mutane. Don haka bauta ta kasance ga Mahalicci kaɗai, ba ga halittu ba. Musulunci yana tabbatar da miƙa wuyan mutum ga Mahalicci. Biyayya da bin tsarin Mahalicci suna da daraja mafi girma, kuma suna ɗaukaka mutum zuwa mafi girman matsayi. Musulunci kaɗai ne ke tabbatar da hikimar da ya sa aka halicci mutum. Allah (SWT) yana cewa,

Since the reality of man is that he is a social being living in a community, it is impossible for him, both rationally and practically, to be liberated from the restrictions of the system, or regulatory laws, in order for him to live with others. Islam has diverted man from looking after the impossible into accepting the possible, which is servitude to Allah (swt) alone. So the subject of study is not related to the possibility of living without restrictions, as it is not possible. Instead, it is related to who places such restrictions. Accordingly, Islam liberates man from the servitude of humans, by granting him the submission to the Sovereignty of Allah (swt). Islam raises man to the sublimity of servitude to the Creator of humans. So servitude is only to the Creator and not to the creations. Islam ensures man’s submission to the Creator. Abidance and obedience to the system of the Creator are of the highest value and raises man to the highest ranks. Islam alone realizes the wisdom of why man was created. Allah (swt) says,

{"And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me."} [TMQ Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:56] Note: the text in braces is a Qur'an verse and is left as it is in the original form, following the format of the source.

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” [TMQ Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:56],