Ta hanyar komawa ga ra'ayin raba addini da rayuwa, Yammacin duniya ya ba wa kansa ikon yin doka. Yana ganin cewa dole ne mutum ya rayu rayuwarsa yadda yake so, ba yadda wasu za su so ba; bisa ga son zuciyarsa ba bisa ga nufin wasu ba. Sun ga cewa mutum ba zai iya amfani da wannan haƙƙi ba sai ya ji daɗin 'yancinsa. Wannan ya sa aka wakilta 'yancinsa a matsayin 'yancin imani, mallaka, ra'ayi da 'yancin kai. Sun ɗauki wannan ra'ayin na 'yanci a matsayin abu mai tsarki.

By resorting to the idea of separating religion from life, The West has given the right of legislation to itself. It takes the view that man must live his life as he pleases and not as others would like; in accordance with his own whims and not the will of others. They took the view that man cannot practice this right until he enjoys his freedom. This has led his freedom to be represented as the freedoms of belief, ownership, opinion and personal freedom. It considered this idea of freedoms as sacred.

Waɗannan 'yanci suna da ma'ana ta musamman a fannin fasaha.

These freedoms have specific technical meanings.

'Yancin imani yana ba wa mutum damar yin imani da addinin da ya zaɓa. Ko kuma yana ba shi damar canzawa daga wata akida zuwa wata, ko da kuwa hakan yana faruwa a kullum. Yana kuma ba shi damar ƙin dukkan addinai gaba ɗaya.

Freedom of belief allows the individual to believe in the religion he chooses. Or it allows him to move from one creed to another, even if it was a daily occurrence. It permitted him to reject religions altogether.

'Yancin mallaka yana ba mutum damar mallakar duk abin da yake so, ta kowace hanya da yake so. Haka kuma yana da 'yancin amfani da dukiyarsa ta kowace hanya da yake so. Idan yana so ya ba karensa kyauta daga dukiyarsa, ya hana wadanda za su gaje shi, to babu wanda zai iya hana shi yin haka.'

Freedom of ownership allows the individual to own whatever he wants and through any means he wants. He also has the right to dispose of with his wealth in any manner he wishes. If he wants to give it as a gift to his dog and prevent his inheritors from it, then nobody can stop him from doing so.

’Yancin ra'ayi yana ba shi damar faɗar duk abin da yake so, ko gaskiya ne ko ƙarya, ba tare da wani cikas ko sa ido ba. Yana iya keta ko soki duk wani ra'ayi da ya saɓa wa fahimtarsa ko son zuciyarsa.

Freedom of opinion allows him to say whatever he wants, whether it is true or false, without any obstacle or monitoring. He can violate or criticize any opinion that goes against his understanding or whims.

'Yancin mutum yana ba wa daidaikun mutane damar tafiyar da harkokinsu na kashin kansu ba tare da la'akari da dabi'u ba, ko iyakokin da'a, ko takurawa na ruhaniya.'

Personal freedom allows individuals to run their personal affairs without any consideration for values, ethical constraints or spiritual restrictions.

Wannan ra'ayin na 'yancin da ke zama muhimman bukatun Dimokuradiyya, ya sa dabi'un masu yada shi sun sauka zuwa matakin da ya fi na dabbobi kasa.

This idea of freedoms, which are basic requirements of Democracy, has caused the values of those who advocate it to decline to a level lower than that of animals.

Yancin imani ya sa addini ya rasa muhimmancinsa a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja. Ya rage darajar addini sosai lokacin da ya halatta wa mutane su canza addininsu kamar yadda suke canza tufafinsu.

The freedom of belief has made religion lose its importance in capitalist societies. It belittled religion greatly when it permitted individuals to change their religion the way they changes their clothes.

Tare da yaduwar tunanin ɗabi'a na duniya da takura tunanin addini, ɗabi'u na ɗabi'a, na jin kai da na ruhi sun ɓace. Zukatan mutane sun zama ba su da tausayi, har suka fara rayuwa kamar kerkeci, inda mai ƙarfi ke danne mai rauni.

With the spread of the materialistic thought and the restriction of the religious thought, the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual values have disappeared. The souls of the people have become devoid of compassion, and they have come to live like wolves, where the strong subjugate the weak.

’Yancin ra’ayi ya ba mutane damar faɗin abin da suke so da kuma yin kiran duk abin da suke so. Saboda haka, duk wani ra’ayi na ƙarya, na baƙon abu da na hauka yana iya kasancewa a cikin al’ummominsu; ba su da wata ma’auni ta gaskiya a kansa. Haka kuma kana jin wani mutum na kowa yana zagin Manzon Allah ﷺ, babu wata doka da za ta hana shi haka; kamar Salman Rushdi, wanda yake amfani da ’yancin imani a matsayin uzuri kuma yana ɓoye a ƙarƙashin ’yancin faɗin albarkacin baki.

Freedom of opinion has permitted the people to say what they like and to call for whatever they want. So, every false, strange and crazy opinion is to be found in their societies; they are devoid of the truth any criteria for it. You also come to hear any common person blaspheme against the Messenger 􀁕, without any law to prevent him from this; like Salman Rushdi, who uses freedom of belief as a pretext and hides under freedom of speech.

Dangane da 'yancin mallaka da ma'aunin amfaninsa, ya haifar da mummunar al'amarin Jari-hujja, wanda ya yi amfani da mulkin mallaka a matsayin hanyar sarrafa makomar mutane, da kwace albarkatunsu, da cin zarafin dukiyarsu, da zubar da jinin al'ummominsu. Wannan don yin gasa da wasu wajen samun kuɗin haram, da kasuwanci da jinin Musulmai, da ruruta yaƙe-yaƙen cikin gida da na tsakanin ƙasashe domin sayar da kayayyakinsu da na masana'antun sojojinsu, waɗanda suka samu riba mai yawa. Waɗannan ƙasashen jari-hujja sun kwashe daga kansu duk wata ƙima ta ruhaniya, ta ɗabi'a, ko ta jin kai. Maimakon haka, suna amfani da addini, idan an tilasta musu, don rufe muradunsu, suna ikirarin suna da ƙimomin ɗabi'a da na jin kai don ɓoye fuskarsu mai ban tsoro da wari mai ƙazanta.

As for freedom of ownership and its criteria of benefit, it has created the monstrosity of Capitalism, which has taken colonialism as a method to control people’s future, and to seize their resources, exploit their wealth, and spill the blood of their peoples. This is to compete with others for the Haraam earning, to trade with the blood of the Muslims, to fuel civil wars and wars between nations so as to sell their products and those of their military industries, which have made huge profits. These capitalist states have stripped themselves of any spiritual, ethical or humanitarian values. Rather they use religion, if compelled, to cover their interests and claim to have ethical and humanitarian values to conceal their ugly face and putrid smell.

Dangane da 'yancin kai na mutum, ya mayar da al'ummomi a kasashen dimokuraɗiyya zuwa al'ummomin dabbobi da suka lalace. Sun fada cikin wani mataki na rashin kunya da lalata mai banƙyama wanda ko dabbobi ba su kai shi ba.

As for personal freedom, it has transformed societies in the democratic countries into declined animalistic societies. They have descended to a level of disgusting licentiousness that even the animals have not reached.

Shari'arsu ta halatta alaƙoƙin jima'i marasa kyau da kuskure.

Their legislation has permitted abnormal and erroneous sexual relations.

Kuna ganin a cikinsu ayyuka da ba ka ganinsu ko a tsakanin dabbobi. Suna yin lalata ta rukuni, da zina da 'yan uwansu na jini: da uwayensu, 'ya'yansu mata da 'yan'uwansu mata. Suna kuma yin jima'i har da dabbobi. Saboda haka cututtuka suna bayyana a tsakaninsu waɗanda ba su taɓa wanzuwa ba a da. Rushewar iyali na bayyana a cikin al'ummarsu, kuma girmama juna tsakanin 'yan gida ɗaya ya ɓace. 'Yancin mutum shi ne 'yancin kawar da duk wani takura; yarda da kowane irin dabi'u, da 'yancin lalata iyali. Da sunan 'yanci ake aikata dukkan manyan zunubai, kuma ana halatta dukkan abubuwan da aka haramta.

You see amongst them practices that you do not see even amongst animals. They practice group sex and incest with their mothers, daughters and sisters. They practice sex even with animals. Hence diseases appear amongst them that never existed before. The break up of the family can be seen in their societies and the mutual respect between the members of a single family has been lost. Personal freedom is the freedom to do away with all restrictions; allowing any kind of values and the freedom to destroy the family. It is in the name of freedom that all the grave sins are committed and all the prohibitions are permitted.

Don haka 'yancin zina, luwadi, madigo, tsiraici, da shan giya, da bin kowane aiki komai kasantuwarsa mara daraja ko abin ƙyama, duk ana yinsa ne da cikakken 'yanci ba tare da matsin lamba ko tilastawa ba.

So the freedom of fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, nudity, and alcohol, and the pursuit of every action no matter how low or despicable it may be, is all done with the utmost freedom without any pressure or compulsion.

Waɗannan su ne illolin Dimokuraɗiyya. Su ne kayan ran mutum da son zuciyarsa, ba daga Allah 􀀬 suke ba, kuma ba a samo su daga wahayin da ke saukowa daga sama ba. Ba su da alaƙa da kowane addini. Idan muka koma ga abin da ya kafa Dimokuraɗiyya a zukatan masu goyon bayanta da masu tunaninta, da yanayin da aka haife ta a cikinsa, za a fayyace sarai cewa an kafa ta ne bisa tushen kufr, kuma an kafa ta ne a matsayin martani ga maganganu irin su na Louis XV: "Ba mu karɓi rawani ba sai daga wurin Allah", da na Louis XIV: "Ikon sarakuna yana samuwa ne daga wakilcin Allah. Allah shi ne kaɗai tushensa, ba jama'a ba. Sarakuna ba sa da alhakin yadda suke gudanar da ikonsu, sai a gaban Allah." Masana sun siffanta ka'idar yarjejeniyar zamantakewa ta Jean Jacque Russo da cewa, "Littafi Mai Tsarki na juyin juya halin Faransa na boko." Daga dukkan wannan sai ya bayyana a gare mu cikakken sabanin Musulunci da Dimokuraɗiyya, dangane da tushen da ta fito, akidar da ta samo asali daga gare ta, harsashin da aka gina ta a kansa, da tunani da tsare-tsaren da ta kawo.

These are the effects of Democracy. They are the product of man’s whims and not from Allah 􀀬, and they are not derived from the revelation that comes from the heavens. They have nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. If we return to the thing that established Democracy in the minds of its advocates and thinkers, and the circumstances into which it was born, it will become very clear that it was founded on a kufr basis and it was established as a response to sayings such as those of Louis XV; “We did not receive the crown except from God”, and Louis XIV; “The authority of the kings derives from the delegation of God. God is its exclusive source and not the people. Kings are not accountable for how they practice their authority, except before God.” The intellectuals described the theory of the social contract of Jean Jacque Russo as, ‘the Bible of the French secular revolution.’ From all of this the complete contradiction of Islam with Democracy becomes clear to us, in regards to the source from which it came, the creed from which it emanated, the basis on which it is founded and the thoughts and systems it has brought.

- Tushen wannan yana fitowa daga mutum. Shi ne mai mulki da ake komawa gare shi wajen yanke hukunci kan ayyuka da abubuwa, dangane da kasancewarsu husn (abin kyau/abin yarda a aikata) ko qubh (abin ƙyama). Wannan ba komai ba ne face bin son zuciya da sha'awa. Tushen samuwarsa yana tare da masana falsafa na Turai.

- The source from which it has come is man. He is the ruler who is referred to in issuing judgments on actions and things, in respect of them being husn (pretty/worthy of doing) or qubh (reprehensible). This is nothing but following one’s whims and desires. The roots of its creation lie with the philosophers of Europe.

Amma Musulunci, ya sha banban da wancan. Yana daga wurin Allah 􀀬. Shi 􀀬 ya saukar da shi ga Annabinsa Muhammadu ﷺ, Bawansa kuma Manzonsa 􀁕. Mai mulki a Musulunci yana komawa ga Shari'a wajen fitar da hukunce-hukunce, ba ga hankali ba. Matsayin hankali an takaita shi ga fahimtar nassosin Shari'a.

As for Islam, it is opposite to that. It is from Allah 􀀬. He 􀀬 revealed it to His Prophet Muhammad, His Servant and Messenger 􀁕. The ruler in Islam refers to the Shar’a in issuing rules and not to the mind. The role of the mind is restricted to understanding the Sharee’ah texts.

Dangane da akida da Dimokuradiyya ke fitowa daga cikinta, akidar raba addini da rayuwa ce, wadda akida ce da ta dogara da mafita ta sasantawa. Wannan akida ba ta ƙi addini ba, sai dai ta kawar da matsayinsa a rayuwa da cikin Dawla, sakamakon haka kuma ta ba wa mutum damar shimfiɗa tsarinsa da kansa.

- As for the creed from which Democracy emanates, it is the creed of separating religion from life, which is the creed based on the compromise solution. This creed did not reject religion but abolished its role in life and State, and consequently gave man the right to lay down his own system.

An asalinsa akan akidarta ne aka kafa wayewarta, kuma aka tsara alkiblar tunaninta.

It was on the basis of its creed that its civilisation was founded and its intellectual direction was defined.

Amma Musulunci kuwa, ya sha bambam da wannan. Yana kan Akidar Musulunci wadda ta wajabta cewa dukkan al'amuran rayuwa, har da Dawla, su kasance suna tafiya ne bisa umarnin Allah da hanininsa 􀀬. Wato dai, rayuwa tana tafiya ne bisa ka'idojin Shari'a da suke fitowa daga Akidar Musulunci.

As for Islam it is contrary to this. It is based on the Islamic ‘Aqeedah that obliges all of life’s affairs, and the State to be directed according to the orders and prohibitions of Allah 􀀬. In other words, life proceeds according to the Sharee’ah rules that emanate from the Islamic ‘Aqeedah.

An asalinsa, wayewar Musulunci an kafa ta ne bisa 'Aqeedarsa, kuma alkiblar tunaninta ta samu tsari ta wannan 'Aqeedar.

It was on the basis of its ‘Aqeedah that its civilisation was founded and its intellectual direction was defined.

Tushen da dimokuraɗiyya ta dogara a kansa shi ne cewa iko na al'umma ne. Al'umma ita ce tushen dukkan ikon. Bisa wannan, tsarin dimokuraɗiyya ya kirkiri iko uku; ikon yin doka, ikon zartarwa da ikon shari'a, domin ta bayyana ikonta da ƙarfin hukuncinta a aikace.

- The basis on which Democracy is founded is that sovereignty is for the people. The people are the source of the powers. Based on this, the democratic systems created three powers; the legislative, executive and judicial powers, so as to practically express its sovereignty and authority.

A cikin Musulunci, iko yana ga Shari'a, kuma Al'ummah ba ta da 'yancin yin doka. Duk da haka, Musulunci ya wajabta wa Musulmi aiwatar da umarnin Allah da haninsa, kuma ya bayyana hakan ta hanyar kafa Daular Khilafah kamar yadda nassosin Shari'a suka bayyana ta.

As for Islam, sovereignty lies with the Shar’a, and the Ummah does not possess the right of legislation. However, Islam has obliged the Muslims to execute the orders and prohibitions of Allah 􀀬, and it manifested this through the establishment of the Khilafah State as defined by the Sharee’ah texts.

Demokradiyya ta zo da tsare-tsare da tunani da suka dogara da maslaha da bin son rai, alhali kuwa shari'ar Musulunci tana dogara ne da bin nassoshi da fitar da hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a daga cikinsu, wato tana dogara ne da riko da bin shiriya.

- Democracy came with systems and thoughts based on benefit and the following of whims, whilst the legislation of Islam is based on following the texts and deducing the Shar’eeah rules from them, i.e. it is based on the adherence to and following of guidance.

Maganar cewa Dimokuradiyya tana da wasu kyawawan abubuwa da Musulunci zai iya amfana da su bata da tushe kuma ba ta dogara da hujja ba. Mun ga wasu daga cikin illolin Dimokuradiyya; ta haifar da yanayi mara kyau wanda babu alheri a cikinsa. Al'ummar nan mafi kyau da aka fito da ita ga bil'adama ba ta buƙatar ɗaukar komai daga Dimokuradiyya. Shin akwai wani kasawa a cikin Musulunci wacce ke buƙatar a cika ta ta hanyar yin irin wannan da'awar?

The statement that Democracy has some good elements from which Islam can benefit is baseless and is not based upon evidence. We have seen some of the effects of Democracy; it has created an evil situation that contains no goodness. The best Ummah brought forth to mankind does not need to take anything from Democracy. Is there a deficiency in Islam, which needs to be compensated for by making such a claim?