Wannan misali ne cikakke na sabanin da ke tattare da tsarin secularism. A shekarar 2016, an ruwaito cewa:

This is a perfect example of the contradictions inherent to secularism. In 2016, it was reported:

Wasu ƙungiyoyin lauyoyi biyu masu tasiri a Jamus suna kira da a haramta sanya ɗan kai (hijabi) ga alƙalai da lauyoyi domin kiyaye 'tsaka-tsaki' a kotu.

“Two influential German legal associations are calling for headscarves to be banned for judges and lawyers to uphold ‘neutrality’ in court.

"Robert Seegmüller, shugaban Ƙungiyar Alkalan Gudanarwa ta Jamus, ya ce tufafin da ake buƙata na bakin riga, farar riga da farar baka, ko ɗankwali ko abin wuya, suna da muhimmanci wajen nuna cewa sakamakon shari'a 'ba ya dogara ga mutum ba, sai dai kawai ga abin da doka ta ce.'"2

“Robert Seegmüller, chairman of the Association of German Administrative Judges, said the required uniform of black robes, white shirt and white bow tie, cravat or neckerchief is important to show that the outcome of a case ‘does not depend on the person, but solely on what the law says.’”2

Ban san ko asalin bakin riga ba. Wasu na ganin cewa tana da asali a coci, a lokacin da malamai da alkalai suke mutum daya. Riguna sun bayyana a cikin alkalancin Birtaniya a karni na 14.3

What do you think are the origins of the black robe? According to reserchers at the NY Times: “Although the judicial robe’s origin remains uncertain, some believe it has its origins in the church, when the clergy and judiciary were one and the same. Robes appeared in the British judiciary in the 14th century.”3

Shin zai iya kasancewa cewa, shekaru aru-aru da suka wuce, an aro rigar daga thawb na Musulunci, wanda da kansa ake ɗauka a matsayin tufafin daraja, ilimi, da martaba ta addini a al'adarmu?

Could it be that, centuries ago, the robe was borrowed from the Muslim thawb, which itself was considered a garment of status, erudition, and religious prestige in our tradition?

Duk da haka, a bayyane yake cewa rigar da waɗannan masu ra'ayin boko na Jamus ke dagewa a kai tana da asali na addini. Har zuwa yau, dogon riga yana da ma'ana ta addini ga Musulmai, domin Musulmi maza da mata duka suna sanya ta. Musamman mata suna sanya bakaken riguna, watau jilbab. Shugabannin addini na Yahudawa da Kiristoci ma suna amfani da bakar riga. Ko a da ko yanzu, bakar riga tana cike da ma'ana ta addini.

Regardless, it is clear that the robe which these German secularists are insisting on has religious origins. And even to this day, the long robe has religious significance for Muslims, as both Muslim men and women will wear it. Women in particular wear black robes, i.e., the jilbab. Jewish and Christian religious figures also utilize the black robe. Whether past or present, the black robe is permeated with religious significance.

Akwai wadanda ke kira da a haramta hijabi da sauran alamomin addini, suna ikirarin cewa suna kare "tsaka-tsaki." Amma tambaya madaidaiciya ita ce, wa ya yanke hukunci kan wane irin tufafi ne "tsaka-tsaki"?

There are those who are arguing for the ban of the hijab as well as other religious symbols and claim that they are upholding “neutrality.” The straightforward objection is, of course, who decided what is “neutral” dress?

Wannan shi ne ginshiƙin tunanin sakularism, wato cewa idan aka cire duk abin da ke na "addini," abin da ya rage zai zama tsaka-tsaki tsantsa, kuma daga nan ne sakularism ya kamata ya fara. Sai dai a zahiri, babu wani tsakiya mara addini wanda ke kubuta gaba ɗaya daga irin wannan falsafancin bayan zahiri da kuma ƙa'idojin ɗabi'a waɗanda ake ɗaukar su a matsayin abin ƙi a cikin addini.

This is the central conceit of secularism, namely that if you subtract everything that is “religious,” what you are left with is truly neutral and that is where secularism ought to begin. In reality, however, there is no neutral core that is completely free of the same metaphysicality and normativity that is supposedly so objectionable about religion.

Hanyar kai kaɗai da za a iya isa ga wannan ginshiƙi na tsaka-tsaki da na boko ita ce a ƙirƙire shi. Kawai kana tabbatar da cewa wata al'ada, wata ƙa'idar al'umma, wani salon tufafi, wata ƙudurin ɗabi'a, da sauransu, "boko" ce ko "tsaka-tsaki," sauran kuwa "addini" ne. Wannan lakabi yana samun karɓuwa ne saboda ra'ayoyin al'adu da mutane ke rabawa. Ayyukan Musulmi da tufafinsu sun zama baƙi ga mutane da yawa, don haka duk suke gani a matsayin "addini" a fili. Amma tufafin Yammacin Duniya da suka saba, waɗanda da yawa daga cikinsu suma asalinsu da muhimmancinsu na addini ne, ana iya ɗaukarsu "al'ada," saboda haka "boko," saboda haka "tsaka-tsaki." Waɗannan wasan kalmomi ne kawai.

The only way to get to this neutral, secular core is to create it. You simply assert that a particular custom, cultural norm, style of dress, normative commitment, etc., is “secular” or “neutral” and everything else is “religious.” This labeling process gains legitimacy through shared cultural assumptions. Muslim practices and dress happen to be relatively foreign, so they are easily seen by all as distinctly “religious.” But more familiar Western modes of dress, many of which also technically have religious origins and significance, can be deemed “cultural” and hence “secular” and hence “neutral.” These are just language games.

Haka dai, wannan rikicin game da bakaken riguna da mayafi misali ne mai kyau na yadda secularism ke ƙirƙirar wani wuri mai tsaka-tsaki na bogi, domin ya ci gaba da bayyana kamar yana da adalci alhali babu gaskiyar hakan a ciki.

So, this kerfuffle about black robes and the headscarf is a perfect example of secularism fabricating neutral ground in order to artificially maintain a hollow semblance of impartiality.

Har ila, ina so in ambaci wani abu game da 'yancin addini. A matsayinmu na Musulmi, bai kamata mu dogara da hujjojin 'yancin addini don kare kanmu daga harin sakularizm ba. Maimakon haka, ya kamata mu nuna gibin ciki da ke cikin sakularizm (kamar wanda ke sama) mu tilasta masu sakularizm su amince cewa matsalarsu da hijabin Musulma ba komai ba ne face son zuciyar al'ada. Idan sun iya amincewa da hakan, to lafiya. Amma kada mu bari su ci gaba da nuna cewa adawarsu da hijabi tana faruwa ne saboda wani tsayayyen ƙudurin tsaka-tsaki da adalci, domin, kamar yadda muka gani, ba haka lamarin yake ba.

I also want to mention something about religious freedom. As Muslims, we should not resort to freedom of religion arguments to defend ourselves against the secular assault. We should instead point out the internal contradictions of secularism (like the above) and force the secularists to admit that their problem with the Muslim headscarf is nothing more than a cultural bias. If they can admit that, fine. But we should not allow them to get away with pretending that their opposition to the hijab is due to some rational commitment to neutrality and even-handedness because, as we have seen, that is clearly not the case.

A ƙarshe, idan suna son su nace cewa ƙin yarda da su game da hijabi yana faruwa ne saboda son zuciyar al'ada, Musulmi za su iya rayuwa da hakan. Domin a cikin al'ummomin Musulmi, ya kamata mu ji daɗin kafa namu ƙa'idodin sutura, ƙa'idodin da ba sa dogara ga sauye-sauyen al'ada da ke canzawa koyaushe ba, sai dai su dogara ga dabi'unmu na addini da ƙa'idodin kamun kai da tsafta da Allah ya tsara. Wannan ita ce inda muke son tattaunawar ta ƙare.

At the end of the day, if they want to insist that their objections to the hijab are due to cultural bias, Muslims can live with that. Because in Muslim societies, we should feel comfortable instituting our own standards of dress, standards which are not due to ever-changing cultural whims but based on our religious values and standards of decency and modesty set by Allah. This is where we want the discussion to end up.