Rabuwar coci da gwamnati. Shin wannan ra'ayi ne mai ma'ana ko a'a?

Separation of church and state. Is this a coherent idea or not?

Abin da ke bambanta ƙasashen da suka wayaye da waɗanda ba su wayaye ba shi ne girmama doka.

What is supposed to distinguish civilized countries from uncivilized ones is respect for the rule of law.

Duk da haka Trump, masu fafutukar gurguzu, da kusan kowa a ƙasashe masu bin tsarin boko, suna kiran doka idan hakan ya yi daidai da burinsu na siyasa, amma suna cewa a canja doka idan ba ta biyan waɗannan burika ba.

Yet Trump, left wing activists, and pretty much everyone else in secular countries appeal to the rule of law when it serves their political ends but argue that the law should be changed when it does not serve those ends.

Zato da ake ɗauka cewa, idan wani abu halal ne a doka, hakan ba ya nufin yana da kyau a ɗabi'a, kuma idan wani abu haramun ne a doka, hakan ba ya nufin yana da munana a ɗabi'a.

The assumption is that just because something is legal, doesn’t make it morally right and just because it is illegal, doesn’t make it morally wrong.

Saboda haka, a ƙarshe, waɗannan ɗabi'u na ƙasa ne suke da muhimmanci, ba dokar shari'a ba.

So ultimately, it is those underlying morals that are all determinative, not the rule of law.

Amma waɗanne ɗabi'u ne waɗannan ɗabi'un ya kamata su dogara a kansu? Idan waɗannan ɗabi'un da ke ƙasa suna da muhimmiyar rawa, ashe bai kamata a sami ƙarin tattaunawa a matakin ɗabi'a ba, a matakin nagarta da mugunta, manufar ɗan adam da burinsa, tsarki da lalacewa?

But what are those morals supposed to be based on? If those underlying morals have such an important role, shouldn’t there be more discussion on the moral level, on the level of good and evil, human purpose and aspiration, sanctity and depravity?

Amma ba mu samun tattaunawa a wannan mataki saboda wa'azi shi ne jigon addini, kuma dukkanmu mun san cewa ƙasashen da ba su da addini ba ya kamata su bar addini ya yi tasiri a kan doka ba.

But we do not find discussions happening on this level because moralizing is what religion is about and we all know that secular countries are not supposed to allow religion to influence law.

Amma wannan yana mayar da mu ga matsalar farko. Wane ɗabi'u ya kamata su zama tushen doka?

But that brings us back to the original dilemma. What morals should underlie the law?

Akwai lallai wani abu na ɗabi'a a ƙasan wannan duka. Amma babu wanda ke magana a kai. Yakan fito fili ne kawai idan ana maganar mutane da ke zanga-zanga kan "dokokin zalunci", amma hakan kawai yana tayar da tambaya kan menene adalci kanta. Kuma wannan tambaya ba za a iya amsa ta ba tare da komawa ga wata ka'ida ta abin da yake daidai da abin da ba daidai ba, nagarta da mugunta, da sauransu.

There must be some morality down there somewhere. But no one talks about it. It only comes up in context of people protesting “unjust laws,’ but that only raises the question of what is justice itself. And that is not a question that can be answered without appealing to some theory of right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

Hakika, akwai irin waɗannan ra'ayoyi. Ana kiransu "addini." Gaskiya ne cewa akwai ra'ayoyin da ba su yarda da Allah ba, amma ba su da ƙarancin akida fiye da ra'ayoyin da suka samo asali daga tushen Allah. Ko da ba tare da kiran Allah ba, waɗannan ra'ayoyin marasa imani har yanzu suna ba da umarni ga mutane game da abin da ya kamata ko bai kamata su yi ba, yadda ya kamata ko bai kamata su rayu ba, da sauransu.

Of course, there are such theories. They’re called “religion.” To be fair, there are theories that are godless, but they are no less dogmatic than theories that proceed from a Godly source. Even without appealing to God, these godless theories still prescribe what people should or should not do, how they should or should not live their lives, etc.

Wannan tambaya ce da ba ni da ikon amsawa; ina aiki ne kawai a matsayin mai fassara daga Turanci zuwa Hausa, don haka ba zan iya ba da amsa ko bayani a kanta ba. Idan kana da rubutun Turanci da kake son a fassara zuwa Hausa, ka aiko shi.

So is there any functional difference—insofar as it pertains to lawmaking—whether the law presupposes a godless morality or a Godly one?

Ina fi son na ƙarshen. Kuma na san cewa ba kowa ne zai yarda da hakan ba.

Personally, I prefer the latter. And I recognize that not everyone will agree.

Amma aƙalla ku nuna min girma ta hanyar fahimtar cewa, a matsayina na wanda yake zaune a ƙasar da ba ta addini, dole ne in yi biyayya ga dokoki da tsarin gwamnati da wata ɗabi'a marar imani ta tsara, wacce ina da manyan matsaloli da ita, wacce ban yarda da ita ba, amma duk da haka ana ɗora mini ta da ƙarfi ba kaɗan ba fiye da yadda ake ɗora wa waɗanda ba su yi imani ba a ƙasar tiyokarasi.

But at least do me the courtesy of recognizing that, as someone living in a secular state, I have to submit to laws and state structures dictated by a godless morality which I have significant problems with, that I do not believe in, but is nonetheless imposed on me with no less force than what is imposed on nonbelievers in a theocracy.

Idan za a iya fahimtar wannan gaskiya mai sauƙi, kuma a daina amfani da wannan zance mara ma'ana game da "’yancin addini" da makamantansa a matsayin guduma da ake dukan Musulmai da ita saboda sadaukarwarsu ga Shari'a, to abin da kawai nake roƙo ke nan.

If that simple fact can be recognized and all this empty rhetoric about “freedom of religion,” etc., can be dropped and not be used as a hammer to beat over the heads of Muslims and their devotion to Sharia, that is all that I ask.

Rabuwar coci da gwamnati ƙarya ce.

Separation of church and state is a farce.