Shari'a ta kasance kuma tana ci gaba da zama tushen adalci da rahama mai yawa. Azzalumai ne kawai ke son kawar da ita.

The Sharia was and is the source of so much justice and mercy. Only tyrants want to do away with it.

A cikin makalarsa mai suna “Ideas Were Not Enough,” masanin tattalin arziki Mark Koyama ya yi wata gaskiya mai ban mamaki: 'Yancin addini ba wata sabuwar ra'ayi ce ta juyin-juya-hali da ta mamaye duniyar Yamma saboda kawai kyawunta ko falalarta ba. Maimakon haka, haƙurin da aka yi wa ƙungiyoyin addinai daban-daban ya kasance al'amari ne na zahiri kawai, na siyasa da tattalin arziki.5

In his essay “Ideas Were Not Enough,” economist Mark Koyama gives an honest admission: Religious freedom is not a revolutionary idea that took the Western world by storm simply on the basis of its compellingness or virtue. Rather, tolerance for different religious groups was purely a practical matter politically and economically.5

Ta yaya wannan ya faru?

How did this happen?

Koyama ya yi jayayya cewa, saboda dalilai daban-daban, ƙasashen Turai a farkon zamanin Yammacin zamani sun fara dogaro kaɗan da Coci wajen samun halascin siyasa. A baya, waɗannan ƙasashe suna buƙatar haɗa kai da Coci domin samun karɓuwa a idanun talakawan Kiristoci, wanda hakan ya kai ga kwanciyar hankalin siyasa (abu mai matuƙar muhimmanci ga hukumomin masu mulki). Sai dai haɗin kan ƙasa da Coci bai yi kyau ga haƙuri ba, domin Coci tana buƙatar ƙasar ta hukunta masu bidi'a a madadinta.

Koyama argues that, for various reasons, European states in the early stages of Western modernity grew less dependent on the Church for political legitimization. Previously, these states needed to ally with the Church in order to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Christian masses, which in turn led to political stability (something very valuable to ruling state authorities). States allying with the Church was bad for tolerance, however, since the Church required the state to punish heretics for them.

Bugu da ƙari, marubucin ya yi iƙirarin cewa jihohi sun dogara ga cibiyoyin addini don ba da gudummawa ga tsaron al'umma. Coci-coci (da awqaf a duniyar Musulunci) sun fi dacewa kuma sun fi iya taimakon talakawa, samar da ilimi, da gudanar da sauran ayyukan jama'a idan aka kwatanta da raunannun cibiyoyin gwamnati. Haka kuma, dokoki da ka'idojin zamantakewar waɗannan lokutan sun dogara ne akan asalin addini, maimakon asalin ƙasa gabaɗaya (misali, zama ɗan ƙasa) wanda ke shafar kowa daidai. Duk wannan ya haifar da ƙarancin haƙuri ga bambancin addini. A cikin wannan duniya, "’yancin addini ba zai yiwu a yi tunaninsa ba." Me ya canza?

Additionally, the author claims, states relied on the religious institutions to contribute to public order. Churches (and awqaf in the Islamic world) were better positioned and capable to help the poor, provide education, and conduct other public services relative to weak state institutions. Furthermore, laws and social rules of these times depended on religious identity as opposed to a general nationalistic identity (e.g., citizenship) that applied equally to all people. All this led to less tolerance for religious diversity. In this world, “religious freedom was inconceivable.” What changed?

Koyama ya yi iƙirarin cewa hukumomin gwamnati sun fara karɓar haraji sosai, kuma sun ƙara ƙarfi. Wannan ya ba su damar barin tsarin musayar amfani da Coci da suke yi a baya. Yayin da ƙarfinsu ya ƙaru, dokoki da ƙa'idodin zamantakewa sun iya aiki a faɗin ƙasa ba tare da dogara ga addinin mutane don su yi aiki ba. A ganin gwamnati, Bayahude, Furotesta da Katolika duk daidai suke a matsayin tushen haraji, don haka ya zama ba dole ba ne kuma ɓata albarkatun gwamnati ce a nuna wariya bisa addini. A ƙarshe, "Yayin da suka dogara kaɗan ga ikon addini, jihohi sun ƙara rashin son tilasta bin addini." Sakamakon fa?

State institutions started taxing more and became more powerful, claims Koyama. This allowed them to forego a quid pro quo arrangement with the Church. With increased power, laws and social rules could be enforced more broadly without depending on religious identities to function. As far as the state was concerned, the Jew, Protestant, and Catholic were all equal sources for taxes, so it became unnecessary and a waste of bureaucratic resources to discriminate based on religious identity. Ultimately, “As they relied less on religious authority, states grew less inclined to value enforcing religious conformity.” The result?

Yar da 'yancin addini da aka haifa daga dacewa maimakon ƙa'ida. Duk da haka, abu ne mai kyau, ko ba haka ba?

Religious freedom born of convenience rather than principle. Still a good thing, though, right?

Ba haka ba, idan ka duba shi da gaskiya. Tun daga farko har zuwa ƙarshe, burin gwamnati shi ne ta karkatar da mutane bisa ga nufinta don ta cire dukiya daga gare su. Da farko, Coci ya zama hanya mai amfani don haka, amma daga baya, an samo hanyoyi masu tasiri waɗanda suka sa Coci ya zama mara amfani. Kamar yadda Koyama ya lura, cibiyar gwamnati mafi ƙarfi ita ce soja, wadda ta girma cikin iko, girma, da ƙwarewar fasaha a tsawon wannan zamanin tarihi. Wane kayan aiki ne ya fi kyau wajen sarrafa jama'ar mutum fiye da ƙarfin soja kawai? Babu buƙatar a aro ra'ayin fushin Allah don yin amfani da ikon gwamnati. Kawai a yi amfani da tsarin sojan gwamnati.