Muna yanke hukunci kan masu mulki da cibiyoyin gwamnati ta hanyar ayyukansu, da kuma ko wadannan ayyuka sun dace da adalci kamar yadda Allah ya tsara shi. Ba ma boye imaninmu a bayan kalmomin “dimokuradiyya” ko “rashin dimokuradiyya” wadanda ba su da ma'ana sosai. Idan akwai wani shakku game da ko wadannan kalmomi suna da ma'ana, to martanin Yammacin duniya game da juyin mulkin 2016 a Turkiyya idan aka kwatanta da martaninsa game da juyin mulkin 2013 a Masar ya kamata ya kawar da shakkar gaba daya. Juyin mulki biyu, a kasashe biyu: Masar da Turkiyya. Ya danganta da imanin mutum da kuma tsarin addininsa, juyin mulki daya “tabbas” dimokuradiyya ne, dayan kuma “a fili” rashin dimokuradiyya ne. Me ya sa? Saboda juyin mulki daya “a fili” ya wakilci nufin jama'a, dayan kuma “babu shakka” bai wakilce shi ba. Mutanen da aka kashe a kowane juyin mulki sun zama “shahidai” ko “makaraca”, ya danganta da wanda kake tambaya, ya danganta da wane juyin mulki kake magana a kai.

We judge rulers and governmental institutions by their actions and whether those actions conform with justice as delineated by Allah. We do not hide our beliefs behind superfluous and ultimately meaningless designations of “democratic” or “undemocratic.” If there were any doubt left about whether these terms have any meaning, the Western reaction to the 2016 coup in Turkey versus the reaction to the 2013 coup in Egypt should have settled the issue conclusively. Two coups, in two countries: Egypt and Turkey. Depending on one’s personal commitments and religious orientation, one coup was “certainly” democratic and the other was “clearly” undemocratic. Why? Because one coup “obviously” represented the will of the people and the other “undoubtedly” did not. The people killed in each coup were “martyrs” or “traitors” depending on who you ask, depending on which coup you are talking about.

Za mu iya muhawara game da dimokuraɗiyya har sai mun gaji, amma ba za mu taɓa samun wani ci gaba ba, domin wannan ra'ayi ne maras ma'ana kuma mai cike da son zuciya, wanda za a iya dangana shi ga kowane aikin siyasa ko tsarin gwamnati.

So we can debate democratic-ness till we are blue in the face, but we will never get anywhere because this is an empty, hopelessly subjective concept that can be projected onto any political act or governmental structure.

Ta hanyar nannade harshenmu da wannan kwalliyar 'yanci da kuma amfani da kalmomi marasa ma'ana kamar "dimokuradiyya" don isar da ra'ayoyinmu, abin da muke yi a zahiri shi ne jinkirta tattaunawa ta gaskiya. Tattaunawar gaskiya ita ce: a ƙarshen rana, menene hukuma mai mulki ke bin al'ummarta, kuma menene al'umma ke bin ta, kuma, mafi muhimmanci, ta yaya za mu san menene amsar da ta dace? Shin mu masu tsaron ra'ayin babu gaskiya ne da ba ya wanzuwa? Ko kuwa mun yi imani cewa akwai amsar da ta dace, idan haka ne, ta yaya za mu tantance ta?

By wrapping our language in this liberal veneer and employing empty concepts like “democracy” to convey our opinions, what we are really doing is postponing a real discussion. The real discussion is: At the end of the day, what does a governing authority owe its people and what do the people owe it and, more importantly, how do we know what is the right answer? Are we nihilists who do not believe there is a right answer? Or do we believe that there is a right answer, in which case, how do we determine it?

Waɗannan su ne irin tambayoyin da suke sa mu yin tunani game da manufar ɗan adam da yanayin wanzuwarmu da dangantakarmu da Mahaliccinmu. Amma secularism na sassaucin ra'ayi ba ya son mu tattauna a wannan matakin. Ba ya son mutane su yi tunani a wannan matakin, su kawo Allah a zuciya. Saboda haka yana gaya mana cewa Allah ba shi da muhimmanci. Tambayoyin falsafa masu zurfi ba su da muhimmanci. Ma'anar wanzuwarka ba ta da muhimmanci. Kawai ka shagaltar da kanka da waɗannan sharuɗɗan da ba su da ma'ana. Kawai ka yi jayayya game da waɗanne lakabi marasa ma'ana ne suka dace da wannan ko waccan tsarin mulki. Ka nutsar da kanka a cikin muhawarar da, bisa tsari, ba ta da ƙarshe mai amfani. Magana game da Allah tana da wahala sosai, tana da yara sosai. Kana iya kawai ka yi jayayya game da Santa Claus ko Zomon Ista. Maimakon haka, ka shiga sahun masu ilimi na secular ka yi tattaunawa "mai tsanani" da "ta ilimi" game da wakilcin dimokuraɗiyya, secularization, da sauransu.

These are the kinds of questions that make us think about human purpose and the nature of our existence and our relationship to our Maker. But liberal secularism does not want us to have a conversation on that level. Liberal secularism does not want people to think on that level, to bring God to mind. So it tells us that God is irrelevant. Deeper metaphysical questions are irrelevant. The meaning of your existence is irrelevant. Just busy yourself with these artificial terms. Just bicker about what empty labels are applicable to this or that regime. Submerge yourself in a debate that, by design, has no fruitful end. Talking about God is too uncomfortable, too childish. You might as well argue about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Instead, join the ranks of the secular intelligentsia and have a “serious,” “intellectual” conversation about democratic representation, secularization, etc