"'Yanci ya fi muhimmanci fiye da la ilaha illallah saboda ba tare da yanci ba ba mu da 'yancin yin imani da duk abin da muka zaba.' Wannan shi ne abin da wani mai fafutukar Siriya ya faɗa mini shekaru da dama da suka wuce game da Juyin Juya Halin Larabawa. Da alama yana kafa wani zaɓi na ƙarya ne, amma kawai yana so ya jaddada matsayin yanci a matsayin daraja, idan aka kwatanta da sauran abubuwa."

“Freedom is more important than la ilaha illaAllah because without freedom we are not free to believe whatever we choose.” This is what one Syrian activist told me several years ago regarding the Arab Spring. It seemed like he was setting up a false dichotomy, but he was just trying to emphasize the place of freedom as a value, as compared to everything else.

Amma 'yanci ana fahimtarsa ba daidai ba. Mutum mai 'yanci na gaskiya, a cewar falsafar 'yanci wadda ta fara daga masana falsafar gwaji na Turai na karni na goma sha takwas da sha tara, shi ne wanda ya fara da takardar da babu komai a cikinta, wato tabula rasa. Irin wannan mutum ba shi da wani imani ko alkawari da ya riga ya dauka. Hankalinsa ba shi da gurbacewa da ra'ayoyin da aka dora masa ba daidai ba game da duniya, game da Allah, ko game da yanayin halitta. Wannan mutum, tare da hankali mai 'yanci, yana iya kafa nasa imani na gaskiya daga farko. Da kyau, wadannan imani za su kafu ne bisa binciken kimiyya mai inganci, abin da masana falsafar gwaji suka yi fata a kalla a falsafarsu ta hankali da ilimi. Amma koda mutum bai samar da imani bisa kimiyya ba, aƙalla ya yi hakan da gaskiya, don haka cikin 'yanci. Ta haka, ana yarda mutum ya kasance mai addini muddin ya fara daga takardar da babu komai a cikinta, wadda a zahiri take a matsayin farkon rashin addini.

But freedom is a misunderstood concept. The truly free person, according to liberal philosophy beginning with the European empiricists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is the person who starts off with a blank slate, i.e., the tabula rasa. This person has no prior beliefs or commitments. His mind is not contaminated with falsely imposed ideas about the world, about God, about the state of nature. This person, with his free mind, is then able to form his own authentic beliefs from scratch. Ideally, those beliefs will be formed on the basis of sound scientific investigation — that’s what the empiricists hoped for at least in their philosophy of mind and epistemology. But, even if a person does not develop beliefs scientifically, at least he does so authentically and, hence, freely. In this way, it is OK for a person to be religious so long as that person started from a blank slate, which for all intents and purposes is a starting point of non-religion.

Yana da ban sha'awa idan aka faɗi haka. Idan an haife ni a cikin iyali mai wani addini, iyalin kuma suka koya mani wannan addini tun ranar farko, kuma na girma ina bin wannan imani, shin hakan yana nufin ban zaɓi wannan imani da kaina ba? Zan iya cewa, a matsayina na babba, ina yin zaɓi da gangan kuma ina amfani da 'yancin zuciyata wajen ɗaukar wannan addini na. Amma sai tambaya ta taso: ta yaya zan iya sanin cewa "ni" ne ke yin wannan zaɓi, ba "ni" ɗin da ya girma a cikin wani gida ba, wanda kuma sakamakon wani irin "koyar da addini" ne? Watakila an wanke mini kwakwalwa, kuma a irin wannan yanayi, zaɓina ba zaɓi na gaskiya ba ne.

It is interesting when you put it like that. If I was born into a family with a certain religion and that family taught me that religion from Day 1, and I grow up professing that faith, does that mean I did not freely choose that faith for myself? I might argue that, as an adult, I am making a conscious choice and exercising my free will to commit to my particular faith. But, then, how can I know that it is really “me” making that choice and not the “me” that grew up in a certain household and is a product of a certain kind of “religious indoctrination”? Maybe I’ve been brainwashed, in which case my “choice” is not really a choice at all.

Idan haka ne ga yara da ke girma a gidajen addini, to haka ma yake faruwa a gidajen da ba na addini ba. Wannan ma wani nau'in wanke kwakwalwa ne, amma na wanda ba addini ba. Idan aka tashi yaro a kan rashin yarda da wani Ubangiji Mai Iko, kuma a kan rashin daraja ibada da bautar mai bi, sannan ya girma ya zama mai kafirci ya kuma yi wa addini ba’a, da sauransu, shin wannan zabi ne na gaske? Ko kuma shi ma kayan muhallinsa ne?

But if that’s the case for children growing up in religious households, then the same kind of indoctrination happens in non-religious households too. It is just brainwashing of the non-religious variety. If a child is raised to not believe in a Higher Power and to not think much of faithful devotion, then if he grows up and decides to be an atheist and mock religion, etc., then was that truly a free choice? Or is he also the product of his environment?

Ma'anar ita ce cewa babu wani tabula rasa, kuma babu wani allon fari, tsaka-tsaki wanda masu tunani na 'yanci suka yi zaton za mu iya gina imaninmu cikin 'yanci daga gare shi. Babu allon fari. Dukkanmu an haife mu cikin wani hali, kuma an tashe mu muna gaskata wasu ra'ayoyi da dabi'u da ake dora mana tun muna yara, sannan a cikin rayuwarmu ta manya. Tambaya daya tilo ita ce: shin wadancan ra'ayoyi da dabi'u gaskiya ne kuma adalci ne? Idan haka ne, wa ya damu da cewa mutum ya isa gare su daga matsayi na 'yanci, wato allon fari wanda, a zahiri, ba ya wanzuwa? Kuma idan wadancan ra'ayoyi da dabi'u karya ne kuma rashin adalci ne, to hanya daya tak ta kawo musu cikas ita ce da gaskiya da adalci, ba da manufar 'yanci ta zahiri ba, wadda kuma tunanin Zamanin Haske ne kawai. Ta kowace hanya, La ilaha illallah, a matsayin cikakkiyar bayyanar gaskiya da adalci, shi ke yin nasara.

Point being that the tabula rasa does not exist and neither does the neutral blank slate liberal thinkers imagined we could freely develop our beliefs from. There is no blank slate. We all are born into a certain condition and raised to believe certain ideas and values that are imposed on us as children and then throughout our adult lives. The only question is, are those ideas and values true and just? If yes, who cares if one arrives at them from a position of freedom, i.e., a blank slate that, in reality, does not exist? And if those ideas and values are false and unjust, then the only way to counter that is with truth and justice, not with an abstract notion of freedom, which again, is a figment of the Enlightenment’s imagination. Either way, la ilaha illaAllah, as the ultimate expression of truth and justice, comes out on top.

Dhahirin, 'yancin addini a kasashen boko suna ɗaukar wani wuri na farawa wanda babu addini a cikinsa. To amma me yasa rashin addini ya zama wurin farawa, wurin tsaka-tsaki? Me yasa dabi'un da ba na addini ba su zama tushen tsoho? Wani zai ce, to, akwai bambancin imani na addini, don haka maimakon fifita ko amincewa da ɗaya, gwamnatin boko ba ta zaɓi kowanne ba. Amma wannan kuskuren fahimtar gaskiyar ne mai girma. Rashin addini ma wani saiti ne na takamaiman imani. Idan gwamnatin boko ta zaɓi rashin addini, to ta riga ta fifita kuma ta amince da wani tsarin imani a kan wasu. Wannan ba ya bambanta da gwamnatin tiyoloji wadda ita ma ta zaɓi wani takamaiman saiti na imani a kan dukkan sauran. Bambancin shi ne, gwamnatin tiyoloji ba ta yaudarar kanta da tunanin cewa tana tsaka-tsaki ba. Kuma babban bambanci shi ne cewa gwamnatin tiyoloji bisa Musulunci tana tabbatar da gaskiya da adalci, waɗanda ba a samun su sai a Musulunci.

Put another way, freedom of religion in secular nations assumes a starting point of non-religion. But why is non-religion the starting point, the neutral ground? Why are non-religious values the default? One might say, well, there are a variety of religious beliefs so rather than prefer or endorse one, the secular state chooses none. But this is a gross mischaracterization of the reality. Non-religion is also a particular set of beliefs. If the secular state chooses non-religion, it has still preferred and endorsed a particular belief system over others. This is essentially no different from a theocratic state that also chooses one particular set of beliefs over all others. The difference is, the theocratic state does not delude itself into thinking it is neutral. And of course, the primary difference is that the theocratic state based on Islam is upholding truth and justice, which can only be found in Islam.