Akwai babban ruɗani game da wannan tambaya. Ta wata fuska, eh, hakika Musulmi sun yarda da ƙa'idar daidaito, domin ita ce ginshiƙin dukkan ɗabi'a. Ta yaya haka?

There is major confusion on this question. In one sense, yes, of course Muslims accept the principle of equality because that is at the essence of all morality. How so?

Duk wani tsarin ɗabi'a yana ɗauke da wata ƙa'ida da ba a iya ƙin ta: abubuwa biyu masu kama da juna ya kamata a bi da su daidai. Idan Mutum A ya yi sata a shagon abinci kuma muka ɗauki hakan a matsayin abu marar kyau, to idan Mutum B ya aikata irin wannan abu, ya kamata mu ɗauki aikinsa a matsayin marar kyau shi ma, in dai babu wani abu daban. Sashen "in dai babu wani abu daban" yana da muhimmanci, domin ta fuskar ɗaya, Mutum A da Mutum B ba za su taɓa zama daidai ba, saboda mutane biyu ne daban, da yanayi daban-daban, da asali daban-daban. Abin da yake da muhimmanci daga mahangar ɗabi'a shi ne Mutum A da Mutum B suna daidai ta wata hanya da ta dace, kuma babu wani bambanci da yake da tasiri a ɗabi'a. Misali, idan Mutum A yana da idanu koren-kore kuma Mutum B yana da idanu shuɗi, wannan ba shi da alaƙa da gaskiyar cewa dukansu sun yi sata, saboda haka za mu bi da su daidai a gaban doka. Amma idan Mutum A attajiri ne ne Mutum B kuwa mabuƙaci ne marar gida, to wannan bambanci yana da tasiri a ɗabi'a, kuma ya kamata mu fahimci ayyukan Mutum B daban, mu kuma bi da shi daban.

Implicit in any and all moral systems is that two like things ought to be treated equally. If Person A shoplifts at a grocery story and we judge that as wrong, then if Person B does the same thing, we should also judge that act as wrong, all else being equal. The “all else being equal” part is important because, in one sense, Person A and Person B are never equal for the simple reason that Person A and Person B are two different people with different circumstances, different backgrounds, etc. What is important from the standpoint of morality, however, is that Person A and Person B are equal in a relevant way and there are no differences that are morally relevant. For example, if Person A has green eyes and Person B has blue eyes, that is not morally relevant to the fact that both men have committed theft, so we will treat them as equal before the law. But if Person A is a millionaire and Person B is a starving homeless person, then that is a morally relevant difference and we should treat and understand Person B’s actions differently.

Abin da muke koya daga wannan shi ne cewa fahimtarmu game da daidaito ta dogara sosai kan waɗannan “abubuwan da suke da muhimmanci a ɗabi'a.” Wannan yana da muhimmanci domin mutane a yau suna duba dokar Musulunci su ce, “Ku duba yadda Musulunci yake bambanta tsakanin mata da maza! Lallai Musulmi sun ƙi daidaito!” Wasu Musulmi ma, abin takaici, suna yin wannan hukunci kuskure.

What we learn from this is that our notion of equality is highly dependent on these “morally relevant factors.” This is important because people nowadays look at Islamic law and say, “Look at how Islam treats women and men differently! Clearly, Muslims reject equality!” Some Muslims unfortunately also make this mistaken assessment.

A gaskiya kuwa, shari'ar Musulunci ta yarda cewa akwai, a wasu yanayi, bambance-bambance masu muhimmanci a ɗabi'a tsakanin maza da mata. Tun da maza da mata suna da bambance sosai ta wasu fuskoki, zai dace a ce akwai yanayin da waɗannan bambance-bambance za su shigo cikin al'amari a ɗabi'ance. Daga wannan mahanga, ba shari'ar Musulunci ce ke zama rashin adalci da zalunci ba, sai dai duk wani tsarin ɗabi'a da doka wanda ya yi watsi da waɗannan bambance-bambance.

In reality, however, Islamic law recognizes that there are, in some circumstances, morally relevant differences between men and women. Given that men and women are in actuality very different in certain respects, it would make sense that there are scenarios where those differences would, morally speaking, come into play. From this perspective then, it is not Islamic law that is unjust and oppressive but rather any system of morality and law that ignores these differences.

Bugu da ƙari, yin tafiya tare da kuma goyon bayan ra'ayin daidaito, kamar yadda 'yanci (liberalism) ke yi, kamar dai su ne suka gano wannan ra'ayi, abu ne mai ban dariya da rashin ma'ana. Suna ɗaukar daraja ga wata ƙima da kowa a zahiri yake da ita. Hakika, daidaito yana cikin ainihin tsarin ɗabi'a kanta. Abin da tsarin ɗabi'a daban-daban ke sabani a kai shi ne yadda suke fahimta da bayyana waɗannan abubuwan da suka dace da ɗabi'a, kuma wannan tattaunawa ce da take faruwa a matakin meta-ethics da metaphysics. Misali, maimakon a ɓata lokaci wajen muhawara kan tambayoyi marasa amfani, kamar ko secularism na 'yanci yana girmama ka'idar daidaito fiye da yadda shari'ar Musulunci take yi, me zai hana a tattauna menene rayuwar ɗan adam mai kyau? Me zai hana a tattauna abin da ci gaban ɗan adam (human flourishing) ya ƙunsa, da kuma abin da al'umma mafi kyau ta ƙunsa? Waɗannan su ne tambayoyin gaske da za su haskaka, a cikin wasu abubuwa, waɗannan abubuwan da suka dace da ɗabi'a. Amma secularism na 'yanci, yana ɓoye a bayan kalmomin banza na "'yanci" da "daidaito," yana cewa waɗannan tambayoyi ba su da muhimmanci, cewa mutane za su iya yanke shawara da kansu, kuma cewa babu amsa daidai ko kuskure. Wannan, tabbas, rashin hankali ne.

Furthermore, cheering for and rallying behind the notion of equality, as liberalism does, as if they discovered the concept, is so silly and vapid. They are taking credit for a value that literally everyone has. Again, equality is implicit to normativity itself. Where moral systems differ is how they understand and define those morally relevant factors, and that is a discussion that happens on the meta-ethical and metaphysical levels. For example, instead of pointlessly debating meaningless questions such as whether liberal secularism respects the principle of equality more than Islamic law does, why not debate what an ideal human life looks like? Why not debate what human flourishing entails and what an ideal society consists of? These are the real questions that will, among other things, illuminate these morally relevant factors. But liberal secularism, while hiding behind empty slogans of “freedom” and “equality,” says these questions are irrelevant, that people can decide for themselves, and that there is no right or wrong answer. This, of course, is nonsense.