Ba ashe ba ne babban ra'ayin tunanin 'yanci (liberal) shi ne ƙara yawan zaɓin mutum da haƙƙoƙinsa? Zaɓi da 'yanci na mutum su ne mafi muhimmanci, kuma gabaɗaya, babu wata ma'auni tabbatacciya da za a yi hukunci da ita. Don haka, shin bai kamata mu, a matsayinmu na tsirarun musulmi a Yammacin duniya, mu goyi bayan wannan tsari ba?

Question: Isn’t the main concept of liberal thought to maximize individual choice and rights? Individual choice and freedom is paramount, and by and large, there is no absolute standard to judge that. So shouldn’t we as minorities in the West support that paradigm?

Matsalar ita ce, wanzuwar doka ta kan hana zabin mutum na kansa a kowace al'umma. Dukkan mutane suna daure da dokoki. Nufi da 'yancin kowane mutum na zaɓe su ma doka tana takura su. Amma abin da 'sekularisim mai sassaucin ra'ayi' ke da'awa shi ne cewa dokoki suna da hujja ne kawai idan sun hana mutane cutar da wasu. Shi ya sa dokar boko (ta duniya) take karɓuwa wajen takaita 'yancin zaɓen mutum ba tare da iyaka ba, alhali dokar addini kuwa ba ta karɓuwa. Na farko yana hana cutarwa kawai, wanda shi ne maslahar da dukkan ɗan Adam yake da ita, yayin da na ƙarshe kuwa yana nufin ibadar addini, wadda wasu mutanen da ke cikin wannan addinin ne kawai suke damuwa da ita, ba kowa ba. Akwai matsaloli masu yawa game da wannan bambancin da ake da'awa tsakanin dokar boko da dokar addini. Babbansu shi ne cewa abin da ake ɗauka a matsayin "cutarwa" ko ba cutarwa ba yana da matuƙar cece-kuce. To me ya sa ma'anar cutarwa ta boko ita kaɗai ce ingantacciyar ma'ana?

Answer: The problem is that the existence of law precludes individual choice in any and every society. All people are constrained by laws. Everyone’s will and freedom of choice is constricted by the law. But what liberal secularism claims is that laws are only justified when they prevent people from harming others. That’s why secular law is acceptable in its restricting of people’s unfettered freedom of choice whereas religious law is unacceptable. The former merely prevents harm, which is a universal interest of all human beings, while the latter is aimed at religious devotion, which only some people who belong to that religion care about and nobody else. There are many conceptual problems with this purported distinction between secular law and religious law. Chief among them the fact that what is or is not considered “harm” is highly debatable. Why is the secular conception of harm the only valid conception?

Abin da yake cutarwa ko ba cutarwa ba ya dogara ne akan manyan imani na mutum na ƙarshe game da ilimin abin da yake bayan zahiri da kuma game da yanayin ɗan Adam da duniya. Waɗannan imani ba a ɗaukarsu a matsayin "addini" a zahiri ba, amma ba su bambanta da tauhidin addini ta kowane fanni ba. Ta haka ne ƙa'idar 'yancin kai ta boye ka'idojinta na ilimin zahiri da na ɗabi'a, ta hanyar nuna su a matsayin siffofin duniya na yanayin ɗan Adam.

What is or is not harmful depends on one’s greater metaphysical commitments and beliefs about human nature and the world. These commitments are not considered “religion” per se, but are not categorically different from religious theology. This is how secular liberalism smuggles in its metaphysical and normative imperatives: by masking them as universal features of human nature.

Misali mai sauƙi kuma sananne: Zubar da ciki. Batun zubar da ciki sau da yawa ana gabatar da shi a matsayin muhawara tsakanin ɓangaren addini da ɓangaren boko (na duniya). Ya danganta da abin da mutum yake tunani game da tayin, matsayinsa na "mutum," nauyin ɗabi'a da ke kan iyayen halitta, da sauransu, zubar da ciki ko dai haramun ne a ɗabi'a kuma batu ne na dokar ƙasa, ko kuma ba haka ba. Matsayin ɓangaren masu kare rayuwa (pro-life) ana ɗaukar sa a matsayin wanda addini ke tuƙa shi (kuma haka yake), amma ɓangaren masu goyon bayan zaɓi (pro-choice) ana ganin sa a matsayin wanda damuwar boko da neman 'yanci da cin gashin kai na mutum ke tuƙa shi. Sai dai imaninsu game da tayin da jikin mace, da sauransu, ba su gaza na abin da ba ya cikin zahiri (metaphysical) ba daga imanin abokan muhawararsu na addini. Amma ba a gabatar da muhawarar ta fuskar saiti ɗaya na imani na zahirin nan da wani saiti na daban ba, addini ɗaya da wani addini. Maimakon haka, ana gabatar da ita a matsayin tsattsauran ra'ayin addini da 'yancin boko, ko imanin addini da 'yancin zaɓi.

A simple and familiar example: Abortion. The issue of abortion is often framed as a debate between a religious and a secular side. Depending on what you think about the fetus, its status as a “person,” the moral responsibilities of the biological parents, etc., abortion is or is not immoral and the subject of legal regulation. The position of the pro-life faction is considered to be driven by religious commitments (which it is), but the pro-choice side is seen as driven by secular concerns and a pursuit of freedom and individual autonomy, but their underlying beliefs about the fetus and the female body, etc., are no less metaphysical than the beliefs of their religious interlocutors. But the debate is not framed in terms of one set of metaphysical beliefs against another, one religion against another. Rather, it is framed as religious conservatism vs. secular liberty, religious conviction vs. freedom of choice.

Ina so in fahimci abin da kake nufi da "Why?" Ina aiki ne kawai a matsayin mai fassara daga Turanci zuwa Hausa, don haka ka aiko da rubutun da kake son in fassara.

Why?

Idan da za mu fahimci muhawarar a matsayin rashin jituwa tsakanin rukunai biyu na imani ta falsafa (metaphysical), to da dabi'a za mu tambayi dalilin da ya sa wani rukuni zai kasance a koyaushe shi ne aka fi so a kan wancan. Wannan ita ce tambayar da ya kamata mu yi game da dukkan dokokin boko (secular). Dukkansu suna dogara ne da imani na falsafa wanda a asali yana da halin "addini", amma ba a ganin su haka. Wadancan imani an saka su a cikin doka kuma an sanya kowa ya bi su. Duk mun tilastu mu bi tsarin addinin boko da zaluncin gwamnatin boko mai mulkin addini.

If we understood the debate as a disagreement between two sets of metaphysical commitments, then we would naturally ask why should one set be automatically preferred over the other. This is the precise question we should ask for all secular laws. They are all based on metaphysical beliefs that are fundamentally “religious” in nature, but are not perceived as such. Those beliefs are enshrined in the law and imposed on everyone. We are all forced to abide by the secular religious order and the tyranny of the secular theocratic regime.