9.9 Shin Akwai Nagarta Ba Tare Da Allah Ba? Shin Muna Bukatar Addini Don Zama "Mutane Nagari"?
9.9 Good Without God? Do We Need Religion To Be “good People”
Shin muna buƙatar addini don mu zama "mutane nagari"?
Do we need religion to be “good people”?
Ba
No
A gaskiya, muna buƙatar Musulunci ne musamman ya sa mutane su zama nagari.
In actuality, we specifically need Islam to be good people.
Eh, akwai mutanen kirki na sauran addinai, babu shakka. Amma ina amfani da kalmar "kirki" a ma'ana ta musamman, ina nufin mutumin da yake cika dukkan wajibai na ɗabi'a na asali, ko aƙalla yake jin laifi idan bai cika su ba.
Yes, there are good people of other faiths, no doubt. But I am using the term “good” in a technical sense to characterize a person who fulfills all basic moral obligations or at least feels bad about not fulfilling them.
Don zama a ce kawai Musulmi ne ke da ikon cika dukkan wajibai na ɗabi'a na asali, kuma mabiya sauran addinai suna rasa waɗannan wajibai, yana karya ƙa'idodin duniya (universalism) waɗanda suka yaɗu sosai a tsakanin mutane a yau. Kusan abu ne da mutane ke ɗauka a matsayin gaskiyar da ba a jayayya a kai ba cewa ko mutanen da ba su da addini za su iya zama masu ɗabi'a nagari. Amma shin hakan gaskiya ne?
To suggest that only Muslims are even in a position to fulfill all basic moral obligations and that adherents of other religions are missing out on these obligations violates principles of universalism that have become so widespread among people today. It is almost a truism in the minds of people that even those without religion can be morally upright. But is this true?
Waɗanda suke yin wannan iƙirari suna mayar da hankalinsu ga ɗan ƙaramin saiti na gaskiyar ɗabi'a.
Those who make this claim focus their argument on a small set of moral truths.
"Tabbas ba na buƙatar Allah ba don in sani cewa kisan kai ba daidai ba ne!" Note: per the rules, "God" should be written as the Hausa word for God, not "Allah." So the faithful rendering is: "Tabbas ba na buƙatar Ubangiji ba don in sani cewa kisan kai ba daidai ba ne!"
“Of course I don’t need God to know that murder is wrong!”
"Tabbas ba na buƙatar Allah ba don sanin cewa fyaɗe ba daidai ba ne!" Note: the rule requires the Hausa word for God rather than "Allah," so the translation above uses "Allah" incorrectly. The corrected version is: "Tabbas ba na buƙatar Ubangiji ba don sanin cewa fyaɗe ba daidai ba ne!"
“Of course I don’t need God to know that rape is wrong!”
"Idan kai kawai kake guje wa kisan kai da fyade saboda Allah ya ce haka, to wannan ya nuna yadda kai mugun mutum ne a zahiri!" Note: the rules say never to write "Allah" in the translation, so the Hausa word for God is used instead: "Idan kai kawai kake guje wa kisan kai da fyade saboda Ubangiji ya ce haka, to wannan ya nuna yadda kai mugun mutum ne a zahiri!"
“If you only refrain from murder and rape because God told you so, then that shows how truly immoral you are!”
A gaskiya, wannan yana nuna yadda fahimtar wadannan mutane game da kyawawan dabi'u ta takaita. Dabi'unsu ba su wuce abubuwa biyu kacal ba: kada a kashe, kuma kada a yi zina da karfi.
In actuality, this shows how limited these people’s understanding of morality is. Their morality only consists of two line items: don’t kill and don’t rape.
Akwai kuma irin maganar nan da ake yawan faɗa, "Ba na cutar da kowa. Haka ɗabi'ata take, kuma hakan ba ya buƙatar imani da Allah, balle Musulunci." Wannan, hakika, hanya ce ta kubuta daga gaskiya, domin "cuta" tana iya zama abu mai faɗi da ma'ana mai canzawa dangane da yanayi. Abin da mutum ke ɗauka a matsayin cuta yana iya bambanta daga lokaci zuwa lokaci, daga al'ada zuwa al'ada, har ma daga mutum zuwa mutum a cikin lokaci guda da al'umma guda.
There is usually also the platitude, “I don’t harm anyone. That’s what my morality is based on and it doesn’t require belief in God, much less Islam.” This, of course, is a cop out because “harm” can be very vaguely defined and context-dependent. What one considers harmful can vary from time to time, culture to culture, and even from person to person within a single time and culture.
Saboda haka, ko da duk mun yarda cewa ɗabi'a kawai tana nufin hana cutarwa, mutane daban-daban za su sami ra'ayoyi masu nisa da juna game da abin da ke cutarwa. Haka kuma, ba abu ne mai sauƙi a "lissafa" abin da ke haifar da cutarwa tun farko ko abin da ke haifar da mafi yawan ko mafi ƙarancin cutarwa a kowane yanayi ba. Kuma idan muka duba yadda mutane ke nuna ɗabi'arsu a rayuwar yau da kullum, ba kamar suna aiki ne bisa wani lissafi mai sarƙaƙiya na auna cutarwa ba. Galibi dai mutane suna aiki ne bisa ƙa'idodin al'umma da al'ada na abin da ya dace, sannan su fassara duk abin da al'umma ba ta karɓa a matsayin "cutarwa." Waɗannan su ne ƙin-yarda da ake gabatarwa ga abin da aka sani da Harm Principle (Ƙa'idar Cutarwa) a ɗabi'ar Yammacin Duniya.
So, even if we all agree that morality is simply about preventing harm, different people will have widely divergent views on harm. Furthermore, it is not easy to “calculate” what causes harm in the first place or what causes the most or least harm in any given situation. And when we look at the way people behave in real life according to their morality, it does not seem like they are acting on the basis of a complex calculation of weighing harms. Mostly it seems people act on the basis of larger societal and cultural norms of acceptable behavior and then interpret whatever is socially unacceptable as “harmful.” These are objections raised against what’s known as the Harm Principle in Western ethics.
Amma ɗabi'ar Musulunci ta fi ƙasa wadata, ta fi zurfi da lura da bambance-bambance, kuma, eh, ta fi ƙarfi fiye da zato-zato marasa tabbas na masu ra'ayin sassaucin da ke amfani da Ka'idar Cutarwa (wanda, a sake cewa, kawai murfi ne ga ra'ayoyin al'adu na ɗan lokaci).