Kuhusu Urazimu (Rationalism), lina maana kadhaa katika utamaduni wa Kimagharibi. Hii ni pamoja na maana maalum ya kifalsafa inayotajwa katika kinyume na Empiricism (Uzoefu wa Hisia). Pia kuna maana ya jumla, kama alivyoashiria John Cottingham katika kitabu chake, The Rationalists, aliposema: "wanaourazimu, wakiongozwa na Descartes, Spinoza, na Leibniz, walionekana kujaribu kujenga mifumo yao ya kifalsafa kwa msingi wa a priori pekee." Maana hii ya jumla ndiyo tunayoihusu katika somo hili. Hii ni kwa sababu kiungo cha pamoja kati ya wanafikra wote wa Kimagharibi ni makubaliano ya kufanya akili kuwa mhukumu (hakim), bila kujali zana zake za uchambuzi na hukumu, yaani akili ndiyo kigezo cha kuhukumu mambo na masuala, na si dini. Clarence Crane Brinton katika kitabu chake, The Shaping of the Modem Mind, anasema: "Urazimu basi huelekea kuondoa Mungu na yasiyo ya kawaida katika ulimwengu. Umebakiza tu yaliyo ya kawaida, ambayo mwenye urazimu anayashikilia kuwa hatimaye yanaeleweka, karibu daima kwa yale tunayoyajua sisi wengi kama mbinu za uchunguzi wa kisayansi." Hazina ya europaeischewerte.info katika chapisho lake, Definition of the most basic European Values, inafupisha kwamba: "Katika Zama za Mwangaza, Descartes na wanafalsafa na wanasayansi wengine walijengea fikra zao juu ya akili na busara... Akili inasimama juu ya imani... Akili inakuwa chanzo cha mwisho cha uamuzi... Matumizi ya akili yanazidi makatazo ya kidini na ya kimamlaka dhidi ya fikra na vitendo huru... "Jema" linafafanuliwa kuwa "lenye busara"... Tathmini hufanyika kwa msingi wa kuzingatia hali kwa busara."

As for Rationalism, it has several meanings in the Western culture. This includes a particular philosophical meaning that appears in mention that is in contrast to Empiricism. This also includes the general meaning, as alluded to by John Cottingham in his book, The Rationalists when he said, “the 'rationalist', led by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, were seen as attempting to construct their philosophical systems purely a priori.” This general meaning is what we are concerned about in this subject. This is because the common denominator between all the Western thinkers is the agreement to make mind as the legislator (hakim), regardless of its tools for analysis and judgement i.e. the mind is the reference to judge upon things and matters and not religion. Clarence Crane Brinton in his book, The Shaping of the Modem Mind states “Rationalism tends then to banish God and the supernatural from the universe. It has left only the natural, which the rationalist holds to be ultimately understandable, almost always by what most of us know as the methods of scientific investigation.” The repository europaeischewerte.info summarizes, in its publication, Definition of the most basic European Values that “In the Age of Enlightenment, Descartes and other philosophers and scientists based their thinking on reason and rationality... Reason stands above faith... Reason becomes the ultimate source of decision... The use of reason overrules religious and absolutistic bans on free thought and acts... “Good” is defined as “reasonable”... Evaluation occurs on the basis of a rational consideration of the situation.”.

Hivyo basi Magharibi ni ya kiakili kwa maana kwamba inaacha dini na kutegemea akili pekee kama mtunga sheria. Utawala wa akili unajitokeza Magharibi ndani ya yale wanayoyakubali kuwa kanuni, thamani na kaida. Hizi ndizo msingi wa fikra za Magharibi kwa ujumla, kama itikadi, ustaarabu na utamaduni. Kwao, thamani ni kwa maana ya mitazamo inayofahamika tu kuhusu mambo na vitendo, kwa kuvielezea kuwa vema (khair) au vibaya (sharr), vinavyopendeza (hasan) au vibaya kwa sura (qabeeh), sahihi au si sahihi, na vya kimaadili au visivyo vya kimaadili. Kwa hiyo mambo na vitendo vinaelezwa kuwa vinavyotakiwa au visivyotakiwa. Kwa Magharibi, thamani zilizowekwa na kukubalika zinachukuliwa, upande mmoja, kuwa vigezo vya kile kilicho vema (khair) au kinachopendeza (hasan) kwa watu binafsi na makundi. Upande mwingine, zinachukuliwa kuwa vigezo vya jumla vinavyoongoza na kuelekeza tabia ya mtu binafsi na ya jamii.

Thus the West is rationalist in the sense that it abandons religion and comes to rely on reason, and reason alone, as a legislator. The dominance of reason appears in the West within what the Westerners acknowledge as principles, values and norms. These constitute the foundations of Western thought as a whole, as an ideology, civilization and culture. For them, values are in the sense of mere comprehended perceptions about things and actions, in terms of describing them as good (khair) or bad (sharr), pleasant (hasan) or ugly (qabeeh), right or wrong and moral or immoral. Consequently, things and actions are described as desirable or undesirable. For the West, the established and adopted values are considered on the one side as criteria of what is good (khair) or pleasant (hasan) to the individuals and groups. On the other side, they are considered as comprehensive criteria that guide and direct the individual and societal behavior.

Kuhusu kanuni, baadhi yao hutofautisha kati ya kanuni na thamani, huku wengine wasitofautishe kati yake. Utofautishaji unaofanywa na baadhi yao si wa kimaana, bali ni wa mwendelezo na umahususi. Hivyo, baadhi ya thamani zinakabiliwa na mabadiliko na utegemezi wa mazingira. Hata hivyo, kwa upande wa kanuni, hizi ni thamani zisizobadilika. Zinachukuliwa kuwa za kiulimwengu wa kibinadamu, zikiwemo uhuru, usawa na usekula. Kwa upande wa kaida, kulingana na Wamagharibi, ni mkusanyiko wa hukumu za mwenendo ambazo ni za sehemu na mahususi, mbali na sheria zinazotokana kwa kawaida na thamani. Zinahusiana na maadili na mila zilizoenea miongoni mwa jamii, ambazo huamua kama tabia inakubalika au inakataliwa. Thamani, kanuni na kaida hizi za Kimagharibi zilitokana na mtazamo wa Magharibi kuhusu maisha, au kile kinachoitwa itikadi. Zinategemea kutenganisha dini na maisha pamoja na kuamua kwa akili pekee. Hii inafanya manufaa kuwa msingi wa kufafanua maana ya mema na mabaya, pamoja na yanayopendeza na yasiyopendeza. Hili linaonyeshwa katika falsafa ya Magharibi inayohusiana na mambo na vitendo kwa namna ya kaida. Inajumuisha kujizuia na kutenda, kwa namna ya hukumu zinazojumuisha thawabu na adhabu, na kwa namna ya nia na thamani zinazopaswa kuzingatiwa wakati wa kutenda.

As for the principles, some of them differentiate the principles from the values, whilst others do not differentiate amongst them. The differentiation made by some is not in the sense of meaning, but in the sense of continuity and particularity. So, some of the values are subject to change and relativity. However, as for the principles, they are fixed values that do not change. They are considered as humanly universal, including freedom, equality and secularism. As for the norms, they are - according to the West - the collection of rulings of conduct that are partial and specific, apart from the laws that usually emerge from values. They are related to the morals and traditions prevalent amongst the society, that determine whether the behavior is acceptable or rejected. These Western values, principles and norms emerged from the Western viewpoint about life or the so-called ideology. They are based on the separation of religion from life and the arbitration by the mind alone. This makes benefit as a basis to define the meaning of good and bad, as well as pleasant and ugly. This is expressed from the Western philosophy related to things and actions in terms of norms. It includes abstinence and performance, in terms of judgment that include reward and punishment, and in terms of the intent and values to be taken into account during action.

Walitegemea matokeo na athari ya kitendo ili kuthibitisha kwamba kitendo hicho ni chema au cha kupendeza. Kwa mujibu wao, hili huitwa Consequentialism (Nadharia ya Matokeo). Nadharia za matokeo huzingatia raha, kukosekana kwa maumivu, kutimizwa kwa matakwa ya mtu, na dhana pana zaidi ya "manufaa ya jumla." Katika kitabu chake, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham alisema, "Kwa utility (manufaa) maana yake ni sifa hiyo katika kitu chochote, ambayo kwayo huelekea kuzaa faida, maslahi, raha, wema, au furaha." Hivyo, Utilitarianism hufafanua lengo la mwanadamu kuwa ni kutafuta kupata furaha. Inadaiwa kwamba furaha hupatikana kwa kila kinacholeta manufaa, huku kila kinacholeta manufaa kikiwa ni raha. Mtazamo huu umeenea miongoni mwa Wamagharibi, na ndio unaounda mtazamo wao wa vitendo kuhusu maisha. Hata hivyo, wao huueleza upya kwa dhana ya ustawi (welfare), kama wanavyosema. Kitendo hupimwa kukubaliwa au kukataliwa kimaadili, kwa kuzingatia kama ni cha kupendeza au kibaya, kulingana na kile kinachopatikana katika ustawi wa binadamu, kama mtu binafsi au kama kikundi. Thamani na kanuni huwekwa kwa ajili ya kufikia dhana hiyo pekee.

They relied on the consequence and result of an action to establish the action as being good or pleasant. This is called, according to them, Consequentialism. Consequentialist theories consider pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences and broader notions of the “general good.” In his book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham stated, “By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.” Thus Utilitarianism defines the objective of man to pursue the achieving happiness. It is claimed that happiness is realized by all that benefits, whilst all that benefits is pleasure. This view is prevalent amongst the West, forming the practical Western perception of life. Nevertheless, they express it anew, with the concept of welfare, as they say. The action is evaluated for moral acceptance or rejection, in consideration of its being pleasant or bad, according to what is achieved of the welfare of man as an individual or a group. Values and norms are set only to achieve that notion.

Ainafuata kwamba matokeo pekee ya manufaa ni yale yanayoamuliwa na akili ya binadamu. Hakuna uingiliaji wa dini wala wa Mungu. Hivyo basi, wanaomini Usababu (Rationalism) wanathibitisha uwezo wa akili kufahamu lipi ni jema na lipi ni baya kwa yenyewe. Wanadai kwamba dini haina umuhimu. Wanatoa hoja inayojulikana kama tatizo la Euthyphro, lililomo katika mazungumzo ya Plato yanayoitwa Euthyphro, ambamo Socrates anamuuliza Euthyphro, "Je, mcha Mungu anapendwa na miungu kwa sababu ni mcha Mungu, au ni mcha Mungu kwa sababu anapendwa na miungu?" Mtu akikubali dhana ya kwanza, wanaousababu wangesema kwamba maana yake ni kwamba kitendo hakina thamani yoyote kwa asili. Badala yake, ni jambo la kisheria linalotegemea mapenzi ya Mungu. Hivyo, kama Mungu asingekuamuru uwe mwadilifu, usingekuwa mwadilifu, ilhali haki ni hali halisi kwa binadamu wote, bila ambayo maisha hayatakuwa na mpangilio. Mtu akikubali dhana ya pili, wangesema kwamba ikiwa kitendo na kipimo chake ni chema kwa asili, basi kinajitegemea na Mungu. Akili ya binadamu inaweza kukifahamu bila haja ya Mungu. Kwa njia hii, Magharibi ilianzisha mfumo wake wa kiakili wa thamani, ikiitenga dini kwa kutumia Usababu wake.

Thus the only result is benefit decided by the human mind. There is no interference of religion or God. Thus rationalists affirm the ability of the mind to comprehend what is good and bad on its own. They assert the redundancy of religion. They cite the so-called Euthyphro dilemma, which is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” If one asserts the first premise, the Rationalists would say that the meaning of this is that action has in fact no value at all. Instead it is a legal consideration subject to the will of God. Thus if God had not commanded you to be just, you would have not been just, whilst justice is a reality for all human beings, without which life will not be put in order. If one asserts the second premise, they would say that if the action and its criterion are intrinsically good, then it is independent of God. The human mind can comprehend it without the need for God. In this way, the West established its rational system of values, excluding religion by using its Rationalism.

Dilemma ya Euthyphro, ambayo mtazamo wa kimantiki wa Magharibi, iwe ni wa kiutilitarian (consequentialism) au wa kiidealisti, umejengwa juu yake kuhusu suala la maadili na thamani kwa ujumla, ukiyachukulia kama hoja ya kimantiki inayohalalisha kuondoa dini katika maisha, ni dhana potofu tu. Hii ni kwa sababu, licha ya upotoshaji wao kuhusu Mungu na kuharibika kwa imani yao, imejengwa juu ya msingi wa uongo wa kudhani kwamba vitendo vina wema na ubaya, au uzuri na uchukizo, kwa asili yake, kiasi kwamba akili inaweza kuvielewa na kuamua kama ni vya kutamanika au visivyotamanika.

The Euthyphro dilemma upon which the Western rationalistic view, whether consequentialism or idealism, is built with respect to the subject of values and morals as a whole, considering them as a rational argument that justifies the exclusion of religion from life. This dilemma is nothing but a fallacy. This is because, regardless of their misperception of God and the corruption of their belief, it is established upon the false basis of recognition that actions are intrinsically good and bad, or pleasant and ugly, such that the mind can comprehend them, determining whether they are desirable or undesirable.

Kuhusu jambo la wema na uovu, ni kubainisha vitendo kwa kuzingatia athari zake, kulingana na mtazamo wa mwanadamu, kwa kujiepusha au kutekeleza, kwa namna inavyostahili. Hivyo mwanadamu hupenda mambo yanayoingia katika nyanja ambayo yeye anaitawala au nyanja inayomtawala. Pia huchukia mambo yaliyomo katika nyanja zote mbili. Kwa hiyo anajaribu kutafsiri mapenzi na chuki hizi kama wema na uovu. Huelekea kuita kile anachokipenda kuwa ni wema, na kile anachokichukia kuwa ni uovu. Vilevile, huita baadhi ya vitendo kuwa ni vema, na vingine kuwa ni viovu, kwa kuzingatia kile kinachomnufaisha au kile kinachomdhuru.

As for what is pertaining to good and bad, it is the characterization of actions in terms of its influence, according to the perspective of man, in terms of abstinence and performance, accordingly. Thus man likes things that fall under the sphere which either he dominates or the sphere that dominates him. Also he hates things within both spheres. So he attempts to interpret this love and hatred, as good and bad. He inclines to call what he loves, as good, and what he hates, as bad. Similarly, he calls some actions to be good, whilst others to be bad on the basis of what benefits him or what harms him.

Kwa hakika, vitendo vinavyotokana na mwanadamu, ndani ya eneo la utawala wake, haviwezi kuelezwa kuwa vizuri au vibaya kwa asili yake. Hii ni kwa sababu ni vitendo tu, ambavyo haviainishwi kuwa vizuri au vibaya kwa asili yake. Badala yake, kuwa kwake kizuri au kibaya kunategemea mambo ya nje, yaliyo nje ya asili ya vitendo. Kwa hiyo, kumuua nafsi ya binadamu hakuwezi kuitwa kizuri wala kibaya. Badala yake, huitwa kuua tu. Sifa ya kuwa nzuri au mbaya iko nje ya kitendo hicho. Hivyo, kumuua anayepigana vita ni jambo jema, ilhali kumuua raia, mtu aliye katika mkataba, au mtu aliye chini ya ulinzi (musta’min) ni jambo baya. Muuaji wa kwanza atapewa thawabu, ilhali muuaji wa pili ataadhibiwa, ingawa wote wawili wanatenda kitendo kile kile, cha kuua, bila tofauti yoyote. Kinachoamua jema na baya ni sababu zinazomsukuma mwanadamu kufanya kitendo hicho, pamoja na lengo ambalo kwalo anakitekeleza. Kwa hiyo, sababu zinazomsukuma mwanadamu kufanya kitendo na lengo analolifanyia kitendo hicho ndivyo viwili vinavyoamua jema na baya katika kitendo. Hili halitegemei kama mwanadamu anapenda au anachukia kitendo hicho, wala kama kitendo hicho kinamnufaisha au kinamdhuru.

In reality, actions emanating from man, within his sphere of dominance, cannot be described as good or bad in themselves. This is because they are actions alone, that are not characterized as good or bad in themselves. Instead, the characterization of being good or bad is based on external considerations, outside of the nature of actions. So, killing a human soul cannot be called good or bad. Instead it is only called killing. The characterization of being good or bad is external to that action. Thus, killing the one who wages war is good, whilst killing the citizen, or covenanted person or the one who is under protection (musta’min), is bad. The first killer will be rewarded, whilst the second killer will be punished, although both are undertaking the same action, of killing, without differentiation. What decides the good and bad are the factors that drive man to do that action, as well as the objective for which he carries that action. Thus, the factors that drive man to do the action and the objective for which he carries out that action, are the two things that determine the good and bad in an action. This is irrespective of whether man likes or hates that action and whether the action benefits him or harms him.

Kuhusu vitendo vinavyotokea kutoka kwa mtu au dhidi yake katika uwanja unaomtawala, mwanadamu huvielezea kuwa vema au vibaya kulingana na mapenzi yake au chuki yake kwavyo, na kulingana na faida au madhara anayopata kutokana navyo. Hata hivyo, sifa hii aliyoipa haimaanishi kwamba vitu hivyo vina sifa hiyo katika uhalisia wake. Mwanadamu anaweza kuona jambo kuwa ni zuri, ilhali kwa kweli ni baya. Mwanadamu anaweza kuona jambo kuwa ni baya, ilhali kwa kweli ni zuri. Allah (SWT) amesema:

As for the actions that occur from a person or against him in the sphere that dominates him, man describes them to be good or bad based on his love or hatred towards them and based on his benefit or harm from them. However, this characterization does not mean that they are characterized by their reality. Man may see something as good, whilst it is in fact bad. Man may see something as bad, whilst it is in fact good. Allah (swt) said,

“Huenda mnachukia jambo nalo likawa jema kwenu; na huenda mkapenda jambo nalo likawa baya kwenu. Na Allah Anajua, nanyi hamjui.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 216],

“But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 216],

Kuhusu suala la mema na mabaya: kwa upande wa kile kilicho hasan (chema, kizuri) na kile kilicho qabeeh (kibaya, kichafu), vitendo hupewa sifa kwa hukumu ya binadamu, na kwa thawabu na adhabu zake. Vitendo vya binadamu, vikiangaliwa kwa asili yake pekee, ni vitu vya kimaada tu, pamoja na hali zake zote na mambo yanayozingatiwa. Hali ya kuwa kitu cha kimaada haijitambulishi kuwa ni kizuri au kibaya. Badala yake, vitendo hufafanuliwa kwa hali zao za nje na mambo ya nje ya vitendo hivyo. Jambo hili la nje ndilo linaloeleza kwamba kitendo ni hasan au qabeeh. Haiwezi kuwa akili ndiyo inayoamua hili, kwa sababu akili hukabiliwa na tofauti, mgawanyiko na mkinzano. Makadirio ya akili kuhusu hasan na qabeeh huathiriwa na mazingira anamoishi mtu. Akili hubadilika na kutofautiana kadiri muda unavyopita. Kama akili ndiyo itakayoamua hasan na qabeeh, basi kitu kinachokuwa qabeeh kwa kundi fulani la watu kitakuwa hasan kwa kundi jingine. Jambo moja linaweza kuwa hasan wakati mmoja, na qabeeh wakati mwingine. Maelezo ya kitendo kuwa hasan au qabeeh lazima yahusu binadamu wote, katika nyakati zote. Kwa hiyo, kuainisha vitendo kuwa hasan au qabeeh kwa asili yake lazima kutokane na nguvu iliyo juu ya akili, nayo ni Allah (SWT).

This is in relation to good and bad. As for the subject of pleasant/pretty (hasan) and ugly (qabeeh), actions are characterized by the judgment of man, by the reward and punishment of them. Actions of man are materialistic alone, with respect to their intrinsic nature, for all of their circumstances and considerations. The nature of being materialistic does not characterize itself as being either pleasant or ugly. Instead, the actions are described by their external circumstances and considerations external to the actions. This other matter is what explains the nature of action as being either hasan or qabeeh. This cannot be the mind because the mind is subject to disparity, difference and contradiction. The mind’s estimations of hasan and qabeeh are influenced by the environment in which a person lives. Minds are subject to disparity and difference over the passage of time. If the mind is left to determine hasan and qabeeh, then the thing that is qabeeh to one group of people will be hasan to another group. The same thing may be hasan at one time, whilst qabeeh at other times. The description of an action to be hasan or qabeeh must be applicable to all human beings, at all times. Accordingly, the characterization of actions being either hasan or qabeeh, by their nature, must come from a power that is beyond mind, which is Allah (swt).

Mwanadamu anajipa mamlaka ya kuhukumu matendo kuwa ni hasan au qabeeh kwa kufanya kulinganisha na mambo. Kwa kuwa mwanadamu anaona kwamba anaweza kuhukumu kitu chenye uchungu kuwa ni qabeeh, kitu kitamu kuwa ni hasan, umbo la kutisha kuwa ni qabeeh, na umbo zuri kuwa ni hasan, anadhani kwamba anaweza kuhukumu ukweli kuwa ni hasan, uongo kuwa ni qabeeh, kutimiza ahadi kuwa ni hasan, na hiana kuwa ni qabeeh. Hivyo amejipa mamlaka ya kuhukumu matendo kuwa ni hasan au qabeeh. Kwa kutegemea hukumu yake, ameamua adhabu kwa tendo baya na thawabu kwa tendo jema. Amefanya hivyo ingawa matendo hayawezi kulinganishwa na vitu. Hii ni kwa sababu vitu vinaweza kuhisiwa kwa uchungu wake, utamu wake, ubaya wa umbo lake na uzuri wake, hivyo hukumu inaweza kutolewa juu yake. Kinyume chake, hakuna kitu ndani ya matendo kinachoweza kuhisiwa na mwanadamu, hata aweze kuhukumu juu yake kama ni qabeeh au hasan. Kwa hiyo, matendo wenyewe hayawezi kuhukumiwa kuwa ni qabeeh au hasan kwa uhakika kamili.

Man gives himself the authority to judge actions to be either hasan or qabeeh by making analogies upon things. Since man finds that he is able to judge the bitter thing as ugly (qabeeh), the sweet thing as pleasant (hasan), the hideous form as ugly (qabeeh) and the beautiful form as pleasant (hasan), he thinks that he can judge truth as hasan, false as qabeeh, fulfilling the promise as hasan and treachery as qabeeh. So he gave himself the authority of judging actions as hasan or qabeeh. Based on his judgment, he determined penalty for the ugly action and reward for the pleasant action. He did so even though actions cannot be compared with things. This is because things can be sensed for their bitterness, sweetness, hideousness and beauty and so judgment can be passed upon them. In contrast, nothing can be found within actions that can be sensed by man, so that he can judge upon them, as to whether they are qabeeh or hasan. Thus, actions themselves cannot be judged as qabeeh or hasan absolutely.

Mifano ambayo binadamu hutoa kuhusu jema na baya, na kuhusu hasan na qabeeh, ni mifano inayotofautiana na kupingana. Hii ni kwa sababu inatokana na akili yenye mipaka, ikitegemea hisia ambazo zinapingana na si thabiti. Si sahihi kumwachia binadamu kupima jema na baya, au hasan na qabeeh. Hii ni kwa sababu kinachopendeza na kinachochukiza kitatofautiana kutoka wakati mmoja hadi mwingine, kutoka kundi moja hadi jingine. Hili linapingana na ukweli kwamba itikadi ni ya ulimwengu wote, kupitia kubainisha kwake matendo kwa wanadamu wote, kwa zama zote. Kwa hiyo, ubainishaji lazima utoke kwa nguvu iliyo juu ya akili, ili imweleze binadamu lipi ni jema na lipi ni baya, na lipi ni hasan na lipi ni qabeeh, hivyo kumwekea wazi kipi kinamletea manufaa na kipi kinazuia madhara. Nguvu hii ni Muumba wa binadamu, ambaye ni Allah (SWT). Allah (SWT) amesema,

The analogies made by man for good and bad, and for hasan and qabeeh, are varying and contradicting analogies. This is because they emanate from a limited mind, based upon sensations that are contradictory and not definite. It is not correct to leave the measuring of good and bad, or hasan and qabeeh, to man. This is because pleasant and ugly will be different from one time to another, from one group to another. This contradicts the reality of ideology being universal, through its characterization of actions for the whole of humankind, for all ages. Therefore, the characterization must be from a power that is beyond the mind, to explain to man what is good and bad and what is hasan and qabeeh, thereby determining for him what brings him benefit and what prevents harm. This power is the Creator of Man who is Allah (swt). Allah (swt) said,

"Je, Yeye aliyeumba hajui, na hali Yeye ndiye Mwenye upole, Mwenye habari za kina?" [TMQ Surat Al-Mulk 67:14],

“Does He who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Acquainted?” [TMQ Surah Al-Mulk 67:14],

Haipaswi kusemwa hapa kwamba tofauti na utofauti si lazima viwe na maana hasi, kwani vinaweza kuwa na maana chanya inayoonyesha mageuzi, maendeleo na kusonga mbele. Kwa hiyo, mageuzi ya sheria za Magharibi yanatokana na mageuzi ya jamii na watu. Hili halipaswi kusemwa kwa sababu matibabu, kwa asili yake, ni hukumu zilizopangwa ili kukidhi mwanadamu, kwa kuzingatia mahitaji yake ya kiumbe hai na silika zake, huku akitazamwa kama binadamu. Ukweli wa mfumo ni kwamba hautibu matatizo ya binadamu kwa kuwachukulia kila mmoja mmoja, wala kwa kuzingatia mahali na wakati wanapoishi. Badala yake, mfumo ungeshughulikia matatizo ya mwanadamu kwa kumtazama kama binadamu, awe mwanamume au mwanamke, Mwarabu au asiye Mwarabu, mzungu au mweusi, pamoja na kama ni mwanadamu wa zamani, mwanadamu wa sasa au mwanadamu wa baadaye. Mfumo ungemtendea kama binadamu, bila kutofautiana kwa wakati na mahali. Hakuna tofauti kati ya mwanadamu wa sasa na mwanadamu wa zamani. Suala la mwanadamu wa sasa ni suala la mwanadamu wa zamani, kwa kuwa wote wawili wangehisi njaa, kiu, woga na tamaa. Hii ni kwa sababu mahitaji ya kiumbe hai na silika ni yale yale kwa kila binadamu. Hayatofautiani kutoka mtu mmoja hadi mwingine, wala hayabadiliki kutoka wakati mmoja hadi mwingine. Kinachoonekana kama mabadiliko katika maisha ya binadamu kinahusu uhalisia wa kimatendo, na si kuhusu asili ya binadamu mwenyewe. Mabadiliko hutokea tu katika namna za mtindo wa maisha. Kwa hiyo, mwanadamu wa zamani aliishi mapangoni na kupanda farasi, ilhali mwanadamu wa sasa anaishi katika majengo marefu na kuruka angani kwa ndege. Tukichunguza kwa makini, tutaona kwamba sababu iliyomfanya mwanadamu wa zamani aishi mapangoni na kupanda farasi ni ile ile iliyomfanya mwanadamu wa sasa aishi katika majengo na kuruka kwa ndege. Kwa hiyo, mfumo ulio mzuri kwa kila zama na kila mahali ni mfumo unaotoa suluhisho kwa matatizo yanayowahusu wanadamu wote bila kujali rangi zao, jinsia zao, kabila zao, mahali walipo na wakati wao.

It must not be said here that the difference and disparity do not necessarily have to be in a negative sense, as they may be in a positive sense indicating evolution, development and progress. Accordingly, the evolution of Western laws is because of the evolution of societies and people. This must not be said because the treatments, in origin, are the organized rulings to satisfy a human, with respect to his organic needs and instincts, whilst considering him as a human. The reality of the system is that it does not treat the problems of humans, by considering them on an individual basis, or considering the place and time in which they live. Instead, the system would address the problems of Man by considering him as a human, whether male or female, Arabs or non-Arab, white or black, as well as whether he is an ancient Man, contemporary Man or future Man. The system would treat him as a human, without differing over time and place. There is no difference between a current Man and ancient Man. The issue of the contemporary Man is the issue of ancient Man, as both would feel hunger, thirst, fear and lust. This is because the organic needs and instincts are the same for every human. They do not differ from one individual to another, nor do they vary from one time to another. What is seen as a change in human living is in terms of practical realities and not in terms of the nature of humans themselves. The change occurs only in the forms of lifestyle. So the ancient man lived in caves and rode on horses, whilst the contemporary man lives in skyscrapers and flies in airplanes. If we scrutinize closely, we will find that the motive for ancient Man to live in caves and ride on horses, is the same as the motive for contemporary man to live in buildings and fly over airplanes. Accordingly, the system that is good for all times and places, is the system that provides treatments for the problems applicable to all the human beings regardless of their color, sex, race, place and time.

Kuhusu maadili, fikra za Magharibi zilikosea katika utafiti wake kwa vipengele vinne:

As for the values, Western thought erred in its research in four aspects:.

Kwanza, kuhusu thamani zinazojadiliwa na wanafikra wa Magharibi kama vile uhuru, heshima, haki, usawa, huruma, uadilifu, uvumilivu, uwajibikaji na nyinginezo. Hizi ni dhana tupu ambazo maana zake hazieleweki, isipokuwa zikiunganishwa na hisia, yaani na vyanzo vinavyokubalika na matibabu yanayotekelezwa. Kwa hiyo tunaona kwamba watu hawatofautiani kuhusu kuzikubali kama dhana tupu. Badala yake, wanatofautiana kuhusu vyanzo vinavyokubalika na utekelezaji wake wa kivitendo. Kwa hiyo, ni udanganyifu kusema, kwa mfano, kwamba usawa ni thamani ya ulimwengu wote na hitaji la binadamu, ilhali kujua maana yake kwa Mmagharibi ni tofauti na kile kinachomaanishwa kwa Mwislamu. Maana yake katika Ubepari ni tofauti na maana yake katika Uislamu.

Firstly, regarding the values discussed by Western thinkers such as freedom, dignity, justice, equality, mercy, integrity, tolerance, liability and others. These are mere concepts whose meanings are not understood, unless they are connected with sensations, i.e. with the accepted sources and implemented treatments. Accordingly, we see that people do not differ over their adoption as mere concepts. Instead, they differ over the accepted sources and their practical implementations. Accordingly, it is fraudulent to say, for instance, that equality is a universal value and human requirement, knowing what it is means for a Westerner, is other than what it means for a Muslim. It is meant in Capitalism in a manner other than what is meant in Islam.

Pili, thamani ambazo Wamagharibi wanazijadili, na wanazotaka kuzisisitiza katika jamii zao, hazitekelezeki. Hii ni kwa sababu zinapingana na mtazamo au itikadi ya Magharibi inayoeleza maisha kwa kuangalia manufaa. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa thamani hizo hazioani na mtazamo wa Magharibi kuhusu maisha, basi ni mawazo tu yasiyogeuka kuwa lengo na vitendo. Ukweli huu unajulikana na kundi la wanafikra wa Magharibi wenyewe. Ukweli huo ndio uliowasukuma kuufufua tunachoita nadharia ya maadili ya wajibu (deontological ethics). Maana yake ni kwamba wao wanaona uwezekano wa Wamagharibi kujitolea kwa thamani, bila kuzingatia matokeo na manufaa yake. Hivyo wanaona kwamba Mtu hatasema uongo kwa sababu uongo ni mbaya (qabeeh) kwa asili yake, na kwamba atasema ukweli kwa sababu ukweli, kwa asili yake, ni mzuri (hasan). Huu ni mtazamo wa ndoto isiyo halisi, usiotekelezeka katika kundi lolote la watu Magharibi, kwa kuwa hakuna msukumo wa kuutekeleza. Mtu anapojua kwamba ukweli ni mzuri, haimaanishi moja kwa moja kwamba atauzingatia. Lazima kuwepo na msukumo wa lazima, unaoambatana na sifa au lawama. Kwa mtu ambaye itikadi yake inatenganisha dunia hii na yaliyo kabla yake na yanayofuata baadaye, anayefanya ubinafsi wake kuwa kitovu cha ulimwengu, na kumwonyesha maisha moja tu, ambayo ni maisha ya dunia, atayameza kadiri awezavyo mafurahi ya dunia hii. Mtu kama huyu hatajali ukweli isipokuwa kwa kiasi kinachomnufaisha. Hapa haiwezi kusemwa kwamba sheria, pamoja na mamlaka yake ya kuadhibu, zinaweza kuwa kizuizi na kichocheo cha kutii. Haiwezi kusemwa hivyo kwa sababu sheria hazidhibiti tabia ya binadamu wakati wowote na mahali popote. Badala yake, udhibiti wake juu ya tabia ni pungufu na una athari ndogo. Mtu anahitaji kichocheo kingine, pale anapozipuuza sheria.

Secondly, the values discussed by the Westerners, seeking to emphasize them in their societies, are not achievable. This is because they contradict the Western viewpoint or ideology that depicts life from the utilitarian angle of benefits. Thus, if the values are not concordant to the Western viewpoint about life, then they are mere ideas that do not transform into purpose and practice. This reality is known by a group of the Western thinkers themselves. It prompted them to revive the so-called theory of deontological ethics (duty-based ethics). This means that they perceive the possibility of Western commitment to values, without considering their consequences and benefits. So they perceive that Westerners will not lie because lying is ugly (qabeeh) in itself and to be truthful because truth, by its nature, is good (hasan). This is a view of idealistic fantasy that is not achievable in any group of individuals in the West, as there is no motive for the implementation. Just because a Man knows that truthfulness is good, it does not automatically follow that he will adhere to it. There must be a binding motive, accompanied by praise or condemnation. So for a man whose creed separates this world from what is before and what is after, makes his individuality the center of the universe, depicts for him a single life which is the worldly life, he would devour the pleasures of this world as much as possible. This person will not pay any attention to truthfulness, except to the extent that it benefits him. It cannot be said here that the laws with their punitive authority could be a deterrent and stimulus for abiding. This cannot be said because the laws do not control human behavior at any time and place. Instead, their control over the behavior is deficient and has limited effect. The individual needs another stimulus, when neglecting the laws.

Tatu, kuthamini thamani si suala la kiakili ambalo mwanadamu anaweza kulipima. Hii ni kwa sababu mwanadamu anaweza kuzingatia baadhi ya dhana na thamani na kuzithibitisha, huku akizipuuza nyingine, kulingana na mtazamo wake kuhusu maisha. Kwa mfano, dhana ya heshima haina maana yoyote katika Magharibi, wakati ni miongoni mwa dhana za msingi kwa Waislamu. Thamani ya kiroho haipo katika mfumo wa thamani wa Magharibi, ingawa mamilioni ya watu ni wadini. Hata hivyo, Magharibi inaipuuza kwa sababu ni ya kidunia na haijali mambo ya kidini. Pia, ni juu ya mwanadamu kulinganisha thamani ili kuchagua bora kati yake, hata kama thamani hizo hazina ulinganifu au usawa. Lakini hataridhika na hilo. Ataendelea kulinganisha na kusawazisha thamani. Hata hivyo, ulinganisho na usawazishaji huo hautegemei ubora wa thamani yenyewe, bali unategemea jinsi thamani hiyo inavyomwathiri yeye. Kwa hiyo, binadamu hujenga ulinganisho na usawazishaji kati ya thamani kwa kuzingatia faida au madhara ambayo thamani hiyo huleta kwake. Hivyo basi, yeye hujifanya kuwa kipimo, au hufanya athari za thamani hizi juu yake kuwa kipimo. Hii, kwa kweli, ni ulinganisho wa athari za thamani hizi juu ya nafsi yake, badala ya ulinganisho kati ya thamani zenyewe. Kwa kuwa tabia za binadamu hutofautiana kulingana na athari za thamani, hutofautiana pia katika ulinganisho wao wa thamani. Watu wanaotawaliwa na mielekeo ya kimali, wanaoendeshwa na tamaa, huzipuuza thamani nyingine zisizo za kimali. Hupendelea thamani za kimali na hujitahidi kuzipata, kama inavyoonekana katika uhalisia unaoshuhudiwa Magharibi.

Thirdly, characterizing values is not a rational issue for Man to evaluate. This is because Man could simply focus on some concepts and values to validate them, whilst neglecting others, based on the viewpoint about life. For instance, the concept of honor has no meaning within the West, whilst it is amongst the basic concepts of Muslims. Spiritual value is not present in the Western system of values although millions of people are religious. Yet, the West ignores it because the West is secular and does not care about religious aspects. Also, it is up to a man to compare between values in order to choose the best of them, even if the values do not have comparison or equality. However, he would not be satisfied with that. He would still compare and equate between the values. However, the comparison and equation are not based on the virtue of the value itself, but based on how the value affects him. Accordingly, humankind builds comparison and equation between values, with respect to what the value bring of benefit or harm to him. Accordingly, he makes himself the criterion, or makes the effect of these values upon him, as the criterion. This is, in fact, the comparison between the effects of these values on himself, as opposed to between the values themselves. Since the constitutions of human beings differ with respect to the effects of values, they differ in their comparison between the values. Individuals who are dominated by materialistic inclinations, driven by lusts, would neglect values other than materialistic ones. They would prefer materialistic values and go out to achieve them, as is the reality perceived in the West.

Nne: Mfumo wa thamani za Magharibi si sahihi tangu msingi wake. Hii ni kwa sababu wanafikra wote wa Magharibi, bila kujali madhehebu na mielekeo yao tofauti, walipoangalia udhibiti wa tabia, hawakutofautisha kati ya dhana zinazoongoza tabia na lengo (qasd) la dhana hizo. Utafiti wao wote ulihusu thamani zinazohusiana na wadhibiti wa tabia, si lengo lao. Hivyo, thamani wanazozijadili, ambazo ni mamia, kama uadilifu, upendo, umakini, huruma, nidhamu, unyenyekevu, uelewa, uvumilivu, uhuru, demokrasia, ujasiri, usawa, ukweli wa moyo, uaminifu na nyinginezo, ni thamani zinazojumuisha yale yanayoanguka ndani ya dhana za udhibiti zinazohusu watu binafsi, pamoja na mahusiano baina ya watu, yaani dhana za udhibiti zinazohusu makundi katika jamii. Thamani za Magharibi zinajumuisha yale yanayoanguka ndani ya sifa za kimaadili za mtu binafsi, ambazo hazina uhusiano wowote na thamani za vitendo. Hii ni kwa sababu binadamu hufanya vitendo ili kutosheleza silika zake na mahitaji ya kimwili, kwa mujibu wa dhana maalum inayomwamulia kuruhusiwa kutenda kitendo hicho, au kujizuia nacho. Hata hivyo, hatendi vitendo akizingatia dhana za udhibiti pekee. Kwa kweli, pia huzingatia kutimizwa kwa lengo la kitendo anachokifanya. Vinginevyo, kitendo hicho kingekuwa bure. Lengo (qasd) la kitendo, yaani kwa ajili ya nini anakitenda, ndilo linaloitwa thamani ya kitendo.

Fourthly: The Western value system is invalid from its basis. This is because all the Western thinkers, irrespective of their different schools of thoughts and tendencies, when looking at the regulation of behavior, did not differentiate between the concepts that guide the behavior and the aim (qasd) of those concepts. Their research was all about the values related to the regulators of behavior and not their aim. Thus, the values which they discuss, which number in their hundreds such as integrity, love, focus, empathy, discipline, humility, understanding, tolerance, freedom, democracy, courage, equality, sincerity, honesty and others, are the values that include what falls within the concepts of regulation related to individuals, as well as relationships between the individuals, in other words, the regulatory concepts related to groups in a society. The Western values include what falls within the individual moral traits, which do not have any relation to the values of actions. This is because man as a human performs actions to satiate his instincts and organic needs, according to a specific concept that determines for him the permissibility of performing the action, or abstaining from the action. However, he does not perform actions with the regulatory concepts in mind alone. In fact, he also takes into account the realization of the aim of the action which he performs. Otherwise, the action would be in vain. The aim (qasd) of the action i.e. for what purpose he performs the action, is called the value of action.

Ustaarabu wa Magharibi umejengwa juu ya msingi wa kutenganisha dini na maisha, kukataa athari ya dini katika maisha, kuutazama maisha kama manufaa tu, na kufanya manufaa kuwa kipimo cha matendo. Matokeo yake, haumiliki maadili ya kimaadili wala ya kiroho wala ya kibinadamu, isipokuwa kwa njia ya kiurasmi tu. Kwa kweli, ustaarabu wa Magharibi unamiliki maadili ya kimanufaa na ya kimaada peke yake. Mtazamo huu wa kimanufaa na wa kimaada ndio unaowaletea wanadamu taabu. Mwanafalsafa wa Kifaransa, Emile Brehier, katika kitabu chake, Mada za Kisasa katika Falsafa (Kifaransa: Les themes actuels de la philosophie), anaomboleza jinsi sayansi ya vitu ilivyopelekea ustaarabu wa viwanda ulioshiriki sana katika umaada na kuufuta ubinadamu wa mwanadamu, na kumfanya apoteze asili yake ya ndani, akigeuzwa kuwa kitu au mashine. Kuhusu dhana za udhibiti wa tabia ambazo ni dhana za kimaadili, ambazo Magharibi pia huziita maadili, wanafikra wa Magharibi walianza kuzijadili pale walipoona umuhimu wake na haja ya jamii kwazo. Hata hivyo, hizo ni marekebisho tu ya itikadi ya kibepari baada ya kushindwa kwake na athari yake mbaya kwa binadamu kudhihirika. Hata hivyo, maadili hayo yasiyo ya kimaada hayakusudiwi kwa uhalali wake wenyewe. Badala yake, ni kwa manufaa tu, ili kuzuia taabu. Will Durant aliandika katika The Story of Civilization Volume 9, The Age of Voltaire, kwamba, "Voltaire anaona mengi. Anasema kwamba kukua kwa akili kwa mwanadamu kunaonyesha kuwepo kwa akili ndani ya ulimwengu au nyuma yake. Hatimaye, anarudi kwenye pendekezo lake maarufu kwamba 'kama Mungu hangekuwepo ingekuwa lazima kumvumbua' (Kifaransa: Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait I'inventer); kwamba bila imani katika Mwenyezi Mungu, katika hekima yake na haki yake, maisha pamoja na siri zake na taabu zake yangekuwa hayavumiliki. Anajiunga na d'Holbach katika kudharau ushirikina, lakini anatetea dini kama ibada rahisi ya mungu." Kwa hiyo, maadili yenyewe ni muhimu kwa fikra za Magharibi ili kufikia maslahi au manufaa

The Western civilization is based on the basis of separating religion from life, denying the impact of religion on life, characterizing life as benefit and making utilitarianism the criterion for actions. Consequently, it does not possess moral or spiritual or human values, except by way of formality. In fact, the Western civilization possesses only utilitarian, materialistic values alone. This utilitarian materialistic view is what brings misery to human beings. The French philosopher, Emile Brehier, in his book, Contemporary Themes in Philosophy (French: Les themes actuels de la philosophie), laments as how material science has led to an industrial civilization that indulged deeply in materialism and eradicated the humanity of man, making him lose his intrinsic nature, turning him into an object or a machine. As for the regulatory concepts of behavior that are moral concepts, which the West also calls values, the Western thinkers began to discuss them as they see their necessity and the society’s need for them. However, they are only amendments to the capitalist ideology after its failure and catastrophic impact on humanity became obvious. Nevertheless, those values other than materialistic are not intended in themselves for their validity. Instead, they are only for the benefit, to prevent misery. Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization Volume 9, The Age of Voltaire, that, “Voltaire sees much. He argues that the development of intelligence in man indicates an intelligence in or behind the universe. Finally, he returns to his famous proposition that ‘if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him (French: Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait I'inventer)’; that without belief in a Supreme Being, in his intelligence and his justice, life with its mysteries and miseries would be unbearable. He joins d'Holbach in scorning superstition, but he defends religion as the simple adoration of a deity.” So, morality itself is necessary for the Western thought to achieve the interest or benefi