Dhana ya asili ya uhuru kwa binadamu wote ni kwamba ni kinyume cha utumwa au kufanywa mtumwa. Hii ndiyo maana halisi ya neno lililotajwa katika urithi wa lugha wa binadamu, tangu neno hilo lilipotumika mara ya kwanza. Kisha, baada ya muda, maana yake ilienea hadi mambo mengine. Hivyo neno hilo lilitumika kuelezea maana za kiistiara zinazoonyesha hali ya kinyume cha utumwa kulingana na lugha, tamaduni na ustaarabu wa mataifa.

The original concept of freedom for all of humankind is that it is the opposite to slavery or enslavement. This is the real meaning of the term that has been mentioned in the linguistic heritage of humankind, since the term was first used. Then, over time, its connotation extended to other matters. So the term was used to express metaphorical meanings that express the paradox state of slavery according to the languages, cultures and civilizations of the nations.

Katika kamusi za Magharibi, neno freedom (uhuru) lina maana ya kinyume cha utumwa. Jacqueline Russ anasema katika kitabu Methods in Philosophy (Kifaransa: Les methodes en philosophie), "Orodha inayohusu neno uhuru ni muhimu zaidi na tajiri zaidi: kutegemea, utumwa, kuwa mtumwa, kutiishwa, kulazimishwa, kizuizi, dhuluma, uamuzi wa kimaumbile, hatima, imani ya hatima, n.k., ni maneno au dhana zote zinazopaswa kufafanuliwa." (Kifaransa: La liste concernant le terme liberte est encore plus significative et plus riche: dependance, esclavage, servitude, assujettissement, contrainte, entrave, oppression, determinisme, destin, fatalite, etc., sont autant de termes ou concepts a cerner). Ina maana ya kutokuwepo kwa vikwazo vya nje. Watu wa Magharibi wameona ndani yake maana inayotoa kutokuwepo kwa vikwazo, lazima, au shinikizo, juu ya uchaguzi au tendo. Pia linatumika miongoni mwa watu wa Magharibi kwa maana ya kujitegemea na mamlaka huru. Hivyo, mtu huru ni yule ambaye hafungwi na vikwazo vya nje au nguvu ya kulazimisha kutoka nje yake. Yeye hafuati bwana yeyote.

In the dictionaries of the West, the word freedom comes with the meaning of opposite to slavery. Jacqueline Russ states in Methods in Philosophy (French: Les methodes en philosophie), states, “The list concerning the term freedom is even more significant and richer: dependence, slavery, servitude, subjugation, constraint, hindrance, oppression, determinism, fate, fatalism, etc., are all terms or concepts to be defined.” (French: La liste concernant le terme liberte est encore plus significative et plus riche: dependance, esclavage, servitude, assujettissement, contrainte, entrave, oppression, determinisme, destin, fatalite, etc., sont autant de termes ou concepts a cerner). It has the meaning of the absence of external constraints. Westerners have noticed in it the meaning that gives the absence of constraints or necessity or coercion, over a choice or action. It is also used amongst Westerners with the meaning of independence and sovereignty. Thus a free man is the one who is not subjected to external constraints or coercive force from outside of him. He follows no master.

Kutokana na matumizi ya kiisimu ya neno hili, miongoni mwa karibu binadamu wote, ni dhahiri kwamba maana iliyokubaliwa ya neno uhuru ni kujikomboa kutoka kwa vikwazo, vawe ni vya kimwili au vya kimaadili. Tangu zama za kale, dhana yake imehusishwa na sifa mahsusi za ustaarabu na utamaduni uliotawala katika jamii yoyote. Licha ya hayo, neno hili lilifafanuliwa kwa kulinganishwa tu na kinyume chake, yaani utumwa. Maana zake zilizotokana, zilizozalishwa au za kisasa ziliundwa tu kwa kuangalia maana ya ukombozi, kinyume cha utumwa. Kama Aristotle anavyosema katika kitabu chake cha Politics, kwa kusema: "Je, hili lina maana gani ila kwamba wanatofautisha uhuru na utumwa, na hadhi ya kuzaliwa kwa heshima na ile ya unyonge, kwa misingi miwili ya wema na uovu?"

From the linguistic usage of the word, amongst almost all of humankind, it is apparent that the consensus meaning of the word freedom is the emancipation from constraints, whether they are material or moral. Since ancient times, its concept has been associated with the specifics of the civilization and culture prevalent in any society. Despite that, the term was defined only with its opposite i.e. slavery. Its derivative or generated or modern meanings were only built by observing the meaning of emancipation, as opposed to slavery. As Aristotle states in his Politics, by saying, “What does this mean but that they distinguish freedom and slavery, noble and humble birth, by the two principles of good and evil?”.

Wanadamu wameweza kuelewa maana ya uhuru tu baada ya kuchunguza maana ya utumwa au maana nyingine zinazofanana nao kama vile dhuluma, kulazimishwa, shinikizo na nguvu, kwa mujibu wa baadhi ya wanafalsafa. Wanafalsafa na wanafikra wa UlUlaya wa zama za Mwangaza hawakuacha njia hii walipoupokea wazo la uhuru, pamoja na dhana zake za kisasa za kifikra na kisiasa, katika karne ya kumi na nane Miladi. Waliuonyesha maisha yao katika Zama za Kati kuwa ni maisha ya watumwa wasio na mapenzi wala uwezo. Waliionyesha Kanisa, pamoja na mamlaka yake ya kidini, na wafalme, pamoja na mamlaka yao ya kisiasa, kuwa ni mabwana wanaowatumikisha watu, wakinyakua mapenzi ya watu ya kufikiri, kujieleza, kumiliki na kufurahia maisha.

Humanity has perceived the meaning of freedom only after observing the meaning of slavery or other similar meanings attached to it such as oppression, coercion, compulsion and force, according to some of the philosophers. Western philosophers and thinkers of the Enlightenment era did not deviate from this method when they adopted the idea of freedom, with its modern intellectual and political concepts, in the eighteen century CE. They depicted their life in the Middle Ages as the life of slaves who have no will or power. They depicted the Church, with its religious authority, and kings, with their political authorities, as masters who enslave people, usurping the people’s will to think, express, possess and enjoy life.

Hivyo basi, mapambano yao yalikuwa kwa ajili ya mapenzi na mamlaka. Walitafuta ukombozi, yaani kujiweka huru kutoka katika vikwazo vya Kanisa na mafundisho yake, pamoja na kujiweka huru kutoka katika minyororo ya watawala na udhalimu wao. Kwa hiyo neno uhuru lilijumuisha yote haya. Uhuru ukawa mojawapo ya nguzo za ustaarabu wa Kimagharibi. Andrew Heywood anasema katika kitabu chake, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, kwamba, “Uhuru mara nyingi huchukuliwa kuwa thamani kuu ya kisiasa katika jamii huria za Magharibi. Fadhila yake ni kwamba, ikiunganishwa na wazo kwamba binadamu ni viumbe wenye mapenzi binafsi wanaotumia akili, huahidi kutimiza maslahi ya binadamu au kutekeleza uwezo wa binadamu. Kwa ufupi, uhuru ndio msingi wa furaha na ustawi.”

Thus, their struggle was for the sake of will and sovereignty. They sought liberation i.e. the emancipation from the constraints of the Church and its teachings, as well as the emancipation from the shackles of the rulers and their tyranny. So the word freedom encapsulated all of this. Freedom became one of the pillars of the Western civilization. Andrew Heywood states in his book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, that, “Freedom is often considered to be the supreme political value in Western liberal societies. Its virtue is that, attached to the idea that human beings are rationally self- willed creatures, it promises the satisfaction of human interests or the realization of human potential. In short, freedom is the basis for happiness and well-being.”.

Hata hivyo, Magharibi, katika zama zake za Mwangaza, haikulenga uhuru usio na mipaka. Badala yake, ililenga uhuru wa kibinafsi unaoendana na fikra ya ubinafsi, ambayo ilitua katika msingi kwamba mwanzo wa mwanadamu katika maisha haya ya kidunia ni kumtenga na Akhera, kwa kuwa yeye ndiye bwana wa ulimwengu. Kwa hiyo, uhuru unaojulikana kama uhuru wa asili au uhuru wa kibinafsi, uliotafutwa katika karne ya kumi na nane na kumi na tisa Miladi, unatofautiana na maana za uhuru wa zamani, kama uhuru unaojulikana kwa Wagiriki. Hili linaonekana, kwa mfano, katika maandishi ya Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Adam Smith na Bentham. Hili limesisitizwa sana na Benjamin Constant katika hotuba yake maarufu, “Uhuru wa Wa-zamani Ukilinganishwa na Uhuru wa Wa-kisasa” ya mwaka 1819, akionyesha tofauti kubwa kati ya uhuru wa kale na uhuru wa kisasa.

However, the West, in its era of Enlightenment, did not focus on absolute freedom. Instead, it focused on a personal freedom in harmony with the idea of individualism, which settled upon the launching point of man in this worldly life is through isolating him from the Hereafter, as he is the master of the universe. Accordingly, the freedom known to be natural liberty or personal freedom that was sought in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE, is distinct from the connotations of previous freedoms, such as freedom known by the Greeks. It is apparent, for example, in the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Adam Smith and Bentham. This is strongly emphasized by Benjamin Constant in his famous speech, “The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns” of 1819, highlighting the stark difference between ancient and modern freedom.

Kwa hiyo, kulingana na dhana ya Magharibi ya karne ya kumi na nane na kumi na tisa Kiristo, uhuru ni kuondoa vizuizi juu ya mtu binafsi, kwa kuacha mambo yake kwa nafsi yake, ili atumie haki zake za asili na kutimiza maslahi yake binafsi kwa namna anavyotaka. Hili linaweza kuwezekana tu kwa kudhibiti ukuu wa dola na kupunguza uingiliaji wake katika mambo yake ya kiakili, kiuchumi, kijamii na kisiasa. Ikiwa kuna lazima kuwepo na sheria za kumgeuza mwanadamu kutoka hali ya asili kuingia hali ya kiraia, zinazodhibiti mwenendo wake katika jamii ya kiraia, basi sheria hizo ziwe tu kwa kiwango ambacho ni cha lazima kabisa. Kwa kuzingatia dhana hii, haki za mtu binafsi zilianzishwa katika hati za mkataba na katiba za Magharibi, baada ya mapinduzi ya Ufaransa, kwa namna inayolinda uhuru wa mtu binafsi (liberty), katika umbo lililo karibu zaidi na uhuru kamili. Mfano wa hili ni Azimio la Ufaransa la Haki za Binadamu na za Raia la mwaka 1789 (Kifaransa: Declaration des droits de I'homme et du citoyen de 1789), ambalo linasema, “Ibara ya IV - Uhuru ni kufanya chochote kisichomdhuru mwingine: hivyo, utekelezaji wa haki za asili za kila mtu una mipaka pekee inayohakikisha wanachama wengine wa jamii wanafurahia haki hizo hizo. Mipaka hii inaweza kuamuliwa tu na sheria.”.

Thus, according to the Western concept of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE, freedom is to lift restrictions upon an individual, by leaving his affairs to his self, to exercise his natural rights and to realize his personal interests in a way that he wishes. This can only be possible by curbing the hegemony of the state and limiting its interference in his intellectual, economic, social and political affairs. If there have to be laws to transform man from the state of nature into the civil state, regulating his behavior in a civil society, then they must be only to the extent that they are absolutely necessary. Based on this concept, the rights of the individual were established in the Western charters and constitutions, after the French revolution, in a manner that preserves individual freedom (liberty), in a form that is closer to absolute freedom. An example of this was France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (French: Declaration des droits de I'homme et du citoyen de 1789) which states, “Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.”.

Kwa kweli, dhana hii ya uhuru wa asili au wa mtu binafsi inafanana na wazo la ubinafsi (individualism). Ilikuwa tu mwitikio wa dhuluma iliyoteswa na watu binafsi wa Magharibi. Haikuwa mtazamo wa kina na ulioiva kiakili unaozingatia uhalisia wa mwanadamu, jamii, na asili ya mahusiano baina yao. Mwanadamu hawezi kuishi ndani ya jamii bila vikwazo, la sivyo jamii ingegeuka kuwa msitu, ambapo wenye nguvu wangewatawala wanyonge. Jambo hili lilifahamika na Magharibi, na hivyo ikaachana na dhana ya uhuru kama ilivyoeleweka wakati wa karne ya kumi na nane na kumi na tisa Miladi. Ilibuni istilahi ya uhuru hasi (negative liberty) kinyume na uhuru chanya (positive liberty) uliobuniwa hivi karibuni. Andrew Heywood anasema katika kitabu chake, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, kwamba, "wanaliberali wa kisasa na wanajamaa wamekuwa wakikubaliana na mtazamo chanya wa uhuru unaohalalisha kupanua wajibu wa dola, hasa kuhusu ustawi wa jamii na usimamizi wa uchumi. Dola inachukuliwa kuwa adui wa uhuru pale inapoonekana kama kizuizi cha nje kwa mtu binafsi, lakini kuwa dhamana ya uhuru pale inapoweka masharti ya maendeleo binafsi na kujitambua." Katika karne ya ishirini Miladi, baada ya mabadiliko ya hali za kisiasa, kijamii na kiuchumi duniani, pamoja na kuzuka kwa Vita vya Kwanza vya Dunia na mafanikio ya Mapinduzi ya Kibolshevik mwaka 1917, pamoja na kujitokeza kwa migogoro mbalimbali, Magharibi ilianza kupitia upya dhana ya uhuru. Ilikubaliana na dhana nyingine iitwayo uhuru wa kiraia (civil liberty), ambao nao unajumuisha uhuru wa kibinafsi, wa kidini, wa kiuchumi na wa kisiasa.

In fact, this concept of natural or individual freedom is like the idea of individualism. It was only a reaction to the oppression suffered by the Western individuals. It was not a deep and crystallized intellectual perception that takes account of the reality of man, society and the nature of relationships between them. Man cannot live within society, without restrictions, otherwise, society would turn into a jungle, where the strong would dominate the weak. This matter was realized by the West and so it abandoned the concept of freedom as perceived during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE. It coined the term negative liberty as opposed to a newly theorized positive liberty. Andrew Heywood states in his book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, that, “modern liberals and socialists have tended to subscribe to a positive view of freedom that justifies widening the responsibilities of the state, particularly in relation to welfare and economic management. The state is regarded as the enemy of freedom when it is viewed as an external constraint on the individual, but as a guarantee of freedom when it lays down the conditions for personal development and self­ realization.” In the twentieth century CE, after the change of global political, societal and economic conditions, with the outbreak of the First World War and the success of Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, as well as the emergence of various crises, the West began to review the concept of freedom. It settled on another concept called civil liberty, which in turn includes personal, religious, economic and political freedom.

Katika kitabu chake, Principles of Political Science, Robert Niven Gilchrist anasema kuhusu uhuru wa kiraia kwamba: "Unaweza kumaanisha Utawala wa Sheria, yaani, kupunguzwa kwa mamlaka ya serikali kwa sheria zilizowekwa, iwe ni katika mfumo wa katiba inayojumuisha kanuni za msingi za kuongoza na kupunguza mamlaka ya serikali, au, kama ilivyo Uingereza, ukweli kwamba sheria inatumika kwa usawa na bila upendeleo kwa wote, kwa wakubwa na wanyonge sawa. Maana hii ya neno inaweza kuitwa Uhuru wa Kiraia." Maana ya kauli hii ni kwamba Magharibi iliachana na wazo la uhuru, kama lilivyofikiriwa katika zama za Mwangaza. Magharibi ilianza kuona umuhimu wa kuweka vikwazo kutoka kwa dola kwa sheria za udhibiti, hata kama zikawa sheria nyingi. Ramsay Muir alisema katika insha yake "The Prospect for British Liberalism" kwamba "uhuru wa mtu binafsi wa kuishi maisha yake kwa namna yake unategemea kuwepo kwa mfumo wa sheria, unaotekelezwa kwa mapenzi ya pamoja, ambao unaweza kuwazuia wenye nguvu kutumia vibaya nguvu zao kwa gharama ya jirani zao."

In his book, Principles of Political Science, Robert Niven Gilchrist states of civil liberty that “it may mean the Rule of Law, that is, the limitation of the powers of government by established law, whether it be in the form of a constitution which contains fundamental principles to guide and limit the government, or, as in England, the fact that law applies equally and impartially, to all, to the greatest and humblest alike. This sense of the term may be, called Civil Liberty.” The meaning of this statement is that the West abandoned the idea of freedom, as conceived in the era of Enlightenment. The West began to see the necessity of imposing restrictions by the state with regulatory laws, even if they became many laws. Ramsay Muir said in his essay “The Prospect for British Liberalism” that “the freedom of the individual to live his own life in his own way depends upon the existence of a system of law, enforced by the common will, which can restrain the strong from abuse of their strength at the expense of their neighbors.”.

Kwa njia hii, uhuru katika nchi za Magharibi ukawa chini ya mfumo wa kijamii, ambao uliwaruhusu watu binafsi kutekeleza vitendo vyao na shughuli zao ndani ya mipaka fulani. Ukawa uhuru wenye masharti au uliodhibitiwa, ukiwekewa mipaka kwa kuunganishwa kwake na sheria na serikali. Harold J Laski katika kitabu chake, Reflection on the Revolution of Our Time, anasema: “Hii ndiyo hali halisi kwa watu wengi wa binadamu ambayo mfumo wetu wa sasa wa kijamii unawataka watu wa kawaida wakubali kuwa ni uhuru; na hata hali hii halisi lazima itetewe kwa vita dhidi ya ndoto mbaya zaidi ya kutisha.” Montesquieu alipendekeza, katika kitabu chake, The Spirit of the Laws, wazo la kudhibiti uhuru akisema: “Uhuru wa biashara si mamlaka yanayotolewa kwa wafanyabiashara kufanya wapendavyo: Hiyo ingekuwa ni utumwa wake badala yake. Kizuizi kwa mfanyabiashara si kizuizi cha biashara.”

In this way, the freedom in the West became subject to a social order, which allowed individuals to exercise their actions and activities within limitations. It became a conditional or restricted freedom, limited by its connection with the laws and the state. Harold J Laski in his book, Reflection on the Revolution of Our Time, states “This is the reality for the mass of humankind which our present social order bids the common people accept as freedom; and even this reality must be defended by war against a nightmare even more hideous.” Montesquieu advocated, in his book, The Spirit of the Laws, the idea of constraint upon freedom saying, “The freedom of commerce is not a power granted to the merchants to do what they please: This would be more properly its slavery. The constraint of the merchant is not the constraint of commerce.”.

Kwa kweli, dhana hii ya kisasa ya Magharibi kuhusu uhuru si tu chuki dhidi ya dhana ya zamani ya kirasmi. Badala yake, ni chuki dhidi ya uhuru wenyewe. Inapingana kabisa na kiini cha uhuru, ingawa Magharibi inakataa hilo. Uhuru ni kweli ukombozi kutoka kwa vikwazo. Uhuru unaweza kuitwa uhuru kwa maana hii pekee. Hivyo, mtumwa anapokombolewa kutoka kwa bwana wake, husemwa kuwa yuko huru. Ardhi inapokombolewa kutoka kwa wakoloni, husemwa kuwa iko huru. Hii ndiyo maana inayojitokeza akilini mwa kila mtu neno uhuru linapotamkwa. Ni maana iliyonukuliwa katika kamusi za Magharibi. Pia ndiyo maana iliyokusudiwa na wanafikra na wanafalsafa wa Ulaya, ambao walipigania maana hiyo wakati wa mzozo wao na Kanisa na wafalme.

In fact, this modern Western conception of freedom is not just aversion to the old formal conception. Instead, it is in fact an aversion to freedom itself. It is completely contradicting the essence of freedom, even though the West denies that. Freedom is in fact the emancipation from constraints. Freedom can only be called such in this sense. Thus, when a slave is emancipated from his master, he is said to be free. When a land is liberated from colonialists, it is said to be free. This is the meaning that comes to every mind when the word freedom is uttered. It is the quoted meaning in the dictionaries of the West. It is also the meaning intended by the thinkers and philosophers of Europe, for which they fought during their conflict with the Church and kings.

Hivyo basi, msimamo wa sasa wa Magharibi, kwamba uhuru hauna maana ya kutokuwepo kwa vizuizi na kujikomboa kutoka kwavyo, unaharibu msingi ambao ustaarabu wa Magharibi ulijengwa juu yake, na kufuta historia yake iliyojengwa juu ya mapambano ya Kiaristotle ya mtu wa Magharibi kufanya chochote anachotaka, akijikomboa kutoka minyororo ya sheria iliyozuia matamanio na malengo yake. Ikiwa uhuru wa sasa katika Magharibi, unaoitwa uhuru wa kiraia, unafafanuliwa kama sheria kuu, kama ilivyotajwa katika vitabu vya sayansi ya siasa ya Magharibi, yaani, ikiwa uhuru unatiishwa kwa sheria na kufuata sheria, basi kuna tofauti gani kati ya uhuru wa aina hiyo na uhuru wa Warumi, kwa mfano?

Hence, the current stance of the West, that freedom does not mean the absence of restrictions and emancipation from them, destroys the basis upon which the Western civilization was built, erasing its history based on an Aristotelian struggle for the Western individual to do whatever he wishes, liberating himself from the shackles of the law that restrained his desires and aspirations. If the current freedom in the West, called civil liberty, is defined as sovereign law, as mentioned in the books of Western political science, i.e. if freedom is subjected to the law and conformity with the law, then what is the difference between such a freedom and the freedom of the Romans for example?

Je, si ndiyo ufafanuzi wa uhuru wa Kiroma kama ulivyoelezwa katika The Digest of Justinian, Juzuu ya 1, Kitabu cha 1, chini ya "Hadhi ya Binadamu," ambayo inasema: "Uhuru ni uwezo wa asili wa mtu wa kufanya apendavyo, isipokuwa pale unapozuiwa na nguvu ya kulazimishwa au na sheria"? Je, hii inamaanisha kuwa ustaarabu wa Kiroma ndio ustaarabu wa uhuru? Je, inamaanisha kuwa watu wa Ulaya walikuwa tayari huru kabla ya kuzuka kwa mapinduzi ya kutafuta uhuru? Pia, je, inamaanisha kuwa wafalme na Kaisari walikuwa wakitetea uhuru, kwa kuwafanya watu watii sheria na kupigana na wanafikra waliopinga sheria? Ikiwa uhuru katika mapokeo ya kisasa ya Magharibi unamaanisha utawala wa sheria, basi inamaanisha kuwa watu wote duniani ni huru na wanafurahia uhuru. Sasa kwa nini ulimwengu wa kibepari peke yake upewe jina la ulimwengu huru? Kuna nini cha kujivunia, wakati ustaarabu wote ni sawa katika hili? Zaidi ya hayo, kwa nini mapinduzi ya Magharibi ya Mwangaza yalifanyika hapo kwanza?

Is it not the Roman freedom as defined in The Digest of Justinian, in its Volume 1, Book 1, under “Human Status,” which states that, “Freedom is one’s natural power of doing what one pleases, save insofar as it is ruled out either by coercion or by law.”? Does this mean that Roman civilization is the civilization of freedom? Does it mean that European people were already free, before the outbreak of the revolution for liberty? Does it also mean that kings and Caesar used to defend freedom, by making people submit to the law and fighting thinkers who challenged the law? If freedom in the modern Western tradition is to mean sovereignty of the law, then it means that all the people of the world are free and they enjoy freedom. So why adorn the capitalist world alone with the title of the free world? What is there to boast about, when all civilizations are equal in this? Moreover, why did the Western revolutions for Enlightenment take place in the first place?

Neno uhuru, katika historia ya matumizi yake miongoni mwa wanadamu, haliwezekani kufikiwa katika matendo ya viumbe, bila kujali kinachosemwa kuhusu maana yake. Haiwezekani kwa mtu binafsi kuishi katika jamii bila kuweka vikwazo juu ya tabia yake, vinavyoitwa sheria, utaratibu, kanuni, desturi, uwajibikaji au vinginevyo. Haiwezekani pia kwa mtu binafsi kuishi katika jumuiya huku akiwa huru kabisa kutoka katika vikwazo vinavyopanga mahusiano, isipokuwa akichagua kujitenga na kuishi peke yake. Kwa hiyo, uhuru kamili upo tu kwa maana ya hali ya asili ya kufikirika.

The term freedom, within the history of its usage amongst humankind, is unachievable in the actions of the created, whatever is said about its definition. It is not possible for an individual to exist in a society without imposing restrictions upon his behavior called law, order, rules, customs, responsibility or others. It is not possible for an individual to exist in a community, whilst living in a state of emancipation from the restrictions that organize the relationships, unless he chooses isolation and living alone. As such, absolute freedom exists only in the sense of an imaginary natural state.

Kwa hakika, hali halisi ya mwanadamu, iwe ya zamani au ya kisasa, iwe Mashariki au Magharibi, ni hali ya nidhamu, yaani hali ya kutokuwa huru. Kwa hiyo, dhana ya uhuru wa Kimagharibi si ya kuaminika. Uhalali wake wa kimaana unaweza kubainishwa tu kwa kuiunganisha fikra ya Kimagharibi yenyewe na uhuru, yaani, uhuru wa Kimagharibi haufafanuliwi kwa masharti yake kamili yenyewe, bali unawekewa masharti ndani ya muktadha. Kwa kweli, ni wazo la kiasi linalofafanuliwa na muktadha wake maalum, ambao ni wazo la Magharibi na dhana zake, au itikadi ya Magharibi na ustaarabu wake. Hivyo, mtu huru katika Magharibi ni yule anayekubali usekula na kuishi kwa mfano wa Kimagharibi, kama anavyodhibitiwa na kuwekewa mipaka na wakuu wa fedha, vyombo vya habari na ngono. Udanganyifu wa uhuru unajulikana hata miongoni mwa Mmagharibi mwenyewe, ambaye amezuiwa na si mamia, bali maelfu ya sheria. Kali na nzito kuliko zote ni sheria za kodi. Hivyo, Magharibi imeachilia ponografia kama kiburudisho cha kuficha mkanganyiko ndani ya Magharibi, na kuwazuia watu kutafuta mbadala.

As for the real state of man, whether it is ancient or modern, whether in the East or the West, it is the state of discipline i.e. in the state of non-freedom. Accordingly, the concept of Western freedom is not credible. It is possible to determine its semantic validity only by linking the Western thought itself to freedom, meaning that Western freedom is not defined on its own absolute terms but is qualified within a context. Indeed, it is a relative idea defined by its particular context, which is the idea of the West and its concepts or the Western ideology and its civilization. Thus the free man in the west is the one who adopts secularism and lives according to the Western model, as limited and restricted by the barons of finance, media and sex. The delusion of freedom is known even amongst the Western man himself who is restricted by not hundreds, but thousands of laws. The hardest and heaviest of them are the tax laws. Thus, the West has unleashed pornography as a distraction to cover the contradiction within the West, preventing people from searching for the alternative.

Kwa kuwa ukweli wa mwanadamu ni kwamba yeye ni kiumbe wa kijamii anayeishi ndani ya jamii, haiwezekani kwake, kwa mtazamo wa akili na kwa vitendo, kujikomboa kutoka kwenye vizuizi vya mfumo, au sheria za kanuni, ili aishi pamoja na wengine. Uislamu umemwelekeza mwanadamu kutoka kutafuta lisilowezekana na kumfanya akubali lililowezekana, ambalo ni utumwa wa kumwabudu Allah (SWT) peke yake. Kwa hiyo mada ya utafiti haihusiani na uwezekano wa kuishi bila vizuizi, kwa kuwa haiwezekani. Badala yake, inahusiana na nani anayeweka vizuizi hivyo. Kwa msingi huo, Uislamu unamkomboa mwanadamu kutoka utumwa wa binadamu wenzake, kwa kumpa uwezo wa kujisalimisha kwa Utawala wa Allah (SWT). Uislamu unamwinua mwanadamu hadi ukuu wa kumwabudu Muumba wa binadamu. Kwa hiyo utumwa ni kwa Muumba pekee, si kwa viumbe. Uislamu unahakikisha mwanadamu anajisalimisha kwa Muumba. Kutii na kufuata mfumo wa Muumba ni jambo la thamani kubwa kabisa, na humwinua mwanadamu hadi daraja za juu zaidi. Uislamu peke yake unatambua hekima ya kwa nini mwanadamu aliumbwa. Allah (SWT) anasema,

Since the reality of man is that he is a social being living in a community, it is impossible for him, both rationally and practically, to be liberated from the restrictions of the system, or regulatory laws, in order for him to live with others. Islam has diverted man from looking after the impossible into accepting the possible, which is servitude to Allah (swt) alone. So the subject of study is not related to the possibility of living without restrictions, as it is not possible. Instead, it is related to who places such restrictions. Accordingly, Islam liberates man from the servitude of humans, by granting him the submission to the Sovereignty of Allah (swt). Islam raises man to the sublimity of servitude to the Creator of humans. So servitude is only to the Creator and not to the creations. Islam ensures man’s submission to the Creator. Abidance and obedience to the system of the Creator are of the highest value and raises man to the highest ranks. Islam alone realizes the wisdom of why man was created. Allah (swt) says,

"Na sikuwaumba majini na binadamu isipokuwa wanitii Mimi." [TMQ Surat Adh-Dhariyat 51:56]

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” [TMQ Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:56],