G‘arbda din hayotdan ajratish g‘oyasiga tayanib, qonun chiqarish huquqini o‘ziga berdi. U inson o‘z hayotini boshqalar xohlagandek emas, o‘zi xohlagandek yashashi kerak, deb hisoblaydi; boshqalarning irodasiga emas, o‘z havas-xohishlariga ko‘ra yashashi kerak. Ular inson erkinlikdan bahramand bo‘lmaguncha bu huquqdan foydalana olmaydi, deb hisobladilar. Natijada uning erkinligi e’tiqod erkinligi, mulk erkinligi, fikr erkinligi va shaxsiy erkinlik kabi erkinliklar sifatida namoyon bo‘ldi. Bu erkinliklar g‘oyasini u muqaddas deb hisobladi.

By resorting to the idea of separating religion from life, The West has given the right of legislation to itself. It takes the view that man must live his life as he pleases and not as others would like; in accordance with his own whims and not the will of others. They took the view that man cannot practice this right until he enjoys his freedom. This has led his freedom to be represented as the freedoms of belief, ownership, opinion and personal freedom. It considered this idea of freedoms as sacred.

Bu erkinliklarning aniq texnik ma'nolari bor.

These freedoms have specific technical meanings.

E'tiqod erkinligi shaxsga o'zi tanlagan dinga ishonish huquqini beradi. Yoki u bir e'tiqoddan boshqasiga o'tishiga ruxsat beradi, hatto bu kundalik hodisa bo'lsa ham. U hatto dinlarni umuman rad etishiga ham ruxsat beradi.

Freedom of belief allows the individual to believe in the religion he chooses. Or it allows him to move from one creed to another, even if it was a daily occurrence. It permitted him to reject religions altogether.

Mulkiyat erkinligi shaxsga o‘zi xohlagan narsaga va o‘zi xohlagan vosita orqali egalik qilish huquqini beradi. Shuningdek, u o‘z boyligidan xohlagan tarzda foydalanish, uni tasarruf etish huquqiga ham ega. Agar u o‘z itiga sovg‘a sifatida bermoqchi bo‘lib, buni merosxo‘rlaridan yashirmoqchi bo‘lsa, uni bunday qilishdan hech kim to‘xtata olmaydi.

Freedom of ownership allows the individual to own whatever he wants and through any means he wants. He also has the right to dispose of with his wealth in any manner he wishes. If he wants to give it as a gift to his dog and prevent his inheritors from it, then nobody can stop him from doing so.

Fikr erkinligi unga xohlagan narsasini, to'g'ri bo'lsin yoki noto'g'ri, hech qanday to'siqsiz va nazoratsiz aytish imkonini beradi. U o'zining tushunchasiga yoki xohish-istaklariga zid keladigan har qanday fikrni buzishi yoki tanqid qilishi mumkin.

Freedom of opinion allows him to say whatever he wants, whether it is true or false, without any obstacle or monitoring. He can violate or criticize any opinion that goes against his understanding or whims.

Shaxsiy erkinlik kishilarga o‘z shaxsiy ishlarini qadriyatlar, axloqiy cheklovlar yoki ma’naviy taqiqlarni hisobga olmasdan yuritish imkonini beradi.

Personal freedom allows individuals to run their personal affairs without any consideration for values, ethical constraints or spiritual restrictions.

Demokratiyaning asosiy talablari bo‘lgan bu erkinliklar g‘oyasi uni targ‘ib qiluvchilarning qadriyatlarini hayvonlarnikidan ham past darajaga tushirib yubordi.

This idea of freedoms, which are basic requirements of Democracy, has caused the values of those who advocate it to decline to a level lower than that of animals.

E'tiqod erkinligi kapitalistik jamiyatlarda dinning ahamiyatini yo'qotishiga olib keldi. U shaxslarga kiyimlarini almashtirganlari kabi dinlarini almashtirishga ruxsat berganida, dinni katta darajada past qo'ydi.

The freedom of belief has made religion lose its importance in capitalist societies. It belittled religion greatly when it permitted individuals to change their religion the way they changes their clothes.

Moddiyotchilik fikrining yoyilishi va diniy tafakkurning cheklanishi bilan axloqiy, insoniy va ma'naviy qadriyatlar yo'qoldi. Odamlarning qalblari shafqatdan mahrum bo'lib qoldi va ular bo'rilardek yashay boshladilar, bunda kuchli ojizni bo'ysundiradi.

With the spread of the materialistic thought and the restriction of the religious thought, the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual values have disappeared. The souls of the people have become devoid of compassion, and they have come to live like wolves, where the strong subjugate the weak.

Fikr erkinligi odamlarga istagan narsalarini aytish va xohlagan narsalarga chaqirish imkonini berdi. Shu sababli ularning jamiyatlarida har qanday yolg'on, g'alati va aqldan ozgan fikr uchraydi; ularda haqiqatni aniqlaydigan hech qanday mezon yo'q. Shuningdek, oddiy bir odam Payg'ambar ﷺ ga qarshi tahqirlovchi so'zlar aytganini eshitasiz, va buni to'xtatadigan hech qanday qonun yo'q; xuddi Salmon Rushdi kabi, u e'tiqod erkinligini bahona qilib, so'z erkinligi ortiga yashirinadi.

Freedom of opinion has permitted the people to say what they like and to call for whatever they want. So, every false, strange and crazy opinion is to be found in their societies; they are devoid of the truth any criteria for it. You also come to hear any common person blaspheme against the Messenger 􀁕, without any law to prevent him from this; like Salman Rushdi, who uses freedom of belief as a pretext and hides under freedom of speech.

Mulkchilik erkinligi va uning foyda mezonlariga kelsak, u kapitalizm degan dahshatni yuzaga keltirdi. Kapitalizm mustamlakachilikni xalqlarning kelajagini nazorat qilish, ularning boyliklarini egallash, resurslarini talon-taroj qilish va xalqlarining qonini to'kish usuli sifatida qabul qildi. Bu esa boshqalar bilan harom daromad uchun raqobatlashish, musulmonlarning qoni evaziga savdo qilish, o'z mahsulotlarini va harbiy sanoatining mahsulotlarini sotish uchun fuqarolar urushlari va davlatlar o'rtasidagi urushlarni avj oldirish, shu orqali ulkan foyda ko'rish maqsadida amalga oshirildi. Bu kapitalistik davlatlar o'zlarini har qanday ma'naviy, axloqiy va insonparvarlik qadriyatlaridan mahrum qildilar. Aksincha, ular zarurat bo'lganda dinni o'z manfaatlarini yashirish uchun ishlatadilar va o'zlarida axloqiy hamda insonparvarlik qadriyatlari borligini da'vo qilib, o'zlarining xunuk yuzini va iflos qiyofasini yashirishga harakat qiladilar.

As for freedom of ownership and its criteria of benefit, it has created the monstrosity of Capitalism, which has taken colonialism as a method to control people’s future, and to seize their resources, exploit their wealth, and spill the blood of their peoples. This is to compete with others for the Haraam earning, to trade with the blood of the Muslims, to fuel civil wars and wars between nations so as to sell their products and those of their military industries, which have made huge profits. These capitalist states have stripped themselves of any spiritual, ethical or humanitarian values. Rather they use religion, if compelled, to cover their interests and claim to have ethical and humanitarian values to conceal their ugly face and putrid smell.

Shaxsiy erkinlikka kelsak, u demokratik mamlakatlardagi jamiyatlarni tanazzulga yuz tutgan, hayvoniy jamiyatlarga aylantirdi. Ular hatto hayvonlar ham yetmagan darajadagi jirkanch buzuqlik darajasiga tushib qolishdi.

As for personal freedom, it has transformed societies in the democratic countries into declined animalistic societies. They have descended to a level of disgusting licentiousness that even the animals have not reached.

Ularning qonunchiligi g‘ayritabiiy va noto‘g‘ri jinsiy munosabatlarga ruxsat bergan.

Their legislation has permitted abnormal and erroneous sexual relations.

Siz ularning orasida hatto hayvonlarda ham uchramaydigan amallarni ko'rasiz. Ular guruh bo'lib zino qiladilar va onalari, qizlari hamda opa-singillari bilan zinoyi-mahrama qiladilar. Ular hatto hayvonlar bilan jinsiy aloqa qiladilar. Shu sababli ular orasida ilgari hech mavjud bo'lmagan kasalliklar paydo bo'ladi. Ularning jamiyatlarida oilaning parchalanishi ko'zga tashlanadi va bir oila a'zolari o'rtasidagi o'zaro hurmat yo'qolgan. Shaxsiy erkinlik barcha cheklovlarni bekor qilish erkinligidir; har qanday qadriyatlarga ruxsat berish va oilani yo'q qilish erkinligidir. Eng og'ir gunohlar erkinlik nomi ostida sodir etiladi va barcha taqiqlar ruxsat etilgan deb hisoblanadi.

You see amongst them practices that you do not see even amongst animals. They practice group sex and incest with their mothers, daughters and sisters. They practice sex even with animals. Hence diseases appear amongst them that never existed before. The break up of the family can be seen in their societies and the mutual respect between the members of a single family has been lost. Personal freedom is the freedom to do away with all restrictions; allowing any kind of values and the freedom to destroy the family. It is in the name of freedom that all the grave sins are committed and all the prohibitions are permitted.

Demak, zino, gomosekslik, lesbiyanlik, yalang'ochlik va spirtli ichimliklarga erkinlik, hamda har qanday harakatni, qanchalik past va nafratli bo'lmasin, ortidan borish, hech qanday bosim yoki majburlashsiz, eng to'liq erkinlik bilan amalga oshiriladi.

So the freedom of fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, nudity, and alcohol, and the pursuit of every action no matter how low or despicable it may be, is all done with the utmost freedom without any pressure or compulsion.

Bu demokratiyaning oqibatlaridir. Ular insonning xohish-istaklari mahsuli bo'lib, Allohdan 􀀬 emas va osmondan kelgan vahiydan olinmagan. Ularning hech qanday din bilan aloqasi yo'q. Agar demokratiyani targ'ib qiluvchilar va mutafakkirlar ongida uni qaror toptirgan narsaga, uning tug'ilgan sharoitiga qaytsak, u kufr asosiga qurilgani va Lui XV ning: "Men toj faqat Allohdan olganman", degan so'zlari hamda Lui XIV ning: "Shohlarning hokimiyati Allohning vakolatidan kelib chiqadi. Allohning o'zi uning yagona manbaidir, xalq emas. Shohlar o'z hokimiyatini qanday amalga oshirgani uchun faqat Allohning oldida javob beradi", degan so'zlariga javob sifatida barpo etilgani juda aniq bo'ladi. Ziyolilar Jan-Jak Russoning ijtimoiy shartnoma nazariyasini "Fransuz dunyoviy inqilobining Injili" deb ta'riflashgan. Bularning barchasidan Islomning demokratiya bilan to'liq ziddiyati, uning kelib chiqqan manbasi, undan chiqqan e'tiqod, asoslangan negiz va olib kelgan fikrlar hamda tizimlar nuqtai nazaridan ravshan bo'ladi.

These are the effects of Democracy. They are the product of man’s whims and not from Allah 􀀬, and they are not derived from the revelation that comes from the heavens. They have nothing to do with any religion whatsoever. If we return to the thing that established Democracy in the minds of its advocates and thinkers, and the circumstances into which it was born, it will become very clear that it was founded on a kufr basis and it was established as a response to sayings such as those of Louis XV; “We did not receive the crown except from God”, and Louis XIV; “The authority of the kings derives from the delegation of God. God is its exclusive source and not the people. Kings are not accountable for how they practice their authority, except before God.” The intellectuals described the theory of the social contract of Jean Jacque Russo as, ‘the Bible of the French secular revolution.’ From all of this the complete contradiction of Islam with Democracy becomes clear to us, in regards to the source from which it came, the creed from which it emanated, the basis on which it is founded and the thoughts and systems it has brought.

Manbaa'i inson. U amallar va narsalar haqida ularning husn (go'zal, qilishga loyiq) yoki qubh (qoralanadigan) ekanligi bo'yicha hukm chiqarishda hukmron sifatida qaraladigan zotdir. Bu esa faqat nafsning xohish-istaklariga ergashishdan boshqa narsa emas. Uning yaratilish ildizlari Yevropaning faylasuflari huzuridadir.

- The source from which it has come is man. He is the ruler who is referred to in issuing judgments on actions and things, in respect of them being husn (pretty/worthy of doing) or qubh (reprehensible). This is nothing but following one’s whims and desires. The roots of its creation lie with the philosophers of Europe.

Islomga kelsak, u bunga zid. U Allohdan 􀀬. U 􀀬 uni O'zining Payg'ambari Muhammadga — Uning Bandasi va Elchisiga 􀁕 vahiy qilgan. Islomda hukm chiqarishda hokimiyat shariatga tegishli, aqlga emas. Aqlning roli esa shariat matnlarini tushunish bilan chegaralangan.

As for Islam, it is opposite to that. It is from Allah 􀀬. He 􀀬 revealed it to His Prophet Muhammad, His Servant and Messenger 􀁕. The ruler in Islam refers to the Shar’a in issuing rules and not to the mind. The role of the mind is restricted to understanding the Sharee’ah texts.

Demokratiyadan kelib chiqadigan aqida esa dinni hayotdan ajratish aqidasi bo‘lib, u murosaga asoslangan yechimga tayangan aqidadir. Bu aqida dinni rad etmagan, balki uning hayotdagi va davlatdagi o‘rnini bekor qilgan va shu sababli insonga o‘z tizimini o‘zi belgilash huquqini bergan.

- As for the creed from which Democracy emanates, it is the creed of separating religion from life, which is the creed based on the compromise solution. This creed did not reject religion but abolished its role in life and State, and consequently gave man the right to lay down his own system.

Aynan shu aqidasi asosida uning tamadduni barpo etildi va uning fikriy yo'nalishi belgilandi.

It was on the basis of its creed that its civilisation was founded and its intellectual direction was defined.

Islomga esa bunga zid. U Islomiy aqiydaga asoslangan bo‘lib, hayotning barcha ishlarini va Davlatni Allohning amr va nahiylariga muvofiq yo‘naltirishni talab qiladi. Boshqacha aytganda, hayot Islomiy aqiydadan kelib chiqadigan Shariat hukmlariga muvofiq kechadi.

As for Islam it is contrary to this. It is based on the Islamic ‘Aqeedah that obliges all of life’s affairs, and the State to be directed according to the orders and prohibitions of Allah 􀀬. In other words, life proceeds according to the Sharee’ah rules that emanate from the Islamic ‘Aqeedah.

Aynan shu aqidasi asosida uning tamadduni barpo etildi va uning fikriy yo'nalishi belgilandi.

It was on the basis of its ‘Aqeedah that its civilisation was founded and its intellectual direction was defined.

Demokratiyaning asosi shundan iboratki, hokimiyat xalqqa tegishlidir. Xalq hokimiyatlarning manbaidir. Shunga asoslanib, demokratik tizimlar o'z hokimiyatini va vakolatini amalda ifodalash maqsadida qonun chiqaruvchi, ijro etuvchi va sud hokimiyatlarini yaratdi.

- The basis on which Democracy is founded is that sovereignty is for the people. The people are the source of the powers. Based on this, the democratic systems created three powers; the legislative, executive and judicial powers, so as to practically express its sovereignty and authority.

Islomda hokimiyat Shar’aga tegishli, ummat esa qonun chiqarish huquqiga ega emas. Biroq Islom musulmonlarni Alloh 􀀬ning amr va taqiqlarini ijro etishga majbur qilgan va buni Shariat matnlarida belgilanganidek Xilofat davlatini barpo etish orqali namoyon etgan.

As for Islam, sovereignty lies with the Shar’a, and the Ummah does not possess the right of legislation. However, Islam has obliged the Muslims to execute the orders and prohibitions of Allah 􀀬, and it manifested this through the establishment of the Khilafah State as defined by the Sharee’ah texts.

Demokratiya foyda va havoyi istaklarga amal qilishga asoslangan tizimlar va qarashlar bilan paydo bo‘ldi, Islom qonunchiligi esa matnlarga amal qilishga va ulardan shar’iy hukmlarni chiqarishga asoslangan, ya’ni hidoyatga rioya qilish va unga ergashishga asoslangan.

- Democracy came with systems and thoughts based on benefit and the following of whims, whilst the legislation of Islam is based on following the texts and deducing the Shar’eeah rules from them, i.e. it is based on the adherence to and following of guidance.

Demokratiya ba'zi yaxshi jihatlarga ega bo'lib, Islom undan foyda olishi mumkin, degan da'vo asossiz bo'lib, dalilga asoslanmagan. Biz demokratiyaning ba'zi natijalarini ko'rdik; u yaxshilikdan xoli bo'lgan yomon vaziyatni yuzaga keltirdi. Insoniyatga chiqarilgan eng yaxshi ummat demokratiyadan hech narsa olishga muhtoj emas. Shunday da'vo qilishga ehtiyoj tug'diradigan Islomda biror kamchilik bormi?

The statement that Democracy has some good elements from which Islam can benefit is baseless and is not based upon evidence. We have seen some of the effects of Democracy; it has created an evil situation that contains no goodness. The best Ummah brought forth to mankind does not need to take anything from Democracy. Is there a deficiency in Islam, which needs to be compensated for by making such a claim?