Biz hukmdorlarni va davlat institutlarini ularning harakatlari hamda bu harakatlarning Alloh belgilagan adolatga muvofiqligi bo‘yicha baholaymiz. Biz o‘z e’tiqodimizni ortiqcha va oxir-oqibat ma’nosiz “demokratik” yoki “demokratik emas” degan yorliqlar ortiga yashirmaymiz. Bu atamalarning biror ma’nosi bor-yo‘qligi haqida shubha qolgan bo‘lsa, 2016-yilgi Turkiyadagi to‘ntarishga G‘arbning munosabati bilan 2013-yilgi Misrdagi to‘ntarishga bo‘lgan munosabatni solishtirish bu masalani qat’iy hal qilishi kerak edi. Ikki to‘ntarish, ikki davlat: Misr va Turkiya. Insonning shaxsiy qarashlari va diniy yo‘nalishiga qarab, bir to‘ntarish “albatta” demokratik, ikkinchisi esa “aniq” demokratik emas edi. Nega? Chunki bir to‘ntarish “shubhasiz” xalq irodasini ifodalagan, ikkinchisi esa “hech shubhasiz” bunday qilmagan. Har bir to‘ntarishda o‘ldirilganlar kimdan so‘rayotganingizga va qaysi to‘ntarish haqida gapirayotganingizga qarab “shahid” yoki “xoin” deb atalgan.

We judge rulers and governmental institutions by their actions and whether those actions conform with justice as delineated by Allah. We do not hide our beliefs behind superfluous and ultimately meaningless designations of “democratic” or “undemocratic.” If there were any doubt left about whether these terms have any meaning, the Western reaction to the 2016 coup in Turkey versus the reaction to the 2013 coup in Egypt should have settled the issue conclusively. Two coups, in two countries: Egypt and Turkey. Depending on one’s personal commitments and religious orientation, one coup was “certainly” democratic and the other was “clearly” undemocratic. Why? Because one coup “obviously” represented the will of the people and the other “undoubtedly” did not. The people killed in each coup were “martyrs” or “traitors” depending on who you ask, depending on which coup you are talking about.

Biz demokratiklik haqida to'xtovsiz bahslashishimiz mumkin, lekin hech narsaga erisha olmaymiz, chunki bu bo'sh va umidsiz darajada sub'ektiv tushuncha bo'lib, uni har qanday siyosiy harakat yoki hukumat tuzilmasiga ko'chirish mumkin.

So we can debate democratic-ness till we are blue in the face, but we will never get anywhere because this is an empty, hopelessly subjective concept that can be projected onto any political act or governmental structure.

Bizning tilimizni shu liberal qoplama bilan o‘rab, "demokratiya" kabi bo‘sh tushunchalar yordamida fikrlarimizni ifodalash orqali biz aslida haqiqiy muhokamani kechiktirmoqdamiz. Haqiqiy muhokama shu: oxir-oqibat, boshqaruvchi hokimiyat xalqqa nimani qarzdor, va xalq unga nimani qarzdor? Va, eng muhimi, to‘g‘ri javob ekanligini qanday bilamiz? Biz nigilistmizmi, to‘g‘ri javob yo‘q deb hisoblaymizmi? Yoki to‘g‘ri javob bor deb hisoblaymizmi, unda uni qanday aniqlaymiz?

By wrapping our language in this liberal veneer and employing empty concepts like “democracy” to convey our opinions, what we are really doing is postponing a real discussion. The real discussion is: At the end of the day, what does a governing authority owe its people and what do the people owe it and, more importantly, how do we know what is the right answer? Are we nihilists who do not believe there is a right answer? Or do we believe that there is a right answer, in which case, how do we determine it?

Ushbu savollar bizni insoniy maqsad, mavjudlikning mohiyati va Yaratuvchimiz bilan bo'lgan munosabatimiz haqida o'ylashga undaydi. Lekin liberal sekularizm bizni bunday darajadagi suhbatni olib borishni istamaydi. Liberal sekularizm odamlarning Xudo haqida o'ylashini, Uni xayolga keltirishini xohlamaydi. Shuning uchun u Xudoning ahamiyati yo'q, deydi. Chuqur metafizik savollar ham ahamiyatsiz, deydi. Sizning mavjudligingizning ma'nosi ham ahamiyatsiz, deydi. Shunchaki o'zingizni sun'iy atamalar bilan band qiling, deydi. Muayyan tuzum qaysi bo'sh yorliqlar bilan atalishi kerakligi ustida tortishing, deydi. Dizayni bo'yicha samarali yakuni bo'lmaydigan bahsga botib keting, deydi. Xudo haqida gapirish juda noqulay, juda bolalarcha, deydi. Xuddi Hizr bobo yoki Pasxa quyoni haqida bahslashgandek. Buning o'rniga sekulyar ziyolilar safiga qo'shiling va demokratik vakillik, sekulyarizatsiya va boshqa mavzular haqida "jiddiy" va "intellektual" suhbat qiling, deydi.

These are the kinds of questions that make us think about human purpose and the nature of our existence and our relationship to our Maker. But liberal secularism does not want us to have a conversation on that level. Liberal secularism does not want people to think on that level, to bring God to mind. So it tells us that God is irrelevant. Deeper metaphysical questions are irrelevant. The meaning of your existence is irrelevant. Just busy yourself with these artificial terms. Just bicker about what empty labels are applicable to this or that regime. Submerge yourself in a debate that, by design, has no fruitful end. Talking about God is too uncomfortable, too childish. You might as well argue about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Instead, join the ranks of the secular intelligentsia and have a “serious,” “intellectual” conversation about democratic representation, secularization, etc