Author: Benyamin Azad
Secular freedom or Islamic freedom?
Freedom as an opinion is something false. It is logically impossible to live in a country where both seculars have freedom and are users. It is impossible for both secular law and Islamic law to be valid. It is not possible to count a demand and punish them for their actions. Usury system cannot be both legal and criminal. Both the people are free to ban a bank and the seculars are free to exploit it. The idea of expressing freedom in its definition is a set of contradictions.
The authority and freedom of the people in prohibiting usury means the communication of benefit for the seculars, and the authority and freedom of the seculars in legalizing interest means the lack of freedom and authority of the people in it.
The freedom of the secular means communication for the secular and the freedom of the secular. Therefore, we cannot talk about freedom in its application, because we bind it with the description of “Islamic” or “secular”. Islamic freedom and secular freedoms are anti enemies. Each of them is possible separately. But the combination of both is impossible.
However, what we have said does not mean that the Islamic system does not grant rights to non-Muslims or that the secular system does not grant rights to Muslims. In Islamic freedom, although Muslims enjoy all their freedoms, rights and freedoms are also given to non-Muslims and seculars; Certainly, these rights are not the rights that the secularists expect, but they are only the rights and freedoms that Islam has considered for the infidels.
Similarly, in secular freedoms, the seculars enjoy most of the freedoms they have assumed for themselves, but the rights and freedoms are also considered for Muslims, but not the rights that Muslims expect, but only the rights and freedoms that the secularists consider for Muslims. have taken.
Therefore, absolute freedom is a false slogan that no one really believes in and that has never happened in practice. However, an important point is that all human societies believe in “conditional freedom”, meaning that freedom depends on the number of restrictions placed on others or “non-insiders”. No group of people says “I don’t believe in the right to the freedoms that I deserve”, but each person assumes certain freedoms for himself based on his beliefs and at the same time restricts the freedom of others.
Therefore, the debate about freedom does not mean whether we should believe in freedom or not? And it is not even about who should have freedom and who should not have freedom? The main and discussed question is who defines the freedom of “insiders” and “non-insiders” and what rights and limitations they have and who has the right to determine the limits of freedom? Muslims or seculars?
Therefore, before being a right, freedom is a demand and even more than that; Freedom is actually an attainable achievement, not something to be demanded, because no sane person gives up his freedom to his opponents at the cost of his limitations. No secularist says, “Come on: the power is with you; You can impose Sharia laws on us!” And no sane Muslim will accept to entrust the governorship and power to his enemies and say: “Please impose your laws on us and limit our freedom!” Therefore, it is futile to demand freedom, because freedom is essentially something to be earned. Also, we know that achievements such as freedom cannot be obtained without paying a suitable price and such a thing can only be obtained through power and pressure and dominance. This introduction leads us to the concept of “power”.
Without “power”, it is impossible to apply pressure to achieve freedom. This fact can also be seen from a historical point of view; In all the countries, the seculars have reached the seat of power by whatever force they can before achieving their desired freedoms. Power and dominance allowed them to define the meaning and limits of freedom by themselves and impose it on Muslims; Because Muslims lacked the power and control to define freedom and determine its limits.
Therefore, Islamic freedom is not possible without domination and domination, and domination and domination depend on power. The lack of Muslim rule will only lead to secular freedom, which means the suppression of Islamic freedom, this fact can also be achieved through objective observation.
What is the role of the United Nations in the formation of secular freedoms and the suppression of Islamic freedoms? How has this organization been able to impose the definitions and limits of freedom in favor of the seculars against Muslims? What was the executive guarantee of paragraph 30 of this statement?
Power has the last word in the world of politics. Power can cause vetoes, massacres of Muslims, imposing secular governments on us, determining the lines and boundaries of Muslim freedom, creating political boundaries between Islamic nations, and forcing Muslims to obey the created legal charters.
The same power that we can overcome the vetoes only after achieving it, end the massacre of Muslims, apply the Islamic Sharia from a victorious and superior position over Muslims and impose it on the seculars, return freedom to Muslims and the limits of freedom. Explain Islam to the infidels so that they are completely defeated and let them know the rights they deserve.
