如果理性判断与某个对象的存在有关，那么它无疑是确定且肯定的。这是因为关于存在的判断是通过对某一实在的感知而得出的，而感官在某一实在是否存在这一问题上不会出错。因此，
If rational judgment is related to the existence of an object, then there is no doubt that it is definite and certain. This is because the judgment about the existence comes through sensation of a reality. The senses are not mistaken regarding the existence of a reality. So,
依据理性思维方法对某一事物之实在性所作出的判断，是决定性的。
judgment issued by the rational method of thinking about the existence of a reality is decisive.
关于事物本质(构成)或特性(属性与性质)的判断,这类判断是不确定的,也就是说容易出错。原因在于,对事物本质或特性的判断,是通过关于该事物的信息,或通过对所感知到的现实进行分析而得出的,而这种分析又依赖于先前的信息。错误可能由此渗入其中。因此,这类判断会因人的分析能力、对事物所掌握信息的多少以及对信息的分析方式不同而产生差异和分歧。例如,我们听到某种移动的声音,就可以确定地判断有某物在移动;但我们无法确定其本质或特性,因为那移动可能来自一个人,也可能来自一件物体。所以,我们在此的判断属于不确定的范畴。然而,承认某些判断存在不确定性,并不意味着不存在确定的绝对真理。因为当我们的判断与其所对应的实际相符时,我们就认识到了它的真理。再如前面的例子:如果我们根据所感知到的移动,判断那移动之物是人或是动物,而我们的判断与所感知的实际相符,那么我们就认识到了真理。因此,某些判断和思想中存在不确定的可能性,并不否定确定真理的存在,而理智必然要服从这种确定的真理。
As for the judgment related to the essence (composition) or characterization (properties and qualities) of an object, the judgment is indecisive, that is, susceptible to error. This is because the judgment upon the essence or characterization comes through information about the object or through the analysis of the perceived reality, according to previous information. Error can seep into this. Therefore, this judgment is liable to disparity and differences because of disparity in human abilities in terms of analysis, in the amount of information about the thing and in how the information is analyzed. For instance, if we hear the sound of a movement, we can decisively judge the existence of the movement. However, we cannot be certain about its essence or characterization. The movement could be from a man or from an object. So, our judgment here falls within indecisiveness. Nevertheless, acknowledging the occurrence of indecisiveness in some judgments does not mean that there is no, decisive absolute truth. This is because when our judgment agrees with its reality, we perceive its truth. Moreover, if we judged upon the moving object, as in the aforementioned example, that it is a man or an animal from its sensed movement, and our judgment agreed with the sensed reality, then we would have perceived the truth. Therefore, the existence of the possibility of indecisiveness, in some judgments and thoughts, does not negate the existence of decisive truth, which the mind is compelled to submit to.
至于那些声称真理是相对的、因此不存在绝对真理的西方人,以及那些主张真理本质上是二元的、认为存在琐碎真理与伟大真理之分的人——例如物理学家尼尔斯·玻尔所说的:“有琐碎的真理,也有伟大的真理。琐碎真理的反面显然是假的。伟大真理的反面也同样是真的。”——这些主张毫无疑问是错误的。真理与存在相关。人不可能感知到存在的一切。此外,还有无形之物的可能性以及相对性。然而,如果一个人看见了某物,他不可能同时提出自己没有看见该物的可能性,因为他要么看见了那东西,要么没有看见。一个神智健全的人不可能说:“我看见了某物,这是琐碎的真理,而伟大的真理是‘我看见了它,同时我也没有看见它’,或‘它存在,也不存在’,或‘它的存在相对于其不存在的可能性’。”这是荒谬之语,不可能出自健全的头脑。
As for the Westerners who claim that truth is relative and thus there is no absolute truth, as well as the ones who claim that truth is dual by nature, as there is trivial truth and great truth, like the physicist Niels Bohr who said, “There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true,” these claims are false, without any doubt. Truth is related to existence. It is not possible for the human to sense everything there is. This is in addition to the possibility of the intangible and relativeness. However, if a man sees something, he cannot concurrently propose the probability of not seeing that thing, as he either saw the thing or did not. It is not possible for a sane person to say, “I have seen something and it is trivial truth, whilst the great truth is ‘I have seen it and also I did not see it’ or ‘it exists and does not exist’ or ‘its existence is relative to the probability of its non existence’.” This is nonsense that does not come from sane minds.
此外,西方社会及西方人在现实实践层面普遍秉持的真理观,既不以学术为基础,也不以哲学为基础。相反,它是一种实用主义的概念,即所谓的实践哲学或工具主义。实用主义将真理定义为有益且有用的东西,或一种思想的直接益处。正如伯特兰·罗素在《西方哲学史》中所述,威廉·詹姆斯在《实用主义》中也指出:“真实的信念能够产生有益的作用。”持此观点的人(多为西方人)并不关心思想的基础及其本质的研究,他们只看重思想的实际后果,由此导致了相对主义,即以一种思想对生活的影响程度及其益处来衡量其真理性。
Moreover, the concept of truth that is prevalent amongst the Western society and the Westerners from the aspect of practical reality, is based neither on academics nor philosophy. Instead, it is a pragmatic concept or the so-called practical philosophy or instrumentalism. Pragmatism defines truth as that which is beneficial and useful or as the immediate benefit of a thought. Similar to what Bertrand Russell states in A History of Western Philosophy, William James in Pragmatism states, “true beliefs work beneficially.” Those who hold this view, mostly Westerners, do not concern themselves with the research of the basis of thought and its essence. They only see the practical consequences of the thought, which led them to relativism, considering the truth of a thought, through the extent of its influence on life and its benefit.
首先，功利主义与人、随心所欲和个人倾向相关联。如果真理就是有益之物，那么撒谎也会成为真理，因为在某些情况和某些人看来它是有益的。一个神智健全的人不可能这样说，尽管这一点在西方人的行为中是显而易见的。
其次，自古以来人类对真理概念的探求，实际上是寻求一个能够化解冲突、解决各种问题的标准。由于利益因人而异、千差万别，它不适合作为解决冲突时所依据的标准和原则。原因很简单：它无法化解冲突，反而通过承认两种真理而维系了冲突。于是冲突便从真理与谬误之间的冲突，转变为真理与真理之间的冲突。
第三，把功利（利益）当作真理的本质，会导致自相矛盾。例如一神论与三位一体论的问题。关于安拉（SWT）是一还是三，如果一个人为了利益而采纳一神论，另一个人为了自身利益而采纳三位一体论，那么就会说一神论和三位一体论都是真理。这就等于断言同一事物与其对立面是相同的，而这在同一件事上是不可能的。
第四，源自功利主义真理观的单一真理，意味着社会、国家与生活中真理的缺失，因为功利主义在其中占据了主导地位。这一点在西方人的生活中，于行为与价值观层面都可以观察到。
This is wrong in many respects, including: firstly, utilitarianism is associated with people, whims and personal tendencies. If truth were what benefits, then lying would have been a truth, as it benefits in some situations and some people. It is not permissible for a sane person to say that, although this matter is noticeable in the behavior of Westerners. Secondly, the quest of humankind for the concept of truth since ancient times is the quest for a criterion to resolve the conflicts and solve various problems. Since benefit is varied and differing amongst humans, it is not fit to be a criterion and principle that is referred to in the resolution of conflicts. This is simply because it does not resolve the conflict. Instead, it only maintains the conflict by accepting two truths. So the conflict becomes transformed from the conflict between truth and falsehood into a conflict between truth and truth. Thirdly, making utility (benefit) as the essence of truth leads to contradiction. The example is monotheism and trinity. Regarding Allah (swt), as being either one or three, if a person adopts monotheism for the sake of benefit, whilst the other takes trinity for his benefit, it would be said that both monotheism and trinity are true. This would lead to asserting that a matter and its opposite are the same. However, that is not possible in a single matter. Fourthly, the single truth arising from the concept of utilitarian truth is the lack of truth in the society, state and life, through the dominance of utilitarianism within them. This is what is observed in the Western life at the level of behavior and values.
事实上，未能区分理性所作的各类判断，即存在、本质与属性之间的区别，正是导致这一群西方思想家陷入困惑的原因。这种困惑甚至使他们中的一些人绝望地认为真理是否可能存在都无从确定，于是转而求助于对真理的想象性诠释。如果这一区分对他们来说变得清晰，那么不确定性的范围自然也会在他们面前变得清晰。因此可以说，相对主义存在于对本质与属性的判断之中，因为这两者都容易出错。
In fact, the absence of differentiation between the rulings issued by mind i.e. between existence, essence and characterization, is what created confusion amongst this group of Western thinkers. The confusion was to the extent that some of them despaired of even the possibility of the existence of truth. So they resorted to the imaginary interpretations of the truth. If this differentiation became clear to them, then the scope of indecisiveness will naturally be clear to them. So it could then be said that relativism lies within the judgment upon the essence and characterization, because both are predisposed to error.
对判断存在出错的可能，自然并不意味着该判断为真。它只是说明这一判断有出错的倾向，借此将其与确定无疑的判断区分开来。因此，对事物本质与属性的判断被视为正确的思想，直到发现错误为止；只有到那时，才会被判定为错误。伊斯兰的思维何其美妙，它早在数百年前就裁定：在阿嘉德（信仰）领域，只有真与假之分，不存在偏差，正确的判断只有一个。至于与沙里亚律例相关的教法学（菲格）领域，则既有正确，也有错误。其原则是，
The predisposition to error in the judgment naturally does not imply its truthfulness. It means the judgment has a predisposition to error, in order to differentiate between it and certain definitiveness. Accordingly, the judgment upon the essence and description is considered a correct thought, until a mistake is found. Only then is it judged to be wrong. How wonderful is the Islamic thinking that decreed centuries ago that in the subject of Aqeedah is the subject of truth and falsehood, with no lapse, and there is only one correct judgement. As for the subject of Fiqh (jurisprudence) related to the Shariah rulings, there is the correct and the wrong. Its principle is,
“我的观点是正确的，但可能有误；而你的观点是错误的，但可能正确。”这是因为，'Aqeedah（信条）在本质上是对存在的判断，具有决定性；而Shari'ah（教法）的律例则是对本质与属性的判断，其中绝大多数是非决定性的。
^ij JaIsj Iki diijj “my opinion is correct with the possibility of error, whilst your opinion is wrong with the possibility of correctness.” This is because the Aqeedah, at its core, is the judgment upon existence, which is decisive, whilst the Shariah rulings are judgment upon the essence and characterization, with most of them being indecisive.