4.1 世俗主义作为一种信条的腐化 - 驳斥资本主义西方思想 | System Of Islam

4.1 世俗主义作为一种信条的腐化 - 驳斥资本主义西方思想 | System Of Islam

0% read · 6 min left

驳斥资本主义西方思想 Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

4.1 世俗主义作为一种信条的腐化

4.1 The Corruption of Secularism as a Creed

by Hizb Ut Tahrir6 min readViewed 178 times

在西方的认知中,"creed"(法语:credo,即"信条")一词与若干负面概念相联系。对西方人而言,信条等同于源自形而上根源的宗教信仰,它迫使人在没有证据的情况下去相信各种事物。对西方人而言,信条还意味着接受一种超自然实在的观念,这种实在超越或高于自然世界,且没有证据或理性的支撑。

In the Western perception, the word creed (French: credo) is associated with a number of negative concepts. For the Westerner, creed is synonymous with religious beliefs that emerge from a metaphysical source, which compels man to believe in things without evidence. To the Westerner, creed also implies an acceptance of the mind of the supernatural reality, that is above or beyond the natural world, without evidence or reasoning.

信仰在雅克琳·吕斯(Jacqueline Russ)的《哲学词典》(法文:Dictionnaire de philosophie)中被定义为:"……从道德角度看,它是对于上帝的存在、灵魂的不朽和自由的一种理性但无法证明的信念;从宗教角度看,它是对启示和教义性实在的精神取向(无法证明,且不考虑容忍其他观点)。"因此,在澄清西方信仰本身的腐化之前,我们必须先审视西方知识界关于信条概念及其本质的腐化。

Faith is defined by Jacqueline Russ in her Dictionary of Philosophy (French: Dictionnaire de philosophie) “...from the moral perspective, it is the rational but unprovable belief related to the existence of God, immortality of souls and freedom... from the religious perspective, it is the spiritual orientation towards revelation and dogmatic reality (unproven with no consideration to tolerate other views).” Thus, we must evaluate the corruption of the Western intellectual view about the concept of creed and its essence, before clarifying the corruption of Western creed itself.

在此，关于证据的问题出现了：西方将证据的指示仅限于科学。多米尼克·莫林（Dominique Morin）在其著作《上帝存在吗？》（Dieu Existe-t-il？，即 God Exists）中说："如果问题涉及上帝的存在，基督教哲学家和神学家已经一致认为，'证据'一词——在我们的世界里，它与科学的精确性密切相关——是不恰当的。因此，许多人，如托马斯·阿奎那，更愿意谈论通往上帝的道路。"前教宗本笃十六世约瑟夫·阿洛伊修斯·拉青格在其著作《基督教导论》（德文：Einführung in das Christentum）中指出："基督教的意识不是在很大程度上，在不自知的情况下，默认了这样一种态度吗——即信仰上帝是某种主观的东西？" 将证据限定于科学经验主义的范围是错误的。事实上，证据意味着指引人走向所需之物，或帮助人达到对问题的理解。证据是用以确认某一陈述或某一假设之有效性的方法。证据是认识另一种知识所必需的知识。这就是所有民族对证据的共同含义。穆斯林的说法与西方人对证据的定义之间并无差异。穆斯林学者阿布·巴卡·阿尔-卡FAW（Abul Baqaa' Al-Kafaw）在其著作《Kitab Al-Kulliyat》（كتاب الكليات）中说："证据（دليل）是指引人走向所需之物的东西。其意图和含义在于'证明'……其指示的意图和含义，即是被证明之物。烟被称为火的证据。因此，'证据'一词适用于一切通过证据所指示而得知之物，无论其是有形的还是属于教法的事务，无论其是确定的还是不确定的……" 荷兰西方学者H·威勒姆森（H. Willemsen）在其《哲学词典》（丹麦文：Woordenboek Filosofie）中说："任何陈述的证据，就是确认其有效性的方法……" 那位西方人、法国女性雅克琳·鲁斯（Jacqueline Russ）在其《哲学词典》（法文：Dictionnaire De Philosophic）中说：“证据……是确立假设有效性的过程。”因此，证据是借以确立其他事物的东西。这是就其在所有人类之中的实在性而言的证据。至于它是科学的、理性的、逻辑的、直觉的、情感的，或者其他性质，那属于它的特征与构成的范畴，而不属于它的本质范畴。换言之，能够指引至所需之物的，就是证据。无论它是源自科学、理性还是情感，在对指引之物的描述之中，都不会使它在本质与实在上不再是证据。

Herein rises an issue related to evidence as the West restricts the indication of evidence to science alone. Dominique Morin says in his book Dieu Existe-t-il? (God Exists), “If the matter is related to the existence of God, Christian philosophers and theologians have agreed that the word evidence, which is definitely in our world connected to the accuracy of science, is inappropriate. Thus, many, like Thomas Aquinas, prefer to speak of the ways to reach God.” The former Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger noted in his book, Introduction to Christianity (German: Einfuhrung in das Christentum), “Has not Christian consciousness acquiesced to a great extent—without being aware of it—in the attitude that faith in God is something subjective.” The restriction of evidence to that of scientific empiricism is wrong. In fact, evidence means that which guides to what is needed or the arrival at the comprehension of issues. Evidence is the affirmed methodology for the validity of one of the statements or one of the hypotheses. Evidence is the necessary knowledge to know another knowledge. This is the meaning of evidence amongst all peoples. There is no difference in defining the evidence between the sayings of the Muslims and the Westerner. In his book Kitab Al- Kulliyat (cjLK1I); the Muslim Aalim, Abul Baqaa' Al-Kafaw said: idence (JaUI) is that which guides to what is needed. What is intended and meant by it is the evidencing ... what is intended and meant by its indication is that which is evidenced. The smoke is termed as the evidence of the fire. Thus the term evidence i.e. evidence is called upon everything known by what the evidence indicates, whether it is tangible or Shariah matters, whether it is definite or indefinite...” The Westerner, the Dutchman, H. Willemsen, said in his Dictionary of Philosophy (Danish: Woordenboek Filosofie), “Evidence of any statement is the method that affirms its validity...” The Westerner, the French women, Jacqueline Russ in her Dictionary of Philosophy (French: Dictionnaire De Philosophic) said, “The evidence...is the process by which the validity of hypothesis is established.” Thus evidence is something by which it is possible to establish something else. This is the evidence in terms of its reality amongst all human beings. As for the condition of being scientific or rational or logical or intuitive or emotional or other than that, it is the subject of its characteristics and constitution, not the subject of its essence. In other words, that which guides to what is needed, is evidence. The consideration of it arising from science or reason or emotion, within the description of that which guides, never stops it from being an evidence in its essence and reality.

1- 西方的信条实际上是西方独特的社会、政治和历史环境的产物。它是作为教会与思想家及统治者之间冲突的一种折中方案而出现的。它并非源于思考，也不是建立在理性与智识之上。这是一种依据民众共识而行动的信条，而不是理性的信条，也就是说，其民众并没有以理性确立其有效性的证据。法国的例子可以说明这一点。《政教分离法》（La Laïcité）曾提交众议院（Chambre des députés）表决。1905年7月3日，该法获得341票赞成、233票反对。随后，它于1905年12月6日提交上议院，结果是181票赞成、102票反对。于是，《政教分离法》成为对民众具有约束力的法律，无论从智识角度看它是否有效。由此可见，政教分离主义并不具有智识上的论证，它的全部依据仅仅是历史性的，只是民众经验的表达。这些依据的谬误对任何理智之人而言都是显而易见的。如果有人说：“西方曾因宗教而受苦，并被宗教所拒斥；当西方将宗教与生活分离之后，西方才得以复兴。”那么，我们可以反驳说：“穆斯林正是借助宗教而复兴并崛起的。当他们对自己的宗教理解变得薄弱、宗教从生活中被移除时，他们便衰落了。”因此，表达民众经验的历史性判断，不足以作为确立该信条有效性的理性证据。必须有智识上的论证和理性的证据，而政教分离主义恰恰缺乏这些。

1- The Western creed is in fact a result of the societal, political and historical circumstances of the West uniquely. It has emerged as a compromise solution for the conflict between the Church, on the one hand, and the thinkers and rulers, on the other. It did not result from a thinking nor was it built upon reason and intellect. It is the creed of popular consensus to act upon this creed and it is not the creed of reason, i.e. its people did not establish its evidence rationally for its validity. An example of this is in France. LaTcite was submitted for majority vote in the House of Representatives (Chambre des deputes). In 3/7/1905 LaTcite received 341 votes for and 233 votes against. Then it was submitted to the Upper Legislative House on 6/12/1905 and the result was 181 votes for and 102 votes against. Thus, LaTcite became law binding upon the people, regardless of its validity or invalidity from the intellectual perspective. So, secularism does not have an intellectual justification for it. Instead, all of its justifications are historical alone, as an expression of the experience of people. The corruption of these justifications are not hidden to any sane person. If someone were to say, ‘The West suffered from the religion, and it was declined by it. When the West separated religion from life, the West was revived.’ However, he can be rebutted by saying, ‘Muslims were revived and elevated with the religion. When they became weak in understanding their religion, when it was removed from their life, they declined.’ Therefore, the historical judgments expressing the experience of people is not suitable as a rational evidence to establish the validity of the creed. There must be intellectual justifications and rational evidence, and secularism lacks these.

此外,西方将宗教仅仅视为个人关切的事务,是在逃避问题。因此,西方无法从根本上解决这一问题:既不能承认宗教及其在生活和社会中的作用,也不能主张彻底消除宗教、否定宗教。西方选择的是一种妥协式的折中,即将宗教与生活分离,使其仅成为个人信仰与无神论的问题。这表明西方并没有真正解决这一问题,而是在逃避它。逃避解决问题,意味着问题依然存在、继续延续。正因如此,社会学家彼得·伯格(Peter L. Berger)说了一番话。他曾是20世纪60年代最积极的世俗化主张者之一,但在其著作《世界的去世俗化:宗教的复兴与世界政治》中表达了这样的看法:“虽然‘世俗化理论’一词指的是20世纪50年代和60年代的著作,但该理论的核心思想确实可以追溯到启蒙运动。这一思想很简单:现代化必然导致宗教在社会和个人心灵中的衰落。而恰恰是这一核心思想被证明是错误的。诚然,现代化产生了一些世俗化的效果,在某些地方比在其他地方更明显。但它也引发了强大的反世俗化运动。” 因此,宗教与生活的关系问题依然存在,而西方思想至今尚未对其加以研究并给出答案。

Moreover, it is the West that makes religion a matter for individual concern alone, fleeing away from the problem. Thus the West is incapable of solving the problem radically, either by acknowledging religion and its role in life and society, or by advocating the elimination of religion completely, by denying it. Instead of that, the West chose the conciliatory compromise of separating religion from life, leaving it as an issue of belief and atheism for individuals. This reveals that the West did not actually solve the problem, fleeing away from the problem instead. Fleeing away from solving the problem means the problem still persists and continues to exist. This is what prompted the famous sociologist, Peter L. Berger, who was one of the most vocal advocates of secularism in the 1960s, to express in his book, The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, “Although the term “secularization theory” refers to works from the 1950s and 1960s, the key idea of the theory can indeed be traced to the Enlightenment. That idea is simple: Modernization necessarily leads to a decline of religion, both in society and in the minds of individuals. And it is precisely this key idea that has turned out to be wrong. To be sure, modernization has had some secularizing effects, more in some places than in others. But it has also provoked powerful movements of counter-secularization.” Accordingly, the question about the relation of religion to life still continues to exist, which the Western thinking has yet to study and provide an answer for.

3- 脱离宗教与生活分离的信条自相矛盾，因为它同时既肯定又否定宗教。主张将宗教与生活分离，本身就是在肯定宗教，因为两件事物之间的分离，承认并肯定了二者的存在。分离只会发生在两个已经存在的事物之间，既不会发生在两个不存在的事物之间，也不会发生在一个存在的事物与一个不存在的事物之间。至于在肯定宗教之后又否定宗教，这可以从宗教的实质本身得到理解。宗教是对造物主的信仰，以及对复活与审判之日的信仰。信仰造物主要求承认造物主所具有的完美属性，例如全能、主宰、管理一切事务以及对万物的全知。然而，将宗教与生活分离的做法否定了这一信仰，否定了造物主的属性，也否定了他的主宰之能和管理一切事务的能力。既然宗教要求人们相信审判之日，那么这种分离也就否定了审判之日，同样也否定了审判中所依据的善功。难道造物主应当依据他所命令和禁止的事来清算人们，还是应当依据西方人的推理所规定的命令和禁止来清算人们呢？

3- The creed of separating religion from life contradicts itself. This is because it both affirms and negates religion at the same time. By advocating the separation of religion from life, it affirms religion, since separation between two matters acknowledges and affirms the existence of both of them. Separation occurs between two existing things. Separation neither occurs between two non-existent things nor between an existing thing and a non-existent thing. As for the negation of religion after its affirmation, it is understood from the reality of religion itself. Religion is a belief in the Creator and in the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. Belief in the Creator mandates acknowledging of the attributes of perfection for the Creator such as ability, governance, managing all the affairs and complete knowledge of everything. However, the separation of religion from life negates this belief. It negates the attributes of the Creator and negates his ability of governance and managing all the affairs. Since religion mandates the belief in the Day of Judgment, the separation negates it, just as it negates the deeds for (the day of) judgment. Should the Creator account upon what He commands and prohibits or is he to account upon what is commanded and prohibited, by the reasoning of Western man?

此外,对造物主的肯定,也要求我们对他与受造物的关系持有一种观点。造物主与受造物的关系,要么由造物主来界定,要么由受造物来界定。至于受造物,由于其无能、有缺陷且有局限,加之它对造物主关于受造物的意志(Iradathul Khaliq)一无所知,除非造物主亲自告知,因此它不适合去界定自己与造物主的关系。由此可见,界定造物主与受造物的关系,唯有造物主自己有权。这里便产生了一个问题:如果按照西方的观念,宗教要与生活分离,或者说与造物主的制度分离,那么还有谁来界定造物主与受造物的关系呢?如果说这种关系由受造物来界定,那是不成立的,我们在上文已经阐明。如果说这种分离的关系由造物主自己界定,那么证据在哪里?若西方观念确有依据,那便是《圣经》中的那句话:“凯撒的物当归给凯撒,神的物当归给神。”(希腊文:ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ)。然而,这一证据并不成立,因为它不是对全人类普遍有效的理性证据。它至多只能为基督徒按照其扭曲的基督教理解,为宗教与生活的分离提供正当性,但这并不能为穆斯林等其他人群的政教分离提供正当理由,因为伊斯兰教要求将凯撒(统治者)及其一切所有物都归于安拉(swt)。因此,把世俗主义作为全人类的信条,是站不住脚的。

Furthermore, the affirmation of the Creator mandates a view about his relationship with the created. The relation of the Creator with the creation is to be either defined by the Creator, or by the creation. As for the creation, it is not suitable to define its relationship with the Creator due to its inability, deficiency and limitation. This is in addition to its lack of knowledge about the Will of the Creator (Iradathul Khaliq) pertaining to creation, unless the Creator Himself informs the creation. Accordingly, defining the relationship of the Creator with the creation is exclusive to the Creator Himself alone. Here the question arises: who else is to define the relationship of the Creator with creation, if, according to the Western conception, there is to be a separation of religion, or the system of the Creator? If it is said that the relationship is defined by the created, then it is invalid, as we have clarified above. If it is said that such a relationship of separation is defined by the Creator himself, then where is the evidence for it? If there is any evidence of the Western conception, then it is the expression of the Bible, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s (Greek: AttoSote ouv tci Kaioapog Kafoapi koi to toO OeoO to) 0£(jj).” However, this evidence is invalid because it is not rational evidence for all of humanity, universally. This is because the evidence may give legitimacy to separating the religion from the life for Christians at best, according to their distorted understanding of Christianity. However, this does not justify the separation of religion for others like Muslims, as Islam renders Caesar (the ruler) and all his possessions to Allah (swt). Thus, it is invalid for secularism to be the creed of humanity as a whole.