4.2 世俗主义作为一种思想基础的腐化 - 驳斥资本主义西方思想 | System Of Islam

4.2 世俗主义作为一种思想基础的腐化 - 驳斥资本主义西方思想 | System Of Islam

0% read · 2 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

4.2 世俗主义作为一种思想基础的腐化

4.2 The Corruption of Secularism as an Intellectual Basis

by Hizb Ut Tahrir2 min readViewed 150 times

世俗主义,或者说宗教与生活的分离,是西方思想体系赖以建立的知识基础,其各类裁决也由此而出。思想的建构,指的是以其根源来衡量每一种思想。若某一思想与根源相符,便被接受;若与根源相悖,便被摒弃。在这些思想之中,便包括对造物主存在的立场,即管理一切事务的那位主宰。这一思想,也就是造物主的存在,与否定造物主管理事务的世俗主义根源相互矛盾。这是因为世俗主义并不将造物主视为管理一切事务的主宰,它不把宗教与生活相联系。至于裁决的产生,则是指从根本的、奠基性的思想即信仰所认可的来源中,提供与生活事务管理相关的解决方案。西方信仰所认可的来源是人,或是人的理性,因为世俗主义否认宗教与生活之间的关系。由此,世俗主义便承认唯独由人制定法律的根本原则。

Secularism or the separation of religion from life is the Western intellectual basis upon which its thoughts are built and from which its rulings. What is intended by the building of thoughts is the measure of each thought upon its root. If a thought agrees with the root, then it is accepted. If it disagrees with the root, then it is rejected. Amongst these thoughts is the stance towards the existence of a Creator, the one who manages all the affairs. This thought i.e. the existence of a Creator, contradicts with the root of secularism that negates the management of affairs by the Creator. This is because secularism does not consider the Creator as the one who manages all the affairs, through connecting religion with life. As for the emergence of rulings, it means providing solutions related to taking care of the affairs of life from a source acknowledged by the fundamental, foundational thought i.e. the creed. The source acknowledged by the Western creed is man or his reasoning, since secularism negates the relationship of religion with life. Secularism thereby acknowledges the root of making legislation by man alone.

因此，矛盾是这一思想基础的特征之一。建立在其上的各种思想相互矛盾，把对立面结合在一起，将真理与谬误混杂。西方思想承认达尔文的理论，却又在暗中承认造物的观念和造物主的存在，这并不令人意外。它一方面承认教会的尊贵，一方面又与之斗争，这也不足为奇。我们发现一些西方宪法规定政教分离，并将其列为不可撤销的宪法条款，同时又规定人民自己统治自己，这同样不足为奇。这里的矛盾是显而易见的，前提是我们假设西方人整体上信仰宗教，并将其视为管理生活事务的制度。在这种情况下，将宗教与生活分离就与人民的意愿相违背。然而，如果我们假设西方人整体上是无神论者，否认宗教本身的存在，那么这一宪法条款就毫无意义，因为仅凭无神论者的存在，它便无从谈起。

Accordingly, contradiction is amongst the features of this intellectual basis. The thoughts that are built upon this are contradictory by combining opposites, mixing truth with falsehood. It is not a surprise that the Western thought acknowledges Darwin’s theory, although it implicitly acknowledges the idea of creation and the presence of a Creator. It is also not a surprise that it acknowledges the nobility of the Church, whilst fighting against it. There is even no surprise for us to find some of the Western constitutions stipulating the separation between Church and State, which is an irrevocable constitutional article, whilst stipulating at the same time the ruling of the people by themselves. Here the contradiction is apparent if we assume that Westerners as a whole believed in religion, as a system of life’s affairs. In such a case, the separation of religion from life contradicts the will of people. However, if we assume that the Westerners as a whole are atheists, denying the very existence of religion, then in such a case there is no purpose for this constitutional article, given the presence of atheists alone.

因此，西方的思维并不深入探讨社会正义、工人权利和工会权利等思想。这些都是反资本主义的思想，然而资本主义最初的理念却被这些思想加以修补，构成了所谓的社会主义民主，并被视为最完善的制度。西方的立法和法律都依照"中庸"的尺度进行。人们提出建议、展开辩论，以便形成一种温和的表述，并经政治家和议员们达成一致，在相互妥协、协商一致的基础上达成共识。对他们而言，问题不在于对错、真伪，而在于在不同各方之间达成妥协。他们夸耀中庸，认为政治中的温和方案是他们之中最理想的选择。他们把中庸与民主紧密且必然地联系在一起，视之为民主不可或缺的一部分。诚然，以这种含义理解的中庸，是一种恶意的想法，它试图淡化问题，将真理与谬误混合，将正确与错误掺杂。这将给人类和社会带来损失，伪善与谎言将盛行，而人们也会逐渐背离对真理和正道的追求。

Thus the Western thinking does not delve into thoughts like social justice, workers’ rights and unions’ rights. These are anti-capitalist thoughts, yet capitalism’s original thoughts are patched up with these thoughts, constituting socialist democracy, which is considered as the finest system. Western legislation and laws proceed according to the measure of moderation. Suggestions are postulated and debates occur in order to create a moderate formulation, agreed upon by politicians and parliamentarians, with a conciliatory, consensus upon compromise. For them, the issue is not about right or wrong or truth or falsehood. Instead the issue is about creating compromise between different parties. They boast of moderation, considering the moderate solution in politics to be ideal amongst them. They closely and consequentially connected moderation to democracy, as an indispensable part of it. It is true that moderation with this meaning is the malicious idea to dilute matters, mix truth with falsehood and the correct with the wrong. This would lead to loss for humans and society, whereby hypocrisy and lies would prevail, whilst people would turn away from seeking truth and guidance.