目的不能证明手段的正当性,因为方法与思想本身是不可分割的。因此,义务与许可之事不能通过实施被禁止的行为来达成。政治手段不得与政治方法相抵触。

Ends do not justify means, because the method is integral to the thought. Thus, the obligation and the permitted cannot be attained by performing a forbidden action. Political means must not contradict the political methods.

安拉(求其赦宥)为人类的问题制定了律法,如贸易、租赁、合伙等,又制定了其他律法,以便在人与人之间施行这些处理办法,例如对在贸易中欺诈者施以酌情惩处(Ta'zir),以及对盗窃者施以断手的定罪惩罚(Hadd)。同样地,安拉(求其赦宥)也制定了律法,以处理伊斯兰国与非信仰国家之间出现的问题,例如关于受条约保护者和受庇护者的规定,关于战争之地(Dar Al-Harb)的规定,以及以引人注目的方式向其传达伊斯兰呼吁的规定等等。安拉(求其赦宥)还制定了其他律法以施行这些规定,例如受庇护者的血液和财产与穆斯林的血液和财产同等受到保护,以及在未以引人注目的方式向非信仰者传达伊斯兰呼吁之前禁止与其作战,等等。 因此,伊斯兰的方法就是沙里亚的律法,胜利不能通过背信弃义而获得,征服也不能通过违反条约而达成。正如目标必须由沙里亚来界定,用以达成目标的手段也必须是沙里亚所允许的,因为目标和手段都属于崇拜者的行为,而使行为被允许或被禁止的,是沙里亚的证据,而不是由行为所产生的结果,也不是行为所追求的目标。安拉(求其赦宥)说:

Allah (swt) set rules in order to treat the problems of man, such as trade, renting, partnerships and so on, and set other rules in order to implement these treatments between the people, such as the discretionary (Ta’zir) punishment for the one who cheats in trade and cutting the hand of the thief as a prescribed punishment (Hadd). And in the same manner, He (swt) set rules to treat the problems that occur between the Islamic State and the disbelieving states, such as the rules regarding the one who is covered by a treaty and the one who takes amnesty, and the rules regarding the Dar Al-Harb and the rules regarding conveying the call to Islam to them in a way that attracts attention, and so on. And He (swt) set other rules in order to implement these rules, such as the protection of the blood and property of someone who has amnesty being equivalent to the blood and property of the Muslim, and the prohibition of fighting the disbeliever before they have been called to Islam in a manner which attracts attention, and so on. Therefore, the method in Islam is the Shari’ah rules, and so victory is not achieved through betrayal and conquest is not achieved through breaking a treaty. So in the same way that the goal must be defined by the Shari’ah, what is used to reach that goal must be from what the Shari’ah permitted, since the goal and the means are both part of the actions of the worshipper, and what makes the action permitted or forbidden is the Shari’ah evidence, and not the results which are produced by it, nor the goal which is sought by it since Allah (swt) says:

“并且你当依真主所降示的（经典）在他们之间做出裁决，”（TMQ 5:49）

“And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah (swt) has revealed.” (TMQ 5:49),

这些行为所产生的结果或所要达到的目的，而是手段的裁定同样以沙里尔（Shari'ah）的证据为依据，正如目标的裁定一样。换言之，沙里尔的证据既然决定了目标的许可或禁止，这本身就说明：目标并不能使手段合法化，即如果有沙里尔的证据禁止了某种手段，那么即使其目标是被允许的，该手段也不因此被允许。因此，手段并不因为其所欲达到的目标是被允许的、必须的、推荐的，或者因为其目标有益、有善或带来胜利，而成为被允许的；相反，如果沙里尔允许该手段，它才是被允许的；如果沙里尔禁止它，它就是被禁止的。换言之，它必须符合沙里尔的规定，因为穆斯林的一切行为都必须受沙里尔的指导，并与沙里尔的裁定相一致。因为沙里尔的裁定，其定义就是立法者（subhanahu wa ta'ala）所发布的、与崇拜者行为相关的训令，因此，穆斯林的一切行为都必须与沙里尔的裁定相符，这是必然的。

not by what results the actions produce, or these actions are used to reach, and so the rule regarding the means is the Shari’ah evidence just like the rule regarding the goal. In other words, the fact that the Shari’ah evidence is what establishes the permissibility or impermissibility of the goal is evidence that the goal does not justify the means, in other words, does not make it permitted if there is Shari’ah evidence which has forbidden it. Accordingly the means are not permitted because its intended goal was permitted, or obligatory, or recommended, or because its goal had benefit or good or a victory; rather the means would be permitted if the Shari’ah permitted it and would be forbidden if the Shari’ah forbade it. In other words, it must be in accordance with the rules of the Shari’ah, because every action of the Muslim must be directed by the Shari’ah, and agree with the Shari’ah rule, because the definition of the Shari’ah rule is the address of the Legislator (swt) connected to the actions of the worshippers, and so it is obligatory that all the actions of the Muslim are in accordance with the Shari’ahh rule.

因此,穆斯林拒绝并不认同"目的可以证明手段正当"这一原则。伊斯兰教确实有从其经据中推演出的原则,使达成目标所用的手段也具有目标的裁决,例如:"通向被禁之事的手段也是被禁的";再如:"若许可之事中的某一类会导致危害,则只禁止那一类,其余仍然许可";还有:"没有它就无法完成的义务,它本身也是义务"。但这是在手段本身是许可或义务的前提下。反之,如果手段是被禁止的,那么无论目标是义务还是许可,目标都不会使其变为许可,手段仍然是被禁止的。依此理解,目的并不证明手段正当;换言之,义务或许可的目标,不会使被禁止的手段变为许可。这篇文章正是依照此理解撰写的。

Based upon this, the Muslims reject and disapprove of the principle that the ends justify the means. It is correct that Islam has principles deduced from its evidences that give the means used to reach the goal the rule of the goal, such as the principle: “The means to something forbidden is also forbidden”, and such as the principle: “If one type of a permitted thing leads to a harm, only that one is prohibited, and the thing remains permitted”, and the principle: “That, without which the obligation cannot be accomplished, is itself an obligation”, however this is if the means is permitted or obligatory. If, on the other hand, the means are forbidden, then the goal does not make it permitted, whether it was obligatory or permitted; rather the means would remain forbidden. From this understanding, the goal does not justify the means, or in other words, the obligatory or permitted goal does not make the forbidden means permitted. The article was drafted in accordance with this.