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.

从实质上讲,信条赋予人类对构成基本思想之问题的确定性肯定。这种肯定可能与宗教相关,也可能无关,即对造物主和复活日的信仰。共产主义者相信,即确定地肯定,上帝不存在,宇宙是物质性的。穆斯林相信,即确定地肯定,上帝存在,创造的本质是有一位造物主。因此,确定性肯定是考量信条的基础。无论这种肯定本身的性质如何,即无论它是宗教性的还是非宗教性的,都是如此。这种确定性只能以肯定者所依据的证据为基础。因此,信条就是基于证据的确定性肯定,无论肯定者所依据的证据是何种性质。

In its reality, creed grants human beings decisive affirmation over the issues that form fundamental thoughts. This affirmation may or may not be connected to religion i.e. the belief in the Creator and the Day of Resurrection. Communists believe, i.e. affirm decisively, in the absence of God and the materialistic nature of the universe. Muslims believe, i.e. affirm decisively, in the existence of God and the nature of creation having a Creator. So, decisive affirmation is the basis for consideration of creed. This is irrespective of the nature of the affirmation itself, as to whether it is religious or areligious. The decisiveness can only be with evidence by the one who affirms it. Accordingly, the creed is the decisive affirmation of the evidence, regardless of the nature of the evidence relied on by the one who affirms it.

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.

诚然,就其任何一种或多种特性而言,证据只是表明其构成并指出其形成的来源。然而,这并不妨碍它本身就是证据。因此,哲学家、神学家或西方思想家将证据称为方法、所指、指示物或符号,并不改变证据的实质与本质。同样,无论神学家将良心、实用主义者将利益、道德主义者将道德属性、理性主义者将理性视为信仰与信条的基础,也都不改变这一点。他们在本质上都相信证据,尽管他们在证据的种类及其性质上存在分歧。

Indeed, with respect to any one or more of its characteristics, the evidence only expresses its constitution and identifies its source of formation. However, it does not prevent it from being an evidence per se. Therefore, whether the philosophers, theologians or Western thinkers name the evidence as method, denotation, indicator or sign, does not change the reality and essence of evidence. It is also regardless of whether the theologians consider conscience, pragmatists consider benefits, moralists consider the moral attribute or rationalists consider rationalism as the basis of belief and creed. All of them believe in evidence essentially, although they differ over the type of evidence and its nature.

如果理解了这一点，就能看出西方在信仰研究与探讨层面上的错误。研究不应致力于探讨信仰是靠证据确立还是依靠证据之外的东西，因为人类中信仰的实际情形是：它只能通过证据来确立。因此，研究必须致力于考察信仰所依据之证据的有效性。既然人类整体上的确定性认可只能来自证据，那么这种证据必须是科学的、理性主义的、逻辑的，还是其他某种理性的形式？认为所有证据都能达到确定性的认可，是否恰当？这些问题都属于研究的层面。

If this is comprehended, the error at the level of study and inquiry in the West for the creed can be seen. The study must not be devoted to the nature of affirmation of evidence or other than evidence. This is because the reality of creed amongst humankind is that it can only be affirmed by evidence. The research must therefore be devoted to the validity of the evidence upon which the creed depends. Does it have to be scientific, rationalistic, logical or rational something else, considering that decisive affirmation amongst the whole of humankind can only come from the evidence? Is it appropriate to consider that all evidences achieve the decisive affirmation or not? This is at the level of study.

科学不适合作为信仰的证据，因为科学仅限于可以触及、可以感知并能用于研究和实验的事物。然而，神的存在虽可被感知，却不可触及；天堂、火狱和天使的存在既不可感知，也就无法接受实验。由此可见西方信仰观在概念、规定和条件上的错误。至于什么适合作为对任何事物作出确定肯定的证据，即信仰的证据，那便是理智，或称理性方法。正如我们上文所阐明的，理性是唯一适合作为人类思维基础的方法，判断由此建立，人的存在及其生命目的的全面观点也由此确立。因此，我们对西方信仰的看法，即确立其无效与败坏，是以理智为基础的，是以理性方法来评判事物与问题的。西方信仰的扭曲可以通过若干方面从理性上得到证明，它们是：

Science is not suitable as evidence for creed because science is limited to issues that are tangible and sensed for research and experimentation. However, the existence of God is not tangible, though sensed, whilst the existence of paradise, hellfire and angels is not sensed and so they cannot be subjected to experimentation. Hence the error of the Western view of the creed, in terms of concept, stipulation and condition, becomes apparent. As for what is suitable as evidence for the decisive affirmation of anything, i.e. as evidence for creed, it is the intellect or the rational method. As we have clarified above, it is the only method that is suitable as a basis of thinking for humans, upon which the judgments are built and the comprehensive view of the existence of man and his purpose in life are established. Accordingly, our view towards the Western creed, in terms of establishing its invalidity and corruption is based on the intellect. It is based on the rational method to judge upon things and issues. The distortion of the Western creed is rationally established indicated by a number of aspects, which are:

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.

2- 由于世俗主义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，双方各自让步，放弃了部分诉求，因此它代表了一种妥协的解决方案。在此背景下，我们需要研究这一信条的起源实际，这样的研究将帮助我们厘清现代西方思想中相互矛盾的逻辑。我们提出以下问题：教士在哪些事务上作出了让步？教士让步的，是宗教性的诉求的一部分，还是教权性的诉求的一部分？

2- Since secularism emerged as a compromise solution to the conflict between Church on one side, with thinkers and rulers on the other, it represented a compromise solution, whereby both parties conceded part of their demands. In this context, we are in need of study into the reality of this creed in terms of origin. Such a study would clarify the contradictory logic of modern Western thought for us. We ask the following questions: Over what matters did the clergy concede? Did the clergy concede a part of a religious demand or a clerical demand?

如果说教士们让步了部分宗教诉求，这就肯定了宗教确实与生活有关联。因此，就宗教诉求而言，将宗教与生活分离是不适当的。这将表明西方信条坚持政教分离的错误。然而，如果说教士们让步的是他们自身的教会诉求，而非宗教诉求，这就意味着宗教实际上与生活毫无关系。这同样会使教士与思想家之间达成的、规定宗教与生活分离的协议失效。因为那将是对一个并不存在的争端达成的协议，因为在这种情况下，宗教与生活并无关联，也就不存在迫使实行分离的条件。

If it is said that the clergy conceded part of a religious demand, this affirms that religion has, in fact, a relation to life. So in the case of the religious demand it is not appropriate to separate religion from life. This would show the error of Western creed in insisting on the separation of religion. However, if it is said that the clergy conceded part of its own clerical demands, not religious demands, this would mean that the religion has, in fact, no relation to life. This would also invalidate the agreement that took place between the clergymen and thinkers, stipulating the separation of religion from life. That is because it would be the agreement upon a non-existent dispute, as there would be no relation of religion to life in this case, to compel the condition of separation.

“有人可能会说：按照西方的观点，‘宗教’指的就是教士，因为教会与宗教之间曾存在联系。因此，西方并不区分两者。”然而，对此的反驳是：“这将否定世俗主义作为一种普世信条、适用于全人类的本质。因为它建立在西方的宗教经验之上，所以不宜将其推广到整个人类。”这是从一个方面来看。从另一个方面来看，这种妥协性的调和方案，不能用来在不同的观点和思想之间进行判别。妥协是为了在利益相互冲突的各方之间达成协调而采用的手段。然而，

Here, one might say: ‘Religion means the clergy according to the Western perspective, as there existed a connection between the Church and religion. Accordingly, the West does not differentiate between both.’ However, the rebuttal would be: ‘this would invalidate the nature of secularism being a universal creed, appropriate for all of humankind. This is because it is based on the Western experience of religion and so it is not suitable to generalize upon the whole of humanity.’ This is from one aspect. From another aspect, the compromise solution is a compromising conciliation that cannot be used to discriminate between opinions and thoughts. Compromise is deployed for conciliation amongst peoples with conflicting interests. However,

对一个思想的判断，会揭示它的性质：要么无效且错误，要么正确且有效。健全的心智不会接受将真理与谬误、光明与黑暗混合在一起、相互妥协的调和。

judgment upon a thought reveals its characteristic as either being invalid and wrong, or correct and valid. A sound mind does not accept combining truth and falsehood, light and darkness, in a compromising conciliation.

因此,世俗主义实际上是两个对立群体之间的一种妥协方案。一个群体是拒绝宗教的人,他们赋予自己让理性主义观点让步的权威。另一个群体是坚持宗教的人,他们赋予自己让宗教观点让步的权威。这证明世俗主义是人与人之间通过相互妥协与调和而产生的,是两个相互冲突的群体之间的折中解决办法。这种解决或调和并非发生在真正的理性主义思想与宗教本身之间。这表明宗教与理性主义思想之间的冲突至今依然存在。这也表明,西方思想并未为问题的根源提供一个合乎理性的解决方案。直到今天,西方社会关于宗教及其与政治关系的争论中仍可以看到这一点。

Accordingly, secularism is in fact a compromise solution amongst two conflicting groups. One group is of those who reject religion, giving themselves the authority to compromise rationalist opinion. The other group is of those who adhere to religion, giving themselves the authority to concede religious opinion. This affirms that secularism emerged as a result of compromising conciliation between men, as a compromise resolution between two conflicting parties. Such a resolution or reconciliation did not occur between the actual rationalist thought and religion in themselves. This indicates that the conflict between religion and rationalist thought continues to exist until this day. This also indicates that Western thought did not provide a rational solution to the root of the problem. This can be observed in debates about religion and its relation to politics until this day within the Western society.

可以这样反驳：有人或许会说，西方以不去审视这一争议的方式结束了争论，并把问题的主题改为个人的利益。对此的回应是：造物主的存在、主宰者的存在，以及一种规范人类事务的宗教，这些问题属于全人类的问题，而不是个人主义的问题。它关乎人作为人的身份，而不是作为某个个体的身份。证明此问题属于全人类的依据是，它关系到全体人类。正因如此，自古至今，人类都重视这一问题。因此，宗教并非个人主义的问题。然而，恰恰是西方想要把它变成个人主义的问题，尽管它是全人类的问题。

It may be said here: ‘The West has ended the dispute by not examining it and made the subject of the problem the interests of individuals instead.’ The rebuttal to this is: ‘The issue of the existence of the Creator, the Lord and a religion that organizes the affairs of man is an issue of humanity in general and not an individualistic issue. It is related to man in his capacity as a human and not in his capacity as being an individual. The evidence for the issue being an issue of humanity is that it concerns the humans as a whole. It is this that is given importance by humankind, since ancient times until the present day. Thus religion is not an individualistic issue. However, it is the West that wants to make it an individualistic issue, even though it is an issue for all of humanity.

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.

4- 政教分离的信条同样与人的本能天性相悖。它在隐含地承认宗教的同时，也就承认了人类天生的、本能的神圣崇拜之情。世俗主义既然承认宗教，也就承认了满足这种神圣崇拜本能的必要性。然而，世俗主义随后又将这种满足局限于个人的圣化与敬拜。但是，神圣崇拜的本能并不只在个人敬拜中显现，它也会在人感到无能为力、有所需求的一切其他事务中显露出来。由于世俗主义将宗教与生活割裂开来，它便否定了人类无能与需要的事实，也就是说，它拒绝并否认了人类本能构造中的一部分。

4- The creed of secularism is a creed that also contradicts the instinctual nature of humans. By implicitly acknowledging religion, it acknowledges the instinct of religious sanctification, which is natural and instinctive in humans. By acknowledging religion, secularism acknowledges the necessity of satiating the instinct of sanctification. Despite that, secularism then restricts that satiation to individual sanctification and worship alone. However, the instinct of sanctification does not appear in individual worship alone. It will also appear and be apparent in all other matters in which one is incapable and needy. Since secularism separates religion and life, it negates the reality of human incapability and need, i.e. it rejects and denies a part of the human instinctive constitution.

世俗主义将宗教缩减为造物主与受造者之间的一种个人化、个体性的关系。一方面，世俗主义承认宗教是用于个人修身和崇拜的；但另一方面，它忽视了人类在管理集体事务和治理方面所感到的无能与不足。人在管理自身生活事务时，即在组织与满足本能和身体需求相关的行为时，表现出差异、参差与矛盾。这表明人是无能为力的，需要造物主，即那位管理一切事务的主。因此，由管理一切事务的造物主所命定的宗教或制度，本就属于人的本能之一。唯有造物主才知晓人的隐秘，而这正是管理人类事务的根基。

Secularism reduced religion to a personal, individualistic relationship between the Creator and the created. Secularism recognizes on the one hand that religion is for individual sanctification and worship, but on the other hand, it ignores the human feelings of inability and shortcomings in managing the collective affairs of humans and governance. Man in managing his own affairs of life, i.e. in organizing his behavior related to satiating his instincts and organic needs, shows differences, disparity and contradiction. This indicates that man is incapable and is in need of the Creator, the One who manages all the affairs. Accordingly, the religion or the system commanded by the Creator, the one who manages all the affairs, is amongst the human instincts. The Creator alone is the One who knows the secrets of man, which is the basis of managing the affairs of man.

综上所述,政教分离主义这一信条是无效的信条,因为它与理性和天性相矛盾。我们并没有说错:人所知的政教分离主义信条是一种虚假的信条,其根基脆弱,其论据浅薄,其思想体系也同样脆弱。

In conclusion, the creed of secularism is an invalid creed because of its contradiction to reason and instinct. We are not wrong to say that the creed of secularism, known by man, is a false creed whose foundation is fragile, whose justifications are superficial and whose intellectual edifice is fragile.