人类共同的“自由”这一概念，本义是与奴役或被奴役相对立的状态。这正是该词自最初使用以来，在人类语言遗产中所承载的真实含义。随着时间推移，它的内涵才逐渐延伸到其他事务上。因此，这一术语也被用来表达各民族的语言、文化与文明中，与奴役状态相对照的种种隐喻性含义。

The original concept of freedom for all of humankind is that it is the opposite to slavery or enslavement. This is the real meaning of the term that has been mentioned in the linguistic heritage of humankind, since the term was first used. Then, over time, its connotation extended to other matters. So the term was used to express metaphorical meanings that express the paradox state of slavery according to the languages, cultures and civilizations of the nations.

在西方词典中,"freedom"一词的含义是与奴役相对。Jacqueline Russ在《哲学方法》(法文:Les méthodes en philosophie)中指出:"关于'自由'这一术语的概念清单更加丰富、更具意义:依附、奴役、servitude、征服、约束、阻碍、压迫、决定论、命运、宿命论等,都是有待界定的术语或概念。"(法文:La liste concernant le terme liberté est encore plus significative et plus riche : dépendance, esclavage, servitude, assujettissement, contrainte, entrave, oppression, déterminisme, destin, fatalité, etc., sont autant de termes ou concepts à cerner)。它的含义是不存在外在的约束。西方人从中看出,它表示在某种选择或行为上没有约束、没有必然性或强制。西方人也用它来表示独立与主权。因此,自由之人是不受外在约束或来自外部的强制力所支配的人,他不服从任何主人。

In the dictionaries of the West, the word freedom comes with the meaning of opposite to slavery. Jacqueline Russ states in Methods in Philosophy (French: Les methodes en philosophie), states, “The list concerning the term freedom is even more significant and richer: dependence, slavery, servitude, subjugation, constraint, hindrance, oppression, determinism, fate, fatalism, etc., are all terms or concepts to be defined.” (French: La liste concernant le terme liberte est encore plus significative et plus riche: dependance, esclavage, servitude, assujettissement, contrainte, entrave, oppression, determinisme, destin, fatalite, etc., sont autant de termes ou concepts a cerner). It has the meaning of the absence of external constraints. Westerners have noticed in it the meaning that gives the absence of constraints or necessity or coercion, over a choice or action. It is also used amongst Westerners with the meaning of independence and sovereignty. Thus a free man is the one who is not subjected to external constraints or coercive force from outside of him. He follows no master.

从人类几乎所有民族对这个词的语言用法来看，"自由"一词的普遍含义显然是摆脱束缚，无论这束缚是物质上的还是道德上的。自古以来，它的概念便与任何社会中盛行的文明和文化的具体特征相联系。尽管如此，这个词长期以来只是通过其反面，即奴役，来加以界定。其派生的、衍生的或现代的含义，都是通过观察与奴役相对立的解放之义而逐步形成的。正如亚里士多德在《政治学》中所言："这难道不是说，他们是以善与恶这两个原则来区分自由与奴役、高贵出身与卑微出身的吗？"

From the linguistic usage of the word, amongst almost all of humankind, it is apparent that the consensus meaning of the word freedom is the emancipation from constraints, whether they are material or moral. Since ancient times, its concept has been associated with the specifics of the civilization and culture prevalent in any society. Despite that, the term was defined only with its opposite i.e. slavery. Its derivative or generated or modern meanings were only built by observing the meaning of emancipation, as opposed to slavery. As Aristotle states in his Politics, by saying, “What does this mean but that they distinguish freedom and slavery, noble and humble birth, by the two principles of good and evil?”.

人类只有在观察到奴役的含义，或与之相近的其他含义，如压迫、强制、胁迫和武力之后，才认识到自由的含义，这是一些哲学家的看法。启蒙运动时期的西方哲学家和思想家在十八世纪采纳自由这一观念，并赋予其现代的思想和政治内涵时，并没有偏离这一方法。他们把中世纪的生活描绘为没有意志和权力的奴隶的生活。他们把教会及其宗教权威，以及国王及其政治权威，描绘为奴役人民的主人，篡夺了人民思考、表达、拥有和享受生活的意志。

Humanity has perceived the meaning of freedom only after observing the meaning of slavery or other similar meanings attached to it such as oppression, coercion, compulsion and force, according to some of the philosophers. Western philosophers and thinkers of the Enlightenment era did not deviate from this method when they adopted the idea of freedom, with its modern intellectual and political concepts, in the eighteen century CE. They depicted their life in the Middle Ages as the life of slaves who have no will or power. They depicted the Church, with its religious authority, and kings, with their political authorities, as masters who enslave people, usurping the people’s will to think, express, possess and enjoy life.

因此,他们的斗争是为了意志与主权。他们追求解放,即摆脱教会及其教义的束缚,也摆脱统治者及其暴政的桎梏。于是,"自由"一词涵盖了所有这些内容。自由成为西方文明的支柱之一。安德鲁·海伍德在其著作《政治与国际关系核心概念》中写道:"自由常被视为西方自由主义社会中至高无上的政治价值。其优点在于,与人是理性的、有自主意志的造物这一观念相结合,它承诺满足人类的利益或实现人类的潜能。简言之,自由是幸福与福祉的基础。"

Thus, their struggle was for the sake of will and sovereignty. They sought liberation i.e. the emancipation from the constraints of the Church and its teachings, as well as the emancipation from the shackles of the rulers and their tyranny. So the word freedom encapsulated all of this. Freedom became one of the pillars of the Western civilization. Andrew Heywood states in his book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, that, “Freedom is often considered to be the supreme political value in Western liberal societies. Its virtue is that, attached to the idea that human beings are rationally self- willed creatures, it promises the satisfaction of human interests or the realization of human potential. In short, freedom is the basis for happiness and well-being.”.

然而，西方在启蒙时代并不专注于绝对的自由。相反，它关注的是一种与个人主义理念相契合的个人自由。这种观念以人在今世的出发点为基础，将人与来世隔绝开来，认为人是宇宙的主宰。因此，十八和十九世纪公元时期所追求的、被称为自然自由或个人自由的那种自由，不同于此前的自由所包含的含义，比如古希腊人所理解的自由。例如，这一点在霍布斯、洛克、密尔、亚当·斯密和边沁的著作中都有体现。本杰明·贡斯当在1819年的著名演讲《古代人的自由与现代人的自由之比较》中对此予以有力强调，突出了古代自由与现代自由之间的鲜明差异。

However, the West, in its era of Enlightenment, did not focus on absolute freedom. Instead, it focused on a personal freedom in harmony with the idea of individualism, which settled upon the launching point of man in this worldly life is through isolating him from the Hereafter, as he is the master of the universe. Accordingly, the freedom known to be natural liberty or personal freedom that was sought in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE, is distinct from the connotations of previous freedoms, such as freedom known by the Greeks. It is apparent, for example, in the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Adam Smith and Bentham. This is strongly emphasized by Benjamin Constant in his famous speech, “The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns” of 1819, highlighting the stark difference between ancient and modern freedom.

因此,按照十八、十九世纪西方的自由观念,自由就是解除对个人的限制,让他自己处理自己的事务,行使其天赋权利,并以自己所希望的方式实现个人利益。这只有通过遏制国家的霸权、限制国家对其智识、经济、社会和政治事务的干预才可能实现。若必须有法律来使人从自然状态转变为文明状态,规范其在公民社会中的行为,那么这些法律也只能限于绝对必要的范围。基于这一观念,法国大革命之后,西方的宪章和宪法确立了个人的权利,其方式在于保全个人自由(liberty),并且形式上更接近绝对的自由。法国1789年的《人和公民权利宣言》(法文:Declaration des droits de I'homme et du citoyen de 1789)便是一例,其中规定:“第四条——自由就是做一切不损害他人的事情:因此,每个人行使其天赋权利,只受那些保障社会其他成员享有同样权利的界限的限制。这些界限只能由法律规定。”

Thus, according to the Western concept of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE, freedom is to lift restrictions upon an individual, by leaving his affairs to his self, to exercise his natural rights and to realize his personal interests in a way that he wishes. This can only be possible by curbing the hegemony of the state and limiting its interference in his intellectual, economic, social and political affairs. If there have to be laws to transform man from the state of nature into the civil state, regulating his behavior in a civil society, then they must be only to the extent that they are absolutely necessary. Based on this concept, the rights of the individual were established in the Western charters and constitutions, after the French revolution, in a manner that preserves individual freedom (liberty), in a form that is closer to absolute freedom. An example of this was France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (French: Declaration des droits de I'homme et du citoyen de 1789) which states, “Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.”.

事实上,这种自然或个人自由的观念与个人主义的观点相似。它只是对西方个人所遭受压迫的一种反应,并非对人、社会以及二者之间关系的本质进行深入而成熟的理性认识。人不可能在没有约束的情况下生活于社会之中,否则社会将变成丛林,强者将支配弱者。西方意识到了这一点,于是放弃了十八和十九世纪公元时期所理解的自由概念。它提出了"消极自由"这一术语,与新近提出的"积极自由"相对立。安德鲁·海伍德在其著作《政治学与国际关系核心概念》中指出:"现代自由主义者和社会主义者倾向于赞同一种积极的自由观,这种观点主张扩大国家的责任,特别是在福利和经济管理方面。当国家被视为对个人的外在约束时,它被认为是自由的敌人;而当国家为个人发展和自我实现创造条件时,它则被视为自由的保障。" 二十世纪公元时期,随着全球政治、社会和经济条件的变化,第一次世界大战的爆发、1917年布尔什维克革命的成功,以及各种危机的出现,西方开始重新审视自由的概念。它转而采纳另一个概念,称为公民自由,它进而包括个人、宗教、经济和政治自由。

In fact, this concept of natural or individual freedom is like the idea of individualism. It was only a reaction to the oppression suffered by the Western individuals. It was not a deep and crystallized intellectual perception that takes account of the reality of man, society and the nature of relationships between them. Man cannot live within society, without restrictions, otherwise, society would turn into a jungle, where the strong would dominate the weak. This matter was realized by the West and so it abandoned the concept of freedom as perceived during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE. It coined the term negative liberty as opposed to a newly theorized positive liberty. Andrew Heywood states in his book, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations, that, “modern liberals and socialists have tended to subscribe to a positive view of freedom that justifies widening the responsibilities of the state, particularly in relation to welfare and economic management. The state is regarded as the enemy of freedom when it is viewed as an external constraint on the individual, but as a guarantee of freedom when it lays down the conditions for personal development and self­ realization.” In the twentieth century CE, after the change of global political, societal and economic conditions, with the outbreak of the First World War and the success of Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, as well as the emergence of various crises, the West began to review the concept of freedom. It settled on another concept called civil liberty, which in turn includes personal, religious, economic and political freedom.

在他的著作《政治学原理》中，罗伯特·尼文·吉尔克里斯特（Robert Niven Gilchrist）论及公民自由时写道：“它可能意味着法治，即政府权力受既定法律的限制，这种限制或体现为一部包含指导和约束政府的基本原则的宪法，或如英国那样，法律平等、公正地适用于所有人，无论大人物还是小人物。这一意义上的术语可以称为公民自由。”这段话的含义是，西方已经放弃了启蒙时代所构想的自由观念。西方开始认识到，有必要通过监管性法律对国家施加限制，哪怕这些法律数量繁多。拉姆齐·缪尔（Ramsay Muir）在其文章《英国自由主义的前景》中说：“个人按自己的方式过自己的生活的自由，取决于一套法律体系的存在；这套法律由共同意志加以执行，能够制止强者以损害邻人的方式滥用其力量。”

In his book, Principles of Political Science, Robert Niven Gilchrist states of civil liberty that “it may mean the Rule of Law, that is, the limitation of the powers of government by established law, whether it be in the form of a constitution which contains fundamental principles to guide and limit the government, or, as in England, the fact that law applies equally and impartially, to all, to the greatest and humblest alike. This sense of the term may be, called Civil Liberty.” The meaning of this statement is that the West abandoned the idea of freedom, as conceived in the era of Enlightenment. The West began to see the necessity of imposing restrictions by the state with regulatory laws, even if they became many laws. Ramsay Muir said in his essay “The Prospect for British Liberalism” that “the freedom of the individual to live his own life in his own way depends upon the existence of a system of law, enforced by the common will, which can restrain the strong from abuse of their strength at the expense of their neighbors.”.

这样一来,西方的自由便服从于一种社会秩序,这种秩序允许个人在一定限度内行使其行为与活动。它成为一种有条件的或受限制的自由,受到其与法律和国家之间联系的制约。哈罗德·J·拉斯基在其著作《我们时代革命的反思》中写道:“这就是我们现今的社会秩序要求普通民众接受为自由的现实,而即便是这一现实,也必须以战争来捍卫,以抵御一种更加可怖的梦魇。”孟德斯鸠在其著作《论法的精神》中提出了对自由加以约束的观点,他说:“商业的自由并非授予商人为所欲为的权力:那与其说是自由,不如说是奴役。商人受到的约束,并非商业的约束。”

In this way, the freedom in the West became subject to a social order, which allowed individuals to exercise their actions and activities within limitations. It became a conditional or restricted freedom, limited by its connection with the laws and the state. Harold J Laski in his book, Reflection on the Revolution of Our Time, states “This is the reality for the mass of humankind which our present social order bids the common people accept as freedom; and even this reality must be defended by war against a nightmare even more hideous.” Montesquieu advocated, in his book, The Spirit of the Laws, the idea of constraint upon freedom saying, “The freedom of commerce is not a power granted to the merchants to do what they please: This would be more properly its slavery. The constraint of the merchant is not the constraint of commerce.”.

事实上，这种现代西方的自由观念，不仅仅是对旧有形式化自由观念的厌恶，相反，它实际上是对自由本身的厌恶。它与自由的本质完全相悖，尽管西方对此予以否认。自由实际上就是从各种束缚中解放出来。只有在这一意义上，自由才可以被称为自由。因此，当奴隶从主人那里获得解放时，人们说他获得了自由；当一片土地从殖民者手中解放出来时，人们说它获得了自由。每当“自由”一词被提起时，这便是每个人脑海中浮现的含义。这也是西方词典中所引用的含义，同时也是欧洲思想家和哲学家们所指的含义，他们正是为此在与教会和君主的斗争中奋力抗争。

In fact, this modern Western conception of freedom is not just aversion to the old formal conception. Instead, it is in fact an aversion to freedom itself. It is completely contradicting the essence of freedom, even though the West denies that. Freedom is in fact the emancipation from constraints. Freedom can only be called such in this sense. Thus, when a slave is emancipated from his master, he is said to be free. When a land is liberated from colonialists, it is said to be free. This is the meaning that comes to every mind when the word freedom is uttered. It is the quoted meaning in the dictionaries of the West. It is also the meaning intended by the thinkers and philosophers of Europe, for which they fought during their conflict with the Church and kings.

因此,西方当前的立场——即自由并不意味着没有限制、也不意味着从限制中解放出来——摧毁了西方文明所赖以建立的基础,抹去了其历史中以亚里士多德式的斗争为基础的传统:西方个人为了能够随心所欲地行事,从束缚其欲望与抱负的法律枷锁中解放自己。如果西方当前被称为公民自由的那种自由,被界定为西方政治学著作中所提到的主权法律,也就是说,如果自由服从于法律并与法律保持一致,那么这种自由与例如罗马人的自由之间有什么区别呢?

Hence, the current stance of the West, that freedom does not mean the absence of restrictions and emancipation from them, destroys the basis upon which the Western civilization was built, erasing its history based on an Aristotelian struggle for the Western individual to do whatever he wishes, liberating himself from the shackles of the law that restrained his desires and aspirations. If the current freedom in the West, called civil liberty, is defined as sovereign law, as mentioned in the books of Western political science, i.e. if freedom is subjected to the law and conformity with the law, then what is the difference between such a freedom and the freedom of the Romans for example?

难道这不是《查士丁尼法典》第一卷第一编“人的身份”下所界定的罗马式自由吗?其中写道:“自由是一个人天然所具有的做其所欲之事的能力,除非因强制或法律而被排除。”这是否意味着罗马文明就是自由的文明?这是否意味着欧洲人民在争取自由的革命爆发之前就已经是自由的?这是否还意味着,国王和恺撒过去都曾通过让人民服从法律、打击挑战法律的思想家来捍卫自由?如果现代西方传统中的自由意味着法律的主权,那就意味着世界上所有人民都是自由的,并且都享有自由。那么,为何只把“自由世界”的称号加在资本主义世界身上?当所有文明在这一点上都是平等的时候,有什么值得夸耀的呢?此外,西方启蒙运动的革命最初为何会发生?

Is it not the Roman freedom as defined in The Digest of Justinian, in its Volume 1, Book 1, under “Human Status,” which states that, “Freedom is one’s natural power of doing what one pleases, save insofar as it is ruled out either by coercion or by law.”? Does this mean that Roman civilization is the civilization of freedom? Does it mean that European people were already free, before the outbreak of the revolution for liberty? Does it also mean that kings and Caesar used to defend freedom, by making people submit to the law and fighting thinkers who challenged the law? If freedom in the modern Western tradition is to mean sovereignty of the law, then it means that all the people of the world are free and they enjoy freedom. So why adorn the capitalist world alone with the title of the free world? What is there to boast about, when all civilizations are equal in this? Moreover, why did the Western revolutions for Enlightenment take place in the first place?

在人类使用这一概念的历史中，"自由"一词无论如何定义，在被造者的行为中都是无法真正实现的。个人若生活在社会之中，就不可能不对自身行为施加限制，这些限制可以称为法律、秩序、规则、习俗、责任或其他名目。个人若要生活在群体之中，又不受组织人际关系的种种约束，除非他选择隔绝而独居。因此，绝对的自由只存在于一种想象中的自然状态里。

The term freedom, within the history of its usage amongst humankind, is unachievable in the actions of the created, whatever is said about its definition. It is not possible for an individual to exist in a society without imposing restrictions upon his behavior called law, order, rules, customs, responsibility or others. It is not possible for an individual to exist in a community, whilst living in a state of emancipation from the restrictions that organize the relationships, unless he chooses isolation and living alone. As such, absolute freedom exists only in the sense of an imaginary natural state.

至于人的真实状态，无论古今，无论东方还是西方，都是受约束的状态，也就是不自由的状态。因此，西方所谓的自由概念并不可信。只有将西方思想本身与自由联系起来，才能确定其语义上的有效性，这意味着西方的自由并非依其自身的绝对标准来界定，而是受制于特定语境。事实上，它是一个由其特定语境所界定的相对观念，这一语境就是西方的观念及其概念，或西方的意识形态及其文明。因此，西方的自由人，就是接受世俗主义、依照西方模式生活的人，而他同时又受到金融寡头、媒体和性的限制与束缚。自由的假象连西方人自己都心知肚明，他们受到的约束不是几百条，而是几千条法律。其中最严苛、最沉重的是税法。由此可见，西方放任色情内容泛滥，作为一种分散注意力的手段，用以掩盖西方内部的矛盾，使人们无暇去寻求另一种选择。

As for the real state of man, whether it is ancient or modern, whether in the East or the West, it is the state of discipline i.e. in the state of non-freedom. Accordingly, the concept of Western freedom is not credible. It is possible to determine its semantic validity only by linking the Western thought itself to freedom, meaning that Western freedom is not defined on its own absolute terms but is qualified within a context. Indeed, it is a relative idea defined by its particular context, which is the idea of the West and its concepts or the Western ideology and its civilization. Thus the free man in the west is the one who adopts secularism and lives according to the Western model, as limited and restricted by the barons of finance, media and sex. The delusion of freedom is known even amongst the Western man himself who is restricted by not hundreds, but thousands of laws. The hardest and heaviest of them are the tax laws. Thus, the West has unleashed pornography as a distraction to cover the contradiction within the West, preventing people from searching for the alternative.

由于人的真实本性是社会性的存在,生活在群体之中,因此从理性和实际来看,人不可能摆脱社会制度或规范性法律的约束而与他人共同生活。伊斯兰教使人不再追求不可能的事情,转而接受可能的事情,即唯独崇拜安拉(SWT)。因此,研究的主题不在于是否可能生活得毫无约束,因为这是不可能的;而在于由谁来设定这些约束。据此,伊斯兰教将人从对人的奴役中解放出来,使他顺服于安拉(SWT)的主权。伊斯兰教把人提升到崇奉人类之造物主的崇高境界。因此,奴役只属于造物主,而不属于受造物。伊斯兰教保证人对造物主的顺服。遵从和服从造物主的制度具有最高的价值,并使人升至最高的品位。唯有伊斯兰教阐明了人被造的智慧。安拉(SWT)说:

Since the reality of man is that he is a social being living in a community, it is impossible for him, both rationally and practically, to be liberated from the restrictions of the system, or regulatory laws, in order for him to live with others. Islam has diverted man from looking after the impossible into accepting the possible, which is servitude to Allah (swt) alone. So the subject of study is not related to the possibility of living without restrictions, as it is not possible. Instead, it is related to who places such restrictions. Accordingly, Islam liberates man from the servitude of humans, by granting him the submission to the Sovereignty of Allah (swt). Islam raises man to the sublimity of servitude to the Creator of humans. So servitude is only to the Creator and not to the creations. Islam ensures man’s submission to the Creator. Abidance and obedience to the system of the Creator are of the highest value and raises man to the highest ranks. Islam alone realizes the wisdom of why man was created. Allah (swt) says,

“我并未创造精灵和人类，只是为了让他们崇拜我。”[TMQ 《达利雅特》章 51:56]

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” [TMQ Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:56],