伊斯兰教法过去是、现在依然是无数公正与仁慈的源泉。只有暴君才想要废除它。

The Sharia was and is the source of so much justice and mercy. Only tyrants want to do away with it.

在他的文章《仅有思想是不够的》中,经济学家马克·科亚马坦率承认:宗教自由并非一种仅凭其说服力或道德价值就席卷西方世界的革命性思想。相反,对不同宗教群体的容忍,在政治和经济上纯粹是一个现实问题。5

In his essay “Ideas Were Not Enough,” economist Mark Koyama gives an honest admission: Religious freedom is not a revolutionary idea that took the Western world by storm simply on the basis of its compellingness or virtue. Rather, tolerance for different religious groups was purely a practical matter politically and economically.5

这是怎么发生的？

How did this happen?

科亚马认为，由于种种原因，西方现代性早期的欧洲国家在政治合法性上对教会的依赖逐渐减弱。此前，这些国家需要与教会结盟，才能在基督教民众眼中获得合法性，而这反过来又带来了政治稳定（这对统治者而言极其宝贵）。然而，国家与教会结盟对宽容并无益处，因为教会要求国家代其惩罚异端。

Koyama argues that, for various reasons, European states in the early stages of Western modernity grew less dependent on the Church for political legitimization. Previously, these states needed to ally with the Church in order to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Christian masses, which in turn led to political stability (something very valuable to ruling state authorities). States allying with the Church was bad for tolerance, however, since the Church required the state to punish heretics for them.

此外,作者指出,各国依靠宗教机构来维护公共秩序。教会(以及伊斯兰世界中的瓦合甫,即宗教捐赠财产)比虚弱的国家机构更有能力、也更适合救济穷人、提供教育以及开展其他公共服务。再者,当时的法律与社会规范依据的是宗教身份,而非适用于所有人的普遍民族身份(例如公民身份)。这一切导致人们对宗教多元的容忍度较低。在那样的世界里,“宗教自由是不可想象的。”什么发生了改变?

Additionally, the author claims, states relied on the religious institutions to contribute to public order. Churches (and awqaf in the Islamic world) were better positioned and capable to help the poor, provide education, and conduct other public services relative to weak state institutions. Furthermore, laws and social rules of these times depended on religious identity as opposed to a general nationalistic identity (e.g., citizenship) that applied equally to all people. All this led to less tolerance for religious diversity. In this world, “religious freedom was inconceivable.” What changed?

国家机构的税收不断增加,权力也日益增强,科亚马(Koyama)主张,这使它们得以摆脱与教会之间的互惠安排。随着权力增强,法律和社会规则无需依赖宗教身份便能得到更广泛的执行。在国家看来,犹太人、新教徒和天主教徒都是同等的税源,因此按宗教身份加以歧视既无必要,还会浪费官僚机构的资源。最终,“随着国家对宗教权威的依赖减少,它们也越来越不愿意重视强制推行宗教一致性。”结果如何?

State institutions started taxing more and became more powerful, claims Koyama. This allowed them to forego a quid pro quo arrangement with the Church. With increased power, laws and social rules could be enforced more broadly without depending on religious identities to function. As far as the state was concerned, the Jew, Protestant, and Catholic were all equal sources for taxes, so it became unnecessary and a waste of bureaucratic resources to discriminate based on religious identity. Ultimately, “As they relied less on religious authority, states grew less inclined to value enforcing religious conformity.” The result?

宗教自由出于便利而非原则。不过，这仍然是一件好事，对吧？

Religious freedom born of convenience rather than principle. Still a good thing, though, right?

国家的根本目的从头到尾都是按照自身的意志驯服人民，从他们身上攫取财富，这一点如果诚实地看，其实再清楚不过。起初，教会是达成这一目的的便利工具，但之后又找到了更有效的手段，使教会变得无用。正如小山（Koyama）所指出的，国家机构中最令人畏惧的是军队，在整个历史时期里，它的权力、规模和技术能力都在不断增长。还有什么比单纯的军事力量更好的工具，可以用来控制自己的人民呢？既无需借用上帝震怒的观念来行使国家的权威，只需动用国家的军事基础设施即可。

Well, not if you look at it honestly. From beginning to end, the aim of the state was to bend the people according to its will in order to draw wealth from them. At first, the Church was a convenient medium for this, but then, more effective means were found that made the Church obsolete. As Koyama notes, the most formidable state institution was the military, which grew in power, size, and technological ability throughout this historical era. What better tool for controlling one’s own population than sheer military force? No need to co-opt the idea of God’s wrath to exercise state might. Just use the state military infrastructure.

这真的是一种进步吗？宗教机构的衰落是否真的让普通人获得了更多的“自主”与“自由”？还是说，这只不过是用另一种权威取代了原有的权威？