我们以统治者和政府机构的行为来评判它们，看其行为是否符合安拉所规定的公正。我们不会把自己的立场藏在“民主”或“非民主”这类多余而最终毫无意义的标签之后。如果对这些术语是否有任何意义还存有疑问，西方对2016年土耳其政变与2013年埃及政变的不同反应，应当足以彻底解决这个问题。两场政变，两个国家：埃及和土耳其。取决于个人的立场和宗教倾向，一场政变被认为“肯定”是民主的，另一场则被认为“显然”是非民主的。为什么？因为一场政变“明显”代表了民意，而另一场则“无疑”并非如此。两场政变中死去的人，取决于你问的是谁、取决于你谈论的是哪一场政变，他们就分别是“烈士”或“叛徒”。

We judge rulers and governmental institutions by their actions and whether those actions conform with justice as delineated by Allah. We do not hide our beliefs behind superfluous and ultimately meaningless designations of “democratic” or “undemocratic.” If there were any doubt left about whether these terms have any meaning, the Western reaction to the 2016 coup in Turkey versus the reaction to the 2013 coup in Egypt should have settled the issue conclusively. Two coups, in two countries: Egypt and Turkey. Depending on one’s personal commitments and religious orientation, one coup was “certainly” democratic and the other was “clearly” undemocratic. Why? Because one coup “obviously” represented the will of the people and the other “undoubtedly” did not. The people killed in each coup were “martyrs” or “traitors” depending on who you ask, depending on which coup you are talking about.

所以我们可以就"民主性"争论到面红耳赤，但我们永远不会有结论，因为这是一个空洞、彻底主观的概念，任何政治行为或政府结构都可以把它投射在上面。

So we can debate democratic-ness till we are blue in the face, but we will never get anywhere because this is an empty, hopelessly subjective concept that can be projected onto any political act or governmental structure.

通过用这种自由主义的外衣包装我们的语言，并借助“民主”之类空洞的概念来表达我们的观点，我们实际上是在推迟一场真正的讨论。真正的讨论是：归根结底，统治权威对其人民负有什么义务，人民对它又负有什么义务？更重要的是，我们如何知道正确的答案是什么？我们是虚无主义者，不相信存在正确的答案吗？还是我们相信存在正确的答案，如果是这样，我们又如何确定它？

By wrapping our language in this liberal veneer and employing empty concepts like “democracy” to convey our opinions, what we are really doing is postponing a real discussion. The real discussion is: At the end of the day, what does a governing authority owe its people and what do the people owe it and, more importantly, how do we know what is the right answer? Are we nihilists who do not believe there is a right answer? Or do we believe that there is a right answer, in which case, how do we determine it?

这些问题让我们思考人类的目的、我们存在的本质，以及我们与造物主的关系。然而，自由主义世俗主义并不希望我们在这个层面上展开对话。它不希望人们这样思考，不希望人们想到真主。于是它告诉我们，真主无关紧要，深层的形而上学问题无关紧要，你存在的意义也无关紧要。只管忙于那些人为的术语，只管为某个政权适用什么空洞的标签而争吵。沉浸在一场按其设计没有任何有益结局的辩论之中。谈论真主太令人不适，太幼稚了，不如去争论圣诞老人或复活节兔子。不如加入世俗知识精英的行列，就民主代表制、世俗化等话题进行一场“严肃”、“有智识”的讨论。

These are the kinds of questions that make us think about human purpose and the nature of our existence and our relationship to our Maker. But liberal secularism does not want us to have a conversation on that level. Liberal secularism does not want people to think on that level, to bring God to mind. So it tells us that God is irrelevant. Deeper metaphysical questions are irrelevant. The meaning of your existence is irrelevant. Just busy yourself with these artificial terms. Just bicker about what empty labels are applicable to this or that regime. Submerge yourself in a debate that, by design, has no fruitful end. Talking about God is too uncomfortable, too childish. You might as well argue about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Instead, join the ranks of the secular intelligentsia and have a “serious,” “intellectual” conversation about democratic representation, secularization, etc