实际上,这恰恰表明这些人对道德的理解是多么有限。他们的道德只包括两条:不杀人,不强奸。
In actuality, this shows how limited these people’s understanding of morality is. Their morality only consists of two line items: don’t kill and don’t rape.
“我不伤害任何人，我的道德就是以此为基础的，它并不需要信仰真主，更不需要信仰伊斯兰教。”这当然是一种逃避之词，因为“伤害”可以被定义得非常模糊，并且依赖于语境。何为有害，可能因时代、因文化而异，甚至在同一时代、同一文化之内，也可能因人而异。
There is usually also the platitude, “I don’t harm anyone. That’s what my morality is based on and it doesn’t require belief in God, much less Islam.” This, of course, is a cop out because “harm” can be very vaguely defined and context-dependent. What one considers harmful can vary from time to time, culture to culture, and even from person to person within a single time and culture.
所以，即使我们都同意道德只是为了防止伤害，不同的人对于什么是伤害仍会有截然不同的看法。此外，要“计算”什么会造成伤害，以及在任何特定情况下什么造成的伤害最大或最小，并不容易。而当我们观察人们在现实生活中依据自身道德行事的方式时，似乎并不是人们在进行复杂的伤害权衡计算。大多数情况下，人们似乎是依据更广泛的社会和文化中可接受行为的规范来行事，然后把任何不被社会接受的事物解释为“有害”。这些都是针对西方伦理学中所谓“伤害原则”（Harm Principle）提出的异议。
So, even if we all agree that morality is simply about preventing harm, different people will have widely divergent views on harm. Furthermore, it is not easy to “calculate” what causes harm in the first place or what causes the most or least harm in any given situation. And when we look at the way people behave in real life according to their morality, it does not seem like they are acting on the basis of a complex calculation of weighing harms. Mostly it seems people act on the basis of larger societal and cultural norms of acceptable behavior and then interpret whatever is socially unacceptable as “harmful.” These are objections raised against what’s known as the Harm Principle in Western ethics.
但伊斯兰伦理远比此丰富、远比此细致,而且,是的,远比自由主义者对"伤害原则"那些含糊、臆测的论述更为优越(而"伤害原则"本身,再说一次,不过是掩盖短暂文化情感的遮羞布而已)。
But Islamic ethics is far richer, far more nuanced, and, yes, far superior to the vague, speculative musings of liberal deployments of the Harm Principle (which is, again, just a cover for transient cultural sensibilities anyway).
伊斯兰伦理的核心概念是“阿达布”（adab）与“胡勒格”（khuluq），即礼仪与品格。先知ﷺ曾说：“你们中最好的人，是品行与品德最优秀的人。”39 安拉也赞扬先知ﷺ具有“胡勒格·阿齐姆”（khuluq adhim），即伟大卓越的品格。
Central to Islamic ethics are the concepts of adab and khuluq, i.e., manners and character. As the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “The best amongst you are those who have the best manners and character.”39 Allah also praised the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as having khuluq adhim, i.e., great superlative character.
当我们审视伊斯兰伦理、礼仪（adab）与品格（khuluq）的内容时，会发现其中有许多从西方自由主义文化观念的角度看并不直观的内容。以下是一些较为突出的例子：
When we look at the content of Islamic ethics, adab, and khuluq, we find a great deal that is not intuitive as far as Western liberal cultural sensibilities are concerned. Here are some of the more prominent examples:
• 极其强调尊重和照顾自己的父母。
• Great emphasis for respecting and taking care of one’s parents.
• 帮助邻居的道德责任。
• The moral imperative of helping one’s neighbors.
• 探望病人的道德意义。
• The moral significance of visiting the sick.
对孤儿和贫困者给予支持，这一点所受到的重视。
• The premium placed on supporting orphans and the poor.
维系亲属关系的道德必要性。
• The moral necessity of maintaining family ties.
不过，您会在其他宗教和非伊斯兰文化中发现这些价值观的某种贫乏的影子。但在伊斯兰教中，它们并非锦上添花的美德，而是义务。做了上述之事，并不会因此被视为道德上值得称赞的人；而是仅仅履行了自己的基本道德义务，若未能做到，则在道德上负有过失。这是一个很大的区别。
Sure, you will find some impoverished semblance of these values in other religions and non-Islamic cultures. But in Islam, these are not niceties. They are duties. You are not considered a morally exemplary person for doing the above. Rather, you are merely doing your basic moral duties and if you fail in this, then you are morally culpable. It’s a big difference.
但另有一些命令。
But there are further imperatives:
• 一个人心中充满嫉妒，还能成为有道德的人吗？
• Can one be a moral person if one is racked with jealousy?.
•能否一个人习惯性地背后诽谤他人，却仍保持良好的道德操守？
• Can one be of sound moral integrity if one habitually backbites?.
• 一个人如果不能对他人保持良好的揣测，还能在任何意义上被视为有道德的人吗？
• Can one be considered ethical in any sense if one fails to have good assumptions of people?.
一个人在未核实事实真假的情况下传播谣言，还能具有高尚的道德品格吗？
• Can one be of high moral character if one spreads hearsay without verifying the truth of the matter?.
• 一个人如果从事高利贷式的交易，还能被视为品行端正的人吗？
• Can one be characterized as morally upright if one partakes in usurious business transactions?.
对以上所有问题的答案都是断然否定的。如果一个人具备这些品质,却不感到愧疚和羞耻,也不设法改正自己,那么他就不能被视为有道德的人。那么,一个连这些道德准则都不知道存在的人,又怎么可能遵守它们呢?显然不可能。比如说,你不会看到无神论者强调诸如背后非议他人、嫉妒,或孝敬父母之类的事情。在他们看来,伦理只关乎"强奸!"和"谋杀!"。
The answer to all these questions is a hard no: If a person has these qualities and does not feel guilt and shame and attempts to rectify himself, then he cannot be considered a moral person. So how could it be possible for someone who doesn’t even know that these moral imperatives exist, to abide by them? Obviously they couldn’t. You don’t see atheists, for example, emphasizing things like backbiting or jealousy or respecting one’s parents. Ethics is only about “Rape!” and “Murder!” for them.
事实上，上述十点只是伊斯兰教道德命令的极小一部分。比如，这十点所涉及的都是对他人的道德义务。那么，对造物主的道德义务呢？那里当然也有道德命令，仅凭这一点，那些拒绝真主的人本身便已在道德上有所缺失。但为了论证起见，我们可以只限于对他人的道德义务。即便如此，无神论者以及那些把自己托付给自由世俗道德的人，仍然被发现严重缺乏对道德本身含义的理解。
In truth, the above 10 points are a very small sliver of all the moral imperatives of Islam. For example, all these points concern moral duties to other people. What about moral duties towards one’s Creator? Certainly there are moral imperatives there as well, which by themselves would mean that those who reject God are ipso facto morally deficient. But for the sake of argument, we can limit ourselves to moral duties with respect to other people and, still, the atheist and those who consign themselves to a liberal secular morality are to be found grossly lacking in their understanding of what morality even entails.
有人可能会认为，并不存在一种道德上的必然要求，比如尊敬自己的父母等等。要回应这一观点，就会深入到元伦理学的领域。我们究竟如何判断什么是道德的、什么不是道德的？
Some might argue that there really isn’t a moral imperative to, for example, respect one’s parents, etc. The response to this takes us deep into the subject of meta-ethics. How do we determine what is or is not moral in the first place?
如果我们从对一切道德义务的彻底怀疑出发，我们就会成为虚无主义者。若我们可以追问，为何孝敬父母是一项道德义务，那么我们同样可以追问，为何不伤害他人也是一项道德义务。无神论者和世俗主义者对此既没有令人信服的回答，甚至也谈不上前后一致。只需看看西方学术界道德哲学的现状即可。即便是最基本的问题，也没有达成共识。一切都不断地被争论。这种困惑是显而易见的。
Well, we can start from a completely skeptical position about all moral duties. This would make us nihilists. If we can ask, why is it a moral imperative to respect one’s parents, we can also ask why is it a moral imperative to not harm others? The atheist and secularist do not have a compelling or even consistent response to this. Simply look at the state of moral philosophy in the halls of Western academia. There is no consensus on even the most basic questions. Everything is constantly in dispute. The confusion is tangible.
在我们看来，无神论者和世俗主义者根本不在考虑之列。
As far as we’re concerned, atheists and secularists are not even in the running.
然而，有神论者的处境要好得多。穆斯林、基督徒和犹太人的神学各自都提供了关于神、宇宙与人类的整体理论。道德律令正是在这些更广泛的理论背景中获得根据并find意义。这些理论随后可以被评估与比较。哪一种最为一致？哪一种最令人信服？
Theists, however, fair far better. Muslim, Christian, and Jewish theologies each provide an overarching theory of God, the universe, and humanity. It is in context of these broader theories that moral imperatives are grounded and find meaning. These theories can then be evaluated and compared. Which one is most consistent? Which one is most compelling?
当我们审视基督教和犹太教的伦理时，会发现它们在过去一百年，甚至仅仅过去五十年中发生了重大变化。例如，许多基督教和犹太教宗派now不再认为同性行为有道德上的障碍。它们在家庭关系和家庭制度方面的神学与伦理考量也发生了显著转变，以反映并迎合现代世俗主义、自由主义和资本主义这些主导性社会力量。是什么为这些转变提供了理由？是否源于一种进步信念，即伦理必须随着文明的进步而进步？
When we look at Christian and Jewish ethics, they have undergone significant changes especially in the last 100 or even 50 years. For example, many Christian and Jewish denominations now find no moral qualms with same sex behavior. Their theological and ethical considerations of family relations and the family institution have also significantly shifted in order to mirror and accommodate the dominant social forces of modern secularism, liberalism, and capitalism. What justifies these shifts? Is it a belief in progress, namely that ethics must progress as civilization progresses?
“文明的进步”究竟意味着什么？而伦理的“进步”又意味着什么，以至于一百年前被视为道德上可憎的事情，如今却变得道德上可以接受，甚至值得称赞？这些问题，大多数基督教和犹太教宗派都无法给出答案。它们同样屈服于现代文化霸权的压力。相比之下，伊斯兰教抵制了这些压力。这正是伊斯兰教常被视为道德上“落后”和倒退的原因，例如。然而，只有当人们以西方文化最近十年或二十年的标准来衡量各种宗教时，伊斯兰教才会显得“倒退”。按照这一标准，直到大约二〇〇〇年或二〇一〇年之前的全部人类，都将身处道德炼狱的黑暗深渊之中。这种看待世界历史的态度极其傲慢，其叙事也毫无说服力。伊斯兰教则稳妥地避开了整个困境，而大多数基督徒和犹太人正深陷于这一困境的明显后果之中。
Well what does civilizational progress even mean? And what does it mean for ethics to “progress” such that what was once considered a moral abomination 100 years ago is morally permissible or even laudatory now? These are questions that most Christian and Jewish denominations do not have answers for. They too have fallen victim to the pressures of modern cultural hegemony. Islam, in contrast, has resisted these pressures. This is often why, for example, Islam is considered morally “backwards” and retrograde, but Islam is only “retrograde” if the last 10 or 20 years of Western culture are considered the measuring stick by which to grade religions. By that measure, all of humanity prior to, say, the year 2000 or 2010 were in the dark abyss of moral purgatory. This is a baldly arrogant perspective on world history and a thoroughly uncompelling narrative. Islam safely avoids the entire dilemma, where most Christians and Jews are embroiled in its plain implications.
我们也可以评估基督教和犹太教的总体理论。要对它们进行全面的批判超出了这一简短章节的范围，但当然可以对三位一体提出一些质疑。至于犹太教，其神学在十二世纪historically大量借鉴了伊斯兰教的凯拉姆（kalam）话语，迈蒙尼德（Maimonides）便是最突出的例子，他积极参与伊斯兰西班牙的辩论与神学论述。
We can also evaluate the overarching theories of Christianity and Judaism. Providing full critiques is beyond the scope of this short chapter, but areas of pressure can be put on the Trinity, of course. As for Judaism, their theology historically borrowed a great deal from Islamic kalam discourse in the 12th century (Maimonides being the most prominent example of a Jewish theologian actively engaging in the debates and theological discourse of Islamic Spain).
如今人们对伊斯兰提出的反对意见，无非是说《古兰经》和圣训认可了一些让持西方自由主义文化观念的人感到有问题的做法。这种论证相当薄弱。许多今天被人们视为反感的伊斯兰法律和伦理内容，在10年、20年或100年前被认为完全可以接受、毫无问题。然而，人们又不断援引含糊而前后不一的"道德进步"概念来回应这一批评。如果不能证明"道德进步"究竟指什么，也不能解释关于人性的道德真理如何能够因时间而改变，这些反对意见就不能被认真对待。
The only objections people these days raise about Islam are that the Quran and Sunnah sanction practices that people with Western liberal cultural sensibilities find problematic. This is pretty weak. Many of the things that people today find objectionable about Islamic law and ethics were considered completely acceptable and unproblematic simply 10, 20, or 100 years ago. But again, the vague, inconsistent notion of “moral progress” is incessantly invoked to handle this obvious critique. Without substantiating what “moral progress” amounts to and explaining how moral truths concerning human nature can be conditional on time, these objections cannot be taken seriously.
归根结底,穆斯林拥有最具说服力的总体理论。明智之人亦可深入考察伊斯兰道德的具体内容,包括上文列出的十项命令等准则,从而看到伊斯兰的规范体系究竟何等美好、何等深远。穆斯林则在今世与后世都享受遵行宗教(deen)所带来的甘甜果实,蒙安拉允许(bi idhnillah)。非穆斯林始终受到欢迎,可以接受伊斯兰,亲身体验这一切。如果他们对此不感兴趣,我们便简单地说:“lakum dinukum waliya din”(“你们有你们的宗教,我有我的宗教”;《古兰经》109:6)。
In the end, Muslims have the most compelling overarching theory. And those of sound intellect can also investigate the specifics of Islamic morality, including imperatives such as the 10 listed above, to see how beautiful and profound Islamic normativity actually is. Muslims, meanwhile, enjoy the sweet fruits of abiding by the deen in this life as well as the life to come bi idhnillah. Non-Muslims are always welcome to accept Islam and experience all this for themselves. And if they are not interested, we simply say, lakum dinukum waliya din (“For you all is your religion, and for me is my religion;” Quran 109:6).