In his speech responding to the horrific murder of journalist James Foley by a British jihadist, President Obama delivered the following rebuke (using an alternate name for ISIS):
奥巴马总统在回应记者詹姆斯•弗雷被英籍圣战斗士残忍斩首时，作了如下谴责（他用的是ISIS的另一个名称）：
ISIL speaks for no religion… and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt…. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. May God bless and keep Jim’s memory. And may God bless the United States of America.
伊斯兰国不代表宗教……任何一种信仰都不教导人们滥杀无辜。任何一位公正的神祗都不会允许他们昨天和每一天的所作所为。伊斯兰国的意识形态对人类毫无价值。他们的意识形态已经破产……我们必须尽全力保护我们的人民，以及我们坚持的永恒价值观。愿上帝保佑并记住詹姆斯，愿上帝保佑美国。
In his subsequent remarks outlining a strategy to defeat ISIS, the President declared:
接着他勾勒出打败ISIS的战略，总统说：
Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim…. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way…. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the
United States of America.
让我们把两件事情搞清楚：伊斯兰国不是伊斯兰。任何宗教都不允许滥杀无辜，而且伊斯兰国的绝大多数受害者也是穆斯林……非常简单，伊斯兰国是个恐怖组织。它唯一的愿景，就是屠杀试图阻止他们的一切……愿上帝保佑我们的军队，愿上帝保佑美国。
As an atheist, I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away—either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.”
作为一名无神论者，我不禁纳闷，这种虚伪的遮羞布什么时候才能彻底丢掉 — 无论是基于理性的光辉，还是出于对伙同神灵残害无辜的忍无可忍。哪个会更早实现？是把汽车运去火星度假，还是简简单单地承认信仰会引导行动，某些宗教概念 — 比如圣战、烈士、亵渎、叛教 — 肯定会导致压迫和屠杀？也许的确任何宗教都不会教导信徒滥杀无辜，但总统肯定明白，无辜，是由信徒判断的。叛教者是否“无辜”？亵渎宗教呢？多神论者呢？伊斯兰对这些都有答案，答案是“否”。
More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and
it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas.
英籍穆斯林加入ISIS的人数比自愿参加英国军队的都多。而且现实是，这个组织已经成功地吸引了成千上万自由社会的人士，帮助他们在叙利亚和伊拉克建立一个充满压迫和部族屠杀的天堂。
No doubt many enlightened concerns will come flooding into the reader’s mind at this point. I would not want to create the impression that most Muslims support ISIS, nor would I want to give any shelter or inspiration to the hatred of Muslims as people. In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am
talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.
到这里读者脑子里肯定都会闪现一丝忧虑。我并不是想要营造一种大部分穆斯林都支持ISIS的印象，也绝不想引导任何对穆斯林个体的憎恨。我只是想厘清伊斯兰教义和圣战者残暴之间的联系，说的是理念及其后果，而不是15亿穆斯林信众，虽然他们中有许多对自己的宗教并不是特别在意。
But a belief in martyrdom, a hatred of infidels, and a commitment to violent jihad are not fringe phenomena in the Muslim world. These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.
但对于烈士的景仰，对不信道者的憎恨，以及对暴力圣战的狂热在穆斯林世界中不是边缘现象。这种执着是得到古兰经和无数圣训的支持的。这也是沙特明星阿訇Mohammad Al-Areefi听起来象ISIS随军牧师的原因。他在推特上有950万粉丝，是教宗方济两倍之多。如果你能在他的布道中找到与ISIS暴行动机的重大不同，恐怕得看神经科专家才行。
Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture. A hatred of infidels is arguably the central message of the Koran. The reality of martyrdom and the sanctity of armed jihad are about as controversial under Islam as the resurrection of Jesus is under Christianity. It is not an accident that millions of Muslims recite the shahadah or make pilgrimage to Mecca. Neither is it an accident that horrific footage of infidels and apostates being decapitated has become a popular form of pornography throughout the Muslim world. Each of these practices, including this ghastly method of murder, find explicit support in scripture.
理解和批评伊斯兰教义，并且寻求激励穆斯林改革它们，是文明世界目前面对的最大挑战之一。但不能只是简单地批判穆斯林“极端分子”的错误信条，因为他们的大多数观点在经书看来并不虚假。对不信道者的憎恨几乎可以说是古兰经的中心思想。烈士的真实性和武装圣战的神圣性与基督教中耶稣复活一样无可辩驳。数以百万计的穆斯林背诵着清真言，到麦加朝圣，并不是偶然形成的。同样，不信道者和叛教者被斩首的视频片段成为整个穆斯林世界的常见艺术，也不是偶然的。这种种行为，包括杀人的残暴手法，都在经文中有明确支持。
But there is now a large industry of obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these truths. Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations. What are their real motivations? Insert here the most abject hopes and projections of secular liberalism: How would you feel if Western imperialists and their mapmakers had divided your lands, stolen your oil, and humiliated your proud culture? Devout Muslims merely want what everyone wants—political and economic security, a piece of land to call home, good schools for their children, a little leisure to enjoy the company of friends. Unfortunately, most of my fellow liberals appear to believe this. In fact, to not accept this obscurantism as a deep insight into human nature and immediately avert one’s eyes from the teachings of Islam is considered a form of bigotry.
但目前有一种巨大的思潮，混淆事实，不让穆斯林弄清这些真相。我们的人文和社会科学院系充满了各种真假学者，他们本应是恐怖主义、宗教、伊斯兰法学、人类学、政治学，以及其他领域的专家，居然声称穆斯林的暴力和偏执，都不是事实的真相。这些专家声称不能只看伊斯兰极端分子和圣战者的言论：这些反复强调真主、天堂、烈士、以及叛教者是恶魔的言论不过是掩藏其真实动机的面具。那真实动机是什么呢？所有这些包含的，不过是他们对世俗自由最卑微的期望和反映。如果西方帝国主义活生生地分裂你的国土、窃取你的石油、羞辱你引以为傲的文化，你会有什么感觉？虔诚的穆斯林们想要的，不过是和每个人想要的一样 — 政治经济安全、一小片可以叫做家的土地、给孩子们的好学校、以及与亲朋好友共度的一些闲暇时光。很不幸，大多数自由派学者居然相信这些。更有甚者，如果深入审视人性，不接受这种混淆是非，并把目光从伊斯兰教义上移开，还会被视为一种文化偏见。
In any conversation on this topic, one must continually deploy a firewall of caveats and concessions to irrelevancy: Of course, U.S. foreign policy has problems. Yes, we really must get off oil. No, I did not support the war in Iraq. Sure, I’ve read Chomsky. No doubt, the Bible contains equally terrible passages. Yes, I heard
about that abortion clinic bombing in 1984. No, I’m sorry to say that Hitler and Stalin were not motivated by atheism. The Tamil Tigers? Of course, I’ve heard of them. Now can we honestly talk about the link between belief and behavior?
这个问题上的任何讨论都必须不断地排除无关的警示和妥协：当然，美国外交政策也有问题。对，我们必须停止插手石油。不，我不支持出兵伊拉克。是，我读过乔姆斯基的书。毫无疑问，圣经也有同样可怕的段落。是，我听说了1984年堕胎诊所被炸的事。对不起，希特勒和斯大林可不是无神论鼓动的。泰米尔猛虎组织？我当然听说过。我们能不能开诚布公地讨论一下信仰和行为的关系？
Yes, many Muslims happily ignore the apostasy and blasphemy of their neighbors, view women as the moral equals of men, and consider anti-Semitism contemptible. But there are also Muslims who drink alcohol and eat bacon. All of these persuasions run counter to the explicit teachings of Islam to one or another degree. And just like moderates in every other religion, most moderate Muslims become obscurantists when defending their faith from criticism. They rely on modern, secular values for instance, tolerance of diversity and respect for human rights—as a basis for reinterpreting and ignoring the most despicable parts of their holy books. But they nevertheless demand that we respect the idea of revelation, and this leaves us perpetually vulnerable to more literal readings of scripture.
的确，许多穆斯林乐于忽略自己邻居的叛教和亵渎行为、把女性视为与男性人格平等、认为排犹主义可鄙。甚至还有喝酒吃烟猪肉的穆斯林。所有这些都或多或少地与伊斯兰白纸黑字的教义相抵触。而且与任何其他宗教的温和派一样，大多数温和的穆斯林在面对批评自己信仰时，都会变得模糊不清。他们只能借助现代世俗的价值观，比如容忍多元化和尊重人权，来重新解读或者忽略他们圣书中最阴暗的内容。但他们无论如何都要求我们尊重经文天启的观点，这让我们无可避免地更加注重经文的字面意义。
The idea that any book was inspired by the creator of the universe is poison—intellectually, ethically, and politically. And nowhere is this poison currently doing more harm than in Muslim communities, East and West. Despite all the obvious barbarism in the Old Testament, and the dangerous eschatology of the New, it is relatively easy for Jews and Christians to divorce religion from politics and secular ethics. A single line in Matthew—“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”—largely accounts for why the West isn’t still hostage to theocracy. The Koran contains a few lines that could be equally potent—for instance, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256)—but these sparks of tolerance are easily snuffed out. Transforming Islam into a truly benign faith will require a miracle of re-interpretation. And a few
intrepid reformers, such as Maajid Nawaz, are doing their best to accomplish it.
任何经书出自造物主的观点都是有害的 — 无论是从智力上、道德上、或者政治上都是如此。这种毒害从来没有像今天在穆斯林社会中的危害性那么大，东西方皆然。圣经旧约也充斥着野蛮，新约的再世说也一样，但犹太教和基督教还是相对容易把宗教与政治和世俗道德分开的。马太福音中的一句“恺撒的归凯撒，上帝的归上帝”，就可以解释为什么西方今天已经脱离了神学的桎梏。古兰经也有几条同样有效的经文，比如，“宗教不得有强迫”（2：256），但这些零星的宽容火花很容易被掐灭。把伊斯兰转变成为一种真正无害的信仰需要奇迹般的重新解读。一些无畏的改革者，比如Maajid Nawaz，正在尽力为之。
Many believe it unwise to discuss the link between Islam and the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim
world, fearing that it will increase the perception that the West is at war with the faith and cause millions of otherwise peaceful Muslims to rally to the jihadist cause. I admit that this concern isn’t obviously crazy—but it merely attests to the seriousness of the underlying problem. Religion produces a perverse solidarity that we must find some way to undercut. It causes in-group loyalty and out-group hostility, even when members of one’s own group are behaving like psychopaths.
许多人认为，讨论伊斯兰与我们看到的穆斯林偏执暴力之间的联系是不智的，担心这会增加西方与信仰为敌的感觉，从而使千百万本来和平的穆斯林转而投向圣战事业。我承认这种担忧也不是完全没有道理 — 但这不过更能说明问题的严重性。宗教会造成病态的团结，我们必须想办法使其弱化。即使是群体内有人行为已近乎病态，宗教也会导致群体内的忠贞和群体外的敌意。
But it remains taboo in most societies to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Even atheists tend to observe this taboo, and enforce it on others, because they believe that religion is necessary for many people. After all, life is difficult—and faith is a balm. Most people imagine that Iron Age philosophy represents the only available vessel for their spiritual hopes and existential concerns. This is an enduring problem for the forces of reason, because the most transformative experiences people have—bliss, devotion, self-transcendence—are currently anchored to the worst parts of culture and to ways of thinking that merely amplify superstition, self-deception, and conflict.
但大多数社会仍视批评个体的宗教信仰为禁忌。即使无神论者也倾向于尊重这种禁忌，并要求他人遵守，因为他们相信宗教对许多人来说还是需要的。毕竟生活艰辛，信仰是一种慰籍。大多数人觉得铁器时代的哲学观念是承载自己精神期望和人生意义的唯一载体。这是理性力量长久需要面对的问题，因为大多数最能改变人生的经历 — 大喜、奉献、超越自我 — 都还植根于最腐朽的文化当中，其思维方式还在强调迷信、自欺和冲突。
Among all the harms caused by religion at this point in history, this is perhaps the most subtle: Even when it appears beneficial—inspiring people to gather in beautiful buildings to contemplate the mystery existence and their ethical commitments to one another—religion conveys the message that there is no intellectually defensible
and nonsectarian way to do this. But there is. We can build strong communities and enjoy deeply moral and spiritual lives, without believing any divisive nonsense about the divine origin of specific books.
历史走到今天，宗教所有的危害中，以下可能是最微妙的：宗教召唤人们聚集在漂亮的建筑中，思考神秘的存在，以及互相之间的道德规范。这看起来有益无害。但宗教传达的信息是，没有任何经得起智力思考和不讲求宗派的办法能做到这一点。但事实上是有的。即使不相信任何神怪奇书的巫言鬼语，我们一样能够建起强大的社会，享受高尚的精神生活。
And it is this misguided respect for revelation that explains why, in response to the starkest conceivable expression of religious fanaticism, President Obama has responded with euphemisms—and missiles. This may be the best we can hope for, given the state of our discourse about religion. Perhaps one day we will do “everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for.” But today, we won’t even honestly describe the motivations of our enemies. And in the act of lying to ourselves, we continue to pay lip service to the very delusions that empower them.
正是这种对天启之道的错误尊重，面对宗教狂热最赤裸裸的宣示，奥巴马总统一方面委婉以词，另一方面导弹攻击。说了这么多宗教的问题，这也许是我们能够期望的最好状态。也许某天我们真的要“尽全力保护我们的人民，以及我们坚持的永恒价值观。”但今天，我们连如实描述敌人动机都不能。而且，通过欺骗自己，我们还在继续给武装敌人的精神幻觉，增添美溢之词。
PS:奥巴马跟英国中国等各国政治家一样，在谈到打击恐怖主义时总要说‘这不是宗教/这不是正教’来洗地、统战。Sam Harris对此的批评文章一如既往地尖锐,不过他这文章很多地方发不了，华尔街日报和slate都不肯发。所谓的自由左派也玩政治正确。
![SiS001! Board - [第一会所 关闭注册]](images/green001/logo.png){kind=logo}
