Dare to refuse the origin myths that claim who you are | Chetan Bhatt

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 易帆 余

I'm Chetan Bhatt

我是奇坦巴特，

and when I give my name, I'm often asked, "Where are you from?"

當我說出我的名字時， 常會被問：「你來自哪裡？」

And I normally say London.

我通常會說：「倫敦。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But of course, I know what they're really asking,

但，當然我知道他們要問什麼，

so I say something like,

所以我會說類似這樣的話：

"Well, my grandparents and my mum were born in India,

「我的母親和外祖父母在印度出生，

my dad and I were born in Kenya,

我父親和我在肯亞出生，

and I was brought up in London.

而我在倫敦長大。」

And then they've got me mapped.

接著他們就會用地圖來標示我。

"Ah, you're a Kenyan Asian. I've worked with one of those."

「啊，你是肯亞亞洲人。 我之前有跟你們其中一個共事過。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And from my name they probably assume that I'm a Hindu.

他們從我的名字 推測我可能是印度教徒。

And this sort of fixes me for them.

他們就這樣把我定型了。

But what about the Christians

那麼，基督徒呢？

and the Muslims and the atheists

還有穆斯林或無神論者呢？

that I grew up with?

我和他們一起長大。

Or the socialists and the liberals,

或其他社會主義者及自由主義者，

even the occasional Tory?

甚至偶有保守黨黨員呢？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Indeed, all kinds of women and men --

的確，各式各樣，男男女女，

vegetable sellers, factory workers, cooks, car mechanics --

賣菜的人、工廠工人、 廚子、汽車技工，

living in my working class area,

他們住在我這勞動階層的地區，

in some profoundly important way,

大家都扮演重要的角色，

they are also a part of me

他們也是我的一部份，

and are here with me.

現在也與我同在這裡。

Maybe that's why I find it hard to respond to questions about identity

也許這就是為什麼我覺得很難回答

關於身分、關於出身的問題。

and about origin.

And it's not just a sort of teenage refusal to be labeled.

這並不像年輕人不想被貼標籤 這麼地單純而已。

It's about our own most identities,

這是關於我們自己的身分，

the ones that we put our hands up to,

我們會舉手認同的那些身分，

the ones that we cheer for,

我們所引以為傲的身分，

the ones that we fight for,

我們會奮戰爭取的身分，

the ones that we love or hate.

我們熱愛或討厭的身分，

And it's about how we apprehend ourselves

以及關於我們如何理解自己

as well as others.

和看待別人的身分。

And it's about identities we just assume that we have

這些身分是我們自己會認同、

without thinking too much about them.

想都不用想、理所當然的身分。

But our responses to questions of identity and origin

但大家對於身分及出身問題的回應，

have substantial social and political importance.

有著極高的社會與政治的重要性。

We see the wars, the rages of identity going on all around us.

我們到處看得到 因身分認同問題所引發的戰爭，

We see violent religious, national and ethnic disputes.

到處都有宗教、民族、 人種認同問題的暴力與爭執。

And often the conflict is based on old stories of identity

而衝突的根本原因

經常是身分、歸屬感、

and belonging

and origins.

出身地認同問題等等的老故事。

And these identities are based on myths,

這些身分認同建立在迷思上，

typically about ancient, primordial origins.

典型是古老、原始、 出身源頭的身分認同問題。

And these could be about Adam and Eve

可能與亞當和夏娃有關，

or about the supremacy of a caste or gender

或是誰的社會地位比較高、 性別地位比較高，

or about the vitality of a supposed race

或是哪一族群的人才是正宗的，

or about the past glories of an empire or civilization

或是過去帝國或文明的榮耀，

or about a piece of land

或是一塊土地的所有權，

that some imagined deity has gifted.

想像出來一塊神所賜予的土地。

Now, people say

人們說，

that origin stories and identity myths make us feel secure.

出身源頭的故事及國家認同的迷思 能讓我們有安全感。

What's wrong with that?

那樣有什麼不好？

They give us a sense of belonging.

它們能給我們歸屬感。

Identity is your cultural clothing,

身分認同是你的文化外衣，

and it can make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

讓你覺得被包著很溫暖很舒服。

But does it really?

真的是這樣嗎？

Do we really need identity myths to feel safe?

我們真的需要虛構的身分認同 才能感到安全嗎？

Because I see religious, national, ethnic disputes

因為在我看來， 宗教、種族、人種的爭執

as adding to human misery.

只會增加人類的苦難。

Can I dare you

我能否挑戰你

to refuse every origin myth

是否敢拒絕每一個 宣稱與你有重大關係的

that claims you?

出身源頭的身分認同迷思？

What if we reject every single primordial origin myth

如果我們拒絕每一個 原始的出身迷思，

and develop a deeper sense of personhood,

並發展出對個人特質更深的認識，

one responsible to humanity as a whole

對整體人類負責，

rather than to a particular tribe,

而不是為特定的族群負責，那會如何？

a radically different idea of humanity

用一個全然不同的角度 來看待全體人類，

that exposes how origin myths mystify,

揭露出身分的迷思如何迷惑、隱藏了

disguise global power,

全球的權力、

rapacious exploitation,

貪婪的剝削、貧困，

poverty, the worldwide oppression of women and girls,

全球對女人和女孩的壓迫，

and of course massive, accelerating inequalities?

當然還有海量、快速增加的不平等。

Now, origin myths are closely linked to tradition,

出身迷思與傳統有著密切的關係。

and the word tradition points to something old

「傳統」一詞是指某件古老、

and permanent, almost natural,

恆久不變，幾乎純天然的東西，

and people assume tradition is just history,

很多人誤以為傳統

僅僅是濃縮成美好故事的歷史。

simply the past condensed into a nice story.

But let's not confuse tradition with history.

但千萬不要把傳統和歷史混淆了。

The two are often in severe conflict.

這兩者常常會有劇烈的衝突。

Origin stories are usually recently created fictions of ancient belonging,

出身的故事通常是近代創造出來 虛構的古早歸屬感，

and they're absurd

它們很荒謬，

given the complexity of humanity

畢竟人性其實很複雜的，

and our vastly interconnected, even if very unequal world.

即使在這個非常不平等的世界中 我們彼此都是相互連結的。

And today we see claims to tradition

現今，我們看到有人打著傳統的旗號、

that claim to be ancient

號稱自己才是古老正統的人，

changing rapidly in front of our eyes.

正明目張膽快速地 改變著我們的社會。

I was brought up in the 1970s near Wembley

1970 年代，我在溫布萊一帶長大，

with Asian, English, Caribbean, Irish families living in our street,

和街坊的亞洲、英國、加勒比、 及愛爾蘭家庭一起長大，

and the neo-Nazi National Front was massive then

那時新納粹民族陣線十分壯大，

with regular marches and attacks on us

常常在示威，且會攻擊我們，

and a permanent threat

威脅沒消失過，

and often a frequent reality of violence against us

經常在街上、在我們家裡，

on the streets, in our homes,

對我們使用暴力

typically by neo-Nazis and other racists.

幾乎都是新納粹主義者和 其他種族主義者所策動的。

And I remember during a general election a leaflet came through our letter box

我記得有一次普選， 家裡的信箱有一張宣傳單，

with a picture of the National Front candidate for our area.

上面是我們那區的 民族陣線候選人照片。

And the picture

而那張照片，

was of our next-door neighbor.

是我們的隔壁鄰居。

He threatened to shoot me once when I played in the garden as a kid,

我小時候在花園玩時， 他曾威脅過要射殺我，

and many weekends, shaven-headed National Front activists

許多個週末，都有光頭的民族陣線

arrived at his house

激進份子到他家，

and emerged with scores of placards

許多標語海報被張貼出來，

screaming that they wanted us to go back home.

大聲吶喊著要我們滾回老家。

But today he's one of my mum's best mates.

但現在，他是我母親 最好的朋友之一。

He's a very lovely, gentle and kind man,

他是個很親切、溫和、仁慈的人，

and at some point in his political journey out of fascism

在他的法西斯主義政治 旅程中的某個時點，

he embraced a broader idea of humanity.

他對人性有了更寬容的想法。

There was a Hindu family that we got to know well --

有一個我們很熟知的印度家庭──

and you have to understand that life in our street

各位要知道，在我們街坊的生活，

was a little bit like the setting for an Asian soap opera.

有點像是亞洲肥皂劇的場景。

Everyone knew everyone else's business,

每個人都知道每個人的事，

even if they didn't want it to be known by anyone at all.

即使你不想讓任何人 知道的事也會被知道。

You really had no choice in this matter.

這不是你能選擇的。

But in this family, there was a quiet little boy

但這個家庭， 有一個很安靜的小男孩，

who went to the same school as I did,

他和我上同一所學校，

and after I left school, I didn't hear much more about him,

我離開學校之後， 就沒什麼聽說他的事了，

except that he'd gone off to India.

只知道他去了印度。

Now around 2000,

約 2000 年時，

I remember seeing this short book.

我看了一本簡短的書。

The book was unusual

這本書很不尋常，

because it was written by a British supporter of Al Qaeda,

因為它是由英國蓋達組織的 支持者所寫的，

and in it the author calls for attacks in Britain.

在書中，作者呼籲大家攻擊英國。

This is in 1999,

這是 1999 年，

so 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq was still in the future,

還沒有發生進攻伊拉克 事件和九一一事件，

and he helped scout New York bombing targets.

他協助監視紐約炸彈攻擊的目標。

He taught others how to make a dirty bomb to use on the London Underground,

他教別人如何製作髒彈 用來炸倫敦地鐵，

and he plotted a massive bombing campaign in London's shopping areas.

他策劃了一個針對倫敦購物區的 大規模炸彈攻擊活動。

He's a very high-risk security prisoner in the UK

他是英國監獄中高風險的囚犯，

and one of the most important Al Qaeda figures to be arrested in Britain.

是英國逮捕的最重要的 蓋達組織人物之一。

The author of that book

那本書的作者

was the very same quiet little boy

正是跟我上同一所學校的那位

who went to my school.

安靜的小男孩。

So a Hindu boy from Britain

所以，來自英國的印度男孩，

became an Al Qaeda fighter

變成了蓋達組織的鬥士，

and a most-wanted international terrorist,

且是國際間極想要逮補的恐怖份子，

and he rejected what people would call his Hindu or Indian or British identity,

他拒絕了人們會用來稱他的 印度教、印度人或英國人身分，

and he became someone else.

他變成了另一個人。

He refused to be who he was.

他拒絕做過去的自己。

He recreated himself,

他重新創造了他自己，

and this kind of journey is very common

這對開始涉入蓋達組織、

for young men and women

或伊斯蘭國、或其它

who become involved in Al Qaeda or Islamic State

跨國武裝團體的年輕男女而言，

or other transnational armed groups.

這類的旅程非常常見。

Al Qaeda's media spokesman is a white American

蓋達組織的媒體發言人 是個白種美國人，

from a Jewish and Catholic mixed background,

來自猶太教和天主教的混合背景，

and neither he nor the boy from my school

不論是他，或是我學校的那個男孩，

were from Muslim backgrounds.

都不是來自穆斯林背景。

There's no point in asking them where are they from.

問他們來自哪裡是沒意義的。

A more important question is where they're going.

更重要的問題是，他們要去哪裡。

And I would also put it to you

我也要跟各位說的，

that exactly the same journey occurs for those young men and women

同樣的旅程也會發生在

who were brought up in Muslim family backgrounds.

在穆斯林家庭背景中長大的 年輕男女身上。

Most of those who join Al Qaeda

大部份來自歐洲、亞洲、北美，

and other Salafi jihadi groups from Europe, Asia, North America,

甚至有許多來自中東，

接著去蓋達組織及其他 沙拉菲聖戰團體的那些人，

even in many cases the Middle East

are those who have comprehensively rejected their backgrounds

這些人都完全否認他們過往的背景，

to become, in essence, new people.

而從本質上變成一個新的人。

They spend an enormous amount of time attacking their parents' backgrounds

他們花大把大把的時間 攻擊父母的來歷背景，

as profane, impure, blasphemous,

說那粗俗、不純淨、褻瀆神明，

the wrong type of Islam,

是種錯誤的伊斯蘭教；

and their vision instead

而他們的觀點

is a fantastical view of cosmic apocalypse.

才是最高級正統的宇宙啟示觀點。

It's a born again vision.

它是重生的版本。

Discard your past, your society, your family and friends

拋棄你的過去、你的社會、 你的家庭、你的朋友，

since they're all impure.

因為他們都不純淨。

Instead, become someone else,

取而代之，變成另一個人，

your true self,

你的真正自我，

your authentic self.

你的真實自我。

Now, this isn't about a return to the past.

這跟回到過去的傳統無關，

It's about using a forgery of the past

這跟他們利用偽造的過去有關，

to envision an appalling future which begins today at year zero.

預設了一個駭人聽聞的未來， 說今天就是這個未來的元年。

This is why over 80 percent of the victims of Al Qaeda and Islamic State

這就是為什麼蓋達組織和 伊斯蘭國的受害者中有 80%

are people from Muslim backgrounds.

都是來自穆斯林背景的。

The first act by Salafi jihadi groups when they take over an area

沙拉菲聖戰團體佔據一個 地區時做的第一件事，

is to destroy existing Muslim institutions

就是摧毀既有的穆斯林機構，

including mosques, shrines, preachers, practices.

包括清真寺、神壇、傳道者、實踐機構。

Their main purpose is to control and punish people internally,

他們的主要目的是控制人的思想 並懲罰人的內心，

to dictate the spaces that women may go,

像是限定女人能去的地方，

their clothing, family relations,

限定她們的服飾、家庭關係、信仰，

beliefs, even the minute detail of how one prays.

甚至如何祈禱的瑣碎細節。

And you get the impression in the news

你從新聞得到的印象是

that they are after us in the West,

他們的主要目標是在西方的我們，

but they are actually mainly after people from other Muslim backgrounds.

但其實他們的主要目標是 其他來自穆斯林背景的人。

In their view, no other Muslim can ever be pure enough,

在他們的觀點， 其他的穆斯林是不夠純淨的，

so ordinary beliefs and practices that have existed for centuries

所以已經存在數百年的 一般信仰和實踐機構，

are attacked as impure

會被來自伯明罕或倫敦的

by teenagers from Birmingham or London

青少年視為不純淨， 而被他們攻擊，

who know nothing

這些無知的青少年

about the histories that they so joyously obliterate.

根本完全不懂那些 他們樂於想要抹滅的歷史。

Now here, their claim to tradition is at war with history,

在這裡，他們打著 歷史傳統的口號發動戰爭，

but they're nevertheless very certain about their purity

認定他們才是純淨的，

and about the impurity of others.

其他人是不純淨的。

Purity,

純淨、

certainty,

正統性、

the return to authentic tradition,

返回到真實的傳統、

the quest for these can lead to lethal visions

追尋這些，會讓一個

of perfect societies and perfected people.

完美的社會和人民受傷害。

This is what the main Hindu fundamentalist organization in India

如今在印度，信奉印度基本教義的人 他們的大型集會

looks like today at its mass rally.

看起來就是這個樣子。

Maybe it reminds you of the 1930s in Italy or Germany,

也許它會讓你想起 1930 年代在義大利或德國

and the movement's roots are indeed in fascism.

紮根的法西斯主義活動。

It was a member of the same Hindu fundamentalist movement

當時射殺甘地的人，

who shot dead Mahatma Gandhi.

就是這個活動中的成員之一。

Hindu fundamentalists today view this murderer as a national hero,

現今的印度基本教義主義者 把這個兇手視為是國家英雄，

and they want to put up statues of him throughout India.

他們想要在整個印度為他立雕像。

They've been involved for decades

數十年來，他們都有涉入

in large-scale mass violence against minorities.

針對少數族群的大規模群眾暴力。

They ban books, art, films.

他們禁止書籍、藝術、電影。

They attack romantic couples on Valentine's Day,

他們在情人節攻擊浪漫的情侶，

Christians on Christmas Day.

在聖誕節攻擊基督徒。

They don't like others talking critically

他們不喜歡其他人去批判

about what they see as their ancient culture

他們如何看待他們的祖先文化、

or using its images

或使用它的形象，

or caricaturing it

或用漫畫誇張地描述它，

or drawing cartoons about it.

或是把它當卡通題材。

But the people making the strongest possible claims

但針對古老、永恆的印度教

about ancient, timeless Hindu religion

提出最強烈主張的人，

are dressed in brown shorts and white shirts

很奇怪地，在聲稱自己

while claiming, oddly,

是正統的亞利安人的時候，

to be the original Aryan race,

卻穿著褐色短褲和白色上衣，

just like the violent Salafi jihadis

就像暴力的沙拉菲聖戰士

who make their claims about their primordial religion

申稱他們才是創始宗教時，

while dressed in black military uniforms

卻穿著黑色的軍服，

and wearing balaclavas.

戴著巴拉克拉法帽。

These people are manufacturing pure, pristine identities of conviction

這些人就是在製造純正信念、

創始教義正統性假象的人。

and of certainty.

Fundamentalists see religion and culture as their sole property, a property.

他們將宗教和文化 視為他們獨有的資產，一種資產。

But religions and cultures are processes.

但宗教和文化的演變是一個過程，

They're not things. They're impermanent. They're messy. They're impure.

它們不是東西，不會恆久不變； 它們是零散複雜、不純正的。

Look at any religion and you'll see disputes and arguments

世界上任何一個宗教

going all the way down.

都會有人支持與批評。

Any criticism of religion in any form

因此，任何形式對信仰

has to therefore be

做的任何評論，

part of the expansive sense of humanity

都可以被視為人性的延伸，

we should aspire to.

我們都必須有包容的雅量。

I respect your right to have and to express your religion

我尊重你有不同信仰、文化，

or your culture or your opinion,

以及表達信仰理念的權力，

but I don't necessarily have to respect the content.

但我不見得要尊重它的內容。

I might like some of it.

但我可能會喜歡其中某些內容。

I might like how an old church looks, for example,

比如，我可能喜歡老教堂的外貌，

but this isn't the same thing.

但這是兩碼子事。

Similarly, I have a human right

同樣的，我有說出

to say something that you may find offensive,

冒犯你的話的人權，

but you do not have a human right not to be offended.

但你沒有不被冒犯的人權。

In a genuine democracy, we're constantly offended

在真正的民主中，我們經常被冒犯，

since people express different views all the time.

因為人們總是在表達不同的觀點。

They also change their views,

人們還會改變他們的觀點，

so their views are impermanent.

所以他們的觀點不是恆久不變的。

You cannot fix someone's political views

你不能根據別人的信仰、民族背景、

based on their religious or national or cultural background.

或文化背景， 來判定他的的政治觀點。

Now, these points about religious purity

關於信仰純淨的這些論點，

also apply to nationalism and to racism.

也被用在民族主義和種族主義上。

I'm always puzzled

我總是搞不懂，

to have pride in your national or ethnic identity,

因民族或種族身分而感到驕傲，

pride in the accident of birth from a warm and cozy womb,

因從一個溫暖舒適的子宮 出生而感到驕傲，

難道你因為出生這個偶發事件， 就相信自己比較優越嗎？

belief in your superiority because of the accident of birth.

These people have very firm ideas

這些人對誰跟他同一國，

about what belongs and what doesn't belong

誰跟他不同國分的很清楚，

inside the cozy national cultures that they imagine.

沉浸在他們幻想出來的、 優越的民族主義文化中。

And I'm going to caricature a bit here, but only a little bit.

這裡我要稍稍誇地張描述 一下，但只是稍稍地。

I want you to imagine the supporter of some Little Englander

請各位想像那些英國本土主義者

or British nationalist political party,

或英國民族主義政黨的支持者，

and he's sitting at home

正坐在家裡，

and he's screaming about foreigners

對著電視大喊，

說外國人侵略他的國家，

invading his country

while watching Fox News,

但他看的是 Fox News，

an American cable channel

這是個美國的有線頻道，

owned by an Australian

頻道所有者是澳洲人，

on his South Korean television set

而他的電視機則是南韓品牌，

which was bought by his Spanish credit card

用他的西班牙信用卡所購買，

which is paid off monthly by his high-street British bank

這信用卡是透過他的 英國大眾銀行來做每月的繳款,

which has its headquarters in Hong Kong.

而這家英國銀行的總部在香港。

He supports a British football team owned by a Russian.

他支持的英國足球隊， 老闆是俄國人。

His favorite brand of fish and chips

他最愛的炸魚薯條品牌

is owned by a Swedish venture capitalist firm.

背後所有人是瑞典的風險投資公司。

The church he sometimes goes to

他有時會去的教堂，

has its creed decided in meetings in Ghana.

其教義是在迦納共和國 舉行的會議所定案的。

His Union Jack underpants

他的英國國旗內褲

were made in India.

是印度製的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And --

還有──

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Thank you.

謝謝。

And they're laundered regularly

而他的內褲定期被一位

by a very nice Polish lady.

非常和藹的波蘭女士所清洗的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

There is no pure ethnicity, national culture,

這世上沒有純淨的種族 或民族文化的存在，

and the ethical choices we have today

我們現今的道德選擇，

are far wider than being forced to choose

絕對不會逼迫我們在

between racist right and religious right visions,

種族權力和信仰權力

dismal visions of culture.

兩個另人沮喪的文化版本之間做選擇。

Now, culture isn't just about language, food, clothing and music,

文化並不只是語言、 食物、衣著、音樂，

but gender relations, ancient monuments,

還包括性別關係、古老歷史遺跡、

a heritage of sacred texts.

神聖文字的遺產。

But culture can also be what has been decided to be culture

但文化也會被，而且已經

by those who have a political stake

被那些掌有政治權利的人所定義，

in pounding culture into the shape of a prison.

他們把文化捶打成監獄的形狀。

Big political identity claims are elite bids for power.

大型政治操作身分的宣傳活動， 是政治菁英爭權奪利的操作手段，

They're not answers to social or economic or political injustices.

並不是社會、經濟問題， 或政治不公的解答，

They often obscure them.

通常只會使它們更不公正、更混亂。

And what about the large number of people across the globe

還有，這世上有很多

who can't point to a monument from their past,

無法指出祖先墓碑在哪裏的人，

who don't possess a sacred written text,

有很多沒有神聖文字手稿的人，

who can't hark back

有很多不敢回憶起

to the past glories of a civilization or empire?

過去文明或帝國榮耀的人， 那麼這些人怎麼辦呢？

Are these people less a part of humanity?

這些人就不算是人類的一部份嗎？

What about you,

那麼在座現在正在

now, listening to this?

聽這演說的人呢？

What about you and your identity,

你和你的身分又如何呢？

because you stitch your experiences and your thoughts into a continuous person

因為你過去的經驗與想法

隨著時間會緊緊地跟在你身上。

moving forward in time.

And this is what you are when you say,

這才是當你用「我是誰」 表達自己的時候，

"I," "am," or "me."

真正的你。

But this also includes all of your hopes and dreams,

這當中也包含了 你所有的希望和夢想，

all of the you's that could have been,

所有你未曾實現的自己，

and it includes all the other people

也包含所有其他人，

and the things that are in the biography of who you are.

以及將來在你自傳中的所有事物。

They, the others,

他們，其他人，

are also a part of you,

也是你的一部份，

moving forward with you.

和你在人生中一起前行的人。

Your authentic self, if such a thing exists,

你的真實自我，如果真的存在的話，

is a complex, messy and uncertain self,

是個複雜、混亂、不確定的自我，

and that is a very good thing.

那是一件好事。

Why not value those impurities and uncertainties?

為什麼不珍惜這些 不純淨和不確定性？

Maybe clinging to pure identities is a sign of immaturity,

也許執著於純淨的身分 是不成熟的徵兆，

and ethnic, nationalist and religious traditions are bad for you.

執著於種族、民族主義 和宗教傳統對你有害。

Why not be skeptical about every primordial origin claim

為什麼不對每個以你原始出身之名

made on your behalf?

所做出的區別問題提出質疑？

Why not reject the identity myths that call on you to belong,

為什麼不拒絕那些號召你 歸屬的那些身分迷思呢？

that politicians and community leaders,

為什麼不拒絕政治、社區領袖，

so-called community leaders,

那些所謂的社區領袖，

加諸於你的身分迷思呢？

place on you?

If we don't need origin stories and fixed identities,

如果我們能放下出身來源 及身分認同的迷思，

we can challenge ourselves to think creatively

我們就能挑戰自己去創意地思考，

about each other and our future.

去想想彼此，想想我們的未來。

And here culture always takes care of itself.

文化會有自己的出路。

I'm not worried about culture.

我不擔心文化。

Cultures are creative, dynamic processes,

文化是創意的動態過程，

not imposed laws and boundaries.

而不是強加於人的法律和界線。

This is Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd,

這位是伊本 · 魯世德，

a very senior Muslim judge and thinker in Cordoba in the 12th century,

他是十二世紀在哥多華的一位 資深穆斯林法官和思想家，

and his writings were considered deeply blasphemous, heretical and evil.

他寫的東西被認為是極度 瀆神的、異教的、邪惡的。

Long after he died,

他死後很久，

followers of his work were ruthlessly hunted down,

他的作品的追隨者被無情地追捕、

banished and killed over several centuries

放逐、殺害，持續了好幾世紀。

by the most powerful religious institution of the medieval period.

迫害者是中世紀最有權力的宗教機構

That institution was the Roman Catholic Church.

羅馬天主教教堂。

Why?

為什麼？

Because ibn Rushd said that something true in religion

因為伊本魯世德說，

宗教眼裡的真實

may conflict with something

可能和你理智所認知的 世間真實有所衝突，

that your reason finds to be true on earth,

but the latter is still true.

但後者仍是真實的。

There are two distinct worlds of truth,

有兩個不同的真實世界，

one based on our reason and evidence, and one that is divine,

一個根據理智和證據， 另一個根據神學；

and the state, political power, social law are in the realm of reason.

而國家、政治權力 和社會法律屬於理智的範疇，

Religious life is a different realm.

信仰生活則在另一邊；

They should be kept separated.

兩個應該要被區分開來。

Social and political life should be governed by our reason,

社會與政治應該要 由我們的理智來管理，

not by religion.

而非由信仰來管理。

And you can see why the church was upset by his writings,

不難看出為何教堂會 對他的著作感到氣憤，

as indeed were some Muslims during his lifetime,

在他一生中有些穆斯林也是如此，

because he gives us a strong statement of secularism

因為他給了我們 政教分離的強烈聲明，

of a kind which is normal in Europe today.

這種聲明現今在歐洲就很正常。

Now, history plays many tricks on us.

歷史經常戲弄我們，

It undermines our fixed truths

它破壞了我們確切的真理

and what we believe to be our culture and their culture.

以及我們對我們的文化 和其他文化的認知。

Ibn Rushd, someone who happens to be a Muslim,

伊本魯世德剛好是個穆斯林，

is considered one of the key influences

他被公認是在歐洲提出和傳播

in the introduction and spread of secularism in Europe.

政教分離論的關鍵影響人物之一。

So against religious, nationalist and racial purists of all kinds,

在與各種宗教、民族主義、 種族淨化主義相抵觸的情況下，

can you make his story a part of your own,

你能否將他的故事 變成你的故事的一部份？

not because he happened to be a Muslim,

不是因為他剛好是穆斯林，

not because he happened to be an Arab,

不是因為他剛好是阿拉伯人，

but because he was a human being

而是因為他是人類，

with some very good ideas

他有一些很好的想法

that shook his world

撼動了他的世界，

and ours.

以及我們的世界。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）