Introduction: Is Atheism Just an Idea or a Way of Life?
Imagine that we are in a country where monkeys abound and share the means of livelihood with human inhabitants. Yet, we fed these monkeys, provided them with housing, treated them, and treated them exactly like humans, all at the expense of real humans. We did not balance compassion for animals with compassion for humans. As a result, the monkeys multiplied and the humans disappeared. Would this be an ethical behavior? And what does this have to do with atheism? This is what we will learn in this episode.
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. In the previous episode, we saw the indication of the moral tendency towards the existence of Allah, and that the one who denies His existence loses any basis for morality. Today, we will see that this denial—that is, atheism—does not stop at this point, but it is the cause of crime and aggression.
Darwinism as an Alternative to the Creator
When atheists denied God, most of them resorted to what is known as the theory of evolution by Darwin as an explanation for the existence of man, and we will discuss this theory in a scientific manner in the appropriate place, God willing. What concerns us here is to point out some of the moral results of Darwinian evolution; to see whether this, which adopted evolution as an alternative to the existence of God, provided this alternative with any basis for morality, or the opposite?
Darwinian evolution is based on the idea that organisms came through the evolution of a primary cell by random mutations and natural selection. Natural selection means that survival in this nature is for the organism that is most fit in its ability to adapt to nature, and survival of the fittest means conflict with other organisms that are "lower" in the evolutionary scale. Conflict is the law of nature according to Darwin.
Darwin published this in his book "The Origin of Species," and then in his book "The Descent of Man," he extended his theory to humans, considering that humans evolved from an origin similar to monkeys. When Darwin talks about the more evolved human, he means the "white European," while the rest of the races, in Darwin's view, are in an intermediate stage between monkeys and gorillas and their ancestors and humans, meaning that their evolution is not yet complete.
Social Darwinism and the Extermination of Races
Darwin based this on the idea that these races are closer to monkeys than Europeans in some characteristics; skin color, or the circumference of the head, or the flatness of the nose, or the protrusion of the forehead, or the size of the jaw or lips. Then Darwin concluded that the "superior" races of humans will not continue to evolve unless through conflict to exterminate the "inferior" races. This is the basis of "Social Darwinism," which means applying Darwin's laws in biology to the science of sociology.
Therefore, there is no objection to the races that consider themselves more evolutionarily advanced enslaving us on the streets, stealing our possessions, and exploiting us for their benefit, just as we do with animals; because according to Darwin, we are just animals more evolved than other animals, so what we do to animals can be done to us by those who are more evolved than us.
Wait, this is not just a hypothesis, this actually happened! How? Charles Darwin says in his book "The Descent of Man" in chapter six: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."
Darwin fired this bullet at human humanity with his ideas, and the Europeans relied on it to carry out mass exterminations and ethnic cleansing campaigns, especially against Africans, Native Americans, and Aboriginal Australians; for these are closer to animals in the view of Darwinists. It is true that many criminal practices were carried out before the spread of the idea of Darwinian evolution, but this idea eased the consciences of criminals, for their crimes now had a scientific justification, so they continued in their actions, and even the rate increased.
Shocking Historical Evidence: The Stolen Generations and Human Zoos
The file of crimes committed is very large and cannot be covered here, but a quick overview will give you an idea:
After the idea of Darwinian evolution, campaigns to exterminate the Aboriginal Australians began in the late 19th century. And James Bernard, Vice President of the Royal Society in Tasmania (one of the islands of Australia), said in 1890: "It has become an obvious axiom that, according to the law of evolution and the survival of the fittest, the inferior races of the human species must give way to the higher types."
The campaigns included the theft of large numbers of Aboriginal Australian children, and many of them were sent to natural history museums in America and Britain to determine whether they formed the "missing link" in the path of animal evolution to humans. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized to the Stolen Generations only a few years ago, on February 13, 2008.
In addition to forced sterilization, which was practiced by Darwinists around the world on races they believed to be less evolved or those who carried undesirable genetic traits, and therefore these people are a burden on nature, so it was necessary to sterilize them so that they would die out and achieve "eugenics" or what is known as (Eugenics).
Incidentally, just two years ago, in February 2015, the members of the U.S. Parliament agreed to give each living victim of forced sterilization $25,000, after a long marathon, as a result of what the U.S. Supreme Court approved in 1927 of the law of sterilization for eugenics in the state of Virginia.
They apologize for the Stolen Generations, and compensate for sterilization, but the question that arises is: Are they thereby disowning Darwinian evolution and retreating from it? Are they deciding with their apology that all people are equal biologically? Never, but they still adopt Darwinism, and its doctrine is still in their hearts.
Driven by Darwinism, whites also convinced some African tribes that they were more evolved than other tribes, due to differences in the length of the nose or height, and this was one of the motivations for genocidal wars between these tribes that were living in peace, as in the Rwandan tragedy between the Tutsi and Hutu.
Human Zoos: When Humans are Displayed Like Animals
In Darwinian ethics, there is no objection to a nation placing those they see as less evolved than themselves in "human zoos" just as we place animals in a zoo. The surprise is that this is not a hypothesis but actually happened, and even became a phenomenon in America and many European countries, where you can find information and pictures on the internet under the title (Human Zoos).
There is an archive of painful pictures and many articles on the subject, where they were left completely naked, men and women, and they were required to come out to the visitors of the garden, and turn around so that these "evolved" ones could contemplate these creatures, considering them animals.
This is a girl in Brussels, Belgium, who was treated by whites as less evolved than them in the evolutionary scale, so they kept her in a cage and fed her like animals. And this is "Ota Benga" in 1906, whose traders killed his family and tribe in Africa to sell him to the Darwinists who considered him evidence of evolution, and he was required to pose with the chimpanzee in the Bronx Zoo in New York, and many others. The list of Darwinian tragedies is long.
Darwinism and World Wars: The Struggle of the Jungle
However, the Darwinists did not escape the evil of their own selves, and in the name of Darwinism as well. Some of them saw themselves as more evolved than others. After forty years of Darwin's book "The Origin of Man," World War I took place.
What is the connection between World War I? Isn't its cause, as we learned in schools, the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne and his wife by a Serbian student? This was merely a spark that does not explain the ignition of all of Europe within days to engage in this war. Rather, there were factors that charged the souls for war; religious and political causes. Among the most important causes was the spread of "social Darwinism," which prepared many Europeans who believed in it to enter the war and act within it like wild animals, for struggle and bloodshed are the law of nature to them.
Many writers have mentioned this role of Darwinism in the war, such as the British writer James Joll in his book "The Origins of the First World War," and Richard Hofstadter in his book "Social Darwinism in American Thought." Indeed, Darwinian thought produced great criminals like Hitler, who founded Nazism on the superiority of the German Aryan race, and Stalin, who began reading Darwin and became an atheist at an early age.
Two years ago, the American "Smithsonian" published a report titled "War as a Manifestation of Social Darwinism," concluding with the following statement: "When social Darwinism plays in the forest of international politics, wars seem inevitable."
The Position of Women in the Darwinian Scale
What are the values that many atheistic Darwinists call for these days? Freedom, equality, human rights, women's rights. Let us see the position of women according to Darwinian scientific foundations.
Darwin had sown the seeds of describing women as inferior evolutionarily. In his book "The Origin of Man," he devoted a chapter titled "The Mental Capacities of Men and Women." Gustave Le Bon (one of the sociologists influenced by Darwinism) says: "There are many women whose brains in size are closer to the brains of gorillas than to the brains of the most evolved men... They are much superior to the average man, but they are exceptions like any deformed creature, for example, with two heads, and therefore we can completely ignore the existence of these women." End of Le Bon's speech, and I apologize to my female followers, but as they say: the transmitter of disbelief is not a disbeliever.
The Moral Contradiction of the Contemporary Atheist
From the above, I think it has become clear that on the basis of Darwinian evolution adopted by atheists, there is no equality, no freedom, no human rights, no women's rights; for these values they call for are demolished by their Darwinism.
Some atheists will say to you: "We do not agree with all these actions that were done in the name of Darwinism and atheism, but we believe in the establishment of equality among humans." However, the question to them at that time is: Do you not betray your Darwinism with this? You thereby deviate from the scientific results of Darwin's theory under the pressure of the spread of human rights slogans. According to your Darwinism, you must be loyal to the struggle—the law of nature—that brought you into this world, and you must not prevent nature from moving forward in the project of natural selection of the strongest.
You, O atheist, are faced with one of two choices: either follow these predecessors of yours and follow their criminal path (moral according to your Darwinism), or acknowledge moral values and values of equality among humans from their origin, and reject the mentioned Darwinian practices, and in that case, you contradict yourself; because your materialistic interpretation of the universe does not suit as a basis for moral values, and because your borrowing of ethics from outside your materialistic intellectual system is an implicit acknowledgment by you of the failure of your materialistic system and its inadequacy.
The Islamic Alternative: Human Dignity and Piety
After all this, one understands the blessing of Islam's emphasis on the equality of humans among themselves in origin: {O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.}
Thus, the field of competition is made something that man can strive to achieve; it is "piety," not the color of humans, nor the size of the lips, nor the flatness of the nose. And after all this, one understands the blessing of Islam, which says its Prophet, peace be upon him: "There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor of a black over a white, except in piety," and he says: "Women are the counterparts of men."
All praise is due to Allah who guided us that we were not created on this earth for struggle, but for the worship of Allah who made one of the most important means of His worship the goodness of man to people, mercy to the weak, and preferring others over himself. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.