← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Imagine that we are in a country where monkeys abound! They share the means of livelihood with human beings. However, we fed these monkeys, provided them with housing, treated them, and treated them exactly like humans. And all of this was at the expense of real humans, for we did not balance compassion for animals with compassion for humans, so the monkeys multiplied, and 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.
(Music)
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 - meaning this atheism - does not stop at this limit, but it is a cause of crime and aggression.
When atheists denied God, most of them resorted to what is known as Darwin's theory of evolution as an explanation for the existence of man. And we will discuss this theory scientifically in the appropriate place, God willing. But what concerns us here is to point out some of the moral results of Darwinian evolution. Let us see! The one who adopted evolution as an alternative to the existence of God... Did this alternative provide him with any basis for morality? Or is it the opposite?
Darwinian evolution is based on the idea that organisms came about through the evolution of a primary cell by random mutations and natural selection. Natural selection means: "Survival in this nature is for the organism that is best in its ability to adapt to nature, and survival of the fittest means: struggle with other organisms that are lower on the evolutionary ladder." So, struggle is the law of nature according to Darwin.
He published this in his book (The Origin of Species), then in his book "The Descent of Man" (The Origin of Man). Darwin extended his theory to man and considered that he evolved from an origin similar to monkeys. And when Darwin speaks of the most evolutionarily advanced man, he means the white European. As for the rest of the races, they are, according to Darwin, in an intermediate stage between monkeys, gorillas, and their ancestors and man, meaning that their evolution is not yet complete.
Darwin based this on the fact that these races are, in his view, closer to monkeys than Europeans in some characteristics: skin color, head circumference, flatness of the nose, protrusion of the forehead, size of the jaw or lips. Then Darwin concluded: that the superior races of man will not continue to evolve except through struggle to exterminate the degenerate races.
And this is the basis of social Darwinism "Social Darwinism" which means applying Darwin's laws in biology to sociology. Therefore, there is no objection to the races that consider themselves more Darwinianly evolved in hunting us on the streets, stealing our possessions, and enslaving us for their benefit. Just as we do with animals. Because, according to Darwin, we are just animals more evolved than other animals. What we do to animals can be done to us by those who are more evolved than us.
Wait a minute! This is not just an assumption, this actually happened. How? Charles Darwin "Charles Darwin" says in his book (The Origin of Man) in chapter six: (in English) "In a not too distant future period - if measured in centuries - the civilized races of man will, with almost certainty, exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."
Darwin fired this bullet at human humanity with these ideas. And the Europeans relied on it to carry out collective exterminations and ethnic cleansing campaigns, especially against Africans, and the original inhabitants of the Americas and Australia. These are closer to animals in the view of Darwinists. It is true that many of the criminal practices were taking place before the spread of the idea of Darwinian evolution, but this idea eased the consciences of the criminals. Their crimes now had a scientific justification, so they continued and even escalated their actions.
The file of crimes committed is very large and cannot be contained here. However, quick references will give you an idea. After the idea of Darwinian evolution, campaigns began to exterminate the original inhabitants of Australia in the late 19th century. And in 1890, James Bernard "James Bernard", the vice president of the Royal Society in Tasmania - one of the islands of Australia - said: "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." We will provide links for documentation when mentioning the information and in the comments, because the facts are shocking, almost unbelievable.
And the campaigns included the theft of a large number of Australian Aboriginal children, and a large number 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 man. And Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd "Kevin Rudd" apologized to the stolen generations - only nine years ago - on February 13, 2008. The news spread under the title: "Kevin Rudd's official apology to the stolen generations."
This is in addition to causing sterility in a forced and coercive manner, which was practiced by Darwinists around the world on ethnicities that they believed were the most evolutionarily inferior, or those who carried undesirable genetic traits. Therefore, these are a burden on nature. So, sterility must be caused in them so that they become extinct and the improvement of the breed, or what is known as "Eugenics," is achieved. And for your information... Only two years ago, in February 2015, the members of the American parliament agreed that every victim - still alive - of forced sterilization should receive $25,000. This was after a long marathon as a result of what the US Supreme Court approved in 1927; the law of sterilization for the improvement of the breed in the state of Virginia.
They apologize for the stolen generations, and compensate for sterilization, but the question that arises is: "Are they thereby absolving themselves of Darwinian evolution and retreating from it?" "Do they, by their apology, acknowledge that all people are equal from a biological point of view?" Never, but they still adopt Darwinism, and its doctrine is still in their hearts.
And also driven by Darwinism, the whites convinced some African tribes that they were more evolutionarily advanced than other tribes, due to the difference in the length of the nose or height to the end... And this was one of the motivations for genocidal wars between these tribes that were living in peace, as in the Rwandan "Rwanda" tragedy between the Tutsi and Hutu "Tutsi and Hutu".
In Darwinian ethics, there is no objection to a nation placing those it deems less evolved in human zoos, just as we place animals in a zoo. Surprisingly, this is not a mere assumption but has actually happened, forming a phenomenon in America and many European countries. You can find information and pictures about it on the internet under the title: "Human Zoos."
There is an archive of painful images and many articles on the subject, such as one titled: "The Forgotten History of Human Zoos." However, these articles contain exposed pictures because some human zoos prevented these humans from wearing clothes, leaving them completely naked, both men and women. They were required to come out to the zoo visitors and turn around so that these (superior) people could look at these creatures as if they were animals.
This is a girl in Brussels, Belgium, treated by the whites as the lowest on the evolutionary ladder. They kept her in a cage and fed her like an animal. This is Ota Benga in 1906, whose family and tribe were killed by traders in Africa to sell him to the Darwinists, who considered him evidence of evolution. He was required to pose with chimpanzees in the Bronx Zoo in New York, and there were many like him. This picture is from France, a woman with her child in a human zoo. This picture is from a Negro village in France, where blacks were displayed with animals.
The list of Darwinian tragedies is long. The Darwinists did not even escape the evil of themselves, and also in the name of Darwinism. Some of them saw themselves as more evolved than others. Forty years after Darwin's book (The Origin of Man), World War I took place. What is the connection of 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 just a spark that does not explain the ignition of all of Europe in a few days to engage in this war. There were factors that charged the souls for war. Religious, political reasons...
Among the most important reasons: the spread of social Darwinism, which prepared many Europeans who believed in it to enter the war and act like wild animals. Conflict and bloodshed are laws of nature to them. Many writers have mentioned this Darwinian role in the war, such as the British writer James Joule in his book (Sources of the First World War), and Richard Hofstadter in his book: (Social Darwinism in American Thought), which was written during World War II.
The Darwinian thought also produced great criminals, such as Hitler, who founded Nazism on the superiority of the German Aryan race, as in the book: (Darwinism and the Nazi Racial Holocaust), and Stalin, as in the book (Signs in the Life of Stalin) by Yaroslavsky, which stated that in a very early year, while Stalin was still a student in the church school, the comrade Stalin's critical mind and revolutionary feelings matured, where he began reading Darwin and became an atheist. Two years ago, CNN published a report titled: "War is a Manifestation of Social Darwinism," which concluded with the statement: "When social Darwinism plays in the forest of international politics, wars seem inevitable."
Here, the atheist will say: "On the other hand, there are countless wars for religious motives." First, we are not concerned with comparing religions in general. Some are true, some are corrupted, and some are false. But we say here: "We are talking about Darwinism; war is an end in itself, with no ethics or controls, and this is not a misuse of it, but it is so... this is its thought. As for wars in Islam, we will discuss them later in detail, God willing, whether they are an end in themselves, and what are their goals, controls, and ethics. Until then, we will put in the comments a lecture we published on the subject. What are the values.