← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Freedom, equality, human rights, women's rights. Let's see the status of women according to Darwinian scientific foundations. Charles Darwin had sowed the seeds of describing women as evolutionarily inferior. In his book "The Descent of Man," he dedicated a chapter titled "The Mental Powers of Man and Woman," in which he said about some characteristics of women: "They are characteristics of the lower races."
Then came the famous French scientist Gustave Le Bon to say in a scientific publication in the scientific journal "Revue d'Anthropologie" in 1879, Volume 2, Issue 2 - and what I will say here is strange and shocking, so I put the reference for you to check it, and I have respected the literal translation of what is stated in the English version of the journal with only shortening, which is a long transfer I will say at the end of it is over so you know it is over - Gustave Le Bon says: "In the most intelligent races, as in the Parisians, there are a large number of women whose brain size is closer to that of gorillas than to the most evolved men, and this inferiority is very clear. All psychologists who have studied women's intelligence realize today that they represent the most degraded forms of human development, and that they are closer to children and the naive than to adult civilized men. Of course, there are distinguished women much superior to the average man, but they are exceptions like the birth of any deformed creature, for example: a gorilla 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. And Dr. Jerry Bergman has several articles that show the inferiority of women in the Darwinian view, which are translated in the book "Women Between Darwinism and Atheism." From what has been mentioned, 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.
Now, let's discuss with the atheist. Some atheists will tell you: We do not agree with all these actions that were done in the name of Darwinism and atheism, but we believe in the values of equality among humans. But the question to them at that time: Are you not betraying your Darwinism with this? You are thus deviating from the scientific results of Darwin's theory in your view under the pressure of the spread of human rights and women's rights slogans. According to your Darwinism, you must be loyal to the struggle - the law of nature that brought you into this world - and not betray the blind nature that brought you, and not prevent it from moving forward in the project of natural selection of the strongest. In Darwinism, there is no justification for adopting any morality, but rather the Darwinian struggle requires that the races that see themselves as more evolved must be endowed with the morals of selfishness, greed, hoarding, and attacking the lower races to exterminate them and multiply at their expense. You, O atheist, are faced with one of two choices: either follow your criminal predecessors and follow their path, the moral forgiveness according to your Darwinism, or acknowledge the moral values and values of equality among humans from the origin and reject the mentioned Darwinian practices. And then you are contradicting yourself, because your material interpretation of the universe is not suitable as a basis for moral values as we explained in the previous episode, and because your borrowing of morals from outside your material intellectual system is an implicit admission from you of the failure of your material Darwinian system and its inability to meet human needs.
You, O atheist, when you adopt human values in dealing with all races without discrimination, and when you adopt the value of mercy for the weak, you have practiced immoral practices according to your Darwinism. You have acted as in the example we gave at the beginning of the episode, allowing lower creatures in the evolutionary scale to multiply at the expense of the more evolved ones. We, if we took care of the monkeys at the expense of humans, it would not have been a moral behavior. Your Darwinism makes your mercy for other races, the weak, and the disabled seem like this behavior.
Look at your scientists who agreed with their Darwinism and did not contradict themselves. Alexander Tilla says: "It is a serious mistake to just prevent poverty or bankruptcy or help the weak or the unproductive, just helping these people is a fundamental mistake in the theory of Darwinism because it fundamentally contradicts natural selection." According to Herbert Spencer, the idea of health measures and state intervention in health protection and vaccination of citizens contradicts the simplest axioms of natural selection, as well as supporting the weak or trying to protect the sick and care for their survival. These are your scientists who agreed with their theory, what will you say to them? And on what right do you blame them? And on what scientific basis do you build your moral behavior?
And Richard Weikart described such thinking by saying: "Darwinism or its natural interpretations have succeeded in turning the scale of morality upside down, and provided the scientific basis for Hitler and his followers to convince themselves and those who cooperated with them that the worst global crimes were in fact a commendable moral virtue."
Then, if you Darwinists equate the healthy human with the disabled, the intelligent with the foolish, the male with the female, on what rational basis did you stop at this point?! Why do you not follow and equate humans with chimpanzees, gorillas, and other creatures close to humans evolutionarily according to your belief?! Especially since you do not believe in a distinctive spiritual value for humans that distinguishes them from animals. Francis Fukuyama says in his book "The End of History" what sums up: If we truly believed that humans are just a creature in an animal chain subject to the laws of nature with no transcendent values, then all creatures must be equal in rights, and therefore we are not allowed to defend equal rights, so either a savage class system or an impossible equality.
They say to you: There are atheists with good morals. So we say, our question is not about the possibility of an atheist having good morals or a believer having bad morals, but the rational question is: Does atheism lead to good morals? There is no doubt that what some atheists have of good morals is not caused by their atheism. The belief that we are in this life without a purpose, without a supervisor, without a reward for our deeds, good and bad, this belief cannot be a motivation towards good morals. However, the human being is ultimately affected by a set of factors such as upbringing in childhood and the surrounding environment, and it is not the atheistic conviction that is the only factor in shaping morals. As for the faith in the existence of Allah, a correct faith within the Islamic concept, it drives towards noble morals. And if a believer has bad manners, this is due to a deficiency in his faith, not that faith is the cause of bad manners or leads to it. The atheist is consistent with his atheism if he is adorned with the worst morals, and practices a psychological split and betrays his materialism if he is adorned with noble morals.
The atheist says to you: Modern science helps us in refuting the errors of Darwin's theory, which led to discrimination and classism without dismantling the theory from its foundation. I return and emphasize that this is not the place to refute Darwinian evolution, but as an answer to this point, we say: Darwinian evolution confirms that all creatures, including humans, are in a continuous evolution; and this necessarily implies the existence of higher and lower in the human races currently present. There is no disagreement among Darwinists about this, the disagreement may be among them about the criterion of this evolutionary differentiation, whether it is according to the size of the skull? Or the color of the eyes? Or the prominence of the forehead? Or the size of the nose? Or intelligence? Or skills? Or the psychological structure? And so on... But in principle, there must be a lower and a higher in human races according to Darwinism, which inevitably leads to the despicable discrimination that we have seen.
After all this, you understand the blessing of Islam's affirmation of the equality of humans among themselves in origin: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from a male and a 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." [Al-Hujurat: 13]. The most righteous of you, so He made the field of competition a matter that man can strive to achieve, righteousness, not the color of the skin nor the size of the lips nor the flatness of the nose. And after all this, you understand 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 righteousness" (Narrated by Al-Albani). And he said: "Women are the counterparts of men" (Narrated by Abu Dawud in his Sunan).
So praise be to Allah who guided us that we were not created on this earth for the sake of conflict, 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 them over himself. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.