Sheikh Nazim al-Haqqani
Social Darwinism And The Dark Clan
It has been established that the dark clan's system is antireligious and aims to eliminate religious morality from society. Particular targets are the monotheistic religions like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, even though Christianity and Judaism have been tampered with since the time of their original revelations. Religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and karma-based atheist and pagan religions on the other hand, are not opposed by the clan. On the contrary, their proliferation is encouraged due to their lack of spiritual authenticity, having more in common with philosophy than genuine religion.
These far eastern religions (also New Age and UFO cults etc.) are insufficient as an underpinning for the entirety of the clan's world-view. A more comprehensive system is required as the basis for the way of life they wish to promote. In reality most members of the clan are indifferent to philosophical topics such as these, in fact, they are ignorant in many respects and simply pursue a life that revolves around money, sex and entertainment. However, the theorists of the clan are fully aware of the importance of providing a world-view that accommodates the activities of its more ignorant members as well as its more far-reaching purposes. Darwinism and its off-shoot, social Darwinism, form the basis for this world-view. Social Darwinism is the theory of evolution applied to the social sciences. The fact that there is no scientific value in Darwinism has been extensively examined in our other books. Here are some of this theory's unfounded claims:
1- Life on earth is the result of a totally accidental evolutionary process and therefore has no purpose.
2- The only true rule in life is "the survival of the fittest". The only way to succeed in the struggle for survival is to be selfish and ruthless.
3- Man too is an animal species and he is subject to the same biological constraints. In other words, the law of the jungle applies to man as well as beast.
Despite the fact that no supporting evidence ever emerged after Darwin made his deranged claims, they nevertheless gained widespread acceptance, the reason being that the prevalent anti-religious sentiment of that time had found an ideological basis in Darwin's theory. Imperialist Britain needed a justification for her colonial activities and found this in Darwinist terminology such as "the struggle for survival in the international arena" and "more advanced races on the ladder of evolution".
For this reason, the ruling classes in Britain and then the other great states accepted Darwinism. War, therefore, was seen as a biological necessity by the European rulers of the time and this played a significant role in the outbreak of the First World War.
Even worse consequences of social Darwinism appeared in the twentieth century: Nazi Germany and fascism. The Nazis, considering man to be an advanced species of animal did not mind rising to power by trampling on the weak, they did not hesitate to eliminate the sick or weak by whatever means necessary, and they did not refrain from murdering and destroying races considered different or inferior. This was possible because they believed in a theory disguised in a scientific veneer which persuaded them that they were acting according to the laws of nature.
A more widespread consequence of social Darwinism has manifested itself in the form of the moral degeneration which affects most modern societies. The Darwinist social structure, founded on the basis of competition and pitilessness produces a world-view with no regard for morality and hence, communities that consider themselves and the rest of mankind to be a species of advanced animal. Darwinist ideology regards individual self-interest as the only thing that matters; it regards self-sacrifice to be appropriate only where it is in the interest of the individual to do so, and that to do otherwise is against human nature. This misleading ideology has given rise to a culture where every kind of selfishness and aggression is deemed justifiable.
The propagators of this culture make frequent references to Darwinism. That to be selfish and ruthless is proper is an argument almost always based on Darwinism. One of the most fervent and famous Darwinists is the English zoologist and author Richard Dawkins, an atheist whose books are an example of this viewpoint. He has become the best-known defender of the theory of evolution. He claims that selfish genes rule all life on earth and that egotism is the primary principle of natural law. In his Selfish Gene, Dawkins expresses his irrational views thus:
The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.13
It is not hard to imagine what kind of societal model will be produced by a philosophy that believes man to be a merciless, selfish machine, comparable to Chicago gangsters. In reality, Dawkins and other Darwinists are preparing the ground for social conflict and legalised crime by means of various media, sending out messages disguised as scientific truths in order to impose this world-view upon the masses. When Dawkins says that we are survival machines; robots programmed to protect our selfish genes, he justifies every kind of rape and violence. Phillip Johnson, one of the foremost opponents of Darwinism, says:
The logic implies that it may be only natural for robot vehicles to murder, rape or enslave other robots to satisfy their genetic masters.14
The reality of this matter is that the logic advocated by Dawkins and the other Darwinists is no different to the unholy beliefs of primitive pagan clans. Primitive pagans worshipped idols and totems they had made with their own hands in the belief that man owed their existence to them, and fought wars and shed blood to please these "gods". The modern Darwinist – or the theorists of the dark clan – believe that genes, themselves a product of a series of coincidences for which one must fight, are responsible for man's creation. In short, the age-old pagan folly, ignorance and violence lives on; from the totemic clans of thousands of years ago to today's Darwinist dark clan….
In reality, God has created man from nothing and requires from him not to be selfish and violent. On the contrary, God taught man through His religion to be ethical, generous, compassionate, and peaceful. The creator and ruler of humankind is neither an idol, nor a totem nor an unaware mass of matter such as the genes. The Lord of the universe, God Who determines the fate and controls every moment of man's life, has created humankind. However, the clan ignores this fact or rejects it blindly.
The comprehensive brainwashing and indoctrination campaign fought on behalf of the theory of evolution is presided over by the clan and its ideological partner: Darwinism. The theorists of the dark clan are well aware that the irreligious and selfish world they have created is "scientifically" based on Darwinism and for this reason, they use any means of propaganda to keep this defective theory alive. (For details see Harun Yahya, The Religion of Darwinism, 2003)
The Definition Of Genetic Guilt In Social Darwinism
The theorists of the dark clan use Darwinism in a number of different ways according to which crime they wish to justify. Since man is an animal in their view, he has a genetic make-up inherited from the animal world and as such, there are natural reasons for crimes like murder, rape, theft etc. which relate to the struggle for survival. According to this, if humankind is not killing one another, stealing from each other and damaging the environment, it cannot be claimed that they are restrained from such acts by their conscience, but because they are protecting the interests of their species. It is not out of the ordinary for them to murder, rape and carry out massacres, because it is in man's "nature". It follows from this outlandish theory that when man, an animal species, does show his animal side by committing these acts of violence, he cannot be blamed.
God, on the other hand, reveals that He has created humankind in such a way that they will find peace and contentment only when they act conscientiously. Man's inherent nature derives pleasure from love, compassion, modesty, generosity and friendship – in other words, from living by the values of religion. Our Lord reveals this truth in the Qur'an:
So set your face firmly towards the Religion, as a pure natural believer, God's natural pattern on which He made mankind… (Qur'an, 30: 30)
Another aspect of the irrational logic of Darwinism reveals itself in its rationale as to what actually constitutes crime. One of the first advocates of the view that crime is genetic and one of the founders of criminal anthropology, was evolutionist Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909). His views, which were later taken up and defended by many other evolutionary scientists as a justification for crime, accelerated the process of social degeneration (Some evolutionists claim that Lombroso's views were never widely accepted but it is a fact that in today's scientific community, terms coined by Lombroso such as "guilty genes" and "guilty chromosomes" are commonly used and his views, slightly modified, are still in circulation. Some Darwinists openly admit this.15).
According to Lombroso's totally unscientific claim, people who had committed crimes had in reality not done so, because they had only acted according to their nature as people who had been left behind in the evolutionary race. Therefore, it was only natural for them to commit crimes and this factor should be taken into consideration in the process of prosecution and sentencing. How Lombroso came up with this theory of "guilt by birth" is truly worth noting for its lack of scientific credentials:
Suddenly, the morning of a gloomy day in December, I found in the skull of a brigand a very long series of atavistic anomalies… The problem of the nature and of the origin of the criminal seemed to me resolved; the characters of primitive men and of inferior animals must be reproduced in our times.16
Lombroso and his assistants also claimed that longer arms, a narrow and setback forehead, big ears, a thick skull and a big protruding chin are the basic physical characteristics of the born criminal. They further claimed that tattoos originated in and belonged to tribal Africa, and therefore that people who have tattoos are some sort of human primate, and that therefore it should be perceived as normal that they are more inclined to commit crimes. Thus, it became justifiable for people with tattoos to commit crimes.
This crude method of determining guilt by examining skulls, measuring the length of arms, and searching the bodies for tattoos was an error of the era's primitive scientific standards and was abandoned as times moved on. Yet even today, evolutionary scientists are continuing to defend similar theories albeit they are presented in a more "scientific" fashion. According to them crime is not the result of a deviation from the natural self but an act of the so-called evolutionary nature of man.
One of the Darwinists whose comments stand out in this respect is Steven Pinker. He is best known for his books on human consciousness, or to be more precise, books which try to explain the mind on the basis of Darwinist materialist dogma but fail to do so. He owes his fame to the baby murders committed in 1996 and 1997.
In the first of these, an American couple both 18 and high school students strangled their illegitimate baby and threw the corpse into a large rubbish bin. In the second case an 18 year-old American girl left half way through her prom and gave birth in the toilets. She then killed the baby, threw the body into the bin, and returned to the party.
These two shocking cases demonstrated to Americans the extent of violence, cruelty, and mercilessness prevailing in their society. People were shocked and these cases were widely discussed. Most people argued that these incomprehensible murders were the result of moral degeneration and the psychological instability of the perpetrators.
However, one of the best known and most ardent American Darwinists, Steven Pinker, interpreted these cases very differently. Pinker argued that these cases were not the consequence of moral degeneration or psychopathological problems but were rather ordinary acts compatible with the evolutionary nature of humankind. In an article published in the New York Times, he argued that these cases which he termed "neonaticide" (the murder of a day old baby) should not be considered as showing mental illness because killing newborn babies was accepted and practised by many cultures in history. Pinker went even further in his perverse assertion by claiming that this kind of killing was an evolutionary necessity:
Mammals are extreme among animals in the amount of time, energy and food they invest in their young, and humans are extreme among mammals. Parental investment is a limited resource, and mammalian mothers must "decide" whether to allot it to their newborn or to their current and future offspring. If a newborn is sickly, or if its survival is not promising, they may cut their losses and favor the healthiest in the litter or try again later on.17
According to Pinker, this neonaticide is part of our genetic makeup and can resurface where the mother considers it risky to give birth. In other words, these American high school girls who had carried their babies in their bellies and then cruelly murdered their own children, according to Pinker had displayed "genetic behaviour" in keeping with the rules of evolution.
In brief, Pinker regarded these baby murders as natural from a Darwinist point of view. Michael Kelly wrote in the Washington Post an article entitled "Arguing for Infanticide" in which he said, "Steven Pinker . . . did not go quite so far as to openly recommend the murder of infants… But close enough, close enough."18
One part of Pinker's unscientific argument, which was nothing more than Darwinist speculation, was especially interesting, namely, that in primitive societies infanticide was practised too. Yes, there were many pagan nations which practised infanticide, but the reason for this was not as Pinker claimed an evolutionary tendency, but their deranged morality. Pagans were sacrificing children to their imaginary gods or would simply kill "useless" children without mercy.
With the spread of theistic religions, this degenerate morality disappeared completely. Tenderness, compassion and love replaced infanticide. Pre-Islamic Arab society is an example of this. The Islamic religion forbids this horrific practice categorically. God, in the Qur'an, ordered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to proclaim that infanticide was prohibited:
Say: "Come and I will recite to you what your Lord has made forbidden for you": that you do not associate anything with Him; that you are good to your parents; that you do not kill your children because of poverty – We will provide for you and them; that you do not approach indecency – outward or inward; that you do not kill any person God has made inviolate – except with the right to do so. That is what He instructs you to do so that hopefully you will use your intellect. (Qur'an, 6: 151)
In another verse of the Qur'an, God speaks of the irrationality and sin of infanticide:
Those who kill their children foolishly without any knowledge and make what God has provided for them forbidden, inventing lies against God, such people are lost. They are misguided. They are not guided… (Qur'an, 6: 140)
In yet another verse of the Qur'an, God ordered Muhammad (peace be upon him) to take an oath from women who came to ally themselves to him, not to "kill their children," besides the other oath of faith and morality (Qur'an, 60: 12). To God, infanticide is an intolerable perversion, cruelty and ignorance.
The point to be noted here is that modern Darwinism attempts to portray the moral deviations of pagan societies as evolutionary tendencies, and thus make them justifiable and acceptable.
The Islamic as well as Christian and Jewish laws forbid the infanticide of pagan societies and those practices have become buried in history. As people become distanced from religious values, those pagan perversions are resurfacing and the Darwinists are trying to justify this with evolutionary reasoning.
As can be seen, the Darwinist social model is identical to the dark clan's vision of society. By defending and upholding Darwinism, the dark clan actually safeguards its own habitat and secures its continuity. For this reason, the bond between the dark clan and Darwinism is a solid one.
Theft, Rape And Homosexuality
Pinker's arguments in relation to the baby murders are only one of the pro-crime tendencies of Darwinism. They argue for many other acts which are acknowledged by conventional wisdom as crimes, to be perceived as normal. The evolutionists' illogical argument holds that anyone committing a crime like murder, theft or rape etc. is in reality not guilty of the crime because he lags behind in the process of evolution, and that this circumstance must be taken into account when sentencing. At the bottom of this unscientific argument lies the error that we carry genes derived from primates and that these will cause us to display animal behaviour. The famous evolutionist of the recent past, Stephen Jay Gould summarises this logic common to many evolutionists:
We may be clothed, citified, and civilised, but we carry deep within us the genetic patterns of behaviour that served our ancestor, the "killer ape."19
Some evolutionists go as far as to suggest that even rape should be considered normal. In the recently published Natural History of Rape the evolutionary scientists Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer argue that rape committed by man, who is still equipped with animal instincts, should be considered normal. According to this perverse claim it is normal behaviour for man as a species of animal, to occasionally commit rape like his primate ancestors did and that this act may even be essential for the continuation of the species:
We fervently believe that, just as the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck are the results of aeons of past Darwinian selection, so is rape… There is no doubt that rape has evolutionary — and hence genetic — origins.20
As seen, Darwin's scientifically unsupported claim that man and ape have a common ancestor, can lead man into a degenerate morality in which even a violent act like rape becomes acceptable for mankind.
The perversion of homosexuality, a common practice in the dark clan, presents a similar situation. In the Qur'an, God reveals that the people of the Prophet Lut practised this perversion and forbids it strictly. Today, those who portray this perversion as normal and try to spread it, rely again on Darwinism for this purpose. The claim that homosexuality is genetic is an attempt to present this perversion as a normal, innocent practice and constitutes yet another unfounded thesis.
The real issue here must be the correct understanding of the term ethics. Contrary to the evolutionists claim, God created man and taught humankind right from wrong via His messengers and books of revelation. Ethics is based on God's rules revealed in these books. At the same time, God has given man a conscience which shows him righteousness and an opposite instinct (ego) that leads him to evil. Therefore, whatever the social context, level of education, language, race or sex, every human knows right from wrong. If he is a God-fearing person, he will listen to the voice of conscience and do good, but even if the opposite is the case, he will still know deep down the wrong when it is committed. Thus, if a person does wrong, it means that he knows it to be so and is prepared to live with the consequences. God says:
By the soul and the One Who proportioned and inspired it with knowledge of depravity and with its sense of duty, he who purifies it has succeeded, he who covers it up has failed… ((Qur'an, 91: 7-10)
Darwinism: A Necessity For The Dark Clan
So far we have examined examples of Social Darwinism's views on morality and crime. Claiming to be scientific with no scientific basis whatsoever, the damaging effect of this ideology on the fabric of society is clear. To consider robbery, theft, murder, rape and fornication as historically natural realities and indeed, as biological necessities, will bring quick social degeneration and waves of corruption, a fact which has already occurred. Some groups benefiting from this immorality have found a so-called scientific cover for it and are therefore clinging onto it. Right at the top of this group is the dark clan. All the conditions needed by the clan to serve its interests and survival are met by the Darwinist social structure. For this reason safeguarding Darwinism and working to preserve its corrupt ideology is, indirectly, a fundamental ideological necessity for the clan's continued existence.
The theorists of the clan know very well that if Darwinism disappears, people will begin to find true answers to the question of how they came to be and what the real purpose of their life is. The first thing someone will want to learn when he comes to realise that the universe and its living beings are too perfect to be the product of blind chance, as the baseless claims of Darwinism suggest, is how, by whom and in what way this wonderful world was made. His investigations and research will lead him to one answer: the universe and all the life it contains are the work of a superior and exalted Creator Who is the Lord and Ruler of all, the Almighty God.
The next thing someone who has realised this clear truth will do is to get to know and appreciate our Creator properly. A human being who lives his life as God prescribes will distance himself resolutely from all kinds of immorality, he will be fair, he will not cheat nor defraud, he will protect the vulnerable and stay clear of any acts of injustice. In short, he will lead a life contrary to the dark clan's preferred model. Growing numbers of people like this will bring about the end of the clan.
This is why the dark clan's members worldwide do not want the Darwinist sham to be exposed as such, together with its disinformation, imperfections, contradictions and irrational and illogical claims. Fuelled by anger and hatred, they are the most determined enemies of people who promote the values of religion and who oppose Darwinism and materialism ideologically. To understand the clan's actions it is necessary to examine first its structure and then the methods it uses.
13. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition 1989, p.2.
14. Phillip Johnson, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism, Illinois, 2000, p.106.
15. Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, New York, 1992, p. 224.
16. Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, New York, 1992, p. 223.
17. Steven Pinker, "Why They kill Their Newborns", New York Times, November 2, 1997.
18. Michael Kelly, Arguing for Infanticide, The Washington Post, November 6, 1997 http://connell.cs.swau.edu/eds/Links/ItHasBegun.htm
19. Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, New York, 1992, p. 239.
20. Margaret Wertheim , "Born to Rape," Salon.Com, February 29, 2000 http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/29/rape/index.html