Crimea Crisis Can Be Turned Into An Opportunity

19 03 2017

by Harun Yahya

Crimea is a peninsula of utmost geopolitical and strategic importance, dominating virtually the entire Black Sea. Together with the straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, it is one of the most critical points with regards to the security of the Black Sea and the countries with a coastline on it. It is an established conviction that the power that controls the region will also control the passage of the Black Sea and, through the Straits, of the Mediterranean. For this reason, the peninsula has witnessed many wars throughout history. Therefore, Crimea becoming a safe zone under the hegemony of pro-peace and pro-stability countries is an absolutely vital issue in terms of world peace.

In various epochs, the peninsula came under the rule of Roman, Byzantine and Trapezuntine empires, as well as that of Geneva, Venice and the Golden Horde. Nevertheless, the two nations that have the most deep-rooted and strong historical, cultural, religious and ethnic bonds with the region are the Turks and the Russians.

Both countries share a holy and spiritual heritage and have countless of their martyrs buried in Crimean soil that has been home to Muslims and Christians in every era. The Russian prince Vladimir was baptized in the town of Chersonesus, an Ancient Greek colony in southwest Crimea, in 988, later bringing Christianity from here to his own country.

Tatars are one of the Turkic clans that settled in the region as far back as the 6th century. The Crimean Khanate, the historical state of the Crimean Tatars, was founded in 1428 as a successor state to the Golden Horde. As of 1475, the Khanate remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire for 300 years as an autonomous khanate. This ended in July, 1774 with the Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca signed between the Russians and the Ottomans.

According to the treaty, the Muslim tribes and Tatar communities indigenous to Crimea were deemed politically independent and recognized that it was a vassal to no other country. However, they still were to remain subjects to the Ottoman Sultan due to his position as the Muslim Caliph. One of the most important provisions of the treaty, which was signed on the condition of being “perpetual” and still remains in effect today, was that “Crimea cannot be ceded to other third parties.”

Following the Kucuk Kaynarca, on March 21st, 1779, the Treaty of Aynalikavak, a regulation and trade agreement, was signed again between Russia and the Ottomans. According to the treaty, the Ottoman Sultan was to be asked for approval for the selection of khans coming after the then ruler, Sahin Giray. Thus, with the Treaty of Aynalikavak, the independence of Crimea was reconfirmed.

As a result of these two treaties that compliment and consolidate each other, the Tsardom of Russia and the Ottoman Empire acquired – in modern terms – guarantor state status over Crimea. It was signed that in the case of any possible political disputes that may occur in the Crimea region, the Ottoman and Russian states retained the right to impose the regulation agreed upon between the two upon Crimea.

Therefore, the Turkish Republic and the Russian Federation, the successors of the aforementioned states, are the two countries who have the right to have a say in Crimea. The article of the Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca specifying that Crimea cannot be ceded to other third parties renders it impossible in terms of international law for other countries to lay claim to and intervene in Crimea.

For that reason, Ukraine, the European Union, the USA, or any other country (or NATO) have no legitimate authority to intervene in/over Crimea. Ukraine does not lose Crimea or its territorial integrity either, because save for neighborly relations, it has not shared any real historical, cultural or ethnic bonds with Crimea all along.

In 1954, the region was perfunctorily handed from the SSR of Russia to the SSR of Ukraine. Since the concession was made within the USSR and was largely a matter of Soviet internal politics, nobody really paid any attention to it in that era. In fact, only 13 of the 27 members were in attendance in the USSR’s Communist Party General Assembly where the historic vote took place. In this process, no one asked the people of Crimea what they wanted; the legal processes that should have been followed were violated, and a referendum that was supposed to be held did not take place. The possible future consequences of this decision, which was taken after a rather brief 15-minute discussion, were never considered thoroughly.

In 1991, following the USSR’s dissolution, Crimea was given to Ukraine as a gift by Boris Yeltsin, the President of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia. The people of the region, with a population of 2.5 million, were not even asked for their opinion. Upon this decision, Crimea, which had been under Turkish and Russian rule for centuries, remained within Ukrainian borders on paper for the next 23 years. The agreements in effect concerning the region and international law were openly violated.

Today, led by Mr. Putin, these historical mistakes have begun to be rectified with the consent and support of the people of Crimea. However, the Crimea issue is still brought forward as supposedly valid grounds for anti-Russian isolation and sanctions introduced under the guidance of the British and Obama governments. These policies are also a part of the plan to neutralize the countries of the region such as Russia and Turkey in the Black Sea, and are strongly supported through criticism, intimidation campaigns and the manipulation of public opinion masterminded from London.

As is the case with every topic, a powerful Russian-Turkish alliance that will be forged over Crimea will prove to be the most effective and legitimate response to these organized criticisms, objections and threats. These two countries acting in the role of arbiters and protectors over Crimea is, in Russian senator Aleksey Pushkov’s own words, more legal and “reasonable than the Falklands having to be part of Great Britain.”

When the cooperation between Turkey and Russia is raised to the highest levels by rectifying the erroneous policies and negligence of some previous Turkish and Soviet governments, the people of Crimea will attain the historical and cultural identity and beauty they deserve once more. Economic, cultural and material support from the two countries for Crimea to develop, progress and thrive will give rise to a peninsula world-renowned for its beauty. The region will become of significant historical and touristic value. On the other hand, the military alliance between the two countries will ensure the security of the Black Sea and Black Sea countries in the strongest manner.

Mr. Erdoğan and Mr. Putin, making great use of this historical opportunity by leading the way in cooperation, will pave the way for wonderful developments. An independent Crimea, bound by ties of blood, history and love, and under the care and protection of both countries, will become the adamantine symbol of a strong Turkish-Russian alliance and brotherhood. This alliance will be the greatest response to the British deep state, which has a habit of provoking the two countries against each other throughout history.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Iran And Turkey Will Stay As Brothers No Matter What

14 03 2017

by Harun Yahya

The Middle East has always been the target of certain factions due to its geopolitical significance and rich underground sources.

These circles have stirred disorder in the region by driving a wedge between the regional countries. Against all odds, Turkey together with Iran and Russia dealt a strong blow to those who tried to hatch plot to fragment this league. This alliance had the privilege to take the first practical steps on the way to a peaceful solution in Syria since civil war broke out. Yet, as soon as the effect of this union was clear, these provocateurs imposed pressure in many ways to disband this nexus. These countries bear grave responsibility to bring stability to the region.

For a long time, these agitators attempted to execute several schemes to damage the ties between Turkey and Russia. However, recently both countries did not allow any kind of fracture to splinter their on-going affairs taking lesson from the damage done to both peoples during the time of the downing of the jet crisis. Recently, these provocateurs have tried to derail the relations between Iran and Turkey. Regardless of being aware of the burden and responsibility to bring peace to the region, these two strong countries have repelled such attempts. They will probably do so for current and future events; not only because they are two regional countries that need each other in many aspects but also because they have a lengthy history of brotherhood and friendship dating back to a thousand years. Presidents Rouhani and Erdogan’s meeting in Pakistan on the sidelines of Economic Cooperation Organization summit was an exemplary move in which both leaders used constructive rhetoric to improve their ties. While Rouhani stated “Resolving political differences [between Iran and Turkey] can lead to regional stability,” Erdogan focused on ending the bloodshed, saying, “Let us extinguish the flames of fitna”.

When we examine the history of both countries, we see that the existence of Turks in Iran dates back long before the Oghuz migration. Thanks to these mass movements, the Turkish population became a significant part of the demographics of Iran making us true brothers. With the effects of this intermingling, the Turkish language endorsed many Farsi words and Iranian culture had a profound impact upon Turkish culture. On the other hand, Turkish became the second spoken language in Iran. Additionally, there were numerous interactions between them concerning the states’ administrative systems, arts and science.

A very important accord to determine the border between the Ottomans and Safavids was signed in 1639. The 570-kilometer border that was determined during the time of the treaty of Qasr-e Shirin is still valid today. This border is famous because it is the only border that has stayed unchanged for 377 years and it is, at the same time, the only border in the Middle East that was not drawn by the imperialist powers. This accord is frequently stated as a historical document to recall how these two countries have a long-term relationship based on mutual respect. Despite the fact that there were some conflicts between the Ottomans and Iranians throughout the course of history, they penned many peace treaties aside from the Qasr-e Shirin and enjoyed political and military relations. 1555 Peace of Amasya, 1590 The Treaty of Constantinople, also known as Treaty of Ferhad Pasha, 1612 Treaty of Nasuh Pasha, 1618 Treaty of Serav, to name only a few.

Turkey and Iran should be mindful of this rich, common history all the time and determine their foreign policy accordingly. Their relationship should be kept intact even though there might be government changes in one of them.  Their ties are beyond politics. History has proven this friendship and hopefully time will show the same. They should both feel blessed they are neighbors. It is a great favor for Turkey to have Iran on its border as a devout Muslim country and vice versa. Believing in the same God and following the same faith are the most important factors to draw two countries together as a family. Leaders from both sides have declared their identities as Muslims not differentiating that they are Sunni or Shia on many occasions in which they shared.

They both have very powerful armies and their union would be a great deterrence for those trying to fuel tension in the region. They can also develop a strategy on cooperating in terms of energy and trade. This collaboration will definitely be very fruitful to increase the living standards of both peoples. Turkey can play an important intermediary role to connect Iran to Europe since Iran is new in the international arena after some of their sanctions were lifted. Iran had been having difficult times due to these sanctions and when they were lifted, they found relief. With the support of Turkey, Iran would get a huge economic boost. It would give both Turkey and Iran a huge economic relief.

It would be a great mistake to fall into the erroneous idea of sectarian division in the region. No Muslim should let anyone speak against any sects. There are millions of Shias living in Turkey and at least fifteen million Shia Azeri Turks inhabit in Iran. The Shia sect is a beauty that all the Muslims should be proud of and those endorsing this sect are all very dear and blessed people. When both countries like each other, they will certainly witness abundance. To accelerate the steps in forming this unity, leaders from both countries should make frequent visits to one another, giving positive messages of unity and cooperation. Businessmen and civilians should follow. Carrying out joint projects on many levels will help the links grow. Lifting visa procedures between these countries will also be an important achievement in this approach. This unity will be sufficient to thwart any plans to destabilize the region. The unification of these two countries will be a role model for other Islamic nations and hopefully we will see others follow in their steps.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Watch Out For Provocations Against Russia

9 03 2017

by Harun Yahya

Recently, Britain became the voice for a potential war with Russia. First, former NATO commander General Sir Richard Shirreff’s book, 2017 War with Russia, came out in May; after that, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called on the British people to participate in street demonstrations against Russia. Last week, Defense Secretary Michael Fallon stated that war with Russia is not likely in 2017, but Britain would be ready for war against Russia in two years. There is a climbing tension between countries, nothing short of the one the world experienced when Cold War tensions occasionally peaked. British politicians are ignoring the fact that a war between Russia and the Western bloc would drag the whole world into it.

Only 100 years ago the world was dragged into a serious war that went on for four years. The ambitions of European politicians thrust the world into an irreversible conflict in three weeks. This conflict was the First World War and led to deaths of 20 million people. Twenty years later, even before the ink on the peace treaties dried, another much deadlier world war broke out. By the time the warring parties sat round the peace table, 50 million people had lost their lives. A century after all these events, there is no doubt that the conditions have changed dramatically. A potential world war in the 21st century would likely claim several hundred millions of lives. No one in the world has the right to gamble millions of lives.

The tension of a war with Russia is an obsessive policy dating back to the 20th century. Today, the world is not polarized between two opposing sides. Nations are deeply linked to each other through commercial, social, cultural and economic ties. Thanks to new communication technologies, black propaganda is not as effective as it used to be. Most of the world can access accurate information with a speed which was not even dreamed of 30 years ago. Deceiving the masses and dragging them towards unnecessary wars will not be as easy for warmongers as it was in the past.

The current events could have been regarded as a temporary crisis. However, the increasing military measures in parallel with rising political tensions are among the factors that make the situation more volatile. The first move was the deployment of NATO troops to Eastern European and the Baltic countries after the call from the Atlantic Council. After the NATO summit in Warsaw in June 2016, the number of troops stationed on the eastern borders of Russia increased rapidly. With NATO’s plan to boost its presence in the Black Sea region, the circle surrounding Russia will be completed. In an environment where military mobilization is this intense, it will not be possible for political tensions to diminish.

Britain and NATO points to Russia’s aggressive policies on Syria and Ukraine as the reason behind these recent tensions. However, they are ignoring the events in both countries leading up to the Russian intervention. Ukraine’s last three elections since 2004 were concluded in the shadow of street demonstrations. The so-called Orange Revolution, first sociologically, then physically, divided the country into two. After the coup of 2014, which overthrew President Yanukovych, Russia became an active side in the country. The biggest supporters of the revolution that brought the civil war and divided the country were George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. During the same period, successive colorful revolutionary attempts were carried out in former Soviet Republics: Kyrgyzstan and Georgia only narrowly avoided dissolution. The street demonstrations in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Belarus and Uzbekistan were barely stopped before they could turn into revolutions. Kiev, which was proclaimed as the heart of the Russian people for a thousand years, is now the epicenter of anti-Russian policies. There is a hostile formation only several hundred kilometers away from Moscow. Even though Russia employed a reactive strategy of “justifiable self-defense” in light of all this, it would be more accurate to say that the true responsibility lies with the EU countries, which laid the groundwork for these movements and simultaneously ostracized Russia. Those who pursue the truly aggressive policies in the region are the deep powers, which drag countries into civil wars, technically, financially and politically support the revolutions, and expect to profit from these conflicts.

Besides, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the origin of the ongoing civil wars in countries like Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen were the Arab Spring demonstrations. In no part of the Arab Spring was Russia involved. Between the years 2010 and 2015, Syria was razed to the ground by coalition aircrafts and 15 million Syrians were forced to leave their homes. The north of the country was divided into cantons controlled by the PKK and the PYD terrorist organizations. Those who first dragged the country into ruin were the aggressive policies of the anti-Russian front. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov likens these policies to a “bull in a china shop”. Due to their very nature based on use of brute force, these policies are not protective, but destructive. The thing to do in order to save Syria is to immediately abandon these destructive policies and to look for a solution based on alliances for the region.

In various places of the world, hundreds of thousands of people are arming themselves with weapons to fight every morning. At any moment, some kind of provocation can ignite the fuse of a great war as the Sarajevo assassination did in 1914. There are many subcontractor organizations that can volunteer for it and the deep states that will instruct them are sinister and merciless. In the civil wars of Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, there are tens of thousands of mercenaries. As for Mediterranean, five aircraft carriers, over a hundred warships, warplanes, helicopters, amphibious transport docks and tens of thousands of soldiers are advancing. An environment where deadly weaponry is stocked with such intensity is no doubt a very risky one. Within these conditions, the tense tone in international relations should be abandoned immediately, and the language of peace should reign over world politics.

War with Russia is a disastrous scenario that shouldn’t even be considered. Tensions with Russia mean putting the entire world into danger. Russia is not a potential threat; on the contrary, it is a country to form a friendly and amiable alliance with. Such an alliance can bring great value to the West. For this, the language of peace should be brought back; what an alliance would bring should be considered, not conflict, and the fruitful and fine outcomes of growing powerful together, not fighting with each other, should be appreciated.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Travel Ban Not a Solution to Terror Threat

28 02 2017

by Harun Yahya

President Trump concentrated his pre-electoral promises and statements on certain key topics. The most prominent ones among these topics were the issues about immigrants, war on radicalism and new international economic measures aimed at protecting the America’s economic interests.

Among these, the executive order implemented the fastest by Mr. Trump after taking office was to ban the entry of refugees and various Muslim nationals to the US. Under the Executive Order, which has been dubbed a “Muslim Ban” by anti-Trump circles, the US refugee admission system has been suspended for 120 days; the Syrian refugee program has been indefinitely discontinued; the citizens of 7 Muslims countries consisting Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan have been banned for 90 days from entering the United States.

The order, which has sparked widespread reactions and protests within and outside the United States, has placed many Muslims with valid official visas, even residence permits who come to the US to study, work, visit their relatives, or receive treatment for various illnesses in an exceedingly difficult position. In fact, when the order was issued, many among them were flying on their way to the US, unaware of the unfolding events.

The order brought with it contradictions and uncertainties. For example, those who are citizens of the 7 countries but also hold dual passports from countries such as France, Canada and Britain were also included in the ban. On the other hand, the Department of Homeland Security announced that those who have permanent residence permits and pose no serious threat to the US would be allowed in on a case-by-case basis. However, it remains unclear whether this would extend to those in possession of work or student visas.

It is clear that, other than causing grief to innocent harmless Muslims, the order, which was issued on the grounds of establishing security measures against terrorism, will be of no avail to the safety of the country or the image of the new administration. Welcoming refugees is a crucial part of what America represents and values, a part of the American Dream that Trump promises to revive. Since the 2nd World War, the US has been the world’s leader in resettling refugees. Half of the refugees who are permanently resettled in a third country resettled in the US. Since the Refugee Act of 1980, the federal government has suspended refugee admissions only once before: in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, to December 11, 2001. The executive order presumes that the US needs to take longer reviewing refugee procedures in 2017 than it did after 9/11.

Amongst the terrorist activities carried out in Western countries, many terrorist organizations employ the members they have recruited from among the citizens of those countries. Lately, the terrorists who carry out acts of terrorism in Europe or the US are found to carry the passports of those countries. For example, the terrorists who perpetrated the Paris attacks in December 2015 and killed 132 people were in possession of French and Belgian passports.

Furthermore, those coming from these 7 countries obtained their visas or permanent residency rights only after going through extensive inspections, psychological tests and interviews, and thorough investigations on their entire backgrounds, activities, connections and social circles. Those who do not meet the required criteria or arouse even the slightest suspicion cannot obtain a visa in the first place. For this reason, trying to get a visa from these countries is a method no terrorist would follow.

Radicalism, as pointed out by President Trump, indeed poses a serious threat for the US, Islamic countries and the entire world. However, it is quite unlikely that this order, signed out of concern for urgently implementing the election promises, will offer a solution to the said threat.

On the contrary, such a practice will only please the deep state elements who are dissatisfied with the new administration. It will present a significant leverage to the provocateurs of the “deep” global anti-Trump campaign, lying in ambush for the opportunity of finding a flaw. The fact that the circles who previously did not voice any criticism against the Muslim massacre in the Middle East, or may even have supported it, now supposedly look out for Muslims merely for the sake of opposing Trump is a clear indication of this.

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that such policies fuel the feelings of anger, hatred and vengeance, as well as nurture the radical elements who look for an opportunity to attract new recruits to their ranks from among the 3.3 million Muslims in the country.

Therefore, it’s best to not insist on such an erroneous and unfruitful practice that is far from being effective and realistic while having so many negative outcomes. Even if it is impossible to fully reverse the order, it is necessary to make adjustments that will at least reduce the grievances and minimize the ban periods urgently.

Radicalism is a deviant ideology that emerges in the name of Islam but completely contradicts the spirit and tenets of the Qur’an, the one and true source of Islam. Thus, before all else, it is of utmost importance to make a distinction between radicalism and the true Islam that is based on the Qur’an.

If President Trump wishes to eliminate radicalism as he has promised, this can only be achieved through an ideological and scientific struggle. The powerful, real, and truthful  ideas of the Qur’an will undoubtedly eradicate the false and hypocritical message that terrorists use to justify their violent acts.  It has been proven countless times by experience that, contrary to expectations, erroneous policies of violence and military methods provide terrorist structures with ever greater grounds for justification of their cause and a larger number of followers.

For that reason, the Muslim community in the US and around the world should be made aware of the truth of Islam and the deviancy of radicalism in the light of Qur’anic and rational evidence. A broad and extensive worldwide education campaign will deal the most devastating blow to radicalism and eradicate the terrorists’ deviant ideology altogether. It is high time for the world and for President Trump to realize that this is the only way out.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Syria’s Territorial Integrity Is Important

18 02 2017

 

 

by Harun Yahya

In the coming days, there will be two important meetings, 15 days apart, regarding the future of Syria. In the first of these meetings, the parties will meet in Astana, Kazakhstan’s capital city, tomorrow, under the leadership of Turkey and Russia, who played a major role in the ceasefire. Then on February 8, the Geneva Conference will take place under the leadership of the United Nations. This will be the fourth round of the meetings that took place in 2012, 2014 and 2016.

The main agenda of both meetings will be to develop a common roadmap for a lasting peace in the country. After a lasting peace is established, the reconstruction of Syria’s administration and its infrastructure will be planned. Two parties – who have been fighting with each other for six years – uniting under one administration stand out as an important problem. But for the future of the Middle East and in the big picture, the Islamic world, the preservation of the territorial integrity of Syria is very important.

Recently, maps dividing the Middle East are being presented in the international media one after the other. New political maps are being engineered in some circles. These new maps will affect 19 Islamic countries from Libya to Pakistan and about 650mn Muslims living in these countries. The goal is to materialise the bloody scenario that some deep-seated powers planned, especially for the Middle East, and to make the world a more dangerous place by dividing the Muslim countries once again. The plan is aimed at launching new civil wars that will last for decades. This insidious plan must be prevented. The Islamic world does not need new conflicts, new divisions and new disagreements.  It is time to increase our common ground and unite.

The first of the fragmented Middle East maps was drawn by the British historian Bernard Lewis after the Cold War. The updated version appeared in 2006 carrying US intelligence officer Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters’ signature. Then, in January 2008, with Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in the Atlantic Monthly magazine and a report by Kenneth Katzman presented to the American Congress on September 25, 2008 two new maps appeared. To date, many different “New Middle East Maps” have been published in the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, the BBC, the New York Times, Pakistan Defense, Washington Post, Reuters, and Huffington Post.

In these maps, think tanks or media outlets have drawn new borders in parallel with the political or economic interests of the centres they represent. Although there were partial differences between these borders that were drawn on a table, they all had something in common. Their aim was to establish 15 new small states in the Middle East, North Africa and West Asia by destroying today’s Muslim states. The real life applications of these maps can be seen in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan today. The Islamic world should stand in a state of collective opposition to these divisive policies. Thus, the forthcoming Syria peace talks will be a very suitable point of resistance in this respect.

Participants in Astana particularly emphasised the importance of preserving the integrity of Syria during the Moscow talks. Russia and Turkey have repeatedly pointed out to the dangers of partition and stated that the main purpose of the meeting in Astana is a solution that will prevent the fragmentation of the country. This emphasis is not only important for Syria, but also for the future of the region.

Turkey is undoubtedly one of the countries which should have the most say regarding Syria. YPG/PKK members from Syria took part in many terrorist acts that took place on Turkish soil in 2016. Also, the weapons the US sent to the YPG are being used by the PKK against Turkey. Three million Syrian refugees live in Turkey. The Turkish government has spent close to $20bn over the course of five years for its guests.

Turkey and Syria share a 650km border, so the security of the other side of the border is synonymous with the security of Turkey. It is absolutely unacceptable for us to let the Stalinist PKK constitute a threat for both Syria and Turkey by forming cantons beyond the border. Both the Syrian regime and the opposition already share this concern of Turkey.

At this stage, many regional states are ready to commit to the task of guarantorship in Syria and to make sacrifices for the reconstruction of Syria. This is the first time a lasting peace has come so close in Syria, even if some circles do not want it. The Syrian peace will also have a positive effect on those Muslim territories where civil war still rages on. Muslims will show that they can live in peace to the whole world and “The Clash of Civilizations” or “Age of Muslim Wars” projects of warmongers such as Samuel Huntington will prove to be futile.

There is not much opportunity left to stop the bloodshed in the Muslim world and this opportunity should not be wasted. This is what the oppressed people surrounded by fire in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya are hoping for.  The spirit of brotherhood should reign over the Syria talks. The establishment of peace in Syria is in favour of all Muslims whether they participate in the talks or not.

The Islamic world should be at the forefront in the race for civilisation. Bringing peace back among the Muslims will be the first step in bringing Islamic civilisation to the point it deserves. This is a goal all Muslims should strive to achieve in unison.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Darwinism Is a Superstitous Belief That Disparages Women

7 02 2017

 

by Harun Yahya

The alleged scientific support that Social Darwinism provided for racism, fascism and imperialism, as well as communism, is a widely known subject that has been much written about. But one lesser known fact is that a great many Darwinists, including Charles Darwin himself, have believed in the fallacy  that women are both biologically and mentally inferior to men.

As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant also acknowledges, racism and sexual discrimination are the two main consequences of the theory of evolution. Durant verbalized the fallaciousness in Darwin’s stance regarding women as follows:

… Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.”[i]

The errors made by Darwin that Durant referred to appear in The Descent of Man, as follows:

It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strikingly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation. [ii]

It is clearly obvious that Darwin looked down on women even while he explains why marriage is useful:

… children—constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and female chit-chat. These things good for one’s health.[iii]

Darwin states that he – in his twisted way – regards marriage as necessary using the reasoning which predicates that “a woman’s friendship is better than a dog’s,”  yet his statements about marriage made no reference at all to features such as friendship, affection, love, devotion, loyalty, closeness, sincerity and trust between two people who spend their lives together. About marriage, Darwin also had this to say:

… loss of time—cannot read in the evenings—fatness and idleness—anxiety and responsibility—less money for books, etc.,—if many children, forced to gain one’s bread … perhaps my wife won’t like London; then the sentence is banishment and degradation with indolent idle fool. [iv]

In The Descent of Man, Darwin also claims that men are superior to women:

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music, … history, science, and philosophy … the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of women. [v]

Of course, all of Darwin’s negative opinions regarding women and the misogynistic discourses of some other Darwinists, the samples of which will be given as we proceed, are diametrically opposed to the moral values described in the Qur’an. In the Qur’an, God commands us to be very compassionate, respectful and protective towards women. Furthermore, He cites women with superior morality such as Mary and the wife of the Pharoah as role models.  Superiority in the Sight of God is not according to one’s race, gender or rank but according to their closeness to God and their faith. In many verses of the Qur’an God informs us that all those who believe- without any discrimination between man and woman- will be rewarded with what they have done:

Anyone who acts rightly, male or female, being a believer, We will give them a good life and We will recompense them according to the best of what they did. (Surat An-Nahl, 97)

Examples of the nonsensical remarks of Darwinism regarding women

Darwin’s misogynistic statements are very clear and many scientists are well aware of this fact. Dr. Jerry Bergman, who is against the evolution theory and who explains the negative impacts of Darwinism on social life in his more than 800 published works and more than 20 books, says the following in his book titled The Dark Side of Charles Darwin:

Darwin himself concluded that the differences between human males and females were so large that it was surprising “such different beings belong to the same species” and that “even greater differences” had not evolved. Natural and sexual selection were at the core of Darwinism, and human female inferiority was both a major proof and a chief witness of this theory.

Darwin concluded that men shaped women’s evolution the male’s liking by sexual selection, just as animal breeders shaped animals to the needs of humans. Conversely, war tended to prune the weaker men, allowing only the more fit to return home and reproduce. Men were also the hunters, another activitiy that pruned weaker men. Women, in contrast, were not subject to these selection pressures because they “specialized in the ‘gathering’ part of the primitive economy” that did not require the strength or stamina of war or hunting.” [vi]

The major (and mistaken) justifications Darwin gave for his female inferiority conclusions are summarized in his classic work, The Descent of Man. In this book, Darwin argued that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and that “males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.” He (mistakingly) concluded that since female evolution progressed at a slower rate than male evolution, a woman was “in essence, a stunted man”. This degrading view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries.

For example, Darwin’s contemporary and disciple, anthropologist  McGrigor Allan, states that women are less evolved than men and that “physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child… it is doubtful if women have contributed one profound original idea of the slightest permanent value to the world.” [vii]

Of course, Darwin had no scientific basis for proposing these fallacies, but his biased and prejudiced claims about women spread rapidly among his scientific contemporaries.

For example, the materialist Carl Vogt, a professor of natural history at the University of Geneva, accepted all the conclusions drawn by Darwin, without subjecting them to any scientific analysis, and claimed that “the child, the female, and the senile white” all had the intellectual features and personality of the “grown -up Negro,” and that consequently they were inferior. [viii]

Herr Vogt went even further and brought forward the lie that they were actually closer to animals than men. According to Vogt, a woman was “a stunted man” whose development had been obstructed because her evolution had come to a premature halt. [ix] Vogt even claimed that the gap between males and females increases with civilization’s progress and is greatest in the advanced societies of Europe. [x] Darwin was greatly influenced by Vogt’s rantings, and stated that he was honored to count him among his most important supporters. [xi]

Evolutionist Paul Broca (1824-1880) of the Faculty of Medicine in Paris was particularly interested in the skull differences between men and women.  Broca misconstrued the relatively smaller brain in women and came up with the fallacy that women were intellectually inferior to men. Of course, that is a very irrational claim; today it has been concluded that there is no relationship between human intelligence and the size of the brain. It is absolutely impossible to come to a truthful conclusion simply by looking at the weight of the brain.

Many other evolutionists following the fallacies of Darwin and continued to claim that women are biologically and intellectually inferior to men. Furthermore, some evolutionists even classified men and women as two different psychological species. According to this fallacy, men are classified as homo-frontalis and women as homo-parietalis. Again an evolutionist writer, Elaine Morgan stated that Darwin encouraged men to work on the reasons why women were “manifestly inferior and irreversibly subordinant.”( EIaine Morgan, The Descent of Woman, New York: Stein and Day, 1972, p. 1)

Being a woman or a man would not make one superior to the other

Obviously, Darwin’s theses were based not on science, but on the culture and primitive scientific understanding of the Victorian Era he lived in. These theses gave way to harmful behavior, violence towards women and caused women to be regarded as inferior beings in many societies. Philosophies such as fascism and communism that disparage women, basically embrace Darwin’s misguided understanding regarding women.

The intellectual characteristics that Darwinists use as criteria are abilities given by Allah, irrespective of gender. In one verse, God reveals: “You who believe! If you fear [and respect] God, He will give you a standard (of right and wrong)…” (Surat al-Anfal, 29) As this verse reveals, judgment-and thus, intellect-develops not according to gender, but according to fear of God.

According to the Qur’an, men and women are equal, and superiority is defined by heedfulness.

God has imposed equal responsibilities on both, and holds both responsible for the same matters. Whether one is a male or female does not make a person superior in the Sight of God, but fear and deep love of and devotion to Him, and proper moral values do. In one of His verses, our Lord reveals that regardless of gender, those who exhibit the best behavior will receive the best reward for their moral values:

Anyone, male or female, who does right actions and is a believer, will enter the Garden. They will not be wronged by so much as the tiniest speck. (Surat an-Nisa’, 124) 

Their Lord responds to them “I will not let the deeds of any doer among you go to waste, male or female…” (Surah Al ‘Imran, 195)

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

 


[i] John R. Durant, “The Ascent of Nature in Darwin’s Descent of Man” in The Darwinian Heritage, Ed. by David Kohn, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p.295
[ii] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1871 (1896 print), p.326
[iii] Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (Ed. by Nora Barlow), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1958, p. 232-233
[iv] Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (Ed. by Nora Barlow), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1958, p. 232-233
[v] Jerry Bergman, The Dark Side of Charles Darwin, Master Books, 2011, p. 246
[vi] Jerry Bergman, The Dark Side of Charles Darwin, Master Books, 2011, p. 246
[vii] Jerry Bergman, The Dark Side of Charles Darwin, Master Books, 2011, p. 249
[viii] Carl Vogt, Lectures on Man: His Place in Creation, and the History of Earth, edited by James Hunt, London: Paternoster Row, Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1864, xv, 192
[ix] Stephanie A. Shields, “Functionalism, Darwinism, and the Psychology of Women; A Study in Social Myth,” American Psychologist, no. 1 (1975): 749
[x] Evelleen Richards, “Darwin and the Descent of Women,” in David Oldroyd and Ian Langham (Eds.), The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought (Holland: D. Reidel, 1983), 75
[xi] Evelleen Richards, “Darwin and the Descent of Women,” in David Oldroyd and Ian Langham (Eds.), The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought (Holland: D. Reidel, 1983), 74 49


Page 1 of 11112345...102030...Last »