We Told You So!

By Salim Williams  

Being the winner or being correct can be such a satisfying feeling even if the relative consequence is that others must suffer loss or the feeling of disappointment. The feeling of victory can be heightened by the knowledge that your opponent, of whom you have had previous hostilities and are diametrically opposed, is firmly attached to the other end of that loss. But, when that dispute or competition can mean both parties suffer loss when one of the parties wins the race it is only then we realise it was a dispute that never should have been.

The atheist community have for the last fifty years populated the social services including the schools and municipal government bodies in the form of largely left leaning individuals. At first they were not in any sort of power nor were they as daring as to challenge the cultural social fabric of the society in ways as profound as we see today. But, slowly they came to dominate the social services and had a greater and greater impact on the culture of those organisation to the point that employment within those bodies almost required that your politics be at least centre-left at a minimum. As time passed the aggressive atheism extolled by ideologies such as Communism, Trotskyism and Maoism could be found within most publically funded schools, with the exception of faith schools and the privately funded.

Atheism was first presented as equality of the faiths and beliefs which appeared to be completely harmless or even virtuous to this so called egalitarian society. But its real aim was to remove Christianity as the dominant value system of the social sphere. The arguments used seemed completely innocuous by others because it presented the removal of monotheism as inclusion of others thus making the social space inclusive rather than exclusive. The rationale seemed almost irresistible when faced with a rapidly growing and diverse social and cultural demographic. Little did the people realise that when the faiths are equal Atheism becomes the default dominant ideology.

Atheism and atheists used this modus to completely cleanse the social space of Christian values, thus creating a void which would only be filled by people’s individual morality or lack thereof. The basis for this was their theory that humanity could reason themselves into exactly the same good values but “without God”. Like most, social theories, as opposed to scientific ones, the scope for disaster is infinite and the implications and results would be long lasting and profound. This arrogance based in man’s self deceit that he is the ultimate being and there is no great power other than him has resulted in the manifest destruction of a healthy human society and the natural environment.

The atheists attacked Christianity with such vigour that it became completely Res non grata within the educated classes and the intellectual environment. Those who wanted to be taken serious as academics had to consider seriously whether they should adhere to a way of life that could seriously undermine their career in both the long and short term. The result being that it was considered incompatible to be both Christian and intellectually enlightened. This is clearly not the case but this was the effect of such aggressive atheism within the educational establishment.

The result is that the values which were promoted by Christianity were also jettisoned and those that adhered to its values were considered backward or intellectually ill-equipped. The atheist would argue that; if God doesn’t exist why should they adhere to a set of values equally created in the mind of a man or woman? This argument is not only tired and able to be refuted, but now we have a body of evidence based in the tangible world of the social sphere which strongly suggests that when a society has a highly developed sense of the creator and adheres to the values which flow from that way of life the society suffers less degeneration and objective ills. The examples are too numerous to catalogue but a few examples are: Britain as opposed to the rest of mainland Europe which has a greater sense of Christianity and therefore lower teenage pregnancy, alcohol abuse by its young, better social cohesion and family cohesion. In nearly every human sphere Western Europe does better socially than Britain. And, better still Eastern Europe with a stronger sense of Christian values and less polluted sense of society has even lower social problems than Western Europe. The Middle East which is socially totally centred on the concept of a creator has the lowest of all recorded social problems such as teenage pregnancies and alcohol abuse. The instances of sexually transmitted diseases in the Middle East are almost non-existent over the whole region and only appear in those areas of the Middle East which have allowed their social values to be relaxed in order to accommodate the western way of life in its own population or a western immigrant population.

The recent riots in Britain was a culmination of many things that converged and expressed themselves in quite a devastating manner but, the underlying cause of the riots was the natural result of the removal of Christian values from society. The vacuum created by the atheist was always going to eventually be filled by the most powerful default values in human society; those of: greed, selfishness and survival. Not to see or imagine this result could only be credited to wilful ideological blindness and if they really didn’t see this coming then why should we trust them to be in any position to have a say in human social affairs ever again. And, would this not be proof of their limited human intellect not to be able see the desired and undesired results of their design. Atheists will argue that the socio-economic factors leading up to the riots should be the only factors that are determinative of the rampant criminality that was so destructive and wanton over those nights but that is clearly not the case. The simple fact is that other countries with cultural systemic poverty do not have young who go around looting and burning their towns and cities just because they are poor and socially excluded and to cite this as a counter argument is woefully vacuous of any rationale based in reality. What can be accepted is that the economic conditions acted as a catalyst but no matter how much heat you apply to water it will never behave like petrol; because, it does not have the same properties, or in human terms, values.

The atheist may well try to argue that removal of Christianity does not necessitate the replacement with the worst kind of values such as greed, selfishness and a lack of empathy. But, if we look at the evidence dispassionately the observable evidence overwhelming suggests that societies that have moved away from Christian or monotheistic values have an identical increase in social values that can be traced back to greed and selfishness. Such societies overwhelmingly extol consumerism, personal debt, and sexual promiscuousness. Not all to the same degree but the correlation is undeniable. The logical argument is even more irresistible. If everyone is left to come to a collective agreement concerning social norms it has to be assumed that everyone wants the same things for their own and the collective good.

This is patently false and belongs to the realm of utopian theory even though at first glance it may sound obvious until you factor in reality. Humans value different things at different times and to different extents. So, which social norms should be constant and which norms should be variable? The simple fact is that we can never agree on any of them collectively so they agree to the ones that have the most immediate impact on the individual such as prevention of personal harm and non-interference of personal liberty up until it harms others. This results in social norms that enforce the freedom of the individual but do not make collective social legislation in the long term because it concedes the fact that humans cannot agree on collective social applicable norms simply because what is deemed good for, or in the interest of, one individual is not necessarily favoured by another, from a purely human perspective. An example of this is the taking care of the elderly.

In Britain the old have no right to be looked after by their families either under legislation or morally, so the result is that many live alone and die alone without being noticed or families place them in to care homes to be looked after by non-family members. The state will only guarantee that immediate impact is prevented such as physical harm to themselves or by others or abuse. The vacuous moral situation leaves many of the vulnerable in British society to the inclement forces of personal self-interest. Not even children are safe from the broken values of atheist Britain. It legislates that children should have all there organic needs met and must not be harmed in the immediate but stops short of then saying the parents or guardians of that child must provide a social and family environment that is conducive to producing a well developed, socially intelligent and socially sympathetic child which as we have seen is just as important for the protection and good health of the society as a whole. In fact it could be argued that looking after the moral or long term needs of a child will encompass both the immediate and long term but the short term impact prevention can and usually does exclude the long term impact.

The rioting youth have only displayed values which have been steadily dominating the social sphere for nearly 50 years. They have been told that there is no God nor afterlife and therefore no accountability. They now believe this life and its trappings are the only things worth striving for. This has robbed them of hope which is essential for the human mind and at the same time rid them of an internal policeman which when other external prophylactic methods have failed would be the safety net any healthy society would rely on to prevent such rampant lawlessness. That coupled with the aggressive consumerism and wealth-worth based materialistic values would eventually result in the riots witnessed up and down the country. The youth were in utter despair as they could not worship the new god capitalism that the middle classes worship but, the youth have been educated to worship nothing but him without the ability do so at the same alters. Despair in this life and no hope in the hereafter this would send sane men mad. But, the youth found a way to worship their new god but just in a manner unacceptable to its high priests and shaman.


Originally produced for islamiquemagazine.com


Jamiatul Ulama of Victoria have placed articles and answers to questions for public view for educational purposes. However, many of these answers are unique to a particular scenario and cannot be taken as a basis to establish a ruling in another situation or another environment. Jamiatul Ulama of Victoria bears no responsibility with regards to these answers/articles being used out of their intended context. Any Shariah ruling herein given is based specifically on the question posed and should be read in conjunction with the question. Jamiatul Ulama of Victoria bears no responsibility to any party who may or may not act on this article or answer to a question posed and being hereby exempted from loss or damage howsoever caused. This answer may not be used as evidence in any Court of Law without prior written consent of Jamiatul Ulama of Victoria. Any or all links provided in our emails, answers and articles are restricted to the specific material being cited. Such referencing should not be taken as an endorsement of other contents of that website.