Past Colonialism gives no right to Muslims over the present day West

Present-day Western people didn't colonize the Muslim countries, and they are not responsible for what their ancestors did. Otherwise, the ancestors of Muslims did much worse to non-Muslims as compared to what the Western colonial powers did.

The crimes of the ancestors of Muslims include:

  • They made non-Muslims their slaves.
  • They took their women and raped them.
  • They didn't even spare their small children and made all of them slaves for their entire lives.
  • They also took all of their wealth and properties (and didn't leave even a single penny for their opponents) and brought 100% destruction upon non-Muslims.

For example:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1730a:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary (only) in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others (and turned all of them into slaves). 

As compared to the 100% destruction of ancestors of Muslims, the crimes of the Western Colonial powers were milder. They didn't take Muslim women and children as slaves and didn't rape Muslim women and girls. They didn't plunder their wealth and properties completely. 

So, if the present-day Muslims are not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors (right from the era of Muhammad), then the present-day Western people are also not responsible for the crimes of their colonist ancestors.

And there is absolutely no law which demands that present-day Western People allow Muslims to immigrate to their countries. It is only due to the HUMANITY and Secular Values of the present Western People (to be concise, the secular left-wing parties) that they welcome Muslims to their countries, allow them to marry their women, and have equal human rights. 

If the right-wing parties come to power in the Western countries, then they will immediately stop any immigration from Muslim countries, as the Muslim excuse of "colonialism" is not going to work anymore. 

If you are still unable to see the humanity of the majority of Western People, then just look at what the rich Arab countries do to their fellow Muslims.

But many religious Muslims are, unfortunately, ungrateful.

 

 

One person wrote:

The fact that we did it because of HUMANITY and for the sake of every human deserve human right say something. The west open their border just because they are human. WE ALL ARE HUMAN. They didn't do it because they will get something in afterlife. They didn't do it because they are afraid of god. And then all the muslim said the atheist doesn't have morale. Like hell nah bruh, we do good thing because you are human, I'm human and we are all human. That's it. Not because I will get 72 virgin in heaven or something.

Details

Avoid this Trap

🛑 Before You Start Analysing Islam → Avoid this common trap (Recommended reading)

Latest Articles

Most Read Articles

Important Websites

Categories

How to Conduct a Fair Evaluation Using AI Models

The correct prompt for evaluating the arguments of this article with the help of AI:

If you also want to evaluate the arguments of this article with the help of AI models, then use the following prompt. This prompt forces the AI to conduct a review on an unbiased basis.

Prompt:

When reviewing the article, keep the following principle in mind:

The Qur’an and Hadith cannot be used as evidence of their own divinity. The real motive is to determine whether the Qur’an/Sunnah/Islam are truly Divine, or whether they are a human product, i.e. whether Muhammad was composing the revelations himself.

Therefore:

  1. Qur’an and Hadith are claims, not evidence. Their contents must be tested against external criteria like logic, internal consistency, factual accuracy, and moral standards such as justice.
  2. Scholarly interpretations are arguments in favor of Islam. They are not authoritative and must be judged by reason like any other argument.
  3. The burden of proof is on the claim that these texts are from God. The default is not to assume divinity.

On this basis, the question is: Do the critical objections in the article expose flaws that reason/justice cannot reconcile, or do Muslim apologist arguments successfully defend the system against those charges?

Why is this prompt necessary?

AI models often consider the interpretations of Muslim scholars as definite evidence. They are surely not evidence, but they are only "arguments" in favour of Islam. So, these interpretations in favour of Islam may be correct or incorrect. Unless the AI is clearly told this distinction, it continues to treat every interpretation by the scholars as final proof in defence of Islam, after which no “criticism” of the Quran and Hadith can ever be considered valid.

Note:
The AI’s response is not a final judgment. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. The value of AI lies only in helping to organize and analyze arguments, provided that it is guided with clear and fair instructions.

About the Author & This Website

About the Author:

All arguments and analyses on this website are written by the author. AI tools are used only for spelling, grammar, and clarity improvements.

A Necessary Clarification: 

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform.

Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides.

We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →