← Back to The Journey of Certainty
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
[Audio effects]
Peace be upon you. As we explained in the previous episode, atheists have provided material, genetic explanations for natural phenomena without any evidence. However, they did not stop there; they also attributed to genes actions that deviate from natural instincts, using this as an excuse to justify them as natural phenomena.
A striking example of this is their approach to homosexuality, which they do not call "shudhuth" (deviation) but rather "homosexuality"; because the word "shudhuth" implies that it is a repulsive behavior contrary to human nature, which they do not acknowledge.
There is a relationship between homosexuality and atheism; a 2013 survey of the LGBT community in America showed that about half of American homosexuals have no religious affiliation, compared to 20% of the rest of the American population without religious affiliation.
The Western scientific community, where atheism and Darwinism prevail, has published studies on the relationship between homosexuality and genetics, and on social phenomena related to homosexuality; for example: a study on the effects of two homosexuals adopting a child. We have the right to ask: Were these studies conducted in a scientific and neutral manner?
This leads us to the bigger and more important question: Are scientific studies, which have ideological and moral applications and are produced under the dominance of Western liberalism, really neutral? Or are they sometimes a politicized tool? If such research results contradict Islamic values, should the rational position be to doubt Islamic values? Or the validity of these studies?
When an atheist says to you, "I believe in science"... is this true? Or do they believe in the wrong interpretation of false science; thus falling into compound ignorance? This is the main and most important goal of our episode; homosexuality is just an example, through which we examine the reliability of Western science.
The roadmap for our episode will be as follows.. and I ask you to focus - brothers - so that we do not get distracted; the episode is rich in benefits, full of important evidence and facts; so we need concentration to understand the sequence of its elements.
We will first analyze the meaning of the alleged statement: "Homosexuality has a genetic cause." Then, we will mention what the main Western references currently state about the relationship between homosexuality and genes and heredity. Then, we will return to the most important question: Are the references and studies Western in such moral matters necessarily reliable?
We will answer this question by studying three things:
What does this mean exactly? Does it mean that a homosexual has genes that drive him to engage in homosexual practices involuntarily, just as a person closes his eye when a fragment comes towards it, or withdraws his hand from a hot body involuntarily? Of course not...
Does it then mean that a homosexual has genes that make him psychologically inclined towards individuals of the same sex? Upon investigation, this is the meaning of their statement. We say initially: assuming the existence of these genes, by what right do you consider them a justification for homosexual behavior and an exemption for its possessor from blame and punishment? This is a very important key point; meaning, assuming that a person has a distorted bad feeling, does this justify him to act based on this feeling?
Then, if a man has an excessive desire for women, does this justify him committing rape, for example? Or is he required to control himself, curb his lust, and make it halal? So why do you use headlines like: "Homosexuality is subject to genetic genes," in a way that suggests that the homosexual is forced to commit perverted acts, that his genes subject him?
Then, are you ready to adhere to the same logic in dealing with your political and intellectual opponents, who may have genetic causes for what they do? Or if we say to you: the one who takes multiple wives may have genetic causes that drive him to take multiple wives, and the one who is satisfied with a married husband may have genes that drive her to do so, why does same-sex marriage become permissible in all fifty US states, by a decision of the Supreme Court on (26/6/2015), while polygamy remains prohibited in all fifty states, even until our day in July (2017)? Why is the claim of the relationship with genes used to create sympathy specifically for homosexuals?
And with all of this... is there actually a gene that causes a perverted psychological inclination? This brings us - brothers - to the second axis, which is: what the main Western references currently stipulate.
One of the most famous American health organizations: (the American Psychological Association), concluded that the existence of a genetic basis for perversion has not been proven, as of the date of this episode in July (2017), knowing that this association strongly advocates for what it considers the rights of homosexuals.
And many specialized books in the study of sexual behavior describe the research as (in English) inconclusive; meaning that they did not reach a conclusion and that no gene related to homosexuality has been identified.
One of the best books in this field is Dr. Neil Whitehead's book "My Genes Made Me Do It! Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence," which refutes the relationship of perversion to heredity from a theoretical, foundational, logical perspective, in addition to addressing studies of identical twins in this field, many of which showed no genetic relationship to perversion, with an explanation of the major scientific errors in twin studies that claim this relationship, and we will mention something of that in the comments, and the book is a scientific pleasure for those who have the foundations of scientific research.
And here, brothers, note an important foundational issue; the atheists say: we came through mutations and natural selection of the traits that help survival, with the extinction of the carriers of the traits that do not help survival. Does perversion help survival? Of course not! Because two males together, or two females together, do not reproduce; and therefore, they do not pass on the genetic traits to the following generations. Hence, it was expected that the law of natural selection would eliminate perversion; because it is a trait that does not help survival, and yet, perversion exists! So notice how the materialistic Darwinian interpretation contradicted its first and last!
We return to the stipulations of the American Psychological Association and the specialized books; note that we did not follow the unscientific behavior that many follow; when they come to you with any study that agrees with their desires, and ignore the other studies that do not serve their position, we here mention to you the stipulations of the major health organizations and the specialized books, as these give a summary of a large number of studies.
And with all of this, someone will say: against your speech, there are studies that indicate a relationship between homosexuality and heredity, and someone will say: if the main references change their position one day, will you acknowledge the existence of this relationship?
And this brings us to the third and most important axis of the episode, which is discussing the question: are the scientific researches, which come out with results that are harnessed to serve Western liberal values, really neutral? Or are they a politicized tool?
First: the atmosphere in which these researches are conducted. Western civilization - brothers - has sanctities that it raises its banner, criminalizes, and fights those who touch them, and the influential lobby supporting homosexuals has been able to include in these sanctities what they call: "the rights of homosexuals"; just as the one who opposes Western hegemony is described as a terrorist, and the one who opposes the Jews is described as anti-Semitic; they have labeled the opposition to sexual perversion as homophobia; meaning that sexual homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, a human right, and the one who opposes it is afflicted with a phobia towards it! But this patient is not excused by them, but rather criminalized.
And just as there is a slogan of "combating terrorism" and "combating anti-Semitism," Western civilization also raises the slogan of "combating homophobia," which the United Nations has adopted, launched campaigns for, issued agreements that many countries have signed, and appointed a special international monitor to protect homosexuals.
In this atmosphere of fighting and monitoring, can it be imagined that experimental science would come out with neutral results regarding perversion?
One of the scientific scandals that answers this question is the story of Professor Spitzer, Robert Spitzer, who is described as the "father of modern psychiatry." He published a study about a non-drug treatment that helps homosexuals get rid of their homosexuality and called it reparative therapy, meaning it corrects the sexual orientation of the individual. He mentioned in the study the success of his treatment in correcting the sexual orientation of 200 men and women from homosexuals.
The health organizations were outraged and attacked his study, knowing that Spitzer himself is a supporter of what is considered the rights of homosexuals and contributed to the removal of homosexuality from the list of American psychiatric diseases. However, this did not help him with the scientific community. In 2012, Spitzer apologized for his study, and the news was published in the media under the title: "A Giant of Psychiatry Apologizes for Supporting the Treatment of Homosexuals." In his final apology letter, he said humbly and submissively, "I believe I owe the homosexual community an apology."
Imagine the pressure Spitzer was under when you know that the two largest global health organizations attacked his treatment: the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). They issued a report on May 17, 2012, titled: "Therapies that change sexual orientation have no medical justification and threaten health."
How does this non-drug treatment, which relies on talking to the deviant or the deviant woman, threaten health? They said in the report that these therapies that suppress sexual orientations in homosexuals cause them to feel guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, and even suicide!
The report concluded with recommendations to combat homophobia, and I ask you, my dear follower, to listen to these recommendations and tell me... what do they remind you of? The five recommendations say:
What do these recommendations remind you of? They are exactly like the recommendations to combat terrorism, aren't they? Another dogma imposed on the scientific community, reminding us of the film "Expelled," which tells how everyone who rejects Darwinian evolution among scientists is dealt with in an exclusionary manner. Terrorism that reminds us of the inquisition and the scientific tyranny that the church practiced in the Middle Ages. I think it's very funny after that for anyone to imagine that the atmosphere of scientific research in the field of deviance is a free and neutral one!
The second point in discussing the credibility of Western research in the field of deviance: Are the researchers credible? Or is there evidence of some of them lying and being biased? We will mention some evidence to answer this question...
First, the research that atheists and deviants still boast about: Dean Hamer's research, who claimed in 1993 that there is a possible link between the genetic marker (XQ28) and sexual homosexuality, and published his results in the well-known journal Science.
First, we remind you, brothers, that Dean Hamer is the same one who claimed the existence of the divine gene and wrote a book about it without evidence or published study, so the genetic scientists did not agree with him, as we explained in the previous episode.
Let's see this other claim by the claimant Hamer; from the scientific rules: that any scientific research in order to gain credibility, its results must be "reproducible"; meaning if other researchers conduct the same experiment, the same results should appear. Otherwise, any researcher can claim whatever he wants and become a great discoverer based on false claims.
This experiment by Hamer and his team was repeated by many researchers on a larger number of deviants, and none of them obtained similar results, which made them hint at refuting Hamer and his alleged gene. Among them is the study of Dr. George Rice and his team published in the journal Science as well, which stated: "It is not clear why our results differ completely from the original study by Hamer, as our study was larger than Hamer's study, so we certainly had the ability to detect a genetic effect of the size announced in that study. However, our data do not support the existence of any gene with a significant effect on sexual tendencies on the genetic marker Xq28." Meaning simply a refutation of Hamer, the owner of the claim of the divine gene, which is also refuted.
About 25 years have passed, and researchers are still trying to repeat Hamer's results, and they have not repeated his alleged results! In addition to the basic matter - which we mentioned in the previous episode - which is that the claim of the existence of a specific gene for a specific behavioral trait is refuted by modern genetics; as in this research published in 2008 in the well-known journal Nature, which shows that even the general simple physical traits, after the genetic code was deciphered, turned out to be more complex than to be linked to a gene, or even a specific group of genes, so how about behavioral traits that are much more complex than physical ones! So Hamer's gene is nonsense from a theoretical point of view as in the Nature research. And refuted practically; as in the Science research, which are two of the most famous well-known natural journals. In addition to the fact that it is refuted by a quarter of a century of scientific research that tried to reproduce his results and did not reproduce them.
Another aspect regarding the credibility of researchers that we will present is from a review of the nature of researchers in what is called "Gay parenting" or "raising LGBTQ+ children"; where in more American states it has become legally permissible for married gay men or lesbians to adopt a child, raise them, and for this child to see them in their gay relationship morning and evening. And when the permission or non-permission of this adoption is discussed, scientific studies are also cited about the impact of this adoption on children.
The writer (David Popenoe) conducted a review of dozens of studies related to raising LGBTQ+ children and concluded with results that he published in an article supported by specific facts under the title: "All Studies on Raising LGBTQ+ Children Are Wrong." Popenoe mentioned that from his review of these studies, at least (60%) of the researchers who come out with results supporting the permission of this upbringing are themselves gay! And that he does not know about (25%) of the rest; meaning: a part of them may also be gay! The writer mentions a list of names and incidents that indicate his speech and says: "It is enough evidence of their lack of neutrality that they do not mention this truth in 'Conflict of interest'; which is the section of scientific papers where the researcher mentions the factors that may weaken the neutrality of his research.
Of course, it is not permissible for a doctor to issue research that casts doubt on the validity of the research of these gays because they are biased towards their deviance; otherwise, he will be described as homophobic, and campaigns against homophobia will target him, and it is no wonder that many studies come out with the result that the adoption of LGBTQ+ individuals for children has no negative effect on children! But this research by the gay doctor Gartrell -married to a woman- comes out to us with the result that children who are raised by LGBTQ+ individuals or lesbians become better socially than children who are raised by a father and mother... "Scientific" research published in "scientific" journals, welcomed by "scientists" in "scientific" circles!
So what do you expect from these "circles" if they come out to you with research on polygamy, for example? Will their results be reliable and neutral? Especially when you know that polygamy is criminalized by them? Knowing also that some research -such as this one published in a journal affiliated with the famous University of Cambridge- shows that children growing up with LGBTQ+ individuals acquire deviant behavior to a large extent.
How can LGBTQ+ individuals have children?! Either the LGBTQ+ individual is inclined to both genders and has children through marriage or adultery, in addition to deviant behavior, or this child is the result of adultery between a man and a woman, who abandoned him and he became an orphan, then adopted by two gay men or lesbians who practice their deviance in front of him, so he grows up gay as well, then feels that his deviance is contrary to his human nature; -he is disgusted by his condition as they say- and wants to correct his psychological inclinations in order to live a healthy psychological life in terms of sexual inclinations, but the health organizations come to tell him: "Any intervention aimed at changing the sexual orientations of any person must be prevented" -as in the report (2012) that we mentioned-; meaning it is forbidden to provide treatment for this LGBTQ+ individual, but he must remain as he is.. Is this freedom or coercion to corruption?!
Another aspect regarding the credibility of researchers is that you know that Professor (John Michael Bailey) receives American government funding to conduct research in which he measures the arousal of gay men and women by exposing them to gay pornographic films through measurement methods that one is ashamed to mention, to the extent that his research was criticized in the (Washington Times) newspaper as being excessive in sexual arousal and wasting American taxpayers' money.
In Islam; science and speech about a person is received from the just and trustworthy person, while in this alleged Western science there is no supervisor nor condition for the morality and credibility of those from whom this science is received, nor is there any prevention of him being the most immoral of people! Nor is there any prevention of him being an atheist who does not see an absolute basis for morality at all -as we have explained previously-, and therefore, cheating and forgery are relative matters to him; they cannot be described as wrong in an absolute way.
The story of Bailey takes us to the third matter in discussing the credibility of Western research in the field of deviance, which is the funding of this research and its impact on the results.
In the article (Popenoe) that we mentioned earlier, which reviewed dozens of studies, the writer mentioned with evidence how some of the studies supporting the raising of LGBTQ+ children are originally funded by known gay individuals, such as: David Bonnet, and institutions supporting LGBTQ+ individuals such as: Rainbow Endowment.
And one of the known phenomena in the scientific community is that studies often lean towards results that the financial supporters want, known as the sponsorship bias "sponsorship bias" meaning imagine a gay person giving money to a researcher and saying to him: "Do a study about what I am doing is good or bad, and take a salary from this money of mine" and imagine scientific integrity afterwards!
The article also mentions that until the date (25/3/2014) there are (150) studies on the adoption of LGBTQ+ individuals for children. Of course -brothers- every study costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, and many of them are supported by American federal government money, in addition to the support of LGBTQ+ individuals. And we can ask: Does the American government or institutions support research on the impact of raising girls on modesty and shyness on their psychological health, for example?!
Then imagine if a researcher came out with a hypothesis that Jews have genes that drive them towards cunning and crime, and wanted to conduct research to verify his hypothesis, would his research receive any financial support? Or would he be accused of anti-Semitism and criminalized?!
Another issue related to funding is the matter of publishing research results. Here, we also encounter the problem of publication bias, or what is called "Publication Bias." This means if a researcher gets unusual results contrary to what they or the financially supporting institution desires, will the researcher publish them or hide them?
Similarly, if an actually neutral researcher comes up with results against the unusual behavior, there is no guarantee that their research will be accepted by scientific journals. In fact, journals might refuse to publish their research, especially since the lobby of the unusual behavior and their supporters launch campaigns against any research here or there that goes against their wishes. It is easier for journals to avoid the accusation of "homophobia" and to repeat the tragedy of Robert Spitzer, who was forced to apologize in the end!
The final topic in our lecture is: how does the media deal with the results of these researches? Known American media outlets and those who promote similar agendas in the Islamic world pick up studies that please the unusual behavior, despite their falsity and forgery, which we have pointed out some of. They also add forgery in the news headline. An example of this is their picking up of Hamer's claim of the existence of a gene associated with homosexuality, and publishing the alleged gene on the widest scale. This was criticized, albeit shyly, by a scientific publication that pointed out that Hamer's study was never repeated. Nevertheless, the media treated it as an undisputed fact. Even today, global media outlets like The Telegraph do not hesitate, 22 years after the practical refutation of Hamer's study, to describe opponents of unusual behavior as ignoring science, citing "this science" with Hamer's study!
It is not just the media; even the "scientific community" acted unscientifically by adding the theoretically and practically refuted gene of homosexuality to the medical database of the 21st century.
In conclusion, we must ask after all this: is what the atheists sing about science? Or is it pseudo-science? Liberal sacrosancts driving towards certain results, biased financial support, eagerness to please supporters with results they like, researchers who are unusual and questioned in their credibility, errors in study design, bias in publication, terrorizing those who take a stance contrary to the wishes of the unusual behavior, campaigns against homophobia, then media that picks up from the studies what it wants and builds on it that the alleged relationship of genes to unusual tendencies means that the owner is forced into unusual behavior... then parrot atheists say: I believe in science!
"Darkness upon darknesses: if he stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it. And he to whom Allah has not given light, no light has he." [An-Nur: 40]
Before we conclude, brothers, every living heart will feel the darkness from hearing what we have mentioned as evidence of the deviation from innate nature. We would like to enlighten our hearts with a call from the revelation by reciting verses from Surah Ash-Shu'ara, which tells the story of the Prophet of Allah Lut, peace be upon him, who first saw this ugly indecency in his people and called them, saying: "Do you approach males from among the worlds and leave what your Lord has created for you of spouses? But you are a transgressing people." [Ash-Shu'ara: 165-166]
Lut, peace be upon him, did not need to prove to them at length the corruption of their act; it is an act whose ugliness is clear, and mentioning it alone suffices to indicate its corruption. Most of Lut's call to his people was not about matters of faith; rather, he first tried to correct their humanity. But... "They said, 'O Lut, if you do not desist, you will surely be of the expelled.' He said, 'Indeed, I, of your deed, am of those who denounce.' My Lord, save me and my family from what they do.' So We saved him and his family, all except an old woman among those who remained. Then We destroyed the others, and We rained upon them a rain, and evil was the rain of those warned. Indeed, in that is a sign, but most of them were not believers. And indeed, your Lord is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful." [Ash-Shu'ara: 167-175]
I would have liked during the episode to ask: does atheism and Darwinism accept the justification of crimes like murder or rape with the existence of genes that push towards this behavior, as they justify the unusual behavior? But I did not raise these questions because the modern answer from atheism and Darwinism is: yes, we accept! And if we had not extended our time with you, brothers, I would have brought you the story of the warrior gene, which some criminals can now add to their defense file to reduce their punishment based on scientific research, as happened with Bradley and Woldrup. And I would have told you about the story of the book by doctors Thornhill and Palmer, who justify rape as a natural genetic behavior!
"And he to whom Allah has not given light, no light has he." [An-Nur: 40]
This was an example of the transformation of science into a tool that serves the ruling values, and an example of the decline that materialists have reached when they denied innate nature and explained human behavior with a purely materialistic interpretation. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah. [Sound effects].