Peace be upon you As explained in the last episode atheists attributed innate
phenomena to material genetic causes;
without any evidence But they didn't stop there they even attributed actions, which
are not from innate nature to genes and used this as a pretext for justifying such actions
as natural phenomena! A striking example is
their handling of sexual disorientation which they do not call 'sexual
disorientation' but rather 'homosexuality' as the word 'disorientation' implies reprehensible
behavior that's
inconsistent with human nature; which they do not admit There is a link between
homosexuality and irreligion A 2013 survey of the U.S. LGBT
(sexually-disoriented) community showed that about 50% had no
religious affiliation; much higher than much higher than the 20%
of the U.S. general public with no religious affiliation The Western scientific community where
atheism and Darwinism are common published studies on the link
between sexual disorientation and genes and on the so
cial phenomena
related to sexual disorientation One example is a study on how
a child adopted by two homosexuals is impacted by the adoption We have the right to ask: Were these studies conducted
in a scientific and unbiased manner? This leads us to the more important
question: Is scientific research which has ideological
and ethical implications and which is produced under
the dominance of Western liberalism; is it really unbiased? Or is it
—sometimes— a politicized tool? If such studies pre
sent results
which contradict some Islamic values; is the rational position to doubt the Islamic values
or the validity of these studies? When an atheist says,
"I believe in science," is this true? Or does he believe in
the false interpretations of pseudoscience
which lead to compounded ignorance? This is the prime and most
important goal of our episode Sexual disorientation
is just an example through which we will examine the
credibility of this Western 'science' Our roadmap for this
episode wi
ll be as follows: —Please focus, dear viewers
so that we don't get distracted The episode is full of benefits, evidence and important facts so, we need to focus to understand
the sequence of its elements— We'll start by analyzing the
meaning of the hypothetical phrase: "Homosexuality has a genetic cause" then we will cite what is currently
reported by leading Western sources on the link between
homosexuality and genetics After that we will return to the
most important question: Are the reports b
y Western
references and studies on such ethical matters
necessarily credible? We will answer this question
by examining three things: 1. The research environment: Does it encourage free research?
Or does it practice licensed terrorism? 2. Are the researchers credible? Or are there some indications
of their lies and bias? 3. Who funds this research?
And how does that impact the results? Then we will see how the media
deals with the research findings: truthfully or otherwise First, this vague
sentence: "Homosexuality has a genetic cause" what does it exactly mean? Does it mean
that a homosexual has genes that involuntarily push him/her
towards homosexual acts? Just as someone blinks in reflex
when a foreign body enters his eye? Or when he involuntarily
withdraws his hand from a hot object? Of course not! Does it mean, then
that a homosexual has genes that make him psychologically
attracted to people of the same sex? Upon investigation, this is
the meaning of their phrase So, let's f
irst assume that these genes do exist; what's the justification for using them
as an excuse for disoriented behavior and an exemption from
condemnation and punishment? This is a very important key point Let us assume that a person
does have a distorted feeling does this justify his behavior
according to this feeling? For example: what if a man has
an excessive lust for women; does this lust justify rape? Or is he required to restrain
himself, control his lust and channel it to permissible
outl
ets (i.e. lawful marriage)? So why do you use headlines like: "Homosexuality is subject to genetics" in a way that implies that the homosexual is forced —by his genes—
into abnormal behavior? Are you ready to commit
to the same logic in dealing with political
and intellectual opponents who might have 'genetic reasons'
for doing what they do? If we say: A polygamous man may have
genetic reasons for taking multiple wives and the woman who agrees
to be the wife of a married man might be 'genetical
ly' compelled
to do so! So, why is gay marriage legalized
in all fifty U.S. states through the June 26, 2015
Supreme Court decision while polygamy remains
illegal in all fifty states; to date? Why is the claim of a genetic link used to elicit sympathy
for homosexuals specifically? Regardless are there really genes that can cause
psychological disorientation in desire? This brings us, dear viewers
to the second focal point: What leading Western
references currently report on the relationship be
tween
homosexuality and genetics A prominent American scientific
and professional organization: "American Psychological Association" concluded that there is no proof
of a genetic basis for homosexuality; to date! Despite the fact that this association strongly defends
what it considers 'LGBT rights' Moreover, several specialized books
on the study of sexual behavior describe the research as inconclusive i.e. it hasn't reached any conclusion and that no specific gene has been
linked to homosexual
ity One of the best books in this domain
is Dr. Neil Whitehead’s book titled: "My Genes Made Me Do it!
Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence" which disproves the link between
homosexuality and genetics from a theoretical, fundamental
and logical perspective Moreover, he reviewed the studies
on identical twins in the area of homosexuality
—many of which show no genetic link— and identified the major
scientific errors in the twin studies which claim that a link exists We'll list some detail
s
in the comments section The book is an interesting
scientific read for those familiar with
the basics of scientific research Here, dear viewers, please note
an important fundamental issue: Atheists say: "We came through mutations
and natural selection of the traits that serve survival and the extinction of those who carry
traits that do not serve survival." Does homosexuality help survival? Of course not! Because couples of two males
or two females cannot produce children Consequently, they d
on't transfer
genetic traits to future generations and so the law of natural selection should have ended homosexuality as it is a trait
that does not serve survival! Yet, homosexuality exists! Note how, in the materialistic
Darwinian explanation the beginning contradicts the end! Back to the conclusions of the American Psychological Association
and the specialized books Please note that we're not following
the unscientific methodology used by many of using any study
that suits their whims and
ignoring other studies that
do not serve their perspective Instead, we are citing the conclusions of major health organizations
and specialized books as they provide a summary
of a large number of related studies Despite all of this
someone will say: "In contrast to what you say, there are studies that indicate a relationship between
homosexuality and genetics." Yet another will say, "If, one day, the
main references change their standpoint, will you admit that
this relationship exists?" Thi
s brings us to the third
and most important focal point of this episode
which is to address the question: Are scientific studies which produce results geared towards
serving liberal Western values; are they really unbiased?
Or are they a politicized tool? We will answer this question
by studying three things: First: the environment in which
this research is conducted Does it encourage free research
or apply licensed intellectual terrorism? The Western civilization raises slogans
for their 'sac
red' concepts and criminalizes and fights
those who dare to challenge them The influential LGBT lobby was able to
include —as one of these sacred concepts— so-called 'LGBT rights'! And just as anyone who opposes Western
dominance is accused of terrorism and anyone who criticizes Jews
is described as anti-Semitic; similarly, opposition to homosexuality
is labelled 'homophobia'! That is, homosexuality is a natural
phenomenon, a human right and whoever opposes it
suffers from a sick phobia towards
it! But this 'sick person' has no excuse Instead he's criminalized! And just as there are slogans for 'Anti-terrorism' and
'Fighting Anti-Semitism' Western civilization raises
the slogan of "Anti-homophobia" for which the United Nations adopted,
launched campaigns, issued agreements
signed by many countries, and appointed a special UN investigator;
all to protect homosexuals In such an environment
of militancy and censorship is it realistic to expect science
to produce unbiased results? One
of the scientific scandals
that answers this question is Professor Spitzer's story Professor Robert Spitzer who is considered to be
the father of modern psychiatry published a study on psychotherapy to help homosexuals
overcome their homosexuality He called it 'reparative therapy': i.e. a treatment to repair
sexual disorientation In the study he reported success in his treatment to correct
the sexual disorientation of 200 homosexual men and women This infuriated health organizations and they a
ttacked his study Although Spitzer was a supporter
of 'homosexual rights' and had worked to remove homosexuality from
the APA's list of psychiatric disorders; this did not help his case
before the scientific community Thus, in 2012
Spitzer apologized for his study and the media reported the news
as follows: "Psychiatry Giant Sorry
for Backing Gay ‘Cure’" At the end of his apology
he said, with abject humiliation: "I believe I owe the gay
community an apology." You can imagine the pressure
that
Spitzer was subjected to when you know that the two largest international health organizations
attacked his treatment: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American
Health Organization (PAHO) and issued (on 17/5/2012)
a report titled: "'Therapies' to change sexual orientation lack medical justification
and threaten health." How does psychotherapy based on verbal counseling
with the homosexual person threaten health?! According to their report: "Repression of sexual orientation
—from
such treatments— has been associated with
feelings of guilt and shame, depression, anxiety, and even suicide." The report concluded with recommendations
on how to fight homophobia I ask you, dear viewer, to listen to
these recommendations and tell me what they remind you of The five recommendations state: 1. 'Conversion' or 'reparative' therapies
and the clinics offering them should be denounced and
subject to adequate sanctions. 2. Public institutions responsible for
training health profess
ionals should focus on training them
to accept homosexuals, and to eliminate
any attitudes of pathologization, rejection, and hate toward
non-heterosexual persons 3. Prevention of interventions aimed at
changing sexual orientation. 4. In the media,
homophobia should be exposed, in any of its manifestations, and expressed by any person; should be exposed as
a public health problem and a threat to human
dignity and human rights. 5. Civil society organizations can develop mechanisms of civil vigi
lance to detect violations of the human
rights of non-heterosexual persons and report them to the
relevant authorities. What do these recommendations
remind you of? They seem identical to
anti-terrorism recommendations don't they? Yet another dogma imposed
on the scientific community that reminds us of the show: "Expelled" which reveals how they
oppress and exclude any scientist who rejects
Darwinian evolution; a terrorism reminiscent of the
Spanish Inquisition and the tyranny against scienc
e practiced by
the church in the Middle Ages After all this
I think it is very comical for anyone to believe
that the environment of scientific research on homosexuality
is free and unbiased! The second question when considering the credibility of Western research
on homosexuality is: Are the researchers credible? Or are there indications
of their lies and bias? We will present some evidence
in response to this question First, the research that atheists
and homosexuals continue to hail: Dean H
amer's 1993
study which claimed a possible linkage between the
DNA marker (Xq28) and homosexuality as published in "Science" Magazine —Remember, dear viewers
that Dean Hamer is the same person who claimed the existence of a God Gene and wrote a book about it without
any evidence or published research and whose claim was rejected by
geneticists as in the previous episode— Let's examine the validity
of this other claim from the father of unproven claims: Hamer!
One condition for the credibili
ty of scientific research is
the reproducibility of its results In other words, if other researchers
repeat the same experiment they must obtain similar results Otherwise, a researcher can claim
anything he wants and become a great discoverer
based on false claims! This experiment of Hamer and his team was repeated by many other researchers
on larger numbers of homosexuals yet none of them got similar results! So, they dropped hints to discredit
Hamer and his alleged gene One example is the stud
y
by Dr. George Rice and his team; published in "Science" as well It states: "It is unclear why our results are so
discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger
than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power
to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support
the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual
orientation at position Xq28." Simply, this discredits Hamer on this just as he was discredited
on his claim of a God gene! Decades have passed, during which many
attempted to reproduce Hamer's results without any success! This is added to the important issue
discussed in the previous episode; which is that modern genetics
refutes the claim that there is a specific gene
for a specific behavioral trait as in this 2008 study
published in "Nature" which concluded that
—after sequencing the human genome— most of the simple physical traits were too complex to be linked to a single gene
or
even a specific set of genes So, how about behavioral traits which are much more complex
than physical ones? So Hamer's gene is ridiculous
from a theoretical standpoint as in the "Nature" study and discredited from an
empirical view as in "Science" —the two most famous
naturalistic journals— Additionally, it is discredited
by more than a quarter century's worth of scientific research which
failed to reproduce Hamer's results We present another issue
on the researchers' credibility by revie
wing the characteristics of those who research gay parenting More and more U.S. States have legalized adoption for same-sex couples: male or female allowing them to adopt and raise a child and expose him/her to their
relationship on a daily basis The presentation of the case
for adoption includes references to scientific studies on the effect
of such adoptions on children The writer David Benkof surveyed tens of studies on gay parenting and published his well-documented
research under the title
: "All the gay parenting studies are flawed" Benkof stated that, through
his survey of these studies he found that at least 60% of researchers who produce results
that support gay parenting are gay themselves! He also stated that he couldn't
find data on the sexual orientation of 25% of the remaining researchers;
i.e. they might be gay as well The writer mentions a list of names
and incidents that support his claim He notes that it is enough
to prove their bias that they don't disclose this f
act
in the 'Conflict of Interest' section: the section in scientific papers where the researcher
lists any factors that may impact the objectivity
of his/her research Of course, a scholar
has no right to publish a study casting doubts
on the validity of research conducted by gays
—on the basis that they are biased by their homosexuality—
as he/she will be accused of homophobia and become a target
of anti-homophobia campaigns! No wonder then that
many published studies will conclude that gay
adoption
has no negative impact on children Furthermore, this study
conducted by Dr. Gartrell —a lesbian married to a woman— concludes that children raised by lesbians
were rated significantly better 'socially' than their age-matched counterparts (who have heterosexual parents) 'Scientific' research
published in 'scientific' journals and welcomed by 'scientists'
in 'scientific' communities! What would you expect
from such 'communities' when they publish studies on
polygamy, for example? Would
their results be
unbiased and credible? Especially when you know that
polygamy is illegal in their countries? Moreover, some studies
—like this one published in a journal affiliated with Cambridge University— show that children raised by gays are
much more likely to be gay themselves How can they be homosexual
and have children? The homosexual may be bisexual
and beget children by marriage or through a heterosexual affair —alongside their homosexuality— or this child was born out of wedlock,
abandoned as a foundling, then adopted by the gay couple This is the Liberal civilization! Again: Research shows
that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to acquire
homosexual behavior themselves Homosexual researchers do not consider
this to be a problem at all! For atheists, if parents tell their child
that God created the world it would be an ugly abuse
of childhood innocence as Dawkins says in his book:
"The God Delusion" but atheism has no problem with
raising children on hom
osexuality and does not consider that an
ugly abuse of their childhood! Here, we may ask whether the Western culture truly
leads to personal freedom Imagine a child up for adoption raised by two gay men The child grows up to be gay as a result of observing
his gay 'parents' Then he feels that
his homosexuality is incompatible with his human nature
and wants to adjust his psychological inclinations so that his sexual disorientation no longer causes him
psychological distress However, the health
organizations
step in to say, "Any intervention aimed
to change individuals' sexual orientation shall be prevented" as in the aforementioned 2012 report Meaning: It is forbidden
to provide any treatment for this homosexual
Instead, he should stay as he is Is this freedom or
indoctrination of immorality? Another story concerning
the researchers' credibility is that of Professor J. Michael Bailey who
received U.S. government funding to conduct studies examining arousal
in homosexual men and
women by exposing them to gay porn videos using measurement methods
too indecent for words; to the extent that his research was
blasted in The Washington Times as a waste of American
taxpayer dollars! In Islam
knowledge and Hadith are received only
from a credible ethical person whereas in this
Western pseudoscience there is no check for the
scientist's ethics and credibility It doesn't matter if he is
the most immoral person or even an atheist who rejects
absolute moral values —as we discus
sed before— for whom, fraud and forgery
are relative matters that cannot be considered
absolutely wrong! Bailey's story takes us
to the third point to consider when questioning the credibility
of Western research in the field of homosexuality: Research funding and
its effect on the results In Benkof's aforementioned article;
where he surveyed tens of studies he provided evidence
that the funding for some research that supports
gay parenting came originally
from well-known homosexuals like Dav
id Bohnett and LGBT-advocacy
organizations like the Rainbow Endowment A known phenomenon
in the scientific community is the tendency
of a scientific study to support the interests of its financial sponsor; known as 'sponsorship bias' In other words
imagine a homosexual giving money to a researcher
and telling him: "Conduct a study to determine
if what I do is good or bad and here's your paycheck
from my money." How can scientific integrity survive this? The article also noted
that as of 25/3/
2014 there were 150 studies
on gay parenting! Of course, dear viewers
every study costs hundreds of thousands
or millions of dollars and many are funded
by US federal government funds as well as the LGBT community We have a right to ask: Would the U.S. government
or its institutions, support research on topics like
"The effect of raising girls on values of decency and modesty
on their mental health?" Another point related to funding
concerns the publication of the results This is where the pro
blem
of 'publication bias' comes in In other words
if a homosexual researcher came up with results contrary
to his own inclinations and to the inclinations of his financial
sponsors who promote homosexuality; would the researcher publish
his results or hide them? Likewise, if a truly unbiased researcher
came up with results against homosexuality there is no guarantee that his research
will be published in scientific journals Instead, they may refuse
to publish his research especially since the
LGBT
lobby and its supporters launch campaigns against every research which produces results
that they don't like It's easier for journals
to avoid the headache of being labeled as homophobic and replicating the tragedy of Robert Spitzer
who was forced to apologize in the end Our last focal point: How does the media
deal with the results of such research? Well-known U.S. media organizations and
their affiliates who promote their agendas in the Muslim world
jump at studies that appeal to gays
—despite their falsehood and fabrications—
as discussed before and add their own fabrications
in the titling and headlines; as shown! An example is how the media
seized on Hamer's claim of a gene linked to homosexuality
and promoted it widely; This was meekly criticized
in a scientific publication stating that the results of Hamer's
study were never reproduced Regardless, the media treated
Hamer's claim as an indisputable fact International media outlets
such as The Telegraph —decades after th
e study's invalidation—
still blatantly accuse those who oppose homosexuality, of ignoring 'science': the 'science' of Hamer's study! It's not only the media Even the 'scientific' community
behaved unscientifically when it added the discredited gay gene
—theoretically and practically— to the biomedical
databases of the 21 Century! In conclusion, we have a right to ask
After all this Is everything that atheists praise
'science'? Or pseudoscience? Liberal sanctities
driving specific results, bia
sed funding, a drive to produce results
that appeal to the sponsors, homosexual and non-credible researchers, errors in designing studies, publication bias, terrorizing anyone who dares
to oppose the whims of homosexuals, campaigns against homophobia, and media which selectively accepts
what studies to publish and exaggerates: by claiming that the alleged
link between genes and sexual orientation means that a person
is forced to be homosexual! Then the atheist parrots say: I believe in science
! "...darknesses, some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand [therein],
he can hardly see it. And for whomever Allah makes no light, then in no way (can) he have light."
(Quran Translated Meaning 24:40) Before we end, dear viewers every live heart will feel the darkness
after hearing this evidence of the collapse of innate nature! Hence, we would like to enlighten
our hearts with the call of revelation by reciting verses from Surat Al-Shuara that describe the state of Prophet Lot
Peac
e be upon him as the sin of sodomy
first appeared in his people He called them, saying
what can be translated as: "Must you, unlike [other] people,
lust after males and abandon the wives that
Allah has created for you? you are exceeding all bounds."
(Quran 26: 165-166) Lot, peace be upon him
didn't need to prove —at length— the blatant sinfulness of their action Most of Lot's call to his people
was not faith-oriented Rather, he was primarily concerned
with correcting their humanity! However, "b
ut they replied, 'Lot! if you do not
stop this, you will be driven away.' So he said, 'I loathe what you do: Lord, save me and my family
from what they are doing.' We saved him and all his family, except for an old woman
who stayed behind, then We destroyed the others, and poured a rain of destruction
down upon them; how dreadful that rain was for
those who had been forewarned! There truly is a sign in this, though most of them will not believe, Your Lord alone is the
Almighty, the Merciful." (
Quran Translated Meaning 26:167-175) Throughout this episode
I wanted to say: "Would atheism and Darwinism justify
crimes such as murder or rape based on the existence of genes driving this
behavior; as they justify homosexuality? Yet, I did not raise this question because the modern answer
to it —in atheism and Darwinism— is: "Yes, we do!" If we hadn't taken up your time already I would have told you
the story of the Warrior Gene which some criminals can now add to their defense case
to reduce
their punishment; based on 'scientific' research as happened with "Bradley Waldroup"! I would have also told you about
Dr. Thornhill and Palmer's book which justifies rape
as normal genetic behavior! "...And for whomever Allah makes no light, then in no way (can) he have light."
(Quran Translated Meaning 24:40) This was an example of the transformation of science into an instrument
to serve governing values and an example
of the decline of materialists when they denied innate nature and expla
ined human behavior
from a purely materialistic perspective! Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon you
Comments