Quran and Modern Science - Conflict or Conciliation?

[artisan]

no doubt there are many animal behaviours which are somewhat ambiguous however when for example male bonobos engage in mutual masturbation that is obviously homosexual behaviour and nobody can honestly claim it is anything else.

 

?

 

You are giving human attributes to animals here.

Animals, even monkeys and chimps, work on instinct, they have no sense of right and wrong. When they recieve pleasure from a certain activity they do it. A freshly washed dog running into the field and rolling in cow muck is not committing a sin, it is following its instincts.

As human beings however we are supposed to have our base instincts under control, so certain behaviour is usually not tolerated

[plekhanov]

Plekhanov -

Hear is some opposition to what you said about observed Homosexual behaviour in animals.

 

This article provides another view on this subject:

<Snip irrelevant politically driven letter to the editor>

That 'article', (which incidentally is a fine example of the ideologically driven cherry picking and quoting out of context in an attempt to make their opinions seem credible) completely fails to address my point. I’m not arguing that homosexual behaviour in humans is moral, right or good because other animals engage in it simply that (contrary to the Koran’s claim) other animals engage in homosexual behaviour.

 

Also read: The Animal Homosexuality Myth

Did you even read the article you linked to? It mainly argues that animal behaviour should not be used as a guide for human morality. Also as they aren’t defending the Koran but homophobia at one point they cherry pick this quote:

 

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]

 

As I have been arguing that homosexual behaviour rather than long term monogamous homosexual relationships have been widely observed in nature even your hopelessly biased source backs up my position, maybe next time you should go for an opinion piece written Islamic rather the Christian theocrats.

 

Now you could still argue that these are from anti-gay apologist or some religious people but then I could say they your article are from Gay apologists.

The difference is that I would be right and you would be National Geographic has so far as I’m aware no particular political agenda and publishes articles because there’s good evidence behind them. Your source the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY on the other hand is quite obviously an ideologically and not an evidence driven body. If you have reason to believe that all the scientists around the world who have documented homosexual behaviour around the world are as you bizarrely suggest ‘Gay apologists’ then by all means post it here for us all to see.

 

The point is that it is not irrefutable fact but rather evidence to support or counter the claim, and as such there is no point in trying to bring a comparison or conflict with the Quran.

Homosexual behaviour in animals is an irrefutable fact this obviously doesn’t stop religiously inspired homophobes trying to deny it, it's just that because all the evidence is stacked against them they utterly fail to refute it.

[Rzaa]

It’s not Fact as it is disputed and therefore you should not look for a comparison or a conflict with the Quran.

 

If none of my relies are good enough for you then why keep asking?

[plekhanov]

I was referring to the previous ones and even afar I corrected them for you, you still had problems with them. As for this verse read my previous posts.

I've read your previous posts (and a very tortuous process it was to) and unless you've gone back and edited them since I last did so at no point have you offered an alternative interpretation of verse 7:80 or stated why you consider my interpretation to be erroneous, will you kindly either link to the post in which you did so or do so now.

[plekhanov]

You are giving human attributes to animals here.

Animals, even monkeys and chimps, work on instinct, they have no sense of right and wrong. When they recieve pleasure from a certain activity they do it. A freshly washed dog running into the field and rolling in cow muck is not committing a sin, it is following its instincts.

As human beings however we are supposed to have our base instincts under control, so certain behaviour is usually not tolerated

Once again your post is both factually incorrect and utterly fails to address my argument.

 

Chimps, who I incidentally wasn't talking about but anyway, do not simply work on instinct they are highly intelligent animals with a high level of learned or cultural behaviour. But anyway that’s irrelevant so I fail to see why you brought it up.

 

I at no point claimed that humans should decide upon our morality by observing animal behaviour so will you please stop pretending that I am arguing that we should. What I did do was claim that contrary to the assertion made in verse 7:80 of the Koran homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species apart from homo sapiens.

 

If you disagree that mutual masturbation by male bonobos is homosexual behaviour then please feel free to explain why it isn’t homosexual behaviour and exactly what you consider the definition of homosexual behaviour to be.

[artisan]

Once again your post is both factually incorrect and utterly fails to address my argument.

 

Chimps, who I incidentally wasn't talking about but anyway, do not simply work on instinct they are highly intelligent animals with a high level of learned or cultural behaviour. But anyway that’s irrelevant so I fail to see why you brought it up.

 

I at no point claimed that humans should decide upon our morality by observing animal behaviour so will you please stop pretending that I am arguing that we should. What I did do was claim that contrary to the assertion made in verse 7:80 of the Koran homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species apart from homo sapiens.

 

If you disagree that mutual masturbation by male bonobos is homosexual behaviour then please feel free to explain why it isn’t homosexual behaviour and exactly what you consider the definition of homosexual behaviour to be.

I thought I had done. I said that it was instinctive behaviour merely reacting to stimulus. They dont care what sex the recipient of their attentions is. If the smells etc. are correct then they just go ahead.

Humans know that the other person is the same sex and are doing it deliberatly for sexual activity.

[plekhanov]

It’s not Fact as it is disputed and therefore you should not look for a comparison or a conflict with the Quran.

Don’t be absurd, by this logic you can’t claim that the Koran go the shape of the earth right as The Flat Earth Society disagree about the earths shape, therefore the earths shape isn’t a fact.

 

There’s always going to be somebody somewhere who’ll dispute everything, particularly if they have a holy text which tells them to, so what? This has no bearing whatsoever on what is or isn’t an established scientific fact.

 

If none of my relies are good enough for you then why keep asking?

Because I think I’m right and won’t be put off by your dishonest debating tactics.

[plekhanov]

I thought I had done. I said that it was instinctive behaviour merely reacting to stimulus. They dont care what sex the recipient of their attentions is. If the smells etc. are correct then they just go ahead.

Humans know that the other person is the same sex and are doing it deliberatly for sexual activity.

On what grounds to you claim that higher primates like bonobos have no culture and can’t differentiate between males and females of their own species? Anyway that is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

 

The Koran states:

 

7:80 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?

7:81 Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.

 

To show that this conflicts with modern science you simply need do demonstrate that other ‘creatures’ commit homosexual acts which I have done.

[Zafar]

Don’t be absurd, by this logic you can’t claim that the Koran go the shape of the earth right as The Flat Earth Society disagree about the earths shape, therefore the earths shape isn’t a fact.

 

There’s always going to be somebody somewhere who’ll dispute everything, particularly if they have a holy text which tells them to, so what? This has no bearing whatsoever on what is or isn’t an established scientific fact.

 

 

Because I think I’m right and won’t be put off by your dishonest debating tactics.

 

Plek,

 

All this current argument appears to be because of the translation you have of the verse in Surah 7.

 

For instance, there are translations which say:

 

[7:80] Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination; no one in the world has done it before!

 

[7:81] "You practice sex with the men, instead of the women. Indeed, you are a transgressing people."

 

[7:82] His people responded by saying, "Evict them from your town. They are people who wish to be pure."

 

[7:83] Consequently, we saved him and his family, but not his wife; she was with the doomed.

 

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura7.htm

 

in another translation it goes

 

80. We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?

 

81. "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

 

82. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

 

83. But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.

 

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/Quran/7-heights.html

 

also

 

80. And (remember) Lout (Lot), when he said to his people: "Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinns)?

 

81. "Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)."

 

82. And the answer of his people was only that they said: "Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!"

 

http://www.road-to-heaven.com/quran/english/7.htm

 

I've simply entered the following into google 'Quraan Sura 7' and picked out the first 3 results.

 

I'll try and find out what the actual arabic word is thats used in the verse, however, the verse is definately qualified in the following verse i.e. 81.

 

I guess in order to scientifically prove those two verses wrong you would have to show that there were a people before the people of Lot who practiced homosexuality.

 

Is it actually possible to prove whether people that far back practiced homosexuality ?

 

I dont know.

 

 

Z

[plekhanov]

The notion that the people of a town were the first to ever engage in homosexual behaviour is equally absurd; homo sapiens had been on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years before they developed enough to form towns to suggest that at no point did any of our hunter gatherer ancestors engage in homosexual acts is just silly.