Quran and Modern Science - Conflict or Conciliation?

[Zafar]

A quick google found this, providing evidence for homosexuality round about 2600 BC (Lot is alleged to have lived around about 2000 BC).

 

I wonder if there's any evidence for when the unnatural sexual practice of voluntary abstinence was first practised?

 

Just reading the article.

 

Homosexuality has been documented in China since ancient times. According the scholar Ji Yun of the Qing Dynasty, already at the very beginning, Huang Di (The Yellow Emperor, 2697? - 2597? BCE), legendary king and founder of the Chinese culture, had male lovers. This is naturally not very trustworthy because whether there was really a person called Huang Di is not very clear

 

The following also stood out, purely because of the concept of 'public' vs 'private'

 

As long as a man does his duty and sires children, it is his private affair to have other male lovers.

 

Z

[Zafar]

A good one...even by your standards zepher!

 

You say that what Muslims do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them. I'm happy to agree with you that what people do is up to them but how many Islamic regimes sign up to that enlightened view? Saudi? Iran? Somalia?

And what is this 'some people may say' thing? Your holy book says.

Either it's right or it's wrong.

Either it's the word of god (as you claim thus the apoplectic hysteria to any perceived insult of it - Danish cartoons anyone) or it isn't.

 

It would be wonderful if Islam was as woolly as the Church of England but the fact it, it isn't is it? Gays face death in Islamic states - whether they brag about it or not.

 

I'd love to see what Peter Tatchell would have to say about your idea that it is ‘plain wrong’ for gays to march and stand up for their rights and against discrimination, intimidation and violence. And what does ‘wrong’ mean anyway? This clearly isn’t wrong in this or any other free country. What you really mean is that it is wrong to your way of thinking based on your belief system. Wrong, then, is clearly relative. And you can keep it.

 

Whether countries sign up or practice what they purport to follow is not an issue with the religion. Saudi for instance has many policies which are unIslamic, the simple fact that the House of Saud is 'above' the Law is one that jumps out.

 

Many of these countries kill innocent people, simply to be seen as being 'strong' in their supposed beliefs.

 

The very same argument is there for countries that espouse values of human rights and then lock up people without charges.

 

Peter Tatchell is entitled to his view, and I've given you what the view is in Islam. If the law of the land gives individual certain rights, then that is the law of the land. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

I will reiterate once again, what people do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of anyone else.

 

Z

[plekhanov]

No, advanced civilisations supporting towns being a recent development is simply a theory. There are other theories which say that the reason why older civilisations haven't been found is because much like now, in the past the majority of humanity has always resided close to the sea, therefore after the end of the last ice age rising seas will have swallowed up those cities.

 

Much like the myth of Atlantis. Several years ago a cities were found off the west coast of India, which initially were thought to be around 4000 years old, subsequently the belief became that they were much older. Possibly over 9000 years old.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1763950.stm

 

Nonetheless, the idea that humanity has lived near the sea and also the fact that sea levels will have risen after the end of the ice age aren't really stretching the imagination.

I don’t really understand the point you are trying to make here, are you seriously trying to argue that humans haven’t spend most of their existence as hunter gatherers only developing agriculture late in our history?

 

We have fossil evidence of humans from about 130,000 years ago, molecular biology suggests we’ve been around for something like 250,000 years in contrast the earliest archaeological evidence we have of agriculture is from about 10,000 BC.

 

Again, where is your scientific proof that this is true ? Simply making statements that this is absurd or that is absurd is hardly scientific. Humanity hardly has a track record for non absurdity.

Homosexuality is a normative form of human behaviour which may even have a genetic base, it is evident in all human societies and also throughout many other species of animal. What possible reason do you have for claiming that people of the same sex only started messing about with each others genitals within the last 12,000 or so years after having refrained from doing so for the previous 200,000 or so years?

 

As for the comments that homosexuality is spread across the globe. That I dont dispute, however, its also true that relatively new 'fabs' in humans can spread very quickly across the globe. Whereas this observation is true for today's ever shrinking world, where is the 'evidence' that past civilisations esp before the time of the Prophet Lot (pbuh) did practice homosexual acts.

What you mean apart from the evidence of this that Captain Swing posted?

 

The reason I mentioned sadomasichism is that I remember an anthropologist who was suggesting that the roots of sadomasichism are derived from the acts of self flaggelation and how no evidence of its practice exists pre the Christian church in Europe.

 

The point that stood out was when he said that no evidence has been found in 10,000 years of anthropological evidence that sadomasichism existed in ANY other culture pre the European church.

 

Once something is started, it presumable can be passed down genetically to offspring. However, it doesn't mean that information was there from 'day 1'.

I don’t think you understand how genes work, something can only ‘be passed down genetically to offspring’ if it’s actually a genetic condition. For all I know Christians may well have been the first people ever do indulge in sadomasochism if so it would almost certainly be a cultural practice and as such not something that could possibly ‘be passed down genetically to offspring’ ‘once started’, rather it would be something that is culturally transmitted to others, like Islam.

[withnail]

Whether countries sign up or practice what they purport to follow is not an issue with the religion.

 

Z

 

It is when they are Islamic theocracies implementing sharia law!

 

 

Many of these countries kill innocent people, simply to be seen as being 'strong' in their supposed beliefs.

Z

 

What for it…here it comes….

 

The very same argument is there for countries that espouse values of human rights and then lock up people without charges.

Z

 

There we are! The classic ‘not going to respond to your point and will instead turn it into an attack’ routine. Alistar Campell would be proud of you.

 

Peter Tatchell is entitled to his view, and I've given you what the view is in Islam. If the law of the land gives individual certain rights, then that is the law of the land. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Z

 

Peter Tatchell’s view would get him executed in an Islamic theocracy. The point, therefore, is that Islam’s view is barbaric and incompatible with individual human rights.

 

I will reiterate once again, what people do in the privacy of their own homes is no business of anyone else.

Z

Your welcome to enjoy that privacy in a non-Islamic democracy. However:

 

A quiet neighbourhood in Iran/Saudi etc:

“Ahmed! Put down the damned Satanic Verses and bring some beer in, Brokeback Mountain is about to start. And where’s my Gay Times – there’s an advert in there about converting to Christianity” (Screech of police tyres and loud knocking on door….)

[withnail]

Again, where is your scientific proof that this is true ?

 

Z

 

Since we're in the game of demanding scientific proof, could you please provide some for the existence of God?

[kay_cee]

.......

 

All the translations of the Quraan refer to the SAME source document, there is nothing added or removed. The differences are simply how the translator chooses the closest equivalent English word!

 

Z

 

You only have one original script today Zafar, because Uthman burnt all the conflicting texts when he was compiling the Qur’an.

We are told from the hadith that Abu Bakr was the first to collect the texts of the Qur'an into one codex soon after Muhammad's death. This is said to have been passed on down to Umar, then Hafsa. At the time of Uthman, we are told, the Muslims of Sha'm and Iraq got together to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan.(Obviously didn't realise Islam was supposed to be peaceful) The general in charge became afraid of their differences in recitation, so he appealed to Uthman to help. Uthman got the codex from Hafsa and directed that perfect copies be made. Then we are told:

 

“Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.”

Bukharis Hadith Vol.6 Book 61 No. 510

 

This tells us that already there were variants in the Qur'an. We will never know exactly what they were, as the evidence has been burnt.

 

With the Biblical manuscripts however, any variants weren’t destroyed, but preserved. And by practicing textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

 

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

 

Your boast of having only one source document of the Qur'an Zafar, is fairly short lived when you discover there is a fairly simple reason for that.

 

It wasn't that others didn't exist (like you are trying to imply) Its that the others were burnt.

Whilst Christian scholars on the other hand, out of integrity and knowing they had nothing to fear, kept theirs.

[plekhanov]

With the Biblical manuscripts however, any variants weren’t destroyed, but preserved. And by practicing textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

 

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

 

Your boast of having only one source document of the Qur'an Zafar, is fairly short lived when you discover there is a fairly simple reason for that.

 

It wasn't that others didn't exist (like you are trying to imply) Its that the others were burnt.

Whilst Christian scholars on the other hand, out of integrity and knowing they had nothing to fear, kept theirs.

Who are you trying to fool, Christianity has always been riven by schisms and right from the start rival branches of the faith tried to amend, edit, suppress and destroy what they considered heretical texts. It was because Christianity was so fragmented and geographically spread rather than because of the absolute integrity of Christians that we have so many disparate fragments of old parchment lying about the place.

 

Do you honestly think that Christians who’ve often been quite prepared to slaughter heretics would balk at burning a heretical gospel or verse?

[kay_cee]

Your two paragraphs Plek, seem to somewhat contradict each other.

[plekhanov]

Your two paragraphs Plek, seem to somewhat contradict each other.

In what way do they contradict each other?

[kay_cee]

In paragraph 1, you have Christians chopping and changing the Bible, In paragraph 2 you're saying Christians would kill anyone who did this.

 

Anyway, if you don't mind Plek, I've got enough on my plate at the moment in my little 'tete a tete' with Zafar, who I am still waiting for to reply.

 

I think the cocktail of Satanic verses, Muhammeds inclination for 6 year olds and Uthman destroying the variants of texts is a bit too much for him as he seems to have conveniently 'forgotten' about this thread.

 

Ho hum.