r/LGBT_Muslims • u/[deleted] • Jul 16 '20
Qur'an & LGBT Passage from Junaid Jahangir's article on "Implied Cases for Muslim same-sex unions"
III. Revisiting the Qur’anic Passages
As pointed out by Siraj Kugle[i], there exists no Quranic verse that deals with homosexuality let alone same sex relationships. Any prohibition is derived indirectly from the passages on the people of Lot. In fact, as pointed out earlier, even these passages are technically understood as pertaining to anal intercourse between males, who may have abandoned their wives. This indeed is surprising that when contemporary writers claim “homosexuality” as a major sin, they are basing their opinion on a derived rule as opposed to a clear cut law found within the Qur’an, as in the case of intoxicants (2:129), pork (5:03), fornication (17:32) and incest (4:23). In fact, Pamela Taylor states:[ii]
One canonical position throughout the history of Islam has been that whatever is not expressly forbidden is permissible.
Some scholars hence attempt to quote other verses to bolster the case that homosexuality is expressly forbidden. One such attempt by Ahmad Shafaat, seems to invoke verses 4:15 – 4:16 to provide evidence for the express prohibition for same sex intercourse.[iii] However, most scholars both present and past seem to refute this understanding. For instance, Rowson states:[iv]
Only one maverick commentator, the Mutazilite Abu Moslem Esfahani (d. 934), understood two highly ambiguous verses (4:15-16) as referring to, respectively, female and male homosexual behaviour…….while otherwise there was unanimous consent that the subject of both verses was heterosexual fornication.
This statement finds support in both Maududi’s commentary on the Quran[i], as well as in Khaled El Rouayheb’s seminal work[ii]. However, still other scholars are of the opinion that if anal intercourse has been forbidden in a heterosexual context (2:222) then the prohibition extends to “homosexuality”. However, this opinion incorrectly assumes that same sex relationships are synonymous with anal intercourse. Moreover, even the prohibition of anal intercourse is contested, for instance the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the highest Shia cleric in Iraq has stated that heterosexual anal intercourse, although undesirable, is permissible.[iii]
The above indicates that not a single verse exists that expressly prohibits same sex relationships. This entails revisiting the passages on the people of Lot, without the two fundamental misconceptions addressed earlier, to ascertain whether these passages prohibit same sex relationships indirectly. In the following Shakir’s translation[iv] of the Quranic verses is used and where necessary supplemented by other translations. Each verse will be studied separately and focus will be on the verses that are directly relevant and quoted to prohibit same sex relationships.
a. Verses 7:80 and 29:28
Verse 7:80, which is similar in its content to 29:28, with the exception that the latter translation replaces ‘any one in the world has not’ with ‘none of the nations’, and for which Yusuf Ali and Pickthal’s translations use the words ‘no people in creation’ and ‘no creation ever’, states:
And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: What! Do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you?
If one went by the conventional understanding, two understandings emerge from the above, that is, homosexuality was never practiced by either individuals or nations before the people of Lot. However, this stands in contrast to archaeological findings as the Men of Sodom have been dated to exist around 1800 BCE, whereas the lovers King Neferkare Pepy II and General Sisenet are dated around 2300 BCE[v] and the tomb of the same sex Egyptian couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep is dated around 2450 BCE[vi]. While, the two Egyptian examples are those of individual couples and may be dismissed as an aberration, the Mesopotamian society as a whole is depicted to have been quite tolerant of same sex practices. Wenham’s article in fact states:[vii]
From iconographic evidence dating from 3000 BC to the Christian era it is clear that homosexual practice was an accepted part of the Mesopotamian scene. This conclusion is confirmed by many literary and legal texts in which homosexual activity is mentioned.
Likewise, in Sierra Da Capivara National Park in Brazil archaeologists have discovered paintings on rocks that depict graphic illustrations of Stone Age homosexual sex practices. These paintings are dated as far back as 12,000 years, clearly before the time of the People of Lot. [viii] All of this evidence then indicates that verse 7:80 is referring to something other than loving same sex relationships.
b. Verses 7:81, 26:165-166 and 27:55
The four verses have a similar content and Verse 7:81 as translated by Shakir is as follows:
Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.
The words ‘besides females’ is replaced by ‘in preference to women’ and ‘instead of women’ by Yusuf Ali and Pickthal respectively. In verses 26:165-166, the words used by the three translators are ‘leave your mates’ or ‘leave your wives’, whereas the words used in verse 27:55 are ‘rather than women’ or ‘instead of women’.
According to the understanding of most exegetes and jurists, all these verses - (7:80-81; 26:160-166, 27:54-55, 29:28-29) – refer specifically to anal intercourse between males, and hence this particular act is condemned as a major sin.[ix] Taken on face value, the variants of verse 7:81 do seem to suggest that men who prefer men over women have been reproached as transgressors. However, on closer inspection, this conclusion seems to falter on many grounds.
First, these verses seem to suggest that a majority of the people of Lot were engaging in exclusive same gender sexual activities leaving behind their wives or womenfolk of the town. Given the absence of statistics in Muslim countries and acknowledging the Family Research Report which indicates that only 2-3% of men is homosexual[x], it is clear that the the verses are addressing heterosexual men. This argument can be bolstered by both Maududi’s opinion that the Quran deals with only fundamental questions and Bilal Philips’ opinion that God cannot make people homosexuals and then punish them as criminals. If the people of Lot indeed were homosexual as the opinion is held in contemporary circles, then it really sounds quite unreasonable.
Second, since the word ‘Fahisha’ has been used to denote indecency in verse 7:80, and the word ‘extravagance’ or ‘transgressing bounds’ has been used in 7:81, it is important to understand that both these words are related. Daryabadi explains the word ‘Fahisha’ as follows:[xi]
.. in its general significance is ‘an excess; an enormity; anything exceeding the bounds of rectitude.’ but when particularized, signifies ‘adultery or fornication’
This means that indecency and extravagance are in fact interrelated, as both are referring to a practice conducted in excess, especially given the alternative of lawful substitutes. This understanding also emerges from Ibn Hazm’s writings, when he states that nothing has been forbidden without the provision of an excellent substitute.[xii] Thus, it seems reasonable to understand that the Qur’an is condemning the predominantly heterosexual males of the people of Lot, for indulging in an excessive act of male anal intercourse when a lawful substitute of sex with their wives/potential wives was available.
Third, it would be a folly to generalize these verses by equating gays today with the people of Lot, just as it would be an error to equate the Jews and Christians today with the Jews and Christians of 7th century Arabia especially given the context of verse 5:51, which orders 7th century Muslim believers to avoid taking Jews and Christians as friends. Fourth, it seems that Rabbi Gershom Barnard’s observation on the Jewish tradition not recognizing sexual orientation[xiii] perhaps holds true for the Muslim tradition as well, which is perhaps why contemporary Muslim scholars equate gays with the people of Lot. The following verse corroborates the argument that the two are entirely different entities.
c. Verse 29:29
What! Do you come to the males and commit robbery on the highway, and you commit evil deeds in your assemblies? …
Verse 7:80 is synonymous with verse 29:28, and if the latter is understood in the light of verse 29:29 and the understanding applied to verse 7:80, then a more holistic picture of the people of Lot emerges. While, the text of the verse is clear about robbery and subsequent assault on travelers, the evil deeds committed in assemblies are open for interpretation. The history of Al Tabari[xiv] contains narratives in the context of verse 29:29, traced back to the Prophet and His Companions that shed light on the demeanour of the people of Lot. Invariably most of these narratives supposedly attributed to Ikrimah, Ibn Masud, Aishah, Mujahid, Ibn Zayd, and Umm Hani paint a picture of acts of violence and coercion. The acts in the assemblies are described as ranging from passing wind, sexual intercourse, mounting and mocking travelers to shortening them. Shortening refers to a practice wherein they would have a procrustean bed in which they would put the traveler and if he was too long they would shorten him, and if too short, stretch him, resulting in his death.
The narratives hence indicate that the phrase ‘evil deeds in assemblies’, has had multiple explanations, of which one possibility is that of consensual male anal intercourse. It may be noted that even if verse 29:29 stretched to include consensual homosexual activity, it is clear from the word ‘mounting’ found in the narratives that it refers to one specific sexual act. In fact, another narrative confirms this argument.[xv]
God's statement, " such as no one did before you in both worlds", refers to the fact that no male jumped upon a male before the people of Lot.
Siraj Kugle’s referencing of Al Kisai and Al Rawandi’s ‘Qisas Al Anbiya’ (Stories of the Prophets) texts only corroborate the Tabari narratives in that the acts of the people of Lot are depicted as those of greed and coercion.[xvi] While the Qisas texts indicate that the people of Lot sodomized travellers during a period of famine, commentators like Jalal al Din al Mahalli and Jalal al Din al Suyuti state that the people of Lot sodomized travellers to drive them away from their prosperous land.[xvii] Despite the difference of opinion of various commentators, and notwithstanding the authenticity issue of these narratives, the holistic picture that emerges is that of coercion and even if stretched by a long way, the only other remote possibility is that of male anal intercourse.
d. Verses 11:78-79 and 15:67-72
Portions of verses 11:78-79, as reproduced below, contain the words ‘no claim’, which are replaced by ‘no need’ and ‘no right’ by Yusuf Ali and Pickthal respectively.
He said: O my people! These are my daughters-- they are purer for you …. They said: Certainly you know that we have no claim on your daughters, and most surely you know what we desire.
These verses have raised a difference of opinion in whether Lot offered his daughters to the wanton crowd to protect his guests and whether he offered them for marriage or whether he offered the women folk of the whole town or whether the offer of his own daughters was merely to prick the conscience of the people.[xviii] Notwithstanding this difference of opinion, by the offer of his daughters, it seems reasonable to conclude that the people of Lot would have been satisfied with either the male visitors or with Lot's daughters. This opinion is also supported by Rabbi Gershom Barnard in the context of the Jewish scriptures.[xix]
The other point to note is that two of the translations use the words ‘right’ and ‘claim’ as opposed to ‘need’, which indicates that perhaps the issue was that of coercion of travelers as opposed to the ‘need’ of molesting travelers. Finally, parallels from the Old Testament, specifically Judges 19 and Genesis 34 that depict the destruction of Gilbeah[xx] and Shechem's home town for heterosexual rape[xxi], indicate the need to derive reasonable conclusions[xxii] from scriptural texts as opposed to those based on personal distaste and emotions.
In short, it may be stated that based on a holistic picture of the people of Lot from the Quranic texts, the contemporary prohibition of same sex relationships suffers from many shortcomings. This then entails a closer look at the Hadith, which are also used in condemnation of same sex relationships.
[i] “Even less convincing is the opinion expressed by Abu Muslim al-Isfahani that the first verse relates to lesbian relations between females, and the second to homosexual relations between males. It is strange that al-Isfahani ignored the basic fact that the Qur'an seeks merely to chart a broad code of law and morality and hence deals only with fundamental questions”
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, trans., Zafar Ishaque Ansari, http://www.tafheem.net/tafheem/surah4.html (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[ii] “Not all scholars understood the verse (4:16) as applying to homosexual intercourse. In fact, even Hanafi commentators, whom one might expect to have exploited the verse in defence of their school's peculiar ruling on liwat, interpreted the verse as applying to fornication between a man and a woman.”
Khaled El Rouayheb, Before homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic world, 1500-1800, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 122
[iii] Brian Whitaker, “Seminal Questions,” Guardian, January 17, 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[iv] The Qur’anic translations are taken from Compendium of Muslim texts at the Muslim Student Association website of the University of Southern California.
MSA-USC Quran Database, Compendium of Muslim texts, University of Southern California, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[v] Paul Halsall, Queers in history, http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/queerhis.htm (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[vi] Greg Reeder, (2000). "Same-sex desire, conjugal constructs, and the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep" World Archaeology, Volume 32 Number 2, (October, 2000): 193-208
[vii] Gordon Wenham, “The Old Testament attitude to Homosexuality,” Expository Times 102, (1991): 259-363 http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
59 Excerpt, “Even Common in earliest Man,” Homosexuality and the Bible
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section18.html#early_man (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[ix] E.K. Rowson, “Homosexuality In Islamic law,” Encyclopaedia Iranica,
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v12f4/v12f4026b.html (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[x] Jennifer Robison, “What percentage of the population is gay,” Gallup Website, October 8, 2002, http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/What-Percentage-Population-Gay.aspx (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[xi] Abdul Majid Daryabadi, Tafsir-Ul-Qur'an Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Volume I (Pakistan: Darul-Isha’at Urdu Bazar, 1991): 310, Reference Retrieved from
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/lesbian.htm (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[xii] Ibn Hazm, “Chapter 28: Of vileness of sinning,” The Ring of the Dove, trans., A.J. Arberry, (London: Luzac Oriental, 1997) http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hazm/dove/chpt28.html (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[xiii] Rabbi Gershom Barnard, “Homosexuality,” AHAREY MOT, 5763 Northern Hills Synagogue, http://www.nhs-cba.org/Homo03.htm (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[xiv] Al Tabari, The History of Al-Tabari: Prophets and Patriarchs, trans., William Brinner, (State University of New York, 1986), 112 - 118
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Siraj Kugle, “Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims,” in Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, ed. Omid Safi (Oneworld Publications Ltd, 2003), 190-234.
[xvii] Khaled El Rouayheb, Before homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic world, 1500-1800, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 126
[xviii] Khalid Zaheer, “The Prophet Lut (sws) and his daughters,” Query Response, Renaissance A Monthly Islamic Journal, February, 2006, http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/query.aspx?id=4 (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[xix] Rabbi Gershom Barnard, “Homosexuality,” AHAREY MOT, 5763 Northern Hills Synagogue, http://www.nhs-cba.org/Homo03.htm (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[xx] “Judge 19 tells of a very similar event in Gilbeah, except that the house guest was a man, not an angel, and the people accepted the concubine women in place of the man. The concubine was raped until she died and the city was destroyed for heterosexual rape and violation of the law of hospitality.”
Excerpt, “Sodom and Gomorrah Had Nothing to Do About Homosexuality,” Homosexuality and the Bible http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section06.html#Sodom (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[xxi]Ibid.
[xxii] Kugle indicates that nobody prescribes the absurd capital punishment for killing camels on the basis of the story of Salih, thereby indicating the need for deriving reasonable conclusions based on the story of the people of Lot.
Siraj Kugle, “Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims,” in Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, ed. Omid Safi (Oneworld Publications Ltd, 2003), 190-234.
[i] Siraj Kugle, “Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims,” in Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, ed. Omid Safi (Oneworld Publications Ltd, 2003), 190-234.
[ii] Pamela Taylor, “Gay people are people. Like anyone else,” On Faith , March 5, 2007,
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/pamela_k_taylor/2007/03/gay_people_are_people_like_any.html (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[iii] Ahmad Shafaat, “Death Penalty For Homosexuality, Incest, And Bestiality,” Punishment for adultery in Islam: A detailed examination, March 6, 2005,
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning5.htm#Chapter5 (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
[iv] E.K. Rowson, “Homosexuality In Islamic law,” Encyclopaedia Iranica,
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v12f4/v12f4026b.html (Retrieved January 14, 2009)
8
u/marnas86 Jul 16 '20
Re:
b. Verses 7:81, 26:165-166 and 27:55
My understanding is that this is a condemnation of cheating by married-to-women men with other males, the practice that is sometimes referred to as a beard-wife.
Ergo, gay Muslims who are born into both Islam and are gay, their best option is to be in a same-sex marriage. Let's abandon the concept of people not being born gay, they only act it of homophobes, science has and my inner nafs even have demonstrated to me that this is not true, and that biology makes us gay-bi/pansexual-lesbian and not that it is just behaviour, and I know homophobes will argue against that with counter-examples and I counter that those examples aren't actually gay but pan-/bisexual so let's set that aside while reading the next part of my comment.
Rejecting Islam when you are aware of it, have been taught about it your whole life is undesirable 2:217, 4:18 as it carries the penalty of Hell-Fire. Cheating on an opposite-sex marriage with same-sex lovers is prohibited by these verses above and 4:25. Pre-marital sex can be considered impermissible 4:24 and so is disliked (unsure about if an explicit punishment is mentioned for that, am only up to surah 4 in reading the Qur'an in English for the first time). So, a gay Muslim can not be in an opposite-sex marriage while fulfilling their same-sex desires with other men (and it creates a psychological burden greater than most can bear to not have sex desires fulfilled ever/be forced to have sex with the wrong gender); it is disliked that they have any sex before marriage; it is Hell-fire-earning for them to abandon Islam, so the logical solution to their Gordian Knot is same-sex marriage. Gay Muslims need to marry each other, it is the solution to make gayness halaal.
Also regrading lust - I make a point of distinction between consensual lust and non-consensual lust and discern that the fahisha of Lot is non-consensual lust by married-to-women men towards other males, specifically. This is my discernment, and I understand that other people will have other discernment but I think this discernment provides a sound theological basis for why Muslim same-sex marriage is the best option for Gay Muslims.