Homosexuality and Islam

The following article presents what is currently known about homosexuality from a religious perspective and a historical and scientific one.  The aim is to merely present the information to raise awareness, leaving conclusions to the reader in what is such a complex and sensitive issue.  However, I have included a suggested 'ruling' at the end to enhance the debate.

Terminology

The term homosexuality, as we understand it today, is a relatively new one, entering the Oxford English Dictionary in 1892. The notion of 'sexuality' and that someone can 'be' a homosexual as part of their identity has only existed since the 19th century. This is not to say that same-sex relationships are a new phenomenon or were not known about previously, but rather 'homosexuality' was seen as an act that you 'did' only and not part of who you 'are.'

Same gender sexual relations are mentioned in Islamic scriptural sources and classical Islamic scholarship, but they make no mention of 'homosexuality' since they pre-date the term.  To make a distinction between the 'state' of homosexuality and the 'act' is essential because no one is held accountable for what they 'are' in Islamic Law, but rather what they 'do.'  As such to say that Islamic Law forbids homosexuality or otherwise is false; Islamic Law cannot hold anyone accountable for thoughts, preferences or desires, only for actions.  Therefore homosexuality is considered neutral in Islamic Law, where it makes judgements is with certain sexual acts between specific categories of people.  This is an important point to make because in Islam some one who is 'homosexual' is no less beloved by God and remains a valued member of the Muslim community.

Prejudiced views of people who describe themselves as homosexual can often be the result of misunderstanding these terms and incorrectly transferring negative views of an act to the practitioner. Islamic Law is an objective tool for organising and guiding society, not for making personal judgements since only God can see into someone's heart.  Scholars in fact speak of two Laws; the outward law which humans use to encourage virtuous behaviour and the real law which is only known to God.  For example, praying is always viewed outwardly as virtuous, however if done with the incorrect intention of haughtiness or to show off, in reality is an act repugnant to God.

Marriage makes sex permissible

The Qur'an implies that the only permissible sexual interaction is with one's spouse (or slave but this is for another discussion):

{[Those] who guard their chastity from all but their spouses or their slave-girls––there is no blame attached to [relations with] these, but those whose desires exceed this limit are truly transgressors} [70:29-30]

The use of the word 'azawj' - translated as spouses here - means 'the opposite of a pair together in union' and can refer to either a wife or husband, but importantly for our discussion is that azawj is gender specific i.e. that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Arabic construction stresses that sex is only permissible within a marriage, thus implying all sexual acts outside of marriage are impermissible such as: fornication, adultery, bestiality, masturbation and sex between people of the same gender.  Some of these acts are prohibited specifically and some are given prescribed punishments, such as adultery: {Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law––if you believe in God and the Last Day––and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.} [24:2].  Sex between people of the same gender, however, is not proscribed in such explicitly legal terms elsewhere in the Qur'an.

Sodom and Gamorrah (The People of Lot)

The people of Sodom and Gamorrah are mentioned in a number of places in the Qur'an, described as a people of 'excess' that: {lust after men, waylay travellers, and commit evil in your gatherings.} [29:29].  Among others, the primary sin mentioned is anal sex between males, or sodomy (liwat).  Liwat, like the word sodomy, derives from the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, it is not a Qur'anic term but a short hand for 'the practice of the people of Lot.'

{We sent Lot and he said to his people, ‘How can you practise this outrage? No one in the world has outdone you in this. You lust after men rather than women! You transgress all bounds!’ The only response his people gave was to say [to one another], ‘Drive them out of your town! These men want to keep themselves chaste!’ We saved him and his kinsfolk– apart from his wife who stayed behind– and We showered upon [the rest of] them a rain [of destruction]. See the fate of the evildoers.} [7:80-84]

Lot charges his people with:'ityaan ar-rijaal shahwatan min duunin nisaa,' which word-for-word translates as: coming to men with desires instead of women.  The verse is general and can have many meanings and 'shahwatan' (desires) can be in both a positive or negative sense, it is describing men desiring men in the same variety of forms that women can be desired by men; lustfully or lovingly.  Since there is no further clarification in the Qur'an the verse could be understood to mean anything from a loving kiss to anal rape.  However elsewhere the story suggests a negative understanding of 'shahwatan' as an overpowering lust: {By your life [Prophet], they wandered on in their wild intoxication} [15:72] Consumed, they set upon Lot and the angels he hosted: {The people of the town came along, revelling, and he told them, ‘These are my guests, do not disgrace me. Fear God, and do not shame me.’ They answered, ‘Have we not told you not to interfere [between us and] anyone else?’He said, ‘My daughters are here, if you must.’} [15:67-71] 'My daughters' is generally understood by commentators, such as ibn Kathir (d. 1373) to be figurative and refer to the town's peoples' own wives.  Ibn Kathir also understands that Lot even had to push them back from entering the house, while the door was locked: {He [Lot] said, ‘If only I had the strength to stop you or could rely on strong support!’} [11:80].

The word translated as 'outrage' in 7:80 of Lot's speech - which commentators by consensus have understood to be male to male anal sex - in Arabic is 'faahisha' which is the same word used for adultery elsewhere in the Qur'an: {And do not go anywhere near adultery: it is an outrage, and an evil path.} [17:32]. 

Why were the people of Lot destroyed?

A common explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah is their sexual indiscretions and it has been argued that anyone doing likewise should receive the same fate.  However this would seem a speculative argument uncharacteristic of the certitude required for Islamic Criminal Law. The Qur'an mentions the punishment of the people of Lot with other tribes collectively due to rejecting God's Prophets: {If they reject you [Prophet], so did the people of Noah before them, and those of Ad, Thamud, Abraham, Lot, Midian. Moses too was called a liar. I gave the disbelievers time, but in the end I punished them. How I condemned them!} [22:42-44].

Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) argues in Al Mullah: "God's act of retribution against Lot's Tribe is not due to the reasons they suppose.  Rather God says to them: {The people of Lot rejected the warnings. We released a stonebearing wind against them, all except the family of Lot. We saved them before dawn as a favour from Us: this is how We reward the thankful. He warned them of Our onslaught, but they dismissed the warning– they even demanded his guests from him– so We sealed their eyes–‘Taste My [terrible] punishment and [the fulfilment of] My warnings!'} [54:33-37].  God also says: {‘Have no fear or grief: we shall certainly save you and your household, except for your wife– she will be one of those who stay behind} [29:33].  God has declared a clear text declaring that the Tribe of Lot had disbelieved in their prophet and therefore sent upon them a storm of stones.  The divine stoning which punished them was not for one type of immorality (faahishah) in specific, but was rather for their infidelity and rejection (kufr).  Those who claim that stoning is the punishment for this immorality (faahishah meaning male anal sex) are not following the command of God unless the one guilty of it is a rejecter of God's Prophet.  Their claim that the Qur'an justifies the punishment of stoning is null and void, since their action contradicts the explicit meaning of its words."

Lot's wife also received the same fate as the people of Sodom and Gamorrah owing to her disbelief and clearly not for any sexual indiscretion.  If the argument is made that people should be rained upon by stones for anal sex then under the same reasoning we might think the crime of killing a female camel should be being buried alive due to the story of Salih and the people of Thamud (see Qur'an 7:73-78), which is clearly not so.

Parallels between Sodom and Gamorrah and Ancient Greece?

Sexual culture in the ancient world was not homogeneous and some were radically different from today.  A brief look at ancient Athens may provide a better understanding of how understandings of sexuality have differed between cultures.

In Classical Greece men held a superior role to women; women were legally seen as minors under an elite free-man's guardianship.  Sex reflected this social imbalance, it was not seen as an experienced shared, but as something done to another for male pleasure; the active male party dominating the passive female party.  This was also expressed societally as active free-men dominated lesser groups of people such as prostitutes, foreigners and slaves.  Specific acts such as sodomy or masturbation were not moral concerns, but rather the act of penetration; whom it was done to and by whom. Penetration symbolised masculinity and social status. It was considered demeaning for a free-born man to desire to be penetrated since this would equate his status to that of a slave or woman, rather he was encouraged to penetrate.

Gender was seen as a 'one-sex model' where men could be feminized by losing vital body 'heat' with excessive amounts of sexual intercourse with 'cold' female bodies.  Although sex was seen as good for health, too much could cause this transient gender to change.  Male gender identity was therefore fragile and the boundaries of masculinity were aggressively guarded.  Sex with women was seen as necessary for procreation but sex with a male was considered superior, as the ancient Greek dialogue, Erotes, summarises: "Marriage is a remedy devised by the necessity of procreation, but male love alone must rule the heart of a philosopher... Just because commerce with women has an older pedigree than that with boys, do not disdain the latter. Let’s remember that the very first discoveries were prompted by need, but those which arose from progress are only the better for it, and worthier of our esteem."

The people of Sodom and Gamorrah in The Qur'an were characterised collectively for their excessive sexual lust for males and anal sex.  Perhaps they shared similar views of sexual culture with the Ancient Greeks?  Which may then mean the thrust of the Qur'anic disapproval is less to do with same-gender sexual relations - for example female exclusive sex is never mentioned - but rather masculine lust and the sexual and social domination by male elites.

Islamic Criminal Law

Before looking at various legal opinion on same gender sex it is important to know the difference between the burden of proof and the burden of punishment in Islamic Criminal Law.  All criminal acts are dealt with through the due process of law in a court with careful scrutiny of the evidence by one or many official judges (qadi).  There are two types of punishment in Islamic Law: hadd and ta'zir.

Hadd means prevention and is the uppermost punishment allowed for some specific crimes, which are: murder, theft, adultery, fornication, unsubstantiated accusations of adultery, drunkenness, brigandage and rebellion.  Each of these crimes have been mentioned in the sacred texts explicitly with prescribed punishments and burdens of proof.  For example theft has the uppermost punishment of severing of the hand and requires that a sane adult with intent to steal covertly takes an item of substantial value from behind a locked door that was witnessed by two upright people.  Failure to meet the defined criteria satisfactorily results in the uppermost punishment (hadd) being lifted.  There is a difference between proof of a crime and proof of hadd punishment however, therefore should the judge find the evidence incriminating, but not sufficient of hadd then the lesser discretionary punishment of ta'zir will be applied.  Ta'zir is at the judges or states discretion and may be a fine, prison or lashing etc.  Generally Muslims have preferred instant punishments such as lashing (the maximum is 10 strikes for ta'zir) over prison as it deprives others of a husband or father etc.

The judge is obliged to look for doubt in order to lessen the sentence: "Prevent the application of hadd punishments because of ambiguity" (ibn Adi narrated by ibn Abbas).  Islamic Criminal Law's appearance of severity is understood to deter and raise awareness of God's distaste for those crimes but its application of mercy is to suppress criminality rather than enact retribution; severely punishing only the most flagrant disregards of the law.  In fact many crimes in Islamic Law have such heavy burdens of proof that they become a type of 'legal fiction'; R Peters notes in his excellent book 'Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law,' that historically hadd punishments were rarely carried out if at all!

The ruling of sodomy (liwat) in Islamic Law

There is scholarly consensus (ijma') that anal sex is not only a sin, but a crime punishable by the courts. There is agreement that anal sex with one's wife has the lesser punishment of ta'zir.  This is also in cases of anal sex fornication and adultery with a woman due to the doubt whether the analogy of anal sex with vaginal sex holds since there is no risk of pregnancy.  Anal sex between males is where scholars have differed.  The Hanbali's went with the apparent meaning of hadith, such as: 'Whomever you find doing the act of the people of Lot, then stone both the uppermost and the lowermost' [Tabari] and therefore awarded male sodomisers the hadd punishment of adultery.  Along with all cases of adultery the burden of proof for hadd requires that it must be witnessed by four upright people who actually see penetration in a publicly accessible place (spying is impermissible and invalid evidence). The Maliki and Shafi'i schools find weakness in this narration as evidence although award the same punishment, since they draw an analogy with adultery owing to the shared Qur'anic usage of the word faahishah (see above) and hadith such as: 'if a man commits an act of sex with a man, they are both adulterers,' [Bayhaqi]. Shafi'i disagrees that the one it is done to can be analogised to an adulterer (the narration of the hadith has weakness) and therefore awards ta'zir for this person.  Abu Hanifa of the Hanafi School and ibn Hazm of the Dhahiri School disagree and said male sodomy receives only ta'zir (for public lewdness) since the analogy with adultery does not work as sodomy is not like adultery as there is no risk of pregnancy etc and the evidences suggesting otherwise are doubtful in authenticity and not sufficient for hadd; by definition hadd must be certain.

In practice, however, throughout the Muslim World people practising same-gender sex were tacitly tolerated in-keeping with the indirect Qur'anic prohibition.  Authors have even described classical Islamic society as 'homosexual-friendly' environments that has a 'rich archive of same-sex desires and expressions' written by the elites of their respective societies (see 'Sexuality, Desire and Ethics' by S. Kugle).  Medieval European polemics towards the Muslim World often criticised its positive view of sexuality and sensuality as barbaric by comparison to the purity of Christianity, according to Crusader literature in : 'the vice of sodomy was not only tolerated in Muslim society, but actively encouraged and openly practised,'  (see 'Re-Orientating Desire' by M. Uebel). This may well have been an exaggeration, but it shows that homosexuals generally fared much better historically in the Muslim World than in Europe.

Muslim society generally was more accepting of homosexual desire, the best poetry being considered that of the love of the beardless youth, although people would publicly remain chaste.  The Rector of al-Azhar (Islam's foremost university) A al Sharbrawi (d. 1758), for example, wrote homoerotic poetry (diwan) that was revered and 'well known among people,' but he also affirms the prohibition of sodomy in Islamic Law: 'I have chastity by natural disposition, not affection; my conscience desists from sin.' The Egyptian scholar Rifa'ah al Tahawi visiting Paris in the early 19th century notes his surprise at European attitudes: 'amongst the laudable traits of their character, similar really to those of the Bedouin, is their not being inclined toward loving male youths and eulogizing them in poetry, for this is something unmentionable for them contrary to their nature and morals.'

Women to women sex

There is no explicit mention of women having sex with women in the Qur'an and rarely elsewhere in Islamic literature. A very few hadith mention female to female sex as an extra marital faahishah: 'if a woman commits an act of sex with a woman, they are both adulteresses.' [Bayhaqi].  The scholars of Islam are in general agreement that sex between women exclusively is a sin and punishable by the courts, but there is no hadd punishment, ta'zir is applied, since woman to woman sex includes no penetration by a penis which is how sexual intercourse is legally defined.

Homosexuality and biology

From the 18th century onwards sexual practices were the object of scientific research, which gave birth to its own field; sexology.  The term sexuality was invented at this time; 'possession of sexual powers, or capabilities of sexual feeling' Oxford Dictionary 1879.  Throughout the 19th and 20th century sexual behaviour and gender were considered to be the outcome of biological drives and hormones.  People who engaged in 'sodomy' were considered a separate type of person resulting from abnormal biological instincts; 'the homosexual was now a species,' (Foucault). Homosexuality was viewed as an illness due to some biological imbalance. However, these conclusions were more the result of concerns of the time than empirical evidence. A purely biological model of the human proved to be crude and overly simplistic, by not taking into account psychological and social factors for example, and lost credibility.

Biological models of sexuality were reinvigorated by the attempt to map the entire sequence of human DNA.  Belief that a 'gay gene' could explain homosexual behaviour was encouraged by Hamer finding of a link between genetic make-up and sexual orientation in 1993.  Despite these finding being welcomed by both pro and anti gay movements, they are scientifically highly contested.

A few biological characteristics have been found to be over represented amongst those who identify themselves as homosexual, such as a greater proportion of left handedness, however sexual orientation cannot be predicted biologically.

Homosexuality and psychology

Sigmund Freud's Psychoanalytical model was very well received, becoming hugely popular to the point where his publications in the USA and Britain were almost seen as a type of holy scripture.  In Freud's essays on the theory of sexuality (1905) he conceptualised sexual desire as an ever present unconscious drive - part of the libido - that either is satisfied by conforming to or conflicting with socially acceptable behaviour.  Some of his works included disturbed patients who were homosexual, not so much to devise a coherent theory on homosexuality, but rather to illuminate what is normative sexuality.  Zealous followers however, later evolved his work into a complete theory identifying homosexuality along with all manner of new terms for sexual deviancy as a psycho-pathology, the influential psychoanalyst of the 50's Bergler even concluding: 'there are no healthy homosexuals.'  Like other psycho-pathologies homosexuality was seen as caused by a conflict due to an aberrant childhood experience that continues to play out in adulthood.  Yet Freud made no such claims in-fact writing the complete opposite: 'homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest in development.' Freud later goes on to explain to an anxious mother that her son's sexuality is not a mental illness unless it is perceived as such: 'what analysis can do for your son runs in a different line.  If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in social life, analysis may bring harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed.'

Evelyn Hooker quashed any such theories of homosexuality as a psychological pathology in "The adjustment of the overt male homosexual" (1958) by showing there were no significant differences in mental health between 'equivalent' groupings of homosexual and heterosexual males. Her findings did not have the profound effect they should have had, being overpowered by the cultural momentum of psychiatry at the time that insisted homosexuality was an illness; a view finally relinquished when homosexuality was removed from the International Classification of Illnesses in 1992.

Homosexuality and sociology

The first published survey on sexual behaviour was undertaken by Alfred Kinsey (d. 1956) in the USA in 1948 entitled 'Sexual behaviour in the human male.'  Amongst the statistical analysis he found that 37% of males reported at least one homo-erotic experience up to the state of orgasm in their lives. His research was both criticised and misrepresented owing to the sensational findings.  A more robust study (The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the US) was carried out in 1992 which found 7.1% of males and 3.8% of females reported some type of sexual contact with someone of the same gender since puberty and 2.8% of males and 1.4% of females described themselves as bisexual or homosexual. Kinsey's findings showed sexual behaviour was a continuum and that people did not generally fit into neat homo/hetero categories, he concluded that homosexual behaviour was simply something one did due to socialisation and culture.

Summary

Same-sex eroticism may be, for some, a mere hedonistic desire or a phase in someone's identity complex, but for a comparatively small minority it is a natural sexuality that brings harmony, love and happiness.  There have been many theories about homosexual relations by both religious and non-religious thinkers, but given all the research what can we say of homosexuality?

F. Mondimore summarises his book 'A natural history of homosexuality' with: "The preponderance of the scientific evidence is converging on a view that homosexual people have had of themselves for as long as any had the courage to record it.  Homosexuality is a natural, abiding, normal sexuality for some people.  it is not a disease state, not simply a behaviour, and not subject to change.  It develops in some individuals as a result of influences of heredity, pre-natal development, childhood experience, and cultural milieu in varying combinations.  No one influence seems either necessary or sufficient - homosexual orientation is a possible outcome in many different circumstances because the human mind is uniquely evolved to be rich in possibilities."

Islam promotes formal responsible relationships between men and women.  There are no Qur'anic verses that unequivocally condemn or forbid same sex relationships, rather their illicitness is implied.  Some hadith are more explicit, however their authenticity is debated.  The destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah is only loosely linked to same-gender sex, it seems more to do with the separation of sex from love, lust and masculine domination.  Classical scholarship defined same gender sex as a crime, perhaps not so much in of itself, but rather to block the means for sex to societally slip into irresponsible pleasure seeking and exploitation.  In practice classical Muslim societies employed a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy toward same gender sex.

The 19th century re-classification of same-sex intimacy as a 'homosexual' identity and illness unintentionally caused the aggressive sexual politics of today.  The inequality before the law and persecution through enforced treatments suffered by this newly identified minority brought about opposition, gay rights becoming part of the larger civil rights movements during the mid 20th century.  Sexual politics demands secular courts and religious leaders answer if marriage is enjoyed by heterosexuals only or if religious groups can legitimately exclude homosexuals? Until these questions are satisfactorily dealt with they will continue to fester and polarise people into opposing camps.  No longer is mere tolerance an acceptable approach.

Concluding remarks

The conflict between classical Islamic interpretation of same-sex intimacy as immoral with modern research showing it both naturally occurring and potentially no less healthy than heterosexual relationships has inspired much literature to resolve the two opposing evidences.  Some - particularly from fundamentalist groups - have used denial, refusing to engage with homosexuality falsely seeing it as a 'western' or 'modern' problem.  Others have gone to the other extreme by either denying Islam explicitly or in part by denying classical scholarship, rejecting hadith as a source of evidence and re-interpreting the Qur'an's ambiguity to deny any negativity toward same gender sex.  Most however are moving towards a more nuanced approach to the classical view, Abdul Hakim Murad (aka Dr. T J Winter), for example, accepts that 'homosexuality is an innate disposition,' showing more awareness and explicitly stating homosexuals are no less human or Muslim, but homosexuals are religiously required to abstain from acting on their homo-erotic 'tendencies,' as a test from God. 

Muslims are generally ill equipped to discuss homosexuality as there is no formal conception of sexuality in Islam's religious works.  The formalisation of a coherent theory of sexuality is of paramount importance so Muslims can productively engage with sexual politics and those, at present, who are pushed to the peripheries of our community. Modern understanding has moved on a long way from clearly defined groups of the past such as male/female and hetero/homosexual, instead seeing gender and sexuality as separate and on a continuum.  No longer can it be thought that a gay man must be like a woman and in some way effeminate, a man might be both gay and masculine, completely happy with both his sexuality and gender.  This language barrier is where communication breaks down; 'homosexual' might bring images of Sodom and Gamorrah to the mind of many Muslims whilst others might think of Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, for which the comparison between the two is simply untenable.  Same gender relationships historically were always extra-marital, whilst the modern conception of 'homosexual' as one seeking exclusive life-long relationships is a fundamentally new category of person.

The undeniable presence of homosexuality within our communities asks the question, what are we to do with the exception to the rule?  Is it preferable to dictate that people conform to a particular system for the overall benefit of the community or should formal exceptions be made to allow homosexuals to experience love?  Both are possible in Islam.

God knows best

Additional: Suggested 'ruling'

This is an unofficial ruling merely to further the debate.  Perhaps it could be given to religious authorities to challenge outmoded positions that require suitable justification either for or against for clarification.

The verses in 7:29-30 clearly state God's plan for mankind to generally be in married 'heterosexual' relationships.  However there is nothing directly relating to 'homosexual' relationships.  Any wrong doings by the people of Sodom and Gamorrah are not commanded prohibitions, but are moral lessons to be learned.  It tells us that a society prevalent and characterised by male to male 'desire' is contrary to this plan and was criticised by His prophet.  Sexual acts outside of marriage are prohibited absolutely. 'Homosexual' acts generally are not 'unequivocally' prohibited and so are prohibited 'probabilistically,' which is why ta'zir is applied and not hadd. Anal sex is agreed (ijma') to be prohibited between all parties.  Most people have a choice and so irrespective of their desires/feelings/inclinations must choose heterosexual married relationships only.  However there are a minority of people who have no choice since they can only successfully participate in 'homosexual' relationships exclusively: ibn Abidīn states in Radd Al Mukhtar: "… the general texts are construed  in  reference to what is prevalent and common and not in reference to what is uncommon and unknown." Love is an essential need for human existence. Forbidding homosexual relationships for those who are 'exclusively homosexual' is a great difficulty. Therefore due to this difficulty 'homosexual exclusive' people should be able to marry in a special contract, such as a civil marriage, in a similar manner as a 'heterosexual' marriage as a dispensation (rukhsah): {So truly where there is hardship there is also ease} [94:5].

There may be a difficulty in identifying the 'exclusively homosexual,' but I believe the above affirms the classical position whilst accounting for the advent of new research.

God knows best

Further Reading

Ali, Kecia (2010). Sexual Ethics in Islam. One World Publications

El Rouayheb, Khaled (2005). Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800. University of Chicago Press 

Kugle, Scott (2010). Homosexuality in Islam. One World Publications

Mondimore, Francis (1996). A Natural History of Homosexuality. The John Hopkins University Press

Mottier, Veronique (2008). Sexuality: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Winter, Timothy. The Fall of the Family, available here http://www.missionislam.com/family/fall_of_family.htm