Why hijab?

This article looks at the veil in the sacred texts of Islam, classical scholastic interpretation, its historical context and some of the changes seen in the contemporary world.

Unveiling the word ‘hijab’

Hijab has a much broarder meaning than headscarf as it has come to mean today, more like the English word veil.  It derives from the Arabic root h-j-b meaning a barrier, cover, something out of sight or a curtain and appears in the Qur’an eight times; as a screen in 33:53, seclusion 19:17, excluded (mahjubun) 83:15, a barrier between God and humans 42:51 or the righteous from disbelievers 7:46, 41:5, 17:45 and the light covering the dark 38:53.  Other important Qur'anic words relating to hijab are khimar or head cover 24:31 and jilbab or outer garment 33:59.

The ‘verse of the hijab’ describes the use of a hijab as one of many etiquettes in the Prophet’s (pbuh) house: {when you ask his wives for something, do so from behind a screen [hijab]: this is purer both for your hearts and for theirs.} [33:53]. Hijab here could mean a symbolic screen customary for royalty being publicly hidden or a physical barrier for privacy or perhaps more likely with the mention of purer hearts is that it is an ethical barrier to avoid sexual desire not only from men looking at women but women looking at men.  The verse’s applicability to all Muslim women is somewhat speculative since earlier the Prophet’s wives were told: {you are not like any other woman} [33:32], the hijab now being understood in this sense as a screen of privilege that separates the Prophet’s wives from other women; Bukhari’s collection reports the Prophet identifying Safiya as his wife by spreading a 'hijab' between her and the people.  Most commentators, however, assume the verse is focused primarily on women's veiling as it is addressing male guests and asks a male (the Prophet pbuh) to screen the women; the great exegete al-Qurtubi (d. 1273) comments: "The consensus of Muslims is that the genitals and backside constitute nakedness for men and women, as well as all of woman except her face and hands, but some disagreed about the latter two."

Hijab is normally understood as veiling one's nakedness and applies to men and women although what is considered nakedness for each gender differs.

Clothing in the ancient Arab World

Very little is known of pre-Islamic Arabian dress.  Herodotus (d. 425 BCE) is the first chronicler to mention the Arabs izara, which was a sheet-like wrap used both as a mantle and a loin cloth tied with a belt.  City dwellers wore more tailored attire than their dessert contemporaries and those on the boarders of The Hellenistic and Persian worlds were also influenced by their fashions.  Early Arabian poetry mentions clothing as expressing status: ‘if a man’s honour is not sullied by baseness, then every rida’ (outer mantle) in which he cloaks himself will become him’ (al Samaw’al b. ‘Adiya’ circ. 6^th Cent.)

At the time of the Prophet (pbuh) clothing for both sexes consisted of an undergarment, a body shirt, a long dress, gown or a tunic, an over gown mantle or coat (jilbab), tight fitting sandals and a head covering (khimar).  The method of draping and use of colours, fabric and jewellery distinguished gender.  The manner of clothing continued much the same with the advent of Islam, but gained new ideological emphasis of modesty both in covering one’s shame and avoiding extravagance: {Children of Adam, We have given you garments to cover your nakedness and as adornment for you; the garment of God-consciousness is the best of all garments- this is one of God’s signs, so that people may take heed,} [7:26].

The Islamic drive for modesty in dress should not be thought of as necessarily dowdy, there is a rich vibrant history of fashions celebrating Divine Beauty inspired by the religion: "God loves to see the effects of His blessing on His servant.” [Tirmidhi] and "No one will enter Paradise who has an atom's weight of pride in his heart." A man said, "What if a man likes his clothes to look good and his shoes to look good?" He said, "God is beautiful and loves beauty. Pride means denying the truth and looking down on people." [Muslim]

Head covers and veiling in antiquity

Head covering is an ancient human practice, for example women as early as 3000 BCE Mesopotamia (approximately modern day Iraq) are known to have veiled their heads and bodies.  Head covering out of modesty was a common practice in the Near East especially among Hebrew tribes (see Genesis 24:64-65 and Isaiah 47:2). Respectable Athenian women were covered in public, Roman free women wore a palla (large rectangular shawls) and Sasanian women veiled as a form of adornment.  The first known statue on dress, Assyrian Law around 1300 BCE, required women who were not prostitutes or slaves to cover their heads in public.  Head covering and forms of gender segregation are so historically common place, not just peculiar to the Muslim World, that it cannot be realistically thought that turbans and hijabs are fundamentally what identifies Muslim from non-Muslim.

Arab free men and women covered their heads before Islam in various forms, the turban not gaining the significance as ‘the badge of Islam’ or ‘the crown of the Arabs’ until much later.  It was common for women to appear veiled in public covered in a large wrap around sheet (jilbab) and although less strictly observed before Islam, Arabian women of good standing would veil their face from strangers.  Men too, on occasion, would veil particularly the young and handsome to guard against ‘the evil eye.’  The Prophet (pbuh) is reported in Bukhari to have veiled his face as a sign of respect for his elders.

At the dawn of Islam people would have understood the head covering and veiling to be a fairly normal practice of modesty, respect and to signify higher social status.

Nakedness (a'wrah) in prayer

Discussion of the a’wrah is generally only found in the chapters concerning the pre-conditions of prayer in Islamic texts.  A’wrah linguistically comes from the root a’-w-r meaning losing an eye or something kept out of sight such as a defect or something shaming and is technically used to mean the private area that should be covered.  It is used in the Qur'an for the parts of the body that should be out of sight {...or children who are not yet aware of women’s nakedness (a’wraati)...} [24:31] and as a time of privacy {...These are your three times for privacy (a’wraatin)} [24:58] and so perhaps a more representative understanding of the Qur'anic usage of a'wrah is a vulnerable place.

Scholars have generally understood covering of the a’wrah to be one of the preconditions of a prayer’s validity citing: {Children of Adam, dress well whenever you are at worship} [7:31]. The companion ibn Abbas is reported to have said, when asked about this verse: "There were people who used to perform Tawaf (circumbulate) around the House while naked, and God ordered them to take adornment, meaning, wear clean, proper clothes that cover the private parts. People were commanded to wear their best clothes when performing every prayer,” [ibn Kathir].

A man's a'wrah is considered minimally from the navel to the knee: “the a’wrah of a man between his navel and his knees” [Ahmad].  And a woman’s a’wrah is considered her whole body except for her face and hands (some also said her feet): “a woman is a concealed a’wrah” [Tirmidhi] and “there is no prayer for a woman who has started menstruating except through a covering” [Agreed upon].  A minority argued the face is also part of a woman’s a’wrah, but the majority argued against this since it is impermissible for a woman in ihram (ritual attire for performing pilgrimage) to cover her face: “the ihram of a woman is in her face” [Bayhaqi].

Clothes were items of great value and would commonly get stolen when set upon by brigands, classical texts frequently mention that if you cannot find something to clothe yourself then you are to pray sat down, bowing and prostrating by indication as the companions ibn Abbas and ibn Umar did, so that the private parts are hidden; “the reason is that covering is obligatory due to the claim of the prayer and as a right of the public” [al Hidayah] so not to be a public nuisance.

There is no disagreement that in prayer men and women should be suitably covered whether praying alone or with others.  As an act of worship the reason is known to God, but the outward form of modesty has inward significance. Outward practices are believed to transform a person internally, like the psychosomatic phenomenon but in reverse. Veiling is not just a marker of piety and modesty before God, but it is part of what defines piety and modesty.

Nakedness (a'wrah) in public

The a’wrah of prayer is also extended by jurists as an obligation to cover outside of prayer, but to what extent varies on the context. Jurists sub-divides what constitutes a'wrah into the following - in order from least to most strict -categories: with one's spouse (there is none), when alone, with close family members, with those of the same gender and with those of the opposite gender.  Generally speaking a person should be covered at least from navel to knee at all times except for a reason, such as washing, and women should additionally cover completely except for the hands and face in front of males not from one's family: "It is obligatory to cover one's nakedness in front of others by scholarly consensus and even when alone according to the correct opinion... God Most High... sees the one covered as exhibiting proper manners" [Radd al Mukhtar].

{Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garments (jilbab) hang low over them so as to be recognized and not insulted: God is most forgiving, most merciful,} [33:59]. This verse is often understood for women to draw their outer garment (jilbab) completely around themselves for the purpose of safety in keeping with the norms of society: ‘That makes it likelier that they will be known, to be free women, and not be molested, by being approached. In contrast, slave girls did not use to cover their faces and so the disbelievers used to pester them. And God is Forgiving, of any occasion in the past when they may have neglected to cover themselves, Merciful, to them in His veiling them’ [al Jalalayn].  By the Abbasid period (approx 750 - 1260 CE) complete public veiling in Baghdad and the surrounding areas was taken for granted, including for Jewish and (it is assumed) Eastern Christian women. The veil became so ubiquitous by the High Medieval period that to uncover the face (kashf al-wajh) had the idiomatic meaning of being exposed to shame rather like the English 'losing face.' A notable exception to this is the Western caliphate of al Maghrib (around Spain, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) not only due to Berber and European influences, but also - separated from Abbasid influence - in loyally replicating the less strict adherence to veiling of the earlier Umayyad period.

{And tell believing women that they should lower their glances, guard their private parts, and not display their charms (zina) beyond what [it is acceptable] to reveal; they should let their headscarves (khumur, sing. khimar) fall to cover their necklines (juyub) and not reveal their charms (zina) except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their womenfolk, their slaves, such men as attend them who have no sexual desire, or children who are not yet aware of women’s nakedness (a'wrah); they should not stamp their feet so as to draw attention to any hidden charms (zina). Believers, all of you, turn to God so that you may prosper} [24:31]. What is 'acceptable' is understood to be the face and hands: “When a girl reaches the menstrual age, it is not proper that anything should remain exposed except this and this. He pointed to the face and hands" [Abu Dawud].

Hijab, in the broadest sense, is presented here more as modest action rather than modest dress since the verse starts by the recommendation to lower the gaze and finishes with not deliberately drawing attention, as the great early exegete Tabari comments: 'looking corrupts the heart'.  Charm here is a translation of zina which in Islamic Law is the word for fornication and adultery, but the Qur'anic usage is a morally neutral beauty, such as that of the heavens (37:6) (41:12) and (50:6).  The use of zina later to refer to that which has attention drawn to it may even imply that the charms are those added such as jewellery rather than natural beauty.  Juyub means an opening or a space between and could mean the opening of the a garment or most likely the cleavage.  The verse is commanding women to bring their head scarves (khumur) over the front covering the cleavage in front of men outside of her family, it is not obviously clear the neckline is meant necessarily covering the ears and neck (as Abdel Haleem has translated above).  Some commentators have understood the verse to mean: "they should wear the outer garment in such a way as to cover their chests and ribs, so that they will be different from the women of the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islam), who did not do that but would pass in front of men with their chests completely uncovered, and with their necks, forelocks, hair and earrings uncovered." [ibn Kathir].

Slaves are exempt from the same requirements of dress as free women due to the companion Umar's words: 'get rid of your veil filthy wretch, do you wish to pass as a freewoman' [al-Razzaq and al-Zayla'i].  A slave woman's a'wrah is classically understood to be the same as a man's (navel to knee) but also includes her front torso and back.  The argument given is 'she usually goes out on errands for her master in her work clothes, thus to avoid hardship, her state is judged to be like that of a woman in the prohibited category (mahram) for all men' [al-Hidayah].  The same argument is used for why the face, hands and some said feet and forearms are not part of the a'wrah for a free woman since they necessarily must be uncovered to avoid unnecessary hardship.

Being in a state of continual worship is an Islamic ideal, which then necessitates that one should also continually be properly attired, however this requirement of modesty in dress is limited by practical necessities.

Is Fitnah fitting?

Fitnah derives from the root f-t-n meaning to purify gold or silver, put to the test, afflict, seduce or tempt and is normally used in juristic texts in the sense of a disruption of the peace or public discord, such as in {…trying to sow discord (al fit’nata) among you..} [9:47]. An example of fitnah in social interactions is the prohibition of a man and a woman being alone together in a secluded room because of the risks it might lead to.  Fitnah was not used in relation to a'wrah in earlier Islamic texts, but is a much later justification.  The contemporary scholar Sheikh Abou el Fadl points out that understanding 'hijab' as a form of limiting fitnah causes a number of problems.  One of the core principles of Islamic jurisprudence is that someone should not suffer for someone else's sins; therefore to enforce a hardship on women due to an apparent man's weakness or inclination to lust appears contrary to Islamic Law.  Additionally the fitnah of an unclad slave woman poses just as much risk as a free woman, which makes imperative to cover to avoid fitnah nonsensical.  el Fadl argues this 'dubious logic' is a contradictory immodesty: 'it does not occur to the jurists who make these determinations that this presumed fitnah that accompanies women in whatever they do or wherever they go is an inherent quality of womanhood, but is a projection of male promiscuities.  By artificially constructing womanhood into embodiment of seductions, these jurists do not promote a norm of modesty, but in reality, promote a norm of immodesty.  Instead of turning the gaze away from the physical attributes of women, they obsessively turn the gaze of attention to women as mere physicality.  In essence, these jurists objectify women into items for male consumption, and in that, is the height of immodesty.'

Fitnah is essentially a different issue to a'wrah since the religious motivation to cover is more for privacy, privilege, honour, protection and modesty rather than a subjectively assessed level of fitnah.

Hijab's meaning veiled in modern times

The concept of hijab has taken on new significance within the last two hundred years and is ironically becoming more visible in the media more recently with bans in France and Turkey.  The hijab can be symbolic of two opposite causes; it is a hindrance to education in France, whilst it helps women gain access in Indonesia.  Justification for denying access to education based on the belief that hijab is a sign of fundamentalism not only is over simplistically untrue but also makes women political pawns and further denies Muslim women to be active political participants in the debate as Valorie Vojdik argues.

The hijab has a new political role, for example during the Interfada (1987-1992) Palestinian women who had up until then worn all manner of veils for all manner of reasons started to wear a tailored hijab and overcoat or 'Shariah dress', as Hamas termed it, to protest to Israeli politics of detention, housing demolition and deportation.  Likewise Islam and the hijab as its symbol became an important vehicle for nationalism to resist occupying colonialist powers.  The colonialists often saw the hijab as a sign of backwardness and a hindrance to enforced modernisation, the resulting attempts to unveil women only fuelled its political significance.  The hijab was no longer an expression of faith as chosen by women, but a means to an end in a political war fought by men.  Of the most widespread 'political Islamic movements,' is the Muslim Brotherhood's call for a return to 'Golden Age' by supplanting the humiliating colonialist regimes with with the complete social justice of Islam; hijab being both part of and a symbol of this change.

Islamic Law during its political re-branding in the 19th century saw it change into fixed legislative codes. In terms of veiling, Islamic law was uncharacteristically constricted from the collections of opinion and advise on modest behaviour to a state controlled moral policing requiring women to veil in public; for example in Sudan the criminal code allows flogging or fining of anyone who 'violates public morality or wears indecent clothing.'  Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are other examples that have also made the historically innovative assumption that all actions considered sins should be punishable crimes. Shariah generally speaking, and veiling particularly,  looses its religious authority when enforced by the state.

Women wear hijab for many reasons, which contrary to media speculation are rarely due to the commands of over powering husbands or fathers, which are too numerous to mention here.  However, to mention one veiling movement, that has appeared in the last few decades in Egypt, is the hijab as a symbol of capitalist gender equality. Rather than the veil being a symbol of seclusion and confinement to the home, as with classical Greek veiling, it is used as a protest against male financial dependence; as a portable seclusion hijab allows social mobility for a modern career minded women.  In style too the hijab has changed accordingly from traditional lose fitting sheets and wraps to tailored long skirts and head scarves.  This is but one example of trends in 'fashion-veiling' and the multi-faceted forms of identity expression.

The hijab no longer carries the same meaning or even can be thought to materially be the same thing as when it was first conceptualised.

Concluding remarks

There is no disagreement about the requirement of hijab for the validity of the prescribed prayers.  However hijab as an act of worship (i'badat) is a different issue than hijab as a social practice (mu'amalat) and so the requirements of prayer are not as obviously applied outside of prayer.

Scholars disagreed whether what is 'acceptable' from verse 24:31 is referring to a specific area or what is customary or necessary due to hardship (see Bidayat al-Mujtahid and Tafsir al Razi).  Most scholars have defined modest dress for free women as entailing complete covering except for the face and hands in public, however there are minority opinions which allow some flexibility.  Most flexible are the opinions relating to slave women; their a'wrah is considered to be reduced to that of a man's with the inclusion of the breasts, which is perhaps more representative of verse 24:31 and is easily reasoned as the fundamental anatomical difference between the sexes.  More stringent covering of slaves is rescinded due to their socially and economically active lives, which has even occasionally been transferred by some scholars for the main 'bread winner' of poor families. This may mean the extent to which hijab is necessary in the modern public sphere requires re-evaluation since the abolition of slavery renders needing to make a distinction for free women obsolete, customary practice in the UK is not to cover the head/neck/ears and uncovering causes no tangible fitnah and the active involvement of women in society makes normative hijab stipulation as unnecessarily burdensome, as el Fadl states: 'The interaction between the text and the text's social context is not easily transferable or projectable to other contexts.' 

Modest dress both privately and publicly is unquestionably an Islamic virtue, but the stipulation of obligation (wajib) to cover the arms head and lower leg may no longer be applicable in the modern British context, reverting instead to recommended (mustahab), rather like that for men.

The classical hijab rarely has the same meaning - even a contradictory one - in the modern world; can the modern manifestations of hijab even be classed as the same thing as classical hijab? Has it become a symbol of pride and arrogance, which completely inverts its meaning?  The issue is complex and women wear it for many reasons, hijab cannot be thought of as a one size fits all garment.  However it may be argued that there is a trend for the classical concept of veiling - to continually remain in a state of worship and foster an inward state of modesty before God - to be overshadowed by political agendas for state control, political affiliation, Islamic nationalistic identity or as a protest to foreign influences.  Which then asks how valid is it to view hijab in this modern context as a religious requirement or even practice?

Whatever the role veiling should play in modern society, most importantly it should not be reduced to a piece of cloth worn on the head that defines a woman and be seen as the primary objective of Islam. Any outward form loses its significance unless accompanied with an internal meaning. Hijab,  in the broadest sense, as modesty in dress and behaviour has a much higher purpose, and we would do best to remember: “God is more deserving than the people of your modesty” [Tirmidhi].

Further reading

Arab Dress: A Short History, N. A. Stillman (ed.), 2003, Brill, Boston USA.

Speaking in God's Name, K. A. el Fadl, 2001, One World Publications

The Islamic Veil, E. Bucar, 2012, One World Publications

The Veil and the Male Elite, F. Mernissi, 1992, Perseus Books

Women in the Qur'an, Traditions and Interpretations, B. F. Stowasser, 1994, Oxford University Press

Alcohol in Islam

Perhaps one of the biggest barriers for Muslims to integrate into British culture is alcohol.  This article examines the history of drinking, its ruling in Islamic Law and the effects of alcohol abuse.  It concludes with identifying a more nuanced approach to alcohol that is both compatible with Islam but sensitive to the deeply embedded cultural habits of the British people.

History - drug or food?

Humans have used Alcoholic drinks for many different reasons for millennia.  The earliest written account comes from the Mesopotamian (roughly modern Iraq) tale The Epic of Gilgamesh, some four thousand years old.  It describes the half man/half beast Enkidu being tamed (symbolically cultured) with 'the custom of the land' of drinking beer, which he drank becoming 'expansive and sang with joy.' He became aware of himself through intoxication; an awareness brought on by a changed mental state.  This association of cognitive awareness with intoxication has a long association with many spiritual traditions to aid meditation.

The Greeks drank watered down wine or more correctly wined down water (approximately 3%) regularly like a food, viewing it as healthy and a safe way to drink water.  Being drunk was seen as uncivilized and shameful, the drunkard often being the object of mockery in plays.  In fact the Greek word for a drunken party; a komodia, forms the root for the English word comedy.  In a play by Eubulus (d. 335 BCE), Dionysus demarcates responsible drinking: 'three kraters (a shallow wine vessel) only do I propose for sensible men, one for health, the second for love and pleasure and the third for sleep; when this has been drunk up, wise guests make for home.  The forth krater is mine no longer, but belongs to the hubris; the fifth to shouting; the sixth to revel; the seventh to black eyes; the eighth to summoneses; the ninth to bile; and the tenth to madness and people tossing the furniture about.' Most cultures likewise have an ambivalent view of alcohol and have formed their own limits for socially acceptable drinking patterns.

Southern European cultures continue to drink wine daily in moderation as part of their diet, whereas Northern European cultures tend to binge drink possibly because the native ales and meads could not be so easily stored, historically alcohol being used more for celebration and ceremony.  In the epic poem Beowulf (c. 520 CE) the King's mead hall is a sign of authority and alcohol is used as a symbol of kinship; Beowulf pledging his support to Hrothgar to slay the monster Grendel by 'accepting the cup.'  This tradition of kinship continues with the toast at a wedding ceremony; the word bride coming from Old English brydealo meaning marriage feast where she would disseminate the 'bridal ale' cementing her husband's leadership.  Alcohol also continues to play an important role in celebrations throughout Northern Europe, for example the word honeymoon coming from a Medieval tradition of a lunar months worth of mead (made from honey) being given to the newly weds for fertility.  Ales also served as an important food; low alcohol ales known as small beers (below 2%) were necessary to consume water safely, provide much needed calories and vitamin B (unlike modern filtered lagers) and to make an otherwise dry diet palatable.

The temperance (meaning moderation rather than avoidance) movement which saw the prohibition of alcohol in the US during the 1920's was more a reaction to the availability of cheap high proof spirits and its disastrous effect on society rather than disdain for traditional ales and wines.  The Prohibition fuelled both extremes of abstinence and excess that are still evident today.  Approximately 30% of Americans presently abstain from drinking, which is the highest of any nation outside of Muslim majority countries. The prohibition also created a cocktail and night life culture that romanticised drinking.  The advent of widespread distillation shifted alcohol in the US and beyond from benign food to a coveted and dangerous drug.  The enforced legal age limits have done little to discourage youth binge drinking instead turning alcohol into a 'rite of passage' to adulthood.  The UK presently following America's lead is one of the worst binge drinking nations in Europe.  Research published by the health charity Developing Patient Partnerships found that 24% of Britons sometimes drink just to "get drunk," the figure is even higher in young people with 59% of 18-24 year olds and 43% of 25-34 year olds drinking to get drunk.

Why do people drink?

Alcohol is a highly sociable drug often signifying status.  It allows for social interactions that other drugs do not; whilst the heroin user may be sat with others in the shooting gallery they do not socialise, and cannabis smokers tend to focus more on response to a stimuli such as music rather than the back and forth banter enjoyed by alcohol users. Unlike other psychotropic drugs its effects are also predictably dose dependent, being fairly easy to self regulate and so regularly produces a desired result.  Not all people drink alcohol as a drug of course, many simply enjoy the flavour of such drinks and see them more in the sense of food without any intention of becoming drunk.

Not slurring our words

Alcohol is believed to derive from the Arabic al-kuhl meaning a finely crushed powder, which the fledgling 17th century science of chemistry (in Europe) termed the intoxicating essence of wine obtained by distillation.  It may possibly derive from al-ghawl from the verse describing the 'wine' of paradise: {causing no headiness [gawlun] or intoxication} [37:47].

In modern chemistry alcohol refers to an organic compound of a carbon (C) atom bound to a hydroxyl (-OH) group. When we speak of alcohol in beverages we are normally referring to ethanol (C2H5OH) as other forms of alcohol are far too toxic for human ingestion.  Therefore any further reference to alcohol is referring to ethanol specifically. 

The word used in the Qur'an relating to alcoholic beverages is khamr, which derives from the root kh-m-r meaning to mix or cover. Khamr can mean ‘any intoxicating thing that clouds, or covers the intellect' (Lisan al-'Arab) such as when 'Umar said from The Prophet's Parapet: "khamr is that which mixes up (khaamara) the mind" [Bukhari, Muslim].   Khamr can refer to wine from grapes in particular {pressing grapes [khamran]} [12:36] and dates: 'The Prophet (pbuh) said: “khamr is from these two trees,” while pointing to grapevines and date-palms.' [Muslim]. Linguistically however khamr is most likely referring to the intoxicating characteristic of beverages rather than the substance of wine in particular since the general word for grapes is 'inab. Another more general word used for intoxicating drink is sakar.

Gradual prohibition in the Qur'an

Gradualism in legislation (tanjim) is an important principle of Islamic Law, the wisdom of which a wise father explained to his son, "Do not deal with matters hastily, son. God Almighty [Himself] despised drinking alcohol twice in the Qur'an and did not declare it forbidden but in the third time. I am afraid that if I enjoined the right on people at one stroke, they would give it up all at once, which might lead to sedition," (Al-Muafaqat, Ash-Shatibi).  The verses mentioned are as follows:

{They will ask you about alcoholic drinks [al khamri] and gambling. Say, ´There is great wrong in both of them and also certain benefits for mankind. But the wrong in them is greater than the benefit.} [2:219].

{You who believe, do not come anywhere near the prayer if you are intoxicated [sukaaraa], not until you know what you are saying} [4:43]

{You who believe, intoxicants (khamr) and gambling, idolatrous practices, and [divining with] arrows are repugnant acts- Satan’s doing- shun them so that you may prosper} [5:90].

The companions drank right up until the last verse was revealed near the end of the Prophet's (pbuh) life; Abbas bin Malik said: 'I was serving drinks to people in the home of Abu Talhah on the day that wine was prohibited, and they were drinking nothing but date wine. Suddenly someone called out: “Come out and see!” So we did so and someone called out: “Verily, wine has been prohibited!” It was flowing through the streets of Madinah. Abu Talhah said to me: “Take it outside and pour it out.” So I did so.' [Bukhari, Muslim].

Ruling for drinking 'Khamr'

By consensus (ijma') khamr, in the sense of wine from dates and grapes, is a sin and a crime to drink in small or large amounts for Muslims - even in 'Muslim lands' non Muslims are allowed to drink at home or in designated areas.  This is based on unequivocal texts from the Qur'an and mass transmitted (mutawatir) hadith thus making the prohibition (haram) of drinking khamr something 'necessarily know,' such that to believe otherwise is disbelief (kufr).  Other types of substance that intoxicate not from grapes and dates are not as unequivocally prohibited.

Substance or intoxicant?

The two primary colleges of Islam in the Hijaz and Iraq, which were the forerunners to the four Sunni Schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali), differed as to what it is that is prohibited.  The Hijazis went with the substance of the intoxicating liquor, the Iraqis went with the intoxicant in the liquor.  A subtle but important difference.

The Hijazis used: "Any drink that intoxicates is prohibited," [Bukhari, Muslim] and "Whatever intoxicates in a greater quantity is also unlawful in its smaller quantity," [Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah] to justify that the whole substance is prohibited.  They understood khamr in the general sense of intoxicant, using: "Every intoxicant (muskirin) is khamr and every intoxicant is prohibited" [Muslim] and: "from grapes khmar is made, from dried dates khmar is made, from honey khmar is made, from wheat khmar is made, from barley khmar is made," [Abu Dawud].

The Iraqis argue it is the intoxicant (sakar) that is prohibited rather than the substance since the substance has been described as a 'good provision' in the Qur'an: {And from the fruits of date palms and grape vines, you obtain intoxicants (sakaran), and good provision. Surely, in that there is a sign for a people who understand} [16:67]. They further argue that the underlying cause (i'lla) for the prohibition is that it prevents remembrance of God and causes enmity (see 5:90), implying the prohibition of the intoxicating effect rather than the the general substance.  Some Iraqi scholars, most notably al-Nakha'i (d 682), are believed to have thought all drinks other than grape and date wine are permissible below an intoxicating level, using: 'O Messenger of God (pbuh) there are two beverages there [Yemen] that they make from wheat and barley. One of them is called Mizr (beer) and the other is called bita' (mead).  Which should we drink? He (pbuh) said: 'drink (both) but do not become intoxicated' [Tahawi]. However the consensus is that the scholars who held this position were mistaken.

Ibn Rushd (d. 1198) writes in Bidayat al Mujtahid that there has been extensive disagreement, such that both colleges are considered correct.  However he puts forward his own argument in favour of the Hijazi position since the Qur'an only ever refers to khamr in a general sense rather than to a specific quantity.

Khamr and impurity

There are two issues with alcoholic beverages; that of intoxication and that of ritual impurity (najasah).  Alcoholic solids are not considered impure by agreement (ijma') although impermissible to eat if it has the capacity to intoxicate, thereby allowing things with naturally occurring traces of alcohol such as: levied bread, fruit etc.  Khamr is said to be impure by consensus (ijma') although this does not appear to have a textual source.  The verse 5:90 (above) is sometimes cited as evidence since khamr is described as filth (rij'sun), however the use of rijs (filth) cannot be thought of in a literal sense as referring to an unclean substance, since non-substance concepts such as idolatry, divination and gambling are described likewise.  Ghazali (d. 1111) states: “It [khamr] takes the ruling of being impure to emphasise its unlawfulness and to discourage it.” [Nawawi, al-Majmu'].

The Hanafi school only holds khamr (wine) from grapes and dates as impure (najasah), other alcoholic substances are considered pure (tahir).  As such non-wine intoxicants may be permissible to consume providing it is not consumed to an intoxicating level.  However, if it is used in the same way that wine is used, it likewise becomes impermissible even in small amounts; modern lagers, for example, would be completely impermissible to drink although pure.  Generally speaking the Hanafis rule the same as the other schools, but the subtle difference is that substances that are not normally used as intoxicating drinks are permissible to use, such as synthetic alcohol in food, cosmetics, medicine and deodorants etc.

There is agreement (ijma') that should grapes be left to ferment further so that it turns into vinegar, it becomes pure (tahir) and there is no blame in using it; “What a good food is vinegar” [Muslim].  Although there is some disagreement between the jurists whether wine that has been actively changed into vinegar by adding a chemical etc. is permissible: “The Messenger of God (pbuh) was asked whether wine could be changed to be used as vinegar. He said, ‘No.’” [Muslim].  Interestingly when wine changes to vinegar, chemically speaking, the ethanol turns to acetic acid (CH3COOH) which may identify the underlying cause of prohibition as ethanol content rather than anything else.

Crime and Punishment

Scholars award a fixed penalty (hadd) to a sane adult Muslim witnessed drinking khamr by two upright people who has the smell still on them or is inebriated, there is consensus on this due to the narration: "if a person drinks khamr, subject him to stripes; if he repeats it, subject him to stripes (again)," [Agreed upon].  Most jurists set the punishment at eighty strikes although Shafi'i stated forty owing to how a hadith from Abu Sa'id al Khudri could be understood: "the Messenger of God awarded forty strikes with two (a pair) of shoes." The Hanafi school differs in only applying the uppermost hadd penalty for wine from dates or grapes, other intoxicants are punished only for inebriation.  Inebriation is described as someone whom under the influence 'does not understand speech, whether less or more, and he cannot distinguish between a man or a woman' [al-Marghinani, Al-Hidayah] ie. someone who is obviously drunk.

A lone sheep - sitting with those who drink

There are a number of hadith that prohibit sitting with people who are drinking: "He who believes in God and the Last Day must not sit at a cloth (table or gathering) where wine is being circulated" [Tirmidhi]. This is understood to be a prohibition of 'means' rather than 'objectives,' i.e. sitting with those who drink is not a sin in of itself, but it is feared it will lead to sin. Generally it is considered disliked (makruh) such that there is no blame if one has a need (hajat) but sinful if it becomes habitual.

Alcohol is expensive!

It is commonly known that excessive consumption of alcohol (see NHS guidelines) is a health risk, but what is not commonly known is: 'in terms of cost to [UK] society, alcohol causes the biggest harm,' even more than heroine or crack!  Prof. D. Nutter's landmark research by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs published in the Lancet showed that alcohol was more dangerous to the user and others than any other drug, one of they key factors being availability.  Alcoholism is directly proportional to accessibility; the highest risk occupations understandably being publicans, barmen and barmaids.  Along with the familiar health risks of gastroenteritis, cardio-vascular and liver damage, among others, are the less familiar psychiatric and social morbidities that make it so dangerous to others.  Heavy drinking can greatly affect mood such that the risk of suicide is fifty times more than the national average!  Alcohol often plays a part in crimes such as arson, sexual assault and murder.  'Social costs of excessive alcohol consumption are very high and include... breakdown of relationships, marriages and families.  This may be the result of mood changes, personality deterioration, verbal abuse, physical violence, psycho sexual disorders, pathological jealousy and associated gambling and other psychoactive substance use... Furthermore, the children of such broken families may suffer emotionally in years to come from the trauma of having lived with a parent or parents who drank heavily' (Puri, 2002).

Those that have a good prognosis to alcohol problems have: a good insight into their problem, a strong motivation, a place to live and good social and family support.  Those that do not, suffer from: emotional states like depression, interpersonal conflicts and social pressures.

Conclusion

'First the man takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the man' [Chinese proverb].  This boundary between responsible and dangerous drinking habits has been the concern of many cultures. The question arises where exactly is the boundary in Islam?  Generally Muslims have successfully implemented an absolute prohibition and as such 'excessive alcohol consumption is relatively rare in Islamic countries because the sale and drinking of alcoholic beverages is strictly limited in public' (Puri, 2002).  Despite the threat of punitive action, this success has been due to religious motivation; the Qur'an (9:50) clearly prohibiting the use of khamr to avoid its connected social problems and the numbing of one's spiritual capacity.

Why was the word khamr specifically used?  Although it can inclusively mean any intoxicating substance it is especially connected to alcoholic beverages and wine specifically.  The social damage of excessive drinking above other intoxicants has been well documented. Khmar in the sense of wine is more potent than beer because the higher sugar content of fruits over grain produce proportionally more ethanol during the fermentation process. Chemistry has identified the intoxicating component of an alcoholic beverages as ethanol. Ethanol naturally occurs in all manner of useful substances and renders all but the Hanafi position somewhat unsatisfactory because the same substance is deemed both permissible and impermissible incoherently. Perhaps the prohibition is less to do with ethanol per se and more to do with the intoxicating effect, drunkenness and that which leads to alcoholism.  This underlying cause ('illa) of intoxication is why other drugs such as cocaine, marijuana or heroin are impermissible by analogy. Generally speaking we could say substances that have the 'potential' to intoxicate are impermissible.

What is meant by intoxication?  Generally the texts are silent on this, saying things like that which takes the senses, but perhaps U'mar's words that it mixes up or confuses (kaamara) the mind is the clearest explanation.  Research would be needed to see where ethanol starts to adversely affect brain function.  There has been much research into safe drinking limits for driving, currently set at 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.  However, this is difficult to gauge in terms of the number of drinks since it is completely dependent on the person; a larger person can drink more than a smaller for example.  This complexity may explain the silence of the scholars on this point.  Generally speaking we might say that an average male would be able to drink one pint of lower strength lager (no more than 4%) and be just below the limit.  However you couldn't drink this as a Muslim as in larger quantities (a bucketful as the hadith suggests) you would certainly be over the limit, so it would have to be much lower perhaps around 1% or maybe even as much as 2%.

Alcohol has a long history in Britain; the pub serving as a socially neutral space that transcended class and status.  Communication often breaks down when communities talk past each other; non-Muslims focusing on the benefits and Muslims focusing on the harms exclusively, yet the Qur'an acknowledges both.  The UK government have reduced duty on drinks below 2.8% to encourage brewers to produce and consumers to buy lower alcohol beers, which should be seen as a welcome step towards responsible drinking. We may as one whole community benefit from understanding and promoting the view that {the wrong in them is greater than the benefit}.

Further Reading

Alcohol: social drinking in cultural context, 2013, J. Chrzan, Routledge

Textbook of Psychiatry, 2002, BK Puri, PJ Laking, IH Treasaden, Churchill Livingston

'Prohibition of khamr,' by G. Haddad, found here: http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e97.html

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