Blogging the Quran by Ziauddin Sardar- Part 53: Homosexuality - Part 1
By Ziauddin Sardar
September 22, 2008
4:15-16; 7:80-84; 24:30; 52:17-24; 79:19; 17:84; 24:31
Well, Madeleine, you are determined to put things in boxes.
You have given me a binary choice. Either I agree with your interpretation that
4:16 is an unequivocal denouncement of homosexuality or accept that, as you put
it, "religious texts are not absolute truths but reflect the context of
their times".
Given that I have argued that "absolute truth" is
known only to God and consistently pointed out that the first rule of Qur'anic
interpretation is to see the context in which a verse is revealed, I find it surprising,
to say the least that you think I will disagree with this proposition.
I have also argued that individual verses of the Qur'an
should not be lifted and interpreted on their own as "absolute
truths" but seen in connection with other verses of the Qur'an, elsewhere
in the text. The whole purpose of looking at themes is to show how a particular
concept, image, metaphor, or person makes multiple appearances in the Qur'an,
some of which may even look contradictory, to illuminate a theme from different
perspectives. I was also tried to show that the meaning of certain terms
changes with context in different parts of the Qur'an. The purpose of the
exercise is to provide a more composite picture without privileging one verse
over another. I recall, Madeleine that you were sceptical about moving
backwards and forwards through the Qur'an reading so many verses on the same
theme or topic. But a thematic analysis is essential to get a more composite
picture of how the Qur'an views homosexuality.
It is worth pointing out that the term homosexuality does
not occur in the Qur'an. But the Qur'an does mention "men who have no need
of women" (24:30). We are not explicitly told who these men are but we can
guess: either they have no sexual desire at all or they desire other men. And
if such men are "mindful of God" they could, in the hereafter, be in
"gardens and in bliss, rejoicing in their Lord's gifts" which
include, amongst other things, "devoted youths like hidden pearls"
(52:17-24). Elsewhere we are told: "Everlasting youth will attend them -
if you could see them, you would think they are scattered pearls" (76:19).
There are two points to note here. The positive way male beauty is portrayed;
and the fact that no negativity is attached to "men who have no need of
women". This suggests to me that wholesale condemnation of homosexuality
is against the spirit of the Qur'an.
There is another point to consider. Given the Qur'an's
emphasis on diversity, it seems strange to me that the sacred text would not
recognise sexual diversity. When we are asked, in 17:84, to "Say,
'Everyone does things in their own way, but your Lord is fully aware of who
follows the best-guided path", should we not include homosexuals in
'everyone'?
It seems that the Prophet Muhammad did. One reason the
Qur'an mentions "men who are not attracted to women" is that such men
existed in Medina during the time of the prophet. They lived outside the
dominant patriarchal economy but moved freely amongst the women. Along with
"their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their
husband's sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons,
their womenfolk" and "children who are not aware of women's
nakedness" (24:24), such men could witness the "charms" of
women. The prophet accepted these men as citizens of the diverse society that
was Medina with the usual stipulation that they should not break the ethical
and moral codes of society.
Moreover, if it is an integral, natural disposition of
certain men not to desire women - which is what science seems to be telling us
- then it would be unjust of the Qur'an to condemn them. Indeed, such a
condemnation would go against all the overwhelming emphasis on justice and
equity that we find in the Qur'an.
Now, Madeleine, you are in the good company of many
classical and traditionalist scholars when you suggest that 4:16 condemns
homosexuality. In the previous verse, 4:15, we read: "if any of your women
commit a lewd act, call four witnesses from among you, then, if they testify to
their guilt, keep the women at home till death comes to them or until God shows
them another way". What could this "lewd act" be? It could be
any kind of sexual indiscretion from adultery to fornication or prostitution.
But the fact that four witnesses are required suggests that it is an act
performed in public, or at least in the full view of four adults, which really
makes it indecent. The passage goes on to say: "if two men commit a lewd
act, punish them both" (4:16). The same word, Fahisha, is used to describe
the lewd nature of the act which suggests that it is also something that
happens in public, in full view of adult witnesses. I would argue that it is
the public gaze that is the issue here and not just the nature of the act
itself.
Nevertheless, the term fahishah has come to designate
homosexuality in Muslim circles. So a lot depends on how we understand this
term as the term can mean anything from gross indecency and transgression to
gruesome deeds and even atrocity. It is in the story of the Prophet Lot,
mentioned in a number of places in the Qur'an, where we find the term used most
frequently. In 7:80-81, for example, we read: "We sent Lot and he said to
his people, 'how can you practice this outrage? No one in the world has outdone
you in this. You lust after men rather than women. You transgress all
bounds'". The word for transgression here is Fahisha which is classical
commentaries is said to mean "sexually entering males". But there is
a problem with this simplistic reading - as I will try to show tomorrow.
Source:
http://blogs.theguardian.com/quran/2008/09/homosexuality_part_1.html
-----
Boxed Into a Corner
By Madeleine Bunting
September 22, 2008
Well, Zia all I can say is that these verses seem pretty
clear to me. I can't see how one can reconcile the Qur'an with homosexuality.
On many other issues there is room for interpretation, but not here. It's4:16
which seems absolutely unequivocal.
I know that similar verses appear in the Bible, but I would
argue that that is exactly why such religious texts are not absolute truth for
all time but reflect the context of their times and the prevailing customs.
I'm curious as to whether you are going to use 17:84 to find
a way of wriggling out of this conundrum. I just don't see how you can when
this verse almost certainly does not apply to homosexuality and other verses
are so clear in their condemnation.
It seems like there are only two options: the first is to
stand by the Qur'an and agree that homosexuality is a "lewd act" and
an "outrage" and the second is to acknowledge the historical nature
of the Qur'an. I can't see you would be happy with either. I fear you are
finally boxed into a corner. How on earth can you reconcile homosexuality and
the Qur'an?
Source: http://blogs.theguardian.com/quran/2008/09/madeleine_homosexuality_questi.html
URL of Part 52: https://www.newageislam.com/books-and-documents/blogging-the-qur-an-by-ziauddin-sardar--part-52--evolution/d/34855
New Age Islam, Islam
Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism