Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 (4 page)
Read Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 Online
Authors: Khaled El-Rouayheb
BOOK: Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800
6.39Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
CHAPTER ONE
Pederasts and Pathics
Toward the end of the year 1701, a Druze chieftain (Emir) from the Wādī al-Taym area in Syria came to Damascus to be officially invested as head military official
(Yāyābāshī)
of his home region by the governor of the city. According to a contemporary chronicler, the Emir was a notorious womanizer, who “in Damascus was determined to conduct himself with his characteristic lewdness.” Once, while at the house of a local woman, he was surprised by around twenty Turcoman soldiers, who gang-raped him and robbed him of his clothes, leaving him barefoot and clad only in his inner garments. “He who encroaches upon the womenfolk
(ḥarīm)
of the Muslims deserves more than this,” they reportedly said before letting him go. “new of the incident,” the chronicler added, “reached the women and children [of the city], and songs about him [i.e., the Emir] were composed and performed by singers ... He then departed to the land of the Druzes, his home, and it was said that the woman remained untainted [i.e., she was not dishonored before the arrival of the soldiers], and thus God forsook the damned Emir at the hands of the Turcoman.”
1
The quoted remarks make it clear in what terms the chronicler, and the Muslim population of Damascus in general, viewed the reported action of the soldiers. An outsider, and a non-Muslim at that, by his attempt to seduce or rape a local woman, had threatened the honor of the community at large. The threat was not only averted, but the potential dishonorer was himself dishonored by being buggered, and the Turcoman troops came in this particular case to be seen as instruments of poetic justice. Underlying the interpretation, of course, is a tacit identification of sexual penetration, both the one averted and the one committed by the soldiers, with dishonor. This assumption is one that will be all too familiar to anyone acquainted with the more bawdy or ribald aspects of present-day Arab (and Mediterranean) culture, as manifested for example in jokes and insults: to penetrate phallically is to dominate, subjugate, and ultimately to humiliate. According to the oneiromantic handbook of the Damascene scholar ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī (d. 1731), to dream that one is sexually penetrating a rival or enemy forebodes that one will get the better of him in real life, whereas being penetrated by him is ominous, signifying the reverse.
2
A strikingly uncompromising expression of this way of conceiving phallic penetration is contained in the following defamatory poem in which Ibrāhīm al-Ghazālī (d. 1678), deputy judge at one of the courts of Damascus, lampooned a contemporary:
(Yāyābāshī)
of his home region by the governor of the city. According to a contemporary chronicler, the Emir was a notorious womanizer, who “in Damascus was determined to conduct himself with his characteristic lewdness.” Once, while at the house of a local woman, he was surprised by around twenty Turcoman soldiers, who gang-raped him and robbed him of his clothes, leaving him barefoot and clad only in his inner garments. “He who encroaches upon the womenfolk
(ḥarīm)
of the Muslims deserves more than this,” they reportedly said before letting him go. “new of the incident,” the chronicler added, “reached the women and children [of the city], and songs about him [i.e., the Emir] were composed and performed by singers ... He then departed to the land of the Druzes, his home, and it was said that the woman remained untainted [i.e., she was not dishonored before the arrival of the soldiers], and thus God forsook the damned Emir at the hands of the Turcoman.”
1
The quoted remarks make it clear in what terms the chronicler, and the Muslim population of Damascus in general, viewed the reported action of the soldiers. An outsider, and a non-Muslim at that, by his attempt to seduce or rape a local woman, had threatened the honor of the community at large. The threat was not only averted, but the potential dishonorer was himself dishonored by being buggered, and the Turcoman troops came in this particular case to be seen as instruments of poetic justice. Underlying the interpretation, of course, is a tacit identification of sexual penetration, both the one averted and the one committed by the soldiers, with dishonor. This assumption is one that will be all too familiar to anyone acquainted with the more bawdy or ribald aspects of present-day Arab (and Mediterranean) culture, as manifested for example in jokes and insults: to penetrate phallically is to dominate, subjugate, and ultimately to humiliate. According to the oneiromantic handbook of the Damascene scholar ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī (d. 1731), to dream that one is sexually penetrating a rival or enemy forebodes that one will get the better of him in real life, whereas being penetrated by him is ominous, signifying the reverse.
2
A strikingly uncompromising expression of this way of conceiving phallic penetration is contained in the following defamatory poem in which Ibrāhīm al-Ghazālī (d. 1678), deputy judge at one of the courts of Damascus, lampooned a contemporary:
By God ask, on my behalf, the gross character: “Of what do you disapprove in so-and-so?” and you will be amazed.You will not find the reason to be other than that I did not fuck him since he has long disgusted me.And had I inflicted upon him my penis and given it to him, he would not have reckoned I had any faults.But I now cauterize his ulcerous arse with the fire of my penis, and ascend the ranks [of virtue] in his eyes.I impose on my self what is contrary to its preference; before me many did what I am now doing ...O penis! Arise! Put on your armor, and enter his interior like a raider, and give us his guts as spoils.Make him wide as you hump and shake within him, and if you cannot, delegate in your place a piece of wood.
3
As described in this context, the act of penetration can hardly be called “sexual,” as it is dissociated, not only from love and intimacy, but also from desire and pleasure. It is explicitly stated that the penetrator has to overcome his feeling of disgust and impose on his self “what is contrary to its preference,” whereas the fact that the penetrated is said to derive pleasure from the act simply adds to the insult. “You who closes his thighs around the manhood from pleasure! You pasture-ground of penises!” a seventeenth-century Egyptian scholar wrote to an adversary.
4
As has been noted by the psychiatrist T. Vanggaard, it seems to be a misconception to assume that men are only able to sustain an erection and have intercourse if they are attracted sexually (in any ordinary sense of the word) to the person in question. In some cases, the erection may be sustained by feelings of aggressive hostility.
5
The possibility of what Vanggaard calls “phallic aggression” seems to have been conceived in the premodern Arab East. The Iraqi scholar Maḥmūd al-Alusi (d. 1854), for example, stated that some people in his time used sodomy as a way of getting revenge in vendettas
(akhdhan li-al-thaʾr).
6
In addition, some of the traditions which were invoked by Muslim religious scholars to explain the rise of sodomy among “the people of Lot”
(Qawm Lūṭ)
stated that they started to sodomize strangers as a way of driving them off their land, “without having any sexual desire to do that
(min ghayr shahwah bihim ilā dhālik)
.”
7
4
As has been noted by the psychiatrist T. Vanggaard, it seems to be a misconception to assume that men are only able to sustain an erection and have intercourse if they are attracted sexually (in any ordinary sense of the word) to the person in question. In some cases, the erection may be sustained by feelings of aggressive hostility.
5
The possibility of what Vanggaard calls “phallic aggression” seems to have been conceived in the premodern Arab East. The Iraqi scholar Maḥmūd al-Alusi (d. 1854), for example, stated that some people in his time used sodomy as a way of getting revenge in vendettas
(akhdhan li-al-thaʾr).
6
In addition, some of the traditions which were invoked by Muslim religious scholars to explain the rise of sodomy among “the people of Lot”
(Qawm Lūṭ)
stated that they started to sodomize strangers as a way of driving them off their land, “without having any sexual desire to do that
(min ghayr shahwah bihim ilā dhālik)
.”
7
Instead of references to desire and pleasure, the quoted verses of Ibrāhīm al-Ghazālī contain a remarkable profusion of metaphors derived from the language of violence and war: infliction, fire, armor, raid, spoils. Conversely, literary descriptions of battles in classical Arabic often conjure up, perhaps unconsciously, the imagery of sexual intercourse: the defeated soldiers “turn tail”
(wallaw al-adbār);
the swords of the victorious ravage the turned tails
(fataka
or
ʿamila fī adbārihim)
of their enemies; the sword of the powerful military commander was said to “make courageous men into women” (
yuʾannithu al-buhm al-dhukūr)
or to “make male enemies menstruate”
(jaʿala al-dhukūr min al-aʿadī ḥuyyaḍan).
8
The word
futūḥ
can be used equally of military conquest and of sexual penetration or deflowering. If the act of penetration can be seen as a uniting of two persons or as “making love,” it can also be perceived as a deeply “polarizing” experience, which distinguishes the dominant from the dominated, the dishonorer from the dishonored, and the victorious from the defeated.
9
Some recent writers seem to want to juxtapose the two views, and attribute the former to the modern West and the latter to the Mediterranean-Middle Eastern area.
10
Yet the idea of sex
as jimāʿ(i.e.,
bringing together, combining) was not foreign to the premodern Middle East, nor is the idea of “screwing” in the sense of defeating or insulting in any way absent in the contemporary West. Having said this, it is still undeniable that the aggressive, masculine-centered view featured much more prominently in the public (male-dominated) discourse of the early Ottoman Arab East than the affectionate-androgynous view. In the ongoing rivalries for posts, money, status, and influence in the exclusively male public sphere, allusions to phallic penetration were always near at hand. When the poet Mamayah al-Rūmī (d. 1579) was appointed as interpreter at one of the courts of Damascus at the expense of the previous holder of the position, a Turk by the name of Amrallah, he composed the following lines in celebration:
(wallaw al-adbār);
the swords of the victorious ravage the turned tails
(fataka
or
ʿamila fī adbārihim)
of their enemies; the sword of the powerful military commander was said to “make courageous men into women” (
yuʾannithu al-buhm al-dhukūr)
or to “make male enemies menstruate”
(jaʿala al-dhukūr min al-aʿadī ḥuyyaḍan).
8
The word
futūḥ
can be used equally of military conquest and of sexual penetration or deflowering. If the act of penetration can be seen as a uniting of two persons or as “making love,” it can also be perceived as a deeply “polarizing” experience, which distinguishes the dominant from the dominated, the dishonorer from the dishonored, and the victorious from the defeated.
9
Some recent writers seem to want to juxtapose the two views, and attribute the former to the modern West and the latter to the Mediterranean-Middle Eastern area.
10
Yet the idea of sex
as jimāʿ(i.e.,
bringing together, combining) was not foreign to the premodern Middle East, nor is the idea of “screwing” in the sense of defeating or insulting in any way absent in the contemporary West. Having said this, it is still undeniable that the aggressive, masculine-centered view featured much more prominently in the public (male-dominated) discourse of the early Ottoman Arab East than the affectionate-androgynous view. In the ongoing rivalries for posts, money, status, and influence in the exclusively male public sphere, allusions to phallic penetration were always near at hand. When the poet Mamayah al-Rūmī (d. 1579) was appointed as interpreter at one of the courts of Damascus at the expense of the previous holder of the position, a Turk by the name of Amrallah, he composed the following lines in celebration:
Thanks to God, I achieved my desired aim, and the opponent was discharged. And I received what I had hoped for, and God’s will
(amr Allah)
was done(mafʿūlan)
.
11
Since
mafʿūl bihi
is the term usually used to denote the passive sexual partner, the allusion is very clear in Arabic: Amrallah has been “screwed” by his successful rival for the post.
mafʿūl bihi
is the term usually used to denote the passive sexual partner, the allusion is very clear in Arabic: Amrallah has been “screwed” by his successful rival for the post.
The modern concept of “homosexuality” elides a distinction that, in the Middle East, was (and still is) fraught with symbolic significance: that between the penetrator and the penetrated. Not surprisingly, in ordinary language there was no corresponding concept that would apply to both those who preferred the active-insertive role and those who preferred the passive-receptive role in a homosexual act. The term
Lūṭī
was typically used of the former, while
mukhannath
or
maʾbūn
or (more colloquially)
ʿilq
was reserved for the latter. It is worth dwelling on this point, since there is a persistent tendency among some modern scholars to overlook this distinction and render the indigenous term
Lūṭī
as “homosexual.”
12
In Islamic law, the
lūṭī
is a man who commits
liwāṭ
(i.e., anal intercourse with another man), regardless of whether he commits it as an active or passive partner.
13
However, in ordinary, nontechnical language (as manifested in, for example, bawdy-satirical anecdotes) the term
Lūṭī
almost always meant “pederast” One short anecdote illustrates the fact that a stereotypical
lūṭī
was thought to be interested in active-insertive anal intercourse with boys: “... of another person it was related that he was a
lāʾiṭ
[variant of
Lūṭī
], and so his wife told him: I have what boys have (ʿ
indī mā ʿind al-ghilmān
). He replied: Yes, but it has an unpleasant neighbor [i.e., the vagina].”
14
A tradition related by the Shīlʿī scholar Muhammad al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1693) also confirms that
liwāṭ
was normally understood to be equivalent to sodomizing boys: a heretic
(zindīq)
asked ʿAlī ibn Abī Talib (the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law) for the reason behind the religious prohibition of
liwāṭ.
ʿAlī supposedly answered: “If carnal penetration of a boy
(ityān al-ghulām)
were permitted, men would dispense with women, and this would lead to the disruption of procreation.”
15
In the Egyptian version of the popular, orally transmitted epic
Sīrat Baybars
, the term
lūṭī
is used of adult males who make sexual advances to beardless youths, and the term is used interchangeably with the colloquial term
bitāʿ alşighār,
which roughly translates as “he who is for youngsters.”
16
According to an anonymous and tongue-in-cheek couplet cited in both a late seventeenth-century Egyptian and a late eighteenth-century Damascene text:
Lūṭī
was typically used of the former, while
mukhannath
or
maʾbūn
or (more colloquially)
ʿilq
was reserved for the latter. It is worth dwelling on this point, since there is a persistent tendency among some modern scholars to overlook this distinction and render the indigenous term
Lūṭī
as “homosexual.”
12
In Islamic law, the
lūṭī
is a man who commits
liwāṭ
(i.e., anal intercourse with another man), regardless of whether he commits it as an active or passive partner.
13
However, in ordinary, nontechnical language (as manifested in, for example, bawdy-satirical anecdotes) the term
Lūṭī
almost always meant “pederast” One short anecdote illustrates the fact that a stereotypical
lūṭī
was thought to be interested in active-insertive anal intercourse with boys: “... of another person it was related that he was a
lāʾiṭ
[variant of
Lūṭī
], and so his wife told him: I have what boys have (ʿ
indī mā ʿind al-ghilmān
). He replied: Yes, but it has an unpleasant neighbor [i.e., the vagina].”
14
A tradition related by the Shīlʿī scholar Muhammad al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1693) also confirms that
liwāṭ
was normally understood to be equivalent to sodomizing boys: a heretic
(zindīq)
asked ʿAlī ibn Abī Talib (the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law) for the reason behind the religious prohibition of
liwāṭ.
ʿAlī supposedly answered: “If carnal penetration of a boy
(ityān al-ghulām)
were permitted, men would dispense with women, and this would lead to the disruption of procreation.”
15
In the Egyptian version of the popular, orally transmitted epic
Sīrat Baybars
, the term
lūṭī
is used of adult males who make sexual advances to beardless youths, and the term is used interchangeably with the colloquial term
bitāʿ alşighār,
which roughly translates as “he who is for youngsters.”
16
According to an anonymous and tongue-in-cheek couplet cited in both a late seventeenth-century Egyptian and a late eighteenth-century Damascene text:
The lover of beardless boys is known among people as a
lūṭī,
and the lover of young women is called a fornicator
zānī] .So, out of chastity, I turned to those with beards, and thus I am neither a
lūṭī
nor a
zānī.
17
The Egyptian scholar and poet Ahmad al-Khafājī (d. 1659) complained in verse of the age in which he was living, claiming that it was similar to “the people of Lot” in giving preference to young upstarts at the expense of the older and venerable.
18
In a love poem, the Iraqi scholar ʿAbd al-Bāqī alʿUmarī (d. 1697/8) said of the eulogized female that, “if the people of Lot had seen her beauty, they would never have turned to a boy.”
19
18
In a love poem, the Iraqi scholar ʿAbd al-Bāqī alʿUmarī (d. 1697/8) said of the eulogized female that, “if the people of Lot had seen her beauty, they would never have turned to a boy.”
19
The image of “the people of Lot” in the Islamic tradition was, to be sure, not entirely uniform. In commenting on the just-quoted verse of ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-ʿUmarī, the Iraqi scholar Muhammad Amīn al-ʿUmarī (d. 1788) reminded readers that the people of Lot not only sodomized boys but also adult male strangers.
20
This was the standard dual image of the “people of Lot” in the Qur’anic commentaries of the time: on the one hand they were portrayed as pederasts and, on the other, as an aggressive people who anally raped trespassers.
21
In both cases, however, they were assumed to be the “active” or “insertive” party, and this assumption tended to reflect back on the juridical literature itself. The Palestinian religious scholar Muhammad al-Saffārīnī (d.1774), for example, defined
Liwāṭ
or “the act of the people of Lot” (ʿ
amal qawm Lūṭ
) as “carnal penetration of males in the anus (
ityān al-dhukūr fī al-dubur
)
.
”
22
Though Saffārīnī was committed to the idea that the man who willingly assumes the passive-receptive role in anal intercourse has committed sodomy and may be prosecuted accordingly, it still seemed natural for him to define sodomy in a way which suggests that it is only the active-insertive party who commits it. Similarly, the Egyptian jurist Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī (d. 1860) stated that
liwāṭ
was “the act committed by the people of Lot (
fiʿl qawm Lūṭ
), for they were the first to sodomize men (
fa-innahum awwal man atā al-rijāl fī adbārihim
)
.
” He went on to claim that the habit disappeared after the destruction of Sodom, and was only resurrected after the Islamic conquest of the Middle East. Many soldiers were away from their women, and availed themselves of native, subservient males instead, and so they “did it to them and treated them as women” (
fa
ʿ
alū bihim wa ajrawhum majrā al-nisāʾ
)
.
23
Bājūrīʾs remarks are not particularly valuable as a historical observation, but again reveal that even jurists were prone to make the tacit assumption that
liwāṭ
(“the act of the people of Lot”) was active rather than passive sodomy, and that the paradigmatic
Lūṭī
was therefore the active-insertive partner. The assumption was articulated clearly in nonjuridical discourse, such as the following defamatory poem by the Aleppine poet Husayn al-Jazarī (d. ca. 1624):
20
This was the standard dual image of the “people of Lot” in the Qur’anic commentaries of the time: on the one hand they were portrayed as pederasts and, on the other, as an aggressive people who anally raped trespassers.
21
In both cases, however, they were assumed to be the “active” or “insertive” party, and this assumption tended to reflect back on the juridical literature itself. The Palestinian religious scholar Muhammad al-Saffārīnī (d.1774), for example, defined
Liwāṭ
or “the act of the people of Lot” (ʿ
amal qawm Lūṭ
) as “carnal penetration of males in the anus (
ityān al-dhukūr fī al-dubur
)
.
”
22
Though Saffārīnī was committed to the idea that the man who willingly assumes the passive-receptive role in anal intercourse has committed sodomy and may be prosecuted accordingly, it still seemed natural for him to define sodomy in a way which suggests that it is only the active-insertive party who commits it. Similarly, the Egyptian jurist Ibrāhīm al-Bājūrī (d. 1860) stated that
liwāṭ
was “the act committed by the people of Lot (
fiʿl qawm Lūṭ
), for they were the first to sodomize men (
fa-innahum awwal man atā al-rijāl fī adbārihim
)
.
” He went on to claim that the habit disappeared after the destruction of Sodom, and was only resurrected after the Islamic conquest of the Middle East. Many soldiers were away from their women, and availed themselves of native, subservient males instead, and so they “did it to them and treated them as women” (
fa
ʿ
alū bihim wa ajrawhum majrā al-nisāʾ
)
.
23
Bājūrīʾs remarks are not particularly valuable as a historical observation, but again reveal that even jurists were prone to make the tacit assumption that
liwāṭ
(“the act of the people of Lot”) was active rather than passive sodomy, and that the paradigmatic
Lūṭī
was therefore the active-insertive partner. The assumption was articulated clearly in nonjuridical discourse, such as the following defamatory poem by the Aleppine poet Husayn al-Jazarī (d. ca. 1624):
Does the offspring of al-Naḥḥās Fathallah seek satisfaction for his scratchy arse?Trust my maternal cousin in
liwāṭ
and trust his extended, erect prick.Take it and forgo my penis, for I see no one suitable for that effeminate man (
mukhannath
) except that
lūṭī.
24
Other books
Issue In Doubt by David Sherman
The Frost Child by Eoin McNamee
A Family Affair by Michael Innes
Brax by Jayne Blue
The Falstaff Enigma by Ben Brunson
Lines on the Water by David Adams Richards
Tangled Web by Ken McClure
Just Married...Again by Charlotte Hughes
Kindred of the Fallen by Isis Rushdan
A Willing Victim by Wilson, Laura
