Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 (52 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
4.94Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Mahmūd al-Alūsī’s rejection of the idea that sodomy might be allowed in paradise seems to have been the most common verdict of scholars of the period who debated the issue. His opinion was, as has been seen, shared by Ibn Nujaym, Muhammad al-Tumurtāshī, and Ahmad al-Hamawī, and the verdict of these scholars was cited by others such as Muhammad ‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-Haskafī, ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī, and Ahmad al-Tahtāwī.
101
It should be mentioned, however, that some scholars were not as eagerto preclude the possibility. The following words by the prominent Egyptian scholar Muhammad al-Hafnī (d. 1767), who was Rector (
Shaykh
) of the Azhar from I758 to his death, must have given the reader the impression that the question was open:
101
It should be mentioned, however, that some scholars were not as eagerto preclude the possibility. The following words by the prominent Egyptian scholar Muhammad al-Hafnī (d. 1767), who was Rector (
Shaykh
) of the Azhar from I758 to his death, must have given the reader the impression that the question was open:
It has been said:
liwaṭ
is not permissible in paradise because of its filthiness; and it has been said: it is permissible, and the mentioned reason has been countered by pointing out that there is no filth or reproduction in paradise.
102
At least one scholar of the period was prepared to defend the thesis that
liwāṭ
with boys would be part of the pleasures available to believers in paradise. The Turkish scholar Muhammad Zirekzāde (d. 1601) invoked the following two Qurʾanic verses in support of the position:
liwāṭ
with boys would be part of the pleasures available to believers in paradise. The Turkish scholar Muhammad Zirekzāde (d. 1601) invoked the following two Qurʾanic verses in support of the position:
76:19—And there shall go round about them eternal boys; when thou seest them thou wilt think them scattered pearls.41: 31 -And ye shall have therein what ye call for.
Taken together, Zīrekzāde argued, the two verses suggested that boys would be sexually available to men in paradise: “The verse [76:19] implies that there will be handsome beardless boys in paradise, and it is implausible (
ba‘id
) that they will not be sexually desired.”
103
However, Zīrekzāde’s position was far from being the standard one, and it was cited by the later Turkish scholar Ismāʿīl Haqqī al-Būrsawī (d. 1724) with the rejoinder that the conclusion is “not acceptable to those of sound heart and right-thinking mind.” Būrsawī argued that the phrase “go round about them” in the first Qurʾanic verse suggested that the boys were servants rather than catamites, and that the people of paradise would simply enjoy looking at “their beauty and radiance.” The second verse promised believers whatever they desired in paradise, but it was possible (
ya-jūz
) that
liwāṭ
would not be desired by the people of paradise.
104
ba‘id
) that they will not be sexually desired.”
103
However, Zīrekzāde’s position was far from being the standard one, and it was cited by the later Turkish scholar Ismāʿīl Haqqī al-Būrsawī (d. 1724) with the rejoinder that the conclusion is “not acceptable to those of sound heart and right-thinking mind.” Būrsawī argued that the phrase “go round about them” in the first Qurʾanic verse suggested that the boys were servants rather than catamites, and that the people of paradise would simply enjoy looking at “their beauty and radiance.” The second verse promised believers whatever they desired in paradise, but it was possible (
ya-jūz
) that
liwāṭ
would not be desired by the people of paradise.
104
The discussion concerning whether
liwāṭ
could exist in heaven was linked to the somewhat enigmatic figure of the boys of paradise
(wildān).
These are referred to in the following passages of the Qurʾan, describing the blissful condition of the believers in the hereafter:
liwāṭ
could exist in heaven was linked to the somewhat enigmatic figure of the boys of paradise
(wildān).
These are referred to in the following passages of the Qurʾan, describing the blissful condition of the believers in the hereafter:
52:24—And round them shall go boys of theirs, as though they were hidden pearls.56 : 17—Around them shall go eternal youths, with goblets and ewers and a cup of flowing wine.76: 19—And there shall go round about them eternal boys; when thou seest them thou wilt think them scattered pearls.
Muslim commentators of the period mentioned different suggestions as to who these boys of paradise were. They could be the sons of the believers, or possibly the children of the unbelievers who died before puberty. The dominant interpretation, however, was that the boys were specially created by God, like the houris, to serve the believers. In the case of the boys, the service was, as has been seen, usually not thought to be of a sexual nature. Yet the commentators did not shy away from the fact that the verses seem to present the physical beauty of the boys as one of the attractions of paradise. In the Qurʾanic commentary of “the two Jalāls,” the verses, which have been bracketed in what follows, are explained thus:
(And around them) for service (shall go) slave (boys of theirs, as though they were) in handsomeness and delicateness (hidden pearls). (And there shall go round about them eternal boys) in the form of boys who never grow old; (when thou seest them thou wilt think them) because of their handsomeness and dispersal in service (scattered pearls).
Sulayman al-Jamal, in a supercommentary on the mentioned work, explicated what is to be understood by “eternal”:
That which is meant by their being eternal is not changing from the condition of boys in respect of their tenderness (
ṭarāwah
) and handsome physique
(husn qadd),
in contrast to the boys of the world who change as they grow older.
105
In the Qur‘anic commentary of Abū al-Suʿūd Efendī, the relevant verse is explained in the same spirit:
(And there shall go round about them eternal boys,) that is, forever persevering in their tenderness and beauty; (when thou seest them thou wilt think them scattered pearls) because of their handsomeness, clear complexion, and radiant countenances.
106
According to some commentators, the term
mukhalladūn,
which is usually understood to mean “eternal” or “never-changing,” could also be understood to mean “bearing earrings (
khild
),” so that the phrase
wildān mukhalladūn
may be translated either as “eternal boys” or as “boys with earrings.”
107
Of course, the first—more usual—reading did not preclude that the ever-youthful boys would be “adorned with rings, bracelets, earrings, and beautiful clothes.”
108
mukhalladūn,
which is usually understood to mean “eternal” or “never-changing,” could also be understood to mean “bearing earrings (
khild
),” so that the phrase
wildān mukhalladūn
may be translated either as “eternal boys” or as “boys with earrings.”
107
Of course, the first—more usual—reading did not preclude that the ever-youthful boys would be “adorned with rings, bracelets, earrings, and beautiful clothes.”
108
The boys of paradise were widely assimilated to the beauty-ideal celebrated in the belles-lettres of the period. As has already been indicated on more than one occasion in the foregoing chapter, love poetry sometimes compared the beauty of the beloved to that of the paradisiacal youths. The
wildan
were also represented as one of the attractions that a believer could look forward to in the hereafter. The Shī‘ī scholar Niʿmatallah al-Jazāʾirī (d. 1702), reminding his reader how earthly pleasures pale in comparison with the pleasures awaiting in paradise, wrote:
wildan
were also represented as one of the attractions that a believer could look forward to in the hereafter. The Shī‘ī scholar Niʿmatallah al-Jazāʾirī (d. 1702), reminding his reader how earthly pleasures pale in comparison with the pleasures awaiting in paradise, wrote:
If you are among those who are slaves to their sexual organs, then [keep in mind the Qurʾanic verse (44 : 54)]: “We shall wed them to bright and large-eyed maids”; and if you are among those who gaze, then [keep in mind the Qurʾanic verse (76: 19)]: “And there shall go round about them eternal boys; when thou seest them thou wilt think them scattered pearls.”
109
According to the Damascene scholar Hasan al-Būrmi (d. 1615), who was said by a contemporary to have “an inclination to boys,” “The attractions available in paradise are of many forms, including boys and houris.”
110
The biographer Muhammad Khalīl al-Murādī (d. 1791) mentioned a poetic eulogy of the Prophet Muhammad composed jointly by three eighteenth-century scholars, in which one of the lines is as follows:
110
The biographer Muhammad Khalīl al-Murādī (d. 1791) mentioned a poetic eulogy of the Prophet Muhammad composed jointly by three eighteenth-century scholars, in which one of the lines is as follows:
So I do not ask except for an intercessor [i.e., the Prophet] who will lead me to the boys of paradise by his guidance.
111
A verse in a poetic elegy by the Aleppine scholar ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Baʿlī (d. 1778/9) likewise stated:
And around him [the deceased] are boys and youths
(al-ghilmān wa al-wildān)
adorned like hidden and scattered pearls.
112
The Qurʾan was thus understood as simultaneously condemning sexual intercourse between men in the severest terms and depicting handsome youths as one of the otherworldly rewards awaiting the male believers. This could hardly have failed to appear to aesthetically inclined scholars as a confirmation of their own sympathies for the chaste love of beauty.
The Meaning ofLiwāṭ
On the basis of the severe religious-legal rulings on
liwāṭ
, it would appear reasonable to claim that “Islam” prohibits “homosexuality.” Having established this, the profuseness of homoerotic poetry and anecdotes in Arab-Islamic literature may be seen as an indication that “in practice” homosexuality was nevertheless indulged or tolerated in Arab-Islamic societies. Yet, as stated at the outset of this study, such an interpretation seems to simplify a more complex picture. None of the schools of law operate with a concept of “homosexuality.” From a juridical perspective, a
lūṭī
is someone who commits a specific act. His desires or inclinations are in principle irrelevant; he does not become less of a
Lūṭī
if he commits the act for payment, or merely to satisfy a curiosity rather than out of desire. Even a victim of heterosexual or homosexual rape could, in a strict sense, be regarded as a fornicator or sodomite, though duress qualified as a “resemblance”
(shubhah)
that removed legal liability for the act. Thus, the Ḥanbalī jurist Buhūtī asserted that “there is no
hadd
punishment if a legally mature woman is forced to commit fornication, or a passive sodomite is forced to commit sodomy.”
113
The same point would seem to be presupposed when Shāfi‘ī jurists claimed that duress does not make fornication permissible; it simply removes legal liability, apparently in the same way that a minor cannot be prosecuted for fornication though he or she is not permitted to commit it.
114
According to the Damascene Hanaf ī jurist Ibn ʿĀbidīn, accusing a victim of rape of being a fornicator does not amount to a false accusation of unlawful intercourse
(qadhf),
because “duress obviates the sinful nature of the act, but not its being fornication.”
115
Not all contemporary jurists would have agreed with Ibn ‘Ābidīn. Jurists of the Mālikī school included consent in their definition of
liwāṭ,
and accusing a victim of rape of being a
Lūṭī
was thus deemed libelous.
116
However, the disagreement was based on a scholastic quibble about whether voluntariness should be included in the formal definition of
liwa
t‚
and not on any fundamental difference in the concept. There was agreement on all sides that a person who commits
liwa
t,
for pecuniary reasons is as much of a
lūṭī
as someone who commits it for pleasure. There was also agreement among the jurists that a person who experiences recurrent desires to commit
liwa
t,
but does not act on them, or who intends to commit it but never gets the chance, is not a
lu
ti
.
liwāṭ
, it would appear reasonable to claim that “Islam” prohibits “homosexuality.” Having established this, the profuseness of homoerotic poetry and anecdotes in Arab-Islamic literature may be seen as an indication that “in practice” homosexuality was nevertheless indulged or tolerated in Arab-Islamic societies. Yet, as stated at the outset of this study, such an interpretation seems to simplify a more complex picture. None of the schools of law operate with a concept of “homosexuality.” From a juridical perspective, a
lūṭī
is someone who commits a specific act. His desires or inclinations are in principle irrelevant; he does not become less of a
Lūṭī
if he commits the act for payment, or merely to satisfy a curiosity rather than out of desire. Even a victim of heterosexual or homosexual rape could, in a strict sense, be regarded as a fornicator or sodomite, though duress qualified as a “resemblance”
(shubhah)
that removed legal liability for the act. Thus, the Ḥanbalī jurist Buhūtī asserted that “there is no
hadd
punishment if a legally mature woman is forced to commit fornication, or a passive sodomite is forced to commit sodomy.”
113
The same point would seem to be presupposed when Shāfi‘ī jurists claimed that duress does not make fornication permissible; it simply removes legal liability, apparently in the same way that a minor cannot be prosecuted for fornication though he or she is not permitted to commit it.
114
According to the Damascene Hanaf ī jurist Ibn ʿĀbidīn, accusing a victim of rape of being a fornicator does not amount to a false accusation of unlawful intercourse
(qadhf),
because “duress obviates the sinful nature of the act, but not its being fornication.”
115
Not all contemporary jurists would have agreed with Ibn ‘Ābidīn. Jurists of the Mālikī school included consent in their definition of
liwāṭ,
and accusing a victim of rape of being a
Lūṭī
was thus deemed libelous.
116
However, the disagreement was based on a scholastic quibble about whether voluntariness should be included in the formal definition of
liwa
t‚and not on any fundamental difference in the concept. There was agreement on all sides that a person who commits
liwa
t,for pecuniary reasons is as much of a
lūṭī
as someone who commits it for pleasure. There was also agreement among the jurists that a person who experiences recurrent desires to commit
liwa
t,but does not act on them, or who intends to commit it but never gets the chance, is not a
lu
ti.Other books
Dirty Fire by Earl Merkel
Prized by Caragh M. O'Brien
The New Countess by Fay Weldon
Spying on Miss Muller by Eve Bunting
Every Storm by Lori Wick
Fall of Light by Steven Erikson
Flames Of Deceit by Hutchens, Carol
Lost Along the Way by Erin Duffy
The Lost Apostles by Brian Herbert
On the Island by Tracey Garvis Graves
