The Dictionary of Homophobia (82 page)

The Ahadith
The
ahadith
provide a very different sort of prescription. They make reference to Lot’s people mainly through the usage of the term
liwat
, derived from the word Lot and which signifies “the doings of Lot’s people.” But what is the exact meaning of this word?
Liwat
is often translated as “homosexuality,” but Arno Schmitt has demonstrated through his own contextual analysis that this translation is inexact.
Liwat
refers to sodomy, that is, the sexual act, and not to sexual orientation, nor to a personal characteristic shared by all people who practice sodomy, nor to a sexual identity. The sodomized partner can also be a woman, but the
ahadith
specify the partner’s sex.
Liwat
can also designate by extension a practice substituting for sodomy,
tafhid
, which is the thrusting of the penis between a man’s thighs.
Luti
, meaning the “active” partner, signifies “performing sodomy by means of a boy,” but not with a boy. The “passive” partner, the
ma’bun
, is considered an instrument, inferior, a non-man—all terms implying abnormality. Other equivalents to
luti
are:
fa’il
, “active one,” or “he who does it”;
sani
, “he who does it,” the “worker,” or the “laborer”;
’ala
, “the one on top”; and
dabbab
, “he who climbs on someone to dominate.” Some equivalent terms to
ma’bun
are:
maf’ul,
the “passive one”;
asfal
, “the one on the bottom”;
madbud’alaihi
, “he upon whom the other person climbs”;
malut bihi
, “he who is sodomized”; and
manyak
, “he who is penetrated,” or “queer,” in modern Turkish slang. All of these words make reference to the idea of penetration. Thus, it is not homosexuality as it is known today that the Qur’an and the
ahadith
sanction when they refer to
liwat
and its derivatives, but simply the practice of sodomy between men. Neither fellatio nor mutual masturbation between men, nor sexual practices between women are implied by these terms. This is partly confirmed by the fact uncovered by Frédéric Lagrange, that fellatio is not mentioned at all in the
fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence). The words which refer to sexuality between women are
sahek, sihak
, and
musahaka
, and are generally translated by “lesbianism,” or “tribadism,” which is the best translation because this word, of Greek origin, is derived from
tribein
(“to rub”), thereby making reference to the action, and not to an identity.
Sahak
does not appear at all in the
ahadith
.

Those
ahadith
dealing with “the doings of Lot’s people” are noticeably plentiful. They have been compiled by Al-Nuwayri into a work entitled
Nihaya
. In the book’s commentary, the anonymous author previously mentioned writes:

The prophet is said to have stated that his biggest fear for his community were the practices of Lot’s people (though he is known to have expressed the same idea about wine and feminine seduction;
Nihaya
, II,198). To him, the active person and the passive person must both be killed (
yutal/uktulu l-fa’il wa-l-maful bi-hi
…), or, more precisely, subjected to the prescribed chastisement for one guilty of
zina
, the fornicator, which is to be stoned.

Later on, he adds the following about
sahak
: “On this topic, there is one
hadith
according to which it is considered the same as
zina (sihak al-nisa’ zina bayna-hunna)
.”

Unlike the Qur’an, the
ahadith
clearly liken sodomy between men and sexuality between women to
zina
, to the point where the punishment prescribed for sodomy between men is the same here as for “fornication” in the heterosexual sense—though no punishment is specified for sexuality between women. In the
ahadith, zina
is the focus of two sanctions not to be found in the Qur’an: stoning and banishment. Stoning is a punishment of Jewish origin (Dt 22:22). Its application is considered by the
fuqaha
(jurists of the tradition) to be inherent to the Qur’an and as such is applicable to all Muslims guilty of
zina
; although, this interpretation in particular has been contested. According to Belaïd, the Prophet had never ordered this punishment except in exceptional circumstances (to dictate the chastisement of a Jewish adulteress), and that this was not meant to establish a formula applicable to all Muslims. The
fuqaha
have clearly decided otherwise. According to Jehoda Sofer (author of “Sodomy in the Law of Muslim State”), another
hadith
proposes different sanctions for those “guilty” of
liwat
: stoning, if the individual is married or is cohabitating with a concubine (a union between the master and his slave); 100 lashes of the whip accompanied by a year’s banishment if he is unmarried. (Note that it is not the individual’s role in the sexual relation that dictates the punishment, but his marital status.)

In another
hadith
, the Prophet is also said to have condemned “those men who take on a feminine appearance and women who take on a masculine appearance,” then commanded the believers to “chase them from their homes,” without specifying any duration for this banishment, nor if it should be accompanied by corporeal punishment. This simple sanction of banishment contrasts sharply with the physically abusive punishments indicated in the previous paragraph. The disparity between punishments is so considerable that one is led to think that it is not actually sexuality between people of the same sex that is being condemned in the
hadith
. However, this is exactly what scholar François-Paul Blanc says when he suggests that it targets the homosexual man or woman. Aside from those qualifications previously formulated for the use of the term “homosexuality” as a translation for the expressions used in medieval Arabic, it would seem that a man taking on the appearance of a woman and a woman taking on the appearance of a man do not necessarily indicate that the individual has had sexual relations with a person of the same sex. On the other hand, this same
hadith
does clearly sanction any crossing of gender lines by one’s appearance and dress—transvestism being the explicit target. The duality of the sexes, and more generally, the sexual dichotomy of a world divided into two opposing and complementary genders is considered the work of God, to the point where the transgression of this duality is thought to be an affront to the divine order and even a “revolt against God” (as Abdelwahab Bouhdiba explains it in
La Sexulaité en Islam
). Despite there being a notable distinction between a person’s attire and their sexuality, it is highly probable that outward appearance was thought to be an expression of having crossed the line in terms of sexual relations with someone of the same gender. In this case, the
hadith
in question only punishes the “passive” man and the “active” woman, not the “active” man and the “passive” woman. In this way, it is the expression of this sexuality that is being punished, rather than the sexuality itself.

Numerous
ahadith
also warn against the allure of young boys, reputed to be even more seductive and tempting than the
houri
, the magnificent virgins of paradise. According to Wafer, the Prophet is said to have identified three types of
liwat
—action
liwat
(seen as “criminal”), looking
liwat
, and touching
liwat
—and that they should not all be considered equal. Wafer states that the warning against touching and looking is to prevent the believer from living in temptation (of sodomy, that is), and not to quell the amorous affection between a man and a youth. The same repression of carnal desire is expressed in a
hadith
which postulates that a simple kiss given “with lust” to an adolescent will be punished in the hereafter by a thousand years of
jahannam
(damnation). According to Bouhdiba, this interpretation of these
ahadith
has led some
fuqaha
(jurists) to recommend a strict segregation of mature men from the youths—and that men should abstain from even looking at adolescents or sitting next to them. This is comparable to the recommendation that men avoid the presence of women, because of the three forms of
zina
pronounced by the Prophet:
zina
of the eye,
zina
of the touch, and
zina
of the ear. By virtue of these
ahadith
, some
fuqaha
have prescribed a rigid segregation of the sexes—men must avoid looking at, touching, or listening to women. These various types of
zina
and
liwat
are not assigned any earthly punishment, but they do lead to Hell. Nonetheless, according to Wafer, the Egyptian mystical poet Ibn al-Farid (1182–1235) tells that the Prophet himself is said to have loved a man named Mu’adh ibn Jabal, and that he is supposed to have said, “
O Mu’adh ibn Jabal
. I love you so much.” Arno Schmitt stated that the Hanbalite jurisconsult Ibn al-Jawzi (who died in 1200) wrote: “He who declares never having felt desire [while looking at a magnificent adolescent] is a liar, and to believe him would be to make him an animal, not a human being.” Arabic society during the beginnings of Islam attributed a strong power of attraction to the beauty of young boys, but the Prophet made a visible effort to master carnal urges. Schmitt adds to this:

But to desire is not to do. And more than one devout Muslim has resisted and found comfort in the words of the Prophet: “He who loves passionately yet remains chaste is a martyr” (i.e. he will go directly to paradise).

So which of these punishments were actually meted out for sodomy between men and for sexuality between women during the time of the Prophet and the first caliphs (who succeeded him in the task of guiding the believers)? Death by stoning seems to have only been enacted once by Muhammad for a heterosexual Jewish woman. However, afterwards, the caliphs extended this measure to Muslim subjects. The anonymous author states that specific cases of the stoning of
lata
(plural of
luti
, “sodomites”) were reported by al-Nuwayri and al-Jahiz during the first century of the Muslim era (seventh century of the Christian era): Abu Bakr (first caliph, 632–34) is said to have condemned a homosexual to being buried under the rubble of a wall and ordered all others who carry out such practices to be burned alive. For his part, Ali ibn Abu Talib (fourth caliph, 656–61) is said to have stoned one
luti
and to have thrown another one head-first from the top of a minaret. Expanding on the Prophet’s condemnation, Abd-Allah ibn Umar (son of the second caliph, 634–44) suggested that these people would be reborn as monkeys or pigs.

While the practice of stoning has been proven by historians, the possibility that anyone had been burned alive has been strongly contested because burning at the stake was not part of Muslim tradition.

Schools of Jurisprudence
So what do the schools of legal thought, Hanafi, Shafi’I, Maliki, and Hanbali, have to say? According to Wafer, they consider both sodomy between men and sexual practices between women to be illicit, but there is a diversity of opinions among the jurists on what the Prophet believed. He adds that certain
fuqaha
tend toward exaggeration in their denunciation of sodomy: “When one man mounts another man, God’s throne trembles, the angels look on in horror and say: Lord, why do you not command the earth to punish them and the sky to rain brimstone down upon them.” The various schools disagree on the severity of the sanctions to be imposed on those who engage in sodomy between men, and on the attitude to adopt regarding sexuality between women. The differences are about whether or not sodomy between men should be considered the same as
zina
, which would justify a different punishment. Sexuality between women is not generally considered
zina
because, in the thinking of the
fuqaha
, it excludes penetration. However, it remains a serious “sexual sin,” deserving of at least a lesser punishment and subject to discussion.

In general, in all cases where
zina
is not proven but where the behavior is still in the realm of “sexual sins,”
ta’zir
is invoked—punishments which were not as strict as those set out by the Qur’an and the
ahadith
for
zina
. The precise punishment is left to the discretion of the judge. It can be as light as a simple reproving look or fewer than thirty-nine lashes of the whip (the lightest punishment set out for
zina
, that of
zina
with a slave); alternatively, it could be up to 100 lashes of the whip (being the punishment for
zina
of free people). In cases of proven
zina
, stoning is only applicable under certain conditions: that the person indicted is
muhsan
(i.e. having engaged in coitus within a present or previous legal marriage), is free, past puberty, and of sound mind. A non-
muhsan
person (who has never had coitus while married), pre-pubescent, queer, or a slave guilty of
zina
, is to receive flagellation. Thus, it is not the act committed (heterosexual adultery, sodomy between men, being “active” or “passive,” etc.) that determines the punishment, but the fact of whether or not a person had had intercourse while married, was master or slave, or was above or below the age of puberty. The distinction between
muhsan
and non-
muhsan
comes from the worthiness conferred by marriage, as well as in the increased responsibility for the guilty party. This is because the “crime” committed by a person who is
muhsan
, as Blanc points out, endangers the institution of family. The schools of thought also argue over the necessity of adding a penalty of one year’s banishment for cases of
zina
, which refers back to the
ahadith
.

According to Sofer, the Hanafi school of thought originally believed that sodomy between men did not constitute
zina
, and that it should not then be punished as such—the judge has to choose between the punishments of imprisonment or flagellation, according to Muhammad al Hussein as-Saibani, one of the founders of this school. Wafer added that the rejection of corporal punishment stems from the following
hadith
: “The blood of a Muslim should not be spilled except for the reason of adultery [meaning
zina
], of apostasy, or of homicide.” The Hanafi followed this interpretation for over 700 years. Sofer stated that the jurists then began to draw closer in line to the other Sunni schools of thought—in 1936, Ibrahim al Halabi prescribed death by stoning for sodomy (with a man or a woman) if the individual is
muhsan
, and a whipping if he was not.