The Gospel of Homosexuals; Cross-Reading Homosexuality in Christian and Islamic Traditions

From the medieval confrontation between Islam and Christianity to the present era of interreligious dialogue, question related to sexual morality, particularly that concerns issue of homosexuality has been an interesting challenge for many to understand. Cross-cultural reading of texts is one of many options by which we may regard it as a perspective to depart, we may pull the trigger by exposing some facts on how Islamic “death-penalty” for homosexuals—for instance—appears as allegedly clashed with the “Western” conceptions of basic human rights. Here we could recall—for instance—the controversial movie titled “Fitna” which was directed by Scarlet Pimpernel in 2008, in which Islam was harshly depicted as heart-less religion, even barbarian, especially for gay men who commit homosexual practices in Muslim countries like Iran.

Some Western gays assume that Islam is more accommodative to gay culture than Christian-Judaeo tradition. Homosexual sex-tourism to Muslim countries and the considerable number of gays who convert to Islam have played a significant role in making modern “Western sexuality” visible in the Islamic world (Duran, 1993: 186). As an impact, liberal-sexual morality of modern Western world is perceived by Muslims as an indication of the decadence of the West. As an example, many Islamists like Prof Dr. Malik Badri used the notion of “Western modernity” and “Western sexual revolution” as weak points by which he showed the superiority of Islam and its morality over Western civilization (The AIDS Crisis; 2000). Because of such tendency, movements of gay sexual rights that appear in the Islamic world have always been regarded negatively as symptoms of ‘Westernization’ or forms of Western cultural and ideological imposition.

Regardless of the assumption of Islam being too much denial or more accepting to homosexuals compared to Christianity, this writing is not intended to discuss religion and sexuality in such a normative way. It is not about to create a new theology, but rather to obtain a close-comprehensive understanding on the discourse of homosexuality based on Quranic and Biblical reading, particularly on verses that are closely related to the issue.

This is more about an invitation to cross the two traditions in order to review the existing theological construction of homosexuality, in order to argue that the texts would never construct homosexuality discourse by itself, but rather to highlight some sociological and anthropological facts showing that the disapproval of both religions to homosexuality was socially and culturally constructed, particularly during the process of the dissemination of Tafseer and exegetical activities. The process of “othering” homosexuals certainly involves a particular setting in which social norms and cultural categories were taking place.

Homosexuality in Christianity
It is somehow surprising me that it was easier for me to find references on “Christianity and homosexuality” than on “Islam and homosexuality”. I am not quite sure whether this preliminary note can be considered as the hypothetical departure that Christianity (which many people uncritically regarded as The West) is more open to the issue of homosexuality compared to Islam.

During my short random research for books, I have found at least two similar books on “homosexuality and the Bible”. The first book is written by Donald J. Wold under the title Out of Order; Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (1998). And the other book is written by Daniel A. Helminiak under the title What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (2000).

While Donald in his book tried to provide analytical reading to the discourse of homosexuality in the ancient Near East, Old Testament and New Testament, Helminiak on the other hand proposed an alternative reading to the Bible which is supposedly representing the “liberal-progressive” interpretation to the Bible, particularly in regard to the discourse of homosexuality.

From these two books I found that in Christianity, “homosexuality discourse” is often referred to the text of old testament, especially Genesis 9:18-27 which is about the story of Noah and his children, Genesis 19: 1-11 on Sodom and Gomorra, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 on law on male-male sex. While in the New Testament, we will find only few verses which explicitly (literally) denote the notion of homosexuality. The clearest one is Roman 1:18-32.
It might be important also to mention that there are other biblical texts which are indirectly related to the issue of homosexuality. Some of them are Judges 19 (Story of Levite) & Ezekiel 16:48-49 (Sodom), Isaiah 1:10-17, Jeremiah 23:14, Zephaniah 2:8-11 (all about Sodom and Gomorra), Matthew 5:17-19 (New Testament as the continuation of Old Testament’s law, including law on homosexuality), and Matthew 10:5-15 (hospitality and Sodom-Gomorrah).

All these biblical texts are perceived and understood literally by the traditional-literal readers of the Bible—especially from the rabbinic interpretations—as the condemnation towards homosexuality in Christianity. These particular texts and their interpretations are usually understood by Christians to denounce homosexuals.

However, there are efforts from Biblical scholars to re-think about these texts using historical-critical approaches to these texts. These efforts showed that actually the process of “othering” homosexual happened during the interpretation activity itself. Because actually, these texts in particular never stated clearly about “homosexual-other” but rather imply about many other issues. Secondly these texts were born not in a social vacuum, but they emerged in a specific context, in which the homosexual othering was already constructed.

Both books which I have mentioned before started with the same consideration that “sexuality” is—indeed—a new discourse. We cannot expect from the Bible to say about “homosexuality” as the term that confirm the word “homosexuality” as we understand it today. In fact, homosexuality in today discourse is not merely about same-sex sexual “activities”.

It is also about a particular way of being human; about spontaneous affection for people of the same sex; about ethical possibility for expressing that affection in sexual relationships etc. Homosexuality today is a core aspect of the personality, which probably fixed by early childhood, biologically based, and affecting a significant proportion of the population in virtually known culture (Helminiak, 2000: 40)

So what do those texts mean historically?

Helminiak’s historical reading on Sodom and Gomorra especially Genesis 19: 1-11 suggests that the story shouldn’t be understood literally as condemnation of homosexuality (Helminiak, 2000), because in fact, there is no clear evidence that the verse is directed to be a proposition to condemn homosexuality. There are other ‘criminal-ethical’ issues which supposed to be the “actual” concerns of the story of Sodom and Gomorra. Historical-critical reading to the Bible suggests that at the time of this mythical story was “created”, sex was merely incidental. The actual sin was bitter hatred of strangers (Helminiak, 2000: 43-50). That’s why we found in the text that the strongest moral issue of this mythical story is about hospitality and inhospitality (Wold, 1998: 77).

The story of Sodom and Gomorra is not about sexual ethics, since the context of these texts doesn’t recognize “sexuality” as being “hetero” or “homo” as today’s “Western classification”. Sodom and Gomorrah is not about male-male sex, but rather male-male rape, it was not even about homogenitality but hard hatredness and abusing visitors. From the story and its context, forcing sex on man was a way for humiliating them. Sodomy was a way to insult men by treating them like women. The practice of Sodomy even imply about superiority of the one who penetrates and the inferiority of the other receptive sexual partner (Helminiak 2000: 43-50, Wold, 1998: 77).

If the story of Sodom and Gomorrah never state clearly about prohibition of homosexual activity like we understand it in today term, the prohibition of male-male sex occured only in the “holiness code” of Leviticus, and nowhere else (Helminiak, 2000: 53-54). However, Helminiak said that the abomination to male-male sex was merely about “Homogenital acts” not “homosexuality” as the term understood today. In fact, Homogenital act was prohibited by Jewish leaders to be practiced in Jewish community, because Homogenital act is “Gentile activities”. The prohibition of Homogenital act was a process of maintaining tradition; cultural identity of the Jews etc. (Helminiak, 2000: 53-61).

As we all have known, Israel has to be “Holy” (different from Gentile [Egypt and Canaan]). Israel was God’s Chosen People (Leviticus: 18) which supposed not to behave like others, even sexually. In fact, Homogenital act was one of Canaan’s traditions. Some of other traditions of Canaan was “fertility rites” that family might have sex one another; having sex with menstruating woman; child sacrifice etc. all of these practices were banned by Jewish tradition and the prohibition called “The Holiness Code”. That’s why the holiness code called these rituals as “Abomination” (Leviticus 18:22)

We see that “Holiness code” of Leviticus prohibits male same sex acts for religious reasons (identity-other) not merely for sexual reasons. It was neither ethical nor moral, because the prohibition was intended to keep Israel distinct from the Gentile (Ummiyyin). So, Homogenital sex is forbidden because it was associated with Gentile identity. No thought is given to whether the sex itself is right or wrong, the intent is to keep Jewish identity strong. However, we should be aware that this interpretation belongs to the Jewish view toward “others” (Canaan). The case might be different if we reverse the direction to consider what would be the view of Canaan toward Jews? Who are here the “colonials” who live as the center, and who are the “peripheries” who live at the margin, especially in this accusation?

As the old testaments contain texts on homosexuality and their interpretation in a cultural context, we may find also texts from the New Testament, for instance Roman 1: 18-28 which is also talking about a cultural issue. Helminiak said that only in the verse 27 that he found a clear reference to Homogenital acts in which he elaborated the word of Paul “unnatural intercourse”, “degrading” and “shameless act” etc. (Helminiak, 2000: 75-86)

Homosexuality in Islam

If we have found biblical texts which supposedly to be the references to ban homosexuality, there are—at least—seven places in the Qur’an in which Muslim considered them as the verses condemning homosexuality. They are QS: 7:80-84, 11:77-83, 21:74-75, 22:42-44, 26:165-175, 27: 54-59, 29: 27-33. But, all of these verses are about the story of Prophet Lot and Sodom. In fact, it is important to say that we couldn’t find any Qur’anic reference to homosexuality except that is derived from the story of Sodom. However, unlike in Christianity, homosexuality messages in the Qur’anic version of Loth and his community is more explicit than in Christianity.

Beside those texts of al-Quran, Muslim considers also Hadith as the second textual basis for their belief. One of those Hadith texts which signify about “homosexuality” telss us that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH said that “If two men commit unchastity with each other, then punish them both” (quoted by Jim Wafer, 2000). Another Hadith which recommends to stone Muslims who practice sodomy said “kill both the homosexual active partner (al-Fa’il), and the passive one (al-Maf’ul)”.

Muslim traditional interpreters of al-Quran such as Ibn Kathir, al-Qurthuby and al-Alushy tend to use “inter-textual” approach (Tafsir al-Ayah bi al-Ayah [or] bil-Hadits) to explain these texts. Al-Alushy—especially—is very visible in using this inter-textual approach, since He is very supportive to the idea of correlative inter-textuality (Munasabat/ Tanasub) as many of rabbinic interpretation models of the Bible. Ibn Kathir is also close to this approach when he elaborates more on Hadith and traditional narratives (Riwayat / Akhbar) to explain Quranic verses, while al-Qurthuby is more attentive to the aspect of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) and moral messages of the Quran.  However, all of them consider those verses mentioned above as the explicit condemnation toward homosexuality.

Indeed, traditional Tafsir never distinguish between homosexuality and homogenitality. They do not recognize terms such as homoeroticsm, sexual behavior and sexual orientation etc. But the classical Islamic tradition simply says that Islam doesn’t support any practice of “homosexuality” of no matter what.

If we search more carefully to the issue of homosexuality in Islam, especially in the literature of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), many of Muslim scholars tend to not further elaborate in the discourse. Some others even tend to be ignorant toward the issue, while indeed there are few Muslim scholars who have concern to talk about “homosexuality” in terms of its “Islamic punishment”.

However, it seems that Muslims do not have a single word regarding the punishment for homosexual people. There has been diversity about prophets’ opinion on the matter since sex between males was treated differently by the various legal schools in Islam. Hanafite School said that man to man sexual practice does not merit any physical punishment, while Hambalite School said that sex between males must be punished severely with stoning (rajm). According to Hambalite School, this punishment is referred to the Quranic narratives that Sodomites were punished by God with the “rain of stone”. It is narrated also that Abu Bakar (the first great successor of Muhammad) supposed to have had a Luthi (who practice sodomy) burned alive. Another Muhammad’s companion, Ibn Abbas stated that “sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned” (Bell, 1979: 31).

As I have said beforehand that it is rather difficult to find a literature on Islam and homosexuality especially if we look for an “alternative” reading to the verses of homosexuality. Indeed, there are only few persons—if I cannot say “no body” at all— who dare to approach homosexuality in Islam through textual analysis (interpretation). In fact, Muslims still consider homosexuality as a marginal discourse, if not an embarrassing and distasteful subject of study, Western scholars of Islam and the Middle East have either ignored it altogether, treated it in occasional footnotes or, at worst, misrepresented and judged it on the basis of their personal moral convictions (Schmidtke, 1999: 261)

Nevertheless there are some references which are approaching the issue of homosexuality in Islam more culturally. We found as pioneer Abdul Wahhab Bouhdiba with his book Sexuality in Islam (1975). Subsequently we found Bruce W. Dunne’s with his book Outline of an agenda for historical research on homo- sexuality in the Middle East (1990), which followed by Sexuality and eroticism among males in Moslem societies, a collection edited by Arno Schmitt and Jehodea Sofer (1992) and Bio-bibliography of male-male sexuality and eroticism in Muslim societies (1995) These books consisted primarily of personal accounts by Western travellers of their disappointing sexual encounters with Arabs and Iranians. Another essay which is very important is written by Khalid Duran “Homosexuality in Islam”, in a book edited by Arlene Swidler Homosexuality and world religions (1993), also the other current book which concerns about homosexuality in Islam is edited by Stephen 0. Murray and Will Roscoe: Islamic homosexualities: culture, history, and literature (1997). The most recent book published by Muslim scholar on homosexuality in Islam is written by Scott Kugle under the title “Homosexuality in Islam: Islamic Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims”(2010)

Although we cannot find “liberal-progressive” interpretation of Quranic texts on homosexuality as enough to counter the traditional interpretations of homosexuality in Islamic texts, these books are—indeed—very helpful to give us an understanding how Islamic interpretation in othering homosexuals is also constructed. Some evaluations of these books especially Murray’s editorial viewpoint suggests that Quranic texs are ambigous and not clear enough about condemning homosexuality (Wafer, 1997: 88); those texts are inconsistent (Wafer, 1997: 89) and their authenticity—of Hadits (sihhat alHadits)—is difficult to ascertain.

I personaly tend to understand Islam as the continuation of Judeao-Christianity traditions which are very strict in condemning homosexuality. Therefore we cannot explain about Islamic homosexuality unless we also explain beforehand about Judeao-Christianity traditions in that matter. The “macrocosmic” understanding of “Islam” will give us no choice but I believe that it could be somehow further exploration on the issue, so “Islam and homosexuality” would not be understood as a monolithic interpretation. Khalid Duran for instance, has the same problem to find about “alternative interpretations” for homosexual people. He can only suggest that we need some form of theological accommodation with Islam based on the development of new Shari’a (Duran, 1993: 181-195)

However through the lines left below I will provide some reasons why the discourse of homosexuality is very taboo to be shared in Muslim societies. That’s because first of all, Muslim culture tends to prefer not to speak about this issue. They maintain a conspiracy of silence about the issue (Wafer, 2000: 93) and “The will not to know” (Murray, 1997: 14-54). This doesn’t mean that there is no homosexual practice in Muslim societies, but Muslims simply do not want to speak about it. This evaluation also explains why homosexuality as “a deed”; a “practiced behavior” is there, but homosexuality as “a being” or an “identity” is not well recognized in Arab society until today. In fact, Arab and Muslim cultures remain to oppose any effort for homosexual identity and gay rights.

The second reason why homosexuality issue remains abstract in Muslim society, especially Arab culture is that because there is a concept of Moslem male-masculinity (Rujulah). If we understand homosexuality today as egalitarian-sexual practice between two males, it would be difficult to accept since there is a concept of masculinity in Arab-Muslim culture. As Murray has suggested in his article,
…today “Homosexuality” that include age-stratified, gender stratified and egalitariansame sex behavior is an etic not an emic classification (Murray, 1997: 41).

Arab culture still understands homosexual activity has to be done between the active (al-Fail) and the passive (al-Maf’ul); “the powerful” and “the opressed”; the one taking pleasure and the one who submits; Rajul (Masculin man) and Untsa (Woman or Effiminate one). There will never be “egalitarian homosexuals” in Arab’s mind.

In the analysis of Jim Wafer on symbolic organization in Arab culture, “sword” and “penis” are representing each other. Both are initiatory symbolism of Power. “Islam is warrior religion” (Jim Wafer, 2000: 91). Therefore, in the context of homosexuality, the power has to be done in the sense of power and control. It is not simply as a mutual relationship between two males, but homosexuality is about a construction of the powerful man and the oppressed one.

There was also a story of Abu Nuwwas, the great Arabic poet, who said that he slept with Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian boys because he regarded it as the duty of every Muslim to sleep with them”. Abu Nuwwas does not specify why he regarded this as a duty, but it seems fairly clear that it was because he was making non Muslim boys submit to Muslim (Wafer, 2000: 94)

Wafer also elaborate that in fact,
“…The West is regarded as “decadent” by Muslims not just because it is becoming more accepting to homosexuality… but because, according to the initiatory symbolism of Islam, it has to be seen as effiminate (Jim Wafer, 2000: 93)
Based on this, I personally see about the same symptom of cultural clash and competition. For me the context of homosexual rejection and condemnation is the same between the contestation of “Arab male identity (rujulah) vs. “Western effiminism” and the cultural contestation between “Jewish Identity vs. Gentile sexual practice and rituals”

As another consideration, Jim Wafer could be true in his symbolic analysis since there is no discourse on Eunuch (inverts) and gender-variant (the third gender [Murray; 41]) in Quranic text, while there is verse in Matthew 19: 10 on eunuch. If we look at this comparison more carefully we may assume that unlike in Quranic text, egalitarian homosexuality might be provided in the Biblical texts. Homosexuality is indeed more “welcome” to be discussed in Western-Christian tradition than in Islam.

In fact, it is interesting to discuss further when we read Matthew 19: 3-10. There is exception for eunuch to use different law because they are different (not male-not female) although these verses also mention that God created human beings only as male and female

“Have you not read that the on who made them from the beginning male and female” (Matthew 19:4) then “Not anyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom is given (Matthew 19:11-12)

I want to note that even though there is no Quranic text on eunuch, there is still a Hadith on Hayts (inverts) narrated by imam Muslim in the chapter al-Salam (4049), which may provide a space for discussion on egalitarian homosexuals in Islam. Although it was narrated in a Hadith that the prophet did not want the eunuch to be in his house, it is enough to indicate that the eunuch or Hayts (inverts) were common in the prophet’s own tribe (Quraish). In fact other riwayat said, that the prophet is also reported to have permitted inverst to be in the same room as his wives when they were not veiled (Wafer, 2000: 89)

The Story of Adam and Eve and the Story of Sodom and Gomorrah; the Basis for Religious-Sexuality Construction (Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality)

Before I end up with a conclusion I should say that in the cross reading and comparison of the two textual traditions, the story of Adam and Eve and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah are the two bases for religious-sexuality construction, which are shared by the two traditions. If we cross the two traditions and use inter-texual approach, these texts can be viewed as each completes each other in constructing sexuality cosmos for both religions. However we should carefully consider that the Genesis and al-Quran are not a lesson on sexual orientation on heterosexuality versus homosexuality.

Especially in al-Quran, Adam and Eve” is a story of a cosmology in terms of God’s creation of male and female Min dzakarin wa Untsa (SEX), which is merely physical. However I have mentioned about the fact that al-Quran never said about eunuch; al-Quran doesn’t say about hermaphrodite (a person with double genitals/ trans-sex), although this is also physical. In this case, we may question about another model of creation which is not mentioned by al-Quran. In addition, we should also consider that the story of Adam and Eve doesn’t say about sexual orientation, rather to say about sexual reproduction!

For the textual analysis on progressive-liberal interpretation of homosexuality in Islam, Muslims may consider also verses on Wildanun Mukhalladun; “immortal male-youths” who serve as cup bearers in the heaven (jannah), as the paradise is not only furnished with female attendants (Huury/bidadari) but is also furnished with male youths.
Conclusion

As this article is trying to compare between Christian text and Islamic text on homosexuality, I believe that this way of comparison can be seen as a model of confirmative reading on the issue based on crossing two traditions for understanding certain issue.

It might not be legitimate to claim about “black and white” similarity or dissimilarity between Islam and Christianity in regard to homosexuality discourse. However this analysis tries to open possibility for cross-religious and cultural studies. In fact, since there is no evidence that homosexuality is pathological or disease, and there is no convincing evidence that sexual orientation can be changed, it is always interesting to challenge both Islam and Christianity to re-think about the issue of homosexuality from their theological understanding, basically from reading the texts.

If a cultural study on Islamic homosexuality in Islam specifically suggests a hypothesis that the classification is not between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals, but rather about who takes pleasure and who submit (Murray, 2000: 41), we should be aware that the Quran (or the Bible) never concerned homosexuality as the term is today being understood. In fact, the texts were revealed in a certain context, in which Israelite society and Arab people at the time of revelation never think about sexuality as the meaning of the term is expanded as today. Therefore, to put the issue as a challenge for modernity toward religions will always be justifiable. I should therefore agree with Duran who said that it is ironic that some Muslims consider the issue of homosexuality as rigid and unchangeable holy norm. In fact, this kind of thought is a stagnancy of Shari’a of the seventh and eighth century (Duran 1993: 186).

References:
- Badri, Malik. 2000. The AIDS Crisis: A Natural Product of Modernity’s Sexual Revolution. Kuala Lumpur: Meedena Books
- Bell, Joseph Norment. 1997. Love Theory in Later Hanbalite Islam. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
- Duran, Khalid. 1993. ‘Homosexuality in Islam’, in Arlene Swidler (ed.), Homosexuality and world religions. Valley Forge, Penn: Trinity Press International, (pp. 181-197)
- Forth, Christopher E. 1996. “Intellectual Anarchy and Imaginary Otherness: Gender, Class, and Pathology in French Intellectual Discourse, 1890-1900”, the Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, (autumn), Blackwell Publishing, pp. 645-671
- Helminiak, Daniel A., PhD. 2000. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico: Alamo Square Press.
- Murray, O. Stephen. 1997. Islamic Homosexualities; Culture, History and Literature. NY: New York University Press
- Nadia Zunly, 2005. Waria laknat atau Kodrat, Yogyakarta: Pustaka Marwa. O’Day Gail & David Peterson. The Access Bible. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Schmidtke, Sabine. 1999. “Homoeroticism and Homosexuality in Islam: A Review Article” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London: University of London, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 260-266, Cambridge University Press
- Scott, Joan Wallach. 1990. Gender and the Politics of History. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Wafer, Jim. 1997 “Muhammad and Male Homosexuality”, ed. Murray, Islamic Homosexualities; Culture, History and Literature. NY: New York University Press (p.p 87-96)
- Wold, Donald. J. 1998. Out of Order; Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient near East. USA: Baker Books.