This is the third blog in a quartet on the topic of LGBT. As I said in the previous part, this time, I am going to focus on the Quranic verses about the issue. The hadith on the same topic are going to be studied in the last part, inshaallah. Before I say anything further, I seek refuge in God from the evil of my soul and the evil of the cursed Satan. I seek help from Allah in understanding and interpreting His words.
Having said this, I also feel obliged to warn you, the reader, that I am not a person who received an official training in Arabic or tafseer (Quranic interpretation). So, anything coming after this point is based on my personal research, contemplation, critical thinking, knowledge and experience. Of course this doesn't mean that I am throwing out there just anything. I do have a decent knowledge on the topic, but I am not issuing a fatwa; rather, I am just sharing my thoughts to contribute to the discussion related to the LGBT muslims. That is, I am not trying to contemplate on the conditions of non-muslim LGBT individuals, although the discussion below may pertain to them at certain points. So, here we begin: In the name of Allah.
The issue of LGBT extends from personal life matters to establishing a family. And when you say a family, there is the sexual part and the non-sexual part. If you focus on the personal life matters plus the non-sexual part of the family life, you can see that these actually fill up the major segment of the daily life. Under this umbrella, we see education, self-development/improvement, work, travel, raising a child, socializing with people, worship, volunteer service, etc. As you would appreciate, these are activities that can be performed individually and/or collectively with a person of your gender or another. And it doesn't really matter which gender, as long as the basic human rights of the involved people are observed and the task at hand is fulfilled. Within this context, i.e. personal life matters and non-sexual part of the family life, there are no Quranic verses that inhibit the LGBT people from taking part; for example, they could adopt a child and raise them. So, let's look at the minor segment of the daily life: the sexual relationship in a couple.
This is where most, if not all, of the arguments spark. So the question is "Is there any prohibition in the Quran about the people of non-traditional genders to enjoy a family life, including sexual relationship?"
Although I converged on this question relatively quickly, many people would actually struggle at the previous step: "Can they establish a family?" As I implied above, a family is not "nothing but sex". So, if you spare the sexual part, the Quran is not against it, and so, there shouldn't be any religious prohibition; but it is understandable that people have cultural prejudices. Dealing with those aspects is not my intention here. So let's go on with our topic under focus: "is the sex between two people who are a couple, but who are not male-female, allowed?"
In answering this question, I would like to remind you that I am going to focus only on the Quranic verses, and the relevant hadith are going to be considered in the next blog, God willing.
Before we go into the search for an answer at this point, we need to talk about sex itself. Traditionally, sex is focused on reproduction, i.e. having children. But today, more and more we appreciate the fact that sex is much more than that. In fact, failure or lack of satisfaction in sex life is a major cause of problems in personal, family or social life. These problems may extend all the way from psychological to psychiatric aspects of a person. And without a doubt, problems of sexual kind are of vital importance when it comes to the religious life of an individual. A person, I mean any person, whose sexual needs haven't been met is running on fire, as implied in the Quran and hadith and as witnessed in history. So, a healthy sex life is needed by everyone, including the LGBT people, not only to be a healthy individual but also to be a dedicated servant of God, stable on His path. Accordingly, we wouldn't expect to find a verse in the Quran that would deprive them of this essential need. Let me put this clear again: Rationally thinking, if an individual of LGBT character has the right to become a muslim, which they have, then they must be able to satisfy their sexual needs in order to protect their mental health and to abstain from out-of-family relations. So, is this the case, too, when we look at the Quran? Let's see.
The clear destination in the Quran on this issue is the places where the people of Lot pbuh is discussed. Let's read those verses in the order they appear in the Quran, and continue with our discussion as we go along:
And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." But the answer of his people was only that they said, "Evict them from your city! Indeed, they are men who keep themselves pure." (7/80-82)
A few notes about this verse will be useful. The word translated as immorality is Al-Fahishata, which means an abominable act involving not only the committer but also others. The fact that we have the "Al" article in the front means that prophet Lot is referring to a certain, known act, not talking in general. In fact, following his first sentence, he goes into the description of what that act is: approaching men with desire while leaving aside the women. It is crucial to dig into a few words in Lot's description.
Here, we are told that these people are committing an act that is not preceded in history. What is it? We see from the translations that it is "approaching men with desire". I am going to put a flag on this issue, since it is talked about in other verses, and I want to dig in further after having seen all of those.
What is translated as men is the Arabic word "rijaal". This word has multiple meanings, one of which is men. But it could also mean legs. At this point it doesn't make much sense but later, the second meaning is going to gain further significance, without weakening the first. So, keep it in mind.
The word "desire" is coming from the Arabic original "shahwatan". The traditional understanding is that the implied meaning of this word in context of the people of Lot is sexual desire. However, not excluding that meaning, it is important to explore other aspects of this word. For example in the chapter of Ali-Imran verse 14, we see the same word, 1) felt by all people, men and women included, and 2) felt towards women, sons, gold, silver, horse, cattle and tilled land. A similar usage is also present in the chapter of Maryam verse 59, where certain people are referred to as obeying shahawaat. That means, according to its usage in the Quran, the word shahawat involves not only a sexual dimension but also non-sexual dimensions. Therefore, there has got to be several nuances other than sexual desire built into the word "shahwatan". Considering the verse on the people of Lot quoted above, "the utter desire to possess in both physical and non-physical aspects" is a translation that fits the bill. This expansion in meaning is going to make more sense as we go along.
A fifth note is about the phrase "instead of women". The implication of this phrase is that these men left aside the women in their societies, and exclusively channeled themselves towards other men. Similar usage is, i.e. "instead of", found in the Quran when admonishing the believers about who to embrace as friends (3/118), and when describing the disbelievers who worship deities other than Allah (36/74). This phrase refers to an exclusive act. That is if people are worshiping deities other than Allah, and if this is expressed with this phrase, then it means an exclusive dedication to those idols and leaving Allah aside. Similarly acquiring friends instead of muslims, if expressed with this phrase, means an exclusive orientation to the disbelievers and distancing from the believers. So, approaching men instead of women means an exclusive focus on men and complete indifference to women. If you think, this kind of exclusive behavior from the men in a society threatens the women's sexual health, as well.
The final note on this verse is the description of the believers with Lot by the deniers: "men who keep themselves pure". The word that is translated as "men" is actually "unaas", which means people, not men. It is important to note that "en-naas" and "unaas" both mean people in the Quranic Arabic, but the former is the case analog to "a noun with the article the" and the latter is the case without it. So, it can be inferred from the preference of unaas in this verse that there was a high level of disconnect between the believers with Lot and his people. The same subtlety can be observed in the verses that are implying the split between the Jewish tribes (2/60, 20/92-94). Now, let's go on reading the Quranic verses on our issue.
And when Our messengers, [the angels], came to Lot, he was anguished for them and felt for them great discomfort and said, "This is a trying day." And his people came hastening to him, and before [this] they had been doing evil deeds. He said, "O my people, these are my daughters; they are purer for you. So fear Allah and do not disgrace me concerning my guests. Is there not among you a man of reason?" They said, "You have already known that we have not concerning your daughters any claim, and indeed, you know what we want." He said, "If only I had against you some power or could take refuge in a strong support."It is necessary to properly understand what is meant and what is not meant by "O my people, these are my daughters; they are purer for you." It is clear that Lot pbuh would not offer his daughters to be raped by the people. As he says at the end of his word, he is seeking a reasonable solution, not just any solution! You may think that even pronouncing this possibility here is disrespect to the prophet; however, there are people who go with such thoughts. But more importantly, this point is going to become a key element later in our analysis. Aside from this initial, unacceptable meaning, possible and acceptable meanings that I can think of are as follows: 1) he offered his own daughters in marriage, 2) this community consisted of relatives (implied by chapter 50 verse 13); so, by virtue of being an elderly among his people, Lot referred to his nieces, etc. as daughters, and wanted to direct his people to a proper married life. But as was discussed after the first verse and as quoted in this verse, these people had abandoned women completely.
(11/77-80)
And the people of the city came rejoicing. [Lot] said, "Indeed, these are my guests, so do not shame me. And fear Allah and do not disgrace me." They said, "Have we not forbidden you from [protecting] people?" [Lot] said, "These are my daughters - if you would be doers [of lawful marriage]." (15/67-71)From this verse, we infer that prophet Lot was trying to protect people outside of his community from what could befall them from the hands of his people. How do we know this? From the fact that when the guests came to prophet Lot, the people reminded him the prohibition they put on Lot from getting in touch with strangers! As told by certain commentators, the people of Lot used to target the passengers (rijaal;also, see 22/27 for another case with similar usage of the same word) who would pass by the city and would ambush them to exercise their evil intentions on them. So, probably Lot was trying to help such passing-by people, although told not to by his people. Another factor that supports this idea is the fact that what is translated as "people" in "have we not forbidden you from people" is not "en-naas" or even not "unaas"; it is "alameen", i.e. people of all sorts, which entails a much broader prohibition intended by the people of the city, encompassing the remotest humans on the planet.
Do you approach males among the worlds and leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing." They said, "If you do not desist, O Lot, you will surely be of those evicted." He said, "Indeed, I am, toward your deed, of those who detest [it]. (26/165-168)Here, again we see some of the comments we made earlier are actually given in the Quranic text itself. Namely, that the people of Lot were preying on the males of travelers is indicated here in "males among the worlds (alameen)". Also, the fact that while targeting the males they left aside their spouses is also explicitly told here. From this, we can infer that these people were not in the pursuit of a proper, loving relationship but, rather, a forced violation of another person's privacy.
And [mention] Lot, when he said to his people, "Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly." But the answer of his people was not except that they said, "Expel the family of Lot from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure." (27/54-56)
And [mention] Lot, when he said to his people, "Indeed, you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds. Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit in your meetings [every] evil." And the answer of his people was not but they said, "Bring us the punishment of Allah, if you should be of the truthful. He said, "My Lord, support me against the corrupting people." (29/28-30)Here, we are again told that the action of the people of Lot pbuh was for the first time ever in human history. Following that, a more detailed description of that novelty (!) is given: approaching men with desire, ambushing the travelers, and organizing parties to commit evil. To put this into perspective, remember that the time frame for Lot is around 1800 BC, since he is Abraham's pbuh nephew. Which action of theirs could be for the first time ever at that point in history? Does it make sense that that act is nothing but "man-to-man sex", given the long history of humanity?
If it is insisted that the criminal action of these people was solely the man-to-man relationship, let's try a thought experiment. Let's replace the victim men in this story by women. Would it be okey, for example, if the people of Lot used to prey on the females instead of men? That is, if they used to rape women and do whatever they wanted with them, would it be acceptable, since what they are doing is "normal"?
And they had demanded from him his guests, but We obliterated their eyes, [saying], "Taste My punishment and warning." (54/37)Apparently, the news of the guests at the house of Lot was infuriating for the people, because 1) Lot was prohibited from reaching out to people, and these guests were proof that that prohibition was violated, 2) the ability of the guests to reach Lot's house was a breach in the evil people's set up to obstruct the road. Therefore, they wanted Lot to return the guests to them.
Now, I want to revisit the phrase "approaching men" that I had put a flag on earlier. The original word for what is translated as "approaching" is "ta'tuuna". A similar usage of the same verb is in the chapter An-Naml verse 31, where prophet Solomon invites the queen of Sheba to "come" in submission: "wa'tuunii muslimin". Throughout the Quran, one can find several other cases of the use of the same verb. From all these, the bottom line is that the literal translation of this verb is "to come", not "to approach". But there is more!
There is another verb in Arabic, which also means "to come", and that is "jaa'a". The nuance between them is that "ta'tuuna" has a notion of ease in the act of coming, but not necessarily evil. This ease, fueled by the evil intentions of the people of Lot, points at a collective and consistent targeting of men. And this understanding agrees with the expansion in meaning that we had seen with the word "shahwatan", i.e. utter desire to possess.
Now we can combine the details so far in order to formulate the action of the people of Lot. We see that in all of the above verses, there is "coming to the males of the travelers with an intention to possess them against their will". This description is compatible with chapter 29 verses 28-30, quoted above. In fact, this understanding agrees with all of the above descriptions in verses from different chapters of the Quran. Then, the action of the people of Lot that was for the first time ever in history, and that called upon them wrath of God, is "collectively and consistently targeting men within their communities and among the travelers, possessing them against their will, and committing evil acts on those men, including sexual approach, and all the while, casting the women aside, inconsiderate of their sexual needs."
Keep this description in mind. Now, I am going to invite you to a moment of truth. Consider the gang rape by the people of Lot, and put near it "the LGBT individuals who, besides being muslim members of the society, want to establish a family and conduct a life on the way of God". Are they the same?
If you are still struggling with these arguments and not intending to question things, consider this analog development in the Islamic history. The traditional interpretation of Islam has a very strong bias for men against women, and this traditional stance is backed up by Quranic verses and words of the Prophet. Even now, Muslim women suffer from this situation. Only in the so called "Westernized" Muslim societies, we observe more acceptance towards women's rights. In such egalitarian societies, it is argued that equality of men and women in public life is intrinsic to the core teachings and sources of Islam, and that the religious notion that men are superior to women has developed only as a cultural artifact throughout the centuries.
This idea, voiced by the Muslims in such modern societies, however, would not come about unless the believers were forced to see life through different lenses under the influence and dominance of Western culture. That is, if you consider women to have equal rights as men and no essential superiority among them, you must acknowledge that you owe this perspective to a cultural influence from the West. If it wasn't for this influence, it is very likely that today, Muslim women would still be suppressed and oppressed in the name of religion!
Similarly, as the number of LGBT people and the percent of LGBT Muslims increases, it is very likely that we are going to see increasingly more people and scholars speak in favor of LGBT rights backed by core Islamic teachings and sources. Until then, however, much evil will have been committed in the name of religion. You have the chance to avoid that now by reading the Quran and hadith with this new perspective in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment