in some ways are ready to accommodate with the confusion and the silence which accompany homosexuality even today in most of the Muslim Arab countries.
We have not to forget the Qur’an’s promises to the believers that on entering the paradise they will have virgin’s mates – houris & and they will be served by Adonis & ghoulam.
It seems that many poets and sultans refer to these promises to justify their homosexual relationships with their lovers . The history of the Muslim world & Arab , Turkish or Persian & had known homosexuals
poets or emirate artistes who displayed their homosexuality. In the eighth century, the poet Abu
Nuwas was said to be the lover of the son of the sultan Haroune Ar&Rachide of Baghdad. More or less
at the same time al&jahiz wrote his “Adonis and courtesan”; he presented two experts in the Islamic
Law who were opposition concerning their sexual preferences. One praised the courtesans or slave&
singers and the other the Adonis. By making them talking like that, al&jahiz revealed the erotic
fantasy of the Muslims at that time; fantasy in which young men had their place in the eyes of other
people. And examples like these are numerous .
Nowadays, for most Muslims concerned directly or in directly by this subject of equal
treatment of minorities within the Muslim communities, it is not a question of “triturating” the
shari’ah (the Islamic credo). But most western Muslim thinkers of the twenty first century seem to be
guided by the thirst of returning to the sources ; a return to the source of our Culture which has
always been by itself a form of renaissance .
These thinkers seems henceforth completely conscious of this triptych separation which we mentioned above (tradition&dogma&reality of attitudes), in their at tempt to analyze the tenets and the resulting questions of homosexuality within an Islamic context. A very vast question indeed, since it seems to pose the essential problem which the Muslim Arab civilization is facing at that very moment, and which is not only of homosexuality alone.
Mohamed Mezziane says, about sexual minorities per-se:”it is troublesome to compare the
actual judicial offensive accompanied with discrimination of many Arab and Muslims countries
against homosexuality and the acquisition of a judicial status for many homosexuals in most western
countries (besides, an offensive which is contrary with the most commonly accepted idea of
tolerance of Muslims societies concerning homoerotism and homosexual practices)” .
But again, which Islam are we talking about? We need first of all to keep in mind the
tolerance known for ages within the Arabo&Islamic civilization towards minorities, including sexual
minorities, especially the eunuchs of the harem, et those eunuchs who had no sexual interest for
women. They would be considered nowadays to be a part of sexual minorities, homosexuals for
example (a medieval term invented in the 18th century for political purpose). Sexual eunuchs were
summoned by the wives of the Prophet of Islam .
On this matter, Faris Malik point out that also the Kuran and the hadeeths – oral Prophetic
traditions & also contain allusion of homosexual at trait admitted by heterosexual men. In the
collection of Al&Bukhari, there is a hadeeth saying: “we used to fight alongside the Prophet ; we
did not have any women with us. We said to the Prophet : “can we treat some eunuchs like
women?” the Prophet forbid us to do so…” the fact that Muhammad forbid his
companions to consider some eunuchs as sexual objects is not the question here. Surely, to use a
heterosexual as a eunuch is not a good thing – this is essentially the misdeed of the people of loth.
But how about having a relationship with a eunuch?
Given that ibn mas’ud referred to the use of eunuch for sexual satisfaction, and given that the
Prophet understood what he said, this seems to indicate that having (sexual) intercourse to obt
ain sexual satisfaction was not unknown to the Arab society, and that they considered this interco
urse to be appropriate with male eunuchs. Since 10 eunuchs were not considered to be masculine, there
is no prohibition on that, not even in the Quran,according to Faris Malik .
Eunuchs were considered to be sexual objects for heterosexual men in the mamelouks
dynasty according to David Ayalon in his book about eunuchs, caliphs and sultans (Jerusalem,
1999). Eunuchs seem to have been used as rampart against homosexual desire (by heterosexual
men) in some ways. They are described by being effeminate and docile in bed at night, manly and
good fighters during the day for a military campaign .
Concerning the Sacred Texts, we have to point out that Nowhere, neither in the Qur’an nor in the Sunna –
hadeeth,oral traditions of the Prophet & homosexuality is condemned, as recalled on May 17th, 2010 by the rec
tor of the Mosque of Bordeaux, Imam Tareq Oubrou. According to that statement, today it is a duty to change some misogynistic and homophobic traditions, and talk about real issues, without amalgams, or misunderstandings, or political manipulations.
First of all, the verses mentioning “the people of Lut” in the Qur’an, never speak of
homosexuality by nature; homosexuality & ())))))))) ))))))))))))*+,-./ (*))))))))))))))))))))))012./ &
is not mentioned once. The Qur’an mentions violent sex, dominative, inhuman practiced
by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and other criminal practices that have nothing to do wi
th homosexuality & rape, theft, refusal of hospitality, murder, etc.. Moreover, their tra
ditional sex was described as unprecedented. It is said in the Qur’an: “How dare you practice a vice than any people before you had practiced” .
And we know today that homosexuality has not been “ invented” by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Considering that these crimes & rape, theft, etc. & Are characteristic of homosexuals is
discriminatory and it is an amalgam. If one replace the term “people of Lot” with “Jews” or “Blacks”,
we would see that we cannot now condemned all “Jews ” or “Blacks” for a crime committed by a city
populated predominantly, 5000 years ago (!), of “Jews” or “Blacks”. In this example, the
discrimination and the amalgam are obvious. But whe n it comes to homosexuality, it is less obvious
and some dogmatic Muslims continue to accuse us of all these heinous crimes committed by people
who had, among other things, homosexual violent and dehumanizing practices.
Therefore, these sexual practices and are often cited by dogmatic Muslims because they
think homosexuality is mentioned in the Qur’an indirectly .
But theses violent practices have in fact nothing to do with homosexuality per se. It would b e more likely that these sexual practices have been described by the ancient historian, Herodotus:
“… Once in a lifetime to sit in the temple of love
[dedicated to the goddess Ishtar] and … have sex
with a stranger … men pass and make their choice.
Whatever the money, the woman never refuses, because that would be a sin, the money being by this
act made sacred “. In good faith, these acts do not describe homosexuality per se. These are
sexual domineering, violent practices which can be equated with prostitution in public.
These domineering and violent sexual practices also seem to be still in force among the Arabs until
shortly before the end of the modern era (nineteenth century), as reported by Khaled Al&Rouyaheb
in his wonderful book ” Before Homosexuality in the Arab&IslamicWorld “. And so the hadeeth
attributed to the Prophet Muhammad , that says: “If you find two men to commit the cri
me of the people of Loth, kill the active and the passive” : well this hadeeth, again, does not apply to
homosexuality per se, but applies to acts of prostitution made in public. Today there is no question of
practicing such a punishment for acts of prostitution made publicly . But it will still take time
before the Arabo&Islamic countries & often within the scope of dictatorial regimes & evolve on these
particular issues ; dictatorships, despotic regimes, which cannot be honestly considered as
Besides this hadeeth was narrated by one of the companions of the Prophet with the
most sulfurous reputation, which itself was involved personally with homosexuality. Aisha RAA, with
whom Abu Huraïra also had an altercation, said that what Abu Huraïra considered the words of the
Prophet , actually was not the word of the Prophet . These are inconsistencies about hadeeth
narrated by Abu Huraïra & hadeeths attributed to the Prophet, in reality often misogynistic and
homophobic hadeeths & in total contradiction with the facts as reported also by other companions of
the Prophet whose reputations are safer. Inconsistencies about Abu Huraïra that have already
been highlighted in 1983 by the famous Muslim feminist,Fatima Mernissi in her famous book: ”
The political harem, the Prophet and women” . We, sexual minorities who are fighting for human
rights, must be aware that the opinion of one man of bad reputation is not valid in front of the advice
of the wife of the Prophet Muhammad; Aisha RAA, the closest of his wives, the first scholar
woman within Islam.
Plus Abu Huraïra, the companion of the Prophet Muhammad & the reputation of the companions is considered sacred to the majority of Muslims & seemed to be himself questioning about his sexuality. He spoke to the Prophet Muhammad who, far from condemning him, urged him to accept his fate . But Abu Huraïra prefer
red to marry and have kids. Then he used to be one of the fiercest persecutors of those whom they
use to call the “mukhanathun” & cd))))))))))))))),1The mukhanathun were men effeminate, androgynous men, who had no desire to women, who did not marry women, before whom the Prophet’s wives did no
t veil with their hijab. Today mukhanathun could have been described as “gay” or “transgenders
”. The Prophet defended one of these mukhanathun; Abu Huraïra wanted to kill because of
his effeminate manners and way of dressing . It is therefore obvious that the opinion of A
bu Huraïra on homosexuality was not neutral, and in total contradiction with the ethical position of
the Prophet of Islam who, again, defended proactively these individuals belonging to what we
call today “sexual minorities”. What religious or political leader had given such an example, one thousand and almost five hundred years ago …
…. ( to be coninued…)