Quranic Lut Passages and The Juridical History of Homosexuality in Islam-A Critical Study

Page 1 of 75
QURANIC LŪṬ PASSAGES

AND
THE JURIDICAL HISTORY OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN ISLAM: A CRITICAL STUDY
A Dissertation
Submitted to
Centre for the Study of Comparative Religions and Civilizations

Jamia Millia Islamia
Delhi – 110025
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

For the Degree of
Master of Arts
in
Comparative Religions
By
S M Mukarram Jahan
Under the supervision of

Dr. Annie KUNNATH
Centre for the Study of Comparative Religions and Civilizations
Jamia Millia Islamia
New Delhi
Date: 12 July, 2021

Page 2 of 75
CONTENTS
Abstract…………………………………………………..……...…3
Introduction……………………………………………..……..…..4
1. Social and Historical Developments…………………..
…………..8
2. Homosexuality and Muslim Countries……………………..…...11
3. Islam and Homosexuality……………………………...…………
15
3.1. Homosexual Acts in the Quran…………….…………….16
3.2. Exegeses………………...…………………………………23
3.3. Homosexual Acts in Ḥadīth……………………………....29
4. Juridical History……………………………………..……..…….34
4.1. Ḥanafī School of Islamic
Jurisprudence………………....37
4.2. Mālikī School of Islamic
4.3. Shāfi’ī School of Islamic
4.4. Ḥanbalī School of Islamic
Jurisprudence………………..39
4.5. Ṣalafī School of Islamic Jurisprudence……………….
….40
Page 3 of 75
4.6. Twelver Shiite School of Islamic

Jurisprudence………...40
4.7. Acts Short of Liwāṭ…………………………………..……42
5. Medieval Arabic Poetry………………………………..………...46
6. Modern Debate………………………………………..……….…49
Conclusion..…………………………………………..…………...66
Glossary…………………………………………………...………70
Bibliography………………………………………..…………….73
Quranic Lūṭ Passages and the Juridical History of

Homosexuality in Islam — A Critical Study
S. M. Mukarram Jahan
Abstract
This study critically examines the place of
homosexuality within Islam. It studies the
theological understanding of homosexuality in
the Quran, focusing on its interpretation by
exegetes and the juridical history from the time of
the Prophet Muhammad to the modern era. It
also dedicates special attention to modern
progressive calls for revisionist approaches to
homosexuality, and the counter-narratives.
Page 4 of 75
INTRODUCTION
Homosexuality as a constituent of one’s identity is a modern concept and a loaded term
similitude of which is absent from the Islamic tradition. Though homosexual acts among
people in different societies have been recorded from ancient times, homosexuality as a
variant form of normative sexual orientation is also a relatively recent phenomenon,
beginning toward the end of the nineteenth century CE. Prior to this period, many cultures
(as well as the Islamic tradition) conceded that although a person may occasionally have
homosexual feelings, heterosexuality was always accepted to be the normative form of
sexuality. In the modern and postmodern discourse, the acronym LGBTIQ (and its variants),
standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer, is an umbrella term used
to denote non-heterosexual sexuality and gender identity. Since the terms of LGBTIQ deal
with non-normative sexual and gender identities, they are usually clubbed together using the
abovementioned acronym. In order to understand the stance of the Islamic tradition on the
term sexual orientation (and by extension homosexuality), it is imperative to understand the

Page 5 of 75
meaning of the jargon which emerged from the late nineteenth century CE that is now
commonly employed in this field.
The American Psychological Association (APA) defines sexual orientation as “an enduring
pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes”.1
According to this definition, sexual orientation is not merely a private characteristic of an
individual but it dictates the group of people wherein one finds satisfying romantic
relationships which are considered a part and parcel of one’s personal identity. 2 Sexual
orientation is thus categorized broadly under three headings; heterosexual (sexual attraction
towards the opposite sex), homosexual, which can be gay or lesbian (sexual attraction
towards the same sex), and bisexual (sexual attraction towards both sexes). Homosexuality is
defined as “sexual interest in and attraction to members of one’s own sex”.3 Ascertaining the
causes that determine the sexual orientation of an individual have not found a consensus
among scientists. Various theories like genetic, social, hormonal, developmental, and cultural
influences in determining an individual’s sexual orientation have been advanced through
exhaustive research but none of them are definitive or conclusive. The current understanding
among scientists is that the sexual orientation of an individual is developed by early
adolescence. These enduring patterns of romantic feelings and sexual attraction usually
1
Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality. American Psychological Association (www.apa.org), 2011.
2
APA (www.apa.org). Sexual orientation should not be confused with sexual identity, although sometimes
erroneously, the two are used synonymously. Sexual identity means “how one thinks of oneself in terms of to whom
one is romantically or sexually attracted”. (see Reiter L. “Sexual Orientation, Sexual Identity, and the Question of
Choice”. Clinical Social Work Journal Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989: pp. 138–50). Gender identity is described as the
personal sense of one’s own gender and its expression may be in accordance with the assigned sex at birth or
otherwise. A person who chooses to exhibit a gender identity incongruous with their assigned sex at birth is called a
transgender. A person who experiences a gender identity inconsistent with their assigned sex at birth and wishes to
permanently switch to the gender with which they identify through medical assistance is called a transsexual person.
A cisgender is a person whose gender identity matches their assigned sex at birth. Though this is a reductionist
approach to study these terms but delving into the detailed intricacies of each is irrelevant to our present study.
However, a generalized understanding of them is essential.
3
Encyclopaedia Britannica; 21 November 2018 ed.; s.v. “Homosexuality”.
Page 6 of 75
emerge without any prior sexual encounter. In other words, an individual’s designation of
their sexual orientation may happen before any sexual experience or they engage in it before
defining their sexual orientation with certainty.4 The Islamic tradition views heterosexuality
as the only form of normative sexual orientation and isolates homosexual acts from
homosexuality as a form of sexual orientation. Thus, we have avoided employing the term
homosexuality and instead preferred ‘homosexual acts’ in the context of Islamic tradition.
The former wherever mentioned shall denote the modern understanding of the term.
Whereas all major religious and secular traditions do not object to homosexual feelings, the
recent stir in the modern discourse regarding homosexuality is mostly because of an
increased political activism vis-à-vis seeking legal protection for pursuance of active
homosexual relationships, a practice which is considered reprehensible in many major
religious traditions. Attitudes towards homosexual behavior have varied throughout history
during different times and in different cultures. These attitudes have been variously
characterized by acceptance, tolerance, or condemnation thus invoking punishment and a
complete ban on the practice. In ancient Greece, for example, sexual relationships between
adult men and adolescent males were common. Then again, the doctrinal position of Semitic
religions in general has not been in favour of homosexual relationships, though its
implementation and interpretation has varied over time. 5 Different denominations within
these traditions also have diversely reacted to homosexuality. Many Reform Rabbis and
factions within Protestantism have not only advocated, but provided a theological basis for a
4
APA (www.apa.org).
5
The repetition of the verse “Be fruitful and multiply” (nine times, starting with Gen 1:28) in the Book of Genesis in
the Torah, which underscores the importance of reproduction, has dictated the Judeo-Christian position on
homosexuality. Thus, the traditional position is that the purpose of creation was to facilitate procreation which can
only be achieved through heterosexual intercourse and not homosexual relationships. Same-sex sexual relationships
betray God’s plan for His creation.
Page 7 of 75
complete approval of homosexuals and their relationships. On the other hand, Pope Francis,
the current head of the worldwide Catholic Church with over 1.3 billion members, in spite of
having progressive attitude towards homosexuals, recently barred Catholic priests from
blessing same-sex unions.6 However, due to strong political activism in favor of full
acceptance of homosexuality, and considering the psychological and moral conundrum of
homosexuals to reconcile their sexual orientation with faith and ethics, coupled with social
discrimination, there have started many movements calling for a revision and reinterpretation
of such doctrines that abhor homosexuality.
The aim of this thesis is not to pass a moral judgment or a religious fatwa condoning or
condemning homosexuality and homosexual acts within the Islamic tradition which has thus
dictated the methodology of this study. The goal is to present the reader with a critical
academic study of facts investigating the emergence of homosexuality as a concept in the
modern era by studying its emergence in recent history outside of Islamic tradition, analyze
the current attitude of Muslim countries and their societies towards homosexuality as the two
are not always complementary, examine the Islamic textual and juridical history dealing with
same-sex relationships and sexual acts which has largely remained the same, delve deep into
the modern discourse calling for revisionism of the issue, and, concluded with the current
stance of Muslims living in countries where homosexuality is legal and the Muslim-majority
States.
6
The Holy See – Vatican (www.vatican.va). The Vatican has always been critical of homosexual relationships.
However, the progressive attitude of Pope Francis towards the LGBTIQ community had raised its hopes for the
acceptance of homosexuals within the Catholic Church. Although Francis advocates the elimination of
discrimination against homosexuals within the Church, his disapproval of blessing same sex unions is consistent
with Vatican’s traditional policy on the subject.
Page 8 of 75
SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS
Modern activism supporting homosexuality is largely characterized by efforts to view
homosexuals not as people with deviant traits but as having a variant form of normal sexual
orientation. Although this narrative has been partially successful in countries (especially
where homosexuality is legal), most religious groups do not approve of it and emphasize a
reorientation of sexuality through counselling, therapy, behavior modification, etc. Despite
the fact that religious, cultural, and social causes are mostly responsible for discrimination
against homosexuals, but throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many
psychologists also classified homosexuality as triggered by a mental disorder. For example,
the Austro-German psychologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing considered homosexuality along
with masturbation as sexual perversions. However, negative attitudes towards homosexuals
started to change from the late twentieth century. As homosexuality became an inalienable
subject of studies on human sexuality, many stereotypes surrounding homosexual behavior
could be discarded.
In North America and Europe, homosexual rights movements become prominent from the
second half of the twentieth century. In the United States, these movements are usually seen
as offshoots of the civil rights movements that began in the 1960s giving the issue a political
colour. Although the attitude of people was comparatively liberal, hate crimes often
persisted. The 1969 Stonewall riots targeting homosexuals by the police propelled the
homosexual rights movements to the forefront of political activities. The incident also
Page 9 of 75
emboldened homosexuals to openly proclaim their sexual orientation making the
heterosexual population aware of their existence and demands. These movements were and
continue to be centered on the demand to eliminate any sort of discrimination that
homosexuals face in their professional and social lives. As a result of strong activism and
success in gaining political support, many employers started to grant health care benefits, life
insurance, and some companies even giving pension benefits to homosexual partners at par
with heterosexual couples. Social perspective regarding homosexuality has also changed to a
large extent with a majority of the populations not only tolerating homosexuality, but also
considering it as a variant form of normative sexual behavior.
In Asia, Africa and Latin America, religious and cultural traditions consider even discussions
on homosexuality or exhibiting such behavior in public as taboo which continues to dictate
the attitude of people towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Though there are slightly
liberal tendencies in urban areas, proclamation of homosexuality openly is out of bounds.
The practice is completely intolerable often invoking punishments or hate crimes. The
emboldened stance of homosexual activists in North America and Europe towards the end on
the twentieth century internationalized the issues they encounter and was responsible for
making much of the developing countries aware of their existence, albeit with negative
presuppositions. Eventually, discriminations and repression of homosexual populations
therein ensued. For instance, the police in Namibia were tasked with “eliminating”
homosexuals from the society. In Uganda, a predominantly Christian country, homosexuality
is punishable. Many anti-homosexual groups (appropriate term would be ‘vigilantes’), fueled
by religious, social or cultural ideologies, also emerged to counter homosexual behavior.

Page 10 of 75
These groups often were accused of taking the law into their own hands and punishing
homosexuals. One such group is the Brazilian ‘Acorda Coracao’ which was alleged to have
murdered several gay students at the Jamaican Northern Caribbean University. In another
instance, the Ecuadorian gay rights group Quitogay was given support by Amnesty
International when it received many threats.7 The attitude of Muslim-majority countries
towards homosexuality is dealt with in the next section.
7
Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Homosexuality”.
Page 11 of 75
HOMOSEXUALITY AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES
Current legal systems and statutory laws in some Muslim countries recently have been
criticized for the harsh treatment meted out to homosexuals. Also, the general discrimination,
resentment, and detestation of a majority of Muslims exhibited towards homosexuals and
their sexual orientation has put the Islamic tradition under the microscope in order to
examine its role in shaping the opinions regarding homosexuality among its adherents. The
stance of the Islamic tradition vis-à-vis homosexuality is examined due to the efforts of
Muslim homosexuals, especially in the countries where homosexuality is legal, campaigning
for legitimacy within the religion by accepting them as having a valid form of sexuality by
the majority of Muslims which in their opinion could eliminate discrimination. Democratic
countries where freedom is loved and cherished has encouraged homosexuals and rights
groups elsewhere in the world to demand similar rights. Even though the goals are same,
Muslim homosexuals and rights activists operating in Muslim majority countries meet harsh
criticism and their voices are often silenced due to repressive policies of their States.
Therefore it becomes imperative that we take a concise survey of the most strict laws and
policies in Muslim countries vis-à-vis homosexuals that often invite rebuke from rights
groups. The Muslim country considered one of the most unpopular vis-à-vis its persecution
of homosexuality and those advocating or professing it is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia
considers homosexuality an immoral act and is therefore illegal in the country. Predictably,
the Kingdom does not recognize the rights of homosexuals and those convicted of it can be
Page 12 of 75
penalized with fines, flagellation, incarceration that can last for life, or even capital
punishment. Homosexual relationships are not recognized and therefore such couples are
also not allowed to adopt. They are also not given any legal protection against
discriminations.8 Similarly, Afghanistan, Iran,9 Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, and parts of
Somalia and Nigeria, all predominantly Muslim countries, carry death penalty for
homosexuality. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Maldives and Brunei 10 have legislations that
carry an imprisonment that can last up to life term. 11
On the other hand, some other Muslim countries have introduced statutory laws that not only
tolerate homosexuality but also provide legal protection to homosexuals. For instance, in
Turkey, homosexuality has been legal ever since the inception of the country in 1923.
Bahrain legalized homosexuality in 1976, Azerbaijan in 2000 whereas Lebanon and Northern
Cyprus in 2014. Other Muslim countries where homosexuality is legal are Kazakhstan, Mali,
Niger, and Indonesia. Albania not only legalized homosexuality in 1995 but banned
prejudice and discrimination on account of sexuality.12 Despite seemingly progressive
attitude of these states towards homosexuality, it can be argued that the intentions behind
such laws are politically motivated. This is because surveys indicate that there is still a
negative attitude of their citizens towards homosexuality. 13 Though homosexuality in
8
Ottosson, Daniel. State-Sponsored Homophobia. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex
Association (ILGA), May 2010.
9
Iran encourages transgenders to have sexual reassignment surgeries to be physically aligned with their gender
identity rather than committing homosexuality. It came as a result of a Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini in order to
discourage homosexuality in “diagnosed transsexuals” and now Iran leads the world in sexual reassignment
surgeries, only after Thailand.
10
Brunei in 2019 tried to frame a legislation that awarded death penalty to homosexuals but was forced to suspend it
under international pressure.
11
Lesbian and Gay Rights in the World. ILGA, May 2009. Also Cf. Ottosson. State-Sponsored Homophobia.
12
Ottosson. State-Sponsored Homophobia. Albanian politicians have also showed interest in granting constitutional
recognition to gay marriage.
13
Cf. Pew Research Center. The Global Divide on Homosexuality, 04 June, 2013.
Page 13 of 75
Indonesia was decriminalized, legalization of same sex marriage seems impossible. It also
continues to prosecute open and commercial same-sex sexual activities. 14 In Turkey, the
public continues to see the practice as societally unacceptable and various homosexual
activist groups have reported sustained harassment and discrimination. According to a report
published by the Pew Research Center (PRC), majority of the people living in the Middle
Eastern countries (including Israel) do not agree that homosexuality should be accepted by
the society. Even in Jordan, where homosexuality has been legal since 1951, 97% of its
citizens reject homosexuality as an acceptable norm in the society. 15
The polarity of opinions of the Muslim countries and their citizens where homosexuality is
legal as well as a comparison of the strict laws criminalizing homosexuality in many of the
Muslim countries with the former group where it is legal creates an ambivalence with respect
to the place of homosexuality in Islam. However, the many surveys of both the types of
countries reflect that much of the public opinion is the same. The report of Pew Research
Center specifically makes Muslim countries (and “publics in Africa”) distinctive because
they are “least accepting of homosexuality”. It also makes an important discovery that the
harshness of views regarding homosexuality and acceptance thereof is directly proportional
to their religiosity. In other words, according to the Pew Research Center report, where
religion is central in peoples’ lives vis-à-vis its importance and as the source of morality,
such people have far less acceptance of homosexuality. 16 These points bear importance when
we discuss the role of religion in shaping peoples’ opinion and thought regarding
homosexuality.
14
Ottosson. State-Sponsored Homophobia.
15
PRC. The Global Divide on Homosexuality.
16
PRC. The Global Divide on Homosexuality.
Page 14 of 75
ISLAM AND HOMOSEXUALITY

Page 15 of 75
Our aim in relating the different stances of Muslim countries pertaining to homosexuality
was to emphasize the lack of consensus regarding homosexuality among Muslims. Though
the surveys indicate that Muslims are generally intolerant of homosexuality, it would be
imprudent to consider Islam as a monolithic religion, especially in the absence of any
universal defining commanding office with the authority to interpret religious texts and
whose judgment could be binding on Muslims the world over. When framing such
legislations, be it in support or condemnation of homosexuality, the Muslim countries, or
jurists, and scholars when asked about the position of Islam on homosexuality, try to provide
textual bases to their verdict. Some of the legislations and fatwas are poles apart, as the
evidence from the previous section suggests, making it abundantly clear that there are
varying interpretations of religious texts. The Quran, which the Muslims believe to be the
verbatim Word of God (Kalām Allah), preserved pristinely for over more than a millennium,
commands the central authority among Muslims, to which they turn for guidance. The Quran
(as well as Ḥadīth, and the different Schools of jurisprudence) does not mention
homosexuality as a variant form of normative sexual orientation, an idea which developed in
the twentieth century CE, but talks about homosexual acts, making it necessary to quote the
relevant passages here with their meanings in order to understand their role in determining
Muslims’ perception with regard to the issue.
It is imperative to comprehend that homosexuality as it is understood today was not dealt
with in the same manner by Mufassirūn (Quranic exegetes), Muḥaddithūn (Ḥadīth scholars)
and Fuqahā (scholars of Fiqh or Islamic Jurisprudence) from the time of the Prophet
Muhammad to the present day. To ascribe the modern concept of homosexuality as it is

Page 16 of 75
defined, explained and studied among different schools of thought within the Muslim world
would be completely anachronistic. This is because the modern understanding of
homosexuality makes it a term loaded with sociological underpinnings like same-sex
companionship, active pursuit of same-sex romantic relationship, same-sex co-habitation,
constitutive of one’s identity, variant form of normative sexual orientation, etc. which were
all unheard of prior to the nineteenth century CE. Whereas the Quran obliquely talks about
homosexual acts, the Ḥadīth are more concerned with the depravity associated with liwāṭ
(sodomy).
3.1. Homosexual Acts in the Quran
The Quran mentions homosexuality mostly in its account of the people belonging to the
nation17 of Messenger Lūṭ (Biblical Lot) hailing from the city of Sodom 18 who were punished
for their “transgressions”. There are also other contexts in which homosexual acts are
mentioned in the Quran. We shall reproduce them according to the order of their appearance
in the musḥaf.
i. The first verse that we have quoted is thought by scholars to be pertaining to zinā
(fornication/adultery) as well as homosexual acts, although its relevance to the latter
is questioned. In the recent times, its relevance to same-sex acts has increasingly
gained support.19 The Quran says:
17
The Quran uses the term “Qaum”. See, for example, Quran 07:80, 11:78, and 21:74.
18
The name of the city does not appear in the Quran and has been borrowed from the Torah (Genesis 18-19).
Although the Hebrew Bible in the two chapters mentions Sodom with Gomorrah, classical Muslim mufassirūn
mention “Sodom and its surrounding towns”.
19
According to the Encyclopaedia of the Quran, although exegete Abu Muslim al-Isfahani (d. 322 AH/934 CE) was
the first scholar to have linked the verse with homosexual acts, Hafiz Ibn Kathīr quotes Taba’iee scholar Mujahid
Ibn Jabr that 04:16 was revealed in respect of sodomy. However, the idea was not rejected and received a mixed
response from mufassirūn. Nevertheless, many learned scholars have linked the verses with liwāṭ. Among modern
scholars who support this view are Rashid Rida, Sayyid Qutb, and Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Cf. The Encyclopaedia of
the Quran (Vol. II), p. 445.
Page 17 of 75
ُ ‫اس َت ْشه ُدوا َع َل ْيه َّن َأ ْر َب َع ًة م ْن ُك ْم ۖ َف ْن َشه ُدوا َفَأ ْمس ُك‬
ُ ‫وه َّن في ْال ُب ُيوت َح َّت ٰى َي َت َو َّف‬
‫اه َّن‬ ْ ‫َوالاَّل تي َيْأ ت َين ْال َفاح َش َة م ْن ن َسا ُك ْم َف‬
ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫ِإ‬ ِ ِ ِ ‫ِ ِ ِئ‬ ِ ِ ِ
َ َ َ َ َّ ُ ‫ص َل َحا َفَأ ْعر‬

‫ضوا َع ْن ُه َما ۗ ِإ َّن الله كان ت َّو ًابا‬ ْ ‫وه َما ۖ َف ْن َت َابا َوَأ‬
ُ ‫الل َذان َيْأ ت َيان َها م ْن ُك ْم َف ُآذ‬
َّ َ ‫اًل‬ َ َّ ‫مْل َ ُ َأ‬
‫ا ْوت ْو َي ْج َع َل الل ُه ل ُه َّن َس ِبي ۝ و‬
ِ ‫ِإ‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ
ً ‫َر ِح‬
‫يما۝‬
“And those who commit lewdness among your women, bring four witnesses against
them from among you. And if they testify (against them), then confine them in their
homes until death takes them or Allah makes for them (another) way. And (regarding)
those two men among you who commit it, then punish them both. But if they repent
and rectify themselves, then leave both of them alone. Indeed Allah is ever accepting
of repentance and merciful.”20
ii. All the verses related to homosexual acts mentioned in the Quran from here on are
related to its account about the people of Messenger Lūṭ. The Quran states that the
people belonging to the nation of Lūṭ were the first to have committed liwāṭ on earth.
On account of this “lewdness”, the Quran here terms them a “transgressing” people.
The Quran says:
‫ون‬
َ ُ ‫َّ ُ ْ َ َ ْأ‬
ُ ْ ً َ ْ َ َ َ ّ ‫ون‬ َ ‫َ ْ َ مَل‬ َ ‫ة َما َس َب َق ُك ْم ب َها م ْن َأ‬Sَ ‫ون ْال َفاح َش‬
َ ُ ‫َ ُ ً ْ َ َ َ ْ َأ َ ْأ‬
ِ ‫الرجال شهوة ِمن د‬
ِ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ل‬ ‫م‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ِإ‬ ‫۝‬ ‫ين‬ ِ ‫ا‬‫ع‬ ‫ال‬ ‫ن‬ ‫م‬
ِ ‫د‬
ٍ ‫ح‬ ِ ِ ِ ‫ولوطا ِإ ذ قال ِلقو ِم ِه ت ت‬
َ ُ َ ُ ْ ‫َأ‬ ّ
‫الن َس ِاء ۚ َب ْل نت ْم ق ْو ٌم ُم ْس ِرفون۝‬
ِ
“And Lūṭ, when he said to his nation, “Do you commit lewdness with which no one
has preceded you from among the worlds? Indeed you approach men with desire,
instead of women. Rather, you a transgressing nation.”21
20
Quran 04:15-16. These verses are considered abrogated (mansūkh) after the revelation of Chapter 24 of the Quran
which gives specific punishments for indecent sexual acts.
21
Quran 07:80-81.
Page 18 of 75
iii. The above account continues by noting the response of the people who wanted to
expel Lūṭ and his family because of their insistence on being “pure”, expressly,
refusing to acquiesce to homosexual acts. The Quran says that Allah saved Lūṭ and
his family (except his wife) and punished the nation. 22 The Quran says:
َ ُ ‫ُ مْل‬ َ َ َ َ ُ ْ َ َ َ َ َ ‫َأ‬
‫َو ْمط ْرنا َعل ْي ِه ْم َمط ًرا ۖ فانظ ْر ك ْيف كان َعا ِق َبة ا ْج ِر ِمين۝‬
“And we (Allah) showered upon them a rain. So observe the result of the criminals.”23
iv. In the next instance, the Quran mentions that Allah’s angels visited Ibrāhīm
(Abraham) to give him the glad tidings of Isḥāq (Isaac) and after him Ya’qūb (Jacob).
They also inform him that they have been sent by Allah to punish the people of Lūṭ.
Ibrāhīm pleads for the people of Lūṭ, but is informed that Allah’s verdict is
irrevocable. The narrative then shifts to Lūṭ and his people when the angels visit
him.24 The Quran says:
‫َّ َ َ اَل‬ ُ َّ َ ُ َ ْ ‫َأ‬ َ ‫َ َ َ ٰ ُؤ اَل‬ ‫َ َ َ ُ َ ْ ُ ُ ُ ْ َ ُ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ ْ ُ َ ُ َ ْ َ ُ َ َّ ّ َئ‬

‫ال َيا ق ْو ِم َه ِء َبنا ِتي ُه َّن ط َه ُر لك ْم ۖ فاتقوا الله و‬‫ات ۚ ق‬
ِ ‫الس ِي‬ ‫وجاءه قومه يهرعون ِإ لي ِه و ِمن قبل كانوا يعملون‬
ُ َ َ َ َّ َ ََ َ ََ ُ َ َ ْ َ ‫َ ْ َأ‬
ٌ ‫س م ْن ُك ْم َر ُج ٌل َرش‬
‫قالوا لق ْد َع ِل ْمت َما لنا ِفي َبنا ِت َك ِم ْن َح ٍ ّق َوِإ ن َك لت ْعل ُم َما ن ِر ُيد۝‬ ‫يد۝‬ ُ ْ ُ
ِ ِ ‫ون ِفي ضي ِفي ۖ لي‬
ِ ‫تخز‬
“And his (Lūṭ’s) people came rushing to him and before (this) they were doing evil
deeds. He (Lūṭ) said, “O my people! These are my daughters, they are purer for you.
So fear Allah and do not disgrace me in (the matter of my guests). Is there not among
you a man of (sound) reason?” They said, “Indeed you know we do not have any
claim concerning your daughters and verily you are aware of what we want.”25
22
Quran 07:82-83.
23
Quran 07:84.
24
Quran 11:69-77.
25
Quran 11:78-79.
Page 19 of 75
v. Following the above dialogue between Lūṭ and his people, Lūṭ becomes increasingly
worried that the people would overpower him and apprehend his guests. He invokes
the help of Allah from such a terrible fate. The angels then reveal their true identity to
him and instruct him to escape the town with his family except for his wife. They
inform him that the calamity would begin in the morning.26 The Quran says:
َْ ً
‫ود۝ ُم َس َّو َمة ِعند َر ِّب َك ۖ َو َما ِه َي ِم َن‬ ُ ْ َ ‫َف َل َّما َج َاء َأ ْم ُر َنا َج َع ْل َنا َعال َي َها َساف َل َها َوَأ ْم َط ْر َنا َع َل ْي َها ح َج َار ًة م ْن س ّج‬
ٍ ‫يل منض‬ٍ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ
‫يد۝‬ َ َ َّ
ٍ ‫الظامِل ِ ين ِبب ِع‬
“And when our (Allah’s) command came, we made its (town’s) highest point its
lowest and we showered on her (the town) stones (made) of layered backed clay.
Marked from your (O Muḥammad ‫ )!ﷺ‬Lord. And it (the punishment) is not far from
the wrongdoers.”27
vi. The twenty-first chapter of the Quran gives briefly the account of a number of
prophets and messengers recounting their fine qualities and the treatment they
received from their nations. Regarding Lūṭ and his people, the Quran says:
َ َ ْ َ َ ْ َ ُ َ ْ ُ َّ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ َ ْ َ َ َّ َ َ ْ َ ُ َ ْ َّ َ َ ً ْ َ ً ْ ُ ُ َ ْ َ ً ُ َ
ِ ‫ولوطا آتيناه حكما و ِعلما ونجيناه ِمن الق ْري ِة ال ِتي كانت تعم ُل الخباِئ ث ۗ ِإ نهم كانوا قوم سو ٍء ف‬
‫اس ِقين۝‬
“And (to) Lūṭ, we gave judgment and knowledge and we saved him from the town
which was committing abhorrence. Indeed they were a nation evil and immoral.”28
26
Quran 11:80-81.
27
Quran 11:82-83.
28
Quran 21:74.
Page 20 of 75
vii. After mentioning the account of the people belonging to the confederation of
Thamūd29 and their messenger Sāleḥ, the Quran turns towards Lūṭ and his people. The
Quran says that they rejected the call of the prophets and messengers deputed to them
including Lūṭ. Lūṭ expressed concern over their activities and their obstinate conduct
and calls upon them to obey him.30 The Quran says:
ََْ َ ْ َ ُ َ َ َ ُ ْ ‫َأ‬ ُ َ ْ ‫َ َ َ ُ َ َ َ َ َ َ ُ ْ َ ُّ ُ ْ ْ َأ‬ َ ‫َأ َ ْأ ُ َ ُّ ْ َ َ َ ْ َ مَل‬

‫اجك ْم ۚ َب ْل نت ْم ق ْو ٌم َع ُادون۝ قالوا لِئ ن ل ْم تنت ِه َيا‬
ِ ‫وتذرون ما خلق لكم ربكم ِمن زو‬ ‫ت تون الذكران ِمن العا ِ ين۝‬
َ ‫َ َ َ َأ َ َأ‬ َ ُ ‫َأ‬ َ َ َْ ُ ّ َ َ َ ْ ُ ‫مْل‬ َ ُ ََ ُ ُ

S ‫ال ِإ ِني ِل َع َم ِلك ْم ِم َن الق ِالين۝ َر ِ ّب ن ِ ّج ِني َو ْه ِلي ِم َّما َي ْع َملون۝ فن َّج ْين ُاه َو ْهل ُه ْج َم ِع‬
‫ين‬ ‫لوط لتكون َّن ِم َن ا خ َر ِجين۝ ق‬
ً ‫َٰ آَل‬ َ ‫ين۝ َوَأ ْم َط ْر َنا َع َل ْيه ْم َم َط ًرا ۖ َف َس َاء َم َط ُر امْل ُ ْن َذر‬
َ ‫ ُث َّم َد َّم ْر َنا اآْل َخر‬ ‫ين۝‬
َ ‫وزا في ْال َغابر‬
ً ُ َ ‫اَّل‬
‫ين۝ ِإ َّن ِفي ذ ِل َك َية ۖ َو َما‬ ِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ ‫۝ ِإ عج‬
َ ‫ْؤ‬ َ ْ ‫َ َ َأ‬
‫كان كث ُر ُه ْم ُم ِم ِنين۝‬
“(Lūṭ said), “Do you approach males from the worlds? And forsake what your Lord
has created for you from your spouses? Rather, you are a transgressing people.”
They said, “O Lūṭ! If you do not relent, indeed you will be from the ones expelled.”
He said, “Indeed I am, toward your deed, of those who despise (it). My Lord! Save
me and my family from what they do.” So, we (Allah) saved him and all of his family.
Except an old woman (who was) among those who remained behind. Then we
destroyed the others. And we showered upon them a rain. So ghastly was the rain of
those forewarned. Indeed in that is a sign. But most of them were not believers.”31
viii. Again after the people of Thamūd comes the account of Lūṭ and his people. The
Quran says:
29
The Thamūd were a tribal confederation of Ancient Arabia that resided in the northwest region of the Arabian
Peninsula.
30
Quran; 26:160-164.
31
Quran 26:165-174.
Page 21 of 75
َ ُ ْ ‫َأ‬ ّ َ ُ ‫َ ُ ً ْ َ َ َ ْ َأ َ ْأ ُ َ ْ َ َ َ َ َأ ْ ُ ْ ُ ْ ُ َ َأ َّ ُ ْ َ َ ْأ‬
ُ ْ ً َ ْ َ َ َ ّ ‫ون‬
‫الن َس ِاء ۚ َب ْل نت ْم ق ْو ٌم‬
ِ ‫ون‬
ِ ‫الرجال شهوة ِمن د‬
ِ ‫ة و نتم تب ِصرون۝ ِئ نكم لت ت‬S ‫احش‬ ِ ‫ولوطا ِإ ذ قال ِلقو ِم ِه ت تون الف‬
‫َ َأ ْ َ ْ َ ُ َ َأ ْ َ ُ اَّل‬ َ ُ َّ َ َ َ ٌ َ ‫ْ َ ْ َ ُ ْ َّ ُ ْ ُأ‬ ُ َ ْ ‫اَّل َأ ْ َ ُ َأ‬ َ َ َ َ َ َ ََ َ ُ َ

‫وط ِمن قري ِتكم ۖ ِإ نهم ناس يتطهرون۝ ف نجيناه و هله ِإ‬ ٍ ‫آل ل‬ ‫اب ق ْو ِم ِه ِإ ن قالوا خ ِر ُجوا‬ ‫ت ْج َهلون۝ فما كان جو‬
َ ‫ين۝ َوَأ ْم َط ْر َنا َع َل ْيه ْم َم َط ًرا ۖ َف َس َاء َم َط ُر امْل ُ ْن َذر‬

‫ين۝‬ َ َ ْ َّ َ ُ َ ‫ْ َ َأ‬
َ ‫اها م َن ْال َغابر‬
ِ ِ ِِ ِ ‫امر ته قدرن‬
“And Lūṭ, when he said to his people, “Do you commit lewdness while you are
seeing? Do you approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are an
ignorant people.” The people did not reply but say, “Drive out the family of Lūṭ from
your town! Indeed they are people who keep themselves pure.” So we (Allah) saved
him and his family except for his wife; we destined for her to be among those left
behind. And we showered upon them a rain. So ghastly was the rain of those
forewarned.”32
ix. Here, the account of Ibrāhīm precedes Lūṭ’s story. Lūṭ responded to the call of
Ibrāhīm to shun idol worship and adopt al-Tawḥīd and then he was deputed to the
people of Sodom. The Quran says:

َ َ ْ َ َ َ ّ َ ُ ‫َ ْ َ مَل َ َأ َّ ُ ْ َ َ ْأ‬ َ ‫ون ْال َف َ َ َ َ َ َ ُ ْ َ ْ َأ‬
َ ُ ‫َّ ُ ْ َ َ ْأ‬ َ َ َ ْ ً َُ
‫ال َوتقط ُعون‬‫الرج‬
ِ ‫ة ما سبقكم ِبها ِمن ح ٍد ِمن العا ِ ين۝ ِئ نكم لت تون‬S ‫احش‬
ِ ‫ال ِلق ْو ِم ِه ِإ نكم لت ت‬‫ولوطا ِإ ذ ق‬
َ ‫الص ِاد ِق َين۝ َق‬

َّ ‫الله ْن ُك ْن َت م َن‬َّ َ َ َ ‫َّ َ َ َ ْأ ُ َ َ ُ ُ مْل ُ ْ َ َ َ َ َ َ َ َ َ َ ْ اَّل َأ ْ َ ُ ْئ‬
‫ال َر ِ ّب‬ ِ ‫اب ِ ِإ‬ِ ‫الس ِبيل وت تون ِفي ن ِاديكم ا نكر ۖ فما كان جواب قو ِم ِه ِإ ن قالوا ا ِتنا ِبعذ‬
َ ‫ص ْرني َع َلى ْال َق ْوم امْل ُ ْفسد‬

‫ين۝‬ ُ ْ
ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫ان‬
“And Lūṭ, when he said to his people, “Indeed you commit lewdness which no one
before you has done from among the worlds. Do you (indeed) approach men, cut off
the way and commit in your councils lewdness. The people did not reply but say,
32
Quran 27:54-58.
Page 22 of 75
“Bring upon us the punishment of Allah, should you be from the truthful.” He (Lūṭ)
said, “My Lord! Help me against the corrupting people!”33
x. The above account continues with the mention of Ibrāhīm that Allah’s envoys (two
angels in human male form) inform him about the punishment that was to be meted
out to the people of Lūṭ because they are “unjust”. Ibrāhīm worries about the fate of
Lūṭ but receives assurance from them that he shall be saved except for his wife. Then
the angels visit Lūṭ and his people ask him for them causing Lūṭ great distress. The
angels reveal their identity and purpose of their visit to him 34:
َ ُ َ ًَ ً َْ َ ََ َ ُ ْ ُ َ َّ ‫ون َع َل ٰى َأ ْهل َٰهذه ْال َق ْر َية ر ْج ًزا م َن‬

‫الس َم ِاء ِب َما كانوا َيف ُسقون۝ َولق ْد ت َركنا ِم ْن َها َآية َب ِّينة ِلق ْو ٍم َي ْع ِقلون۝‬
َ ُ ْ ُ َّ
‫ِإ نا من ِزل‬
ِ ِ ِ ِِ ِ
“(The angels said to Lūṭ), “Verily, we (shall) bring down on the people of this town a
punishment from the heavens because they have been disobedient.” And indeed we
have left from it a sign as (clear) evidence for a reasonable people.”35
xi. The last instance mentioning homosexual acts appears when the Quran relates the
story of Lūṭ that it was because of the rejection of warnings by his nation and
attempting to forcefully seize his guests that a shower of stones was sent its way,
erasing the people from existence:
َ َٰ َ َ ْ ً ُ ‫آل ُلوط ۖ َن َّج ْي َن‬ ‫َّ َأ ْ َ ْ َ َ َ ْ ْ َ ً اَّل‬ ُ ُّ ُ ُ ْ َ ْ َ َّ َ

‫اه ْم ِب َس َح ٍر۝ ِن ْع َمة ِم ْن ِعن ِدنا ۚ كذ ِل َك ن ْج ِزي َم ْن‬ ٍ َ ‫اصبا ِإ‬ ِ ‫وط ِبالنذ ِر۝ ِإ نا رسلنا علي ِهم ح‬
ٍ ‫كذبت قوم ل‬
ُُ َ ُ َُ ‫َ َ َ َأ‬ َ ُ ‫الن ُذر۝ َو َل َق ْد َر َاو ُد‬

ُّ ْ َ َ َ َ َ َ َ ْ َ ْ ُ َ َ ْ ‫َ َ َ ْ َأ‬ َ َ َ
‫وه َع ْن ض ْي ِف ِه فط َم ْسنا ْع ُي َن ُه ْم فذوقوا َعذ ِابي َونذ ِر۝‬ ِ ‫شكر۝ ولقد نذرهم بطشتنا فتماروا ِب‬
ُُ َ ُ َُ َ َ ‫َو َل َق ْد‬
ٌ ‫ص َّب َح ُه ْم ُب ْك َر ًة َع َذ‬
‫اب ُم ْست ِق ٌّر۝ فذوقوا َعذ ِابي َونذ ِر۝‬
33
Quran 29:28-30.
34
Quran 29:31-33.
35
Quran 29:34-35.
Page 23 of 75
“The people of Lūṭ rejected the warnings. Indeed we (Allah) sent upon them a (storm)
of stones except the family of Lūṭ - we saved them by dawn. As a blessing from us.
Thus we reward he who is grateful. And indeed he warned them of our onslaught but
they disputed the warnings. And certainly they (tried to) force from him his guests, so
we obliterated their eyes (saying), “So taste My punishment and My warnings.” And
indeed early morning brought upon them an abiding punishment. ‘So taste My
punishment and My warnings.’”36
3.2. Exegeses
Classical Arabic commentaries of the Quran do not present the people of Lūṭ in a positive
light. We shall mention the treatment of above quoted passages in some of the exegeses that
are and continue to be regarded as the most influential, authentic, and popular commentaries
of the Quran by majority of Muslims from the time of their authorship. It shall reflect the
treatment of such verses in other commentaries produced over time as they remain the go-to
primary sources for scholars for assistance in interpretation of the Quran.
36
Quran 54:33-39.
Page 24 of 75
One such commentary belonging to this category is the Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, 37 authored by Hafiz
Ibn Kathīr, a highly influential exegete, Ḥadīth scholar,38 jurist, and master scholar of
history.39 Ibn Kathīr preferred to link the sayings of the Prophet and his companions with the
verses of the Quran40 and avoided the use of Isra’īliyāt (narratives of foreign import). In his
exegesis regarding the verse 04:16, Ibn Kathīr cites the leading Tāba’iee Quranic
commentator Mujāhid Ibn Jabr that the verse is about sodomy.41 With respect to the story of
angels visiting Ibrāhīm and Lūṭ, he states that the angels Allah had sent to Ibrāhīm and Lūṭ
had taken human form and were “young adult males with immensely beautiful faces and
attractive figures”.42 He also makes an important assertion that it is not only male
homosexuality that the people of Sodom indulged in. According to him, since the men would
satisfy themselves with other males, the women were forced to resort to lesbianism. Ibn
Kathīr states that Lūṭ’s insistence on being “pure” (07:82) was related to his refusal to
37
Although the first commentary that we have taken up is Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, it would have been appropriate to begin
with Tafsīr al-Tabarī. Authored by Ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī, Tafsīr al-Tabarī is one of the earliest commentaries written on
the Quran and the first one to have reached us intact. However, due to the current COVID-19 restrictions, we were
unable to procure it. But judging from secondary sources, it can be concluded that the Tafsīr’s annotations regarding
the verses quoted earlier are not different and in line with later tafsīrs. For instance, we reproduce here the Tafsīr’s
annotations to al-Quran 07:80-81 which could help us to easily predict al-Tabarī’s rendering of other relevant verses
(Quranic verses are in bold):
“When he said to his people – when he said to his people from Sodom, and to them Lot was sent – Do you commit
iniquity (fāḥisha) – the iniquity that they approached and for which God punished them is penetrating men sexually
– such as none in creation have committed before you? – none had committed this indecency in the world prior to
them – Verily you come with desire unto men instead of women. Nay, you are a people transgressing (beyond
bounds) – God is informing [us] as to what Lot conveyed to his people, and his reprimanding them for their
actions: indeed you all, O people (ayyuhā ’l- qawm), approach men from their rears with desire (shahwatan) rather
than coming to those whom God has approved for you and made permissible to you from among women. – You are
a people transgressing (beyond bounds) – you are a people that approach what God has prohibited to you,
insubordinate in your actions. And that is prodigality (isrāf) in this matter”. (Vaid, Mobeen. “Can Islam
Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Quranic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle”. The American Journal of
Islamic Social Sciences. Vol. 34, No. 03, 2017: pp. 61-62)
38
Mirza, Younus Y. “Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? Jonah as a Prophet of Obedience”. Journal of
Qur’anic Studies. Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014: pp. 1-19.
39
Adamec, Ludwig W. Historical Dictionary of Islam, p. 138.
40
Such types of tafsīrs are classified as Tafsīr bil-Riwāyah, also known as Tafsīr bil-Māthūr. Tafsīrs under this
category are regarded as the most authentic commentaries by scholars.
41
Ibn Kathīr, ‘Imād Ad-Din Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Umar. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm (Tafsīr Ibn Kathir, Urdu Tr. Junagarhi,
Muḥammad). Vol. I, p. 508.
42
Ibn Kathīr. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm. Vol. V, p. 216.
Page 25 of 75
condone sodomy (liwāṭ) with men as well as women.43 Regarding 29:28-30, Ibn Kathīr
explains that messengers and prophets before Lūṭ had encountered infidelity, opposition,
refusal to accept their call and denial of Allah’s commandments by their people but Lūṭ was
the first messenger to have encountered liwāṭ and other homosexual acts. They even
organized gatherings to commit group homosexual activities openly. 44
Another classical interpretation of the Quran that continues to enjoy authenticity and
popularity even today is the Tafsīr of the Two Jalāls (Tafsīr al-Jalālayn), co-authored by
Jalāluddīn al-Maḥalli, the Egyptian Shāfā’iee scholar of Quran and Islamic Jurisprudence,
and his student Jalāluddīn al-Suyūti, also a celebrated scholar, historian, jurist and one of the
most prolific writers of the Middle Ages. The Tafsīr supports the view that verses 04:15-16
refer to homosexual intercourse and the moderate punishments laid out in these verses were
abrogated when the verses with actual punishments were revealed in the twenty-fourth
chapter.45 It also forthrightly states that the “Fāḥishah” (lewdness/abomination) mentioned in
Quran 07:80 refers to sodomy (“penetrating rears of men”). Ibn Kathīr’s explanation of Lūṭ’s
insistence on being “pure” (07:82) is upheld by al-Suyūti that it referred to his refusal to
condone sodomy.46 Also, the Tafsīr claims that the people of Lūṭ indulged in homosexual
sodomy47 as well as heterosexual sodomy.48
Next, we have taken up a relatively modern exegesis of the Quran, authored by British-
Indian exegete Abdullah Yusuf Alī, whose commentary “has become among the most widely
43
Ibn Kathīr. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm. Vol. II, pp. 185-87. Ibn Kathīr cites a tradition from Ibn Abbas in support.
44
Ibn Kathīr. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm. Vol. IV, p. 136.
45
Al-Maḥalli, Jalāluddīn and Al-Suyūti, Jalāluddīn (English Tr. Hamza, Feras). Tafsīr Jalālayn, p. 75.
46
Al-Maḥalli and Al-Suyūti. Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, pp. 141-42.
47
Al-Maḥalli and Al-Suyūti. Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, p. 302.
48
Page 26 of 75
known English Translations of the Quran”.49 In his commentary to Quran 07:80, Alī also
states that the angels that visited Lūṭ were “in the shape of handsome young men.”50 Under
29:29, Alī states that the context of the verse suggests that the people of Lūṭ did not cut off
the highway to attempt highway robberies but it “seems to refer to their own special horrible
crime, and the point here seems to be that they were not ashamed of it and they practiced it
publicly”, also adding, “Degradation can go no further.”51 Notable is that Alī does not see the
necessity to elaborate upon the nature of the “moral degradation” of the people of Lūṭ.
Although his translation of the verses is similar to the ones we have mentioned before, he
refers to it as their “unspeakable crimes, which were against all laws of nature”, 52 their
“effrontery”,53 their “crime…was against their own nature”,54 their “grossness and sins…
bring shame on their own physical and moral nature”,55 they were “given to unspeakable
abominations”,56 they were a “people inflamed with evil passions”,57 they were destroyed for
“their unspeakable sins” and that they had a “lust for unnatural crime”. 58
The last commentary to feature in this list is the recently published modern exegesis entitled
The Study Quran prepared by a number of American scholars with Seyyed Hossein Nasr
serving as the Editor-in-Chief. The commentary represents a diverse range of Islamic
perspectives, including Sunni and Shiite sources, and mystical linguistic, historical, and
49
Mohammed, Khaleel. “Assessing English Translations of the Quran”. Middle East Quarterly. Spring 2005: pp.
58-71.
50
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Quran: Text, Translation and Commentary. Footnote 1049, p. 363.
51
Ali. The Holy Quran. Footnote 3450, p. 1036.
52
Ali. The Holy Quran. Footnote 3449; p. 1036.
53
54
55
56
57
58
Page 27 of 75
philosophical commentaries. With regard to homosexual acts, the commentary states that
though the meaning of “W-al-Ladhāni” (Quran 04:16), which it translates as “two of those
among you” is debated, it may refer to those “guilty of homosexual act among two men” and
combining it with the previous verse “may refer to those guilty of female homosexual acts”. 59
The “indecency” referred to in 07:80-81 denotes “the practice of homosexuality and sodomy
specifically”. Consistent with the erstwhile discussed exegeses, the commentary states that
the people belonging to the nation of Lūṭ “preferred sexual relations with men to relations
with women on a regular basis”. It also eliminates the idea that the “real crime” of the people
was forcible sodomy60 as opposed to consensual homosexual relations, and underscores the
emphasis laid in 07:81, 26:165-66, 27:55 and 29:29 plainly on “the act of men desiring men
instead of women”.61 The angels had come to Lūṭ in the form of “handsome male youths”
which distressed Lūṭ because he feared that the men among his people “would attempt to
have sexual relations with them”.62 The commentary cites Tafsīr al-Kabīr by Imām
Fakhruddin Razi in its explanation of 27:54-55 that “part of their sin was that they were open
about their illicit activity and did not seek to keep it from view, and, it went against the
Wisdom of God, who did not create men sexually for men”. 63 The commentary also departs
from other exegeses in its explanation of 29:29 that the words “cut off the way” do not only
refer to obstructing roads and highways literally but given the context, refer to their cutting
off the way to having children on account of their homosexual sodomy. 64 It may thus be
59
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (editor). The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary. 04:16c.
60
This issue has been discussed at length in section “Modern Debate”, pp. 48-62 of this thesis.
61
Nasr. The Study Quran. 07:80-81c. Also cf. commentary to 29:28-29c.
62
Nasr. The Study Quran. 11:77-79c.
63
64
Page 28 of 75
concluded that the commentary cites impeding procreation on account of homosexual acts as
the reason for condemnation of liwāṭ in the Quran.
It becomes evident now that all these commentaries irrespective of the century they were
written in, have tremendously similar strands. We have only mentioned those exegeses
which command authority among the Muslim world, especially the ones authored in the
early periods. The early commentaries (along with Aḥādīth and Fiqh) have had a profound
impact on shaping the belief of Muslims throughout the world in all periods of history.
Inferring from the indications given in the Quran that the people of Sodom and its
surrounding towns were punished due to their pursuit of men rather than women for
satisfaction of sexual desires, all the commentaries have posited it as a transgression of limits
set by Allah. Notwithstanding that the relevant passages and verses of the Quran do not
specifically mention the acts that the people of Lūṭ had been committing, Muslim jurists and
Quranic commentators have always identified “the act of the people of Lūṭ” with liwāṭ.
They explain that the natural way of attaining the said satisfaction is from the opposite
gender and not the same. This thought is found in all the commentaries written in all parts of
the Muslim world in all periods of history, reflecting the opinion of the mainstream Muslims.
Although recently there have been attempts at re-reading these passages from the Quran
(discussed separately), the majority of Muslims consider this to be their correct
interpretation.
3.3. Homosexual Acts in Ḥadīth
Ḥadīth is a saying, action or tacit approval ascribed to the Prophet, which the vast majority
of all denominations of Muslims consider next in authority only to the Quran. Pertaining to
Page 29 of 75
homosexuality, the Aḥādīth discuss it specifically in the context of physical acts like sodomy
and the acts that may lead up to it, whether homosexual or heterosexual in nature: 65
1. “The Prophet used to forbid mu’ākama, that is two men or two women mingling
with each other while naked, or mukā’ama, that is two persons of the same gender
pressing the lips upon each other’s mouth.”66
2. The Prophet said, “…cursed is he who has sexual intercourse with an animal too;
cursed is he who does as the people of Lūṭ did;67 those who you find doing as the
people of Lūṭ did, kill the active as well as the passive party.”68
3. The Prophet said, “Whoever gratifies his sexual urge with another (individual) of
his own sex, Almighty will not so much as look at him”.69
4. The Prophet said, “If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both adulteresses. If
a man comes upon a man, they are both adulterers.”70
5. The Prophet said, “If you find anyone doing as Lūṭ’s people did, kill the one who
does it, and the one to whom it is done.”71
6. The Prophet said, “If a man who is not married is seized while committing sodomy,
he will be stoned to death.”72
65
Since sodomy can be homosexual and heterosexual, therefore we have mentioned Aḥādīth pertaining to both.
66
Ibn Abī Shaybah, Abū Bakr. Musannaf. Vol. IV, p. 397, Musnad Aḥmad (4:134).
67
This part is repeated up to three times in some narrations.
68
Sunan Abī Dawood, Jāmi’ Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Mājah, Musnad Aḥmad (2817), and Sunan Nasa’ee (7337).
69
Jāmi’ al-Tirmidhi (1:148).
70
Tabarani. Mu’jam al-Awsat (4157). Bayhaqi. Su’ab al-Iman (5075). Musnad Aḥmad (10460).
71
Sunan Abī Dawood (4447). Jāmi’ al-Tirmidhi (1456). Sunan Ibn Majah (2561). Musnad Aḥmad (2732).
72
Sunan Abī Dawood (4448).
Page 30 of 75
7. The Prophet said, “God has cursed those who slaughter to other than God, and God
has cursed those who alter the signposts in the land, and God has cursed those who
lead the blind off the path, and God has cursed those who curse their parents, and
God has cursed those who take as patrons those who are not their patrons, and God
has cursed those who commit the act of the people of Lot, and God has cursed
those who commit the act of the people of Lot, and God has cursed those who
commit the act of the people of Lot.”73
8. The Prophet said, “There is nothing I fear for my followers more than the deed of the
people of Lūṭ.”74
9. The Prophet said, “If sodomites become common, Allah, the Glorious and Exalted,
will wash His hand of mankind and not care in which abyss they perish”.75
10. The Prophet said, “Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, has no regard for a man who has
intercourse with a man or a woman in her anus”.76
11. The Prophet said, “Four will face the anger of Allah and witness the wrath of Allah:
men who adopt the antics of women; women who adopt the antics of men; he who
commits bestiality; and he who sodomizes men”.77
73
Musnad Aḥmad (2915). Sunan Nasa’ee (6:485-486).
74
Jāmi’ al-Tirmidhi (1457); Sunan Ibn Mājah (2563).
75
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Ali. Al-Zawajir, 2:139-40.
76
Ibn Hajar. Al-Zawajir, 2:139-40.
77
Ibn Hajar. Al-Zawajir, 2:139-40.
Page 31 of 75
12. The Prophet said, “If anyone has intercourse with his wife when she is menstruating,
or has intercourse with his wife through her anus, he has nothing to do with what
has been sent down to Muḥammad”.78
13. The Prophet said, “Allah is not shy to tell you the truth: do not have intercourse with
your wives in the anus”.79
14. The Prophet said, “On the day of Resurrection, Allah will not look at the man who
had intercourse with his wife in her anus”.80
15. The Prophet said, “[Make love to your wife] from the front or the back, but avoid the
anus and intercourse during menstruation”.81
16. The Prophet said, “He who has intercourse with his wife through her anus is
accursed”.82
One may notice that Aḥādīth like the ones we have quoted refrain from explicitly mentioning
the details of homosexual acts (particularly liwāṭ) and generally refer to them as “the act of
the people of Lūṭ.” This may be because “the act of the people of Lūṭ” was a matter of
common understanding among Companions and did not require an explanation. Later,
however, when the different Schools of jurisprudence evolved, the actions of Lūṭ’s people
were discussed at length. From the abovementioned Aḥādīth, it may be concluded that the
Prophet did not approve of liwāṭ, irrespective of the genders of the participants. Not only did
the Prophet not approve of them, the Aḥādīth go on to condemn them, and also prescribe
78
79
Musnad Aḥmad (5:213).
80
Jāmi’ Tirmidhi (1165).
81
Musnad Aḥmad, Jāmi’ Tirmidhi.
82
Page 32 of 75
punishments for those indulging in them. Sexual acts between the same genders in the
Aḥādīth have invited great censure and indulging in them earn the disgust and “curse” of
Allah. Of the sixteen Aḥādīth that we have quoted above, six of them curse those engaging in
liwāṭ. It may also be noted that one Ḥadīth from the above sixteen prohibits acts that may
lead up to same gender sexual acts like kissing on the lips and mingling with each other
naked. The Aḥādīth also do not differentiate between homosexual sexual acts between men
and between women. In fact, the fourth Ḥadīth cited above terms any two members of the
same gender having sexual encounter as adulterers/adulteresses. This may support the
principle, which later became a matter of common understanding between jurists, that sexual
acts are permissible only within a lawful heterosexual marriage. Same sex marriage was
unfathomable at the time. Three of the Aḥādīth cited even prescribe capital punishment for
those engaging in liwāṭ. Liwāṭ even with one’s legal wife is declared prohibited, excluding
any possibility of its permissibility outside of marriage, or between same genders.
It may be reasonable to believe that since there are dozens of Aḥādīth that take a strong note
of homosexual acts, the Prophet may have dealt with a few lūṭīs during his lifetime and ruled
against them. However, none of the Seerah books give any account of the Prophet
encountering any such person. The presence of multiple Aḥādīth directing the treatment to be
doled out for liwāṭ or “the act of the people of Lūṭ” is justified by their appearance in those
sections in the books of Ḥadīth that explain the different passages of the Quran. In other
words, these Aḥādīth were uttered by the Prophet when he was explaining the Quranic Lūṭ
passages to his Companions, and not when he encountered a sodomite.

Page 33 of 75
JURIDICAL HISTORY
As mentioned in section “Islam and Homosexuality” (pp. 14-15) of this study, the concept of
homosexuality as it is understood today was absent in the early and medieval Muslim world
among jurists. The reason for mentioning Aḥādīth related to homosexual and heterosexual
sodomy with other homosexual activities in the previous section is that Muslim jurists clearly
differentiated between sodomy and sexual activities apart from (or lesser than) sodomy,
irrespective of gender. It is really unfortunate that almost all scholars who have worked on
this subject have taken the term ‘homosexuality’ completely for granted without taking into
account the important nuances and intricate differences that the modern understanding of the
Page 34 of 75
term presents in comparison to its treatment prior to the nineteenth century CE. The Shari’ah
(Islamic Constitutional Law) does not differentiate between sexual acts based on gender
which is a taxonomy of late nineteenth century CE appropriate to the contemporary world. It
differentiates between ḥalāl (licit) and ḥarām (illicit) sexual relations. What was harshly
dealt with by the Prophet and Rashidun Caliphs and later the different schools of fiqh was
sodomy which is considered ḥarām by all schools of fiqh (also called madhhab) through
consensus. A man who would indulge in anal intercourse with another man or woman was
called a lūṭī and the practice was called liwāṭ. Both the terms, though not found in the Quran
or Aḥādīth, were coined by jurists and emanate from the name of Messenger Lūṭ, it being the
practice of his people. Sexual acts short of liwāṭ whether homosexual or heterosexual,
although considered reprehensible, evoked less severe reactions by different schools of fiqh.
Liwāṭ is therefore a narrower concept than homosexuality as it focuses on a particular act
(irrespective of the gender it is committed with) whereas homosexuality is defined as a
sexual orientation rather than just an act.
Although the Prophet himself never encountered a sodomite in his life, 83 his directives
pertaining to liwāṭ continued to dictate the outlook vis-à-vis sodomy, expressly, the people of
Lūṭ were punished on account of their indulgence in “an obscenity which no one before you
has committed among the worlds” (29:28). Predictably, the Rāshidūn Caliphs continued to
award death sentences to those convicted of it, although the methods varied. For instance, the
first caliph of Islam, Abū Bakr resorted to having brick wall toppled over lūṭīs whereas ‘Alī
bin Abī Tālib, the fourth caliph, ordered death by stoning (rajm) or had the sodomite thrown
83
Khan, Muḥammad Aftab. Sex and Sexuality in Islam, p. 710. This is excluding the mukhannath or “effeminate
men” who may be put under the rubrics of transgender, hermaphrodites and genderqueers.
Page 35 of 75
headfirst from the highest building in town. 84 It is also reported that on the advice of ‘Alī,
Abū Bakr had a sodomite burnt alive.85 These punishments were prescribed through a
consensus reached by eminent Companions like Khālid Ibn Walīd, ‘Abdullah Ibn Zubair,
Khālid Ibn Zaid, ‘Abdullah Ibn Mu’ammar, among others. 86 ‘Umar, the second caliph, ruled
that a lūṭī should be taken under the roof of a dilapidated building which should be tumbled
down on him.87 ‘Uthmān Ibn ‘Affān, the third caliph, ruled that a lūṭī who has never married
should be given a hundred whip lashes, otherwise, he is to be put to death by the ruling of
‘Umar.88 ‘Abdullah Ibn Abbas, a cousin of the Prophet and considered by Muslims one of the
earliest and the greatest Mufassir of the Quran, ruled that “the sodomite should be thrown
from the highest building in the town and then stoned”. 89 These punishments were
extrapolated from the Quranic passages of the divine punishment meted out to the people of
Lūṭ, and their harshness was justified by the intention of preventing people from indulging in
an indecent sexual act for which an entire nation was destroyed by divine will.
The three centuries following the demise of the Prophet were witness to rapid emergence of
dozens of schools of thought within Islamic fiqh (by one estimate, 54) most of which dealt at
length with liwāṭ and homosexual activities. Based on the Quranic Lūṭ passages, Aḥādīth,
84
Wafer, Jim. “Muḥammad and Male Homosexuality”. Murray, Stephena and Roscoe, Will (editors); Islamic
Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature, p. 90.
85
Sheik, Mufti Allie Haroun. Sexual Issues in Modern Era and It’s Solution in Islam, p. 389. According to Ibn
Qayyim, Abū Bakr had dispatched Khālid Ibn Walīd on a military expedition when the latter encountered a person
who offered himself for sodomy to people. Since this was unprecedented and strange, Khālid wrote to the Caliph,
Abū Bakr, soliciting his instruction. The Caliph summoned his advisory council and presented the case. Alī
suggested that “since it concerned the unnatural act of the people of Prophet Lūṭ, the punishment for the culprit
should also correspond to theirs, and he should be consigned to flames. Abū Bakr liked and accepted this opinion
and wrote back to Khālid Ibn Walīd prescribing this punishment” (cf. Ibn Qayyim. Al-Jawab al-Kafi, p. 229).
86
Haroun. Sexual Issues in the Modern World, p. 389.
87
Khan. Sex and Sexuality in Islam, p. 710.
88
Brown, Jonathan A.C. “A Pre-Modern Defense of Ḥadīth against Sodomy”. The American Journal of Islamic
Social Sciences. Vol. 34, No. 03, 2017: p. 29.
89
Wafer. “Muhammad and Male Homosexuality”, p. 90.
Page 36 of 75
Rāshidūn Caliphs and other Companions, Muslim religious scholars across all schools of
thought unanimously upheld the belief that liwāṭ was one of the most abominable sins a
person could commit.90 Thus, on account of many Aḥādīth of the Prophet instructing to deal
strictly with sodomy, all schools of fiqh prescribe harsh punishments for it. The general
principle was that sexual relations become licit within lawful heterosexual marriage only,
and all sexual relations including those pertaining to same-sex sexual acts which are
performed outside of such a marriage are commensurate with zinā (adultery/fornication),
which in Islamic belief is regarded inferior only to unbelief (kufr), shirk (polytheism,
associating partners with Allah) and murder, and both invite punishments. Homosexual
sodomy may then be classified as either fornication or adultery or both, and according to
most of the schools of fiqh, draws the same punishments as those crimes/sins. On the other
hand, touching, gazing at, or being in seclusion with women or young men were considered
reprehensible because such acts were regarded as preludes to a major sin (zinā). The
Shari’ah considers it as an infringement upon the ḥaqq (right) of Allah and for such
crimes/sins, the Quran prescribes a punishment (called a ḥadd).91 Anal intercourse in
juridical law was discussed within this framework.
We shall now discuss the rulings of six schools of fiqh that command the adherence of the
largest segments of Muslim world.
4.1. Ḥanafī School of Islamic Jurisprudence
Eponymously founded after Imām Abu Hanīfah, the Ḥanafī School of Islamic Jurisprudence
is the first major school of fiqh to have emerged in Baghdad after the demise of the Prophet.
90
El-Rouayheb, Khaled. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800, p. 03.
91
El-Rouayheb. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, p. 118.
Page 37 of 75
In its methodology, the School mostly relies on the interpretation of Quran and use of logic,
reason and rationality, also giving deference to Ḥadīth. With regard to liwāṭ, the School
came up with a unique position inasmuch as it does not deem it to be a variant of zinā and
thus not attracting ḥadd. The reason behind such a ruling was that the School considers zinā
only as vaginal intercourse between a heterosexual couple legally forbidden to each other.
Homosexual and heterosexual liwāṭ was different because it did not have the same
repercussions for which zinā had been prohibited. It also noted that ḥadd can only be
prescribed for those crimes punishment for which is prescribed by waḥī (revelation), like
highway robbery, drinking alcohol, adultery, slander, and theft. Whereas the punishment for
zinā also fulfills this condition, liwāṭ does not. This is the reason, according to the School,
that the modes of punishment awarded by the Companions of the Prophet to the lūṭīs varied
(as we have noted in case of Rāshidūn Caliphs).92 Thus, the consensus among Ḥanafī jurists
was that crimes related to liwāṭ should be punished by ta’zīr (discretionary chastisement)
giving the judges the authority to determine the appropriate punishment which was usually
less severe than ḥadd. For instance, if the punishment prescribed was flagellation, the
number of lashes must not go beyond thirty-nine, forty being the lowest number of lashes in
a ḥadd. Another mode of punishment was imprisonment but repeat offenders could also be
awarded capital punishment.93 In the opinion of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, the repeat offender
should be put to death by throwing him/her from a high altitude followed by rajm.94
However, with the evolution of the science of Ḥadīth, the Ḥanafī ruling also evolved. For
92
Cf. pp. 34-35 of this study.
93
Rehman, Javaid and Polymenopoulou, Eleni. “Is Green Part of the Rainbow? Sharia, Homosexuality and LGBT
Rights in the Muslim World”. Fordham International Law Journal. Vol. 37, No. 1, 2013 (Article 7): p. 12.
94
Ibn Kathīr. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm. Vol. II, p. 187. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah extrapolated this from the fate of the
people of Lūṭ (Quran 11:82-83).
Page 38 of 75
instance, the Ḥanafī scholar Abū Ja’far al-Tahāwi held that liwāṭ should be punished like a
ḥadd crime.95 During the Ottoman period, when Ḥanafī School was the official madhhab of
the Caliphate, an active sodomite (i.e. the penetrator) was fined according to his income and
marital status (unmarried merited a comparatively lenient punishment than married) whereas
the punishment meted out to the passive sodomite (i.e. the penetrated) was a fine and
lashes.96 The disparity in punishments was more influenced by culture and gender roles
associated with it. It was viewed that although the penetrator did not violate conventional
gender role (which was insertive), he still transgressed the limits set by Allah, whereas the
penetrated (or the receptive) man was stereotyped as effeminate and perceived to suffer from
a pathological condition.97
4.2. Mālikī School of Islamic Jurisprudence
The Mālikī School came up with one of the most severe punishments for the sodomites. It
was also unique from other schools as it differentiated between heterosexual sodomy and
homosexual sodomy. It deemed the former as an illicit “vaginal” intercourse (i.e. zinā)
attracting punishment commensurate with zinā and latter was to be awarded capital
punishment through rajm.98
4.3. Shāfi’ī School of Islamic Jurisprudence
The Shāfā’iee School considered liwāṭ as a variant of zinā but it came up with an atypical
form of punishment. A lūṭī, whether he had committed homosexual or heterosexual liwāṭ,
was liable to death by rajm if the offender was a muḥṣan.99 The passive sodomite was
95
Brown. “A Pre-modern Defense of Ḥadīth against Sodomy”, p. 5.
96
El-Rouayheb. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, pp. 118-19.
97
98
Rehman and Polymenopoulou. “Is Green Part of the Rainbow?” p. 12.
99
A muḥṣan is a person—male or female—who may have once consummated a legally valid marriage.
Page 39 of 75
however never liable to stoning. Imām Shāfi’ī himself advocated capital punishment,
irrespective of marital status.100 The passive sodomite, he opined, even if he be married,
should be flogged, and then banished.101
4.4. Ḥanbalī School of Islamic Jurisprudence
The Ḥanbalī School prescribed the same punishment for liwāṭ and the one committing an
illicit vaginal intercourse. However, the marital status determined the severity of the
punishment. The punishment for a muḥṣan was unconditional stoning to death whereas a
person who was never married was liable to a hundred lashes. For slaves coming in the
second category, the punishment was fixed at fifty lashes.102
4.5. Ṣalafī School of Islamic Jurisprudence
The Ṣalafī School that has attracted large following particularly in the Middle East from the
eighteenth century, draws inspiration from Imām Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal, Imām Ibn Taymiyyah,
Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Imām Muḥammad bin Abdul Waḥḥāb and some other
scholars. The School is particularly inclined towards opposing juridical scholasticism 103
calling for a return to the primary sources of Islamic law, the Quran and Sunnah. The School
departs from Ḥanbalī School’s ruling on punishment for sodomy and prescribes a stricter
punishment, advocating capital punishment regardless of marital status.
4.6. Twelver Shiite School of Islamic Jurisprudence
100
Ibn Kathīr. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm. Vol. II, p. 187.
101
102
103
By opposing juridical scholasticism, Ṣalafī School considers the Quran and Sunnah to be self-explanatory and
thus rejects the use of interpretation and human reasoning, as employed by other schools.
Page 40 of 75
The Twelver Shiite School is the most severe in its ruling regarding the punishment meted
out to lūṭīs. The ruling of the School is capital punishment for active as well passive lūṭīs
irrespective of marital status.104 Homosexual activities apart from liwāṭ which are considered
minor sins by all Sunni Schools of jurisprudence and punishable by ta’zīr are deemed here as
major sins, punishable by a hundred lashes and capital punishment for four-time offenders.
Those who exceeded the deeds beyond three times were considered addicted to them and
were given a death sentence to nip the indecency from spreading further. It was not
uncommon for Shi’a jurists to prescribe stricter punishments. 105
From the above discussion it is possible to conclude that excepting the Ḥanafī School, all
other major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence (both Sunni and Shia) consider homosexual
liwāṭ as ḥarām, analogous to heterosexual zinā. From the time of the first Caliph, those men
who habitually, and regularly engaged in homosexual liwāṭ were regarded as having a mental
disorder.106 Most jurists however tended to reduce the severity of ḥadd punishments on
account of a Prophetic tradition by giving the offenders the benefit of doubt which in
juridical terminology, is called shubhah (literally, “resemblance”). However, certain areas
were still kept out of its applicability. For example, all the Schools unanimously agreed that
permissibility of sexual intercourse with slaves as stated in the Quran only applied to the
female slaves. Since the issue was discussed at length in fiqh books in the medieval world, it
points to the fact that legal cases of such nature may have had surfaced in courts. Some
scholars even termed those people “apostate” who interpreted such Quranic verses to justify
104
105
106
Page 41 of 75
liwāṭ with male slaves.107 Another aspect of the issue that was discussed among jurists was
whether liwāṭ was more or less serious than heterosexual zinā. Rulings of Mālikī and
Twelver Shiite Schools make it evident that they considered it a serious sin than zinā.
Though other schools did not have a definite ruling, it was common understanding that liwāṭ
was more abhorrent among the two. This understanding was based on two factors. Firstly,
the tone of the Quranic passages and Prophetic traditions condemning liwāṭ is ghastlier than
those condemning zinā. Some scholars even suggested that since Allah destroyed a nation on
account of liwāṭ, it means that the inviolability of the anus is greater than that of the vagina.
Secondly, there is a repulsiveness of liwāṭ, i.e., it is opposed to natural disposition and
repugnant to people of “sound character”.108 Notable however is that those who engaged in
this act were still not thought to be pathologically abnormal but as being morally weak. The
rationalization of those jurists who thought of liwāṭ as less despicable than vaginal zinā
mainly revolved around one factor that it did not lead to a confusion in lineages. 109
4.7. Acts Short of Liwāṭ
From the above discussion, it is possible to conclude that the Islamic legal tradition
unequivocally prohibits liwāṭ and considers it as a major sin. However, physical acts lesser
than liwāṭ evoked relatively lenient attitude, although they were still considered minor sins.
A person could never be held accountable for having homosexual desires and feelings. The
general principle was that a person becomes a lūṭī only when he/she commits liwāṭ, his/her
107
108
109
El-Rouayheb. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, pp. 127-28. Since a woman who gave birth after
having multiple sexual partners made the paternity of the child dubious, this was considered more serious than anal
intercourse which did not lead to creation of life and subsequent confusion in lineage.
Page 42 of 75
feelings and desires are irrelevant.110 In other words, a person who has urges to commit liwāṭ,
but does not act upon them, or a person who intends to commit it but for some reason does
not, shall not be considered a lūṭī. This is based on the Prophetic tradition that even if a
person intends to commit a bad deed, the deed itself is not recorded until the person actually
does it.
Homosexual acts short of liwāṭ like caressing, kissing, or mufākadhah (intercrural
intercourse) were considered abhorrent and preliminaries to a major sin (i.e. liwāṭ) and
attracted chastisement but nevertheless not at par with liwāṭ. This was the general ruling of
all four schools of fiqh within the Sunni side. The Mālikī School considers homosexual liwāṭ
(when the glans enters the anus) as fornication which merits ḥadd punishments, and sexual
acts short of this do not qualify for ḥadd punishment such as mufākadhah. Similarly, in the
Shāfā’iee School, although liwāṭ is treated at par with zinā and merits ḥadd punishments,
sexual acts in which no actual penetration is involved do not attract ḥadd punishments. The
Ḥanbalī School has similar rulings according to which for an act to qualify as zinā, at least
the glans must be inserted into the orifice (vagina or anus), and any act short of this does not
merit ḥadd punishments. In all four Sunni Schools of fiqh, both heterosexual and homosexual
liwāṭ merited the same punishment, and this principle by default dictated the Schools’
treatment of lesbianism (siḥāq) that since there is no penetration, ḥadd would not be
applicable on women engaged in it. It was thus expounded that non-penetrative sexual
intercourse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not a major sin and should be punished
through ta’zīr, unless done repeatedly. The Shāfā’iee scholar Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytami goes on
110
Kutty, Faisal. “Why Gay Marriage May Not Be Contrary to Islam”. The Huffington Post Canada
(www.huffingtonpost.ca). 27 March 2014.
Page 43 of 75
to say that a man or a woman looking at a boy with lust does not breach the juridical status of
being “of good character”111 that makes one worthy to be a witness in a court of law. Mālikī
scholar Muḥammad al-Dasuqi qualifies al-Haytami’s statement that one is of sound character
and eligible to be a witness when looking with lust at a beardless boy or a woman is not
habitual.112
On account of adolescent and young adult boys attracting attention, scholars like Al-
Haytami, ‘Alwan al-Hamawi and Muḥammad Ali Ibn Allan believed that looking at them
could serve as temptation and deserved to be prohibited. These scholars based their rulings
on several Aḥādīth of the Prophet who disapproved gazing at beardless youths “for they have
eyes more tempting than the hūrīs”. They ruled that looking at beardless boys, touching them
or even being alone with them was not allowed, irrespective of whether one feels lust or
temptation or not. Ibn Allan writes, “Many of them (beardless boys) are more attractive than
many women. Indeed they are more worthy of prohibition, since it is easier to gain access to
vice in their case than in the case of women”. Others like ‘Abdul Karim al-Rāfi’i allowed
looking at youths in absence of lust but Ḥanbalī scholar Mansur al-Buhuti qualifies this
ruling by stating that if the boy is beautiful and one fears temptation, habitual gazing is not
permissible. On the other hand, some scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah believed that it is
impossible for a person who habitually gazes at beardless boys to not feel lust and such
claims would tantamount to lying. According to them, only looking at boys “with the
intention of obtaining pleasure and delighting the eye with his charms” without desiring
fornication still does not make one free from sin. Some even authorized parents to restrict the
111
112
El-Rouayheb. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World.
Page 44 of 75
movement of their young legally mature sons if they were handsome. Similarly, some Ḥanafī
scholars considered it to be makrūh (disliked) for attractive beardless youth to lead prayers.
In all these instances, the argument was that a handsome youth is like women, both present
temptation to adult men.113
There was even a notion that a man who has died from unconsummated love for a boy may
earn the status of a martyr. This was because falling in love is an involuntary act, and since
the person chose not to act on his attraction out of religious concerns, respecting the limits
set by Allah, his desire goes beyond the reach of religious condemnation. On the contrary, he
earns merits. Ibn al-Haytami writes that if a person falls in love with a boy, and he keeps the
love chaste and a secret, and dies in the meantime, “it is not implausible that it should then
be said that he is a martyr, since there is no transgression involved”. 114 Similar statements are
also recorded from scholars of other Schools all stressing that the process must be
involuntary, chaste and secret.115
113
114
115
Page 45 of 75
MEDIEVAL ARABIC POETRY
There is an overwhelming collection of medieval pederastic love poetry that has come down
to us particularly from Middle Eastern literature. This indicates that the jurists in the Middle-
Ages considered love for young boys far from liwāṭ and Ḥanafī and Shāfā’iee jurists in
particular permitted it on the condition that the subject’s identity is not exposed. They also
imposed the qualification that pederastic love poetry must be composed only to exhibit
poetic skills rather than express lustful inclinations for a particular boy. This contrasted with
the position of older jurists of these schools who held that love poetry was impermissible
regardless of the specification of subject’s identity. A possible reason may be that later jurists
were forced to accommodate love poetry due to the rise of such compositions in the genre.
Scholars of the Ḥanbalī and Twelver Shiite Schools were of the opinion that pederastic love
poetry is completely forbidden on the premise that love poetry could only be composed for a
subject that is available for a licit sexual relationship (like wife or concubine). Any love
Page 46 of 75
poetry whose subject was anybody other than wife or concubine, according to them, was
prohibited.116
The condition that love poetry must not reveal the identity of the subject was however often
neglected by poets, an issue acknowledged by the jurists. However, this phenomenon still
could not be counted as liwāṭ or a major sin because all that the poets were doing was
composing poetry which the jurists considered lacking in propriety. Comparing this with
“minor sins” like mufākadhah makes it even less significant, a view held by jurists. Due to
such leniency by jurists, a large collection of poetry of such classification emerged
unhindered. Many scholars composed their own pederastic love poetry because they did not
consider it to be anywhere near to liwāṭ at all.
Adoring a person of the same gender was thus an inalienable part of medieval Arabic poetry.
As the Arab/Islamic world began to be influenced by the post-Renaissance Europe, it
gradually started to detest the expression of love for the same sex (especially young boys) in
their poetry, as this was unheard of in European literature and vernacular. An Englishman,
Joseph Pitts, during his stay in Algiers in the second half of the seventeenth century,
expressed his bewilderment that it was common for men there to fall in love with boys just as
men in England fell in love with women.117 In a similar fashion, the Egyptian scholar Rifah
al-Tahtawi, who was in Paris between 1826 and 1831, considers it as a “laudable trait” of
Europeans that they are not inclined towards loving male youths and “eulogizing them in
poetry”. He writes that the French language does not allow a person to express love for a
person of the same gender and even if one attempts so, it would be “unacceptable and
116
117
Page 47 of 75
awkward wording”.118 Moroccan scholar Muḥammad al-Saffar, who visited Paris in the
middle of the nineteenth century CE, expresses astonishment that the people of Paris do not
flirt, and enjoy courtship of boys or young men.119 Although there may be exaggeration in
such observations, it is evident that the cessation of tolerance of such poetry came after the
eighteenth century CE, owing to the eagerness of modern educated Muslims to adopt the
European Victorian attitudes where according to al-Tahtawi, “this (love of boys is) an
example of moral corruption”.120 This does not mean that attitudes towards pederastic love
poetry changed overnight as some poets throughout nineteenth century continued to compose
it. The twentieth century saw a transition to a completely sturdy structure as such poetry
became highly detestable throughout the Arab world. The collections of poets that contained
sections of love poetry continued to be reprinted, but the pederastic parts were excluded. 121
By the middle of the twentieth century, Arab authors began clubbing all phenomena together
such as sodomy, and active pederasty, which had traditionally been differentiated as
shudhūdh jinsī (sexual perversions), with chaste love of boys, etc. As El-Rouayheb says,
“The use of the constituent term jinsī in the sense of “sexual” was itself a terminological
innovation, reflecting the influence of the new European concept of “sexuality.” 122 The literal
meaning of jins is genus or kind and was in the pre-modern Arabic discourse used to refer to
biological sex and gender but never sexuality.123 This new definition put such people who
came under it (modern homosexuals) apart from the normative behaviour of conscious desire
118
119
120
121
For instance, a highly redacted version of Abu Nuwas’ Diwan was published in 1932.
122
123
Page 48 of 75
for reproduction. This connotation thus endorsed the view that all forms of love for the same
sex were equally signs of pathological sickness and moral depravity. It does not give space to
chaste pederastic love poetry without differentiating from it sensual poetry.
MODERN DEBATE OVER LEGITIMIZING HOMOSEXUALITY IN ISLAM
The relevant Quranic verses, their exegeses from the earliest times, Aḥādīth, rulings from
Rāshidūn Caliphs, prominent Companions, and major schools of fiqh all point towards an
established illegitimacy — moral or religious — of homosexual acts, especially liwāṭ, in the
Islamic tradition. This view remained unchanged for fourteen centuries and continues to be
so among the majority of Muslims worldwide. However, towards the close of the twentieth
century CE, some members of the Muslim community (more commonly associated with
‘Muslims for Progressive Values’), predominantly living in countries where homosexuality
is legal and commonly accepted, have advocated for some leniency of Muslims’ perception
of homosexuality (including liwāṭ) within the religion. The Muslims residing in secular,
liberal democracies, where openly gay and lesbian people have found support from rights
groups advocating legal protection of sexual minorities including homosexuals, have had to
encounter this challenge from within as well as without the community. This situation has
been compounded by the growing insecurity and deteriorating mental health of young
homosexual members of the community who fear prejudice, censure, prejudgment and
Page 49 of 75
discrimination from their families and communities should they summon the courage to
‘come out’ to them. With such apprehensions in mind, many homosexual Muslims leave
their faith because the toll of their efforts to reconcile faith with sexuality is too high. As the
number of such people within the community is on the rise, some western Muslims feel the
need to revisit their religious heritage in order to reinterpret the prohibition within the
religion. Therefore, some Muslim scholars of such countries have tried to provide theological
validation to homosexual practices from within the Quran in the endeavour to prove that the
Quran does not prohibit homosexual acts and homosexuality as such and thus have turned
the tables over on the classical understanding of the relevant passages of the Quran. Scholars
like Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, Javaid Rehman, Eleni Polymenopoulou, Mustafa Akyol, Jim
Wafer, Stephen Murray and Faisal Kutty, among others, have worked with this methodology
but we find that Kugle’s work is the most exhaustive. One encounters several recurring
motifs while going through such literature. Foremost is Quranic revisionism of the story of
Lūṭ where scholars like Kugle advocate the condemnation of sexual violence and rape
emerging as lessons from the passages, rather than that of homosexual acts in general.
Another motif concerns the Ḥadīth. Scholars either question the validity and authority of the
entire corpus of Ḥadīth as a source of Shari’ah or reject those Aḥādīth pertaining to liwāṭ
only as dubious and fabricated. Other than these two voices, there is also a third one that of
the fiqh. Since all Schools of fiqh, along with earliest exegeses, consider liwāṭ (and by
extension other homosexual acts) abhorrent and prohibited, with the majority of them even
prescribing punishments for it, the progressive narrative includes emphasizing the necessity
of evolving a new fiqh that caters to the novel demands of the twenty-first century and doing
Page 50 of 75
away with what it deems to be outdated ones. The following discussion explains how these
motifs figure in the progressive narrative.
Scott Kugle has challenged the traditional understanding of the relevant Quranic passages
deemed as related to liwāṭ, siḥāq, and other homosexual acts, and reinterpreted the Quran,
while re-examining the corpus of Ḥadīth and Fiqh in an effort to alleviate the apprehensions
of homosexual Muslims struggling to reconcile faith with their sexual orientation. Although
there are many inconsistencies in his book Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on
Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims, 124 Kugle has undertaken a sustained research to
defend his views and challenge the Muslim perception of homosexuality. He advocates the
legalization of same-sex marriage among Muslims and blames patriarchal custom and
theological belief for the view that heterosexual marriages are the only normative form of
union. He even goes on to say that such belief makes one “in a troubling alliance with right-
wing parties who wish to coopt them as religious conservatives while disparaging them as
ethnic and religious minorities”.125 It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the book
and its arguments at length, but it is necessary to shed light on some of the arguments.
Kugle discusses a variety of causes that determine sexual orientation of a person like God’s
creation, biological variation, and early childhood experience but seems to incline towards
natural internal disposition. He notes that the Quran seems to condemn same sex acts only
when they are exploitative or violent and that it were the later texts like Aḥādīth and legal
texts that stigmatized homosexual relationships. According to Kugle, the Quran indirectly
124
We came to possess an e-book version of the book (epub format) and e-books do not have page numbers. All
references shall therefore mention name of the chapter only.
125
Kugle, Scott Siraj al-Haq. Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian and Transgender
Muslims. Chapter 5: Reforming Shari’a: Islamic Ethics of Same-Sex Marriage.
Page 51 of 75
observes homosexuals as part of God’s diverse creation without any condemnation. He
argues that these texts are not in accord with the Quran and hence their reliability is
questionable. Kugle claims that the Aḥādīth were compiled and legal texts formulated in
patriarchal societies that marginalized sexual minorities. Therefore, new avenues must be
searched to discover new possibilities for human fulfilment devoid of such presuppositions.
Ijtihād126 must be encouraged to find a new interpretation of religion and law. Kugle accuses
the patriarchal nature of society responsible for marginalizing all forms of diversity,
including sexual diversity, in which elder heterosexual males exerted their power over all
others and did not allow dignified roles for lesbian and gay people. Kugle also observes that
no positive acknowledgement of bisexuals is found in the Quran and that even within the
homosexual community, there is a form of resentment against bisexuals. He notes that the
Quran, as in case of the people of Lūṭ, condemned behavioural bisexuality 127 and was the
cause of classical Muslim jurists condemning liwāṭ. Kugle even goes on to say that
heterosexuality is patriarchal in essence because it does not allow other sexual minorities to
flourish.128
In the second chapter, Liberating Quran: Islamic Scripture, Kugle states that classical
interpretations were subject to disposition of Mufassirūn (which was patriarchy, and
homophobia) and modern homosexual Muslims resist such interpretations and advocate a
renewed interpretation that is better, “more accurate, more insightful, or more ethical – than
126
As opposed to Taqlīd (imitation), Ijtihād is the independent reasoning in Islamic Law which through
hermeneutics and rationality in which a Mujtahid seeks to find original interpretation of issues not precisely covered
by the Quran, the Sunnah and Ijmā’ (scholarly consensus).
127
As opposed to dispositional bisexuality, a behavioral bisexual person is the one who is inherently heterosexual
but engages in sexual activity with members of the same sex out of various reasons like curiosity, need for sexual
release etc. because the option of having sex with the same-sex is easily available.
128
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islam. Introduction.
Page 52 of 75
previous interpretations.” He also inserts ‘sexual diversity’ in the interpretation of Quranic
verses that discuss diversity in gender (male, female, and genderqueer), nations, and tribes
(inclusive of race, colour and language).129 For him, colour differences also include sexual
orientation. Kugle writes that the Quran only unambiguously talks about heterosexuality and
not the validity of homosexuality because the majority of people during the Prophet’s time
were heterosexuals and the small Muslim community that was under threat needed to grow,
which could happen through heterosexual marriage only.130 He extends this argument to
mean that the absence of mention of homosexual relationships in the Quran does not
tantamount to its prohibition.131
Coming to the passages regarding the people of Lūṭ, Kugle argues that seeking desires while
acknowledging God’s bounty (faḍl) and giving thanks to Him (shukr), without transgressing
others’ rights, is not reprehensible. He posits that it was on account of this “egoistic
satisfaction”132 that the people wanted to rape Lūṭ’s guests133 thus transgressing their rights,
and hence were condemned. He refers to passages from Kitab al-Muhallā bi’l Āthār written
by Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi who is of a similar view that the people of Lūṭ were condemned
not because of sodomy but on account of their rejection of Allah’s warnings and Lūṭ’s
prophethood and attempting to rape Lūṭ’s guests was one form of their infidelity. 134 Kugle
claims that medieval jurists condemned even same-sex platonic love and were not able to
129
Quran 04:01, 30:22 and 49:13.
130
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islam. Chapter 2: Liberating Qur’an: Islamic Scripture.
131
Kugle. “Sexual Diversity in Islam”. Muslims for Progressive Values (www.mpvusa.org), 2010.
132
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islām. Chapter 2: Liberating Quran: Islamic Scripture.
133
In other words, they undermined Lūṭ’s prophethood by denying him the right to give protection to his guests.
134
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islām. Chapter 2: Liberating Quran: Islamic Scripture. For Ibn Hazm’s passages, cf. Ibn
Hazm, Al-Muhalla; Vol. I; p. 393 (Part 12 on “the act of the Tribe of Lot”).
Page 53 of 75
distinguish “between sex and love, between acts and dispositions”. 135 According to Kugle,
the people of Lūṭ were actually heterosexual men who wanted to rape the male guests of Lūṭ
to deny his prophetic authority, and this urge was not driven by sexual desire or bodily
pleasure. Kugle also states that Lūṭ specifically condemned those men who wanted to rape
his guests and not all men in general who committed homosexuality. By Lūṭ’s story, Kugle
concludes that associating Lūṭ’s passages in the Quran to homosexual or heterosexual acts is
a narrow study of it whereas the essential issues that the passages address are violence and
coercion in sex. Kugle emphasizes the necessity of looking at Lūṭ’s story with the same lens
as the narratives of other prophets mentioned in the Quran. The ethical principle which thus
emerges from the story is that the Muslims should defend the vulnerable and the oppressed
(symbolized by Lūṭ’s guests). Kugle blames the “anti-homosexual bias” 136 of early
interpreters on the influence of the scriptures of Jews and Christians whose patriarchal
religious cultures were saturated with homophobia and misogyny. Thus, according to Kugle,
Lūṭ’s story is not about homosexuality at all but the condemnation of a people who rejected
Allah’s warnings and His prophet.137
In his efforts to project a positive identification of homosexuals in the Quran, Kugle first
cites Quran 42:49-50 according to which, he says, ‘aqīm alludes to homosexuals “whose
sexual orientation does not lead them to reproductive intercourse”. 138 Similarly, in support of
male homosexuality, Kugle quotes 24:31, and to validate lesbianism, he cites 24:60.
135
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islām. Chapter 2: Liberating Quran: Islamic Scripture. Kugle’s assertion is obviously
incongruous with the factual data we have presented in the fifth section of this study, Medieval Arabic Poetry (pp.
45-47), in which we have discussed at length the clear demarcation the classical jurists made in pederastic love
poetry between chaste love and obscene pederasty.
136
137
138
Page 54 of 75
According to Kugle these verses, not only provide a positive theological basis for
homosexuals but specially acknowledge them as exceptions to the rules of gender
segregation and allow them a social place within the family system. Kugle erroneously states
that classical Muslim scholars only condemned liwāṭ as an act without taking into account
the person’s intention or sexual orientation.139 In the fourth and fifth sections of this study,
we have already brought out the classification made by the jurists of different Schools of
Jurisprudence between intention or homosexual feelings, and the contingencies where these
feelings were translated into actual acts.140
With respect to Ḥadīth as a source of Shari’ah, Kugle puts the entire institution in dubiety.
According to him, the number of fabricated Aḥādīth that have crept into the corpus is
exponential with no definite way of identifying them and by the late medieval period,
Muḥaddithūn had given up the struggle of filtering them out. Kugle attributes the stringent
attitude of Muslims toward homosexuality in the modern world to the rise of Ṣalafī and
Waḥḥābī movements that reject juridical reasoning and emphasize “a literal meaning of
Ḥadīth without analysis of their origin or authenticity”.141 By making such a claim, Kugle
ignores the authenticity and validity of the science of Ḥadīth (called ‘Ilm al-Rijāl) which
took over three hundred years to evolve to perfection.142 Kugle takes Ḥadīth tradition
analogous to family in which the questioning of authority invites rebuke by elders and family
tradition. Just as homosexual Muslims challenge the heterosexual norms of the family, they
139
140
Cf. pp. 33-47 of this study.
141
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islam. Chapter 3: Critiquing Ḥadīth: Islamic Oral Tradition.
142
The goal of the science was to establish the trustworthiness and integrity of the narrators of Aḥādīth, using all
available sources, including religious and historic knowledge, in order to weed out unreliable Aḥādīth from the
reliable and authentic ones. The term ‘Ilm al-Rijal is used synonymously with Al-Jarḥ w-al Ta’dīl (discrediting and
accrediting) which is the criticism and established acceptance of Ḥadīth narrators.
Page 55 of 75
do the same by contesting the scriptural authority of Ḥadīth as a religious tradition. Kugle
notes that in doing so, they do not repudiate the Prophet himself, they only seek a reform of
Shari’ah.143 However, Kugle himself does not reject the authority of Ḥadīth/Sunnah and
seems to advocate that only those Aḥādīth are suspect that pertain to liwāṭ and other
homosexual acts.144
Kugle advocates a refurbishment of fiqh and “changing some rulings of the Shari’ah”145 so
that Muslims are able to adapt to new circumstances. He stresses on adoption of human
rights that incorporate homosexual rights and emphasizes a remodelling of Shari’ah to
develop a new fiqh that envisages homosexuality as non-normative but a positive element of
sexual diversity. Kugle endorses Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s dictum that unconditionally grants
basic human rights universally which are not divisible or reciprocal. Since all Schools of fiqh
regard liwāṭ as a major sin (as reflected by our account in section Juridical History, pp. 33-
44 of this study), Kugle expresses the desire that the opinion of homosexual Muslims (that
homosexuality should be legalized) be accepted by the majority of Muslims. However,
Kugle himself admits that even such a proposal is not even accepted by Muslims living in
countries where homosexuality is legal, but the “small minority of lesbian, gay, and
transgender Muslims can adopt it to guide their own practice and strengthen their faith”. 146
Most of the other works in defence of homosexuality within Islam have arguments very
similar to Kugle’s and his writings are their primary sources. In their paper Is Green Part of
the Rainbow, Javaid Rehman and Eleni Polymenopoulou have downplayed the legislative
143
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islam. Chapter 3: Critiquing Ḥadīth: Islamic Oral Tradition.
144
In his other writings, Kugle freely quotes Ḥadīth in support of his arguments but seems to be cautious of Aḥādīth
condemning liwāṭ and homosexuality. Cf. Kugle. “Sexual Diversity in Islam”.
145
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islam. Chapter 4: Assessing Fiqh: Islamic Legal Reasoning.
146
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islām. Chapter 4: Assessing Fiqh: Islamic Legal Reasoning.
Page 56 of 75
aspect of the Quran “and its primarily ethico-religious revelations should not be equated to
lex lata — “the law as it exists””.147 They still however try to authenticate the validity of
homosexual acts owing to the absence of any term corresponding to homosexual acts in the
Quran. They uphold Kugle’s theory of condemnation of Lūṭ’s people because of “violent
rape and victimization of men”.148 Like Kugle, they advocate the theory that the Quran does
not condemn homosexuals in a general manner, but only the people of Lūṭ. Their
understanding of Quran 42:49-50, 24:31 and 24:60 is similar to that of Kugle’s. In the
domain of Ḥadīth, arguments similar to those of Kugle emerge with particular emphasis on
the fact that the Prophet never punished anybody in his lifetime on account of their
homosexual sexual orientation.149 With respect to the incidents of the Rāshidūn Caliphs
punishing lūṭīs, the authors debate the context of the incidents and opine that the
punishments were carried out for political purposes rather than sexual acts of the offenders.
The authors are of the view that later jurists condemned homosexuality according to their
understanding of the Shari’ah and in conformity with the prevalent customs. They also
blame the jurists for marginalizing sexual minorities among others. 150 Another scholar, Jim
Wafer, builds his defence of homosexuality in Islam in his paper Muḥammad and Male
Homosexuality on the premise of leniency in application of the punishments prescribed by
Shari’ah (especially Ḥadīth). He admits that even though the Aḥādīth recommending rajm
for the active and passive partners engaging in liwāṭ are acceptable, their practical influence
in history was negligible.151
147
148
149
For an account of our discussion on this issue, cf. pp. 28-32 of this study.
150
Rehman and Polymenopoulou. “Is Green Part of the Rainbow?” pp. 13-27.
151
Wafer. “Muḥammad and Male Homosexuality”, p. 89.
Page 57 of 75
These efforts that call for a revision in the belief long held by the majority of Muslims, that
homosexuality including liwāṭ and other homosexual acts are prohibited in Islam, have
naturally met with harsh criticism. Since these calls are being made predominantly in some
western countries by different groups particularly by those associated with ‘Muslims for
Progressive Values’, Muslim scholars from the same region are most often the first to
respond. The motifs in the ‘rebuttal’ narrative include theological and textual prohibition,
moral and ethical disapproval, as well as scientific and medical downsides of engaging in
homosexual acts. These scholars argue that the Islamic tradition does not distinguish persons
based on their sexual desire or orientation just as it does not label people as fornicators based
on their mere desire to do so. Therefore, any such attempt is a modern construct which
ignores the fact that up until recently, the presence of homosexual desires was never viewed
as constitutive of one’s very identity.
Kugle has attracted the most attention of these counter-narratives with almost every piece of
literature attempting to refute his arguments. Scholars like Mobeen Vaid, Jonathan A.C.
Brown, Allie Haroun, among others, point out that the illegitimacy of liwāṭ was never an
issue of debate in the Muslim community, and the jurists only differed over the nature of
punishments to be meted out for homosexual acts. They consider the ‘Quranic revisionism’
of Kugle to be an exercise in futility on account of the explicit wording of the Quran
condemning homosexual acts, violent or otherwise. Mobeen Vaid writes:
The evidentiary basis underlying Islam’s categorical prohibition of liwāṭ (sodomy)

and other same-sex behaviors lies in explicit proscriptive statements of the Quran
and Ḥadīth, the transmitted consensus of the Prophet’s Companions and Successors,
and the documented unanimity of the Islamic legal tradition throughout the ages.152
152
Vaid. “Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts?” p. 46.
Page 58 of 75
Vaid highlights the inconsistency and illogic in Kugle’s arguments comparing
Homosexuality in Islam with his earlier writings. Vaid calls out Kugle over his “sloppy
scholarship”,153 “frequently misleading citations”, “omission of relevant materials that run
counter to his narrative”, “mischaracterization of the positions of the classical jurists, the
transposition of modern categories onto the classical literature in a manner that distorts the
meaning of this latter when viewed in its own context” and dismissal of “the established
disciplines of Islamic law, theology, and exegesis”. 154 Vaid points out that Kugle’s claim of
sexual orientation being predetermined, inherent, and immutable is negated by current
scientific and psychological findings inasmuch as even Kugle could not cite any particular
studies to substantiate his claim.155 Vaid states that even though the Quran does not employ
any terms corresponding to liwāṭ and homosexuality (as the progressive arguments
frequently cite), it is still no argument for legitimizing homosexuality within Islam as it
betrays Kugle’s advocacy for a “literal specificity of the Qur’an as revelation”. 156 This is
because terms corresponding to “rape”, “consent” and “sexual assault” on which Kugle
builds his arguments are also absent from the Quranic Lūṭ passages. 157 Vaid demonstrates
that although the term liwāṭ/lūṭī was coined by jurists in later times, the authentic Aḥādīth,
reports of Companions and earliest juristic and exegetical works used the phrase “àmal
qawm Lūṭ” to mean “the act of the people of Lūṭ” or its variants which were
“unambiguously” taken to mean homosexual acts (particularly liwāṭ).158 Lack of punishment
153
154
155
156
Vaid. “Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts?” p. 54. For Kugle’s article cited by Vaid, cf. “Sexuality,
Diversity, and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims” in Progressive Muslims: On Gender, Justice and
Pluralism, Omid Safi (editor), pp. 190-234. Oxford: Oneworld Publication, 2003.
157
158
Page 59 of 75
for liwāṭ in the Quran does not legitimize it because punishments for rape, incest, bestiality,
among others are also absent but are held to be immoral and prohibited by Muslim
consensus.159 Vaid concludes that the cardinal legal axiom with regard to sexual behaviour in
Shari’ah is that “all sexual acts are prohibited by default except those explicitly permitted by
Sacred Law”.160 He also disagrees with Kugle’s insertion of sexual diversity in the
interpretation of Quranic verses that observe different forms of diversity in creation. Vaid
nullifies Kugle’s attempt at depiction of positive picture of homosexuals in the Quran from
24:31 and 24:60 that the verses still do not render homosexual acts permissible. 161
With regard to the revisionism of Lūṭ passages in the Quran, it must be pointed out that of
the nine passages referring to Lūṭ’s people, five speak exclusively of homosexual acts,
signifying that among their other wrongdoings, homosexual acts between men were their
characteristic crime. The Quranic passages only mention sexual desire (shahwa) to the
exclusion of any implication of coercion and violence. 162 Vaid writes, “The Lot narratives in
the Qurʾān are simply too clear and their meanings too obvious for this brand of hermeneutic
adventurism to be anything other than a non-starter”. 163 Modern Ḥadīth scholar Jonathan
A.C. Brown among others consider progressive efforts as “a radical rereading of the Quran”
and concludes:
The plain language meaning of the Qur’an’s condemnation of men who “go unto men
out of desire instead of women” does not readily afford any interpretations other
than the obvious one, and the Qur’an provides no signs that would compel a reader
to consider an alternative interpretation.164
159
Vaid. “Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts?” pp. 55-56.
160
161
162
163
164
Page 60 of 75
Since Kugle eulogizes Ibn Hazm as the only early authority which held pro-homosexual
views, Vaid cites several passages from the latter’s work to demonstrate that Kugle’s attempt
to portray Ibn Hazm as a “sexuality-sensitive”165 scholar who did not consider liwāṭ to be the
cause of condemnation of the people of Lūṭ, rendering Kugle’s argument ineffective. As
Vaid clarifies, Ibn Hazm only disputed the juristic view of liwāṭ as a ḥadd crime, but was in
agreement with the consensus of other jurists and scholars that the Quran categorically
prohibits homosexual acts. As Vaid demonstrates, Ibn Hazm also opined that sexual
intercourse becomes lawful for a man only within a licit heterosexual wedlock or with a
slave woman, and, for a woman, sexual intercourse becomes lawful only with her husband. 166
Vaid thus concludes that it is highly implausible to ascribe the Islamic view of homosexual
acts to a patriarchal structure of the society and “a panoply of “culprits” that must be blamed
for having “misread” the Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah throughout all of Islamic history”
whereas Kugle proposes an alternative “hermeneutic that lacks any internal consistency and
rests upon a number of grave methodological infirmities.”167
The attack on the entire tradition of Ḥadīth or at least in part on those Aḥādīth concerning
liwāṭ and other homosexual acts was naturally bound to invite opprobrium from
contemporary muḥaddithūn. Brown concedes that some classical muḥaddithūn did not find
the Aḥādīth condemning liwāṭ as a ḥadd crime sufficiently reliable but there has never been a
doubt over the prohibited nature of liwāṭ. The debate over such Aḥādīth was only in the
context of the nature of liwāṭ (homosexual, heterosexual, or bestial) and its appropriate
165
Kugle. Homosexuality in Islām. Chapter 2: Liberating Quran: Islamic Scripture.
166
167
Page 61 of 75
punishment.168 Since the Aḥādīth do not contradict the Quran over its proscribed nature, both
must be understood according to their evident meaning. In other words, for the progressive
argument to be entertained, these Aḥādīth have to be proven either unreliable according to
Sunni Ḥadīth criticism, or their meanings recast. However, Brown demonstrates that the
Ḥadīth narrated by Ibn Abbas in which the Prophet ordains to kill the active and passive
partners committing liwāṭ was declared to be ṣaḥīḥ with ṣaḥīḥ sanad (chain of narrators) by
all prominent muḥaddithūn such as Ibn Jarud, al-Tabarī, al-Maqdisi, Jalāluddīn al-Suyūti, Ibn
Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, and al-Tahawi among others, affirming that it
meets al-Buḳhārī’s standards. Similarly, the reliable Ḥadīth in which the Prophet curses
thrice those “who commit the act of the people of Lūṭ” was also declared ṣaḥīḥ by Ibn
Hibban, al-Hakim, al-Maqdisi, and among modern Ḥadīth critics, Aḥmad al-Ghumari and
Nāsiruddīn Albānī.169 A paper authored by Najib bin Abdul Kadir et al. lists at least eight
other Aḥādīth from different Ḥadīth collections declared ṣaḥīḥ by muḥaddithūn170 which
condemn homosexual acts and prescribe capital punishment for liwāṭ.171
Kugle’s assertion that the Quranic Lūṭ passages and those Aḥādīth that refer to the “act of the
people of Lūṭ” are inherently non-sexual in nature is negated by the discovery of historical
evidence from the late seventh century CE which reveals that Lūṭ passages were even then
viewed as referring to liwāṭ when many junior Companions were still alive. It is highly
improbable that within such a short period after the Prophet’s demise, the Companions could
have totally misunderstood the Lūṭ narrative, and the relevant Aḥādīth which had already
168
169
170
We have cited some of these Aḥādīth in section 3.3. Homosexual Acts in Ḥadīth, pp. 28-32, of this study.
171
Abdul Kadir et al. Ḥadīth Ṣaḥīḥ on Behavior of LGBT, p. 06.
Page 62 of 75
begun to be used in making legal decisions.172 Therefore, summarizing these arguments, we
may conclude that the reliability of these Aḥādīth prohibiting liwāṭ, which is in conformity
with the Quranic Lūṭ narrative, according to Sunni Ḥadīth criticism, has been upheld by
muḥaddithūn throughout the ages, and the only issue of debate that persisted was the
determination of the nature of liwāṭ and its appropriate punishment.
Other scholars have simply dismissed homosexual acts as “unnatural”, “deviant” and
“evil”.173 These arguments are centred on ethico-moral and social aspects of homosexual acts
with deference to heteronormative sexual behaviour,174 underlining the infringement of rights
of the opposite gender. It is argued that heterosexual relationships (marriages) as normative
form of sexual behaviour are fundamental for the continuity of humankind whereas gay
marriages do not serve any purpose other than allowing people to act on homoerotic feelings.
According to scholar Haroun Sheik, the translation of homoerotic feelings into action makes
the institution of marriage “counterfeit and fraud”.175 The purpose of sexual desire according
to Islam is procreation. Homosexual relationships therefore negate the natural role and aim
of sexual activity. Sheik writes that relationship can only be called a marriage when it is a
union of a single person from opposite sexes.176 He argues that if this principle is abandoned,
this opens up a Pandora’s box inasmuch as there will be people complaining of
discrimination just because their threesome or foursome relationship is not legally
172
173
Haroun. Sexual Issues in Modern Era, p. 241.
174
Khan. Sex and Sexuality in Islam, p. 712.
175
Haroun. Sexual Issues in Modern Era, p. 271.
176
Although the majority of Muslims believe that the Quran allows polygyny for Muslims (see Quran 04:03), there
are some scholars who argue that the Quran allows polygyny only under extreme conditions and seeks to preserve
the institution of monogamy. Sheik may also belong this this category of scholars. For more on this argument, cf.
Appendix I: “Ten Things You Thought You Knew About Islam” in Ramadan, Tariq. Islam: The Essentials. UK:
Pelican Books, 2017.
Page 63 of 75
recognized. The hampered psychological development of children growing up in same-sex
unions also undermines them. The absence of a mother or a father in such relationships put
children at a disadvantage as only parents of opposite sexes enable a full psychosomatic
development of children.177 Due to the indeterminacy of scientific studies to ascertain the
underlying factors determining sexual orientation (i.e. whether it is innate or acquired), there
seems to be an inclination among Muslim scholars towards the ‘acquired’ theories which
emphasize that it is the effect of a person’s environment by which he/she may pick up
homosexual behaviour.178 All scholars advancing the rebuttal narrative oppose the
identification of oneself through one’s sexual desires. They argue that there may also be
external factors encouraging homosexual behaviour, just as there are biological,
psychological, and environmental factors that may drive one into committing fornication or
rape, all of which cannot be condoned or blamed on such factors.
Lastly, contemporary scientific knowledge is utilized to negate any efforts of validation of
homosexual acts in Islam. The origin179 and exponential increase of HIV/AIDS among
people given to anal sex (among other causes of its spreading) lends support to the argument
that such practices which carry with them the threat of a potentially fatal disease can never be
considered natural and thus encouraged. According to a report published by the United States
Center for Disease Control, “men who have sex with men” are most susceptible to other
Sexually Transmitted Diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea. 180

177
Haroun. Sexual Issues in Modern Era, pp. 271-85.
178
Khan. Sex and Sexuality in Islām, p. 712.
179
Because the disease was first reported among five gays in the United States on May 18, 1981, it was initially
called Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). The acronym HIV/AIDS was introduced later in July 1982.
180
Reported STDs in the United States, 2019. United States Center for Disease Control (www.cdc.com). According
to the report, of the 83% men who have syphilis 47% are gay and bisexual men and almost half of whom are
estimated to have HIV also. The same report states that in 2019, gonorrhea rates among gay and bisexual men were
42x higher than heterosexual men. The CDC report concludes that “men who have sex with men” are the most
Page 64 of 75
CONCLUSION
Several points of consideration emerge in this study. Firstly, homosexuality as a valid form
normative sexual orientation and constitutive of one’s identity is a modern phenomenon,
transposition of which to the Islamic tradition would be anachronistic. That is not to say that
homosexual acts were completely absent from Muslim societies. The Quran, Ḥadīth,
susceptible to STDs.
Page 65 of 75
exegeses, and juridical history concerning the topic at hand do not deal with homosexuality,
but with individual homosexual acts only. Until homosexuality became acceptable within
societies, particularly after the close of nineteenth century CE, people did not perceive
themselves as heterosexual or homosexual and their sexual inclinations never merited a place
in their construction of the self. Like most of other major religious traditions, Islam does not
hold a person accountable for homoerotic feelings, but their translation into actions is
considered sinful.181 The Islamic juridical discourse on liwāṭ is significantly different from
modern issues related to LGBTIQ which more often are centred on identity, inclination, and
relationships, rather than physical acts only.
Secondly, the Quranic Lūṭ passages and relevant Aḥādīth were always interpreted by
mufassirūn and muḥaddithūn as pertaining to homosexual liwāṭ and thus completely ḥarām.
In fact, homosexual liwāṭ was treated to be analogous to heterosexual liwāṭ and hence
ḥarām. The general principle was that the only licit form of sexual intercourse was vaginal
intercourse carried out within a licit relationship of heterosexual marriage or “what your right
hand possesses”182 and all forms of sexual activities outside of it were prohibited. Many
schools of fiqh thus considered liwāṭ at par with zinā and prescribed ḥadd punishments for it.
As far as liwāṭ is concerned, there has never been a doubt among Muslim scholars belonging
to all branches of Islamic sciences about its ḥarām nature. The only subject of debate was the
punishments that should be prescribed for it.
181
“Statement on Homosexualist Campaign on Muslim Scholar”. United Kingdom: The StraightWay Foundation
(www.straightway.org.uk), 17 November 2004.
182
Quran 23:06 and 17:30.
Page 66 of 75
Thirdly, the Quranic interpreters along with all jurists from the earliest times to the present
drew a clear line between liwāṭ and sexual acts less than liwāṭ. Liwāṭ has always been
considered as a major sin and an abhorrent practice, irrespective of genders with which it is
practiced. In other words, homosexual as well as heterosexual sodomy was never tolerated in
the Muslim societies whereas sexual acts short of liwāṭ were considered minor sins by almost
all schools of fiqh. Jurists awarded capital punishments for liwāṭ (except for Ḥanafī scholars)
whereas sexual acts leading up to liwāṭ or illicit vaginal intercourse were punished through
discretionary punishments (ta’zīr). Heterosexuality was always regarded as the normative
form of one’s sexuality and sexual acts opposed to it were and continue to be considered by
the majority of Muslims as deviant sexual practices. In spite of all these factors, a rich
contribution of Arab poets to pederastic love poetry emerged in the medieval period. This
was, however, tolerated by jurists on account of its lack of any sexual connotations. The love
expressed was considered to be chaste symbolizing fondness and an articulation of poetic art,
and was far from liwāṭ or even homosexuality. Scholars like Bullough, Marshall Hodgson,
and Bernard Lewis have used the phenomenon of tolerance of pederastic love poetry in
medieval Muslim societies in an effort to prove that even though homosexuality is prohibited
in Islamic law (theory), it was widespread in Muslim societies (practice). 183 Given the
foregoing discussion, this assertion is obviously problematic.
Fourthly, modern progressive attempts at radical revisionist attempts of Quranic Lūṭ
passages seem to be an exercise in futility. As discussed in this study, the articulation and
words of the Quranic verses are way too clear and unambiguous to give any space to
reinterpretation. Kugle’s accusations and blaming on certain elements that led to

183
Page 67 of 75
misinterpretation of the Quranic Lūṭ verses for fourteen centuries are not arguments strong
enough. Similarly, scholars of Ḥadīth have convincingly shown that although the Aḥādīth
condemning liwāṭ are not sufficiently reliable (even though some are reliable) to impose
ḥadd punishments on lūṭīs, they have more than enough strong sanad and matan to be
considered authentic to declare liwāṭ as ḥarām. In the same line of thought, although the
Schools of fiqh do not agree on the nature of punishment to be imposed on lūṭīs, all are in
consensus regarding the prohibition of the deed. In this way, the Quran (and its exegeses),
Ḥadīth and fiqh all support and conform to each other’s prohibition of liwāṭ. Kugle’s
writings only seem to be a desperate attempt to change what is engraved on a stone tablet and
followed religiously by billions of Muslims for over a millennium. Thus, his writings have
been accepted only by a fraction of Muslims, most of whom identify themselves as
homosexuals. It is also very unlikely that a new modern fiqh will be invented anytime soon
that would accept homosexual relationships.
Finally, we must address the modern dimension of the issue. There is no question that those
who identify as homosexuals deserve to be treated with equality without discrimination.
Advancing the rights of gay and lesbian Muslims can only be done under the rubric of
human rights. It is highly unlikely that the mainstream Muslims living in any corner of the
world would accept homosexuality as an acceptable practice within their religion or society,
in the foreseeable future. It is also unimaginable that the views of a tiny minority could be
approved by the majority. However, it does not mean that the minority has to be crushed.
Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s dictum to guarantee human rights to all irrespective of their
background, race, ethnicity, sex, religion, and creed may prove to be a guiding force to
Page 68 of 75
alleviate the social stigma and discrimination. Constitutional protection for all sorts of
minorities could be demanded. Sustained and meaningful dialogues between different groups
of societies may help reach a meaningful understanding. Muslims living in countries where
homosexual marriages are legal face a tough decision because in some European countries,
many LGBTIQ activists and their political sympathizers have made the integration of their
Muslim citizens into European societies contingent on their acceptance of homosexuality. 184
From the many interviews that we have gone through, many Muslims living in these
countries advocate making religion a private affair by virtue of which one is allowed to have
a particular conviction about homosexuality, but it should not manifest in prejudice vis-à-vis
those practicing or supporting it. The “coming out of the closet” practice, in which
homosexuals publicly disclose their sexual orientation to their close ones in some cultures,
needs to be discarded as it betrays one’s sexual privacy and is opposed to the Islamic
perception of a Muslim’s personal relationship with Allah. As regards countries with Muslim
majority where homosexuality is illegal, it is highly unlikely that the law will change. Even if
it does, it will be for political reasons rather than religious reformation.
GLOSSARY
aḥādīth (sing. Ḥadīth) recorded sayings, actions and tacit approvals of Prophet Muhammad
al-jarḥ w-al-ta’dīl discrediting and accrediting narrators in a Ḥadīth to verify its authenticity;
also see ‘ilm al-rijāl
aqīm barren/sterile; term in Quran 42:59
faḍl God’s bounty
fatwa (pl. fatāwā) a legal opinion on Islamic law given by a qualified jurist
faqeeh (pl. fuqahā) Islamic jurisconsult
184
Ramadan, Tariq. “Islam and Homosexuality”. IslamiCity (www.islamicity.org), 13 June 2016.
Page 69 of 75
fāḥishah obscenity/lewdness; refers to same-sex sexual acts in Quran 07:80

fiqh Islamic jurisprudence; also see maddhab
ḥadd (pl. ḥudūd) meaning limit/boundary; punishments mandated and fixed by Allah
through Quran or Ḥadīth
Ḥanafī follower (or following) of the school of law and jurisprudence founded by Abū
Ḥanīfah
ḥarām actions declared sinful by Quran or Ḥadīth that is forbidden to be done
ḥadīth see aḥādīth
ḥalāl actions declared permissible by Quran or Ḥadīth
Ḥanbalī follower (or following) of the school of law and jurisprudence founded by Ibn
Ḥanbal
ḥaqq right; contrasted with duty
ḥūrī (pl. ḥūr) a beautiful maiden promised to devout Muslims in paradise
Ibrāhīm biblical Prophet Abraham, uncle of Messenger Lūṭ (biblical Lot)
Ijtihād independent reasoning and original interpretation of issues not precisely addressed in
shari’ah
‘ilm al rijāl the science of scrutinizing narrators in aḥādīth to verify their authenticity; also
see al-jarḥ w-al-ta’dīl
imām Islamic religious or political leader
Isḥāq biblical Isaac (prophet in Islam)
Isra’īliyāt narratives imported from foreign sources like Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian
traditions
jins genus, kind
kalām Allah Word of God; the Quran
kufr disbelief/infidelity; one of the gravest sins in Islam
liwāṭ sodomy; term derived from the name of Messenger Lūṭ
Lūṭ biblical Lot; rejected same-sex sexual acts and sodomy by his people
lūṭī a sodomite
maddhab any school of Islamic jurisprudence; also see fiqh
makrūh an act that is disliked; considered less serious than ḥarām and not subject to
punishment
Page 70 of 75
mansūkh used to refer to those verses of Quran which were abrogated following the
revelation of other verses (called nāsikh) in a later period of the Prophet’ life
Mālikī follower (or following) of the school of law and jurisprudence founded by Mālik bin
Anas
matan second part of the ḥadīth that contains the text of the exact saying of the Prophet; also
see sanad
mu’ākama same gender socialization in nudity
mufassir (pl. mufassirūn) an exegete of the Quran
mufākadhah intercrural sexual intercourse
muḥaddith (pl. muḥaddithūn) an expert in ḥadīth studies
muḥṣan a male or a female person who may have once consummated a legally valid
marriage
mukā’ama people of the same gender kissing on lips
mukhannath effeminate men who appeared feminine and carried out social roles typically
performed by women; may be put under the rubrics of transgender, hermaphrodites,
and genderqueers
musḥaf a written, complete copy of the Quran
qaum nation; term in Quran 07:80, 11:78, 21:74, etc.
tāba’iee (pl. tābi’ūn) the generation of Muslims that came after the Companions of the
Prophet and received the teachings of Islam from those whom the Prophet had
taught directly
rajm a ḥadd punishment in which a group of people throw stones at a convicted offender
until he/she dies; typically prescribed for a married adulterer
Rāshidūn meaning ‘rightly guided’; used to refer to the first four caliphs of Islam who are
regarded as orthodox. They are Abū Bakr (r. 632-634), ‘Umar (r. 634-644),
‘Uthmān (r. 644-656), and ‘Alī (r. 656-661)
sanad first part of the ḥadīth that lists the chain of narrators through whom the matan has
reached the muḥaddith who scrutinizes and records a particular ḥadīth
Sāleḥ Quranic Prophet deputed to the people of Thamūd; see also Thamūd
ṣaḥīḥ used to refer to authentic aḥādīth whose sanad and matan are impeccable
seerah biography of the Prophet beginning from his birth until his demise
Shāfi’ī follower (or following) of the school of law and jurisprudence founded by al-Shafi’ī
shahwah lust/desire; used in Quran 07:81
Page 71 of 75
shari’ah Islamic constitutional law

shirk polytheism; associating partners with Allah; the most serious sin in Islam for which
there is no pardon
shubhah the policy of giving the benefit of doubt to an accused in court
shudūd jinsī sexual perversions
shukr expression of gratitude
siḥāq tribadism; lesbian sexual behaviour
sunnah the practices and traditions of the Prophet which he performed religiously and thus
are a model for the Muslims to follow
tafsīr Quranic exegesis
tafsīr bil māthūr a class of tafsīrs that avoids independent interpretation and explains the
verses in the light of Ḥadīth, and the opinions of the first three generations after the
Prophet; regarded as the most authentic tafsīr; also known as tafsīr bil riwāyah
tafsīr bil riwāyah see tafsīr bil māthūr
ta’zīr punishment prescribed by an Islamic judge based on discretionary chastisement;
lenient than ḥadd punishments
Thamūd a tribal confederation of Ancient Arabia that resided in the northwest region of the
Arabian Peninsula
waḥī meaning revelation; can be used for both Quran and Ḥadīth
Ya’qūb biblical Jacob
zinā fornication/adultery; punishable by ḥadd punishment; some schools of fiqh consider
liwāṭ analogous to zinā and hence punishable by ḥadd
BIBLIOGRAPHY
a. Commentaries on the Quran
1. Alī, Abdullah Yusuf. The Holy Qur-an: Text, Translation and Commentary. Beirut,
Lebanon: Dar al-Arabia Academy, 1968.
2. Al-Maḥalli, Jalāluddīn and Al-Suyūti, Jalāluddīn (English Tr. Hamza, Feras). Tafsīr
Jalālayn. ISBN 9781891785160. Kentucky: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic
Thought, 2008.
3. Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Quran. Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1980.
4. Ibn Kathīr, ‘Imād Ad-Din Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Umar. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm (Tafsīr Ibn
Kathir, Urdu Tr. Junagarhi, Muḥammad, 5 Vols.). Mumbai: Dār al-Salafiyyah, 2002.
Page 72 of 75
5. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein et al. The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary.
ISBN 9780061125867. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015.
b. Ḥadīth Collections
6. Abū Dāwūd, Sulaymān ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Sijistānī. Sunan. Beirut, Lebanon, 1990.
7. Al-Baihaqi, Aḥmad Bin al-Hussain. Al-Shu’b al-Imaan (Urdu, 7 Vols.). Karachi, 2007.
8. Al-Nasā'ī, Aḥmad ibn Shuàyb ibn Alī ibn Sīnān. Sunan al-Kubra. Cairo, 1929.
9. At-Ṭabarāni, Sulaymān Ibn Ahmad ibn Ayyoob ibn Muṭawyyir. Al-Mu’jam al-Aswat
(Urdu, Vol. III). Lahore, 2015.
10. At-Tirmidhī, Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā. Al-Jāmi’ al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Cairo, 1965.
11. Ibn Abī Shaybah, Abū Bakr. Musannaf (Vol. IV). Beirut, Lebanon, 1995.
12. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Alī. Al-Zawajir ‘an Iqtiraf al-Kabair. Beirut, Lebanon; (non-
dated).
13. Ibn Hanbal, Aḥmad. Musnad. Beirut, Lebanon, 1993.
14. Ibn Mājah al-Rabʻī al-Qazwīnī, Muḥammad ibn Yazīd. Sunan. Cairo, 1953.
c. Books
15. Adamec, Ludwig W. Historical Dictionary of Islam. ISBN: 0810839628. United States
of America: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2009.
16. Coogan, Michael D. (editor). The New Oxford Annotated Bible. ISBN: 0195289609.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
17. El-Rouayheb, Khaled. Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800.
ISBN: 0226729885. USA: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
18. Khan, Muḥammad Aftab. Sex and Sexuality in Islām. ISBN: 969898304X. Lahore,
Pakistan: Nashriyat, 2006.
19. Kugle, Scott Siraj al-Haqq. Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay,
Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims; ISBN: 978178-740287. Oxford, England:
OneWorld Publications, 2011.
20. Peters, Rudolph. Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law. ISBN: 0511345372. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
21. Ramadan, Tariq. Islām: The Essentials. UK: Pelican Books, 2017.
22. Sheik, Mufti Allie Haroun. Sexual Issues in the Modern Era and It’s Solution in Islām.
ISBN: 8174353941. New Delhi: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 2010.
Page 73 of 75
d. Encyclopaedias
23. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 21 November 2018 ed., s.v. “Homosexuality”.
24. Encyclopedia of Canonical Ḥadīth. ISBN: 9789004156746. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill,
2007.
25. Encyclopaedia of the Quran (6 Vols.), 2002 ed. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. ISBN
9004114653, s.v. “Homosexuality”.
e. Research Papers/Articles
26. Abdul Kadir, Muhd Najib Bin. “Ḥadīth Ṣaḥīḥ on Behaviour of LGBT”. Malaysia:
Department of Islamic Development, 2015.
27. Aḥmad, Luqman. “Same-Sex Marriage”. IslamiCity (www.islamicity.org). 02 April,
2013.
28. Akyol, Mustafa. “What Does Islam Say About Being Gay?” The New York Times
(www.nytimes.com). 28 July 2015.
29. Ali, Abdullah Bin Hamid. “The Homosexual Challenge to Muslim Ethics”. Lamppost
Educational Initiative (www.lamppostedu.org).
30. Brown, Jonathan A.C. “A Pre-Modern Defense of Ḥadīth against Sodomy”. The
American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. Vol. 34, No. 03, 2017: pp. 01-44.
31. “Definitions Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in APA Documents”.
American Psychological Association (www.apa.org).
32. Kugle, Scott Siraj al-Haqq. “Sexual Diversity in Islam”. Muslims for Progressive
Values (www.mpvusa.org). 2010.
33. Kutty, Faisal. “Why Gay Marriage May Not Be Contrary to Islam”. The Huffington
Post Canada (www.huffingtonpost.ca). 27 March, 2014.
34. “Lesbian and Gay Rights in the World”. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Trans and Intersex Association. May 2009.
35. Mirza, Younus Y. “Was Ibn Kathīr the ‘Spokesperson’ for Ibn Taymiyya? Jonah as a
Prophet of Obedience”. Journal of Qur’anic Studies. Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014: pp. 1-19.
36. Mohammed, Khaleel. “Assessing English Translations of the Quran”. Middle East
Quarterly. Spring 2005: pp. 58-71.
37. Ottoson, Daniel. “State-Sponsored Homophobia”. The International Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association; May 2010.
Page 74 of 75
38. Ramadan, Tariq. “Islam and Homosexuality”. IslamiCity (www.islamicity.org). 13

June, 2016.
39. Rehman, Javaid and Polymenopoulou, Eleni; “Is Green Part of the Rainbow? Sharia,
Homosexuality and LGBT Rights in the Muslim World”. Fordham International Law
Journal. Vol. 37, No. 1, 2013: pp. 01-52.
40. Reiter, L. “Sexual Orientation, Sexual Identity, and the Question of Choice”. Clinical
Social Work Journal. Vol. 17, No. 02, 1989.
41. “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”. International Justice Resource Center
(www.ijrcenter.org).
42. “The Global Divide on Homosexuality”. Pew Research Center, 27 May, 2014.
43. Vaid, Mobeen. “Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Quranic Revisionism and
the Case of Scott Kugle”. The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. Vol. 34,
No. 03, 2017: pp. 45-97.
44. Wafer, Jim. “Muḥammad and Male Homosexuality” in Murray, Stephen & Roscoe,
Will (editors); Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature. ISBN:
0814774679. New York: New York University Press, 1997.
f. Interweb
45. “Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality”. American Psychological Association
(www.apa.org), 2011.
46. “What Can You Be Flogged For in Saudi Arabia”. BBC (www.bbc.com). 13 October
2015.
47. Barford, Vanessa. “Iran’s Diagnosed Transsexuals”. BBC (www.bbc.com). 25 February
2008.
48. “CDC Fact Sheet—Reported STDs in the United States”. United States Center for
Diseases Control (www.cdc.com), 2019.
49. Westcott, Ben and Wright, Rebecca. “Brunei Backs Down On Gay Sex Death Penalty
After International Backlash”. CNN (www.edition.cnn.com), 06 May 2019.
50. “Homosexuality is Legal in these 10 Muslim Countries”. New Delhi: India Today
(www.indiatoday.com), 15 June 2016.
51. Savage, Rachel. “Pope Francis’ LGBT+ Views, As Vatican Opposes Same-Sex
Blessings”. Reuters (www.reuters.com), 16 March 2021.
Page 75 of 75
52. “Statement on Homosexualist Campaign against Muslim Scholar”. UK: The

StraightWay Foundation (www.starightway.org.uk), 17 November 2004.
53. “Difficult for Indonesia to Legalize Gay Marriage”. The Jakarta Post
(www.thejakartapost.com), 02 July 2015.
54. “Police Break-up Istanbul Gay Pride”. The Times of Israel (www.timesofisrael.com), 30
June 2019.
‫ش‬
ّ‫م‬
‫دمحم کرم ج ہاں‬
ّ ‫یخش‬
‫م‬
‫؍ وال ال کرم ن‬۲۰ ‫ب ت ار ی ِ خ‬
‫ھ‬۱۴۴۲
‫گ‬
‫ء ب رو ِز م ل‬۲۰۲۱‫؁‬ ‫بم طابق ی کم ج‬
‫ون ب‬ ِ
‫ے‬‫؍ ج‬۳ ‫ص ح‬‫ب‬

Quranic Lut Passages and The Juridical History of Homosexuality in Islam-A Critical Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quranic Lut Passages and The Juridical History of Homosexuality in Islam-A Critical Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 75

QURANIC LŪṬ PASSAGES

Centre for the Study of Comparative Religions and Civilizations

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

Under the supervision of

Date: 12 July, 2021

4.6. Twelver Shiite School of Islamic

Quranic Lūṭ Passages and the Juridical History of

Homosexuality as a constituent of one’s identity is a modern concept and a loaded term

variant form of normative sexual orientation is also a relatively recent phenomenon,

homosexual feelings, heterosexuality was always accepted to be the normative form of

term sexual orientation (and by extension homosexuality), it is imperative to understand the

commonly employed in this field.

According to this definition, sexual orientation is not merely a private characteristic of an

influences in determining an individual’s sexual orientation have been advanced through

among scientists is that the sexual orientation of an individual is developed by early

recent stir in the modern discourse regarding homosexuality is mostly because of an

homosexual relationships, a practice which is considered reprehensible in many major

characterized by acceptance, tolerance, or condemnation thus invoking punishment and a

acceptance of homosexuality, and considering the psychological and moral conundrum of

of such doctrines that abhor homosexuality.

academic study of facts investigating the emergence of homosexuality as a concept in the

SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Modern activism supporting homosexuality is largely characterized by efforts to view

reorientation of sexuality through counselling, therapy, behavior modification, etc. Despite

psychologists also classified homosexuality as triggered by a mental disorder. For example,

the Austro-German psychologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing considered homosexuality along

with masturbation as sexual perversions. However, negative attitudes towards homosexuals

subject of studies on human sexuality, many stereotypes surrounding homosexual behavior

emboldened homosexuals to openly proclaim their sexual orientation making the

continue to be centered on the demand to eliminate any sort of discrimination that

considering it as a variant form of normative sexual behavior.

on homosexuality or exhibiting such behavior in public as taboo which continues to dictate

liberal tendencies in urban areas, proclamation of homosexuality openly is out of bounds.

presuppositions. Eventually, discriminations and repression of homosexual populations

homosexuals from the society. In Uganda, a predominantly Christian country, homosexuality

is punishable. Many anti-homosexual groups (appropriate term would be ‘vigilantes’), fueled

by religious, social or cultural ideologies, also emerged to counter homosexual behavior.

International when it received many threats.7 The attitude of Muslim-majority countries

towards homosexuality is dealt with in the next section.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND MUSLIM COUNTRIES

resentment, and detestation of a majority of Muslims exhibited towards homosexuals and

Muslim homosexuals, especially in the countries where homosexuality is legal, campaigning

of homosexuality and those advocating or professing it is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia

discriminations.8 Similarly, Afghanistan, Iran,9 Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, and parts of

carry an imprisonment that can last up to life term. 11

prejudice and discrimination on account of sexuality.12 Despite seemingly progressive

negative attitude of their citizens towards homosexuality. 13 Though homosexuality in

citizens reject homosexuality as an acceptable norm in the society. 15

harshness of views regarding homosexuality and acceptance thereof is directly proportional

ISLAM AND HOMOSEXUALITY

imprudent to consider Islam as a monolithic religion, especially in the absence of any

legislations, be it in support or condemnation of homosexuality, the Muslim countries, or

homosexuality as a variant form of normative sexual orientation, an idea which developed in

Muslims’ perception with regard to the issue.

It is imperative to comprehend that homosexuality as it is understood today was not dealt

Muhammad to the present day. To ascribe the modern concept of homosexuality as it is

would be completely anachronistic. This is because the modern understanding of

homosexuality makes it a term loaded with sociological underpinnings like same-sex

companionship, active pursuit of same-sex romantic relationship, same-sex co-habitation,

3.1. Homosexual Acts in the Quran

(fornication/adultery) as well as homosexual acts, although its relevance to the latter

gained support.19 The Quran says: