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

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

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

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

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

Homosexuality in Christianity

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

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

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

From these two books I found that in Christianity, “homosexuality discourse” is often referred to the text of old testament, especially Genesis 9:18-27 which is about the story of Noah and his children, Genesis 19: 1-11 on Sodom and Gomorra, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 on law on male-male sex. While in the New Testament, we will find only few verses which explicitly (literally) denote the notion of homosexuality. The clearest one is Roman 1:18-32. 

It might be important also to mention that there are other biblical texts which are indirectly related to the issue of homosexuality. Some of them are Judges 19 (Story of Levite) & Ezekiel 16:48-49 (Sodom), Isaiah 1:10-17, Jeremiah 23:14, Zephaniah 2:8-11 (all about Sodom and Gomorra), Matthew 5:17-19 (New Testament as the continuation of Old Testament’s law, including law on homosexuality), and Matthew 10:5-15 (hospitality and Sodom-Gomorrah).

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

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

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

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

So what do those texts mean historically?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexuality in Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although we cannot find “liberal-progressive” interpretation of Quranic texts on homosexuality as enough ........

[the full version of this article should be requested via my email CONTACT - Madyan]