Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 (12 page)
Read Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 Online
Authors: Khaled El-Rouayheb
BOOK: Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800
5.14Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
In the remaining part of this chapter I shall discuss textual evidence from physiognomic and biographical works that at first sight may seem to contradict the conclusion just reached. In a sixteenth-century Egyptian work on physiognomy
(firasah)
it is stated, for example, that a very tall stature with sparse beard growth indicates an active sodomite. A snub nose, too, is supposed to be an indication of being an active sodomite. It could be argued that this offers a clear and decisive refutation of the McIntosh-Foucault thesis, even if we focus exclusively on the active sodomite. Such physiognomic statements seem, at least at first sight, to mark off a certain type of person who is likely to commit sodomy, and hence to be an example of a premodern conception of the sodomite as a distinct and peculiar type of person. However, if one looks carefully at the passages in question, it seems clear that, far from refuting the McIntosh-Foucault thesis, the physiognomic work actually of fers additional support for it. The relevant passages are as follows:
(firasah)
it is stated, for example, that a very tall stature with sparse beard growth indicates an active sodomite. A snub nose, too, is supposed to be an indication of being an active sodomite. It could be argued that this offers a clear and decisive refutation of the McIntosh-Foucault thesis, even if we focus exclusively on the active sodomite. Such physiognomic statements seem, at least at first sight, to mark off a certain type of person who is likely to commit sodomy, and hence to be an example of a premodern conception of the sodomite as a distinct and peculiar type of person. However, if one looks carefully at the passages in question, it seems clear that, far from refuting the McIntosh-Foucault thesis, the physiognomic work actually of fers additional support for it. The relevant passages are as follows:
[I] A very tall man with sparse beard is a deceiving scoundrel
(makkār khaddāʿ),
or feeble-minded and sly (
khaf īf al- ʿaql rawwāgh),
or a lover of frivolity (
muḥibb al-lahū)
and sodomizing males
(ityān al-dhukūr).
And the very short man is courageous and crafty, and of a deceptive, ignoble mind.
158[2] A snub nose is an indication oflewdness
(shabaq)
and coarseness (
ghalāzat al-t
). And Rāzī [Fakhr al-Dīn (d. 1209)] has said: it is an indication of sodomizing males (
ityān al-dhukūr).
A high-bridged, straight nose is an indication of good wits. Our Imam al-Shādfi‘ī [d. 820] has said: a long nose with a thin tip is an indication of fickleness and stupidity and irascibility.
159
Thus stated, it is clear that the physiognomic traits betray, not the possession of abnormal desires, but a certain kind of behavior, namely committing sodomy (as an active partner). This is even clearer when we consider the following passages from the same work, in which certain visible traits are said to indicate fornicators:
[3] The blue [eye] whose blueness is mixed with white indicates something even more evil than the preceding [the yellowish-greenish eye]. And Aristotle has said: it indicates a lack of
[lacuna]
and the love of fornication
(ḥubb alzinā
) . And that which is mixed with yellow indicates very base morals (
radāʾat al-akkhlāq
), because the blueness indicates apathy and laziness, and the yellow indicates fear and cowardice.[4] The large, thin ear indicates a defective intellect
(naqs
) and fornication (
zinā
), and if in addition the hair of the ear is apparent this indicates ignorance
(jahl)
and lassitude (
futūr
).
160
The passages seem to presuppose that the tendency to commit sodomy is comparable to the tendency to commit fornication. People who commit the latter act are clearly succumbing to a moral failing, rather than to peculiar or pathological desires. It would hardly be plausible to insist that passages stating that certain facial features may reveal a person to be an adulterer somehow shows that adulterers were believed to constitute a special category of people-“adulterosexuals”-with a distinct physical or psychic constitution that somehow explains their anomalous behavior. And the physiognomic passages do not give any grounds for thinking that the tendency to commit sodomy was considered to be any different. On the contrary, the genre clearly assumes that committing fornication and (active) sodomy are on a par with being lazy or cowardly or frivolous or irascible. Such characterizations are basically “behaviorist”: they
describe
a certain pattern of behavior rather than
explain
it. The terms
maʾbūn
or “homosexual” may function in the same way, but they may also be supposed to refer to an inner condition, describable in non-evaluative terms, that causes (and hence explains) outward behavior. This distinction between the use of the terms
lūtī
and
maʾbūn
has already been discussed in connection with Islamic jurists’ opinions on terms of abuse that amounted to accusations of illegal intercourse. Despite appearances, the physiognomic literature does not offer any reason to give up this distinction.
describe
a certain pattern of behavior rather than
explain
it. The terms
maʾbūn
or “homosexual” may function in the same way, but they may also be supposed to refer to an inner condition, describable in non-evaluative terms, that causes (and hence explains) outward behavior. This distinction between the use of the terms
lūtī
and
maʾbūn
has already been discussed in connection with Islamic jurists’ opinions on terms of abuse that amounted to accusations of illegal intercourse. Despite appearances, the physiognomic literature does not offer any reason to give up this distinction.
The biographical literature too may at first sight offer evidence that some men were singled out as constitutionally peculiar simply by virtue of their sexually desiring boys. The phrase “he is inclined to”
(yamīl ilā
) or “he likes” (
yuḥibb
) boys occurs regularly in biographical entries from the period, and individuals are often said to be inclined to boys, and yet chaste.
161
Nevertheless, several factors suggest that the “inclination to boys” refers, not to a psycho-sexual orientation, but to a somewhat disreputable behavioral pattern.
(yamīl ilā
) or “he likes” (
yuḥibb
) boys occurs regularly in biographical entries from the period, and individuals are often said to be inclined to boys, and yet chaste.
161
Nevertheless, several factors suggest that the “inclination to boys” refers, not to a psycho-sexual orientation, but to a somewhat disreputable behavioral pattern.
First,
such phrases are invariably negative characterizations; something one is accused of, which detracts from other positive traits one might have, and which warrant additional remarks attesting to chastity: “he was on occasion accused of loving boys”; “he has intelligence, prudence, and valor, but is inclined to boys”; “he likes handsome youths ... being content to look at them.”
162
However, taking steps to avoid being tempted by an attractive boy is presented in the same genre as illustrative of a laudable character: “if a youth sat at his hands, he would not look at him or teach him in ascetic self denial (
zuhdan minhu
)”; “they sent him some coffee with a beardless youth from among them, so he did not take it from him but ordered one of his mature-aged associates to hand it over.”
163
Jurists who warned against looking at boys assumed that any man was in danger of being tempted. They accordingly buttressed their counsels by referring to the behavior of eminent religious dignitaries of the early centuries of Islam like Sufyan al-Thawrī (d. 778) and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855), whose exemplary moral character was a given for Sunnī Muslim scholars of the early Ottoman age. According to the Palestinian jurist Khayr al-Dīn al-Ramlī (d. 1671), the venerable Abu Hanifah (d. 767), founder of the school of law to which Ramlī himself belonged, had seated a handsome student of his in such a manner as not to see him, “from fear of betrayal of the eye.”
164
The Meccan jurist Ibn H
ajar al-Haytamī stated that ”there are beardless boys who surpass women in beauty and so are more tempting,” while according to the Syrian ascetic ʿAlwān al-Hamawī, ”there is no doubt and no misgiving that the temptation in looking at him [the beardless boy] is certain (
mutaḥaqqiqah
) [i.e., not merely possible].“
165
Yet, both authors would surely have taken offense at being described as having an ”inclination to boys.”
such phrases are invariably negative characterizations; something one is accused of, which detracts from other positive traits one might have, and which warrant additional remarks attesting to chastity: “he was on occasion accused of loving boys”; “he has intelligence, prudence, and valor, but is inclined to boys”; “he likes handsome youths ... being content to look at them.”
162
However, taking steps to avoid being tempted by an attractive boy is presented in the same genre as illustrative of a laudable character: “if a youth sat at his hands, he would not look at him or teach him in ascetic self denial (
zuhdan minhu
)”; “they sent him some coffee with a beardless youth from among them, so he did not take it from him but ordered one of his mature-aged associates to hand it over.”
163
Jurists who warned against looking at boys assumed that any man was in danger of being tempted. They accordingly buttressed their counsels by referring to the behavior of eminent religious dignitaries of the early centuries of Islam like Sufyan al-Thawrī (d. 778) and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855), whose exemplary moral character was a given for Sunnī Muslim scholars of the early Ottoman age. According to the Palestinian jurist Khayr al-Dīn al-Ramlī (d. 1671), the venerable Abu Hanifah (d. 767), founder of the school of law to which Ramlī himself belonged, had seated a handsome student of his in such a manner as not to see him, “from fear of betrayal of the eye.”
164
The Meccan jurist Ibn H
ajar al-Haytamī stated that ”there are beardless boys who surpass women in beauty and so are more tempting,” while according to the Syrian ascetic ʿAlwān al-Hamawī, ”there is no doubt and no misgiving that the temptation in looking at him [the beardless boy] is certain (mutaḥaqqiqah
) [i.e., not merely possible].“
165
Yet, both authors would surely have taken offense at being described as having an ”inclination to boys.”
Second,
other occurrences of the verbs “incline to” or “like” in the biographical literature quite clearly refer to a behavioral pattern rather than a deep-seated psychological orientation. The works of Ibn ʿArabī, poetry, music, bawdy humor, solitude, mystics, buying purebred horses, frequenting drug addicts, tobacco, and luxury are all things that individuals are said to “incline to” or “like:”
166
The point is even clearer in the—less than a dozen—cases of men who are described as “inclining” toward women or copulation.
167
Such a phrase is hardly to be understood as implying that such individuals are somehow different from the rest of mankind who are not attracted to either. What is being singled out is a “womanizer” and not a “heterosexual”-that is, a man whose inordinate desire for sex with women leads him to marry and divorce frequently, or to buy many concubines, or take his women with him on even short journeys because he could not be without sex even for a few days. Similarly, someone who is said to “incline toward boys” is being depicted as a “boyizer,” and not as someone who is abnormal by virtue of the fact that he is susceptible to being sexually aroused by a boy. Indeed, variants of the phrase “he is inclined to boys” are more unambiguously behaviorist: “he was inclined to looking at youths and sitting with them”; “he was accused of associating with beardless boys”; “he was inclined to loving youths.”
168
other occurrences of the verbs “incline to” or “like” in the biographical literature quite clearly refer to a behavioral pattern rather than a deep-seated psychological orientation. The works of Ibn ʿArabī, poetry, music, bawdy humor, solitude, mystics, buying purebred horses, frequenting drug addicts, tobacco, and luxury are all things that individuals are said to “incline to” or “like:”
166
The point is even clearer in the—less than a dozen—cases of men who are described as “inclining” toward women or copulation.
167
Such a phrase is hardly to be understood as implying that such individuals are somehow different from the rest of mankind who are not attracted to either. What is being singled out is a “womanizer” and not a “heterosexual”-that is, a man whose inordinate desire for sex with women leads him to marry and divorce frequently, or to buy many concubines, or take his women with him on even short journeys because he could not be without sex even for a few days. Similarly, someone who is said to “incline toward boys” is being depicted as a “boyizer,” and not as someone who is abnormal by virtue of the fact that he is susceptible to being sexually aroused by a boy. Indeed, variants of the phrase “he is inclined to boys” are more unambiguously behaviorist: “he was inclined to looking at youths and sitting with them”; “he was accused of associating with beardless boys”; “he was inclined to loving youths.”
168
If the present interpretation is correct, the phrase “he is inclined to boys” would be another expression for “pederast,” and hence equivalent to the ordinary, nonjuridical meaning of the term
lūtī
discussed earlier in this chapter. Whether someone was a
Lūt
ī
in the strict legal sense ultimately depended on whether he had indulged in anal intercourse with another man. The more extended meaning of the term
Lūt
ī
was also act-defined but less specific as to the nature of the act committed. While there were notoriously strict rules for attributing sodomy or fornication to a person (unforced confession or trustworthy witnesses to the anal or vaginal penetration), there were no correspondingly clear-cut and consensual criteria for distinguishing a “boyizer” or “womanizer” from someone who displayed a normal responsiveness to the attractiveness of boys or women. If the case of the poet Abū al-Fath al-Mdhk7l, who openly frequented boys of “ill-repute,” seems clear, what of Sinan Pasha (d. 1666), a military notable of Damascus, who at the age of eighty, and for the first time in his life, fell in love with one of his young male servants?
169
The lack of clear-cut and consensual criteria regarding whether a particular behavioral pattern merited the description “he inclines to boys” left considerable scope to individual judgment as well as individual idiosyncrasy and bias. The Aleppine scholar Abū al-Wafāʾ al-‘Urd
ī (d. 1660), commenting critically on the biographical dictionary of his fellow Aleppine Ibn al-H
anbalī (d. 1563), said that “he took every opportunity to diminish the standing of his enemies ... and discredited [them] by means of invectives such as saying: so-and-so, though chaste, likes youths.”
170
It is also noticeable that the phrase “he inclines to youths,” used regularly by some biographical compilers, such as Ibn al-H
anbalī, Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī, and Ibn Ayyūb al-Ans
ārī seems to have been consciously avoided by others. The phrase does not occur in, for example, the biographical dictionaries of Hasan al-Būrūnī, Muhammad Amīn al-Muh
ibbī, and Muhammad Khalīl al-Murādī. One possible explanation for this might be in terms of compliance with the established ideal of “thinking well” (
ḥusn al-z
ann)
of one’s fellow Muslims and avoiding slander and calumny
(ghībah).
The Yemeni scholar Muhammad al-Shawkānī (d. 1834), for instance, after mentioning that one of his acquaintances was “inclined to those of handsome countenance,” assured the reader that he had received the consent of the person in question to mention this fact about him. He would not have mentioned this fact, Shawkānī insisted, if the person had minded, since he wanted to keep his biographical dictionary free from slanderous remarks.
171
It is also important to keep in mind that biographical entries were written within a social setting marked by rivalries, enmity, and alliances, and were thus charged with “political” significance. Many a quarrel between notable households had its roots in unfavorable mentions in, or exclusions from, biographical works. In such a situation, there would be more mundane reasons for a biographer to be as favorable and circumspect as possible in his characterizations of other notables. A more uncharitable explanation of the avoidance of the phrase “he inclines to boys” would suggest that some authors were eager to avoid a phrase that could easily apply to themselves. After all, Būrīrī was himself said to incline toward boys by his contemporary Ibn Ayyūb al-Ans
ārī (who-by coincidence?-is not mentioned in Būrīnīʾs later biographical dictionary of the notables of his age) .
172
And, as will be seen in the following chapter, both Muḥibbī and Murādī seem in fact to have had a more sympathetic opinion of chaste pederastic affection than, for example, Ghazzī or Ibn Ayyūb. The more important point, however, is that such authors, though avoiding the disapproving phrase, were not thereby reduced to silence; their works include several anecdotes and poems whose subject is pederastic attraction. Rather, they resorted to a different vocabulary, a different way of speaking, to describe what other scholars dismissed as an “inclination to boys.”
lūtī
discussed earlier in this chapter. Whether someone was aLūt
īin the strict legal sense ultimately depended on whether he had indulged in anal intercourse with another man. The more extended meaning of the term
Lūt
īwas also act-defined but less specific as to the nature of the act committed. While there were notoriously strict rules for attributing sodomy or fornication to a person (unforced confession or trustworthy witnesses to the anal or vaginal penetration), there were no correspondingly clear-cut and consensual criteria for distinguishing a “boyizer” or “womanizer” from someone who displayed a normal responsiveness to the attractiveness of boys or women. If the case of the poet Abū al-Fath al-Mdhk7l, who openly frequented boys of “ill-repute,” seems clear, what of Sinan Pasha (d. 1666), a military notable of Damascus, who at the age of eighty, and for the first time in his life, fell in love with one of his young male servants?
169
The lack of clear-cut and consensual criteria regarding whether a particular behavioral pattern merited the description “he inclines to boys” left considerable scope to individual judgment as well as individual idiosyncrasy and bias. The Aleppine scholar Abū al-Wafāʾ al-‘Urd
ī (d. 1660), commenting critically on the biographical dictionary of his fellow Aleppine Ibn al-Hanbalī (d. 1563), said that “he took every opportunity to diminish the standing of his enemies ... and discredited [them] by means of invectives such as saying: so-and-so, though chaste, likes youths.”170
It is also noticeable that the phrase “he inclines to youths,” used regularly by some biographical compilers, such as Ibn al-H
anbalī, Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī, and Ibn Ayyūb al-Ansārī seems to have been consciously avoided by others. The phrase does not occur in, for example, the biographical dictionaries of Hasan al-Būrūnī, Muhammad Amīn al-Muhibbī, and Muhammad Khalīl al-Murādī. One possible explanation for this might be in terms of compliance with the established ideal of “thinking well” (ḥusn al-z
ann)of one’s fellow Muslims and avoiding slander and calumny
(ghībah).
The Yemeni scholar Muhammad al-Shawkānī (d. 1834), for instance, after mentioning that one of his acquaintances was “inclined to those of handsome countenance,” assured the reader that he had received the consent of the person in question to mention this fact about him. He would not have mentioned this fact, Shawkānī insisted, if the person had minded, since he wanted to keep his biographical dictionary free from slanderous remarks.
171
It is also important to keep in mind that biographical entries were written within a social setting marked by rivalries, enmity, and alliances, and were thus charged with “political” significance. Many a quarrel between notable households had its roots in unfavorable mentions in, or exclusions from, biographical works. In such a situation, there would be more mundane reasons for a biographer to be as favorable and circumspect as possible in his characterizations of other notables. A more uncharitable explanation of the avoidance of the phrase “he inclines to boys” would suggest that some authors were eager to avoid a phrase that could easily apply to themselves. After all, Būrīrī was himself said to incline toward boys by his contemporary Ibn Ayyūb al-Ans
ārī (who-by coincidence?-is not mentioned in Būrīnīʾs later biographical dictionary of the notables of his age) .172
And, as will be seen in the following chapter, both Muḥibbī and Murādī seem in fact to have had a more sympathetic opinion of chaste pederastic affection than, for example, Ghazzī or Ibn Ayyūb. The more important point, however, is that such authors, though avoiding the disapproving phrase, were not thereby reduced to silence; their works include several anecdotes and poems whose subject is pederastic attraction. Rather, they resorted to a different vocabulary, a different way of speaking, to describe what other scholars dismissed as an “inclination to boys.”
Other books
Hamish Macbeth 18 (2002) - Death of a Celebrity by M.C. Beaton, Prefers to remain anonymous
These Gentle Wounds by Helene Dunbar
Cat Class (Trick Or Treat) by Slayer, Megan
Hard Cash by Mike Dennis
Black Harvest by Ann Pilling
Sacrifice In Stone by Mason, Patricia
Ice by Linda Howard
Lying Lips by Mahaughani Fiyah
The Constantine Affliction by T. Aaron Payton
