Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 (2 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
2.94Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
The surprise expressed by Saffar and Ṭahṭāwī suggests that they came from societies in which “flirtation, romance, and courtship” with boys was quite familiar, as was composing “amorous ditties” for male youths.
It is perhaps tempting to view such passages as evidence of a widespread tolerance of homosexuality or—to be more precise—pederasty in the pre-nineteenth-century Islamic world. Such an interpretation has been advanced by modern historians. In his pioneering comparative study
Sexual Variance in Society and History
(1976), Vern L. Bullough propounded the view that Islam, in contrast to Christianity, is a “sex-positive” religion, and that homosexuality was widely tolerated in medieval Muslim societies .
7
John Boswell, in his
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality
(1980), similarly contrasted an increasingly homophobic cultural climate in medieval Europe with what he saw as widespread tolerance for homosexuality in Muslim Spain.
8
Specialists in Arab-Islamic history have made similar, if more nuanced, claims. For instance, Marshall Hodgson, in his influential
The Venture of Islam,
wrote that in medieval Islamic civilization,
Sexual Variance in Society and History
(1976), Vern L. Bullough propounded the view that Islam, in contrast to Christianity, is a “sex-positive” religion, and that homosexuality was widely tolerated in medieval Muslim societies .
7
John Boswell, in his
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality
(1980), similarly contrasted an increasingly homophobic cultural climate in medieval Europe with what he saw as widespread tolerance for homosexuality in Muslim Spain.
8
Specialists in Arab-Islamic history have made similar, if more nuanced, claims. For instance, Marshall Hodgson, in his influential
The Venture of Islam,
wrote that in medieval Islamic civilization,
despite strong Shar‘i [i.e., Islamic legal] disapproval, the sexual relations of a mature man with a subordinate youth were so readily accepted in upper-class circles that there was often little or no effort to conceal their existence ... The fashion entered poetry, especially the Persian.
9
Bernard Lewis made the same point in his recent
Music from a Distant Drum:
Music from a Distant Drum:
Homosexuality is condemned and forbidden by the holy law of Islam, but there are times and places in Islamic history when the ban on homosexual love seems no stronger than the ban on adultery in, say, Renaissance Italy or seventeenth-century France. Some [classical Arabic, Persian, and Turkish] poems are openly homosexual; some poets, in their collected poems, even have separate sections for love poems addressed to males and females.
10
Both Hodgson and Lewis suggest that what was cultivated openly in society is precisely that which Islamic law prohibited. As I hope to make clear in the course of this study, this assumption is questionable. What Islamic law prohibits is sexual intercourse between men, especially anal intercourse. It is hardly credible to suggest that such illicit intercourse was carried out in public. What unfolded in public was presumably such things as courting and expressions of passionate love. It may seem natural for modern historians to gloss over the distinction between committing sodomy and expressing passionate love for a youth, and to describe both activities as manifestations of “homosexuality.” But this only goes to show that the term is anachronistic and unhelpful in this particular context. Islamic religious scholars of the period were committed to the precept that sodomy (
liwāṭ
) was one of the most abominable sins a man could commit. However, many of them clearly did not believe that falling in love with a boy or expressing this love in verse was therefore also illicit. Indeed, many prominent religious scholars indulged openly in such activity. The example that follows is a case in point.
liwāṭ
) was one of the most abominable sins a man could commit. However, many of them clearly did not believe that falling in love with a boy or expressing this love in verse was therefore also illicit. Indeed, many prominent religious scholars indulged openly in such activity. The example that follows is a case in point.
The Egyptian scholar ʿAbdallah al-Shabrāwī (d. 1758) was for over thirty years Rector
(Shaykh)
of the Azhar college in Cairo, perhaps the most prestigious Islamic college in the Arabic-speaking world. He was also an accomplished poet, and his collected poetry
(Diwan)
was, according to a scholar writing two generations later, “well known among people.”
11
The
Dīwān
consists overwhelmingly of love poetry, much of which clearly depicts a young male beloved. An example is the following poem, in which the gender of the beloved is indicated both by the allusion to beard-down in the third verse, and more clearly by the last verse, which reveals the beloved’s name to be Ibrāhīm:
(Shaykh)
of the Azhar college in Cairo, perhaps the most prestigious Islamic college in the Arabic-speaking world. He was also an accomplished poet, and his collected poetry
(Diwan)
was, according to a scholar writing two generations later, “well known among people.”
11
The
Dīwān
consists overwhelmingly of love poetry, much of which clearly depicts a young male beloved. An example is the following poem, in which the gender of the beloved is indicated both by the allusion to beard-down in the third verse, and more clearly by the last verse, which reveals the beloved’s name to be Ibrāhīm:
My lord, by Him who has granted you comeliness, splendor and beauty.And who in your bewitching eyes has permitted lovers some licit magic.And who has bestowed on your cheeks that thing which lovers have disputed at such length.Grant nearness to a lover for whom infatuation is a strict duty and forgetfulness is impossible.O gazelle! No! You are even more exalted, whose neck puts the gazelle to shame.O namesake of aI-Khalil [the epithet of the Prophet Ibrāhīm], you are cold and yet set my heart ablaze.
12
Another poem commemorates the growth of beard-down (
ʿidhār
) on the cheeks of an Ibrāhīm in the year IIIO of the Muslim era (i.e., 1698-99 CE). The poem ends with the following words, containing the date of composition in letter-code: “The hill flowers delight on the cheeks of Ibrāhīm.”
13
Yet another poem is introduced by the poet himself with the following words: “I also said a love poem of a youth
(qultu mutaghazzilan fī shābb)
who studied with me the sciences of language, addressing him dallyingly.”
14
ʿidhār
) on the cheeks of an Ibrāhīm in the year IIIO of the Muslim era (i.e., 1698-99 CE). The poem ends with the following words, containing the date of composition in letter-code: “The hill flowers delight on the cheeks of Ibrāhīm.”
13
Yet another poem is introduced by the poet himself with the following words: “I also said a love poem of a youth
(qultu mutaghazzilan fī shābb)
who studied with me the sciences of language, addressing him dallyingly.”
14
It is difficult to believe that Shābrāwi was openly committing a cardinal sin in composing such poetry. Of course, a religious scholar may sometimes fail to live up to the principles he preaches. Yet in such cases one would expect some discretion, not a public flaunting of the transgression. It is much more likely that Shābrāwi simply did not believe that what he was doing fell into the same category as the sodomy that was so strictly prohibited by Islamic law. Indeed, the love poetry of the
Dīwān
repeatedly insists on the chaste nature of the poet’s affection: “he [i.e., the poet] has no wish for that which is prohibited”; “I have chastity by natural disposition, not affectation”; “my conscience desists from sin.”
15
Shabrāwī seems not to have had an attitude toward “homosexuality” at all, but apparently drew a central distinction between, on the one hand, falling ardently in love with a boy and expressing this love in verse and, on the other hand, committing sodomy with a boy. Until quite recently, it was common in Europe to tolerate or even value ardent love between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman but to condemn premarital sex. This combination of attitudes is only contradictory if one wrongheadedly insists on interpreting the coexisting judgments as expressions of both tolerance and intolerance of “heterosexuality.”
Constructionism and EssentialismDīwān
repeatedly insists on the chaste nature of the poet’s affection: “he [i.e., the poet] has no wish for that which is prohibited”; “I have chastity by natural disposition, not affectation”; “my conscience desists from sin.”
15
Shabrāwī seems not to have had an attitude toward “homosexuality” at all, but apparently drew a central distinction between, on the one hand, falling ardently in love with a boy and expressing this love in verse and, on the other hand, committing sodomy with a boy. Until quite recently, it was common in Europe to tolerate or even value ardent love between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman but to condemn premarital sex. This combination of attitudes is only contradictory if one wrongheadedly insists on interpreting the coexisting judgments as expressions of both tolerance and intolerance of “heterosexuality.”
The assumption that it is unproblematic to speak of either tolerance or intolerance of homosexuality in the premodern Middle East would seem to derive from the assumption that homosexuality is a self-evident fact about the human world to which a particular culture reacts with a certain degree of tolerance or repression. From this perspective, writing the history of homosexuality is seen as analogous to writing, say, the history of women. One assumes that the concept “homosexual,” like the concept “woman,” is shared across historical periods, and that what varies and may be investigated historically is merely the changing cultural (popular, scientific, legal, etc.) attitude toward such people. In contrast to this “essentialist” view, a number of anthropologists, sociologists, and historians, inspired in the main by the late French philosopher Michel Foucault, have recently emphasized the “constructed,” or historically conditioned, nature of our modern sexual categories. They claim that the concept of homosexuality (and heterosexuality) was developed in Europe in the late nineteenth century, and that though its meaning may overlap with earlier concepts such as “sodomite” or “invert,” it is not, strictly speaking, synonymous with these. For example, Foucault stressed that the term “sodomite” applied to the perpetrator of an act; someone who was tempted to commit sodomy but refrained out of moral or religious considerations was thus not a sodomite. By contrast, the category “homosexual” would include someone who has the inclination, even if it is not translated into action.
16
On this account, homosexuality is no more a synonym for sodomy than heterosexuality is equivalent to fornication.
16
On this account, homosexuality is no more a synonym for sodomy than heterosexuality is equivalent to fornication.
Foucault’s “constructionist” claim has inspired much recent work in the history of homosexuality, but it has also provoked sometimes heated “essentialist” rejoinders. It is generally acknowledged that the term “homosexualitat” was coined in the late 1860S by the Austro-Hungarian writer Karl Maria Kertbeny, and that the first English equivalent first appeared in print some twenty years later. “Essentialists” insist that though the term “homosexuality” was new, the concept was not. Rejecting Foucault’s claim of conceptual discontinuity, they believe that the new term corresponds in meaning to earlier terms such as the medieval Latin
sodomia
or the classical Arabic
liwāṭ
.
17
sodomia
or the classical Arabic
liwāṭ
.
17
The adjudication of the dispute between constructionists and essentialists should of course be based on a careful investigation of the historical evidence. To avoid prejudging the issue, close attention will have to be paid to the premodern—in this case Arabic—terms and phrases used in various contexts to designate acts and actors that we would be inclined to call “homosexual.” Only then will it be possible to determine whether such terms and phrases are equivalent in meaning to the English term “homosexual.” Unfortunately, modern scholars are often not so careful. For instance, one recent author translates the Arabic medical term
ubnah
as “homosexuality,” even though he himself acknowledges that the term only applied to the male who desired to be anally penetrated.
18
A man who regularly anally penetrated other men was not thought to have
ubnah
but would presumably be deemed a “homosexual” today. The two terms are simply not synonymous. Recent general histories of homosexuality find a “disparity” between the proclaimed ideals and actual behavior of some Islamic scholars who, on the one hand, condemned “homosexuality” but, on the other, wrote “strongly homoerotic poetry.”
19
What Islamic scholars condemned was not “homosexuality” but
liwāṭ,
that is, anal intercourse between men. Writing a love poem of a male youth would simply not fall under the juridical concept of
liwāṭ.
ubnah
as “homosexuality,” even though he himself acknowledges that the term only applied to the male who desired to be anally penetrated.
18
A man who regularly anally penetrated other men was not thought to have
ubnah
but would presumably be deemed a “homosexual” today. The two terms are simply not synonymous. Recent general histories of homosexuality find a “disparity” between the proclaimed ideals and actual behavior of some Islamic scholars who, on the one hand, condemned “homosexuality” but, on the other, wrote “strongly homoerotic poetry.”
19
What Islamic scholars condemned was not “homosexuality” but
liwāṭ,
that is, anal intercourse between men. Writing a love poem of a male youth would simply not fall under the juridical concept of
liwāṭ.
What such examples show is that care should be taken before translating as “homosexual” any Arabic term attested in the texts. The possibility at issue is precisely whether pre-nineteenth-century Arab-Islamic culture lacked the concept of homosexuality altogether, and operated instead with a set of concepts (like
ubnah
or
liwāṭ)
each of which pick out some of the acts and actors we might call “homosexual” but which were simply not seen as instances of one overarching phenomenon. In the course of this study I hope to show that this was indeed the case. I argue that distinctions not captured by the concept of “homosexuality” were all-important from the perspective of the culture of the period. One such distinction is that between the “active” and the “passive” partner in a homosexual encounter—these were typically not conceptualized or evaluated in the same way. Another distinction is that between passionate infatuation (
ʿishq
) and sexual lust—emphasizing this distinction was important for those who would argue for the religious permissibility of the passionate love of boys. A third distinction centers on exactly what sexual acts were involved—Islamic law prescribed severe corporal or capital punishment for anal intercourse between men, but regarded, say, kissing, fondling, or non-anal intercourse as less serious transgressions.
The State of the Fieldubnah
or
liwāṭ)
each of which pick out some of the acts and actors we might call “homosexual” but which were simply not seen as instances of one overarching phenomenon. In the course of this study I hope to show that this was indeed the case. I argue that distinctions not captured by the concept of “homosexuality” were all-important from the perspective of the culture of the period. One such distinction is that between the “active” and the “passive” partner in a homosexual encounter—these were typically not conceptualized or evaluated in the same way. Another distinction is that between passionate infatuation (
ʿishq
) and sexual lust—emphasizing this distinction was important for those who would argue for the religious permissibility of the passionate love of boys. A third distinction centers on exactly what sexual acts were involved—Islamic law prescribed severe corporal or capital punishment for anal intercourse between men, but regarded, say, kissing, fondling, or non-anal intercourse as less serious transgressions.
Much of what has been written on homosexuality in Arab-Islamic civilization shirks the conceptual point discussed in the previous section.
20
Proceeding on the basis of an unquestioned “essentialist” assumption, many historians have assumed that their task is to point out the extent to which “pederasty” or “homosexuality” was practiced or tolerated, and perhaps to offer explanations of this phenomenon. The tendency is very much in evidence already in Sir Richard Burton’s remarks on “Pederasty” in the “Terminal Essay” to his translation of
The Arabian Nights
in 1886. Writing before the term “homosexuality” was introduced into the English language, Burton still assumed that he was faced with one phenomenon, “pederasty,” which he claimed was widespread in the Islamic world and regarded as at worst a peccadillo. He believed that this was due to the “blending of masculine and feminine temperaments” in the region.
21
More recent commentators often proceed in the same fashion. The article “Liwat” in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam,
published exactly one hundred years after Burton’s essay, notes that homosexuality was prohibited by Islamic law but nevertheless widely practiced and tolerated in Islamic history after the eighth century. This is traced back to the “corruption of morals” by luxury and the “rapid process of acculturation” following in the wake of the Islamic conquest of the Middle East.
22
Similarly, one historian has sought to explain what he believed to be widespread pederasty or homosexuality in Arab-Islamic civilization by invoking supposedly “oversatiated” heterosexual appetites among the upper classes of society.
23
At least one other historian has advanced the exact opposite explanation: widespread homosexuality was supposedly caused by gender segregation and the resulting frustration of heterosexual appetites.
24
One may suspect that such “explanations” reveal very little besides the moral prejudices of those who offer them, and their sense of what stands in need of explanation and what does not. More crucially, however, such studies do not seem to suspect that the culture under discussion may not have shared our concept of homosexuality, and may thus have seen as unrelated certain phenomena that we are inclined to conflate.
20
Proceeding on the basis of an unquestioned “essentialist” assumption, many historians have assumed that their task is to point out the extent to which “pederasty” or “homosexuality” was practiced or tolerated, and perhaps to offer explanations of this phenomenon. The tendency is very much in evidence already in Sir Richard Burton’s remarks on “Pederasty” in the “Terminal Essay” to his translation of
The Arabian Nights
in 1886. Writing before the term “homosexuality” was introduced into the English language, Burton still assumed that he was faced with one phenomenon, “pederasty,” which he claimed was widespread in the Islamic world and regarded as at worst a peccadillo. He believed that this was due to the “blending of masculine and feminine temperaments” in the region.
21
More recent commentators often proceed in the same fashion. The article “Liwat” in the
Encyclopaedia of Islam,
published exactly one hundred years after Burton’s essay, notes that homosexuality was prohibited by Islamic law but nevertheless widely practiced and tolerated in Islamic history after the eighth century. This is traced back to the “corruption of morals” by luxury and the “rapid process of acculturation” following in the wake of the Islamic conquest of the Middle East.
22
Similarly, one historian has sought to explain what he believed to be widespread pederasty or homosexuality in Arab-Islamic civilization by invoking supposedly “oversatiated” heterosexual appetites among the upper classes of society.
23
At least one other historian has advanced the exact opposite explanation: widespread homosexuality was supposedly caused by gender segregation and the resulting frustration of heterosexual appetites.
24
One may suspect that such “explanations” reveal very little besides the moral prejudices of those who offer them, and their sense of what stands in need of explanation and what does not. More crucially, however, such studies do not seem to suspect that the culture under discussion may not have shared our concept of homosexuality, and may thus have seen as unrelated certain phenomena that we are inclined to conflate.
Other books
When a Marquess Loves a Woman by Vivienne Lorret
Ángeles y Demonios by Dan Brown
Rocking a SECRET by Crystal Perkins
Claimed by Her Web Master (Web Master #3) by Normandie Alleman
Concealed Attractions (Cedar Island Tales) by Vale, Kate
Autumn Calling by T. Lynne Tolles
Mysterious Wisdom by Rachel Campbell-Johnston
360 Degrees Longitude by John Higham
Seducing Their Mate by Kiera West
Miracle Jones by Nancy Bush
