Nowhere, neither in the Qur’an nor in the Sunna – hadeeth, oral traditions of the Prophet - homosexuality is condemned, as recalled on May 17th, 2010 by the rector of the Mosque of Bordeaux, Imam Tareq Oubrou [1]. According to that statement, today it is a duty to change some misogynistic and homophobic traditions, and talk about real issues, without amalgams, or misunderstandings, or political manipulations.

 

First of all, the verses mentioning "the people of Lut" in the Qur’an, never speak of homosexuality by nature; homosexuality - المثلية الجنسية - is not mentioned once. The Qur'an mentions violent sex, dominative, inhuman practiced by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and other criminal practices that have nothing to do with homosexuality - rape, theft, refusal of hospitality, murder, etc.. [2]. Moreover, their traditional sex was described as unprecedented. It is said in the Qur'an: "How dare you practice a vice than any people before you had practiced” [3]. And we know today that homosexuality has not been “invented” by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Considering that these crimes - rape, theft, etc. - Are characteristic of homosexuals is discriminatory and it is an amalgam. If one replace the term "people of Lot" with "Jews" or "Blacks", we would see that we cannot now condemned all "Jews" or "Blacks" for a crime committed by a city populated predominantly, 5000 years ago (!), of "Jews" or "Blacks”. In this example, the discrimination and the amalgam are obvious. But when it comes to homosexuality, it is less obvious and some dogmatic Muslims continue to accuse us of all these heinous crimes committed by people who had, among other things, homosexual violent and dehumanizing practices.

 

Therefore, these sexual practices and are often cited by dogmatic Muslims because they think homosexuality is mentioned in the Qur’an indirectly. But theses violent practices have in fact nothing to do with homosexuality per se. It would be more likely that these sexual practices have been described by the ancient historian, Herodotus: "... Once in a lifetime to sit in the temple of love [dedicated to the goddess Ishtar] and ... have sex with a stranger ... men pass and make their choice. Whatever the money, the woman never refuses, because that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred "[4]. In good faith, these acts do not describe homosexuality per se. These are sexual domineering, violent practices which can be equated with prostitution in public.
        These domineering and violent sexual practices also seem to be still in force among the Arabs until shortly before the end of the modern era (nineteenth century), as reported by Khaled Al-Rouyaheb in his wonderful book "Before Homosexuality in the Arab-IslamicWorld "[5]. And so the hadeeth attributed to the Prophet Muhammad , that says: "If you find two men to commit the crime of the people of Lut, kill the active and the passive " [6]: well this hadeeth does not apply to homosexuality per se, but applies to acts of prostitution made in public. Today there is no question of practicing such a punishment for acts of prostitution made publicly [7]. But it will still take time before the Arabo-islamic countries - often within the scope of dictatorial regimes - evolve on these particular issues [8]; dictatorships, despotic regimes, which cannot be honestly considered as Islamic.

 

Besides this hadeeth was narrated by one of the companions of the Prophet with the most sulfurous reputation, which itself was involved personally with homosexuality. Aisha RAA, with whom Abu Huraïra also had an altercation, said that what Abu Huraïra considered the words of the Prophet , actually was not the word of the Prophet . These are inconsistencies about hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraïra - hadeeths attributed to the Prophet , in reality often misogynistic and homophobic hadeeths - in total contradiction with the facts as reported also by other companions of the Prophet whose reputations are safer. Inconsistencies about Abu Huraïra that have already been highlighted in 1983 by the famous Muslim feminist, Fatima Mernissi in her famous book: "The political harem, the Prophet and women" [9]. We, sexual minorities who are fighting for human rights, must be aware that the opinion of one man of bad reputation is not valid in front of the advice of the wife of the Prophet Muhammad ; Aisha RAA, the closest of his wives, the first scholar woman within Islam.

Plus Abu Huraïra, the companion of the Prophet Muhammad  - the reputation of the companions is considered sacred to the majority of Muslims - seemed to be himself questioning about his sexuality. He spoke to the Prophet Muhammad who, far from condemning him, urged him to accept his fate [10]. But Abu Huraïra preferred to marry and have kids. Then he used to be one of the fiercest persecutors of those whom they use to call the "mukhanathun” - مخنثون. The mukhanathun were men effeminate, androgynous men, who had no desire to women, who did not marry women, before whom the Prophet's wives did not veil with their hijab [11]. Today mukhanathun could have been described as "gay" or "transgenders”. The Prophet defended, proactively, one of these mukhanathun; Abu Huraïra wanted to kill because of his effeminate manners and way of dressing [12]. It is therefore obvious that the opinion of Abu Huraïra on homosexuality was not neutral, and in total contradiction with the ethical position of the Prophet of Islam  who, again, defended proactively these individuals belonging to what we call today "sexual minorities". What religious or political leader had given such an example, one thousand and almost five hundred years ago ?

Moreover about the Arabo-Islamic traditions considered to be "authentic" - often wrongly attributed to the Prophet Muhammad , as we have seen - there is also the hadeeth often quoted saying: " When two men have sex as did the people of Lut, the throne of the Merciful is shaken [13]. This hadeeth is apocryphal, which means it was added to the Arabo-Islamic tradition long after the death of the Prophet Muhammad who never claimed that the universe can shake simply because of a sexual relation between two consenting individuals. So why do some Muslims, often dogmatic, still repeat this apocryphal hadeeth, if it was so obvious from the Qur’an that homosexuality is sinful by nature!?

Similarly, there is never any mention of feminine homosexuality anywhere. The only hadeeth that talks about sexual relationships between women is also apocryphal, first cited by al-Tabaraani over three hundred years after the Prophet's death and was added after the elaboration of the six so called “authentic” books of Hadeeths. This fact tends to prove in this case, after the death of the Prophet , that women's sexuality was controlled by the men in power’s vision, who did not think a woman without a penis could have an “independent” sexuality – for several Muslim scholars, adultery was considered to be the penetration of a penis into a vagina [13b]. Moreover, these apocryphal hadeeths suggests that with the dogmatization of Islam, "Arabs" no longer saw “homosexuality” – defined here as the exclusive research of a same sex partner - as a threat to filiation, a sacred concept for the tribal morality of that time ; but for the first time probably in the history of the Arabo-Islamic world, several decades after the Prophet's death , this behavior was seen as a pathology [5].

Remember also the verses of that Surat who speaks of the celestial journey accomplished through Jerusalem by Muhammad : "Say: Everyone acts according to its kind - in Arabic shakilat, شكلة - but your Lord knows best who follows the best path. They ask you about the soul. Say: "The soul comes under the command of my Lord, and indeed of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little." If We willed We could withdraw that which We have revealed, and then you will not find anyone to defend you against Us. " [14]. Here "shakilat" could be translated as "deep nature on which the individual was shaped" or "gender identity". It is an interpretation certainly much more modern and progressive than most dogmatic Muslims would like to impose. Only God knows why He created us so and why each one is acting a certain way, depending on its gender or sexuality.

 

In conclusion we believe homosexuality is not a sin by nature, and it is the duty of every good Muslim to fight against homophobic violence, as recalled by the Rector of Bordeaux, Imam Tariq Oubrou [ 15]. More importantly, it is the duty of all good Muslims in France - and elsewhere - to manage a place for sexual minorities within the Muslim community; homophobia is not an opinion but a crime [ 16]. For us all use of the Arabo-Islamic tradition for political purposes can only serve Islamophobic extremists and dogmatic Muslims. Finally, remember that the Prophet himself forbade – according to his faithful companion, the Caliph of Islam Omar ibn Al-Khattab – to base our ethic mainly on his sayings and hadeeths; we have to stick mainly on the Qur'an [17], very probably because he knew that some parties might use his words to change, playing on the misunderstandings, the fundamentally egalitarian and non-violent spirit of Islam [18].

____________________________________________________________________________

Nota Bene (added on the 28th of March 2011)

In some chapters the Qur’an refers to marriage as the union between men and women as a complementary pair. However, other chapters deal with the fundamental nature of the human relationships as a duality with no presence of gender dichotomy. Likely, duality would exist inside of every being. This states the fundamental equality of the spouses and gives a way to a no-gender conception of the human relationships.

“O, people! Care about your commitments with your Lord, Who created with an only soul and from it He created its couple, and from the union of both multitude of men and women were born” (Qur’an 4:1)

“And among His Signs you may find this: that He created couples for you from yourselves to live in peace with them, blowing love and mercy in your hearts. Certainly there are signs in for those who want to see” (Qur’an 30:21).