Postscript 2 – Additional arguments refuting pro-LGBTQ activists on the permissibility of homosexuality in Islam

Click here for main article.

Click here for Malay version of the Postscript 2.

Click here for Postscript 1 (English).

Click here for video talk in Malay with English subtitle.

—————————

Postscript 2 

The claim of the absence of scholarly consensus (ijma`)

Several Muslim activists who advocate for the permissibility of homosexuality in Islam reject the existence of scholarly consensus (ijma`) regarding its prohibition.[1] Ijma` refers to the agreement of all qualified jurists (mujtahids) on a particular legal ruling at a given time, thereby rendering that ruling indisputable.

Although ijma` is recognised as an important source in the formulation of Islamic legal rulings, these activists argue that its actual occurrence and verifiability are doubtful. This is because scholars themselves have differed over the definition of ijma` that is binding upon the Muslim community at large. For instance, scholars of the Hanbali school recognise only the consensus of the Companions, on the basis that only such a consensus can be reliably ascertained. Scholars have also differed over the concept of tacit consensus (ijma` sukuti), namely whether the silence of a mujtahid regarding a particular opinion may be construed as assent.[2]

These differences have led some to argue that ijma` after the era of the Companions is practically impossible, given the large number of scholars dispersed across the vast territories of the Muslim world. Moreover, establishing the existence of ijma` with certainty is inherently difficult. As a result, many scholars have exercised caution in accepting claims of consensus for reasons: (1) the matter in question is already supported by clear textual evidence (such as the obligations of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving), and (2) the alleged consensus in reality reflects agreement only within a particular group of scholars rather than among all mujtahids.[3]

Although what has been stated above reflects the position within the mainstream fiqh tradition,[4] what is often omitted in the arguments of pro-homosexual activists is the fact that a comprehensive survey of juristic works across different historical periods yields virtually no opinion that permits sexual relations between men.[5] From this empirical reality, it may be reasonably inferred that the prohibition constitutes the position of an overwhelming majority of scholars throughout Islamic history.

This is further evidenced by the difficulty faced by such activists in identifying authoritative, mainstream juristic support for their position. To date, the figure frequently cited is Ibn Hazm, who held that homosexual inclination may be innate rather than a matter of personal choice. However, this view does not in any way imply that he permitted homosexual acts. A careful examination of his works demonstrates that he unequivocally regarded such acts as reprehensible, unlawful, and subject to severe punishment. Consequently, invoking his opinion to support the permissibility of homosexuality is misleading, if not a form of misrepresentation.[6]

The near absence of support within the mainstream juristic tradition further reinforces the established ruling of prohibition. As such, it cannot be readily set aside under the banner of re-evaluating traditional idea or invoking ijtihad in matters characterised as khilafiyyah (legitimately disputed) or furu`iyyah (subsidiary issues).

In an attempt to deny the existence of ijma`, some activists also cite a minority opinion within the Hanafi school allegedly permitting sexual relations between a master and his male slave. However, this argument reflects a misunderstanding of a fundamental principle of fiqh.[7] In general, jurists maintain that such ruling is exceptional in nature, and cannot be extended to free persons by way of qiyas (analogical reasoning) or other legal means.[8] Other examples include the concession regarding the `awrah (private parts) of a female slave before her master, the permissibility for a master to engage in sexual relations with female slaves without numerical limit, and the differing corporal punishment prescribed for slaves who commit zina.[9] These rulings are exceptional in nature and are not applicable to free individuals. This principle is grounded in the view that Islam recognises freedom as the original and normative condition of human beings, while slavery is an incidental and exceptional state. Moreover, Islamic teachings encourage the emancipation of slaves and the gradual eradication of slavery. Accordingly, rulings pertaining to slaves cannot serve as a basis for formulating general laws that contradict this underlying principle.[10]

The claim concerning Sheikh al-Shabrawi

Some activists further argue that Sheikh Abdullah al-Shabrawi (a former Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University) endorsed a homosexual lifestyle through his poetry, which expresses themes of love directed towards male subjects.[11] This argument essentially represents an attempt to confer legitimacy upon such views by associating them with a respected religious authority.

Three points suffice to address this claim. First, literary expressions in the form of poetry cannot serve as authoritative evidence (dalil) in the determination of legal rulings. As such, they cannot be invoked as proof for the permissibility of any practice.

Second, expressions of love or admiration between men that are non-sexual in nature are not prohibited in religion, particularly within the Arabic literary tradition, which is rich in metaphorical and symbolic language. Therefore, what appears in such poems does not constitute firm evidence that Sheikh al-Shabrawi endorsed a homosexual lifestyle, nor that he himself harboured desire for members of the same sex. Khaled el-Rouayheb, who studied the diwan (anthology of poetry) of Sheikh al-Shabrawi, notes that it is difficult to believe that Sheikh al-Shabrawi would deliberately commit or openly advocate sinful act, even though such a possibility cannot be entirely ruled out for any scholar. He suggests that the more plausible conclusion is that Sheikh al-Shabrawi did not consider his romantic poetry to fall within the same category as liwat (anal sex), which is strictly prohibited in religion. He further points out that Sheikh al-Shabrawi repeatedly emphasised the chastity character of his romantic verses, indicating that they were not intended for sinful act. El-Rouayheb ultimately concludes that Sheikh al-Shabrawi should not be regarded as someone who recognised or endorsed homosexuality. Rather, he clearly drew a distinction between expressions of love and romance, and the act of liwat with a person of the same sex.[12]

Third, numerous scholars and specialists in Arabic literature have rejected such interpretations, offering instead more contextually grounded readings of the poems in question. The selective use of poetic excerpts without reference to established literary analysis constitutes a methodologically unsound approach. As the present author is not a specialist in Arabic literary studies, this discussion will not be pursued further here. It suffices to refer readers to relevant scholarly works that analyse Sheikh al-Shabrawi’s poetry in its proper context.[13]

——————————–

Notes:

[1]Junaid Jahangir and Hussein Abdullatif (2018), “Homosexuality: The Emerging New Battleground in Islam”, Iran Namag, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. CXXXIIII-CXLI.

[2]Ibid..

[3]Ibid.; Muhammad Haniff Hassan (2022), “A Wasatiyyah Approach to Understanding Theological Absolutism”, Muktamar Ulama 2021: Conference Proceeding, Singapore: Pergas, pp. 24-6.

[4]Hassan (2022), pp. 24-6.

[5]Mobeen Vaid (2016), “Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Qur’anic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle”, The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 34:3, p. 74.

[6]Vaid (2016), pp. 73-6. See Postscript 1, at

[7]Jahangir and Abdullatif (2018), p. CXL.

[8]Ibn Hazm (t.t.), al-Muhalla, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, vol. 12, pp. 184-5; al-Mawardi (1999), al-Hawi al-Kabir, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-` Ilmiyah, vol. 9, pp. 104-5; al-Ruyani (2009), Bahr al-Mazhab, n.pl..: Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyah, vol. 9, p. 102; al-Mahamili (1416H), al-Lubab fi al-Fiqh al-Shafi`i, Madinah: Dar al-Bukhari, p. 422; al-Sam`ani (1999), Qawati` al-Adillah fi al-Usul, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyah, vol. 1, p. 114; Ibn al-Mulaqqin (2010), Qawa`id Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Riyad: Dar Ibn al-Qayyim, vol.. 2, pp. 518-42; al-Albani (2015), Jami Turath al-`Allamah al-Albani Fi al-Fiqh, San`a: Markaz al-Nu`man li al-Buhuth wa Tahqiq al-Thurath wa al-Tarjamah, vol. 7, pp. 148.

[9]Hamid Algar (2013), “Regulations Governing Slavery in Islamic Jurisprudence”, Encyclopedia Iranica 3:7, pp. 776-9, available at https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-vi/ . See also Jonathan A. C. Brown (2019), Slavery and Islam, London: OneWorld Academic.

[10]Muhammad Mahmud al-Jamal (1431H), “Al-Hurriyah wa Tatbiqatuha fi al-Fiqh al-Islami”, al-Ummah 30:138, pp. 55-6.

[11]Azfar Anwar (n.d.), “Rediscovering Queer Love in Religious Authority”, TikTok, available at https://www.tiktok.com/@azfarism/video/7611119818401484050

[12]Khaled el-Rouayheb (2009), Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 4-5, 7.

[13]el-Rouayheb (2009), pp. 3-5, 7, 35, 54, 64, 84, 89-90, 105; Jessica Marglin (2019), “Harsh punishments under Sharia are modern interpretations of an ancient tradition”, The Conversation, May 8, available at https://theconversation.com/harsh-punishments-under-sharia-are-modern-interpretations-of-an-ancient-tradition-115211 ; Mohd Asyraf Zulkifli et. al. (2022), “The Interplay of Infidelity, Sexuality, and Religiosity in the Discourse of Mixed-Orientation Marriages: A Discursive Psychological Analysis”, Frontiers in Psychology 13:784675, April, p. 9.