In 1993, when homosexuality was decriminalized and the age of sexual majority was made the same for everyone, it was often said that no one had been prosecuted under the Labouchere amendment in over forty years. This was false. Throughout the 1970s, David Norris, a lawyer who would later become a senator, and Mary Robinson, a barrister who would go on to become president of the Republic, both defended many men arrested by police under compromising circumstances. “But I do remember very clearly the humiliation caused to those accused even when we secured their acquittal,” declared Norris in a speech before the Senate in June 1993, during the debate on decriminalization. “In particular, I recall one occasion when a young man was forced to repeatedly describe in detail an act of fellatio in which he had engaged, the judge amusing himself by making
humorous
remarks to the huge enjoyment of those in the body of the court.”
In 1974, Norris took the Republic of Ireland to the Supreme Court of Justice in order to prove that the dispositions of Irish law violated human rights, and that they were then unconstitutional. In his verdict, the judge, Mr McWilliam, responded that he could not grant Norris’ request because of the Christian and democratic nature of the Irish Republic. The appeal to the Supreme Court was similarly rejected, so Norris decided to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights. This court ruled in his favor in 1988, but it would be five years later before legislators would modify Irish law.
Nevertheless, lesbians and gays were not absent from the Irish cultural revolution. During these movements of national pride that led to the creation of the Republic, many gays and lesbians were able to express themselves, albeit discreetly. The most famous example is the work of Roger Casement, the
Black Diaries
, which stood on municipal library bookshelves for decades. Casement, an Irish knight who converted to the cause of the Republic, was arrested and tried for
treason
after the 1916 revolution. During the trial, the English government circulated the diaries in order to establish his guilt. The journals describe the author’s homosexual encounters with the same economical tone in which he might have recorded his daily expenses. Casement was hung for treason, and even to this day, certain intellectuals question the authenticity of the diaries, most of their arguments very clearly based on homophobic sentiment and prejudice.
Other figures of great importance during the development of Irish culture were openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual, or had clearly expressed homosexual desires in their works, for example novelist Kate O’Brien; Micheal McLiammoir, the actor who founded the Gate Theatre; the Celtic Revival poet Eva Gore-Booth; or novelist Brendan Behan. One of the charismatic leaders of the 1916 Revolution, Padraig Pearse, expressed his homosexual desires in his poetry, and was lauded for it. In addition, when Micheal McLiammoir died in 1978, the president of the Republic attended his funeral and publicly presented his condolences to McLiammoir’s long-time partner, Hilton Edwards—and this in a nation where homosexual relations constituted a crime, and would still for another fifteen years.
—Brian Finnegan
Collins, Eoin, and Ide O’Carroll.
Lesbian and Gay Visions of Ireland
. New York: Cassel, 1995.
Horgan, John.
Mary Robinson: An Independent Voice
. Dublin: The O’Brien Press, 1997.
Inglis, Brian.
Roger Casement
. London: Penguin Books, 2002.
Irish Council For Civil Liberties.
Equality Now for Lesbians and Gay Men
. Dublin: ICCL, 1990.
Marcus, David.
Alternative Loves: Irish Gay and Lesbian Stories
. Dublin: Martello Mercier, 1994.
Mitchell, Angus.
Amazon Journal of Roger Casement
. Dublin: Anaconda Editions, 1997.
Philpot, Ger. “Martyr in the Park,”
GI Magazine
(2001).
Rose, Kieran.
Diverse Communities:The Evolution of Lesbian and Gay Politics in Ireland
. Cork, Ireland: Cork Univ. Press, 1994.
Staunton, Denis.
Micheal MacLiammoir
. London: Absolute Press, 1997.
—Armed Forces; Decriminalization; England; North America; Theology; Violence; Wilde, Oscar.
ISLAM
Considering today’s context of a Western perception of Islam which produces constant fundamentalist discourse filled with racism, it is important to keep a few things in mind before exposing the manifestations of homophobia in the Muslim religion. First and foremost, it would be prejudiced to speak of Islam in general, as the religion is divided into multiple branches, whose positions on many questions can be quite divergent. Moreover, it should be remembered that there are always differences among the fundamental texts of a religion, the laws decreed by that religion, and individual religious practices. In addition, the physical range of Islam is so vast (from Morocco to Indonesia) and consists of such a socio-cultural and historical diversity that it has produced multiple modes of religious interpretations and practices. Finally, the modern emphasis on the rigorist and puritanical tendencies of Islam most assuredly stems from the dynamics of intercultural relations between the East and the West; more precisely, from the reaction to the colonial periods. This rise in fundamentalism is thus not simply the product of an indigenous culture; rather, it is instead primarily a reactionary movement to the West. All this must be kept in mind when reading the following pages.
The Origins of Islam
There are certain fundamental elements of Islamic knowledge. To Muslims, the Qur’an (meaning, the “Revelation” or “Recitation”) is the word of God revealed to the prophet Muhammad between 610 and 632 CE. These words, memorized by the prophet’s companions and sometimes partially preserved in written form, were collected and compiled into a single definitive text around twenty years after Muhammad’s death, following a long review of the various versions. To Muslim believers, the resulting text (the Qur’an), has a sacred and intangible character because it is the word of God. Because of this, it is the primary source for their religion. Aside from the Qur’an, there is another corpus of referential texts: the
Sunnah
, or “Prophetic Tradition,” which, when necessary, covers those topics on which the Qur’an is silent, or alternately expands on its verses. These are a collection of rules based on the examples of the life of the Prophet—the Qur’an having put forth Muhammad as a “good model.” The Prophet’s actions and words, the
ahadith
(“narrations”; or in singular form,
hadith
) from which spring the
Sunnah
, were first preserved by his companions, then by a succession of sometimes numerous informants, until they were fixed in writing, compared to one another, then selected and compiled between 870 and 915 into the collections which remain unmodified to this day. The authenticity of some of these
ahadith
has been contested, and in certain cases it is obvious that some are an attempt to impose a particular point of view by unduly attributing it to the Prophet. From these two sources, the Qur’an and the collections of
ahadith
, sprang the
sharia
, Islamic law (literally meaning “path,” “way,” or “itinerary”), which consists of a corpus of jurisprudence. To Muslims, the
sharia
is not a vulgar human creation, but the expression of divine will. This makes it something immutable, of which modification is forbidden. That said, the
ahadith
are sometimes equivocal, and their interpretations have drawn numerous divergences. Moreover,
sharia
simply does not have answers for all situations that can arise in daily life. Because of this, many schools of thought, each proposing different methods of interpreting the founding texts as well as answers to countless new questions, have progressively come into being. There are four schools: Hanafi (the most liberal doctrine), Shafi’i, Maliki (more austere than the two previous), and Hanbali (the most rigorous). All four were founded over the course of about a century (from 767 to 855) and have progressively elaborated a voluminous corpus of
jurisprudence
: the
fiqh
. So what, then, do the Qur’an, the
ahadith
, and the different schools have to say about homosexuality?
The Qur’an
The term homosexuality does not exist in the Qur’an. On the other hand, the story of Lot’s people, which retells that of
Sodom and Gomorrah
from Genesis (19:1–23), appears in the Qur’an thirteen times (7:80–84; 11:69–83; 15:51–77; 21:71–75; 22:42–43; 25:40; 26:159–175; 27:54–58; 29:28–35; 37:133–138; 50:12–13; 54:32–40; 60:10; the first number indicating the
sura
, or chapter, and the second is the verse); however, the two cities are never named. In the Qur’an, the destruction of Lot’s people by “a rain of stones” is presented as a “sign” of divine power and as the sanction incurred by those who do not believe in God, and who disobey Him. It is because “Lot’s people” did not listen to their prophet’s warnings, who informed them of God’s commandments and suggested they stop their dealings, that they were destroyed. It is made clear that this radical sanction punishes them for having accused Lot of “lying,” for having denied God’s existence through their refusal to submit to his commandments, and for having challenged Lot to give them proof of the Lord’s existence (22:42–50; 50:12–13; 54:33–40). More than their behavior, it is undeniably the accusation of “lying” and their defiance that triggered the divine wrath.
Lot’s warnings include an explicit condemnation of sexuality between men, but the “misdeeds” committed by his people numbered far more than just that. Verse 165 of
sura
26 makes it known that the men were not simply attracted to other men, but also to adolescents, young boys, and even male animals, as the formula used to designate their partners is quite ambiguous: “Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males.” Nonetheless, the other verses only indicate that the men “approach” other men, instead of their “wives” or “women,” and that they “act senselessly” (27:55) to “practice [their] lusts” (7:81). Verses 58–77 of
sura
15 also indicate that Lot’s people attempted to “disgrace” God’s “messengers,” who had come to save Lot before the destruction of the city (15:320). We can turn to the book of Genesis (which is much more explicit than the Qur’an on this aspect of the story) to better understand the implications: the people of Sodom wanted to have “carnal relations” with the “messengers,” and they threatened to use violence to achieve this end. Thus, Lot’s people attempted to rape angels. As well, verses 28 and 29 of
sura
29 indicate that Lot’s people also practiced other reproachful actions, such as highway robbery:
28 And (remember) Lot behold, he said to his people: “Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. 29 “Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway? and practice wickedness (even) in your councils?”
In the majority of verses, sexuality between men is presented as the most significant “misdeed” of Lot’s people—it is an “abomination” that had never before been committed.
In the Arabic version of the Qur’an, the term
fahisha
(generally translated as “lewdness” or “shameful deed”), is used in the verses concerning Lot’s people. Because of this, some writers see it as a veiled allusion to sodomy between men, but the expression has a much wider meaning, because it also can imply heterosexual sexuality out of wedlock. In this sense, verse 16 of
sura
4 commands Muslims to “punish” (in the sense of “do harm” or “mistreat”) those who give in to “lewdness”:
16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
According to scholar Pinhas Ben Nahum, this verse has traditionally been interpreted as a condemnation of sodomy between men, though many (like Joseph Schacht) believe that an allusion to sodomy is quite unrealistic and that this passage is about extramarital heterosexual sexuality. If one admits this second hypothesis, then the Qur’an sets out no earthly sanctions against sodomy between men. However, if the first hypothesis is accepted, then the Qur’an condemns those who practice it to public prosecution and conviction, though with no specific mention as to the nature of the punishment. Regardless, those who imitate “Lot’s people” are qualified as “evil,” “lewd,” and “immoral” (21:74; 7:79–81). Note that at no time is there any mention of sexuality between women.
Despite this reprobation, the Qur’an repeats often enough that God is “gracious and merciful.” The verse above even states that he who repents and gives up the practice must be forgiven. He will earn God’s forgiveness and will be able to reach paradise, as opposed to those who refuse and “cry out lies.” Similarly, as pointed out by an anonymous author, the Qur’an is not lacking in ambiguity, as it promises to believers a paradise where they will be served by “youths of perpetual freshness” (56:17; 76:19) as “handsome as pearls well-guarded” (52:24).
To better understand the equivocal character of this reprobation, one has to understand the place of sexuality in the Muslim religion. In paradise, it is omnipresent—the faithful receive
houri
for wives (magnificent young women, eternally virginal) and beautiful young boys as servants. Orgasms are permanent and erections are perpetual. On earth, sexuality is simply a taste of the pleasures to come in paradise, and does not carry with it the same guilt as it does in Christianity. However, as Maarten Schild points out, this can be a source of social disorder and must be channeled into
marriage
, which is presented as “the expression of divine harmony and of the complementarity of the sexes.”
Zina
(or “fornication,” that is, extramarital sex) is severely reprimanded. The Qur’an suggests a punishment of up to life imprisonment for women who have committed “a lewdness” (4:15), and the “adulterer and adulteress” each must endure 100 lashes of the whip (24:2). But the woman who affirms five times that “[her accuser] is most surely one of the liars” must be pardoned (24:8). Penal procedure is very strict: four healthy adult Muslim men must have witnessed the acts and be capable of providing anatomical detail—near impossible conditions to meet. Otherwise, the guilty person must confess to his (or her) “crime” so that the punishment can be enforced. Those “who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses” will be “[flogged] with eighty blows of the whip” (24:4). These slanderers, considered “perverts” like Lot’s people, are destined for Hell (24:23). Islamic scholar Sadok Belaïd correctly points out that the presence of four witnesses presumes that the issue is a public matter, conferring a gravity on the situation. The same procedure is used for those “guilty” of sodomy between men. Naturally, the application of sanctions in this way is practically impossible. Moreover, given the punishment reserved for
zina
(incarceration for life and flagellation with no chance of avoiding this by repenting), Jim Wafer, writer on Islam and homosexuality, states that the simple injunction to “chastise” those who practice sexuality between men, without any further details, seems to be moderate by comparison. This difference in treatment suggests that
zina
only applies in the heterosexual sense in the Qur’an, and that sexuality between men is less serious than heterosexual sexuality out of wedlock.