The Dictionary of Homophobia (83 page)

Blanc identified that within the Maliki school, sodomy between men earns the same type of punishment as
zina
, but with increased severity as prescribed by Al-Qayrawni (an eminent jurist of the Maliki school), who calls for both
muhsan
and non-
muhsan
to be stoned. Khalil, another prominent Maliki judge, adds that stoning should also be extended to slaves and non-Muslims, but that acts “against nature” between women are not
zina
, and that the punishment for these should be determined by a judge.

According to Sofer, al-Shafi’i (767–820), the founder of the Shafi’i school, had two different opinions on the subject: on one hand, he recommended death by stoning for both partners,
muhsan
or not; on the other hand, death by stoning for the
muhsan
and 100 lashes of the whip accompanied by one year of banishment for the non-
muhsan
. Most jurists following in his footsteps opted for the second choice.

Wafer points out that the Hanbali school of thought requires a severe chastisement for sexuality between men. Referring to the “rain of stones” that struck down Lot’s people, they call for death by stoning. Some even believe the “guilty” party should be buried alive or thrown from the city’s highest building, after the practices of the first and fourth caliphs.

Despite the severity of these punishments proposed by Muslim judges, bear in mind that the procedural requirement of four witnesses capable of describing the facts, makes these punishments practically inapplicable, and instead they simply play the role of a deterrent in the Muslim ethos. According to Stefen O. Murray, this infers that Islam (unlike Christianity) is characterized by the “will not to know” what individuals are doing. Nonetheless, the reprobation is immense—Hell is promised to those men and women who so much as experience carnal desire for a person of the same sex. This way, Islam defers the individual to God’s chastisement, instead of earthly punishment.

The Muslim States
Most Arab states have declared Islam to be the national religion, and
sharia
as the principle inspiration for their legislation. Generally, though, secular laws inherited from colonial days have been adopted as legislation for almost all aspects of society—with the notable exception of the family, where the laws on personal status are based on
sharia
, completely or in part, which leads to considerable differences from country to country.

Today, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen all apply
sharia
and have provisions in their penal codes for death by stoning, flagellation, banishment, and
ta’zir
. The same was true of Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Other countries take their inspiration both from
sharia
and secular law, detailing punishments of imprisonment and fines, sometimes accompanied by corporal punishment. In these, traces of the criminal codes of Western colonizers are mixed with elements of
sharia
, because the concept of a fine did not previously exist in Islam. Other countries still, like Turkey and Egypt, have adopted a secular law with no criminalization of sexuality between people of the same sex, though this has not prevented police harassment under other contexts. For example, fifty-two men were arrested in 2001 in Cairo aboard a floating gay nightclub. The invocation of the sacred founding texts by certain nations and other fundamentalist groups (who advocate a return to Islam’s roots) has served to legitimize and incite the violent repression of homosexuality. As well, these movements present homosexuality as a symbol of Western decadence that they are called on to fight. Sheik Omar Bakri, an alleged spiritual leader for Al Qaeda, regularly calls for the murder of homosexuals in his preaching. Amnesty International has indicated that in those countries where
sharia
is enforced, people are essentially sentenced to death by stoning and flagellation, and that the accusation of “fornication” with a partner of the same sex is used frequently to reinforce condemnation of political opponents. Given the rigidity of Islamic criminal procedure, it is obvious that these condemnations are only made possible either by the arrangement of false testimonies, or through extortion.
—Christelle Hamel

Amnesty International.
Briser le silence. Violations des droits de l’homme liées à l’orientation sexuelle
. 1999.

Anonymous, “Liw
t.” In
Encyclopédie de l’islam
. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, Leiden E. J. Brill, 1977–86.

Belaïd, Sadok.
Islam et droit, une nouvelle lecture des versets prescriptifs du Coran
. Tunis, Tunisia: Centre de publication universitaire, 2000.

Bellamy, James A. “Sex and Society in Islamic Popular Literature.” In
Society and the Sexes in Medieval Islam
. Edited by Afaf Lufti al-Sayyid Marsot. Malibu: Udena, 1979.

Ben Nahum, Pinhas.
The Turkish Art of Love
. New York: Panurge Press, 1933.

Bouhdiba, Abdelwahab.
La Sexualité en islam
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1975–98. [Published in the UK and the US as
Sexuality in Islam
. London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.]

Le Coran
. Translated by Denise Masson. Paris: Folio, 1967– 93.

Duran, Khalid. “Homosexuality and Islam.” In
Homosexuality and World Religions
. Edited by Arlene Swidler. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993.

Lagrange, Frédéric. “Male Homosexuality in Modern Arabic Literature.” In
Imagined Masculinities: Male Identity and Culture in the Modern Middle East
. Edited by Mai Ghoussoub and Emma Sinclair-Webb. London: Saqi Books, 2000.

Murray, Stefen O. “The Will not to Know: Islamic Accommodations of Male Homosexuality.” In
Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature
. Edited by Stefen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. New York/London: New York Univ. Press, 1997.

Schacht, Joseph. “Zin
.” In
Encyclopédie de l’islam
. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose, Leiden E. J. Brill, 1977–86.

Schmitt, Arno. “Different Approaches to Male-Male Sexuality/Eroticism from Morocco to Uzbekistan.” In
Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies
. Edited by Arno Schmitt and Jehoda Sofer. New York/ London/Norwood: Harington Park Press, 1992.

Sofer, Jehoda. “Sodomy in the Law of Muslim States.” In
Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies
. Edited by Arno Schmitt and Jehoda Sofer. New York/ London: Harrington Park Press, 1992.

Schild, Maarten. “Islam.” In
Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies
. Edited by Arno Schmitt and Jehoda Sofer. New York/London: Harrington Park Press, 1992.

Wafer, Jim. “Muhammad and Male Homosexuality.” In
Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History and Literature
. Edited by Stefen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. New York/ London: New York Univ. Press, 1997.

—Africa, Central & Eastern; Bible, the; Judaism; Maghreb; Middle East, the; Sodom and Gomorrah; Southeast Asia; Violence.

ITALY

Antiquity
There is no Latin word signifying homosexuality or heterosexuality. The Romans, like the Greeks, neither created nor conceived of a sexual category that would indistinctly encompass men and women from all levels of society, with the common characteristic of being attracted to members of the same sex. Social norms dictated that any relations were first and foremost relative to power and status. Consequently, those reactions which would today be qualified as “homophobic” belong to a more general kind of display targeting those who disobey this division of social roles and the moral rules specific to the Roman world.

In Rome, an individual’s shaming would begin as soon as the public began to suspect a deviation. But what kind of deviation could still be unclear. In such a small community, where everyone knows each other, conversations could glorify or ruin a person’s social standing. As far as it concerned men, pejorative clichés that today would be called homophobic would never identify a homosexual as such (since Roman society had no concept of this definition), but would instead apply to a figure of authority who had earned some infamy, thus proving his incapacity to fulfill those functions reserved for free, adult, male citizens. The Romans’ chief preoccupation was that one’s behavior corresponded with the collective moral standards. A person’s sexuality, regardless of orientation, was not an immediate or isolated part of one’s identity, according to these standards. Naturally, the collective supervision extended all the way into the bedroom. But the deviations of an unorthodox libido would be denounced only if they violated this order and kept a person from being able to function in the forum or the
army
.

Deviance, in Rome, had nothing to do with being a homosexual. The modern image of a “man covered in women” was as frowned upon by the Romans as a “man covered in men.” Someone who spends his days in the public baths looking for a good time was considered an example of a waste of masculine energy that could have been put to better use in the service of glory. Being the active partner (to use the modern language) was not as humiliating as being the passive partner; though being active was not viewed well if the sexual activity turned to obsession or worse, to prostitution. Two Latin words designate the behaviors described in poetry:
pathicus
, to indicate a man who submits to another man, and
pedicator
, to indicate a man who imposes sodomy upon another man (or woman, too). Either a person services another and in doing so becomes like a slave, or a person humiliates another with a symbolic punishment: in both cases, it is debasing.

Moreover, those same people who would denounce the sexual eccentricities of their enemies would often enjoy relations with young slaves, whose sensuality was seen as the height of eroticism. Battalions of young pages, hairless, perfumed, and made-up, provided delights to their masters in their posh abodes—funeral inscriptions attest to the pleasures experienced by the head of the house with his dear and preferred boy (his
puer delicatus
), whose premature death left him inconsolable. Nothing would stop a Roman man in the forum from condemning the sexual practices of so and so with someone else, while just several hours later, this same Roman would be enjoying the kisses of his favorite slave during a relaxed banquet. Roman civilization was compartmentalized into different activities according to the time of day. The morning was reserved mostly for public duties (receiving friends and protégés and organizing war, politics, and diplomacy), while the evening (which began during the afternoon, after a relaxing trip to the baths) was devoted to the comforting mellowness of food, music, and eroticism. This complementary approach to life is what defined the Roman man. Roman sexual morality may appear to be repressive, but only if one overlooks this dichotomy between the
duritia
and the
mollitia
, effort and languor.

The types of attacks that blow a rival’s idiosyncrasies out of proportion (for example, Marcus Antonius when targeted by Cicero) or the aberrations of an emperor (Tiberius or Nero) are still in use today in homophobic stereotypes. Saying that an enemy throws parties with excessively masculine (or just the opposite, excessively effeminate) young men, is meant, and construed, as a derogatory
insult
. In the same way, an orator or a satirist might attack a rival’s gluttony, spending habits, or cowardice. This kind of discourse simply compounds the cultural clichés. Here can be found the origins of many of homophobia’s enduring stereotypes, where the homosexual is relegated to the periphery of a respectable community; the homosexual is seen as artificial, superficial, vain, and most of all, insatiable. The less he has, the more he wants, but also, the more he has, the more he wants. His ungratefulness is proven in every way (sexual obsession, gluttony, waste of legacy, etc.), making him into an immoral being, incapable of starting a
family
or of defending his nation. Sexual marginality was scandalous to the Romans because to them it was a sign of a political or civil marginality: this magistrate or that emperor was considered debauched because, by the cultural logic of the time, their image did not integrate well with the criteria for civilization. They were not branded as homosexuals—above all else they were considered morally mediocre or useless, and this is what made their sexuality degrading, especially their relations with the masculine sex. The men, targets of public reproach, have relations with other men or with boys, but these relations would be considered obscene and fail to be part of a refined and amorous conviviality. The standards of amorous refinement are met only by the superior forms of masculine relations, notably a boy’s kisses, which are soft as honey and represent an exchange of erotic breath, without the laborious and dirty drudgery of penetration. In conclusion, if homophobia existed at all in ancient Rome, it was inseparable, then, from the euphoric mastery of pleasure that a man experiences with a boy.