Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature.

Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature. Edited by Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe. New York: New York University Press, 1997, 331 pages. Cloth, $50.00. Paper, $19.95.

Reviewed by Michael R. Stevenson, Ph.D., Department of Psychological Science, Ball State University, Muncie IN 47306; e-mail: [e-mail]

A quick survey of the available resources leads to the conclusion that we know little about same-sex sexual behavior in Islamic cultures. This is not surprising given the extant religious prohibitions and taboos in these cultures. Reliable information concerning sexuality, particularly homosexuality, is difficult to obtain. However, we know that Islamic law and cultural taboos create a hostile climate that makes it difficult for those with same-sex inclinations to satisfy their sexual desires or even to develop what Western sexologists describe as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity.

In 1992, Schmitt and Sofer published an edited collection of essays entitled Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Moslem Societies. Some of these essays dealt with the legal status of men who engage in same-sex sexual behavior, whereas others provided informal accounts of the authors' experiences or observations in various Islamic societies. The Third Pink Book (Hendriks, Tielman, & van der Veen, 1993; see also review by Stevenson, 1994) included a world survey of the social and legal position of gays and lesbians solicited from embassy staff and other official government representatives. Perusal of the entries regarding Middle Eastern countries indicates the obvious: same-sex sexual behavior is prohibited by Islamic law and homosexuality is taboo. Some entries describe punishments ranging from whipping to death by stoning. A recent report (Chibbaro, 1998) in the gay press indicated that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has granted political asylum to an Iranian gay man because, under Iranian law, homosexuality is "punishable by incarceration, torture, and by death after conviction on a fourth `offense'" (p. 5). In other parts of the Islamic world (e.g., Indonesia), the climate is somewhat less harsh (see also Stevenson, 1995, 1997). The recently published International Encyclopedia of Sexuality (Francoeur, 1997; see also review by Bullough, 1998) included a few relevant entries (e.g., Bahrain, Indonesia, Iran). Unfortunately, these add little to our knowledge about homosexualities in the Arab world.

Two new books, Islamic Homosexualities and Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature, provide a wealth of information about same-sex behavior in Islamic contexts that goes well beyond the previously published anecdotes, observations and descriptions of official government positions, or religious doctrine. Perhaps more important, these books provide useful insights that could contribute to the development of less ethnocentric theories of same-sex sexual behavior and sexual orientation.

Islamic Homosexualities contains 22 chapters (12 of which were written or co-written by the primary editor) divided into four parts. The first part provides general introductory and background information that sets the stage for the remainder of the volume. Part II includes literary studies of Islamic mystical literature, medieval Persian and Turkish tropes, and Islamic law. Part III includes a series of historical analyses of medieval Egypt, Ottoman Turkey and Albania, and nineteenth century Islamic cultures. This section catalogues Islamic cultural contexts in which historical evidence for same-sex sexual behavior exists. The fourth section includes seven anthropological studies providing further evidence of the various ways same-sex sexual behavior is understood by those who observe or engage in it. In the final chapter, the editors describe the conclusions they derived from this hodgepodge of literary, historical, and anthropological evidence.

Chapters in the collection vary in length, depth, and quality. Some read like fragments of what should have been a larger, more integrated work. Most are original, but some are reprints or revisions of earlier publications.

In contrast, Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature is the first systematic scholarly attempt to understand homoeroticism and masculine allusion in classical Arabic literature. The pervasiveness of these literary themes has long been cited as evidence for the common belief that same-sex sexual behavior is common in the Arab world. That it has taken until the end of the twentieth century for scholars to seriously consider homoerotic poetry and prose can be seen as further evidence of the cultural taboos against making private sexual behavior a topic for public discourse.

Those unfamiliar with the intricacies of Arabic poetry may find this text daunting. However, persistence will be richly rewarded. The first seven of the book's eight chapters are original to this volume and elucidate various aspects of the book's focus. The eighth chapter reprints an earlier essay that was the inspiration for the volume. Having little expertise in literary criticism, I approached the text hoping to understand how these poets and their audiences must have conceived of sexual orientation or identity and what meaning they attributed to the behaviors in question in order for the poetry to have the intended effects.

Authors represented in the Wright and Rowson volume argue that homoeroticism in Arabic poetry can be understood in various ways. The cultures from which this poetry emerged clearly glorified youthful male beauty and its close association to immortality. Although homoerotic love was valued by the poets, sexual behavior between adult men of equal status was clearly not.

There is some overlap between the two books, although the Wright and Rowson collection is much more succinct. It deals specifically with Arabic literature rather than include a mixture of literary criticism, anecdotal evidence, and reports of social science research.

Taken together, these volumes make a variety of points that merit the attention of sexual scientists interested in explicating human sexual orientation. As Murray and Roscoe indicate, their collection "questions the assumption that the practitioners of pre-modern homosexualities never formulated identities based on their practices and never created networks among themselves that might have achieved sufficient density and localization to be noticed, that `identity' and `subculture' are uniquely modern and western inventions" (p. 5). The same can be said of the Wright and Rowson volume.

Both collections emphasize the importance of power dimensions in sexual behavior between males. Poetry celebrating the charms of boys or referring to the sons of social leaders as effeminate and beautiful, in some cases, may have been intended as love poetry, but it could also have been used as a technique to compromise the honor of the men in the boy's family. Just as heterosexual rape of women by men can be considered an act of sex, an act of power, even an act of theft, sex between males can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Moslem men using boys for their own sexual pleasure, particularly boys of other faiths, or seducing warriors or heroes into sexual subjugation can be viewed as expressions of power and domination as much as expressions of passion or courtly love.

In this context, sexual behaviors were conceived simply as pleasure taken at the expense of a subordinate, not as an experience shared between equals. This conceptualization is evident even in texts used for the interpretation of dreams. "If a man dreams of being the insertive partner, great goodness and profit will come his way; but if he dreams of being penetrated, he will soon be overpowered and subjected to great humiliation" (Wright & Rowson, p. 61). It is implicit in these texts that the gender of the receptive partner, although important, was less important than the role one played. For some, women and boys, being of lower status, were nearly interchangeable.

Power can also be economic. In Ottoman Turkey, boys were collected as a tax and judged in some cases as one might judge a horse or dog show. In other contexts, the Sultan's favorite boys might grow up to be generals. Some adult males took pleasure from social inferiors in exchange for payment, gifts, protection, or perhaps wisdom. It seems as though the only limit to this particular male prerogative was that it could not interfere with family duties. "If a husband takes care of his family's security needs and sires many children, what he does for personal sexual satisfaction is uninteresting to everyone involved, so long as be is discreet" (Murray & Roscoe, p. 277).

Murray successfully argues that male homosexuality was "rampant" in various forms. Sexual behavior between men occurred and was interpreted in a variety of ways. Although they may not fit the current definitions of gay identity, some men recognized their desire for sexual gratification with other males.

Unlike modern or postmodern Western ethos, Islamic contexts suppress overt acknowledgment of sex and sexuality. Having been sodomized is considered problematic only if it became known. However, once a boy is known to have been fucked (the verb Murray and his colleagues use to describe being anally penetrated), he is fair game for others. There is also the fear that if a young man is anally receptive, he might like it and become addicted. Murray argues that there is a "much-attested Arab view that the pleasures of being fucked are addictive and uncontrollable once awakened" (p. 250). Of course, if a boy likes being fucked, it is more likely to become known and bring about burdensome consequences.

Many of the descriptions provided in the Murray and Roscoe collection emphasize the importance of age. Same-sex behavior most often occurs between a boy and a much older adult male, with the older man playing the insertive role and the boy being young enough to be beardless. As is clear from the erotic poetry described in both volumes, once the beard begins to grow the youth loses his appeal. Age is important here, not only as an issue of beauty: For a boy, unlike for an adult male, there is no threat of loss of masculinity or status in the act of being fucked.

As the Wright and Rowson volume suggests, the beardless youth's foray into receptive anal intercourse can be viewed as an introduction into the world of men, a transition from a female-dominated childhood. Clearly, these were not the egalitarian relationships idealized in contemporary Western gay culture. Besides, egalitarian relationships, even between married couples, would have been practically impossible given the prevailing social roles.

Although Murray and Roscoe provide ample evidence to suggest that some adult men engaged in receptive anal intercourse with other men, this was far less common and took on other meanings within the respective cultures than the widespread occurrence of the relations between men and boys celebrated in classical Arabic poetry. Murray hypothesizes that among Islamic cultures, sexuality "is distinguished not between `homosexual' and `heterosexual' but between taking pleasure and submitting to someone (being used for pleasure)" (p. 41).

From a practical standpoint, a preference for boys as sex partners is understandable given the extent to which the sexes are segregated and the greater availability of boys. Furthermore, using boys for sexual pleasure is much less of an offense to the other men responsible for protecting the virginity of unmarried females. In fact, in some cases, poets may have used masculine allusion in sexual contexts because this was less scandalous than references to women's sexuality.

Some authors in these collections fail to distinguish between gender variance and sexual behaviors. It is not clear whether it is appropriate to criticize the authors on this point or whether they are simply reflecting the ethos of the cultures they describe. However, the books provide ample evidence that any reasonable theory of sexual orientation must deal with the interaction of gender, gender role, and sexuality.

On the other hand, unlike contemporary writers, the Arabic poets did not conflate identity and behavior. According to one Pakistani informant, "sex is sex, and it shouldn't be confused with anything else" (Murray & Roscoe, p. 286). Perhaps more important, Islamic law condemns same-sex behavior, not homoerotic love.

Given the evidence presented in these volumes, one might argue that Islam is more ambiguous with regard to homosexuality than Christianity. Within Judeo-Christian theology, "Once it is acknowledged that the penetrated partner desires penetration and undergoes it willingly, any basis for treating either partner differently vanishes--both are guilty of sodomy" (Murray & Roscoe, p. 312).

In Arabic literature, references to seeing God in the form of a beautiful boy abound, and an implicit parallel is drawn between men loving God, who is always depicted as male, and the love between mortal men. The Arabic "love theorists" (Murray & Roscoe, p. 91) as well as evidence from Islamic jurisprudence (Wright & Rowson, p. 116) suggest that romantic love between men was not only natural but acceptable, as long as it was chaste. Readers of Arabic poetry would not necessarily have assumed the poet, when speaking of lovers, was referring to heterosexual couples. Yet, carnal knowledge of another male is clearly forbidden and in some cases punishable by death. Put another way, one hadith ascribed to Muhammad reads "He who loves and remains chaste and conceals his secret and dies, dies a martyr" (Murray & Roscoe, p. 144). "So Islam paradoxically forbade, allowed, and exploited homoerotic desire, providing striking similarities with Judaism and Christianity in the sphere of law, yet fostered a radically different literary, social, and affective atmosphere" (Murray & Roscoe, p. 156). However, Islamic tolerance for homosexual behavior is circumscribed: It depends on not making any claims for acceptance of a homosexual way of life or pursuing ongoing same-sex erotic relationships that compete or interfere with family responsibilities.

It is not surprising that sex between women and lesbian identities are rarely discussed in the available literature on Islam and homosexualities. Yet, there is much speculation in the absence of data about situational sexual behavior between women in Islamic cultures given the extent to which the sexes are segregated. With the exception of two brief chapters in the Murray and Roscoe volume, there is little reliable evidence because women were unable to leave written accounts and perhaps because few women have studied sexual behavior in Islamic cultures.

For those with interest in distinguishing the relations among gender roles, sexual identities, sexual orientations, and sexual behavior, the editors and contributors represented in these two volumes have provided a treasure-trove of ideas. They also have provided important insights into Islamic culture and translations of some amusing, yet thought-provoking poetry!

REFERENCES

Bullough, V. L. (1998). A labor of love. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 306-307.

Chibbaro, L., Jr. (1998, January 23). "You cannot imagine the fear." The Washington Blade, p. 5.

Francoeur, R. T. (1997). The international encyclopedia of sexuality. New York: Continuum.

Hendriks, A., Tielman, R., & van der Veen, E. (1993). The third pink book: A global view of lesbian and gay liberation and oppression. New York: Prometheus Books.

Schmitt, A., & Sofer, J. (1992). Sexuality and eroticism among males in Moslem societies. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Stevenson, M. R. (1994). The rocky paths to global lesbian and gay liberation. The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 245-247.

Stevenson, M. R. (1995). Search for a gay identity in Indonesia. Journal of Men's Studies, 4, 93-108.

Stevenson, M. R. (1997). Reconciling sexual orientation. In G. G. Brannigan, A. R. Allgeier, & E. R. Allgeier (Eds.), The Sex Scientists' (pp. 100-112). New York: Harper Collins.