{"id":326,"date":"2022-09-28T16:12:37","date_gmt":"2022-09-28T16:12:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/taliyah.org\/newdawn\/?page_id=326"},"modified":"2022-10-23T13:25:55","modified_gmt":"2022-10-23T13:25:55","slug":"lgbtq","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/taliyah.org\/newdawn\/lgbtq\/","title":{"rendered":"Deconstructing Fundamentalist Homophobia in Abrahamic Religions: On the Religious Acceptance of Homosexuals in the Torah and Qur\u2019an"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following article was penned during Pride Month, in 2021, addressing rahab al-mukhanithun<\/em>, homophobia, which this work will demonstrate is borne out of a misinterpreting of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, based upon lack of knowledge of what the sin of Sodom was – xenophobia, rape, brutality and mistreatment of the poor…<\/p>\n

\u0628\u0633\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0631\u062d\u064a\u0645<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The familiar passage of the Book of Genesis, which tells of the Great Flood (found in chapters 6\u20139), is understood very differently depending on which language one is reading the account in. The traditional Christian, and most notably, the Evangelical American variation of such Protestantism, reads from translations which emanate ultimately from the King James Version. Most forwards and prefaces to any of these translations claim that they use a combination of the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and \u2013 last but not least \u2013 the Hebrew\u00a0Tanakh<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The spurious claim that the King James (and subsequent translations) derive in any way from the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Tanakh is belied by the fact that King Edward I issued the infamous Edict of Expulsion of the Jewish people in 1290. This edict remained in effect throughout the Middle Ages and did not end until Oliver Cromwell permitted Jews to return to England in 1657.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

With no Jews in England for centuries preceding the King James translation, one would have to wonder how Christians would have any authoritative knowledge of the language which was at the time only truly mastered by devout Jews. While there may have been extremely limited Hebrew that could have been passed down in England during those centuries, it would by no means constitute a fluent or complete understanding of the language, nor would it pay attention to differences in terminological nuance.<\/p>\n

It raises the question, of course, since the Tanakh is Hebrew (barring the limited Aramaic portion of the Book of Daniel), why should Greek and Latin be needed to decipher the meaning? The answer is as obvious as it is audacious: the Hebrew text simply does not state what Christian theology and doctrine teaches. In this case particularly, we read in the Hebrew account that the\u00a0eretz<\/em>\u00a0(land) was flooded, not the `olam<\/em>\u00a0(world).<\/p>\n

A global flood as described in the Christian reading of this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species. The branch of creationism known as \u201cflood geology\u201d is no more than a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually historically occurred. Ironically, Evangelicals and conservative Christians in general, claim to be \u201cBiblical literalists\u201d and yet, had they literally read the Hebrew text, there would be no need for confusion nor contradiction with science.<\/p>\n

The Great Flood myth originated in Mesopotamia long before the Torah was set to pen. The Mesopotamian story has three distinct versions, the Sumerian\u00a0Epic of Ziusudra<\/em>, (the oldest, dating from about 1600 BCE), and in the form of episodes in two Babylonian epics, those of\u00a0Atrahasis<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0Epic of Gilgamesh<\/em>. In these accounts, the flood is described as a massive\u00a0regional<\/em>\u00a0flood. There is no mention that the entire\u00a0planet<\/em>\u00a0was covered in water, nor is there evidence that these cultures had any concern with peoples and regions outside of their immediate contact and influence.<\/p>\n

Verse 17 of Genesis chapter 6 states clearly:<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd I, behold, I bring the flood of waters upon the\u00a0land<\/em>\u00a0(\u05d4\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5), to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under the skies (\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd); everything that is in the\u00a0land<\/em>\u00a0(\u05d1\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5) shall perish.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Had the reader simply known the nuanced difference between \u201cthe regional land\u201d and \u201cthe whole world,\u201d then there would be no need for a fanciful, exaggerated and unscientific belief in a\u00a0global<\/em>\u00a0deluge, from which all the species of the planet were saved on a wooden boat. There is no need for the religious to defend such a tale, as it is simply not stated in the Torah in any way.<\/p>\n

The devil, as it were, is in the details\u2026 or the glossing over and ignoring of the details, perhaps.<\/p>\n

Far from the only instance of such woeful ignorance of Hebrew textual distinctions and nuance, Evangelicalism and indeed conservative forms of Christianity in general, have embarrassed themselves by failing to properly read Hebrew passages of the Bible which they believe relate to homosexuality. Compounding this error, Muslim jurists have misinterpreted Qur\u2019anic references to Biblical stories, by grafting the theological assumptions of Christianity onto the\u00a0\u2018ayat<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the work at hand, these passages will be analyzed and deciphered with attention paid to the terminological distinctions made in the text. Quite simply, this\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0Biblical and Qur\u2019anic literalism, and it in no way supports the traditionalist Christian readings on homosexuality. Furthermore, this works will expand on these misinterpretations by exploring what the literal Arabic of the Qur\u2019an says, as it\u00a0midrashically<\/em>\u00a0expounds and exegeses on the Biblical narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah \u2013 a story which the Hebrew Bible makes clear has absolutely nothing to do with consensual homosexuality, whatsoever.<\/p>\n

Following this, an examination of Islamic religious law condoning homosexuality in the cases of those effeminates or \u201cmukhannathun<\/em>,\u201d who were \u201cborn this way,\u201d will reveal that the presumptions vehement and blanket homosexual denunciations are nothing more than a figment of the modern fundamentalist imagination, and born of the late influences of Christianity on the Muslim Ummah, more than deriving from source criticism or the earliest followers of Muhammad.<\/p>\n

\u201cADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE\u201d?<\/h2>\n

The creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is certainly an extraordinary tale in its own right. Of all the fantastic elements of the story, a literal reading of the Hebrew text makes it extremely difficult to fit into modern binary ideology.\u00a0 As a mythic or symbolic tale, it is a fascinating example both of ancient understandings of creation and the cosmos and also of the inextricable unity of humanity in all its diversity.\u00a0Bearing in mind that the Torah is a Jewish work, and not a Christian one, it is important to note that Adam was a hermaphrodite according to the Torah and Midrash. Furthermore, the first spouse of Adam, Lilith (Genesis Rabbah<\/em>\u00a022:7 and 18:4), was not even a human (Babylonian Talmud on tractate\u00a0Eruvin<\/em>\u00a018b) and Eve, for her part, was considered a hominid who was \u201cas an ape.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

This should hardly come as a surprise to those familiar with the Midrashic tales of Adam and Eve, since in these accounts, Adam was not the first person ever to live, but the first prophet sent to a hominid people.[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0He is regarded as the first \u201chuman\u201d being, and as such the traditional designation for a human being in Semitic linguistics is \u201cben Adam.\u201d This aside should be noted by the astute reader who will notice in translations of both prophetic texts and even the Christian accounts of literary character of Jesus, when \u201cSon of Man\u201d is mentioned. The phrase is not at all something unique to the Jesus character, but is in fact a way that spiritual or angelic entities address human beings. It is little wonder then why the Talmud teaches that \u201cevery translation is a lie.\u201d<\/p>\n

While a Jewish story in origin, content and context, the Torah as rendered by the Christian and particularly Western Christian imagination is largely drawn from translations of translations and as such, much is \u201clost in translation.\u201d For the Jewish reader, much is said \u201cbetween the lines\u201d\u00a0midrashically<\/em>, in each verse of the Torah. This is so much the case that entire bookcases can be filled with Talmudic commentary and Rabbinic debates regarding the meanings, subtitles and nuance of each passage.<\/p>\n

In that Jewish reading of the Genesis account, Cain himself is described as being the hybrid son of Eve and the\u00a0Nachash<\/em>\u00a0\u201cSerpent-Man,\u201d who interestingly enough stands as tall as a camel and addresses Eve from over top of the gates of Eden, before being let in and either seducing or alternatively taking advantage of her innocence.[4]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The resulting offspring was said to have \u201cscampered\u201d about the room after birth, and to divorce him even further from any familiar human description,[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Cain\u2019s progeny was said to have intermarried with the offspring of Lilith.<\/p>\n

From a\u00a0midrashic<\/em>\u00a0perspective, humankind as we know it are Biblically a hybridization of these species, sired by non-humans and by a hermaphrodite. While obviously myth, the story was composed to tell a number of truths, both quasi-historical on one level and spiritual on another. To reference this myth as heterosexual instruction by the Creator misses not only the points of the myth but the details of it as well. So much then for the fundamentalist concept of a Biblically monogamous, heteronormative family.<\/p>\n

JEWISH GENDERS<\/h2>\n

If the revelation that Adam was a \u201chermaphrodite\u201d or \u201candrogynos<\/em>\u201d (\u05d0\u05e0\u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05d2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5\u05e1) wasn\u2019t surprising enough to those who bring Christocentric assumptions to the Biblical reading, the rabbis of the\u00a0Mishnah<\/em>\u00a0who lived in the first two centuries of the Common Era, identify at least six possible genders, which seem to tie in with and overlap at least partially with their notions of biological sex (though not necessarily explicitly so).<\/p>\n

The two familiar binary genders and sexes are of course the \u201czakhar<\/em>\u201d (\u05d6\u05db\u05e8, male) and the \u201cneqevah<\/em>\u201d (\u05e0\u05e7\u05d1\u05d4, female). Additionally, there are two sexes that are neither male nor female, called the aforementioned \u201candrogynos<\/em>\u201d and another non-binary designation of \u201ctumtum<\/em>\u201d (\u05d8\u05d5\u05de\u05d8\u05d5\u05dd). The\u00a0tannaitic<\/em>\u00a0texts also record the minority opinion of Rabbi Yossi who insists that \u201can\u00a0androgynos<\/em>\u00a0is a creature in their own right and the sages could not decide whether he is man or woman\u201d (Tosefta Bikkurim<\/em>\u00a02:2). The rabbis additionally told of two other categories for gender identity that don\u2019t appear at birth, but develop later in life. The \u201csaris<\/em>\u201d (\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1) is one who is born male but later develops female traits. Here we can assume some combination of both gender and biological sex, with the emphasis seemingly on gender, though a\u00a0saris<\/em>\u00a0can be \u201cnaturally\u201d a\u00a0saris chamah\u00a0<\/em>(\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1 \u05d7\u05de\u05d4) \u2013 \u201cborn that way from the time of seeing the sun\u201d \u2013 or become one through human intervention, a\u00a0saris adam<\/em>\u00a0(\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05e1 \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd), indicating some form of \u201cgender-affirming\u201d body modification. There are no less than 156 references in Mishnah and Talmud, as well as 379 references in classical\u00a0Midrash<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the \u201caylonit<\/em>\u201d (\u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea) designation is one who is born female, but later develops male traits. Again, this could indicate androgenizing physical traits but part and parcel with that \u2013 and beyond it \u2013 one must presume it to reference gender. In\u00a0Ketuvot<\/em>\u00a0(11a), the Talmud suggested the etymology of the word\u00a0Aylonit<\/em>: \u201cAn\u00a0Aylonit<\/em>\u00a0[is given this name] as if she is a ram [\u05d3\u05db\u05e8 is the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew word \u05d0\u05d9\u05dc\u2013 a ram] which [is masculine and] does not bear children\u201d (\u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea – \u05d3\u05d5\u05db\u05e8\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d4). Furthermore, Rabbi Avahu rules that a\u00a0saris\u00a0<\/em>and an\u00a0aylonit\u00a0<\/em>\u201care not classified as adults until they reach the age of twenty,\u201d thus making it beyond debate that the Torah is calling the 17-year-old \u201clittle boy\u201d (or \u201cna`ar<\/em>,\u201d \u05e0\u05e2\u05e8), Joseph a\u00a0saris.<\/em><\/p>\n

Far from rare occurrences in such commentaries, all of these genders appear frequently in classical Jewish texts. For example, the\u00a0tumtumin<\/em>\u00a0appear no less than 119 times in the Babylonian Talmud alone. If all of this comes as a shock to the reader, then the revelation that both Abraham and Sarah were regarded as\u00a0tumtumin<\/em>\u00a0will no doubt evoke much of the same bewilderment. The eleventh century text by Nathan ben Jehiel of Rome known as the Arukh, (c. 1035 \u2013 1106 CE) connects the word\u00a0tumtum<\/em>\u00a0with the word\u00a0atum<\/em>\u00a0(\u05d0\u05d8\u05d5\u05dd), meaning sealed. In many\u00a0halakhic<\/em>\u00a0commentaries it is imagined that the genitals are covered by what is usually described as skin, though scientifically this assumption must be disregarded as having no documented biological precedence. Instead, the covering or \u201csealing\u201d over of the sex should be regarded as figurative in nature, meaning the gender or even sex of the individual is ambiguous.<\/p>\n

According to Rav Ammi (Yevamot<\/em>\u00a064a), both Abraham and Sarah were each a\u00a0tumtum<\/em>. Rav Ammi suggests this as an explanation as to why the couple were infertile for so many years.<\/p>\n

Rabbi Ami said:\u00a0\u201cAbraham and Sarah were originally\u00a0tumtumin<\/em>, as it is stated: \u2018Look to the rock from where you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from where you were dug\u2019\u00a0(Isaiah 51:1),\u00a0and it is written\u00a0in the next verse: \u2018Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you.\u2019\u201d\u00a0(Isaiah 51:2)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05de\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d5\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05de\u05d8\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05d9\u05d5 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 (\u05d9\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d0, \u05d0) \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc \u05e6\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05d1\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05e7\u05d1\u05ea \u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd \u05d5\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 (\u05d9\u05e9\u05e2\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d0, \u05d1) \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05d8\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05db\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05e9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc\u05db\u05dd<\/p>\n

Had a physical \u201csealing\u201d of the genitalia been the obstacle in conceiving a child for the couple, then this would not explain how Abraham was able to impregnate Hagar without any problem. Instead, the issue if they were\u00a0tumtumin<\/em>\u00a0seems to be that Sarai was androgynous in some\u00a0hormonal<\/em>\u00a0fashion. Too much testosterone can interfere with ovulation and menstruation in women. As such, Sarah\u2019s hormonal infertility was due perhaps to elevated levels of testosterone. Rashi thus explains further that \u201chewn\u201d (\u05d7\u05d5\u05e6\u05d1\u05ea\u05dd), in the passage above from Isaiah, means \u201che was made into a male\u201d or \u201cmasculinized\u201d (\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 \u05d6\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea) and with regards to Sarah, \u201cyou were poked\u201d (\u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd) means \u201cwe made her female.\u201d<\/p>\n

Urologists have yet to identify any physical syndrome akin to a literal interpretation of this, which would indicate that the \u201csealed\u201d aspect of the\u00a0tumtum<\/em>\u00a0is not from their physical bodies but sealing or covering of clothing \u2013 meaning that without seeing genitalia, the two were ambiguous in appearance. Again, we know from the Genesis account that Abraham had no difficulties impregnating Hagar. So, there can be no confusion that he was simply unable to access his genitalia because of some bizarre flap of skin covering his and Sarah\u2019s sex organs.<\/p>\n

As for the concept of the\u00a0saris,<\/em>\u00a0our greatest Biblical example appears to be none other than the Prophet Joseph himself. The story of Joseph and his brothers begins in Genesis, chapter 37, when he is 17 years old, yet the Torah still deems him a \u201clittle boy\u201d or\u00a0na`ar\u00a0<\/em>(\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8), indicating he has not reached any sort of biological manhood in spite of his halakhically adult age. Far from our only evidence of Joseph as a\u00a0saris,\u00a0<\/em>the word for Joseph\u2019s coat which so upset his brothers is only found elsewhere translated as a \u201cprincess dress.\u201d Could part of the reason for Joseph\u2019s rejection by his brothers be based on his gender expression?<\/p>\n

In Hebrew the \u201ccoat of many colors\u201d is called \u201cketonet passim<\/em>\u201d (\u05db\u05ea\u05e0\u05ea \u05e4\u05e1\u05d9\u05dd). Its meaning is considered unclear by many traditional Bible scholars. Various translations employ terms such as \u201ca robe with long sleeves,\u201d as well as \u201can elaborately embroidered coat\u201d or \u201ca varicolored tunic.\u201d This term is only ambiguous, however, if we ignore the only other use of the term, where princess Tamar wears a \u201cketonet passim<\/em>\u201d and the author is kind enough to explain that this is \u201chow the virgin daughters of the king were clothed in earlier times\u201d (2 Samuel 13).<\/p>\n

Does this also explain Jacob\u2019s particular love for Joseph \u2013 the special care by a father who himself was described as a \u201csmooth man\u201d in appearance (Genesis 27:11)? As well, Jacob had been described as spending too much time in the women\u2019s camp, in Genesis 25:27, which describes him as \u201ca mild man, who stayed in the camp [with the women].\u201d Far from a criticism, Leah makes it clear that she prefers Jacob\u2019s nature to the overly-aggressive, hyper-masculine Esau (Tanhuma<\/em>, ed. Buber, Vayeze 12), who the Torah mocks (as it does with Nimrod in Genesis 10:9) by sarcastically calling him a \u201cmighty hunter\u201d (Genesis 25:27) also suggesting he grunts for \u201cred-red\u201d (\u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d4\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd) stew (which the Torah teaches was a vegetarian lentil stew), like some sort of barbaric caveman (Genesis 25:30).<\/p>\n

Does this feminine nature of Joseph as a\u00a0saris<\/em>\u00a0further elucidate the way in which Joseph, like an ancient eunuch, was able to rise and be given special responsibility among the Egyptian leaders and their households?\u00a0Could this in fact be part of the lesson that the Torah is teaching to the hyper-masculine and gender-normative? For which of Joseph\u2019s brothers can claim the status that he is elevated to in the Torah? And yet he was regarded by his brothers as a little boy, what in modern times might term him the derogatory description of a \u201csissy.\u201d In spite of all of this, it was through Joseph that all of his family and their descendants were saved. Like the account of Eden, it is clear that this myth is not meant to serve as annals of history as much as it is intended to metaphorically teach principles and truths that run deeper than mere sterile history texts. What we have here is a lesson being taught, and the lesson is not only to accept the\u00a0saris<\/em>, but to defeat the internal arrogance of his brothers, when it arises in any of us \u2013 what today might be called \u201ctoxic masculinity.\u201d<\/p>\n

These are hardly the only examples. We see that Eve is referred to as \u201che\u201d (Genesis 3:12); Noah is said to have repaired \u201cher\u201d own tent (Genesis 9:21) and Rebecca herself is called a \u201clittle boy\u201d just like Joseph \u2013 a\u00a0na`ar\u00a0<\/em>rather than\u00a0na`arah\u00a0<\/em>(Genesis 24:16). These sorts of grammatical substiles are trademarks of the Torah and its attempts to force us to \u201cread between the lines\u201d of the text. It is clear from these terms that the Torah does not see gender as a fixed concept that always stays to one\u2019s assigned biological sex.<\/p>\n

THE REAL \u201cSIN OF SODOM\u201d<\/h2>\n

If all that has been addressed thus far were not enough to have utterly decimated Christonormative assumptions about gender identity, sex and sexual orientation in the Torah, the proverbial final nail in the coffin is no doubt found in Ezekiel 16:49-50. Therein, the prophet declares that \u201cthe sin of Sodom\u201d was not consensual male homosexuality at all (it is worth a passing mention that lesbianism is never implicated at all, by any reading of the text). Ezekiel declares, \u201cNow this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were arrogant and did horrific things before Me…\u201d<\/p>\n

Here Ezekiel enumerates the sins of Sodom. Nowhere is consensual homosexuality listed. Instead, the Hebrew word often translated \u201cdetestable\u201d or \u201cto`evah<\/em>\u201d (\u05ea\u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d4) is utilized to refer to something that is morally horrifying, not merely \u201cdisgusting,\u201d as it is often interpreted from the pulpit. The exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 where it refers to what is often rendered as an \u201cabomination.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thus, Ezekiel is using the same term to describe both rape and incest \u2013 calling this an abomination, a horror or\u00a0to`evah\u00a0<\/em>(\u05ea\u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d4). The term\u00a0to`evah<\/em>\u00a0more precisely than these or any other English rendering, can be rendered as \u201chorror.\u201d That is, a\u00a0to`evah<\/em>\u00a0is not necessarily merely something that cause repulsion, it is the sort of repulsion that can be associated with fear, terror. This does not mean simply that one is \u201cgrossed out\u201d by an action, it means that the action induces horror, terror, fear, as in the Oxford Dictionary\u2019s phrasing: \u201cthe children screamed in horror.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Western reader can become so inundated with these terms that their literal meaning begins to dissolve and the cultural assumptions ascribed to the terms are grafted onto them instead. Just as the Sodom and Gomorrah account was not referring to consensual activity of any sort, Leviticus too is not referring to consensual homosexual behavior, but instead \u2013 in the literal reading \u2013 to incest, and in Talmudic interpretation, to polytheistic fertility cult temple prostitution, as we will see.<\/p>\n

Misinterpreting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah based upon lack of knowledge of what the sin of Sodom was – xenophobia, rape, brutality and mistreatment of the poor – begins with the Biblical account, but is later carried on in the Muslim world as well. We thus see that this misunderstanding is easily as widespread in the Muslim Ummah as in Evangelical Christian circles. This is essential to note. All\u00a0hadith\u00a0<\/em>literature that prescribes execution for acts are heterodoxically assumed to mean homosexuality. In fact, however, they literally make reference the crimes of Sodom, or literally, \u201cthe people of Lot.\u201d No actual\u00a0hadith\u00a0<\/em>exists saying to execute homosexuals and as we have now established what the forbidden sin of Sodom was, it is clear that consensual homosexual relationships were not it.<\/p>\n

While the Qur\u2019an never explicitly mentions homosexuality, it does speak of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah engaging in an act so foul and contrary to Nature itself that no other being in all the worlds (\u0645\u0650\u0646\u064e \u0623\u064e\u062d\u064e\u062f\u064d \u0645\u0650\u0646\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0639\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e\u0645\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e) had ever engaged in it (29.28). This leaves us with two options if we accept the reality of the natural world before us, and the empirical wisdom with which we can observe and analyze it. Either the Qur\u2019an is referring to homosexuality and thus it is wrong \u2013 since homosexuality amongst an array of non-human species is extremely well attested to and documented \u2013 or the Qur\u2019an simply is not referring to consensual homosexual activity at all, and thus it is potentially correct, if the horror and abomination here refers instead to the\u00a0gang rape<\/em>\u00a0of foreigners. Since the Qur\u2019an tells us repeatedly to refer back to the stories in the Torah, it seems clear that the Torah and the Biblical prophets should be deferred to for understanding of what exactly the \u201csin of Sodom\u201d was. Otherwise, why does the Qur\u2019an tell us to \u201cremember\u201d these accounts?<\/p>\n

Finally, we find that Second Temple Era historians saw the \u201cSin of Sodom\u201d in much the same way as Ezekiel \u2013 never once mentioning consensual homosexual activity whatsoever. Had this truly been the purpose ascribed to their destruction then it would be difficult to imagine why secular historians would not at least document this belief. Instead, Josephus identifies the sin of Sodom in the following passage from his\u00a0Antiquities of the Jews<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from Him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Josephus had been charged by Rome to document not only an array of histories, but specifically the history of the Jewish people and Jewish beliefs. There were many instances in which he wrote in apparent disagreement with certain matters, but nevertheless documented the prevailing beliefs or attitudes. That he does not even mention this one way or another indicates strongly that such a view was unheard of at the time, and that later views to the contrary were misinterpretations of earlier attitudes.<\/p>\n

LEVITICUS 18:22: DEATH PENALTY FOR INCEST, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY<\/h2>\n

Without question, the most fundamental Biblical reference utilized to promote homophobia is Leviticus 18:22 and it\u2019s parallel verse in chapter 20. The passage, as it were, is not only translated and interpolated to support homophobia, but also violence and even murder against members of the homosexual community. If indeed the passage is speaking of homosexuality, then the Torah would indeed be mandating a death sentence for homosexuality. This, of course, is the assumption made by those who accept fundamentalist homophobia as well as those who reject Biblical instruction entirely. It is little wonder why so many would reject a document that is misrepresented to them as promoting murder off innocent, consenting adults. The problem is the Torah does not promote any such thing, nor could it, since it is a document focused on justice and promoting a panentheistic verbal concept of Divinity[7]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0that is said to carefully maintain justice in the world.<\/p>\n

In the same way, the Christian assumption that the Torah speaks of killing a \u201crebellious\u201d child, is absolutely rejected by rabbinic interpretation, which debates over whether such a child has ever existed. The degree of \u201crebelliousness\u201d indicated in the Torah is so egregious that the rabbis Talmudically debated whether it had happened, once, twice, or never at all in history. Such an instance seems to foreshadow the account of the mysterious\u00a0Al-Khidhr\u00a0<\/em>in the Qur\u2019anic tale of the instruction of Moses, when such a youth is deemed so evil that he is executed by this enigmatic figure \u2013 much to the initial horror of Moses (18.65\u201382).<\/p>\n

Similarly, the Torah passages assumed to refer to homosexuality mean nothing of the sort. The nuance of the Hebrew language is essential. Nothing is said in the Torah unintentionally. Textual switches in gender are always deliberate, intended to relay deeper truths of the story, to be read between the lines. In Leviticus, the phrase translated \u201cas one lies with\u00a0a<\/em>\u00a0woman\u201d or, as we will see, \u201cas one lies with a wife,\u201d is only found here and in Leviticus 20:13. The phrase \u201cas one lies with\u201d occurs five times in the Hebrew Bible. \u201cAs one lies with\u201d occurs four times where it references bed and does not indicate a sexual act.\u00a0 Genesis 49:4 designates a sexual act when Rueben sleeps with his father\u2019s wife \u2013 a forbidden act of\u00a0incest<\/em>, though it is important to note here that both parties were adult and consenting (this matters, as we will see in Leviticus).<\/p>\n

Biblical commentator K. Renato Lings\u2019 understanding of Leviticus 18:22 suggests that the text is not self-explanatory without the surrounding context of other prohibitions before and after it. Lings accurately notes that the Hebrew text is far more complex than English translators disclose. This in fact is one of the more ambiguous passages of the Torah, yet it is presented as though translations are word for word renderings. Nothing could be further from the truth.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Lings thus maintains that the English text should be translated on the basis of Hebrew linguistics and as such, he concludes that the interpretation of David Stewart \u2013 that this passage is really about male-on-male incest – is the only accurate way to look at the verse.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Lings astutely notes that the word used for \u201cman\u201d is not the typical noun used for \u201cman.\u201d Instead, the Torah uses a word which translates as \u201cmale\u201d (235). Therefore, Lings translates the text of Leviticus 18:22 as \u201cand with a male you shall not lie\u201d (236).\u00a0 This, he explains, means \u201ca male of any age in your family\u201d (as we will see below). Translators have taken huge liberties with the second half of the verse, typically rendered \u201cas with a woman,\u201d by including the word \u201cas\u201d. Many translations also include particles \u201cwith\u201d or \u201clike.\u201d\u00a0 Lings correctly notes that these words are not part of the original Hebrew text. They simply are not there. Thus, Lings translates the verse as \u201cand with a male you shall not lie down the\u00a0lyings<\/em>\u00a0of a woman\u201d (238).<\/p>\n

Lings notes that \u201clyings\u201d (\u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05d9) here appears in the plural, and is only found in these Leviticus 18:22 and Genesis 49:4. The singular version of the Hebrew word is used frequently, but in these two passages alone it is used in the plural. As noted above with regard to Reuben, the reference in Genesis 49:4 depicts \u201clyings\u201d as a forbidden act of incest (241). Lings argues that the term \u201clyings\u201d refers to an action that is of \u201carguably illicit nature\u201d (240). If we take into account Genesis 49:2 then, we discover the text refers to forbidden act of incest (241).<\/p>\n

Finally, Ling focuses on the noun for \u201cwoman.\u201d\u00a0 The King James Version and all normative Christian translations render the word \u201cwomankind\u201d or \u201cwoman.\u201d\u00a0As we have discussed, however, the King James Version is not primarily drawing from the Hebrew of the Masoretic text. While the word used for \u201cmale\u201d is clearly referenced elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for all ages, the one used for \u201cwoman\u201d or \u201ceshah<\/em>,\u201d refers to an adult woman, or more specifically someone old enough to be married, even a \u201cwife\u201d (242) as in the famous Proverb regarding a \u201cWife of Valor\u201d or \u201cEshet Chayyil<\/em>\u201d \u2013 which Jewish men traditionally sing to their wives amidst Shabbat blessings every Friday evening. This passage thus seems to be a continuation of both the preceding prohibitions on adultery as well as incest. That is, the focus on one\u2019s wife seems to be noting that the offending parties are married to women and committing acts of adultery in secret.<\/p>\n

Lings says we must consider the context in which Leviticus 18:22 is written, noting that the passage \u201cdeals with various illicit relationships in the sexual realm: one marrying two sisters (18:18), intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19), infidelity (18:20), and bestiality (18:23).\u201d (243). Context is key to understanding Biblical criticism. Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20.\u00a0 In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the incorrectly imagined homosexual prohibition appears within a list referring to incest (245) and in chapter 20 it is specified that the penalty for such an action is in fact death. If this passage were in fact referring to consensual homosexual activity, this ordering would be bad literary composition, as this prohibition would come out of nowhere and would disrupt the flow of the text and its context. It is clear from the context as well as the linguistic nuance of \u201clyings\u201d that this is a prohibition and sentence on male-to-male incest.<\/p>\n

Ironically, fundamentalists call themselves \u201cBiblical literalists\u201d and yet they disregard the literal wording and grammar of the Hebrew Torah in favor of literalistic clinging to translations and interpretive interpolation that requires us to read the Hebrew of the text non-literally and out of context. One can only imagine why such fundamentalists would want us to do that, unless for the fact that the translators, with their lying pens, know good and well that the literal text does not support their bigotry and homophobic dogma.<\/p>\n

Lings thus maintained, from his linguistic study that one could reasonably conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships \u2013 prohibiting male family members from engaging in incest, just the same way they would be prohibited in heterosexual incest. Thus, Lings suggests that the passage should be paraphrased: \u201cSexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives\u201d (245), as if they were lawful wives. It would seem that this might be about as close of a translatory approximation as one could render the verse into English.<\/p>\n

The Torah prohibits incest. It has nothing to say about homosexuality itself. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of mistreating the poor and foreigners according to the prophet Ezekiel. A man \u201cshall not\u201d\u00a0lie down with a male relative as if they were a lawful woman (that is, a wife). The Torah says that to do so is an act of \u201chorror\u201d and is punishable by death. The Torah says nothing one way or the other about the personal, private issue of homosexuality. The Torah does not endorse it nor denounce it, it is simply a non-issue.<\/p>\n

Lest there be any dispute on this matter, we turn to the Gemara in exegetical elaboration and insight into this passage. There we read:<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom where do we derive the prohibition and punishment for intercourse with a \u2018male\u2019? It is as the Sages taught in a\u00a0baraita<\/em>\u00a0with regard to the verse: \u2018And if a man lies with a \u2018male\u2019 relative lies with a with a wife, both of them have committed a horror; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them\u201d (Leviticus 20:13): The word \u2018man\u2019 excludes a minor boy. The phrase \u2018lies with a male\u2019 is referring to any male, whether he is an adult man or whether he is a [adult like Joseph who is like a] boy. The phrase \u2018as with a woman (mishkevei isha<\/em>),\u2019 referring to lying with a woman, appears in the verbal plural. The verse thus teaches you that there are two manners of lying with a woman for which one who engages in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is punished,\u00a0vaginal and anal<\/em>\u00a0intercourse.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05de\u05e0\u05d0 \u05dc\u05df \u05d3\u05ea”\u05e8 (\u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 \u05db, \u05d9\u05d2) \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 \u05e4\u05e8\u05d8 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05db\u05d1 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05dc\u05da \u05d4\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 \u05e9\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05d4<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Just as Joseph was called a \u201clittle boy,\u201d the implication here is that the prohibition is extended not only against male-to-female incest (which the Torah has already articulated), but also against male-to-male incest, and even incest towards those classes of non-binary individuals born as female, but regarded as \u201cmale\u201d hormonally or in terms of gender, as we have previously discussed. This sort of playing with linguistic gendering is common throughout the Torah and seems to be indicating here a prohibition against male or female incest.<\/p>\n

Rabbi Yishmael elaborates on this further, saying:\u00a0\u201cThis phrase is written to come to teach about the punishment for such intercourse, and the\u00a0halakhah<\/em>\u00a0that one is liable for anal intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him is found to be derived from it.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u05d0\u201d\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e9\u05de\u05e2\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05d5\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05d3 \u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d9\u05d5\u05de\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d1\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d7\u05ea \u05de\u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05dd \u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05d1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d3\u05e2\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d3\u05de\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05d1\u05dd \u05de\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05df \u05d1\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05d0\u05df \u05d1\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4<\/p>\n

While this prohibits anal intercourse with a woman who is prohibited to a man, we know that anal intercourse is halakhically permissible in Judaism just as it is in Shi`i Islam. Accordingly, if one were to assume from this that it is a prohibition on\u00a0all\u00a0<\/em>homosexual sex and not just homosexual incest, then it would further reason that this verse would then prohibit heterosexual anal intercourse, which is not\u00a0halakhically<\/em>\u00a0the case. In fact, the only prohibition on anal sex (or oral for that matter), is when a man ejaculates outside of his wife\u2019s vagina with the intention of not getting her pregnant during periods of time when pregnancy would otherwise be desired. The Talmud even somewhat suggests anal intercourse for the 24 months of breast feeding, to avoid harming the health of one\u2019s wife, by risking pregnancy before two full years of recovery from the previous pregnancy (Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 20b; Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 34a-b; Tosafot, Yevamot 34b; Tosafot Rid, Yevamot, 12b). In fact, in Nedarim, Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai argues against anal and oral sex, even suggesting that birth defects arise from these acts. But Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai rebukes this interpretation and retorts:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe above is the view of Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai alone; but on the contrary our Sages said: The\u00a0halakah<\/em>\u00a0is not as Rabbi Yochanan ben Dahavai, but a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife. A parable; Meat which comes from the butcher, may be eaten salted, roasted, cooked or seethed; and so it is with fish from the fishmonger\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

\u05d0\u201d\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df: \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d3\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9, \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc \u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd! \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d4 \u05db\u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e0\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d3\u05d4\u05d1\u05d0\u05d9, \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05db\u05dc \u05de\u05d4 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e8\u05d5\u05e6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d0\u05e9\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e2\u05d5\u05e9\u05d4; \u05de\u05e9\u05dc \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05d8\u05d1\u05d7, \u05e8\u05e6\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05dc\u05d5 \u05d1\u05de\u05dc\u05d7 \u2013 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d5, \u05e6\u05dc\u05d9 \u2013 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d5, \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc \u2013 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d5, \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05e7 \u2013 \u05d0\u05d5\u05db\u05dc\u05d5; \u05d5\u05db\u05df \u05d3\u05d2 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05e6\u05d9\u05d9\u05d3.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rabbi Akiva adds that:\u00a0\u201cIt is not necessary to derive this\u00a0halakhah<\/em>\u00a0from the aforementioned passage of Leviticus, \u201cRather, it says: \u2018And you shall not lie (tishkav<\/em>) with a male as with a wife.\u201d Read into the verse: \u201cYou shall not enable your being lain with (tishakhev<\/em>) by a male.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05e2\u05e7\u05d9\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05da \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d0\u05ea \u05d6\u05db\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e9\u05db\u05d1 \u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05d1\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e9\u05db\u05d1<\/p>\n

The Gemara here teaches is that it says\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0vaginal and anal intercourse are prohibited with any \u201cmale.\u201d What does this tell us? This teaches that the Torah prohibits in the plural of vaginal and anal, and applies that to sex with any \u201cmale\u201d \u2013 whether a biological male relative or a \u201cmale\u201d relative like Rebecca. If this doesn\u2019t stand out as clearly not referring to a simple matter of homosexuality then what would be the explanation for reference to\u00a0vaginal<\/em>\u00a0sex with males? The Gemara must be speaking of something beyond simple homosexuality, lest the application of prohibited male vaginal sex be out of place.<\/p>\n

We read in\u00a0Sanhedrin<\/em>\u00a054b that the prohibition in Leviticus is about a \u201cqadesh<\/em>\u201d or \u201critual male prostitute\u201d in idolatrous cults of Canaanite fertility religions. Translations of this passage of the Talmud often invent words and terms interpolated into English that are simply not found in the Hebrew, such as incorrectly translating\u00a0qadesh<\/em>\u00a0(from the root \u201choly\u201d) as \u201cSodomite\u201d. As with previous forced translations we can only ask why fundamentalism of any sort feels the need to put words where they are not found in order to fit religious texts into later dogmas.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have learned\u00a0the warning but\u00a0from where\u00a0is the\u00a0prohibition\u00a0derived?\u00a0The verse states: \u2018And you shall not lie with a male [relative] as with a wife; it is a horror\u2019\u201d\u00a0(Leviticus 18:22).<\/strong>\u00a0Thus, Sanhedrin is actually linking the aforementioned prohibition on homosexual incest to ritual temple prostitution as well.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have learned\u00a0from here the\u00a0prohibition for the one who engages in this behavior actively. From where\u00a0do we derive\u00a0the prohibition for one who engages in it passively?\u00a0The verse states: \u2018There shall not be a\u00a0qadesh<\/em>\u00a0among the children of Israel\u2019\u00a0(Deuteronomy 23:18).\u00a0And\u00a0another verse, cited to clarify the meaning of the term\u00a0qadesh<\/em>,\u00a0states: \u2018And there were also\u00a0qadesh<\/em>\u00a0in the land, they did according to all the horrors of the nations which Ha\u2019Shem drove out\u00a0before the Children of Israel\u2019 (1\u00a0Kings 14:24). This is\u00a0the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rabbi Akiva says:\u00a0\u201cIt is not necessary\u00a0to derive this\u00a0halakha<\/em>\u00a0from the verse: \u2018There shall not be a\u00a0qadesh<\/em>.\u2019 Rather,\u00a0it says: \u2018And you shall not lie (tishkav<\/em>) with a male as with a woman.\u2019 Read into\u00a0the verse:\u00a0You shall not enable your being lain with (tishakhev<\/em>)\u00a0by a male.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thus, Rabbi Akiva extrapolates from this the meaning that one shall neither subject someone to such, nor shall one enable themselves to be a \u201ccult prostitute\u201d known as a\u00a0qadesh<\/em>\u00a0– not a \u201cSodomite.\u201d This, he says, is what Leviticus was talking about. Accordingly, one can reason that the \u201clyings\u201d incest phraseology had to do with Canaanite families sending their sons and daughters to be temple prostitutes. If the Leviticus prohibition seems out of place in the modern age, it is because it is \u2013 it is contextual to a Bronze Age fertility cult and their rites of temple prostitution. It has nothing to do with consensual, adult, homosexual relationships.<\/p>\n

DECONSTRUCTING RELIGIFIED HOMOPHOBIA AGAINST HALAAL \u201cMUKHANNATHUN\u201d AND \u201cMEN WHO HAVE NO DESIRE FOR WOMEN\u201d<\/h2>\n

Islam is typically characterized as an extremely homophobic religion, but in reality, such attitudes have rather shallow historical roots. Today, in normative modes of Islam, it is thought that the union of two people of the same sex is strictly forbidden. In Islamicate jurisprudence, homosexual acts and are liable to different punishments, including the death penalty, depending on the situation and legal school today. Some\u00a0hadith<\/em>\u00a0collections, not emerging for centuries after the events which they describe, also seem to condemn homosexual and transgender acts, prescribing death penalty for what is often wrongly translated as something meaning \u201cmale homosexual intercourse.[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0As we will see, this translatory obfuscation is similarly tied into confusion as to what the \u201csin of Sodom\u201d actually was. It may thus come as a great surprise to many, that homosexual relationships were generally tolerated in pre-modern Islamic societies.[11]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0When these laws were invoked, they were done so extremely infrequently, primarily in cases of rape or other \u201cexceptionally blatant infringement on public morals\u201d.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Public attitudes toward homosexuality in the Muslim world underwent a marked negative change starting from the 19th century through the gradual spread of Islamic fundamentalist movements such as Neo-Salafism and Wahhabism, along with the influence of the sexual notions and restrictive norms prevalent in Europe at the time. A number of Muslim countries have retained criminal penalties for homosexual acts enacted under European colonial rule.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In Ira Lapidus and Lena Salayeh\u2019s\u00a0A History of Islamic Societies<\/em>, we find an important synopsis of the period when this shift happened, and its relationship to Eurocentric, Christonormative dogmas. The attitudes toward homosexuality in the Ottoman Empire underwent a drastic change during the 19th century. Before that time, Ottoman societal norms accepted homosexuality in spite of condemnation of homosexuality by religious scholars.<\/p>\n

In the 19th century, Ottoman society started to be influenced by European ideas about sexuality as well as the criticism leveled at the Ottoman society by European authors for its sexual and gender norms, including homosexuality. This criticism associated the weakness of the Ottoman state and corruption of the Ottoman government with Ottoman sexual corruption. By the 1850s, these ideas were prompting embarrassment and self-censorship among the Ottoman public regarding traditional attitudes toward sex in general and homosexuality in particular.<\/p>\n

In the popular imagination of Muslim cultures around the world in the Modern Era, the\u00a0hurmah<\/em>\u00a0of homosexuality is thought to be codified in the Qur\u2019an itself. We find there the story of the \u201cpeople of Lot\u201d destroyed by the wrath of God because the men engaged in lustful carnal acts between themselves (7:80\u201384, 11:77\u201383, 21:74, 22:43, 26:165\u2013175, 27:56\u201359, and 29:27\u201333). Not only does homosexuality fail to be mentioned as the cause for the people of Lot\u2019s destruction, a careful reading of the\u00a0mubin<\/em>, clear Arabic used in the oration, notes that it is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0the cause.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their clothing over their breasts, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands\u2019 fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters\u2019 sons, or their women,\u00a0or the disciples from amongst the men who have no desires for women<\/u>, or children who know nothing of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto God together, O believers, in order that you may succeed.\u201d Quran 24:31<\/p>\n

\u0648\u064e\u0642\u064f\u0644\u0652 \u0644\u0650\u0644\u0652\u0645\u064f\u0624\u0652\u0645\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0627\u062a\u0650 \u064a\u064e\u063a\u0652\u0636\u064f\u0636\u0652\u0646\u064e \u0645\u0650\u0646\u0652 \u0623\u064e\u0628\u0652\u0635\u064e\u0627\u0631\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u064a\u064e\u062d\u0652\u0641\u064e\u0638\u0652\u0646\u064e \u0641\u064f\u0631\u064f\u0648\u062c\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u064a\u064f\u0628\u0652\u062f\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e \u0632\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0625\u0650\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0627 \u0645\u064e\u0627 \u0638\u064e\u0647\u064e\u0631\u064e \u0645\u0650\u0646\u0652\u0647\u064e\u0627 \u06d6 \u0648\u064e\u0644\u0652\u064a\u064e\u0636\u0652\u0631\u0650\u0628\u0652\u0646\u064e \u0628\u0650\u062e\u064f\u0645\u064f\u0631\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0649\u0670 \u062c\u064f\u064a\u064f\u0648\u0628\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u06d6 \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u064a\u064f\u0628\u0652\u062f\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e \u0632\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0625\u0650\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0627 \u0644\u0650\u0628\u064f\u0639\u064f\u0648\u0644\u064e\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0622\u0628\u064e\u0627\u0626\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0622\u0628\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0628\u064f\u0639\u064f\u0648\u0644\u064e\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0623\u064e\u0628\u0652\u0646\u064e\u0627\u0626\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0623\u064e\u0628\u0652\u0646\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0628\u064f\u0639\u064f\u0648\u0644\u064e\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0625\u0650\u062e\u0652\u0648\u064e\u0627\u0646\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0628\u064e\u0646\u0650\u064a \u0625\u0650\u062e\u0652\u0648\u064e\u0627\u0646\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0628\u064e\u0646\u0650\u064a \u0623\u064e\u062e\u064e\u0648\u064e\u0627\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0646\u0650\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0626\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652 \u0645\u064e\u0627 \u0645\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0643\u064e\u062a\u0652 \u0623\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0645\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064f\u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u064e\u0651\u0627\u0628\u0650\u0639\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e \u063a\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0631\u0650 \u0623\u064f\u0648\u0644\u0650\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0625\u0650\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0629\u0650 \u0645\u0650\u0646\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0631\u0650\u0651\u062c\u064e\u0627\u0644\u0650 \u0623\u064e\u0648\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0637\u0650\u0651\u0641\u0652\u0644\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0630\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e \u0644\u064e\u0645\u0652 \u064a\u064e\u0638\u0652\u0647\u064e\u0631\u064f\u0648\u0627 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0649\u0670 \u0639\u064e\u0648\u0652\u0631\u064e\u0627\u062a\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0650\u0651\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u06d6 \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u064a\u064e\u0636\u0652\u0631\u0650\u0628\u0652\u0646\u064e \u0628\u0650\u0623\u064e\u0631\u0652\u062c\u064f\u0644\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0644\u0650\u064a\u064f\u0639\u0652\u0644\u064e\u0645\u064e \u0645\u064e\u0627 \u064a\u064f\u062e\u0652\u0641\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e \u0645\u0650\u0646\u0652 \u0632\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u06da \u0648\u064e\u062a\u064f\u0648\u0628\u064f\u0648\u0627 \u0625\u0650\u0644\u064e\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u0650 \u062c\u064e\u0645\u0650\u064a\u0639\u064b\u0627 \u0623\u064e\u064a\u064f\u0651\u0647\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0645\u064f\u0624\u0652\u0645\u0650\u0646\u064f\u0648\u0646\u064e \u0644\u064e\u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0643\u064f\u0645\u0652 \u062a\u064f\u0641\u0652\u0644\u0650\u062d\u064f\u0648\u0646\u064e<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here the Qur\u2019an clearly speaks of homosexual men as part of the earliest followers of Muhammad. It has no critique of them nor anything disparaging to say. In fact, it says that a woman need not worry about wearing revealing clothing around such \u201cdisciples from amongst the men who have no desires for women\u201d (\u0627\u0644\u062a\u064e\u0651\u0627\u0628\u0650\u0639\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e \u063a\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0631\u0650 \u0623\u064f\u0648\u0644\u0650\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0625\u0650\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0629\u0650 \u0645\u0650\u0646\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0631\u0650\u0651\u062c\u064e\u0627\u0644\u0650). Contextually this clearly means homosexual men, as the Qur\u2019an does not say those who have no sexual desire at all, nor those who have no desire for men or women. Instead, the listener would have easily understood that \u201cat-tabia`yin ghayr ‘uwli al`iirbat min ar-rijal<\/em>\u201d meant homosexual men from amongst the earliest community of Muhammad\u2019s followers. As we will see, this included trans\u00a0mukhannuthun<\/em>\u00a0who were even permitted to casually visit Muhammad\u2019s wives, and regularly spend time alone with them without them being covered.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the aforementioned\u00a0ayah<\/em>\u00a0(24.31) nowhere says the word \u201chijab\u201d nowhere, even though it is often regarded as a commanding verse for covering a woman\u2019s hair. Instead, it says to draw the\u00a0khumur<\/em>\u00a0(literally: \u201ctable clothes\u201d) over one\u2019s breasts (\u0628\u0650\u062e\u064f\u0645\u064f\u0631\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0649\u0670 \u062c\u064f\u064a\u064f\u0648\u0628\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651). While there is no question that\u00a0hadith\u00a0<\/em>literature frequently instructs\u00a0both\u00a0<\/em>men and women to cover their hair with a kufi or turban, in the case of men, and\u00a0hijab<\/em>\u00a0in the case of women, this is not a commandment presented in the Qur\u2019an.<\/p>\n

We see further that lesbians are exempted from many of the stringencies of modest dress. Still, the Qur;\u2019an says modesty is still recommended. Naturally, translators commonly lie about what the clear Arabic says here.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd the rules (\u0642\u064e\u0648\u064e\u0627\u0639\u0650\u062f\u064f) from the women who have no desire for heterosexual intercourse (\u0646\u0650\u0643\u064e\u0627\u062d\u064b\u0627): it is no sin for them if they discard their clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. God is the Hearer, the Knower.\u201d Quran 24:60<\/p>\n

\u0648\u064e\u0627\u0644\u0652\u0642\u064e\u0648\u064e\u0627\u0639\u0650\u062f\u064f \u0645\u0650\u0646\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0650\u0651\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0627\u062a\u0650\u064a \u0644\u064e\u0627 \u064a\u064e\u0631\u0652\u062c\u064f\u0648\u0646\u064e \u0646\u0650\u0643\u064e\u0627\u062d\u064b\u0627 \u0641\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0633\u064e \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u062c\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0627\u062d\u064c \u0623\u064e\u0646\u0652 \u064a\u064e\u0636\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0646\u064e \u062b\u0650\u064a\u064e\u0627\u0628\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u063a\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0631\u064e \u0645\u064f\u062a\u064e\u0628\u064e\u0631\u0650\u0651\u062c\u064e\u0627\u062a\u064d \u0628\u0650\u0632\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e\u0629\u064d \u06d6 \u0648\u064e\u0623\u064e\u0646\u0652 \u064a\u064e\u0633\u0652\u062a\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0641\u0650\u0641\u0652\u0646\u064e \u062e\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0631\u064c \u0644\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u06d7 \u0648\u064e\u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064f \u0633\u064e\u0645\u0650\u064a\u0639\u064c \u0639\u064e\u0644\u0650\u064a\u0645\u064c<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The first term that must be discussed here is \u201cnikaha<\/em>\u201d (\u0646\u0650\u0643\u064e\u0627\u062d\u064b\u0627). Any Muslim knows this term refers to marriage, but this is colloquially, not literally. Literally, the term means to have heterosexual \u201cintercourse.\u201d The term that means marriage is actually\u00a0zawaj\u00a0<\/em>(\u0632\u0648\u0627\u062c), and the Qur\u2019an makes use of it many times. Post-menopausal women are\u00a0often<\/em>\u00a0married, so the interpolation here that it is \u201cpost-menopausal women who have no desire for marriage\u201d is illogical on every level. As well, since the Qur\u2019an is perfectly familiar with the term\u00a0zawaj,\u00a0<\/em>there is no reason it would here substitute this word for\u00a0nikah<\/em>\u00a0if it\u00a0only\u00a0<\/em>meant marriage, not heterosexual intercourse that is permissible through marriage.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, why one should ask themselves why translators would render the phrase\u00a0al-qawa`id<\/em>\u00a0(\u0627\u0644\u0652\u0642\u064e\u0648\u064e\u0627\u0639\u0650\u062f\u064f) as \u201cmenstruating women\u201d or \u201cpost-menopausal women\u201d when the term clearly means \u201cregulations\u201d as well as being acceptably interpreted as \u201cthose who sit\u201d? This masculine plural term makes far more sense in the very gendered Arabic language to be referring to rules and regulations, rather than \u201cthose who sit.\u201d Furthermore, if the Qur\u2019an was trying to imply that \u201cthose who sit amongst the women\u201d means \u201cpostmenopausal\u201d women, then why elsewhere is the word \u201cAjouz<\/em>\u201d (\u0639\u064e\u062c\u064f\u0648\u0632\u064c) used in four times to indicate an old woman\u00a0who is in a postmenopausal state including\u00a0suwar<\/em>\u00a0Hud 11.72, Ash-Shu’ara 26.171, As-Saffat 37.13, and Adh-Dhariyat 51.29? The Qur\u2019an says over and over that its Arabic is \u201cclear\u201d, and \u201cunambiguous\u201d and yet when it comes to passages that reveal equality and freedom, suddenly these clear words (that are used everywhere else to mean completely different words), suddenly have ambiguous, strange meanings born out of the imaginations of late-date\u00a0mutfassirun\u00a0<\/em>commentators? Those who have minds that can reason all know why this is.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Homosexuality<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
One of the clearest statements regarding the acceptance of lesbianism in the Muslim Ummah, comes from a sexological treatise written in the twelfth century by a Jewish convert to Islam: \u201cThere are also women who are more intelligent than the others. They possess many of the ways of men so that they resemble them even in their movements, the manner in which they talk, and in their voice. Such women would like to be the active partner, and they would like to be superior to the man who makes this possible for them. Such a woman does not shame herself, either, if she seduces him whom she desires. If she has no inclination, he cannot force her to make love. This makes it difficult for her to submit to the wishes of men, and brings her to lesbian love. Most of the women with these characteristics are to be found among the educated and elegant women, the scribes, Qur\u2019an readers, and the female scholars.\u00a0Barber, Noel. The Sultans. (Sinlon and Schuster, 1973) 35<\/cite><\/h6>\n<\/div>\n

It was widely understood that women in harems engaged in lesbianism, just as women today in many polygynous households do. In fact, I can attest to firsthand knowledge that in Saudi Arabia, there are even \u201csex parties\u201d between women of multiple households. As men are not present for these, most never know anything about them. Still, within harems, such activity was impossible to miss. As such, rulers who wished to try to stop this behavior would go so far as to have cucumbers, and other such long and girthy vegetables, prepared sliced before being served to them.<\/p>\n

During the Ottoman Empire, a Venetian envoy named Ottaviano Bon observed of the harem that,\u00a0\u201cNow, it is not lawful for anyone to bring aught in unto them, with which they may commit deeds of beastly uncleanness; so that if they have a will to eat cucumbers, they are sent in unto them sliced, to deprive them of the means of playing the wantons.\u201d<\/strong>[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

One of the clearest statements regarding the acceptance of lesbianism in the Muslim Ummah, comes from a sexological treatise written in the twelfth century by a Jewish convert to Islam:<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are also women who are more intelligent than the others. They possess many of the ways of men so that they resemble them even in their movements, the manner in which they talk, and in their voice. Such women would like to be the active partner, and they would like to be superior to the man who makes this possible for them. Such a woman does not shame herself, either, if she seduces him whom she desires. If she has no inclination, he cannot force her to make love. This makes it difficult for her to submit to the wishes of men, and brings her to lesbian love. Most of the women with these characteristics are to be found among the educated and elegant women, the scribes, Qur\u2019an readers, and the female scholars.\u201d[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In addition to these Qur\u2019anic and anthropological references, the\u00a0hadith\u00a0<\/em>material provides endless examples of homosexuals and transgender individuals. The term\u00a0mukhannathun<\/em>\u00a0(\u0645\u062e\u0646\u062b\u0648\u0646) is a classical Arabic designation for people who would now be called transgender women, perhaps poorly distinguished from and perhaps in many cases indistinguishable from what have been called \u201ceunuchs.\u201d The term\u00a0khanith<\/em>\u00a0(\u062e\u0646\u064a\u062b) denotes a person assigned male at birth who uses feminine gender expression, including trans women, men who have sex with men, or cisgender men perceived as feminine. It is generally considered derogatory but some individuals have sought to reclaim it as a mark of pride. Drawing from hadith reports speaking of the\u00a0mukhannath<\/em>\u00a0(effeminate male), some writers have asserted congruities between legal discourse related to the\u00a0mukhannath<\/em>\u00a0and transgender persons who also exhibit characteristics that diverge from their constitutional anatomy. Various \u201cmukhannathun<\/em>\u201d appear in several\u00a0hadith<\/em>. In all, they are deemed to have attraction only to men, or to men and women alike.<\/p>\n

In one relevant\u00a0hadith<\/em>\u00a0Muhammad banishes a\u00a0mukhannath<\/em>\u00a0to a region near Medinah, in order to prevent homophobic Meccans from killing them. It is clear that this was not instruction to expel\u00a0mukhannathun<\/em>\u00a0in every instance, as there are many other accounts of\u00a0mukhannathun<\/em>, even being alone with Muhammad\u2019s own wives. As well, these\u00a0mukhannathun<\/em>\u00a0could only be regarded as Muslim trans women who were accepted as Muslims as they are \u201cwithin the boundaries of Medinah and Mecca\u201d the latter of which,\u00a0hadith<\/em>\u00a0literature claims non-Muslims had been prohibited from entering.<\/p>\n

One of the most telling\u00a0ahadith<\/em>\u00a0regarding\u00a0mukhannathun<\/em>\u00a0is found in Sunan Abu Dawud, in a hadith graded as \u201cSahih,\u201d that is attributed to A`aishah, one of the wives of Muhammad, relayed the following:<\/p>\n

\u201cAn effeminate individual [with a penis and testicles, known as a]\u00a0mukhannath<\/em>\u00a0used to enter upon the wives of Prophet [Muhammad]. [The people] considered him among those who were free of [heterosexual] needs. One day the Prophet entered upon us when [the\u00a0mukhannath<\/em>] was with one of his wives, and was [erotically] describing the [naked attributes] of a woman [in meticulously-observed detail], saying: When she comes forward, she comes forward with four [folds in her stomach], and when she goes backward, she goes backward with eight [folds in her stomach]. The Prophet said: Do I not see that this [mukhannath<\/em>] knows what here lies [in all your naked form]. [From] then [on, the wives of Muhammad] observed hijab in front of [the\u00a0mukhannath<\/em>; who was presumed to have bi-sexual inclinations].\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\u062d\u064e\u062f\u064e\u0651\u062b\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0627 \u0645\u064f\u062d\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0651\u062f\u064f \u0628\u0652\u0646\u064f \u0639\u064f\u0628\u064e\u064a\u0652\u062f\u064d\u060c \u062d\u064e\u062f\u064e\u0651\u062b\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0627 \u0645\u064f\u062d\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0651\u062f\u064f \u0628\u0652\u0646\u064f \u062b\u064e\u0648\u0652\u0631\u064d\u060c \u0639\u064e\u0646\u0652 \u0645\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0645\u064e\u0631\u064d\u060c \u0639\u064e\u0646\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0632\u064f\u0651\u0647\u0652\u0631\u0650\u064a\u0650\u0651\u060c \u0648\u064e\u0647\u0650\u0634\u064e\u0627\u0645\u0650 \u0628\u0652\u0646\u0650 \u0639\u064f\u0631\u0652\u0648\u064e\u0629\u064e\u060c \u0639\u064e\u0646\u0652 \u0639\u064f\u0631\u0652\u0648\u064e\u0629\u064e\u060c \u0639\u064e\u0646\u0652 \u0639\u064e\u0627\u0626\u0650\u0634\u064e\u0629\u064e\u060c \u0631\u0636\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0639\u0646\u0647\u0627 \u0642\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e\u062a\u0652 \u0643\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064e \u064a\u064e\u062f\u0652\u062e\u064f\u0644\u064f \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0649 \u0623\u064e\u0632\u0652\u0648\u064e\u0627\u062c\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0628\u0650\u064a\u0650\u0651 \u0635\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0639\u0644\u064a\u0647 \u0648\u0633\u0644\u0645 \u0645\u064f\u062e\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651\u062b\u064c \u0641\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064f\u0648\u0627 \u064a\u064e\u0639\u064f\u062f\u064f\u0651\u0648\u0646\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0645\u0650\u0646\u0652 \u063a\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0631\u0650 \u0623\u064f\u0648\u0644\u0650\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0650\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0629\u0650 \u0641\u064e\u062f\u064e\u062e\u064e\u0644\u064e \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0646\u064e\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0628\u0650\u064a\u064f\u0651 \u0635\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0639\u0644\u064a\u0647 \u0648\u0633\u0644\u0645 \u064a\u064e\u0648\u0652\u0645\u064b\u0627 \u0648\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0648\u064e \u0639\u0650\u0646\u0652\u062f\u064e \u0628\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0636\u0650 \u0646\u0650\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0626\u0650\u0647\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0648\u064e \u064a\u064e\u0646\u0652\u0639\u064e\u062a\u064f \u0627\u0645\u0652\u0631\u064e\u0623\u064e\u0629\u064b \u0641\u064e\u0642\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e \u0625\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064e\u0627 \u0625\u0650\u0630\u064e\u0627 \u0623\u064e\u0642\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0644\u064e\u062a\u0652 \u0623\u064e\u0642\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0644\u064e\u062a\u0652 \u0628\u0650\u0623\u064e\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0639\u064d \u0648\u064e\u0625\u0650\u0630\u064e\u0627 \u0623\u064e\u062f\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0631\u064e\u062a\u0652 \u0623\u064e\u062f\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0631\u064e\u062a\u0652 \u0628\u0650\u062b\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064d \u200f.\u200f \u0641\u064e\u0642\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0628\u0650\u064a\u064f\u0651 \u0635\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0647 \u0639\u0644\u064a\u0647 \u0648\u0633\u0644\u0645 \u200f \u200f \u0623\u064e\u0644\u0627\u064e \u0623\u064e\u0631\u064e\u0649 \u0647\u064e\u0630\u064e\u0627 \u064a\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0644\u064e\u0645\u064f \u0645\u064e\u0627 \u0647\u064e\u0627 \u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0627 \u0644\u0627\u064e \u064a\u064e\u062f\u0652\u062e\u064f\u0644\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0643\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0647\u064e\u0630\u064e\u0627.\u200f \u0641\u064e\u062d\u064e\u062c\u064e\u0628\u064f\u0648\u0647\u064f. \u200f<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We see here the\u00a0mukhannath<\/em>\u00a0was permitted alone in private quarters with Muhammad\u2019s uncovered wives. Even when Muhammad hears them describing observed female nudity in erotic detail, he doesn\u2019t punish the\u00a0mukhannath,\u00a0<\/em>nor even tell him never to come around his wives again. He just tells his wives they must cover up in front of them, as their bisexuality had thus been made obvious.<\/p>\n

The term effeminate here means that one is like a woman in all ways, including the predominant sexual orientation of heteronormative women towards men, but not necessarily exclusively so (as nearly all women tested for physiological arousal in response to lesbian imagery have proven, or even self-identify as having some degree of bisexuality).[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi (c. 1233\u20131277), popularly known as\u00a0al- Nawawi or Imam Nawawi was a Sunni Shafi`i jurist and hadith scholar. He authored numerous and lengthy works ranging from hadith, to theology, biography, and jurisprudence. In his work,\u00a0Sharh an-Nawawi `ala Sahih Muslim<\/em>, on Hadith 2180, An-Nawawi said, \u201cThe scholars said effeminate men are two types,\u201d which he then goes on to describe as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cFirst, one who was created that way and he is not responsible for his behavior resembling women, their appearance, their speech, and their movements. Rather, Allah created him upon his disposition, so this is not blameworthy for him, nor a fault, nor a sin, nor is he punished. He has the excuse of not being able to control that. For this reason, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not condemn him at first when he entered the homes of women, nor his behavior as it was originally his disposition. Indeed, he condemned his behavior after his deliberate imitation of women was made known to him, and he did not condemn his description as an effeminate man in itself\u2026 Second, an effeminate man whose disposition is not like that. Rather, he is responsible for his behavior resembling women, their movements, their appearance, their speech, and mimicking their presentation. This is blameworthy as has come in the authentic traditions cursing him\u2026 As for the first type, he is not cursed.\u201d[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

><\/p>\n

\u0639\u064e\u0646\u0652 \u0623\u064f\u0645\u0650\u0651 \u0633\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0629\u064e \u0623\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0645\u064f\u062e\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651\u062b\u064b\u0627 \u0643\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064e \u0639\u0650\u0646\u0652\u062f\u064e\u0647\u064e\u0627 \u0648\u064e\u0631\u064e\u0633\u064f\u0648\u0644\u064f \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u0650 \u0635\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064f \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0633\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0645\u064e \u0641\u0650\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0628\u064e\u064a\u0652\u062a\u0650 \u0641\u064e\u0642\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e \u0644\u0650\u0623\u064e\u062e\u0650\u064a \u0623\u064f\u0645\u0650\u0651 \u0633\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0629\u064e \u064a\u064e\u0627 \u0639\u064e\u0628\u0652\u062f\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u0650 \u0628\u0652\u0646\u064e \u0623\u064e\u0628\u0650\u064a \u0623\u064f\u0645\u064e\u064a\u064e\u0651\u0629\u064e \u0625\u0650\u0646\u0652 \u0641\u064e\u062a\u064e\u062d\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064f \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0643\u064f\u0645\u0652 \u0627\u0644\u0637\u064e\u0651\u0627\u0626\u0650\u0641\u064e \u063a\u064e\u062f\u064b\u0627 \u0641\u064e\u0625\u0650\u0646\u0650\u0651\u064a \u0623\u064e\u062f\u064f\u0644\u064f\u0651\u0643\u064e \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0649 \u0628\u0650\u0646\u0652\u062a\u0650 \u063a\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0644\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064e \u0641\u064e\u0625\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064e\u0627 \u062a\u064f\u0642\u0652\u0628\u0650\u0644\u064f \u0628\u0650\u0623\u064e\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0639\u064d \u0648\u064e\u062a\u064f\u062f\u0652\u0628\u0650\u0631\u064f \u0628\u0650\u062b\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064d \u0642\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e \u0641\u064e\u0633\u064e\u0645\u0650\u0639\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0631\u064e\u0633\u064f\u0648\u0644\u064f \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u0650 \u0635\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064f \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0633\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0645\u064e \u0641\u064e\u0642\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e\u00a0\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u064a\u064e\u062f\u0652\u062e\u064f\u0644\u0652 \u0647\u064e\u0624\u064f\u0644\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0643\u064f\u0645\u0652
\n2180 \u0635\u062d\u064a\u062d \u0645\u0633\u0644\u0645 \u0643\u062a\u0627\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0633\u0644\u0627\u0645 \u0628\u0627\u0628 \u0645\u0646\u0639 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062e\u0646\u062b \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062f\u062e\u0648\u0644 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0621 \u0627\u0644\u0623\u062c\u0627\u0646\u0628
\n\u0642\u0627\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0648\u0648\u064a \u0642\u064e\u0627\u0644\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0639\u064f\u0644\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0627\u0621\u064f \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0645\u064f\u062e\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651\u062b\u064f \u0636\u064e\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0627\u0646\u0650 \u0623\u064e\u062d\u064e\u062f\u064f\u0647\u064f\u0645\u064e\u0627 \u0645\u0650\u0646\u0652 \u062e\u064f\u0644\u0650\u0642\u064e \u0643\u064e\u0630\u064e\u0644\u0650\u0643\u064e \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0645\u0652 \u064a\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0641\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u064e\u0651\u062e\u064e\u0644\u064f\u0651\u0642\u064e \u0628\u0650\u0623\u064e\u062e\u0652\u0644\u064e\u0627\u0642\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0650\u0651\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0632\u0650\u064a\u0650\u0651\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627\u0645\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u062d\u064e\u0631\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0627\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0628\u064e\u0644\u0652 \u0647\u064f\u0648\u064e \u062e\u0650\u0644\u0652\u0642\u064e\u0629\u064c \u062e\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0642\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064f \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u064e\u0627 \u0641\u064e\u0647\u064e\u0630\u064e\u0627 \u0644\u064e\u0627 \u0630\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0651 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u0639\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0628\u064e \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u0625\u0650\u062b\u0652\u0645\u064e \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u0639\u064f\u0642\u064f\u0648\u0628\u064e\u0629\u064e \u0644\u0650\u0623\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064f \u0645\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0630\u064f\u0648\u0631\u064c \u0644\u064e\u0627 \u0635\u064f\u0646\u0652\u0639\u064e \u0644\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0641\u0650\u064a \u0630\u064e\u0644\u0650\u0643\u064e \u0648\u064e\u0644\u0650\u0647\u064e\u0630\u064e\u0627 \u0644\u064e\u0645\u0652 \u064a\u064f\u0646\u0652\u0643\u0650\u0631\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0628\u0650\u064a\u064f\u0651 \u0635\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0647\u064f \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0633\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0645\u064e \u0623\u064e\u0648\u064e\u0651\u0644\u064b\u0627 \u062f\u064f\u062e\u064f\u0648\u0644\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0650\u0651\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627 \u062e\u064e\u0644\u0652\u0642\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0627\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0630\u0650\u064a \u0647\u064f\u0648\u064e \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u0650 \u062d\u0650\u064a\u0646\u064e \u0643\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064e \u0645\u0650\u0646\u0652 \u0623\u064e\u0635\u0652\u0644\u0650 \u062e\u0650\u0644\u0652\u0642\u064e\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0625\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651\u0645\u064e\u0627 \u0623\u064e\u0646\u0652\u0643\u064e\u0631\u064e \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0647\u0650 \u0628\u064e\u0639\u0652\u062f\u064e \u0630\u064e\u0644\u0650\u0643\u064e \u0645\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0631\u0650\u0641\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0644\u0650\u0623\u064e\u0648\u0652\u0635\u064e\u0627\u0641\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0650\u0651\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0645\u0652 \u064a\u064f\u0646\u0652\u0643\u0650\u0631\u0652 \u0635\u0650\u0641\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0648\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0648\u0652\u0646\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0645\u064f\u062e\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651\u062b\u064b\u0627 \u2026 \u0627\u0644\u0636\u064e\u0651\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064f \u0627\u0644\u062b\u064e\u0651\u0627\u0646\u0650\u064a \u0645\u0650\u0646\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0645\u064f\u062e\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0651\u062b\u0650 \u0647\u064f\u0648\u064e \u0645\u064e\u0646\u0652 \u0644\u064e\u0645\u0652 \u064a\u064e\u0643\u064f\u0646\u0652 \u0644\u064e\u0647\u064f \u0630\u064e\u0644\u0650\u0643\u064e \u062e\u0650\u0644\u0652\u0642\u064e\u0629\u064b \u0628\u064e\u0644\u0652 \u064a\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0641\u064f \u0623\u064e\u062e\u0652\u0644\u064e\u0627\u0642\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0650\u0651\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0621\u0650 \u0648\u064e\u062d\u064e\u0631\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0627\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u0647\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0626\u064e\u0627\u062a\u0650\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u0643\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0627\u0645\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u064a\u064e\u062a\u064e\u0632\u064e\u064a\u064e\u0651\u0627 \u0628\u0650\u0632\u0650\u064a\u0650\u0651\u0647\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0641\u064e\u0647\u064e\u0630\u064e\u0627 \u0647\u064f\u0648\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0645\u064e\u0630\u0652\u0645\u064f\u0648\u0645\u064f \u0627\u0644\u064e\u0651\u0630\u0650\u064a \u062c\u064e\u0627\u0621\u064e \u0641\u0650\u064a \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0623\u064e\u062d\u064e\u0627\u062f\u0650\u064a\u062b\u0650 \u0627\u0644\u0635\u064e\u0651\u062d\u0650\u064a\u062d\u064e\u0629\u0650 \u0644\u064e\u0639\u0652\u0646\u064f\u0647\u064f \u2026 \u0648\u064e\u0623\u064e\u0645\u064e\u0651\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u0636\u064e\u0651\u0631\u0652\u0628\u064f \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0623\u064e\u0648\u064e\u0651\u0644\u064f \u0641\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0633\u064e \u0628\u0650\u0645\u064e\u0644\u0652\u0639\u064f\u0648\u0646\u064d
\n2180 \u0634\u0631\u062d \u0627\u0644\u0646\u0648\u0648\u064a \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0645\u0633\u0644\u0645<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It is hard to imagine who this category of\u00a0mukhannath\u00a0<\/em>who\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0<\/em>born that way is, until we see some who have attempted to take advantage of recent social acceptances of transgender individuals \u2013 using that for their own misogynistic designs. For instance, many women today can attest to the existence of men deceptively claiming to be trans \u201clesbians,\u201d who are in fact not transgender at all. These devious men use this faux femininity to get women to lower their guards when dating, thinking they are with someone like them hormonally, and not actually a manipulative male predator pretending to be transgender. I have met men like this who claim to be transgender one day, upload dating profiles claiming to be \u201clesbians\u201d and then months later say they never really were trans. As the prophet Solomon said, \u201cthere is nothing new under the sun.\u201d It would seem that such unscrupulous imposter\u00a0mukhannathun\u00a0<\/em>are the only type decried by Muhammad \u2013 and with good and obvious reason. Authentic\u00a0mukhannathun\u00a0<\/em>\u201ccreated this way by Allah\u201d are said to be \u201cblameless.\u201d That means no execution, no punishment, no sin. Period.<\/p>\n

This is not some new, 21st century\u00a0tafsir,\u00a0<\/em>this is the classical Islamic interpretation of the matter. This traditional position of understanding and acceptance has been obfuscated by both Sunni and Shi`i fundamentalists in the Modern Era, through grafting of Western and particularly Christonormative prejudices and bigotry.<\/p>\n

So, what about\u00a0ahadith\u00a0<\/em>which seem to indicate death for homosexuals? For starters, they are contradicted by\u00a0ahadith\u00a0<\/em>where Muhammad was documented literally saving the lives of such individuals when people presented him to be killed. Muhammad told him to move away from such hostile people, to live near Medinah instead. He followed by telling the apparently new Meccan converts in his presence that it is forbidden to kill\u00a0anyone<\/em>\u00a0who prays, regardless of them being homosexual or transgender, as in this case. It is presumed that these were new converts because if this was Muhammad\u2019s attitude, it should have been well known to them that he was not in the business of executing such people.<\/p>\n

Secondly, we must bear in mind that the\u00a0hadith\u00a0<\/em>genre is an extremely late source of material which must be judged by the historiographical criteria of historical criticism (also known academically as \u201chigher criticism\u201d), rather than source criticism (\u201clower criticism\u201d). This means that sources from centuries after the events that they describe can never be taken at face value as though they are accurate records, but instead must be discerned through reason. It is not coincidental then that the Ahl al-Bayt taught that\u00a0Al-`Aql<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 REASON – is not only a requirement in Islam, but also a primordial power of the Universe, the first of creation itself and through which all of the rest of creation was brought forth into existence.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Accordingly, when we have late\u00a0ahadith\u00a0<\/em>which speaking of murdering homosexuals, but we have others more consistent with not only the Qur\u2019an \u2013 which affirms \u201cthere is to be no compulsion in religion\u201d \u2013 and the attitudes of the Hebrew scriptures previous, then\u00a0al-`Aql\u00a0<\/em>must tell those with discerning minds to disregard the contradictory reports as reflecting instead the attitudes of those who penned them, centuries after the events which they purport to describe. But there is something else at play in this class of\u00a0ahadith<\/em>. At no time does any\u00a0hadith\u00a0<\/em>speaking of execution actually say the crime for which it is prescribed is \u201chomosexuality.\u201d Instead, in each case, it speaks of the crime being that of the \u201cpeople of Lot\u201d \u2013 in other words, homosexual rape. Certainly, few would take issue with executing such individuals.<\/p>\n

SEXUAL BALANCE AND THE \u201cDIN AL-FITRAH\u201d (RELIGION OF NATURE)<\/h2>\n

One of the areas in which there has been the greatest misconceptions about the WAY OF LIFE in the NATURAL ORDER (which Islam calls the \u201cFitrah<\/em>,\u201d \u0641\u0637\u0631\u0629) \u2014 caused by misinterpretation in some cases and miscommunication of beliefs in others \u2014 is regarding the issue of SEXUAL BALANCE. In order to dear up any and all misconceptions about SEXUAL BALANCE in the State of Nature, amongst our\u00a0Jam`at al-Fitrah\u00a0<\/em>of the\u00a0Tali`yah al-Mahdi,\u00a0<\/em>our official view on sexuality is here laid forth:<\/p>\n

The sexual drive and libido \u2014 the psychological, social and biological factors, the sex hormones and associated neurotransmitters that act upon the\u00a0nucleus accumbens<\/em>, primarily testosterone and dopamine \u2014 came into existence for the evolutionary purpose of procreation. That evolutionary drive stems from the roots of the very FORCE of NATURE and the Universal energies of Yin and Yang polarities. The pleasurable component of sex, is thus inseparable from the evolutionary drive for Yin and Yang forces to meet and balance each other harmonious, with the underlying drive towards perpetuating the cycle of LIFE.<\/p>\n

This, however, is NOT to say that all sex must or even should be engaged in for the purposes of procreation, nor that heterosexual activity is by nature \u201cbalanced\u201d and that homosexual coupling is \u201cimbalanced.\u201d The interaction of Yin and Yang forces is far more complex and nuanced than that, and these forces are not always manifested in binary \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cfemale\u201d physiologies, or heteronormative orientations.<\/p>\n

The sexual drive in the human species constitutes and array of completely natural feelings and activities which are found in all animals. When unadulterated by society, the sexual drive is one of the purest instincts we have left. To subdue that or to deny it would be an attempt to ignore or conquer NATURE. Our MOVEMENT is not about false human perception of law and morality. It is about living by the NATURAL LAW \u2014 where morality means abiding by the NATURAL ORDER of things \u2014 maintaining the balance.<\/p>\n

Our MOVEMENT is about LIFE. Our struggle against the enemies of LIFE. Not only is that against the external forces of oppression whom we fight in the hopes of achieving a future world free of oppression \u2014 it is also against the darkness that lurks within the human psyche.<\/p>\n

The fear of living that leads many to find comfort in sexual neuroses such as negation and self-denial, or even rigid views that moralize objection to certain sexual activities and orientations based on religious dogmas or cultural biases. Our abstinence from certain behaviors is not based on abstinence for the sake of itself. Discipline is only of worth when it helps one walk free of the harmful ways of the enemy. To let that discipline deny to us even that which is balanced and healthy would be to let the enemy win \u2014 thus, in our battle for a better world, we would have stopped living ourselves, becoming artificial creatures.<\/p>\n

With our eyes always turned back to our ORIGINAL STATE in the NATURAL ORDER, we recognize that INDIGENOUS societies and communities throughout the world have, for millennia, recognized nuanced interpretation of gender variance of masculine and feminine energies between the two sexes. While we reject the notion that sex (rather than gender), can be determined by how one feels or identifies\u00a0alone<\/em>, we observe that quantifiable energies, hormones and the like can manifest as a gradient of gender expressions, regardless of what chromosomal sex one was born as, in their physical bodies.<\/p>\n

As such, we accept FIRST NATION and INDIGENOUS concepts of these non-binary identities as third, fourth, fifth or even more gender expressions. Regardless, our focus \u2014 as we build an international REVOLUTIONARY VANGUARD \u2014 is on maintaining the balance within each individual and unique family, as we gradually, generationally, MOVE FORWARD TO EDEN.
\nAs a revolutionary principle of solidarity, we derive inspiration from and stand in agreement with Huey P. Newton, the co-founder of the Black Panther Party For Self Defense, who gave a speech in New York City, on August 15th 1970, where he outlined the Party\u2019s position on LGBT rights and liberation. He said, unequivocally, that \u201cwe must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for ALL oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor.\u201d<\/p>\n

He drew the connection to the underlying oppression effecting both issues of racism and homophobia, intersectionally, saying that \u201cmany times, the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So, you\u2019re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

He elaborated:<\/p>\n

Homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society\u2026 we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants\u2026 There is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary\u2026 Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Huey noted his own personal apprehensiveness towards\u00a0male<\/em>\u00a0homosexuality, but he held himself up to critique and challenged himself philosophically \u2014 reasoning that his natural affinity for lesbianism and feelings of aversion to male homosexuality were rooted in psychological, subconscious perceived \u201cthreats\u201d to his manhood. Furthermore, he reasoned that as a revolutionary, it is impossible to be intersectional and ignore the struggle for \u201cgay rights\u201d or LIBERATION, as it were.<\/p>\n

He added:<\/p>\n

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say \u201cinsecurities,\u201d I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process that builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not\u2026 Homosexuals are not enemies of the people. We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women\u2019s liberation groups.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In terms of Nature \u2014 as expressed by Taoism \u2014 the notion that Yin always manifests as extreme Yin in a normatively effeminate \u201cfemale\u201d gender role, or Yang always as extreme Yang in a normatively macho \u201cmale\u201d gender role, is contradicted by not only casual observation, but also by science. In homosexual couples, whether male or female, we see a common tendency for Yin and Yang coupling to manifest in pairing between homosexual partners in the same manner as we do in heterosexual relationships. Nature maintains the balance more often than not in coupling \u2014 whether heterosexual or homosexual.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, appeals to false naturalistic arguments that male homosexuality is uniformly the result of what Chinese medicine terms \u201cYang deficiency,\u201d are also contradicted by numerous studies indicating that male bisexuality is typified by higher-than-normal levels of testosterone. This, in fact, accounts for why we see the aggressiveness and need for defensive fight or flight response in male prisons, result in elevated testosterone or \u201cyang\u201d energy, and thus in widespread bisexual behaviors and desires that are commonly carried on by the individuals even after release from imprisonment. It is why many extremely \u201cYang\u201d male athletes are known to be \u201con the down low\u201d and engage in bisexual behavior, even while conditioned to not publicly talk about it.<\/p>\n

These issues are not openly discussed up about by many of the men who could provide the most insight into them. This is primarily because of the homophobia in many of our communities. Still, there have been numerous studies conducted on this subject and the science is conclusive.<\/p>\n

Homophobia is a reaction \u2014 an extreme reaction of struggling communities to try to preserve reproduction \u2014 the same way that we find birth rates go up areas where there is poverty, even though we would think of this as counterintuitive. Racist politicians and pundits blame these elevated birth rates on lack of education or ignorance, but the reality is that birth rates decrease only as we climb\u00a0out<\/em>\u00a0of poverty.<\/p>\n

In states of diminished resources, ape societies \u2014 including those of our species, the\u00a0homo sapien sapien<\/em>\u00a0ape \u2014 will tend to be more or less exclusively heterosexual. In this, it is important to note that we do not reject or run from the status of the human animal as an ape or higher primate, but instead embrace our NATURE and status, as highly intelligent animals, with pride. We see this essentially uniform heterosexuality with chimps who also find it necessary, from their perspective to engage in limited meat consumption \u2014 even consuming the flesh of other chimpanzees in war. In regions of plentifulness and abundance, however, we see the nearly identical bonobo apes \u2014 our other closest primate relative \u2014 engaged in a completely herbivorous diet and social bisexuality. Is this coincidence?<\/p>\n

An error of evolution?<\/p>\n

Or in this are there signs for those who reflect upon the NATURAL ORDER?<\/p>\n

SEXUALITY AND AFRICAN ORIGINS<\/h2>\n

Another common naturalist argument against homosexuality is that \u201chomosexuality is un-African\u201d or that it is the byproduct of colonialism. This contention is rooted in the essentialist assumption that Africa is a single homogeneous entity. In reality, however, Africa is made up of thousands of ethnic groups with rich and diverse cultures and sexualities. As appealing and romantic as the notion of a homogenous \u201cAfrican culture\u201d may be to some, no such singular thing exists, nor ever has. Like Indigenous, Native American \u201cculture\u201d there is no such static, singular thing to be pin-pointed as monolithic.<\/p>\n

For instance, in African groups like the Aka and Ngandu, homosexuality and even masturbation are relatively unheard of. There are no taboos, nor prejudices against homosexuality, but because of their context, heterosexual coupling is seen as literal \u201cnight work\u201d to produce and (in their view), \u201cnourish\u201d reproduction \u2014 with semen, in their view being necessary not only for conception, but also to fetal development, or what the term \u201csearching for children.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Ngandu, Barry and Bonnie Hewlett reported in the journal African Study Monographs, \u201cwere familiar with the concept\u201d of homosexual behavior \u201cbut no word existed for it and they said they did not know of any such relationships in or around the village. Men who had traveled to the capital, Bangui, said it existed in the city and was called \u2018PD\u2019 (French for\u00a0par derriere<\/em>\u00a0or from behind).\u201d<\/p>\n

Given all of this, the Hewletts concluded, \u201chomosexuality and masturbation are rare or nonexistent\u201d in these two cultures, \u201cnot because they are frowned upon or punished, but because they are not part of the cultural models of sexuality in either ethnic group.\u201d<\/p>\n

By contrast, in pre-colonial African societies where there was relative abundance and larger communities, homosexuality was noted and accepted \u2014 contrary to what is often thought to be the case today. The ancient cave paintings of the San people near Guruve in Zimbabwe depict two men engaged in some form of ritual sex. During precolonial times, the \u201cmudoko dako<\/em>,\u201d or effeminate males among the Langi of northern Uganda were treated as women and could marry men. In Buganda, one of the largest traditional kingdoms in Uganda, it was an open secret that Kabaka Mwanga II, who ruled in the latter half of the 19th century, was homosexual.<\/p>\n

The vocabulary used to describe same-sex relations in traditional languages, predating colonialism, is further proof of the existence and acceptance of such relations in much of precolonial Africa. To name but a few, the Shangaan of southern Africa referred to same-sex relations as \u201cinkotshane<\/em>\u201d (male-wife); Basotho women in present-day Lesotho engage in socially sanctioned erotic lesbian relationships called \u201cmotsoalle<\/em>\u201d (special friend) and in the Wolof language, spoken in Senegal, homosexual men are known as \u201cgor-digen<\/em>\u201d (men-women).<\/p>\n

The Ndebele and Shona in Zimbabwe, the Azande in Sudan and Congo, the Nupe in Nigeria and the Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi all engaged in same-sex acts for spiritual rearmament \u2014 as a source of fresh power for their territories, mirroring esoteric, guarded Inner Door Taoist teachings on the matter of Yang energy amplification through a meeting and competition of masculine forces. In Taoist sexual practice and Inner Door teachings, there are many sexual practices and methods of hormone development and training that would be seen by outsiders as nothing short of bizarre \u2014 even among those typically identifying themselves as heterosexual. Taoist prostate massage is not only common, but widely recommended for various methods of energy cultivation associated with Taoist meditation. The idea the homosexuality was or is foreign to Taoist sexual practice or disciplines is simply incorrect, though it continues to be propagated in some circles.<\/p>\n

While Yin and Yang coupling between heterosexual or homosexual partners is the tendency in relationships and Nature itself, there are Taoist sexual practices that cannot be dismissed as anything other than very masculine homosexuality for the purpose of giving rise to extreme Yang energy, resulting in what we could scientifically quantify in the West as heightened testosterone production. Even on a microscopic level, we see that sperm from two heteronormative \u201cmasculine\u201d males will fight one another, but from the perspective of these practices, that energy of conflict between Yang-on-Yang forces can be harnessed to amplify and cultivate masculine hormone production, and thus life-extension and health in an internal parallel to the testosterone replacement therapy so common in Western medicine these days<\/p>\n

Homosexual energy cultivation was also used for ritual purposes in various African cultures. In South Africa, among adolescent peers it was typical to experiment through acts such as \u201cthigh sex\u201d or \u201chlobonga<\/em>\u201d among the Zulu, \u201cukumetsha<\/em>\u201d among the Xhosa and \u201cgangisa<\/em>\u201d among the Shangaan.<\/p>\n

In many African societies, same-sex energy cultivation was also believed to be a source of magical powers to guarantee bountiful crop yields and abundant hunting, good health and to ward off evil spirits. In Angola and Namibia, for instance, a caste of male diviners \u2014 known as \u201czvibanda<\/em>,\u201d \u201cchibados<\/em>,\u201d \u201cquimbanda<\/em>,\u201d\u00a0gangas<\/em>\u201d and \u201ckibambaa<\/em>\u201d \u2014 were believed to carry powerful female spirits that they would pass on to fellow men through anal sex.<\/p>\n

Even today, marriages between women for reproductive, economic and diplomatic reasons still exist among the Nandi and Kisii of Kenya, the Igbo of Nigeria, the Nuer of Sudan and the Kuria of Tanzania. Like elsewhere around the world, anal intercourse between married opposite-sex partners to avoid pregnancy was historically practiced by many Africans before the invention of modern contraceptive methods.<\/p>\n

For the purposes of our MOVEMENT, we should understand a fundamental fact: that both meat-eating and exclusive heterosexual social-supremacy emerge in the societies of our closet ape relatives when resources appear to be threatened. As we provide for the needs of human societies, we thus afford them the opportunities to sociologically evolve on these issues, rather than assuming we can simply judge and aggressively prove and prod them into enlightenment without improving their situations or alleviating their suffering.<\/p>\n

It is thus very easy for some to judge from the ivory towers of more middle class or affluent communities those lower income communities and musical art forms like hip hop in the inner city or regions like Jamaica where homophobia as a theme in the works of many reggae musicians is quite common. The reality is that this unbalanced, extreme reaction to poverty and limited resources is part of the process too. It is up to us to help balance those attitudes, to help them evolve, not to accept them just because they happen to be a reaction, and not to judge those communities by the standards we see white-identifying Western liberals often holding their own communities and socioeconomic segments of society to.<\/p>\n

NATURE, SEX AND GENDER<\/h2>\n

Historically, while some Native American communities were characterized by rigid gender roles and even homophobia, many others were known for their acceptance of non-binary and transgender roles and identities. Literally dozens of North American indigenous communities recognized at least one other gender identity besides \u201cmale\u201d or \u201cfemale\u201d \u2014 many with five or more in total.<\/p>\n

In Samoa those who could be considered \u201ctransgender\u201d are called \u201cFa\u2019afaine<\/em>\u201d \u2014 people who identify as having a third or non-binary gender identity \u2014 nearly 5% of Samoan society. In Hawaii they have traditionally been called\u00a0mahu<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 those \u201cin the middle,\u201d between the polar genders, in some Pacific Islander indigenous communities \u2014 or in Tongan communities,\u00a0fakaleiti<\/em>. Throughout continental Native American societies, the names vary from culture to culture, but the concept is nearly universally recognized, and since the 1990s, has been termed \u201cTwo-Spirit\u201d or\u00a0\u201cniizh manidoowag<\/em>\u201d (from Ojibwe) \u2014 a modern, pan-Indian, umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people in their communities who fulfill a traditional third-gender (or other gender-variant) ceremonial role in their cultures. With hundreds of Native American cultures in the continental, so-called \u201cUnited States,\u201d we see this concept embodied in examples such as the Blackfoot\u00a0a\u2019yaikikahsi<\/em>,\u00a0aawowaakii<\/em>,\u00a0ninauh-oskitsi-pahpyaki<\/em>; the Cree\u00a0napew iskwewisehot<\/em>,\u00a0iskwew ka napewayat<\/em>,\u00a0ayahkwew<\/em>,\u00a0inahpikasoht<\/em>,\u00a0iskwehkan<\/em>,\u00a0napehkan<\/em>,\u00a0batee<\/em>; the Lakota\u00a0winkte<\/em>; the Navajo\u00a0nadleeh<\/em>; the Ojibwe\u00a0ikwekaazo<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0ininiikaazo<\/em>; or the Zuni\u00a0ihamana<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the East, transgender identities were so common that they often were glossed over in ancient works of history and religion, having been culturally assumed as a given. In many cases we see religions that are commonly associate with transphobia and homophobia, laying down jurisprudential rulings accepting transgender identities. Biblically, the concept of a \u201ceunuch\u201d was not always some poor soldier or slave who had his genitals shorn to ensure he didn\u2019t engage in sex with a ruler\u2019s harem \u2014 though this did occur in some cases. Instead, a eunuch was often someone who was what we would today call \u201ctransgender\u201d in the West. In the regions of India and Pakistan, these non-binary identities \u2014 the\u00a0Khawaja Sira\u00a0<\/em>\u2014 were and, in some cases, remain common. The idea that traditional societies abhorred or rejected transgender individuals and identities as anathema to Nature is simply not historically accurate.<\/p>\n

To add to this, in some societies, there is the phenomenon of children being born as one identifiable sex, and naturally transitioning to the other upon puberty, with\u00a0no<\/em>\u00a0pharmacological or surgical assistance. Even among those of binary chromosomal status, there are varying degrees of in utero development of proto-female sex organs into male. That is to say, all humans embryonically develop as something of a \u201cproto-female\u201d and the release of hormones at certain points of gestation determine whether the sex organs continue with female development, or if androgenizing effects will engage. If the latter, the androgenizing effects will cause ovaries to descend into labias to become gonads by the 28th week of gestation. The hormonal changes will engorge and grow a proto-clitoral genital tubercle into a penis \u2014 meaning that all of us are gestationally \u201cintersex\u201d for much of our fetal development.<\/p>\n

One pronounced anthropological example that deserves highlighting is the case of the \u201cGuevedoces<\/em>\u201d of the Dominican Republic. There, some males are born looking entirely female, and only grow penises during puberty. The term \u201cGuevedoces\u201d literally means \u201cpenis at twelve.\u201d In utero, around eight weeks after conception, sex hormones typically engage, with those having a Y chromosome developing gonads and sending testosterone to a structure called the genital tubercle, where it is converted into dihydro-testosterone (DHT), which is known for its masculinizing, androgenizing effects. If you are normatively female, the tubercle does not grow, and becomes a clitoris. In males, it typically becomes a penis.<\/p>\n

In this community, many children have less of an enzyme called 5-alpha-reductase, which is responsible for producing DHT from testosterone in utero. At puberty, those with XY chromosomes get a surge of testosterone that creates DHT and the apparently \u201cfemale\u201d children develop into what is perceived as normatively \u201cmale\u201d. Even still, they retain intersex features, such as smaller prostates. Some then go on to identify as male, while others to remain identifiably female. How normatively \u201cmasculine\u201d one is to be later in life, is primarily determined by how much DHT is produced by the mother at approximately 8 to 9 weeks of gestation. To claim that these individuals are somehow an aberration of Nature is itself a choice to close our eyes to empirical wisdom and scientific observation. Though an outlying example, the Guevedoces illustrates what very likely might be occurring internally, hormonally in people who identify as \u201ctransgender.\u201d<\/p>\n

As such, as a MOVEMENT, it is thus not for us to determine what an individual is hormonally or energetically experiencing within their bodies, and we thus defer to Indigenous societies throughout the Earth who have classified and described this status of individual throughout the ages, as these societies have proven to be closer to the\u00a0Fitrah<\/em>\u00a0that we follow than any civilization, East or West. Any gradation between binary \u201cfemale\u201d and \u201cmale\u201d is common and part of the NATURAL ORDER of things,\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>in conflict with it. While this realization might make some uncomfortable, our position is to allow NATURE to speak for Itself, and for us to quietly LISTEN and reflect.<\/p>\n

The REVOLUTION of the VANGUARD OF THE MAHDI is for ALL downtrodden and oppressed. It is for the outcast, the marginalized and subjugated, whether the masses personally feel an affinity for them or not. For centuries these matters have been concealed by lying translators and religious leaders who decide for us what they\u00a0want\u00a0<\/em>the Torah and Qur\u2019an to mean, rather than what the texts actually say in black and white. But now the Truth has been hurled at falsehood, smashing and shattering it, until the Truth has finally shined through (\u0628\u064e\u0644\u0652 \u0646\u064e\u0642\u0652\u0630\u0650\u0641\u064f \u0628\u0650\u0627\u0644\u0652\u062d\u064e\u0642\u0650\u0651 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0627\u0637\u0650\u0644\u0650 \u0641\u064e\u064a\u064e\u062f\u0652\u0645\u064e\u063a\u064f\u0647\u064f \u0641\u064e\u0625\u0650\u0630\u064e\u0627 \u0647\u064f\u0648\u064e \u0632\u064e\u0627\u0647\u0650\u0642\u064c \u06da \u0648\u064e\u0644\u064e\u0643\u064f\u0645\u064f \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0648\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0644\u064f \u0645\u0650\u0645\u064e\u0651\u0627 \u062a\u064e\u0635\u0650\u0641\u064f\u0648\u0646\u064e) \u2013 Truth has come and falsehood has vanished, for truly, falsehood is an inevitably vanishing thing (\u0648\u064e\u0642\u064f\u0644\u0652 \u062c\u064e\u0627\u0621\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0652\u062d\u064e\u0642\u064f\u0651 \u0648\u064e\u0632\u064e\u0647\u064e\u0642\u064e \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0627\u0637\u0650\u0644\u064f \u06da \u0625\u0650\u0646\u064e\u0651 \u0627\u0644\u0652\u0628\u064e\u0627\u0637\u0650\u0644\u064e \u0643\u064e\u0627\u0646\u064e \u0632\u064e\u0647\u064f\u0648\u0642\u064b\u0627).<\/p>\n

ENDNOTES<\/h2>\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Readmission of Jews to Britain in 1656, BBC < http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/religion\/religions\/judaism\/history\/350.shtml ><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Louis Ginzberg,\u00a0The Legends of the Jews<\/em>, Volume 1:2, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Shira Halevi,\u00a0Adam and Havah: A Targum of Genesis<\/em>\u00a01:16-5:5, Jason Aronson, Inc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0ibid.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Ginsberg; Halevi both contain this midrashic material, compiled and organized. Both works are suggested for the seriously interested reader.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Jewish Antiquities, 1:194-195, available at: < http:\/\/www.hup.harvard.edu\/features\/kugbib\/ chapter.html ><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0K. Renato Lings. \u201cThe \u2018Lyings\u2019 of a Woman: Male-Male Incest in Leviticus 18.22?\u201d\u00a0Theology & Sexuality<\/em>\u00a015, no. 2 (May 2009)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0ibid.<\/em>, 233<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0E. K. Rowson (2012). \u201cHOMOSEXUALITY ii. IN ISLAMIC LAW\u201d. Encyclopedia Iranica<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Bearman, P.; Bianquis, Th.; Bosworth, C.E.; van Donzel, E.; Heinrichs, W.P., eds. (2012). \u201cLiw\u0101\u1e6d\u201d. Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.). Brill; Falaky, Fay\u00e7al (2018). \u201cRadical Islam, Tolerance, and the Enlightenment\u201d. Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture. 47: 265\u2013266.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0E. K. Rowson (2012). \u201cHOMOSEXUALITY ii. IN ISLAMIC LAW\u201d. Encyclopedia Iranica<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Tilo Beckers, \u201cIslam and the Acceptance of Homosexuality,\u201d in Islam and Homosexuality, Volume 1, ed. Samar Habib, 64-65 (Praeger, 2009); Shafiqa Ahmadi (2012). \u201cIslam and Homosexuality: Religious Dogma, Colonial Rule, and the Quest for Belonging\u201d. Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development. 26 (3): 557\u2013558; \u201cHow homosexuality became a crime in the Middle East\u201d. The Economist. 6 June 2018.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Barber, Noel. The Sultans. (Sinlon and Schuster, 1973) 35<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Walther, Wiebke. Women in Islam. (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishing, 1993) 174<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Sunan Abi Dawud 4107; Book 34, Hadith 88 (English translation; Book 33, Hadith 4095)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0This was most recently documented by Dr Gerulf Rieger from the University of Essex and published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in the study Sexual Arousal and Masculinity-Femininity of Women, 2016, Vol. 111, No. 2, 265\u2013283<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Shahr an-Nawawi,\u00a0`Ala Sahih Musli<\/em>m 2180<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0This\u00a0\u2018aql<\/em>\u00a0is the First of Created-Beings (awwal al-makhluq\u00e0t,<\/em>\u00a0and the closest of \u2018Instaured-Beings\u2019 (aqrab aql-maj<\/em>\u2018ul\u00e0t<\/em>)\u00a0to the First Reality (al-Haqq al-Awwal<\/em>),<\/em>\u00a0according to the great mystic Mullah Sadra. Al-`Aql, he explains in his\u00a0tafsir\u00a0<\/em>on the Shi`ah collection of\u00a0ahadith\u00a0<\/em>entitled\u00a0Usul al-Kafi,\u00a0<\/em>and it is the greatest and most perfect of creation. It is the second of Existent-Beings (al-mawjud\u00e0t<\/em>\u00a0with respect to \u2018being-ness\u2019\u00a0al-mawjudiyyah<\/em>), even though the First \u2013 Allah \u2013 is regarded in both exoteric and esoteric Islam as has no second in Its reality because, Sadra explains, Its Oneness is not something enumerated as a category of units.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Help SPREAD THE WORD!<\/h3>