One week after having come back from the LGBT+ Islam and intersectionality conference. I met a young Arab man who grew up in the Middle East. Being the eager young, lesbian woman who also used to partake in Islamic activism in university, who holds Islam in a high regard in her life, I still had so many questions. It was great that I met other like minded LGBT+ Muslims at the conference. But what still was yet to be answered for me was the scriptural element. If homosexuality isn’t haram, then why does there seem to be a clear condemnation of approaching men with lust instead of women? I mean it seems pretty clear, right?
I approached this young man. Let’s call him Mohammed** (not his real name). Mohammed was fluent in Arabic and also possessed a high score in his international baccalaureute in Arabic. I shared my concerns with him regarding these verses. We exchanged numbers and we agreed to speak later on in this week. Below our conversation went something like this.
Me: Salaam! Morning Mohammed. How are you? Thank you for the resources. It helped shed light on each of the verses and what they logically refer to and deconstructed the argument as to why Qawm Lut was not about homosexuality and rather it was about robbery, adultery and harassment of guests.
I just have a few questions lingering in my mind and i think it would be good to discuss because I know other Muslims who aren't convinced and I'm still not at rest with a few things
1. If it wasn't about homosexuality. Then why did Lut offer his daughters and say 'they are purer for you'?
Mohammed: Salam Farah!
وَجَاءَهُ قَوْمُهُ يُهْرَعُونَ إِلَيْهِ وَمِن قَبْلُ كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ السَّيِّئَاتِ ۚ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ هَٰؤُلَاءِ بَنَاتِي هُنَّ أَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ ۖ فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُخْزُونِ فِي ضَيْفِي ۖ أَلَيْسَ مِنكُمْ رَجُلٌ رَّشِيدٌ (78)
Lut was not offering his daughters as "female alternative to males", but rather as a peace agreement in exchange for respecting his guests. Lut did not say "dont have sex with men", he said "don't embarrass me in front my guests" (لَا تُخْزُونِ فِي ضَيْفِي).
N.B. The word تفضحون (tafdahoon) can also be translated to mean ‘to violate’. Which was highlighted in another ayah where Lut ordered his people ‘and do not violate’. This is consistent with the narrative of rape.
The people of Lut themselves were already married to women, hence they were not homosexual.
قَالُوا لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا لَنَا فِي بَنَاتِكَ مِنْ حَقٍّ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَعْلَمُ مَا نُرِيدُ (79)
Lut's people said to him "you already know that we have no entitlement to your daughters, and you know exactly what we want"; they wanted to rape the guests, so they declined the peace treaty. Whereas Lut wasn't trying to forbid them from "same-sex" per se, he was trying to forbid them from embarrassing him if they had raped his visitors; which goes to confirm that they had something against foreigners, and at the same time they were already married to women (plus Lut's wife was helping them in the rape process and she got punished for that too) which confirms they were not homosexual; so the punishment wasn't for homosexuality.
Imagine in a culture where the parents must agree to their children's marriages, Lut showed his people that he too would agree to this; as a legitimate marriage, this goes to show that Lut really was trying to establish a peaceful relationship with his community.
But the people of Lut were rather interested in exercising their entitlement to the bodies of foreigners... (rijal does not mean males; it comes from irtijal as in travelers or workers in often cases, for example the verse that says رجال صدقوا ما عاهدوا... was revealed when there were both male and female Sahabiyyat at the scene with prophet Muhammad)