J Mark Halstead & Katarzyna Lewicka. Cambridge Journal of Education. Volume 28, Issue 1. 1998.
Introduction
Support is growing in most western countries for the gay and lesbian case that as part of their sex education in schools children should be presented with a positive image of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Such support is found among liberal educationalists, experts in sex education and, indeed, a growing number of Christian teachers. However, there remain some groups that are implaccably opposed to any public recognition of homosexuality as a possible lifestyle. Prominent among these are the Muslims, who oppose the teaching of homosexuality not only because their religion proclaims it to be an ‘abomination’, but also because (as we shall argue below) the notion of homosexuality as a lifestyle at all, let alone a natural and equally valid one, is itself incoherent from a Muslim perspective.
No attempt has ever been made, so far as we are aware, to encourage discussion of these issues between Muslims and homosexuals. Indeed, there appears to be no room for genuine discussion, just increasingly shrill assertion and counter-assertion. In some ways this is strange, since both groups share the experience of being minority groups in the West (perhaps even being very similar numerically; see Reiss, 1997), both may have experienced similar forms of discrimination and both may be interested in campaigning for equal rights. Yet their historical and cultural roots, their fundamental values and assumptions, even the very language they use, are so very far apart that the exchange of ideas seems virtually impossible. Each group may use rational argument to support its position and may draw valid conclusions from its premises, but the rival premises are such that there is no rational way to weigh one set of premises against the other. To use Maclntyrean terminology, the rival arguments are ‘conceptually incommensurable’ (Maclntyre, 1981, p. 8).
The main aim of the present paper is to explore the differing language and values of Muslims and homosexuals, which seem to us to provide a particularly poignant illustration of the tensions that can exist between minorities in a multicultural society. If the paper offers a first step towards mutual understanding, so much the better, since, after all, both groups are part of the same broader society and both have an interest in the way children are educated in that society’s common schools. To this end, the paper is divided into three sections. The first summarises the current political and social aspirations of the gay and lesbian movement and examines the underlying values and assumptions in this position and its educational implications. The second section considers evidence of the extent to which the gay and lesbian aspirations are receiving a sympathetic hearing from liberals, sex education specialists, Christians, members of other world religions and the population at large. The third section develops a Muslim perspective on (male) homosexuality, based mainly on Islamic teaching but also referring where appropriate to practices in Muslim countries. The paper concludes with some tentative suggestions about the educational implications of the Muslim perspective.
A Gay and Lesbian Agenda for Equal Rights and Education
Our references in the introduction to the current political and social aspirations of the gay and lesbian movement should not be taken as implying that there are no divisions within the movement. Indeed, even the term ‘movement’ perhaps implies a greater unity of purpose, understanding and aspirations than in fact exists. Clearly there are deep divisions between those homosexuals who endorse promiscuity and those who support only stable same-sex relationships with a single partner; between those who believe that the ‘outing’ of public figures who are closet homosexuals is justified in terms of the interests of other homosexuals and those who believe it is a matter of personal choice whether to ‘come out’ or not; between those who argue that homosexual liberation can only be achieved by the destruction of capitalist and bourgeois values and those who believe that political polarisation does little to help the homosexual cause; between those who wish to unite with other ‘oppressed minorities’, including paedophiles, and those who find this prospect deeply disconcerting (Stafford, 1988, ch. 3). However, it is not these divisions which concern us here, but the beliefs and values which unite at least the majority of western homosexuals.
A recent article by Peter Tatchell provides a useful starting point. He argues that the interests of the ‘lesbian and gay community’ would be best served by a ‘comprehensive Equal Rights Act’, since this would provide the legal framework through which all ‘discrimination based on sexual orientation’ could be challenged and overturned (Tatchell, 1997, p. 233). Among the particular issues which require law reform to ensure homosexual equality, he lists: equalising the age of consent; recognising same-sex partnerships; giving homosexuals parenting rights and protection against job discrimination; repealing ‘homophobic’ laws, such as Section 28, the ban on gays in the armed forces and the ‘discriminatory statutes that penalise homosexual soliciting, procuring and gross indecency (but not equivalent heterosexual behaviour)’ (ibid.). He also argues that social service departments and children’s homes should be legally obliged to: ‘devise policies to cater for the specific needs of gay teenagers’; that homosexuals should receive proper redress when discriminated against in areas such as employment, insurance, housing and fringe benefits for employees’ spouses; that government funding should be provided for lesbian and gay projects like counselling services and HIV prevention campaigns; that sexual orientation should be included as a matter of course in all equal opportunities statements as an area where discrimination is unjustified (ibid., pp. 233-234; cf. Bowley, 1997).
Behind Tatchell’s statement lie a number of taken for granted assumptions that appear to be widely shared by western homosexuals. Among these are the following.
- Homosexuality is to be defined primarily not in terms of behaviour but in terms of sexual orientation or sexual preference. Thus Harris defines a homosexual as a person who ‘experiences emotional and/or physical attraction’ towards people of the same sex (1990, p. 10). This definition is intended to be universal, so that one homosexual would be able to recognise others across time and across cultures (Weeks, 1992, p. ix).
- Homosexuality and heterosexuality are two extremes on a continuum of sexual orientation and that both are equally natural (cf. Stafford, 1988, ch. 1). The way that people see themselves and present themselves to others may be influenced strongly by their sexual orientation and the personal narratives and lifestyles which come into being as a result of a homosexual orientation are just as valid as heterosexual ones.
- It is not a choice to be homosexual, since a homosexual orientation may be linked to genetic influences or to other biological factors, such as a hormonal imbalance during crucial periods of foetal brain development. Following a comprehensive survey of the available evidence on the causes of homosexuality, Ruse concludes that ‘just about all of the causal theories suggest that [sexual orientation] is something found rather than chosen. One is straight or gay by destiny, and not by choice’ (1988, p. 172). In Christian terminology, people may be described as having been ‘created homosexual’ (Glaser, 1990, p. 31). Ruse distinguishes between homosexual orientation, which he says is given, and homosexual behaviour, which he says is a question of choice (1988, p. 188). Homosexuality itself (in the sense of homosexual orientation) is therefore not a matter for moral judgment and homosexuals should therefore not be afraid of acknowledging, and being open to others about, their sexual orientation (‘coming out’). There is no reason why homosexual behaviour, on the other hand, should not be judged by the same standards that are applied to any other form of sexual behaviour.
- Homosexuals are subject in many cultures to widespread persecution and discrimination because of irrational fear and intolerance on the part of heterosexuals (Nelson, 1992, pp. 61-62) and that such homophobia is a matter for moral judgment.
The educational implications of this position fall into two related categories: the first involves meeting the specific needs of gay and lesbian pupils and the second involves developing appropriate attitudes towards homosexuality among all pupils.
(1) Since a significant minority of pupils in every school will be or become homosexual, schools need to ask whether such pupils are being marginalised (cf. Mac An Ghaill, 1994) or whether their developing identity and self-esteem is being supported by an education which is relevant to their future life. This involves much more than creating a school environment where gay and lesbian pupils are not bullied, discriminated against or subjected to homophobic behaviour and language. It also involves ensuring, for example, that library books and textbooks provide honest and non-stereotyped representations of homosexuality, that issues relevant to the lives of gay and lesbian pupils are addressed where appropriate across the curriculum (see Harris, 1990, for an attempt to achieve this in English lessons) and that gay and lesbian pupils have access to support structures geared to their distinctive needs.
(2) In addition, all pupils need to be presented with balanced and accurate information about sexual identity and sexual orientation, so that irrational fear and prejudice can be challenged and pupils can come to see homosexuality as a normal and acceptable lifestyle. The provision of information alone is unlikely to be enough: it must be accompanied by a positive school ethos which welcomes diversity, pays appropriate attention to the messages pupils pick up through the hidden curriculum and ensures that all aspects of the school’s provision are consistent with equal opportunities policies.
How Widely is the Gay and Lesbian Agenda Accepted?
In this section we shall show that the gay and lesbian case for homosexuality being taught to children in school as an acceptable and equally valid alternative lifestyle has been accepted virtually without question by most contemporary experts in sex education. This acceptance has a substantial philosophical underpinning in liberal educational theory, with its emphasis on freedom and equality, respect for persons, tolerance, personal autonomy and the celebration of diversity. However, evidence from a recent survey in the USA suggests that among the general public there is much less support for teaching about homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle (Elam et al., 1996). Whether this is the result of homophobia or the result of a rejection of the underlying presuppositions of the homosexual perspective remains an open question. At the end of this section we offer a brief overview of religious responses to the gay and lesbian perspective. The churches present a less than united front; more conservative Christians are likely to hold back from a full acceptance of homosexuality, whereas more liberal Christians might argue that although the Bible unambiguously condemns certain homosexual practices, the spirit of New Testament Christianity requires a full recognition and acceptance of those whose sexual orientation is towards those of the same sex. Other major world religions generally condemn homosexuality, but define this in terms of behaviour rather than orientation.
The dominant agenda for school-based sex education in the UK is characterised by a number of features, such as inclusiveness (it caters for all young people irrespective of sexual orientation), openness (it avoids prescriptive values and does not advocate any one lifestyle) and the promotion of desirable attitudes and personal qualities in young people, including tolerance, self-esteem, informed and responsible sexual decision making, respect for and sensitivity towards others and the reduction of guilt, anxiety and embarrassment (cf. Halstead, 1997b). These features of contemporary sex education harmonise readily with the gay and lesbian perspective outlined above. An increasing number of texts on sex education either offer guidance on teaching about sexual orientation which is directly in line with the gay and lesbian approach (see for example Ray & Went, 1995) or else include a chapter written by a member of the gay and lesbian community, again putting forward the same ideas (see for example the chapter by Simon Cavicchia in Massey, 1995, which argues strongly against what he calls a ‘heterosexual supremacist approach to sex education’). Bibbings argues that if schools do not include the gay and lesbian perspective within sex education, this may mean that gay and lesbian pupils are not receiving ‘equal respect for their rights to education under international rights documents’ (Bibbings, 1996, p. 81) and that their education is not of a kind which will prepare them for the ‘experiences of adult life’ (Education Reform Act, 1988, section 1).
Justification for the positive response to the gay and lesbian agenda from experts in sex education is found in the fundamental values of liberal education. At the heart of liberal educational theory lie the values of individual freedom and equality of respect and the belief that any conflict between these two values should be mediated in a consistently rational way. All the values typically associated with liberal education—including personal autonomy, critical openness, equality of opportunity, rational morality, the celebration of diversity, the avoidance of indoctrination and the refusal to side with any definitive conception of the good—are clearly based on the fundamental liberal values of freedom, equality and rationality (Halstead, 1996a, p. 23). So too is the notion of rights and, in particular, the rights of minorities in a liberal democratic society (ibid., pp. 20-22). It is on these foundations that White constructs her argument that since a homosexual orientation does not ‘violate the basic principles which underpin life in a democratic society’, homosexuality is part of the legitimate diversity in such a society and the common school should therefore ‘present homosexuality as a morally acceptable way of life which some of its student members may one day lead’ (White, 1991, pp. 404 and 406). She further argues that in a democratic society committed to the principle of respect for persons, schools should provide conditions which enable gay and lesbian minorities to flourish. It should be noted, however, that the arguments drawn from liberal educational theory require an acceptance of the view that the moral acceptability of something is dependent solely on whether it does not conflict with democratic principles (cf. McLaughlin, 1995) and an acceptance of the gay definition of homosexuality in terms of orientation rather than behaviour.
A survey carried out in the USA by Gallup Polls for Phi Delta Kappa in 1996 suggests that there is much less support among the general public for teaching about homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle than there is among liberal educationalists and sex education experts. When asked whether they favoured or opposed teaching about the gay and lesbian lifestyle as part of the public school curriculum, 63% of the respondents opposed such teaching while just 34% approved it. Probing further, the poll asked how the gay/lesbian lifestyle should be presented if it were included in the curriculum. Only 9% thought it should be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, while 27% thought it should be presented as an unacceptable alternative lifestyle and the majority (57%) preferred it to be presented simply as an alternative lifestyle with no moral judgment made. Asked about the formation of gay/ lesbian clubs as part of a school’s extra-curricular programme, 58% of respondents thought such clubs should not be allowed, while 38% supported them (Elam et al., 1996, pp. 54-55). Undoubtedly the gay and lesbian community will interpret these findings as evidence of the continuing prevalence of homophobic attitudes, but there is another possibility—that the underlying presuppositions of the homosexual perspective, particularly those relating to the notion of sexual orientation, have not been taken on board by the population at large. This certainly appears to be the case as far as Muslims are concerned, but before we examine the Muslim perspective in detail, we will look briefly at the more ambivalent attitudes towards homosexuality found among contemporary Christians.
The Christian scriptures present the complementarity of male and female as God given (Genesis 1:27 and Mark 10:6-9) and have traditionally been interpreted as condemning homosexual practices as a self-destructive perversion (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10). In 1986 the Roman Catholic Church continued to uphold this stance in a Pastoral Letter to the Bishops which states that all homosexual activity is ‘an intrinsic moral evil’ and that the inclination of the homosexual person ‘must be seen as an objective disorder’ (quoted in Thatcher, 1993, p. 140). However, not all Roman Catholics are happy with this negative approach and the growing emphasis in some quarters on personal conscience and ‘the nature of the human person in all its unique and relational aspects’ is likely to increase controversy in this area in the future (Vincent, 1993). A statement by the Church of England House of Bishops issued in 1991 goes much further towards a positive recognition of homosexuality: it says that a homosexual orientation does not affect ‘our equal worth and dignity as human beings’, since we are all ‘made in the image of God’, and ‘homophile’ Christians can appeal to the authority of conscience when embarking on ‘a loving and faithful homophile partnership, in intention lifelong’. However, this does not imply that that Church will actually bless the lifelong unions of homosexuals, for the statement denies that homosexual orientation and behaviour constitute ‘a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual’ (Church of England House of Bishops, 1991).
Some Christian writers, however, have gone much further towards the lesbian and gay agenda. Thatcher, for example, distinguishes between a ‘biblical sexual theology’, which he criticises for attempting to draw universal conclusions from certain culturally specific biblical texts, and ‘a Christian sexual theology’, which he supports for seeking to develop an approach to homosexuality which is ‘true to the gospel of Christ’ (Thatcher, 1993, p. 15). He points out that the Bible makes no reference to homosexuals as people with a sexual orientation towards others of their own sex and argues that it is therefore necessary to develop a Christian approach based on the spirit of Christ’s teaching (ibid., p. 20). He suggests that an appropriate approach might involve seeing a person’s sexuality and sexual orientation as ‘a divine gift’ (p. 137) and realising that God accepts us as we are, ‘without condition and without qualification’ (p. 138). He claims that there is an ’emerging lesbian and gay spirituality’ which is ‘full of riches beyond the imaginations of those who are homophobic’ (p. 139) and concludes that ‘the time has come for marriage to be extended to lesbian and gay partners’ (pp. 144-145).
Few other world religions have formalised any such acceptance of the homosexual world view. In orthodox Judaism, as in Islam, homosexuality remains strictly forbidden. Gulab Singh points out that homosexuality has no place in the Sikh way of life and that ‘if there are lesbian and gay Sikhs, the issue is so taboo that they would keep it hidden’ (1993, p. 92). Other religions adopt a similar viewpoint. And so the question arises whether they too, like the majority of the population of the USA, are to be considered homophobic, stuck in a timewarp of outdated religious proscriptions. Or is it possible that their view, though based on a quite different framework of values and presuppositions from the gay and lesbian world view, has nonetheless validity in the modern world as a rationally justifiable alternative cultural perspective on homosexuality? The detailed examination of a Muslim perspective on homosexuality in the next section seeks to explore this question.
A Muslim Perspective on Homosexuality
Before we proceed to develop a Muslim perspective on homosexuality, three preliminary points must be made. The first is an acknowledgement of the cultural diversity within the Muslim world, which has led historically to a wide diversity of practice in many areas of life. As has been pointed out elsewhere (Halstead, 1997a), this makes it difficult to make generalisations from a sociological perspective about sexuality in the Muslim world, since every Muslim society or social grouping is likely to be a unique mixture of what Bouhdiba (1985, p. 103) calls the ‘invariant’ (i.e. the unchanging Islamic teaching) and the ‘variables’ (i.e. the diversity of behaviour which is permitted in practice or to which a blind eye is turned within any given Muslim community). Our analysis therefore draws heavily on the Islamic religious perspective, since this is what all Muslims have in common, and makes only incidental reference to actual practice in Muslim countries.
The second preliminary point is that we are restricting our attention to male homosexuality. Lesbianism (musahaqa) is a separate issue and there is little information about it. Islamic law categorises it as sex outside marriage and therefore it carries the same penalties as adultery. But Schild (1992, pp. 186-187) and Bouhdiba (1995, p. 31) both claim that in practice not much attention is paid to lesbian behaviour, perhaps because it does not involve penetration.
The third preliminary point is a note of caution about some of the more fanciful ideas about homosexuality in Muslim countries put about by western scholars, whether they are writing from an orientalist perspective or out of a scholarly interest in homosexuality. Boswell, for example, claims not only that ‘most Muslim cultures have treated homosexuality with indifference, if not admiration’ (1980, p. 194), but even that Islam generally has a ‘positive attitude toward gay sexuality’ (p. 198). There are two problems with this: first, though it seems to go against the fact that there are severe punishments for homosexual behaviour in Islam, no supporting evidence is offered; secondly, Boswell seems to assume that the western understanding of homosexuality can be transferred unproblematically to the Muslim world. It is here, as we shall argue shortly, that the real difficulty lies. Lindholm’s (1996) work raises other difficulties. He states, quite rightly, that much Sufi poetry is addressed to men and that the eroticism is interpreted symbolically as referring to the soul’s longing for union with God; he also states, quite rightly, that the passive partner in an actual homosexual relationship in the Muslim world is widely held in contempt as occupying a demeaning and humiliating role. However, to go on and argue that the practice of submitting to being penetrated by a male can be justified as a symbol of spiritual submission to God (Lindholm, 1996, p. 252) seems to us to be just as fanciful as suggesting that the humiliation of rape can be ‘etherialised’ in the West by recognising that in the poetry of John Donne, for example, rape is used as a symbol of the relationship between God and the believer (see Holy Sonnet XTV).
It is time to approach the Muslim perspective on homosexuality more systematically. For ease of comparison we shall attempt to analyse the Muslim perspective as far as possible in terms of the same categories which were used for the underlying assumptions of the gay and lesbian perspective earlier in this paper. Thus we shall begin with questions of definition and then consider an Islamic perspective on the relationship between gender and identity. Thirdly, we consider whether it is possible in a Muslim view to view homosexuality as something given rather than chosen and, finally, we explore issues relating to homophobia, tolerance and intolerance of sexual diversity and the public expression of homosexuality. These explorations will enable us to say something about the educational implications of the Muslim perspective on homosexuality in the final section.
Questions of Definition
To understand the meaning of homosexuality in the Muslim world it is important first of all to look closely at the words in the Arabic language which are usually translated as counterparts or equivalents of the western term. The Oxford English-Arabic dictionary offers two terms for ‘homosexuality’: ishtiha’ al-mumathil. (literally ‘carnal desire to the same’) and liwat (literally ‘the doing of Lot’s people’) (Doniach, 1972). Of the former, Schmitt says that though it is ‘passively’ understood by most educated Arabs, it is ‘hardly part of the “active” vocabulary even of physicians or sociologists’ (1992, p. 8); the latter, on the other hand, is part of everyday Arabic, since liwat and Lot (Lut in Arabic) are morphologically connected (Pellat, 1983, p. 776) and the story of Lot is mentioned about a dozen times in the Qur’an (most notably in Sura 7:79-84, Sura 11:77-81, Sura 15:58-77, Sura 26:160-175, Sura 27:54-59 and Sura 29:28-35).
The term liwat alludes to the sexual behaviour of the people among whom the prophet Lot lived, i.e. sodomy. It thus implies an activity, not a sexual orientation or preference. The active partner is called luti (Pellat, 1983, p. 776) and the use of the preposition hi after the verb lata implies that one does liwat not with a partner but by means of another person. In other words, one ‘uses him as an instrument (for pleasure)’ (Schmitt, 1992, p. 13). The passive and active roles in homosexual behaviour are thus clearly distinguished, the term for the passive partner being ma’bun and for his activity ubna. Sociological studies of homosexual behaviour in the Muslim world confirm the importance of the distinction between the active partner, who as the penetrator is still behaving like a man, and the passive partner, who experiences shame and humiliation by being penetrated and is, in effect, a non-man (Schmitt, 1992, p. 19). The same distinction is made in numerous adadith (sayings of the Prophet); for example, al-Nuwayri notes in his Nihaya that both the active and passive agents in a homosexual relationship must be killed (yuqtal/uqtulu ‘l-fa’il wa ‘l-maful bihi) (Pellat, 1983, p. 776).
Language profoundly affects our understanding of the world. The language of a social group not only demonstrates its way of thinking and behaving, it helps to shape it. Most western languages make a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals and because that distinction is made, the reality of sexual orientation is experienced by westerners. But the Arabic language makes no such distinction; it, speaks only of sexual acts of various kinds. From what has been said so far, it is clear that
- Muslims think in terms of acts, not inclinations;
- because there’s no question of a fixed inclination, there is always the possibility that a person’s behaviour might change (for example through a conscious choice to obey God’s commands);
- a clear distinction is made between the active and the passive role and there is no concept of one man choosing to act both roles;
- therefore western concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality and indeed of sexual orientation make no sense in the Muslim worldview
As Weeks points out, there is ‘no concept of “the homosexual”, except where it has been imported from the West, no notion of exclusive homosexuality, and no gay way of life’ (1992, p. x).
An Islamic View of Gender and Identity
The concept of sexuality cannot be dissociated from the underlying principles of Islam, where the sexual function is in itself a sacred one, expressing the will and the power of God. Bouhdiba points out that the ‘bipolarity of the world rests on the strict separation of the two “orders”, the feminine and the masculine’, which exist in a state of ‘profound complementarity’ (1985, p. 30). The acceptance of one’s God-given sex is a form of surrender to God. The unity and harmony intended by God is constituted by the union of a man and a woman in a lawful sexual act (i.e. an act within marriage). Any other way of realising sexual desires violates the order of the world and is condemned as a source of evil and anarchy. Thus zina (adultery, fornication) is condemned because it seeks to realise the harmonious complementarity of the sexes outside the divinely ordained limits. Liwat, on the other hand, is condemned because it involves the rebellious rejection of the harmonious complementarity of the sexes which God has ordained. From an Islamic point of view it makes no more sense to say one has been ‘created homosexual’ than it does to say one has been ‘created adulterous’; both involve intentional actions which contravene God’s law.
As Pellat (1983, p. 776) points out, the punishment which the Qur’an says was inflicted on the people of Lot leaves no doubt as to the way liwat should be regarded in Islam. As we have seen, the hadith (sayings of the Prophet) are also unambiguous about the nature of homosexual activity and about the punishment it deserves. But while all schools of Islamic Law agree that the offence is punishable, they differ as to the punishment. Some prescribe the same punishment as for zina while others propose a less severe, discretionary one, depending on the circumstances (Noibi, 1993, p. 52). Conviction, however, as always requires four eyewitnesses to the act itself and therefore in practice it is only in very exceptional circumstances that people are convicted and punished for homosexual behaviour (Schild, 1992, p. 182). The executions of homosexuals in Iran between 1979 and 1984 were probably an exception and Schild argues that they were more to do with an attack on western decadence and the public transgression of morality than with homosexuality per se (ibid., pp. 184-186).
Sexual identity on a Muslim view therefore has nothing to do with choice. One’s sexual identity is determined biologically and stays the same whatever sexual acts one performs. Shepherd claims that in the Muslim world homosexually active males retain their male gender even when they behave as passive partners. Their roles as patrons or clients constitute their identity to a far greater extent than their sexual proclivities. Thus males remain biological males regardless of their sexual preferences because their biological sex is much more important than their behaviour in determining their gender and in the expectancy for them to marry and have children (Shepherd, 1989, p. 263). Sexual identity is therefore not a matter of being either homosexual or heterosexual, but simply a matter of being male or female, and in terms of sexual behaviour the key distinction is between what is permitted and what is forbidden. Islam teaches that if people have sinful desires they should keep them to themselves and control them in order to avoid doing what God has forbidden. It may, for example, be quite natural for anyone to find handsome boys attractive (and indeed the Qur’an promises that in paradise the faithful will be attended by young men like pearls: Sura 56:37 and Sura 76:19), but if this attraction becomes sexual desire it must be resisted. As Sarwar comments, ‘having the desires does not legitimise realising them’ (1996, p. 24).
Homosexuality—Chosen or Given?
From what has been said so far it is clear that Muslims cannot enter into the debate about the causes of homosexuality, because from an Islamic perspective there is no such thing as a homosexual orientation, just homosexual acts. If pushed, they might claim that the western concept of homosexuality, which has, after all, only been in existence since the late nineteenth century, is an attempt at rationalising a pattern of behaviour which is in conflict with divine law. Foucault (1992) tells us that the modern concept of homosexuality came into being in two stages. First, the sexologists of the late nineteenth century sought to redefine homosexuality from a secular perspective. Previously throughout Christendom it had been considered sinful behaviour and a violation of natural law. However, once it was medicalised, case histories were studied and theories were developed that homosexuals belonged to a common sexual species which could only be understood through scientific investigation. In the second stage the minority group which had been created by the sexologists began to turn the identity it had been given to its own advantage by transforming it into a source of strength and solidarity. Homosexuals began to see advantages in defining themselves as a distinct group with a distinctive sexual orientation and claiming rights alongside other minority groups in a democratic society.
Since this comparatively recent crystallisation of the western concept of homosexuality is a secular one, it conflicts with the Muslim view, which is much closer to the earlier Christian perspective based on natural law: that God created an order in the world which was designed to bring everything to fulfilment and that to understand the natural purpose and function of something is to understand God’s will for it. Because Muslims cannot accept the concept of a homosexual orientation as a given, two consequences follow. First, they cannot accept the distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour which lies at the heart of the gay and lesbian world view. All that exists on a Muslim view is homosexual behaviour, and even gays and lesbians agree that this should be judged (as we saw earlier) by the same standards that are applied to any other form of sexual behaviour. From a Muslim viewpoint, exactly the same standards are applied to all forms of sexual behaviour: the key question whether the behaviour is in harmony with divine law or not is applied impartially. Secondly, ‘coming out’ in the sense of openly acknowledging one’s sexual orientation lacks coherence from a Muslim perspective. However, ‘coming out’ in the sense of the public display of homosexual behaviour is morally unacceptable in Islam: it is precisely the sin for which Lot’s people were destroyed.
Is Islam Homophobic?
Homophobia was defined earlier as the persecution of homosexuals and discrimination against them because of irrational fear and intolerance. Muslims do not fear homosexuality, they disapprove of it (Sarwar, 1996, p. 23). Their disapproval is not irrational, though the presuppositions on which the rational beliefs are based are not shared by everyone. Since tolerance is commonly denned as ‘a deliberate choice not to interfere with conduct of which one disapproves’ (Halstead, 1996b), the question arises whether Muslims should tolerate homosexual conduct.
The response to this question to a large extent depends on whether the conduct is in public or in private. Most Muslims respect the norms of their society imposed by their religion and condemn any public transgression of Islamic morality. Since homosexual behaviour is just as much against Islamic law as rape and child abuse, such behaviour in public would be seen to undermine the foundations on which the Muslim society was built. It could not be tolerated. Of course, in a non-Muslim society Muslims could not expect their views to prevail, though they may nonetheless feel impelled to express their disapproval of the behaviour. The story as far as private homosexual behaviour is concerned is quite different. From a sociological perspective it may seem that a blind eye is turned on homosexual activity so long as it takes place in private (Schild, 1992, p. 183). Indeed, it is claimed that in some Muslim countries such behaviour is widespread—between men and boys, older and younger boys, masters and apprentices, teachers and pupils, in religious brotherhoods, within the extended family, in public baths and in bars and other meeting places (Schmitt & Sofer, 1992). From a religious perspective it might not be a matter of turning a blind eye so much as leaving it to God to judge the behaviour and give it its due reward in the world to come. Either way, it is clear that it is not the practice in Islam ‘to seek out those with homosexual desires with a view to persecuting them’ (Sarwar, 1996, p. 24).
Educational Implications of the Muslim Perspective
From what has been said it is clear that when comparing homosexuality in western and Muslim societies we are discussing two unrelated concepts, only accidentally having one point in common, which is the sexual relations between males. The reasons for the behaviour and the social consequences are understood in a totally different way. In other words, homosexuality, like any form of sexuality, has a different meaning in different cultures, so much so that it becomes hard to find any common denominator apart from the sexual activity itself (Weeks, 1992, pp. ix-x). Nowhere is this gulf more obvious than in the question of education about homosexuality. As we have seen, the gay and lesbian agenda for education claims that all pupils need to be taught about sexual identity and sexual orientation, so that they can come to recognise homosexuality as a normal and acceptable lifestyle. But the presuppositions on which this view is based are not shared, or even understood, by Muslims. The concept of homosexuality as a lifestyle, as we have seen, is incoherent from a Muslim perspective and therefore the presentation of homosexuality in schools as an acceptable alternative lifestyle does not come into the question.
A Muslim perspective on the teaching of homosexuality in schools starts from quite different premises. To understand it, we need first to distinguish between children’s primary and secondary socialisation. In primary socialisation, according to Berger & Luckmann, the child takes on board the social world mediated to him by his ‘significant others’ (i.e. parents and other carers) and internalises their roles and attitudes; it is by identifying with significant others that the child ‘becomes capable of … acquiring a subjectively coherent and plausible identity’ (Berger & Luckmann, 1971, pp. 151-152). As the child’s social world expands, however, he enters a secondary socialisation marked by a broader social interaction (cf. Halstead, 1995, p. 364).
From a Muslim point of view it is important that in their primary socialisation Muslim children are initiated into the religious beliefs and values of their own community. Homosexuality is not a taboo subject, because the story of Lot is mentioned so frequently in the Qur’an and in learning about that story children will start to learn an Islamic perspective on homosexuality. The topic of homosexuality is also covered in a recent guide on Islamic family life and sex education designed for Muslim children from age eight upwards (D’Oyen, 1996, pp. 84-87). As part of their secondary socialisation, however, Muslim children in the West will need to develop some knowledge of the broader society in which they are to be citizens. This knowledge will be incomplete without some understanding of contemporary western attitudes to homosexuality (just as the education of gay and lesbian young people will be incomplete without some understanding of the attitudes of Muslims and other faith communities towards homosexuality). The aim of teaching Muslim young people about western attitudes should not be to make converts [and this is why the personal story of the ‘gay Muslim’ included in Rachel Thomson’s otherwise helpful publication Religion, Ethnicity and Education (1993, pp. 97-98) is rather worrying]. Rather, the aim should be to enable different minority communities with different values and ways of understanding the world to live together in harmony and to enable each in their different ways to contribute to the well-being of the broader society.
This is a tall order and it is unlikely to be achieved if experts in sex education continue to promote the lesbian and gay perspective uncritically in their publications. However, there are alternative approaches to teaching about homosexuality in the secondary school which minority faith communities are likely to find much more helpful. One possibility is to teach the topic as a controversial issue, in the same way that the topic of nuclear power might be taught, for example, with children being introduced sensitively to a range of different perspectives and no attempt being made to indoctrinate them into one particular view. Reiss (1997) has argued for just such an approach and suggests that there is much to be learned from the extensive literature on teaching controversial issues in general. Although from a Muslim perspective his emphasis on ‘sexual orientation’ and the needs of gay and lesbian students may lean too strongly towards a homosexual world view, he presents a convincing central argument that sensitive teaching about homosexuality as a controversial issue will help students to become better informed and more sympathetic to other people’s positions and may help them to clarify their own values and attitudes. This approach may prove broadly acceptable to Muslim parents of children at secondary schools, so long as their children have been adequately initiated into the beliefs and values of their own community during primary socialisation.