Are gays perverts? (MEMRI & Qaradawi)

A provocative title, I’m sure you’ll agree. Well this word has been used provocatively by others before me, so no harm in my doing similar. But my intent will be different from that of Pink News, who want you to say “Oh, that nasty man used a nasty word!”

The reference is to the latest (highly edited as usual) transcript from the not-so-esteemed MEMRI, which they summarised in customary fashion with this charming headline:

Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Homosexuals Should Be Punished Like Fornicators But Their Harm Is Less When Not Done in Public

There is a full transcript on the Al-Jazeera site. And if you want to check it (it’s not perfect), you can download and listen to the full 47 minutes by clicking here [about 4MB].

It deserves to be translated in full too, but that’s not my endeavour just now. Before discussing a few points raised by the Sheikh and in response to him, I wish to clarify something about his apparent use of the word “pervert”, pounced upon by some people of perverted intentions.

Contrary to what PhobeWatch’s Arab contact told them, I think there are numerous serious faults in the translation. Most Arab speakers would not even notice this, because they do not understand the distinctions between various terms, especially as applied to this subject that nobody wants to talk about. There are numerous subtleties in the discourse, which, when translated by people with an agenda (or even just without the vigilance we have here), are sure to be lost.

Here I will re-translate the important parts, comparing with MEMRI’s. You can view the edited video here, and feel free to engage in debate with me over any word!

MEMRI:
“Kerry, who ran against Bush, was supported by homosexuals and nudists. But it was Bush who won [the elections], because he is Christian, right-wing, tenacious, and unyielding. In other words, the religious overcame the perverted.”

Rasheed:
I want to draw attention to the fact that the word Sheikh Qaradawi used (and tends to use), translated as “homosexuals”, was shawaadh, which could be translated literally as “perverts”. Later, the term ahl al-shudhoodh (“people of perversion”) was translated “the perverted”. This is a general term related to deviation from the pure and natural, but can be understood in some contexts as referring specifically to homosexual behaviour.

Hmm, you’re not making a very good case for Qaradawi, I hear you think. Well, let’s consider the concept of perversion (and that of being a pervert) distinct from connotations that are present in our language. We need not call to mind other people who might be called “perverts” – such as paedophiles.

MEMRI have translated two different Arabic verbs as “perversion”: shadhdha (to be anomalous – or “queer”!) and inharafa (to deviate). To say that people engaged in homosexual acts are doing something anomalous (shaadh) is correct. To say that it is a deviant (munharif) behaviour – statistically and morally – is also correct. If people want to use the words “perverted” or “pervert” to convey these meanings, that is justifiable. It may not be the most friendly word, but it is correct as far as religion is concerned.

The Sheikh says in the interview: “No, [homosexual attractions] are absolutely not an innate characteristic (khilqah) – it is against the fitrah (goodly human instinct).”

Now another comparison between MEMRI and the real statements. Look at the question posed by the interviewer (Abdus-Samad Nasir).

MEMRI:
“How should a homosexual or a lesbian be punished?”
Rasheed:
“What is the punishment of people who practise liwaat (homosexual sodomy) or sihaaq (lesbian acts)?”

The difference between the two is that the correct translation is in terms of people performing or practising particular actions. The interviewer did not use any term at all here for “homosexual” or “lesbian”.

[Later on, Nasir uses the term “Luti”, which I personally find deeply offensive, since it attaches the grievous sin to the name of the pure Prophet Lut (peace be on him). I don’t know how this term emerged, but it shouldn’t be used. The same applies to “liwaat”. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) referred to “one whom you find doing the action of the people of Lut”.]

What was Sheikh Qaradawi’s reply?

MEMRI:
“The same punishment as any sexual pervert – the same as the fornicator.”
Rasheed:
“The punishment of anyone who deviates sexually – like the punishment of the fornicator/adulterer.”

The bit MEMRI snipped out was his comparison between homosexual acts and sex outside marriage in general, in that both are termed faahishah (abomination) in the Qur’an [e.g. 7:80, 17:32]. Notice, then, that he uses the term inhiraaf – deviation or perversion – to describe not only homosexuality, but all illegitimate sexual activity. So if a homosexual is a pervert, so is a fornicator or adulterer.

Note how I translated the verb as a verb, despite it not sounding quite right in English. The Sheikh did not use the adjective/noun “sexual pervert”, but rather a verb describing the act of perverting one’s sexual nature as a human being.

Al-Qaradawi then goes on to describe very quickly the different schools of thought that have existed over the punishment for homosexual acts. It doesn’t hurt to repeat that these are matters of Islamic law to be applied where Islamic law is properly applied, according to societal establishment and after due process – so Pink News‘s headline of “Muslim cleric backs gay burnings” is doubly inaccurate.

But here is a crucial bit that MEMRI deliberately missed out:

MEMRI:
“There is disagreement.” […] “The important thing is to treat this act as a crime.”
Rasheed:
“There is disagreement, so it is possible for us to choose from them in our era what is most appropriate, and what is lightest, recognising how widespread the tribulation is: because tribulations and sins being widespread is something in Islamic legal theory that causes things to be lightened. The important thing is to consider/treat this act as a crime.”

ممكن نختار منها ما هو أقرب وما هو أخف في عصرنا مراعاة لعموم البلوة لأن عموم البلوة بالمصائب وبالمعاصي من المخفِّفات في التشريع الإسلامي، إنما المهم تجريم هذا العمل

I confess that I found translating that part difficult, so if any scholarly person can confirm or correct it, please do. I am not very familiar with the Shar’i concept mentioned by the Sheikh here. 

The interviewer goes on to ask why there is a difference between the punishments for homosexual acts and lesbian acts. He makes the mistake of trying to “clarify” his question by referring to “a woman who inclines towards a woman, and man who inclines towards a man”: again, conflating the issues of inclination and action.

Dr. Qaradawi responded thus:

MEMRI:
“Lesbianism is not as bad as homosexuality, in practical terms.”
Rasheed:
“Lesbian activity is a lighter matter than homosexual sodomy in practical terms”

The perverts (in various ways) over at Harry’s Place snickered at this, but it is perfectly true. Indeed, the Sheikh explained his distinction, in what was snipped by MEMRI.

He recounted a hadith in which Ma’iz ibn Malik came to the Prophet (peace be on him) and confessed to zina (unlawful sex), asking him to enact the prescribed punishment upon him. The Prophet, from his mercy, said “No, perhaps you didn’t touch her, perhaps you only kissed her, perhaps…” – but the man insisted that he had committed the major sin, which is defined and has the prescribed punishment according to that definition. So, Qaradawi says, lesbian activity can be considered like these precursors to fornication, which is distinct from the act of sodomy between men.

Actually, I disagree with the comparison made between SSA in males and in females. Please see my post on L, G, B and T.

I just want to discuss one last point from this interview. Nasir asked:

MEMRI:
“Should a man be punished for having homosexual tendencies?”
Rasheed:
“Is a man punished for having (sexual) inclination towards a member of his own sex?”

Al-Qaradawi responded in the affirmative, which is surprising. It is clear that people are not punished in this life for anything that is not an overt action. And even in the hereafter, judgement is based on actions (and their associated intentions). The Prophet taught that a person is rewarded for resisting evil temptations and turning back from evil intentions.

My understanding is that Sheikh Qaradawi responded too quickly, not having understood the question properly. He intended to say that someone who commits homosexual acts should be punished for them, no matter what he may say about it being based on his personal inclination. This view is backed up by looking at the Sheikh’s full response:

MEMRI:
“He should be punished just like a fornicator. What is fornication? It is a sexual perversion. A perversion cannot possibly be innate.”
Rasheed:
“Like the punishment of the fornicator. What is fornication/adultery? It is sexual perversion. It is not possible for deviation/perversion to be according to innate nature (fitrah). I mean, it is not possible that God would prohibit people from something they need. This is a definitive axiom [in Islamic law]…”

He goes on to say: “Does man do everything he is inclined towards? Where is the human freewill?” He then recounts the story of Adam (peace be on him), and the mistake he made and repented from.

So the Sheikh says: “Therefore we don’t lock the doors before the homosexuals. No! They have committed sins, but it is within their ability to repent to God… if they find the intention to change what is in themselves.” He quoted these Qur’anic verses:

 {Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; – and any that does this (not only) meets punishment.
(But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy,-
Unless he repents, believes, and works righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.}
[25:68-70]

FOLLOW-UP:  MEMRI & Qaradawi: the main point