Khaled El-Rouayheb

Seeks to undo anachronisms: before the modern concepts of sexuality and of homosexuality – this latter ‘new and indiscriminate’ so that in its hindsight Islamic societies seemed to have an inconsistency or illogic on the subject. They made sense to themselves in their own terms, and this explains the different distinctions then in use. A chaste passion for beauty, whether of woman or boy, might be defended by religious jurists, idealised as divine by Sufis and considered a polite acquirement. The act of anal intercourse, with man or woman, was condemned – but not an identity attached to the act, which they didn’t have. Social ethics such as decently concealing the vices of others (instead of denunciation as a virtue) and the call to think no ill of a fellow Muslim, are examined as factors too.… (altro)