IBN HAZM ON HOMOSEXUALITY. A CASE-STUDY OF ZÀHIRI LEGAL METHODOLOGY

 

IBN HAZM ON HOMOSEXUALITY. A CASE-STUDY OF ZÀHIRI LEGAL METHODOLOGY ¹

Camilla Adang

Tel Aviv University

Introduction

This article forms part of an ongoing investigation into the legal thought of the famous 5th/l 1th century scholar Abù Muhammad ^cAli Ibn Hazm of Cordoba.² As is well known, Ibn Hazm stood out in al-Andalus as one of the few scholars who openly challenged the su­premacy of the fuqahâ’ of the Maliki school, who had enjoyed a vir­tual monopoly in matters religious and legal since the 3rd/9th century. Trained as a Maliki himself, Ibn Hazm briefly adhered to ShâfFism before finally opting for the Zahiri, or literalist, school of law.³ Both in his writings and in his public lectures, he attacked the Malikis’ rel­iance on ra ’y and their failure to base their legal decisions on the rev­ealed sources: Koran and hadith. Modem scholarship has mostly foc­used on this aspect of Ibn Hazm’s legal methodology,⁴ whereas the

¹    A first version of this paper was presented at a symposium on “Aspects of Islamic Law in the Pre-Modem Period”, held in January 2000 at the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem within the framework of a project on “Law and the State in Islam”. I thank the convenors, Professor Yohanan Friedmann and Dr. Nurit Tsafrir, as well as the participants in the colloquium. My special thanks go to Dr. Ella Almagor, who acted as discussant, for her insightful comments.

²     Provisional title of the monograph in preparation: The Legal Methodology of Ibn Hazm of Cordoba. On Ibn Hazm, see Amaldez, R., “Ibn Hazm”, EP, III, 790-799; Asin Palacios, M., Abenházam de Córdoba y su historia crítica de las ideas religiosas, vol. I. Madrid, 1927; García Gómez, E. (transí.), El collar de la paloma. Tratado sobre el amor y los amantes de Ibn Hazm de Córdoba, con un prólogo de José Ortega y Gasset. Ma­drid, 1971, 1987, 29-71; Chejne, A. G., Ibn Hazm. Chicago, 1982; Abü Zahra, M., Ibn Hazm. Hayâtu-hu wa-asru-hu, wa-ârâ’u-hu wa-fiqhu-hu. Cairo, n.d.

³    See my article “From Mâlikism to Shâffism to Zâhirism: the “conversions’ of Ibn Hazm”, in García-Arenal, M. (ed.), Conversions islamiques. Identités religieuses en Is­lam méditerranéen. Paris, 2001, 73-87.

⁴    Aspects of Ibn Hazm’s Usül are studied in Goldziher, I., 77ie Zâhirîs. Their doc­trine and their history. A contribution to the history of Islamic theology. Translated and

Al-Qantara XXIV, 1 (2003) 5-31

peculiarities in the realm offuru, i.e., the concrete legal decisions, have so far received much less attention. In what follows, we shall ex­amine Ibn Hazm’s views on homosexuality, both male and female,⁵ as a case-study of a Zâhirï view that radically differed from the gener­ally accepted view among the Mâlikïs. It is hoped that this case-study, in combination with a number of others, will enable us to assess to what extent Ibn Hazm’s views constituted, or were perceived as, a threat to the Mâlikï religious establishment in al-Andalus.⁶ However, before addressing the issue in hand, I shall give a brief survey of the attitudes towards homosexuality that are reflected in the Koran, hadith, and non-Zâhirï works offiqh.⁷

edited by Wolfgang Behn. Leiden, 1971; Amaldez, R., “Ahbâr et awâmir chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue,” Arabica 2 (1955), 211-227; id., “La place du Coran dans les Usûl al-Fiqh d’après le Muhallâ d’Ibn Hazm”, Studia Islámica 32 (1970), 21-30; Turki, A. M., Polémiques entre Ibn Hazm et Bâgï sur les principes de la loi musulmane. Essai sur le littéralisme zahirite et la finalité malikite. Algiers, 1976; id., “Notes sur l’évolution du zâhirisme d’Ibn Hazm (456/1063) du Taqrïb à IThkâm”, Studia Islámica 59 (1984), 175-185; al-Zu^cbï, A. Kh., Zâhiriyyat Ibn Hazm al-Andalusï. Nazariyyat al-ma^crifa wa-manâhij al-bahth, Amman, 1417/1996.

⁵    It should be emphasized that the legal sources are strictly concerned with a very limited repertoire of sexual acts, not with propensities, identities, or lifestyle. Hence, the term homosexuality in this paper stands for sexual acts between two members of the same gender. See Rowson, E.K., “The Categorization of Gender and Sexual Irregularity in Medieval Arabic Vice Lists”, in Epstein, J. and K. Straub (eds.), Body Guards. The cultural politics of gender ambiguity. New York, London, 50-79 at p. 59.

⁶     That Ibn Hazm’s views were indeed perceived by the Mâlikïs as a threat is clear. from a number of contemporary accounts, such as the text printed in Asin Palacios’s Abenházam, I, 136f. about his expulsion, together with his master Ibn Muflit, from the great mosque in Cordoba, where they taught Zâhirism to a sizeable crowd.

⁷     There is not, as yet, a satisfactory comprehensive study of Islamic attitudes towards homosexuality. Everett K. Rowson announces the publication of his monograph Homo­sexuality in Traditional Islamic Culture (forthcoming from Columbia University Press), which will hopefully fill this lacuna. In the meantime, see the lemmata “Sihâk” (G. H. A. Juynboll) and “Liwât” (ed.) in EP. The latter lemma is reprinted in Schmitt, A. and Sofer, J. (eds.), Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Moslem Societies. New York, London, etc., 1992, pp. 151-167. Here, the author is identified as Charles Pellat. Schmitt has taken the liberty of deleting the part about sexual contacts between women, stating that it is scandalous that an article which is said to deal with liwât in fact discusses homo­sexuality. Sihâq is discussed in detail in an unpublished MA thesis by M. Leemans, Sihâq en sekse. Lesbische seksualiteit in middeleeuws Arabische literatuur (University of Utrecht, 1995). Some basic works about sexuality in the Muslim world contain scattered references to homosexuality, e.g. Bouhdiba, A., Sexuality in Islam. London, 1998; Bousquet, G.-H., L’éthique sexuelle de l’Islam. Paris, 1966. For a recent work by a Mus­lim writer (presumably a ShFite) condemning homosexuality and lesbianism, see al-‘Adnânï, Kh., Al-Zinâ wa’l-shudhûdh fî’l-ta’rïkh al-‘Arabi. London, Beirut, 1999. AIDS is discussed here as an ancient disease, a punishment that first befell the people of

The Koran on homosexuality

The most commonly used term for homosexual contacts between men in Arabic is fi^cl (or ^camal) qawm Lût (“the act of the people of Lot”), from which is derived the substantive liwât. The man who in­dulges in such acts is called lûtî.⁸ These terms derive from the Koran, which contains various accounts of the destruction of the people of Lot (i.e., the people to whom Lot was sent as a wamer),⁹ a story well known from the book of Genesis where the fellow-townsmen of Lot are stoned because of their deviant sexual practices.¹⁰ The same di­vine punishment is meted out to them in the Koranic account, which set the tone for future discussions of the punishment for homosexual acts, with most legal scholars considering execution by stoning (al-rajm) the appropriate sentence (a) because this was the way in which the people of Lot met their end, and (b) because liwât was as­similated to zinâ: fornication between a man and a woman who is nei­ther his lawfully wedded wife, nor a slave owned by him; the punish­ment prescribed for zinâ is stoning.

The Koran contains no explicit reference to sexual contacts bet­ween women-although Q. 4:15 has been interpreted by some as a ref-

Lot, thereafter the slaves of Pharaonic Egypt, and much later the soldiers of Napoleon’s army who turned to sodomy during their long siege of Acre, having no women at their disposal. A wealth of literature reflecting western ideas about homosexuality in the Mus­lim world is referred to in Schmidtke, S., “Die westliche Konstruktion Marokkos als Landschaft freier Homoerotik”, Die Welt des Islams 40 (2000), 375-411.

⁸    The present article will deal only with what is sometimes called al-lvwat al-akbar (translated by James T. Monroe as “grand sodomy”) which takes place bet­ween two males, as opposed to al-liwât al-asghar (“petty sodomy”): anal intercourse with a woman. See Monroe, “The Striptease That Was Blamed on Abü Bakr’s Naughty Son: Was Father Being Shamed, or Was the Poet Having Fun? (Ibn Quzmân’s Zajal no. 133)”, in Wright Jr., J.W., and E. K. Rowson (eds.), Homoeroti­cism in Classical Arabic Literature. New York, 1997, 94-139 at p. 116. For a review of this book, see Schmidtke, S., “Homoeroticism and Homosexuality in Islam: a Re­view Article,” in BSOAS 62 (1999), 260-266.

⁹    See Koran, süras 7:80-84; 11:74-81; 26:160-75; 27:54-58; 29:28-34, and, less ex­plicit, suras 15:59-77, 37:133-138, and 54:33-39. In his recent book Islam en homoseksualiteit (Amsterdam, Utrecht, 2001), O. Nahas proposes a different, almost Zâhirî, interpretation of the Koranic passages dealing with the people of Lot: they were destroyed not because they were homosexuals, but for a combination of sins such as bes­tiality, paedophilia and rape. According to Nahas, the Koranic verses do not deal with loving same-sex couples whose relationships are based on mutual respect and equality.

¹⁰      Gen. 19 and 20.

erence to such contacts.^[11] The situation is different in the second re­vealed source of Islam, the hadïth.

Homosexuality in the hadïth

The hadïth literature fully confirms the negative attitude towards homosexual acts between men that was already encountered in the Koran.^[12] In the collection of al-Tirmidhi, for example, we find the following saying attributed to the Prophet: “The thing I fear most for my community is the act of the people of Lot”.^[13] Homosexuality is usually discussed in the chapters on hudüd (sing, haddy. the punish­ments which are clearly defined in the Koran and the hadïth and are therefore not subject to the qâdï’s discretion. Hadd punishments, which vary from flogging to stoning, are imposed for the following offenses: theft, highway robbery, drinking wine, apostasy, slanderous accusation of zinâ, and zinâ itself.^[14] Homosexuality, as we shall see, is often considered a form of zinâ, and as such incurs the correspond­ing hadd punishment: stoning (rajm) for the muhsan, that is: any free Muslim who is married, and flogging for the non-muhsan, i.e., a slave or a free, single Muslim.

The canonical collections are not very explicit about sexual acts between women, for which the terms sahq, sihâq, and musâhaqa are used,^[15] although there are traditions which condemn women expos­ing themselves to the gaze and touch of other women. The most tell­ing traditions, however, can be encountered in a number of pre-ca- nonical collections.¹⁶ Thus in a tradition reported by ^cAbd al-Razzâq and going back to ^cAbd Allah b. Ka°b b. Malik, “The Messenger of God cursed the rakiba and the markübcT. ¹⁷

Homosexuality in legal writings

We see, then, that both the Koran and the hadith adopt a very neg­ative stand towards homosexuality between men and, though to a lesser extent, to sexual contacts between women. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the legal literature also reflects a negative atti­tude, although different opinions exist among the madhâhib, and within these madhâhib, among their respective representatives. This is due in part to the different approaches adopted by the various schools to the revealed sources. Broadly speaking, we may say that according to the Malikis and the Hanbalis, the required punishment for homosexual acts between men is stoning;¹⁸ the Shâffïs hold that the punishment is identical to that for zinâ, meaning that a distinction should be made between someone who is muhsan and someone who is not. The Hanafis, on the other hand, are of the opinion that mere ta^czir should be applied: a discretionary penalty whose aim is to pun­ish and reform the criminal and to deter the public. ¹⁹ As we shall see, this latter view is shared by the Zâhirïs. Whereas most compendia of

“lesbian”, since their connotations correspond exactly with those of the Arabic terms; see “Categorization of Gender,” p. 77, n.36.

¹⁶      See Juynboll, “Sihâk”, p. 566.

^{17     c}Abd al-Razzâq al-San^cânï, Al-Musannaf (ed. Habib al-Rahmân al-A^czamï, 11 vols. Beirut, Johannnesburg, etc., 1390/1970), Bib al-sahaqa, no. 13383 (and see also no. 13384); see also Ibn Abï Shayba, Kitâb al-Musannaffï’l-ahâdîth wa ’l-âthâr (ed. Mukhtâr Ahmad al-Nadwï, 15 vols. Bombay, 1401/1981), Hudûd, no. 9063, no. 9064.

¹⁸     Rowson, in his “Categorization of Gender”, p. 76 n.23, states that “An apparent exception among some scholars of the Maliki school, who are said to have permitted liwat with one’s own male slaves, has been noted occasionally in the secondary literature, but not yet systematically investigated. Such legal arguments would probably rest on analogy to female concubinage—there being no comparable analogy to heterosexual marriage”.

¹⁹     See Ibn ^cAbd al-Barr, Al-Istidhkâr (ed. ^cAbd al-Mu^ctî Amin al-Qal^caji. 30 vols. Da­mascus, Beirut a.o., 1414/1993), XXIV, 78f. On ta^czlr punishments, see Benmelha, Gh., “Ta’azir Crimes”, in Bassiouni, M. Ch. (ed.), The Islamic Criminal Justice System. Lon­don, Rome, New York, 1982, 211-225, and El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law, Ch. IV. fiqh contain a paragraph on liwât, sihüq is not always dealt with. It was obviously taken much less seriously, presumably because no penetration by a man takes place.²⁰

Ibn Hazm on homosexuality - Tawq al-hamama

Homosexuality is discussed by Ibn Hazm in several of his works. People not familiar with his legal views on the topic may yet have read his famous book on love and lovers, Tawq al-hamâma JTl-ulfa wa'1-ullàf, and have got the impression that Ibn Hazm was quite toler­ant of homosexuality. Not only does he at times give glowing descrip­tions of handsome men he knew, the work also contains various sym­pathetic accounts²¹ of men smitten with members of their own sex.²² It has been suggested that Ibn Hazm himself was not quite immune to

²⁰     On the “phallocentricity” of discussions of sex, see Rowson, “Categorization of Gender”, passim, and Monroe, “The Striptease”, 119ff. The idea that homosexual con­tacts between women are a passing fancy, indulged in for want of better and therefore nothing to be unduly worried about seems to be shared by the Spanish scholar A. Arjona Castro who, quoting (apparently with approval) a work on female sexuality by Ramón Serrano Vives, states that “la homosexualidad en la mujer es ocasional, presentando una dirección de la libido predominantemente heterosexual. Esto es ahora así y es probable que en aquellos tiempos [he is referring to the Umayyad princess Walláda] fuera igual. En la mujer es raro una homosexualidad total, excepto en el caso de malformaciones genitales. Tanto ayer como hoy, algunas mujeres solteras, en aquella época por falta de * hombres y la abundancia de concubinas, realizarían actos lesbianos con compañeras del serallo o amigas de sociedad, pero en todo caso como siempre se mantenían la supremacía de la dirección heterosexual”; see La sexualidad en la España musulmana. 2^nd ed., Cordoba, 1990, p. 21.

²¹     Ella Almagor points out that Ibn Hazm’s sympathy is reserved for men who are enamoured of men who are their peers, socially and intellectually, and that he is much less tolerant of men whose passions are directed at men, or boys, of a lower social class.

²²     See Tawq al-hamâma, pp. 79f., 84f., 184f.; pp. 84, 90, 220 in the translation by A. J. Arberry, The Ring of the Dove. London, 1953. These references are only to passages in which the beloved is clearly identified as a man; there may actually be more incidences of same-sex love in the Tawq’, see the following comments of L. A. Giffen (“Ibn Hazm and the Tawq al-hamâma”, in Jayyusi, S. Kh. (ed.), The Legacy of Muslim Spain. Leiden, 1992, 420-442 at p. 433): “It is difficult in some passages to know whether [Ibn Hazm] refers to a male or a female beloved due to the language used there, either inclusive or ambiguous. Complicating the choice of interpretation is the knowledge that some poets referred to the female beloved with a masculine pronoun. Translators have often taken ambiguous or masculine referents in Ibn Hazm for females and so rendered them in the European language. In doing so they may have been compelled to make an arbitrary choice where there was no clue in the context”. I propose to discuss the anecdotes on ho­moerotic attraction from Tawq al-hamâma elsewhere.

the charms of other men. Thus Louis Crompton, in his recent article “Male Love and Islamic Law in Islamic Spain” states that “Ibn Hazm admits to being tempted by the beauty of men. On one occasion he dared not attend a party where he would meet a handsome man who attracted him, in order to avoid any occasion for sin”.²³ Arjona Castro goes further and calls Ibn Hazm a true, congenital homosexual, though not a practising one.²⁴ But however sympathetic Ibn Hazm may be towards the tormented lover of boys and men, and however much he may admire the physique of certain members of his own sex, his opinion of physical contacts between two males is entirely, and unequivocally negative, as is shown by the following statement in the last chapter but one of the Tawq, which is entitled Bab qubh al-ma^csïya, or “Of the vileness of sinning”: “As for conduct like that of the people of Lot, that is horrible and disgusting” (ammâfi’l qawm Lût fa-shanf bashf).²⁵ Apparently, then, to love or to be in love is one thing, perhaps even a noble thing (provided one does not let one­self go²⁶), but to act on it is another matter altogether. It should be

²³     In Murray, S.O., and W. Roscoe (eds.), Islamic Homosexualities. Culture. His­tory, and Literature. New York, London, 1997, 142-157, at p. 149. The relevant passage, inaccurately paraphrased by the author (who does not seem to have used the Arabic text) may be found in Tawq al-hamama, p. 226f.; Arberry’s translation, p. 267. For a review of Islamic Homosexualities, see Schmidtke, “Homoeroticism and homosexuality”.

²⁴      “Hay un tanto por ciento pequeño (4%) de estos homosexuales congénitos, que no

pueden tener, ni las tienen, relaciones sexuales con la mujer. Incluso dentro de los homosexuales congénitos, algunos no tienen genitalizada su homosexualidad manteniendo sólo su personalidad homófíla. Un caso típico de homosexualidad congénita es el del polígrafo cordobés Ibn Hazm (...)”; see La sexualidad en la España musulmana, 33f. In a later publication, however, Arjona Castro defines Ibn Hazm’s ho­mosexuality as belonging to another type: as una homosexualidad “ocasional”. “Son homosexuales bisexuales, cuyo instinto está de ordinario dirigido al otro sexo y sólo de cuando en cuando buscan trato homosexual”. He adds that Ibn Hazm probably overcame this tendency; see “La infancia y la sexualidad de Ibn Hazm”, in Al-Andalus Magreb III (1995), 143-150 at pp. 149f.              *

²⁵      Tawq al-hamâma, p. 218; The Ring of the Dove, p. 258.

²⁶     Ibn Hazm is critical of a promising young scholar from Cordoba whose obsessive love for the singularly handsome Aslam was his undoing. The Tawq (pp. 184f.) contains only a brief reference to this episode, but a much more detailed version quoted on the au­thority of Ibn Hazm may be found in al-Humaydî’s Jadhwat al-muqtabis (ed. Ibrâhîm al-Abyàrî. 2 vols. Beirut, Cairo, 1410/1989), I, 222-226. Whereas in the shorter version Aslam is apparently unaware of the strength of his friend’s passion for him, and is sad to hear of his death, the longer version shows Aslam as being profoundly embarrassed by his admirer’s obsessive attention; he even refuses to visit him on his death bed although one look at him would have saved the unhappy man. The name of the suffering lover is given as Ibn Quzmân in the Tawq, and as Ibn Kulayb in Jadhwat al-muqtabis. P.S. van added immediately, however, that Ibn Hazm applied the same strict standards to heterosexual lovers, and that he advocates chastity and continence instead of succumbing to temptation. The only lawful form of intercourse for a man is within wedlock, or with a slave­woman he owns. For a woman, only intercourse with her husband is lawful.

Interestingly enough, Ibn Hazm’s Tawq, which deals with virt­ually all aspects of the phenomenon of love, does not explicitly men­tion love between women, let alone sex, unless the phrase “I once saw a woman who had bestowed her affections in ways not pleasing to God” (kânat mawaddatuhâfîghayr dhât Allah) refers to this woman‘s affections for a another woman.²⁷ Ibn Hazm greatly praises the pure quality of this woman's love, until it turned sour and she became bit­ter and resentful. It should be noted that this passage, too, occurs in the chapter about the vileness of sinning.

Even though Tawq al-hamâma may already have been written af­ter Ibn Hazm’s turn from Mâlikism—via Shafi^cism—to Zâhirism, this is not completely certain and further research is necessary in order to confirm this.²⁸ We should therefore turn to his Kitab al-Muhalla bi’l-âthâr, the most comprehensive surviving work of Zâhirïfiqh, for a fully-developed Zâhirï opinion on the issue of homosexuality.²⁹ Be-

Koningsveld believes that this is one of the cases in which the original manuscript of Tawq al-hamâma has fallen victim to the copyist’s ill-advised interference with the text; see his “De oorspronkelijke versie van Ibn Hazms Tawq al-hamâma”, Sharqiyyât 5 (1993), 23-38 at pp. 28-31. See also Almagor, È., “A Fragment of the Whole: Reflections in the Wake of the Translation of Ibn Hazm’s Tawq al-hamâma into Hebrew”, in N. Ilan et al. (eds.), The Intertwined Worlds of Islam. Essays in Memory of Hava Lazarus-Yafeh. Jerusalem, 2002, 59-88 at pp. 75-80.

²⁷    Tawq al-hamâma, p. 209f.; The Ring of the Dove, p. 248f. It is taken as a reference to lesbian love by Crompton, “Male Love”, p. 150, whereas Giffen states that “homo­erotic attachments between women are not a subject of discussion”; see “Ibn Hazm and the Tawq al-hamâma”, pp. 433f.

²⁸    His statement about homosexuality being disgusting is followed by some refer­ences to the views of Malik and some of his followers. He adds, however, that this is not the place to enter into a discussion of the divergence of opinions held concerning the matter. Ibn Hazm was apparently already well acquainted with the views of other schools, and Zâhirï opinions are explicitly referred to more than once in the Tawq. The fact that he explicitly mentions that ten lashes should be the maximum punishment for in­decent kissing of another male, rather than a more severe whipping, may be indicative of Zâhirï influence.

²⁹    The work is available in two editions: Al-Muhallâ, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir (11 vols. Cairo, 1351/1932, often reprinted), and Al-Muhallâ bi’l-âthâr, ed. ^cAbd al-Ghaffar al-Bundârï (12 vols. Beirut, 1408/1988).

fore we do so, however, it is essential to give a brief outline of the principles guiding Ibn Hazm in his search for God’s law.

Ibn Hazm‘s Zâhirism

As their name indicates, the Zâhirïs advocate the literal interpreta­tion of the revealed sources: the Koran and the Sunna of the Prophet, for God has revealed Himself “in plain Arabic speech” (Q. 26:195). Furthermore, they recognize a restricted form of ijma, namely that of the Prophet’s Companions, as an additional source of Islamic law.^[16] In principle, these are the only sources from which legal opinions may be derived, and other methods such as reasoning by analogy (qiyâs), juristic preference (istihsân), personal opinion (ra’y), etc. may not be applied since they are too arbitrary. Reliance on the opin­ions of earlier masters (taqlid) is not acceptable either; rather, every new case that presents itself is to be examined anew, without revert­ing to existing jurisprudence.^[17] Ibn Hazm’s attitude towards homo­sexuality, both male and female, will be discussed here as an illustra­tion of this system.

Kitab al-Muhallâ

The last volume of Kitâb al-Muhallâ contains an extensive discus­sion of homosexuality.^[18] The context is a discussion of forbidden acts which incur a discretionary punishment (tazir).^[19] By including it in this section, rather than in that on the huclüd, Ibn Hazm makes it clear from the outset that in his view homosexual acts are not something that incurs the maximum punishment, i.e., the death penalty or a hun­dred lashes, since such acts cannot be assimilated to zinâ, as is held by most fuqaha of the other schools. We shall start with his discus­sion of homosexual acts between men.

Fit qawm Lût

Ibn Hazm opens his discussion offi^cl qawm Lût by stating that it is one of the major sins (kabâ’ir), like the consumption of pork, blood, mayta, or wine; and like zinâ and other sins. He who declares it, or any of these other things licit, is a kafir and a mushrik whose lives and goods may be taken. It is immediately clear, then, that here, as in Tawq al-hamâma, he condemns homosexuality as an abomination. The dis­cussion which follows these opening statements may be divided into three parts, or three stages in the argumentation: (1) description of the different opinions held by the legal scholars; (2) presentation of the texts on which the different views are based; and (3) refutation of the views rejected by Ibn Hazm, and exposition of his own opinion. They will be discussed here in that order. Rather than give a literal transla­tion, I shall paraphrase Ibn Hazm‘s line of reasoning.

Stage One: Description of the Different Views

Ibn Hazm first lists the different opinions held by the fuqaha ’ with regard to the appropriate punishment for homosexual acts. All in all, he sums up seven different opinions, held by seven different groups of people (tâ ’ifas). I present them in the order in which they are given by Ibn Hazm himself.

1.       Both the active (al-a^clâ) and the passive partner (al-asfal) are to be burned alive;

2.       Both the active and the passive partner should be taken to the highest spot of the town and be thrown down from it, and are subse­quently to be pelted with rocks;

3.       Both of them are to be stoned, regardless of whether they are muhsan or not;

4.       Both are to be executed, i.e., by the sword;

5.       The passive partner is to be stoned, whether he is muhsan or not, whereas the active one should be stoned if he is muhsan, and flogged if he is not, with the same number of lashes that constitutes the hadd punishment for zinâ;^[20]

6.       The active and passive partners are equal [meaning that they are equally guilty or responsible; their punishment depends not on their position in the act, but on their legal status; whoever of them is muhsan will be stoned; whoever of them is not will be given a hun­dred lashes, as in the case of the heterosexual fornicator (zûnz)];

7.    No hadd punishment is to be inflicted upon them, and they are not to be executed, but they should be given a ta^czir punishment. This, as we shall see, is the view shared by Ibn Hazm.

Stage Two: The Proof-Texts

Ibn Hazm then quotes the texts upon which the different parties base their views. As for the first group, i.e., of those who would con­demn the culprits to the stake, Ibn Hazm adduces a report ultimately going back to Ibn Sanfân, who had heard from someone that Khalid b. al-Walid was asked concerning a muhsan “who was taken the way a woman is taken”. Abû Bakr ruled that he was to be stoned, and the Companions of the Messenger of God followed this ruling. ^cAli, how­ever, conveyed to the Caliph his opinion that the man should be burned alive. Abu Bakr agreed, and wrote to Khalid b. al-Walïd that the man should be burned alive. Khalid carried out the sentence.^[21]

After this account, Ibn Hazm adds several others that deal with burning as a punishment for liwdt. Thus according to Ibn Wahb, Khalid only burned the dead body of the homosexual, i.e., after exe­cution by the sword, the reason being that only God can bum some­one in the fire as a punishment. And Ibn Habib is quoted as having stated that he who bums alive a fâ^cil fi^cl qawm Lût is not committing a sin. Another report transmitted by Ibn Habib, this time with an isnâd, again deals with Khalid and Abù Bakr.^{[22] c}Ali holds this particular sin to be unforgivable and demands that the perpetrators be burned. He says that no nation ever committed this sin, except one (the reference is, of course, to the people of Lot), and it is well known what God did to them. The Companions agree. Abü Bakr communicates the decis­ion to Khalid, and others after him, such as Ibn al-Zubayr (the anti-ca­liph), Hishâm b. ^cAbd al-Malik (the Umayyad caliph), and the amir al-Qasrï in Iraq^[23] are known to have ordered this punishment in their days, burning alive both men involved in cases of liwât. Ibn Hazm quotes a variation on the same story, as he heard it from Ismâ^cïl b. Dulaym al-Hadrami, the qâdï of Majorca.^[24]

Ibn Hazm then moves on to the second view, viz. that homosex­uals should be thrown down from a mountain and stoned. He heard the relevant report from the son of the above-mentioned qâdï, Ahmad b. Ismâ^cïl b. Dulaym.^[25] Ibn “Abbas was asked about the hadd for a lütï, and said: he should be taken up to the highest mountain of the town and be pushed off, head down, and then be pelted with stones.

The third group, of those who hold that the active and the passive partner should both be stoned, whether they are muhsan or not, also adduces reports in support of its view. According to the first one, which Ibn Hazm heard from Muhammad b. SaTd b. Nabât, ^cAlï stoned a homosexual.^[26] Another report has Ibn “Abbas ruling that a - virgin (al-bikr, in this case a young man who has not previously had sexual relations) who is caught in homosexual acts (yûjadhu ^calâ ’l-lütiyya) must be stoned.^[27] Ibrâhîm al-Nakha^cï is quoted as hav­ing said that if anyone deserves to be stoned twice, it is the lütï,^[28] while RabFa stated that if a man takes up with a lütï, he will be stoned, and neither his being muhsan nor any other consideration will help him.

Finally, Ibn Hazm cites the statement of al-Zuhrî that a lütï should be stoned, whether he is muhsan or not. This view is shared by ^cAlï, Sa^cîd b. al-Musayyab, Abü’l-Zinâd, and al-Hasan. Among the later scholars who accept al-Zuhrfs view, Ibn Hazm mentions al-Shâfi^cï, Mâlik, al-Layth b. Sa^cd, and Ishâq b. Râhawayh.

The fourth view, i.e., that both partners in the crime of homosexu­ality should be executed by the sword, is based upon a report by Ibn ^cAbbas (for which no isnâd is provided) to the effect that both the ac­tive and the passive partner should be killed.

Ibn Hazm skips the fifth group, and moves to the sixth opinion in the list given at the beginning, viz. that homosexual acts are like zinâ: the muhsan is to be stoned, the nort-muhsan is to be flogged with a hundred lashes. Several reports are cited in support of this view. In the first, ^cAtâ’ b. Abî Rabâh^[29] relates that ^cAbd Allah b. al-Zubayr had to try seven men caught in homosexual acts. When he inquired about them, four of them turned out to be muhsan. He ordered them to be taken out of the haram, and they were stoned to death. The three remaining ones were flogged with the number of lashes making up the hadd punishment for zinâ committed by a non.-muhsan. Ibn ^cAbbas and Ibn ^cUmar were with Ibn al-Zubayr at the time, and did not dispute his verdict (in other words, they gave their tacit approval).

According to al-Hasan al-Basrï, a homosexual should be stoned if he is thayyib (i.e., sexually experienced, having been married), but if he is a virgin, he is to be flogged.

Furthermore, there are certain people, says Ibn Hazm, who say that the muhsan is to be stoned and the non-muhsan is to be flogged with a hundred lashes and to be exiled for a year if he is the active partner, the fffil. The passive one, the manküh, however, is to be stoned, whether he is muhsan or not. This, the fifth view, is that of the ShâfiT faqïh Abü Ja^cfar Muhammad b. ^cAlï b. Yùsuf, he adds.

Finally, Ibn Hazm provides documentation underpinning the sev­enth and last view: that there is no hadd punishment for either part­ner. He quotes a report about al-Hakam b. TJtayba, ^[30] who says that he who commits the act of the people of Lot should be flogged, but not to the extent of a hadd punishment. This, says Ibn Hazm, is the view of Abü Hanifa and his followers, and that of Abü Sulaymân (i.e. Dâwüd al-Isfahânï, the “founder” of Zâhirism), “and all of our parti­sans”. ^[31] As I mentioned earlier, it is already clear from the fact that he discusses liwdt in his chapter on ta^czir and not in that on hudüd, that this is Ibn Hazm’s own view.

Stage Three: The Refutation

After providing the proof-texts on which the various parties base themselves, Ibn Hazm refutes the views cited, except, of course, that of the seventh group. It is especially in this polemical section that we can see how he applies his Zâhirï methodology to the revealed texts.

With regard to the first group, those who advocate the burning alive of the homosexual, they argue that this is in accordance with the ijma of the Companions, and that this consensus cannot be contra­dicted. If one objects that ^cAlï, Ibn ^c Abbas, Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn TJmar after them supported stoning and the hadd for zinâ, etc. (in other words, that they supported a punishment other than burning) they will say that this cannot be so, because it contradicts their ijma. This is all they have to say concerning this, but they have no addi­tional evidence, and even this does not constitute proof, because the only one who transmitted it was Ibn Sam^can, who had it from a man who reported—Ibn SanTân did not hear it himself—that Abu Bakr, etc. But all this is munqatij for none of these people knew Abü Bakr. Also, this Ibn Sanfan is a notorious liar and is described as such by Malik. Moreover, a sound tradition has the Prophet forbidding burn­ing at the stake as a punishment, because only the Lord of the Fire can punish with fire.

Without stopping to refute the views of the second and third groups, as one might have expected, Ibn Hazm skips to the opinion of the fourth group - possibly because of the preceding reference to ex­ecution by the sword, which is advocated as the appropriate punish­ment for liwât by the fourth group. These people, says Ibn Hazm, base themselves on a hadtth going back to Ibn ^cAbbas, who quotes the Prophet as having said that those caught in the act of the people of Lot should be executed, both the active and the passive partner. Ibn Hazm quotes several similar traditions with the same content, only to reject them, saying that none of them is sound. The first hadtth, of Ibn ^c Abbas, contains a weak link, as does the second, of Abü Hurayra. The chains of the remaining reports contain flaws, and they cannot, therefore, be adduced as proof.

Now, if it is forbidden to spill the blood of a dhimmi and even that of a harbl solely on the basis of such flawed reports, then how can it be allowed to spill the blood of a Muslim, be he iniquitous (fâsiq) or contrite If any of what they adduce were sound, we, too, would accept this view, and would not oppose it in anything, says Ibn Hazm.

Turning back now to those who subscribe to the third opinion, Ibn Hazm states: If we look at those who say that the men are both to be stoned, muhsan or not, we see that they argue that this is what God did to the people of Lot, as is said in Q. 1 l:82f. (“We rained upon them stones of clay, one after the other”). They furthermore adduce the reports that were mentioned earlier, to the effect that both the ac­tive and the passive partner are to be stoned, muhsan or not.

Ibn Hazm objects that there is no proof in what they say. As for what God did to the people of Lot, it is not as they see it, for other texts from the Koran (such as Q. 26:18If., 189 and Q. 11:84, 94) make it clear that the people of Lot were punished not for their abom­ination alone, but also for their unbelief (kufr). Therefore, they cannot stone a homosexual unless he is also a kafir. If the people who try them act otherwise, they go against God’s judgement and against the Koranic verse that they cite as proof, since they deviate from the legal ruling it contains. God also says that Lot’s wife shared in their pun­ishment, and anyone endowed with a bit of reason knows that she did not commit the “act of the people of Lot”. Therefore, it is clear and beyond any doubt that the punishment described in the Koran is not for this act alone. If they object that she, Lot’s wife, aided and abetted in their commission of the crime, they must stone everyone who en­ables this vice by acting as go-between or by pandering. If they do not, they contradict themselves and invalidate their proof based on the Koran, disobeying it.

The Koran also relates that Lot’s fellow-townsmen accosted his guests, whereupon God blinded their eyes. Therefore, they should also blind the eyes of homosexuals, for God did not simply stone them, but blinded and then stoned them. If they fail to do this, they go against God’s judgement concerning homosexuals and invalidate their proof. Also, they must blind the eyes of anyone who accosts an­other.

Moreover, they should bum alive anyone who tampers with weights and measures, for God burned the people of Shu‘ayb for that crime (see Q. 26:18If., 189; 11:84, 94). Likewise, they should exe­cute anyone who wounds another person’s she-camel, for God de­stroyed the people of Salih when they hamstrung the she-camel (cf. Q. 91:11-14). After all, there is no difference between God’s punish­ing the people of Lot on the one hand—by destroying their eyesight and stoning them because of their abomination—and His burning the people of Shu^cayb for tampering with weights and measures, or His destruction of the people of Salih for wounding the she-camel on the other.

After this lengthy refutation (which, it should be emphasized, at­tacks the prevailing Maliki opinion^[32]) Ibn Hazm turns to the last view, the one espoused by him. According to this view, homosexual­ity is not punishable by hadd. As proof, the people who subscribe to this view use the Koranic verses Q. 25:68f. They add a prophetic tra­dition to the effect that a Muslim’s blood may be shed for three things only: apostasy, zinâ by a muhsan, and homicide.

God has forbidden every man, Muslim and dhimmi alike, to kill unless it is justified, and there is no justification but in a revealed text (nass) or in ijma^c. The Prophet forbade taking a life except in the cases of zinâ after ihsân, unbelief after belief, pandering, a third hadd conviction for drinking, and highway robbery (hirâba), unless the robber repents. The case of the homosexual is not mentioned among them, so it is forbidden to shed his blood, except if there is a text or an ijmcf including him in the categories of people who may be killed.

Ibn Hazm states that in his view, none of the reports concerning the killing of the homosexual is sound. Moreover, none of the things reported about any of the Companions is valid; the accounts about Abü Bakr, ^cAli and the Companions are munqatia. One of them is from the notoriously unreliable Ibn Sam^can on the authority of an un­known man (majhüly the other is from someone on whose accounts one cannot rely. As for the reports going back to Ibn ^cAbbas, they have been transmitted to all kinds of unknown people, and the same is true for the riwâya concerning Ibn al-Zubayr and Ibn Timar. One can­not, therefore, rely on the traditions adduced from the Companions with regard to this issue. By contrast, the opinion that there is no hadd punishment for the homosexual is reported from al-Hakam b. TJtayba, who is a well-known and well-connected authority.^[33]

It follows, then, says Ibn Hazm, that the homosexual should not be executed and not be submitted to a hadd punishment, for God did not make this an obligation, nor did His Messenger. The status of the ho­mosexual is that of someone who has committed a forbidden act (atâ munkaran), and the Messenger of God has ordered that such people be subjected to correction (taghyir al-munkar bi’l-yad), in addition to a tcfzir punishment the amount of which has been fixed by the Mes­senger of God and which is not to be exceeded. Elsewhere Ibn Hazm explains that tcfzir should not exceed ten lashes. Furthermore, the people should be protected from the harm caused by homosexuals, namely by locking the latter up for an unspecified period of time. ^[34] Ibn Hazm apparently believed that homosexuals should (and could?) be reformed and rehabilitated, and that it was the duty of the commu­nity to do so. Unfortunately, he provides no further details about the practicalities of this rehabilitation.

He adduces various texts in support of his view. In the first one, which can be found in Bukhari’s Sahih, Ibn ^cAbbas reports that the Prophet cursed effeminate men (mukhannathiri) and masculine-look­ing women (mutarajjilâi) and said, “Drag them out of their houses”, and he removed so-and-so, and so-and-so,^[35] (i.e., from society, by sending them to prison).

The prison sentence is based on God’s saying “but help ye one an­other unto righteousness and pious duty. Help not one another unto sin and transgression” (Q. 5:2). Everyone knows that keeping away the people of Lot—both the active and the passive partners (al-nâkihin wa’l-mankühiri)—from the people is an act of righteous­ness and a pious duty, and that leaving them be, i.e. by not interfering, thus in fact letting them carry on as they please, would amount to . helping them unto sin and transgression. Therefore, they should be made to stop.^[36]

Now some shameless and stupid people may have the audacity to say that refraining from killing them will encourage them in their acts. Yes, says Ibn Hazm sarcastically, and the fact that you do not execute every single fornicator—for, after all, some are only flogged—is tantamount to declaring zinâ licit; and your refraining from executing every apostate—for after all, he is saved if he re­cants—is tantamount to condoning kufr, cross-worship, denouncing the Koran and the Prophet; and your refraining from killing the eater of pork, mayta, or blood, or the imbiber of wine leads you to allow the consumption of pork, mayta, blood, and wine! Their argument helps them as much as the Koranic passage which they cite: “Whosoever helps himself after he has been wronged—against them there is no way of blame” (Q. 42:41). This apparently means that in the case of homosexuality, a wrong has been committed, and acting against it is justified. However, according to Ibn Hazm, people should not exag­gerate in their zeal to defend the religion of God, and add things that are not part of it: “God forbid that we should legislate corrupt laws, based on our personal views (bi-ârâ’i-nâ). Let us praise God for grant­ing us our adherence to the Koran and the Sunna!” This is obviously aimed at people who want to impose harsh punishments for which they cannot adduce a scriptural basis, as is required by the Zàhirïs.

Intermezzo: Bestiality and Slander

Ibn Hazm’s discussion of liwât is immediately followed by an ex­position of the different opinions on men who commit bestiality (man atâ'1-bahïma). This combination is not unusual; we find it not only in other fiqh works, but also in several collections of âthâr and hadith. The reason why it precedes the discussion of female homosexuality is probably the fact that both liwât and ityân al-bahïma are forms of penetrative intercourse, while sihâq, in the narrowest sense of the word, is not.

The punishments for ityân al-bahima advocated by different groups (which are listed by Ibn Hazm in his usual systematic way) range from flogging to stoning or execution by the sword. Some take the marital status of the offender into consideration, whereas others do not. There are differences of opinion also with regard to the fate of the animal that has been interfered with. Some say it has to be killed, but may not be eaten; others do not demand that it be punished in this way. Ibn Hazm does not express himself on the fate of the animal, but the man guilty of bestiality should be subjected to a tcfzir punish­ment—which means that he shall be flogged with no more than ten lashes. He rejects the view of those who demand the hadd punish­ment, since they base themselves on qiyâs, which is unacceptable. Also, the traditions they adduce in support of their view are weak and cannot be relied upon. Ibn Hazm’s own view is based not upon re­vealed texts which explicitly prohibit the vice—in his view there are no such texts—but upon the tradition which we have already encoun­tered, to the effect that whosoever sees someone committing a munkar must seek to change it. Bestiality is definitely a munkar, and should therefore be punished, though not by a hadd punishment.

The discussion of bestiality is followed by a paragraph on the ap­propriate punishment for someone who slanderously accuses some­one of this vice or of homosexuality.

Some hold that the punishment for slanderous accusation (qadhf) of liwât or bestiality should be equal to the hadd for unproven accusa­tion of zinâ, which can amount to eighty lashes. Since we know that Ibn Hazm does not accept the comparison between zinâ on the one hand, and liwât or bestiality on the other, it is not surprising to see that he advocates ta^czir, and not the hadd, as punishment for calumni­ous charges of liwât or bestiality.

Ibn Hazm then enters into a detailed refutation of what is pre­sented as the Mâlikï point of view, viz. that liwât is indeed not zinâ, but worse than zinâ, and that it is therefore the harshest of the hadd punishments which should be applied. Ibn Hazm reiterates once more that neither in common usage, nor in the Sunna, is the term zinâ ever applied to liwât. He quotes a prophetic tradition in which zinâ with one’s neighbour’s wife is listed as one of the worst crimes. Homosex­uality is not mentioned, which invalidates the contention that liwât is worse than zinâ.

Following this discussion, there is a paragraph on the number of witnesses required for a conviction in cases of liwât or ityân al-bahîma. Because Ibn Hazm does not regard these acts as forms of zinâ, he does not require the evidence of four witnesses, as in the case of zinâ, but only that of two. While on the one hand, then, the punish­ment for liwât as defined by Ibn Hazm is lighter than that for zinâ, a conviction for liwât would presumably be easier to bring about if it were up to him, since the testimony of only two witnesses is required. It is interesting that among the ones who state that no fewer than four witnesses should testify, Ibn Hazm mentions “some of us”, that is, some fellow-Zâhiris. This shows that there was no “party-discipline” within the Zâhirï school, and that Ibn Hazm held views which dif­fered from those of other literalists, including Dâwûd al-Isfahânî him­self. This is, of course, not all that surprising: we see it in other schools as well, even in those that did not as emphatically reject taqlîd as the Zâhirïs.^[37] Ibn Hazm refutes the Zahiris’ view in the same methodical way as he does the opinions of adherents to other madhahib, without sparing his colleagues.

It is only after these three paragraphs that Ibn Hazm addresses the issue of sihâq.

Homosexual acts between women

In this paragraph, as in the preceding ones, Ibn Hazm first gives the different views, the texts they are based upon, and a critique of the ones he disagrees with. One party, he begins, says that each of the two women involved in a homosexual relationship should be flogged with a hundred lashes. In support of this view, they adduce a report of Ibn Shihâb al-Zuhri,^[38] who says that the ^culama’ hold, with regard to the woman who performs rafa ^[39] and similar things with another woman, that both are to be flogged with a hundred lashes, the active {al-fffild) as well as the passive partner {al-mafül bi-hâ). The same statement is transmitted by ^cAbd al-Razzaq, who had it from Ma^cmar, who had it from al-Zuhrï.

Another group is more lenient. Thus al-Hasan al-Basn saw no harm in a woman inserting something into her vagina, if she does it in order to protect herself from the desire to commit zinâ. Al-Hasan ap­parently sees no need for any punishment. However, he seems to be talking about autoeroticism, which is also covered by the term sihâq.^[40] A last group says that sahq is forbidden {haram), but that the appropriate punishment is not hadd, but ta^czîr. Ibn Hazm subscribes to this view.

Ibn Hazm states that he examined what al-Zuhrï says, about the punishment for each of them being a hundred lashes, and found that there is no proof in it whatsoever, except if one says that just like ho­mosexuality between men is the gravest form of zinâ, and therefore punishable with the severest hadd for zinâ, thus by analogy sahq, which is the least serious form of zinâ, should be punished by the most lenient of the hudüd for zinâ, i.e., a hundred lashes.

According to Ibn Hazm, however, those who apply stoning for male homosexuality because they consider it graver than zinâ, must consider sahq, too, graver than zinâ, and apply stoning, for they are both cases of genital contact (bi ’l-farj) in a way that is never allowed. But most people are not proficient in qiyâs, and do not understand the processes of deduction; they do not follow through what they argue, nor do they reason with any consistency, and finally, they do not stick to the revealed texts. Don’t they say, “Al-Zuhrï knew the Compan­ions and the great Successors. He only says it on their authority”? Those who consider this act forbidden do not produce any further ar­guments; they just accept al-Zuhrï’s word, as they will do whenever his view corresponds with the opinion they have adopted.

As for us, says Ibn Hazm, we consider reasoning by analogy null and void. One must not follow the words of anyone except the Mes­senger of God. Now, neither sahq nor rafa constitute zinâ, and if they are not a form of zinâ, then the hadd for zinâ does not apply to them either. It is not for anyone to distinguish between more and less seri­ous acts, according to his personal opinion (ra ’y), and to classify the hudüd accordingly; this would amount to adding to the hudüd of God, and adding precepts to the religion, a thing that God has not permit­ted, as is clear from His words: “And whoso transgresseth God’s lim­its, he verily wrongeth his soul” (Q. 65:1).

Ibn Hazm repeats that not a single passage in the Koran contains the like of what al-Zuhrî states, and neither does any sound tradition. This being the case, there can be no hadd for sahq. If they cite the tradition which has the Prophet saying “Siháq is zinâ between two women”, this does not hold water, for it comes from Baqiyya, a weak transmitter who is in no way connected to Makhül, nor to Wathila—both of whom appear further down in the isnâd. Therefore, it is munqatr. And even if this tradition were sound, it still does not contain anything on the basis of which a hadd needs to be applied, for in a report transmitted by al-Aslamï, the Prophet defined zinâ incurring a hadd punishment as follows: an encounter in which a man illicitly obtains from a woman what he can lawfully obtain from his wife. Zinâ, then, is only ever bet­ween a man and a woman, and always involves a penis and a vagina.

The Prophet moreover said that the limbs commit zinâ, and that the genitals disprove or confirm it.^[41] This is of course a reference to ensu­ing pregnancy, which can obviously result only from contact between penis and vagina. Those who say that male homosexuals commit the gravest kind oîzinâ must accept this prophetic maxim; they themselves have no text at all that they can adduce as proof. And even if they were to find such a text, they would still be exceeding the boundaries and say improper things. All this, then, disposes of the matter.

Ibn Hazm then refers back to the view of al-Hasan, who allows a woman to insert an object into her vagina. He says: We consider it wrong, for God says “who guard their private parts (furüj)—save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, But whoso craveth beyond that, such are the transgressors” (Q. 23:5-7). This verse, of course, applies to men. But whereas they may have lawful intercourse with female slaves, a woman may not sleep with anyone except her husband, to whom it has been allowed in a revealed text. Her bashara ^[42] is off limits to anyone else. If she, now, gives a woman or a man who is not her hus­band access to her private parts, and does not guard them as required by the Koran, she allows what is forbidden and disobeys God. Other than al-Hasan, then, Ibn Hazm seems to be referring not to autoeroticism, but to a sexual encounter between two women.

In a tradition found in Muslim’s Sahih, the Prophet said: A man shall not look upon the ^cawra of another man, and a woman not upon those of another woman, and a man shall not join another man in one garment, and a woman shall not join another woman in one gar­ment. ^[43]

The Prophet forbade that a woman touch another woman who wears one garment only, for perhaps she will describe her to her hus­band and it will be as if he sees her.^[44] Also, the Prophet cursed men who imitate women, and women who imitate men.^[45]

According to Ibn Hazm, these texts are evidently about the prohibi­tion of a man touching a man, and a woman touching another woman, without distinction. Touching someone whom it is forbidden to touch is disobeying God, and it is equally forbidden in both cases, especially if it is the private parts that are being touched, for then it is a double sin. If a woman inserts something into her vagina other than what may law­fully be inserted there, i.e., her husband’s penis or something that stops the menstrual flow,^[46] she is not guarding her private parts, and if she does not guard her private parts, then her sin will be all the greater. This invalidates al-Hasan al-Basri’s view on the matter.

A woman who performs sahq with another woman sins, for she commits a munkar, and her behaviour should be corrected. Ibn Hazm refers to the same tradition that he cites in his discussion of homosex­ual acts between men: whoever sees a munkar being committed must “correct it with his hands”. Such a woman should be subjected by to a ta^czir punishment which, as we have seen, cannot exceed ten lashes, in Ibn Hazm^cs view. Whether or not musâhaqât should be impris­oned, like their male counterparts, is not clear.

The discussion of sahq is followed, or rather interrupted, by a paragraph on masturbation. According to Ibn Hazm, it is allowed {mubdh) for men and women alike, since there is no explicit prohibi­tion of it in either the Koran or the Surma. In fact, there are quite a few âthâr condoning it. Ibn Hazm quotes them, although he person­ally considers it reprehensible and a moral flaw.

The paragraph on sahq closes with the issue of damages to be paid by a woman who deflowers another woman with her finger. Ibn Hazm first explains the various existing opinions, along with the texts adduced in support of them. He states that no one demands the hadd punishment for this, but some argue that the woman who has caused the damage should pay saddq, a term which usually refers to the dower which becomes a woman’s due upon consummation of her marriage. Others believe that both women should be given an exem­plary penalty. Ibn Hazm, who has found no revealed text justifying either of these actions—least of all payment of the saddq, which is re­served for women entering into marriage—states that the appropriate punishment is ta^czir, since a munkar has been committed.

Conclusions

Ibn Hazm states in no uncertain terms that homosexual acts be­tween men constitute a sin, since they are expressly condemned in the Koran and the Sunna. However, his rejection of qiyds prevents him from assimilating liwat to zind: illicit sex between a man and a woman. The punishment prescribed by him is therefore not that which is incurred by zind, viz. stoning or intensive flogging, but a milder one consisting of a maximum of ten lashes and imprisonment with the aim of bringing about the reformation of the sinner. Ibn Hazm rejects those reports and traditions which proclaim that ffl qawm Lilt is worse than zind, including certain traditions from the ca­nonical collections.

In the same way that male homosexuality is not assimilated to il­licit heterosexual contacts, so homosexual acts between women {sahq, sihdq) cannot be compared to them, nor can they be compared to male homosexuality. Nevertheless, sahq, like liwat, incurs a ta^czir punishment of up to ten lashes. Whether women, too, will have to serve a term in prison, like the men, is not clear.

It is interesting to compare Ibn Hazm’s views with those of his friend and colleague, Ibn ^cAbd al-Barr. This man, who was one of the leading Maliki jurists of his time, subscribes to the view that both partners in homosexual acts should be stoned. Ibn ^cAbd al-Barr bases his views on a number of traditions that are rejected by Ibn Hazm as unreliable. Ibn Hazm, then, is more lenient than his Maliki peer. But although it is tempting to see this attitude as evidence of a more “lib­eral” attitude towards homosexuality on the part of Ibn Hazm—who, it should be recalled, is believed by some modem authors to have had homosexual leanings himself—it is more likely that his views are the outcome of his Zâhirï methodology.

While this one case is not, of course, enough in itself to prove that Ibn Hazm’s different approach to the revealed sources led him to con­clusions which differed dramatically from those of the Malikis, the evidence does seem to point in that direction. This impression is con­firmed by two earlier case-studies, in which I found that Ibn Hazm’s views with regard to the mobility of women and the position of non-Muslims differed considerably from those of his Maliki environ­ment. ^[47] It may be assumed, then, that Ibn Hazm’s teachings consti­tuted a serious challenge, even if perhaps not an immediate threat, to the Maliki establishment of al-Andalus.

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the views of the teologian and legal scholar Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (d. 456/1064) on homosexuality. Although reference is made to his literary work Tawq al-hamama, which is rich in anecdotes on homoerotic attraction, the article focuses on Ibn Hazm’s multivolume legal tract Kitab al-Muhalla, a work written from a Zâhirï, or literalist perspective. A step-by-step analysis of Ibn Hazm’s legal reasoning on homosexuality, both male (liwâf) and female (sihâq) is provided, and comparisons with the views of other jurist, especially Malikis, are made.

Unlike his Maliki contemporaries, Ibn Hazm holds that homosexuality is not to be equated with fornication (zina), which incurs the death penalty. Instead, he advocates a relatively mild punishment of up to ten lashes for homosexual

practices, based upon his idiosyncratic interpretation of the revealed sources which is illustrated here. Although Ibn Hazm is believed by some modem authors to have had homosexual leanings himself, he categorically condemns sexual contacts between members of the same sex as immoral and sinful, and believes that homosexuals should be reformed.

RESUMEN

Este artículo discute las opiniones de Ibn Hazm de Córdoba (m. 456/1064) jurista y teólogo, acerca de la homosexualidad. Aunque se hace referencia a su obra literaria Tawq al-hamáma, rica en anécdotas sobre atracción homoerótica, el artículo se centra en su voluminosa obra legal zahirí Kitâb al-Muhallâ y analiza el razonamiento legal de Ibn Hazm sobre la homosexualidad tanto masculina (liwaf) como femenina (sihaq) comparándola con la de otros juristas, en particular, malikíes.

A diferencia de sus contemporáneos malikíes, Ibn Hazm mantiene que la homosexualidad no debe equipararse a la fornicación (zina) que incurre en la pena de muerte. Por el contrario, aboga por el relativamente suave castigo de diez latigazos por prácticas homosexuales, basado en su interpretación de las fuentes reveladas tal y como se expone en este artículo.

Aunque algunos autores modernos han insinuado que el propio Ibn Hazm era homosexual, él condena categóricamente las relaciones entre miembros de un mismo sexo y mantiene que los homosexuales deben reformarse.

---

^[11]  See Juynboll, “Sihâk”, pp. 565f.

^[12] For a series of negative traditions about homosexual acts, both between men and between women, see Ibn al-Jawzî, Dhamm al-hawâ (ed. Mustafa ‘Abd al-Wâhid. Cairo, 1381/1962), 197-209. Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Sâlim al-Safârïnî’s QaP al-siyâtfiqam^e ahl al-liwât (ed. Râshid b. ^cAmir al-Ghufaylï. Riyad, 1412) exclusively contains tradi­tions concerning liwât. I have not seen Abü Bakr Muhammad b. al-Husayn al-Ajurn’s Dhamm al-liwât.

^[13] Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Jâmf al-Sahïh (ed. Ibrâhîm ^cAtwah 'Awad, 5 vols. Cairo, 1382/1962), Hudüd, no. 1457. See Wensinck, A.J., A Handbook of early Muhammedan Tradition, alphabetically arranged, Leiden, 1961 (repr.), s.v. “Punishment”, p. 200, for further references.

^[14] On the hudüd, see El-Awa, M.S., Punishment in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study. Indianapolis, 1993, Chapters I and II. El-Awa often refers to Ibn Hazm’s opinions.

^[15] On the etymology of the term, which literally means “rubbing” or “grinding”, see Juynboll, “Sihâk”, 565. Juynboll mentions that although strictly speaking it refers to a sexual act, the term is commonly used to indicate lesbianism, which is a propensity. Rowson consistently uses the terms “tribadism” and “tribade” rather than “lesbianism” or

^[16] Q. 5:3 (“This day I have perfected your religion for you”) proves, according to Ibn Hazm, that ijmâ⁽ is limited to the contemporaries of the Prophet, for it was in his day that religion was perfected. The agreement of later generations is of no account.

^[17]  Ibn Hazm’s ideas about Usül al-fiqh are expounded in great detail in his Al-Ihkam fl usül al-ahkâm (Cairo, 2 vols., n.d.), and summarized in his Al-Nubdha al-kâfliya fl usül ahkâm al-dïn (ed. Abu Mus^cab Muhammad Sa^cîd al-Badri. Cairo, Beirut, 1412/1991). See also the opening remarks in his Muhallâ, and his tract Ibtâl al-qiyas wa’l-ra’y wa’l-istihsân wa’l-taqlïd wa’l-ta^clïl (ed. S. al-Afghani. Damascus, 1960; Beirut, 1969).

^[18] Al-Muhallâ, ed. Shakir, vol. XI, pp. 380-394 (masa’il 2299-2303); ed. al-Bundârï, XII, pp. 388-410 (mastfil 2303-2307).

^[19]  Masâ ’il al-ta^czîr wa-mâ la hadda fl-hi.

^[20]  Note the negative attitude towards the passive partner (al-mafûl bi-hi', al-manküh; al-asfal), who has made himself available for penetration by another man. He will be sen­tenced to death regardless of his marital status, unlike the/<fz7 (also referred to as al-a‘la or al-nakih). According to Rowson, the active partner is perceived as someone whose manhood is not impaired by the fact that he has intercourse with another man, whereas the passive partner he who allows himself to be dominated and penetrated, is stigmatized; see “Categorization of Gender”, passim.

^[21]  The report reached Ibn Hazm via ^cAbd Allah b. RabF - Ibn Mufarrij - Qâsim b. Asbagh - Ibn Waddâh - Sahnün - Ibn Wahb - Ibn Sam'ân - a man.

^[22]  The isnâd is as follows: Ibn Habib - Mutarrif b. ^cAbd Allah b. ^cAbd al-'Aziz b. Abi Hâzim - Muhammad b. al-Munkadir and Mûsâ b. TJqba and Safwân b. Sulaym.

^[23]  Khalid b. ^cAbd Allah al-Qasri, governor of Iraq and transmitter of traditions, d. ca.

120/738.                                       '

^[24]  Isnâd: IsmâTl b. Dulaym al-Hadramî - Muhammad b. Ahmad b. al-Khallâs - Muhammad b. al-Qâsim b. Sha'bân - Muhammad b. Ismâ'il b. Aslam - Muhammad b. Dâwûd b. Abï Nâjiya - Yahyâ b. Bukayr - ^cAbd al-^cAzïz b. Abï Hâzim - Dâwüd b. Abï Bakr - Muhammad b. al-Munkadir - Mûsâ b. TJqba - Safwân b. Sulaym. In this account, the nickname of the hapless victim is given as al-fajjât, which means a woman who is wide between the thighs, the knees, or the shanks; cf. Lane, E. W., An English-Arabic Lexicon (8 vols., London, 1863-1893), VI, 2343. In this case the translation “wide be­tween the buttocks” seems more appropriate.

^[25]  He had it from Muhammad b. Ahmad b. al-Khallâs - Muhammad b. al-Qâsim b. Shahan - Ahmad b. Salama b. al-Dahhâk - IsmâTl b. Mahmûd b. Nu^caym - Mu'âdh - ^cAbd al-Rahmân - Hassan b. Matar - Yazid b. Maslama - Abfl Nadra - Ibn ^cAbbâs.

^[26]  Isnâd: Ibn Hazm - Muhammad b. Sa^cïd b. Nabât - ^cAbd Allâh b. Nasr - Qâsim b. Asbagh - Ibn Waddâh - Mûsâ b. Mu'âwiya - WakL - Ibn Abï Laylâ - al-Qâsim b. al-Walïd al-Mihrânï - Yazîd b. Qays.

^[27] Isnâd'. Ibn Hazm - Humani - Ibn Mufarrij - Ibn al-A^crâbï - al-Dabarï - ‘Abd al-Razzâq - Ibn Jurayj - ^cAbd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. al-Khathim - Mujahid and Said b. al-Jubayr - Ibn ‘Abbas.

^[28]  This tradition is also quoted by Ibn AbïT-Dunyâ, Dhamm al-malâhî(in J. Robson, Tracts on Listening to Music, being Dhamm al-malâhî by Ibn Abî’l-Dunyâ and Bawâriq al-ilmâ‘ by Majd al-Dïn al-Tüsï al-Ghazâlï. London, 1938), 38, 60. Ibn Abî’l-Dunyâ gives the following explanation of the tradition: “He means that if it were possible for one who had been stoned to come to life after his being killed with the stones, he would be the sodomite. If he were stoned and killed by stoning, then came to life, he would de­serve to be stoned another time until he was killed. That is, his sin is too great for one stoning to be enough; contrary to the fornicator (al-zânî), for, as punishment and purifica­tion, stoning once is enough for him, while that is not enough for the sodomite”.

^[29]  The full isnâd is Ibn Hazm - Ahmad b. Ismâ'îl b. Dulaym - Muhammad b. Ahmad b. al-Khallâs - Muhammad b. al-Qâsim b. Sha’ban - Ahmad b. Salama and al-Dahhâk - Ismâ'îl b. Muhammad b. Nu‘aym - Mu‘âdh b. al-Harath - ‘Abd al-Rahmân b. Qays al-Dabbî - al-Yamânî b. al-Mughîra - ‘Atâ’ b. Abî Rabâh.

^[30]  Isnad: Ibn Hazm - Muhammad b. Sa'îd b. Nabât - ^cAbd Allah b. Nasr - Qâsim b. Asbagh - Ibn Waddâh - Mûsâ b. Mu^cawiya - WakF - Sufyan al-Thawri - Mansur b. al-Mu^ctamir and Abü Ishâq al-Shaybânï - al-Hakam b. TJtayba.

^[31]  The Muhallà contains many such tantalizing references to his fellow-Zâhirîs (this is what I take the term asliâbnâ to mean). It would make our task of reconstructing the history of Zâhirism a lot easier if we knew who these men were. It should be emphasized that a reference to the view of Dâwüd or other Zâhirïs does not in all cases imply that Ibn Hazm shares this view, as will be seen below. For further examples, see my article “Ikhtilâf and the Zâhirï school, with special reference to purity laws”, forthcoming in Je­rusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam.

^[32]  See Ibn Abî Zayd al-Qayrawânî, La Risâla ou Epître sur les éléments du dogme et de la loi de l’Islam selon le rite mâlikite. Texte arabe et traduction française - par L. Bercher. Algiers, 1968, 254f.; Ibn ^cAbd al-Barr, Al-Istidhkâr, XXIV, 79, 84.

^[33]  For biographical details of al-Hakam and a list of the eminent people on whose au­thority he transmitted (e.g., Shurayh, Ibn Abî Laylâ, al-NakhaT, Sa^cïd b. Jubayr, Tkrima, Mujâhid, ^cAtâ’ b. Abî Rabâh) see al-Dhahabî, Siyar a^clâm al-nubala (ed. Shu^cayb al-Arna’ùt and Husayn al-Asad a.o., 25 vols. Beirut, 1981-1988), V, 208-213.

^[34]  In her article “Imprisonment in Pre-Classical and Classical Islamic Law ” (Islamic Law and Society 2 (1995), 157-173 at p. 171), Irene Schneider quotes a passage from the Muhallâ about the injustice of locking up a debtor, and then states: “Ibn Hazm criticizes imprisonment for debt because it delays satisfaction of a creditor’s claims. Generally, he emphasizes that no Muslim should be prevented from moving freely on earth unless the Qur’an and sunna impose such a contraint” (sic). The case we are dealing with here obvi­ously meets that criterion.

^[35]  Al-Bukhârï, Sahïh al-Bukhârï (ed. L. Krehl and Th. W. Juynboll, 4 vols. Leiden, 1862-1908), Libas, no. 61, and Abu Dâwûd, Sunan Abî Dâwüd (ed. Muhammad ^cAbd al-^cAzîz al-Khâlidî, 3 vols. Beirut, 1416/1996), Adab, no. 4928. In fact, the text says: “and the Prophet removed so-and-so, and TJmar removed so-and-so”. On the mukhannathün, see Rowson, E.K.,"The Effeminates of Early Medina”, JAOS 111 (1991), 671-693. The way in which Ibn Hazm uses the terms mukhannathün and mutarajjilâi seems to imply that these people not only adopt the attire of the opposite sex, but their sexual behaviour as well. He apparently sees a link between physical appearance and sexual preference or behaviour, although Rowson has shown that the mukhannathün were often heterosexual.

^[36]  People should help each other do the right thing and abstain from the wrong thing. Imprisonment is seen by Ibn Hazm as the solution. It is clear that he takes the injunction to practice al-amr bi ’l-ma^crüf wa ’l-nahy ^can al-munkar very seriously.

^[37]  See also n. 45 above.

^[38]  The full isnâd runs as follows: Ibn Hazm - Humâm - Ibn Mufarrij - Ibn al-A^crâbî - al-Dabarî - ^cAbd al-Razzâq - Ibn Jurayj - Ibn Shihâb al-Zuhri.

^[39]  For an explanation of this technical term, see the footnote in al-Bundâri’s edition, XII, 403. It apparently refers to women whose pubic area protrudes to such an extent that something resembling intercourse can be achieved. Al-Bundâri adds that sex between women is practiced only in totally decadent societies, or in places where no men are pres­ent, e.g. in women’s prisons. In depraved countries and cities such as London, he com­plains, same-sex marriages have the same legal status as heterosexual ones!

^[40]  See Juynboll, “Sihak,” p. 566.

^[41]  Cf. Abû Dâwûd, Sunan, Nikâh, no. 2153.

^[42] Bashara literally means skin, but is used here as pars pro toto for the whole body, and in particular the genital area.

^[43]  Sahih Muslim (ed. Muhammad Fu’âd ^cAbd al-Bâqï, 5 vols. Cairo, 1374/1955), Hayd, no. 74. Siddiqi {Sahih Muslim, rendered into English by ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, 4 vols. Lahore, 1976) translates: “under one cover”.

^[44]  Cf. Abû Dâwüd, Sunan, Nikâh, no. 2150.

^[45]  See n. 49.                                '

^[46]  This remark shows that already in 5^th/11^th century al-Andalus, women apparently used something similar to tampons.

^[47]  See my Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. Leiden, etc., 1996, 254f.; and “Women’s Access to Public Space according to al-Muhallâ bi-l-àthâf \ in Marín, M. and Deguilhem, R. (eds.), Writing the Feminine: Women in Arab Sources. London, New York, 2002, 75-94.