Read Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 Online
Authors: Khaled El-Rouayheb
Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 (65 page)
The Ḥanbali
and Ima
mi
Shi
ʿi
jurists thus assimilated the case of saying love poetry of a boy to that of saying love poetry of a specified woman who was not a wife or concubine. Both cases were deemed impermissible, since they involved portraying a passionate love for what is not available for licit sexual intercourse. Of course, the position involved a “realist” or “deflationary” reduction of passionate love to lust. In retort, it was possible to claim, as did ʿAbd al-Ghani
al-Na
bulusi
, that there was nothing reprehensible in loving a boy chastely. In his
Gha
yat al-maṭlu
b,
Na
bulusi
mentioned the permissibility of pederastic love poetry in the context of defending the chaste love of boys, and devoted a chapter of the work to mentioning respectable scholars and saints who fell in love with women or boys and expressed their amorous feelings in verse.
152
Most jurists who argued for the permissibility of pederastic love poetry, however, chose to defend their opinion on other grounds, despite the fact that many of them were committed to the idea that the involuntary love of a boy did not involve a transgression of religious precepts. Instead, they rejected the opinion that pederastic love poetry was prohibited by appealing to the belief that poets need not be referring to real-life boys or to genuine emotions. The proffered justification gave a particular twist to their position. A statement such as “saying love poetry of an unspecified boy is permissible” could be interpreted to mean that it is permissible to say love poetry of a real boy as long as his identity is not revealed. However, the suggested interpretation seems to be ruled out when the permission is grounded on the belief that poetry is usually fictional. Most jurists, while resisting a position which would make much of the poetry of the age illicit, were apparently not willing to fully endorse the view that there was nothing wrong with feasting one’s eyes on a handsome beardless boy, or the view that passionate love was entirely different from plain lust.
and ImamiShiʿijurists thus assimilated the case of saying love poetry of a boy to that of saying love poetry of a specified woman who was not a wife or concubine. Both cases were deemed impermissible, since they involved portraying a passionate love for what is not available for licit sexual intercourse. Of course, the position involved a “realist” or “deflationary” reduction of passionate love to lust. In retort, it was possible to claim, as did ʿAbd al-Ghanial-Nabulusi, that there was nothing reprehensible in loving a boy chastely. In hisGha
yat al-maṭlub,Na
bulusimentioned the permissibility of pederastic love poetry in the context of defending the chaste love of boys, and devoted a chapter of the work to mentioning respectable scholars and saints who fell in love with women or boys and expressed their amorous feelings in verse.152
Most jurists who argued for the permissibility of pederastic love poetry, however, chose to defend their opinion on other grounds, despite the fact that many of them were committed to the idea that the involuntary love of a boy did not involve a transgression of religious precepts. Instead, they rejected the opinion that pederastic love poetry was prohibited by appealing to the belief that poets need not be referring to real-life boys or to genuine emotions. The proffered justification gave a particular twist to their position. A statement such as “saying love poetry of an unspecified boy is permissible” could be interpreted to mean that it is permissible to say love poetry of a real boy as long as his identity is not revealed. However, the suggested interpretation seems to be ruled out when the permission is grounded on the belief that poetry is usually fictional. Most jurists, while resisting a position which would make much of the poetry of the age illicit, were apparently not willing to fully endorse the view that there was nothing wrong with feasting one’s eyes on a handsome beardless boy, or the view that passionate love was entirely different from plain lust.
The position of mainstream Ḥanafi
and Sha
fiʿi
jurists thus seems to have been that saying pederastic love poetry is permissible if it is a display of poetic skills, rather than an expression of genuine amorous inclinations for a particular boy. This position may have been much closer to the position of Ḥanbali
and Ima
mi
Shi
ʿi
jurists than is apparent at first sight. The latter’s stated principle that saying love poetry of a boy is forbidden “whether the boy’s identity is specified or not” need not have been incompatible with the position that only love poetry of a real boy is prohibited, whereas love poetry which portrays a fictitious love for an imaginary boy is not. There is reason to believe that some Ḥanbali
jurists understood their school’s position in that way. For example, Marʿi
ibn Yu
suf al-Karmi
(d. 1624) composed the following lines, in which the gender of the portrayed beloved is revealed by the reference to beard-down (
ʿidha
r
):
and Shafiʿijurists thus seems to have been that saying pederastic love poetry is permissible if it is a display of poetic skills, rather than an expression of genuine amorous inclinations for a particular boy. This position may have been much closer to the position of Ḥanbaliand ImamiShiʿijurists than is apparent at first sight. The latter’s stated principle that saying love poetry of a boy is forbidden “whether the boy’s identity is specified or not” need not have been incompatible with the position that only love poetry of a real boy is prohibited, whereas love poetry which portrays a fictitious love for an imaginary boy is not. There is reason to believe that some Ḥanbalijurists understood their school’s position in that way. For example, Marʿiibn Yusuf al-Karmi(d. 1624) composed the following lines, in which the gender of the portrayed beloved is revealed by the reference to beard-down (ʿidha
r):
By my soul! He with whom I have so many pending banquets, and for the love of whom I have so many a censurer and critic!On his cheeks there are two roses, and his beauty-spot is like musk of charming description, and the mouth is smiling.His locks of hair are as night, and the appearance of his face as day revealed to beaming hearts.So worthy of praise! On his cheek flows beard-down (
ʿidhāran
) to which my chaste (
ʿudhrīIt is surprising that I’ve managed to keep his friendship, which to me is necessary in love,When there is an abyss between me and a lovers’ union (
wiṣa
)
,
and separation from him is my constant companion.
153
Other books
Chances Are by Michael Kaplan
Blood and Snow 8: Telltale Kisses by Workman, RaShelle
Crystal Coffin by Anita Bell
Deadly Chaos by Annette Brownlee
Dangerously Broken by Eden Bradley
The Divorce Club by Jayde Scott
Just His Taste by Candice Gilmer
Lovers and Liars by Josephine Cox
Lucas Ryan Versus: The Return by Madison Daniel
Mrs. Lincoln's Rival by Jennifer Chiaverini