The Qur'ân, and thus Islam, was never homophobic and is not homophobic.
But many Muslims continue to be so.

Anyone who looks into the question of whether homosexuality is permissible in Islam quickly learns that many Muslims view it as forbidden, sometimes in such a way as to equate Islam with a homophobic attitude, so that homosexuals are even declared to be non-Muslims.

Why resort to artificial intelligence?

ChatGPT rated itself well on topics such as history and science, i.e., areas it is questioned about in the following text. The answers to questions posed to ChatGPT are shown shifted to the right.

The following essay offers many examples and suggestions for exploring the topic of "homosexuality in Islam." 

Many proponents of traditional views do not question the history and origins of their opinions. They even believe that an opinion held for many centuries must be "correct"; they do not even examine the origins of their position. The focus of their ideas is not the words of the Quran, but the views of scholars and people in the past.

The structure of this website:

The treatise on “Homosexuality in Islam”

What is Islam?

Islam, and thus Islamic teachings, as understood here, are based exclusively on the Arabic text of the Qur'ân and authentic Hadiths. Anything beyond that is more like Muslimness, i.e., ideas, assumptions, and beliefs that Muslims often hold.

Therefore: Islam is more than the sum of all “Muslimnesses”, far more.

When someone says that he/she is a Muslim, this is often associated with belonging to a particular maḏhab (school of law, fiqh system) or a particular, historically developed group.

However, this should never lead to the statements of such a group being accepted without thinking as indisputable dogma. For they are all the result of people who lived under certain influences and schools of thought, perhaps without the possibility of verifying the conditions underlying their decisions.

Their statements, opinions, legal opinions, etc. must be examined against the Qur'ânic text and the facts known today before they are accepted.

Humans are creatures of Allah and live in the world He created; through research they gain an ever more accurate, more realistic picture of it, be it the natural sciences, history, etc.

Qur'ân and Qur'ân commentaries

When we want to comment on the Qur'ân, we should consider the following:

Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 45 – 47, wrote:
"The important principle to be borne in mind interpretion the Holy Qur'an is that the meaning should be sought within the Qur'ân, and never should a passage be interpreted in such a manner that it may be at variance with any other passage. [...] In this connection, I have only to add that ḥadîṯ also affords an explanation of the Holy Qur'ân; but a ḥadîṯ can only be accepted when it is reliable and not opposed to what is plainly stated in the Qur'ân."

If we use sources and arguments besides the Qur'ân, their statements should be based on verifiable facts. And we should only use them once we are convinced of their validity. Anything else would mean not taking the Qur'ân seriously as the word of Allah.

As a convinced Muslim, I simply do not believe that Allah, in His revelation, is referring to such fantasy stories as those that appear in the Sodom myth and are of dubious origin.

What is homosexuality?

The same statement in the words of a Muslim:

Allah, in His wisdom and mercy, created everything in existence. He created homosexual beings in the past, and He continues to create them. Homosexuality is thus a phenomenon inherent in creation, intended by Allah. The Qur'ân contains neither prohibition nor condemnation of this lifestyle.

Homosexuals do not harm anybody because of their sexual orientation.

Is homosexuality a disease?

The facts created by Allah also include scientific research findings, e.g.
"In 1990, the WHO removed homosexuality from its list of diseases – four decades after a psychologist had demonstrated how wrong such a 'diagnosis' was." ('Der Tagesspiegel', May 17, 2023).

Subsequently, so-called "conversion," "reorientation," and "reparative therapies" were banned in many places due to their harmfulness.

What is the percentage of gay people in a population?

What do we know about the inhabitants of Sodom?

The traditional interpretation of the story of Lot and his people in the Qur'ân is based solely on fabricated narratives devoid of any historical value.There is no reliable historical evidence about Lot's people, where they lived, how they lived, or what their sexual preferences were, as is apparent in the so-called Sodom myth.

Historical evidence of homosexuality among the inhabitants of Sodom?

Ancient, pre-Qur'ânic sources on the subject

The oldest texts about Lot and his people are found in the Old Testament. The Hebrew text of Genesis 19:5 reads:
וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל־לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה? הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם.
Literal translation: "And they called Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."

The idea that the people of Lot's city directed homosexual desires toward Lot's visitors/guests has proven to be a highly imaginative but incorrect interpretation of a single word in a single verse in Genesis (Genesis 19:5, = Gen. xix. 5, see Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Christian Tradition, 1955, pages 1-8). Bailey (1910-1984) was an Anglican theologian with convincing and clear linguistic and contextual arguments. He also notes that all references to Lot's city in the other books of the Old Testament never mention any sexual misconduct by the people of Lot's city.

The English-language Wikipedia states, among other things, about Bailey:
"[...] Recognized as the Church's leading expert on sexual ethics, ... Bailey's writings helped the Church of England respond to the theological question of homosexuality, to homosexuals themselves, and to the laws of England. This period, from 1954 to 1955, on the Moral Welfare Council provided important conceptual guidance for later discussions on homosexuality, not only in the Church of England, but throughout Christianity."

About ths verse Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, S. 2, says:
"The verse that has often been understood as a reference to homosexuality is Genesis 19:5:
5 They called to Lot and said, 'Where are the men who came to you this evening? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.'"

Derrick Sherwin Bailey, in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, further states:
"The conventional understanding of the sin of Sodom [...] stems from the fact that the word translated here as 'to know' (yâdha') can mean 'to have sexual intercourse.' Is that what is meant in this passage?"

He answers this question as follows:
"The [Hebrew] verb yâdha' occurs very frequently in the Old Testament [in the footnote: According to F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1952), 943 times], but with the exception of this text and its undoubted derivation in Judges 19:22, it is used only ten times (without qualification) to denote sexual intercourse [in the footnote: Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Judges 11:39; 19:25; 1 Samuel 1:19; 1 Kings 1:4]. In connection with mishkâbh, which in this context denotes the act of lying down, yâdha' occurs in five other places [in the footnote: 4 Genesis 31:17, 18, 35; Judges 21:11 [...], 12 [...] ]. On the other hand, shâkhabh (from which mishkâbh comes) is found about fifty times with the meaning 'to lie' in the sexual sense. While yâdha' always refers to heterosexual intercourse (if one initially disregards the controversial passages Genesis 19:5 and Judges 19:22), shâkhabh is also used for both homosexual intercourse and that with animals, in addition to that between a man and a woman.
Thus, yâdha' is only occasionally used in a sexual sense [...].
Linguistic considerations alone therefore support [... the view] that it can mean nothing more than 'to know'. Why, then, was an apparently reasonable demand put forward in such a vehement manner? What kind of wickedness was it that Lot anticipated and from which he wanted to dissuade the Sodomites? [...] Our ignorance of local circumstances and social conditions leaves us no other option than to guess at the motives underlying the Sodomites' behavior; but since yâdha' mostly means 'to know', the demand to 'recognize' the visitors Lot entertained may well have involved a serious breach of the rules of hospitality. [...]"

On the origin of the Torah:

The Hebrew text of Genesis 19:5

The Sodom Myth
Is there a Sodom myth?

What is a myth?

A myth is therefore understood here as something like a fable, fantasy story, legend, fairy tale, saga or tradition without verifiable background, but not a fact, not an actual historical event.

And the Sodom myth is therefore understood here to refer to the assumption, common among Christians and Muslims, that Lot lived among a people whose men were consistently homosexual—an assumption that is absurd considering evolution and biology. This situation could therefore only have arisen through a "miracle," a term not known in the Qur'an. And a "miracle" could only have been caused by Allah, and thus the men would not be responsible for their behavior.
However, before we hastily interpret a passage in the Qur'ân as describing a "miracle" in the sense of something supernatural, something outside of natural laws and natural processes, we should first realize that the Qur'ân makes a clear statement about Allah's work in His creation. It states in (35:43), among other things:

فَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا
“And you will not find any change in Allah’s way (Arabic: fî sunnati`llâhi), nor will you find any change in Allah’s way.”

Likewise (30:30):

فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا ۚ فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا ۚ لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
So turn your face toward religion sincerely, as a follower of the right faith, according to the nature of Allah with which He created mankind. There is no change in Allah's creation. This is the right religion. But most people do not know.

Other similar passages in the Qur'ân are: (17:77), (33:38), (33:62), (40:85) and (48:23).

The oldest known cases of homosexual lifestyle

How is it possible that—as Sodom myth proponents assume—the male part of the population was homosexual? As far as we know, homosexuality is not an illness. The answer to this question is particularly difficult for Muslims who follow the traditional interpretation: based on their understanding of the Qur'ân, they often assume that homosexuality did not exist before Lot. Yet there is historical evidence, texts, about people before Lot who had homosexual relationships with each other (Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, keyword "Egypt, Ancient"). In other words: Against the background of historical evidence, this revelation from Allah also speaks against a sexual interpretation.

How could homosexuality have originated in Sodom? Through altered hereditary traits in an individual, perhaps even a dominant one? Even then, it would take countless generations for it to become established, especially since homosexual men prefer other men as sexual partners, so that the transmission of this trait would be very rare. And where did the women mentioned in the Qur'ân come from? And how could the population fill a city—it should have gradually died out? And homosexuality would also have ended with the destruction of that city.

Since there is no single gene for homosexuality or for any particular sexual orientation, there is also no gene for heterosexuality or any other sexual disposition.

There is no scientific knowledge about the location or remains of the city of Sodom. The Archäo­logisches Bibel-Lexikon of 1991, ed. Avraham Negev, p. 412, states
"Attempts to locate Sodom have so far been unsuccessful. It was suspected to be at the southern or northern end of the Dead Sea and even on its soil. The name "Sodom" has been preserved in the Arabic Gebel Usdum, a salt mountain ridge near the southwest shore of the Dead Sea."

In other words, we do not know anything about the city, and since even its location is unknown, there are no written records or other finds that could shed light on its social life. What is later recounted about it and its inhabitants is nothing but mere speculation, a haphazard figment of the imagination.

There is no historically reliable evidence about Lot and his people, what happened in their city, and what his people actually did. There is only one mention in the Old Testament of the Bible, where a single word in one of the books of Moses led to a widespread misinterpretation (the source of certain mawâlî (موالي) traditions).

Religious prohibitions on homosexuality?

The Old Testament

There are two passages in the Old Testament: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, which are often understood as prohibiting homosexual behavior.
Leviticus 18:22 :
וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תוֹעֵבָה הִוא
And if a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them shall die; their blood shall be on them.
Leviticus 20:13:
וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם
And if a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them shall die; their blood shall be upon them

It certainly matters who reads these verses. Someone with a certain homophobic background will be convinced that they prohibit homosexual intercourse and won't give the wording any further thought.

In both passages – as I understand them based on the translation – it speaks of a man who lies with a man as if he were with a woman. In other words, the wording here can hardly refer to a homosexual.

The New Testament

In the 4 (canonical) Gospels, Jesus did not comment on homosexuality and only recognizes the sin of Sodom as the disregard of hospitality (Matthew 10:11-15, Matthew 11:23-24, Luke 10:10-12).

This finding suggests that the Sodom myth, as well as the connection between homophobia and religion, was not widespread at the time the Gospels were written, nor was it part of the teachings of Jesus, but rather originated from other religious movements that then found their way to the Muslims via the mawâlî and also into other writings of the New Testament, at least not to those on whose environment the texts of the Gospels are based.

Under the heading 'hospitality,' Reclams Bibellexikon, page 154 f., states the following about the importance of hospitality in the Old Testament period:
"[...] In ancient times, the traveler was often dependent on hospitality, which offered him free accommodation and food. Refusing it was considered a disgrace [...], and violating it a crime [...]."

Summary
Relying on the usual interpretation of Lot and his people in the Qur'ân also makes no sense, because this alleged homosexuality is not historically verifiable; it never existed.

What does exist, however, are invented stories passed down from generation to generation, which were later arbitrarily intertwined with the Qur'ânic text. These are untrue stories, lies. And the fact that they have been repeated for centuries does not make them the truth.
These stories originated many centuries after Lot because of a single misunderstood word in one of the books of Moses in the Old Testament.

And it was only in Christian patristic theology, from approximately 100 AD to 750 AD, that it became clearly evident in the Sodom myth. Since the time of the final editing of the Torah was probably the Babylonian exile or shortly thereafter (6th–5th centuries BC), there was – as far as we know – no Sodom myth for about 6–7 centuries.

The statement of the Qur'ân

First of all: There is no verse in the Qur'an, nor is there any (literally) authentic ḥadith (ḥadith ṣaḥîḥ – حديث صحيح) that condemns homosexuals or prohibits their lifestyle.

Permissible (ḥalâl) and Forbidden (ḥarâm) in the Qur'an

The Qur'ân also prohibits declaring something permissible (ḥalâl) or forbidden (ḥarâm) out of sheer arbitrariness (16:116):

وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هَٰذَا حَلَالٌ وَهَٰذَا حَرَامٌ لِتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْتَرُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ لَا يُفْلِحُونَ
"And do not say of what your tongues declare to be a lie, 'This is lawful (ḥalâl) and this is forbidden (ḥarâm),' in order to invent a lie against Allah. Indeed, those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed."

The passages about Lot and his people

First, a brief summary of the Qur'ânic report:
Lot and his men were granted hospitality as strangers in the city, allowing him to live there in protection but under restrictive conditions. However, when he welcomed other strangers as guests, a scandal erupted.
Under the heading 'hospitality', Reclams Bibellexikon, page 154 f., states the following about the importance of hospitality in the time of the Old Testament:

"[...] In ancient times, the traveler was often dependent on hospitality, which offered him free accommodation and food. To refuse it was considered a disgrace [...], to violate it a crime [...]."

The city's inhabitants apparently form a community that cannot tolerate opposition to certain aspects of their way of life, so the only option left for Lot and his followers to live together in one house if they wish to stay away from it. To maintain their particular social and/or cultic status, the people accuse Lot of lying.
Lot's actions reveal the population's intolerance and lead to people inciting each other to expel him from the city. Initially, no one wants to take responsibility, as the reason is apparently insufficient to warrant such a measure. However, he is forbidden any further activity under threat of expulsion – presumably so as not to be without formal recourse against him in the future. Furthermore, he is not allowed to have any contact with outsiders. This is obviously intended to prevent him from seeking support and protection outside the city.
As a result of these measures, every stranger who approaches him, or even comes to him as a guest, becomes suspect. This situation requires Lot to exercise extreme caution and prudence in his dealings with strangers, for every visitor could make his situation untenable.
He finds himself in a seemingly hopeless situation: If he quietly complies with the city's instructions, he will fail in his duty as God's messenger to call people to the right path. If, on the other hand, he continues his work openly, he endangers his safety and that of his followers; and if he is expelled as a result, he will also no longer be able to fulfill his duty among these people.

Under these difficult circumstances, the messengers come to him. He cannot and will not deny them the right of hospitality to which they are entitled, and Lot, in turn, grants his visitors the right of hospitality and takes them in. He is aware of the consequences, tells his guests this, and explains his helplessness in this perilous situation.

Lot's precarious situation becomes clearer in the Qur'ân. He was forbidden from outside contact by the city's inhabitants (15:70). When he nevertheless granted strangers protection through his hospitality (15:68), the situation escalated. The city's inhabitants urged him to withdraw it (54:37):

وَلَقَدْ رَاوَدُوهُ عَن ضَيْفِهِ فَطَمَسْنَا أَعْيُنَهُمْ فَذُوقُوا عَذَابِي وَنُذُرِ
And they tried to prevent him from his guests. So We blinded their eyes. "Taste My punishment and My warning."

Glad about this 'violation' of their conditions, the townspeople rush to him, determined to carry out their plans against him. First, they seek to persuade Lot to turn away from his guests and deprive them of their right of hospitality, thus threatening to expose and disgrace him. For if Lot gives in, he will be in the wrong before his guests, will falsify his claim to be a reliable, trustworthy envoy, and will thereby confirm the accusation that he is a liar regarding his mission. If he refuses, he must expect the announced countermeasures. In this hopeless situation, he tries to persuade the people to relent, at least the reasonable ones among them, pointing to his daughters and offering them as guarantors of his and his guests' good behavior. But the people are blind and intoxicated by this favorable opportunity to get rid of him. They see only the formal aspects of Lot's transgression, not the wrongfulness of their own behavior. They therefore reject his proposal and point out that they see no reason to derive a right to his daughters from his violation of their prohibition.

The messengers, however, assure Lot that the city's inhabitants will not reach him with their intentions, but that he must first leave the city of his own accord with his people. Then the city will be destroyed, along with all its remaining inhabitants.

Do the verses about Lot and his people refer to homosexuality?

For a Muslim, the only basis for an answer can and should be the wording of the Qur'an. And the question arose as to whether and to what extent this Sodom legend, which can also be found in Qur'ânic commentaries, is compatible with the wording of the Qur'ân. A corresponding analysis revealed a similar picture for me. The Qur'ân states at one point (which is often translated inaccurately to suit the current interpretation) that Lot spoke to his people (all men and women in the people) and rebuked them with the words (sûra 7: Verse 81, 27: 55):

"You come to men with a desire instead of women."

Lot sees himself as a “reliable messenger” (rasûl amîn, 26: 162), so that what he says should not be understood in the sense of ‘barroom slogans’, for example, by accusing everyone for the offense of a few among them.

Since the term 'people' to whom he speaks generally includes all men and women in the Qur'ân, the veracity of an interpretation as practicing homosexuality can easily be verified by replacing the word 'you' (= the people addressed) with the constituents of the people (= women or men):

"You women come to men in desire instead of to women"

(Hereby, Lot would - in the sense of an interpretation with a sexual background - criticize heterosexual behavior among women),

"You men come to men in desire rather than to women."

(Since only a minority of men in a population are capable of homosexual relationships, Lot would thus unfairly include the majority of heterosexual men in his rebuke.)

Applying a minimum of logic and adhering to the bare wording of the Qur'an (Lot does not say, "Some of you men do this") shows that the usual pattern of interpretation simply does not correspond to the text, but has been imposed upon it rather forcibly.

This applies both to the passages 7:80, 81 and 27:56, 57, where šahwatan = in a desire is mentioned as the reason for the people "coming to the men," as well as to 26:165, 166 and 29:28, 29, where this word is not mentioned.
Furthermore, in two passages there is the addition (7:80, 29:28):

"Abhorrent things in which no one in all the world has preceded you."

Homosexual behavior demonstrably existed before the time of Lot, so it cannot be what these verses refer to (and is also inherent in creation). The repulsiveness must therefore be something that women and men are equally capable of, when they 'come to men with desire rather than to women.'

The passages about Lot and his people in the Qur'an:

The passages concerning Lot and his people in whose city he lived with his followers and relatives under the limited rights of hospitality:
(6:86), (11:77-83), (15:57-77), (21:74, 75), (26:160-175), (27:54-58), (29:26, 28-30, 33-35), (37:133-138), (51:31-37), (54:33-39), (66:10).
In the four passages (7:80, 81; 27:54, 55; 26:161, 162; 29:28, 29) in which Lot reprimands his people, it is explicitly stated:

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ
“And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people (his people, and this includes all men and women):”

Whether Lot's words in his rebuke (7:81, 27:56) "Do you come to men instead of/and not to women in a desire (Arabic: شهوة -  šahwatan)" have a sexual meaning can be easily checked by applying simple logic: His rebuke is directed at القوم (al-qaum), the people (i.e. all men and women). If his words are applicable to both groups in a sexual sense, they could have a sexual connotation; if not, we must rule out this connotation.

Applied to women: Does anyone seriously believe that the intended result of his rebuke, "come to men instead of/alongside women," is that Lot wanted women to behave like lesbians? Why would he do that?

My argument is based on the fact that men among the people enjoyed a privileged position in the social order and legal system, which was apparently also accepted by women. Thus, the verses that are predominantly understood to mean that men come to other men with sexual concerns actually mean that they come to them to advance their material needs and expectations, because this can only be done by privileged men, and a woman cannot help them because of her social and legal inferiority. And Lot reprimands them, the men and women, for this, aiming to change these conditions.

This is also supported by the incident in which Lot offered his daughters to the people, both men and women, as guarantors/sureties when the people (15:67-72) came to him indignant because he had granted strangers, now his guests, the right of hospitality to which they were entitled.

وَجَاءَ أَهْلُ الْمَدِينَةِ يَسْتَبْشِرُونَ ‎
‏ قَالَ إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ ضَيْفِي فَلَا تَفْضَحُونِ ‎
وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَلَا تُخْزُونِ
‏ قَالُوا أَوَلَمْ نَنْهَكَ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ ‏
قَالَ هَٰؤُلَاءِ بَنَاتِي إِن كُنتُمْ فَاعِلِينَ
‎ لَعَمْرُكَ إِنَّهُمْ لَفِي سَكْرَتِهِمْ يَعْمَهُونَ
And the people of the city came rejoicing.
He said, "These are my guests, so do not disgrace me.
And fear Allah and do not disgrace me."
They said, "Did we not forbid you from the worlds (to entertain them as guests)?
He said, "Here are my daughters, if you wish to do anything."
By your life, they were indeed wandering in their drunkenness.

He certainly did not do this to hand over his daughters to them for any sexual abuse, but to assure the people that neither he nor his guests were pursuing any illegal plans and to show them that women are equal to men, even as guarantors/sureties.

In his commentary on the Qur'ân ( بو جعفر ابن جرير الطبري: جامع البيان جامع البيان abû ǧaʿfar ibn ǧarîr aṭ-ṭabarî: ǧâmiʿu-l-bayân), aṭ-ṭabarî (224-310 AH) cites a tradition that supports the view expressed here that his daughters are just guarantors/sureties. It is said in his account: „He said: "O my people, these are my daughters. They are purer for you (sûra hud, sura 11:78), so I will use them to pledge my guests to you (fa-anâ afdî ḍayfî bi-hinna), and he only called upon them to what is permissible regarding marriage..." But this commentary stands very much alone in his account (from the book "Islam und Homosexualität im Qur'ân and Hadiṯ -Literatur, Teil 4, subtitle: tafsîr-Geschichte, der Einfluss der mawâlî auf das Denken der Muslime, wie er sich in alten Kommentaren widerspiegelt, p. 123).

According to this commentary, there was also the idea that Lot offered his daughters as guarantors for (the good behavior of) his guests: fadâ, yafdî = to guarantee, to vouch for. But this never replaced the image that Lot offered his daughters to the people for sexual reasons. Thus, one misconception supported the other.

The assumption that Lot had two daughters can be found in many commentaries:
The Quran refers to Lot's daughters in the plural, not the dual. The Old Testament, on the other hand, speaks of two daughters (Genesis 19:8, 19:16, and 19:30). And aṭ-ṭabarî even lists the alleged names of the two.

Also, the people’s response (11:79) when Lot offers them his daughters points to something different than what the traditional interpretation claims, they say

قَالُوا لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا لَنَا فِي بَنَاتِكَ مِنْ حَقٍّ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَعْلَمُ مَا نُرِيدُ ‎
: "You know that we have no right [= mâ la-nâ fî banâti-ka min ḥaqq, not: sexual interest] regarding your daughters, and you also know what we want."

The opinion that only the men addressed by Lot are meant, and that they have sexual intentions towards other men, also goes back to the so-called Sodom myth, imaginative invented stories for which a single misunderstood Hebrew word in the Old Testament is used as the only evidence.
The traditional interpretation also contradicts the established fact that only a minority of a population is homosexual, not an entire "people."

The idea that the Qur'ân accuses Lot's people of homosexuality originates from pre-Muslim times and was passed on to Muslims through the mawâlî (plural of maulâ), Muslims who were formerly Christians or Jews and soon formed the majority of Muslims, thus reaching Muslims in Qur'ânic commentaries and fabricated ḥadiṯs.

Muhammad Asad (The Message of the Qur'ân) takes the view that homosexuality is forbidden and writes in commentary 50 to (27:54) on p. 583: "Thus, Zamakhsharî and Razî emphasize the principle that a revolt against the divinely ordained nature of heterosexuality is a revolt against God Himself.“

That is, he is clearly not basing his argument on a statement in the Qur'ân, but on an opinion of Muslim authors.
On the other hand, he does not follow his findings to verify the rest of the Qur'ân when he writes in The Message of the Qur'ân, p. 519, Commentary 3: "Literally, 'or with those who possess their right hands (au mâ malakat aymânu-hum)'." Most commentators assume, without question, that this refers to female slaves and that the particle au ("or") denotes a permissible alternative. This conventional interpretation, in my view, is invalid insofar as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with one's slave is permissible without marriage:" And he continues: "Since the Qur'an applies the term "believers" equally to men and women, and the term azwâǧ ("partners") also refers to both male and female spouses, there is no reason to ascribe the meaning of "their female slaves" to the expression mâ malakat aymânu-hum.

Note on the word شهوة – šahwa

A brief note on the word (شهوة – šahwa):
The word šahwa, including its verb forms, appears in 13 places in the Qur'an:
- šahwa (sing.): 7:81 and 27:55, i.e., the singular appears only in connection with Lot's people and is predominantly understood in a sexual sense by translators and commentators.
- šahawât (pl.): 3:14, 4:27, and 19:59 (for the meaning: see below)
- as a verb (VIII. stem): 16:57, 21:102, 34:54, 41:31, 43:71, 52:22, 56:21, 77:42, which has no sexual connotation in any of these places.

(3:14):

زُيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ حُبُّ الشَّهَوَاتِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ وَالْبَنِينَ وَالْقَنَاطِيرِ الْمُقَنطَرَةِ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ وَالْخَيْلِ الْمُسَوَّمَةِ وَالْأَنْعَامِ وَالْحَرْثِ ۗ ذَٰلِكَ مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَاللَّهُ عِندَهُ حُسْنُ الْمَآبِ-
The love of desires (aš-šahawât) is made beautiful for people: women, children, stored heaps of gold and silver, well-bred horses, herds of cattle, and fields. This is the provision of this life; and with Allah is the best of the abodes.

Bubenheim and Elyas translate (here the word šahwa is more clearly recognizable) as follows:

The love of desires is adorned for people: women, sons, the accumulation of gold and silver, galloping horses, cattle, and fields. This is the enjoyment of this world's life. But with Allah is the best of homes.

In this verse (3:14), women, children, stored heaps of gold and silver, well-bred horses, herds of cattle, and fields are described as šahawât and Allah's provision for this life; and those who fear Allah are promised—as the following verse shows—even better things in the Hereafter. Elsewhere, in (2:267), worldly goods are called "good things" in order to spend from them.

The simultaneous mention of other desired objects besides women shows that here, too, the focus is not on a sexual aspect of desire (such as the word "lust" or similar, which is used in some translations of the verses of Lot and his people), but rather on the desire, the craving for a multitude of valuable material things, and of the latter, large quantities of what makes life more pleasant and worth living in their eyes.

The expression 'شَهْوَةً šahwatan' - in a desire - which Lot uses according to the Qur'an in 2 of the 4 verses in which he reprimands his people for coming to men and not (also) to women, is understood by Qur'ân translators in a homosexual sense only in these places due to the Sodom myth that they accept, and they overlook the fact that Lot is thereby reprimanding the significantly inferior legal status of women among the people.

The word 'šahwa' is ambiguous and, including its verb forms, appears in 13 places in the Qur'ân besides the two in connection with Lot's rebuke, but in none of them is it understood in a sexual or even homosexual sense. In the verse (3:14), it is mentioned in connection with various objects and in all cases describes the 'desire,' 'wanting,' of a large amount.

Time of revelation of (3:14)

This is also supported by the timing of the revelation of (3:14), (from the book „Islam und Homosexualität im Qur’ân und der Ḥadîṯ-Literatur, Teil 4, Untertitel: tafsîr-Geschichte, der Einfluss der mawâlî auf das Denken der Muslime, wie er sich in alten Kommentaren widerspiegelt“).

In the preface to sûra 3 (âl ʿimrân), p. 65, The Message of the Qur'ân, by Muhammad Asad, it states, among other things:
„This sûra is the second or (according to some authorities) the third to be revealed in Medina, apparently in the year 3 AH: However, some of its verses belong to a much later period, namely the year before the Prophet's death (10 AH)."

Preface to sûra 4 (an-nisâ'), p. 100, The Message of the Qur'ân, von Muhammad Asad, among others:
"There is no doubt that this sûra, in its entirety, belongs to the period of Medina. In the order of revelation, it either immediately follows âl ʿimrân [...]. On the whole, however, it is most likely that it was revealed in the fourth year after the hiǧra, although some of its verses may belong to an earlier period, and verse 58 to a later one."

In other words, it cannot be ruled out that verse (3:14) was revealed before verse (4:3), which refers to the situation following the Battle of uḥud in 3 AH, in which many Muslim men lost their lives and, as a result, their wives became widows and their children orphans. In the latter, the maximum number of wives a man may marry is limited to four.

If one summarizes the information in Abû 'Abdallāh al-Zanǧâni, Die Geschichte des Qur'ân, Hamburg 1999, in the chapter 'The Dating of the Surahs' (pp. 50 - 55) on the order of the revelations in Medina, here with further information from Muhammad Asad on the affected Surahs, the following picture emerges:

al-baqara (sûra 2, except verse 281)
al-anfâl (sûra 8)                                    ca. 2 AH
âl ʿimrân (sûra 3) with verse (3:14)
al-aḥzâb (sûra 33)                               approx. from the end of 6 AH to 7 AH
al-mumtaḥanâ (sûra 60)                      in 7 AH - 8 AH
an-nisâ' (sûra 4) with verse (4:3)
etc.

This probably means that verse (3:14) really refers to a large number of women whom men desired, in addition to many children, etc., as was possible before the revelation of (4:3)."

The verse (30:21) about interpersonal partnerships

In the Qur'ân (30:21), Allah also places all interpersonal partnerships on the same level, without exceptions or restrictions:

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِّتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ
"And among His signs is that He created for you (male and female) partners (ازواج) from among yourselves, that you (men and women) may find peace in them, and He placed between you love and tenderness. In that are indeed signs for a people who reflect."

In the Qur'ân (30:21), Allah describes all sexual partnerships among people as equal, desirable relationships, desired by Him, unless one arbitrarily disregards simple rules and possibilities of the Arabic language.
In order for these partners to enter into a sexual relationship, marriage exists, which therefore also applies analogously to partners of the same sex; since they are included in the language.
Two people only become partners in the true sense through marriage (ازواج, azwâǧ), and the same applies to two people of the same sex (by analogy (Arabic: قياس: - qiyās).

The Qur'an states here that Allah created (male and female) partners (ازواج) for you (men and women) from among yourselves:
From among yourselves, namely, a male and a female. And as we know, a small proportion of each offspring is homosexual. And Allah declares all of them, without exception, to be "partners (ازواج) for you" meaning that everyone may find a partner among them.

He calls them “His signs” and says in the last part of the verse that they are signs for people who think, really think, and that also means thinking critically, questioning, about the content of the verse and its impact on people’s lives.

The plural used in the verse, أَزْوَاجً (azwâǧ) – partners, husbands, wives – is the plural of both زوج (zauǧ, m. – part of a couple, pair, male partner, female partner, etc.) and زوجة (zauǧa, f. – partner, wife, etc.), and is thus gender-neutral, encompassing both sexes. Likewise, Allah is speaking here to all people, regardless of their gender, since Arabic uses the masculine form when addressing women and men.

The expression إِلَيْهَا – ilay-hâ – (rendered here as: with them) is a feminine singular and refers to the above word أَزْوَاجًا - azwâǧan – (partners), an Arabic word in the broken plural form. Carl Brockelmann, Arabische Grammatik, p. 94 f., comments: "...Even the so-called broken plurals ... are actually merely collective forms. The language considers them as singular feminine and constructs them accordingly."

The prohibition of homosexuality by some Muslims, contrary to the wording of the Qur'ân, results in countless unhappy forced marriages, self-hatred of those affected, and suicides.

Thinking instead of simply following existing opinions

The Qur'ân takes a very unique approach to accepting diverse sexual partnerships:
In the Qur'an (30:21), Allah describes all sexual partnerships among people as equal, desirable, and willed by Him, provided one does not arbitrarily disregard simple rules and possibilities of the Arabic language. Marriage exists to enable these partners to enter into a sexual relationship, which therefore also applies analogously to partners of the same sex. He refers to them as "His signs" and states in the last part of the verse that they are signs for people who reflect—and that also means thinking critically and questioning—the content of the verse and its impact on people's lives.

This applies equally to all other questions.
The position of many Muslims, who unthinkingly rely on traditional views of the past, is in stark contrast to the position of the Qur'ân, which commands the observance of the word of Allah (5:104):

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُوا حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا ۚ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ
And when it is said to them, 'Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,' they say, 'And what we found our fathers doing is sufficient.' Even if their fathers had no knowledge and were not on the right path.

The history of traditional interpretation

Traditional interpretations/commentaries hold a particular view of homosexuality, whether it is forbidden or permissible. The book „Islam und Homosexualität im Qur’ân und der ḥadîṯ-Literatur, Teil 4, Untertitel: tafsîr-Geschichte, der Einfluss der mawâlî auf das Denken der Muslime, wie er sich in alten Kommentaren widerspiegelt“ examines 15 ancient Qur'ânic commentaries from the first Muslim centuries on the topics of "Lot and his People," as well as the story of Joseph (yûsuf) and Jacob (yaʿqûb), including the word "šahwa" (desire) in it.

They depict the attitude of Muslims towards male-male love – a largely devastating picture.
It is only with apprehension that one can take note of “commentaries” that resort to anal ideas in the context of Lot and his people, for we find none of this in the Qur'ân, but everything in detail in the text of these commentaries.

The idea of ​​anal intercourse, as well as that the Sodomites also had anal sex with their wives, appears there from pre-Muslim sources. This idea is adopted as a Judeo-Christian 'heritage.'

Such ideas can be found in 6 of the 15 commentaries:
Although the majority of commentaries (9 out of 15) do not mention any sexual offenses among Lot's people, but rather mere bad habits of the inhabitants of Lot's city (they let their clothes drag on the ground, chewed mastic (resin from the mastic tree) and asked questions as they went), the influence of the remaining 6 on Muslim thought was greater and has persisted to this day, apparently because their narratives appeal more strongly to people's supposed "foreknowledge" and their imagination.

Furthermore, 16 ancient dictionaries have been examined for their explanation of the word šahwa:
These oldest surviving dictionaries all originated some time after the revelation of the Qur'ân, so an influence of the Sodom myth and the thought world of the mawâli generation on them cannot be ruled out.

Back then, books were copied by hand, as there was no printing press yet. This allowed copyists to easily add additions and corrections. And in the past, copying meant copying books—it was the only way to create additional copies. This offered the opportunity to "improve" and expand on the original.

Wikipedia notes, for example, regarding the oldest surviving dictionary, kitâb al-ʿayn by al-ẖalîl ibn aHmad:
"There is, however, some doubt as to whether the book in its modern edition is the original by al-ẖalîl or a work continued based on the original."

ḥadîṯs- احايث

What is a ḥadîṯ? It is a tradition attributed to the Prophet (ṣ) based on what he did or said. It consists of two parts: the isnâd, the chain of narrators, i.e., the names of the people who narrated it, and the matn, the actual text of the tradition.
Over time, “ḥadîṯs” proliferated, and soon there were fabrications and forgeries in enormous numbers.
As a result, Muslim scholars developed the science of ḥadîṯ and, among other things, formulated a kind of “rule of thumb” on how best to distinguish authentic traditions from fake ones.

Dr. muḥammad ʿaǧǧâǧu`l-ẖaṭîb, in his book uṣûlu`l-ḥadîṯ -ʿulûmu-hu wa muṣṭalaḥu-hu, pages 432-436, lists, among others, the following rule regarding traditions that should be rejected (similar to Dr. ṣubḥiyyu`ṣ-ṣâliḥ, ʿulûmu`l-ḥadîṯ wa muṣṯalaḥu-hu, p. 211):

"3 - That which contradicts the wording of the Book [= Qur'ân] or the sunna transmitted through a large number of channels [Arabic: mutawâtir] or the iǧmâ'. [...]."

He further states in uṣûlu`l-ḥadîṯ - 'ulûmu-hu wa muṣṯalaḥu-hu, page 319:
"The scholars hold the following view regarding the establishment of this order (of trustworthiness of ḥadîṯs):

1st order: The ṣaḥîḥ [authentic ḥadîṯ] that al-buẖârî and muslim selected jointly; this is what ḥadîṯ scholars call muttafaq 'alay-hi [= in which (both) agree].
2nd order: The ṣaḥîḥ that al-buẖârî alone has, but muslim does not.
3rd order: The ṣaḥîḥ that muslim alone has, but not al-buẖârî .
[.....]"

An examination of the ḥadîṯs that were understood as prohibiting or condemning homosexuality showed that none of them are (in the strict sense of the word) authentic ḥadîṯs. On the other hand, there are ḥadîṯs that were selected by both al-buẖârî and muslim for their collections, thus belonging to the category of muttafaq 'alay-hi. They show that homosexual men were permitted to stay in the homes of the Prophet's wives.

al-buẖârî, ǧâmiʿu`ṣ-ṣaḥîḥ, nikâḥ 114, volume 3, p. 266:

ḥaddaṯa-nâ ʿuṯmân ibn abî šayba - حدثنا ‏ ‏عثمان بن أبي شيبة
ḥaddaṯa-nâ ʿabda - حدثنا ‏ ‏عبدة
ʿan hišâm ibn ʿurwa -  عن ‏ ‏هشام بن عروة  -   146 -  61
ʿan abî-hi - عن ‏ ‏أبيه - / ʿurwa ibnu`z-zubayr - 23/29 - 92/101
ʿan zaynab ibna umm salama - عن ‏ ‏زينب بنت أم سلمة
ʿan umm salama - عن ‏ ‏أم سلمة - 59/60
أن النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏كان عندها وفي البيت مخنث فقال ‏ ‏المخنث ‏ ‏لأخي ‏ ‏أم سلمة ‏ ‏عبد الله بن أبي أمية ‏ ‏إن فتح الله لكم ‏ ‏الطائف ‏ ‏غدا أدلك على ‏ ‏بنت ‏ ‏غيلان ‏ ‏فإنها تقبل بأربع وتدبر بثمان فقال النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏
‏لا يدخلن هذا عليكن

anna`n-nabiyya (ṣalla`llâhu ʿalay-hi wa sallam) kâna ʿinda-hâ wa fî`l-bayti muẖannaṯun fa-qâla`l-muẖannaṯ li-aẖî umm salama ʿabdi`llâhi ibn abî umayya: in fataḥa`llâhu ʿalay-kumu`ṭ-ṭâ’ifa ġadan adullu-ka ʿalâ`bnati ġaylân fa-inna-hâ tuqbilu bi-arbaʿin wa tudbiru bi-ṯamânin wa qâla`n-nabiyyu (ṣalla`llâhu ʿalay-hi wa sallam):
lâ yadẖulanna hâḏâ ʿalay-kum

Translation:

From umm salama,
that the Prophet (ṣ.) was with her, and there was a gay man (muẖannaṯ) in the house. The muẖannaṯ said to umm salama's brother, ʿabdu'llâh ibn abî umayya: If Allah enables you to conquer [the city of] Tâ'if tomorrow, I will show you ġaylan's daughter. For she has four folds of fat in front and eight in the back. And the Prophet (S.) said:
This one shall not come in to you.

The word muẖannaṯ is apparently the old Arabic word for someone who differed from other men not only in his behavior, but also in his sexual interest.
The traditions about muẖannaṯûn, who had unhindered access to the Prophet's wives, clearly testify to this, as does ʿâ’iša's assessment that they were counted among those whom the Qur'ân describes in (24: 31) as غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ - ġayr ûlî`l-irbati (people without sexual desire) - from a woman's point of view this is correct in the sense that these people have no interest in women.

As far as the traditions are attributed to the Prophet's wife umm salama who is said to have witnessed the incident, or to ʿâ’iša who may have heard it directly from her mouth, the Prophet does not forbid all of these men from their homes, but only those who speak about their encounters with others.

The final conclusion:

It can be stated here:
It is certainly impossible that Allah, in His revelation, referred to imaginary stories of dubious origin, such as those found in the Sodom myth.

If some Muslims continue to claim that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam (based on the Arabic text of the Qur'ân and authentic ḥadiṯ), then they are – perhaps unknowingly – telling the untruth, or in more blatant terms: They are spreading lies. And they are doing so about Allah's revelation.

Homosexual people do not harm anyone because of their particular form of sexuality; rather, they want to live their lives according to their fiṭra, their natural disposition, which Allah gave them, just as heterosexual people are permitted to do without restrictions.

There is no verse in the Qur'ân, nor is there any authentic ḥadiṯ (ḥadiṯ ṣaḥîḥ – حديث صحيح) that condemns homosexuals or prohibits their lifestyle.

Be wary of traditional opinions. Stick only to the Qur'ân and the indisputable facts!

Internet addresses with further information:
https://www.islam-und-homosexualitaet.de/Erfahrungen/“

Articles and contributions in English and Arabic:
https://sites.google.com/view/meemmuslim-en?

Islam und Homosexualitaet – Startseite
(auf Deutsch, Arabisch, Englisch, Französisch)
https://www.islam-und-homosexualitaet.de/

Islam konkret – Startseite
(only in German, about 20 different small articles)
www.islam-konkret.de

There are also other important Facebook accounts:
http://ismailmohr.de/
http://ismailmohr.de/islam_und_homosexualitaet_2019.pdf
http://www.ismailmohr.de/eine_frau_als_vorbeterin_imam_abu_thaur_und_at_tabari.pdf

https://www.alrahman.de/
Bzw.
https://www.alrahman.de/islam-und-homosexualitaet/
*****