The English version of the Sodom myth

Facts 1: Facts from the Qur'ân and ḥadîṯ History before ChatGPT's Interview

Introductory Remarks

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, this work begins. For to Him we seek refuge, and in His name we begin. And I ask Him to assist me in properly undertaking this task and not to lead me astray, so that it may benefit Islam and the Muslims.

This book consists of the results of 3 facts of the investigation:

Facts 1: Facts from the Qur'ân and ḥadîṯ history before questioning ChatGPT.
Facts 2: Facts from the Qur'ân and ḥadîṯ history with questions for ChatGPT: End of March – end of July 2025 (about homosexuality, in Sodom, about the Old Testament, its history
Facts 3: Facts from the Qur'ân, the ḥadîṯ story and the extensive statement by ChatGPT on 29 October 2025 (homosexuality in the Old Testament, the path of ideas from the Church Fathers to the Muslims, influence on Muslim thinking)

In this work—as in all other publications by the author—Islam is understood as the doctrine revealed by Allah and laid down in the Qur'ân. It is more comprehensive, more extensive, far more than the sum of existing Muslim beliefs, that is, the results of Muslims' previous engagement with Islam and its formulations.

Those who delve into ancient religious literature may sometimes hope to gain a deeper understanding of their faith through the pronouncements of early Muslims. However, these pages reveal a very different picture: the longer the engagement with the content of ancient Qur'ân commentaries lasted, the more apparent it became that parallel perspectives exist. On the one hand, there are the clear words and statements of the Qur'ân itself; on the other, something else entirely—a different worldview regarding what, based on traditional, widespread, centuries-old views and beliefs—especially those from the time before the Qur'ân's revelation—should "actually" be meant. This presents a challenge for those raised with different ideas and narratives, a challenge that has not always been adequately addressed.

The Qur'ân is the primary source for everything concerning Islam. However, translations of the Arabic text are often influenced by the ideas and beliefs of the translator. This is especially true for commentaries.
And there was apparently a prevailing view that critical examination of the Qur'ânic text and adherence to it should take a back seat to the numerous, vivid, and familiar narratives from unreliable sources.

Another source can be ḥadîṯs, transmitted sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and accounts of what he did, said, approved, or disapproved of. However, these traditions often lack the necessary authenticity to be accepted without question. Muslim history contains countless forgeries and thus forgers, so only meticulous examination can provide reliable information.

Another way to learn more about Islam and its teachings is to speak with someone who has studied the religion extensively. However, even they are a product of their time, the result of a long tradition of teaching based on 'heritage and tradition' (as some scholars like to call it), in which statements and opinions are accepted without question.

Another possibility is to consult and critically examine old written sources, partly because it is often believed that—since they are older and could not yet have been aware of certain historical doctrines, and thus may be based on a more 'original' piety—they might better reflect the original teachings. However, the authors of these old writings may also have been influenced by ideas and opinions from their own past.

Another source for interpreting the Qur'ân is what Allah decreed in His creation when He created the world, what He 'revealed' (Arabic: waHy: 41:11,12), so to speak, 'inherent' revelations. If we take these into account, many myths and fanciful stories fall away. But it seems that the majority of Muslim scholars rely more on transmitted opinions than on verifying and, if necessary, correcting them against the facts of creation.

The majority of these "introductory remarks" are taken from the book „ISLAM UND HOMOSEXUALITÄT im Qur’ân und der ḥadîṯ-Literatur, Teil 4, tafsîr-Geschichte, Der Einfluss der mawâlî which examines 15 ancient Qur'ânic commentaries on the topic of "Lot and his people." It clearly demonstrates how much the Sodom myth has obscured the thinking of Muslims to this day.

Artificial intelligence, in this work ChatGPT, now provides an additional tool for finding answers to many of these questions and offers helpful insights and summaries from existing literature (ChatGPT, late March - late July 2025). The subpages 'Facts', 'Facts', 'Faits', and 'حقاءق' of the website reproduced in this book,

www.islam-und-homosexualitaet.de

consist largely of ChatGPT's answers to a series of questions about the Muslim past and confirm the statements I have made.

Before publication, the same questions were posed to DeepSeek. DeepSeek's answers were very similar, but DeepSeek was often a bit more detailed and categorized the statements more clearly as religious opinion or the result of scientific research.

The vehement reactions and hostility from other Muslims regarding this topic often remind me of the development of astronomy and cosmology. These fields have occupied humankind since time immemorial, and people have continually discovered new things, discarded old views and models, and developed a more realistic picture of the world we live in based on newly recognized facts. For a long time, groups of people rejected these research findings, insisted on their flawed assumptions, threatened and even forced the discoverers to recant or killed them for it. Yet those they attacked were merely proclaiming what Allah established in His creation, what He 'revealed' (Arabic: waHy: 41:11,12) within it—inherent revelations, so to speak, that humankind can discover/explore in order to better understand Allah's creation and its interdependent relationships and rules.

From this perspective, I also view the revelation of the Qur'ân. Its words are thus to be seen as a kind of sub-sphere within the universe, which is related to the latter—something to be understood, discovered, and explored. Its investigation and interpretation are never complete, but remain open for all time, in order to consider newly discovered facts and to discard previously used myths and fallacies when they contradict current knowledge. This also means, if necessary, setting aside traditional teachings recognized as fabrications or forgeries (including so-called inauthentic ḥadîṯs). Even great scholars could and can err—like all people. The idea that everything that exists originates from Allah, that it is His will, is, for a religious person, indisputable.

Previous publications have pointed  out in detail that the Qur'ân neither knows nor supports the "Sodom myth", even though this often appears to be the case in commentaries and other writings.

The ‘Sodom myth’ refers to the idea that the sins of the inhabitants of Sodom consisted of homosexual behaviour. Such an interpretation was originally based on a single misunderstood Hebrew word in one of the books of Moses in the Old Testament and cannot be supported by the Qur'an.

This misinterpretation reached Muslims through the generation of mawâlî (singular: maulâ - client), i.e., Christians and Jews who converted to Islam in the early days of Muslim history, brought these ideas with them, and soon formed the majority of Muslims. Through them, these ideas found their way into the ancient Qur'ânic commentaries.

Muslims face a significant task in examining and addressing this complex of issues. Perhaps these lines will provide further impetus. Beyond the present topic, there are certainly numerous other areas where it is beneficial to compare the wording of the Qur'ân accordingly, especially since some Muslims' reliance on past authorities can also imply the acceptance of their flawed decisions based on erroneous assumptions.

The word šahwa (plural šahawât) in the Qur'ân

From the book 'Islam und Homosexualität im Qur'ân und der ḥadîṯ-Literatur, Teil 4, tafsîr-Geschichte, Der Einfluss der mawâlî auf das Denken der Muslime, wie er sich in alten Kommentaren wider­spiegelt“:

“In the books ‘'Islam und Homosexualität im Qur'ân und der ḥadîṯ-Literatur' (Parts 1-4) and in a shorter presentation, ‘Ehe für alle’ im Islam? Sexualität, Partnerwahl, Ehebund, Familie, im Qur’ân“, a position is taken against the homosexual interpretation of the story of Lot and his people, but even more clearly in the book ‘Lot and his people in the Qur’ân: Its significance for Muslims and for Islam’, where it states:

"And in the case of the word šahwa, there are neither facts nor undeniable evidence of a sexual connotation in the wording of the Qur'ân.
But the finding that it was understood that way in the verses about Lot and his people proves how early and persistently the Sodom myth found its way into the thinking of Muslims and thus, of course, also into the forgery of the ḥadîṯ."

In Qur'ân translations (by Muslims and non-Muslims), the expression "شَهْوَةً - šahwatan - at a desire" is given in verses (7:81) and (27:55) - here is a selection:

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his translation of The Holy Qur-an, renders the Arabic singular as plural. Others use terms (in German: Sinnenlust, Sinnlichkeit, Begierde, sexueller Begierde, Gelüst, Befriedigung eurer sexuellen Begier­de,) like sensuality, desire, sexual lust, craving, and satisfaction of your sexual desire, employing adjectives such as (wollust­trunken, wollüstig, lüstern etc.) lust-intoxicated, lustful, and lecherous. Only Muhammad Hamidullah, in his translation of Le Coran, offers a neutral translation without explicit sexual connotations.

It is striking that modern translations and commentaries of the Qur'ân focus solely on the word šahwa and avoid the complementary uses favored in older commentaries, such as adbâr - buttocks - and similar terms, apparently because they consider it embarrassing and because it is clearly an arbitrary imposition of extraneous, unacceptable ideas.

In four instances, in two German and two English translations created by Muslims (!!!), the verse (29:29) is arbitrarily supplemented with "(in desire)" or "with lust"/"[with lust]", as if Allah had "forgotten" this word during its revelation, and the existing wording is not what Allah actually intended. Some "translators" apparently know "better". Mohammad Asad does this as well in (26:165): [lustfully] - [lustful].

With this majority and a sexual innuendo, shouldn't it be clear what's meant here?? Is it justified to trust the majority ratio (13:1) with a (homo)sexual connotation??

And can and should one contradict a centuries-old homophobic majority opinion with good arguments, or should one rather stick to a narrative that formed among believers long ago based on a single misunderstood word in one of the books of Moses in the Old Testament and was then passed down from generation to generation?

Rather, it is time, or better yet, it is our duty as Muslims, to put aside the false image that has been handed down to us from the past and to convey what the Qur'ân actually says and what is historically sound.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Lot's people committed the crimes they are commonly accused of according to the Sodom myth, as will be shown on the following pages.

Thus, the after-effects of the old commentaries are clearly recognizable in the new translations and commentaries, as reflected in the translation of the word šahwa as (homo-)sexual desire in the case of Lot and his people.
So sind auch in den neuen Übersetzungen und Kommentaren die Nachwirkungen der alten Kommentare deut­lich erkennbar, wie es die Übersetzung des Wortes šahwa als (homo-)sexuelles Begehren im Falle von Lot und seinem Volk widerspiegelt.

The impression that some commentaries seek to correct the Qur'ân is obvious, for example, by referring to Lot's two daughters (in the dual form) instead of using the plural form found in the Qur'ân.

Since the word شهوة (desire) and all its grammatical derivatives have no sexual connotation in the Qur'ân, the interpretation of the word شهوة in a sexual sense in the commentaries raises serious suspicions—at least for a non-linguist:
The commentators, influenced by the Sodom myth, declared that the word must be understood in a sexual sense. Because the Qur'ân, as the revelation of Allah, held a primary role for the Arabic language, this new connotation entered dictionaries as a valid one (even though it did not previously exist in this form in classical Arabic) and subsequently became fundamental to the interpretation of the Qur'ân.

(Similarly, see: “Ehe für alle” im Islam? Sexualität, Partnerwahl, Ehebund, Familie im Qur’ân“) (“Marriage for all” in Islam? Sexuality, partner selection, marriage, family in the Qur'an).

The meaning of šahwa - desire, wish, concern in the Qur'ân

The word “šahwa” appears in its various derivatives in 13 places in the Holy Qur'ân:

• šahwa (singular): 7:81 and 27:55, i.e., the singular appears only in connection with the people of Lot and is predominantly understood by translators and commentators in a sexual sense.

• šahawât (plural): 3:14, 4:27, and 19:59 (for meaning, see below)

• as a verb (8th stem): 16:57, 21:102, 34:54, 41:31, 43:71, 52:22, 56:21, 77:42, which in none of these instances has a sexual or homosexual connotation.

(3:14):

The love [Hubb] for the things one desires is made beautiful for people: wives, children, stored heaps of gold and silver, well-bred horses, herds of livestock, and fields of crops. That is the provision for this life; and it is with Allah that the most beautiful abode is found.

In this verse (3:14), women, children, stored heaps of gold and silver, well-bred horses, herds of livestock, and fields of crops are described as šahawat (here translated as "desired things") and as provision from Allah 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), earthly goods are called "good things" from which one can give charity.

The simultaneous mention of other desired objects alongside women shows that here, too, the focus is not on a sexual aspect of desire (such as the word sensual pleasure or similar, which is used in some translations of the verses about Lot and his people), but rather on the desire, the craving for a multitude and for valuable material things, and of the latter, large quantities of what makes life more pleasant and worth living in their eyes.
The expression "following one's desires/wishes" can have a negative meaning if it implies that someone is simultaneously neglecting their religious obligations.

(4:27):

And Allah desires to turn to you in mercy; and those who follow the desired [things/desires - aš-šhawât] want you to turn far [from the right path].

(19:59):

But then, after them came wicked descendants who neglected prayer and followed desires. Thus, they are surely headed for ruin.

In his commentary, p. 464, Muhammad Asad speaks of 'self-deception'.
Verse 3:14 clearly states how the word šahwa is understood in the Qur'ân. Nowhere else is the range of meanings in which the Qur'ân uses it made clearer, namely that the desire refers to a desire for abundance, accumulation, increase, a large quantity, and worldly goods.

In the subsequent examination of the meanings of the word used by the Qur'ân, the two passages relating to Lot's people are disregarded, as they are discussed elsewhere.

The following are all verses in which the word šahwa and all its derivatives are used:
(3:14):

The love for desired things (aš-šahawât) is made beautiful for people: wives, children, stored heaps of gold and silver, well-bred horses, herds of cattle, and fields of crops. This is the provision for this life; and it is with Allah that the most beautiful abode is found.

(4:27):

And Allah wishes to turn to you in mercy; and those who follow the desired [things, desires - aš-šahawât]/ desires wish that you would turn far [from the right path].

(16:57):

And they attach daughters to Allah - exalted is He [over such inventions] - while they themselves have what they desire.

(19:59):

But then, after them came wicked descendants who neglected prayer and followed desires. Thus, they are surely headed for ruin.

(21:102):

They will not hear the slightest sound of it [of the groans of those in hell] while they abide in that which they themselves desire.

(27:55)
(34:54):

And a chasm lay between them and what they desired, as had happened to their kind before. They were certainly in troubling doubt [about the truth of the divine message].

(41:31):

We are your friends in this life and the hereafter. In Him you will have everything you desire, and in Him you will have everything you ask for.

(43:71):

Bowls of gold and cups will circle among them, and in them will be everything they themselves desire and everything the eyes delight in. Therein you shall remain.

(52:22):

And We will provide them abundantly with fruits and meat, [with everything] they desire.

(56:21):

And the meat and poultry they desire,

(77:42):

And fruits, [everything,] they desire.

In verse 3:14, women, children, stored heaps of gold and silver, horses, herds of livestock, and fields of crops are described as "desirable things" (šahawât) and as provision from Allah for this life; and those who fear Allah are promised even better things in the Hereafter, as the following verse shows. Elsewhere, in verse 2:267, earthly possessions are called "good things" from which one should give charity.

The simultaneous mention of other things besides women shows that this does not refer to a sexual aspect of desire, but rather to the desire for what makes life more pleasant and worth living in their eyes.

The timing of the revelation of (3:14) could support this:
In the preface to Surah 3 (âl ʿimrân), p. 65, *The Message of the Qur'ân*, by Muhammad Asad, it states, among other things:
"This surah 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)."

Foreword to Surah 4 (an-nisâ'), p. 100, The Message of the Qur'ân, by Muhammad Asad, et al.
"There is no doubt that this surah in its entirety belongs to the Medinan period. In the order of revelation, it either follows immediately after âl 'imrân [...]. On the whole, however, it is most likely that it was revealed in the fourth year after the hiǧra, although some of its verses could 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 after the Battle of uḥud in the year 3 AH, in which many Muslim men lost their lives, leaving their wives widows and their children orphans. The latter limits the maximum number of wives a man may marry 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) about the order of the revelations in Medina, together with further information from Muhammad Asad about the Surahs in question, the following picture emerges:
1. al-baqara (sûra 2, except for verse 281)
2. al-anfâl (sûra 8) 2. approx. 2 AH
3. âl 'imrân  (sûra 3) with verse (3:14)
4. al-aḥzâb (sûra 33) approximately from the end of 6 AH to 7 AH
5. al-mumtaḥanâ (sûra 60) in 7 AH - 8 AH
6 an-nisâ' (sûra 4) with verse    (4:3)
7 etc.
This could mean that verse (3:14) is indeed addressing a large number of women whom men desired in addition to many children, etc., as was possible before the revelation of (4:3).

In verses 4:27 and 19:59, the expression yattabi'ûna/ittaba'û`š-šahawât – "they followed [only] the things they desired" – appears. In both cases, this expression is used in a negative sense, namely, as the context shows, "those who followed the things they desired" refers to those who do so in disregard of the limits set by Allah and neglect prayer, i.e., those who primarily or exclusively follow their material desires.
Neither in (3:14) nor in (19:59) does the word have the meaning of ‘sexual passion’; and this can probably be ruled out in (4:27) as well.

Although the last-mentioned passage is preceded by verses that address forbidden sexual relationships, it is followed by verses that deal with other topics, such as consuming the possessions of others through unlawful means.

Here too, the pursuit of personal desires and goals, disregarding rules and prohibitions, takes center stage.
Just like the verses mentioned above, (16:57) and (34:54) refer to this world: In the first case, the “desired things” refer to sons, while in the second it remains open.

In all six other verses, which refer to the rewards in the afterlife, the verb 'desire' is used in an exclusively positive sense and refers to the wishes of the righteous, which will find their fulfillment there.

(21:102) and (41:31) do not specify this further, while (43:71) describes the contents of bowls made of gold and cups, (52:22) fruits and meat, (56:21) poultry meat, and (77:42) shades, springs, and fruits.

In all the verses mentioned, the derivation of the word stem šhy/šhw used has no explicit sexual connotation; even when objects of sexual desire such as women (3:14) are listed, this is done more in the sense that they contribute to a pleasant and worthwhile life. Thus, the meaning, which is rendered here in German as "Begehren" (desire), can best be described as the striving for material things that make one's life comfortable.

Only the expression "they follow the desired [material things]" is clearly negative; the verb "follow" here expresses a certain exclusivity, whereby these things become the actual content of life and commandments no longer determine the way of life.

Based on this fact, a (homo)sexual reference in the use of the word šahwa in the verses of Lot's people is also not very likely on the whole.

And p. 17 (from: “Ehe für alle” im Islam? Sexualität, Partnerwahl, Ehebund, Familie im Qur’ân):
“In all these passages, there is clearly no sexual reference. This only arose and intensified through the traditional Qur’ânic interpretation of the verses about Lot and his people under the influence of the Sodom myth.”

The word šahwa and its use in the Qur'ân is very reminiscent of another term with a very similar meaning, namely takâṯur = increase, multiplication, growth, and even greed. It is used in two verses and supports our view on the meaning of šahwa in the Qur'ân.
(57:20):

Know that life in this world is nothing but play, amusement, pomp, and boasting among you, and an increase [takâṯur] of wealth and children. It is like rain (which brings forth plants), whose growth pleases the farmer. Then they wither, and you see them turn yellow; then they become chaff. And in the Hereafter is severe punishment and forgiveness from Allah and His pleasure. And life in this world is nothing but illusion.

(102:1-8)

The competition for the increase of worldly possessions  [at-takâṯur] distracts you.
Until you reach the graves.
No! You will soon know.
Again: No! You will soon know.
No! If only you knew for certain,
you would see Hell.
Yes, you should certainly see it with the eye of certainty.
Then, on that day, you will be questioned about the comforts (of this life).

Sodom in the canonical Gospels

In the four Gospels, Jesus did not comment on homosexuality and only acknowledged the disregard for hospitality as the sin of Sodom (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, did not gain widespread acceptance at the time the Gospels were written; it was not part of Jesus' teachings, but rather originated in other religious currents, which then found their way to the Muslims via the mawâlî and into other writings of the New Testament, at least not into those on whose background the texts of the Gospels are based.

And “Ehe für alle” im Islam? Sexualität, Partnerwahl, Ehebund, Familie im Qur’ân“, p. 34, therefore concludes:
"The Sodom myth is nothing more than fiction, a kind of fable, a fanciful invention upon which the generation of the mawâlî, as former Christians and Jews, relied. Their words are too weak a basis as an argument in an interpretation of the Qur'ân. Thus, we can only adhere to the words of the Qur'ân."

Arguments from the Qur'ân

Besides the range of meanings of the words šahwa, plural: šahawât - as shown above - there are other plausible reasons in the Qur'ân that speak against the Sodom myth.

Lot's address to his people and the women

There are three passages (7:80, 81; 27:54, 55; 29:28, 29) in which Lot rebukes his people, all of which begin with the exact same words:

“wa lûTan id qâla li-qaumi-hi (و لوطا اذ قال لقومه)”

“and (remember) Lot when he spoke to his people (all men and women)”.

In a fourth, identical passage (26:161, 162) it is also emphasized that Lot spoke to his people, and he rebuked them for their behavior in (26:165, 166).

In all these cases, the reader is specifically made aware by the text of the Qur'ân that Lot includes all people, all men and women of his people, in his rebuke.

While the Qur'ân uses the masculine plural when addressing the people, it is the rule of the Arabic language to use the masculine plural when both genders are meant. When one is aware of this, the verses about Lot and his people take on a completely different meaning, and the so-called Sodom myth as an interpretive criterion becomes even less tenable.

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

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

In the two aforementioned verses, the word شهوة (šahwa) is used, which in most Qurân translations is understood and translated in these passages as sexual desire (e.g., "sensual lust"), instead of more accurately as "desire”, “concern”, “request”, “greed”, “avarice”, perhaps also “profiteering”.

The Sodom myth, a construct developed in Christian patristic theology, overloads thinking with so much illogic, detachment from reality, and unscientific assumptions, forcing us into a kind of fairytale world, that it is unacceptable and ridiculous for these reasons alone.

Lot's rebuke of the social and legal disadvantage of women of the people

Our argument is based on the premise that men held a privileged position in the social order and legal system, a position apparently accepted by women as well. Thus, the verses, which are predominantly interpreted as men approaching other men for sexual purposes, actually mean that they approach them to advance their material needs and expectations, because this can only be done through privileged men; a woman, due to her social and legal inferiority, cannot assist them in this regard. Lot rebukes both men and women for this, aiming to change these conditions.

This is further supported by the incident in which Lot offered his daughters to the people, both men and women, when they came to him in outrage (15:67-72) because he was granting strangers, now his guests, the right of hospitality to which they were entitled. He certainly did not do this to expose his daughters to any kind of sexual abuse, but rather to assure the people that neither he nor his guests were pursuing any illegal plans.
(54:37):

And they sought to turn him away from his guests. So We blinded their eyes [râwadû-hu ʿan  ḍaifi-hi]  [and said], "Taste My punishment and My warning."

According to Hans Wehr, Arabisches Würterbuch …, (Arabic Dictionary …), p. 508, رَاوَد عن (râwada ʿan) means to seek to make alienate from [something/someone]. This describes what Lot's people are striving for: They want to alienate Lot away from his guests.

The Qur’ân's statement that the people sought to turn Lot away from his guests, and Lot's emphasis that the messengers were his guests (15:68) before whom they should not shame him, makes perfectly clear what the people's aim was: They wanted to induce Lot to deprive his guests of their rightful hospitality, and in this way they wanted to 'shame' Lot (15:68) and 'disgrace' him (15:69). In doing so, they trampled on a fundamental right of the stranger at that time—especially in areas with unsafe roads and hostile factions—and blindly followed only their own intentions against Lot. For this reason, Maulana Muhammad Ali, in „The Holy Qur'ân“, also emphasizes this point on page 515 in connection with (15:69):
“[...] Lot was a stranger among the people of Sodom and, as the verse shows, he had been forbidden by the people to welcome strangers as guests or to give them protection.”

Under the heading 'Gastfreundschaft' [= 'hospitality'), Reclams Bibellexikon, pages 154 ff., states the following about the right of hospitality in the time of the Old Testament:
"[...] In antiquity, travelers were often dependent on hospitality, which offered them free accommodation and food. To refuse it was considered a disgrace [...], to violate it a sacrilege [...]."

Above all, the people's response (11:79), when Lot offers them his daughters, points to something different than what is claimed in the traditional interpretation; they say: "You know that we have no right [= mâ la-nâ fî banâti-ka min ḥaqq, not: sexual interest] in relation to your daughters, and you also know what we want."

In his dictionary „Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart“, Hans Wehr gives the following meanings for the word ḥaqq in connection with the preposition fî on page 276: "right, entitlement, claim, legal claim (fî on)."

As long as Lot's daughters are unmarried, people generally have the right to marry them. Only if they are already engaged or married do they not have this right, and then their answer makes sense. However, it must be ruled out that Lot would offer his married or engaged daughters in marriage, because doing so would violate Allah's commandments and fail in his duty to guide people to the right path.

In general, the wording of the Qur'ân, which makes no such statement, contradicts the assumption that the people harbored sexual intentions toward Lot's guests. Furthermore, the messengers' response to Lot (11:81) is: "They will not reach you [= Lot, with their evil intentions]," meaning that the people had certain intentions toward Lot, but not toward the messengers. However, if Lot is expelled, he can no longer exercise his right of hospitality toward his visitors. Therefore, he feels anxious and helpless because of them (11:77).

The most plausible explanation based on the wording of the Qur’ân is certainly that Lot is attempting to affirm his own good conduct and that of his guests with this gesture, emphasizing the right of strangers to hospitality and appealing to the understanding of reasonable people (11:78). Furthermore, by referring to his daughters, he underscores the equality of women and men, also as guarantors.

For when people say that they have no legal claim to Lot's daughters when Lot offers them to them in exchange for the safety of his guests, it also means that in their eyes the women are not legally competent or not sufficiently legally competent, and therefore cannot be accepted as guarantors; women are apparently without rights in their eyes, or at least of a lesser legal status.

The Accusations Against Lot's People

The Coming to Men

A kind of unique characteristic of Lot's people is the accusation that they go to other men.

But there is no general prohibition against men being with other men; in fact, it is an everyday occurrence when we go to the mosque for prayer, to go shopping (in stores where there are primarily male employees), to play sports (sports with men), to the administration, to the doctor, to our groupe of regulars, etc. It is not only permitted, but in some cases even required.

In several verses, the Qur'ân accuses the people of Lot of coming to men:
(7:80-81)
(26:165-166)
(27:54-55)
(29:27-28)
The bold printed verses also use the expression šahwatan – at a desire – and the facts suggest that this refers to the desire for profitable business deals.

In verse (26:166):

وَتَذَرُونَ مَا خَلَقَ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُم مِّنْ أَزْوَاجِكُم ۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَادُونَ
wa taḏarûn mâ ẖalaqa la-kum rabbu-kum min azwâǧi-kum bal antum qaum 'âdûn.

and leave what your Lord has created for you among your partners. Indeed, you are a people who transgress.

the Qur'ân gives the reason for this: "You neglect what your Lord has created for you of your partners," meaning you disregard your partners in what you want to do, you do not take them into account, even though they were created as partners for you.

Other accusations against Lot's people

ẖabâ’iṯ                                    evils - (21:74). Hans Wehr: To be bad, to be malicious.
qaum sû’in                            an evil people - (21:74). Hans Wehr: To be bad, to be malicious.
                                               Used twice in the Qur'ân, the word sû': 60 times.
fâsiqîn                                   Wicked people  -(21:74), yafsuqûna they sinned - (29:34)
                                              Hans Wehr:fasaqa =  to stray, to act sinfully and immorally, to live dissolutely, to     _                                            engage in fornication. Used 37 times in the Qur'ân (singular and plural).
as-sayyi’ât                           evil deeds - (11: 78), Use of the word in the Qur'ân 59 times (singular and plural).
                                             MA: comment 565 on p. 198, 199; sayyi'a or sû' mean both an evil deed and an evil _                                               affection (LL)....Hans Wehr: Offense, misdeed. Used 58 times in the Qur'ân.
kaḏḏabat                             And Lot's people [qaum lûṭ] accused the messengers of lies. - (26:160), (54:33).
                                             Hans Wehr: To accuse someone of lying, to declare someone a liar; to deny.
                                            Used 166 times in the Qur'ân (all verb forms).
qaum musrifûn                  people exceeding measure - (7:81), (51:34). Usage in the Qur'ân: 15 times.
                                            Hans Wehr: Far exceeding the normal measure, excessively wasteful.
qaum ʿâdûn                       a transgressing people - (26:166). Used in the Qur'ân 3 times.                                                         Hans Wehr: to exceed the limit, to go beyond (over).
qaum taǧhalûn                an ignorant people - (27:55). Used 5 times in the Qur'ân.
                                          Hans Wehr: To be stupid, to be ignorant; to be unreasonable, foolish.
taqṭaʿûna`s-sabîl             You are cutting off the way (interruption of trade routes, highway robbery) (29:29).
                                          Hans Wehr: to cut, to cut off; to separate; to commit highway robbery, used once  __                                           in Qur'ân.
munkar                             in your assembly [fî nâdî-kum] you commit reprehensible acts [munkar] (29:29).                                                          Hans Wehr: Denied, not acknowledged; rejected, abhorred. Used 16 times in the Qur'ân.
qaum mufsidîn                ein Volk, das Unheil anrichtet - (29:30). Hans Wehr: fasâd - depravity, decay, vice.                                          corruption. The term is used once in the Qur'ân, the participle 18 times.
qaum muǧrimîn             a sinful people (15:58). The term is used once in the Qur'ân, the participle 55 times.
                                        Hans Wehr: Criminal, wrongdoer.
ẓâlimîn                            offenders - (29:31), (11:83). The expression is used 126 times in the Qur'ân (in singular_                                           and plural). Hans Wehr: unjust, tyrannical; oppressor; wicked person.  

yamtarûn                        they doubted - (15:63)
                                        Hans Wehr: doubt (about). The verb and participle are used 9 times in the Qur'ân.
râwadû-hu ʿan ḍaifi-hi   They turned Lot away from his guests (i.e., their right for hospitality) - (54:37)
                                        Hans Wehr: to seek to turn someone away ('an h - someone from). Usage: Once.

Sexual partnerships in the Qur'ân

Outside of the story of Lot and his people, too, the Qur'ân does not prohibit homosexuality or homosexual partnerships; quite the contrary.
In the Qur'ân (30:21), a key verse on this issue, Allah places all interpersonal partnerships on the same level – without exceptions or limitations. This verse addresses all men and women, not – as some translations suggest – only men.

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِّتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً إِنَّ فِي ذَالِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ
“And among His signs is this: He created for you (men and women) mates from among yourselves (men and women) so that you (men and women) might find peace in them, and He placed between you affection and tenderness. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who think.”

In the Qur'ân (30:21) Allah therefore describes all sexual partnerships among people as equal, desirable unions intended by Him, provided one does not arbitrarily disregard simple rules and possibilities of the Arabic language.
He refers to them as "His signs" and says in the last part of the verse that they are signs for people who think, and that also means thinking critically, questioning the content of the verse and its impact on people's lives.
With the words " He created for you (men and women) mates from among yourselves (men and women)," the Qur'ân refers to the fact that people are conceived and born in heterosexual relationships, but it does not establish them as the only valid form of partnership.

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

The expression إِلَيْهَا – ilay-hâ – (here rendered as: in them) is a feminine singular and refers to the preceding word أَزْوَاجًا – azwâǧan – (male/female partners), an Arabic word in broken plural form. Carl Brockelmann, Arabische Grammatik, pp. 94 ff., explains: "...Even the so-called broken plurals... are actually merely collective forms. The language treats them as singulars of feminine generis and constructs them accordingly."

Furthermore, the Qur'ân in verse (4:21) refers to the marriage covenant as mîṯâqan ġalîẓan – as a firm covenant or contract.

Therefore, all the rules for a nikaḥ (marriage contract/covenant) or zawâǧ (marriage, partnership) are valid for everyone. This is because it is through marriage that people become partners (azwâǧ). Moreover, there is no verse in the Qur'ân that forbids marriage between people of the same sex. Likewise, a marriage bond is and remains valid even without offspring (Qur'ân verses 42:49, 50).

لِّلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ يَهَبُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ إِنَاثًا وَيَهَبُ لِمَن يَشَاءُ الذُّكُورَ
أَوْ يُزَوِّجُهُمْ ذُكْرَانًا وَإِنَاثًا ۖ وَيَجْعَلُ مَن يَشَاءُ عَقِيمًا ۚ إِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ قَدِيرٌ
To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He pleases. He bestows daughters upon whom He wills, and He bestows sons upon whom He wills:
Or He gives both, sons and daughters; or He renders barren whom He wills. He is All-Knowing (and) determines the measure.

Consequently, under a نكاح  (nikâḥ), non-heterosexual unions are just as legal as heterosexual ones. الحمد لله.
Every non-heterosexual person, Muslim woman or Muslim man, should therefore gratefully accept the sexual disposition that Allah has willed for them and orient their life accordingly.

The verse describes a form of marriage that is now referred to in German as "marriage for all" [„Ehe für alle“].

The Sodom myth and its history

There is no scientific evidence regarding the location or remains of the city of Sodom. As previously quoted: The Archäologisches Bibel-Lexikon of 1991, edited by Avraham Negev, p. 412, states the following:
"Attempts to locate S. [= Sodom] have thus far been unsuccessful. It has been suspected to be at the southern or northern end of the Dead Sea, and even on its seabed. The name "S." [= Sodom] has been preserved in the Arabic Gebel Usdum, a salt ridge near the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea."

In other words, we do not know anything about that town, and since even its location is unknown, there are no written records or other finds that could provide information about its social life. What is later told about it and its inhabitants is therefore nothing but mere speculation, arbitrary fantasy.

The oldest reference to Lot and his town is found in the Old Testament of the Bible. In the New Testament, Jesus only speaks of the lack of respect for hospitality there (Matthew 10:11-15, Matthew 11:23-24, Luke 10:10-12).
The notion that the inhabitants of Lot's town made homosexual advances toward Lot's visitors proved to be a highly imaginative but erroneous interpretation of a single word in just one verse in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 19:5, see Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Christian Tradition, 1955, pages 1–8). Bailey (1910–1984) was an Anglican theologian with compelling and clear linguistic and contextual arguments. He also notes that all references to Lot's town in the other books of the Old Testament never mention any sexual misconduct by the people in Lot's town.

The English Wikipedia entry on Bailey states, among other things:
"...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 in the Moral Welfare Council provided important conceptual guidelines for later discussions on homosexuality, not only in the Church of England, but throughout Christianity."

Regarding the aforementioned verse in the Old Testament, Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, p. 2, states:

"The verse that has often been interpreted as a reference to homosexual intentions is Genesis 19:5:
5 They called Lot and said, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know them!'"

Derrick Sherwin Bailey, 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 relations.' 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 conjunction with mishkâbh, which in this context denotes the act of lying down, yâdha' occurs in five other places [in the Footnote: Numbers 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 a 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 homosexual intercourse as well as for bestiality, in addition to intercourse between a man and a woman.
Thus, yâdha' is only exceptionally used in a sexual sense [...].
Linguistic considerations alone therefore support [...] the view that it can mean nothing more than ‘to get to know’ here. Why, then, was an apparently reasonable demand made in such a vehement manner? What kind of wickedness did Lot expect and from which he wanted to dissuade the inhabitants of Sodom? [...] Our lack of knowledge of the local circumstances and social conditions leaves us no other option than to guess the motives underlying the behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom; but since yâdha' usually means ‘to get to know’, the demand to ‘know’ the visitors whom Lot entertained may well have involved a serious breach of the rules of hospitality. [...]"

The Sodom myth: How and when did it originate?

This question is answered in more detail in the book 'Islam und Homosexualität', part 1, only brief remarks will be given here.

Bailey also addressed this topic. Bailey, on page 23:
"Josephus (37/38 – c. 96) presents the same view in a shorter form. In his description of the destruction of Sodom in his Antiquitates, he says:

"Ant. I. xi. I [194 – 195]:
'Around this time the Sodomites became proud because of their riches and great wealth: they became unjust towards people, irreverent towards God ..., they hated strangers and defiled themselves with sodomitic practices, and was therefore very angry with them and decided to punish them for their pride ...'

Later, in the same account, his language reveals the influence of contemporary life:
Ant. I. xi. 3 [200]:
'When the Sodomites saw that the young men [the angels] were beautiful, and this to an extraordinary degree, ... they resolved to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and coercion...'

However, not all references to Sodom are so explicit, even at that time. [...] But there are good reasons to believe that towards the end of the first century CE, the sin of Sodom was widely equated with homosexual practices among the Jews.

The notion expressed here, that the messengers to Lot were 'young men [the angels] of beautiful appearance, and this to an extraordinary degree,' is encountered again in ancient Qur'ân commentaries as a statement by Lot's wife.
Regarding the question of how the interpretations of the Bible in Hellenistic-Jewish circles, particularly those of Philo, should be classified, Karlheinz Deschner addresses this in his book: Abermals krähte der Hahn. on pages 314 ff., in connection with the approach of the early Church Fathers, he states that they "interpreted what was not actually there, but only through often hair-raising allegory, in which, of course, the Jewish Hellenists, especially Aristobulus and even more so Philo [of Alexandria, 15/10 BC - after 40 AD], had preceded the Christians," in order to read ideas of the Stoics and others into biblical stories.

Bailey continues, pages 25–26:
“Augustine, De civ. Dei, 16. 30:
'...the wicked city, where the custom of sodomy has spread as widely as laws of other kinds of wickedness elsewhere.'”

Augustine, bishop and Doctor of the Church, lived from 354 to 430.
Const. Apost. vii. 2 [written in the 4th century]:
‘You shall not seduce boys’: for this wickedness is against nature and originates from Sodom…’

Despite occasional allusions to his arrogance and inhospitality, to the wealth and excess that were thought to have led to his downfall, the Sodom of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha had no place in the thinking of the early Church, only the Sodom of Philo and Josephus, in which homosexual vice, and especially that associated with pederasty, was considered prevalent. [...] On the other hand, they were completely outside the mainstream of rabbinic tradition and were never recognized by Judaism, which explains the almost negligible influence of the new theory on the Talmud and the Midrash.

Bailey supports his view with an examination of references to Sodom in books of the Old Testament and the writings of the New Testament. In the Gospels, Jesus still considers the disregard for hospitality to be Sodom's sin. Only in the later Second Epistle of Peter—written around 120 AD, but not by the disciple Peter—and in the so-called Epistle of Jude, written around 100 AD by a similarly unknown author, do recognizable allusions to homosexual behavior appear.

The reason and origin of this interpretation are not precisely discernible. The earliest allusions to sexual (heterosexual) transgressions are found in the pseudo-epigrapha of the Old Testament, which originated from the 2nd century onward, and the first homosexual allusions appear only in one of the Books of Enoch around 50 BCE. This interpretation spread within Hellenistic Jewish circles and, in connection with the confrontation with the prevailing Hellenistic way of thinking and living, also served as a means of differentiation. In Hellenistic Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus at the beginning of the Christian era, this notion is already clearly evident—unless, as in other passages, it is a 'correction' by later editors. In any case, Philo endeavored to read the moral teachings of the Greek Stoics into the books of Genesis and Exodus, while Josephus spent his final years as an imperial pensioner in Rome and sought to make biblical history accessible to readers of Greek education. The view held by both lies outside the rabbinic tradition. A homosexual interpretation is virtually nonexistent in rabbinic literature, and it never gained any influence on it later.

In contrast, the interpretation found in Philo and Josephus as a homosexual transgression, especially pederasty, dominated the Church Fathers in the early Church, while the original scriptural tradition receded into the background. The idea also arose that the inhabitants of Sodom engaged in anal intercourse with their wives. We later find these ideas among Muslims as a Christian 'legacy'.

This interpretation of the Sodom story suited the negative attitude towards sexuality held by the Christian Church Fathers; it fit seamlessly into their religious worldview, and so they adopted it uncritically, neglecting the scriptural evidence of the Old and New Testaments. As in other matters, they obscured the literal text of Scripture with imagined illusions instead of using the text as the starting point for interpretation—a practice not unique to Christian theologians.

The only ancient source that exists concerning Lot and the inhabitants of Sodom is the story about him in the Old Testament. If we want to learn more about the social and religious situation at the time of Lot, in order to understand and contextualize the sparse information in the Bible, we can only draw on known facts about cultures and peoples that were geographically and temporally close. There are no other sources.

Many Muslim commentators interpret Lot's reference to his daughters as an argument supporting their theory that the people demanded the messengers from Lot to satisfy their sexual desires. They assume that the messengers are angels in the form of men. Some say they are young men, others that they are handsome young men (e.g., Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Volume 1, page 649 on 15:67; ibn katir, Volume 2, page 451 on 11:69-73, page 453 on 11:77-79, page 554 on 15:61-64; Muhammad Asad, page 327 on 11:77, page 389 on 15:67). This assumption can be traced back at the earliest to the Jewish writer Josephus, who thereby followed a tendency that lies outside the writings of the Old Testament, rabbinic literature, and thus outside the prevailing religious tradition of Judaism, and whose origin is unknown. It has been preserved through various currents of religious tradition up to the Muslims.
There is no mention in the Qur'ân of the appearance or age of the messengers. Any statement to that effect cannot be derived from it and is pure speculation, fanciful conjecture.

In his book *Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition*, Derrick Sherwin Bailey demonstrates that the Sodom narrative in the Old Testament does not refer to homosexual desires on the part of the inhabitants of Sodom. The word "know" used there almost always means "to get to know" in the Old Testament. Only a few times does it signify heterosexual, but never homosexual, intercourse. Lot was a stranger in the town, and the inhabitants were therefore particularly suspicious of his guests, whom they wished to get to know better. One of their transgressions was that they did not consider the right of hospitality, vital in unsafe desert regions, as a self-evident fundamental right of a stranger, and acted accordingly.

There are still authors who see a sexual element in the Sodom narrative, namely as a reflection of the polemic against male and female temple prostitution at Canaanite sanctuaries, which contemporary listeners would have immediately recognized. In this sense, too, the true sin of Sodom is idolatry and not homosexual behavior per se, but rather as an expression of sacred prostitution in connection with fertility cults.

Bailey supports his view with an examination of references to Sodom in books of the Old Testament and the writings of the New Testament. In the canonical Gospels, Jesus still considers the disregard for hospitality to be Sodom's sin. Only in the later Second Epistle of Peter—written around 120 AD, but not by the disciple Peter—and in the so-called Epistle of Jude, written around 100 AD by a similarly unknown author, do recognizable allusions to homosexual behavior appear.

How did this pre-Islamic "Sodom myth" reach the Muslims?

The influence of the mawâlî, converted Christians and Jews, on Muslims

The literature contains some impressive descriptions of their numerous activities in the early period of Muslim history.

Alfred von Kremer, Kulturgeschichte des Orients (1874/79; Volume 2), pages 158 ff.:

"The Clients [= mawâlî] did indeed manage to surpass the Arabs, for they were the first to cultivate scholarly studies and thereby gain ever-increasing prestige. They particularly favored theological and legal studies and facilitated the importation of foreign ideas into Islam. Thus, through Jewish proselytes, the custom of commenting on the holy book, so reminiscent of the Talmud, the predilection for tradition and its collection, and the pedantic, pedantic tone that so readily indulges in trivialities and displays its importance, entered Arabic literature."

Similarly, Samuel Rosenblatt, "Rabbinic Legends in Hadîth," *The Moslem World* 35 (1945), pages 237-252, writes, among other things, on pages 251 and 252:

“[…] Some, at least, have a distinct Christian character and must have come to the attention of Muslims through the writings of the clergy of the Syriac Church, who in turn adopted them from the Jews. However, enough remains that can only be explained as the result of personal contact with Jews, of whom there was a large, firmly established, and well-informed Arabic-speaking community at the heart of Muslim civilization during the ninth and tenth centuries of the Common Era, the golden age of Arab culture. This community was located in Iraq, and especially in its capital, the seat of the Caliphate, Baghdad, where the necessary information about Jewish traditions could easily be obtained from the authoritative representatives and interpreters of Judaism. […] The Muslim legends about biblical figures, therefore, cannot have arisen as the result of an independent study of the Old Testament by the Muslims, but must have been directly adopted from rabbinic tradition. That the authority of the Jews with regard to these traditions was fully acceptable to the Muslims is explicitly stated in almost all works of Muslim literature.” Hadiths were established [In the footnote: Bukhari 60, 50; Ahmad ibn Hanbal II, pp. 159, 202, 474, 502, and III, pp. 13, 46, and IV, pp. 437, 444 [...] ], and that Jewish scholars were consulted for this purpose is attested by Tabari and others. [...]."

The موالي (mawâlî, plural of maulâ), Christians and Jews before their conversion to Islam, who lived many centuries after Lot, very quickly formed the majority among the early Muslims. They knew just as little about the conditions in Lot's city as we do today, since all historical evidence about it was lacking.

And all subsequent converts also lived in countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage, and were therefore generally Christians and Jews beforehand. The supposed knowledge proclaimed by a maulâ was, in fact, what everyone else also possessed—part of the teachings of their former religion. Thus, Muslim thought was shaped and influenced by them.

Being a maulâ is not in itself a negative attribute or a fundamental flaw if—as will be shown in the examination of the Qur'ânic commentaries—the authors adhere to the literal text of the Qur'ân and do not attempt imaginative additions. However, the situation is quite different when later Muslim scholars accused them of "borrowing from the ahlu`l-kitāb (Christians and Jews)" or "relying on Christian and Jewish sources," which clearly expresses a certain reservation.

Many of these mawâlî are disputed regarding their traditions. But regardless, they impressed and influenced their Muslim environment almost irreversibly with the "knowledge" they had acquired before their conversion, which forms the basis of many of their interpretations. After Muslim influence spread across Syria and Iraq, numerous people living there embraced Islam. These countries had Christian churches and Jewish communities. Besides ordinary believers, the organized church included community leaders, priests, bishops, monks, teachers, and others who received religious instruction but, upon converting, lost their jobs and incomes. Unlike the majority of Arab Muslims, some had previously received intensive religious training and brought with them their existing worldview, beliefs, and convictions. When they converted to Islam, they joined one of the Arab tribes as so-called mawâlî (singular: maulâ) = clients. And because of their ancient knowledge, they soon became sought-after sources for many of the less educated Arab Muslims, who often accepted what they learned from them uncritically.
A certain arrogance, a feeling of superiority on the part of the converts over the often less educated Arabs and the latter's sense of inferiority, likely also played a significant role, as Maulana Muhammad 'Ali, in his book *The Religion of Islam*, quotes Ibn ẖaldûn (732 AH – 808 AH/ 1332 – 1406, one of the greatest Muslim social scientists of the Middle Ages), who uses far more drastic language. A volatile mix, as the results in many of the commentaries demonstrate. And the suspicion arises that there was a deliberate, large-scale manipulation of a market of supply and demand, involving inventors, storytellers, the quṣṣāṣ.

isrâ'îliyyât (material of Jewish or Christian origin)

In the book “Ehe für alle” im Islam? Sexualität, Partnerwahl, Ehebund, Familie im Qur’ân“, p. 32, it says:
“G.H.A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, Discussions in Modern Egypt, page 14:
"[...] The isrâ'îliyyât, i.e., traditions in which Jewish influence is evident. The general orthodox view is that, as long as the isnâd is declared sound, Muhammad must have made these statements. At this point, the tolerance of Islam towards the other monotheistic religions is always emphasized. On the other hand, scholars who wish to subject the hadith to renewed scrutiny have pointed out that the two main transmitters of isrâ'îliyyât, ka'b al-aḥbâr and wahb b. munabbih, attempted to subvert Islam by introducing Jewish elements into its beliefs."
According to Wikipedia, some of the most well-known narrators of isrâ’îliyyât include (in Arabic):

• kaʿb al-aḥbâr (d. 32 AH), (transmitter of Jewish and ancient South Arabian legends, born in Dhimar, a two-day journey from Sana'a, the capital of Yemen)

• ʿabdu'llâh ibn salâm (d. 43 AH)

• wahb ibn munabbih (d. 114 AH), (South Arabian narrator (qâṣṣ) and transmitter of so-called isrâ’îliyyât)

• ʿabdul malik ibn ʿabdul ʿazîz ibn ǧurayǧ (d. 150 AH).

Wikipedia (German) writes about the use of isrâ’îliyyât in the course of Muslim history, among other things:

"In the first 6th and 7th centuries of Islam, Isrā'īlīyāt played a minor role and were rarely used until the 14th century, and not at all by some scholars. Until then, the term seems to have referred to a book or a fixed corpus of stories related to the creation story and accounts of past prophets, which were considered unreliable, but it did not gain widespread acceptance. It was only for Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) that the Isrā'īlīyāt came to represent a collection of unreliable traditions of Jewish origin, associated with earlier transmitters such as Wahb ibn Munabbih and Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, whose authority had still been accepted by earlier Sunni scholars like al-Tabari. Nevertheless, it was his student Ibn Kathir who first systematically used the term for traditions that Ibn Kathir vehemently rejected." [...] But it was only in the 20th century that the systematic use of isrā'īlīyāt became established. As a result, they are often criticized, especially today, and considered "un-Islamic."

Over the many centuries in which such narratives and stories were accepted, the foundations for Muslim thought and understanding of the Qur'ân were laid, foundations that remain valid to this day. Contrary to what the preceding quote suggests, they had a significant influence on early Qur'ânic commentaries. The harm they caused is still relevant in Muslim life today. Homophobic reactions are still present in conversations with Muslims. I remember a brother who, like me, converted to Islam here in Germany and who earnestly assured me: "You know what we would do to you!!!" And I have heard of young, native-born Muslims who commit suicide in their despair. I also vividly recall a telephone conversation with an employee of a German-language Muslim newspaper who based his negative attitude on his affiliation with a particular Muslim group (instead of, more appropriately, on the sources of Islam).

In such an environment, where the majority of Muslims declare that homosexual acts are strictly forbidden and remind them of the punishments prescribed by the schools of law, some even going so far as to label those affected as non-Muslims, and even if someone has not lived according to their fiṭra, Muslim communities resist by all means considering them as members or allowing them to perform religious functions.

Does the Qur'ân prohibit a non-heterosexual lifestyle?

Under such circumstances, where social rejection and contempt know no bounds, what can those affected do?

Some people will try with all their might to live a life contrary to their fiṭra because of this situation. Those who are devout Muslims but lack this strength will search desperately for another answer in the Qur'ân. And some will come across verses that say that no soul is burdened beyond its capacity (2:233), (2:286), (6:152), (7:42), (23:62) and (65:7).
They say:
(2:233)

 َا تُكَلَّفُ نَفْسٌ إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۚ
no soul shall be charged with more than it can bear.

(2:286)

 لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۚ
Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity.

(6:152)

 لَا نُكَلِّفُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَ ۖ
We do not burden any soul beyond its capacity.

(7:42)

 ا نُكَلِّفُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا
We do not burden any soul beyond its capacity.

(23:62)

 وَلَا نُكَلِّفُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۖ
And We do not burden any soul beyond its capacity.

(65:7)

 اللَّهُ ۚ لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا مَا آتَاهَا ۚ
Allah does not burden any soul beyond what He has given it.

With regard to forbidden foods, it is added in (2:173):

فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَلَا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
But whoever is forced by necessity, without desiring it or exceeding the limits, shall not be sinful. Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

In (16:115) it says similarly:

فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
But whoever is forced by necessity, without desiring it or exceeding the limits, then Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

There are affected Muslims who, based on these statements in the Qur'ân, have endeavoured to adapt their way of life to these commandments.

But is that a solution? Allah, as فاطر fâṭir, Creator, has given every living being an innate nature, فطرة  - fiṭra, for its life: And so the question arises as to whether a life in accordance with an innate non-heterosexual  disposition was actually forbidden by Him.

This question is addressed in the book series ‘"Islam und Homosexualität im Qur’ân und der Hadîth-Literatur" - „/Islam and Homosexuality in the Qur'ân and Hadith Literature’).

For the reasons mentioned above, one can only conclude that many translators of the Qur'ân and representatives of Muslim groups, without reflection or questioning their position, are under the influence of an unreflective, sometimes dogmatic, and compulsive homophobia. And the question arises whether this can, should, or may be the basis upon which to reshape the revealed words of Allah and derive the teachings of Islam accordingly.
Why don't we stick to what Allah has revealed to us? The Qur'ân is the foundation of our Islam, transmitted unchanged, with a clear and unambiguous text.

Why do some people think that it needs to be supplemented by imposing inappropriate, abstruse ideas on it, be they weak traditions or stories from earlier generations based on misguided fantasies and unscientific ideas?
Why do we not limit ourselves to historically verifiable facts?

Even the opinions of earlier Muslim scholars cannot simply be invoked without first being critically examined. They were – just like us today – children of their time and sometimes based their ideas on the thinking of that era or an outdated world view.

In our present day, humans have managed to fly to the moon, walk on it, and return to Earth. All of this was achieved because they adhered strictly to the facts that were decisive for this undertaking: the laws of nature (and not any myths or fairy tales). But Muslims have thus far failed to adhere to the facts that are decisive for them: the words of the Qur'ân. They claim that these are the words revealed by Allah, but at the same time—as the Qur'ânic commentaries demonstrate—they have tried and continue to try to ignore them, to add absurd explanations, to impose them, to distort and falsify them. Where has this led them? Why were and are fables, legends, and the like so natural to them, and even more important, than the easily recognizable fundamental statements? What is the purpose of this escape? Is this perhaps what the Qur'ân condemns: that they follow their desires (šahawât) instead of what Allah tells them? And this applies not only to the area addressed in this book, but to many other areas as well.
Often, it is simply their own laziness that prevents them from reflecting deeply, from questioning what they do, think, or say. How can they pave the way for a more appropriate understanding of their religion if they so diligently try to avoid doing so?

On the beginnings of the adoption of pre-Islamic ideas

Comparison of the Muslim and Gregorian calendars for the early period:
Muslim Centuries: AH = Anno Hegirae = "in the year of the hiǧra"   Corresponding Gregorian centuries:
Corresponding Gregorian centuries:
1 st century AH (622–719)                                                                 7th Gregorian century
2nd century AH (719–816)                                                                   8th Gregorian century
3rd century AH (816–913)                                                                  9th Gregorian century
4th century AH (913–1009)                                                              10th Gregorian century
5th century AH (1009–1106)                                                             11th Gregorian century
th century AH (1106–)                                                                       12th Gregorian century

Samuel Rosenblatt (see above) dates these adoptions of biblical origin to the period "of the ninth and tenth centuries of the common chronology," i.e., the 3rd-4th century of the Muslim calendar. However, the conversion began as early as the 1st century of the hiǧra = 7th Gregorian century. This is stated in the Wikipedia article „Islamische Expansion“ (Islamic Expansion [correctly: Muslim Expansion]"):

"The Islamic [= Muslim] expansion, as used below, refers to the Arab conquests beginning in the mid-630s and the concomitant spread of Islam into the 8th century. The beginning of the Islamic [= Muslim] expansion is often considered to mark the end of antiquity.
In the 630s, the Arabs began their attack on the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire and the New Persian  Sasanian Empire, both of which had been severely weakened by a long war against each other. The Eastern Romans lost Palestine and Syria in 636, Egypt in 640/42, and all of North Africa to the Arabs by 698. While the Eastern Romans managed to retain a remnant empire centered on Asia Minor and the Balkans, the Sasanian Empire collapsed in 651. In the following decades, the Arabs also launched naval attacks. At the beginning of the 8th century, they conquered the Visigothic Kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula and advanced eastward as far as Central Asia."

Qur'ân Commentaries - tafsîr

To set the mood, here is a quote from: The Religion of Islam by Maulana Muhammad 'Ali, p. 47, on "the value of Hadith and commentaries in the interpretation of the Qur'ân:

"As regards commentaries, a word of warning is necessary against the tendency to regard what is stated  in them as being the final word on interpretation, since by so doing the great treasures of knowledge which an exposition of the Holy Qur'ân in the new light of modern progress reveals are shut out, and the Qur'ân becomes a book , and makes it a sealed book for the present generation. The learned men of yore all freely sought the meaning of the Qur'ân according to their lights, and to the present generation  belongs the same right to read it according to its own light. It must also be added that, though the commentaries are a valuable stores of learning for a knowledge of the Holy Qur'ân, the numerous anecdotes and legends with which many of them are filled can only be accepted with the greatest caution and after the most careful sifting. Such stories are mostly taken from the Jews and Christians, and on this point I would refer to my remarks   under the heading 'Reports in Biographies and Commentaries', where i have shown that the best authorities have condemned most of this material as Jewish and Christian nonsense."
In the aforementioned chapter ‘Reports in Biographies and Commentaries,’ he states on p. 78 f.:

[...] Many careless commentators confounded Hadîth with Jewish and Christian stories, and made free use of the latter as if they were so many reports. As Ibn Khaldûn [ibn ẖaldûn], speaking of the commentaries, says:
„The reason for this is that the Arabs were an uneducated people without literature or knowledge, and desert life and ignorance were their main characteristics, and whenever they, like mortals, wished to gain knowledge about the cause of existence and the origin of creation and the secrets of the universe, they turned to the followers of the Book, the Jews and the Christians, who practised their faith, for information. But these People of the Book were like themselves, and their knowledge of these things did not go beyond the knowledge of the ignorant masses. When these people accepted Islam, they retained their stories that had nothing to do with the commandments of Islamic law, such as the stories about the origin of creation and things related to the future and wars. These people were like Kaʿb aḥbâr and Wahb ibn Munabbah and ʿAbdu`llâh ibn Salâm and others. The commentaries on the Holy Qur'ân were soon filled with these stories from them. And in such matters, the reports do not go beyond them, and since these have nothing to do with commandments, their accuracy is not sought to the extent that one acts upon them, and the commentators take them rather carelessly, and so they have filled their commentaries with them. (Mq. I, p. 481, chap. ʿUlûm al-Qur'ân).“

„[...] In fact, in some of the comments, the reports cited are puerile nonsense. Even the commentary by Ibn ǧarîr [aṬ-Ṭabarî], with all its value as a literary production, cannot be relied upon. [...]."

On p. 45, he said the following about interpretations:
"[...] The important principle to be born in mind in the interpretion the Holy Qur'ân, therefore, 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 any other passage; but more especially with the basic principles laid down in the decisive verses. [...]".

And as a supplement to that:
It is completely incomprehensible that Muslims, for whom the Qur'ân is the revealed word of Allah, do not first and foremost follow its words, but instead add things to the text of the Qur'ân that are not mentioned in it and therefore should not even be considered. For those who do so do not want to know what the Qur'ân proclaims, but want to arbitrarily impose a meaning on it that it does not contain. This is more than irresponsible. It shows more than clearly that the intention of such people was not to explain the Qur'ân, but to falsify it according to their ‘prior knowledge’, their prejudices or desires.Maulana Muhammad 'Ali speaks of aṬ-Ṭabarî's commentary on the Qur'ân as a work ‘with all its value as a literary production’. His work was certainly a tremendous, unimaginable and laborious undertaking, collecting, sifting through and organising traditions. On closer inspection, it proves to be an extensive collection of statements by his contemporaries, stories and narratives, which were then included in the commentary and basically added to the Qur'ân text without really being a commentary that tells the reader anything more about the content of the Qur'ân. It is a parallel view that is not found in the text, perhaps interesting for historians, but nothing more. This observation also applies to some of the other commentaries. 

According to ibn ẖaldûn (see above), early Muslims lacked all the prerequisites, such as the tools, training and knowledge, to deal appropriately with stories such as the myth of Sodom. They accepted them without examining their scientific verifiability, with fatal consequences for future generations and their scholars, who, due to their own ignorance, often simply glossed over what they believed to be historical truth, even such eminent figures as Maulânâ Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Asad, as well as non-Muslim scholars, e.g. in the Corpus Coranicum. This was apparently based on the assumption that Islam was the result of Muslim history and Muslim thinking and not solely what emerges from the wording of the Qur'ân.

Simply continuing the ideologised, homophobic inventions of the early Christians (patristic theology from around 100 AD to 750 AD) is not an appropriate or acceptable course of action.

In the story of Lot, the Qur'ân refers to the visitors who come to Abraham and then to Lot as messengers and guests (15:53, 58, in the plural). It does not say that they are angels. However, many commentators derive this from the word “messengers”, which is also used for angels (see Muhammad Asad, page 325). And in (11:81) it says: ‘They (the messengers) said: “Lot, we are messengers from your Lord.”’ And only under this assumption are the verses (51:32-34) considered understandable. But none of the deeds reported about these messengers in the Qur'ân indicate that they are beings with superhuman abilities.

However, stories in the comments seem to build on this, painting imaginative pictures instead of limiting themselves to what the Qur'ân says.

There is no mention in the Qur'ân of the appearance or age of the messengers who were sent to Lot. Any statement to that effect cannot be derived from it and is pure speculation.

The names of two of these angels mentioned in the quoted commentaries in connection with Lot and his people, Gabriel (ǧibrîl) and Michael (mîkâl), and their ‘miraculous’ deeds are pure fantasy and cannot be traced back to any word in the Qur'ân. Their names are mentioned in only a few verses (2:97,98), (66:4).

In the comments examined, this applies not only to the inappropriate words that have been added, but also to the twisted fantasy stories about the deeds of Lot's messengers, who are described therein as supposed angels.

My impression so far: anyone who treats the wording of the Qur'ân so lightly does so deliberately, does not agree with what it explicitly says, but wants to change it in people's minds to suit their own agenda – to put it simply and explicitly, they are opponents of the revealed text on these points. And the influence of such an attitude on the image of Islam that Muslims have formed over the centuries, as well as on the maḏâhib, the schools of law and their view of humanity and the world, is truly disastrous.

The reckless and irresponsible adoption of stories in circulation, e.g. the use of pre-Muslim homophobic hate speeches or indoctrination, is not a serious method of commenting on the Qur'ân, but rather the opposite of an objective, text-oriented approach.

Homophobic attitudes in Christianity at that time and corresponding homophobic narratives in its religious exegesis certainly influenced or confirmed many people back then – and continue to influence them today. And when they converted and became Muslims, they did not automatically abandon their stance on this issue, but instead searched the new holy scripture, the Qur'ân, for statements that confirmed their view. Instead of adhering strictly to the wording, some began to overlay the text and its presentation with narratives, familiar patterns of explanation and inventions in the minds of the faithful, imposing their own variations on its presentation. And one can assume that they used the same material in their religious teachings to their listeners. The influence of the storytellers of that time (Arabic: quṣṣâṣ, singular qâṣṣ) (see obove) on the population, the majority of whom could neither read nor write and were therefore largely dependent on such information, should not be underestimated. Other Muslims adopted such representations, especially those with a similar intellectual background, and these homophobic narratives gradually became established as interpretations of the Qur'ânic text, blinding even those who could read the text of the Qur'ân themselves. This approach increasingly overshadowed the content of the actual text.
However, anyone who reads the Qur'ân and compares it with these strange representations that do not correspond to its wording will quickly realise that they do not fit together.

In Qur'ân commentaries, the Qur'ânic text and commentary or interpretation are presented side by side. As the term "Qur'ânic commentary" suggests, the focus is on the wording, the content of the Qur'ânic text. For a Muslim, this text is Allah's revelation to humankind. It is what Allah has communicated to them word for word.

In Qur'ân commentaries, the Qur'ânic text and commentary or interpretation are presented side by side. As the term "Qur'ânic commentary" suggests, the focus is on the wording, the content of the Qur'ânic text. For a Muslim, this text is Allah's revelation to humankind. It is what Allah has communicated to them word for word.

What often happens in these books is that other narratives are placed alongside the clear words of the revealed text, so that the reader or listener may get the impression that this is what was meant by what was revealed and that its message is not complete and truly clear.

Why don't all commentaries adhere to the literal text of the Qur'ân? What is their purpose in doing so? Why do they use ideas and opinions from their previous beliefs? Do they perhaps assume that the Qur'ân first needs to be "revised" in order to express "the correct" message? Does Allah's word need to be "corrected," and is a person even allowed to do that?

Don't commentators have a special responsibility?

The increasing influence of the Sodom myth

Even early approaches to Muslim thought were demonstrably overshadowed by the increasing influence of the Sodom myth, as it was developed in patristic theology in the first centuries of Christianity.

In the book "Islam und Homosexualität im Qur’ân und der Hadît-Literatur", Teil 2, subtitled Hadîṯ-Literatur, Die Überlieferungen“, a total of 23 old ḥadîṯ collections are examined in chronological order - i.e., based on the death dates of the authors attributed to the works - from the earliest to and including the so-called 'six books', collections which, according to the consensus of Muslim scholars, are said to contain largely authentic material:

ʿumar ibn ʿabdu`l-ʿazîz  (63 - 102 h., musnad)
hammâm ibn munabbih (40 - 103 h., ṣaḥîfa)
zayd ibn ʿalî (79 - 122 h., musnad/maǧmûʿu’l-fiqh)
abû ḥanîfa (80 - 150 h., musnad)
maʿmar ibn râšid (96 - 153 h., al-ǧâmiʿ)
rabîʿ ibn ḥabîb (     - 170, al-ǧâmiʿu`ṣ-ṣaḥîḥ)
mâlik ibn anas (93 - 179 h., muwaṭṭa‘)
                 recension: muḥammad ibn al-ḥasan aš-šaybânî (132 - 189 h.)
mâlik ibn anas (93 - 179 h., muwaṭṭa’)
                recension: yaḥyâ ibn yaḥyâ`l-layṯiyyi`l-andalusiyyi`l-masmûdî (  - 234 h.)
abû yûsuf  (113 - 182 h., kitâbu`l-ẖarâǧ, kitâbu`l-aṯâr)
ʿabdu`llâh ibn wahb (125 - 197h., ǧâmiʿ)
aṭ-ṭayâlisî (133 - 203 h., musnad)
aš-šâfiʿî (105 - 204 h., musnad)
ʿabdu`r-razzâqi`ṣ-ṣanʿânî (126 - 211 h., muṣannaf)
ʿabdu`llâh ibnu`z-zubayri`l-ḥumaydî, (   - 219 h., musnad)
ibn abî šayba  (159 - 235 h., muṣannaf)
aḥmad ibn ḥanbal (164 - 241 h., musnad)
ad-dârimî (181 - 255 h., sunan)
al-buẖârî (194 - 256 h., ǧâmiʿu`ṣ-ṣaḥîḥ)
muslim (204 - 261 h., ǧâmiʿu`ṣ-ṣaḥîḥ)
ibn mâǧa (209 - 273 h.), sunan
abû dâwûd (202 - 275 h. sunan)
at-tirmiḏî (209 - 279 h., sunan)
an-nasâ’î (215 - 303 h., sunan)

This work examines numerous traditions, or "ḥadîṯs", focusing on the words used and their meanings related to homosexuality. It provides a detailed description of the growing influence of the Sodom myth, a prominent theme in Christian homophobic patristic theology. The work demonstrates how newly coined words, countless reinterpretations of existing terms, and similar techniques were used to introduce the homophobic ideas of the Sodom myth into Muslim thought, and how these ideas prevailed against traditional linguistic sensibilities. The work highlights the difficulties some narrators had with the Arabic language in relation to the concepts they sought to establish as Islamic opinion. It identifies narrators who excel in certain terms, highlighting them as their sole disseminators, i.e., their originators, and assessing their reliability as transmitters.

The book comprises approximately 340 pages and can therefore only be reproduced here in excerpts and in a highly abridged form. It describes about 25 Arabic words, expressions, and short accounts from traditions that are associated with homosexuality.

An example from the section „E 01.2.1 lûTiyya, lûTî: Über die Wortbildung (اللوطية – اللوطي)“ ("E 01.2.1 lûTiyya, lûTî: On Word Formation (اللوطية – اللوطي)") in the aforementioned book illustrates how the word lûTî (literally: follower of Lot) changed its meaning. This is how it was understood in early times; only later was it equated with Sodomite (= homosexual). The name of the city of Sodom, where Lot lived and which served as the basis for neologisms in other languages, is not mentioned in the Qur'ân.

E. W. Lane, Volume II, p. 2682, explains in his 1877 Arabic-English Lexicon (square brackets as per the original):
"[lûṭiyyun one who is devoted to the transgression of Lot's people; as is lawwâṭun: both used in this sense in modern times; but perhaps post-classical.]"
And:
"lûṭiyyatun [the transgression of Lot's people]: one of the last of the meanings explained above: it appears in a tradition. (TA)."
E. W. Lane's use of "but perhaps post-classical" likely means that he found no corresponding examples in ancient texts.

This initially gradual process is quite clear in the traditions in section "E 01.17.1 yâ lûTî". From the name Lot, Arabic lûT, new Arabic words were formed and given a homosexual connotation, even though Lot cannot be held responsible for this. See also section „E 01.2.1 lûTiyya, lûTî: Über die Wortbildung (اللوطية – اللوطي)“ ("E 01.2.1 lûTiyya, lûTî: On Word Formation (اللوطية – اللوطي)") in the aforementioned book. Other words include, for example, لواط - liwâṭ, with the later meaning of anal intercourse.

No traditions appear in the older collections that address how to react to someone who calls another person lûṭî. From this, it can be inferred that until then, this word had its original meaning as a follower of the Prophet lûṭ, and that the negative, derogatory meaning was not yet widespread.

This becomes clear from these collections, for example, when in no. 13730, ʿabdu`r-razzâqi`ṣ-ṣanʿânî (126-211 AH) first establishes what is meant by the word, and in no. 13746 it even says:
And salama came to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he said: A man said to another man:
Yâ lûṭî [literally: O Follower of Lot]! And he presented this to sinân ibn salama, and he replied:
“What an excellent man you are, if you are of Lot’s people.”
However, at this point, the influence of reinterpretation is already evident.

Further examples:
From: ʿabdu`r-razzâqi`ṣ-ṣanʿânî, muṣannaf, Part 7, p. 426, No. 13733:
The answer is narrated from az-zuhrî (50–124) and qatâda (60–117), a maulâ: “From az-zuhrî and qatâda concerning a man who said to another man: O lûṭî [literally: O follower of Lot]! They both said: He will not be punished with a ḥadd [-punishment].”
From: ibn abî šayba, muṣannaf (II), Part 9, p. 533, No. 8404:
al-ḥasan al-baṣrî ( - 110) and muḥammad said: “He is not liable for ḥadd punishment unless he says: You are doing what the people of Lot did.”

The prerequisite for this term to be perceived as an insult was that the actual meaning of this expression was distorted and became established as a term for homosexuals in connection with the acceptance of the Sodom myth, ideas of patristic theology with its homophobic undertones, probably after the expression ʿamal qaum lûṭ - that what Lot's people did - was finally shortened to the name of Lot.

The first such accounts appear in the collections relatively late, namely in the writings of ʿabdu`r-razzâqi`ṣ-ṣanʿânî, who lived from 126 - 211 after the hiǧra.

A punishment for lûṭiyya and the one who commits it is first documented in ʿabdu`r-razzâqi`ṣ-ṣanʿânî and then again in ibn abî šayba (159-235 AH). Neither before nor after were such traditions found in the collections. Furthermore, all of these are not prophetic traditions, but rather the opinions of scholars. In other words, the other collectors avoided them, likely aware that—probably due to the terminology used—they could not be considered reliable statements of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

It could not be shown more clearly that this expression is post-classical, as E.W. Lane assumed, and in what period this reinterpretation took place.

The terms lûṭî and lûṭiyya as designations for a homosexual and homosexuality only gradually became established towards the end of the 1st, beginning of the 2nd century of the Muslim era and thus entered the traditions, which were generally not attributed to the Prophet. However, they clearly show their change in meaning due to the increasingly accepted Sodom myth as a result of its overemphasis in patristic theology.

ʿamal qaum lûṭ (= the actions of Lot's people): Other accounts.

They are diverse. They range from improper behavior to violating a commandment that certain fish may only be eaten on specific days, to marriage without the permission of one's wife or family. The term was even used to describe the rebellion against the third caliph, ʿuṯmân (644–656), and the siege of his house.

They have no discernible sexual connotation and are recorded by zayd ibn ʿalî  (79 - 122 h.), abû ḥanîfa (80 - 150 h.), ibn abî šayba (159 - 235 h.) and with one further example by aḥmad ibn ḥanbal (164 - 241 h.).

At least during this period, such traditions were widespread and thus reflect a completely different state of opinion about the conditions in Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the collection of zayd ibn ʿalî (79 - 122 AH), their transgressions are described, for example, as follows:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say:
Ten things were among the ways Lot’s people used to do. So beware of them: letting their mustaches hang down, styling their hair, chewing pistachios (or mastic), unbuttoning (their clothes), letting their loincloths hang (over their ankles), releasing doves, shooting clay balls, whistling, gathering to drink, and playing games together.”

abû ḥanîfa (80-150 AH, musnad) narrates:
“I said: Messenger of Allah, what was the abomination they used to commit in their gatherings [referring to the people of Lot in Surah 29:30]? He replied: They used to throw date pits or small stones and mock travelers.”

Marriage between two men

Regarding a marriage between two men, ibn abî šayba (159–235 h., muṣannaf) states:

fî`r-raǧuli yatazawwaǧu`r-raǧula ilâ maysaratin qâla: kâna yaqûlu: ilâ mautin au firâqin
"Regarding the man who marries another man until a suitable opportunity arises, he said: [about this] he usually said: until death or separation."

Note:
Here, it is emphasized that a partnership between two men can only be dissolved by death or separation, meaning that, for example, the possibility of a union 'ilâ aǧalin' (until the expiration of a term), i.e., a kind of temporary marriage, is excluded."

An isolated account that did not appear in any of the other collections examined.

The following is entirely gender-neutral:
There are further narrations, for example in ʿabdu`r-razzâqi`ṣ-ṣanʿânî, muṣannaf, Part 6, p. 168, No. 10377, which states: “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) [said]:
“In the case of two who love each other, I know of nothing like marriage.”

And another example: ʿabdu`r-razzâqi`ṣ-ṣanʿânî, muṣannaf, Part 6, p. 263, No.:
From aš-šaʿbî, who said:
“lâ yanbaġî li-raǧulin an yaǧmaʿa bayna`mra’atayni lau kânat iḥdâ-humâ raǧulan lam yaḥill la-hu nikâḥa-hâ”
“A man may not unite two wives [in one marriage]; if one of them is a man, he is not permitted to marry her (= singular, a woman).”

“sufyân said: The explanation for this, according to our opinion, is that he is a kin and does not have the status of a wife and the daughter of the husband; he [can] unite them both if he wishes.”
Note:
This is a somewhat unclear tradition, which is not clarified by the interpretation of sufyân. Based on the wording, it likely means that someone may not be married to both a woman and a man simultaneously—that is, he may not marry a woman if he is already married to a man.
Amazing statements from the early history of Muslims.

The ḥamîm (faithful, intimate friend) in the Qur'ân and in traditions

According to the Qur'ân, on the Day of Judgment a loyal friend (ad-dârimî, al-buẖârî, muslim, at-tirmiḏî ḥamîm) will not ask for his friend, as everyone is responsible for his own life; however, in this life, a man's relationship with his ḥamîm can be deeper and more binding than a man's relationship with a wife, children, relatives, and all other people on earth (70:10-14).
In many traditions, the ḥamîm, the intimate friend, is apparently counted among the heirs alongside the relatives.
The earliest collection for which this ḥadiṯ was selected is that of ibn abî šayba (159–235 AH). However, it was not selected by ad-dârimî, al-buẖârî, muslim, at-tirmiḏî and an-nasâ’î.

It is found in the accounts of ibn abî šayba (159–235 h., muṣannaf) and even in those of abû dâwûd (202–275 h., sunan).
"From ʿâ'iša,
'that a close relative of the Prophet (peace be upon him) died. He left behind some property, but he had no children and no close friend [Arabic: ḥamîm]. Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Give his inheritance to a man from among the inhabitants of his town.'"

As just shown, the early collections hold some surprises that suggest the Sodom myth only began to exert its devastating influence somewhat later.
Finally, another example from a series of others showing how proponents of the Sodom myth attempted to translate their bizarre ideas into Arabic, a quote from the aforementioned book on such traditions:
“In all of them it says:
al-muẖannaṯîna mina`r-riǧâl wa`l-mutaraǧǧilât mina`n-nisâ:
the muẖannaṯûn [gay men] and the mutaraǧǧilât [women who behave like men] among the women.

The grammatical gender of the two words muẖannaṯûn and mutaraǧǧilât already indicates the gender of the respective group of people, so the addition of ‘among the men’ or ‘among the women’ is superfluous: It speaks of a male group of people and emphasizes that they belong to the men, and of a female group of people and emphasizes that they belong to the women. One reason for this unusual formulation could be that someone felt uncertain in Arabic. Perhaps the listeners were unfamiliar with these ideas, so a supplementary explanation was necessary, or the person who circulated them was unsure whether he had chosen the correct words in Arabic.

In a nutshell:

Comments on the transgression of Lot's people

It has been possible to demonstrate that and how ancient Qur'ânic commentaries have had an undeniable influence on the religious thinking of Muslims, both in the past and present, and to identify the origins of these ideas.

There is no historically sound evidence about the people of Lot that could support this traditional nonsense. The words of the Qur'ân do not support it—quite the contrary—and there is not a single authentic ḥadîṯ attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on this matter—nothing.

Thus, the hope remains that Muslims will continually reconsider this unscientific viewpoint and finally arrive at a more realistic understanding of the facts than they have had so far, and that they will also advocate for this understanding.

Once again, and in conclusion: The sole basis for the teachings of Islam is the Qur'ân, the revealed message of Allah to humankind, and the authentic ḥadîṯs—in the strictest sense—that which the Prophet said, did, thought, approved or disapproved of, permitted or forbade. The tendency of some to look back to the past to reinforce their own opinions is ultimately a backward-looking stance, as is clinging to certain groups and their views, which are usually based on ideas formed in the past, risking the perpetuation of outdated beliefs that have no basis in the true sources of Islam. Allah's will is expressed in the Qur'ân and in the facts of His creation.

For the reality of creation—that which Allah created and continues to create—speaks against it: homosexuality is inherent in creation. It is found in humans and, beyond that, in countless animal species, perhaps even in all of them. It is not a sin, but part of the variance of creation; in other words, it is willed by Allah. And it does not threaten the existence of humanity—as some Muslim representatives have occasionally claimed—and never has. And when homosexuality is practiced consensually, no one is harmed. A religious "undercurrent" in the form of religiously disguised homophobia has existed and exists. But there is no reason to continue "cultivating" it, even by invoking the supposed "knowledge" of the ancients, unless the aim is to inflict suffering, contempt, and self-hatred on others, perhaps even driving them to suicide.

The word šahwa (desire) in the form šahwatan (in a desire) in two statements by Lot does not have the explicitly sexual meaning attributed to it in most Qur'ân translations. Some translators even add it in parentheses to other verses, presumably to prevent what they perceive as "misunderstandings."

Some commentaries have attempted to give the word šahwa a new meaning, specifically in the stories of Joseph and Jacob, with the idea that šahwa – desire – emanated from or between Joseph's fingertips. This likely influenced the interpretation of the verses about Lot and his people and the understanding of the word šahwatan there.

The previously stated reasons against such a purpose will remain valid.

Astronomy as a model for Islamic science

The vehement reactions and hostility on this topic from other Muslims often remind me of the development of astronomy and cosmology. These fields have occupied humankind since time immemorial, and people have continually discovered new things, phenomena, discarded old views and models, and developed a more realistic picture of the world we live in based on newly recognized facts. For a long time, groups of people, especially scholars with a religious background, rejected these research findings, insisted on their flawed assumptions, threatened and even forced the discoverers to recant or killed them for it. Yet those they attacked were merely proclaiming what Allah established in His creation, what He 'revealed' (Arabic: waḥy: 41:11,12) within it—inherent revelations, so to speak, which humankind can discover/explore in order to better understand Allah's creation and its interdependent relationships and rules.

From this perspective, I also view the revelation of the Qur'ân. Its words describe a part of the universe that is related to the latter, something to be understood, discovered, and explored. Its investigation and interpretation are never complete, but remain open for all time, allowing for the consideration of established facts and the discarding of previously used myths, claims, and fallacies when they contradict current knowledge. This also means, if necessary, setting aside traditional (even so-called, but not authentic) 'ḥadîṯs' that are recognized as fabrications or forgeries. Even great scholars, like all people, could and can err. The idea that everything that exists originates with Allah, that it is His will, is, for a religious person, indisputable.

Astronomy, the study of the stars, significantly shapes humanity's self-image and its understanding of its place in the universe. In the history of astronomy, for example, there was the erroneous notion of the earth being a disc, which was later replaced by the understanding that the earth is a sphere. The development of astronomy has encompassed a wide range of ideas, from early geocentric models with the earth as the center of the universe and the planets orbiting it in ideal circles, to today's strongly scientifically oriented thinking with its correspondingly different theories. The heliocentric model of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1573) and the elliptical planetary orbits discovered by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) superseded these earlier ideas.

Over the past few centuries, astronomers have developed more realistic ideas, theories, and models based on their newly acquired knowledge, which in turn had to be revised or replaced as further discoveries progressed. The invention and use of the telescope played a crucial role in this process, with its further development into reflecting telescopes, radio telescopes, and so on, and since the second half of the last century, the use of space telescopes.
Where would today's researchers be if they hadn't constantly questioned everything in the past and re-examined and reconsidered many previously unknown facts, problems, or phenomena in their explanations? They always return to the facts and compare the results of their research with them. A consensus (comparable to iǧmāʿ) among astronomers in every era certainly existed, but it didn't prevail over new ideas based on new facts.

This fundamental attitude should also be the starting point for Muslim scholars when they examine the statements of the Qur'ân, its interpretation, and its references to real facts, rather than clinging to some "consensus of Islamic scholars" ("iǧmāʿ') from the past, who at that time had no knowledge of the origin of the so-called Sodom myth. They must make greater efforts to critically examine old myths, inherited opinions, and statements of earlier scholars by searching for their reliable evidence and re-examining them, instead of—as in astronomy centuries ago—regarding known viewpoints as irrefutable.

The great Muslim scholars of the past did not possess the knowledge we have today. Therefore, we must critically examine and re-evaluate their work. In my text, I have shown when and how the Sodom myth entered Muslim thought without any Muslim scholar having investigated its earliest development. Muslims accepted it without examining or questioning it. Muslim scholars predominantly read the Qur'ân through the lens of the mawali commentaries and did not primarily adhere to the Arabic text of the Qur'ân (this is a finding of my research).
Clinging to outdated views as soon as new insights become available leads to a kind of museum-like construct with no connection to reality. Worse still, it means distorting the truth of the Qur'ân on the basis of outdated knowledge by placing one's own opinion above the wording of the Qur'ân and arbitrarily overlaying it with statements from fantasy stories.

‘Islamic science’ has yet to become a science and should not be limited to the understanding of Islam that has developed in the past. It must reconcile the teachings of religion with the reality of creation and refrain from ‘imposing’ existing prejudices and ideas on the Creator. For Allah created the world as it is according to His will, not according to ideas developed later by humans.

What some people find objectionable about creation must be thoroughly examined and not simply prohibited.

On the one hand, we must acknowledge the great ideas conceived by Muslim scholars in the past, but on the other hand, we must also recognize errors stemming from their flawed and incomplete knowledge.