It's springtime, which means that Princeton University Press is having its annual 50% off spring sale. From May 4th through June 9th, you can get 50% off nearly every single print, e-book, and audio book from Princeton University Press. Just go to press.prinston.edu to get 50% off incredible books like Disneyland and the Rise of Automation. And beyond belief, evidence shows what really works.
There are so many fantastic books you can get an incredible deal on. Go to press.prinston.edu and use the code spring50. That's sp-r-i-n-g-50 at press.prinston.edu. This day only lasts for a month, so go and get some books.
Welcome to the new books network. Hello, Salaam, and welcome to the podcast, New Books in Islamic Cities, a channel with the New Books Network. I'm your co-host, Jahanah Zakani. What does Islam, particularly sharing Islam, really say about same-sex sexual relations?
Can Islamic legal frameworks rooted in centuries after its students ever be used to imagine the possibility of an Islamic-ly-valid same-sex marriage? What terms and categories did pre-modern Islamic sources use to imagine or to describe what we might now call homosexuality, and what is meant by the claim that homosexuality as a form of identity is a modern construct? Is the story of a lot in the Quran really about homosexuality? And crucially, what Islamic perspectives exist in response to the deeply homophobic statement navigating differences clarifying sexual and gender ethics in Islam, which was published in May 2023, endorsed by those who argue that Islam categorically rejects same-sex sexual relationships?
In negotiating homosexuality in Islam, a legal-harmonical examination of modern-ial discourse, Mehadad Ali-Pour engages these exact urgent questions with intellectual rigor and legal precision. Ali-Pour is a scholar of Iranian and Islamic studies whose work focuses on Islamic legal theory, Shilid-E-Thad, and discourses around sex, gender, and sexuality in both modern and pre-modern contexts. He earned his PhD in Arabic and Islamic studies from the University of Exeter and received traditional training also at the Seminary of Qom in Iran. He's currently based at the University of Utrecht or Ithrecht in the Netherlands, where he leads the project beyond binaries, intersex in Islamic legal tradition, exploring how intersex identities have been understood in Shil-legal texts from the 14th to early 20th centuries.
His another office publication navigating body politics in Shil-legal tradition examining Seyid-Kazan Yes, these accounts of non-binary intersex is available online for free for all readers. Rather than offering a theological verdict or issuing new rulings in the book, Ali-Pour turns to the internal tools of the imami Shil-legal tradition, most notably the methods of each day had to explore how scholars have historically interpreted and might yet reinterpret questions regarding sexual relations. Through a careful and brilliant analysis upon on-curses, Hadith's traditions, legal principles, and rational arguments, Ali-Pour shows how the Shil-legal tradition contains interpretive possibilities that would speak to contemporary understandings of homosexuality as a consensual, identity-based, and egalitarian practice. As Ali-Pour clarifies in our conversation, he has studied as not attempt to declare what Islamic law must say about same-sex relations, but rather to identify and expand the discursive spaces within which a conversation can meaningfully take place.
By using the very legal principles and interpretive strategies that have shaped Shil-Jewish prudence across generations, he invites scholars and jurists to consider how Islamic legal thought might respond faithfully and creatively to modern realities. The book is a thoughtful and necessary contribution to ongoing debates on Islam, Islamic law, and sexual diversity. In our conversation today, Ali-Pour walks us through the book's key arguments and findings, highlights the significance of applying modern imami Shil-Hadi principles to the question of same-sex relations, and outlines and outlines how core Islamic sources like the Quran, the Sunnah, Akhul, or Rizan, Ijmaa, or consensus have been interpreted in relation to same-sex intimacy with special attention in our discussion to specific gaps in the story of La in the Quran, because I learned a lot from that chapter in the book. He also clarifies key pre-modern terms that are often cited by contemporary Muslim scholars as referring to homosexuality, unpacking their historical meanings and legal and social and legal context.
This here is my conversation with Mehrdad Ali-Pour on his book Negotiating Homosexuality in Islam, a legal homodical examination of modern shil-Hidisqours published with Brill in 2024. Hi, Mehrdad Salaam. Thank you so, so much for joining me to talk about your book Negotiating Homosexuality in Islam, a legal homodical examination of modern shil-Hidisqours. I'm so happy you can join me to talk about this.
Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to your lovely podcast. Absolutely. And you know Mehrdad, I was just telling you this privately as well, but I want you to know how much this book speaks to me.
I'm going to be recommending it to everybody. Left and right everywhere. This is some of the things that you do in this book, particularly the chapter on the Quran, and where you analyze Quranic verses on same-sex relations or homo-sex violence, we'll talk about these words in a bit. That's what I've been wanting to do for a long time.
I was going to use more, I was going to use Biblical approaches, or Biblical texts also, because there are a lot of gaps in the Quranic version, and then there's assumptions about what text we have access to. But this is a much-needed book. I am especially thrilled to see Islamic approaches, Islamic legal tools, the focus on the shil-Hidisqours. This is filling all kinds of gaps in the city of sexual relations in gender in Islam, and I'm so grateful that you did it.
Thank you for writing this book. Thank you. So, it's our traditional podcast to ask our guests to introduce themselves and tell us about their intellectual journey, how they got to where they are currently, which you mind telling us that journey? Yeah.
Very interesting point. Yeah, it's my journey. Yeah, it's been a long, and in many ways, risky journey. So, it all goes back to my time training in Islamic studies at the seminary of Hausaar-Nia.
I mean, Islamic literature, especially Islamic law, include extensive discussions on what we might call in modern-term sex, gender, and sexuality. Of course, these terms weren't used in these traditional texts as they are today. But the subjects were very much there. So, the base-on made and female sexuality, same-sex sexual practices, and categories such as plonfa, roughly intersex, muhan-naf, effeminate, me, or man, mata-red-gen, managed woman, and hansi, eunik.
Among others, right? But we were starting these kind of texts. But what always caught my attention was the contrast between the seriousness of these texts and how these topics were treated in the daily lives of Hausa teachers and students. In the seminary setting, these discussions were often turned into jokes, something to laugh about, as if they were distant and irrelevant, disconnected from their own lives, families, and communities.
Yet, the text themselves were anything but playful, right? So, these texts were serious, sometimes harsh and sometimes more humane, but never meant to be taken largely or humorously. But then, I was starting these kind of texts. Why am I so young?
So, to be honest with you, I often even didn't understand the jokes. Or why people were laughing? I have many cases of me being in such a situation, which others are laughing or were laughing, and they were seriously just looking at them. I'm not in a way so tired to go into these personal matters.
But the point is, such misogynistic and sexist humor always bothered me. And later made me want to go back to these texts with a fresh perspective to re-examine them carefully. Because I sensed that. Beyond the way they were dismissed in conversation, they helped a depth that could contribute meaningfully to modern debates.
On gender and sexuality. So, I know you pursued modern education. It felt natural to focus on these themes in Islamic legal and cultural discourse as a context. So, I wanted to engage with these texts seriously, not just as a person with historical curiosity.
As a human, of course, I had and have such curiosity, but as mainly as sources, it would take the initial relevance of contemporary discussions. Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing that. That's a good point.
In my experience too, when these terms come up in just in minimum spaces, there's sort of, there's ridicule around it. And that's not the impression we get it all from the sacred text. So, thank you for describing that experience. The next question I'd like to ask, and it's also about origin stories, is the book, how did the book, is it?
I want to say that you're in the electronic that you described, kind of also describes the origin story of the book. Would you like to elaborate on why the book, why now? We have so many wonderful scholars, so much wonderful scholars are already on same-sex relations. What's the book story?
Very good question. So, the question of why was this study necessary? Yeah, I mean, I talked about that in the book as well. And I would love to expand on this point.
You know, of course, there are several significant and insightful studies that have explored homosexuality, you know, in this long-week context from cultural, social, or historical perspectives. Also, you know, I mean, over the last few decades, we have reformist Sonia scholars who offered alternative legal, anthropological interpretations of homosexuality in Islam. But then, you know, in contrast, when you look at she context, you see she is always often afraid from engaging in this debate. And, you know, this silence is not justified.
Given the fact that discussions on or of modern gender and sexuality, in moment addition, you know, somewhat began with a local manist platform, illegalizing gender affirmation surgery for transgender individuals when in the mid-20th century. So, the urgency of this study was, I think, later to me, I saw a gap that needed to be filled, and this project was my, you know, attempt to respond to this timely and urgent need. But then, let me add this point as well. Since I finished my project, the project was finished in 2022, although, you know, the publication took longer and only came out in 2024.
But several events happened since then, which I believe that further highlight the timeliness of such studies. For instance, in 2023, I think you might recall as well that a group of Muslim religious scholars and imams, I think, dominated based in North America, issued a statement called, Navigating Differences, Clarifying a Habitat on My Year Here. Clarifying, yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry. Navigating Differences, Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in its Law.
Unfortunately, I have to say this statement uses harsh language towards gender and sexual minorities, as well as those, you know, those who, who's a scholarship focus is on gender issues. And I would like to quote a short section from this statement. Let me find that. Yeah, it's here.
They say quote unquote, we recognize that some religious groups have reinterpreted or revised religious doctrine into be inclusive of LGBTQ ideology. The Muslim community is not immune to such pressure. Indeed, some have attempted to reinterpret Islamic texts in favor of LGBTQ information. We categorically, so this is important.
I want to listen. I want our listeners to pay attention to this for it. We categorically reject such efforts as theologically indefensible, because these aspects of sexual ethics fit within the category of immutable tenets and are therefore not subject to revision. So, you know, imagine all of the works that we are doing, says like, do the categorically or do in the view.
And also just recently, this was the heartbreaking assassination of Muslim Hendrix, a gay man and activist in Marm in South Africa, you know, really hit me. I didn't know him personally, to be honest, but I've been following his, you know, writings and activities on social media. I still can believe something like this could happen to someone so brave, humble and fully faithful to both his religion and sexual identity. You know, so these examples reaffirm, I think, my understanding of the urgency and need for such discussions and more importantly for dialogues between the four misunderstanders and traditionalism of scholars, one of the main objective of this study.
A safer Ontario means more police and prosecutors making sure my card doesn't get stolen. It means building new jails to keep criminals behind bars. And it means there's no need to worry when I play at the park. We're making every corner of Ontario safer to make all of Ontario safer.
That's how we protect Ontario. For all of us. Learn how at ontario.ca.saferontario paid for by the Government of Ontario. No, thank you so much for mentioning both the navigating different statement, which is just devastating and it's inaccurate and it's dishonest and it's exclusionary to me.
It's inherently un-Islamic. It's yeah, I was really disturbed by that statement as well and the mention of Muslim Hendrix, whom I also didn't know personally, but I was devastated just recently when he passed away. Yes, that's exactly why one of the reasons why I loved this book so much, right? Because I do, I try to do the same thing in my research.
I do believe very much in using existing Islamic tools that we have that are inherent to the tradition, inherent to the religious traditions or heritage that we can argue for whatever cases we know, whatever types of arguments we want to make, but that we have the tools available to do this work. And I especially appreciated your point about making this, there needs to be a dialogue between these multiple groups that are competing for different interpretations of something like same-sex relations, same-sex unions. We would love to hear, so we're going to assume that a lot of some of our audiences may not have read the book yet. I'd love to hear for audience to hear what some of the main arguments of the book are, some findings, some questions you're asking, and also especially what your methods are because as I said earlier, they're very different from, I don't know if I mentioned this now, but they're very different from the way that we often talk about same-sex relations or homosexuality generally.
And so this book makes a huge contribution to that. So arguments, findings, your methods? Yeah, I mean, my main point to argument, if you wish, is that this lawmig or in my case, she legal tradition, contrary to what we might think at first, is actually more flexible than it appears. By using the same methodology that legal scholars use, I try to show that there are spaces within the modern-shey paradigm of the Shahad, where debates about Islam and modern topics such as homosexuality can take place.
So it's not as simple as just equating modern homosexuality with the old practices of the Bible and Sahok, for example, and then rushing the discussion aside, no, that's not the case. So this way, I mean, the book made some modest contributions, but as if I may, let me highlight a few. So from my knowledge, the book is the first comprehensive examination of homosexuality in she context. There are some, though not enough, of course, studies on homoeroticism from historical perspective, regarding early modern Iran and fewer in Persian literature, but from she is Islamic perspective, I'm not aware of any significant study.
And theoretically speaking, the project goes beyond essentially as and socially as construction is framework. So that can be also considered a contribution to this scholarship. As you know, some previous studies are asserted that Islam and homosexuality can coexist only if we believe that homosexuality is a potential, sorry, it's, I mean, not potentially, I mean, it's inherently exist in you, meaning that they are inborn, But lastly, which I would even claim that the most important contribution this book made belongs to its methodology. I mean, I do not rely on modern, her many takes, modern scientific principles, feminist approach or liberation theology, and instead I employed a domestic methodology, if I may, rooted in modern she paradour, which the hearts.
So you might ask or listen as my ask why. I already explained this coin in the book and I would like not to go into that now. Instead, I like to add something which I didn't mention in the book and that is. So, on the one hand, in a modern she legal context, we hardly come across discussions about homosexuality as we understand it today.
And instead the focus is usually on two other categories, namely the vaud and sihal, which you refer to certain types of homosexual practices. And unfortunately, these jurists haven't been properly educated about modern homosexuality. But on the other hand, my goal in this project was to find a space as an illegal tradition that could be used to advance scholarly conversations on homosexuality in she law. So in other words, I wanted to study texts that didn't directly address my topic.
So he needed to find a way to make these of those texts speak right to modern discussions. So I thought the best way to do it was to use the same methodology that traditional jurists or en masse use to drive legal rulings on any novel matter. And that is the methodology of each the heart. Let me add that I had a model of course in mind when I decided to conduct this research.
I've already mentioned that I mean in Islamic texts, we have debates about gender and sexuality and now I'm going to add something extra. A jurist like I thought a homie who issued a fast for underpermissibility of gender affirming surgery somewhere in the early 1960s. So this fat boy in my view is a significant turning point for for this for this caution about gender and sexuality at least within the sheet of this year. And unlike some earlier studies such as I argued that the emergence of this fat boy was not about political agendas to you know heteronormalized homosexual individuals or to cure and imaginary disease or deformity.
Yes, I know I'm aware that later post revolutionary legal and medical authorities in Iran might have framed it this way but at the time the fat boy was issued. This was not the case because to fully understand the impact of home in his fast for we should remember that this was in the early 1960s right long before the revolution happened in 1979 so long before the 1979 revolution. So at that time neither home in nor his political rivals could have predicted that such a tremendous shift in Iranian politics would happen let alone that Romanian self would end up as the Supreme Leader carrying both religious and a state authority. So, at let at this point that the fat boy was issued in a period when many theologians were the Christian Jewish or Muslim believe that that it was in permissive but for transgender people to undergo gender affirmation surgery.
And this is a still a common position we know that amongst only legal schools or the majority of some legal schools and many Christian theologians also because they believe that such changes like is like a violation of God's creation and we're not allowed to do so. So imagine you have such a fast fall being issued in 1960s, of course naturally this question rises that how could such a bad way even be possible at that time. What legal principles did Romania draw on to issue such a ruling despite objections for gender affirmation surgery. And in other words, more technical term what kind of discursive spaces existed within the Imam legal framework that enabled for mainly to drive such a distinct position.
In some of my publications I tried to explore the legal and her many typical reasoning behind this fat so I wanted to understand precisely which principles for many relied on to justify the fat so. And as I dealt with the remaining is a shtadi methodology I asked myself, couldn't we use the same approach to examine homosexuality within Islamic legal tradition, which eventually led me to carry on this study. So before I stop, let me also add something before I forget, I should mention I should emphasize that is I'm using this methodology of a shtadi, but I'm not practicing shtadi in this topic in order to issue a fat fall on this topic or on this subject. In fact this study isn't meant to serve as a guide for like finding solutions to legal issues.
That's the job of a jurist or which is not me. So my intention was to use the same methodology to highlight the existing discursive spaces that could spark constructive dialogues between reformists and traditionally or not auditionists must learn to encourage them to reexamine this topic. Thank you for that very thorough answer that makes it makes very sense and it was also very clear in the book that you weren't trying to issue any fat was or anything that you were because I was also really I was I was wondering to how many was able to come to that conclusion. So I'm wondering what happens if we apply those same methods to other issues like very relevant ones like same sex relations.
I so a couple of questions that before we go further because I want to make sure that our audience at least is aware of how we're using these terms are very basic terms like homosexuality use the word pre homosexuality as well just so we're all clear and partly because and in that I was so hard broken to see this. There's a wonderful organization that I'm very committed to supporting and just recently somebody brought to my attention that in the FQs they you know they asked like the one they are thinking about same sex relations or LGBT individuals and their response is something like do we support or what is our stance on LGBTQ individuals and their response is something like Allah has clearly Allah is clear on homosexuality and we are not here to permit what is impermissible or something very very like so unfair like that because I'm like that's what do you mean Allah is clear on homosexuality. So I would love for you to tell us to tell us how you're using the word homosexuality what these any other terms that come up that you think your audiences you know before you know before we go further in this discussion. Yeah very good question but I think before I be able to respond this question or respond this question I think we need to briefly explain my methodology because this methodology also includes the way the topic and essential concepts are defined so meaning that the concept and terms or generally speaking the terminology as well is included in the methodology or in the shahli paradigm.
So this is why also in the book I address the methodology of a shahli in chapter two and then in chapter three I discussed the definition of homosexuality. The reason that it felt it wasn't necessary to include a chapter explaining this paradigm of a shahli as a methodology was because there is very little unfortunately little available on modern she is shahli and legal theory will sort of fail in western scholarship despite you know being fundamentally different from both pre-modern she and suddenly it's hard so this chapter provides a fresh hand insight into the essential foundation of this methodology which is helpful for both students and scholars interested in Islamic law. But that said I want to hear just emphasize that non specialist reader just can't escape this chapter and move directly to chapter three as it you know I mean I'm using many technical terms and I'm afraid of being this chapter and I'm afraid. A general reader might find that somewhat less engaging but anyway this paradigm of environmental high but initially introduced in the 18th century following the defeat of she is scripturally so called achbori school are glad to be have but you know amount of secondary literature about achbori in the west and especially in English so other readers were interested in this can just go out find them and read about a scripture she is scripturally but anyway but this paradigm however firmly established in the 19th century by and she mortified and sorry and according to them I mean those who established this paradigm of achtard they defined a shot as a method by which the juris can either definitely attained or just if I would drive legal rulings from reliable sources and this I mean description and definition of achtard is in contrast to other definitions that describe achtard as personal opinion and achtard would drag for example or be asked legal analogy or the one we discard the shot is uncertain decision and achtard would bend me and we should really pay attention to this very important point.
And there are many nuances in this process but you know we cannot go into that I would like however really present a simplified version of it in a short time to be able to answer your question so this process of achtard starts with the articulation of the subject or topic if you wish my rule in Arabic that juris want to conduct a shot about whatever the topic may be therefore juris must have a complete understanding of the topic or subjects they want to study in order to drive relevant legal rulings however also they believe that much that does not need to always initiate an independent investigation of the meaning of the subjects in all cases of a shot so they normally in this three types of subjects the first type is a subject created defined or determined by the scriptures meaning that as long as scriptures double on and so now which these kind of subjects subjects are called the divinely created subject and the model of the woman's sister such as prayer salat and fasting so and then the second subject or subject that are determined by society whether the general public or the professional community these subjects are called as to make subject and the model of the year such as you know matters relating to human social interactions among a lot including commercial interactions and then finally we have subjects that were originally customary but this co was expanded or limited by the other one or sooner such as normally they provide this example of marriage the definition of marriage in free Islamic beer was broader than it is in slum so then she juris believed that the first and third types of subjects should be investigated by much the heads in the face of separately but the customary subject or not required to be independently investigated by them so they may require knowledge of us such topic by consulting the general public or if needed they may consult experts with a specialized knowledge about now for example let's say different types of insurance and the use of medical technology to facilitate procreation so they can solve it them and understand the meaning and the description of the subject so after having understood the subject comprehensively then the second step in this process is to investigate Islamic sources of truth as general principles to drive a legal ruling and this investigation is conducted on two fundamentally different level this is again i'm emphasizing on this because it's highly important to know that that modern paradigm of shi is to step process on the first level the juris tries to explore actual the point they go release and a commsher ea and warg ea through the primary sources of argumentation called ishshahadic proofs at electshahadia and adelesh shahadia includes the Quran sonnet tradition apple reason and it's not consensus although consensus is highly contested a modern she ishshahad and often is being its validity being its validity is its validity is rejected sorry but now even mucher cannot drive a legal ruling this way then the juris should apply the second level of ishshahad and there on the second level of ishshahad the juris tries to tackle the issue through general principles called juristic proof adelafar or hadiah and this level of ishahad does not lead to actual legal rulings but results in apparent defined legal rulings in practice and if i may to mention the arbiter al-Aqama shahad oriah, al-hahadiah, al-Aqama shahad oriah, al-Aqama shahad oriah, al-Aqama lea so and based on these two levels of legal reasoning these scholars propose an epistemological taxonomy concerning different degrees of knowledge that the principles of legal theory might ultimately provide which i will not go into it so in fact i structured the book from chapter three to chapter seven based on these ishshahadik guidelines first in chapter three i elaborate on the meaning and definition of homosexuality as the subject or topic of this study and then i discuss its legal ruling beginning with the shahadik proofs but also in a reason and consensus which has been done in chapters four five and six and then with juristic proofs in chapter seven so now let me go back to your question let's imagine a jurist or a mochtahad comes across a topic like homosexuality in the respective society and wonders whether it's permissible or prohibited in Islam how should a would this jurist understand Islam against homosexuality by using this methodology of its hard in line with modern paradigm of shahad i try to follow the process the way in which such a much to head or jurist would or should do my first task therefore would be to determine which of the three sorry the three categories of maldur art homosexuality belongs to divinely created or to the originally constantly but expanded or limited by the scriptures or purely consternary i argue that homosexuality is a modern phenomenon which is often articulated as yeah to just read something that i mentioned in the book which is often articulated as an egalitarian way of life between saints experience will identify as gay or lesbian with a shared sense of sexuality that presumes sameness and neutrality in terms of social status sexual desire and choice of partners so this phenomenon is neither based on power relations nor on hierarchy in gender sexual rule or age differences so it may categorically happen between two adults that say to males or to feed days who have a mutual sexual attraction to each other choose to consensually practice same sexual relationships and identify themselves as homosexual men or women now let's just have a quick review of the book on in sundown is there anything in these texts which address homosexuality as we understand it today the way in which that are articulated just now yes i mean we have some some some references to kind of same sexual behaviors in these texts but they don't align with the modern concept of homosexuality so from a legal perspective at this topic namely topic of homosexuality should be seen as a customary topic defined by modern social and cultural context rather than something described in this Islamic descriptions so that being said one might ask are there any categories in classical Islamic culture that represent homosexuality to answer this question i thought it would be really useful to take a genealogical approach to racing barriers pre homosexual behaviors in classical Muslim culture and then compare them to homosexuality so i followed this process and then to be precise i found a new i found and elaborate on seven such categories yes these seven categories have them here yeah the categories like tahannal effiminesse, tahrajjul manishness, sahb, sihap or almsarra different ways that juris used and also in Arabic literature's videos a type of female same sexual behavior and levat male active pederasty and then we have ubna male pathological passivity and then ishgal alman male love of boys and finally more hard male friendship or combrity and then i carefully after i elaborated on all these seven categories i then carefully compared and contrasted homosexuality with these pre-modern categories that following david hartpreen are referred to as pre homosexual behaviors my analysis shows that these pre homosexual categories differ from homosexuality in several essential ways you know first and foremost those categories were often rooted in gender norms reflecting mass identity or femininity whereas homosexuality is primarily primarily defined by sexuality this is one and second parmour relations were central to those categories at least most of them wide homosexuality emphasizes equality and neutrality and finety consensual participation in those behaviors was off them if not always not possible various homosexuality is fundamentally based on consensual relationship so so this way i could show that homosexuality is a modern phenomenon didn't exist in the past and all pre modern or pre homosexual categories cannot be weighted with homosexuality i may have been speaking to be softly for too long but i hope i have managed to clear away some of the boss forever listeners about the book no absolutely that was why i was asking about how we're using the word homosexual here because when people when muslims say or when anybody says homosexuality is forbidden it's very clear to me that they're not referencing the modern ideas of homosexuality of consensual sex relations but instead clearly and i was going to ask you my next question was personally going to be to identify that it was very helpful that you identified the various non heterosexual types of relationships in pre-modern Muslim cultures as well as well as a non-humanism. I was very surprised that even if i was something that was historically not based on consensual relation but it wasn't that it was an age gap and it was hierarchical so yes thank you that's very helpful i appreciate that the time response. Then let's talk about the book so we're going to try to go through these different chapters as you described in your methodology and in the book very clearly the importance of the method is how the paradigm involves going through different stages different sources of Islam which i want to make sure my early listeners are clear there are many overlaps obviously between the shillie principles and the syndie principles and the whole let's look at the time it is on saying. Those are very relevant to the syndie tradition and i hope that our listeners or audience want to dismiss any of this as i'm not saying this is not relevant to me or i'm not saying this is not relevant to me because i found it to be as a syndie person extremely helpful.
So in the on homosexuality there are two main types of verses that i think are really crucial to your study one is about the story a lot. And the other is a verses about two people committing the indecency and you know quote the indecency is not defined in the prime verses 15 to 16 in chapter four so let's bring a lot. How has this story been understood traditionally and what are some flaws with this understanding i read those verses i don't see homosexuality i don't see at least again this modern idea of homosexuality. What are what are people missing in the story and how has it been what is your what is your what is your analysis show here.
Yes very very interesting true i mean the story of law is really fascinating you know. Let me just have a closer look at the story of a lot or loot into our eyes you know i mean we know that additional scholars often argue that this story addresses the part a type of make same sexual behavior and then immediately arbitrarily align it with modern homosexuality so then they just claim that lock strivers punish. So leave for consensual same sexual relationship between adult men who were attracted to each other and chose to live together but when you actually read double on the account things are straight forward. I mean the text doesn't explicitly or even implicitly address homosexuality as we understand it today again i'm emphasizing at the point so the segment normally they refer to as made homosexuality it reads as as such as i mean this is the part that.
It's my own translation though generally in this book i follow this study for translation by nasa and others but this specific part is my own translation which is highlighted also in the book. I translated that site may is approaching other may and normally they refer to this far to argue against homosexuality in a slot but first the idea that the tribe was punished just for the men approaching the demand isn't supported by the full narrative. I mean the wrong mention several other reasons for the punishment right and some of them are actually emphasized more than the references to this phrase for example the wrong repeatedly a state that lots people have punished for rejecting his profit for his his profit hood and ignoring his warning. And if i remember directly this comes up seven times in the story but in contrast references women approaching other men appear i think only four times.
There were also mentions other wrong things like robbery cutting people off under highway theft lack of hospitality and gender sorry under and and and and and yeah robbery and also some other i think public in these senses but then many traditional scholars i believe down play or overlook these aspects only focus in the on the part referring to men approaching other men but it is important to note that even some classical scholars like a shaker to seek in she contact and if the husband and the Lucy authority recognize that lots right was punished for a range of wrong points not just i mean live art it's interesting that modern scholars often ignore this more nuanced view why i mean it's a puzzle and needs to be really asked we need to ask them so and this bias becomes even more obvious when you look at the discussions of highly distinguished last century she exited of the Quran saying it might not have to say about it in tough civil means aren't. Alta Bhattabha'i assumes that the punishment was solely for live art right but that faces a big problem the question is one where the women punished if it was about live art there were others and say anything about women engaging in same sexual acts. So to solve this problem about returns for hadith report which by the way most of those hadith are weak hadith but that's not the case now this point but what he's doing goes against his own method of interpreting the Quran primarily through the Quran itself. Anyway he uses that and then he argues that since the Quran doesn't mention the women supporting a lot so that means they must have been complicit in the same wrongdoing it justified their punishment so this is the way that each right to justify the matters women's punishment however if tabah tabah'i had followed earlier commentators like atusi and it has mentioned he could have just argued that yes women were punished because the punishment was about rather social and moral failures not just you know men approaching other men.
Anyway so the Quran need to count of a lot as we can see suggest that the punishment wasn't mainly about made approaching other mates it was about a pattern of disbelief, corruption and social injustice but even if men approaching other men was one of several fences great. We agree and accept that but what exactly was it about what I mean was it really about homosexuality meaning that a consensual homosexual relationship between two adults may or two adults be mates. That's where I mean think it's more complex and I try to dig deeper and then I used her many to go to from she legal theory to read the story and relevant verses holistically so I might go was to you know examine all possible and texture and contextual indicator. Both those directly linked to the verses about men approaching or phrases versus which mentioned this phrase about men approaching other men's in a vahro in a little past that's the police say and those from other Quranic passages and the v through ports as God or in one facet.
So I could I think find around six or seven indicators which I want to get into those indicators here but those indicators suggest that the story of lot is in about consensual same sex relationships. Instead it points out to different contexts the evidence points to a pattern of gang rape gang rape trends. The gang rape of those who were strangers traveling to a loss a tribe and the people of a tribe who just wrote his visitors and then he really ate them through sexual assault and rape. So yes the legal discussion on this matter or complex but the takeaway I think is clear the story of lot in the war on seems that has nothing to do with modern consensual same sexual relationships.
And the reason for the punishment of those people was something different that was a different problem of situations. And that you know that when I read those verses that's also what I get I what I love this chapter and then the soon after my favorite chapters of your book. I found the analysis and the gaps that you're that you find and the questions that you raise about these interpretations. I have a note to myself to read between 149 but you just summarize it so well you say on page 149 that the discussion this far explains that the response is not addressed from sexuality however several of my scholars view this one on the preference as the origin of showing a realistic debates on male same sexual relations sexual practices practice under the category of the wall.
It's prohibition and so on and for me so for me so okay if you all means everything that the people of law are doing yes please for brave it because it is absolutely like it's gang rape. Like that's what I see also I hadn't thought previously about you raised this point in the book so well. And maybe we can talk about this as well but when he says to the men here are my daughters take my daughters right and the debate on what does that mean and it's obviously very troubling etc especially for anyone reading it but you raise this really good question that I haven't thought about before if he's saying if because some scholars have taken that to mean homosexuality is so bad that he would much rather offer his unmarried daughter who are not married to these men like here go have sex with my daughter because he's just offering them all he's volunteering for them. But then you say how many daughters do you have and how many men are there.
Like is it clearly there's like there are so many gaps here and then also my heart that I when I teach this when I teach the story or these passages in my Abrahamic religions class and we read the Genesis version of the story alongside the one of verses sometimes. And the Genesis verse the Genesis verses are I mean that is even more clear that it has to be right because you've got you've got the description of the description of the of these very angry this mob who has just discovered that there are these guests here that has his guests and they they're banging on the door to be let in first of all that's not homosexuality that's not a desire a sweet longing for sexual relations with someone you love or attracted to attracted to they're banging on the door and they say to a lot like because a lot is from there you're not even from here how dare you judge amongst us and tell us what we can do because we're going to threaten him and they say we will do to you worse than what we were planning to do to your guests and to me that is such clear indication that this is a threat this is sexual violence this is not hey we love these men were attracted to them let us get to know them and then have sex with them and all of them it's all of them it's not like one man like hi and I can't get a hangout with your guys like no it's it's a whole mob. And I read this and I truly genuinely don't understand how anybody can read that to be modern ideas of homosexuality which are now a part of our identity we get to identify as sexual homosexual etc. Anyways we never have before I just it is deeply troubling but that brings me to say actually I was stilling this earlier as well but I was I loved the footnote it's a very detailed long footnote on the on lots of reference to here are my daughters because to me that I mean if that had been in the main content of them of the book not in the in the main text and not in the footnote because that is a huge part of the huge way to support the conclusions that we're trying because the gases that are being covered here do you want to speak to that why you know if you made it like it was that I decided to do that about it all like why that discussion on here I mean others no it's a very wonderful thing to do and it learned so much from it.
Yeah no it's a valid point that you're raising you know I mean to be honest with you the story of lots daughter daughters and and him offering them to their say that the attackers is fascinating really. I mean first of all it seems like you know he he was trying to speak to the inner conscious and of vacant the moral sense and and in a way I'm going to claim that he wasn't even I mean lot was successful because they responded by saying that when Lord said my here's my or here my daughters and they are pure for you. They respond that we have no worries over your daughter so that shows they were still morally aware of right and wrong. They knew that attacking lots of house and demanding that he hand over his guests was morally wrong but despite that awareness they still insisted on they corrupt demand right.
But anyway I mean I think I decided to leave this smart as a footnote because I applied it wasn't directly relevant to the indicators that I was trying to collect to show that the running accounts of of the tribes actions wasn't about homosexuality as I recall the part that's directly relevant is in the main but the more detailed explanation and that all in the foot move but now that you've you know brought this up and you know I feel like it might have been better to keep it you know to keep the whole discussion in the main text if I ever published a second edition of the book I would definitely move this spot into the main body rather than leaving but thank you. It's so it's so revelatory like I have I mean in my notes here and you can probably see them but like on my note here on the side on my like on the margins I'm taking what I'm like oh whoa this is a good point or this is true because I hadn't caught it was in the footnote for some reason that I was like I hadn't noticed that when lot is saying when he's like here my daughter is right. You discuss that on page 161 it's on chapter 11 verses 77 to 79 so when our verses say when our messengers came to lot he was distressed on their account and felt himself powerless concerning them which first of all that right there like that's there's fear there's anxiety that's not sex that's not sex. And it's not an instrument that anybody would think this is sex like what does it say about how you have sexual relations with your female spouses for example but and he said this is a terrible day and his people came hurrying towards him while earlier they had been committing evil deeds.
He said oh my people these are my daughters they are pure for you so reverence God and disgrace me not with regards to my guests is there not among you a man of sound judgment and they said. Certainly you know that we have no right to your daughters and surely you know that which we desire and then no right to your daughter's like whoa first what does that even mean and like I just I had it noticed that until you can't you pointed it out in the foot and lost. Oh my God because at first I was like did they did he did they say that and then I said and I mean this is like really the analysis here the questions you're raising here. It is such an excellent case for I mean I hope that people will take it seriously and this chapter is very accessible where any average Muslim person you have to be experts to read this and find these gaps and look at these look at these conversations working with organizations but they can access the multiple translations that they want to but this was really really my top most favorite chapter in your book and they mentioned the other type of quote unquote homosexuality that may be being referenced in the book and is the whole you know when two people come in and listen sometimes it's not even two it's just from people coming in and listen what is going on there do we have any sense of what indecency what this Russia might be.
Yeah I mean you know what about the second whereas in fact there are two verses that some scholars believe that the first verse refers to the part and the second was the talk and and of course refers to them as Alfa Hisha. Honestly it would have been I think much easier if I hadn't had to address them because for the most part Muslim scholars whether Sunni or she traditional or not believed that these two verses are aggregated yes they are see part of the word and you can read them but the legal rulings outlined in these two verses generally are considered non-appliciable. But because in the Xi context, Ayatollah Khoo-hee, one of the greatest Xi-yajours of the last century, argued that these two verses are not abrogated, so are discussed this verse and extensively, in fact, these two verses as well. He tries to justify that the verses, regardless of the bottom and the whole, and they not abrogated as well, abrogated as well.
So this led me, in fact, to some critical debates with him, I tried not to get polemical, but instead engaged with him using the same methodology. So readers should read it from this perspective. So first I pointed out that the majority of scholars so have conceded these verses are abrogated, right? But even if we take Al-Hoo-hee's position, that's okay, they're not abrogated.
My point was that this is only one interpretation of these two verses, meaning that there is room for alternative readings within this tradition as several other exiges, such as different interpretations. So I'm not going into that. But what I'm going to mention here briefly that I highlighted one point to Al-Hoo-hee that, okay, regardless of all these questions, you insist that in your exegetical work, Al-Bajan, called Al-Bajan, you insist that these verses are not abrogated and also employ the prohibition of the Lord and the stock and the punishments, right? But in your juristic writings, you don't use, actually you don't rely on these two verses to arguing for your case, for the case of the bottom and the punishment.
And instead, you will be referred to hadiv, which prescribe a different punishment. This is very important. We need to pay attention here, which prescribe a different punishment in fact, from what's mentioned in these two verses. So, yeah, there are more discoltenes here, but I'm afraid to bore your impact and listen to this.
No, I think this is so exciting to me. And I know it's exciting to my listeners, but we can move to the whole point was that there are, again, like there are discrepancies and where it seems very convenient to me when we decide, I mean, my general research, my general research is like, first of course, because all about how are we deciding what gets to change the time. And conveniently, things that serve the case work, we're not going to keep that. That's the essence of Islam, weirdly, but then anything that could benefit the rest of humanity and like, people like people, people like a little bit of people or women, let's not change that.
But the chapter on Sunna, on how much sexuality in the Sunna, how does homosexuality figure in the Sunnaic tradition, as pro or against or being very complex with homosexuality in the Shealy tradition? Because that also, and again, while you're working with Shealy, the very tradition, Shealy had it and so on, very, very applicable to the Sunni as well. In fact, it's actually more complex for the Shealy, because you've got the imams also as contributing to the Sunnaic and for the Sunni tradition, it's in theory, it is not supposed to be other non-prophetic opinions, etc. So, let's talk about that.
How does homosexuality figure in the Sunnaic tradition? Yeah, this, I mean, before I start, I should mention that this chapter was the hardest and most time consuming to write. But at the same time, it was also the most enjoyable because it allowed me to actually test my hypothesis. I'll get into this in a minute.
You know, as I mentioned, in this study, I chose to follow a legal hermeneitical hadith-based approach, which is why traditional or no traditional shee-jurist typically use, right? And I purposely, in fact, avoided modern interpretive methods, right? Imagine if I had gone down the route of modern critical hadith methods, like the ones that Joseph Schacht or Wenzmull or Join will suggest. It wouldn't, I think it would, it would have been a lot easier for me to, I mean, talk about hadith, would be also much shorter.
Instead, I chose that methodology and then I was now dealing with hundreds of hadith, each with different meanings and chain of transmission, or chains of transmission. So I've had thinking, what am I supposed to do with all of these hadith channels? Could I, I mean, other things couldn't make sense of them and come up with a solid analysis and honestly, channels, there were times before, this is it, my project is going to pay. Why?
Because I mean, why are you going to do it? Like, at least all of you love hadith, right? But then, you know, I leaned on the genealogical approach, right? And where I looked at modern homosexuality, one side, pre-homosexual behaviors.
And that genealogy, a genealogy, sorry, that genealogy really helped me figure out, figure it out that an outcome of, and onto a solution. So that means a chapter three ended up being crucial, not just for defining the topic, but also for developing a way to categorize and analyze the hadith. And using this way of analysis wasn't of course rental, it is based on a principle that most lemurs scholars, especially she is exact. I mean, the hadith literature didn't just appear out of thin air, as they say, it developed because of the needs of society at the time.
So these hadith weren't just the personal imaginations of the companions of the imans, they reflect this social, in fact, I mean, social and cultural context and issues of the time. So the companions would ask the imans for guidance on real world issues. And since most of the hadith, or how this industry tradition on this matter, come from the fifth and sixth imans, so generally also comes from the fifth and sixth imans, or come from the sixth imans, who lived during the late Umayyad and early Abbasid period, it makes sense that they would deal with the societal questions around same sexuality that were present at the time. But what is actually interesting is that when you look at the literature and culture from that time, you can find things that almost directly match what's in the hadith literature.
So that connection was key for me in being able to categorize that. So I ended up using what I found in chapter three to help me organize and analyze the hadith in chapter five. So it became, in fact, clear to me that many of these hadith actually fit into the pre-homosexual categories, which I already had defined earlier in chapter three. Once I saw that then, I've learned that the majority of them aren't about homosexuality at all.
Instead, they talked about pre-homosexual behaviors and not modern homosexuality. Of course, there were some hadith that didn't fit into my analysis. Therefore, I conducted a separate, in fact, debates and discussions to show that those hadith, you know, to analyze such hadith, which I could not fit them into my first analysis. So I showed there as well that many of those hadith employed things, which has nothing to do with homosexuality as well.
But of course, to be fair and accurate, I don't claim that to have examined everything comprehensively isn't the nature of a study and research and academic work is like that, right? And I hope all this called is in future can come and see the gaps and weaknesses. And of course, this strange stuff might work. And in fact, advance the research.
Well, no, one of my favorite parts of this chapter was when I, because I've heard of some of these hadith, some of them, and I would come across a hadith, because you had the security and the decency and intellectual humility to talk about the hadith that could potentially contrary to what you were suggesting. But then my favorite part was where when you're looking at the chain and you're like, okay, let's use our own existing methodology to figure out what is happening in this hadith. And then I'm missing a link in the chain, you know, I'm missing a person in this tradition is also pretty crucial that you need to have a legitimate chain where a proper chain, et cetera. And so the content, the method and the text itself and then the chain, and then conveniently, you know, the person would say, and some of our companions.
And I'm like, no, no, no, you can't do that. You cannot do that. You cannot break your own rules because you need to identify everything that person who's in the chain. So that was really that was made me laugh that this is and then if I'm gonna if I'm gonna be subjected to a punishment to Allah as a human as a Muslim person, that it cannot come from something so weak as that.
So weak and way, you know, I'm gonna imagine, we say that, okay, we're using the same methodology that you, your self-staffed this, right? And based on your own methodology, we're assessing these, how these that you're trying to use them to argue against homosexuality. And then we see that all these flaws there, right? Exactly.
So that was, that was a fun chapter. It was very, it was a very, I could tell you had worked so hard on it. I mean, impressively researched chapter. Thank you so much for the work on that one.
So like in the Suni tradition, you know, once we've gotten to the hadith, to go on and then you've also got something like it, the consensus of the scholar, which nobody has, there's no it, amount, meaning of it, I love saying. And then something like a reason, also what we can talk, I would love for our audience to sort of get a just a brief sense of how those sources also can be used to make a case for or against things, like sexuality, how you apply those in the chapter also. Yeah, I mean, let me just briefly refer to this point. And I hope that our listeners go out to read the book.
So, and find all the discussions, the boring discussions. Let me just briefly mention this point. Yeah, I mean, the idea of consensus is more a modern sheep paradigm of a shot is quite controversial. And in the modern, in fact, often they believe that it's not a bad game.
So, so in fact, you're still really relying on it on on on H. Mark. And normally, instead of H. Mark, they return to hadith and try to rely on hadith, which really costs us now.
And I sensibly debate had hadith in chapter five, right? But then it comes to reason. Yes, that's a whole different issue. The modern sheep had them of a shot, actually puts a lot of emphasis on reason and rational argument.
It's quite sophisticated in how they use it. So I gathered several of these arguments, and they were, and they were, and they were, they tried to show is that based on the criteria that these juris or legal theories set out, these potential arguments for prohibiting homosexuality aren't really compelling or valid for reason, for interview. I mean, in fact, when you read she juris a juristic word, you don't see that many all arguments based on rational reasoning. But there are some, I mean, they have a scholars as I mentioned, and cited two of these scholars, they try to argue against homosexuality based on reason.
However, most of those arguments regarding like creation and sorry, procreation and and and and and also a natural law argument. And so I try to provide, you know, an extensive explanation of these arguments and the way in which these juris try to use that and then find out if they are accurate and consistent with the criteria that they themselves establishing she shot and in particular legal theory. Great news. The federal EV rebate is back.
Eligible customers get up to $5,000 with a federal EVA PV on select 2027 volts and 2026 equinauts EV models. Visit your local Chevrolet dealer today for more details. No, I loved your responses to the claims of reason and I'm like, wait, how, who decided this is more, more reason, like, you know, anything with, with, you know, appropriation and it's like, well, first of all, every human is not going to like, stop having babies, even if we think that somebody shouldn't be having babies. But no, that was, that was really in any discussions where we have to figure out if something is reasonable or not, or something is natural or not, I'm like, wait, who's deciding what is natural?
Who's deciding what is unnatural? Like, keep hearing something like unnatural ways of having sex. There's no such, like, what is, no one say there's no such thing, like, what does that even mean, right? No, I, this, and then in the, in the Sunni tradition, we'll get to it's like, as you know, like, it's, it's a huge deal where I'll see way too many scholars, patriarchal scholars, who will reference the existence of each of them and it might as a tool to make a case against usually what something with women's rights or same-sex relations.
And, and I, it, it might is the consensus of scholars, first of all, even if we agree that it's a majority, because some people believe it's a technical term that refers just to the majority, but also who comes, like who comes as a scholar and who's a majority? And what about the folks that, who may have, you just from have access to, what about contemporary scholars? Are we a part of this conversation? I mean, way, way too many questions to be raised.
And when we do have Muslim scholars, Sunni scholars, we're going to say, same-sex relations are the homosexuality as we understand it historically is not the same as today, and therefore we need to rev, you need to have a different approach to this debate, then they're dismissed, they're political, so it's like, it's a whole, it's like a circular, it's a circular nonsensical issue, right? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, no, that's absolutely right. I don't want to say anything.
Yes, you're right. I mean, when it comes to the definition of Islam, Islam is a genius. I mean, the question is, even if you accept Islam, what is Islam really? And who is included in the Islam?
Especially not all works are, you know, survive. Many of them are gone. We have no access, right? So then, so how can you play it more?
You don't have access to all of the words and also the disputes about who's considered to be a scholar. And also about the natural law arguments. So what is natural, as you mentioned, I mean, I think I discussed that I don't know in the main text or in the footnotes that there are many different meanings of naturalness and what is natural and what is not natural. Exactly, you don't know.
Yeah. Yeah. So the final, the final chapter, the chapter eight then finally asks if same-sex unions can be accommodating, can be accommodated in Islam using the existing Islamic legal framework, I would love for us to talk about this a little bit because I was really struck by your, it just made perfect sense to me that you're arguing. So in this chapter, you highlight the debate of whether marriage Islam is inherently, like generally in order for us to talk about same-sex relations, same-sex marriage, whether it's legitimate or not, in the existing legal framework, we have to then ask what is, how is marriage being defined and understood in this framework?
And I would love for our audience generally to hear some more on what, how is things ex-marriage could be accommodated basically using this framework? Or is it- Yes. I returned to the original question. How can I almost say sexual relationship fits within the Islamic legal framework?
This is the question. Because even if homosexuality is not prohibited in Islam, that doesn't naturally mean same-sex relationships can be considered listed under Islamic law. I know this question might seem troubling. After all the detailed discussion in previous chapters, imagine readers read those and that's not in the competitive final chapter and face this question.
But I believe it's a crucial one for completing this study. The key challenge remains because how can we develop illegal norm for homosexual relationship when traditional or all are marked, so-called, argue that sexual intimacy is only permissible within a marriage contract between a man and a woman. So in this chapter, I try to sketch a proposal for same-sex marriage in Islam. To be honest, I really didn't expand on that.
There's a very brief sketch proposal based on egalitarian and equal relationship between the contracting parties because I understand or we understand modern homosexuality as such, right? But then when it comes to the matter of egalitarian or equal relationships, there is a very difficult question raised by a reformist and some feminist Muslims are called as about marriage equality. So in fact, now because we didn't talk about chapter-wide, I in fact dedicated chapter-wide to dive into this topic, to set the context and literature mainly based on the fact that they want to respond to this question in chapter eight. So you see the link between chapter one and eight.
So readers just easily can't escape chapter one and start from chapter two scholars. And then before reading chapter eight, they can't read chapter one. So they're very closely connected to each other. Anyway, magic would be a major discussion among Muslim before this, particularly feminist scholars and have learned a lot from their work here.
The central question is whether Islam is inherently against equality between men and women, particularly in marriage. Or if that's simply one patriarchal interpretation, there are too many position among feminist scholars. One group, including scholars like Keisha Ali, Farid Ishar and Ibrahim Musa, who believe that Islam inherently promotes inequality between men and women, which is reflected in marriage as well. And then there is another group, including Zibamat Wasini, Fatima Marnisi and Asma Bala.
So now there's of course, argue that they argue that the inequality seen in marriage is a result of main dominated interpretations of Islamic texts. They believe that these interpretations are inaccurate. And that Islam, essentially, supports equality between men and women, including in marriage. So about myself, I didn't want really to take slides between these two positions.
But I do find the second group's argument more compelling, and I provided some evidence for that, because they suggest that Islam isn't inherently non-eculitarian in terms of marriage and relationships. Rather, it's one historical interpretation that has taken roots. In fact, so while Islamic texts, they argue that leave room for a more egalitarian understanding of relationships, right? And since my research focuses on traditional, not traditional, she-elego scholarship, so I also wanted to explore contemporary she-e-jours use on gender equality and marriage.
So I try to show that there are she-e-jours advocating for gender and marriage equality, providing ample examples to support this argument. And then when we talk about homosexuality, especially in modern society, so it's seen as a mutual, as a mention, as a mutual, egalitarian relationship. So if we're looking for a framework to explain it, this is sexual relationship, if you're homosexual, we can draw from this idea of egalitarianism, just as of course we should for heterosexual relationships. Yeah, and I really like that you gave the example of Romanis Fatwa and Mahat, right?
As a, because he's defining Mahat. And if we can redefine things with in the existing legal framework, we don't have to over-entrain. Because that was, that was, because up until now, and up until I read this book, my position had been we would have to completely reframe the tradition and we'd have to overturn existing legal frameworks in order to accommodate same-sex relations. And it turns out we don't have to do that.
Because every generation gets to contribute to that because it's not setting stone. And even if it is, if we find it to be unjust, because, I mean, I really think, and you talk about this in the book, but I really think it's under, as a global Muslim community, we're not really valuing the, I don't think we value enough, the importance of the existing concepts we have in Islam, the tools that we have with in Islamic legal frameworks, like, you know, relying on whatever is socially acceptable in our specific time periods, right? And you talk about that in here briefly, that at the very least, we can say, you know what, times have changed, our definitions are from sexuality have changed, something like sexual relations have changed, marriage doesn't work the same way, as before, so much has changed, and we have to be, we have to be able to continue to change, or develop things based on based on what's happening whatsoever in our time. So, I thank you for that, thank you for that response.
And then, is there anything else that you would like to discuss before I get to my final question, but I ask my others? I'm not really, but just let me, you know, conclude by emphasizing that again, my objective in this book was neither to, you know, decisively present a conclusive view on homosexuality in a modern law. Also, I didn't want to assert, you know, assert and inclusive, is to drive a legal ruling on homosexuality as a much to hit or remotely would be expected, you know, to do. My aim was to, as I mentioned, I'm just going to emphasize again, my aim was to identify potential, discursive spaces or existing the space of the modern she is to hard and to emphasize that they exist, and we can based on those spaces, we can examine how this paradigm can potentially use its repatores to engage with this topic.
So, I in fact want to urge both traditional or the more and Muslim reformers not to disregard or devalue such potential spaces, as you just mentioned now. So, I also want to urge that they consider this point, and instead of devaluing such potential spaces, they should really hold constructive dialogues with one another, it's really urgent and necessary for Muslims to do so, to open new vistas in negotiating modern topics concerning sexuality and gender equality. So, that's my final point. Yeah, no, I thank you so much for for highlighting that point again.
And then my final question to my others is if they're working on anything new that we can look forward to in the near future, and it's also likely to not be, I totally believe in taking breaks and productivity is not one I don't believe in capitalistic ideas of productivity, it's okay if you're like, no, currently I'm today to break if there is a thing. Yeah, no, I mean, yeah, no, I didn't take any break. I'm since 2020 to when I finished that project, I am working on a funded project called Beyond Binary is Intersex and Islamic Legal Tradition, it has its own website as well, if you wish, I can send a link and you can share with your audience. And then also I'm pleased to inform you that just recently one of my articles called Navigating Body Politics in Shadyko, this article was published by the Journal of Islamic Law and Society, and it's currently available online and is open access as well, so it's your audience and listeners are interested in reading this paper, they just can access this paper free of charge.
And finally, at the moment together with Indira Gasing, I'm editing a volume on Intersex and a pre-modern Islamic legal medical and literally discourses. Oh, that's so exciting. So exciting. So exciting.
Yeah, I see, so excited for all of that. Well, my bad, thank you so much for joining me to talk about this wonderful book, Negotiating Homosexuality in Islam, a legal harmonical examination of modern shi discourse, which I mean, we didn't talk about this earlier and I probably wish as we had, but especially relevant to given what's happening politically in the US, given what Muslim quote scholars, because I refuse to give them title scholars, and the whole navigating differences, something that I've seen. Very dishonest, very disrespectful, very like factually inaccurate, and a total misrepresentation of what I truly believe is Islamic ideas of same sexual relations or same Islam and sexual relations generally, in a time where there just seems to be all of that horrible, violent bias happening, this book is so crucial and so beautiful that you really thank you so much. Thank you very much.
All right, so that was my conversation with Mahartad Ali Poor on his book Negotiating Homosexuality in Islam, a legal harmonical examination of modern shi discourse published in 2024 with Brill. Thank you so much for tuning in and I'll see you all next month. Salaam.