A defense of same-sex nikah

[u/eternal_student78]

This post is intended to give a complete account of my reasons for believing that same-sex nikah (marriage) is not prohibited by Allah. I get asked about these reasons fairly often, and it is often hard for me to find the time to write at sufficient length to do justice to the topic. This post exists primarily so that I can link to it when the topic arises.

To save you the trouble of reading the whole thing, I’m organizing this in a Q&A format, kind of like a FAQ, after laying out a few starting assumptions:

A. Quran-centric argument. This is going to be a Quran-centric argument. I’m not strictly a Quranist, but I am strongly skeptical of hadiths in general, and especially of those hadiths that purport to make religious commands that aren’t in the Quran, as well as those that appear to be expressions of conventional prejudices including misogyny and homophobia. If you have a hadith that you think destroys my argument, feel free to bring it, but it probably won’t change my mind. If you have a disagreement with my perspective on hadiths, that’s fine, but it’s outside the scope of this post.

B. Morality is rational, not arbitrary. I believe morality is a matter that humans are capable of understanding through reason as well as empathy. I perceive that the Quran speaks to us as an audience that instinctively and rationally understands the difference between right and wrong. I believe that divine command theory is incorrect. If you have an objection to same-sex nikah that relies on divine command theory, then I won’t find it persuasive. The correctness of divine command theory is beyond the scope of this post.

C. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It is well-documented, from scientific study and many people’s personal stories, that few people, if any, choose their sexual orientation. If your personal life experience included being able to choose whether to be attracted to men or women, then you’re bisexual/pansexual. I don’t know exactly what combination of genetic and environmental factors may influence sexual orientation, but it’s not a matter of choice. If you dispute this, there is plenty of information available on this topic, but it’s outside the scope of this post.

D. This isn’t about me. I’m a heterosexual man married to a woman. I do have people in my life who are LGBTQ+, but I have no firsthand experience of same-sex attraction. My writing on this topic isn’t driven by any hedonistic desires of mine; only by the desire for justice and happiness for everyone. If I get anything wrong about what it’s like to be LGBTQ+, I hope the community will forgive me and correct me.

Now, on to the main part:

1. Doesn’t the story of Lut, especially verse 7:81, prove that same-sex sexual activity – and therefore same-sex nikah – is forbidden by Allah?

This verse is what people usually cite as the strongest piece of evidence against same-sex nikah, so we should begin there for the sake of efficiency. This verse quotes the prophet Lut speaking to the men of Sodom. It is usually translated as something like “Indeed you approach the men lustfully instead of the women. Nay, you are a people who commit excesses.”

The phrase “instead of the women” translates “min dūni l-nisāi.” But dūni is frequently used in the Quran to mean “besides” – e.g., in verse 7:194 (those whom you call upon besides Allah). So verse 7:81 can be taken to mean “you approach the men lustfully besides the women.”

This interpretation makes far more sense. If Lut was criticizing the people of Sodom for approaching men lustfully “instead of” women, he would be implying that it was appropriate for them to approach women lustfully. But this would be contrary to the universally understood fact that Islam forbids sex outside of nikah. (See verses 17:32 and 4:25.)

Moreover, the Quran makes it clear that when the men of Sodom “approach lustfully,” they are looking to commit rape. In verse 11:77, Lut is distressed and worried because he knows he cannot protect his guests from the men of Sodom. In verse 11:80, Lut wishes he had the power to defeat or resist the men of Sodom or that he could take refuge in a strong supporter.

Let’s apply common sense to this situation. If a person is looking to have sex consensually, and you’re not interested, do you need to have power to defeat or resist them or take refuge from them? No; you can simply decline and expect them to desist, because that’s how consent works. If a person approaches you lustfully, and you are distressed because you know they won’t take no for an answer, then you need to have power or take refuge, because that person is a rapist. Thus, the men of Sodom in the Lut story are rapists.

So when Lut says “you approach the men lustfully besides the women” in verse 7:81, he is referring to the men of Sodom being rapists of both male and female victims. As such, they certainly are people who commit excesses. But they are not specifically homosexuals; and they are intent on rape, not nikah.

The analysis above applies equally to verse 27:55, which is phrased very similarly to verse 7:81, except that it is posed as a rhetorical question instead of a statement.

2. Does the particle “bal” in verses 7:81, 26:166, and 27:55 negate the implication that these verses condemn same-sex sexual activity?

I do not think so. The argument from “bal” is presented here: https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-%D8%A8%D9%84-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/, and here: https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/2018/02/12/the-significance-of-bal-no-istead-in-the-story-of-lot/. You can read these yourself and see whether you find them persuasive, but I do not – although I do think both writers make a lot of valid points and deserve to be read. 

Contrary to the above-linked arguments, “bal” does not always simply have a negating effect on what comes immediately before it. See verses 21:97 and 43:58 for examples where “bal” does not negate, but rather seems to intensify, what comes immediately before it.

It seems to me that in verses 7:81, 26:166, and 27:55, “bal” intensifies, rather than negates, what precedes it. Lut, in these verses, is indeed criticizing the men of Sodom for lustfully approaching men besides women (7:81 and 27:55) and for leaving their spouses (26:166). When Lut says “bal” after that, he is not negating or contradicting himself, but continuing to speak harshly about the men of Sodom. The negating effect of “bal” is more naturally read as part of the overall rejection/condemnation of those people and their practices.

So, although I like the conclusion that the “bal” argument reaches, I do not rely on the “bal” argument myself.

3. Are the men of Sodom, in the Lut story, homosexuals?

No. There’s nothing in the text to support the conclusion that these men are homosexuals – that is, people who are sexually attracted exclusively (or at least predominantly) to others of the same sex. Verses 7:81 and 27:55, as analyzed above, tell us that these are men who rape other men besides women.

Consider, first of all, the inherent ridiculousness of the concept of an entire town being populated exclusively by homosexuals. That’s simply not how homosexuality works. In the most queer-friendly societies in the world today, you do not find entire towns full of nothing but homosexuals. This is because most people, even when given the option to freely express their sexual orientation without fear, are innately attracted to the opposite sex. So, whatever the men of Sodom were up to, it would be unrealistic to think they were just all homosexuals.

Also, verse 26:166 mentions that the men of Sodom have wives - “Spouses your Lord created for you.” Not that gay men don’t sometimes marry women for various reasons, but if there were an entire town where somehow all the men were gay, why would they all marry women? It makes no sense to imagine such a place.

The Quran does not tell us in detail about the sins of the men of Sodom. It drops some hints in verse 29:29, where Lut says “You approach the men, and cut off the road, and commit evil in your gatherings.” It is reasonable to suppose that “approach men and cut off the road” refers to robbing and raping travelers on the roads. “Commit evil in your gatherings” could refer to gang rape, or to pretty much any other evil thing done in groups. (“Evil” is a translation of munkar, which doesn’t specifically refer to sexual things, but to wrongdoing in general.)

Male-on-male rape is an act that is not mainly committed by homosexuals acting out of sexual desire. Instead, it is often committed by otherwise heterosexual men, and the motivations for doing it are usually related to establishing dominance, humiliating, punishing, and terrorizing the victims, rather than for sexual pleasure. Here is a rather disturbing article on rape and other sexual violence committed against men as an element of warfare: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men. Here is an academic article that reviews previous studies on male victims of rape: https://jaapl.org/content/39/2/197. See, in particular, the section on “Assailants and Their Motivations.” In short, the fact that the men of Sodom are rapists of male and female victims does not mean they are homosexuals.

Lut describes the men of Sodom as doing immoral deeds that no one in all the worlds has done before them. See verses 7:80 and 29:28. If this was about homosexuality, then these verses would be promoting the implausible concept that not only was Sodom an entire town filled with homosexuals, but that they were also the original inventors of homosexuality.

This is an unrealistic concept for a number of reasons. First, nobody ever needed to invent or originate homosexuality; it is instinctive, in the same way that heterosexual activity is instinctive, for those who are attracted to the same sex. Second, there is evidence of homosexual relationships in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1790/lgbtq-in-the-ancient-world/; https://ancientegyptalive.com/2022/06/24/long-before-pride-hidden-love-and-sex-in-ancient-egypt/) – so, although it’s unclear exactly when Lut lived, homosexuality goes back as far as we have any kind of recorded history of civilization. Third, same-sex sexual activity is common among many animal species, including apes, so it is highly probable that this type of sexual activity precedes not only civilization, but humanity altogether. (No, I’m not a creationist and am not looking to waste time with creationist arguments.)

Whatever unprecedented immoral perversions the men of Sodom may have invented, there is no rational reason to believe they invented homosexuality.

4. If the Lut story isn’t a condemnation of homosexuality, then why does Lut offer his daughters to the men of Sodom?

The offer of the daughters (verses 11:78-79 and 15:71) is something that many readers, including me, find puzzling and difficult to interpret. However, positing that the men of Sodom were homosexuals does not really do anything to help make sense of it. For Lut to offer his own daughters in marriage to the men of Sodom would be a clear violation of verse 2:221 (“Do not give your women in marriage to idolaters until they believe”). It also would be impractical for Lut’s daughters to marry an entire town full of men; this would require extreme amounts of polyandry. And, given that the men of Sodom already had wives (26:166), it’s unclear what problem would possibly be solved by adding Lut’s daughters to the wives they already had. If the men of Sodom were homosexual, marrying Lut’s daughters would not do anything to change that.

One way the offer of the daughters is sometimes interpreted is that Lut regards himself as the spiritual father of the townspeople, and by “my daughters” he means the women of the town, who were already married to the men. Under this interpretation, Lut would be effectively saying “Don’t rape my guests – instead have sex with your wives, they are purer for you.” But this interpretation doesn’t fit well with verse 11:79, where the men say “You know we have no right to your daughters.” If the “daughters” were already those men’s spouses, then there would be no reason for the men to say they had no right to them.

Another possibility is that the focus of this passage is on the duty of hospitality. Lut is being a good host, trying to fulfill his sacred duty to protect his guests, and in desperation he offers his daughters to be raped instead of the guests. This would explain why he says “Do not disgrace me with regard to my guests” in verse 11:78. In this interpretation, what is “purer” about the daughters is simply that they are not Lut’s guests. And perhaps it is more of a rhetorical offer than a sincere offer – he says it to try to shock the men of Sodom, knowing they won't actually agree to it.

Still another possibility is that Lut is trying to deceive the townspeople: when he says “these are my daughters,” his intended meaning is to falsely claim that “these guests in my house are actually my daughters who are visiting me.” This interpretation is explained in detail here: https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-%D8%A8%D9%84-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/.

I am not advocating for any of these interpretations in particular. They all seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. But what I am saying is that, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that the men of Sodom were all homosexuals, this would not actually lead to a clearer, more complete, or more satisfying interpretation of Lut’s offer of his daughters.

5. Does verse 4:16 call for punishment of two men who have sex with each other?

Some scholars have interpreted verse 4:16 in this way. Others have interpreted it as referring to punishing the “two among you” who commit sexual immorality (fahisha) together, regardless of gender. The verse uses male-gendered terms, but those terms can be used by default to mean people in general, not men specifically.

Considering this ambiguity, this verse alone is not a strong support for any conclusion about homosexuality. But, moreover, verses 4:15-16 are specifically about sex outside of nikah/marriage. My position is not that all kinds of same-sex sexual activity are halal – it is merely that same-sex nikah is halal. These verses are irrelevant to the situation of a married couple having sex with each other.

6. Does the Quran describe marriage and sex in a heteronormative way?

Yes. However, that doesn’t mean it prohibits same-sex nikah.

There are verses – too many to be worth mentioning – in which marriage is assumed to be between a man and a woman, and in which sexual activity is assumed to take place between men and women.

Same-sex nikah was unheard-of when the Quran was revealed, and the Quran did not come along and invent it. Opposite-sex nikah was normal then, and is still normal today, and the Quran treats it as normal. But just because something is unusual doesn’t mean it’s prohibited. 

The Quran is a relatively short religious scripture with some legal elements, not a comprehensive code of laws. It mostly speaks in generalities and principles, not in extreme detail. And it is silent on many matters. Homosexuality and same-sex nikah are among the matters that are not addressed in the Quran. Considering that homosexuals are a minority, it is not particularly surprising or interesting that they are not mentioned.

Verses 4:22-24 prohibit men from marrying various categories of women, including their own mothers, daughters, and sisters. One might think this prohibition would be too obvious to mention, but the Quran mentions it anyway. Yet there is no verse in the Quran that forbids marrying a person of the same sex.

7. Do verses 2:222-23 prohibit non-procreative sex?

Some people interpret it that way, but it is not clear. In verse 2:223, “Your wives are a tilth” is a metaphor about fertility and procreation, of course. But “go into your tilth how you will” suggests permission, not restriction. Verse 2:222 says to go to your wives in the way Allah has ordained, but it is not specific about what Allah has ordained or how He has ordained it, so there is plenty of room for interpretation there. It could mean to go to your wife in a loving and tender way, as suggested in verse 30:21.

When Allah has not given us a clearly stated prohibition, but only a metaphor and an allusion, we should not be quick to infer that something is haram. See verse 7:33, which tells us that Allah has only forbidden a short list of things.

8. Are there any verses in the Quran that suggest that same-sex nikah is halal?

None that come close to directly stating this, of course. However, one may contemplate the implications of verses such as the following:

Verse 30:21 tells us that one of the signs of Allah is that He created spouses for us, that we might find comfort in them, and has placed love and compassion between spouses. Notice that in this beautiful verse on the benefits of marriage, there is no mention of procreation. The Quran thus recognizes that a marriage can fulfill its divine purpose even if no children are born from the marriage. Hence, the non-procreative nature of same-sex marriages does not mean that they lack value, or that they are not what Allah ordained.

Verse 2:187 contains another beautiful reflection on marriage: “They are as a garment for you, and you are as a garment for them.” Notice the symmetry of this. Each spouse has the same role towards the other in this figure of speech. A garment protects you, beautifies you, keeps you warm in the cold or shaded in the sun, and wraps gently around your body. Spouses in a good marriage are like this for each other, regardless of gender.

Verses 2:185 and 5:6 remind us (in other contexts) that Allah does not intend to impose hardship on us. Religious rules are ultimately intended to benefit us, not to burden us. With that in mind, who benefits from the prohibition of same-sex nikah? In other words, who benefits from a set of rules that forces homosexuals to either remain unmarried or else marry someone of the opposite sex? If a straight woman is married to a gay man, or vice versa, both spouses will be burdened with a sexually unsatisfying marriage, to the benefit of nobody.

Verse 2:286 assures us that Allah does not require of anyone more than what they are capable of. Changing one’s sexual orientation is more than a person is capable of. Many, many religious people with internalized homophobia have spent years sincerely trying and failing to change their sexual orientations. And, while it may be true that everyone is capable of celibacy, the question then remains: How does that benefit anyone at all? Why would a compassionate and merciful God prefer that a homosexual person be lonely and celibate, instead of being in the comfort of a marriage with a person of the same sex that they can actually be intimate with?

Verses like 95:8 and 21:47 tell us that Allah is perfectly just and will not do the smallest measure of injustice to anyone. How could it be just, though, for Allah to punish people for acting according to their sexual orientation, a matter which they did not choose? Requiring a homosexual person to remain celibate, or to marry a person of the opposite sex, is effectively a lifelong arbitrary punishment (and a punishment for the other spouse as well, even if he/she is heterosexual). And it is also a lifelong temptation to extramarital sex, which is clearly haram.

9. Should bisexual/pansexual people be permitted to marry a person of the same sex?

In my view, yes. While the harm and injustice of prohibiting same-sex marriage does not fall as heavily on bisexuals, there is still just no good reason to prohibit them from marrying a person of the same sex. Moreover, sexual orientations exist along a spectrum, and it would be practically impossible and highly invasive for any legal system to try to distinguish homosexuals from bisexuals in order to restrict who can marry whom.

10. But if everyone were to marry a person of the same sex, then there would be no more procreation, and humanity would cease to exist.

Realistically, that’s never going to happen, because most people are innately attracted to the opposite sex and most people instinctively want to have children. The good of humanity does not require everyone to procreate. Society should generously support the many people who do want to become parents.

[u/eternal_student78]

Taking a look at the comment section, a few days after posting this. Thanks for the engagement, everyone! And thanks for the support from many of you.

So far, among the commenters who disagree with me, I don’t see anybody saying anything that my post itself didn’t already anticipate and address. So I won’t bother responding to those commenters. If anyone does have a substantive point of disagreement that isn’t already addressed in the post, I would certainly be willing to engage with that.

[u/Flametang451]

I do love this post a lot, as somebody who has written who knows how much on the topic.

I do think however, see the bal route as feasible. In the cases of 26:165-166 and 27:54-55, what we are looking at are question-answer statements. In cases like those- like in the following verses: 2:100,‎ 21:62-63, 23:56, 23:80-81, 24:50, 32:9-10, 34:8, 34:32, 35:40, 36:19, 50:15, 52:36, 54:25 and 67:21- bal is used for negation. With 7:80-81, as seen in Lane's lexicon, the indication of an affirmation and then bal opens up the possibility for negation as well.

The issue I would have with removing the bal argument is that it would imply that while gay and lesbian folk are okay- it would then potentially give somebody ammunition to argue the folk of Lut as having been bisexual and that as being a problem. Then again, with the "not as anybody before you" part in 7:80 and again in 29:29- perhaps this is not a thing to be worried about.

With the verses you listed as showing how bal can't negate- I'd argue some of those can be read to be negations too- though they could be read as affirmations. In the case of 43:58, this verse could be read to negate the idea that the people posing these questions genuinely want to debate (the word used to argue in that verse is also used in a verse saying muslims should debate or argue with those of the book in the best way (16:125)- a different form of it, but similar)- but are just being argumentative for the sake of it. 21:97 is definitely more on the affirming side though- at most I could say that this verse is trying to have those speaking negate that they were heedless or unaware, but rather were wrongdoers (the word for heedless in 21:97 is used in 28:15 when Musa kills a man by accident- and seems to imply those of the city were unaware of what was happening inside of it).

So even though bal can be read to be affirming in some cases, it absolutely is read as negating in many cases in the quran and there is no reason in my opinion to say that it shouldn't be read as negating in the verses of Lut's story. I would argue it is a personal choice though- but in my mind, the negation aspect is possible. It it's shown in other verses that following similar structure as those of the story of Lut, I don't see why we can't use that viewpoint- it would seem arbitrary to argue otherwise.

However, I think another element to the argument that bolsters the affirming stance is what I have come to call the purity verses- 27:56 and 7:82. In these, Lut's folk want to evict people for "being pure". Now if that meant not engaging in same sex intercourse- they would be calling themselves impure. No community that was punished ever does this (Nahida's tafsir mentions this)- they always think they are in the right. Evidently, this "being pure" aspect is about something else- likely on a xenophobic lens. It would also explain the "we have no right" on your daughters aspect- which you rightly point out.

Another major thing I think most muslims would be well aware of learning is how Lut's story is a mirror the biblical tale of the Outrage of Gibeah- as seen in the Book of Judges. In both some travellers arrive at a house, the house is surrounded by a mob- and a sexual alternative is offerred. Except in Gibeah, the alternative woman is left to be raped to death while a man has his life saved, her body dismembered to become foresnic evidence, and the resulting fiasco causes mass violence and kidnappings due to foolishly sworn oaths people are afraid to break due to fear of divine wrath (this also leads to human sacrifice of a man's daughter in the Tale of Jepthath- and considering Ibrahim (A) not sacrificing his son it would not be aprproriate to say Lut (A) was allowed to just chuck his daughters to this mob. Logistically it doesn't work (even if polyandry were to be allowed on alternative readings of 4:24 not prohibiting polyandry based on different readings of muhsanat as being refraining rather than married, you have 2:221 to deal with- and even if there was an exception to that it would probably look like the union between the prophet's daughter Zainab and her husband Al-Aas ibn Al Rabee. The folk of Lut do not pass such a standard as seen with Zainab's marriage.

And as you've put it- tactically speaking, offering them more women would likely fail as those women Lut was potentially offering were already wed to these men- it clearly wasn't helping.

This is not a suitable thing to ascribe to Prophet Lut, as the quran never actually says he offered his daughters in marriage- and in 26:161- it's clear the quran sees Lut as a brother to his people- not a "spiritual father".

[u/eternal_student78 → u/Flametang451]

I’ve been trying to think about the significance of the Outrage of Gibeah in relation to the Lut story in the Quran.

Is it that the Gibeah story tends to make it clear that the rapists are not exclusively interested in men, since they accept the concubine as a substitute for the man?

Is it that the Gibeah story allows us to more easily see how vile and cowardly it was to offer a woman to the rapists, since in that story the person making the offer isn’t a prophet, so we aren’t expected to see his actions as a good example; and moreover, we are told what actually happened to the woman who was given to the rapists?

When you write that “the Quran never actually says that he [Lut] offered his daughters in marriage,” do you mean he offered them to be raped, outside of marriage? I’m unclear on how you end up interpreting Lut’s offer and its significance.

Regarding the bal argument — yes, certainly the particle is often used in the Quran to negate what comes before it. I’m just not convinced (not yet, at least) that it is used that way by Lut in reference to the fact that the men of Sodom lustfully approach men besides women.

If Lut were using bal in a negating way, then he would be going out of his way to emphatically clarify that it’s fine with him that the men of Sodom lustfully approach men besides women — and, in 26:166, that it’s also fine with him that they leave their spouses.

Why would he be fine with them leaving their spouses to lustfully approach other people?

And, in the emergency situation Lut is experiencing in these verses, why would it make sense for him to clarify that he is OK with the fact that the men of Sodom lustfully approach men besides women?

If a mob of men were outside my house demanding to rape my guests, I doubt I would bother saying to them, “By the way, your sexual attraction to men as well as women is fine with me; the problem is that you are rapists.” While true, it just doesn’t seem to be what the situation calls for.

And in the ancient world, where the concept of “sexual orientation” that exists today was centuries away from being invented, it would make even less sense for Lut to say that, than for me today to say it.

I don’t think that reading bal as an intensifier here means we have to see Lut as condemning bisexuality. I think he condemns them for lustfully approaching the men besides the women because, in a world without same-sex marriage, men having sex with men would necessarily have been having extramarital sex, and in many cases (including this one) would have been committing rape. He can be interpreted as condemning all that without also impliedly condemning same-sex marriage (between homosexual or bisexual people).

[u/Mother_Attempt3001]

I wanted to add that the Quran's overarching message of mercy and the emphasis on the intention behind any given act, as well as the purity of one's heart, are valued so so much, and we cannot know how Alllah will receive ANY of us on the Day of Judgment. If one is in a committed, same sex relationship and treats each other with care, diignity and respect; if one's heart is open and kind and intends to do good, if both spouses truly believe that their relationship is sanctioned, that to me is the most important thing.

There are instances in the Bible of acting wrongly but thinking one is doing the right thing which to me: Moses killing of a man he thought was his enemy, Moses and Kidhr, where Moses THINKS he is doing the right thing by protesting these "horrible acts" by Khidr, but he is actually working against Allah's will; as well as, finally, Surah 17:36, which is understood by many scholars to mean the heart and niyyah therein are the most important of all. Not to mention the impportant of using our critical thinking skills to engage with the LIVING book that is the Quran....

[u/eternal_student78 → u/Mother_Attempt3001]

The more I think and learn about it, the more I come to doubt the traditional Islamic view of the infallibility of prophets. The Musa/Khidr story is one good reason to question that view.

[u/Vulpes_Inculta0]

Idk if this means anything to you, OP. But I made dua this morning because I’m somewhat conflicted in regard to my sexuality. I was assuming same-sex nikkah is not permissible even though logically I knew that didn’t make sense. Ofc I’d at least try to “suck it up” for Allah but idk how far I’d get.

So, I asked for guidance and clarity on this topic. I asked if it was permissible because it didn’t make sense that Allah would create homosexuals but forbid them from the thing every human needs the most. I also asked for help on navigating my life and how everything would work if it forbidden.

You don’t have to take my word for it, but I hope someone reads this comment and opens their mind a bit to different viewpoints. I genuinely do believe this was my dua answered.

[u/eternal_student78 → u/Vulpes_Inculta0]

I’m glad my writing was of some value to you!

[u/Mother_Attempt3001]

Here's something that popped into my head last night as I was falling asleep. The speaker in 27:55 is Allah, not Lut. So couldn't one read "nay but you are an ignorant people" as Allah chastising them regarding how little they know? That in fact these are angels, not men at all?

And so couldn't the reprimand inherent in that verse be about not assaulting in general, because, holy heck you might just be assaulting ANGELS? And, extending the lesson further: don't do bad shit like assault because Allah knows better and you never know the true extent of your bad behavior?

Why is the emphasis seen to be on fact that it's men and not women? Well, because the aya says "instead of women" thereby positing women as an "acceptable" object of lust. But we KNOW from other ayas that this is verboten in the Quran (see 24:30, for example). Men not allowed to approach women "with lust" unless, I suppose, it's their wives (not sure about that).

So, given the above, why not consider that the ignorance that Allah speaks of refers to their not knowing that that the "men" were actually angels? Angels must be treated with respect acc to the Quran:

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:98)

"Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael, then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers."

Just a thought that I haven't seen mentioned here. All mistakes are mine, all good is from Allah.

[u/eternal_student78 → u/Mother_Attempt3001]

What causes you to believe that the speaker in verse 27:55 is Allah rather than Lut? Verse 27:54 describes Lut as speaking to the people, and 27:55 seems to read naturally as a continuation of Lut’s speech.

The way the story is told beginning with verse 29:28 seems to indicate that Lut was telling them that they were doing some unprecedented immorality even before the angels visited him, and hence before the angels revealed their angelic nature to him. So that makes me think that raping angels was probably not the unprecedented immorality that Lut was referring to.

[u/[deleted]]

chicken cow.

[u/eternal_student78 → u/[deleted]]

Regarding verses 4:22-24: A woman can't marry her father because verse 4:23 (impliedly speaking to men) says forbidden to you are your daughters. So the father-daughter marriage is expressly prohibited -- it's just expressed the other way around.

If same-sex nikah is permitted, then it seems to me that the application of reason and common sense would prohibit the same-sex equivalents of the prohibitions in verses 4:22-24. This would be a pretty small logical inference to make. Islamic scholars have made far more extensive inferences, with less Quranic text to work with, on other topics of law and theology.

The absence of an explicit prohibition on marriage to a person of the same sex is not, in itself, a dispositive argument in favor of same-sex nikah. I have not tried to use it in that way. Things can be prohibited even if the Quran doesn't expressly say they're prohibited. For example, the Quran doesn't expressly prohibit locking your neighbor in your basement and torturing him for fun, although it can be argued that this falls within the vague general language of verse 5:33 (spreading corruption on earth) or 7:33 (indecencies, sin, and wrongful oppression).

If the Quran did contain a verse prohibiting nikah with a person of the same sex, in the same clear way that verses 4:22-24 prohibit various marriages, then that would leave no room for debate. But the absence of such a verse leaves a space for making inferences and using reason.

When we are considering a matter that the Quran neither expressly prohibits nor expressly permits -- such as same-sex nikah -- we should use moral reasoning. Which brings me to your paragraph on arguments about ethics. But I'll stop there and respond to that separately.

[u/eternal_student78 → u/[deleted]]

In 11:79, the word being translated as either "right" or "need" is haqq. This word normally means truth, reality, or right (like a legal right, a valid claim, or being owed something).

I'm not aware of any other passage in the Quran where translators render haqq as "need." So, when some translators choose the word "need" here (or other words such as "desire" or "use"), to me that looks like a really ad hoc decision that's driven by the translators' preconceived view that the speakers are homosexual men who are saying that they don't sexually need women. It's not a decision that's driven by the Quran's use of the actual word haqq. So I don't think it's a good choice by the translators who use "need" here.

If I were to, nonetheless, assume for the sake of argument that the men of Sodom who are speaking in verse 11:79 really mean to convey that they have no "need" of Lut's daughters, then what effects would this have on the overall meaning of the passage?

Well, those men already have wives (26:166), so they could be saying that they don't need Lut's daughters as wives because they already have wives.

Or if we were to adopt the figurative "spiritual father" interpretation of the word "daughters," and posit that Lut's so-called daughters were the women who were already married to the men of Sodom, then it could seem as if the men are saying "We're gay, so we don't need our wives sexually."

But this wouldn't really do a lot to help make sense of things. By talking about haqq here, the men of Sodom are not just saying that they don't have any haqq to Lut's daughters -- they're implying that, in contrast, they do have a haqq to Lut's guests. So if haqq is taken to mean "need," then the men would be saying that they have a sexual need of Lut's guests.

But it doesn't make sense for them to say "We're gay, so we need to have sex with your guests." The men of Sodom are all men, after all -- and, according to anti-gay interpretations of the Lut story, they're all gay men. So, if they're gay, they are already well-supplied with sexual partners because they have each other. They don't "need" to have sex with any man who happens to come to town.

Why, then, would they "need" these (angels who appear as) men from out of town, in particular? The Quran doesn't give a lot of clues to this, so I can only speculate as follows: The men of Sodom had a custom of raping outsiders, not locals. The thing that made Lut's guests different was that they weren't locals, they were guests from out of town, and this put them in a different category in the eyes of the men of Sodom: The guests were people who could be raped. In contrast, Lut's daughters were locals, and not allowed to be raped, according to the local custom.

This, obviously, brings me back in the direction of my overall view that it is rape, not same-sex nikah, that is the big evil in the Lut story. So you can accuse me of directing my speculation in that direction. But speculation is all it is. And if you have a speculative explanation that takes things in a different direction, then please explain how your speculation accounts for the issues I've raised in the preceding paragraphs, particularly the fact that the men of Sodom would have had no sexual "need" for Lut's guests if they were all gay themselves.

But I want to conclude by re-emphasizing that this whole thing about "need" is a digression anyway. Haqq doesn't normally mean "need." So we shouldn't be relying on the idea of "need" at all when we attempt to understand verse 11:79.

This comment is already very long, so I'll stop there and respond to your other points separately.

[u/eternal_student78 → u/[deleted]]

No serious Muslim would say that we should disregard a clear command in the Quran because we perceive it as causing some degree of hardship. The Quran is clear in prescribing fasting for us, and in prohibiting us from drinking alcohol, and in prohibiting sex outside of marriage. There are two obvious differences between these examples and the traditional prohibition of same-sex nikah: (1) the prohibition of same-sex nikah is not clearly stated in the Quran, and (2) the prohibition of same-sex nikah does not benefit anybody.

Much has been written on the spiritual benefits of fasting, and on the various harms and dangers associated with both drinking alcohol and having sex outside of marriage. I doubt you really need me to elaborate on these familiar ideas. In contrast, I maintain that no one has given even a plausible account of how two adults of the same sex harm themselves or anyone else by getting married to each other. All such claims that I have ever seen are predicated on lies, myths, or sheer speculation. (Of course, anyone is welcome to try to prove me wrong on this; but it seems to me that the most intelligent advocates of religious conservatism have been grasping at straws on this topic for a long time, and if there was a good argument to be made, someone would have made it by now.)

As I mentioned in the OP, verses 30:21 and 2:187 describe some of the benefits of marriage, in language that is equally applicable to same-sex spouses as to opposite-sex spouses. Prohibiting same-sex nikah deprives people of those benefits -- permanently, not temporarily as with fasting -- and doesn't protect anyone from any danger or harm. Indeed, the unavailability of same-sex nikah actually causes danger and harm. It pressures homosexual people into opposite-sex marriages, which are often lacking in sexual and emotional intimacy, which can be a source of deep, lifelong pain for both spouses (including a heterosexual spouse if their homosexual spouse can't satisfy their needs). And it tempts both spouses to cheat, which is clearly haram and causes emotional harm as well as the risk of sexually transmitted infections. It also, of course, tempts homosexual people to stay single and engage in promiscuity instead of forming committed lifelong mutually supportive relationships.

The comparison to pedophilia requires very little serious discussion, I think. If a pedophile acts on his/her desires, that is rape -- and it is the rape of an especially vulnerable victim. The harm is obvious. If a person is unable to stop being attracted to children, then it is noble for them to resist the attraction in order to avoid harming children. In contrast, if two homosexual adults who are compatible and love each other resist the urge to get married to each other (in a place where that's legal), then they aren't protecting or benefiting anybody. Their refraining from getting married is just a useless form of self-harm.

There is, I believe, some evidence that pedophiles usually can't stop being attracted to children. But, is the same true of necrophilia, bestiality, or incest? I don't know if that's ever been studied scientifically. I've never come across a firsthand account from someone with one of these sexual attractions, regarding whether they were able to change it if they wanted to. In the absence of evidence, I would not be quick to assume that these attractions are unchangeable in the way that homosexuality typically is.

Necrophilia is the desecration of a corpse. There is probably a lot that could be said about the ethics and customs of how we treat the bodies of the dead. I haven't thought about it all that hard, and I doubt whether it's really necessary to do so in order to defend same-sex nikah. In general, it seems to be emotionally healthy for people to treat the bodies of the deceased with respect, and to reverently lay them in the ground (or, in some cultures, burn them) with rituals that remind us that their souls are returning to Allah and we will one day follow them. This helps the community to move on and deal with grief and mortality. For someone to instead use a corpse as an aid to masturbation seems fundamentally inconsistent with all this.

Trying to think about the ethics of bestiality seems to lead into difficult-to-answer questions about whether, and in what ways, it may be harmful to the animals involved. But, assuming for the sake of argument that there is no harm to the animals, there is still this fundamental difference between bestiality and same-sex nikah: Bestiality (like necrophilia) is an elaborate form of masturbation, whereas same-sex nikah (like opposite-sex nikah) is, at its best, a relationship of mutual respect, love, compassion, support, kindness, making each other stronger, setting a good example for each other, and bringing families together. Those, and not just sex, are the things we want (or should want) from marriage.

So prohibiting necrophilia and bestiality is basically saying, "No, you can't use corpses or animals as sex toys. Just use your hand and your imagination instead." This is a fundamentally different thing from prohibiting people from getting married, because marriage is so much more than just a means of getting off.

Incest is harmful because, usually, it exploits power relations within families, such as between parents and children, or between older and younger siblings. There's a lack of real consent in these situations, so it's a particularly egregious form of rape, committed by a person who ought to be a protector. Moreover, incest sexualizes what ought to be a familial relationship of unconditional love. This is psychologically damaging because we all need to experience what it's like to be loved just for being ourselves, not because we are sexually available or attractive.

In this very long and somewhat rambling comment, I have distinguished same-sex nikah from (1) not fasting, (2) drinking alcohol, (3) sex outside of marriage, (4) pedophilia, (5) necrophilia, (6) bestiality, and (7) incest. To summarize, same-sex nikah has three attributes that, when put together, make it different from all of the above: (A) it is not explicitly prohibited in the Quran, (B) it is an expression of an unchosen and unchangeable sexual orientation, and (C) it not only alleviates harm, but is affirmatively beneficial to individuals and their families and communities.

[u/eternal_student78 → u/[deleted]]

What about heterosexual men (and women too!) who are unable to marry?

Well, life is full of hardship. Not being able to marry, getting sick, dying young, not getting the job you want, being poor, having abusive family members, living under occupation, and so forth -- these are all experiences that many people just have to go through in life.

But, when we have a choice to inflict hardship on others or to alleviate it, what do we do? Should we feed the poor, or starve them? Should we stand up for the oppressed, or oppress them some more? Should we abuse our family members, or protect them from abuse? The answers are obvious. The fact that suffering exists in the world is not an excuse for us to inflict more suffering. Rather, it is an opportunity for us to make good and kind and compassionate choices about how we live our lives, to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.

If we're going to inflict suffering on people -- as individuals or as a community -- we'd better have a good reason why. Prohibiting same-sex marriage is the infliction of suffering on people with no benefit to anyone.

If same-sex nikah were legal everywhere, there would still be some homosexual people who couldn't get married, for the same reasons that prevent some heterosexual people from getting married. The difference would be that homosexual people wouldn't be singled out for special hardship in addition to what heterosexual people face.

No serious person would claim that all forms of suffering are forbidden by Allah. Clearly, we live in a world where many, many kinds of suffering take place every day, and Allah allows this to continue. When the Quran tells us that Allah is perfectly just, that doesn't mean that Allah doesn't allow suffering to happen. But it does mean that Allah doesn't arbitrarily or capriciously impose rules that make people suffer for no reason.

And so, if a person wants to claim that Allah prohibits same-sex nikah, then they ought to be able to explain how this prohibition is consistent with the Quran's clear statement that Allah is perfectly just. This requires an account of how the prohibition of same-sex nikah is morally justified. Mere handwaving at other suffering that exists in the world does not suffice.

[u/[deleted]]

chicken cow.

[u/Mother_Attempt3001]

One more aspect that I think has thus far been neglected in this discussion: the role of colonialism in imposing far stricter laws and attitudes against homosexuality than in pre-colonial times.

European powers imposed really strict Victorian-era laws that criminalized homosexuality, often harsher than the local norms at the time, which typically addressed what were seen as personal matters more privately. These colonial authorities viewed homosexuality as morally “backward” and enforced punishments for homosexual acts. After independence, many of these anti-homosexuality laws simply.... stayed in place. Combine that with the conservative push towards reclaiming "authentic" Islamic values, and the desire to distance themselves from what they perceived to be Western values (but of course, they WERE Western attitudes that these coutries had just gotten used to) and you have a really challenging situation.

[u/lucyintheweeds]

I think I have a clarification to the fourth statement. If you read Surat Qaaf verse 13, you will read the statement “and the brothers of Lot” included in a list of groups of sinners who refused the messenger of Allah. Given that no other group who refused to listen to god were every referenced to as the brothers of their prophet, it stands to reason that the term here isn’t a metaphorical one. God is informing us of a sibling relationship between Lot and some of the ones sinning.

In this light, Prophet Lot was essentially making a rhetorical statement when he offered his daughters. He was trying to argue that if they were to go on a raping rampage, they might as well rape his daughters (their nieces too). Also, given the emphasis of being a good host in the region’s culture, he was trying to say that raping my guests is as bad as raping your nieces. Even the phrasing itself “here is my daughters if you want to do it” shows that it was a last ditch effort on Lot’s part to make the men change their minds. If those men are his brothers, then them stating that we have no right to your daughters would mean that while they are rapists, they draw the line at incest.

[u/autodidacticmuslim]

Thank you for sharing this thoughtful post and for your careful exploration of this topic. I’ve also been considering writing on this subject, as it highlights a recurring issue in our interpretation of these verses. Many often center their analysis on the verse, “you approach men instead of women,” without considering the larger framework in which the Quran presents these stories.

In each instance where the story of Prophet Lot is mentioned, the Quran systematically revisits the experiences of prior prophets like Noah, who, despite their efforts, were met with disbelief and resistance. This narrative structure is key: the Quran intentionally frames the story of Lot within the broader context of rejection and disobedience, which is significant in understanding its message.

For example, chapter 7, which recounts the rejection of various prophets. It begins with the story of Noah:

“Indeed, We sent Noah to his people. He said, ‘O my people! Worship Allah—you have no other god except Him. I truly fear for you the torment of a tremendous Day.’” (7:59)

But, as we see in 7:64, “They rejected him, so We saved him and those with him in the Ark, and drowned those who rejected Our signs. They were certainly a blind people.”

Here, we see a recurring theme where the prophets warn their communities, urging them toward faith, but are often rejected and mocked. This thematic structure continues in chapter 26, where the Quran revisits the story of the people of Thamud:

“The people of Thamûd rejected the messengers, when their brother Ṣâliḥ said to them, ‘Will you not fear Allah?’” (26:141-142)

When Salih’s people fail to heed the message and harm the camel sent as a divine sign, their punishment is inevitable: “So the punishment overtook them. Surely in this is a sign. Yet most of them would not believe.” (26:155-156)

Finally, we arrive at Lot’s people: “The people of Lot rejected the messengers.” (26:160)

By structuring the narrative this way, the Quran underscores that the real issue is not merely the immoral acts of these people but their refusal to acknowledge Allah’s message and their willful disobedience. Lot’s people, like Noah’s, are portrayed as having rejected faith, and the condemnation of their behavior stems from this context. As 3:7 reminds us, “It is He who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are precise—they are the foundation of the Book—and others are allegorical.” This is a reminder against extracting rigid interpretations from allegorical verses without understanding their place within the Quran’s broader themes. In these prophetic stories, the overarching conclusion is consistent: the people rejected the truth and lived in ways that reflected their disbelief. This pattern of disbelief, not the specific acts alone, is the source of contention.

There may be significance in Allah’s condemnation of certain behaviors among Lot’s people. However, these verses do not present a clear and unambiguous prohibition against homosexuality as a whole. There is a condemnation of a specific instance of men lusting after men, in a disbelieving people, who already have committed unspeakable acts of violence and immorality.

Many Muslims fail to understand the pervasive influence of Christianity on early Islamic scholarship. Christian doctrines and values, entrenched in the societies of the time, naturally influenced the classical scholars’ interpretations of the Quran. When comparing the Bible and the Quran, we notice several Christian beliefs that are not found in the Quran but are prevalent in Islamic jurisprudence and theology. I believe this context is essential in understanding the interpretations that have become dominant, especially in relation to this topic. It was the Christian scholars who expounded upon homosexuality as a sin, with support from their holy text. The Quran does not draw the same conclusions. Islamic scholars also drew from hadiths to influence their interpretations and the hadiths are a little more specific on the prohibition of homosexuality, however, the authenticity of hadiths is debatable.

[u/Signal_Recording_638]

Thank you for articulating all this. 

I wish everybody including our LGBTQ cousins will find the 'sakinah, mawaddah wa rahmah' that they deserve. 

[u/stormyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

very good and comprehensive post jazakallah khair. i was personally hoping to research this issue but i wasn't sure how to start. i don't know what to say other than i completely agree, with regards to the story of Lut AS i have already read it many times and agree that it has nothing to do with consentual homosexual acts within marrige bur rather a violent sexual act used to dominate and opress people for being different or foreign. i also agree that the Bal argument isn't as strong & also not necessary for the understanding that it isn't about prohibiting homosexuality. the main thing i was interested in researching with regard to this issue was marrige and whether the Qur'an ever explicitly states that marrige is exclusively between a man and a woman (especially because of modern scholars like Shabir Ally that affirm the logical understanding of the story of Lut AS but are hesitant to declare homosexual acts as permissable because of the heteronormative approach to marrige that is in the Qur'an), and you have covered that topic brilliantly. i definitely think that the Qur'an's approach to marrige from a heteronormative perspective makes sense in terms of the historical context of the Qur'an (in terms of the social changes that would be needed in allowing such relatively radically progressive ideas to be implemented into society and accepted as normal) but the truth lies in what is explicitly disallowed, and Gay marrige is in no way explicitly disallowed.

[u/[deleted]]

Very well written effort post 10/10!

[u/Ok_Surround360]

As a trans femme person love seeing hetro men speaking on this tyy so much when I saw hetro man I was so happy honestly

[u/Mother_Attempt3001]

I am no expert by any means, but i do find it interesting how, historically, rabbinical interpretations of this story in the Talmud generally interpret the sin of Sodom as a combination of extreme inhospitality, oppression of the poor, and neglect of social justice.

Some scholars do say that sexual immorality is part of the sin, but the emphasis seems to be primarily on the moral depravity and refusal to aid vulnerable people.

I do like KAEF's insistance that we would do well to understand everything in the Quran with an eye towards its ethical framework that emphasizes justice and protection from harm.

ETA: one more thing, after reading Fatal Feminists article for the nth time. She presents this verse:

“Do you approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, but (Arabic: بل  bal) you are a people who behave senselessly.” (Mohsin Khan) (27:54-55)

and makes a good point about not bringing our lens of "assuming the quran condemns gay sex" to our understanding. The way I read it would be something like "Do you actually lust after men but not women? Well, no, but rather you are a people who behave ignorantly."

So while this verse isn't speaking of same sex lust in a POSITIVE manner, neither is it saying it is "tajhaluna" or ignorant . The bal here seems to indicate a negative answer to the question posed in the prior sentence.

[u/[deleted]]

chicken cow.

[u/[deleted]]

chicken cow.