Sexuality, spirituality, and social justice in progressive Islamic thought

Sexuality, Diversity, and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims Kugle begins the essay entitled “Sexuality, Diversity, and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims” by positioning the thesis within the traditions of Islam. He refers to the manner in which the Prophet Muhammad would talk about sexuality in a positive manner and describes a long line of the “whole tradition of Islamic scholars” who have always been forthright in their “frank (and often delightfully raunchy) discussion of sex with all its dangers and delights.”[footnoteRef:2] This tradition of not shying away from the subject of sex is important to Kugle’s argument because his aim is to show that sex and sexuality in and of themselves are not subjects that Muslims should consider taboo. After all, Muhammad himself challenged the way his community thought about sex by being open and honest about it. Muhammad, Kugle notes, emphasized the important relationship between sexuality and spirituality—and this was a unique phenomenon among the world’s religions. In his essay, Kugle tackles the subject of sexuality in an open, forthright, and analytical manner; and this essay will summarize and analyze Kugle’s words. [2: Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims." In Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender and Pluralism, edited by Omid Safi (Oxford: Oneworld, 2003), 190.]

One of the main challenges of discussing sexuality frankly in the modern era for Muslims is that they must negotiate with the Shari’ah—the ancient rules and laws of Islam. Kugle is upfront about his intentions: his purpose is to return the topic of and discourse on sexuality to the manner of speech that existed in pre-modern times, when it was more acceptable for sex to be discussed among Muslim scholars, who, like al-Ghazali, had no problem describing the “awe and bewilderment” of sexual bliss.[footnoteRef:3] By addressing his subject head-on, Kugle is able to overcome the main hurdle—that of shyness—and approach the issue of sex in Islam with directness. [3: Ibid 191.]

The first point he makes is that sexuality is linked to spirituality and politics. It is such a part of human nature that it has a major role in all aspects of human society, really. However, what Kugle is getting at is that sexuality can be politicized and that in the modern era, sexuality is ideologically associated with autonomy, individual rights, and identity. As Kugle admits, the modern form of politicization stems from the Feminist Movement in the West: “As feminist scholars critique the assumed superiority of patriarchal masculinities, space is opened for a deeper introspection about sex - not in the light of gender alone but also in the light of sexuality.”[footnoteRef:4] This ideology clashes to some degree with the traditional Muslim conception and Kugle laments the “persecution of women, sexual minorities, and gender minorities.” It is clear that Kugle is advocating on their behalf and attempts to reconcile the laws of the Qur’an with the demands of political and social justice of the contemporary era. Rather than choose one over the era, Kugle’s aim is to link Shari’ah with modern conceptions of social justice with regard to the advocacy of minorities and marginalized groups in the sexually liberated community. [4: Ibid 191.]

To do so, Kugle has to redefine what is meant by sexuality. He describes it as more than just lust. He describes it as a factor of the personality by quoting Momin Rhaman, who stated that sexuality is “an indicator of our core being.”[footnoteRef:5] The pleasure of sexuality and engaging in sex for its own sake, in Islam has been view positively—which is different from in Christianity and Judaism, where the sex is only considered in positive terms when it is a procreative act. That is why in Christianity contraception has always been forbidden. In Islam, there has been more acceptance towards and openness to contraception, Kugle argues (though he admits that the interpretation of the Qur’an on its affirmation of non-procreative sex is still disputed).[footnoteRef:6] Kugle’s point is that, debate aside, there have been those in Islam who have valued sex play as a social and spiritual good in itself and that sex play should include homosexual acts because, realistically speaking, sex play has never been just between men and women. Kugle’s fall-back on “realism”[footnoteRef:7] in this part of the article is somewhat of a lark: it is not as though homosexuality has ever been more common or typical than heterosexuality, yet Kugle attempts to 1) side-step the debate over whether Islam actually approves of sex play for its own non-procreative purposes, and 2) attempts to normalize homosexual sex play without providing evidence but only making a generalized, vague argument about a need to be “realistic” and accept that homosexuality is one of the ways in which positive sex play can be conducted. Kugle thus makes one very considerable omission and one very large assumption—but in order to legitimize his argument, he has to make both—otherwise he has no argument. [5: Ibid 191.] [6: Ibid 193.] [7: Ibid 193.]

Kugle moves on to show why homosexuality should be accepted by appealing to the fact that the Qur’an celebrates diversity—diversity of gender, race and ethnicity—so why not sexuality, Kugle argues.[footnoteRef:8] He notes that gay Muslims tend to leave their religion because they feel that their sexual identity does not make them compatible with the tenets of Islam. To link homosexuals with Islam in a positive manner, Kugle associates homosexuality the concept of natural diversity—but his premise is faulty—it is a fabrication. Natural diversity does not require one to redefine the purpose of a thing. Sexuality is already diversified because of the male/female relationship required for the act. Homosexuality is actually anti-diversification. Kugle does not admit this because he has already redefined sexuality as being sex play and non-procreative. Of course, when sex is positively viewed as non-procreative then there is no more need for the diversity of the male/female relationship. He is free to imagine that homosexual relationships add to the diversity of the sex play experience. However, he is contorting the purpose of sex from its original procreative and natural purpose, which, he has already admitted is a view still promoted within Islam, though some are open to non-procreative sex. Since some are open to non-procreative sex, he logically argues that they should be open to homosexual sex, since it is just a variation of non-procreative sex. His argument is indeed logical: if one is going to engage in the use of contraception, why should one stop there. If one is going to engage in non-procreative sex play there are limitless options to pursue.[footnoteRef:9] However, what would surely be described as lust and fornication by many is, under the guise of diversity and social justice, described as natural and befitting a people who recognize the value of sex pleasure as a good for its own sake—and so Kugle’s argument goes on. [8: Ibid 194.] [9: Ibid 195.]

Kugle attempts to justify and validate homosexuality by appealing to instances in which the Qur’an affirms the goodness of diversity. But nowhere in the Qur’an is there justification for the kind of sexual diversity that Kugle advocates—i.e., homosexuality, and he admits as much: “The Qur'an never states this clearly, since there is no term in the Qur'an for “sexuality" in its abstract meaning (just as there is no term in the Qur'an for ccgender").”[footnoteRef:10] Kugle reads the Qur’an’s assertion that creation is diverse as meaning that homosexuals are part of the plan of creation. His implicit argument is that people are born homosexual or that homosexual tendencies are natural and part of sexuality—but this contradicts his earlier statement that sex play can include homosexual acts as a way of make sex play diverse. What the Qur’an appears to be saying is that creation is diverse: it does not say anything about diverse activities that one might engage in. Kugle is thus making two arguments at the same time that do not mesh well. His assertion that “it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the Qur'an accepts the existence of diversity in sexuality and sexual orientation”[footnoteRef:11] is not as reasonable as he thinks—and unless his reader is willing to overlook the initial debate about whether Islam actually accepts sex play as appropriate for its own sake (and commit the same academic omission that Kugle commits) his reader is not likely to follow him or concede any of his further points. For Kugle’s argument to be legitimate, he has to tackle in more depth and detail the argument of whether Islam actually permits contraception and whether non-procreative sex is permitted. His sidestepping of this question in the beginning of the essay delegitimizes his entire work. [10: Ibid 196.] [11: Ibid 197.]

Nonetheless, Kugle is convinced that because “in every historically documented society there is evidence of homosexual desire and activity and there are persons characterized by such desire and activities”[footnoteRef:12] this means that homosexual acts are natural and good in and of themselves—but he is still building off his initially inadequately explored and unverified premise. He draws attention to the notion that the Qur’an speaks indifferently about homosexuality, describing homosexuals only briefly as “men who are not in need of women (or have no sexual guile before women)”—but his interpretation of this line is debatable as well.[footnoteRef:13] He decries the fact that traditionally, Muslims have always viewed homosexuality as forbidden and he wonders why this is since there is no strict denunciation of homosexuality in the Qur’an, as far as he can tell. He turns to Islamic Feminists to help him make his argument, but again it is like turning to the choir for assistance when the main root of the problem lies still unaddressed outside in the rain. Kugle avoids the necessary discussion of the purpose and nature of sex and sexuality. If sex is meant to be procreative, then his argument falls flat. If non-procreative sex is permissible, then his argument gains validity. It is this point that has to be explored in more detail—but Kugle gives most of his time to echoing the claims of the Feminist Movement in Islam, which, given the fact that he has not addressed the elephant in the room is both unseemly and unnecessary. [12: Ibid 201.] [13: Ibid 201.]

In conclusion, Kugle’s essay is an attempt to advocate for marginalized sexual minorities within Islamic culture and to justify homosexuality as an acceptable practice in the eyes of Allah. He starts by showing how Muhammad himself was open and frank about sex and proceeds to argue that non-procreative sex play in and of itself is a valid expression of sexuality and that diversity within sex play should be equated with diversity in nature, which is celebrated in the Qur’an. Thus he argues that the Qur’an implicitly acknowledges and supports homosexuality and, therefore, Muslims should not adopt a proscriptive attitude towards it. Overall, Kugle’s argument proceeds logically and rationally and is supported by a chorus of Islamist feminist voices. However, his premise is never fully verified and so the whole argument hinges untrustworthily upon a point that is not explored in sufficient detail or with convincing enough proof—i.e. that coitus interruptus is acceptable to Allah rather than merely tolerated.
Bibliography Kugle, Scott Siraj Al-Haqq. "Sexuality, Diversity, and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims." In Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender and Pluralism, edited by Omid Safi. Oxford: Oneworld, 2003, pages 190-234.