Sexuality in Islam Read online

  We created man of an extraction of clay,

  then We set him, a drop, in a receptacle secure,

  then We created of the drop a clot

  then We created of the clot a tissue

  then We created of the tissue bones

  then We garmented the bones in flesh;

  thereafter we produced him as another creature.

  So blessed be God, the fairest of creators!

  Then after that you shall surely die,

  then on the Day of Resurrection you shall surely be raised up.9

  The quranic embryogenesis constituted, for many centuries, the essence of Muslim knowledge of the chronological origins and the processes of appearance of foetal life. So great, so informed, so lucid a mind as Raghib Bāsha gives us the following valuable indications as to the way in which, on the basis of the quranic tradition, people in the Muslim world still conceived, not so long ago, of the genesis of the embryo.

  Learned men declare that sperm, when placed in the uterus, is first transformed into a small, round ball, while keeping its original white colour. And this lasts for six days. At the centre of this ball then appears a spot of blood. This spot will be the confluence of the souls (multaqā al arwāh). When the creation is completed this will be the heart. Two spots of blood then appear: one above the preceding spot, which will become the brain; the second to the right of the first spot will be the liver. These three spots will develop perfectly. These various transformations require three more days. That makes a total of nine days from the beginning of conception, give or take one or two days. Six days later, that is to say, on the fifteenth day after adherence, the blood invades the whole of the ball, which becomes an ‘alaqa, again give or take a day or two. The ‘alaqa becomes a mudhgha. This means that the coagulated blood becomes a piece of flesh as big as a spoonful. . . . This second stage requires twelve more days. These three organs (heart, brain and liver) become differentiated from one another. . . . Nine days later, the head separates from the arms and the limbs from the ribs and torso. This differentiation is sometimes noticeable and sometimes not after forty, days. . . . The Messenger of God . . . said: ‘Each of you lay in your mother’s womb for forty days, first in nutfa, then in ‘alaqa, then in mudhgha. Allah then sends an angel who breathes the soul into it. The angel is given the order to pronounce four words that will decide its level of fortune, date of death, mode of action and lastly fortune or ill fortune. . . .’10

  One can speak of a spermatic odyssey that prefigures in a sense the human odyssey. Embryonic life situates us in the midst of human becoming. On the other hand, in the quranic view of the world, physical love impinges directly on the social order. The social acquires meaning through the biological or, to put it another way, physical love is called upon to become spiritual by transcending itself towards the social. Indeed as soon as a couple is formed there appears immediately and necessarily the fundamental distinction between the public and the private through which we enter life separately. Sexuality is presence to my body, but also presence to the bodies of others. Sexuality is a transcending of solitude. It is a call to others, even at the carnal level. Being essentially social the sexual relation must be regulated as far as its real practice is concerned. This social meaning of sexuality, as apprehended in the Quran, is to be found in the myth of the primal couple. ‘It is He who created you out of one living soul, and made of him his spouse that he might rest in her. Then, when he covered her, she bore a light burden and passed by with it; but when it became heavy they cried to God their Lord, “If Thou givest us a righteous son, we indeed shall be of the thankful.” ’11 Adam and Eve form, therefore, the original dyad whose mutual meeting creates security, sakīna, which is the prelude to all procreation.

  Strictly speaking, the procreative act was not immediately revealed to man. It is the result of a long quest that began only with the expulsion from Eden. Chased out of paradise in the company of Eve, Adam was to seek for a long time more or less illusory and temporary compensations. We know that on this point the quranic version differs appreciably from the biblical one. Indeed the temptation of Iblis concerns the truth that had hitherto been concealed from the primary couple by a veil of light. Having tasted of the tree of Immortality and Eternal Power, the couple became immediately aware of the nakedness ‘of their shameful parts’ (sūātihima).12 This truth, which cost them so dear, turned out in the end to be sexual truth!

  We should note the remarkable concordance between the notions of disobeying God, awareness of nakedness and shame. I shall come back later to the key concept of ‘aura, but it is already clear that the interhuman relationship involving shame bears within itself the key to the fundamental distinction between the public and the private!

  At the very outset, the primary couple ‘invented’ clothing: in other words, the descent on to Earth, which is the entry into social life, is accompanied ipso facto by the feeling of shame. The notions of guilt and sin in the Christian sense are non-existent here. No curse is involved. On the contrary: God took pity on man and gave him the ability to dress himself. Clothing effaces shame, but it introduces man to social life.

  The diversity of the social does not necessarily imply an equality of roles and a similarity of status, for the quranic view is also developed in accordance with another axis, namely, that of the hierarchy of the sexes. Indeed the primacy of man over woman is total and absolute. Woman proceeds from man. Woman is chronologically secondary. She finds her finality in man. She is made for his pleasure, his repose, his fulfillment. There is a certain ‘primacy’ of the male and this explains verse 38 of Sura IV, the meaning of which is as enigmatic as its import is crucial.

  Men are the managers of the affairs of women

  for that God has preferred in bounty

  one of them over another, and for that

  they have expended of their property.

  Righteous women are therefore obedient,

  guarding a secret for God’s guarding.

  And those you fear may be rebellious

  admonish; banish them to their couches,

  and beat them. If they then obey you,

  look not for any way against them; God is

  All-High, All-great.13

  Married life, then, is hierarchized. The Islamic family was to be essentially male-worshipping. And the division of labour is clearly drawn up in law in favour of the woman. For noblesse oblige: the right to beat one’s wife also implies the duty to maintain her and work for her. A great deal could be said about the ‘degree’ that men have over women.14 Many commentators would like to see this as a difference of nature.

  Nevertheless the reciprocity of the two points of view remains total and dialectical. For man finds his fulfillment only in woman. Man transcends himself only through femininity. If marriage is a major canonical obligation it is for that very reason! A famous hadith declares that ‘the man who marries takes possession of half of his religion’. The relationship between couples is a relationship of complementarity. Despite appearances to the contrary, one would seek in vain for the slightest trace of misogyny in the whole of the Quran. I shall come back to this crucial point.

  It is enough for our purpose here to remember that the quranic view of sexuality is total and totalizing. The cosmic and the sociological, the psychological and the social rest on the union of the sexes. Sexuality is creation and procreation. It is affirmation and complementarity. The way of plenitude passes through sexual peace. Eros traverses all human behaviour, every stage in human experience, every level of the real and imaginary. The erotic drive reigns everywhere. Where there is life there is desire and where there is desire there is Eros. As soon as man was chased from paradise, he was thrown into a world in which Eros found meaning. The life of the world is a life devoted to Eros. The fundamental bond is essentially erotic. Becoming, alternation, opposition, diversity and all other forms of relation have, in one way or another, an erotic significance. It is Eros, therefore, that governs the entire uni
verse. Sexuality is diversity in unity. Hence its importance and purificatory power. Biology occupies a special place in the Quran. This is because man is a being of desire and because the lightning flash of desire trans-poses the body and reposes the spirit. There is no break: only unity and totality. Life is a search for immortality.

  The biological schema offered by the Quran is merely an image whose profound meaning brings us to full consciousness. The biological reflects consciousness. Its truth cannot be denied and the terms by which the Quran designates the various embryonic stages are as much psychological as biological. ‘The threefold shadows’, in which being is formed imply an astonishingly symbolic view of the mother’s womb. The very act of the animation of the janīn (embryo) by God is one in which a spirituality becomes incarnate and inscribed in the biological, but reveals itself to the psyche. The biological has no autonomy: it is a reflection of the psychical. The sūra, a form of the human body, is understood through the psyche.

  Hence the initial, radical rejection of every form of asceticism. Contempt for the body is ultimately contempt for the spirit. Islam is first of all a naturalism and Islamic spirituality is full naturalness.

  Furthermore quranic biology is duplicated by sociology, since the meaning of the organism is to be found in social life. Love has its finality in procreation, which is the gift of existence, the promotion to existence of a new being. Of course, sexuality cannot be reduced to procreation. Nevertheless procreation is primarily the transmission of existence in the form of an immanent thrust in which God himself participates. There is carnal pleasure immanent in the being who experiences it. Genetic power is immanent in the act of generation and in the generator himself. Creation, then, is a growth of the species and a movement of life. The sacred mission of sexuality is to propagate life, to multiply existence. In assuming it, man takes part in a divine work whose majesty is enough to give a new meaning to his existence. Sexuality is a deployment of the intensity of life.

  So the act of generation is highly commendable. ‘Couple and multiply,’ the Prophet was to order. And the exercise of sexuality is a pious obligation. One must marry off one’s slaves and children.

  Marry the spouseless among you and your slaves and handmaidens that are righteous; if they are poor, God will enrich them of His Bounty.15

  Muhammad himself is berated by the Quran for swearing to go on sexual strike against his nine wives as a result of certain marital difficulties. ‘O Prophet, why forbiddst thou what God has made lawful to thee, seeking the good pleasure of thy wives?’16 And, anyway, does not the sūra ‘The Table’ invite us to partake of ‘earthly food’ without prohibition: ‘O believers, forbid not such good things as God has permitted you; and transgress not; God loves not transgressors.’17

  It is hardly surprising, then, if love arouses the wonder of God himself. The mystery of sexuality is like the completion of his work, of which it is both the support and the meaning. The wonder of God, who is love of love, gives some idea of the exceptional place accorded to sexuality by the Quran.

  CHAPTER 2

  Sexual prohibitions in Islam

  The quranic exercise of sexuality assumes, therefore, an infinite majesty. It is life conveyed, existence multiplied, creation perpetuated. The sexual function is in itself a sacred function. It is one of those signs (‘āya) by which the power of God may be recognized. To accept one’s sex is to accept being a witness to Allah. So the relation of the sexes was to be the object of very special attention on the part of the Quran: it must be regulated so that it may be used in the right way. The Quran does not itself lay down prohibitions; it merely regulates sexual practices.

  To begin with, Islam rejects the notion of the impurity of women. The opposition of the pure and impure is in no sense synonymous with the opposition of the sexes. It is the sexual relation itself that produces impurity in men as well as in women. Not in itself, but by virtue of the excreta that it produces. Soiling is bound up with ḥadath, that is to say, with all evacuation of organic waste: sperm, menstrual blood or cleansings. This theme of impurity consequent on the organic exercise of sexuality is central to Islam and the whole of Chapter 5 of this book is devoted to the subject.

  But in addition to these prohibitions concerning the state of the man or woman who has indulged in sexual activity of any kind (with one’s legal spouse, with a concubine or prostitute, homosexuality, masturbation, nocturnal emission, etc.), there are others that organize sexual relations within the Muslim community and which form what amounts to a body of sexual law. Islam distinguishes not only between lawful (ḥalāl) and unlawful (ḥarām) relations, but lays it down that lawful relations create specific taboos of the iḥsān, violation of which constitutes the capital sin of zinā.

  Coitus is not penetration into the world of evil, but into the world of the dark forces of the sacred. As a transference of existence, it gives rise to a series of taboos that constitute the state of iḥsān, which is, according to the fuqahā, which are unanimous on this point, the de facto status of any free Muslim man or woman who, having contracted a legal marriage (nikāḥ), is bound by strict marital fidelity.

  The muḥsana is the person who, by virtue of legal marriage (nikāḥ) is exclusively reserved to his or her spouse. Any sexual relation outside marriage or concubinage is reprehensible. Premarital relations are condemned. Nevertheless this kind of sin is quite minimal beside that committed by a married man with a woman who may have a husband. The penalty incurred for this crime is maximal: stoning to death. Of two fornicators who have committed the same sexual offence (sodomy, for example, or rape of a non-nubile girl), the legally married individual would incur the maximum penalty, but the non-married one the minimum. What is at issue is not a penal offence or a contravention of the law, but a formal, absolute taboo.

  Nikāḥ creates iḥsān. Hence the very special importance attached to it by Islamic tradition, which distinguishes between marriage (nikāḥ) and coitus (waṭ).

  However, we should not lose sight of the strictly sociological sense of nikāḥ. It involves a vow, a public acknowledgment, and therefore cannot be reduced simply to a legitimation of the sexual bond. Marriage is the act that gives a concrete form to the order of existence and gives sexuality a new significance. Nikāḥ is coitus transcended.

  Has anyone noticed, for instance, the importance of publicity in Islamic marriage, which in order to be valid must be accompanied by a feast (walīma), with singing, dancing and shouts of joy? ‘What distinguishes the lawful from the unlawful, the Prophet was fond of saying, was the drum and shouts of the nikāḥ.’1 The aim of the ritual of marriage was precisely to surround the sexual relationship with the maximum publicity. The function of nikāḥ is not to remove taboos, but to make them known. Beyond all possible forms of sexual relationship, nikāḥ sanctifies one of them.

  The antithesis of nikāḥ, which is zinā, is affected by a particularly violent prohibition: at least twenty-seven verses are devoted to it in the Quran.2 ‘And approach not fornication (zinā); surely it is an indecency and evil as a way,’ declares verse 34 of the Sura ‘Isra’ or ‘The Night Journey’. The third verse of the Sura ‘Light’ compares it quite simply with a form of paganism, to ishrāk, the association of false gods with Allah: ‘The fornicator (zāni) shall marry none but a fornicatress (zānia) or an idolatress, and the fornicatress none shall marry her but a fornicator or idolator.’ In the final analysis, zinā is a break with the Muslim community.

  Indeed, nikāḥ is defined not only in opposition to zinā. ‘Legal impediments’ (al mawāni’ al shar ’ya) define a set of incestuous relations and in the case of a triple repudiation a temporary declaration of unlawfulness that can be lifted only by remarriage, followed by a break, with a third person. Indeed a valid nikāḥ cannot be declared in the framework of the broad familial constellation defined by the Quran. It rests on links of blood, on those of suckling and even on the magical links of ḍhihār or īlā.

  Now these links are specific to
nikāḥ. The kinship system that determines lawful sexual relations is not necessarily the same as that which determines rules of succession. Indeed inheritance is strictly divided up in terms of blood relations. Magical relations do not provide de jure access to patrimony. Without being totally independent the sexual and the economic do not quite correspond: this emphasizes once again the privileged character of intersexual relations in the Islamic view of the world.

  Islamic kiiship may be conceived in terms of consanguinity, but it cannot be reduced to them.

  Islam offers the widest possible view of incest: the father’s wives enjoy the same status as blood relations. Blood relationships prohibit nikāḥ with ascendants, descendants, laterals, collaterals, nephews and nieces. The prohibition is even extended to kinship through women.3 For alliance through marriage equals consanguinity and it is just as unlawful to marry mothers-in-law, daughters-in-law or sisters-in-law. Parents and parents-in-law are identified definitively in the first degree and temporarily in the second degree, account being taken of the implications of polygamy.

  Relations of suckling are hardly less important. The same impediments to marriage are created by suckling between infants on the one hand and the nurse on the other, and the whole of her family. Infants suckled by the same nurse are regarded as brothers and sisters, even if they have not suckled together. The Prophet is supposed to have said: ‘Prohibitions of suckling are identical with prohibitions of blood!’4 And Razi comments: ‘By calling the nurse mother and the co-suckled infants brothers and sisters, Allah gave suckling the same importance as consanguinity.’5 Through this theory of suckling the notion of the maḥārim assumes a mystical, affective quality in Islam.