Week 11

In both of these articles by Najmabadi and El-Rouayheb all discuss the premodern views of “homosexuality” in Arab-Muslim society. But they take different point of views to show the effects of homosexuality in these societies such as premodern European society. They also talk about how sexuality in pre-nineteenth century had no specified gender in the Ottoman and Qajar Persia but also on the contrary of how there was a fix of homosexual orientation in these Islamic world.

 Najmabadi expresses the difference between Ghilman and hur and how commonly they were defined through the Qur’an verses and how it described pleasure and the understanding the beauty of male and female beauties. For instance, when it came to the males a beard was seen as the mark of manhood which was a transition from an object of desire to a desiring subject.  She elaborates on how there was still a need of how some man would shave off their beards to where they still would be desired by adult men.  She uses many definitions of homosexuality to translate Islamic/Muslim society’s pre European invasion on “homosexuality” and it was defined by “females segregated controlled, young/ and or effeminate males available for sexual penetration are tacitly accepted and very carefully ignored in Muslim societies in past and present.” So with Najmabadi focuses more on gender and with El-Rouayheb goes more on a historiographical point of view on “homosexual” and how there was more of an influence on the society through an imposed lens of a premodern Western society. By this it shows how Islamic religious scholars of this period were committed to show how sodimy was the most offensive sins man could commit. She continues to show how “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” was developed in the nineteenth century and how it overlaps with the concepts of “sodomite.”

Both of these authors give a great insight as to how homosexuality has transformed over the years and how the influence of modern Western societies have had an influential lens on the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality in addition  they avoid to critique the normality of Muslim frenzied sexuality. It was great to read these articles because it also gave great insight as to how Western societies can have a great influence of how one might change the roles of gender in society base on their Orientalist views. As El-Rouayheb states “distinctions not captured by the concept of “homosexuality” were all-important from the perspective of the culture of the period.”  Which I find to be very true but I see sexuality is a topic a lot of people do not want to speak about.