Is al-fahisha, immorality, a reference to homosexual behavior in the Quran?
Understanding which particular immorality al-fahisha references is important to understanding the story of Lot (عليه السلام), and it is through other components in the story of Lot (عليه السلام) one can easily deduce that the only possible reference for al-fahisha in the story is homosexuality, which is also the widely accepted interpretation of this word in the story of Lot (عليه السلام).
In the name of Allah (ﷻ), the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
I seek refuge in Allah (ﷻ) from the rejected devil. أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطانِ الرَّجِيْمِ
All praises and thanks are due to only Allah (ﷻ) alone. الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِين
رَبِّيَ اللَّهُ
The story of Lot (عليه السلام) is about homosexual behaviors through known characteristics of ZWJ (azwajikum, mates)
The story of Lot (عليه السلام) is an important factor in defining al-fahisha because it is in the story of Lot (عليه السلام), and nowhere else besides 4:15, that al-fahisha is used.
It is through a key part of the story of Lot (عليه السلام) which mentions “mates” that one can easily reach the conclusion that al-fahisha is, in fact, absolutely about homosexual behavior and nothing else in the story.
And you leave what created for you your Rab, of your mates (root ZWJ)? Nay, you (are) a people transgressing.”
The Quran makes it clear that mates can only be heterosexual partners.
Why? Because “multiplies” is the product of heterosexual behavior between “mates” in 42:11.
(The) Creator (of) the heavens and the earth. He made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle mates; He multiplies you thereby. (There) is not like Him anything, and He (is) the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.
“Multiplies” in this ayah is about reproduction of the species, root DRH.
Reproduction is a byproduct of heterosexual behavior.
Reproduction is not a consequence of homosexual behavior.
The “wa al-anam” in the ayah above only goes to further the point: live stock also do not multiply through homosexual behaviors.
Further, in 53:45 we see that mates are defined as opposite genders:
And that He created the mates (ZWJ), the male and the female
Even if someone claims at this point that ayahs above just refer to two genders but not necessarily the two different genders together being mates, 7:189 clarifies the gender roles completely for ZWJ.
He (is) the One Who created you from a soul single and made from it its mate that he might live with her. And when he covers her, she carries a burden light and continues with it. But when she grows heavy, they both invoke Allah, their Rab, “If You give us a righteous (child), surely we will be among the thankful.”
Crystal clear — ZWJ can only be a male and female pair.
Other claimed alternate definitions of al-fahisha in the story of Lot (عليه السلام)
In light of 4:15 and 4:16 all other definitions of al-fahisha in the story of Lot (عليه السلام) lead to insensible conclusions.
For completeness, let’s explore some of the alternate definitions of al-fahisha, anyway.
Alternate definition #1: Sexual assault
This definition is a good one for the story of Lot (عليه السلام).
However, there are several non-starters for this definition, this goes back to 4:16.
Let’s put sexual assault into 4:16 and see where we end up.
4:16:
And the two who commit sexual assault among you, then punish both of them. But if they repent and correct themselves, then turn away from both of them. Indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful.
The consequences of al-fahisha being defined as sexual assault follow:
1. If the victim who is sexually assaulted is one of the two — it makes the victim who was sexually assaulted a guilty party.
This ayah would subject the person who was sexually assaulted into punishment/repentance and having to correct themselves.
The conclusion is outrageous enough to conclude this definition makes no sense merely due to the outcome: al-fahisha as sexual assault results in the victim who was sexually assaulted be punished, repentent, or correct themselves.
Unacceptable and flawed.
2. If the person being raped is not one of the two — it defines sexual assault as an activity of 2 perpetrators, and 2 perpetrators only.
If it’s 1 perpetrator, it’s not sexual assault.
If it’s 2+ perpetrators, it’s sexual assault.
Limiting sexual assault to be defined as an act commited by only 2 perpetrators leaves the definition of sexual assault in an insatiable state.
Unacceptable and flawed.
Alternate definition #2: Adultery
Adultery already has a word and punishment. That is, al-zina, and the punishment is 100 lashes:
24:2:
The fornicatress and the fornicator, [then] flog each one of them (with) hundred lashes. And (let) not withhold your pity concerning (the) religion (of) Allah if you believe in Allah and the Day the Last. And let witness their punishment a group of the believers.
There is an ayah, which relates FSH alongside al-zina:
And (do) not go near adultery. Indeed, it is an immoral and (an) evil way.
And this would be solid definition if not for the fact that an immorality is not the immorality.
Again, fahisha is not al-fahisha.
The consistent use of the immorality in the story of Lot (الْفَاحِشَةَ) and the lack of carry over anywhere else in the Quran for the immorality should make it abundantly clear, the immorality means the immorality, not an indefinite immorality or a category of immoralities.
Further, adultery is a consensual activity, this does not fit into the story of Lot (عليه السلام) where there is a component of complusion.
Alternate definition #3: Prostitution (sex work)
I found this definition interesting. However, I see the following issues with it:
- there is already a word specifically for prostitution in the Quran, it is الْبِغَاءِ
- where prostitution is referenced there is no punishment prescribed alongside it
- Prostitution does not fit into the story of Lot (عليه السلام) where there is a clear component of unwelcome advances.
That is the anti-thesis of the definition of prostitution.
Fahisha is not equal to al-fahisha. Al-fahisha is not equal to fahisha.
Al-fahisha is the definitive form of fahisha.
Al-fahisha, the definitive and concrete noun form, is used 4 times throughout the Quran.
3 times in the story of Lot (عليه السلام):
7:80:
وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِۦٓ أَتَأْتُونَ ٱلْفَحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍۢ مِّنَ ٱلْعَلَمِينَ
And Lot, when he said to his people, “Do you commit the immorality (al-fahisha) not has preceded you therein any one of the worlds?
وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِۦٓ أَتَأْتُونَ ٱلْفَحِشَةَ وَأَنتُمْ تُبْصِرُونَ
And Lot, when he said to his people, “Do you commit the immorality (al-fahisha) while you see?
وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِۦٓ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ ٱلْفَحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍۢ مِّنَ ٱلْعَلَمِينَ
And Lot, when he said to his people, “Indeed, you commit the immorality (al-fahisha), not has preceded you with it any one from the worlds.
Outside of the story of Lot (عليه السلام) al-fahisha is used in 4:15 and 4:16.
4:15:
وَٱلَّتِى يَأْتِينَ ٱلْفَحِشَةَ مِن نِّسَآئِكُمْ فَٱسْتَشْهِدُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةًۭ مِّنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن شَهِدُوا۟ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّىٰهُنَّ ٱلْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًۭا
And those who commit the immorality (al-fahisha) from your women then call to witness against them four among you. And if they testify then confine them in their houses until comes to them [the] death or makes Allah for them a way.
And carried over into 4:16:
وَٱلَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَنِهَا مِنكُمْ فَـَٔاذُوهُمَا ۖ فَإِن تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُوا۟ عَنْهُمَآ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًۭا رَّحِيمًا
And the two who commit it (it is a reference to al-fahisha and contextually defined via 4:15) among you, then punish both of them. But if they repent and correct themselves, then turn away from both of them. Indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful.
I won’t dig deeper into Arabic/non-Arabic grammatical constructs or definitive forms in this article but here are easy to read references to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Definite_article and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_definite_article
Definitive forms matter because first and most importantly:
- Allah (ﷻ) put the definite article in front of fahisha for a reason and
- definitive forms refer to an abject and distinct topic.
Our goal is to define al-fahisha, the immorality.
Not immorality, nor an immorality, nor some immorality, nor immoralities.
The immorality. al-fahisha. One specific, particular, immorality.
The Arabic grammar makes a significant difference.
After defining al-fahisha in this article, a list of the alternative definitions from other discussions by popularity (best effort) will be presented.
I will explain why they all fail as definitions of al-fahisha, to the best of my ability, إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ.
“al-fahisha between two” is homosexual behavior as interpreted by the Quranic Arabic
In Quranic Arabic, the reference to “two people committing al-fahisha” is understood as a definitive concrete noun having a default reference to homosexual behaviors. That is proved via the story of Lot (عليه السلام) (more on that below).
People will try to refute this with “well the Arabic was influenced in such and such way by such and such cultural norms” — so what…?
This argument falls flat, as it should, in light of the Quran.
And thus We have revealed it (to be) a judgment of authority (in) Arabic. And if you follow their desires after what came to you of the knowledge, not for you against Allah any protector and not defender.
Keyword 1: authority, hukman, حُكْمًا
Keyword 2: Arabic
Do we think that Allah (ﷻ) was unaware of how words in Arabic would be defined and referenced 1400+ years afterwards? Of course not.
Subhanallah, سُـبْحانَ الله, far above is Allah (ﷻ) from that which is described.
Furthermore, what is the basis of Arabic being under constant change?
What is the empirical data to support this?
Arabic having been changed significantly is a false and unproven claim.
There is no proof Arabic has changed so much so as to negate definitions and default references for definitive forms like al-fahisha.
The “Arabic changed” arguments are posed in such overtones that one would conclude Arabic is being completely redefined every few generations.
The burden of proof, to show the definition of al-fahisha is different today than when the Quran was revealed, is on those who say al-fahisha changed in its’ reference since the revelation of the Quran.
My conclusion is:
“al-fahisha” in the Quran remains defined exactly as it is defined and has a default reference to homosexuality in the Quran today basis:
- Allah (ﷻ) already knowing what al-fahisha will mean in the future.
- Arabic being authoritative in the Quran via clear ayahs.
- No proof of the definition of al-fahisha being changed, so far, just a lot of baseless accusations and conspiracy theories.
But it is understood that this is not enough because undoubtedly someone will say “al-fahisha can also refer to other immoralities in Quran”. Well yes it can — but the claim is it does not refer to homosexuality in the story of Lot (عليه السلام).
A closer look at the story of Lot (عليه السلام) and all the ayahs in regards to mates show that homosexuality is the only valid definition for al-fahisha in said story.
Only Allah (ﷻ) alone knows best.
Only Allah (ﷻ) alone is al-Aziz, only Allah (ﷻ) alone is al-Hakeem.
