The following contains mature content of a sexual nature so if you are squeamish, a prude or a minor, please move along. Maybe check out some kittehs or bunnies.
The subject of homosexuality continues to be a difficult topic within Baha’i theology. For many it presents an insurmountable challenge to accept the Baha’i Faith and for believers it is a topic of seemingly endless polemics.
There are many approaches we can take to attempt a better understanding of this issue. One of the most basic is to go back to the source and try to understand exactly what the Baha’i writings say.
If we search Baha’u'llah’s writings, we find something quite remarkable. Nowhere in Baha’u'llah’s writings is there an explicit mention of homosexuality (and neither by Abdu’l-Baha). Arguably, the only reference we have is an extremely brief mention in the Aqdas (more on that a bit later).
To understand why there is no wider mention of homosexuality and what exactly Baha’u'llah was referring and what Shoghi Effendi translated to the seemingly cryptic words, “the subject of boys”, we have to take a few steps back.
Sexual dynamics and mores differ greatly between cultures and time periods. What may be accepted sexual behavior at one point in time or within a specific society may be completely unknown or unacceptable in another time or place.
For example, the Sambia of Papua New Guinea believe that ingestion of semen is necessary for a boy to reach full maturity. To that end, starting at age 7, Sambia boys orally stimulate their adolescent peers (14-18) and ingest their semen. Upon reaching puberty, they then provide their semen so that the younger boys can reach full sexual maturity and become men.
To the Sambia, semen is a precious substance which is being gifted from the older generation to the younger to assure their development. The act is done not to derive pleasure but to give a nourishing substance that the Sambia believe is as necessary as mother’s milk. While to us this may seem to have homosexual overtones, to the Sambia this is a natural and necessary part of a boy’s development and has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact, the Sambia view homosexual acts to be as taboo and socially undesirable as incest.
Of course, because we all fall prey to the recency effect, what we see in our present culture is what we consider to be ‘normal’. But actually, ‘normal’ is rather subjective.
The way that we understand and define homosexual relationships today simply did not exist during Baha’u'llah’s time in the Middle East. That is, there was no recognition or allowance for a mutually consensual, exclusive relationship between two adult women (or men) living together and raising children together as a family. Therefore, since this model of family life did not exist, it is not reasonable to expect that the topic be given explicit treatment. Just as we don’t expect Baha’u'llah to have explicitly written about cloning or stem cell research.
That does not mean however that homosexuality did not exist at all in one guise or another during Baha’u'llah’s time. Homosexuality, after all, has been observed in nature among hundreds of species as well as throughout human history. So while the current definition of homosexual relationships may not have existed, there certainly have always been some forms of homosexuality in human society, just as there have been many other acceptable sexual expressions, beyond the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
So to understand the extremely limited or non-existent Baha’i treatment of homosexuality, we have to first understand the sexual traditions prevalent in the Middle East during the 1800′s. These would be the norms that Baha’u'llah would be familiar with.
While the current definition of homosexuality didn’t apply, there is one exception that must be noted. In Iran at the time of Baha’u’llah, this exception was the somewhat more readily accepted practice of lesbianism. It is sometimes referred to as sisterhood sighe and involved the consensual relationship between two women that was sexual in nature but not exclusively so. This was practiced in a society that allowed woman to travel together and spend time together (especially in harems where women were only allowed to frequent with other women freely).
Janet Afary writes in her book “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran” (p. 8):
Among married women, same-sex relations known as sisterhood vows were also culturally recognized practices. Although we have much less information on female homosexuality, we know that such courtships involved an exchange of gifts, travel to a shrine, and cultivation of affection between the partners.
Jafary’s book includes the account of the court gynecologist and obstetrician, Dr. Polak, who was occupied in a singularly advantageous post to observe and report on such activity:
Tribady – or tabaq – among women is widespread, though not to the same extent as pederasty [among men]. A certain friendship pact between women is performed within certain ceremonies in particular mosques on the last Wednesday before New Year’s Day (char shanbeh suri). The rituals and the day point to its heathen origins. Once the pact is entered into, the women maintain an inviolable commitment. This act is called khahar khandegi (sister recognition). It is worth noting that, just as men who have relations with individuals of their own kind (sui generis) develop a repulsion toward women, so too do these women develop an opposite repulsion. Thus there is often an agreement or tolerance of one another.
(Polak [1861] 1982, 43-44)
While not legally or religiously acceptable we see that homosexual relations were in fact common. The institution of marriage, while recognized and respected, was in many cases wholly separate from the sexual life of the couple. Of course, this was much easier for the urban and wealthy individual.
The “repulsion” that Polak describes developing towards the opposite sex would today be recognized by a medical professional as a person’s inherent sexual orientation. Of course, the societal norms did not allow them to live openly and freely as a couple but many women and men would have if they could. Instead, they were forced into various clandestine relationships. This, then, was the sexual milieu with which Baha’u'llah was familiar.
Having noted the existence and prevalence of lesbianism, it is interesting that Baha’u'llah doesn’t use language that could include homosexual relations between women. Instead, the word that is used refers to the masculine.
Here is the brief mention by Baha’u'llah (verse 107) in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:
ennaa nastah-yi an nazkora hokma’l ghelmaane et-taqo’r-rahmana yaa mala’el emkaane wa laa tartakiboo maa nohitom ‘anho fil-lohe wa laa takoonoo fi haimaa ash-shahavaate minal haa’emina
This is translated into English (the bold is my own emphasis):
We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desire.
First, let’s start with defining the word used. The S. Haim Persian-English dictionary defines the Persian implications of the Arabic term “ghulaam” as: slave, page; lad, servant.
Clearly, Baha’u'llah is making a hasty reference to something embarrassing. Something that He would rather not even have to talk about but must. But what possibly could it be? From the context that the preceding sentence to the paragraph provides we can surmise that it must be of a sexual nature.
Fortunately for us as observers (and unfortunately for those directly involved) the practice that is being referred to is actually in place today in Afghanistan so we can study it with great detail. It is an old practice known as “bache bazi” – literally translated as ‘child play’ or ‘boy play’ that has made a rapid resurgence after being banned for a time by the Taliban.
This involves the practice of training young pubescent or pre-pubescent boys to entertain men by dressing as women and dancing for them. There is also a sexual nature to this relationship as the boy is expected to provide his body for his master’s delectation. A recent PBS Frontline documentary called, The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan exposes this practice in greater detail:
Please be advised that while the content is not graphic in nature, the story may be disturbing to sensitive souls. You can view the documentary at this link.
These relationships are markedly different from the homosexual relationships that we see practiced today. It is not a relationship between equals. Instead the adult male has resources, power, rank and authority and in effect ‘owns’ the younger male. He provides for the boy’s needs but expects certain reciprocation.
The boys are not involved of their own choosing but often sold into the practice by their impoverished families. Therefore, this is a far cry from a loving and consensual relationship between two adults. In short, this is pederasty and human trafficking – what most modern societies would consider very serious crimes.
To compound the tragedy, their own society holds men who own such young boys in high regard and honors them with prestige. This is partly because the activity is an expensive one and participating in it is a sign of wealth. As well, the practice is often continued by the very same individuals who were once victims. That is, upon reaching puberty and no longer being desirable, the young boys would then use their acquired skills to recruit younger boys and introduce them to bacheh bazi in a continuing chain of sexual abuse. After all, this is the only life they’ve known and the only skills they’ve acquired to make a livelihood for themselves.
Again, referring to “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran” Cambridge University Press, we see that this was a common practice during Baha’u'llah’s time:
Nineteenth-century Iranian society did not adhere to modern definitions or sensibilities concerning same-sex relations. Although legally prohibited, homosexual sex was common, and homoerotic passion was accommodated. Falling in love with a youth and celebrating that love were recognized practices, as long as the lovers remained circumspect and observed certain conventions. Elite urban men often flouted these conventions. In the royal court and among government officials, wealthy merchants, and clerics, the practice of keeping boy concubines was widespread and commonly known; close, homosexual relations between free adult men were less often discussed or divulged, however.
Ibid. (p. 104):
In the era of Naser al-Din Shah and Mozaffar al-Din Shah, Iranian society remained accepting of many male and female homoerotic practices, among them the staging of dances by mukhannathun (effeminate men) in coffee shops (Aubin [1908] 1983, 248-249). The state distinguished between permissible and illegal homosexual acts. Bringing male (or female) prostitute to lower-middle-class homes was illegal, but purchasing or hiring a boy as a servant for the exclusive sexual pleasure of the master (in middle-class or elite homes) was permissible. Here a man could hire a boy as his long-term servant/concubine without any social recrimination. Handsome boys from poor families were hired at elite homes around the age of eight and were known as gholam bacheh (page boys). Polak made a number of observations about the practice:
Through this vice, livat [lavat], betsche bazi [bacheh bazi], is strongly rebuked in the Qur’an and can even be punishable by death, it is nevertheless today generally widespread, among the lay people, especially… officers, schoolteachers, and even clerics. It is so overt that no one makes an attempt to conceal it. In almost every house of standing there is such a boy, even many, who are there to serve this purpose. No one is reserved about introducing them publicly. Indeed, one takes pride in possessing a splendid specimen. One is especially jealous about them. They are carefully watched and protected from seduction. (Polak [1861] 1982, 41)
He goes on to say that men often fought bloody battles over these boys: “One uses all possible means of seduction: money, [professional] advancement, even violence, in order to take possession of a boy” (Polak [1861] 1982, 41). At the same time, the abduction and rape of boys remained serious crimes:
Though pederasty is quietly tolerated, the punishment for the abduction of a boy is often significant. Often the abductor, because of legal action against him, has all of his genitals, including his penis, cut off, at which point the individual will seek to be part of the eunuch service. Several of these violently mutilated received positions as governors and ministers. (Polak [1861] 1982, 41)
By the 1880s the kidnapping and molestation of boys were still major offenses, but the punishment had been generally reduced to imprisonment and flogging. The police in Tehran were vigilant about missing children, and every attempt was made to find and reunite them with their families within a few house (see for example Shaykh Rezaei and Azari [1885-1888] 1999, I:181, 266, 397). If a common soldier or peddler took an eight-to-ten-year-old boy to a garden or a religious seminary with the intention of raping him, and was caught, he might be beaten by the citizenry and then turned over to the police (see for example Shaykh Rezaei and Azari [1885-1888] 1999, I:17, 39, 50, 103, II:428).
Furthermore, Afary quotes Robert Surieu (p. 89) – note that he uses the exact same (etymological) term as that used by Baha’u'llah in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, cited above:
From the Middle Ages to the Safavid period, the rulers and the great men of the [Persian] kingdom possessed, the ghelman (plural gholam) boys acquired at a tenderest age from the Turkish tribes of Central Asia, and later from the Caucasus. The prices paid for these boys were often very high… [in some cases around] 2000 pieces of gold… They were undoubtedly a costly luxury. Often, it is true, the merchants who traded in these ghelman educated them with great care just as they taught music, dancing, and poetry to the most beautiful girls who were destined for princely harems – so that intellectual accomplishments should be added to their physical attractions and thus enhance their price. (Surieu 1967, 170)
Here is a picture from 1905 depicting a “dancing boy” in Samarkand:
Considering that Baha’u'llah was born into nobility and moved within very elevated circles earlier in His life, there is no doubt that He would have been very familiar with this practice and probably would have even seen finely attired catamites at the Shah’s or ministers’ courts. Therefore, there was no need to further explain or detail the practice, especially considering this mores’ questionable morality. While it was something that was prevalent most chose to ignore it in formal and refined conversation. In that context, the fleeting and awkward mention in the Aqdas becomes much more understandable.
We have further exposition of the sexual mores of that time from R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram:
It was simply taken-for-granted in Middle Eastern tradition that all men find boys sexually attractive and that men who are attracted to boys are not a ‘different’ type of men but, on the contrary, ‘normal’ men who desire intromissive ejaculation for which a boy taken in liwat is as fit as a woman taken in liwat or vaginal intercourse.”
“Liwat does not encompass fellatio or mutual masturbation. The latter is common in the middle east but generally considered simply one of those things young men do that does not need to be acknowledged or discussed. Nor can liwat include sexual activity between women as the perpetrator of liwat must have a penis. Some authorities consider sahq, sexual activity between women, as a form of zina, but this is problematic as standard definitions of zina require penetration.”
If we note the widespread use of dancing boys dressed as girls for prostitution in the Middle East; and the practice of female prostitutes dressing as boys to increase their appeal to customers who would engage in either anal or vaginal intercourse with them; and remember that the customers of both the dancing boys and the travesti girls are married men: It is evident that expecting recent western terms like ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ to be readily applicable in this socio-cultural milieu in any meaningful way is futile.
We may also note for purposes of comparison that in late nineteenth century New York working class Italians, and the decidedly un-Mediterranean Irish, held that male sexuality centered on intromissive ejaculation and that the object used to achieve that was not particularly relevant for defining masculine identity. Intromissive ejaculation demonstrated the superiority of the penetrator and that was what mattered.
In both the West and the East, the principal aim of sexual norms was to bolster adult male dominance, both in situations of illicit sex and in marriage. Islamic marriage was based on a concept of husband as owner (malik) and wife as owned (mamluka) and even the most advanced muslim thinkers of the late nineteenth century assumed an innate disability to being female, even when they were directly citing Western sources. The West did generally assume the existence of an essential difference between men and women that provided a limit to women’s development. If women tried to emulate men beyond a certain point, this would result in them being literally desexed (unable to bear children) and becoming a neither man nor woman monstrosity.
Sexuality in the Aqdas by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
And further in another essay R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram writes:
A remark that it is shameful to keep a catamite presumably means first and foremost that it is shameful to keep a catamite. But from specific comments we may also develop generalizations. We are likely to be aided in generalizing by an understanding of the context in which the statement was made and received. However, apart from this there are two basic directions in which we may take our generalizing. The statement may be generalized to a condemnation of a broader range of homosexual acts; or it may be generalized to a condemnation of those in a position of power exploiting their dependents for their own ends. One type of generalization operates on the basis of presumed analogies among specific outward acts and the one in the statement; the other operates on the basis of a concern for the principles that may be inferred from the statement and how these may be related to motives, responsibilities, and relationships.
The important question is which type of generalization is more likely to produce results that may support a global value system that can flourish and develop in all cultures. Is God more interested in people’s actions than their hearts? Is the road to salvation a mechanically instrumental one? Of course actions matter, but what underlies the actions must matter at least as much if we are not to espouse a materialist view of existence. And not only individual actions matter but also the broader patterns of social interaction in which these actions are situated.
Baha’i Faith and Sexuality by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
I hope that the above has served to provide the historical context for understanding directly what Baha’u'llah wrote in the Aqdas. Needless to say, as Baha’is, we of course pay attention to the translation and interpretation of the Guardian. Juxtaposing the two may provide us with a deeper insight into the discussion of the views and attitudes of the Baha’i Faith towards homosexuality.
Similar to the line of reasoning provided by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram above, but with one important distinction, here is a question to ponder:
By ignoring the homosexual relationships between women, which were marked by consensual agreement between adult equals, and condemning specifically a despicable act of ritualized pederasty marked by the abuse of power and dominance of an adult over less fortunate minors, was Baha’u'llah telling us more about equality, justice and human rights than about merely a sexual act or orientation?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
