Al-A'raf (The Heights): Verse 81

Issues Discussed Herein:

There are several established recitations (Qira'at) for the opening of this verse:

1. Nafi' and Hafs (from 'Asim): Read it as {إِنَّكُمْ} (with a Hamza below the line, indicating a simple Innakum). Nafi' holds that the first Hamza suffices for questioning throughout the entire Qur'an (implying the question is understood from context or the following Hamza).
2. Ibn Kathir: Read it as {أَئِنَّكُمْ} (with a non-maddened Hamza followed by a second Hamza).
3. Abu 'Amr: Read it as {أَئِنَّكُمْ} (with a maddened Hamza, indicating softening/lightening, followed by a second Hamza).
4. The Rest (of the reciters): Read it with two distinct Hamzas, following the original root structure.

Al-Wahidi stated: For those who used the interrogative form (Hamza), this is a rhetorical question meant to express denial/reproach regarding their statement: {أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ} (Do you commit lewdness?) (Al-A'raf: 80). Each interrogative clause is a complete, independent sentence requiring nothing else for its full meaning.

The word {شَهْوَةً} is a Masdar (verbal noun). Abu Zayd stated that the root is shahia yashha (to desire), leading to the Masdar shahwah.

Its grammatical function here is accusative (Mansub) because the preceding phrase {أَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ} (Do you approach men?) means: "Do you desire [them] with desire?"

Alternatively, you could argue that it is a Masdar functioning in the place of a Hal (a circumstantial adverb).

Know that the ugliness of this act is an established matter, inherent in natural disposition (al-Tiba'), so there is no need to enumerate all the detailed reasons. Nevertheless, the causes necessitating its reprehensibility are many:

The First Reason: Most people avoid procreation because its occurrence compels a person to seek wealth and exert effort in earning. However, Allah made sexual intercourse a means to achieve immense pleasure, such that a person engages in intercourse seeking that pleasure. Consequently, offspring are produced, whether desired or not. Through this mechanism, the lineage is preserved, and the species does not cease. Thus, pleasure was placed in intercourse, similar to how one sets a trap for an animal: one must place something the animal desires in the trap to cause it to fall in. The placement of pleasure in intercourse is intended to preserve the human species, which is the noblest of species.

If this is established, we say: If a person could attain that pleasure through a means that does not lead to offspring, the intended wisdom would not be achieved, and it would lead to the cessation of lineage, which contradicts the decree of Allah. Therefore, it must be definitively prohibited, ensuring that pleasure is obtained only through the path leading to offspring.

The Second Reason: Masculinity is the potential source of action (Fa'il), and femininity is the potential source of reception (Infi'al). When the male becomes the recipient and the female the actor, this contradicts the requirement of nature and reverses the divine wisdom.

The Third Reason: Engaging purely for lust resembles the behavior of beasts. If engaging in lust yields another benefit besides satisfying the lust, then sexual intercourse between a man and a woman yields another benefit besides satisfying lust—namely, the production of offspring and the preservation of the human species (the noblest of species). However, the satisfaction of lust between a male and a male yields only the satisfaction of lust itself. Therefore, this act resembles the beasts and deviates from human instinct, making it extremely repulsive.

The Fourth Reason: Suppose the actor derives pleasure from this act. Nevertheless, it results in imposing immense disgrace and complete blemish upon the recipient, a blemish that will never be removed throughout time. A rational person would not accept, for the sake of a fleeting, base pleasure, imposing a permanent blemish upon another.

The Fifth Reason: This act causes the strengthening of enmity between the actor and the recipient. Sometimes, this leads the recipient to attempt killing the actor because the recipient's nature recoils upon seeing him, or to reject him by every means possible. In contrast, when this act occurs between a man and a woman, it causes the strengthening of affection, love, and the attainment of great benefits, as Allah the Exalted said: {وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِّتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُم مَّوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً} (And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy) (Ar-Rum: 21).

The Sixth Reason: Allah has placed a strong attractive force within the womb for semen. When a man has intercourse with a woman, this attraction is strengthened, ensuring that nothing of the semen remains in the ducts; it is all expelled. However, when a man has intercourse with another male, that specific organ of the recipient lacks the attractive force for semen. Consequently, the expulsion is incomplete; some parts of the semen remain in those ducts, putrefy, spoil, and generate severe tumors and great illnesses. This is a benefit that can only be known through medical principles.

These are the reasons necessitating the ugliness of this act.

I have seen some who were weak in faith argue that Allah said: {وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ * إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ} (And those who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those whom their right hands possess) (Al-Mu'minun: 5-6), which implies that intercourse with a slave is permissible absolutely, whether male or female. They argue that one cannot restrict this generality by saying: {أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ} (Do you approach males among the worlds?) (Ash-Shu'ara: 165) and {أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِّنَ الْعَالَمِينَ} (Do you commit lewdness such that no one has preceded you in [committing] it among the worlds?) (Al-A'raf: 80). They claim this because each of these two verses is general in one respect and specific in another. A slave may be male or female, and a male may be a slave or not. Since this is the case, restricting one by the other is no more preferable than the reverse. Furthermore, they argue that the ruling of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) regarding slaves is preferable to the ruling of previous prophets, and the default ruling regarding benefits and pleasures is permissibility, and ownership grants absolute discretion in disposal.

The Response to this argument: Reasoning is only accepted where there is ambiguity (Ihtimal). The prohibition of this act and the severity of the prohibition have been established by the manifest, continuous transmission (Tawatur) of the religion of Muhammad. When reasoning conflicts with established, continuous transmission (Naql Mutawatir), the reasoning is void.

Then Allah, recounting the words of Lot, said to them: {بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ} (Nay, you are a people transgressing all bounds). The meaning is as if he said: You are excessive/transgressors in all your deeds, so it is not unlikely for you to commit this extreme transgression as well.

Al-A'raf (The Heights): Verse 82