“Muslim Greens” of the Green Party of England and Wales claimed that homophobic laws in Middle East are due to the colonialism of British Empire[1]. For decades, modern Western academia along with so called progressive Muslims has operated under unwritten rules when teaching Islamic history which is to minimize the fundamentalism, hyper-focus on the poetry, and blame the West for everything else. This claim of Green Party of England and Wales is indeed an apparent example of it.
Rather than tackling historical Islamic juridical literature that categorized homosexuality as a sin, they would use anecdotes such as those told by Dargah Quli Khan in support of how commonplace homosexuality was in 18th century Indo-Islamic culture[2]. Instead of writing about how Rashidun Caliphates such as Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ali strictly enforced capital punishment for same-sex acts (homosexuality), they would write about Abbasid Caliphate who wrote publicly about his homosexual desires and relations[3]. When discussing the Abbasid Caliphate, they would conspicuously overlook how Abbasid regimes frequently clashed with traditional Sunni scholarship. Most notably, they would ignore the 9th-century Mihna (inquisition), during which prominent Baghdadi jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal whose Athari creed and strict adherence to the salaf (the pious predecessors) heavily inform modern Salafism courageously resisted Abbasid state persecution[4]. Here, they would intentionally leave out the significant historical contradiction that the caliphal figures during the Abbasid era who openly expressed same-sex desires in their literature simultaneously persecuted and executed orthodox jurists who held steadfastly to the teachings of the salaf.
To critically examine the claim advanced by the “Muslim Greens” within the Green Party of England and Wales that contemporary anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the Middle East are primarily a legacy of British colonialism, one must examine the legal precedents set during the Rashidun Caliphate. Examining the historical records of the early, literalist traditions established by the “Rightly Guided” companions of the Prophet Muhammad reveals an earlier foundational layer of Islamic legal thought on this issue.
Historical Treatments on LGBTQ by the Prophet Muhammad and Rashidun Caliphates
It is crucial to note here that gender and sexuality were not understood as personal identities in that era as they are today. In classical jurisprudence of earlier Islam, legal accountability focused specifically on outward physical acts (liwāṭ) rather than internal feelings or modern identity classifications. Essentially, this distinction relies on semantic hair-splitting. Punishing same-sex behavior is fundamentally homophobia, plain and simple—and it remains the primary mechanism for anti-LGBTQ+ oppression today.
Men who intentionally resemble women in appearance, speech, clothing, or behaviour were called “al-mukhannithin” and women who resemble men in appearance, speech, clothing, or behaviour were called “al-mutarajjilat”. Similarly, people who commit sodomy (principally refers to anal or oral sex between same sex people) were called lūṭīs. In classical Islamic legal literature (fiqh), the Arabic term “lūṭī” refers specifically to a person who engages in “liwāṭ” (penetrative anal sodomy), commonly translated in legal glossaries as a sodomite[5]. Likewise, rather than employing the modern term “lesbian,” classical sources focused strictly on conduct, using the term siḥāq to denote female-female sexual acts such as tribadism.
Prophet Muhammad explicitly cursed both al-mukhannithin and al-mutarajjilat in appearance, speech, clothing, or behaviour[6]. He even instructed followers to cast them out of households[7]. Besides, Hadith accounts state that Caliph Umar also banished a mukhannath alongside the Prophet. Likewise, the very first Caliph Abū Bakr once ordered a brick wall to be toppled over lūṭīs[8]. Additionally, upon receiving a report from Khālid Ibn Walīd regarding a man offering himself for sodomy, Caliph Abū Bakr accepted the advice of Imam Ali to execute the lūṭī offender by burning. However, according to Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed[9], the infamous story of Lot historically referred to ritual rape and violent paganism rather than homosexuality. Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle follows early Islamic scholar Ibn Hazm of Zahirism in arguing that the sin of Lot’s people was not same-sex desire, but rather violence, inhospitality, and the rejection of prophecy[10]. However, in a sahih (authentic) Hadith narrated by Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, Prophet Muhammad states: “If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both adulteresses; if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers”. This opens the door to the only interpretation that the mainstream interpretation holds more truth compared to the interpretation of Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle and Ibn Hazm’s Zahiri.
Similarly, the second Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’ prescribed placing a lūṭī inside a dilapidated building and tumbling the structure down upon him. The third Caliph ‘Uthmān ibn Affān’ ruled that an unmarried lūṭī offender should receive 100 lashes, whereas a married lūṭī offender should be executed under Umar’s ruling. The fourth Caliph Imam Ali prescribed execution by stoning (rajm) or having the offender thrown headfirst from the highest building in town. These judicial rulings were reached through consensus among senior Companions of the Prophet, extrapolating penalties from the Quranic narrative of the punishment of Lūṭ’s people to deter severe sexual transgressions[11].
Furthermore, according to a narration recorded in Malādh al-Akhyār (vol. 16, pp. 102–103), Imam Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq reported an incident from the reign of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, Two men were apprehended for committing sodomy. One escaped, while the other was brought before ‘Umar, who consulted those present regarding the appropriate punishment. After various suggestions were offered, ‘Umar turned to ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib for counsel. ‘Alī advised, “Behead him.” ‘Umar carried out the execution, but as he prepared to arrange the burial, ‘Alī intervened, stating, “Wait, there remains a part of his sentence.” When ‘Umar inquired what remained, ‘Alī called for firewood, which ‘Umar provided, and the Commander of the Faithful ordered that the executed man’s corpse be burned[12].
Legal Classification and Punishments for Homosexual Acts
Imam Abu Hanifah, the founder and eponym of the Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence, argued that sodomy does not fall under the category of adultery (zina), resulting the fixed mandatory legal penalties (hudud) not imposed. However, it is important to note that the authority or judge applies discretionary punishment (ta’zir). Imam Malik and several other scholars held that hudud penalties apply. This view relies on Hadith traditions where the Prophet Muhammad prescribed capital punishment for individuals caught engaging in homosexual acts according to Imam Malik. Other jurists, including Sa’d bin al-Musayyab, ‘Ata’ bin Abi Rabah, al-Nakha’i, and prominent scholars in the Shafi’i school, drew an analogy to the penalties for adultery. Under this framework, a married offender of homosexual acts would be subject to capital punishment (stoning), whereas an unmarried offender would receive 100 lashes rather than execution[13].
Critical Evaluation
Even though Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle and Ibn Hazm’s Zahiri claimed that “Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī 1456” only has Hasan grade for the weaker chain of transmission as it came from ʿIkrimah, “Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī 1456” explicitly states: “Whoever you find engaging in the action of the people of Lūt, execute the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” [14]
If, as Zahed argues, the offense committed by Lot’s people refers specifically to ritual rape or violent pagan practices rather than same-sex conduct, applying capital punishment to “the one to whom it is done” would mean executing the victim—an internal contradiction that undermines this reinterpretation. Furthermore, if the core transgressions were non-consensual violence, inhospitality, or the rejection of prophetic authority—as argued by scholars like Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle and noted in relation to Ibn Hazm’s Zahiri jurisprudence—the imposition of double execution remains logically flawed. If the crime were sexual violence or assault, executing the victim would be entirely unjust. If the offense were inhospitality, applying capital punishment to the recipient of that inhospitality would be equally illogical. Finally, if the transgression were the rejection of prophecy, applying the penalty to both parties would absurdly imply executing the prophet himself.
Thus, regardless of the status of the chain of transmission, as the entire collection of “Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī” was compiled by Islamic scholar Imam al-Tirmidhi between c. 864 and 884 CE[15] which is long before the British colonialism, and in fact, Britain as a unified nation did not even exist during the 9th century, that explains how early Islam already had adopted certain homophobic jurisprudence interpretation. Thus, leaving theological debates aside, the timeline of these Hadiths and Islamic jurisprudence interpretation of these Hadiths alone clearly shows such homophobic views were well-established within Muslim communities long before Western colonization began. While European colonialism absolutely formalized and hardened these laws in the 19th century, pretending that pre-colonial Islamic jurisprudence had no indigenous tradition of violent homophobia is a total fabrication.
Long predating British colonial rule, Hadith literature addresses same-sex sexual acts across a spectrum ranging from fundamental moral transgression to offenses subject to legal prosecution. For this reason, the vast majority of contemporary Islamic scholars—spanning Salafi, Wahhabi, Hanbali, mainstream Sunni, and Shia clerical authorities[16], as well as Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the Caliph of the Ahmadiyya movement[17]would reject the claim that Islamic anti-LGBTQ+ positions stem from Western colonialism. Instead, they ground their stance firmly in foundational scriptural texts, creating an ironic contrast with the modern West, which now actively endorses and celebrates LGBTQ+ rights.
The execution of those who identify as LGBTQ is a blatant infringement upon basic civil rights and personal freedoms. These acts of barbarity cannot be tolerated and should be strongly opposed instead of being merely addressed in a mildly reformist fashion. Yet while opposing or reforming such a viewpoint does not mean that it is okay to distort history, this only serves to undermine the credibility of progressive Muslims seeking to reform their religion. Historical inaccuracies only highlight the hypocrisy of those who spread them — a hypocrisy clearly demonstrated by Green Muslims through these claims.
References:
The Telegraph. “Green Party Anti-LGBT Laws Middle East Homophobic.” October 3, 2026. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/03/green-party-anti-lgbt-laws-middle-east-homophobic/.
Jahan, S. M. Mukarram. “Quranic Lūṭ Passages and the Juridical History of Homosexuality in Islam: A Critical Study.” Master’s thesis, Jamia Millia Islamia, 2021.
Shalahuddin, Henri, Syamsul Badi’, and Cep Gilang Fikri Ash-Shufi. “A Critical Study of Mukhannath’s Law as a Homosexual Argumentation.” Media Syari’ah: Wahana Kajian Hukum Islam dan Pranata Sosial 23, no. 2 (2021): 110–126. https://doi.org/10.22373/jms.v23i2.10340.
Rowson, Everett K. “The Effeminates of Early Medina.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 111, no. 4 (1991): 671–693. https://www.jstor.org/stable/603399.
Shalahuddin, Henri, Syamsul Badi’, and Cep Gilang Fikri Ash-Shufi. “A Critical Study of Mukhannath’s Law as a Homosexual Argumentation.” Media Syari’ah: Wahana Kajian Hukum Islam dan Pranata Sosial 23, no. 2 (2021): 110–126. https://doi.org/10.22373/jms.v23i2.10340.
Al-‘Amili, Ja’far Murtada. Al-Sahih min Sirah Al-Imam Ali. 11 vols. Beirut: Al-Markaz Al-Islami li-al-Dirasat, 2007.
Lajna Imaillah USA. “Chapter 6: Islamic Viewpoint on Contemporary Issues.” In Pathway to Paradise: A Guidebook to Islam. Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Inc., U.S.A. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-viewpoint-on-contemporary-issues/.
Febrianti, Audya Nursyifa, Budi Johan, Nadia Maghvira Ramadhan, Hurin Nabila Savitri, Najwaa Khairunnisa, and Zaizul Bin Ab Rahman. “An Islamic Approach to Counseling for Addressing Homosexual Behavior in Adolescents.” Journal of Homosexuality 72, no. 14 (2025): 2934–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2442649.
Al-Kulaynī, Muḥammad ibn Ya‘qūb. Al-Kāfī. Edited by ‘Alī Akbar al-Ghaffārī. 8 vols. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyyah, 1987.
Al-Majlisī, Muḥammad Bāqir. Malādh al-Akhyār fī Fahm Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām. Edited by Mahdī al-Rujā’ī. 16 vols. Qum: Maktabat Āyat Allāh al-Uẓmā al-Mar‘ashī al-Najafī, 1985.
Al-Tirmidhī, Abū ‘Īsā Muḥammad. Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī. Kitāb al-Ḥudūd ‘an Rasūl Allāh. Sunnah.com. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1456.
Bond, Julian. “Reclaiming LGBTQ+ Islam: A Radical Theology of Liberation.” Medium, November 28, 2023. https://julianbond12.medium.com/reclaiming-lgbtq-islam-a-radical-theology-of-liberation-ef573245b3e2.
Daniyal, Shoaib. “Orlando Shooting: It’s Different Now, but Muslims Have a Long History of Accepting Homosexuality.” Scroll.in, June 18, 2016. https://scroll.in/article/810093/orlando-shooting-its-different-now-but-muslims-have-a-long-history-of-accepting-homosexuality.
The Telegraph. “Green Party Anti-LGBT Laws Middle East Homophobic.” October 3, 2026. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/03/green-party-anti-lgbt-laws-middle-east-homophobic/.
Islam21c. “Imam Ahmad: Upholding the Truth.” Islam21c. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.islam21c.com/tarbiya/trials/imam-ahmad-upholding-truth/.
Alchetron. “Jamiʿ at-Tirmidhi.” Last modified February 19, 2024. https://alchetron.com/Jami%60-at-Tirmidhi.
Yusof, Mohd Izwan Md, Khadher Ahmad, Muhd Najib Abdul Kadir, Mazlan Ibrahim, and Murshidi Mohd Noor. “Deviant Behavior of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT): Analysis from Hadith Sahih and Fiqh Al-Hadith.” Research Journal of International Studies 2, no. 2 (2015): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15364/RIS15-0202-01.
Footnotes:
[1] The Telegraph, “Green Party Anti-LGBT Laws Middle East Homophobic,” October 3, 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/03/green-party-anti-lgbt-laws-middle-east-homophobic/.
[2] Shoaib Daniyal, “Orlando Shooting: It’s Different Now, but Muslims Have a Long History of Accepting Homosexuality,” Scroll.in, June 18, 2016, https://scroll.in/article/810093/orlando-shooting-its-different-now-but-muslims-have-a-long-history-of-accepting-homosexuality.
[3] Shoaib Daniyal, “Orlando Shooting: It’s Different Now, but Muslims Have a Long History of Accepting Homosexuality,” Scroll.in, June 18, 2016, https://scroll.in/article/810093/orlando-shooting-its-different-now-but-muslims-have-a-long-history-of-accepting-homosexuality.
[4] Islam21c, “Imam Ahmad: Upholding the Truth,” Islam21c, accessed October 6, 2026, https://www.islam21c.com/tarbiya/trials/imam-ahmad-upholding-truth/.
[5] S. M. Mukarram Jahan, “Quranic Lūṭ Passages and the Juridical History of Homosexuality in Islam: A Critical Study” (master’s thesis, Jamia Millia Islamia, 2021).
[6] Shalahuddin, Badi’, and Ash-Shufi, “A Critical Study of Mukhannath’s Law,” 113.
[7] Everett K. Rowson, “The Effeminates of Early Medina,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 111, no. 4 (1991): 671–693, https://www.jstor.org/stable/603399
[8] S. M. Mukarram Jahan, “Quranic Lūṭ Passages and the Juridical History of Homosexuality in Islam: A Critical Study” (master’s thesis, Jamia Millia Islamia, 2021).
[9] Zahed, Ludovic-Mohamed. Homosexuality, Transidentity, and Islam: A Study of Scripture Confronting the Politics of Gender and Sexuality. Translated by Adi S. Bharat. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789463720311.
[10] Julian Bond, “Reclaiming LGBTQ+ Islam: A Radical Theology of Liberation,” Medium, November 28, 2023, https://julianbond12.medium.com/reclaiming-lgbtq-islam-a-radical-theology-of-liberation-ef573245b3e2.
[11] S. M. Mukarram Jahan, “Quranic Lūṭ Passages and the Juridical History of Homosexuality in Islam: A Critical Study” (master’s thesis, Jamia Millia Islamia, 2021).
[12] Al-Majlisī, Malādh al-Akhyār, 16:102–3.
[13] Mohd Izwan Md Yusof, Khadher Ahmad, Muhd Najib Abdul Kadir, Mazlan Ibrahim, and Murshidi Mohd Noor, “Deviant Behavior of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT): Analysis from Hadith Sahih and Fiqh Al-Hadith,” Research Journal of International Studies 2, no. 2 (2015): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.15364/RIS15-0202-01.
[14] Al-Tirmidhī, Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī, ḥadīth 1456.
[15] “Jamiʿ at-Tirmidhi,” Alchetron, last modified February 19, 2024, https://alchetron.com/Jami%60-at-Tirmidhi.
[16] Audya Nursyifa Febrianti et al., “An Islamic Approach to Counseling for Addressing Homosexual Behavior in Adolescents,” Journal of Homosexuality 72, no. 14 (2025): 2934–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2442649.
[17] Lajna Imaillah USA, “Chapter 6: Islamic Viewpoint on Contemporary Issues,” in Pathway to Paradise: A Guidebook to Islam (Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Inc., U.S.A.), accessed October 6, 2026, https://www.alislam.org/book/pathway-to-paradise/islamic-viewpoint-on-contemporary-issues/.
