This chapter of Kugle’s “Homosexuality in Islam” consists of the critiquing of the hadith. Most importantly from this part of the reading though, was the emphasis on the forgeries not being reflections of bad people. Rather, it is the opposite. In the reading the author describes how these forgeries criticizing homosexuality were reflections (usually) of people who thought they were furthering the word of the Prophet.
I am interested to read more on this, as I only read the first half of this chapter. Where I left off, however, was describing the 5 ways in which queer identities are condemned in Islam. I am eager to read more of these ways and hope that an accepted part of the hadith can be provided so I can compare the differences between the two. How blatant is forgery? And what gives one person the agency over another to determine forgery?
The criticism early on in this chapter was most interested in the LGBTQIA+ frustrations over who has the right to question a hadith’s legitimacy. That question and critique is something that motivates this reflection and moves me to question other methods of religion. What is it that determines legitimacy of sacred texts?
I love that point about forged hadith being the mistakes of well-meaning people! Something that I really firmly believe is that almost everyone is trying to do what they think is right, even when what they’re doing is wrong. And I would also be really interested in learning more about which people get to determine authenticity of sacred texts and what that authority and social capital tends to look like!