Prophet Lut: Six Essential Lessons in Morality (II)
Institutionalization of Evil
The evil of Lut’s people was more than a private, sporadic and inconsistent affair. It was institutionalized, in the sense that it was so widespread that it was regarded as normal. It then developed into an established social convention or norm. It became part of society’s mainstream. Homosexuality was nationalized, so to speak, and was a cultural manifestation.
It seems that exactly around that time the historical evolution of the institutionalization of falsehood and evil has come to be full-fledged. That could be one of the reasons why the Qur’an refers to king Namrud and his debate with Prophet Ibrahim (Lut’s uncle). King Namrud was the first ruler in history who claimed to be a living god. He was a personification of the phenomenon of the institutionalization of falsehood. However, what in this regard the Qur’an reveals concerning earlier prophets represent phases in the evolution.
For that reason did Lut censure his people for committing abominations and practicing their wickedness even in their councils and public gatherings (al-‘Ankabut, 29). He also criticised them for performing their immoral homosexual deeds so openly and publicly that they could see each other while doing so (al-Naml, 54).
So engrossed were they in their “tradition” that they resorted to highway robberies (al-‘Ankabut, 29). Part of that evil was also rape. They did not mind disseminating internationally the effects of their misconduct.
That homosexuality and other misdeeds were a national agenda attests this point as well. While most other prophets had to deal as much with their people as a whole, as with their socio-political and economic elites (al-mala’) in the role of public representatives, Prophet Lut, on the other hand, is constantly said to have dealt with his people en masse only. He had to confront them as a monolith body. There is no mention of elites.
That means when it comes to immorality in general, and homosexuality in particular, classes and ranks of people are irrelevant. Immorality is blind to social stratification. For immorality to take off and thrive, it desperately needs everybody’s contribution and role. It needs the whole society. It needs to be society.
The Tyranny of the Majority
The story of Prophet Lut likewise teaches us a lesson in the tyranny of the majority. That is a case of the majority pursuing its objectives and agendas at the expense of those of minority groups.
In such a milieu, chances for minority factions to voice their concerns and put forward their programs are extremely slim. They are destined either to suffer forever, or to keep compromising their ideals to bring them closer to those of the majority.
This is an in-built weakness of majority rule, which ought to be carefully attended to if it were to command any degree of respect and integrity. That is why proper constitutional democracies nowadays, whose essence is rule of the majority, require majority rule with minority rights. They are endorsed and controlled by constitutions which protect the rights of individuals and minority factions.
What happened to Lut and his few followers was the worst case of the tyranny of the majority. Although they were on the right path, they had to suffer. They enjoyed neither rights nor status in the community. Their only “crime” was that they were a minority and were different.
Hence, Lut’s people plotted to expel him, the believing members of his family and his small group of believers from their homes and the city altogether. They specified the reason for doing so to the effect that they were people who kept themselves pure and clean. Had they not been overtaken by Allah’s punishment beforehand, they would certainly have implemented their vile scheme.
Additionally, Lut was forbidden from bringing home and entertaining anyone (al-Hijr, 70). He was a victim, yet a prisoner, of circumstance.
In other words, Lut’s and his followers’ “crime”, apart from being an ideological minority, was also their rejection of homosexuality and the other forms of all-pervading evil; that is, their rejection of mainstream (corrupt) norms. This is evidence that under the tyranny of the majority – and in bad forms of democracy today – standards are often bargained. It is merely the will and interests of the majority and their might that are honourable and right. Only under such circumstances can being “pure”, “clean”, “sensible” and “honest” be regarded as a fault and an affront to others (the majority).
Allah says: “But the answer of his people was not except that they said: ‘Expel the family (and followers) of Lut from your city. Indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure’” (al-Naml, 56).
When the angels came to Lut in the form of handsome men, he knew that as such they would be harassed by his people. The Qur’an says: “He was grieved for them and felt himself powerless (to protect) them. He said: ‘This is a distressful day’” (Hud, 77).
Being fully cognizant of the situation and its potential repercussions, Lut also lamented: “If only I had against you some power or could take refuge in a strong support (to resist you)” (Hud, 80).
Even before the visit of the angels, Lut prayed: “My Lord, help me against the mischievous people” (al-‘Ankabut, 30).
Therefore, it is no wonder that the angels immediately after introducing themselves `to Lut as the messengers of his Lord, consoled and assured him that his people will never reach, nor harm, him (Hud, 81).
They also told him: “Fear not, nor grieve. Indeed, we will save you and your family, except your wife; she is to be of those who remain behind. Indeed, we will bring down on the people of this city punishment from the sky because they have been defiantly disobedient” (al-‘Ankabut, 33-34).
Lut and the Freedom of Belief
While inviting his people to the path of Allah, Lut – just like every other prophet and preacher of truth – promoted the notion of freedom. The freedom of belief topped his priorities. He subscribed to the idea that there is no compulsion, nor manipulation, in religion.
Ideally speaking, Lut’s task was twofold: to convey and teach freely the divine message, and to create conducive environments where people will be able to freely either accept or reject the message. He knew that only in free environments the truth could prosper and falsehood could be exposed and defeated.
Lut often targeted his people’s thinking and conduct patterns as impediments to freedom – and guidance. The people thought they were free and fine. However, little did they know that they were slaves of their untamed folly and sin. They were as ignorant as arrogant and wrong.
Lut wanted to liberate and enlighten them through the monotheistic message of Islam (tawhid), and through their submission as well as servitude to Allah alone. He used to tell them that he was to them but a trustworthy messenger. “So, keep your duty to Allah and obey me. And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds” (al-Shu’ara’, 163-164).
That his wife, despite everything, did not believe substantiates Lut’s principles. The Qur’an uses that case as a symbol of freedom, which must be coupled with responsibility. People are what they believe and what they do according to their beliefs. Everything else is secondary.
Using the same case, the Qur’an furthermore shows that no matter what, people must pursue and exercise their freedom of belief and freedom of choice. When they and their choices become free, the influences of external factors become inconsequential. They get marginal at best, albeit never pivotal.
The Qur’an cites the example of the non-belief of the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut, despite the fact that they “…were under two of Our righteous servants but betrayed them, so those prophets did not avail them from Allah at all, and it was said: ‘Enter the Fire with those who enter’” (al-Tahrim, 10). Non-belief was their free choice, so they were fully responsible for their fates.
Within the same framework, the Qur’an gives the example of the belief of the wife of Pharaoh. Against all odds, she was a model believer. She prayed: “My Lord, build for me near You a house in Paradise and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds and save me from the wrongdoing people” (al-Tahrim, 11). She wanted to believe and to be guided, so she deservedly got what she wished for. No obstacle is too big for exercising the freedom of belief.
Finally, also as an example of perfect belief, the Qur’an mentions the case of Maryam, the daughter of ‘Imran, who stoically passed her extraordinary tests. She “…guarded her chastity, so We blew into (her garment) through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient” (al-Tahrim, 12).
The Prophets Were Like Fathers for Their Nations
When the people of Lut came to his house, running and intending to harass his guests: angels in the form of beautiful and handsome men, he told them: “O my people, these are my daughters; they are purer for you. So fear Allah and do not disgrace me concerning my guests. Is there not among you a man of reason?” (Hud, 78).
They replied: “Certainly you know that we have no claim on your daughters, and most surely you know what we desire” (Hud, 79).
What is the meaning of the phrase “these are my daughters”?
The problem is compounded by the fact that in the Old Testament, the daughters are Lut’s (Lot’s) own biological daughters “that have not known man”. He offered them to a mob from his people to do to them “as is good in your eyes”, in lieu of disturbing and potentially raping his guests (Genesis, 19:8).
The message of the Qur’an, however, is that they were not Lut’s own biological daughters. They were society’s women. Lut reminded the people of them and their responsibilities towards them. He did so, calling women his daughters, because the prophets were like fathers for their nations, as per the views of all commentators of the Qur’an.
Indeed, what is suggested in the Old Testament is as immoral (kind of prostitution) as homosexuality itself. According to the Qur’an, Lut directed his people to a purer alternative, which is legal marriages. However, there is nothing pure, nor blameless, in the alternative presented by the Old Testament.
Lut was pure, living a pure life, so he wanted the same privilege for everybody. But purity was a crime and sanity unwelcome. Impurities and senselessness were sought-after.
As an additional interpretation of the meaning of “daughters”, Lut somewhere else denounced his people for abandoning their wives, “…those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates. But you are a people transgressing and exceeding limits” (al-Shu’ara’, 166). Clearly, “daughters” are intended to mean “wives” (mates and generally women). This analogy is important because the first principle of tafsir (interpretation of the Qur’an) is to interpret the Qur’an by the Qur’an itself.
It is due to this that the wives of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) - who also was like father to his ummah (community) – are called “mothers of believers” (ummahat al-mu’minin). Accordingly, some scholars consider that the whole Muslim community is the “family” of the Prophet.
The Qur’an proclaims: “The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves, and his wives are (as) their mothers” (al-Ahzab, 6).