men had several wives and children. While Westerners would view these men—and those like them—as bisexual, Muslims view them as consistent with shari’a; they maintained an outwardly conforming appearance in terms of familial and public life but happened to engage in homosexual activity.” Homosexual acts can also be well received if they allude to an expression of dominance over another, “’In Turkey, Egypt and the Maghreb, men who are ‘active’ in sexual relations with other men are not considered homosexual; the sexual domination of other men even confers a status of hyper-masculinity.’” A distinction seems to be made between the active partner and the receiving one, the pathic. In the former category one is viewed positively because they either retain their masculinity through the active role or use it as a means toward the degradation of the pathic. A great anecdote to the latter manifestation can be seen in this story, “Toward the end of the year 1701, a Druze chieftain (Emir) from the Wādī alTaym area in Syria came to Damascus to be officially invested as head military official (Yāyābāshī) of his home region by the governor of the city. According to a contemporary chronicler, the Emir was a notorious womanizer, who ‘in Damascus was determined to conduct himself with his characteristic lewdness.’ Once, while at the house of a local woman, he was surprised by around twenty Turcoman soldiers, who gang-raped him and robbed him of his clothes, leaving him barefoot and clad only in his inner garments. ‘He who encroaches upon the womenfolk (h.arı¯m) of the Muslims deserves more than this,’ they reportedly said before letting him go. ‘News of the incident,’ the chronicler added, ‘reached the women and children [of the city], and songs about him [i.e., the Emir] were composed and performed by singers . . . He then departed to the land of the Druzes, his home, and it was said that the woman remained untainted [i.e., she was not dishonored before the arrival of the soldiers], and thus God forsook the damned Emir at the hands of the Turcomans.’” The people viewed Turcomans treatment of the Emir as an honorable one. There focus was not on whether or not such acts constituted anything that could be identified as “homosexual” in nature, but rather the effects that such actions would have on the Emir. The Emir, by being both the receiver (the pathic) of