Saturday, November 13, 2004

Muslim Women Marrying non Muslim Men

Salaam 'Alaikum

Lower on the Progressive Agenda than getting rid of the Kalima Shahada and the hijab is a move to encourage, or make halal (permissible) the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim (Christian or Jewish, usually) men, rendered so by a gross distortion of the Qur'anic text on the matter, and changing the status of Ahli Kitab from mushrikeen and kafireen to mu'mineen. The impermissible nature of such a marriage is something there has always been unanimous consensus on within the Ummah. It is indicative of our confused times that there are now Muslimeen who are led to believe it is permissible. Here, Living Tradition addresses the issue from a Classical, Traditional viewpoint, with references provided.
______________________________________________

Doctor `Abd al-Karim Zaydan discusses the issue of female Muslims marrying non-Muslims in his Al-Mufassal fi Ahkam al-Mar'ati wa Bayt al-Muslim fi al-Shari`at al-Islamiyyah. The discussion is at the beginning of volume 7, pages 6 through 11 (paragraphs 6179 through 6192). Instead of giving a complete translation of the section, in sha Allah I will give summary of each paragraph, including the sources cited.

6179. Do not marry [your daughters] to idolators [mushirkin] until they believe in Islam

``Do not marry [your daughters] to idolaters until they believer in Islam. A believering slave is better than a [free] idolater, though the latter please you. These call you to the Fire, but Allah calls you, by His will, to the Garden and to forgiveness. He makes plain His revelations to mankind, that perhaps they will think'' (Qur'an, 2:221)

6180. The verse indicates the impermissibility of a female Muslim marrying a non-Muslim

The verse indicates the impermissibility of a female Muslim marrying a non-Muslim. The Umma has reached consensus that it is not permissible for a non-Muslim to have sex with a female Muslim under any circumstances. The exegetes and legists are in consensus concerning this matter.

[Sources cited: Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 3.72. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 1.258. Tafsir al-Razi, 6.64. Tafsir al-Manar, 2.350-51. Imam al-Shafi`, Al-Umm, 5.7. Ibn Qudama, Al-Mughni, 6.634.]

6181. The impermissibility is fixed, whatever the non-Islamic religion may be

The impermissibility of marrying a female Muslim to a non-Muslim is an impermissibility that is fixed [thabit] and incontrovertible [qat`i], whatever the non-Islamic religion may be (i.e., whether the husband is from Ahl al-Kitab, an idol worshiper, a Majus, or not affiliated with a particular religion).

[Source: Tafsir al-Razi, 6.64.]

6182. What the legists have said concerning the impermissibility of marrying a female Muslim to a non-Muslim

1. Imam al-Shafi`i

[Source: Imam al-Shafi`i, Al-Umm, 5.7.]

2. Hanafis

[Sources: Al-Kasani, Bada`i al-Sana`i, 2.271. Al-Fatawa al Hindiya, 1.282.]

3-4. Hanbalis

[Sources: Ibn Qudama, Al-Mughni, 6.634. Al-Buhuti, Kashshaf al-Qina`, 3.48 Al-Buhuti, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3.63.]

5. Zahiris

[Source: Ibn Hazam, Al-Muhalla, 9.449.]

7. Malikis

[Source: Ibn Juzay, Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar`iya, p219.]

6183. How verse 2:221 indicates the impermissibility of marrying a
female Muslim to a member of Ahl al-Kitab


Question: The verse specifically mentions `idolators' [mushrikin] but not `kitabi'. How can this verse be used to indicated the impermissibility of marrying a female Muslim to a member of Ahl al-Kitab?

Answer: The verse encompasses marrying a female Muslim to a member of Ahl al-Kitab, so it is impermissible because of the following evidence:

6184. The non-believers [kufar] of Ahl al-Kitab fall under what is meant by `mushrikin'. This is what mos scholars have said. It is the preferred opinion, as Imam al-Razi has said, mentioning much evidence for it.

6185. The [same] scholars who said that the phrase `idolators' [mushrikin] does not include non-believers [kufar] when it is used plainly do not disagree that the phrase `idolators' [mushrikin] in this verse includes Ahl al-Kitab.

[Source: Tafsir Al-Razi, 6.64.]

6186. The Hanbalis say that it is not permissible for a female Muslim to marry a disbeliever [kafir] under any circumstance. Their evidence for this includes verse 2:221 and ``If you find them believers, do not return them to the disbelievers [kufar]; they are not lawful to the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful to them'' (Qur'an, 60:10). The phrase `disbelievers' [kufar] includes the People of the Book [Ahl al-Kitab] because they are disbelievers and because the Qur'an applied the name `those who disbelieve' [alladhina kafaru] to them: ``Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the polytheists [mushrikin] will not desist until a clear proof comes to them'' (Qur'an, 98:1). Hence, the People of the Book [Ahl al-Kitab] are disbelievers [kufar]---this is incontrovertible based upon this clear verse. And a female Muslim is not permissible for a non-Muslim and a non-Muslim is not permisible for a female Muslim because of 60:10. So, it is the result from this is that it is not permissible for a female Muslim to marry a non-Muslim, according to the decisive text [nass] of the Qur'an.

6187. Allah says: ``He it is Who created you, so that some of you are disbelievers and some of your believers'' (Qur'an, 64:2). This verse divides humans into two categories: disbeliever [kafir] and believer [mu'min]. Everyone who adheres to something other than Islam and does not believe in the prophet of Islam (Muhammad) (Allah bless him and give him peace) enters into the category `disbeliever' [kafir]. Jews and Christians do not adhere to Islam and do not believe in the prophet of Islam (Muhammad) (Allah bless him and give him peace), therefore it is incontrovertible that they are disbelievers [kufar]. A female Muslim is not permissible for a disbeliever [kafir]---this is incontrovertible and certain [yaqinan]---so a female Muslim is not permissible to a member of the People of the Book---this, too, is incontrovertible and certain.

6188. The ratio legis [`illa] for the impermissibility of a female Muslim marrying an idolator [mushrik] is because idolators call to the Fire,
just as has come in the Qur'an: ``These call you to the Fire, but Allah calls you, by His will, to the Garden and to forgiveness. He makes plain His revelations to mankind, that perhaps they will think,'' (Qur'an, 2:221). This ratio legis is present in People of the Book, so the ruling applies to them.

[Sources: Al-Kasani, Al-Bada`i, 2.271-72.]

6189. The Legislation has severed disbelievers [kufar] having guardianship [wilaya] over Muslims. Allah Most High says: ``Allah will not give the
disbelievers [kafirin] any way [sabil] [of success] against the believers'' (Qur'an, 4:141). If it was permissible for a member of the People of the Book to marry a female Muslim, it would give them a way [sabil] against the believers, which is unlawful and non-permissible.

[Source: Al-Kasani, Al-Bada`i, 2.271.]

6190. The wisdom of the impermissibility of a female Muslim marrying a non-Muslim

One of the wisdoms [hikm, hikma] of the impermissibility of a female Muslim marrying a non-Muslim is fear that will fall into disbelief because of her husband's influence.

[Source: Al-Kasani, Al-Bada`i, 2:271.]

6191. A female Muslim marrying an apostate is invalid and unlawful

[Sources: Ibn Qudama, Al-Mughni, 8:130. Al-Sarakhsi, Al-Mabsut, 5.48. Al-Hidaya wa Fath al-Qadir, 2.505. Sharh al-Azhar, 2.209.]

6192. A female Muslim marrying a Communist is invalid and unlawful

[Source: Dr Nu`man `Abd al-Razzaq al-Samara'i, Ahkam al-Murtad fi al-Shari`at al-Islamiyyah, p 269.]

50 Comments:

Blogger izzymo said...

I was wondering when they were going to make an issue out the prohibition of Muslim women, non-Muslim men and marriage. But then again, they are determined to interpret Islam however they see fit so it's not surprising. Thanks for the entry.

11:01 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

I notice that whenever someone wants to try to convince us that there is a prohibition from Allah that forbids Muslimas from marrying ahl al kitab, they use a trick that involves posting only the portion of a verse that actually applies to BOTH Muslim men and Muslim women.

This was done here; verse 2:221 ia only posted in part. Any Muslim who knows their Quran knows that it addresses all Muslims and forbids them all from marriage with those lacking tawhid. This is the part left out:

Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you.

It obviously applies to men. And the term used in the verse for the forbidden potential persons is "mushrik", not a term that Allah's Sunnah applies indiscriminately to people of the Book.

Verse 60:10 gets the same treatment here. It also applies to BOTH Muslim men and women. Again, the missing part:

But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the
(Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent (on the dowers of women who come over to you). Such is the command of God: He judges (with justice) between you. And God is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

This directive, addressed to men, required them to release women who were hostile to Islam - their "kafir" wives. Umar lost two wives to this directive.

Now, the lack of a prohibition from Allah becomes clear and the lie is exposed, so it is necessary to trot out the scholars, who, by the way, believed themselves to be fallible, did not want their OPINIONS to become law for all time, and they understood that their determinations were based on their particular time and their particular place, not ours. The love of Jahilyya that has been harbored by Muslims has refused to let go of what is wrong and denies Muslim women what Muslim men, who make the rules want for themselves - a monopoly on ALL the women of the Book.

I am a follower of Allah who believes in social justice for women and men. I am not a follower of scholars nor do I take them as intercessors, and I am deeply proud of that. I counsel Muslimas who marry men of the Book and honor them for following the Sunnah of Allah over the nafs of men. I know that in the Prophet's time, he did not forbid this and that many of the early Muslim women converted long before their husbands.

I am proud of my faith for its pluralism, emphasis on social justice and harmony between all peaceful people. Allah did not make Islam harder for women than He did for men, but some Muslims do, and they should be ashamed of themselves. We can choose to push courageous Muslim women into the waiting arms of the Christians and Jews by putting our pride and male privilege ahead of His Will, or we can do what's right. I choose to do what's right.

4:135 O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well- acquainted with all that ye do.

Following Allah is our best protection from ignorance.

Salaam

11:46 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

This is a basic tenet of Islamic jurisprudence. If we abide by it, we will be successful:

Asl al-deen: The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you.

Reported in Al-Hakim, classified as sahih (sound), and quoted by al-Bazzar) Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah. (The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam (arb: Al halal wal haram fil Islam) by Yusuf Al Qaradawi.

The Sunnah of Allah is silent on the issue of marriage between Muslimas and men of the Book. Muslims creating sin is a sin. May He have mercy on our hubris.

Salaam

12:10 AM  
Blogger Ann said...

Assalaamu alaikum,

This is probably on their agenda because it's one of those things that the U.S. State Department criticizes in its Human Rights reports for Muslim countries (apparently it contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

From their report about Kuwait:

"...The law forbids marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men and requires male citizens to obtain government approval to marry foreign nationals. Muslim men marrying Muslim women require no such approval. Although the Government may advise men against marriage to a foreign national, there were no known cases of the Government refusing permission for such marriages. The Government advises women against marrying foreign nationals..."

Note that this doesn't even make sense... are they saying that the men have to get permission to marry any foreigner or a non-Muslim? In fact, the only men who need to get permission are those in the military; my husband didn't need anyone's permission to marry me. And I find the last couple of lines ironic, since many of us have heard stories of U.S. Embassy personnel warning American women against marrying Muslim men... but who's monitoring their "human rights" violations?

4:24 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

"...The law forbids marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men and requires male citizens to obtain government approval to marry foreign nationals.

****************

This is a typo. Try "The law forbids marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men and requires female citizens to obtain government approval to marry foreign nationals." That's how it really works. Been there, done that.

The Gulf states in general put female citizens thru the ringer when they want to marry non-Arabs, even if the non-Arab man is Muslim. This practice comes from a pre-Islamic practice called "ka'afa" that directs Arabs to prefer Arabs because Arabs are "superior" to non-Arabs, according to Gulf traditions.

Arab females, in particular, are held to this practice because, in their societies, they take on the status of their husbands and should marry someone equal to or superior to herself, but no non-Arab can be equal to or superior to an Arab and it's the government's job to make sure that the status of Arab women is not compromised.

Remember the Prophet's address to the first ummah before his death that reminded them that no Arab was superior to a non-Arab? Arab nations violate this directive and other human rights directives required by Allah and the Prophet. We should be more concerned about following Him correctly than dissing the US State Department because of its imperfections. Our God is perfect and our submission to Him, not Arab culture or political oneupmanship, must be complete.

Salaam

9:57 AM  
Blogger alex said...

Assalamu 'alaikum,
Servant of Allah, you are correct in your understanding that Muslims (male and female) have been commanded to refrain from marrying non-muslims by the quoted verse from surat al-Baqarah (221).
You yourself have, however, left out a key verse that points to the error in your unqualified ijtihad, making you guilty in fact of the lie which you stated about the heirs of Allah's Messenger -Allah bless him and give him peace-
“Lawful unto you in marriage are chaste women who are believers and chaste women among the people of the book”. (al-Ma’idah, 5).
This verse creates the exception that allows Muslim men to marry kitabi women. The specificity of this verse overrides the generality of the prohibition, but only for Muslim men, not women and only in marraige to chaste women of the Book.
All of this of course does not address the many examples from the life and sayings of our beloved Prophet -Allah bless him and give him peace- which support this position.
"Alif Lam Mim;
This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;" (Al-Baqarah 1-2)

May Allah makes of those who have taqwa.
wasalamu 'alaikum

4:18 PM  
Blogger Umm Zaid said...

Salaam 'Alaikum

May He have mercy on our hubris indeed, including ijtihad when the prerequisites are not met. I never fail to be amazed at the idea that all of the 'ulema in the history of Islam got it all wrong until today's 20 and 30 something North American Muslims came along.

5:40 PM  
Blogger Umm Zaid said...

Salaam 'Alaikum Again

Also, why the constant need to Arab-bash from Progressive / iconoclast corners? It's like an M.O. with people who want to follow their Nafs instead of Qur'an and Sunnah. The Arabs, the Arabs....

5:41 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:47 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:49 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:01 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

Sorry, Alex, now I get to comment on your unqualified itjihad. Ayat 5:5 isn't all that specific. It allows for the consumption of the food of the ahl al kitab as well, and that is not limited to men. Also, 2:221 is specific, but does not specifically disallow marriage with ahl al kitab for Muslims.

Alex, you said, referring to 5:5:

"This verse creates the exception that allows Muslim men to marry kitabi women."

If you believe there are exceptions created to previous prohibitions, then you must believe in abrogations, which call into question Allah's judgement and methodology. I'd rather not, thank you. Considering that 2:221 singled out mushrik as impermissible, and 60:10 singled out kafir as impermissible, then you have no basis for calling 5:5 an exception to a prohibiton against marrying ahl al kitab that didn't exist, rendering your premise faulty at best.

Allah says:

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. [2:62]

Obviously, Allah has not deemed all non-Muslims, particularly people of the Book, as damned and impermissible to us.

This is part of the Arab sunnah that too many have replaced Islam with. They are ignorant of the history that shows that Abu Bakr promised Aisha to a non-Muslim before the Prophet had a dream that she was to marry him. They are unaware that Umar was hostile to his wife who converted before he did.

As I said before, the asl al deen requires a prohibition and there is none imposed on interfaith marriage for Muslimas. If you had any valid sayings from the Prophet's Sunnah disallowing such, I'm sure you would have shared them with us, but there is no revelation that you can cite for me that forbids such unions, and without it, no other source can substitute.

BTW, you have no idea if my itjihad is unqualified or not, but please do be aware that not all qualified scholars agree on this issue or even agree that Muslim men can broadly exercise the option either.

And for Umm Zaid, I am Arab, one who believes in truth, not appeasment. Also, I'm not a 20/30 something north american either. Must you negatively assume and stereotype?

Salaam

10:32 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Tell me "follower of Allah," do you believe in Quran and Hadith ? A yes or no will suffice.

1:35 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

It should be obvious that I do.

Salaam

9:36 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

Please allow me to clarify, as I should have been more specific before. I believe in the Holy Sunnah of our Lord and that of His Final Prophet and servant, Muhammad (pbuh).

Salaam

9:48 AM  
Blogger In the search of truth said...

I find this explanation very contradicting: "The non-believers [kufar] of Ahl al-Kitab fall under what is meant by `mushrikin'. This is what mos scholars have said. It is the preferred opinion, as Imam al-Razi has said, mentioning much evidence for it...The phrase `disbelievers' [kufar] includes the People of the Book [Ahl al-Kitab] because they are disbelievers and because the Qur'an applied the name `those who disbelieve' [alladhina kafaru] to them"
From what I understand, according to this explanation, people of the Book (i.e. Jews, Christians) are disbelievers [kufar]. That is why Muslim women cannot mary them. If that is the case, then people of the book=disbelievers=kufar.So then why are Muslim men allowed to mary women of the Book=disbelievers=kufar?

4:43 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

Allah says that no kufar will enter heaven, but He also says that there will be Christians and Jews who will enter heaven (2:62, 5:69, 22:17). He also does not forbid us to marry ahl al kitab. Since

There is no ayah designating ahl al kitab as kufar on the whole and we are allowed to marry them, live in harmony with them in peace(49:13).

Also, Allah tells us that He does not intend for all to believe the same way, that the diversity of belief is His doing :

5.48 To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to the e. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute

10:99-100 If it had been your Lord's will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt or obscurity on those who will not understand.

It's our responsibility to do as He says, and not feel bound to the mortal interpretations that all but ignore the obvious, that Allah is not as prejudiced against the ahl al kitab, nor against the autonomy of Muslim women as prideful Muslims can be.

Salaam

5:41 AM  
Blogger In the search of truth said...

Can, then, Muslim women marry Al-Muttaqun?( the pious) i.e. someone who believes in Oneness of Allah and believes in his messengers including Muhammad, but doesn't necesarily practice the other four pillars of Islam?

6:48 PM  
Blogger osman said...

Allah says:
Follower of Allah you have input such ayet from Qur'an but there is a simple wrong word,


Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. [2:62]


The correct translation of the ayet in the bold part is any who belive in Allah...

It is very clear day and night, and you should be able to distinguish wrong from right. God and Allah are not the same. Allah is one and only. God is many. As most of the christians and jews of our time do believe in God(s) and see human figures as God, it means they do not believe in Allah. If the Christian and the Jew says, I believe in Allah and the Judgement day, then he becomes a believer. Until you hear the Christian and Jew say they believe in Allah, they are not allowed to be married to.

Please do not confuse people with trying to make certain things permissible when they actually are not.

In Islam for any muslim they should very clearly know that Allah is one and only, god even if it is written with capital G can be many. That is why we should chose to say Allah rather than god. In the such verse the word is Allah rather than god.

Giving wrong information to muslims, and trying to make it appear it right and potentially cause the muslim to sin is one of the biggest sins that is out there, and may not even be forgiven by Allah.

If you are not a scholar, don't act like one! You can think and identify the thoughts from the ayets yourself but don't make it appear as if your thoughts are the truth. When you can not even directly translate the ayet from the Quranic language how can you with decency and conscience be able to say this can be done this can not be done?!!!

Allah is the word.

2:41 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

I am a scholar, osman, one that does not lie by omission, nor do I distort ayat to suit my agenda.

I know that Allah is the word used by Arabis speaking non-Muslims to refer to God, so if all it takes (in your opinion) to allow Muslims to marry Chritians and Jews is that ahl al kitab refer to God as Allah, then, you got it.

But, God/Allah is not a matter of semantics. He was the One and Only in all of the languages used by the Prophets and Messangers of God to spread His Word. Arabic has no monopoly on Islam.

The bottom line is that there is no command in the Quran nor the Sunnah that limits Muslim women to marriage with Muslim men. YOu should save your admonishments for those, such as the original author of this thread, who lie by posting only parts of ayah for those who do not take the time to learn the truth.

5:48 To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute

Salaam and Ramadan Mubarak!

2:36 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

PS: You said "As most of the christians and jews of our time do believe in God(s) and see human figures as God, it means they do not believe in Allah. "

The doctrine of the trinity and the divinity of Jesus were well established by the time Islam was introduced to the Arabian peninsula. For many Christian sects, doctrine has not changed from before the Prophet's time until now.

To say "christians and jews of our time" implies that some major change occured after the revelation of the Quran, but that is not so. While Jews are true monotheists, some Christian sects could be discerned to be polytheists. They are to be avoided.

However, the fact that we are divergently guided by Allh, instructed to know each other and not despise each other, and are allowed to marry out is a trust God has given us that requires us to be educated well enough to discern our differences by studying His Word and His intent so we are not so easily mislead by those who pretend to speak for Him.

2:50 AM  
Blogger osman said...

Follower of Allah;

You are again coming into wrong terms. Thus creating a big big mistake on your side.

The truth of the matter is that in Qur'an in the real language of Qur'an it does not state God. It states Allah. Plain and simple. You can all day long try to justify a wrong belief that you have regarding this or that by using the translations of Qur'an to English with the word God, but you will be the only one fooling yourself.

In the Qur'an language it says Allah, not god, or yehowa or this or that. If in your heart you are not able to use the word of Allah in the verses you give examples of, then why believe in Allah? When Qur'an specifically states Allah in the verses you exampled, why try to translate it to god?

BIG BIG MISTAKE on your thought on the 2:62.
Please don't act like a scholar when you are not one, and don't try to fool people, that is a bigger sin than you may think.

The better translation of 2:62
002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.


In here it is extremely clear, that Allah'u Taela states that those who believe in Quran (Muslims) and out of those Jews, Christians and non-muslim if any of them end up believing in Allah and Last Day will have their reward. It is not saying that all the christians and jews and this and that will get their reward. Clearly states that out of the non-muslims, if they do end up believing in Allah they will get their reward.

If you are not able to read the actual Quran in its Quranic language and are not able to understand it fully do not act like you are a scholar. Rather ask to those who are scholars, or read the books of the scholars (true scholars) of the past. Look at the sunnah of Hz. Muhammed, and follow his sunnah. Did he ever take a non-muslim wife and the wife stayed non-muslim, or did he allow any non-muslim man to get married with a muslim woman? DID HE?

Making Quran and the word of Allah appear other than what they actually are is a big sin my friend.

Don't ever ever forget that.
May Allah be with us all.
Salamun aleiukum.

4:01 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

Don't try to use a red herring, brother osman, and a bad one at that, to divert from the real issue. Allah, the God, is of course used in Arabic to refer to the Creator. It is, in fact, the same word used by Arabic speaking Christians to refer to the Supreme Deity. It was also used by pagans prior to the introduction of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula. The Quran says it reveals the Word of God in Arabic so that it will be easy for the Arabs to understand, but that in no way denies anyone the use of the word "God" when referring to the Supreme Being in English, for Islam is the Divine Message to people in ALL languages in which it was taught.

Arabic is neither the first nor the last language which was spoken to transmit the Word so that the people will understand. It is the one the Quran was written in, but the Prophets of Islam, such as Jesus, Mose, Ibraheim, and those before Muhammad, did not use Arabic to transmit the Word to those who would hear it. It is a fallacy to pronounce Allah to be the only Word that can be used in a transliteration of the Word, as if there is something exclusive about Arabic.

Do not pretend that you know more than others using this weak ploy. Islam is not a faith dependent on Arabic or manifested by Arabs only, as you would have us believe. It has existed since Adam, a man who was not an Arab and who did not speak Arabic, and revealed to untold millions since the beginning of time in countless languages before it was revealed in Arabic. The Quran, though Holy, is THE ETERNAL MESSAGE revealed to a people who preserved it in the language they knew. While that is a feat that should be honored, it in no way distinguishes the efforts of those who came before and taught His Word in other languages, nor does it mitigate the transmission of the Word in any language other than Arabic since then.

To tell someone that they are wrong to use the word “God” in lieu of Allah is a form of Arab imperialism that is not only incorrect linguistically, it is spiritually and historically incorrect. Your “correction” of the ayat to satisfy your interpretation is not only unnecessary, but frivolous. There is no way that simply substituting the Word “Allah” for God nullifies the FACT that not all who call themselves Muslim will enter jannah than that all you call non-Muslim will not.

Who will enter jannah is a judgment that you are not entitled to make, nor can you change a word and summarily dismiss a tenet of Islam that allows for interfaith marriage. You also cannot use it to authoritatively pronounce someone to be a liar or not a scholar because you disagree with them. That is vanity, and you should not display it so carelessly.

There is long-held dispute about the marriage of Muhammad to Mariam, a Coptic. True scholars, such as myself, have long differed over the status of their relationship and whether she converted or not. This is an ongoing debate, and although, perhaps, you have settled on the side of those who claim she converted, there are scholars who have not. And, yes, there were Muslim women who converted long before their husbands who were never separated from them. There is no prohibition in the Quran against marriage between Muslim women and ahl al kitab men, nor commanding Muslim women to marry only Muslim men. You will also not find this in the Sunnah of the Prophet. I’m sure that if this were not so, you would have produced something other than the ethnocentric use of a word to try to stake your claim. I am disappointed that this is all you have.

Don't ever forget that.

Salaam

9:55 AM  
Blogger osman said...

After stating that you are a true scholar I am litereally laughing my butt off "Follower of Allah".
In my opinion you are lost in hypocrisy while your nick states"Follower of Allah" but you translate Allah as god when you try to manipulate Qur'an!
SHAME ON YOU, so called scholar!


You are not a scholar, and I feel pity for those who take advice from you! ALLAH is ALLAH, does not matter what language it is. ALLAH is universal, ALLAH is ALLAH in the earth, or the moon, or the wherever.

Here is an example to you so called lost in hypocrisy scholar:

When you go to Mongolia and talk to the folks and say the word "god" to a muslim in there, they will not have any clue what you are saying, but when you say ALLAH he will know what you are talking about.

So this is not an issue of arabic or this that, ALLAH is ALLAH, not god. If in your heart you can not find the decency to state ALLAH as ALLAH at all times, then you are full of crap.

And you are definitely not a scholar at all! Don't try to fool yourself! And don't ever ever try to change the wording of Qur'an, as it is the ultimate sin! If you can not read and understand Qur'an in its original language then you should start learning, maybe it will change your mind, and your level of intellect in fikh.


The true enemies of Islam are so called scholars who manipulate true teachings of Mohammed and true word of ALLAH and lead people to the wrong path, the so called scholars like you!

11:32 AM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

You argue over semantics, and with a flimsy premise that Allah is God's name; it is not. Then you seek to insult instead of maintaining any decorum and proper adab. I know that you do this because you have no real basis upon which to dismiss my position or my scholarship. All of what you say is merely a red herring. I prefer to deal with the issue; you care only to divert from the topic, but you do so with little concern for the truth. I will make dua for you. May God seek to guide you with His Mercy. But, I forget, you do not believe in God. Still, there are always mircles; all things are possible with Him.

1:52 AM  
Blogger Adil said...

"Follower of Allah" - I do not really care about the linguistic argument over God/Allah, as I agree with those of both sides on this issue. Yes, Allah is the true word as it does not have an equivalent in the linguistic usage of Arabic, which is not true of the English word God, which is used for many other god(s). However, people have a need to understand the Qur'an in their own language. But, I will take issue with you for many of your previous statements concerning the classical scholars of Islam, such as the 4 Imams, Nawawi, Ghazali, Dan Fodio, etc. - giants of the deen who are the revivers of our faith and who studied the sources of the religion much longer and harder than you. In that regard, though you say it does not apply, I loved Umm Zayd's comment about, basically, 1400 years of Islamic scholarship are down the drain, and our "brilliant" Islamic minds of the 20th and 21st centuries have all that we now need to proceed. Anyways, you make numerous errors concerning your treatment of Islamic law, which shows a lack of depth in understanding the processes of the Sharia', though you do show a good knowledge at a quick glance concerning textual sources, etc. Concerning the issue of Muslimahs marrying Kaffirs, as the other reply pointed out it is only specifically for Muslim men marrying Kitabi women, otherwise the other textual sources hold concerning not marrying the disbelievers. Muslim men are allowed to marry chaste, kitabi women, for various reasons that do not apply to Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men (and Allah knows best) - Men, especially in earlier times, are the dominant gender in society, so Islam remains dominant in the household/community as the religion of the man; Men are more likely to be involved in travelling the earth for business, war, etc. to places where Muslim women did not/do not reside, etc. Taking one side or another is only legally valid when there is a difference of opinion between the scholars, the only difference of opinion here is that 'Ibn Umar and others held that even Muslim men could not marry non-Muslim women as Allah (SWT) states to not marry idolaters, and those scholars argued that the worshipping of Jesus and Mary by the Christians and Uzayr by the Jews puts them in the category of idolaters. I lean towards this belief that Muslim men not marry Kafir women, as many of the reasons why Muslim men can marry Kitaabi women do not apply in modern times (the women are not likely to be chaste, there are not really any Islamic states where the rights of the children to be raised as Muslims are protected, our homelands are ravaged due to warfare and our Muslim men are dead and our Muslim women need them as husbands, etc.) The Qur'an was revealed peicemeal over a 23 year period and that is why the giant scholars of the deen have to know the science of the abrogated and the abrogating based upon the knowledge of how verses are sequenced chronologically. An example of this is the prohibition of alcohol, which occurred in steps in the Qur'an (sorry, quick blog from work - no exact Chapter/verse references) Allah revealed first to not come to prayer after recently drinking, then aboloshing alcohol for good in a different verse at a later date. This is the thing that seems to be the major reason for your errors in "ijtihad", you fail to understand the piecemeal nature of the Sharia' for which there are many examples: in the early years the Muslims had to do wudu after eating foods cooked by fire; the Muslims could practice temporary marriage (Mut'a), etc. All of which were abrogated later by specific statements/actions by Allah's Messenger. On this note, the examples you bring up concerning the early Muslimahs not being separated from their Kaffir husbands relates to points in time when the Sharia' was not in the full state that it was in at latter points in time. There are other examples, which you do not qoute out of ignorance (not a disparaging remark, just to say you don't know something, as in I am ignorant of Nuclear Physics), or out of leaving out due to contradicting your analysis, where Allah's Messenger did separate Muslimahs from their Kaffir husbands, such as his own daughter being separated from one of the nobles of Quraysh until he accpeted Islam, etc. Again, the verses regarding the believers in Allah and the Last Day from the People of the Book, etc. relates to the historic periods when these beliefs were THE correct beliefs in society at that time, such as the Christians were correct in believing in the Messengership of Isa - alayhi wa salaatu wa salamu - at which point in time the Jews who did not follow Isa were now Kafir. Similarly, when Muhammad - salla Allahu alayhi wa salaam - came with the Qur'an (the book) and the Wisdom (the Sunnah), then all other religious beliefs were henceforth invalid and the practicioners of such were now labeled Kafir, such as Allah - Subahanu wa ta'ala - has labeled them in many verses throughout his Holy Book. The finality of Islam is stated by Allah (SWT) in the verse that says "Today I have perfected for you your religion, and chosen al-Islam as a deen for you", as well as other verses. This is all not based on any reasoning of my own so to say, just a decently in-depth knowledge of how the 1400 years of classical scholars go about formulating the rulings of the Sharia' - one of which is that it is unlawful for Muslimahs to marry Kafir men.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

Adil: But, I will take issue with you for many of your previous statements concerning the classical scholars of Islam, such as the 4 Imams, Nawawi, Ghazali, Dan Fodio, etc. - giants of the deen who are the revivers of our faith and who studied the sources of the religion much longer and harder than you.

FOA: Since you have no actual definitive knowledge of the length or content of my study, that is simply an opinion you hold, and not a statement of fact.

Adil: In that regard, though you say it does not apply, I loved Umm Zayd's comment about, basically, 1400 years of Islamic scholarship are down the drain, and our "brilliant" Islamic minds of the 20th and 21st centuries have all that we now need to proceed. Anyways, you make numerous errors concerning your treatment of Islamic law, which shows a lack of depth in understanding the processes of the Sharia', though you do show a good knowledge at a quick glance concerning textual sources, etc.

FOA: I have a great depth of understanding of the processes of sharia, which is why I rest assured that sharia is often a derivative of the limited understanding of men, and their wish to maintain and preserve a status quo, even if it requires them to defy God. I do not elevate the early imams and scholars to the level of infallibility, at their own behest. They certainly did not claim to be correct about all, did not forbid a valid challenge to their reasoning (and they did employ human reasoning), and were quite open to the fact that their determinations were made in consideration of the needs of the particular society they were addressing in their rulings. Their laws of social interactions were not ever mean to be binding on all Muslims everywhere and for all time. Unlike presnt day Muslims, they were aware that they were only mortals.

Adil: Concerning the issue of Muslimahs marrying Kaffirs, as the other reply pointed out it is only specifically for Muslim men marrying Kitabi women, otherwise the other textual sources hold concerning not marrying the disbelievers. Muslim men are allowed to marry chaste, kitabi women, for various reasons that do not apply to Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men (and Allah knows best) - Men, especially in earlier times, are the dominant gender in society, so Islam remains dominant in the household/community as the religion of the man; Men are more likely to be involved in travelling the earth for business, war, etc. to places where Muslim women did not/do not reside, etc. Taking one side or another is only legally valid when there is a difference of opinion between the scholars, the only difference of opinion here is that 'Ibn Umar and others held that even Muslim men could not marry non-Muslim women as Allah (SWT) states to not marry idolaters, and those scholars argued that the worshipping of Jesus and Mary by the Christians and Uzayr by the Jews puts them in the category of idolaters.

FOA: As I said before, the limits of reasoning by any human is bounded not only by intellect and learning, but by the cultural perspective one has regarding male-female relations and roles. Millions of Muslims are no longer bound by the norms of male-oriented tribal cultures and traditions that supersede Islam in some parts of the world. Such rulings are, at best, conditional.
The historical fact that Christians worshipped Jesus at the time the Quran was revealed on the Arabian peninsula did not stop Allah from including them in the short list of those whom are halal for marriage to Muslims. That He did not direct Muslim women to marry ONLY Muslim men, nor explicitly deny Muslim women from marriage with kitabi men is an obstacle that cannot be explained away by calling Christians and Jews idolators; idolators are denied to all Muslims. There is no permission allowing Muslim men to marry from among them.

Adil: I lean towards this belief that Muslim men not marry Kafir women, as many of the reasons why Muslim men can marry Kitaabi women do not apply in modern times (the women are not likely to be chaste, there are not really any Islamic states where the rights of the children to be raised as Muslims are protected, our homelands are ravaged due to warfare and our Muslim men are dead and our Muslim women need them as husbands, etc.)

FOA: The early scholars used the same tool of reasoning, mashlaha, that they used to deny interfaith marriage to Muslim women to also term interfaith marriage for Muslim men as mukrah. This is a fact that is ignored, and as this prohibition has its roots in the same human reasoning as the prohibition against interfaith marriage for Muslim women, it is also conditional, not absolute.

Adil: The Qur'an was revealed peicemeal over a 23 year period and that is why the giant scholars of the deen have to know the science of the abrogated and the abrogating based upon the knowledge of how verses are sequenced chronologically.
There is no science to abrogation. Allah’s Word has existed since the first Prophet of Islam, Adam, and had been revealed numerous times by countless messengers and prophets from that time on. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the seal of the Prophets, and was the last to reveal the Word. Although incremental alterations to cultures and the accommodation of language was always a consideration in revelation, the idea that Allah abrogated His ancient and eternal law to allow Arab Muslim men to marry kuffar and mushrikeen is laughable. He never encouraged such marriages prior to then, and He didn’t for Arab men either.

Adil: This is the thing that seems to be the major reason for your errors in "ijtihad", you fail to understand the piecemeal nature of the Sharia' for which there are many examples: in the early years the Muslims had to do wudu after eating foods cooked by fire; the Muslims could practice temporary marriage (Mut'a), etc. All of which were abrogated later by specific statements/actions by Allah's Messenger. On this note, the examples you bring up concerning the early Muslimahs not being separated from their Kaffir husbands relates to points in time when the Sharia' was not in the full state that it was in at latter points in time.

FOA: I not only understand that the order of the revelations is an important element in interpretation and application, I also understand that context is also of great import. The ayah of 60:10-11 was revealed in 625 during the Medina period, a mere 7 years before the Prophet’s death. At that directive, Muslim women AND men were required to divorce their kuffar spouses, as they were unlawful to them. Umar lost two wives to this command, so it is clear that the kuffar were not lawful to Muslim men either. 2:221 was revealed even earlier, so we have two directives concerning marriage that forbid kafir and mushrik to all Muslims.
While 5:5 was revealed later in the Medina period, it did not allow marriage to either kuffar or musrikeen; they remain forbidden. Muslims were still allowed to marry only from among those who have a chance of entering jannah. There are at least 4 ayat that state that there will be ahl al kitab among those who will enter jannah, revealed across the 23 year period, affirming that the entire group of ahl al kitab is not hell-bound.

Adil: There are other examples, which you do not qoute out of ignorance (not a disparaging remark, just to say you don't know something, as in I am ignorant of Nuclear Physics), or out of leaving out due to contradicting your analysis, where Allah's Messenger did separate Muslimahs from their Kaffir husbands, such as his own daughter being separated from one of the nobles of Quraysh until he accpeted Islam, etc.

FOA: No contradiction at all, and I am quite aware of that. In fact, I have used the example of the Prophet’s daughter Zainab quite often and am very familiar with it. She converted to Islam many years prior to her husband and was not separated from him until he became kafir and was captured by the Muslims at the Battle of Badr. Another example of a longstanding mixed marriage is that of Ibn Abbas the elder who did not convert until 20 years after his wife, who was among the first to embrace Islam. Something you may not be aware of is that Aisha was engaged by her father, Abu Bakr, to a Christian man prior to her marriage to the Prophet. It’s hard to imagine that a trusted companion of the Prophet would not know that non-Muslims were off-limits to Muslim females, if that was indeed the truth. It is not correct for you to make assumptions about my knowledge of Muslim history.

Adil: Again, the verses regarding the believers in Allah and the Last Day from the People of the Book, etc. relates to the historic periods when these beliefs were THE correct beliefs in society at that time, such as the Christians were correct in believing in the Messengership of Isa - alayhi wa salaatu wa salamu - at which point in time the Jews who did not follow Isa were now Kafir. Similarly, when Muhammad - salla Allahu alayhi wa salaam - came with the Qur'an (the book) and the Wisdom (the Sunnah), then all other religious beliefs were henceforth invalid and the practicioners of such were now labeled Kafir, such as Allah - Subahanu wa ta'ala - has labeled them in many verses throughout his Holy Book. The finality of Islam is stated by Allah (SWT) in the verse that says "Today I have perfected for you your religion, and chosen al-Islam as a deen for you", as well as other verses. This is all not based on any reasoning of my own so to say, just a decently in-depth knowledge of how the 1400 years of classical scholars go about formulating the rulings of the Sharia' - one of which is that it is unlawful for Muslimahs to marry Kafir men.

FOA: Christian doctrine was settle more than 300 years prior to the revelation of the Quran has even begun in Arabia. Allah was very aware that CHRISTians (hint hint) worshipped Jesus. The First Council of Nicea in 325 had established the divinity of Jesus and the trinity in Christian orthodoxy centuries before Islam the Prophet was even born. This was the belief of Coptics, like Mariam the Copt, and was nothing new.
Also, Muhammad consulted the Jews as to Jewish law, and applied it to Muslim violators. He also sought the alliance and protection of the Christian King of Abysinia for his followers against the Meccans. Alliances and protection from non-Muslims was a matter of fact for the Prophet from the time Allah entrusted him to his Uncle Talib.
Islam, the submission to the Will of God, had ALWAYS been the only valid faith. That it has discounts abrogation for laws regarding interfaith marriage, and does not make an explicit permission for men into a prohibition for women.
I am happy to report that I have recently attended two more nikah ceremonies of Muslimas marrying with ahl al kitab men. Allah has seen fit to put in our path intelligent imams who seek justice in Gid's name and who do not prescribe to Arab chauvinism found in the views of Muslims who use culture to support their nafs.

One major step that has been taken to open the door to interfaith marriage for Muslimas in areas of the world where Muslims are free to question are fatwas that allow revert women to stay with non-Muslim husbands. There is a growing and necessary rethinking of this myopic injustice. One thing that a practicing, knowledgable Muslim can count on is that Allah will make sure that His Way prevails over what Muslims desire.

Nice try, though, brother. Thank you! May Allah guide us all.

2:07 AM  
Blogger Adil said...

Follower of Allah - Thank you for your pleasant reply. I have learned from my previous years of debating with Christians, or anybody else about such sensitive topics as religion, that when both sides have said their respective views and neither side will bend, then you should end with "LAkum Deenukum wa liya deen" - To you be your way of life and to me be mine. Also, when dealing with non-Muslims, I always like to bring up the example of the debate of Allah's Messenger with the Christians in the area - at the end he asked them to bring their families and he would bring his and they could mutually invite Allah's curses upon the party that spoke falsehood. Why should we marry people whom Allah's Messenger was so ready to invite curses upon due to their statements of falsehood? Anyways, I think that my original post was sufficiently long and stated my views, but i will reply with a couple of things that I still do not feel you addressed. Considering that I was raised as a non-Muslim in America by a single mother, I really do not think my beliefs come from Arab tribal structure and the need for my nafs to feel stroked by believing that it is unlawful for Muslimahs to marry kaffirs. Considering that all of the giants of the deen who I have mentioned have either produced a voluminous amount of literary works that are a testament to their knowledge of our religion or have lived to old age, I would have to say it is fact that their level of Islamic knowledge is much greater than yours. Please show me a list of your literary works in the field of Islam so that I may gain a better understanding of the length and content of your studies. It is societally impossible for modern day human beings to achieve the levels of Islamic knowledge that the classical greats had. This is because the sources of our religion are closed and completed, unlike fields such as Nuclear Physics, Technological advances, etc. where modern man far surpasses the knowledge of the classics in fields such as these. I say societally impossible as the amount of time that they could (and did) devote to their studies was so much greater, while you watch your TV, listen to your Music, Blog on your computer, etc. they were studying and living the true deen. As for no sciene to abrogation, once again I will have to trust the great Imams (who did consider this a valid branch of Islamic knowledge) over you. I'll review your psot again to make sure I am not wrong, but I do not believe that you addressed my statements here. If there is no abrogation, then please explain to me how was alcohol prohibited, how was Mu'ta prohibited (or do you believe in this as well), how was wudu changed for circumstances regarding cooked meat, etc.? As I stated the verses in the beginning of Chapter 5 were some of the latest Quranic ayats, so the rulings their supersede the rulings derived from the earlier verses you quoted. I am aware of the Council of Nicea in the early 300's, but not all so-called christians went along with the theological statements that came out of this conference. Four African bishops, out of the 317 or so in attendance, in particular did not agree with the conclusions of the council. Also, if you know your history regarding the Sahaba, you should know the story of Salman the Persian (I think, once again don't have access to my books right now - may have been Abu Dharr?) who searched for a follower of the "true religion". First he was attached to a man who would be labeled as a Christian for his belief in Jesus, etc. Before his death he told the Companion to go to such and such a man who was also a "Christian", after many more years with this teacher, before his death the man told the Companion he was not aware of any other person on the earth who followed the religion that he did (though he would definitely have been aware of those Christians that followed the Nicea Council theology) and told the Companion that if the signs were right than he should make his way to Arabia, and this is where the Companion found the message of Muhammad. Once again non-Muslims will not go to heaven once they are aware of the message of Islam and the messengership of Muhammad as this is clearly stated in many specific verses of the Qur'an in reference to ahl kitab and idolaters, non-religionists, etc. Whereas the references in the Qur'an to various sects being in Paradise, this is explained in a non-contradictory way to other verses by the various examples I have already provided, as well as many more that I have not. These verses apply to the pre-Islamic period {Islam as in Muhammad's message - yes all Prophets taught Islam (submission to Allah)- but it was not labeled as such in those eras; the believers in Musa were followers of the God of the Hebrews, Judae, etc.} in reference to those who best sough to follow the tru teachings of the last prophet who they were aware of, or who tried to worship the one GOD the best they could (such as those who were known as Hanif in Arabia - they tried their best to follow the true religion of Ibrahim). May Allah forgive you and the sisters for these "nikah" ceremonies - it is really zinah as there can be no valid marriage. Once again I'll have to go with 14 centuries of Islam, rather than these "intelligent imams" of the 21st century. Also, what is your source for stating that Aisha was first to be engaged to a Christian man? Considering her age, I would doubt that she was set up with any man at that point in time. Similarly, considering the fact that there were only a handful of Christians residing in the Arabian peninsula at the time (exampled by the fact that Muhammad had to travel a certain distance to meet Khadija's Uncle who was Christian) I fail to see the validity of your statement. I have read most of the classical history books and have never came across that. Is your source "Ibn Warraqa" or one of these types by any chance? I suspect so.

With peace,

Adil

2:52 PM  
Blogger Adil said...

Follower of Allah - just read your last sentence again. You state that Allah will make sure that "His" (why do you use "His", as this language comes from the male chauvinism based background that you speak so hard against, Allah does not resemble human beings in any way - "He" is only used to denote power as males are looked upon as dominant in society) way prevails over what Muslims desire. If your belief is really Allah's Way, then why has it not prevailed in the previous1400 year period? Not to mention that it still does not prevail, as you are one of only a small minority of Muslims that hold this belief. You also must be ignorant of, or do not believe accurate, the hadith of Allah's Messenger that states that his community will not agree upon an error. The Ummah has agreed that it is unlawful for muslimahs to marry Kafir men, so in accordance with this hadith, as well as the many other sources already mentioned, I'll stick with that belief. P.S. - We do know that the great scholars were mortals, but we trust their knowledge of Islam over our own, just as you trust the medical knowledge of a physician over your own and so do not operate on yourself, or you trust the legal knowledge of a lawyer over your own, so that you don't represent yourself in court when facing serious legal proceedings. These are two of the professions that you have to study the longest for in the modern times, yet true Islamic scholars had to study 2-3 times as long as the members of said professions! Would you give yourself a vasectomy? People have to have divisions of knowlege so that everybody does not have to spend time learning every type of knowledge, as that would be physically and mental impossible. Plumbers study plumbing so that I don't have to, I have a problem, I call a plumber. I study accounting so that the plumber doesn't have to, if he needs his books done, business consulting, etc. he calls me. This is logical.

3:17 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

My dear brother Adil, the problem with your argument is common. You must rely on non-Quranic sources to make it. It is unreasonable to state that if scholars believe something, it must be true, a if their beliefs are the core of Islam. The fact is, scholars are allowed to use reasoning and the needs of any particular society to deduce their rulings.

Another fact is, those revered scholars will stand with us, not in judgment of us, on Judgment Day.

If you are interested in Islam, you must be honest. The omission of a rule in the Quran and the Sunnah that limits Muslim women to marriage with Muslim men, or one that commands them to avoid marriage with ahl al kitab men is not insignificant. That scholars, great or not so great, decided to create a rule in Allah's silence is also not insignificant.

No Muslim has the authority to excommunicate another Muslim over whom they marry, so a Muslim women who marries out can certainly continue her personal relationship with Allah and her ritual practice, if she so chooses. That is undeniably the right of each and every Muslim, as is the right to follow God rather than the whims of men.

In order to prevail in your argument, you consciously place mortals on an equal footing with God. What the ummah agrees to is not binding upon Him, nor is it bonding upon any of us who are free to examine the text outside of a tribal context.

The bottom line is, I am not a convert nor ignorant of the faith. The only reason you feel free to claim that I am is because you are comfortable following men above God. The decades that I have dedicated to my faith have lead me to know that it is not in the best interest of my study or teaching to apply unneccesary cultural biases to His Word that would require distortion or self-serving fitna. You cannot recognize the absense of cultural biaes as anything other than ignorance when the ignorance is in the claim that there are humans who have authority to create laws that do not comport with Islam. Even the early scholars did not have the audacity to claim that their words could replace or supercede God's. They welcomed challenges to their rulings. It is the hubris of later generations that have attempted to bind alll of us in the mold of 7th-11th century norms, rendering Islamic thought hidebound and static.

If I am part of a "minority" that continues to see the faith as dynamic and alive, then Allah has truly blessed me. Islam does not require nor prescribe a clergy or a hierarchy that excludes the humble from the exalted. That is a man-made creation. In the end, each of us will carry his/her own burden, and none of any others except those who they have mislead.

I feel no need to try to convert you away from cultural Islam, Adil. That time will come when Allah decides, and it will be a gift to you.

11:16 PM  
Blogger Follower of Allah said...

Addendum:

Adil: Considering that I was raised as a non-Muslim in America by a single mother, I really do not think my beliefs come from Arab tribal structure and the need for my nafs to feel stroked by believing that it is unlawful for Muslimahs to marry kaffirs. . . The Ummah has agreed that it is unlawful for muslimahs to marry Kafir men, so in accordance with this hadith, as well as the many other sources already mentioned, I'll stick with that belief.

FOA: The Quran says that NO Muslim is allowed to marry kuffar, so either ahl al kitab are not kuffar, or Allah is confused and contradicts Himself. I prefer to believe that since Adam, Allah has known His own mind better than any mortal.

Your coming to Islam as a non-Muslim required you to begin from an Arab framework, for that is how the faith is presented to converts. It has not always been that way, and if you had been began your study at the time I was, you would know that. Besides, as an Arab, I'm more likely to be able to recognize the Arab chauvinism in the way western converts are being taught.

Adil: It is societally impossible for modern day human beings to achieve the levels of Islamic knowledge that the classical greats had. This is because the sources of our religion are closed and completed, unlike fields such as Nuclear Physics, Technological advances, etc. where modern man far surpasses the knowledge of the classics in fields such as these. I say societally impossible as the amount of time that they could (and did) devote to their studies was so much greater, while you watch your TV, listen to your Music, Blog on your computer, etc. they were studying and living the true deen.

FOA: I don't bear the burden of being a slave to modern trends any moe than I feel a need to commit myself to antiquated norms, humdillah. I began my study at a very minor age and have been fascinated enough with it to allay a need to indulge as you imagine I must have.

Adil: As for no sciene to abrogation, once again I will have to trust the great Imams (who did consider this a valid branch of Islamic knowledge) over you. I'll review your psot again to make sure I am not wrong, but I do not believe that you addressed my statements here. If there is no abrogation, then please explain to me how was alcohol prohibited, how was Mu'ta prohibited (or do you believe in this as well), how was wudu changed for circumstances regarding cooked meat, etc.? As I stated the verses in the beginning of Chapter 5 were some of the latest Quranic ayats, so the rulings their supersede the rulings derived from the earlier verses you quoted.

FOA: Abrogation is taken very seriously in Islamic law, practiced very judiciously, and applied very sparingly by legitimate scholars.

The examples you state in the above excerpt are not to be attributed to abrogation, but to interpretation. Abrogation is when it is decided that God did not really mean what He said and, so, we can deregard it. God said to remain alert when praying. A Muslim must pray 5 times a day, so approaching prayers with a mind befogged is not in compliance with the command to pray. A prohibition against alcohol would be in step with, not abrogating, the command to pray.

Mu'ta was allowed, then prohibited, and that is in line with the incrementalism of the revelations over 23 years on the Arab penninsula. Many practices were outlawed or developed over time, such is the wisdom of God not to impose upheaval on us, but to make our way smooth and gain our acceptance of His Way thru a step by step implementation rather than changing everything at once.

There is no honor in bragging that we stopped Islam and refused to apply His example that we learn and grow over time toward His Way, but that what we have done by insisting that the Way relies on centuries of intellectual stagnation and the trampling of diversity of thought, long a tradition in Islamic jurisprudence.

Adil: Once again non-Muslims will not go to heaven once they are aware of the message of Islam and the messengership of Muhammad as this is clearly stated in many specific verses of the Qur'an in reference to ahl kitab and idolaters, non-religionists, etc. Whereas the references in the Qur'an to various sects being in Paradise, this is explained in a non-contradictory way to other verses by the various examples I have already provided, as well as many more that I have not. These verses apply to the pre-Islamic period {Islam as in Muhammad's message - yes all Prophets taught Islam (submission to Allah)- but it was not labeled as such in those eras; the believers in Musa were followers of the God of the Hebrews, Judae, etc.} in reference to those who best sough to follow the tru teachings of the last prophet who they were aware of, or who tried to worship the one GOD the best they could (such as those who were known as Hanif in Arabia - they tried their best to follow the true religion of Ibrahim).

FOA: I do not presume to know who will enter heaven and who will not. I do know that the period of conflict in Arabia between the Muslims and non-Muslims does not define the periods prior to that. Islam - the call to submit one's will to God - has existed as long as there have been human beings subject to their Creator. There is no contradiction is believing that there will be People of the Book who are not Muslims in heaven, as well as no contradiction in believing that their will be Muslims among the damned.

Adil: May Allah forgive you and the sisters for these "nikah" ceremonies - it is really zinah as there can be no valid marriage. Once again I'll have to go with 14 centuries of Islam, rather than these "intelligent imams" of the 21st century. Also, what is your source for stating that Aisha was first to be engaged to a Christian man? Considering her age, I would doubt that she was set up with any man at that point in time. Similarly, considering the fact that there were only a handful of Christians residing in the Arabian peninsula at the time (exampled by the fact that Muhammad had to travel a certain distance to meet Khadija's Uncle who was Christian) I fail to see the validity of your statement. I have read most of the classical history books and have never came across that. Is your source "Ibn Warraqa" or one of these types by any chance? I suspect so.

FOA: Allah has no need to forgive us for disregarding "laws" that He did not validate. We are certainly not a source of zina; zina is rooting in the souls of those who portend to speak for Him when He is silent. As an Arabic speaker, I have read many more texts of varying legitimacy, as is necessary to learn and grow, and it is apparent by the holes in your learning that that has served me well. I can, and have, avoided the overwhelming influence of Wahabbism that has censored scholarship and narrowed common sources. It is not fair to those who are limited in their ability to discern between cultural traditions and Islam, but there is no barrier that Allah can't overcome to bring us closer to Him.

Doubts do not scholarship make. 14 centuries did not define Islam nor elevate some Muslims over others; Allah negated that effort that when He declared that He perfected Islam for us. May I remind you that that declaration was made long before the rulings that enthrall you were even a mere gleam in an imam's eye. You have much more reading to do to catch up with me.

Your admiration of the early scholars is not misplaced, but your reliance on them as infallible and their rulings as divine and unchallengable is misguided, but not surprising. Such views are a common obstacle to our progress as a members of a faith based ummah.

I appreciate this opportunity to engage in civil discourse with someone who disagrees. I will make dua for you to continue your journey in Islam along a path that will put the faith, its history, and Allah's intent in clear context for you. All knowledge is from God.

12:34 AM  
Blogger Adil said...

Follower of Allah:

Yes, it is nice to have a civil presentation of issues that we disagree on. To continue, you make several wrong inferences concerning myself, as well as you confirm some of my arguments with your own statements, and lastly you still fail to sufficiently answer questions that I have posed to you.

Obviously the scholars will not judge us on Yaum al-Qiyama, that is not the point of my argument. Allah is al-Hakam. I do not accuse the women of kufr (i.e. excommunicate them), I only state that they commit fornication beacuse they engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. Of course they can still pray, fast, etc. as any other sinner can do in hopes of having their right actions outweigh their wrong, their love for Allah, or their fear of the Hell Fire, etc. (whatever causes one to follow God's laws). My Islam is not cultural, it is based on textual sources. Cultural Islam is witnessed in the unIslamic actions commited by Muslims in various parts of the world that the perpetrators actually think may be in sync with the religion. Such acts include honor killings in the Arab lands, extensive female circumcision in many of the African countries, burqas/no education, in the subcontinent, etc.


I really fail to understand the Arab bias that you see in me considering that I did not come into Islam through any contact with Arabs and to this day rarely associate with them. My understanding of Islam came from (1) the Qur'an itself as this was the first Islamic text that I read (2) Hadith texts as these were the next books that I read, and from there on delved into many more and varied classical textual sources. As I have basically stated earlier I still fail to see how any issue specifically related to the religion itself and not based on new problems caused by modern situations would not have been correctly dealt with during the 7-11th century era, as they were closest to the unbiased sources of the deen.

Abrogation is not that God says one thing and then says "oops" I didn't mean that. Istaghfirullah. It is how I stated in my earlier post, and what you specifically confirmed in your most recent post. That is, the incremental nature of the 23 year revelation. Where one thing was acceptable at an earlier period and not acceptable later. You fail to address how I related the incremental nature of the revelation to your present beliefs concerning marriage of Muslim woman to kafirs, acceptance of Ahl al Kitab into Paradise, etc.

Although I may have a lot of reading to do to catch up with you, you similarly have a lot of reading to do to catch up with Imam Nawawi, Imam Ghazzali, etc. I fail to see why you equate my studied texts to Wahhabism. None of the scholars that I quote have any relation whatsoever to Wahhabism, they all predate Wahhabism by many centuries. If my speech was that of one who was Wahhabi influenced then I would stick to quoting Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah, Bin Baz, etc. as these are the mainstays of their beliefs. I am a Sunni Ashari and present my beliefs as such. I asked you for specific texts concerning where you read some of the information that you quote, yet you fail to address this, and instead seem content to demean my knowledge. Are the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'ad's Tabaqat al-Kabir, etc. Wahhabi sources? How can this be when they were authored in the 7th or 8th century, whereas Wahhabism is an 18th century and onward phenomenon? Please try your best to answer my specific questions rather than solely discrediting the extent of my knowledge. Where did you read that Aisha was to engaged to a Kafir before she married the Messenger? If you admit that the revelation was incremental over a 23 year period and Muta', etc. was eventually disallowed, then what do you say regarding my statements that the only instances regarding Muslim women initiating or staying in marriages with non-Muslim men occurred in the very early years of the revelation? Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Adil

10:09 AM  
Blogger Muslima said...

Follower of Allah,

I am a Muslim-woman. I fall in love with A Christian man. We both want to get married, but I have been telling him that we cannot since he is not Muslim.
This is very hard for me. I do not want him to convert just so that we can get married.
Before reading your comments, I have always questioned why I was taught Muslim women could not marry people of the book while Muslim men are allowed to marry people of the book.

I have opened the subject indirectly with my family...but they are of course very traditional and said “must be Muslim"

I do not want to get married without my parent’s blessings...

I have a few questions for you
1. Do you know any Muslim women who married Christian men?
2. What did they go through to get their families to actually agree on such a wedding?
3. Who would be willing to sign a marriage contract between a Muslim woman and a Christian man?

Any advice that you can provide would be great.

Thanks,

3:49 PM  
Blogger Terry said...

I am finding this all fascinating. And I am eager to await a response to the questions of the lady before me. I have spent the last few days studying and reading up on Islam and after this lovely debate I am going to buy the Quran and anything else I can find to truly understand. And you might wonder why a Christian would want to learn? Simple answer, a Muslim young lady. But to point out a few things from a previous post, Christians and Jews use capital G to signify that their deity is the only one. Both have been and always are monotheistic. However, since I am cultured and well educated I find that some denominations within the Christian realm are both false and misguided and do not adhere to the Bible. To name a few are Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and to unpopular belief Catholics who for some reason try to tell people you need to have a priest to tell you to say 3 hail mary’s and you will be forgiven. Sorry but it's not in the Bible. I also do not agree with the worshipping of the saints in its current form in Catholicism. Sure we should recognize them for who they are but they were human. Jesus would be the only exception. But let me explain. The early church after being engulfed in the Roman Empire devised the Holy Trinity to explain how God is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All three unique and the same. Personally, I won’t get into a debate over it. And personally, I am not here to debate but rather try to understand Islam. I'll explain anything you want to know with scripture and years of experience. I never preach only teach and inform. Anyway... back to what I was saying, I have always felt that Jews, Christians, and Muslims had the same Deity. And I have seen the similarities and differences in all three over the last few days but I still want to understand fully. The way I see it is Jews recognize God as the only God but portray Jesus as some idiot basically. Christians believe in the same God but also believe Jesus was God in human form to be the final sacrifice for all sins to all mankind (all peoples not just Jews or Gentiles), and Muslims believe in Allah and the one true God but recognizes Jesus as a prophet just like Muhammad. Now I haven't got the chance to read the original texts for any religion and I am at least learning how to read the Latin form of Arabic as it is written and trying to learn Lebanese dialect of Arabic. Yes all for a young lady. I will admit, as a Christian, that I will not convert. I have my beliefs and experiences. But unlike most Christians, or Americans for that matter, I am an understanding person because I want to better myself. And because this young lady has me captivated by her eyes and I can’t get her out of my head. And if in the end all I end up with is a better understanding of Muslims and Islam then it would all be worth it. What I do know about her is that she is Sunni, from Lebanon, her mother has passed and her father is in Lebanon. You would not know her as a Muslim by her dress. But she dresses modestly and I love that. I love a modest lady. I think despite the law pertaining to her not marrying a Non-Muslim, she understands, and I might point out is a justifiable reason for why she would not personally do it, that it would cause a rift in the family pertaining to the children specifically with having two religions within a household. I understand that. I somewhat agree. But there have been instances of Judeo-Christian marriages that were successful. In fact, I am so tolerant that I would be fine with, if it was allowed, to have a Muslim-Christian heritage. And why did I put Muslim first? Why not, who is to say either is better then the other if they both stem from the same Deity? Or to rephrase who is to say a Christian has more claims to be a better person then a Muslim. I certainly don’t. But anyway, I am all for progressive change in regards to equality within Islam as long as it is justified and does not negate centuries of a culture and their traditions. If I was to marry a Muslim woman I would A) Let her make up her own mind if she wanted to attend my Church. B) I would attend Mosque out of respect and understanding of her traditions and not hold it over her head in regards to B (you cannot force anyone to submit to any teachings Allah doesn’t force, [I don’t think] Judeo-Christian God does not) C) Allow the children to learn of their mothers traditions and heritage so long as they also know mine and WHEN they are of age they may decide which to follow, if any, and I would love them either way D) equality within the household. Anyway... sorry bout the long post but… I had to get it off my chest. My head is about to explode trying to come up with a way despite there not being one and still be within Islam traditions. Because without traditions, how are we to move forward as a people on this earth and live in peace.

7:06 PM  
Blogger NightShadow said...

@Terry: I'm in the same situation as you are. Please update me on your quest for a successful inter-religion mix-marriage. Good luck.

10:01 AM  
Blogger Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.
Oes Tsetnoc | Semangat Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa

2:30 PM  
Blogger malcy said...

Salam,i'm a muslim woman whom finds herself in the same predicament. i'd really love to know how it goes too.

6:03 PM  
Blogger Ali said...

Did the Quran prohibit such a thing?

وَلاَ تَنكِحُوا الْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنَّ وَلَأَمَة ٌ مُؤْمِنَةٌ خَيْر ٌ مِنْ مُشْرِكَة ٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَتْكُمْ وَلاَ تُنكِحُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَتَّى يُؤْمِنُوا وَلَعَبْد ٌ مُؤْمِنٌ خَيْر ٌ مِنْ مُشْرِك ٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكُمْ أُوْلَائِكَ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى النَّارِ وَاللَّهُ يَدْعُو إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَالْمَغْفِرَةِ بِإِذْنِه ِِ وَيُبَيِّنُ آيَاتِه ِِ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَDo not marry mushrik women until they become believers; a believing slave woman is better than a free mushrik woman even though she may be more attractive to you. Likewise, do not marry mushrik men until they become believers: a believing slave is better than a free mushrik even though he may be more pleasing to you. These mushrikïn invite you to the hellfire while Allah invites you towards paradise and forgiveness by His grace. He makes His revelations clear to mankind so that they may take heed.[2.221]

so we see you may not marry a mushrik until they become beleivers

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلّ ٌ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلّ ٌ لَهُمْ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَان ٍ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُه ُُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
Today all good clean things have been made lawful for you; and the food of the People of the Book is also made lawful for you and your food is made lawful for them. Likewise, marriage with chaste free believing women and also chaste women among the People who were given the Book before you is made lawful for you, provided that you give them their dowries and desire chastity, neither committing fornication nor taking them as mistresses. Anyone who commits Kufr with Imمn (rejects the rules provided by faith), all his good deeds will be in vain and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.[5.5]

it is clear the abrogation was for men only,and not women.the latter part of 2:221 was not abrogated.the first one was.

Allah says about nasikh wa mansukh(abrogated and abrogative)


مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْر ٍ مِنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْء ٍ قَدِير

We do not abrogate any of Our verses or cause it to be forgotten except that We substitute it with something better or similar; don't you know that Allah has full power over everything?[2.106]

and those that make such rulings without knowledge


وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَكَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا أُوْلَائِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَBut those who reject and lie about Our revelations will be inmates of Hellfire, wherein they shall live forever."[2.39]

وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ أَمَانِيَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلاَّ يَظُنُّونَ
Among them there are some illiterates who do not know their Holy Book; they follow their own desires and do nothing but conjecture.[2.78]

4:46 PM  
Blogger Ali said...

http://myanswertoenemiesofsunna.blogspot.com/

visit my Blog

4:49 PM  
Blogger Ali said...

Terry,with all due Respect marrying a muslim girl will only bring you in problems and trust me its not worth it.

it will bring her problems aswell an you shoudl not expect muslim women to marry a non-muslim man.

There are PLENTY of Christian women in lebanon.and yes they marry westrn men.


muslim men do not appreciatte non-muslims with their families.

because islam explicitly forbids this.

also i am guessing she is a shi''a muslim sicne she's lebanese.

they consider non-muslims to be Unclean.meanign she would have to wash her self in ablutuoion everytime she touched you.this is a shi'a beleif.

i wish you good luck.but muslim women who do amrry nion-msulim mne.its ebcaue its a last resortr.she has been with everybody,and eys hypocritcaly arab men will sleep with a woman but after theyve slept with her they never marry her.

meaning she is not the type of woman you want to amrry anyway.


now i supprt westernb men with moslem women.but only if they convert to silam.

because the messenger of allah married his companion tamim ibn habib al-dari(a plaestinian ehehe)to his cousin the daughter of zubayr his fathers brother :)he was chrisitan pali convert to islam,and he had married bila(black)l,and salman(persian) and other non-arabs like surayh(roman)to arab women and his son zayd(black)to his cousin zaynab.and surely in the messenger of allah you have a excellent exapmple(uswatun 7asanah)(surat al-qalam)all these became great figures in islam,and the messenger of allah surely said i break all the ties of jahiliya and blood feuds of the past,arabness is not a virtue obtained by progenator(nasb)but by eloquence(balagha)of the tongue,and even a man with arab descent will not be able to attain it with out this

4:59 PM  
Blogger zayna said...

Salaam and hello. I will try not to make this long so please bear with me. I am sick of the bias regarding muslima by scholars. Seriously, the law applies to both, but men use their own loopholes to marry non-muslims. Sure, that is fine. In essence I really believe if a non-muslim believes in the oneness of God..then are they not muslim? Seriously, lets think about this logically. Belief in Allah is key here. Sure add on the rules and regulations and limitations of insignificant things such as how to stand properly..but what is INSIDE is what counts. I am single, am 40, never dated, drank or anything. I am single due the very fact of this law since muslim men are just not meeting the mark of what it means to be muslim. Ironically, in my life journey it is the non-muslims who are more islamic in their ways and do not hold chauvinistic attitudes towards women. I just hope the abuse of Islam is over and finally people can work on what is important...to love ALL, to bestow peace and to stop oppressing people!

2:11 PM  
Blogger zayna said...

whoaaah! @ALI,

I just read your response to Terry and I am in shock. How dare you suggest that muslim women only marry non-muslim as a last resort because they slept with someone? You need to learn about Islam first..which is not to tarnish and give a bad name to fellow muslim sisters. SHAME on you. You are the exact reason many muslim women like myself remain single. Your thinking is horrible, unislamic and Terry is more of a muslim than you. I am so embarrassed by muslim men in general, but your a huge dissappointment.

2:19 PM  
Blogger vision said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:15 AM  
Blogger vision said...

@ follower of allah

I salute your patience for repling in detail to these so called muslims...brain dead zombies....

I am appalled and disgusted by comments of @Ali

More honest and original thinking such as yours and especially from women scholars e.g., Asma Barlas is very much needed. It is a fresh breath of air. This will eventually one fine day, help us get rid of jahil Arab/indo-pak/Asian/Universal chauvinims.

There is absolutely no prohibition of women marrying ehlay kitab. Quran in silent on the matter. However, god- aka- male ego is NOT silent on the matter. In fact, it is very vocal and mad and blind with anger.

IMHO Quran's silence might also be due to slow progression of women's rights. The women in 20th century are more empowered and independent and can protect their rights in an inter faith marriage or any marriage. 1400 years ago the rights that quran was offering to women cldnt be ensured in other faiths.<Heck, even quran cldnt ensure those rights. Honestly when a woman dies, how many's mothers get 1/3 of her property if she left no children behind. Also, there is a very beautiful Islamic country called Pakistan, where a grandson doesn't get heritage from grandfather if the kid was orphan. Hmmmm maybe these moulvees were blind and didn't read every second verse in quran which says dont usurp the rights of orphans. what a joke muslims are...)

Coming back to the topic....social situation of women might be one of the reasons for the silence on the inter-faith issue and leaving the right to emerge with empowerment of women might be the intent.

I know wahabee salafee and to be honest all-sects of muslim male ego is injured by seeing their centry old tradtions being challenged. their god is vvv angry. However, our God aka Allah or rehman or raheem was and is fine with equal rights of men and women.

2:25 AM  
Blogger BHuman said...

Follower of Islam,
i have been following your debate with Adil, and am wondering if you are able to follow up on his last comments?

I would still indeed like to engage in conversation with you in terms of your learnings.

Is this possible as your learned scholar/knowledge on this subject matter would really benenfit a personal situation?

your help would be much appreciated

11:13 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:10 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Vision:

The Qur'an is not silent on the issue. Allah says: "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those in authority amongst you (i.e., amongst the Muslims)." The Messenger forbade his daughter from having any husband/wife contact with her (prior) husband while he was non-Muslim. Similarly, when one of the Muslims who emigrated to Abyssinia became Christian, he was separated from his wife. The Qur'an provides a general guide, as well as certain specifics, but does not provide the minute details of every aspect of life. This is where other sources of Islamic Law come into play. Try doing the Muslim prayer just by reading the Qur'an - you wouldn't know the order, what to say in different positions, etc.

Zayna,

Sorry that you remain single, but having/entering a marriage takes some give and take on both sides. If you want a good Muslim man, concentrate on being a good Muslin woman (not to say that you aren't). Don't be arrogant over the believers. Unfortunately, at 40 years old, you may have to be accepting of things you disagree with and try to work it out. You would need to meet a widow, or previously married man, or man with commitment issues. Any decent Muslim man that is over 40 and has not yet been married - I question what is going on there.

BHuman,

Follower of Islam is not a learned scholar on the subject. True learning is found in the shaykhs of the Sunni Ashari & Sunni Maturidi scolars. Please see Hamza Yusuf, Mufti Abdur Rahman Yusef, Habib Ali Jifri for examples.

To All: Seekersguidance.org has several Q & A's on this topic containing well reasoned responses to this issue - please refer there for further information.

Sincerely,

Adil

9:11 AM  
Blogger Rourou said...

I am a women who was born muslim, and who is now married to a wonderful jewish man. I made my own decision to marry the person I want and who I see as the father of my children. I truly hope that more women who grew up in a muslim environment understand that all the rules in and interpretations about Islam were made up by a bunch of men out of selfinterest!
We should not be defined by an institutionalized religion, but by ethics and humanity.

5:38 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Rourou: You state that you were born Muslim. Islam is a faith, not an ethnicity as Jews seem to equate Judaism with. If you do not believe in the core beliefs of Islam, then you are no longer a Muslim, regardless of who your parents are/were. If you are not a Muslim, then your statement is only that of a disbeliever who takes no care to ensure their actions are in-line with the rules of the religion. For those women who still consider themselves Muslim, then they will want to get the right information regarding the issue. It is not about a bunch of men out of self-interest. Please, refer to the SeekersGuidance Q and A's referenced previously.

Follower of Allah is gone and does not seem to want to come back. This is what happens to Wahabbis, Modernists, Progressives, Feminists, etc. when they are confronted with the overwhelming legacy of over 1400 years of classical Islamic scholarship. They will wilt away, because the majority of issues have already been dealt with, and those that have not can be dealt with by the methodologies established by the great giants of the Deen. Proofs have been presented, arguments researched and sifted through, and judgments established. All of this over a 1400 year period with proofreading, fact checking, and editing. What other proof do we need for the validity of the statement of Allah's Messenger, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salaam, that "my community will not agree upon error"? And Allah knows best.

Sincerely,

Adil

1:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home