Why can't a Muslimah marry a Jew of a Christian? (Split)

[unknownprince]

Qrratugai,

I think it has to do with a man is able to pass on a language and culture. We have patri archal socieities. If a woman marries a Sikh the child will be Sikh because father ultimately choses.

Exactly!!!

[Roshina]

Qrratugai,

I think it has to do with a man is able to pass on a language and culture. We have patri archal socieities. If a woman marries a Sikh the child will be Sikh because father ultimately choses.

The boldened part is actually untrue. It has nothing to do with the "ability" to pass on a language/culture. In fact, the second part of your statement negates your first part: The man *chooses* what the children will be. Hence, nothing to do with ability but more with power, dominance, authority, which are basically denied to women in patriarchal societies.

Moreover, we need to survey families in which the couple are of different races/religions, and then determine what impact the marriage of interracial/interfaith marriages has on the children of the couple. I say this because real life observations teach us that the mother, who spends more time with her kids, has more power over her children than the father does. If you think about it, who are the kids with when the father's at work, especially in families where the mother doesn't work? They're with the mother then. They are more exposed to the language, culture, religion, beliefs, opinions, etc. of the mother, not of the father as much.

So, just because the man has declared himself dominant over his wife and HIMSELF chooses what his children will believe does not serve as a legitimate, valid, and logical argument against women's marriage into the people that men are allowed to marry.

[unknownprince]

The boldened part is actually untrue. It has nothing to do with the "ability" to pass on a language/culture. In fact, the second part of your statement negates your first part: The man *chooses* what the children will be. Hence, nothing to do with ability but more with power, dominance, authority, which are basically denied to women in patriarchal societies.

Moreover, we need to survey families in which the couple are of different races/religions, and then determine what impact the marriage of interracial/interfaith marriages has on the children of the couple. I say this because real life observations teach us that the mother, who spends more time with her kids, has more power over her children than the father does. If you think about it, who are the kids with when the father's at work, especially in families where the mother doesn't work? They're with the mother then. They are more exposed to the language, culture, religion, beliefs, opinions, etc. of the mother, not of the father as much.

So, just because the man has declared himself dominant over his wife and HIMSELF chooses what his children will believe does not serve as a legitimate, valid, and logical argument against women's marriage into the people that men are allowed to marry.

Do you know of someone who is pondering about doing this? Only tragedy will result. Children always take their father's culture!!!

[Roshina]

Do you know of someone who is pondering about doing this? Only tragedy will result. Children always take their father's culture!!!

This isn't about who's doing it, though, Zahir Gula. Or is it? I'm not interested in whether someone should do it or not. I'm not here to give anyone advice about whom to marry and whom not to marry. I believe we all know that it's often a better idea to marry someone you're most comfortable with, with their culture, language, beliefs, etc. so that neither you nor your children end up suffering.

However, I DO know several couples who don't belong to the same faith/culture. They seem fine, and as far as their children are concerned, they have a mutual agreement on how the children will be raised.

Fortunately, not all men are interested in taking women's power away from them and are actually decent and human enough to let their wives have a say in how the children will be raised.

[woor]

Hmm... your question is totally irrelevant to the discussion, so Qrratugai shall pass, Woor gula.

So is the whole discussion. and you dont mix woor and guluna.

[unknownprince]

This isn't about who's doing it, though, Zahir Gula. Or is it? I'm not interested in whether someone should do it or not. I'm not here to give anyone advice about whom to marry and whom not to marry. I believe we all know that it's often a better idea to marry someone you're most comfortable with, with their culture, language, beliefs, etc. so that neither you nor your children end up suffering.

However, I DO know several couples who don't belong to the same faith/culture. They seem fine, and as far as their children are concerned, they have a mutual agreement on how the children will be raised.

Fortunately, not all men are interested in taking women's power away from them and are actually decent and human enough to let their wives have a say in how the children will be raised.

I am all for a woman having more independence, but if Muslim women (lets leave pashanas out for now) marry non-Muslims, the number of Muslims in the world will decrease. There are too many examples to give that support this. Regardless of how one feels about it, it has always been a male-dominated world.

My personal opinion is that neither Muslim men or Muslim women should ever consider marrying non-Muslims. The cases where I have seen this happen have always had the same bad outcomes for the resulting children - following the more decadent culture!!! Trust me, it will happen.

[Roshina]

Qrratugai you should be a bit more realistic, this is a commonly accepted fact that the man is more dominant when it comes to choosing cultures and languages. Your telling me a Punjabi marries a Pashtana and the children speak Pashto instead of Punjabi?

Be honest us and tell us what what happens the majority of the times. We can have survey on PF.

Swat Gula, I'm actually very critical of survey methodologies, so I would never take the responses of an online forum survey seriously, frankly speaking. If I need to explain why, I'll be happy to do so.

Khair, seeing your argument, I'm inclined to ask...

So, basically, you're saying, like everyone else, that BECAUSE men have historically asserted their dominance over women, enforcing THEIR ways, THEIR choices on their kids and wives, we should just forbid women from marrying people outside of their faiths and races but allow men to do it?

I take it that's what you mean. If I'm wrong, do correct me, please.

And if I'm right, that actually makes sense to you? You see this as a solution to the problem of men's asserting dominance over women (their wives specifically)? And you're okay with this? You don't think that societies suffering from such double standards are unhealthy and lack justice -- and hence peace?

[Roshina]

I am all for a woman having more independence, but if Muslim women (lets leave pashanas out for now) marry non-Muslims, the number of Muslims in the world will decrease. There are too many examples to give that support this. Regardless of how one feels about it, it has always been a male-dominated world.

My personal opinion is that neither Muslim men or Muslim women should ever consider marrying non-Muslims. The cases where I have seen this happen have always had the same bad outcomes for the resulting children - following the more decadent culture!!! Trust me, it will happen.

Thank you for your perspective. Although I strongly disagree with the logic behind your first point, I can totally understand and even agree with your second point. I, too, would not recommend that someone, whether male or female, marry someone outside their race/religion unless they have what they consider the important things in common and there's a mutual understanding between the two about how their and their children's lives will be led from then on.

BUT I understand that all situations, all circumstances are different, and something that may be okay for one person may not be okay for another (and, no, this is irrespective of gender and religion).

[PFgulalai]

Moreover, we need to survey families in which the couple are of different races/religions, and then determine what impact the marriage of interracial/interfaith marriages has on the children of the couple. I say this because real life observations teach us that the mother, who spends more time with her kids, has more power over her children than the father does. If you think about it, who are the kids with when the father's at work, especially in families where the mother doesn't work? They're with the mother then. They are more exposed to the language, culture, religion, beliefs, opinions, etc. of the mother, not of the father as much.

Qrrate, undoubtely a research study can shed more light on the the question whether children are more influenced by mother's culture than father in the above-mentioned scenario, my real-life observations are very different than yours. (I am swerving the thread for a while from its main topic). Take for instance our Pashtun culture.The fact (based entirely on my observations) is that when a Pashtun woman marries a non-Pashtun guy, chances are that the children would follow the culture of father rather than the mother for the reasons you have mentioned--"nothing to do with ability but more with power, dominance, authority, which are basically denied to women in patriarchal societies ".

Consider the case of a Pashtun girl marrying a Punjabi guy.She will have to adapt to their Punjabi culture since that is what her in-laws would be expecting.Imagine the pressure on the married girl; she is in new culture and she has two options--either she stays with her own culture or she changes herself.Considering the fact that women (even the most educated one) are weak and under extreme pressure in our eastern societies to compromise on contentious marital issues more than men, one can predict a woman succumbing (un)willingly to undergo cultural transformation herself rather than her husband.No doubt,the mother can teach language to the children and they would learn it.But the children would also learn their father language and keeping another fact in mind that they live most of the time with their father's family than the mother.I know at least 3 Pashtun girls who have married Punjabis/Urdu-speaking in my social circle.Their kids know Pashto but they speak it only to their mother.When they are socializing,for example playing with other kids, they speak urdu.Oh, and with the passage of time, the mothers also talk most of the time in urdu than Pashto.In a family of 8 memebers speaking Urdu/Punjabi, how will one (alien) Pashtana survive to maintain her culture?

The case of a Pashtun woman marrying an non-Pashtun guy is just one of the examples where a woman marries a guy outside her culture and tranforms into his culture.The socio-cultural norms place women inferior to men.Hence this is the reason why we think like this:

I think it has to do with a man is able to pass on a language and culture. We have patri archal socieities. If a woman marries a Sikh the child will be Sikh because father ultimately choses.

P.S.I am sure there are lot of exceptions.

[Wrayun]

It all depends, children can take after the father or the mother depending on which parent is more aggressive in character and preservation of their identity. I have seen children adopt to their fathers culture, but I have see many cases where children have taken upon their mothers heritage too. Usually in most societies children are considered the "property" of their fathers, because of that children come under more societal pressure and influence from the father side and not the mother. Women are also expected to live in the husbands household. In our part of the world that means joint-families and moving into a new environment where adopting the new culture becomes a priority for the women. So children will most likely grow up to take after their fathers heritage.

In other cases where the father reverses the role and settles in with his in-laws then the mothers culture naturally becomes dominant.

[Roshina]

Qrrate, undoubtely a research study can shed more light on the the question whether children are more influenced by mother's culture than father in the above-mentioned scenario, my real-life observations are very different than yours. (I am swerving the thread for a while from its main topic). Take for instance our Pashtun culture.The fact (based entirely on my observations) is that when a Pashtun woman marries a non-Pashtun guy, chances are that the children would follow the culture of father rather than the mother for the reasons you have mentioned--"nothing to do with ability but more with power, dominance, authority, which are basically denied to women in patriarchal societies ".

Consider the case of a Pashtun girl marrying a Punjabi guy.She will have to adapt to their Punjabi culture since that is what her in-laws would be expecting.Imagine the pressure on the married girl; she is in new culture and she has two options--either she stays with her own culture or she changes herself.Considering the fact that women (even the most educated one) are weak and under extreme pressure in our eastern societies to compromise on contentious marital issues more than men, one can predict a woman succumbing (un)willingly to undergo cultural transformation herself rather than her husband.No doubt,the mother can teach language to the children and they would learn it.But the children would also learn their father language and keeping another fact in mind that they live most of the time with their father's family than the mother.I know at least 3 Pashtun girls who have married Punjabis/Urdu-speaking in my social circle.Their kids know Pashto but they speak it only to their mother.When they are socializing,for example playing with other kids, they speak urdu.Oh, and with the passage of time, the mothers also talk most of the time in urdu than Pashto.In a family of 8 memebers speaking Urdu/Punjabi, how will one (alien) Pashtana survive to maintain her culture?

The case of a Pashtun woman marrying an non-Pashtun guy is just one of the examples where a woman marries a guy outside her culture and tranforms into his culture.The socio-cultural norms place women inferior to men.Hence this is the reason why we think like this:

P.S.I am sure there are lot of exceptions.

Absolutely. It is social pressure combined with everything else we've mentioned. I also suspect that there will be families in which the husband will WANT his kids to inherit their mother's (his wife's) religion/culture, but in the back of his mind, there'll be fear from people: "What will people say if I raise my kids as XYZ, which is what their mother is?"

I've met people and had close friends who belonged int both categories -- i.e., father is Muslim, mother is non-Muslim and mother is Muslim, father is non-Muslim. In some cases, the kids in both situations grow up confused and unsure about their own identities; in other cases, the kids take over their father's beliefs/language; and in other cases, the kids take over their mother's beliefs/language.

But I just don't understand how we can forbid something solely because of how it has been that way for centuries and centuries. I mean, if we KNOW that it's a double standard and we KNOW that it's injustice to a certain group/gender of people, then why promote it? Why not fight against it? Why not find a more reasonable, more fair, more peaceful way of settling it rather than simply say, "Look, the man is the king of the household, he's dominant over his wife, and so HE can marry whomever he wants, but the woman can't because she's the one who's BEING dominated rather than practicing the dominance"?

I'm sure this made sense once upon a time, and I'm also sure that if I lived in a society in which I was raised with double standards and was programmed to believe that they're to be tolerated and even promoted, I'd think otherwise. But I wasn't, so here I am, refusing to buy any arguments that promote double standards -- especially with the help of claims like "Oh, 'cause men are the ones who decide what their children will be." How about an alternative, something like letting both the father AND the mother decide together? They're not just the father's kids; heck, they're the mother's kids, too. Even more importantly, who nurtured them in the womb for 9 months? And, yet, this poor mother gets to have no say in what her kids will be like.

That's just sad.

[unknownprince]

I know at least 3 Pashtun girls who have married Punjabis/Urdu-speaking in my social circle.Their kids know Pashto but they speak it only to their mother.When they are socializing,for example playing with other kids, they speak urdu.Oh, and with the passage of time, the mothers also talk most of the time in urdu than Pashto.In a family of 8 memebers speaking Urdu/Punjabi, how will one (alien) Pashtana survive to maintain her culture?
P.S.I am sure there are lot of exceptions.

No offense to the people in your social circle, but what were they thinking? This is entirely against our ways!!! These girls children are Punjabi/Urdu speaking, will genetically take on Punjabi/urdu features, and will most likely end up marrying Punjabis/urdu people.

This is detrimental to our people!!!

[Roshina]

No offense to the people in your social circle, but what were they thinking? This is entirely against our ways!!! These girls children are Punjabi/Urdu speaking, will genetically take on Punjabi/urdu features, and will most likely end up marrying Punjabis/urdu people.

This is detrimental to our people!!!

We have a thread called "Marriage to non-Pashtuns," and you may express your feelings about this matter in there. I encourage you to do so.
But if I may say, are the kids from a non-Pashtun mother to a Pashtun father any different in looks than kids from a non-Pashtun father to a Pashtun mother? If you're against it just because you're worried about our LOOKS (?seriously?), then surely, you'd be against it not just for women marrying non-Pashtuns but for men as well.

Oh, and if it's really about looks ... what if a Pashtun marries someone who's not stereotypically "ugly"?... Like, a Pashtun woman marrying a Bosnian man, perhaps? :D Would that be okay? Why or why not?

(Please reply in the thread specified above, since this is off-topic in this thread.)

[Feroza_Banu]

It's pathetic and absurd what you are accusing me of. Do you even bother reading the context. Or you just self-righteous that you get it all revealed to you.

Do you bother reading what people write here ? you just pass judgments one after another about Islam and keep calling us "you people" ... learn how to be respectful first!...

It is no wonder people leave Islam. Look how ridiculous your approach is.

let me break it to your little head that people join Islam far more rapidly than the ones that are leaving Islam. so you might think our approach is rediculous but it is certainly WORKING! Our religion is the fastest growing religion in the world!

The post you have posted does not explain from the Quran why only a man can marry a non-Muslim. Have you even read your own scripture? From the looks of it you are just regurgitating whatever mama bird is shoving down your throat.

talk about contradiction!... you clearly didn't read what i posted because my post most definitely explains it from Quran. and yes i have read what i posted.

Whether i have read Quran or not is irrelevant here because even if a person reads the Quran it doesn't give him a scholarly position to interpret Quran to whatever suits his purpose OK?... we have had scholars who have dedicated their life to Islam. We follow Madhabs!

The member Qrratugai is pretty honest in that she has found a double-standard of sorts.

NO ONE in this website is an Islamic Scholar... get that straight!

Oh let me guess? I have to read the Quran, in full, to understand the Quran. I have news for you. I probably know more Quran than you. I have studied it pretty good. Can you honestly answer that you have read and studied the Quran, or do you simply, the like of your fellow Muslims, follow whatever your scholar says. I will take a wild guess and say the latter.

OH REALLY? you have read and understood the Quran? which means you are a scholar then... you probably are very very fluent in Arabic too and i am sure you know how to find origin of each word of Quran to know its exact meaning... right?????... yeah right!... talk about being overconfident... i have a news for you!... reading Quran's translation in english doesn't mean you have read and understood the Quran well!...

I have tried to stand up for you people against the likes of Baygham, but people like yourself are proving him correct.

"you people?"... you are what we call in Dari "be nizaakat"...

and if u don't know anything about pashtoons/afghans let me tell you ,don't ever try to do something nice for us and remind us of it later... we are not used to taking favors from people...

reading replies here from x y and z doesn't mean your knowledge of Islam is getting any broader... most of the members here are not even close to being qualified to interpret Quran!

[Dust]

Islam is growing, not because of unity, but because of different sects contributing to the pool. That is why you people are so divided. And you proved it by stating that you follow madhahib and reading the Quran is irrelevant. Reading the Quran itself is very relevant, Who are you kidding? You just jumped the gun and shot yourself in the foot.

How on earth would you ever have the face to say Islam is right if you are saying that only a scholar can interpret? Is it not the scholars who have divided Islam? See the fallacy in your logic? If the masses were acquainted with their own book, perhaps Islam would not be divided.

One of the reasons why Muslims are so manipulated today is because the masses have no clue what the learned know. And that is why the learned are able to manipulate the masses whenever the become puppets of grand puppet-masters.

Let me give you an example: You were born a Muslim and that is why you are a Muslim; moreover, you follow a certain madhhab, because you were born into it, not because you have studied them. Hence, when it came to voice your "opinion" (notice the quotation marks) you did not have one. You went to google and searched as per you madhhab and copied and pasted the material without checking for correctness. EVERYONE IN ISLAM DOES THIS. This website is ample proof of that. If everyone was right, then none of you would be divided.

In reality, all of Islam is growing together because everyone calls themselves a Muslim and belong to Islam. However, if you were to ask every Muslim what sect they belonged to they would say that I am a _____________ Muslim. Then it becomes a race of which sect is growing the fastest.

There is so much hatred in the hearts of Muslims, none only for those who are non-Muslim, but mostly for Muslims themselves due to division of sects.

See the huge logical fallacy you committed by not investigating Islam for yourself?

On this website, you people are condemning yourselves to hell. No non-Muslim have condemned none of you. It is yourselves who are condemning each other. Yes, Islam is growing. Do you happen to know the difference between quality and quantity?

Need I explain further? So, is Islam growing the fastest? Which Islam? Which sect?

Bottom line, you don't have an opinion. You would never know what is right and what is wrong for you are a blind follower of your madhhab, a blind follower of Islam.

Oh one more thing, was it not a Brit who fooled you people for 40 years? Next time don't under estimate what someone knows about Islam and if they know Arabic or not.

I will take a wild guess and say that you DO NOT know Arabic even 1%, or have studied Islam to confidently say whether it is right or wrong, or which sect is really right or wrong.

Technically, you are a band-wagon jumper.