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

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Regarding your post about Muslims women marrying out of the religion:

I don't think its right to debase you and criticize you. These are serious issues and they ought to be discussed with vigor and without feeling cornered.

In my non scholarly opinion: your logic itself is a bit faulty. You are asking for a negating verse, but the same could be said about the ayaat regarding killing all of mankind. Man is told that to murder a single soul (in the masculine) is as if all of mankind were to be killed. Simply because it does not address the killing of a feminine soul cannot be extended nor has it ever been extended to mean by any great jurist that a man killing a woman does not deserve a punishment. For that matter, the actual verbage condemning homosexuality is lacking, but the ayaat makes the Prophet Lot out to say that the act of preferring men is a dastardly act and that the men of the city of Sodom ought to prefer the daughters of the city. Asking the text to quickly add verbatim "By the way homosexuality is a sin" is attempting to play fast and loose with it.

Morever, your verse references in the post you provide answer your own argument after I looked them up in my Mushaf. In the matter of marriage to a Mushrik BOTH the man and the woman's fates are addressed. One could easily challenge you and say that since the Quran set the tempo for addressing marriage issues with such care as to address the marriage of a male AND female to a mushrik and then the lack of addressing it when it for the woman when it came to a marriage to ahle kitaab is evidence in and of itself that it is not to be done. After all, you would have to contend with why God saw it fit to address the marriage of man AND woman to mushrikeen but only addressed the mans right to marry Ahle Kitaab. For that matter, if the right were to be extended to females as well as males, why would the text simply not do what it does in other places and address the believers en masse so as to not leave the issue open ended and avoid oppression of the fairer sex? When it comes to the spiritual fruits that our deeds bear, the Quran is quiet careful to address "both believing men and believing women" so that no individual would dare to claim as the ahle kitaab occasionally do that women's deeds are negated by her luring men into original sin or due to her lacking a soul.

Furthermore, dismissing the hadith wholesale is problematic and even falling out favor in Western scholarship on the subject. In the least it offers an early window into Quranic exegesis or interpretation at least into the first three centuries of Islam. If we were attempting to gain as close as possible a view into what the Quran meant to the earliest Muslims, ignoring prominent hadith collections on the subject is ignoring valuable evidence as to how the earlier scholars of sunni and shiah theology viewed their holy text in a time when women's rights etc and outside criticism were unlikely to adulterate their view. It appears that the view of Tafseer al Qurtubi (2/379) is the only view on the subject:

It was narrated that Qutaadah and al-Zuhri said, concerning the phrase “And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al‑Mushrikoon”, It is not permissible for you to give them in marriage to a Jew or a Christian or a mushrik who is not a follower of your religion. (Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 2/379).


Finally, I would say that if alliances could have been made with offering their daughters to ahle kitaab, early rulers or one of the 4 early caliphs would have produced at least once case backed by the scholars to prove your point.

In our own Pashtun history, Gurgin (a Christian) attempted to ask for Mir Wais Hotak Neekas daughter but was rebuffed. In fact it may have been that single act that made Mir Wais aware that he had to act and create an insurrection against the Iranian empire in Kandahar otherwise this brand of oppression would continue and the womens honor defiled.

The only example I could find of any historical precedent is Harar in ethiopa after perusing the Understanding Islam Shariah website. A questioner refers to Harar as having set a pattern of allowing this marriage pattern to encourage Islamic explansion in the region. The Harari women are known to be independent and strong. However, the questioner does not produce any sources to back up this claim and I cannot validate it independently. Moreover, a single ameer allowing it still in the mid 900s to 1000s, without any fatwa is pretty suspect.

I will end with the Quranic injunction that urges you and me to take great pains and care regarding its interpretation so openly as you have:

Quran (Surah 3 verse 7): He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses - which constitute the essence of the scripture - as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this - all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Roshana, the ayaah produced by the prior poster of Surah 60:10 is also something you would have to contend with as the as the word mushrik is not utilized by the word kafir is. This word has been utilized in the Quran in connection with the jews and Christians in the context of when they adopt blatant disbelief or rejection of Islam. In think in the practical context, if a muslimah of a religious nature were to consider marrying a Christian/Jew would it not be reasonable to assume that the probability religion and its discussion came up at some point between the two of them? If the Christian blatanty rejects her overature, then he becomes a kafir, right? The matters become stickier when one considers what happens to the marriage knot based on 60:10 should he openly declare he will never accept Islam and believes it to be false... after all this would be openly kafirrath.

I leave you with Sheikh Shinqiti's answer regarding the word kaffir (after all you promote looking up actual verbage and words in the Arabic itself):

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Kafir in Arabic has two meanings: 1) a non-Muslim, a person who denies Allah or Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him); 2) ungrateful, a person who is not thankful to the favors of Allah. The second meaning can be also used for Muslims who do not show gratitude to Allah. Kafir in this meaning is the opposite of "shakir" (thankful).

Christians and Jews are kuffar because they rejected the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), but the Qur'an did not describe them as mushrikeen or polytheists.

However, kafir is now a derogatory term, and that is why I would encourage Muslims to use the term "non-Muslims when referring to people of different faiths. This is based on the verse: (…Speak nicely to the people.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 83)

[Roshina]

But you're giving me the definition of humans, not of the Quran. And not just ANY humans but those from a particular standpoint, neglecting the view of those who don't hold that opinion. (And not all Muslim scholars/jurists see the People of the Book as kafir.)

However, let's suppose that, yes, the Jews and Christians are mushrik/disbelievers according to the Quran. Then how do you explain the Quranic permission that a Muslim man CAN marry a Christian and a Jewish woman, when it has in other verses repeatedly said that Muslims must NOT marry disbelievers/mushriks?

Would you see this as a contradiction, or does one verse abrogate the other? If one is abrogated by the other, which one is it, and how do you conclude that?

P.S. Do you know Arabic? If yes, how good is it?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No, I believe you're conflating terms. The word kafir as it is found in the Quran is literally used to mean deliberate rejection of faith. It does not equate 1 to 1 with the term Mushrik. The former covers the latter, but not vice versa. Its the similar relationship between the words Rasool (messenger) and Nabee (Prophet). Every nabi is a rasool but not vice versa. So the Quran refers to the Prophet Muhammad (S) as Khatim um NABEEYIM but NOT khatim un RASOOLIN. One could then state that the Prophet is, naoozobillah, not the last messenger based on your demands of exact verbage and nounage. That then opens the door to Bahais and others claiming continued prophethood.

For instance, the following are generally negative connotation terms in the Quranic text:
Mushrik (polytheist or literally the one guilty of shirk)
Munafiq (feigning belief and intending hypocracy)
Ahle Kitaab (people of the book): generally christians/jews but possibly extending to Magians, Sabians).

Any of these that deliberatly reject fall under the classification Kaafir.

Kafir, and you can look it up in the classical arabic dictionary Lisaan al Arab, or even the common Hans Wehr dictionary defines the intentional unbeliever.

The ayaah quoted in surah 60 verse 10 utilizes neither mushrik, munafiq, Ahle Kitaab or any dilutional term. Rather, it uses a whole sale term, Kafir.

Here is the ayaah in full with the term inserted. The latter part of the ayaah is in regard to the treaty struck between the Meccans and the Prophet and notes that if the women refugees FAIL the test of faith then the Muslims are to return them to their prior husbands from whom they fled. For that matter if their wives became unbelievers and fled to Mecca, under the treaty, and under the banner of this verse, the injunction is to not remain married to them:

(O you who believe! when believing women come to you as refugees, then examine them; Allah knows best their faith; then if you find them to be believing women, do not send them back to the unbelievers (kuffaar), neither are these (women) lawful for them, nor are those (men) lawful for them, and give them what they have spent; and no blame attaches to you in marrying them when you give them their dowries; and hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women, and ask for what you have spent, and let them ask for what they have spent. That is Allah's judgment; He judges between you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.)

The Sheikh does not provide his shariah guidance on marriage, but does provide a valuable and commonly accepted by all schools of thought (liberal and conservative alike) view of the term Kafir.

[fzpz]

Pardon me ignoring what the jurists or the Holy Quran etc etc in this regard.

This is very simple, the reason for the "jurists" stating that only men can marry POTB is because their interpretations are of a time and environment when the men decided the faith of the children. Proginy is the real reason. Times haven't changed much, but a woman is certainly capable of raising her children as muslims despite the faith or lack thereof of the spouse, in addition to staying muslim or practicing Islam herself. If she's not, then why ask the question in the first place since you don't care about the identity of "being muslim" for the next generation. There's refusal in this regard because the ones asking for it to be "halal" (if it was ever haram) don't care about Islam in the first place, they're more like the pansy types/apologists. All cultures/religions/ethnicties/tribes/etc go through this, it's a simple matter of passing on your identity to the next generation. If you don't care, don't ask the question or care for the answer.

It's sociology stupid.

[Manzareh]

Roshina and Barakzaiabdali, i believe this whole debate is summed up in this 1 video. there someone there which seems to have the exactl ideologies of Roshina. i think this would be a very fair and enlightining view. can i have your feedback from anyone thats watched the complete video. Thanks and god bless you.

YouTube - The Doha Debates - Muslim Women's Freedom To Marry - Yasir Qadhi & Asra Nomani

[Roshina]

Barakzai, how does that definition of mushrik explain the Quran's statement that Muslims may NOT marry the mushrikeen but MAY marry Christians and Jews? As I asked earlier,
would you see this as a contradiction, or does one verse abrogate the other? If one is abrogated by the other, which one is it, and how do you conclude that?


By the way, did you know that linguists have used classical Muslim scholars'/jurists' definitions of difficult and ambiguous Arabic terms to define them even today? So when you say that the Arabic dictionary defines "mushrik" as XYZ, I can't help but think back on that. Now, that's not to mean, of course, that those definitions are wrong; it is only intended to show you that there are alternatives as well. (Example: Look up the definitions of Quranic terms like qawwam, nushuz, and dharab, and tell me how they're defined -- and then I'll tell you why.)

Kho that's not important to me right now. What I'm more interested in is the question I asked above. No one has answered it yet, and I've asked it like 4 times so far.

Manana for your time!

[unknownprince]

What a stupid senseless topic?

[Manzareh]

Kho that's not important to me right now. What I'm more interested in is the question I asked above. No one has answered it yet, and I've asked it like 4 times so far.

Manana for your time!

Could you watch the video i posted.

[Toramana]

To me, the most logical of the debators were Asra Nuamani. Anthing that goes against the free will of a human-being able minded fully rational is worth throwing in the garbage-bin. Thuraya was just a dictator forcing in her thinking on others. The man sitting with her on her side was a typical dark-hearted fundamentalist Mullah with out any reason ...and not able to understand the basic point of the debate ...the free will of a Muslim woman...

[Toramana]

The other thing I don't understand are these Muslim apologist who assign the uneasy aspects and rigidity in religion to culture...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai, how does that definition of mushrik explain the Quran's statement that Muslims may NOT marry the mushrikeen but MAY marry Christians and Jews? As I asked earlier,
would you see this as a contradiction, or does one verse abrogate the other? If one is abrogated by the other, which one is it, and how do you conclude that?


By the way, did you know that linguists have used classical Muslim scholars'/jurists' definitions of difficult and ambiguous Arabic terms to define them even today? So when you say that the Arabic dictionary defines "mushrik" as XYZ, I can't help but think back on that. Now, that's not to mean, of course, that those definitions are wrong; it is only intended to show you that there are alternatives as well. (Example: Look up the definitions of Quranic terms like qawwam, nushuz, and dharab, and tell me how they're defined -- and then I'll tell you why.)

Kho that's not important to me right now. What I'm more interested in is the question I asked above. No one has answered it yet, and I've asked it like 4 times so far.

Manana for your time!

Caveat: The CAPS and italics that follow are not in anger, but for delineating on what I am imparting or trying to place greater emphasis on.

I think that once again, you’re conflating two different subjects: linguistics and juristic interpretation. I also think AN answer (maybe not THE answer) to your question rests in what I wrote above. However, THE answer depends on some uncontrollable factors, such as what are the rational limits of discussion and what are the intended goals of the asker and the one who is answering. Some folks will find THE answer based on what they want to find, and this can lay the basis for playing fast and loose with the text. As I noted, no one can produce you for you an ayah that definitively says Muhammad is Khatim ul Rasool, but we can produce for you the ayah that says Muhammad is Khatim un Nabeeyim (Seal of the Prophets) and by extension seal of the Rasoolin. In 100% of Islamic exegesis, the term nabee covers prophethood and messengership. As a Muslim, you obviously ascribe to the view he is the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, no?

1) The Role of interpretation and how it bares nothing on the words themselves.


Take for instance the word infidel in English. It might have meant something different to St. Augustine than it did to Thomas Aquinus. It might mean something different to George W Bush than it does to either of the two. However, the base meaning of the word and the derivation of the word infidel cannot be controlled by these men: deriving from the latin infidelis, or literally, unbelief. By the same token, the root of the word Kafir always meant to “cover up” in classical Arabic. There was no agenda by linguists or jurists to make that word mean anything else other than that. It was a verb and noun universally applicable. I think you would be hard pressed to find any evidence in the literature that any specific male jurist or linguist with an ulterior motive decided to twist the term to his advantage to subjugate women or any susceptible population. Quite the contrary, in fact some jurists even attempted to extend the title Ahle Kitaab to Zoroastrians and Hindus when they encountered them because they had A book in their possession (the Avesta in the former case and the Gita in the latter). Meaning, history is replete with examples of a spectrum of thought processes in the Islamic world ranging from Ghazali to folks as liberal as Tabari in his recording of the Satanic Verses (without any reliable isnaad though). There are even folks like Ibn Abi Dawood, who left behind books like Kitab e Masahif and compiled alternate Quranic readings. They may all be men, but they had drastically divergent opinions on things as minute to them as the male to female power ratio and the muslim and nonmuslim relationship. Moroever, the shiah tradition does have FEMALE scholarship that address such issues.

However, none of these folks generated the basic meaning of the word kafir. That is an unfair assumption to heap on them and burden of proof is on you to prove that this sort of mass conspiracy occurred.

2. The Key Surahs and Ayaahs

Now, take as another example, the word Mushriq. There might be a debate as to who is a mushriq is. But the linguistic meaning of the word, i.e. one who indulges in shirk is quiet consistent across all the schools of thought, even the those as outlandish as Irshad Manji would be hardpressed to deny, in the least, the meaning of the word is about association with God. Where it becomes sticky is when one says, Christ is God. Is that shirk (i.e. association of Christ with God)? According to the Quran, there are ayaat where Christ rebukes folks committing SHIRK in his name. In fact, there is evidence in the text to satisfy that basic and universal meaning of shirk (association of others with God): Surah 5:116: And Behold God will say: O Jesus the sonof Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother As gods in derogation of God?...”

Despite this, I run with your assumption in the remainder of this that Christian and Jew does NOT EQUAL mushriq.

***Now for the word Kafir, I think I can deal the devastating blow to your premise that Christians are not called Kafirs. Surah 5 verse 17: Laqad kafaroo –ul adheena (They disbelief those) qaloo innallaha huwa-al maseeh-ubno Maryama (who say that God is Christ the Son of Mary.” It is there in black and white text. Those are not my words; they equate on a one to one ratio. The Quranic text clearly notes that those that ascribe to Christ being a part of God (the trinity), i.e. Christians, are kafirs.*** This covers surah 60 verse 10. ***


3. In regard to abrogation or potential contradiction, I think you are hard pressed to prove your case. In fact the flow of the ayahs appear to be the following:

It appears that all of the surahs in question are medinan and form the basis of Islamic law towards the end of the Prophet’s mission.

The flow is logic is as follows:

• Surah 2 asserts that neither sex can marry a mushriq (those that are idolators e.g. Hindus of today would fall under this class). Depending on circumstance, some amongst the ahle kitaab may commit shirk, but they (mushrikeen) do appear to be distinct from the Ahle kitaab at various junctures and we are using YOUR definition here for the sake of argument.
• Surah 60 Ayaat10 Makes it apparent that the general term kaafir (covering idolators (mushriq) and ahle kitaab as I DEFINITVELY proved above in surah 5 verse 17) precludes women from marrying a kaafir. The words are actually in the text: “If you ascertain that they (women) are believers, then send them not back to the unbelievers (kuffaar). They (feminine) are NOT LAWFUL for the unbelievers (kuffaar -masculine)…” Then men are distinctly instructed, in the circumstance of this treaty made with the Meccans “hold not to the GAURDIANSHIP of unbelieving women (Kawaafir-feminine)”… “And if any of your wives desert you to the unbelievers…” the husband was to let her go to the Meccan side. However, the explicit verbage and nounage in the text makes it apparent that being a Muslim wife to a kaafir is NOT LAWFUL as it is found in the text.
• Finally, surah 5 extends to the man the right to marry CHASTE women from ahle kitaab (not just any gal of the street).

In the other two ayaahs prior to surah 5 God addresses the case for men and women. In final case, God addresses men alone in regard to women of ahle kitaab. However, the exact words and nouns in surah 60 verse 10 denote that a women CANNOT marry a kaafir and that her marriage to such an individual is NOT lawful. It does no such thing for the man even in the wording of surah 60 verse 10 because it will later be understood that kaafir is the universal term covering all outside the fold of Islam, including munafiqeen, Christians, Jews, idolators, etc.

Thus, taken together, there is no contradiction, as they note that neither sex can marry mushriqeen as you define it, men can marry ahle kitaab, and women are not to marry kuffaar (the whole range of unbelievers). As I show definitively above, Surah 5:17 calls Christians Kuffaar and DEFINES them as Kaafirs.

Finally, note that Surah 5 verse 17 allows me to even work within YOUR definition of Christians NOT BEING mushriqeen. So if we even run with what you are saying, referring to them as ahle kitaab and distinct from mushriqeen, your theory still falls flat, because the QURAN ITSELF.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum: As you requested, you now have, in your hand a surah and ayaat that that define Christians as Kuffaar, and you have an ayah that says women are not halaah for kuffaar. You have no such ayah that says men are not halaal for kuffaar.

[fzpz]

Torabora, seems like you're the only one being illogical (as well as Asra). It wasn't a question of "free will" for human beings, it was a subjective question regarding muslim laws and practices. If one doesn't care about the laws and accepted practices, they have no locus standi in the debae. They're free to do and chose as they please. It's not that hard to understand.

As far as the original question is concerned: Why can't a muslimah marry a jew or a christian (or others)? Questions need to be answered here; is being a "muslimah" important to you? Can you keep on being a "muslimah" after? Are you going to pass on the "muslim" to your kids? Yes? Then I don't see why one would be opposed to that. If the answer is no, why the hel do you care in the first place?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The other thing I don't understand are these Muslim apologist who assign the uneasy aspects and rigidity in religion to culture...

Toramana,

The Quran answers you:

1. It is about not repeating the past mistakes made by Ahle Kitaab that God makes clear in his case against them. It is about not corrupting the original law of God with our own vain desires:

(Surah 3: Ayaat 78) There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

The goal by these strict interpretationalists is to ensure that we do not do what the Christians and jews did with their holy texts and add or delete or cover up the the original message of God. We prefer not to have a Codex Sinaiticus or a Codex Vaticanus or any incomplete Biblical text altered to fit the vain desires of those that want to play fast and loose with the word of God.
That is why Islam’s history shows a clear effort to preserve the original meanings and original texts themselves.

Take a look at the approach Islam takes to PRESERVATION of its message. First, you will find hafizeen (Quranic memorizers) as young as 6 in Afghanistan and Pakistan who know not a word of Arabic. This word for word memorization, going back on an isnaad to Hafs of Asim was the tradition of the Prophet and his companions themselves (Muadh ibn Jabal, Abdullah ibn Masood, Ubay ibn Kaab, and Abu Musa Al Asharaee) and was complemented by the written tradition running concurrent to it (in the person of Zaid bin Thabit). Every Ramadan, in mosques across the world, across the madhabs, across even the Sunni Shiite divide, there are the hafizeen that recite the whole of it from memory.

Take the approach to hadith literature itself. Bukhari and Muslim demanded reliable isnaad (or chains of narration).

The goal here is not to be rigid, but to preserve the original sense and the book as it came from God. The goal is to preserve the manner and sunnah of Muhammad (S) as the companions saw it.

2. Culturalists

Its NOT about rigidity or maintaining cultural backwardness for some of us. Instead its about the EXACT opposite. For instance, in traditional Pashtoon culture, as still occurs in some village areas, when a woman’s husband dies or if she is divorced the family “inherits” her. Her brother in laws usually get the “right of refusal,” and marry her first regardless of her input. In many instances she cannot be approached for marriage by any outside member or her husbands family will create dooshmanay. This is strictly against Islamic law and against Quranic injunction that women have a right to divorce and go on their way as they please and that they cannot be INHERITED once the iddaat is completed. Those that follow Islam seek to dispel this cultural and tribalistic constraint and remnant of jahiliyaah.


3. Give criticism where criticism is due. If your criticism falls on those within the Islamic realm that seek to preserve an original interpretation of their divine governing law, then go after the Americans as well.

This is no different than the attempts by American Constitutionalists to preserve the ORIGINAL sense of the constitution in the BILL of RIGHTS itself. That is why Ron Paul, Mike Scheuer and others consistently are referred to as constitutionalists. For this, they refer to the document itself in regard to interpreting other sections of it (which we do also), produce and disseminate copies, and spread them widely (as Hadrat Uthman ibn Affan did with the Quran), and they go concurrent documents (writings of the founding fathers – or their hadith literature) to interpret their constitution. They have their jurists/supreme court (ulema) interpret it when the text itself is elusive and then judgements are passed.

It is a bit different in that they can abrogate and ratify new amendments to fit the evolution of their government, but in general, they do are not passé about making sure that their laws fall in line with whatever is in this document held sacred by Americans.

This is called evidence based practice.

The variance is that Muslims by definition believe that what they have is the immutable word of God, not to be amended or ratified by man.

I will leave you with this Quranic injunction:

"These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which God has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! (The Noble Quran, 53:23)"

[Alchemist]

because Allah says so

duuuuh!!