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

[Palwasha]

Dearest Qrratu..

Can we use this extremely obvious and factual statement in EVERY single argument related to religion, gender, humanity, etc.?
I mean, name two groups that are "the same." Do people have to be the same in order to have the same rights/privileges? Moreover, Christians and Jews are not the same as Muslims, are they? Non-Muslims are not the same as Muslims, non-Pashtuns are not the same as Pashtuns, *I* am not the same as *you* (you and I being individuals), a poor person is not the same as a rich person, and so on. How do you support your statement above then, which I deem irrelevant to the discussion, and it's the same one that many Muslim apologists use over and over and over in EVERY discussion they can throw it in?

Well I deem it irrelevant since the difference between men and women isn't being recognised, and so some people are finding it hard to believe why there are various different rules. Why should such a simple concept be so difficult to understand.?

Apologists throw it in so often to remind the feminists..

What I want to know is, what ABOUT a woman's inherent abilities screams, "I can't marry a Christian/Jewish man, but my father, brothers, and sons -- being men -- can marry Christian/Jewish women just because they're men"? What's inherent about men that gives them this privilege?

How many practising Muslimah's do you know that wanna marry a non-Muslim? There's no compulsion in Islam, if they wanna do that then they are free too.

As I've previously said before.. I'm not a scolar, neither have I studied Islam in depth, so my answers are far off perfect. But the answer to this question has been posted and explained earlier in the thread many times, for whoever wants it. There's no point in me repeating it all.

Also, Guley, why do you accept the interpretation that you accept?

There isn't any specific interpretation I accept. I've asked all these questions once before. I searched myself untill I was satisfied, I looked at the Qur'an and hadith, as well as many points of view.

If you don't accept this ruling in Islam, I presume you don't accept that a man can have four wives.. ?

Also, some of your islamic beliefs go against the general consensus of Islamic teahcings, (right?).. so then why do you accept your interpretation over others; do you not think feminism could have made your interpretation biased?

[Roshina]

Apologists throw it in so often to remind the feminists..

1. What's "feminist" mean?
2. They want to remind feminists that men and women are not the same? LOL. That's silly. Why would they waste their time expressing the most obvious thing about men and women -- their physical dissimilarities?

My point was... surely, you agree that NO two groups and NO two individuals are alike. NO two Muslim men are alike, NO two Muslim women are alike, NO two non-Muslims are alike ... and, yet, according to your belief, ALL Muslim men are permitted marriage to women from the ahl-e-Kitaaab, but no Muslim woman is permitted to marry a man from the ahl-e-kitab... Show me where in the Quran a woman is told that she cannot marry a man from the ahl-e-kitaab. I want the EXACT same term that's used for permitting men TO marry them. You keep saying it's been answered, but JUST give me the Quranic verse and don't explain anything more. All I need is the verse ... and I'm gonna have to ask you for a big favor, which is to please, please read the verse in FULL length yourself, not just in English but in Arabic as well.

There isn't any specific interpretation I accept. I've asked all these questions once before. I searched myself untill I was satisfied, I looked at the Qur'an and hadith, as well as many points of view.

Very interesting that you said "until I was satisfied." So one should keep on searching until one's satisfied. Correct or incorrect? Good or bad advice, in your opinion?

If you don't accept this ruling in Islam, I presume you don't accept that a man can have four wives.. ?

I see there's a misunderstanding here. There's a huuuuuuge difference between something that the Quran is very specific on (e.g., the number of wives a man can have) and whether or not a certain person/gender/group can do something.

However, although I've discussed polygamy elsewhere, you must know that the Quranic verses talking about polygamy make it quite obvious that it's highly discouraged because on the one hand, man is required to be equal to all his wives and on the other hand, the man is told that he can NEVER be equal to his wives. But a discussion on that is open in other threads, specifically my post # 17 in the thread http://www.pashtunforums.com/hujra-12/4-wives-1333/. Of course, the reference to "orphan" SHOULD make Muslims think about what exactly the message of the polygamy-verse is. But, alas, we go for what the consensus is, which is that ALL Muslim men are permitted up to 4 wives because God says they can have this. The debates on what exactly the verse means have come to an end in the modern world, EVEN though they filled Muslim scholars' hearts and minds till at least the late 1700s.

Also, some of your islamic beliefs go against the general consensus of Islamic teahcings, (right?).. so then why do you accept your interpretation over others; do you not think feminism could have made your interpretation biased?

Interestingly enough, Guley, you were careful enough to say the part I've marked in bold. Because guess what -- I acknowledge that much of what I say about Islam disagrees with the "general consensus of Islamic teachings." You were careful in that you didn't say "some of your Islamic beliefs go against ISLAM." I love it! Because anyone has yet to prove to me, for instance, that ISLAM forbids women from marrying men from the Jews/Christians. It's not Islam; it's the "consensus" that says that.

Being who I am, I am forced to ask: Who was a part of the consensus? Who decided who the consensus should be? Why were others who didn't agree with the group of consensus not consulted in issuing a particular decree on Islam and Islamic law?

[Abu Hurayrah]

1. What's "feminist" mean?
2. They want to remind feminists that men and women are not the same? LOL. That's silly. Why would they waste their time expressing the most obvious thing about men and women -- their physical dissimilarities?

My point was... surely, you agree that NO two groups and NO two individuals are alike. NO two Muslim men are alike, NO two Muslim women are alike, NO two non-Muslims are alike ... and, yet, according to your belief, ALL Muslim men are permitted marriage to women from the ahl-e-Kitaaab, but no Muslim woman is permitted to marry a man from the ahl-e-kitab... Show me where in the Quran a woman is told that she cannot marry a man from the ahl-e-kitaab. I want the EXACT same term that's used for permitting men TO marry them. You keep saying it's been answered, but JUST give me the Quranic verse and don't explain anything more. All I need is the verse ... and I'm gonna have to ask you for a big favor, which is to please, please read the verse in FULL length yourself, not just in English but in Arabic as well.



Very interesting that you said "until I was satisfied." So one should keep on searching until one's satisfied. Correct or incorrect? Good or bad advice, in your opinion?



I see there's a misunderstanding here. There's a huuuuuuge difference between something that the Quran is very specific on (e.g., the number of wives a man can have) and whether or not a certain person/gender/group can do something.

However, although I've discussed polygamy elsewhere, you must know that the Quranic verses talking about polygamy make it quite obvious that it's highly discouraged because on the one hand, man is required to be equal to all his wives and on the other hand, the man is told that he can NEVER be equal to his wives. But a discussion on that is open in other threads, specifically my post # 17 in the thread http://www.pashtunforums.com/hujra-12/4-wives-1333/. Of course, the reference to "orphan" SHOULD make Muslims think about what exactly the message of the polygamy-verse is. But, alas, we go for what the consensus is, which is that ALL Muslim men are permitted up to 4 wives because God says they can have this. The debates on what exactly the verse means have come to an end in the modern world, EVEN though they filled Muslim scholars' hearts and minds till at least the late 1700s.



Interestingly enough, Guley, you were careful enough to say the part I've marked in bold. Because guess what -- I acknowledge that much of what I say about Islam disagrees with the "general consensus of Islamic teachings." You were careful in that you didn't say "some of your Islamic beliefs go against ISLAM." I love it! Because anyone has yet to prove to me, for instance, that ISLAM forbids women from marrying men from the Jews/Christians. It's not Islam; it's the "consensus" that says that.

Being who I am, I am forced to ask: Who was a part of the consensus? Who decided who the consensus should be? Why were others who didn't agree with the group of consensus not consulted in issuing a particular decree on Islam and Islamic law?

And do not marry polytheistic men [to your women] until they believe
Surah al Baqarah 221



I think it is better for you not to waste your valuable time as an academic in higher studies on things which are straightforward. A very simple answer is: The Ijma' is part of the Shariah, and this was the teaching of the Khulafah and the scholars of this religion. A man can marry a women from the ahl al kitaab on the condition that she is chaste, and her Wali should be a muslim.

“Made lawful to you this day are At‑Tayyibaat [all kinds of Halaal (lawful) foods, which Allaah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits)]. The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time when you have given their due Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girlfriends. And whosoever disbelieves in Faith, [i.e. in the Oneness of Allaah and in all the other Articles of Faith i.e. His (Allaah’s) Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al‑Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers”
[al-Maa'idah 5:5]



If this was meant for women aswell, then Allah would have mentioned them, but he only mentioned the men who could marry the women and has explained which conditions has to be fulfilled.



Furthermore, we know that Abu Bakr Sadiq (ra) did not let his daughter marry with a non muslim, his only objection was that he was a non muslim. Do we have to believe that Abu Bakr (ra) was of no authority? Did he not know the ahkaam of Islaam?



And there is no example of a Muslim women in the generations of the Sahaba and Tabi'in or the later generations which married a Christian, Jew or an unbeliever and that the Prophet, Sahaba, Tabi'in, or any of the later generations approved this. There is also ikhtilaaf among some scholars whether the modern Christians and Jews can be counted as the Ahl al Kitab or not.
As I said, it is wasting time, valuable time.

[Roshina]

Abu Hurayrah, that verse has been discussed to pieces in my last few posts.

There's a reason why I requested that anyone who's gonna give me the Quranic verse that SUPPOSEDLY forbids Muslim women from marrying *men from the People of the Book* read the Arabic themselves rather than relying simply on translations. That reason is... the Arabic says "mushrik," NOT "Ahl-e-Kitaab."

So your evidence does not hold valid.

The reason I'm seeking the term "ahl-e-kitaab" is that the other verse you quoted (verse 5:5) makes it clear that we can eat the foods of the "ahl-e-kitaab" AND that men can marry chaste women among the ahl-e-kitaab -- but where's the evidence that women can't marry chaste men among the ahl-e-kitaab?

MOST importantly, by the way, the first verse you've presented (that even, in Arabic, mind you) reads: "Wa laa tankihul mushrikaati hattaa yu'minna"! Do you mind telling us what this means? Do you mind telling us if it's a command to men or to women? Forget what the consensus is -- I want us to get back to the ROOT source we have in Islam.

I'll tell you what it says: It's talking to men first, and THEN to women. It starts off telling men "DO NOT marry disbelieving women until they believe." Then it goes on to add that women, too, can't marry disbelieving men until they believe.

So why is this verse always read only HALF-way by apologist Muslims? It's not just a ruling for women to not marry disbelieving women; it's a ruling for men as well, and it's more than clear in that exact same verse. B O T H men and women are clearly forbidden from marrying disbelievers, and I wish folks would get this straightened up among themselves.

But the question here isn't whether Muslim women can marry disbelieving men, since we know that the Quran forbids BOTH men and women from doing so. The question is whether Muslim women can marry Jewish and Christian men (ahl-e-kitaab). The answer is: The Quran never says they can't, so technically, there's nothing wrong with it.

[unknownprince]

i still; don't get why this is a topic?

[unknownprince]

The implications of a Muslims girl marrying a non-Muslim (who remains non-Muslims) are tragic. Now, a muslim girl can marry a person who converts to Islam (properly).

even the Muslim men I know who married "people of the book" have problems in their marriage and with their children. Most of the time, their children take on their mothers dirty culture. SO even there, I think this is completely unacceptable. These children end up having no religion.So really, I think some perverted Muslim individuals (probably some Arabs who came to America or Europe) wanted to marry non-Muslims, so they made this rule up to suit themselves.

I know of many Arab men who go out of their way to marry white women. One man dumped his Arab wife, and married a white woman who was his colleague. My father tells me that these men have an inferiority complex, and love this liberal culture and the filth that it offers!!!!

SO MARRIAGE OF ANY MUSLIMS TO NON-MUSLIMS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!! This is my educated opinion that I have made from observing people that have taken this pathetic filthy path!!!

However, in regards to Pashtuns, I don't even think this topic should be brought up. This too sensitive of a topic. We have a great culture, and it must be maintained at all costs necessary!!!!

[unknownprince]

The implications of a Muslims girl marrying a non-Muslim (who remains non-Muslims) are tragic. Now, a muslim girl can marry a person who converts to Islam (properly).

even the Muslim men I know who married "people of the book" have problems in their marriage and with their children. Most of the time, their children take on their mothers dirty culture. SO even there, I think this is completely unacceptable. These children end up having no religion.So really, I think some perverted Muslim individuals (probably some Arabs who came to America or Europe) wanted to marry non-Muslims, so they made this rule up to suit themselves.

I know of many Arab men who go out of their way to marry white women. One man dumped his Arab wife, and married a white woman who was his colleague. My father tells me that these men have an inferiority complex, and love this liberal culture and the filth that it offers!!!!

SO NO MARRIAGE OF ANY MUSLIMS TO NON-MUSLIMS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!! This is my educated opinion that I have made from observing people that have taken this pathetic filthy path!!!

However, in regards to Pashtuns, I don't even think this topic should be brought up. This too sensitive of a topic. We have a great culture, and it must be maintained at all costs necessary!!!!

Also, conversions have to me examined very hard!!! To any Muslim who is thinking of marrying either a non-Muslim, or a non-Muslim who will convert, you should know that there is a great chance that your future will be bleak, and you will be depressed because you won't be able to adjust unless you become as dirty as them. You see this media feeds you all this dirt to make it seem acceptable. Like to non-married individuals holding hands and walking on the streets, they make it seem that this is normal- for Muslims this is dirty!!!

[Abu Hurayrah]

There's a reason why I requested that anyone who's gonna give me the Quranic verse that SUPPOSEDLY forbids Muslim women from marrying *men from the People of the Book* read the Arabic themselves rather than relying simply on translations. That reason is... the Arabic says "mushrik," NOT "Ahl-e-Kitaab."

So your evidence does not hold valid.

1) The first aya is evidence that a muslim(a) cannot marry a mushrik(a).
2) The second aya I posted was:

“Made lawful to you this day are At‑Tayyibaat [all kinds of Halaal (lawful) foods, which Allaah has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits)]. The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time when you have given their due Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girlfriends. And whosoever disbelieves in Faith, [i.e. in the Oneness of Allaah and in all the other Articles of Faith i.e. His (Allaah’s) Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al‑Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers”
[al-Maa'idah 5:5]

The reason why only men are mentioned here, is clear evidence.

MOST importantly, by the way, the first verse you've presented (that even, in Arabic, mind you) reads: "Wa laa tankihul mushrikaati hattaa yu'minna"! Do you mind telling us what this means? Do you mind telling us if it's a command to men or to women? Forget what the consensus is -- I want us to get back to the ROOT source we have in Islam.

This is quite a funny phrase, ''I don't care about the Ijmaa', I don't care about the narrations, lets get to the ''root''."

Did you know that the root, our Qur'aan was written by the Sahaba? If you don't rely on the Sahaba, or the Narrations, you are condemning the Qur'aan. I asked you a very simple question. I I will ask this again. Allah adressed the men, and allowed them to marry women from the Ahl al Kitab, the reason why he did not mentioned the women is, that it is haraam for the women to do so. If some ruling is not in the Qur'aan, are you eligable to allow it? Based it on what kind of wahi you got from Allah?

The men are allowed in the Qur'aan to marry 4 women, nowhere did Allah mention the women NOT marrying four men, so technically, you can marry four men right?

If a person abandons the real context and interpretation of the scriptures, it gets to the westernised rubbish and philosophy, fiction, which is injected into the minds of muslims

The answer is: The Quran never says they can't, so technically, there's nothing wrong with it.

Are you wearing short pants too because men can wear them? I guess not, and again, the Qur'aan is based on the understanding of the Prophet and the Sahaba, you and I are nobody to say ''technically'' no , not technically, just bring your prove from the kitaab or Sunnah, or say nothing about this.

You was the same person who said ''technically'' you can perform temporary marriage (mut'ah) and you even defended that, by misquoting verses from Surah Nisa.
The verse I posted, in the same verse, you can find the radd, to your question. And I will repeat,


If this was meant for women aswell, then Allah would have mentioned them, but he only mentioned the men who could marry the women and has explained which conditions has to be fulfilled.

The fact that women can not marry men from the Ahl al Kitab is an established fact, and none of the first three generations did or approved this. If you don't trust them, then there is no use of quoting the Qur'aan and acting as a Quranic Engineer, because the Qur'aan was written, memorized and put together by the Sahaba.

[Baygham]

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.)

This woman approached Bernard Shaw to gain his affection and told him if they have children together they would get his brains and her beauty. He asked, what if the opposite happens.

I think in my case the opposite did happen.

Pashtoons are a heterogenous race, some may share more genes in common with sikhs than with other pashtoons, Ranjit singh after all terrorized the pakhtunkhwa heartland, who knows, one of his court jesters could have chased down grandma.

On the same token, people from the hills routinely raided the plains and picked women as bounty. I am almost certian grandpa must have picked up a few in his day. With my luck and with confirmatory evidence in the family, I am sure a couple of them were shudras, rather than a brahmin princess. First they were statistically more prevelant and secondly that much easier to pick for a lazy bum raiding at night in darkness (I wonder if they would curse the next day when daylight came, reminds me of that coyotee ugly situation after passing out............but thats another story)

So much for my pure pashtoon lineage.

[unknownprince]

This woman approached Bernard Shaw to gain his affection and told him if they have children together they would get his brains and her beauty. He asked, what if the opposite happens.

I think in my case the opposite did happen.

Pashtoons are a heterogenous race, some may share more genes in common with sikhs than with other pashtoons, Ranjit singh after all terrorized the pakhtunkhwa heartland, who knows, one of his court jesters could have chased down grandma.

On the same token, people from the hills routinely raided the plains and picked women as bounty. I am almost certian grandpa must have picked up a few in his day. With my luck and with confirmatory evidence in the family, I am sure a couple of them were shudras, rather than a brahmin princess. First they were statistically more prevelant and secondly that much easier to pick for a lazy bum raiding at night in darkness (I wonder if they would curse the next day when daylight came, reminds me of that coyotee ugly situation after passing out............but thats another story)

So much for my pure pashtoon lineage.

Well, too bad then. How are you so sure of this? Where did you hear this. The Sikhs got kicked out of Afghanistan in seconds, they had no time to be raiding plains!!!!

Secondly, Afghanistan never had the Hindu caste system, so I don't understand that. Pashtuns are not Iranic!!

[Shayesta]

We actually do not have a problem, in this case. The problem lies with people who worship others besides Allah and who do not acknowledge the final Messenger which was prophesied in the earlier scriptures.

So if both Christians and Jews hadn't edited their holy books only then it would have been okay for Muslimahs to marry them? But then again, is it mentioned so in the Quran-e-Sharif as well?

[Abu Hurayrah]

So if both Christians and Jews hadn't edited their holy books only then it would have been okay for Muslimahs to marry them? But then again, is it mentioned so in the Quran-e-Sharif as well?

I was not talking about marriage at all.

See my earlier post, (Muslima's cannot marry unbelievers or people from the Ahl al Kitab)

[AmitRazdan]

you should marry whoever you fall in love with

[Fahd]

thats what non muslim think
we are muslim and islam have Rules and the provisions
islam not like any religine
islam the last religine and never have been change by humen it's from god and god words in quran can't change .

[AmitRazdan]

thats what non muslim think
we are muslim and islam have Rules and the provisions
islam not like any religine
islam the last religine and never have been change by humen it's from god and god words in quran can't change .

ok but i thought it was Mohammed (PBUH) his words ?