Interfaith Marriage

[peezey 0]

I was wondering how you all feel about the following passage that I came across online. I am unfamiliar with the reputations of the various online sources, so I'm curious as to whether this is mainstream opinion or not:

Q). Muslims are allowed to marry Christian or Jewish women. Is the woman so married to be converted to Islam before or after her marriage? If this permission is granted on the basis of Christianity and Judaism being religions preached by messengers from Allah, is the permission still valid, despite the fact that Christians now believe in the Trinity?

A). I should admit that I find the question about converting a woman because of her marriage rather strange. It is contradictory to Islamic values and principles. Islam states very clearly that "no compulsion is admissible in matters of faith." How then, can anyone contemplate that a woman must be converted to Islam in order for her marriage to be legal. Such a requirement is not acceptable. Islam either permits a marriage or forbids it. If it approves of a Muslim marrying a Christian woman, then it stands to reason that it allows that woman to retain her faith. Indeed, the husband should not pressure his wife in any way to accept Islam. What he should do is to make Islam known to her and to tell her that Islam is the final message from Allah to man, therefore, people are called upon to accept it. She must retain her freedom whether to do so or to maintain her faith. If she decides to remain Christian or Jewish, the marriage can continue, with the husband being required to allow his wife to practice her religion. The children are, by necessity, Muslims, since the Islamic rule is that children follow the higher of their parents' religions. Since Islam is the highest of all religions, then they are Muslims.

The point about the doctrine of the Trinity as practiced by Christians and the permission to marry a Christian woman is frequently raised. Some people suggest that since Christians have come to believe in the Trinity, they are no longer believers in the Oneness of Allah. Therefore, they cannot be classified as "people of the Book", or, as perhaps more accurately translated, "people of earlier revelations." l am afraid that this is not quite correct. The doctrine of Trinity was introduced into Christianity long before the advent of Islam.

At the time when the Qur'an was revealed, Christians had the same beliefs as they have today. The doctrine of the Trinity was already introduced and practiced. To us, it represents a distortion of Christianity and its fundamental principles. However, the doctrine is mentioned in the Our'an and Allah describes those who say that He is one of a Trinity are "unbelievers.'' Nevertheless, He calls them as "Ahl-Kitab", or "People of earlier revelations.'' Since the permission to marry Christian women has come subsequently to the introduction of the doctrine of Trinity in Christianity, then that permission remains in force. Once again, no coercion or pressure should be exercised to make a Christian wife adopt Islam. If she adopts it, she must do so by her own free will.

We have already established that it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a Christian woman or a Jewess. The question remains whether it is advisable. It may happen that a certain thing is permitted so as to serve as a last resort, or as a sound solution to a particular problem. It does not follow that it is to be treated as recommended or desirable. In this particular case, inter-faith marriages are permitted within certain limits to help solve problems, which may be encountered by individual Muslims. An inter-faith marriage cannot be treated on the same footing as a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman. Let us take the following example from the time of the first generation of Muslims, i.e. the companions of the Prophet. Huthaifah ibn Al Yaman was one of the commanders Umar ibn Al Khatab sent to Persia. Subsequently, Umar learned that Huthaifah had married a Jewish woman. He wrote to him asking him to divorce her. Huthaifah wrote back saying that he would not comply with Umar's request unless Umar stated first whether his marriage was permissible or not. Umar wrote to him that it was permissible. However, he supported his request to Huthaifah to divorce his Jewish wife by two arguments: that if Muslims married non-Muslims, who would marry Muslim women? In this connection, we should remember that a Muslim woman could only marry a Muslim. The other reason expressed by Umar was that foreign women had an element of attraction, which may lure Muslims away. Huthaifah found both arguments sound and he divorced his wife. Both arguments are still sound today. Indeed more so. The companions of the Prophet were better believers than we are and yet Umar expressed his misgivings about interfaith marriages, by as a distinguished figure of them as Huthaifah, an Ansari who could be trusted witthe command of a large Muslim army.

One more point needs to be added in this connection. If a Muslim who is living in a non-Muslim country marries a local Christian woman, then he places himself under very great pressure. His wife will be living among her people and within her own cultural background. She finds no reason to modify her social behavior in order to be more accommodating to Islamic principles.

In fact, all the compromises that will inevitably be necessary will have to be made by her husband, who is an outsider coming into her society. The case is different if she is to travel to his home country. It is she who finds herself in a position of having to make compromises in order to adjust to her new environment. All this is of great importance

The best way is not to have an inter-faith marriage, unless one has no choice. To marry a Muslim woman is by far better than marrying any Christian or Jewish woman.

Source

Without getting into it too much, and I haven't read szsz's post yet, so I'm sure she addressed this, but the simple answer is, this is NOT an unusual opinion at all. The overall message and specifically the items you highlighted are standard opinions.

[peezey 0]

One of the reasons why this should be of concern is that even scholars who are considered to be liberal are leaning toward advising against interfaith marriage in the west. Khaled Abou El Fadl is a classically trained scholar and high ranking sheikh with many views are are considered to be so pro-western and pro-female that he needs bodyguards to protect him in public. He has ijaza to issue fatwas, and this is an excerpt from one that addressses a question about interfaith marriage, with reluctance:

. . .

Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them.

All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God--there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma'ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur'an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi. However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi.

The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands') religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries.

This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it. In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter--many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. However, I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with the jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible (makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best--I have reached this position after observing that the children of these Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that she must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience dictates.

Even this gentle man whom I admire, considered to be a liberal among his peers, hesitates to divert from the growing consensus that interfaith marriage for Muslims is not advisable and unsupportable as against the interest of Muslim families, their progeny, and he ummah as a whole.

I think you've posted this before (or was it Rebecca because El Fadl wrote the fatwa on family dogs?). I completely agree with your analysis in this and the last post, but I am curious your thoughts on why a larger movement might be afoot? I'm imagining immigration, etc, but that might be too simplistic an answer.

I'm not sure why a non-muslim woman would worry about this if she is married. Her husband obviously thought this through and came to his own decision, and as is stated in this opinion above, and countless others about inumerable topics, the decision is between the individual and god.

Papal edicts have come down through the years about this subject, and are often discussed that one should not marry outside one's religion. Again, I'm not sure why this is any different. The biggest difference to me, is, the qu'ran is very clear while the Bible and The New Testament are not.

[Bosco 1]

Vatican's wedding warning

Church advises against Catholic-Muslim unions

- Alan Feuer, New York Times

Saturday, May 15, 2004

(05-15) 04:00 PST Rome -- Vatican officials, in an official church document released Friday, discouraged marriage between Catholics and Muslims -- especially Catholic women and Muslim men.

When "a Catholic woman and a Muslim wish to marry," the document says, "bitter experience teaches us that a particularly careful and in-depth preparation is called for."

It also says that "profound cultural and religious differences" exist between the two faiths, particularly concerning the rights of women, who are referred to as "the least protected member of the Muslim family."

The document, written by the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, sets these issues in the contemporary context of globalization and easy travel between nations that encourages the mixing of religions. Although it makes no mention of the conflicts in the Middle East, its release comes during a time of heightened anger in the Muslim world.

The document indicates several points of commonality between Catholicism and Islam, including a belief in God, daily prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage and "the fight against injustice."

At the same time, it gently chides Muslims for faltering on the issue of human rights.

"We hope there will be, on the part of our Muslim brothers and sisters," its authors write, "a growing awareness that fundamental liberties, the inviolable rights of the person, the equal dignity of man and woman, the democratic principle of government, and the healthy lay character of the state are principles that cannot be surrendered."

The Vatican has long encouraged Catholics to marry within the faith, and the current document -- an 80-page booklet titled "The Love of Christ Towards Migrants" -- makes the same point again. It says marriage between Catholics and all non-Christians "should be discouraged," mainly for the sake of children.

Earlier this week, the Roman Catholic Church released a similar document expressing its disdain for same-sex unions. In a pointed reference to Islam, however, the document released Friday said, "It is well known that the norms of the two religions are in stark contrast."

If Catholics do choose to marry Muslims, the document says, they must be sure to baptize their children and avoid signing Islamic documents or swearing oaths, including the shahada, Islam's profession of faith.

All Catholics, it warns, "must take a firm stand on what the church requires."

Maurice Healy, spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, cautioned against overreacting to the statement about marrying Muslims, noting that it is buried at the end of a long dissertation about migration.

"We have not seen the document -- it's in Italian," said Healy, but he observed that it warns about marrying Muslims but doesn't forbid the practice.

"It's based on the church's experience of Catholic women who have married Muslims in one country then gone back to the country where the Muslim lived and found another culture that was problematic and difficult," Healy said. "It's urging caution out of concern for women."

Souleiman Ghali, president of the Islamic Society of San Francisco, did not appear to be perturbed by the document, noting that "this can be viewed as something against Islam, (but) we don't view it this way."

"Overall, we view the Catholic Church as friend to Muslims on many, many issues," Ghali said. "... We view (Pope John Paul II) as a man of peace and as a man who believes deeply in bridging the gap between the Catholic and Muslim community. He has done some wonderful things to establish dialogue."

It is true, Ghali said, that some Muslim cultures don't treat women as equals, but he said it is important to make a distinction between the culture and the religion.

"We don't think the Catholic Church thinks that Islam itself mistreats women," he said.

He added: "In the Islamic faith we're permitted to marry within the Christian and Jewish tradition, because they are considered people of the book, people who worship God."

The Vatican document also condemns racism and xenophobia, saying that immigration should provoke solidarity and not fear.

"Today, especially in certain countries, there is a high or growing percentage of Muslim immigrants, for whom this Pontifical Council also expresses its solicitude," it said.

Chronicle staff writer Rona Marech and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Page A - 1

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGD56M9SC1.DTL link

[Jenn! 918]

I'm not sure why a non-muslim woman would worry about this if she is married. Her husband obviously thought this through and came to his own decision, and as is stated in this opinion above, and countless others about inumerable topics, the decision is between the individual and god.

Well, that's exactly why I was asking. I know my own husband's opinion obviously, and having come across this, I was surprised. Just curious as to whether other Muslims think more like my own husband, or more like the author.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think you've posted this before (or was it Rebecca because El Fadl wrote the fatwa on family dogs?). I completely agree with your analysis in this and the last post, but I am curious your thoughts on why a larger movement might be afoot? I'm imagining immigration, etc, but that might be too simplistic an answer.

I'm not sure why a non-muslim woman would worry about this if she is married. Her husband obviously thought this through and came to his own decision, and as is stated in this opinion above, and countless others about inumerable topics, the decision is between the individual and god.

Papal edicts have come down through the years about this subject, and are often discussed that one should not marry outside one's religion. Again, I'm not sure why this is any different. The biggest difference to me, is, the qu'ran is very clear while the Bible and The New Testament are not.

My family has been involved with interfaith marriage issues for decades. It used to be that one would rarely if ever see a cite regarding a prohibition against Muslim men marrying ahl al kitab women. It was also rare to see any challenge to the idea of Muslim women marrying ahl al kitab men. With the growing schism in the Muslim world between moderates and conservatives, you see more of both.

Islam is an incremental faith, and Muslim traditions tend to be incrementally changed. In the west, this change is much more rapid, thus, more calls for order, unity, ijima, taqlid (blind following) because of a perceived threat to the worldwide ummah and the ability of those who have traditionally been in authority to stem the tide of change.

In the scholarly bubble, where I tend to reside, there is an undeniable friction between varying in camps that did not exist even 30 years ago. It used to be accepted doctrine that there was a variety of thought on most issues that had been debated by man. That is why Dr. Abou El Fadl expresses surprize that there was an unwavering consensus among scholars regarding the issue of interfaith marriage for Muslim women, despite the glaring lack of support for a barrier to it.

The rise of today's modern conservative movement is credited to Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian Muslim who came to study in Colorado in 1948, was extremely disturbed by the hedonism he saw, then returned home to write and promote resistance to the liberalism of the west. He was hanged for treason in 1964, but his perceptions live on and have formed the basis for what some call the "clash of civilizations".

Many Muslims are more and more looking back to the Golden Age of Islam for inspiration. It is also the time when the philosphers, often represented by Ibn Rushd (Averroes), challenged the religious scholars, lead by al-Ghazali. The movement to recapture former gloryand to galvanize identity, status, tradition, and to elevate Islam and Muslims in the process requires, in the mind of many even moderate scholars, that all be done to discourage anything that moves Muslims toward pluralism and away from unity of thought and purpose. It is a self-protective, defensive posture, deemed necessary by the mounting evidence that Muslims in the west are moving away from the Quran and from its interpretors due it's unIslamic infuence.

The denial of a Muslim woman's rights to marry out of Islam is explained as a necessity to provide protection against undue influence of the authority of a non-Muslim man. The control of females is also described as a necessity to identity, status, tradition, and to elevate Islam and Muslims, as women are perceived to be the vessels of honor and tradition.

What is coming is that this concept is slowly being extended to males, as well. How can the Muslim ummah be elevated as the caliphs of Islam if we continue to allow the impure influence of the non-Muslim woman to "infect" the household of the Muslim man and his children? Thus, if you marry a non-Muslim woman, your honor and staus as a man and head of household will be held in suspicion unless and until you can either bring her into the fold or let her go.

I know to some of you, this may seem esoteric or merely distasteful, but if you have been tracking the changes in Muslim thought and positioning in the last helf of the 20th century and beyond, it is clear that there is even more of a jihad among Muslims than there is toward non-Muslims. This is only a taste of it.

Edited November 22, 2006 by szsz

[kofuku 0]

Muslims who insist on conversion, that interfaith marriage is disallowed, or that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims are actually going against God's Word in the Quran, which says that only Allah decides who will stray, who will be devoted, and who will be judged righteous.

Thank you for these Quranic verses. It will make good dinner conversation with my husband.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're welcome! No food fights, ok?

[kofuku 0]

You're welcome! No food fights, ok?

I promise to be good.

[Together4ever 1]

Real difference exists if you seek it and place it between you. That's about all I can offer to this thread.

[mybackpages 0]

Real difference exists if you seek it and place it between you. That's about all I can offer to this thread.

Just waiting- you are just oozing with wisdom tonight in these threads