American's view on Islam

[Nasturtium 500]

Our sinning and non repentance does not affect Allah but it affects us. In other words whatever we do does not change what He is, if that makes sense. It can't since He is "Al-Ghaniyy", self sufficient and does not need creation. He is however The Loving, The Generous One, The forgiver, etc. so we are provided with the straight path to walk towards heaven.

Other than making Him sad or angry, it definately doesn't change who He is at all in our view either, so I'm not sure then what the original disagreement was about (or maybe I read it wrong). He is not less or more, He is Adonai, Elohim, Tzev'ot, Who Was, Who Is, and Who Is To Come no matter if you chose to love Him or not. We believe G-d cares for us and our outcome, but it is our outcome and not His. It doesn't seem logical that if He is "the Loving" that He wouldn't then have some kind of attachment to you as an individual to where it had no affect (which is emotional as opposed to an effect on His essence) on Him (to me). That's what has never made sense to me-- the claim of no affect against the idea that he is reaching out to you or wishes you to walk this "path" because that would imply some kind of vested interest. I'm not harping on you Bridget if you think I am-- I'm just actually curious and am asking a question. It's OK if you don't know the answer! I don't want you to think I'm picking on you either, you're just the one answering so I keep asking you!

[doodlebugg 10]

Our sinning and non repentance does not affect Allah but it affects us. In other words whatever we do does not change what He is, if that makes sense. It can't since He is "Al-Ghaniyy", self sufficient and does not need creation. He is however The Loving, The Generous One, The forgiver, etc. so we are provided with the straight path to walk towards heaven.

Other than making Him sad or angry, it definately doesn't change who He is at all in our view either, so I'm not sure then what the original disagreement was about (or maybe I read it wrong). He is not less or more, He is Adonai, Elohim, Tzev'ot, Who Was, Who Is, and Who Is To Come no matter if you chose to love Him or not. We believe G-d cares for us and our outcome, but it is our outcome and not His. It doesn't seem logical that if He is "the Loving" that He wouldn't then have some kind of attachment to you as an individual to where it had no affect (which is emotional as opposed to an effect on His essence) on Him (to me). That's what has never made sense to me-- the claim of no affect against the idea that he is reaching out to you or wishes you to walk this "path" because that would imply some kind of vested interest. I'm not harping on you Bridget if you think I am-- I'm just actually curious and am asking a question. It's OK if you don't know the answer! I don't want you to think I'm picking on you either, you're just the one answering so I keep asking you!

I think the point I was trying to make with the original post regarding our reaching heaven or not reaching heaven not affecting Allah was that it's not like a mutual deal in the way that ganga girl was saying...though she was obviously kidding.

For me, continuously focusing on how my actions/inactions do not affect Him in the least is a comforting feeling to me. It means that no matter what I do or don't do, He will always be All - Powerful, The Most Forgiving, The Most Compassionate. In other words it's the ONE thing that I absolutely can NOT screw up! lol. Humility is the key to my spiritual life.

I think we're way off the track of the OP though. lol

[Beauty for Ashes 257]

Virtual Wife,

I am really puzzled as to what point you are trying to make. I have never seen a muslim woman marry a christian man ANYWHERE and the muslim family was thrilled about it. In Lebanon, I am not sure because I have not been exposed to it. I have seen palestinian mixed marriages but it was christian women and muslim men. You are a first for me.

Muslimas are supposed to marry OTHER MUSLIMS not people from outside the faith. The husband HAS TO REVERT before he marries her , and this is actually in Tunisia that his profession of reversion be before an imam. Marrying a muslima if you are non muslim in MENA countries is not an easy feat. Perhaps because you were raised as an American, you have had a different experience. But I can hardly see , lets say, an Algerian muslim woman marrying a Christian man and it being accepted. It wont be and I am sorry its not legal in Islam to do so unless he reverts. So you can pull up all this obscure mumbo jumbo but the fact still stands, if you married outside of islam and he did not revert, you did not follow Islamic law.

I think this topic was posted merely to incite and not to encourage meaningful discussion.

Wahrania, you seem to have a need to dismiss my views as ignorant simply because I was born in America, an event that you seem to define me by, and equate with ignorance and inexperience with Arabs, Islam or Muslims, even as you, a American born, non-Arab, non-Muslim yourself, claim greater knowledge. You could learn a thing or two from a born Arab Muslima who has actually done what you merely are amazed and befuddled by.

I’ve made my points quite clearly, and, despite your lack of experience in this area, I am neither the first nor the last Muslima to marry out and be ok with the family. What is mumbo jumbo to you is meaningless since no one is measuring scholarship by your awareness or lack of it. A meaningful discussion, which most of us are capable of having, has ensued, believe it or not. So, please don’t derail it; it could be a chance for your own enlightenment.

Islamic law includes the immutable directives from God, as well as the mutable law of men. No competent scholar claims to substitute his own law as that of Gods when He is silent on an issue. They may offer their reasoned opinions - fatwaas - but what is halal (legal) or haram (illegal) in Islam is up to God, not men. How Muslims actually interact does not always reflect His Will, and it crtainly doesn't bind Him to it. That is the very first tenet of fiqh, man’s law, as opposed to sharia, God’s law. Sharia and fiqh must not be confused with each other, nor given the same weight or authority, as a principle of obligatory practice. Fiqh, the source of the prohibition against Muslimas marrying out, is not sharia and, therefore, not divine, immutable, or unchallengeable.

Sharia is binding on all Muslims, fiqh is not. Outside of the imposition of religious opinion – fatwaas – as local jurisprudence, fiqh is theologically discernable and is discerned. What Muslims in any given place or time accept or reject re fiqh is a personal issue, and is not binding on Allah or other Muslims as a matter of course. That a prohibition has been decreed despite no prohibition in sharia renders that prohibition unequivocally conditional, debatable, and changeable. It is a matter that may upset some Muslims, but it will send no Muslim to hell for their disagreement or acting on that disagreement.

Fiqh is intended to allow for interpretation within the limited perspective of the mortal mind, and for the orderly implementation of rights and responsibilities of Muslims toward others, and Muslims toward God. Scholars are to be servants of God, answerable to Him, not dictators of Islamic practice. All Muslims are required to do justice in the face of adversity, and to help move the ummah ahead; not hold it back.

Since sharia does not prohibit Muslim women from marriage with ahl al kitab men, there is no violation of God’s law involved in marrying out any more than any other changes in fiqh law – the reasoned restriction on polygamy in Tunisia or Morocco, for example, are in violation of sharia. That is not mumbo jumbo.

Islam must not be equated with human frailities, such as paternalism or gender superiority, as is often unfairly done by those of little knowledge. While Islam is incremental in its application, no one society or individual is required to hold to any single social paradigm in order to maintain its “Muslimness” in the view of another. Our diversity has been a long-term strength that should not be discouraged as unIslamic, or because it violates some mortal law.

First I am muslima

Second it is absolutely PROHIBITED in ISLAM for a muslima to marry outside of ISLAM period...

Mumbo jumbo aside, Virtual wife, its the law. You can spend 30 paragraphs justifying yourself.

Traditionally, only in one case can a Muslim woman marry outside of Islam, and this is the case where the woman is guilty of sexual transgression, as denoted in Sura An Nur of the Qur'an: "The adulterer may marry only an adulteress or an idolatress; and the adulteress may marry only an adulterer or an idolater…" [24:3] As stated in this verse, this rule equally applies to the Muslim man who is guilty of this same offense.

[sarahaziz 0]

This post wasn't to encourage anything it was to listen to other peoples opinions who are also involved in 2 different religions AS I AM. If I was a same faith as my husband and asking other women and men how they felt that would indicate something nasty but I'm speaking from experience of 2-faith marriage. I'm aware It's opened a couple of other doors in the ISlam VS Christianity subject and I can't even read all the posts or how it led there we have like 20 + subjects on this thread

I do agree with the arab sister who said anybody who is not of muslim, arab, or arab/american background can define anybody else on this board if they are not personally related in that aspect. I don't think just because my husband is algerian born and I'm algerian american born has ANYTHING to do with this subject? Or if it is anyone elses business if im algerian/muslim/christian/jew at all? I wouldn't recommend anybody to forget their own culture and start acting in another you get made fun of like that from others when you take it overboard and that's not to be taken in any negative sense rather as a helpful tip.

My spouse is religious in a sense where he believes in God but he understands HE WAS BROUGHT UP in a MUSLIM country and that's why he is MUSLIM. If my spouse was born in example - AMERICA/France/Spain and say one of his parents were Christian it's a strong possibility he could have been raised as a CHRISTIAN. My spouse agrees with me the kids can be raised in Christianity if that's what they chose to be the truth. He watches Christian networks and watches Joyce Meyer, Jol Olstein via satellite He hasn't sworn to Christianity but he follows the bibles principles as well as Qurans which he was raised in. I'm pretty sure it's a "sin" for a muslim to consider his kids being chrisitan or a man listening to christian teachings but that's my spouse and his personality and that's why thank God I've met him before any other woman. I'm not an extremist but I follow the bible closely and my spouse was attracted to how I talk about God and life. That's just us .

I do hope everyone stops arguing back and forth about Islam VS christianity b/c my question was only about Muslim/Christian men and women married with Muslims. How they felt about the differences In MARRIAGE and to discuss their opinions in a mature appropriate manner. I really can't believe how a select few on this board could post comments on this board we could have all lived without not even answering the ORIGINAL question. I asked a question to a mature crowd I didn't ask what any felt about this post. Thank you to those who actually answered the question without being nasty

[Jenn! 918]

Sarah, I don't see where people are being particularly nasty. It is quite common on an internet board for a topic to spin off into one or more loosely- or even unrelated discussions.

[Nasturtium 500]

LOL Bridget I didn't really gather what the OP was about much so I was following the gamut of topics expressed

I get what you're saying And obviously, though we disagree it's cool to be able to have a nice discussion.

Now! There was another question a bazillion (the techincal term) posts ago about prohibition of polygamy in the Bible. People are always like "oh but Abraham, David, Solomon, etc did it" and "Oh, but in Samuel G-d says he delivered Saul's wives and all of Saul's possessions to David so it must be OK." The failure of this logic though is that all of these men were sinning at the point in which they engaged in these acts. David, yes, was given control over all that Saul had but the expectation was to do better and to actually follow G-d. David was not doing well to kill the husband of Bethsheba and take her as a wife. Abraham was sinning by not following the instructions of G-d and to wait for the son G-d had promised him with SARAH. Even Solomon, for all his wisdom, lost his kingdom through his sinning. "16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17: 16-17). This prohibition was not heeded at ALL by Solomon or those who took multiples.

Malachai 2: "14: Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15: And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

A marriage is a covenant and is not to be tampered with. G-d gave Adam one wife, Eve. he did not take other wives. In Genesis 4:19 we have the first departure form this, which is Lamach who was also mentioned to be murderous, etc. (Gen 4:22-3).

Ex. 21:10-11 provides Mosaic Law regulation of polygamy, but Mosaic Law also regulated things like divorce. Regulation does not make it preferable or even liked by G-d, nor does it make it part of G-d desire or plan.

Gen 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" is the original plan by G-d. A man cannot be two (or more) fleshes based on this model. This was also brought up by Yeshua in Matt. 19:6/Mark 10:8. Matt 3-9 deals with divorce, but also with the nature of marriage and what is and is not permissable versus the plan or will of G-d:

"3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” "

Isaac was deceived by Laban who is ever evil in his heart to take Leah before Rachel. There are examples of men who took multiple wives though it was highly disliked and against the original plan. So, it falls under highly disliked. It's not really a decent argument to come from the standpoint of Islam where it is permissible and not makrooh and try to say it's permissable and acceptable in the Bible. That's like someone trying to argue that it's fine and wonderful to get divorced and totally part of G-d plan for marriage.

As an interesting aside, Islam permits a couple to remarry after divorce only if she marry another person first then dissolve that marriage. The Torah forbids this explicitly and only permits remarriage of a couple if she has not remarried.

[Nasturtium 500]

Thank you to those who actually answered the question without being nasty

I am Christian married to a Muslim. These kinds of discussions come up as being part of an interfaith marriage (or at least they did with us). I didn't think anyone was really being nasty. I didn't see anyone being nasty at any rate. Then again I didn't read all the posts. By bringing up a question about how A feels about B, it is kind of necessary to inform people what B believes and how that differs from A-- or at least I think that's what people were going for.

I choose not to discuss my life plan anymore because people get way too into it who are strangers yelling "haraam" and "sin!" all over the place. I think anyone who is highly religious usually gets to this point if you feel you had a reason to marry out of it and are tired of defending yourself to those with whom you have no real business

ETA since my correcting what I saw as misinterpretations is distressing to you, I'll bow out again.

Edited February 28, 2008 by julianna

[Sofiyya 1,687]

First I am muslima

I stand corrected. I didn't realize that there are American Muslims who dismiss other Muslims for being American.

Second it is absolutely PROHIBITED in ISLAM for a muslima to marry outside of ISLAM period...

As I said before, Muslims have decided it is prohibited, but Allah has never claimed that to be so. You can quote no verse to me directing Muslimas to marry only Muslim men, nor one that says we are forbidden to marry ahl al kitab. Nor can you post a punishment He has designed for it.

Our wedding was presided over by a scholar who knows that such a law is conditional and not binding on all Muslimas. There is no sin in knowing God for yourself rather than in lockstep with a cultural limitations.

Mumbo jumbo aside, Virtual wife, its the law. You can spend 30 paragraphs justifying yourself.

It's MAN'S law, sis, and man's law is not God's law, unless you are a Muslim who believes that man's laws and God's laws are equal in weight and authority.

Do you? Is that why you call intellegent, reasoned posts "mumbo jumbo", a throw away term that requires no intelligent response?

If so, then your beliefs must be a myriad of contradictions that Allah and the early scholars warned us against. Those vnerated men didn't claim that they had the authority to make something haram that Allah did not. If you accept that they do, that is taking scholars for partners with God - shirk - something to be avoided.

Traditionally, only in one case can a Muslim woman marry outside of Islam, and this is the case where the woman is guilty of sexual transgression, as denoted in Sura An Nur of the Qur'an: "The adulterer may marry only an adulteress or an idolatress; and the adulteress may marry only an adulterer or an idolater…" [24:3] As stated in this verse, this rule equally applies to the Muslim man who is guilty of this same offense.

Please post the verse(s) that tell Muslim women that they are only to marry Muslim men, and/or the one(s) that forbid us to marry ahl al kita men. Consider that to be a friendly challenge, because I certainly deserve more than "mumbo jumbo", "because they said so" and traditions with no support in sharia as a response.

BTW, while you're so insistant that Muslimas follow man's law, where is your indignation over the way Muslim men marry outside of fiqh and their Quranic commands without much opposition from the same sources you equate with God? That would be a hot topic here, no?

Edited February 28, 2008 by Virtual wife

[sarahaziz 0]

ouch

[Sofiyya 1,687]

On the matter of polygamy in Islam, the verse that allows for multiple marriage was revealed as a means of directing a form of protective social welfare for women left without guardians after war, making the first condition that there be a need for such a protection, not that the man simply want more wives and be able to afford them or believe he can treat them equally.

Reading beyond that single verse, Allah repeatedly proposes dire punishments for those who transgress His limits. He also discourages multiple marriage, saying that no man can be fair to more than one woman, even if it is his ardent desire. The Prophet struggled with having more than one wife, and it is worthy of noting that it was not until the death of his first and only wife that he engaged in the practice. His example of marrying older women, divorcees and widows, and having no other children than that he bore with Khadija is not the model Muslim men tend to follow, reverting back to pre-Islamic tribal ways as more suitable for their desires.

Societies that have restricted or prohibited polygamy have done so because the way it was being practiced was indefensible in light of God's law.

[sandinista! 1,816]

LOL Bridget I didn't really gather what the OP was about much so I was following the gamut of topics expressed

I get what you're saying And obviously, though we disagree it's cool to be able to have a nice discussion.

Now! There was another question a bazillion (the techincal term) posts ago about prohibition of polygamy in the Bible. People are always like "oh but Abraham, David, Solomon, etc did it" and "Oh, but in Samuel G-d says he delivered Saul's wives and all of Saul's possessions to David so it must be OK." The failure of this logic though is that all of these men were sinning at the point in which they engaged in these acts. David, yes, was given control over all that Saul had but the expectation was to do better and to actually follow G-d. David was not doing well to kill the husband of Bethsheba and take her as a wife. Abraham was sinning by not following the instructions of G-d and to wait for the son G-d had promised him with SARAH. Even Solomon, for all his wisdom, lost his kingdom through his sinning. "16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17: 16-17). This prohibition was not heeded at ALL by Solomon or those who took multiples.

Malachai 2: "14: Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15: And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

A marriage is a covenant and is not to be tampered with. G-d gave Adam one wife, Eve. he did not take other wives. In Genesis 4:19 we have the first departure form this, which is Lamach who was also mentioned to be murderous, etc. (Gen 4:22-3).

Ex. 21:10-11 provides Mosaic Law regulation of polygamy, but Mosaic Law also regulated things like divorce. Regulation does not make it preferable or even liked by G-d, nor does it make it part of G-d desire or plan.

Gen 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" is the original plan by G-d. A man cannot be two (or more) fleshes based on this model. This was also brought up by Yeshua in Matt. 19:6/Mark 10:8. Matt 3-9 deals with divorce, but also with the nature of marriage and what is and is not permissable versus the plan or will of G-d:

"3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” "

Isaac was deceived by Laban who is ever evil in his heart to take Leah before Rachel. There are examples of men who took multiple wives though it was highly disliked and against the original plan. So, it falls under highly disliked. It's not really a decent argument to come from the standpoint of Islam where it is permissible and not makrooh and try to say it's permissable and acceptable in the Bible. That's like someone trying to argue that it's fine and wonderful to get divorced and totally part of G-d plan for marriage.

As an interesting aside, Islam permits a couple to remarry after divorce only if she marry another person first then dissolve that marriage. The Torah forbids this explicitly and only permits remarriage of a couple if she has not remarried.

regulation, or strong disliking, is still not outlawing. if i'm not mistaken, i believe it was gershom ben judah, in the 11th century, who actually banned polygamy for rabbinic jews (unless a man got special permission from 100 rabbis in 3 countries). as well, i don't believe israeli jews are allowed to practice polygamy, but polygamous yemenite jews were allowed to all immigrate. they had been practicing polygamy on into the 20th century. not that this matters much anyways, since christianity is different and allows all kinds of things judaism doesn't. they aren't parallel at all, from what christians are allowed to eat for breakfast, to the most fundamental tenets. martin luther stated that he could find nothing in the scriptures expressly banning polygamy.

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them." i'm sure this was strongly disliked as well, but nevertheless found to be permissible given the circumstances and their belief that it was not directly condemned or outlawed.

and it was jacob who was betrayed by laban, not isaac. i haven't seen anyone trying to argue this from islam's standpoint either-if someone has, i must have missed that post, but regardless, you are right that it's completely pointless as well.

[Nasturtium 500]

regulation, or strong disliking, is still not outlawing. if i'm not mistaken, i believe it was gershom ben judah, in the 11th century, who actually banned polygamy for rabbinic jews (unless a man got special permission from 100 rabbis in 3 countries). as well, i don't believe israeli jews are allowed to practice polygamy, but polygamous yemenite jews were allowed to all immigrate. they had been practicing polygamy on into the 20th century. not that this matters much anyways, since christianity is different and allows all kinds of things judaism doesn't. they aren't parallel at all, from what christians are allowed to eat for breakfast, to the most fundamental tenets. martin luther stated that he could find nothing in the scriptures expressly banning polygamy.

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them." i'm sure this was strongly disliked as well, but nevertheless found to be permissible given the circumstances and their belief that it was not directly condemned or outlawed.

and it was jacob who was betrayed by laban, not isaac. i haven't seen anyone trying to argue this from islam's standpoint either-if someone has, i must have missed that post, but regardless, you are right that it's completely pointless as well.

Sorry! you're 100% correct, it is Jacob and i don't know why I typed Isaac.

I didn't say it was outlawed, I said it was disliked and not the "plan." What people actually do rarely seems to go along with G-d's plan, so examples of polygamy in history, even within the Tanakh, don't really stand. Jews made a golden calf while Moses was away, and that is not precedent for using anything like amulets today.

I happen to disagree with you that Christianity and Judaism aren't parallel. As a Torah-observant "christian" I know I am not alone-- there are many others. Many attend Orthodox Synagogues though as mainstream Christianity doesn't like being told they are following tradition in general. There is nothing to make pork permissable (Peter's dream usually being cited but it is interestingly taken out of context to make it so, and I challenge anyone to find where Peter ever ate pork out of the dream) nor a single example of anyone in the New Testament ever eating pork.. and I challenge anyone to find a biblical NT person who actually eats pork (or doesn't keep the Mosaic law or even preaches against it. I imagine most people haven't realized Paul continued and encouraged sacrificing in the Temple, or that all NT peoples still kept the feasts and holydays of the Jews and not the "Christian" holidays that never existed in the Bible..) But this is, of course, a seperate argument.

[doodlebugg 10]

This post wasn't to encourage anything it was to listen to other peoples opinions who are also involved in 2 different religions AS I AM. If I was a same faith as my husband and asking other women and men how they felt that would indicate something nasty but I'm speaking from experience of 2-faith marriage. I'm aware It's opened a couple of other doors in the ISlam VS Christianity subject and I can't even read all the posts or how it led there we have like 20 + subjects on this thread

I do agree with the arab sister who said anybody who is not of muslim, arab, or arab/american background can define anybody else on this board if they are not personally related in that aspect. I don't think just because my husband is algerian born and I'm algerian american born has ANYTHING to do with this subject? Or if it is anyone elses business if im algerian/muslim/christian/jew at all? I wouldn't recommend anybody to forget their own culture and start acting in another you get made fun of like that from others when you take it overboard and that's not to be taken in any negative sense rather as a helpful tip.

My spouse is religious in a sense where he believes in God but he understands HE WAS BROUGHT UP in a MUSLIM country and that's why he is MUSLIM. If my spouse was born in example - AMERICA/France/Spain and say one of his parents were Christian it's a strong possibility he could have been raised as a CHRISTIAN. My spouse agrees with me the kids can be raised in Christianity if that's what they chose to be the truth. He watches Christian networks and watches Joyce Meyer, Jol Olstein via satellite He hasn't sworn to Christianity but he follows the bibles principles as well as Qurans which he was raised in. I'm pretty sure it's a "sin" for a muslim to consider his kids being chrisitan or a man listening to christian teachings but that's my spouse and his personality and that's why thank God I've met him before any other woman. I'm not an extremist but I follow the bible closely and my spouse was attracted to how I talk about God and life. That's just us .

I do hope everyone stops arguing back and forth about Islam VS christianity b/c my question was only about Muslim/Christian men and women married with Muslims. How they felt about the differences In MARRIAGE and to discuss their opinions in a mature appropriate manner. I really can't believe how a select few on this board could post comments on this board we could have all lived without not even answering the ORIGINAL question. I asked a question to a mature crowd I didn't ask what any felt about this post. Thank you to those who actually answered the question without being nasty

I don't see anyone being nasty here. If you think this stuff is nasty then thank the good Lord above you weren't here a year ago!!

[SaadBell 0]

[morocco4ever 63]

Actually I have found the boards to be unusually quiet lately. What happened?

This is merely discussing a difference of opinions, and not much nasty stuff going in in comparision to a while ago.