Non-Muslims married to Muslim MENA

[Nasturtium 500]

after looking over many things and asking many questions i can find only one solid answer regarding children among a muslim man and non muslim women....

"If a muslim marries a women from "People of the books" the children, by "shar'iah (islamic law) are considered to be muslim. For instance, often in "dar al-harb" the kids adopt the religion of their mother; and sometimes, a marriage is arranged upon agreements between couples that half the kids will adopt mothers and the other half will adopt the fathers religion. If a muslim man agrees to ANY of such terms accepting the kids to be raised non muslims, the person will be regarded as "Murtid" (the one who denied islam) because he has allowed his kids to become "kaafir" who may have been brought up in Islamic religion. Anyone who willingly and knowingly allows/agrees for his kids to be kaafir is regarded as kaafir. He is out of the Islamic circle.

**taken from Nikah.com....i could not copy and paste so had to retype....apologies in advance for the typos...

I think it's natural for people who closely follow any religion to wish their kids to follow the same religion. Ammar made it pretty clear he wanted ours to be "Muslim" and be at least able to function as one, but he acknowledged he knew I would want them Christian and that in teh end, as adults, they can make whatever decision they wanted in their hearts-- but that they had better not go around and talk about it in his country for their own safety. That's about as open-minded as I have seen it. He admitted you have no idea what is in the people's hearts when you see them as faith is personal.

[HLM 1]

Meat - Pork and Halal:

My husband has no problem with me eating pork. He and I often have breakfast where I would order bacon. However, I doubt he has ever seen a medium rare steak and will probably freak if he sees I like my beef pink.

Why would he freak if you like your beef pink?

Apparently, it's haram to eat blood and if it's not well done, well, you are eating blood. I got that one the first week when my husband looked at a steak I had cooked, put down knife and fork and told me I hadn't finished cooking it. then proceeded to explain it to me, and ate only the veggies that night like a friggin maytr

I dont know how ppl do it!!! The look of blood -even if it wasnt- is so hard for me to accept... plus u have no idea how many diseases are caused by undercooked meat!!

[Hanna&Mohamed 0]

We also talked before we married that our children would be muslim! Even if I decided not to convert.I converted when we married I am so happy I did!!!Im looking so forward to seeing Amir learn to pray when hes older!Inshaallah

[mohamed N melinda 0]

it is good topics to discuss

first of all MUSLIM WOMAN CANT MARRY NON MUSLIM MAN and there is no islamic law say that . some converted muslim women think they know all about islam while they dont and THEY SPREAD WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT ISLAM

second when muslim man marry non muslim woman thats allowed in islam but kids must be muslim and the man who accept that his kids to become non-muslim dont desereve to called MUSLIM

third

drink is haram no matter how amount of cup you drink . islam forbid drinking , pork , blood . and if u want to know why islam forbid that it is simply cause it harm anyone drink or eat it

pork has certain type of nematode called H.NANA it is found only in pigs

drinking make fibrosis in liver , blood or uncooked meat has germs

please everyone if you arenot sure about what you about islam PLZ DONT SPREAD WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT IT

[Jenn! 918]

I guess I didn't word my question properly. I realize that interfaith marriages can fail due to specific behaviors and issues of incompatibility that result from the different belief systems. What I was getting at more is whether you've dealt with a marriage that has ended *solely* because the Muslim man discovered that marrying a non-Muslim woman and living in a non-Muslim country was haraam.

More specifically, it's not haram - only Allah determines what is haram - it is makruh - highly undesirable.

This has been interesting lol. My views have become viral. I'm seeing whole paragraphs (w/typos) that I've posted on websites being posted back to me word for word (with typos) in dozens of web articles on this subject that I've never seen before as I google the issue for this thread. I'm not getting any credit for them, tho!

My answer is still yes, because, thru experience, they discover WHY it's considered to be makruh, and incompatibility is a large part of that. Due to the difficulty of living a pious life under the dominance of American secularism that so much of religious life operates under no matter what faith you adhere to. Practicing Muslims are a minority here and too many Americans are Christians in name only. The reality is that the Muslim partner has less religious support in the west than the secular or kitabi partner, and that can and does sway hearts and minds.

Thanks for your answer. I understand what you're getting at about the relationship between the two now.

[aisha kandisha 0]

Also, the Quran does expressly forbid Muslims to marry unchaste non-Muslims unless they are fornicators, so, drawing on this premise, a lot of marriages between Muslim men and non-Muslim women must be due to fornication.

Would you mind providing the ayat?

Gladly. Chastity is a big deal in Islam, as it is in Christianity and Judaism. Therefore, unchaste Muslims are not allowed to marry among chaste Muslims. This ayah directs fornicating Muslims to marry other fornicating Muslims, or unbelivers because Muslims are not to have relations outside of marriage:

Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden. Q24.3

This ayah grants the permission to marry among the ahl al kitab, but with limitations. We are not to marry the unchaste unbeliever (exception above) or those who have no faith:

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good). Q 5.5

Also see, Q 2:222 and 60:10-11 for directives regarding the forbidance against marriage with polytheists and those who are hostile to Islam. A practicing Muslim would not marry among those who are disallowed by sharia.

Oh I don't doubt that it's not permissible in the eyes of many scholars. As a non-Muslim woman though, I don't really find it relevant. In your counseling I imagine you discuss more often actual obstacles and issues in the marriage that are created by the interfaith aspect of it rather than assessing whether the marriage is permissible in the first place, right? Do you know of anyone who has gotten a divorce because they've changed their mind about whether their marriage is really allowed?

Yes, I know several practicing Muslims who have divorced their spouse in the west after the reality of being married to a non-Muslim who engages in Islamically haram behavior strikes them as too much of a burden to bear. It's sad because you can't tell them anything until they experience the problems themselves, and it's even more tragic when conflicts over childrearing is the catalyst for the division.

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't read your first sentence correctly to understand you were stating both parties were unchaste, and thought you were saying only the non-Muslim was. My mistake upon reread.

I guess I don't get singling out Muslim men with non-Muslim women to make the supposition that their marriage is "due to fornication". It comes across as a dig. If you accept the premise that fornicators can marry only fornicators (and the ayat clearly doesn't refer to Muslims with al-kitab only), it would follow that this is true of Muslim-Muslim marriage as well.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

it is good topics to discuss

first of all MUSLIM WOMAN CANT MARRY NON MUSLIM MAN and there is no islamic law say that . some converted muslim women think they know all about islam while they dont and THEY SPREAD WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT ISLAM

second when muslim man marry non muslim woman thats allowed in islam but kids must be muslim and the man who accept that his kids to become non-muslim dont desereve to called MUSLIM

third

drink is haram no matter how amount of cup you drink . islam forbid drinking , pork , blood . and if u want to know why islam forbid that it is simply cause it harm anyone drink or eat it

pork has certain type of nematode called H.NANA it is found only in pigs

drinking make fibrosis in liver , blood or uncooked meat has germs

please everyone if you arenot sure about what you about islam PLZ DONT SPREAD WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT IT

I'm not sure what you are saying. Is that a typo? First you say that Muslim women cant marry non-Muslim men, then you say that there is no law that says thay cant marry non-Muslim men.

The first part, Muslim women cant marry non-Muslim man, is wrong. The second part, there is no law that says they cant marry non-Muslim men, is right. There is no need for a law to allow what Allah has not prohibited.

There is nothing in the sharia that forbids Muslim women from marriage with ahl al kitab men. The "law" is from fiqh, the mutable, challengable, mortal determinations from men that can be and are changed. Fiqh is not divine as, is sharia, and it is not binding on all Muslims. Since only God can make haram, marriage between Muslim women and men of the Book is not haram, it is only makruh, as are marriages between Muslim men and non-Muslim western women, a convemniently overlooked element of the fiqh of marriage.

Also, the Quran clearly says that Allah determines what a person's faith will be, so the faith of children is not "inherited" from a parent, male or female. That is evidenced by the conversions of Muslims out of Islam, and of non-Muslims into Islam. I am Muslim, my deceased husband was Christian, our children are all Muslims. Four of my cousins, who had a Muslim father and Christian mother, only one is Muslim. Allah says He designed the world for us to believe differently so we will learn to live together and strive toward him; It is hubris to believe that the father of a child controls his belief, and it is easy to prove that wrong.

If you are referring to me as a convert spreading wrong information, I am not a convert. I am a born Muslim from a Palestinan family who learned my faith from learned, legitimate scholars. We are called upon to read and learn, and I have done so in context of the history of sharia and Islamic law, with the ability to discriminate between the taint of culture and the law itself that is lacking in the laymen, born Muslim or not. Nothing less should be accepted when discussin weighty issues.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Nasturtium 500]

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't read your first sentence correctly to understand you were stating both parties were unchaste, and thought you were saying only the non-Muslim was. My mistake upon reread.

I guess I don't get singling out Muslim men with non-Muslim women to make the supposition that their marriage is "due to fornication". It comes across as a dig. If you accept the premise that fornicators can marry only fornicators (and the ayat clearly doesn't refer to Muslims with al-kitab only), it would follow that this is true of Muslim-Muslim marriage as well.

This is the way I understood it, but I cannot speak for VW. If a Muslim (man in my example) marries a woman (following same example) who is al-kitab (or not) who is not practicing her religion, then one is to assume it must be by fornicators marrying fornicators.... Because the provision is given that it is permissible IF she is chaste and religious otherwise.

[aisha kandisha 0]

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't read your first sentence correctly to understand you were stating both parties were unchaste, and thought you were saying only the non-Muslim was. My mistake upon reread.

I guess I don't get singling out Muslim men with non-Muslim women to make the supposition that their marriage is "due to fornication". It comes across as a dig. If you accept the premise that fornicators can marry only fornicators (and the ayat clearly doesn't refer to Muslims with al-kitab only), it would follow that this is true of Muslim-Muslim marriage as well.

This is the way I understood it, but I cannot speak for VW. If a Muslim (man in my example) marries a woman (following same example) who is al-kitab (or not) who is not practicing her religion, then one is to assume it must be by fornicators marrying fornicators.... Because the provision is given that it is permissible IF she is chaste and religious otherwise.

I think this is a spurious argument. Who is the (earthly) judge of whether someone is practicing their religion?

and I still say why single out the non-Muslims? The same could again be applied to a Muslim not practicing their religion if we are going to judge such.

Edited April 17, 2008 by aisha kandisha

[Nasturtium 500]

I think this is a spurious argument. Who is the (earthly) judge of whether someone is practicing their religion?

And what I said still holds true. Why single out the non-Muslims? The same could again be applied to a Muslim not practicing their religion if we are going to judge such.

Non-muslims are singled out because the question was regarding Muslims and non-Muslims in marriage. Yes, the same applies to Muslims.

The earthly judge of whether someone is following their religion or not would have to do with whatever they hold to be the word of G-d.

[aisha kandisha 0]

I think this is a spurious argument. Who is the (earthly) judge of whether someone is practicing their religion?

And what I said still holds true. Why single out the non-Muslims? The same could again be applied to a Muslim not practicing their religion if we are going to judge such.

Non-muslims are singled out because the question was regarding Muslims and non-Muslims in marriage. Yes, the same applies to Muslims.

The earthly judge of whether someone is following their religion or not would have to do with whatever they hold to be the word of G-d.

And regardless of the original topic, it still comes across as a dig to interject that we can assume that many marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims are based on fornication, at least from my perspective. Is such an interjection helpful in anyway? Offer any support to the question posed in the thread?

[doodlebugg 10]

hmmm...I made my daughter a roast beef sammich last night while he watched me and it was so rare it was walkin' and he didn't say anything about the redness at all. I've never really thought of eating rare meat as drinking blood.

[Nasturtium 500]

And regardless of the original topic, it still comes across as a dig to interject that we can assume that many marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims are based on fornication, at least from my perspective. Is such an interjection helpful in anyway? Offer any support to the question posed in the thread?

VW posted that in direct answer to a question asked regarding that very subject and her opinion on it, by a poster. It wasn't a random interjection.

hmmm...I made my daughter a roast beef sammich last night while he watched me and it was so rare it was walkin' and he didn't say anything about the redness at all. I've never really thought of eating rare meat as drinking blood.

There is the same ammount of blood in a piece of meat whether it was fully cooked or not. Blood doesn't disappear in cooking, it merely cooks just as meat doesn't disappear in cooking It's a different protien that gives meat its color, not hemoglobin

[Jenn! 918]

I think this is a spurious argument. Who is the (earthly) judge of whether someone is practicing their religion?

And what I said still holds true. Why single out the non-Muslims? The same could again be applied to a Muslim not practicing their religion if we are going to judge such.

Non-muslims are singled out because the question was regarding Muslims and non-Muslims in marriage. Yes, the same applies to Muslims.

The earthly judge of whether someone is following their religion or not would have to do with whatever they hold to be the word of G-d.

And regardless of the original topic, it still comes across as a dig to interject that we can assume that many marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims are based on fornication, at least from my perspective. Is such an interjection helpful in anyway? Offer any support to the question posed in the thread?

It's obviously a dig. But whatever, honestly. Oooh, I'm a fornicator. Big whoop. And I couldn't really care less about what someone who uses the term fornicator as an insult has to say about it.

[aisha kandisha 0]

And regardless of the original topic, it still comes across as a dig to interject that we can assume that many marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims are based on fornication, at least from my perspective. Is such an interjection helpful in anyway? Offer any support to the question posed in the thread?

VW posted that in direct answer to a question asked regarding that very subject and her opinion on it, by a poster. It wasn't a random interjection.

Where was the question asked about what we can assume Muslim/non-Muslim marriages are due to or whether they have anything to do with fornication?