problems with muslim spouse?

[Old Dominion 26]

Though it happens all the time, for a Muslim to marry a Christian is against the Muslim teachings and traditions.

A Muslim man is allowed to marry a woman outside of Islam as long as she is either Christian or Jewish. Although they do prefer that he marries a Muslim. If they are from a Muslim country it of course is less common, but It happens in a non muslim country more than one might think.

What about a Muslim woman marrying a Christian man? My "first love" was a young Muslim woman in Sarajevo. Upon noticing that a romance was blossoming, her parents politely and as nicely as possible informed me that because I was an infidel, they would not permit her to continue seeing me.

That question in the MENA forum could open a huge can of worms, so don't take it there, I don't want it rehashed. I have been told that you are correct, a Muslim woman is only allowed to marry a Muslim man. It has been debated over there that it is not in the Quran. But in the majority of the Muslim population belief you are correct. I am sorry to hear what happened. That must have been a pretty hard blow as a first love experience. I hope that since you are here you have found someone that won't have the same kind of stress as it surely would have if you had pursued it further with your first love.

Thanks. I am a native of the US and was in Sarajevo for a cultural exchange mission. I recall enjoying the visit to her home, and the wonderful hospitality her parents offered before telling us both to respect the religious differences.

[taj'samericanwife 0]

right on miss morocco! my husband never told me it was against for him to marry a non muslim like me, that would make him a jerk if he ever said that. religion was never a problem...he never forced me to convert...sometimes even comes to church with me...greets me on christmas stuff like that and i celebrate his muslim holidays too.

i read somewhere that maybe during the interviews they ask how two people from two different religions work out a marriage and in their situation a jew and a muslim. they has a child and all they said was they were to do their best to bring up their child to become a good person not to harm anyone. i know now that the different religion issue also comes up in interviews. but couples who are 10 years apart in age and they spouse hardly can speak english also comes up during the interview process. i just have to hope and pray like every single person in here does to get thru this visa journey...

and yeah im pretty worried how people will react when he comes to join me here in america...like at work i mention my husband is from pakistan and they say...thats interesting and i totally know what they are thinking in the back of their heads. stereotypes! but i told my husband to prepare for that because u will meet uneducated people along the way who are just so ignorant. see, that's why we got along so well...when we were getting to know each other, he felt so comfortable with me because when he was in the philippines everyone kept making comments like oh he is from pakistan...he's a terrorist blah blah...except for me...anyway he will most probably be amongst professionals and educated people when he gets a job...

also...i dont think my son's visa will be delayed because his father is from pakistan...isn't it two forms of I 130 anyway? and an IR-2 for a child wouldnt even have to wait for a number...

im a newbie here so i dont really know how to put a timeline on my profile...someone tell me how to do that...but here it is anyway

oct. 18, 2007 married after 3 years of going steady...civil wedding philippines

oct. 27, 2007 my son was born

december 2008 went to manila embassy to inquire about getting a US passport for my son but consular said I did not meet the require for living in the US for 5 years, she advised to petition my son

july 2008 - present came to america alone...found job...working 5 months now...and ready to start filing for my family to come...but still getting acquinted with the process...

[pushbrk 12,569]

right on miss morocco! my husband never told me it was against for him to marry a non muslim like me, that would make him a jerk if he ever said that. religion was never a problem...he never forced me to convert...sometimes even comes to church with me...greets me on christmas stuff like that and i celebrate his muslim holidays too.

i read somewhere that maybe during the interviews they ask how two people from two different religions work out a marriage and in their situation a jew and a muslim. they has a child and all they said was they were to do their best to bring up their child to become a good person not to harm anyone. i know now that the different religion issue also comes up in interviews. but couples who are 10 years apart in age and they spouse hardly can speak english also comes up during the interview process. i just have to hope and pray like every single person in here does to get thru this visa journey...

and yeah im pretty worried how people will react when he comes to join me here in america...like at work i mention my husband is from pakistan and they say...thats interesting and i totally know what they are thinking in the back of their heads. stereotypes! but i told my husband to prepare for that because u will meet uneducated people along the way who are just so ignorant. see, that's why we got along so well...when we were getting to know each other, he felt so comfortable with me because when he was in the philippines everyone kept making comments like oh he is from pakistan...he's a terrorist blah blah...except for me...anyway he will most probably be amongst professionals and educated people when he gets a job...

also...i dont think my son's visa will be delayed because his father is from pakistan...isn't it two forms of I 130 anyway? and an IR-2 for a child wouldnt even have to wait for a number...

im a newbie here so i dont really know how to put a timeline on my profile...someone tell me how to do that...but here it is anyway

oct. 18, 2007 married after 3 years of going steady...civil wedding philippines

oct. 27, 2007 my son was born

december 2008 went to manila embassy to inquire about getting a US passport for my son but consular said I did not meet the require for living in the US for 5 years, she advised to petition my son

july 2008 - present came to america alone...found job...working 5 months now...and ready to start filing for my family to come...but still getting acquinted with the process...

Perhaps you're just not reading my posts. I can't imagine how I could make it more clear that for an IR2 visa, you will need to file an I-130 for your son. If you do, there's no reason to delay his visa but you can count on your husband being on AP for probably six weeks to six months.

Yes, you son needs his own I-130.

[Zayd 0]

Though it happens all the time, for a Muslim to marry a Christian is against the Muslim teachings and traditions.

A Muslim man is allowed to marry a woman outside of Islam as long as she is either Christian or Jewish. Although they do prefer that he marries a Muslim. If they are from a Muslim country it of course is less common, but It happens in a non muslim country more than one might think.

What about a Muslim woman marrying a Christian man? My "first love" was a young Muslim woman in Sarajevo. Upon noticing that a romance was blossoming, her parents politely and as nicely as possible informed me that because I was an infidel, they would not permit her to continue seeing me.

That question in the MENA forum could open a huge can of worms, so don't take it there, I don't want it rehashed. I have been told that you are correct, a Muslim woman is only allowed to marry a Muslim man. It has been debated over there that it is not in the Quran. But in the majority of the Muslim population belief you are correct. I am sorry to hear what happened. That must have been a pretty hard blow as a first love experience. I hope that since you are here you have found someone that won't have the same kind of stress as it surely would have if you had pursued it further with your first love.

I wanted to clear some things up here. First, Allaah says in the Qur'aan, "(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" (Chapter al-Ma'idah (5:5)). This verse establishes the principle that it is permissible for Muslim men to marry women from the Jews and Christians assuming they are chaste as clearly stated in the verse. It is not a blanket permission. Moreover, some of the scholars have explained that this verse applies only to Christian and Jewish women living in Muslim countries and does not include women living in countries at war with Muslims (potentially including the United States). This last condition has some disagreement amongst the scholars.

Now concerning this statement,

It has been debated over there that it is not in the Quran.

This is a lie against the qur'aan and whoever says it is clearly not paying attention. Allaah said in Chapter al-Baqarah (2:221), "And give not in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon (pagans) till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you." This verse clearly applies to women as it says not to give in marriage to a "mushrik" (using the male form of the noun). Since the male form of the noun for the spouse was used, it shows that this verse applies to women.

Also this thread refers to marriage to a Pakistani. It is not appropriate for Mena.

[Y's_habibitk 2]

This is a lie against the qur'aan and whoever says it is clearly not paying attention. Allaah said in Chapter al-Baqarah (2:221), "And give not in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon (pagans) till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you." This verse clearly applies to women as it says not to give in marriage to a "mushrik" (using the male form of the noun). Since the male form of the noun for the spouse was used, it shows that this verse applies to women.

Also this thread refers to marriage to a Pakistani. It is not appropriate for Mena.

I was so impressed by this that i had to go check it out. (curious)

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

Edited December 26, 2008 by Y_habibitk

[Y's_habibitk 2]

I have always understood,heard,read that a muslim woman should not marry a non muslim because children they should be raised muslim and kids are to be raised with the religion of the father..

[Zayd 0]

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

What you are mentioning is from the beginning of the verse. The translation of the meaning of the whole verse is

"And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (fem. idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (masc. idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allaah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember"

The part of the verse I mentioned is in the middle.

Concerning women marrying non-Muslims, ibn Qudaamah (one of the biggest scholars of Islaam) said that there is scholarly consensus on the issue that it is forbidden.

[pushbrk 12,569]

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

What you are mentioning is from the beginning of the verse. The translation of the meaning of the whole verse is

"And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (fem. idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (masc. idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allaah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember"

The part of the verse I mentioned is in the middle.

Concerning women marrying non-Muslims, ibn Qudaamah (one of the biggest scholars of Islaam) said that there is scholarly consensus on the issue that it is forbidden.

So, I can't resist asking if in Islam the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture is "scholarly consensus". If so, has such consensus varied over time? If so, how does one know which consensus was the correct consensus? I'm being neither flippant or disrespectful. It's just the thoughts that come to me after reading your explanation.

[MARM 7]

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

What you are mentioning is from the beginning of the verse. The translation of the meaning of the whole verse is

"And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (fem. idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (masc. idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allaah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember"

The part of the verse I mentioned is in the middle.

Concerning women marrying non-Muslims, ibn Qudaamah (one of the biggest scholars of Islaam) said that there is scholarly consensus on the issue that it is forbidden.

So, I can't resist asking if in Islam the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture is "scholarly consensus". If so, has such consensus varied over time? If so, how does one know which consensus was the correct consensus? I'm being neither flippant or disrespectful. It's just the thoughts that come to me after reading your explanation.

I understand your question. The ultimate authority in Islam for interpreting the Holy Quran and Hadeeth (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him)) is not just a "scholarly consensus". There are 4 schools of thought in Islam. Every Muslim either follows one of these schools of thought when it comes to interpreting areas where something is not clear, or either one may follow what the majority interpretation is. But resorting to the scholarly consensus of either of the schools of thought is not necessary for each and every interpretation. In areas of doubt, the schools of thought prove to help one understand what is unclear, but for the most part, everything is very clear and can be interpreted without further research. For example, concerning Muslim women marrying non-Muslims, there is no doubt or any "gray area" as to whether it is allowed or not, it is forbidden clearly as mentioned in the Quran, so one does not have to consult a scholarly consensus in this matter, but even if one did go ahead and look up what the scholars have to say, they would get the same answer as what is clearly evident. As to your question about whether such consensus has varied over time, the answer is NO. The four schools of thought are as they are today as they were 1400 years ago, and the original scholars who began these 4 schools of thought were student of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the last prophet and messenger of Allah, as all Muslims believe. The scholars are NOT prophets but were knowledgeable and gained the experience and knowledge of interpreting the Quran and Hadeeth by researching and learning from their respected elders and companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). So every Muslim follows either one of these 4 schools of thought, all of them are correct, details may differ, but it is not like one school forbids something totally and the other school accepts it, nothing as drastic as that, its just where some details are doubtful, each school of thought interprets in their own way. And Muslims have a choice to either follow one school of thought or the majority consensus. But it is important to understand that the 4 schools of thought/ majority consensus do not differ in anyway from the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah (the way of life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him). They do not contradict the teachings of Islam ever, they just assist in understanding of the more difficult issues or clear the doubts. Neither are the 4 schools of thought an obligation upon any Muslim to follow, the obligation for a Muslim is to follow the command of Allah as it is in the Holy Quran and teaching and way of life of the Prophet Muhammad, the last messenger of Allah, may peace and blessings be upon him.

[Zayd 0]

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

What you are mentioning is from the beginning of the verse. The translation of the meaning of the whole verse is

"And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (fem. idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (masc. idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allaah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember"

The part of the verse I mentioned is in the middle.

Concerning women marrying non-Muslims, ibn Qudaamah (one of the biggest scholars of Islaam) said that there is scholarly consensus on the issue that it is forbidden.

So, I can't resist asking if in Islam the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture is "scholarly consensus". If so, has such consensus varied over time? If so, how does one know which consensus was the correct consensus? I'm being neither flippant or disrespectful. It's just the thoughts that come to me after reading your explanation.

The term scholarly consensus refers to full agreement on a ruling by the companions of Prophet Muhammad and the early generations of scholars, who were closest to the revelation. If all of the religious scholars gathered together today concerning a ruling, it would not be considered a consensus if the companions of the Prophet disagreed on it. Only a small percentage of Islaamic jurisprudence issues reach the level of full scholarly consensus as you can imagine. When it does, it would show to a prudent person that this is not an issue with any wiggle room. The scholars of Islaam derived their scholarly consensus, as with all rulings from the Qur'aan and the authentic statements of the Prophet. Even in some issues where there are qur'aanic verses revealed (e.g. the covering of the face by women), there is still not full consensus on occasion as some of the scholars and companions differed on the interpretation of the verse.

[taj'samericanwife 0]

hey you all! wow this is interesting...anyway thanks im learning...not about the non muslim marrying a muslim...but the AP and everything.

mrs or mr pushbrk...thanks for the advice...we will file my sons and husbands together and we're on our feet already about it...i sincerely thank you

[Y's_habibitk 2]

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

What you are mentioning is from the beginning of the verse. The translation of the meaning of the whole verse is

"And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (fem. idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (masc. idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allaah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember"

The part of the verse I mentioned is in the middle.

Concerning women marrying non-Muslims, ibn Qudaamah (one of the biggest scholars of Islaam) said that there is scholarly consensus on the issue that it is forbidden.

aha, i'll go look that up...thanks

I was just curious if that over time and translation it was changed to what i quoted.

[morocco4ever 63]

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

What you are mentioning is from the beginning of the verse. The translation of the meaning of the whole verse is

"And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (fem. idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (masc. idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allaah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember"

The part of the verse I mentioned is in the middle.

Concerning women marrying non-Muslims, ibn Qudaamah (one of the biggest scholars of Islaam) said that there is scholarly consensus on the issue that it is forbidden.

So, I can't resist asking if in Islam the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture is "scholarly consensus". If so, has such consensus varied over time? If so, how does one know which consensus was the correct consensus? I'm being neither flippant or disrespectful. It's just the thoughts that come to me after reading your explanation.

I think they answered you question pretty well. I can't help but think the problem with the interpretation of the bible is much greater. I am curious if anyone knows just how many versions there are.

[pushbrk 12,569]

I think its so interesting that my english copy clearly says "do not marry unbelieving women,until they believe: a slave woman......

sorry for keeping the off topic going

What you are mentioning is from the beginning of the verse. The translation of the meaning of the whole verse is

"And do not marry Al-Mushrikaat (fem. idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allaah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikoon till they believe (in Allaah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (masc. idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikoon) invite you to the Fire, but Allaah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember"

The part of the verse I mentioned is in the middle.

Concerning women marrying non-Muslims, ibn Qudaamah (one of the biggest scholars of Islaam) said that there is scholarly consensus on the issue that it is forbidden.

So, I can't resist asking if in Islam the ultimate authority for interpreting scripture is "scholarly consensus". If so, has such consensus varied over time? If so, how does one know which consensus was the correct consensus? I'm being neither flippant or disrespectful. It's just the thoughts that come to me after reading your explanation.

I think they answered you question pretty well. I can't help but think the problem with the interpretation of the bible is much greater. I am curious if anyone knows just how many versions there are.

For most people, yes the bible has the same issues. Regardless of the number of versions, there are far many more interpretations and a small percentage of its readers bother to discover what a scholarly concensus might be on any given issue. I'm not saying that as a dig. It's just a fact that humans will read something and interpret it differently. Without the author or a Prophet to directly confirm the original meaning, there will be disagreement. Amazingly, most primary principles taught are widely accepted similarly.

[Sinergy 3]

Topic moved as it is not K3 related