The Laws of Islam

[Veiled Princess 1]

Weren't most of the marriages in question commenced in Muslim countries and thus the woman would have her rights protected in her husband's country (or enforcable in his country as most countries will enforce other country's Islamic marriage contracts) - which in fact would be more important than having it registered in the U.S as long as he was not residing here.

I think the article implies that no rights are better than some rights and some laws are better than no laws - i.e, you don't reject the laws because they are imperfect because they still offer some protection and some is better than none. My Islamic marriage that took place in the United States doesn't afford me 100% of the rights outlined in the Qur'an, but it does guarantee me some because it is registered. Likewise, by registering it in Morocco as well, I am guaranteed of my rights there.

To make things clear, posting that link was not to call anyone out on their marriage but only to show that szsz is clearly not the only person that feels the registration is important and/or necessary.

I am curious -- did anyone give serious thought to a guardian versus an Islamic marriage alone? I am not implying this is what anyone should have chosen, just wondering if anyone actually contemplated it and if so, what made you decide against it. It seems this alternative has not been discussed.

While that may be true... I don't think anyone here has outright refused to register their marriage in any country. I, personally, tried for the whole three weeks I was there. It didn't happen so it'll have to wait. The plan was to register with the state department the next day... plans fall through, stuff happens.... Do I believe my marriage is invalid because of that? NO. Has anyone provided any proof from the Quran or Sunnah to that effect? NO.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

she keeps going and going.....

Charles it's funny to see that you have apparently switched "sides". I do recall you saying how much you like szsz and respect her and now you're all about VP. Good times.

oh i should really confuse everyone and side now with sarah

Flip-flopper!

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

she keeps going and going.....

Charles it's funny to see that you have apparently switched "sides". I do recall you saying how much you like szsz and respect her and now you're all about VP. Good times.

oh i should really confuse everyone and side now with sarah

Flip-flopper!

ok i'll make up a schedule. tomorrow is sarah's turn. who wants monday?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

she keeps going and going.....

Charles it's funny to see that you have apparently switched "sides". I do recall you saying how much you like szsz and respect her and now you're all about VP. Good times.

oh i should really confuse everyone and side now with sarah

Flip-flopper!

ok i'll make up a schedule. tomorrow is sarah's turn. who wants monday?

I'd ask you to take my side on monday but that would mean I'd have to actually pick a side. I don't think I can do that.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Has anyone provided any proof from the Quran or Sunnah to that effect? NO.

The law, even for Salafis, is not found only in the Quran and Suunah. Islam is far more nuanced than that. If the Quran and Sunnah is all that you will accept, VP, what is up with all the "interpretations" from favored scholars you love to cut and paste? Why not limit yourself to the Quran and Sunnah like you want everyone else to do?

Edited September 17, 2006 by szsz

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Has anyone provided any proof from the Quran or Sunnah to that effect? NO.

The law, even for Salafis, is not found only in the Quran and Suunah. Islam is far more nuanced than that. If the Quran and Sunnah is all that you will accept, VP, what is up with all the "interpretations" from favored scholars you love to cut and paste? Why not limit yourself to the Quran and Sunnah like you want everyone else to do?

Ignore-evasion repost.

[Bosco 1]

This website has a discussion about following the laws of the land you are living in (or presumably visiting). It does reference the Qur'an and ahadith. While it doesn't address marriage specifically, it also doesn't offer exceptions - thus implying that marriage would need to be conducted in accordance with the laws of the land in which it was conducted.

Here is a snippet:

Then the case here is not between “Allah’s laws” and “man made laws”, rather one must understand and deal with the issue more rationally and deeply.

When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country. This, according to the Shariah, is considered to be a promise, agreement and trust. One is obliged to fulfil the trust regardless of whether it is contracted with a friend, enemy, Muslim, non-Muslim or a government. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) always stood by their word and did not breach any trust or agreement, as it is clear from the books of Sunnah and history. Thus, to break a promise or breach a trust of even a non-Muslim is absolutely unlawful and considered a sign of being a hypocrite (munafiq).

[Veiled Princess 1]

Has anyone provided any proof from the Quran or Sunnah to that effect? NO.

The law, even for Salafis, is not found only in the Quran and Suunah. Islam is far more nuanced than that. If the Quran and Sunnah is all that you will accept, VP, what is up with all the "interpretations" from favored scholars you love to cut and paste? Why not limit yourself to the Quran and Sunnah like you want everyone else to do?

Ignore-evasion repost.

The scholars I trust and paste here do follow the Quran and Sunnah to make rulings and they provide the proof for such.

The Quran is the ultimate source in law for the salafi scholars.... if the Quran does not directly address something then they look to the prophetic traditions for the answer.

Even scholars are not perfect... after all they are human BUT they have a lot more knowledge than us and we should refer questions like this to them. When we find them disagreeing amongst each other, we can only evaluate each set of proofs and choose one to follow.

Like I said before, I leave the teaching to the scholars. No one on this board qualifies as a scholar so there really should be no 'classes' here. As long as classes continue I will continue to paste links to the scholars here for those who wish to know what they have to say about it.

Gupt thanks again for taking away my right to ignore.

This website has a discussion about following the laws of the land you are living in (or presumably visiting). It does reference the Qur'an and ahadith. While it doesn't address marriage specifically, it also doesn't offer exceptions - thus implying that marriage would need to be conducted in accordance with the laws of the land in which it was conducted.

Here is a snippet:

Then the case here is not between “Allah’s laws” and “man made laws”, rather one must understand and deal with the issue more rationally and deeply.

When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country. This, according to the Shariah, is considered to be a promise, agreement and trust. One is obliged to fulfil the trust regardless of whether it is contracted with a friend, enemy, Muslim, non-Muslim or a government. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) always stood by their word and did not breach any trust or agreement, as it is clear from the books of Sunnah and history. Thus, to break a promise or breach a trust of even a non-Muslim is absolutely unlawful and considered a sign of being a hypocrite (munafiq).

I 100% agree with this statement. Laws should be followed as long as they don't oppose Allah's laws. However, as I've stated before, it is not in violation of US law to live as a married couple without a marriage license.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gupt thanks again for taking away my right to ignore.

I didn't take away your right. You just aren't exercising your right properly.

If you do not wish to see szsz's posts at all, it is clearly not sufficient to only ignore her. You must also ignore me and anyone else who might respond to her with her post embedded in theirs.

If that solution doesn't satisfy you, you could always set your house on fire and hope your computer burns down with it.

[gimygirl 0]

Gupt thanks again for taking away my right to ignore.

I didn't take away your right. You just aren't exercising your right properly.

If you do not wish to see szsz's posts at all, it is clearly not sufficient to only ignore her. You must also ignore me and anyone else who might respond to her with her post embedded in theirs.

If that solution doesn't satisfy you, you could always set your house on fire and hope your computer burns down with it.

[Bosco 1]

I 100% agree with this statement. Laws should be followed as long as they don't oppose Allah's laws. However, as I've stated before, it is not in violation of US law to live as a married couple without a marriage license.

Picking at you here but this would mean the marriage occured in the United States where it is not required.

Anyway, I enjoy this merely as an exchange of ideas/topic. I found the question of szsz being mainstream or not mainstream intriguing and wanted to see what was out there that supported her view.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Picking at you here but this would mean the marriage occured in the United States where it is not required.

Anyway, I enjoy this merely as an exchange of ideas/topic. I found the question of szsz being mainstream or not mainstream intriguing and wanted to see what was out there that supported her view.

And this is where it goes back to intention. We intended to obtain a marriage license and filing DCF while there but it just fell through as I've heard happened to others here as well. Doesn't make our marriages any less valid.

Gupt thanks again for taking away my right to ignore.

I didn't take away your right. You just aren't exercising your right properly.

If you do not wish to see szsz's posts at all, it is clearly not sufficient to only ignore her. You must also ignore me and anyone else who might respond to her with her post embedded in theirs.

If that solution doesn't satisfy you, you could always set your house on fire and hope your computer burns down with it.

True enough but you quote her only because you know I ignore her with the goal of bringing it to me.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

True enough but you quote her only because you know I ignore her with the goal of bringing it to me.

Damn straight

[gimygirl 0]

Gupt thanks again for taking away my right to ignore.

I didn't take away your right. You just aren't exercising your right properly.

If you do not wish to see szsz's posts at all, it is clearly not sufficient to only ignore her. You must also ignore me and anyone else who might respond to her with her post embedded in theirs.

If that solution doesn't satisfy you, you could always set your house on fire and hope your computer burns down with it.

True enough but you quote her only because you know I ignore her with the goal of bringing it to me.

ALWAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! about you again, layla, huh??

[iceyspots 0]

gupt lol