Marriage With Ahl Al Kitab Men

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Thank you, Rebecca, for clearing this up. I'm not trying to judge szsz...as I said before, I don't care who marries who. [b[i'm just trying to prove a point that you can't go around judging ppl and saying they are doing haraam and what not and you're not practicing what you preach.[/b] I'm not a conservative Muslim myself. I sin just like everyone else. I don't like to be judged by other human beings who are not without sin themselves. It just really bugs me when ppl are so smug and self righteous as if their shitt don't stink. I would really prefer to keep religion off the forums. It causes too many problems and creates animosity and hard feelings.

Anyone who doesn't like being judged should avoid publicizing their sins.

As Rebecca said, there is no prohibition against marriage between a Muslima and an ahl al kitab man, so it is not a sin and there is no threat of eternal damnation or punishment originating from God. Not from the Quran, not from the Sunnah, thus not in the sharia, which means that it is not haram. So, I have not sinned in marrying a Christian man. I may have disappointed some mullahs who don't like the idea, but I doubt that Allah is upset.

When the sharia is silent about an issue, Islamic law requires application of the asl al deen, The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you.* That has not been done in this case, and several of my friends and family who were studying the deen set out to find out the truth about this issue.

The anti-interfaith marriage cut and pastes will usually do one of three things as they lie about this issue:

1. They will post partial ayat, omitting the part that forbids men to do the same as the women are forbidden to do. For example, the ayah that moddy posted is addressed to both men and women, and it prohibits marriage with mushrikeen (idolaters), not ahl al kitab, so it is not a prohibition against marrying people of the Book, and it is not just for women. Another favorite ayah that gets the same treatment is 60:10, which is also addressed to men and women and disallows marriage with "kuffar", which is often mistranslated as "unbeliever", as is "Mushrikeen". Kafir is a specific type of unbeliever, and not a blanket term. It refers to those who are hostile to Islam, and forbids us from marriage with them. 60:10 was revealed during the Battle of Uhud, and history shows that there were Muslim men who lost wives to the command, most notably Umer.

2. They will say that the ahl al kitab come under the umbrella of mushrikeen and kuffur, and that 5:5 is an exception that abrogates the prohibitions in 2:221 and 60:10, but does so only for men. This is a particularly grievous and self-serving rationalization, for legitimate scholars take abrogating the Message, the Word of God that has existed and been perfected since Adan and Hawa, very, very seriously, and this is not an occasion upon which to do so.

3. They will justify the prohibition as a protection for women, in that the man is the head of the household and the women obeys him, so a Muslim woman cannot obey a non-Muslim man. This one makes me laugh. Again, history shows that among the Prophet's inner circle were Muslim woman/non-Muslim man couples for decades, including his own daughter, Zaynab, who was married to a non-Muslim for nearly 20 years after she converted. Ibn Abbas, a Companion, converted 20 years after his wife. Umer also converted after his wife. The Prophet never forced any Muslim to divorce, although after his son-in-law was captured in battle against the Muslims, he did ask him to separate from her until he converted. Who could blame him for that?

The fact is, Islam does not inherently condone patriarchy and male dominance, nor demand that men be the head of the household and that their wives obey them. The Quran reminds couples that they have mutual rights, given from God (4:1), and that they are to dwell together in love (7:189). Even the ayah from where the interpretation of man as "qawaam"(protector and maintainer) arises, 4:34, is conditional.

When one looks to the Sunnah for guidance, one finds that the Prophet, an unaffiliated tribal orphan since infancy, had three qawaam in adulthood, until he established his power. Ironically, one was a woman and the other two non-Muslim men. The woman was Khadija, his wife of 25 years. She was much older, wealthy on her own, and his employer. She also financed his prophethood. The other was his uncle Talib. When the two died in quick succession, he was left without a qawaam, and fled to Abysinnia, where the Christian king put he and the tiny Muslim community under his protection. The Prophet was not a qawaam himself until late in life.

So, are all ahl al kitab mushrikeen and kuffar? The Quran says that no Muslim can marry a mushrik or a kafir, so, since they are allowed in marriage, it is not a stretch to believe that the ahl al kitab, as a whole are not mushrikeen or kuffar, although there will be some among them, just as there are hypocrites among Muslims. Also, the Quran makes it clear that mushrik and kafir have a slim to none chance of entering heaven, so would he allow an exception for any Muslim to marry them? If one says no, there would be a sound basis upon which to do so, for even early scholars accepted them as People of the Book, aside from being blanket mushrikeen and kuffar, and that is how they are designated in the Quran. The Quran says in ayat 5:72 and 2:62 that there will be those among the ahl al kitab who will enter heaven, so it cannot be so that they are, as a group, either mushrik or ahl al kitab:

In regards to this issue, and the entire interfaith relations issue, the adversarial position has been given the highest profile. So it may surprise you to know that several times in the Quran, Allah tells us that diversity in belief is His intent and part of His plan as a test for humanity:

49.13 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

5.48 To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to the e. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute

10:99-100 If it had been your Lord's will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt or obscurity on those who will not understand.

16. 93 If God so willed, He could make you all one people: But He leaves straying whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases: but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions.

I lived in peace and love with a beautiful Christian man to whom I was married religiously and legally for nearly 30 years and to whom I would still be married if not for his death all too soon. We were offered Allah’s test, took it, and, insha’allah, passed. There was no sin involved; our marriage was truly guided in His bidding and a blessing that I will thank Him for everyday.

But, being that there is a prohibition cited and enforced, what is the basis for it, if not the sharia? That is a complex issue that draws from fiqh perspectives of slavery law, politics and, even more heavily, from cultural attitudes toward women. There are sources other than the Quran and Sunnah that are utilized in the composition of fiqh rulings. Fiqh is the mortal attempt to deduce God’s Will from His Words. It is not perfect, not divine, nor immune from examination.

One is allowed to research the history, methodology and reasoning used to reach any determination in matters of mu`amalat, the law pertaining to social interactions. If you do the research and decide on the basis of what you have learned that the determination was not based on elements that would hold you binding to it, such as a command from God, you are free to reject it.

While researching the issue with trusted scholars, I saw that the evidence from the 11th century was based on patriarchal and cultural considerations that did not apply to the time and place in which I was operating. The elements of maslaha (public interest) maintained that women did not have the means to protect themselves, so they needed to be protected from influences that would cause them to stray from the faith. The elements of kafa’ah, the law of equality, deemed that a woman should marry a man who is her equal or better since she took on his status and to marry below her would lower her status. Marriage to a non-Muslim man, who is inherently inferior to a Muslim man, was forbidden in fiqh.

Also, under slavery law, upon which much of marriage law is based, the nikah (a contract for lawful sexual intercourse) required that all sexual aspects of a woman be exclusively for and controlled by her husband, so it was deemed that no non-Muslim man could legally enter into a contract that would give him control and exclusivity of a Muslim woman’s sexual parts and reproduction. Thus, with no ability to surmount the contractual aspect of the nikah, any consensual sexual contact with a non-Muslim man would be fornication and any progeny of the union would be bastards.

In this day and age, because of these rules, a Muslim woman in the Muslim world who marries even a man who is not from her country takes on his social status and is deemed his “property”. She and their children are considered to have taken on the nationality of the husband. In most cases, she loses some of her citizenship rights and the children cannot take on her nationality. This is a remnant of the patrilocal aspect of the tribal cultures that incubated Islam in Arabia.

All of this is far more about Jahilyya (pre-Islam) than about Islam, and not something to accept at face value. It would be interesting to see if anyone can find reasons from the Quran and Sunnah to justify this view of women and their relationships with men.

I will say this, when you don't know enough about Islam or Islamic law to be able to do more than cut and paste from internet sites without applying your own explanation, you impress no one who really has the goods.

So, moody, you still may find me to be self-righteous and smug, but my sh!t doesn’t stink regarding this, so, you have not proved your point at all.

*Reported in Al-Hakim, classified as sahih (sound).

Another thing that seems to go unnoticed is that the same jurists, the great imams, who decided to create a prohibition against interfaith marriage for Muslim women centuries ago, also created a prohibition against interfaith marriage for Muslim men in the west. Both are considered to be mukruh (undesireable), yet only one of the man-made prohibitions has been enforced to any extent; the other is generally ignored.

Edited September 20, 2006 by szsz

[Bosco 1]

Why do you think the major scholars concluded it was impermissible for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man? Has this every been seriously challenged in Muslim countries?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Anyone who doesn't like being judged should avoid publicizing their sins.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Hi, Rebecca,

I apologize if I didn't make the reasons for instating a "prohibition" very clear with these explanations:

1. The elements of maslaha (public interest) maintained that women did not have the means to protect themselves, so they needed to be protected from influences that would cause them to stray from the faith.

To further expand upon this hypothetical, jurists reasoned that the man is the stronger spouse in a marriage, but because Muslim men accept the prophets before Muhammad, they would not force their kitabi wives to convert and would respect their faith. Conversely, it was believed that an ahl al kitab man would not have this boundary, since he did not accept Muhammad as a prophet and, thus, would coerce his wife into accepting his faith as her own. Muslim women, too are seen as inherently weaker in faith, thus easily suseptible to conversion.

Of course, this proposed battle of the faiths did not take into account that Christians, male and female, are also called on to proselytize their faith and that the women are capable of exerting influence on their husbands and children. It merely assumed that that would not happen because men are assumed to be inherently stronger of will. It was, however, assumed that the man;s influence would wane in a predominantly non-Muslim setting.

2. The elements of kafa’ah, the law of equality, deemed that a woman should marry a man who is her equal or better since she took on his status and to marry below her would lower her status. Marriage to a non-Muslim man, who is inherently inferior to a Muslim man, was forbidden in fiqh.

This also applied to their children, so the entire lineage would take on the man's status and backgound, ergo, the children of a non-Muslim would be non-Muslim, as if there is something genetic about faith.

3. Also, under slavery law, upon which much of marriage law is based, the nikah (a contract for lawful sexual intercourse) required that all sexual aspects of a woman be exclusively for and controlled by her husband, so it was deemed that no non-Muslim man could legally enter into a contract that would give him control and exclusivity of a Muslim woman’s sexual parts and reproduction. Thus, with no ability to surmount the contractual aspect of the nikah, any consensual sexual contact with a non-Muslim man would be fornication and any progeny of the union would be bastards.

I should add that under the theory of abrogation, another reason is that since 5:5 is an explicit permission for men to marry among the ahl al kiab, but there is not an explicit permission for women, it holds that 5:5 must be an exemption from, an abrogation of 2:221 and 60:10. In other words, 5:5 creates an exception for men, thus in turn, a prohibition for women.

None of this takes into consideration the lack of a prohibtion in the Quran nor the Sunnah and the strong women who supported the Prophet even while their husbands were hesitant about the faith their wives had already accepted. But, fiqh is a lot about hypotheticals - what could happen and, thus, what should be avoided to prevent it from happening. Since women are seen as property in fiqh laws of marriage and weaker in power to influence or control by definition, then they were not deemed in law to be autonomous and independent beings, but as appendages of their mates.

Has interfaith marriage for Muslim women been seriously challenged in Muslim countries? Challenge to allow women's autonomy is an incremental process that would need to overcome more than a milleneum of misogynist culture. The patriachal view in the Muslim world of women as an appendage of men and needing male protection and guidance is engrained and has been difficult to overcome in law because of politics and tradition. Any move away from this is seen as an acquiesense to the neblulus "west" and its hedonistic norms, although Morocco and Tunisia have been two that have moved to loosen the patriarchal influences of classical law in favor of more moderate, middle of the road interpretations of Muslim family law.

For example, the hue and cry over allowing women to divorce more easily and require men to gain permission from their first wife to take a second was tremendous when King Mohammed Ben Al-Hassan of Morocco incorporated these reforms, among others, into the revised Moudawana, the Moroccan Family Law Code. The next move is to try to allow women to maintain their rights as citizens of their own country even when marrying a non-national. Allowing marriage to non-Muslims is a long way down the road.

I hope that is a clearer explanation,Rebecca, and that your day goes well, insha'allah.

[Veiled Princess 1]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا جَاءكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ مُهَاجِرَاتٍ فَامْتَحِنُوهُنَّ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِهِنَّ فَإِنْ عَلِمْتُمُوهُنَّ مُؤْمِنَاتٍ فَلَا تَرْجِعُوهُنَّ إِلَى الْكُفَّارِ لَا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ وَآتُوهُم مَّا أَنفَقُوا وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَن تَنكِحُوهُنَّ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَلَا تُمْسِكُوا بِعِصَمِ الْكَوَافِرِ وَاسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقْتُمْ وَلْيَسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقُوا ذَلِكُمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them, Allah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them. But give the disbelievers that (amount of money) which they have spent (as their Mahr) to them. And there will be no sin on you to marry them if you have paid their Mahr to them. Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the disbelievers, etc.) ask back for that which they have spent. That is the Judgement of Allah. He judges between you. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The only exception to this restriction was given specifically to muslim men. They were given permission to marry chaste women from the people of the book.

Our scholars are not stupid to forbid things that Allah made halal.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

3. Also, under slavery law, upon which much of marriage law is based,

aha! see gupt? told you so!

[dawnnhatem 0]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا جَاءكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ مُهَاجِرَاتٍ فَامْتَحِنُوهُنَّ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِهِنَّ فَإِنْ عَلِمْتُمُوهُنَّ مُؤْمِنَاتٍ فَلَا تَرْجِعُوهُنَّ إِلَى الْكُفَّارِ لَا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ وَآتُوهُم مَّا أَنفَقُوا وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَن تَنكِحُوهُنَّ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَلَا تُمْسِكُوا بِعِصَمِ الْكَوَافِرِ وَاسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقْتُمْ وَلْيَسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقُوا ذَلِكُمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them, Allah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them. But give the disbelievers that (amount of money) which they have spent (as their Mahr) to them. And there will be no sin on you to marry them if you have paid their Mahr to them. Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the disbelievers, etc.) ask back for that which they have spent. That is the Judgement of Allah. He judges between you. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The only exception to this restriction was given specifically to muslim men. They were given permission to marry chaste women from the people of the book.

Our scholars are not stupid to forbid things that Allah made halal.

I normally stay out of religious discussions here, but I am curious as to why you would make "disbeliever" synonomous with "Christian" when in other contexts, Christians and Jews are considered also "of the book". It doesn't seem that this argument fits unless you choose to interpret it that way.

[Bosco 1]

Thanks for your input.

I find the abrogation reasoning curious. I will attempt to look it up later, but do you happen to know which ayat was revealed first chronologically? Did the abrogation ayat come before or after the other two?

I have always been a reader, loved to think, loved to challenge, will take up a side of a debate just to argue the merits even it is doesn't represent my beliefs. It seems to me that "modern" scholars if equipped with the same texts as the traditional scholars should be encouraged to reexamime all traditional thought with new eyes. If they come up with the same conclusions, all the more reason to feel firm and secure in those beliefs. I know if they came up with a new perspective, the argument would be made by many that tradition is correct because "it was accepted for so long". However, it would hopefully encourage healthy discussion and debate. It seems a shame this isn't encourged more and that Western thought is criticized so often merely for being Western.

On another note, it seems to me that Islam has gotten more conservative in the past 40+ years, even the last 10+.

I don't recall any of our family friends growing up verbally labeling themselves "I am Muslim" or "I am Christian". My mother and aunt traveled throughout the Middle East as children. They have pictures from Egypt, Cypress, Syria, Lebanon, etc. and you see much fewer women wearing hijab than when the photos my mother has taken in recent years. Even more recently, when my mother traveled to Yemen about 20 years ago, she has lots of photos of women without hijab. Same thing when I look at photos from Morocco dating back. Neither of them recall such clear divisions on who is Muslim and who is Christian and what practices each are expected to follow. I wonder how much of this is post 9/11, how much is an influence of the internet, how much relates to the spread of Saudi money into mosques.

I think JP said in Jordan people don't openly label themseves so much as they do here either.

[Veiled Princess 1]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا جَاءكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ مُهَاجِرَاتٍ فَامْتَحِنُوهُنَّ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِهِنَّ فَإِنْ عَلِمْتُمُوهُنَّ مُؤْمِنَاتٍ فَلَا تَرْجِعُوهُنَّ إِلَى الْكُفَّارِ لَا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ وَآتُوهُم مَّا أَنفَقُوا وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَن تَنكِحُوهُنَّ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَلَا تُمْسِكُوا بِعِصَمِ الْكَوَافِرِ وَاسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقْتُمْ وَلْيَسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقُوا ذَلِكُمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them, Allah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them. But give the disbelievers that (amount of money) which they have spent (as their Mahr) to them. And there will be no sin on you to marry them if you have paid their Mahr to them. Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the disbelievers, etc.) ask back for that which they have spent. That is the Judgement of Allah. He judges between you. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The only exception to this restriction was given specifically to muslim men. They were given permission to marry chaste women from the people of the book.

Our scholars are not stupid to forbid things that Allah made halal.

I normally stay out of religious discussions here, but I am curious as to why you would make "disbeliever" synonomous with "Christian" when in other contexts, Christians and Jews are considered also "of the book". It doesn't seem that this argument fits unless you choose to interpret it that way.

I'm supposed to be on break from this drama

I equate people of the book with disbelievers because Allah says so...

"Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)), son of Maryam (Mary)." But the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)) said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.

Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God -Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them." Al-Maeda 72 & 73

[Bosco 1]

Ayat 60:10, which VP quotes, was regarding a time of war. I think this opens the discussion as to whether a message delivered at a specific time around specific events applies to all times, all events.

[Karen_L 1]

??? ???????? ????????? ??????? ????? ???????? ?????????????? ???????????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????????? ??????????? ????? ?????????????? ????? ??????????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ???? ????????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ????????????? ????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????? ??????????? ??? ??????????? ?????????????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ???????

O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them, Allah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them. But give the disbelievers that (amount of money) which they have spent (as their Mahr) to them. And there will be no sin on you to marry them if you have paid their Mahr to them. Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the disbelievers, etc.) ask back for that which they have spent. That is the Judgement of Allah. He judges between you. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The only exception to this restriction was given specifically to muslim men. They were given permission to marry chaste women from the people of the book.

Our scholars are not stupid to forbid things that Allah made halal.

I normally stay out of religious discussions here, but I am curious as to why you would make "disbeliever" synonomous with "Christian" when in other contexts, Christians and Jews are considered also "of the book". It doesn't seem that this argument fits unless you choose to interpret it that way.

I'm supposed to be on break from this drama

I equate people of the book with disbelievers because Allah says so...

"Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)), son of Maryam (Mary)." But the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)) said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.

Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God -Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them." Al-Maeda 72 & 73

Just to clear something up, in Christian theology Jesus isn't a partner with God (Allah); He is a manifestation of God, as is the Holy Spirit. Three faces in one and all that. There IS only one God (Allah); God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one in the same, not three different beings. Each manifestation is its own entity and has its own nature and purpose, but there aren't three gods and Jesus isn't a second deity

Okay, resume the discussion As I said once before, ME/NA is the best board ever the most interesting, definitely.

[dawnnhatem 0]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا جَاءكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ مُهَاجِرَاتٍ فَامْتَحِنُوهُنَّ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِهِنَّ فَإِنْ عَلِمْتُمُوهُنَّ مُؤْمِنَاتٍ فَلَا تَرْجِعُوهُنَّ إِلَى الْكُفَّارِ لَا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ وَآتُوهُم مَّا أَنفَقُوا وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَن تَنكِحُوهُنَّ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَلَا تُمْسِكُوا بِعِصَمِ الْكَوَافِرِ وَاسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقْتُمْ وَلْيَسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقُوا ذَلِكُمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them, Allah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them. But give the disbelievers that (amount of money) which they have spent (as their Mahr) to them. And there will be no sin on you to marry them if you have paid their Mahr to them. Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the disbelievers, etc.) ask back for that which they have spent. That is the Judgement of Allah. He judges between you. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The only exception to this restriction was given specifically to muslim men. They were given permission to marry chaste women from the people of the book.

Our scholars are not stupid to forbid things that Allah made halal.

I normally stay out of religious discussions here, but I am curious as to why you would make "disbeliever" synonomous with "Christian" when in other contexts, Christians and Jews are considered also "of the book". It doesn't seem that this argument fits unless you choose to interpret it that way.

I'm supposed to be on break from this drama

I equate people of the book with disbelievers because Allah says so...

"Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)), son of Maryam (Mary)." But the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)) said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.

Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God -Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them." Al-Maeda 72 & 73

So a Christian man that makes a distiction between Christ and one God, not considering them both gods....the above couldn't apply to him and he would be a suitable husband for a Muslim woman then, right?

[Veiled Princess 1]

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا جَاءكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ مُهَاجِرَاتٍ فَامْتَحِنُوهُنَّ اللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِهِنَّ فَإِنْ عَلِمْتُمُوهُنَّ مُؤْمِنَاتٍ فَلَا تَرْجِعُوهُنَّ إِلَى الْكُفَّارِ لَا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ وَآتُوهُم مَّا أَنفَقُوا وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَن تَنكِحُوهُنَّ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ وَلَا تُمْسِكُوا بِعِصَمِ الْكَوَافِرِ وَاسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقْتُمْ وَلْيَسْأَلُوا مَا أَنفَقُوا ذَلِكُمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

O you who believe! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them, Allah knows best as to their Faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them. But give the disbelievers that (amount of money) which they have spent (as their Mahr) to them. And there will be no sin on you to marry them if you have paid their Mahr to them. Likewise hold not the disbelieving women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the disbelievers, etc.) ask back for that which they have spent. That is the Judgement of Allah. He judges between you. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The only exception to this restriction was given specifically to muslim men. They were given permission to marry chaste women from the people of the book.

Our scholars are not stupid to forbid things that Allah made halal.

I normally stay out of religious discussions here, but I am curious as to why you would make "disbeliever" synonomous with "Christian" when in other contexts, Christians and Jews are considered also "of the book". It doesn't seem that this argument fits unless you choose to interpret it that way.

I'm supposed to be on break from this drama

I equate people of the book with disbelievers because Allah says so...

"Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)), son of Maryam (Mary)." But the Messiah (Iesa (Jesus)) said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers.

Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God -Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them." Al-Maeda 72 & 73

So a Christian man that makes a distiction between Christ and one God, not considering them both gods....the above couldn't apply to him and he would be a suitable husband for a Muslim woman then, right?

"Truly, the religion with Allah is Islam. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, then surely, Allah is Swift in calling to account.

So if they dispute with you (Muhammad SAW) say: "I have submitted myself to Allah (in Islam), and (so have) those who follow me." And say to those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): "Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?" If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His ) slaves." - Aal-e-Imran 19 & 20

I don't believe the people of the book can be believers today because I believe the bible and the tora were corrupted and do not contain the truth from Allah any longer. I believe they have to believe the Quran and accept Muhammad as a prophet to be a believer today.

"Say (O Muhammad SAW to mankind): "If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Quran and the Sunnah), Allah will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Say (O Muhammad SAW): "Obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad SAW)." But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers." -Aal-e-Imran 31 & 32

Even if they claim they don't believe Jesus is a god they still reject the Quran and Muhammad as a prophet/messenger so they'd still be a disbeliever.

You'd also be hard pressed to find a christian today who doesn't believe that Jesus died on the cross to forgive his sins.... since this a form of worshipping other than Allah because only Allah/God can forgive sins that renders them disbelievers.-- this is also a pagan belief (a dying god who is reborn to save humanity) so one could also make the claim that today's brand of christians crosses the line to mushrikeen...

Furthermore, even jehovah witnesses (who don't believe in the trinity or divinity of Jesus--or so they claim) believe Jesus was the son of God, which Allah/God denies and is offended by in the Quran, and that Jesus died on the cross to forgive their sins (which only God can do) and they'll tell you that God created the heavens and the earth through Jesus when God/Allah says in the Quran that He is no need of any of creation.

The early christians were looking for a new prophet/messenger to come after Jesus. They recognized Muhammad as being the other comforter fortold by Jesus before he was raised to God and the unlettered prophet in the old testament. Those people who were really followers of Jesus (muslims) accepted Muhammad as the final messenger and were muslims.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I just wanted to add that I'm all for the seperation of religion and immigration and anyone who wants to debate laws of Islam or anything else could always go to one of the many forums that are just for religious discussion... like True Religion or Ummah.com or Islam Message or Islam Online or belief net (I won't link to that because they push paganism there) but the point is that there are many boards for religious discussion while this one is for immigration and people shouldn't feel they have to leave when they have a valid immigration need because others don't agree with their religious beliefs.

I'm not saying don't discuss religion at all.... for many of us our religion is engrained in the very fiber of our being but to make topics for the sole purpose of judging each other.... IMHO it's a little too much.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... or belief net (I won't link to that because they push paganism there)

Allow me to help - Beliefnet