Marriage With Ahl Al Kitab Men

[ya falaha! 0]

Thanks for the info but I've never married or never plan on marrying anyone who isn't Muslim (inshallah this is my last marriage). Just personal preference.

Edited September 20, 2006 by moody

[Veiled Princess 1]

It would be nice if we could debate ideas without implying things about one another personally.

Unfortunately, anytime there is a religious debate there's going to be hard feelings. Someone is going to take it personally.

Many of us here take our religions very personally.

I know my posts, for example, probably sound offensive to non muslims because I am expressing my opinions based off my religious beliefs. I don't necessarly mean them to sound rude but I'm sure they're taken that way.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As I said before, and Layla is proving now, there are the illegitimate among us who will claim abrogation and misleading translations to deny what they cannot deny by the Word of God.

I will answer points as I come to them. First, let's shift the emphasis in 60:10 from where Layla put it to another section and correct the translation"

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 kuffar, they are not lawful (wives) for the kuffar nor are the kuffar lawful (husbands) for them. But give the kuffar 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 kuffar women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the kuffar.) 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 above is 60:10, an ayah I referred to before that requires both men and women to release their KUFFAR spouses. No exception was made for men, as you can see here. Umer, among others, gave up two wives to the directive, and Allah did not send the Prophet over later to explain to Umer that He didn't mean to ban wives, just husbands. Kuffar (sing. kafir), as I have said before DOES NOT MEAN DISBELIEVER"; that is a manipulative and self-serving translation. The uneducated and those with a separatist agenda will use that to mislead those who do not know better, but you need to refrain from listening to the uneducated and misleading.

Dawn asked: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.

Kafir means rejecter, one who is hostile to Islam. It is not a blanket term that refers to all non-Muslims. The scholars have accepted that they are special to Allah because they received the revelations before the Arabs. In fact, it was a Christian who explained Muhammad's first revelation to him, and Allah commanded the Prophet to seek out "those who had received the Message before", and he did, consulting Jewish law for its application to the Message.

Layla says: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.

The reason why Muslims are allowed to marry among the ahl al kitab is because there is no prohibition against them that required an abrogation for men or women. It did not exist in 2:221 nor in 60:10.

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

Yes, the scholars have forbidden things that God has made halal. Caliph Umer forced Muslim men to divorce Christian women. No Muslim in Singapore is allowed to marry a non-Muslim. I have already mentioned that there is a fatwa against Muslim men marrying ahl al kitab women and living in the west. Even the Prophet was admonished for disallowing to himself something Allah had not forbidden:

[66.1] O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

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

I'm 53, born Muslim, and I know that it has, and that is the Wahabi/Salafi oil money influence. They are buying Islam and reinterpreting it to fit their narrow vision. The tradition in Islamic history is that there is a diversity of opinion, and that has been discouraged.

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

Well, besides the fact that kuffar does not merely mean disbeliever, someone lacking in a nuanced understanding of the Quran and with an agenda designed to indicate that all non-Muslims are doomed to hell will know only those ayat that serve their agenda. However, I will repeat the ayat that I referred to before, because Allah is not a Salafi and His agenda is the one we are to follow.

Allah say that there will be ahl al kitab among those who will enter heaven:

[2.62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[5.69] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[22.17] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God is witness of all things.

Allah says that He wil guide who He may, and that He has made the world to reflect diversity of belief as a test to our ability to live together in peace:

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 thee. 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.

Allah has told us that He expects us to lean to work together, even as we may have once been enemies:

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).

60.7 It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things); And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Rebecca asks: 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.

There are ayat that are conditional and meant for a particular time and place, as are the laws of fiqh. The "Sword Verses", the ones that say things like "Do not take Christians and Jews as your friends", etc., are obviously in contradiction to the one I just posted, but they are known to reflect a particular episode in Muslim history and are not to be generalized. But generalizing specifics is something that has come along with the Wahabi/Salafi philosophy, which emphasizes such verses,as their agenda is separatism from non-Muslims.

Dawn asks: 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?

Layla responds: 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.

* The Salafi Quran adds commentary that is not from Allah in order to promote their beliefs, not God's Word. That is a really bad practice, and probably blasphemous.

continued . . .

As I mentioned before "disbeliever" is a blanket term used to advance an agenda, even when that is not the word used in the original ayah to describe whom is being addressed. Please keep that bit of information in mind.

I'm not sure why Layla refers often to Christians "today", as if their theology has changed significantly since the time of the revelations. She says, "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.... ", as if that is a belief that did not exist prior to the Quran in Arabia.

Quite the contrary, the Council of Nicea in 325 settled the question of Jesus' divinity and established the trinity as doctrine. That was 285 years before the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad. So, it is clear that Allah as aware of what the beliefs of the Christians were each time He referred too them, but He still did not forbid intermarriage with them, nor did He forbid them all entry into heaven.

She says, "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."

Well, ok, then they were Muslims, not Christians, and not the subject of this discussion.

Dawn says: As for Christians accepting the Qu'ran -- of course they don't, or else they'd be Muslims. ... Jews and early Christians, whom Mohammed (I mention his name here with great respect throughout) knew, spoke with, and had relationships with, had set theologies for hundreds of years (thousands in the case of Jews), which Mohammed was aware of; if Mohammed concluded that Jews and Christians are People of the Book then, it stands to reason that they'd continue to be so today. Christian doctrine was formulated in 325CE at the Council of Nicea and then clarified in subsequent councils, such as he 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Mohammed did not receive his first revelation until about 600CE; by then, Christian theology was (officially speaking) settled, including explanation of the Trinity and the relationship of Jesus to God (Allah). And of course, Jewish teaching had already existed for roughly 2000 years.

She and I agree, for this is the history is the context we must work within.

Layla responds:Yes, and they were considered disbelievers back then if they didn't accept the Quran and Muhammad as the messenger and the same holds true today. There are no special rules stating that people of the book don't have to follow Islam or the prophet. He called them to Islam the same as any other... those who rejected him were disbelievers. I don't believe the Quran is unclear on this matter but I guess it's all in how each person interprets it.

I'm not claiming that christians today are not people of the book... I'm just stating my opinion that that doesn't make them believers. I believe people of the book are expected to accept the message of Islam the same as any other person.

If they were lumped in as disbelievers, then there would be no promise that there will be those among them who will enter heaven and no Muslim, male or female, could marry them. They are the People of the Book, ONE Book, ONE Message; they are our brothers and sisters before God. God has laid out His Plan and Intent for all of us, and it includes testing us to see how well we can live together. He has explained that He is the Decider of All Things and He will guide us in our humble attempts to walk His Path. He has promised Jannah to no one, only given us the means to achieve it.

16.125 Invite all to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: For your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

Edited September 21, 2006 by szsz

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

As I said before, and Layla is proving now, there are the illegitimate among us who will claim abrogation and misleading translations to deny what they cannot deny by the Word of God.

vp's parents weren't married?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Thanks for the info but I've never married or never plan on marrying anyone who isn't Muslim (inshallah this is my last marriage). Just personal preference.

You're welcome!

[Karen_L 1]

Dawn says: As for Christians accepting the Qu'ran -- of course they don't, or else they'd be Muslims. ... Jews and early Christians, whom Mohammed (I mention his name here with great respect throughout) knew, spoke with, and had relationships with, had set theologies for hundreds of years (thousands in the case of Jews), which Mohammed was aware of; if Mohammed concluded that Jews and Christians are People of the Book then, it stands to reason that they'd continue to be so today. Christian doctrine was formulated in 325CE at the Council of Nicea and then clarified in subsequent councils, such as he 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Mohammed did not receive his first revelation until about 600CE; by then, Christian theology was (officially speaking) settled, including explanation of the Trinity and the relationship of Jesus to God (Allah). And of course, Jewish teaching had already existed for roughly 2000 years.

She and I agree, for this is the history is the context we must work within.

< taking credit >

I said that!

</ taking credit >

She says, "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."

Well, ok, then they were Muslims, not Christians, and not the subject of this discussion.

Also, there were dozens of early Christian groups in existance prior to the Council of Nicea (and afterward as well, before they were snuffed out one way or another... heh...) with differing philosophies, which were deemed not Christian after the Council of Nicea organized what is and what isn't Christian (officially, anyhooz). Saying "the early Christians xyz..." is too much of a blanket statement, and it's misleading. Some of these groups believed in Christ's divinity, others said that he was a teacher, a philosopher, etc other such human roles. I'm sure there was a group somewhere that expected a second messenger and then converted to Islam, but they were a tiny minority among thousands, especially by 600CE. I don't personally think that the Qu'ran would refer only to such a small group of people as "The Christians" without even bothering to clarify the difference between the vast majority of Christians (followers of official doctrine) and this tiny group. As szsz said, those people who were Christians and then converted to Islam were then Muslims; the Qu'ran (as far as I know) talks about Christians and Jews as People of the Book, not ex-Christians and ex-Jews or Christians and Jews before 610CE only. As I said earlier, no Christian with any kind of understand of the tenents of his or her religion would consider Jesus a separate deity from God (Allah); perhaps in the passage of the Qu'ran that talks about assigning partners with Allah references MANY of the recently-converted Christian former-pagans of the time who wrongfully (according to official doctrine) saw Jesus as a second god? Just a hypothesis.

[dawnnhatem 0]

Dawn says: As for Christians accepting the Qu'ran -- of course they don't, or else they'd be Muslims. ... Jews and early Christians, whom Mohammed (I mention his name here with great respect throughout) knew, spoke with, and had relationships with, had set theologies for hundreds of years (thousands in the case of Jews), which Mohammed was aware of; if Mohammed concluded that Jews and Christians are People of the Book then, it stands to reason that they'd continue to be so today. Christian doctrine was formulated in 325CE at the Council of Nicea and then clarified in subsequent councils, such as he 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Mohammed did not receive his first revelation until about 600CE; by then, Christian theology was (officially speaking) settled, including explanation of the Trinity and the relationship of Jesus to God (Allah). And of course, Jewish teaching had already existed for roughly 2000 years.

She and I agree, for this is the history is the context we must work within.

Sorry, Karen L contributed this....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, Karen L contributed this....

Opps! Sorry Karen L!

Also, as happened with Christians, there were varying groups of Muslims with differing interpretations that formed schools of thought that feel out of favor or did not receive support from the ruling authorities. Favor by ruling classes was important to sustaining a body of thought being that their power to allow for some interpretations to dominate or not was a consideration in how widespread certain ideas became. That dynamic still goes on today.

Edited September 21, 2006 by szsz

[zzerous 0]

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.

You are ignoring that there are 4 ( not 2) sources of Islamic law: Quaran, Sunnah, IJma and Ijtihad. Even though Quruan and Sunah “may" never have mentioned any thing about a Muslim woman marrying a Christian/ Jewish man the Ijma and Ijtihad of Muslim scholars agrees with prohibiting that. You can contact many of the Islamic centers who are responsible for Ijtihad and Fatwa via email or phone and check with them and make sure that you are doing what the right thing. I am sure there are many papers/research has been done in this area and someone can direct you to what the Islamic law says

As might you know, in Arabic, every word in has a 3 letter verb that is is derived from, As far as the definition of mushrikeen or kuffar: mushrik is any one who accepts or believes that God has a "partner" in this whole creation and running of the world. Kafer is from the arabic work Kafer, i.e., covering something so not one can see it or denying the existence of something by deciding not to lok at it. Christianes and jews deny isalm as a religion and deny Allah as God. Hence the work Kuffar can be used on them. Kafer or Kuffar is not equivalent the English word infidel(s) it simply means the people who do not accept Islam.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Dawn says: As for Christians accepting the Qu'ran -- of course they don't, or else they'd be Muslims. ... Jews and early Christians, whom Mohammed (I mention his name here with great respect throughout) knew, spoke with, and had relationships with, had set theologies for hundreds of years (thousands in the case of Jews), which Mohammed was aware of; if Mohammed concluded that Jews and Christians are People of the Book then, it stands to reason that they'd continue to be so today. Christian doctrine was formulated in 325CE at the Council of Nicea and then clarified in subsequent councils, such as he 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Mohammed did not receive his first revelation until about 600CE; by then, Christian theology was (officially speaking) settled, including explanation of the Trinity and the relationship of Jesus to God (Allah). And of course, Jewish teaching had already existed for roughly 2000 years.

She and I agree, for this is the history is the context we must work within.

< taking credit >

I said that!

</ taking credit >

She says, "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."

Well, ok, then they were Muslims, not Christians, and not the subject of this discussion.

Also, there were dozens of early Christian groups in existance prior to the Council of Nicea (and afterward as well, before they were snuffed out one way or another... heh...) with differing philosophies, which were deemed not Christian after the Council of Nicea organized what is and what isn't Christian (officially, anyhooz). Saying "the early Christians xyz..." is too much of a blanket statement, and it's misleading. Some of these groups believed in Christ's divinity, others said that he was a teacher, a philosopher, etc other such human roles. I'm sure there was a group somewhere that expected a second messenger and then converted to Islam, but they were a tiny minority among thousands, especially by 600CE. I don't personally think that the Qu'ran would refer only to such a small group of people as "The Christians" without even bothering to clarify the difference between the vast majority of Christians (followers of official doctrine) and this tiny group. As szsz said, those people who were Christians and then converted to Islam were then Muslims; the Qu'ran (as far as I know) talks about Christians and Jews as People of the Book, not ex-Christians and ex-Jews or Christians and Jews before 610CE only. As I said earlier, no Christian with any kind of understand of the tenents of his or her religion would consider Jesus a separate deity from God (Allah); perhaps in the passage of the Qu'ran that talks about assigning partners with Allah references MANY of the recently-converted Christian former-pagans of the time who wrongfully (according to official doctrine) saw Jesus as a second god? Just a hypothesis.

I do believe Christians is a general statement but I also see where, in the Quran, their differences of beliefs are pointed out and addressed individually. Those who followed the doctrine that Jesus was God or the son of God were called disbelievers. The cruxifiction of Christ is addressed as being false.

I also don't believe, even after the council of pagans agreed on what christians should believe, that all christians believed it. I do believe there were still christians in Muhammad's time who believed closely what Jesus left them with. It was a christian, after all, who first believed Muhammad was visited by an angel and a christian who believed he was a prophet. Most christians today would not say that because their bible teaches them that angels lie and to be expecting a false prophet after Jesus.

I also don't believe people of the book hold this huge special status like some would have you believe. They are better than pagans but they still destroyed the original words of God and changed the religion into something unrecognizable and are cursed and condemned for such in the Quran.

Merely being 'people of the book' does not save them from God's punishment. I do believe it's expected for them to believe in the Quran. If it wasn't Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wa salaam wouldn't have preached to them back then... he would have just let them be but he didn't. He preached them and tried to convince them to convert to Islam... if they refused he left them alone but they were disbelievers and that doesn't change just because some muslim woman gets hot between her legs and wants to marry one.

[Veiled Princess 1]

As I said before, and Layla is proving now, there are the illegitimate among us who will claim abrogation and misleading translations to deny what they cannot deny by the Word of God.

The only illegitimate anything here is the pagan trying to pass itself off as a muslim.

I will answer points as I come to them. First, let's shift the emphasis in 60:10 from where Layla put it to another section and correct the translation"

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 kuffar, they are not lawful (wives) for the kuffar nor are the kuffar lawful (husbands) for them. But give the kuffar 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 kuffar women as wives, and ask for (the return of) that which you have spent (as Mahr) and let them (the kuffar.) 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 above is 60:10, an ayah I referred to before that requires both men and women to release their KUFFAR spouses. No exception was made for men, as you can see here. Umer, among others, gave up two wives to the directive, and Allah did not send the Prophet over later to explain to Umer that He didn't mean to ban wives, just husbands. Kuffar (sing. kafir), as I have said before DOES NOT MEAN DISBELIEVER"; that is a manipulative and self-serving translation. The uneducated and those with a separatist agenda will use that to mislead those who do not know better, but you need to refrain from listening to the uneducated and misleading.

Nothing I have said is misleading. That verse that I quoted is just like I said... it is forbidden for any muslim to marry the kufar. This verse addresses both men and women individually... not like the verse you claim is for you as a woman which address only men specifically. But I don't expect any more from feminist pagans.

Dawn asked: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.

Kafir means rejecter, one who is hostile to Islam. It is not a blanket term that refers to all non-Muslims. The scholars have accepted that they are special to Allah because they received the revelations before the Arabs. In fact, it was a Christian who explained Muhammad's first revelation to him, and Allah commanded the Prophet to seek out "those who had received the Message before", and he did, consulting Jewish law for its application to the Message.

They were also the ones who distorted the message God left them with just like you would do to the Quran if you had your way. Allah also tells Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wa salaam to judge between them using the Quran because it's the truth.

Layla saysThe 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.

The reason why Muslims are allowed to marry among the ahl al kitab is because there is no prohibition against them that required an abrogation for men or women. It did not exist in 2:221 nor in 60:10.

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

Please read your Quran and see where Allah calls them being in kufr (disbelief) because of what they believe. Since a kufar would be one who is in a state of kufr... they must be kufar--however you want to translate it.

Yes, the scholars have forbidden things that God has made halal. Caliph Umer forced Muslim men to divorce Christian women. No Muslim in Singapore is allowed to marry a non-Muslim. I have already mentioned that there is a fatwa against Muslim men marrying ahl al kitab women and living in the west.

And here you are trash-talking the sahaba again.

Even the Prophet was admonished for disallowing to himself something Allah had not forbidden:[66.1] O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

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

I'm 53, born Muslim, and I know that it has, and that is the Wahabi/Salafi oil money influence. They are buying Islam and reinterpreting it to fit their narrow vision. The tradition in Islamic history is that there is a diversity of opinion, and that has been discouraged.

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

It doesn't matter how old you are and we were all born muslim... unless of course this is another teaching of our prophet that you reject. Your age only serves to give you more years in sin.

I also didn't retort anything to that statement so please be more careful in your cut and paste disasters as to not mislead...

Well, besides the fact that kuffar does not merely mean disbeliever, someone lacking in a nuanced understanding of the Quran and with an agenda designed to indicate that all non-Muslims are doomed to hell will know only those ayat that serve their agenda. However, I will repeat the ayat that I referred to before, because Allah is not a Salafi and His agenda is the one we are to follow.

Allah say that there will be ahl al kitab among those who will enter heaven:

[2.62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[5.69] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[22.17] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God is witness of all things.

Allah says that He wil guide who He may, and that He has made the world to reflect diversity of belief as a test to our ability to live together in peace:

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 thee. 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.

Allah has told us that He expects us to lean to work together, even as we may have once been enemies:

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).

60.7 It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things); And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Please show me any jew or christian today who has the actual word of God that was given to them? They don't follow the word of God today because their books are corrupted. All those verses you quoted are great but no longer apply to anyone living today.

Rebecca asks: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.

There are ayat that are conditional and meant for a particular time and place, as are the laws of fiqh. The "Sword Verses", the ones that say things like "Do not take Christians and Jews as your friends", etc., are obviously in contradiction to the one I just posted, but they are known to reflect a particular episode in Muslim history and are not to be generalized. But generalizing specifics is something that has come along with the Wahabi/Salafi philosophy, which emphasizes such verses,as their agenda is separatism from non-Muslims.

Why is everything with you about trashing wahabis/salafis? Don't you know getting in groups like that is forbidden in the Quran?

Dawn asks: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?

Layla responds: 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.

* The Salafi Quran adds commentary that is not from Allah in order to promote their beliefs, not God's Word. That is a really bad practice, and probably blasphemous.

The commentary is the explaination from ahadith. A real muslim would know that but I don't expect you to.

As I mentioned before "disbeliever" is a blanket term used to advance an agenda, even when that is not the word used in the original ayah to describe whom is being addressed. Please keep that bit of information in mind.

This still doesn't explain why people of the book are said to be commiting kufr in the Quran....

I'm not sure why Layla refers often to Christians "today", as if their theology has changed significantly since the time of the revelations. She says, "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.... ", as if that is a belief that did not exist prior to the Quran in Arabia.

It wasn't as widespread as it is today. Early christian writings were still followed even though the council of pagans declared them as heresy.

Quite the contrary, the Council of Nicea in 325 settled the question of Jesus' divinity and established the trinity as doctrine. That was 285 years before the first revelation of the Quran to Muhammad. So, it is clear that Allah as aware of what the beliefs of the Christians were each time He referred too them, but He still did not forbid intermarriage with them, nor did He forbid them all entry into heaven.

He did because He refers to them as being in a state of kufr (disbelief)--ie. kufar. We are forbidden to marry kufar. It's really simple.

She says, "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."

Well, ok, then they were Muslims, not Christians, and not the subject of this discussion.

The point was that the people of the book who followed the actual teachings of the books they were sent were muslims already like the prophets who brought those messages.... as muslims they should accept the Quran as truth and Muhammad as messenger to avoid disbelief.

Dawn says: As for Christians accepting the Qu'ran -- of course they don't, or else they'd be Muslims. ... Jews and early Christians, whom Mohammed (I mention his name here with great respect throughout) knew, spoke with, and had relationships with, had set theologies for hundreds of years (thousands in the case of Jews), which Mohammed was aware of; if Mohammed concluded that Jews and Christians are People of the Book then, it stands to reason that they'd continue to be so today. Christian doctrine was formulated in 325CE at the Council of Nicea and then clarified in subsequent councils, such as he 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Mohammed did not receive his first revelation until about 600CE; by then, Christian theology was (officially speaking) settled, including explanation of the Trinity and the relationship of Jesus to God (Allah). And of course, Jewish teaching had already existed for roughly 2000 years.

She and I agree, for this is the history is the context we must work within.

Layla responds:Yes, and they were considered disbelievers back then if they didn't accept the Quran and Muhammad as the messenger and the same holds true today. There are no special rules stating that people of the book don't have to follow Islam or the prophet. He called them to Islam the same as any other... those who rejected him were disbelievers. I don't believe the Quran is unclear on this matter but I guess it's all in how each person interprets it.

I'm not claiming that christians today are not people of the book... I'm just stating my opinion that that doesn't make them believers. I believe people of the book are expected to accept the message of Islam the same as any other person.

If they were lumped in as disbelievers, then there would be no promise that there will be those among them who will enter heaven and no Muslim, male or female, could marry them. They are the People of the Book, ONE Book, ONE Message; they are our brothers and sisters before God. God has laid out His Plan and Intent for all of us, and it includes testing us to see how well we can live together. He has explained that He is the Decider of All Things and He will guide us in our humble attempts to walk His Path. He has promised Jannah to no one, only given us the means to achieve it.

16.125 Invite all to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: For your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

Those before that time were told they could enter paradise... not after the Quran. Twist it anyway you like it but it doesn't change the truth and "truth stands out clear from error".

[Veiled Princess 1]

Here's something interesting as well...

It seems one of the mothers of the believers didn't deem it as something good for a muslim woman to be married to a christian man....

UMMU HABIBA RAMLA BINT ABU SUFYAN

Umm Habiba Ramla bint Abu Sufyan, may Allah be pleased with her, in fact married the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in 1 AH, although she did not actually come to live with him in Medina until 7 AH, when the Prophet was sixty years old and she was thirty-five. Umm Habiba was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, who for some of his life was one of the most resolute enemies of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spending much of his great wealth in opposing the Muslims, and leading the armies of the kafirun against the Muslims in all the early major battles, including the battles of Badr, Uhud and al-Khandaq. Indeed it was not until the conquest of Mecca, when the Prophet generously pardoned him, that Abu Sufyan embraced Islam and began to fight with the Muslims instead of against them.

Umm Habiba and her first husband, who was called Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh, the brother of Zaynab bint Jahsh, were among the first people to embrace Islam in Mecca, and they were among those early Muslims who emigrated to Abyssinia in order to be safe. Once in Abyssinia, however, Ubaydullah abandoned Islam and became a Christian. He tried to make her become Christian, but she stood fast. This put Umm Habiba in a difficult position, since a Muslim woman can only be married to be a Muslim man. She could no longer live with her husband, and once they had been divorced, she could not return to her father, who was still busy fighting the Muslims. So she remained with her daughter in Abyssinia, living a very simple life in isolation, waiting to see what Allah would decree for her.

One day, as Umm Habiba sat in her solitary room, a stranger in a strange land far from her home, a maidservant knocked on her door and said that she had been sent by the Negus who had a message for her. The message was that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had asked for her hand in marriage, and that if she accepted this proposal that she was to name one of the accepted this proposal then she was to name one of the Muslims in Abyssinia as her wakil, so that the marriage ceremony could take place in Abyssinia even though she was not in the same place as the Prophet. Naturally Umm Habiba was overjoyed and accepted immediately. "Allah has given you good news! Allah has give you good news!" she cried, pulling off what little jewelry she had and giving it to the smiling girl. She asked her to repeat the message three times since she could hardly believe her ears.

Soon after this, all the Muslims who had sought refuge in Abyssinia were summoned to the palace of the Negus to witness the simple marriage ceremony in which the on the Prophet's behalf and her wakil, Khalid ibn Sa'id ibn al-As, acting on her behalf. When the marriage was finalized, the Negus addressed the gathering with these words:

"I praise Allah, the Holy, and I declare that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger and that He gave the good news to Jesus the son of Mary.

"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) requested me to conclude the marriage contract between him and Umm Habiba, the daughter of Abu Sufyan. I agreed to do what he requested, and on his behalf I give her a dowry of four hundred gold dinars." The Negus handed over the amount to Khalid ibn Sa'id who stood up and said:

"All praise is due to Allah. I praise Him and I seek His help and forgiveness and I turn to Him in repentance. I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger whom He has sent with the deen of guidance and truth so that it may prevail over all other religions, however much those who reject dislike this. "I agreed to do what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) requested and acted as the wakil on behalf of Umm Habiba, the daughter of Abu Sufyan. May Allah bless His Messenger and his wife. Congratulations to Umm Habiba for the goodness which Allah has decreed for her."

Khalid took the dowry and handed it over to Umm Habiba. Thus although she could not travel to Arabia straight away, she was provided for by the Prophet, (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from the moment and that they were married. The Muslims who had witnessed the marriage contract were just about to leave, when the Negus said to them, "Sit down, for it is the practice of the Prophets to serve food at marriages." Joyfully everyone sat down again to eat and celebrate the happy occasion. Umm Habiba especially could hardly believe her good fortune, and she later described how eager she was to share her happiness, saying: "When I received the money as my dowry, I sent fifty mithqals of gold to the servant girl who had first brought me the good news, and I said to her, 'I gave you what I did when you gave me the good news because at that time I did not have any money at all.'

"Shortly afterwards, she came to me and returned the gold. She also produced a case which contained the necklace I had given to her and gave it to me, saying, 'The Negus has instructed me not to take anything from you, and he has commanded the women in his household to present you with gifts of perfume.'

"On the following day, she brought me ambergris, saffron and aloes wood oil and said, 'I have a favor to ask of you.'

'"What is it?' I asked.

'"I have accepted Islam,' she replied, 'and now I followed the deen of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Please convey my greetings of peace to him, and let him know that I believe in Allah and His Prophet. Please do not forget.'"

Six years later, in 7 AH, when the emigrant Muslims in Abyssinia were finally able to return to Arabia, Umm Habiba came to Medina and there the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who had just returned victorious from Khaybar, warmly welcomed her. Umm Habiba relates: "When I met the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), I told him all about the arrangements that had been made for the marriage, and about my relationship with the girl. I told him that she had become a Muslim and conveyed her greetings of peace to him. He was filled with joy at the news and said, 'Wa alayha as salam wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh' - 'And on her be the peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessing.'"

The strength of Umm Habiba' s character can be measured by what happened shortly before the conquest of Mecca, when her father, Abu Sufyan, came to Medina after the Quraish had broken the treaty of Hudaybiyya, in order to try and re-negotiate a fresh settlement with the Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims. He first went to Umm Habiba's room and was about to sit down on the blanket on which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) slept when Umm Habiba, who had not seen her father for over six years, asked him not to sit on it and quickly folded it up and put it away. "Am I too good for the bed, or it is the bed too good for me?" he asked. "how can the enemy of Islam sit on the bed of the Holy Prophet?" she replied.

It was only after Abu Sufyan had embraced Islam, after the conquest of Mecca, and had become the enemy of the enemies of Islam, that Umm Habiba accepted and loved him again as her father. When she received the news that her father and brother Mu'awiya, who later became the Khalif of the Muslims, had become Muslims after the conquest, she fell down in prostration to Allah out of thankfulness. Umm Habiba spent four years of her life with the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and lived for another thirty-three years after he had died, dying at the age of seventy-two in 44 AH, may Allah be pleased with her.

Like all the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) Umm Habiba spent much of her time remembering Allah and worshipping Him. She has related that once the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to her, "A house will be built in the Garden for anyone who, in the space of a day and a night, prays twelve voluntary rak'ats;" and she added, "I have never stopped doing this since I it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessinof Allah be upon him).

http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_Habiba.htm

[Veiled Princess 1]

that is the Wahabi/Salafi oil money influence. They are buying Islam and reinterpreting it to fit their narrow vision. The tradition in Islamic history is that there is a diversity of opinion, and that has been discouraged.

Unless it's a Saudi/Salafi/Wahabi/Traditional/Orthodox (whatever you want to label it) opinion??? Then they're not allowed to hold this opinion heh?

Edited September 21, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Karen_L 1]

Dawn says: As for Christians accepting the Qu'ran -- of course they don't, or else they'd be Muslims. ... Jews and early Christians, whom Mohammed (I mention his name here with great respect throughout) knew, spoke with, and had relationships with, had set theologies for hundreds of years (thousands in the case of Jews), which Mohammed was aware of; if Mohammed concluded that Jews and Christians are People of the Book then, it stands to reason that they'd continue to be so today. Christian doctrine was formulated in 325CE at the Council of Nicea and then clarified in subsequent councils, such as he 1st Council of Constantinople in 381. Mohammed did not receive his first revelation until about 600CE; by then, Christian theology was (officially speaking) settled, including explanation of the Trinity and the relationship of Jesus to God (Allah). And of course, Jewish teaching had already existed for roughly 2000 years.

She and I agree, for this is the history is the context we must work within.

< taking credit >

I said that!

</ taking credit >

She says, "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."

Well, ok, then they were Muslims, not Christians, and not the subject of this discussion.

Also, there were dozens of early Christian groups in existance prior to the Council of Nicea (and afterward as well, before they were snuffed out one way or another... heh...) with differing philosophies, which were deemed not Christian after the Council of Nicea organized what is and what isn't Christian (officially, anyhooz). Saying "the early Christians xyz..." is too much of a blanket statement, and it's misleading. Some of these groups believed in Christ's divinity, others said that he was a teacher, a philosopher, etc other such human roles. I'm sure there was a group somewhere that expected a second messenger and then converted to Islam, but they were a tiny minority among thousands, especially by 600CE. I don't personally think that the Qu'ran would refer only to such a small group of people as "The Christians" without even bothering to clarify the difference between the vast majority of Christians (followers of official doctrine) and this tiny group. As szsz said, those people who were Christians and then converted to Islam were then Muslims; the Qu'ran (as far as I know) talks about Christians and Jews as People of the Book, not ex-Christians and ex-Jews or Christians and Jews before 610CE only. As I said earlier, no Christian with any kind of understand of the tenents of his or her religion would consider Jesus a separate deity from God (Allah); perhaps in the passage of the Qu'ran that talks about assigning partners with Allah references MANY of the recently-converted Christian former-pagans of the time who wrongfully (according to official doctrine) saw Jesus as a second god? Just a hypothesis.

I do believe Christians is a general statement but I also see where, in the Quran, their differences of beliefs are pointed out and addressed individually. Those who followed the doctrine that Jesus was God or the son of God were called disbelievers. The cruxifiction of Christ is addressed as being false.

I also don't believe, even after the council of pagans agreed on what christians should believe, that all christians believed it. I do believe there were still christians in Muhammad's time who believed closely what Jesus left them with. It was a christian, after all, who first believed Muhammad was visited by an angel and a christian who believed he was a prophet. Most christians today would not say that because their bible teaches them that angels lie and to be expecting a false prophet after Jesus.

I also don't believe people of the book hold this huge special status like some would have you believe. They are better than pagans but they still destroyed the original words of God and changed the religion into something unrecognizable and are cursed and condemned for such in the Quran.

Merely being 'people of the book' does not save them from God's punishment. I do believe it's expected for them to believe in the Quran. If it wasn't Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wa salaam wouldn't have preached to them back then... he would have just let them be but he didn't. He preached them and tried to convince them to convert to Islam... if they refused he left them alone but they were disbelievers and that doesn't change just because some muslim woman gets hot between her legs and wants to marry one.

I see.

Personally, I don't see how God punishing someone with eternal torment because a difference in opinion over ways of worship is consistent with the idea of a supremely loving God. Naturally, I will never be able to see this from your particular perspective, but I will say that throughout my education in Catholic school, we were taught that the Catholic perspective of God's nature is, along with being supremely loving, supremely rational; God bestows Reason unto human beings, as well as a sense of curiosity, questioning, and analysis; these are gifts from God and we're encouraged to use them and not follow anything without questioning its validity. The idea that God would want blind obedience and a completely homogenous society, doesn't seem to correspond to the nature of human beings, a nature that God has given to us. Interpretation, I think, is required of adherents of all faiths, and it is essential to Christian teaching (by that I'm mostly speaking of Christian denominations that existed before the Protestant Reformation); the Gospels are 4 versions of the same story, each slightly different, which in and of itself encourages analysis.

And personally, I don't believe ANY sacred text is the complete, literal word of God, no matter what it claims to be, though I think they're ALL divinely inspired. I think God offers guidance to us, which most of the time requires us to use our own skills and thoughts to understand and enact, but rarely gives explicit commands. I think this is at the heart of where you and I disagree VP, and that is fine by me; talking about these differences of opinion/belief are important and as long as it's done respectfully, no bad can ever come of it, imo. I also think there are ways for a person to accept a certain text as literal truth and still have room for analysis and for deepened understanding through interpretation.

Finally, regarding your last statement, I don't think ANY responsible person would enter into a marriage with ANYONE just because of sexual attraction; anyone who would do that is almost guaranteed a bad marriage, regardless of who they marry.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I see.

Personally, I don't see how God punishing someone with eternal torment because a difference in opinion over ways of worship is consistent with the idea of a supremely loving God. Naturally, I will never be able to see this from your particular perspective, but I will say that throughout my education in Catholic school, we were taught that the Catholic perspective of God's nature is, along with being supremely loving, supremely rational; God bestows Reason unto human beings, as well as a sense of curiosity, questioning, and analysis; these are gifts from God and we're encouraged to use them and not follow anything without questioning its validity. The idea that God would want blind obedience and a completely homogenous society, doesn't seem to correspond to the nature of human beings, a nature that God has given to us. Interpretation, I think, is required of adherents of all faiths, and it is essential to Christian teaching (by that I'm mostly speaking of Christian denominations that existed before the Protestant Reformation); the Gospels are 4 versions of the same story, each slightly different, which in and of itself encourages analysis.

And personally, I don't believe ANY sacred text is the complete, literal word of God, no matter what it claims to be, though I think they're ALL divinely inspired. I think God offers guidance to us, which most of the time requires us to use our own skills and thoughts to understand and enact, but rarely gives explicit commands. I think this is at the heart of where you and I disagree VP, and that is fine by me; talking about these differences of opinion/belief are important and as long as it's done respectfully, no bad can ever come of it, imo. I also think there are ways for a person to accept a certain text as literal truth and still have room for analysis and for deepened understanding through interpretation.

Finally, regarding your last statement, I don't think ANY responsible person would enter into a marriage with ANYONE just because of sexual attraction; anyone who would do that is almost guaranteed a bad marriage, regardless of who they marry.

I don't believe anything in Islam goes against reason or the natural state of mankind. I believe it is in man's nature to believe in and submit to the will of God.

Every religion has rules and I don't think it's a horrible thing to believe that some things just might be out of our human understanding. God created us and as our Creator He is the one best suited to make laws for us. We obey those laws because we love and trust God.

I thought the catholics believe in hell? Am I wrong?

I do believe God wants everyone to act in accordance with His laws.... what other purpose would He have in sending them down?

I do believe that the Quran is the actual speech of God and not created in any way. I don't believe it was inspired... I believe it is the very words of God sent down to Muhammad and delivered to us word for word.

I believe the previous books were the same but are not anymore because men have done away with the words of God that they didn't like and replaced them with words of men that better suit their desires. It's my belief... you don't have to agree.