Interfaith Marriage

[Jenn! 918]

I was wondering how you all feel about the following passage that I came across online. I am unfamiliar with the reputations of the various online sources, so I'm curious as to whether this is mainstream opinion or not:

Q). Muslims are allowed to marry Christian or Jewish women. Is the woman so married to be converted to Islam before or after her marriage? If this permission is granted on the basis of Christianity and Judaism being religions preached by messengers from Allah, is the permission still valid, despite the fact that Christians now believe in the Trinity?

A). I should admit that I find the question about converting a woman because of her marriage rather strange. It is contradictory to Islamic values and principles. Islam states very clearly that "no compulsion is admissible in matters of faith." How then, can anyone contemplate that a woman must be converted to Islam in order for her marriage to be legal. Such a requirement is not acceptable. Islam either permits a marriage or forbids it. If it approves of a Muslim marrying a Christian woman, then it stands to reason that it allows that woman to retain her faith. Indeed, the husband should not pressure his wife in any way to accept Islam. What he should do is to make Islam known to her and to tell her that Islam is the final message from Allah to man, therefore, people are called upon to accept it. She must retain her freedom whether to do so or to maintain her faith. If she decides to remain Christian or Jewish, the marriage can continue, with the husband being required to allow his wife to practice her religion. The children are, by necessity, Muslims, since the Islamic rule is that children follow the higher of their parents' religions. Since Islam is the highest of all religions, then they are Muslims.

The point about the doctrine of the Trinity as practiced by Christians and the permission to marry a Christian woman is frequently raised. Some people suggest that since Christians have come to believe in the Trinity, they are no longer believers in the Oneness of Allah. Therefore, they cannot be classified as "people of the Book", or, as perhaps more accurately translated, "people of earlier revelations." l am afraid that this is not quite correct. The doctrine of Trinity was introduced into Christianity long before the advent of Islam.

At the time when the Qur'an was revealed, Christians had the same beliefs as they have today. The doctrine of the Trinity was already introduced and practiced. To us, it represents a distortion of Christianity and its fundamental principles. However, the doctrine is mentioned in the Our'an and Allah describes those who say that He is one of a Trinity are "unbelievers.'' Nevertheless, He calls them as "Ahl-Kitab", or "People of earlier revelations.'' Since the permission to marry Christian women has come subsequently to the introduction of the doctrine of Trinity in Christianity, then that permission remains in force. Once again, no coercion or pressure should be exercised to make a Christian wife adopt Islam. If she adopts it, she must do so by her own free will.

We have already established that it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a Christian woman or a Jewess. The question remains whether it is advisable. It may happen that a certain thing is permitted so as to serve as a last resort, or as a sound solution to a particular problem. It does not follow that it is to be treated as recommended or desirable. In this particular case, inter-faith marriages are permitted within certain limits to help solve problems, which may be encountered by individual Muslims. An inter-faith marriage cannot be treated on the same footing as a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim woman. Let us take the following example from the time of the first generation of Muslims, i.e. the companions of the Prophet. Huthaifah ibn Al Yaman was one of the commanders Umar ibn Al Khatab sent to Persia. Subsequently, Umar learned that Huthaifah had married a Jewish woman. He wrote to him asking him to divorce her. Huthaifah wrote back saying that he would not comply with Umar's request unless Umar stated first whether his marriage was permissible or not. Umar wrote to him that it was permissible. However, he supported his request to Huthaifah to divorce his Jewish wife by two arguments: that if Muslims married non-Muslims, who would marry Muslim women? In this connection, we should remember that a Muslim woman could only marry a Muslim. The other reason expressed by Umar was that foreign women had an element of attraction, which may lure Muslims away. Huthaifah found both arguments sound and he divorced his wife. Both arguments are still sound today. Indeed more so. The companions of the Prophet were better believers than we are and yet Umar expressed his misgivings about interfaith marriages, by as a distinguished figure of them as Huthaifah, an Ansari who could be trusted witthe command of a large Muslim army.

One more point needs to be added in this connection. If a Muslim who is living in a non-Muslim country marries a local Christian woman, then he places himself under very great pressure. His wife will be living among her people and within her own cultural background. She finds no reason to modify her social behavior in order to be more accommodating to Islamic principles.

In fact, all the compromises that will inevitably be necessary will have to be made by her husband, who is an outsider coming into her society. The case is different if she is to travel to his home country. It is she who finds herself in a position of having to make compromises in order to adjust to her new environment. All this is of great importance

The best way is not to have an inter-faith marriage, unless one has no choice. To marry a Muslim woman is by far better than marrying any Christian or Jewish woman.

Source

[kofuku 0]

don't get me started

[melly 0]

I understand that Muslim men can marry women who are Christian or Jewish.

And from some point I can see how it would be easier/better to marry someone of your own faith. There are several reasons for this, including helping you to practice your faith as best you can.

However, to put it simply, if something is allowed, then it's allowed. When something isn't allowed, it isn't.

Of course.... I'm not a scholar and I'm not even so well read in Islamic matters, so for sure I can't say how sound the above article is.

It's my opinion that it goes a bit far.

I mean, there is also always the chance that when a Muslim man marries a woman who is Christian or Jewish, he can perform dawah and she may revert, and of course that would be great.

I see plusses and minuses.

[Henia 11]

Hmmm I wonder who wrote that? I have some idea, but will not post it here!

Well I guess in all practicality a Muslim would understand a Muslim better...as they did grow up learning basically the same mannerisms and thinking. Easier to practise any religion with someone who knowing it... but that does not nessassryily mean a Muslim cannot or should not marry a Christian or Jew.It is allowable for Muslim men to marry women of Ahlul-Kitaabe(people of the books) However the order is for believing man to marry believers of God only. The wife need not adopt any Muslim laws, and the husband is not allowed to keep her from going to practise her faith.

The people I have seen this same old topic come up quite abit, but I am still not convinced by it.I think it is much more important the couple "understand" each other rather then be the same faith. I much rather, if I ever have a son in the future inchallah have my sons marry a non_Muslim woman that is decent, loves him for him and treats him and us with respect then a Muslim woman who does not. So...in the end I think it matter what the person is about...not what label they wear. This is my opinion. As Melly said I am not a scholar either, nor pretending to be...

But I believe that having parents of two opposing(opposing meaning one is fighting who is right and who is wrong religiously) religions causes psychological stress on the children and maybe forced to "choose" one parent over another.

But anyway I will think thread will open another can of worms...so I will just leave it at that.

[Jenn! 918]

I much rather, if I ever have a son in the future inchallah have my sons marry a non_Muslim woman that is decent, loves him for him and treats him and us with respect then a Muslim woman who does not. So...in the end I think it matter what the person is about...not what label they wear.

I think that's a very respectable stance.

[Together4ever 1]

I'm not judging it one way or the other. The choices in life are up to the individual and really no one's business but their's. In simplest terms, they're saying a muslim understands what it is to be a muslim. Too easy to wrap other connotations around it when it involves relationship/marriage.

[doodlebug 3]

I know nothing about that source so I can't comment on it really.

I do know that when Usama and I started talking he said that a muslim man can be with a "pious" Christian or Jewish woman. The key is that they are deep in their faith of the God of Abraham.

I also remember growing up in a majorly Jewish populated town, the same one I live in now btw, and falling for a few boys who were Jewish. They were not allowed to be serious with me and some parents went so far as to forbid dating at all with anyone who was not Jewish. I used to resent this bigtime until I found out that a person is not considered Jewish if their mother is not Jewish, then I understood it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In this connection, we should remember that a Muslim woman could only marry a Muslim.

Thousands of Muslim women have proven this isn't true.

"no compulsion is admissible in matters of faith."

Hasn't stopped them from trying to control women's marriage choices. Men will be next.

There is definitely a movement to discourage Muslim men from marrying non-Muslim women, and Umer's view of them, being a member of the Sahaba, and, thus, an authority, is used as a precedent. There have been numerous fatwas against interfaith marriage for Muslim men in the west. Eventually, I will not be surprised if it becomes more difficult to enter into such marriages. Then, the complaints that Muslim women have expressed about the parental attitude of Muslim "clerics" will be felt by men, too.

Considering that the fiqh laws against Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men are not coming from sharia (there is no divine law against it), the same tactics that are used to discourage Muslim women from marriage with non-Muslim men are being used to pressure Muslim men into the same position. Actually, there are a couple of nations, Singapore being one, that already prohibit Muslim men from marriage with non-Muslim women.

On another thread, I explained how a prohibition is leveled despite no prohibition being created by sharia, or even in violation of an explicit allowance from God. That legal doctrine is found in the concepts of ijima' (consensus), qiyas (analogy), 'illa (efficient cause), and malasha (edits conceived in the public interest). Fiqh law is deals in hypotheticals - what could happen - and is essentially designed to prevent possible harm. Up til now, Muslim men have enjoyed a kind of freedom that gets Muslim women stigmatized or killed in many places.

The injunction against interfaith marriage for women, being based upon ijima without support from sharia, has been enforced as if sanctioned by Islam, rather than merely by Muslims. There is a distinct and demonstrable possibility that, as more scholars and clerics see Muslim women marrying out against their improper edits, and more children from interfaith families not adhering to Islam, partial blame, at least, will be placed on the large number of Muslim men marrying out and leaving sisters to fend for themselves. This will, undoubtedly, force more fatwas against interfaith marriage for Muslim men as not in the public interest, leading to an ijima on the issue, producing a shift in the acceptance of such unions. I keep my ear to the ground; it this coming, and it won't be pretty.

Edited November 22, 2006 by szsz

[ya falaha! 0]

Many Muslim men will marry non Muslim women with intent to convert her. Then get all p'od (in some cases divorce her) when she won't. That's very underhanded and unfair, IMO.

[honeyblonde 0]

sz, very well written and informative. You're getting really good at sharing your beliefs in a non-offensive manner. Thank you. Your analysis makes a lot of sense.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

sz, very well written and informative. You're getting really good at sharing your beliefs in a non-offensive manner. Thank you. Your analysis makes a lot of sense.

Thank you, but I've never been the first to be offensive.

[morocco4ever 63]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You're getting really good at sharing your beliefs in a non-offensive manner.

Nice underhanded compliment there

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

You're getting really good at sharing your beliefs in a non-offensive manner.

Nice underhanded compliment there

nice personal title

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One of the reasons why this should be of concern is that even scholars who are considered to be liberal are leaning toward advising against interfaith marriage in the west. Khaled Abou El Fadl is a classically trained scholar and high ranking sheikh with many views are are considered to be so pro-western and pro-female that he needs bodyguards to protect him in public. He has ijaza to issue fatwas, and this is an excerpt from one that addressses a question about interfaith marriage, with reluctance:

. . .

Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them.

All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God--there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma'ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur'an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi. However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi.

The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands') religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries.

This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it. In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter--many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. However, I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with the jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible (makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best--I have reached this position after observing that the children of these Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that she must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience dictates.

Even this gentle man whom I admire, considered to be a liberal among his peers, hesitates to divert from the growing consensus that interfaith marriage for Muslims is not advisable and unsupportable as against the interest of Muslim families, their progeny, and he ummah as a whole.

Edited November 22, 2006 by szsz