I have found out that Dodi, a fiance of Princess Diana, was a muslim. With Diana being non-muslim I thought this was prohibited in Islam? Muslim-non muslim marriages?
A muslim man and a non muslim woman, provided she is a person of the Book, is allowed. A muslim woman may not be with a non muslim man. Dating is haram anyhow, so still what he did was wrong.
"...You are my Walî in this world and in the Hereafter. Cause me to die as a Muslim, and join me with the righteous." [Surah Yusuf 101]
Hmm. I knew a Muslim man could marry a woman who was Jewish or Christian, though a clearer definition of 'people of the book' would be appreciated. And I learned here that a Muslim marriage is not 'till Death do they part' - it actually seals them to eternity together, but I didn't know the woman had to convert to Islam first.
Quran: “And do not marry Mushrik (polytheistic) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you.” [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:221]
Moreover, we find that the Jews and the Christians too associate partners with Allah (swt). Says Allah (swt) in the Glorious Qur’an:
“They (Jews and the Christians) have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Surah At-Tawbah 9:31]
The Christians, who claim that Jesus (pbuh) is God as well as the Son of God, insist on the supposed divinity of Jesus (pbuh) and worship him as such.
“They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed he who associates other with Allah – Allah has forbidden him paradise and his refuge is the fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.” [Surah Al-Maidah 5:72]
From the above-mentioned verses and many such verses of the Qur'an, it is very clear that almost all the present day Jews and the Christians are committing shirk by joining partners with Allah (swt).
The following sahih hadith confirms the view that Christians are both mushriks and kafirs:
Narrated Nafi’:
Whenever Ibn ‘Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209)
A Muslim man is allowed to marry the women of the People of the Book but not vice versa, Allah says in Surah Al-Maidah,
5. Made lawful to you this day are At*Tayyibât [all kinds of Halâl (lawful) foods, which Allâh has made lawful. The food of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time, when you have given their due Mahr, desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl-friends. And whosoever disbelieves in the Oneness of Allâh and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allâh's), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al*Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
The scholors say it is inadvisable in these times, please see:
If the very same scholars say it's permissable, then how can they what Allah has made permissable is now inadvisable?
Allah didn't say and do not marry them in the 21st century etc.. so who are scholars to advise against it now if they believe Allah made it permissable?
Over 1400 years ago the Quran stated that christians and jews are mushriks. They still are. Why inadvisable now? That doesn't make sense.
If the very same scholars say it's permissable, then how can they what Allah has made permissable is now inadvisable?
Allah didn't say and do not marry them in the 21st century etc.. so who are scholars to advise against it now if they believe Allah made it permissable?
Over 1400 years ago the Quran stated that christians and jews are mushriks. They still are. Why inadvisable now? That doesn't make sense.
It isnt the statement of the Scholors, the permissibility is mentioned in the Quran.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“If the woman of the people of the Book is known to be chaste and to keep away from the means that lead to immorality, it is permissible, because Allaah has permitted that and has permitted us to marry their woman and eat their meat.
“But nowadays there is the fear that those who marry them may be faced with much evil. They may call him to their religion and that may lead to their children being raised as Christians. So the danger is very real and very serious. To be on the safe side, the believer should not marry them. And in most cases there is no guarantee that the woman will not commit immoral actions, or bring along children from a previous relationship… but if the man needs to do that then there is no sin on him, so that he can keep himself chaste and lower his gaze by being married to her. He should strive to call her to Islam and beware of her evil and of allowing her to drag him or the children towards kufr.”
Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/172
This is the reason why it is inadvisable in the present day. You can read the rest in the link I provided above.
“Do not argue with your Lord on behalf of your soul, rather argue with your soul on behalf of your Lord.” - Dhul-Nun
"It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness." - Victor Frankl
It isnt the statement of the Scholors, the permissibility is mentioned in the Quran.
The permissability is subject to the following verse.
Quran: “And do not marry Mushrik (polytheistic) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you.” [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:221]
Note: The Quran has defined as those who join partners with Allah as mushriks. See verses I posted before.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:[INDENT]
“If the woman of the people of the Book is known to be chaste and to keep away from the means that lead to immorality, it is permissible, because Allaah has permitted that and has permitted us to marry their woman and eat their meat.
“But nowadays there is the fear that those who marry them may be faced with much evil. They may call him to their religion and that may lead to their children being raised as Christians. So the danger is very real and very serious. To be on the safe side, the believer should not marry them. And in most cases there is no guarantee that the woman will not commit immoral actions, or bring along children from a previous relationship… but if the man needs to do that then there is no sin on him, so that he can keep himself chaste and lower his gaze by being married to her. He should strive to call her to Islam and beware of her evil and of allowing her to drag him or the children towards kufr.”
Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/172
The fear was always present. There was always danger that musriks will try to lead astray the believers, as surah Baqarah (below) reveals.
[2:221] Do not marry idolatresses unless they believe; a believing woman is better than an idolatress, even if you like her. Nor shall you give your daughters in marriage to idolatrous men, unless they believe. A believing man is better than an idolater, even if you like him. These invite to Hell, while GOD invites to Paradise and forgiveness, as He wills. He clarifies His revelations for the people, that they may take heed.
This is the reason why it is inadvisable in the present day. You can read the rest in the link I provided above.
I read the link jazakAllah khair. That's why I find it amazing that now that the scholars have for themselves seen the results of muslim-non muslim marriages, they now declare them inadvisable.
Isn't it worrying when someone is advising against what they first believed was permissable in the Quran? The fact is, it never was permissable, unless the women reverted.
Furthermore, the hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 209) in which Ibn Umar again proves what I said before. Or will now Bukhari be assumed as unauthentic because that hadith backs up the fact that muslim-non muslims marriages are impermissable?
But the thing is, Christians and Jews are not mushriks. Christianity and Judaism are monothestic faiths, but i think you will be hard pushed to find a Christian woman who doesn't associate Jesus to be the son of God.
Sister, I will not debate issues of Fiqh as there are differences of opinion, and there are more pressing matters. And the majority opinion of the Sahaba and the Scholors was that it is permissible. And in their differing over a matter, there is a wide mercy for us therein. So before you go on and try to argue your point further, bear in mind that they already knew all that you and I are saying and yet they still held it permissible. And times then are very different then the times now, they lived under a Muslim Khilafa, whilst today there is none. That makes the greatest difference between them and us, and the reason why it is inadvisable now. Things are not simply Halal and Haram. Things permissible may be Makrooh (disliked), yet they are allowed. Abu Bakr r.a. used to say: “What earth will hold me and what heaven will protect me if I say something concerning the Book of Allah which I do not know.” So before we go on and say if a Quranic verse is subject or not to another verse, lets ask ourselves are we qualified to say that?
“Do not argue with your Lord on behalf of your soul, rather argue with your soul on behalf of your Lord.” - Dhul-Nun
"It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness." - Victor Frankl
It isnt the statement of the Scholors, the permissibility is mentioned in the Quran.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:[INDENT]
“If the woman of the people of the Book is known to be chaste and to keep away from the means that lead to immorality, it is permissible, because Allaah has permitted that and has permitted us to marry their woman and eat their meat.
By chaste, do you mean a virgin? Or otherwise pure being? If that's the case it's no wonder I was off-limits! If you get raped, you're not chaste, and you're nuts if you think that didn't effect my behavior for some time afterward... for which I'll just say, I was extremely evil. Rats! Well, at 46 it's a bit too late to be entertaining such thoughts anyway.
Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 12-23-2006 at 08:44 PM.
By chaste, do you mean a virgin? Or otherwise pure being? If that's the case it's no wonder I was off-limits! If you get raped, you're not chaste, and you're nuts if you think that didn't effect my behavior for some time afterward... for which I'll just say, I was evil. Rats!
Ninth Scribe
A rape victim who had no other sexual contact before the assault is still deemed to be chaste in Islam, hence laws that go with virgin women when it comes to consenting for marriage and such, would also apply for her.
But the thing is, Christians and Jews are not mushriks. Christianity and Judaism are monothestic faiths, but i think you will be hard pushed to find a Christian woman who doesn't associate Jesus to be the son of God.
Sister, you say christians and jews are not mushriks, then you say you'd be hard pushed to find a Christian woman who doesn't associate Jesus partners with Allah. How else do you define a mushrik then?
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Al Ansari
Sister, I will not debate issues of Fiqh as there are differences of opinion, and there are more pressing matters. And the majority opinion of the Sahaba and the Scholors was that it is permissible. And in their differing over a matter, there is a wide mercy for us therein. So before you go on and try to argue your point further, bear in mind that they already knew all that you and I are saying and yet they still held it permissible. And times then are very different then the times now, they lived under a Muslim Khilafa, whilst today there is none. That makes the greatest difference between them and us, and the reason why it is inadvisable now. Things are not simply Halal and Haram. Things permissible may be Makrooh (disliked), yet they are allowed. Abu Bakr r.a. used to say: “What earth will hold me and what heaven will protect me if I say something concerning the Book of Allah which I do not know.” So before we go on and say if a Quranic verse is subject or not to another verse, lets ask ourselves are we qualified to say that?
No bro, plz let's debate lol..jk... as far as we're concerned, there are differences of opinion. But there is no difference in the interpretation of the Quranic verses amongst the scholars right?
According to scholars it was a straight interpretation that such marriages are permissable. There was no in-between, no makrooh, no 'inadvisable' until today. If such marriages were makrooh or as you say it's not simply a case of halal and haram, then it would've been stated in the Quran. Surah al Bakarah has explicitly stated the laws regarding marriage and divorce.
Let's take verse Q:2:234 as an example of how clear and explicit the is regarding marriage issues. This verse deals with wet-nurses. (last sentence)
"And if you desire to engage a wet-nurse for your children, there shall be no blame on you, provided you pay what you have agreed to pay in a fair manner. And fear Allah and know that Allah sees what you do."
Such is the explicitness in which Allah has decreed what is permissable for us.
*****
If muslim-non muslim marriages were inadvisable it would be stated in the Quran, considering a good part of surah al Bakarah deals with matrimonial issues.
What's more is that if we go to verse 2:235, it speaks of a widows mourning period of 4 months and 10 days. To abide by islamic shariah laws's therefore a wife has to be a muslim. A non-muslim woman cannot be forced or expected to abide by these laws, and she may get married within the idah period and if pregnant, not know who the father of her child is.
****
This verse also proves that the wife must be a muslim.
"The good women in the absence of their husbands guard their rights as Allah has enjoined upon them to be guarded."
(4:34)
'as Allah has enjoined upon them' <~~ does a non muslim wife believe in Allah or obey His commands? Only a muslim wife can do that.
Furthermore, Allah instructed in the Quran to man to save himself and his family from hell-fire. In the case where the wife is non-muslim, maybe drinks alcohol, maybe believes Jesus is God and perhaps engages in other haram stuff, how is the husband supposed to try and save her from hell-fire? Considering wine is permissable for Christians and jews, he's going to have a heck of a time try to keep her away from the odd tipple, isn't he?
“O you who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones over which are (appointed) angels, stern and severe, who flinch not (from executing) the commands they receive from God, but do (precisely what) they are commanded.” (Quran 66:6)
So unless both husband and wife are muslim, a husband will have to compromise his deen in one way or another. Can you see a horrible picture emerging?
***
Ok, one more question..
I've seen a lot of Modz and Admins declare many a time that Bukhari is authentic. Correct? Then why is this hadith being ignored?
Then what do you say about the hadith of Ibn Umar (in my previous posts).
According to that hadith Ibn Umar was asked what he thought about marrying a Christian/jew woman and his reply was, "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah." (edited)
According to Ibn Umar (may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) marriage to christians and jews is not permissable, never mind inadvisable.
Only in this age have scholars declared it inadvisable, yet the Quran clearly stated 1400 years ago, not for today, but for all time, that disbelievers will lead us astray. Perhaps in times to come when scholars see 'inadvisable' is not good enough, they may even declare it impermissable. Then who is going to stand up and say the Quran permits it?
So before we go on and say if a Quranic verse is subject or not to another verse, lets ask ourselves are we qualified to say that?
"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114
Allah gave the Quran to the whole of Mankind. And neither is it a puzzle which can be deciphered by scholars only.
Im with Muslimah sis, i dont get it STILL. Maybe its just me. If you associate partners with Allah, wouldnt that negate everything else? Im no scholar, but that verse is so darn straight to the point. I mean if I did it, another Muslim wouldnt prolly marry me, although i myself am a Muslim. We all know Allah can forgive everything, but committing Shirk, unless u move away from that too.
We know that the correct belief in Allah without any partners is the most important thing before anything else. Those who commit shirk are the worst in the Sight of Allah. But whatever it isnt gunna change anyones views, cuz im not a "scholar." but at least i have my common sense.
Peace
Last edited by Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн; 12-23-2006 at 11:57 PM.
*Without Allah, without Islam, life would be meaningless. If I've ever learned patience, it's because of this. Alhamdulillah...*
I have found out that Dodi, a fiance of Princess Diana, was a muslim. With Diana being non-muslim I thought this was prohibited in Islam? Muslim-non muslim marriages?
format_quote Originally Posted by Jawharah
A muslim man and a non muslim woman, provided she is a person of the Book, is allowed. A muslim woman may not be with a non muslim man. Dating is haram anyhow, so still what he did was wrong.
Even if they hadn't dated prior to marriage. Lady Di wouldv'e still been lounging around on their yacht in a bikini afterwards. Not to mention eating a ham sarnie and puckering up to poor old muslim Dodi.
So you see despite what anyone says, it doesn't make sense to say Christian-muslim marriages are permissable.
Im with Muslimah sis, i dont get it STILL. Maybe its just me. If you associate partners with Allah, wouldnt that negate everything else? Im no scholar, but that verse is so darn straight to the point. I mean if I did it, another Muslim wouldnt prolly marry me, although i myself am a Muslim. We all know Allah can forgive everything, but committing Shirk, unless u move away from that too.
We know that the correct belief in Allah without any partners is the most important thing before anything else. Those who commit shirk are the worst in the Sight of Allah. But whatever it isnt gunna change anyones views, cuz im not a "scholar." but at least i have my common sense.
Peace
Same here!
The Quran is for all of us, for all times, since it was revealed until it will be lifted. Throughout time scholars have said christian muslim marriages are permissable, but TODAY they declare them inadvisable? There were mushriks in the Prophet's time as there are now. Yet they say because of the dangers of today we advise against it? The mind boggles.
I have found out that Dodi, a fiance of Princess Diana, was a muslim. With Diana being non-muslim I thought this was prohibited in Islam? Muslim-non muslim marriages?
In relevance to that particular question, you need to consider what sort of 'muslim' Dodi Fayed was, and indeed what sort of 'Christian' Diana was. Neither were religious people, they were just born into those faiths. They weren't actually engaged, except according to the conspiracy theorists, but they were certainly in a sexual relationship - that isn't 'allowed' either.
Sister, you say christians and jews are not mushriks, then you say you'd be hard pushed to find a Christian woman who doesn't associate Jesus partners with Allah. How else do you define a mushrik then?
I should have made myself more clearer. I should have added: you will be hard pushed to find a Christian woman who doesn't associate partners with Allah in this day and age. There are still Christians who reject the concept of the Trinity, i think.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks