a muslim gurl whos having a secret relationship with a non-muslim guy
-
Salaam,
I am sorry to disagree with the highlighted part above. It was in brackets "to your women", it is not in aayat.
Kafirs are not mentioned in 2221, agreed but Mushriks are already by default kafirs, here it is..
Kafir is opposite of Momin.
Momin = one who accepts/agree with .
Kafir = one who don't accept/agree with .Mushriks, they do shirk because they don't believe in what Allah said, so they are already kafirs.
May Allah increase us in knowledge and guide us to His true path pr
mmKhanSalam Mmkhan! Nice to "talk" to you again, it's been a while.....
You are IMO one of the best arab translators here on this forum. Unfortunately I do not speak arabic. I am not using that as an excuse, it's just a matter of fact. I must rely on a translation of the Quran, and so far the best translation I have found is in my native tongue. It actually agrees with your translations in many verses.....One other thing I like about my Quran is that the interpreter GRHS, was a diplomat, a devout muslim and he completely refused to recognise hadith as a tool to translate the Quran. Whenever he had a footnote that has to do with hadith he always wrote
"according to tradition"........which in my book gives him a lot of credibility.Anyways the translation I have states "Och gift inte bort era d?ttrar med m?n som dyrkar avgudar f?rr?n de blivit troende" (and do not marry off your daughters). No brackets in my Quran..... I am sorry but I cannot trust any other translation until clearly proven it is wrong. The proof must come from a very good source.....not from a forum......
With regards to kaffirs I completely disagree with you. A kaffir is someone who denies Allah, someone who covers the truth.
471 Those who disbelieve and avert from the way of Allah - He will waste their deeds.That is my definition of kaffir, not someone who is "the opposite of momin"
-
Aren't we defensive?
I didn't say I decided anything. I personally don't give a damn who anyone marries.
I'm simply saying depending on which definition you want to define Muslim as then that will decide your decision. If you want to go by the allegorical and more spiritual definition of anyone who submits to God and you think this definition transcends religion, then marry whoever you want.
If you want to go by the standard cultural definition as someone who believes in the Allah and the Qur'an and that Muhammad is His messenger then women marrying non-Muslims is forbidden.
<b>Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind That they may celebrate His praise.(2221)</b>
The exception given to men in verse 55 does not extend to women.
<b>This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).(55)</b>
As for Bah'ais and Ahmadis and Sunni and Shia that's between you and your God. I couldn't care less.
You contradict yourself. First you mocked a member for saying that it's only god who decides who is a Muslim and who isn't while now you admit that you yourself can't judge who is a musl and who isn't.
The verse you quoted doesn't state that a Muslim women can't marry a non Muslim man , it only states that a Muslim woman can't marry a mushrik. And a Jew isn't a mushrik per defination. So that would logically mean that a Muslim woman can quranically marry a Jewish man. The second verse you showed only states that a male can marry ahlel kitab(which doesn't necessary means Jews and Christians only) while women are free to marry any non-mushrik. So that can for obvious reasons be interpreted to mean that logic Muslim women have greater marriages choices then Muslim men.
In any case the Quranic princip is that Muslim males AND females are free to marry anyone as long as the person isnt a mushrik.
So marriage should not be based on which sect or religion one belongs to. But to their attitudes towards GOD. And me personally, I think there are a some mushriks among people who label themselves as "Muslims" so marriage won't necessary be allowed with those particular people although they label themselves Muslims.
-
You contradict yourself. First you mocked a member for saying that it's only god who decides who is a Muslim and who isn't while now you admit that you yourself can't judge who is a musl and who isn't.
How in the world is that a contradiction? First I say only God decides who is and isn't Muslim and then I admit that I can't personally judge who is Muslim and who isn't. Are you saying that I originally called myself God?! rotfl
The verse you quoted doesn't state that a Muslim women can't marry a non Muslim man , it only states that a Muslim woman can't marry a mushrik. And a Jew isn't a mushrik per defination. So that would logically mean that a Muslim woman can quranically marry a Jewish man. The second verse you showed only states that a male can marry ahlel kitab(which doesn't necessary means Jews and Christians only) while women are free to marry any non-mushrik. So that can for obvious reasons be interpreted to mean that logic Muslim women have greater marriages choices then Muslim men.
That's why I laid out in my posts depending on what definitions of the words you use! If you want to get allegorical and liberal with your interpretation that opens up more definitions. If you want to change the meaning of ahlel kitab which historically has meant Jews and Christians and Sabeans then fine go ahead
In any case the Quranic princip is that Muslim males AND females are free to marry anyone as long as the person isnt a mushrik.
So marriage should not be based on which sect or religion one belongs to. But to their attitudes towards GOD. And me personally, I think there are a some mushriks among people who label themselves as "Muslims" so marriage won't necessary be allowed with those particular people although they label themselves Muslims.
No men and women do not have the same marriage rights according to Qur'an. Did you not see how the verse I quoted specifically refers to men and what women they're allowed to marry. It gives men a special exception to the rule that women DO NOT HAVE. This is as clear as day. Tell me how can men have a special exception to marriage rules and then men and women can marry the same people? Please explain this giant leap of logic.
I agree though that a mushrik can be a polytheist, Jew, Christian, or Muslim depending on how they actually conceive of God and if they believe in tawhid.
-
How in the world is that a contradiction? First I say only God decides who is and isn't Muslim and then I admit that I can't personally judge who is Muslim and who isn't. Are you saying that I originally called myself God?! rotfl
That's why I laid out in my posts depending on what definitions of the words you use! If you want to get allegorical and liberal with your interpretation that opens up more definitions. If you want to change the meaning of ahlel kitab which historically has meant Jews and Christians and Sabeans then fine go ahead
No men and women do not have the same marriage rights according to Qur'an. Did you not see how the verse I quoted specifically refers to men and what women they're allowed to marry. It gives men a special exception to the rule that women DO NOT HAVE. This is as clear as day. Tell me how can men have a special exception to marriage rules and then men and women can marry the same people? Please explain this giant leap of logic.
I agree though that a mushrik can be a polytheist, Jew, Christian, or Muslim depending on how they actually conceive of God and if they believe in tawhid.
There are many verses in the Quran that speaks in a male format due to the nature of the Arabic language but that does not imply that its only regarding males. The Quran never said that females can not marry any monotheist. Plus the argument you raised is theologically deficient since the Quran doe snot seperate between monotheist The Sunnis and Shias do because they have the 5 and 6 pillars of Islam which is not Quranic concept. Plus many Sunnis do not approve of marrying Shias anyways and regard them as disbelievers. Its not about faih for them but gender because they have a law that says a person follows the religion of his father. That is not a Quranic concept. The Quran only stipulates that a person should carry the name an dnot faith of his father.
Its funny how you insist that the Sunni view is the proper Quranic view while neglecting that often that view contradicts the Quran and often relies on abrogating many of its verses precisley because they contradict what they say. They rely not on the Quran but on hadiths. Surely you know that.
-
Its funny how you insist that the Sunni view is the proper Quranic view while neglecting that often that view contradicts the Quran and often relies on abrogating many of its verses precisley because they contradict what they say. They rely not on the Quran but on hadiths. Surely you know that.
Stop trying to present my view. All you're doing is misrepresenting my opinion and I don't appreciate it. I don't insist on the Sunni view. I simply present the more liberal interpretation and the more traditional interpretation.
The Qur'an clearly separates between "monotheists" otherwise there would never be any verses labeling ahle-kitab and making distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.
I'm not saying I am here to judge between any one I'm simply stating the traditional and long-held interpretation. If you want to dispute the fact that the Qur'an doesn't separate between different monotheists you must be reading an entirely different book than me.
-
Stop trying to present my view. All you're doing is misrepresenting my opinion and I don't appreciate it. I don't insist on the Sunni view. I simply present the more liberal interpretation and the more traditional interpretation.
The Qur'an clearly separates between "monotheists" otherwise there would never be any verses labeling ahle-kitab and making distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.
I'm not saying I am here to judge between any one I'm simply stating the traditional and long-held interpretation. If you want to dispute the fact that the Qur'an doesn't separate between different monotheists you must be reading an entirely different book than me.
There is nothig called traditional versus liberal view. Its quranist versus sectarian view. You often iply that the "traditional view" is based on the Quran. But its not. If you don't believe me ask a Sunni cleric a question regarding what a Muslim woman should marry and see his fatwa.
All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik . 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.
http//www.scholarofthehouse.org/oninma.html
-
There is nothig called traditional versus liberal view. Its quranist versus sectarian view. You often iply that the "traditional view" is based on the Quran. But its not. If you don't believe me ask a Sunni cleric a question regarding what a Muslim woman should marry and see his fatwa.
Oh God you're just like the Sunnis. First you call yourself a Quranist which the Qur'an says NOT to divide yourself into a sect then you imply that your view is the real truth and all other views are falsehood! This is exactly what the Sunnis, Shias, Ahmadiyas, etc say about everyone else! You're no different than they are!
And by traditional view I mean the view as based on historical evidence and early interpretation of the Qur'an.
I personally don't care for the traditional view but I also acknowledge and accept that historically the early Muslims had a certain interpretation of the Qur'an and even Muhammad himself interpreted the Qur'an a certain way. Do you think you are closer to Muhammad's interpretation than the Sunnis?
-
Oh God you're just like the Sunnis. First you call yourself a Quranist which the Qur'an says NOT to divide yourself into a sect then you imply that your view is the real truth and all other views are falsehood! This is exactly what the Sunnis, Shias, Ahmadiyas, etc say about everyone else! You're no different than they are!
And by traditional view I mean the view as based on historical evidence and early interpretation of the Qur'an.
I personally don't care for the traditional view but I also acknowledge and accept that historically the early Muslims had a certain interpretation of the Qur'an and even Muhammad himself interpreted the Qur'an a certain way. Do you think you are closer to Muhammad's interpretation than the Sunnis?
I think you legitimize the Sunni view because you find it easier to criticize.
-
I think you legitimize the Sunni view because you find it easier to criticize.
There's a difference between accepting something as having divine authority and accepting something as historically accurate.
I commend all Muslims who reject the divine authority of the Sunnah but there is some historical accuracy to the Sunni narrative that I cannot deny.
-
There's a difference between accepting something as having divine authority and accepting something as historically accurate.
I commend all Muslims who reject the divine authority of the Sunnah but there is some historical accuracy to the Sunni narrative that I cannot deny.
So which is historically accurate? The Sunni view or the Shia view or the Alawite view?
-
So which is historically accurate? The Sunni view or the Shia view or the Alawite view?
I won't comment on the Alawites because I know nothing about them.
As for the Sunni and the Shia view if you want to look at them historically they're both accurate. It's a matter of opinion. The Sunni Shia split is a purely political disagreement between the followers of the grandsons of the prophet and the people who wanted the Caliphate to continue going in a line of elected or chosen officials not of the prophet's bloodline.
The Shia party was simply the group of people who believed that the prophet's bloodline should hold the Caliphate so historically, yes there were many Muslims who believed that. The Sunni/Shia split is nothing but a political disagreement that manifested in religious claims.
The Sunnis thought that the Caliph should be chosen or elected by a council of peers and that the Caliphate should not become a family dynasty of the prophet's descendants. Each group thought they were right so each group was historically accurate. I don't know what the Sunnis say about how the early Muslim Caliphs fought battles with Ali and his family over rightful claim to the throne but it is historical fact that Muawiya with the support of Aisha fought against Ali and his followers.
The only difference between the Sunni view and the Shia view is that Sunnis believe Muawiya the 1st was a companion of Muhammad and a true follower of God while Shias believe Muawiya was a greedy tyrant who stole the caliphate from Ali and his family. Each side thinks God is on their side.
I can't comment on the religious aspect however because each group claimed to be the true followers of God's word.
-
I won't comment on the Alawites because I know nothing about them.
As for the Sunni and the Shia view if you want to look at them historically they're both accurate. The Sunni Shia split is a purely political disagreement between the followers of the grandsons of the prophet and the people who wanted the Caliphate to continue going in a line of elected or chosen officials not of the prophet's bloodline.
The Shia party was simply the group of people who believed that the prophet's bloodline should hold the Caliphate so historically, yes there were many Muslims who believed that.
The Sunnis thought that the Caliph should be chosen or elected by a council of peers and that the Caliphate should not become a family dynasty of the prophet's descendants. Each group thought they were right so each group was historically accurate. I don't know what the Sunnis say about how the early Muslim Caliphs fought battles with Ali and his family over rightful claim to the throne but it is historical fact that Muawiya with the support of Aisha fought against Ali and his followers.
The only difference between the Sunni view and the Shia view is that Sunnis believe Muawiya the 1st was a companion of Muhammad and a true follower of God while Shias believe Muawiya was a greedy tyrant who stole the caliphate from Ali and his family. Each side thinks God is on their side.
I can't comment on the religious aspect however because each group claimed to be the true followers of God's word.
I am asking which sects historic view is accurate. The Shia claim Omr and Abu Bakr betrayed Muhammad and Ali was aginst them. The Sunnis say this is a lie. The Sunnis accuse the shais of farbricating haduths and vice versa. The Shia claim abu hurreira and asiha were lying traitors.
So who is right here and why should it not be that maybe both are lying?
-
I am asking which sects historic view is accurate. The Shia claim Omr and Abu Bakr betrayed Muhammad and Ali was aginst them. The Sunnis say this is a lie. The Sunnis accuse the shais of farbricating haduths and vice versa. The Shia claim abu hurreira and asiha were lying traitors.
So who is right here and why should it not be that maybe both are lying?
I can't tell you which one of their opinions are accurate because they are merely opinion. I can only say what I know from history. Asking about the historical accuracy of each sect's historic view is somewhat funny because each sect has a different view concerning that particular issue.
They almost definitely both lied and fabricated hadith in their own favor.
Back to my original statement on historical accuracy though, there are things we learn from history though that corroborate each other and thus we can make assumptions on certain things. And this we can get from non-Islamic sources and verify independently to come to conclusions. Things like battles Muslims fought, some of their laws and practices, and their customs we can get from multiple sources and verify independently and thus accept them as having historical accuracy.
The Sunni Shia split is more about who's the bad guy and who's the good guy. I've been alive long enough not to look at things in black and white and can understand that there are shades of gray. When it comes to politics there is no clear black and white. One side thinks they are right and so does their enemy.
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Um, brothers and sisters...
How many posts ago was this topic threadjacked? hmm
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
How in the world is that a contradiction? First I say only God decides who is and isn't Muslim and then I admit that I can't personally judge who is Muslim and who isn't. Are you saying that I originally called myself God?! rotfl
That's why I laid out in my posts depending on what definitions of the words you use! If you want to get allegorical and liberal with your interpretation that opens up more definitions. If you want to change the meaning of ahlel kitab which historically has meant Jews and Christians and Sabeans then fine go ahead
No men and women do not have the same marriage rights according to Qur'an. Did you not see how the verse I quoted specifically refers to men and what women they're allowed to marry. It gives men a special exception to the rule that women DO NOT HAVE. This is as clear as day. Tell me how can men have a special exception to marriage rules and then men and women can marry the same people? Please explain this giant leap of logic.
I agree though that a mushrik can be a polytheist, Jew, Christian, or Muslim depending on how they actually conceive of God and if they believe in tawhid.
Oh my god. Dude, it's so obvious that you was raised as a hadither. First of all, what do you mean that ahlel kitab has "historically" been interpreted as "Jews and Christians" ? You mean Sunnis and Shias had always believed that? Dude, I don't give a daim about what they have "historically" believed as I don't give a damn about tht earth has historically been believed to be flat or Jesus has historically always been god. Or that Hadith has been historically the words of muhammad . I don't care about all that, I only care about what Quran says. It's not called "changing" the meaning of ahlel kitab, it's called "thinking for yourself"
No the verse only says that you can marry ahlel kitab, there is no prohibition of Muslim women marrying ahlel kitab provided that they aren't mushriks. Or another interpretation Muslim males are allowed only women from ahlel kitab while Muslim women are free to Marry whoever non-mushrik they want.
Peace
-
There is nothig called traditional versus liberal view. Its quranist versus sectarian view. You often iply that the "traditional view" is based on the Quran. But its not. If you don't believe me ask a Sunni cleric a question regarding what a Muslim woman should marry and see his fatwa.
All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik . 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.
http//www.scholarofthehouse.org/oninma.html
"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"
This is not Quranic. Islam is a faith and faith is not inherited.
"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"
This is no loger relevant as all Christian societies now have freedom of religion. Only Islamic societies have religious coercion.
So their argument has no relevance either Quranically or on current realities.
The Quran says we should marry believers, and with good intentions, and not to marry adulterers.
-
"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"
This is not Quranic. Islam is a faith and faith is not inherited.
"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"
This is no loger relevant as all Christian societies now have freedom of religion. Only Islamic societies have religious coercion.
So their argument has no relevance either Quranically or on current realities.
The Quran says we should marry believers, and with good intentions, and not to marry adulterers.
Excately. As a side note, I can tell you that I choosed to follow my mothers religion, so the argument about children automatically given the fathers religion is just crap (except if they are forced to by declaring them for being apostates if they follow their mother). Children today especially in the west can choose for themselves. Peace
-
Excately. As a side note, I can tell you that I choosed to follow my mothers religion, so the argument about children automatically given the fathers religion is just crap (except if they are forced to by declaring them for being apostates if they follow their mother). Children today especially in the west can choose for themselves. Peace
Well said! I see more children following the mother than the father. Mothers tend (keyword tend) to do most of the child rearing. My family, mom taught and took care of us. Dad was the law and the one punished. Hence I feared my dad and always went to mom..lol But as you all know, I followed neither and left Christianity of my own accord to become Muslim.
-
Wow, that's just how it was for me, except the other way around. For the first 1.5 years of dating my now wife, i was an atheist, or agnostic, and she was Muslim. We broke up for various reasons and one of the things i had to do for her to take me back was convert to Islam, and i did it, even though i didn't really believe. But i researched more into it and ended up truly believing, and then it went so far that i discovered quran alone and turned her from Sunni to Qur'an alone.
Obviously you shouldn't break up with your boyfriend to make him convert, but you should tell him how much it means to you, if he loves you he will at least have the courtesy to research it, i think first you should just introduce him to the concept of God, it's easier to swallow from an atheist view than organised religion. Hopefully like me he will come to the logical conclusion that theism makes more sense than atheism.
Whether or not he has to be Muslim for you to be together is debatable but it seems you want him to be.