Can a Muslimah marry a non-Muslim?
-
Salaam Twilight,
Your question is indeed valid. But you forget many factors. For one, 80% of all Muslims are so bound to their sects they will not marry outside of it. Due to secterian issues, the problem is even greater as many women are not even allowed to marry outside of their tribe, family or sect.
What you refer too now is I believe a future problem, or better, a future question. First all Muslims must unite and all follow the Quran completely and not their man-made Fiqh's and rulings.
Then you will have a united Ummah with no secterian and tribal issues with a majority female population. Then your question does arise. If countries are formed that completely follow the Quranic Laws, and thus that the WHOLE population must follow these rules for marriage and divorce, just as in secular countries as America or Netherlands inforce their Marriage laws on their inhabitants.
Then something interresting arises, as then the women are protected by these Laws. Their marriage and divorce fall under Divine protection as they are controlled by Divine laws. And so it doesn't matter if you marry Christians or Jewish men, they all must follow the Quranic Laws.
Then by my understanding it thus doesn't matter if they are Christian, as everything is protected by Divine Law. The only rule then remains is that the husband must be completely monotheistic.
-
Peace Arnold. Thank you for answering my question thoughtfully.
I appreciate what you are saying and I understand. However, although what you are saying is logical, the Quran does not support such a notion does it? What I mean is, it does not say that if such a society is formed whereby the Quranic Laws are enforced, it does not matter if you marry Jewish or Christian men as long as they are strictly monotheistic. It does not provide such a condition, am I right? Therefore, no matter which laws a society upholds, Quranic, hadithic, secular, etc, a muslim woman can only marry a muslim man. You rightly note that many women are not even allowed to marry outside their tribe, family or sect, however often you hear of traditionalists (mostly sunni men) marrying Christian women. Society simply accepts it more readily when a man does it. So I come back to my original problem. If men today (and I mean today, as you state this is more of a question for the future), are marrying non-muslim women, there are going to be women who find themselves unable to find a spouse (unless they accept polygamy, but who wants to share their partner?).
I can't get my head around why Allah would allow muslim women to suffer like that confused
-
Peace,
You are completely focussing on the wrong thing. Muslim men are misusing a rule which is given as it can be necessary in certain situations. Muslim men should acknowledge the problem of the majority being female, and thus should marry Muslim women.
That they marry non-Muslim women is wrong, as they should focus on the problem-solving matters in their own society first. Thus it has nothing to do with God allowing something, it has to do with the neglectance of the Muslim men in modern society.
-
Aparently 30 million more men then women according to http//www.socyberty.com/Issues/The-imbalance-of-the-male-to-female-ratio.8138.
-
The boundaries of Devinne will are spelled out in Great Reading
Is this a book? If so, where could I find it?
-
5-5 Today, all good food is made lawful for you. The food of the people of the scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. Also, you may marry the chaste women among the believers, as well as the chaste women among the followers of previous scripture, provided you pay them their due dowries. You shall maintain chastity, not committing adultery, nor taking secret lovers. Anyone who rejects faith, all his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be with the losers.
siki
Salaam siki
First allow me to correct your translation
"...and your food is lawful for them and the (mu7sanaat) among the believers and the (mu7sanaat) among the followers of the previous scripture...."The reason for this literal correction is to ask you What makes the address change (from addressing both genders) to addressing (the male gender only) after the bolded "and" ?
-
Aparently 30 million more men then women according to http//www.socyberty.com/Issues/The-imbalance-of-the-male-to-female-ratio.8138.
Hmm, interesting. However, I dont think 30 million is that much of a gap compared to the total population of the world.
Is this a book? If so, where could I find it?
Lol, the Great Reading is referring to Al Quran.
-
Salaam siki
First allow me to correct your translation
"...and your food is lawful for them and the (mu7sanaat) among the believers and the (mu7sanaat) among the followers of the previous scripture...."The reason for this literal correction is to ask you What makes the address change (from addressing both genders) to addressing (the male gender only) after the bolded "and" ?
Samia!
The addressess, still are both the genders.
It is like, if some one is addressing a group/crowd ( muslim men and women) , and that "some one" says that you are hallal for each other as well as the Women belonging to the followers of previous scriptures for you , Now in this you , this command can only be fulfilled by the male section of the group. (unless you suggest some other method to full fill this command by both)
Another reason that i can think of is, Probably the women are being made aware of this instruction/permission so that, they do not /cannot object to it ;D
siki
-
Salaam siki
Thanks for the prompt reply
What's the difference between the construction of this verse and the following one
443 "...and if you are ill or on a journey or come from answering the call of nature or have been in sexual contact with women and you find no water, perform tayammum..."
If this verse addresses both genders, whom is it addressing by the phrase (have been in sexual contact with women)?
-
Salaam siki
Thanks for the prompt reply
What's the difference between the construction of this verse and the following one
443 "...and if you are ill or on a journey or come from answering the call of nature or have been in sexual contact with women and you find no water, perform tayammum..."
If this verse addresses both genders, whom is it addressing by the phrase (have been in sexual contact with women)?
samia!
where were you when i posted the following, in http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12100.15 , and asked your opinion.
I requote
Sister Twilight! How are you?
I appreciate your keen sense of observation. There is no confusion on marrying a women belonging to the people following previous scriptures, and their men, not being authorized. However you have a point here, in the verse 5-6 ,
First of all , in case of ceremonial impurity, the arabic word is "Janabat" , ( which is a condition after sex resulting into discharge of semen) , The bath is a must for both, because this particular condition is described for both by calling , O you believe,,,,
The second part of the verse which says "lamastum un nissa", however is not as dirty a condition and hence is, grouped along with some other less than clean situations. It can be explained as "sexual touchings", not resulting into an intercourse.
I find your objection to be valid. This sentence should have been worded in a manner , leaving no room for such an objection, but it does not . It means only two things,
1, the women have been intentionally exempted from this clause.
2, the word nissa may have some different meanings which i am not knowledgeable enough to answer. Sister Samia some time back did mention, that in Arabic Grammer , the word Rijjal and nissa contain both. May be now she is required to explain. However till then, i would go with your objection and consider the first option to be more valid.
siki
peace
siki
-
samia!
where were you when i posted the following, in http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12100.15 , and asked your opinion.
I am really sorry. I was away from home, on a job from morning to night, hardly having time to scroll all the threads.
As for the word "nisaa'", my understanding is that it bears two meanings, one of them being "women". In the verse I quoted, it has to mean "women". Both verses (443 and 55) address both genders. The point is that the qur'aan has its exclusive sociolinguistics rule where "she" contains "he". In such a case, the translation should be "the opposite gender/sex" "..or (if) you have been in sexual contact with the opposite sex"; "and the "mu7sins of the opposite sex among the followers of the previous scripture" ...
-
Salam all,
I wonder if anyone here ever consider the term almushrikati/mushrikatin/almushrikeena/mushrikin in Q2221 is referring to a person that is single/not having partner? Hence the context of the ayat is advocating monogamy that lead "Garden" as oppose to "Fire" when one practices polygyny/polygamy.
Any comments?
Thanks,
-
Salam all,
I wonder if anyone here ever consider the term almushrikati/mushrikatin/almushrikeena/mushrikin in Q2221 is referring to a person that is single/not having partner?
Thanks,Salaam phil
The verse mentions the mushrik/mushrika in opposition to mu'min/mu'mina. Unless there is a way to understand "mu'min/mu'mina" as single people, I do not think we can take mushrik/mushrika as married persons!
-
Salaam phil
The verse mentions the mushrik/mushrika in opposition to mu'min/mu'mina. Unless there is a way to understand "mu'min/mu'mina" as single people, I do not think we can take mushrik/mushrika as married persons!
Peace Samia,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I'm still searching and analyzing the meaning of "mu'min/mu'mina" and its roots from other verses in al Qur'an and cross checking with Lanes. But is there any justification of the addition (with God) which commonly attached to words mushrik/mushrika in Q2221 as found in most of Qur'an translations? In other words, why the terms almushrikati/almushrikeena has to be understood as seting up partners (with God)?
Regards,
-
Lol, the Great Reading is referring to Al Quran.
Coincedentally the Quran was my first guess.
-
As for the word "nisaa'", my understanding is that it bears two meanings, one of them being "women". In the verse I quoted, it has to mean "women". Both verses (443 and 55) address both genders. The point is that the qur'aan has its exclusive sociolinguistics rule where "she" contains "he". In such a case, the translation should be "the opposite gender/sex" "..or (if) you have been in sexual contact with the opposite sex"; "and the "mu7sins of the opposite sex among the followers of the previous scripture" ...
Salam Samia
I am not in a position to comment on Rijjal and Nissa as to weather they contain both the genders , or Not, but one thing i am quiet sure, " Moh7sinnats"( specially in 5-5) do not contain Moh7sineen.
peace
siki
-
Salam Samia
" Moh7sinnats"( specially in 5-5) do not contain Moh7sineen.
peace
siki
Why?
If you believe that the whole verse addresses men only, then you can say that. But that will not be the end of the problem. You will have to
- prove why you believe that a verse is exclusively for men (not based on muhsanaat)
- that food of "ahlul kitaab" is not lawful to women
Otherwise
3. how an address suddenly changes from (to all mu'mins/people) to just men -
Peace Samia,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
In other words, why the terms almushrikati/almushrikeena has to be understood as seting up partners (with God)?
Regards,
You're welcome, phil
It is understood in this way from the context of verses and by understanding the root of the word. Sometimes it is even explained in this manner when it is explicitly mentioned "shrik billahi" as in the first commandment of the Straight Path and in many other verses.