Can a Muslimah marry a non-Muslim?
-
Do we have any instrument to measure an individual, as to how much he/she believes?
If an individual by faith, likes to be called a Muslim/submitter , that should be enough , if he is a bad Muslim or good , let us leave it to God. In the same way , if some one is a declared Christian, no matter how good he is , he stays as , "The follower of the previous scripture".
Even if a Christian is following All mighty's commands better than a Muslim , he would remain a follower of the previous scripture , and hence a Momina mohsinnat is not suppose to wed him.
siki
If a "Christian" is following Allah's commands better than a "Muslim" that makes him a muslim, matey.
-
There are precisely three categories, Believers, idolaters, and followers of previous scriptures., and the world still can be divided into these three categories.
what you guys are trying to say is , "There is no difference between Believers and followers of previous scriptures. If there was none, why God had to specifically allow mohsinnats of otul kitab?
Moreover , how can you leave it to an individual's judgment weather some one passes the Devinne criteria to be categorised as a believer?
A believer is some one , who accepts Quran as his final guidance, To what degree does he follow the instructions laid down in it , is no one can judge and is no body's business except HIM. we all fluctuate at different levels throughout our lives, some improve with time, most stagnate and a few take a negative plunge .
"Otul kitab guys" , no matter how good they are , they do not accept the Quran and what ever they are hanging on to , is corrupted and is superceded . As such , achieving 100% what God desires from us is an impossibility for a Christian , or a Jew.
peace
siki
-
Salaam siki
Has God said that? Or you are just putting words in His mouth? Couldn't He said that when He mentioned whom a mu'mina should not marry? He explicitly mentioned the kafirs, the idolators and the zanis.
But, she/he is being precisely told , whom they can marry, and they are people belonging to Momineen(believers) , A further concession has been granted to the Men in 5-5.
And the prohibition is similar for both except the clause in 5-5 for the Mohsinnats Otul kitab
siki
-
Do you know any one out of them, who likes to be called by such a title?
siki
A submitter to one God? All of them.
-
But, she/he is being precisely told , whom they can marry, and they are people belonging to Momineen(believers) , A further concession has been granted to the Men in 5-5.
And the prohibition is similar for both except the clause in 5-5 for the Mohsinnats Otul kitab
siki
I know whom she is allowed to marry, and I understand that verse 55 addresses both genders and continues addressing them till the end of it.
My question is, you decide that it is not allowed, aka haraam, to marry a non "muslim", where is this prohibition?
-
Peace,
Samia, I'm not sure what you mean by manipulation of the tashkeel ( I know what tashkeel is but don't understand the manipulation part). One is obviously passive and the other is active. In the case of the men wanting to be with women they are to be moral (and possibly) physical fortifiers (desiring chastity and morality from their mates and not seeking to corrupt them) and for the women who are desired to be married they are to be morally & physically fortified. The women can be a muh-sinatun as well, but it is clear that she is muhsAnatun, meaning that she has been fortified obviously by her family and herself.
Siki, as for people of previous scriptures not being able to be mu'minoona this is incorrect. Firstly a mu'min in the Quran is defined by 262 whoever has faith in God, the last day and does righteous deeds. Furthermore 3110 & 3113-114 let us know that those who follow scripture under which the Quran has included Christians and Jews can also be believers to. 3110 makes this clear. Minhum al-mu'minoona (among them are believers/faithful in God). Believer, in the Quranic context does not mean Muslim. In actually Muslim in the Quran doesn't even mean Muslim (as we mean it now). In the Quran according to 262 a believer/one faithful to God, the last day and does righteous deeds. Whereas a Muslim is someone submissive and the Quran speaks of being submissive to God (muslimoona Lillahi) without the lillaahi this does not mean submissive to God and by believer or faithful we have to be specific that that faithfulness is in God not the religion & traditions of Islam. No trinitarians technicaly are not faithful to God (all you have to do is talk to them to long enough and you will find out that they don't even care what Jesus and other prophets (God bless them) really have to say even within their own Bible). But not all Christians are trinitarians and there are even some who may belong to these churches or may call themselves christians but don't believe in the trinity in its official doctrine some of them just adjust their belief to these 3 things being what they should give the most importance to and not that they are equal or one in the same. My wife for instance grew up in the catholic and 7th day adventist circle and I questioned her before I married her on who was more important Jesus or God. She said God. She knew that there was a difference and that God is most important. Additionally I show her portions from the Bible and the Quran on official and blasphemous "Christian" doctrines and ideas. For instance consider the Book of Isaiah "I, I am the Lord God and besides Me there is no Savior" Isaiah 43 11. Yet look at what many Trinitarian "Christians" always say, taking Jesus as their savior when within their own bible and from the prophet Isaiah's mouth they have this. I got this info from www.mostmerciful.com and double checked it and saw it to be true.
That is why the Quran says that those who really believe among the Christians and Jews actually read what God has to say (through the words of his prophets) in their books. If you read the words of Jesus in the testament you will be shocked. The only questionable verse in the only son verse and it can man unique son. We have to understand also that son of God is an expression. However in Arabic saying walad and ibn are two different things. The Quran says that the Jews and Christians call themselves the sons abnaa' and belove ahibaa' of God. But God does'n't say this is wrong he just questions their sincerity and why God punishes them if they are really the beloved of God and his sons/children.
There are many parts in the Bible that say that those who walk in the ways of the Lord and who are born in God are his sons/children. So if they really did that God would have not need to punish them, would he? But they know that He does, so they are lying to themselves.
Godbless,
AnwarGodbless,
Anwar -
I know whom she is allowed to marry, and I understand that verse 55 addresses both genders and continues addressing them till the end of it.
My question is, you decide that it is not allowed, aka haraam, to marry a non "muslim", where is this prohibition?
yes both the genders are being addressed, but permission is being granted to bring in a Mohsinnat, ONLY. Does MOhsinnat include the masculine plural any where in Quran ? No i don't think so. Has this permission been for both , some sentence like, " And you may marry among otul kitab" was sufficient to leave no ambiguity.
Samia ! i am amazed , as to how a very simple and straight forward instruction can be denied, if one's heart does not want to accept a gender biased command.
Your argument is like those Sunni sectarians, whom when we ask , as to why do they carry extra step wadu, despite clear instructions in Quran spelling out 4 steps , and they reply , where is the prohibition , that we cannot carry out these extra cleanings?
siki
-
yes both the genders are being addressed, but permission is being granted to bring in a Mohsinnat, ONLY. Does MOhsinnat include the masculine plural any where in Quran ?
244 "wallatheena yarmuunal mu7sanaati thumma lam ya'tuu bi'rba3ati shuhadaa' fajliduuhum thamaaneena jaldatan ..."
"and those who accuse "muhsans" and produce not four witnesses...."
Unles you believe that it is OK to slander men!!Samia ! i am amazed , as to how a very simple and straight forward instruction can be denied, if one's heart does not want to accept a gender biased command.
Where's this "very simple and straightforward instruction", or any instruction at all, that I am denying?! I am denying that you say something is haram, I am denying this addition.
Your argument is like those Sunni sectarians, whom when we ask , as to why do they carry extra step wadu, despite clear instructions in Quran spelling out 4 steps , and they reply , where is the prohibition , that we cannot carry out these extra cleanings?
You amaze me by your reversed logic!!
Actually, my argument should be like our argument to the "hadithists" as from where they got the additional elements of wadu! I am asking the same thing where did you get this "additional" element of making something unlawful to women when it is not there?Let me ask you where in the qur'aan do you find a general rule made lawful to men and unlawful to women?
-
Peace,
Samia, I'm not sure what you mean by manipulation of the tashkeel ( I know what tashkeel is but don't understand the manipulation part). One is obviously passive and the other is active. In the case of the men wanting to be with women they are to be moral (and possibly) physical fortifiers (desiring chastity and morality from their mates and not seeking to corrupt them) and for the women who are desired to be married they are to be morally & physically fortified. The women can be a muh-sinatun as well, but it is clear that she is muhsAnatun, meaning that she has been fortified obviously by her family and herself.
Salaam Anwar
(mu7Sinuun) and (mu7Sanuun) are written the same way, as you see. The "i" or "a" that appears after the letter "S" is a short vowel (tashkeel). Putting one or the other makes the word passive or active participle. The way you understand it will dictate which short vowel you will apply.
Fortified should be "mu7aSSan", not "mu7San". You should know that from tasreef, when a verb is derived from an object to mean an action hiSn (fort)= haSSan fortify; thalj (ice) thallaj make ice or like ice, freeze. This is one of the applications of form II, and only form II is used for this kind of tasreef of verbs derived from a three-letterd noun.
The correct meaning is immune, derived from a verb derived from the same noun (7iSn) but of the form I.
By logic, and by their nature, if mu7sin meant protector from vice, women are more "mu7Sinaat" of men than men of women.
-
244 "wallatheena yarmuunal mu7sanaati thumma lam ya'tuu bi'rba3ati shuhadaa' fajliduuhum thamaaneena jaldatan ..."
"and those who accuse "muhsans" and produce not four witnesses...."
Unles you believe that it is OK to slander men!!what you quote in red is incorrect , it is Mohsannti.
The term Mohsinnat does not include male gender anywhere in quran and is exclusively used for women. and even in 24-4 it does not . I must say , you are going into great lengths(negative) just to prove a point.
You mean to say that where ever the term Mohsinnat is used , it includes the male gender? when the believers are told that you may marry Mohsinnats provided you pay them their ujoors, do you mean that it is the women (as well) who should pay ujoors?
It is not ok to falsely accuse a gentleman, but there is no compulsion to produce 4 witnesses or any punishment for such an accusation.
siki
-
Where's this "very simple and straightforward instruction", or any instruction at all, that I am denying?! I am denying that you say something is haram, I am denying this addition.
where is it written in Quran that it is prohibited for the women to marry a woman? or for that matter to a bull, or a donkey?
-
Let me ask you where in the qur'aan do you find a general rule made lawful to men and unlawful to women?
A man can marry more than one women at a time but the women can not have multiple husbands.
As a general rule , women is recommended for half the share of a man in inheritance.
want more ?
siki
-
what you quote in red is incorrect , it is Mohsannti.
244 "wallatheena yarmuunal mu7sanaati thumma lam ya'tuu bi'rba3ati shuhadaa' fajliduuhum thamaaneena jaldatan ..."
"and those who accuse "muhsans" and produce not four witnesses...."
Unles you believe that it is OK to slander men!!I was not transliterating the verse. It is in English. Since I do not agree with
- Your understanding of the meaning of the word "mu7san/a"
- Gender of it in thi verse
I decided not to translate it, nor show its gender, hence "muhsans", which is not even a transliteration.
The term Mohsinnat does not include male gender anywhere in quran and is exclusively used for women. and even in 24-4 it does not. I must say , you are going into great lengths(negative) just to prove a point.
So you believe that it is OK to slander men, and no punishment should be applied! Imagine I say that I saw Mr. X having sex with Ms Y. Only Ms Y can complain, but not Mr. X. I can freely accuse any two men of having gay sex and get away with it. Great! Or even more, a wife can see her husband in bed with a female, but cannot complain, because she cannot be slandering her husband..so even the verses 246-9 do not apply to her.
You are going into great lengths to disprove justice.
You mean to say that where ever the term Mohsinnat is used , it includes the male gender?
I do not speak of isolated words. I speak of address. I always say that the address in the qur'aan is to both genders unless it is explicitly proven otherwise. And when such a verse (i.e addressing both genders) entails a feminine noun, this should be understood as (the opposite sex). You can find this understanding in one of my posts in this very thread and in many other threads.
It is not OK to falsely accuse a gentleman, but there is no compulsion to produce 4 witnesses or any punishment for such an accusation
Why not? It seems it is not harmful since, according to you, God did not prohibit that.
-
A man can marry more than one women at a time but the women can not have multiple husbands.
siki
Is this your understanding of a general rule? Not all men are allowed to marry more than one woman, and not all women are allowed to marry a married man. Therefore, this is not a general rule.
-
Samia! you are breaching all the bounds of rationality in your quest to prove equality of men and women in all spheres.
where as they are not , Their DNA was fine tuned to suit their individual roles and hence are different , and require different set of rules to be governed.
siki
-
Samia! you are breaching all the bounds of rationality in your quest to prove equality of men and women in all spheres.
where as they are not , Their DNA was fine tuned to suit their individual roles and hence are different , and require different set of rules to be governed.
siki
Why can't you understand me? When I say "...unless explicitly proven otherwise", I am making room for these biological differences, which should stay as they are biological. Marrying into other faiths is not a masculine characteristic nor biology.
The quraan is full of verses confirming this equality. I am not bringing something new. I am just reading the qur'aan through "the eyes of the Author".
You mix between "Roles " and "Rights"; equality and traditions...
-
Peace
Samia, what is this?
(mu7Sinuun) and (mu7Sanuun) are written the same way, as you see. The "i" or "a" that appears after the letter "S" is a short vowel (tashkeel). Putting one or the other makes the word passive or active participle. The way you understand it will dictate which short vowel you will apply.
Fortified should be "mu7aSSan", not "mu7San". You should know that from tasreef, when a verb is derived from an object to mean an action hiSn (fort)= haSSan fortify; thalj (ice) thallaj make ice or like ice, freeze. This is one of the applications of form II, and only form II is used for this kind of tasreef of verbs derived from a three-letterd noun.
The correct meaning is immune, derived from a verb derived from the same noun (7iSn) but of the form I.
By logic, and by their nature, if mu7sin meant protector from vice, women are more "mu7Sinaat" of men than men of women.
My first objection
The way you understand it will dictate which short vowel you will apply.
The Quran is already voweled, you cannot apply any vowel that you want to. Deciding your own personal tasreef is not more than tahreef.
Second Objection
Fortified should be "mu7aSSan", not "mu7San". You should know that from tasreef, when a verb is derived from an object to mean an action hiSn (fort)= haSSan fortify; thalj (ice) thallaj make ice or like ice, freeze. This is one of the applications of form II, and only form II is used for this kind of tasreef of verbs derived from a three-letterd noun.
Again you are sticking PURE OPINION into your argumentation. Form 2 and for 4 have meanings that can overlap. The only thing is that form 4 is less direct and less intensive. You yourself know that many form 4 and 2 verbs actually have the exact same meaning in Arabic. ANd what do you mean that only form 2 takes this kind of tasreef. Are you saying that only form two can have a passive participle like this. Are you even being serious here? You know Arabic so where in the world are you getting this from? The only other option can be that I am misunderstanding you, but it doesn't seem like this. You are assuming that the verb hassana (even though we are discussing Ahsana) would have to come from a noun. That is false.
Go to http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume2/00000222.pdf Hasuna is the verb from which this is derived it is not a verb formed off of the noun, so that it has to take the second form. But even in that case you would still be wrong. You can go to Wright's Grammar of an Arabic language on page 34 and 35 of the first part and see that there are many 4th form verbs formed from nounds abqala from baqlun, awraqa from waraq, adh-kara from dhakar(to have a male child), asanna from sinn (to become fully grown, literally to get all your teeth), ash-ama (to got to Syria, ashaam), A'raqa to go to Iraq, and more. Please let these mistaken views go.Last Objections
The correct meaning is immune, derived from a verb derived from the same noun (7iSn) but of the form I.
The verb is not derived from the noun. The noun is derived from the first form verb and from 2 AND 4 change that meaning to very similar and even in some cases a shared identical meaning.
By logic, and by their nature, if mu7sin meant protector from vice, women are more "mu7Sinaat" of men than men of women.
Again, PURE OPINION, injected in this exchange. Please try to argue with real logic here, why, Samia? Why? If we look at the case of the male we will see it is muhsineena (mansoob). Letting us know that this is what their role SHOULD be, if they are looking for a partner, not what the actions of men are in general & in real, life. This is how a man should look for a partner. He should look for a partner in a strenghtening and fortifiying role as it concerns that woman not the opposite (corrupting and destructive).
I'm sure you have problems with the qawwaamoona verse as well? In Modern Arabic this word means supervisor, but in its real derivation from the verb it means a supporter and defender as qaama can mean to support and to stand up for. So that verse explains also what the role of men is to be as well as it concerns women; because if we went around the world, even in Muslim countries we would quickly find out that most men are not the qawwaamoona of women, but their mukharriboona (corrupters) and dhaalimoona (abusers). However, let me say that women are not always innocent either. I often remember that hadeeth by Abu huariarah that says that there will be more women in hell than men because they curse their husbands and disobey them. We know that we cannot trust that his saying is from the last prophet, God bless him, however many, many women are guilty of this. I would not say that there will be more women in hell then men, because firstly only God knows who will be in Hell and secondly I'm sure that if we compare the behavior of men towards women in many cases and all of our sins apart from this (both men and women) it will be God's mercy period if we do make it to heaven and he guides us to some degree of righteousness.
Godbless,
Anwar