Peace,

The marriage Laws in the Quran are there to protect the male, female and children. This is why a Muslim marrying non-Muslim women is allowed, as the Quran laws are the best laws that can be upheld by a husband.

But a non-Muslim man does not uphold the Quranic rules for marriage, and thus the female is not protected by the Quranic Law. Which is why she is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim man.

OK, brother, can you please quote me the relevant Surah and Verse that explicitly says so, eg Surah number x Verse number Y.
Peace
sister Francesca

peace sister

Though, there are plenty of such cases (male chauvinism masquerading as religion) but on this one,,, I am afraid , i shall have to agree with tradionlist understanding, which is, that a Muslimah cannot marry a Non muslim.

I dont think there is any confusion on this, because that is what Quran says.

I am sorry brother , i fail to grasp what you are trying to put forward, do you mean that even God can't forbid that ???

peace

siki

Salaam Siki

Can you please quote the relevant Quranic verses?

Peace

Sister Francesca

salaam

i dont think any prophet as non muslim befor reavalation they were borne for the very purpose and were protected and guided by allah from the date of birth till death.

Peace

Salaam Afridi and all

Uh, that might be, but my meaning was that

• Sunnis and Shias refer to Ibrahim as Prophet Ibrahim, Jesus as Prophet Issa, Adam as Prophet Adam, etc, but to Mohammed as The Prophet, which involves that somehow Mohammed was higher in the hierarchy than other prophets, but nowhere in the Quran it is written that this is the case; Mohammed was just the last one in the chronological sequence.
  The fact that they call him ""The Prophet" is just another example of
  Mohammed-worshipping that you find among Sunnas and Shias.
• Allah might have decided from the outset that Mohammed destiny was to be a prophet, but Mohammed himself had not the slightest idea what islam was about until he was 40, and let's not forget that when the Angel (Jibril) first appeared to him he was deeply shocked and not very receptive it was his wife's cousin, a Christian, who persuaded him to accept what the Angel has to say to him.

We are lucky that in this forum we can openly debate those issues, but let's not forget that in some countries you get the death penalty for insulting Prophet Mohammed for saying something like this, and this is not right!

Peace
Sister Francesca

Salaam sister frances

Prophet was also a Quran alone he was following Quran and not hadith and sunna of others we are also following Quran in this way we are following the messanger and the other groups are following shaitan only

Salaam Afridi220

Actually the final Surah of the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammed just one month before he died.
If you think that Mohammed for most of his life was a nonMuslim and received his first revelation when he was 40 years old, you can easily understand how receiving the Quran over a period of 20 and more years was like a process of growth for him, through which he went like the rest of us.

And on a slightly different point, I recall that years ago a scholar in Pakistan was sentenced to death by a Taleban-style tribal court for .... saying exactly what I have just said, and this goes on to show the hysteria that reigns in certain countries when you try to put forward a rational argument and to prove once more the vested interest that most clerics have in obstructing an open and frank debate.

Peace

Sister Francesca

PS I would refrain from referring to Mohammed as "The Prophet" this is a bad Sunni and Shia habit, and we all know that Islam has many prophet, none of whom were any lesser than Mohammed.

salaa all

In pakistan you ask any religious teacher you want to learn Quran with meaning they will tell you no no it is not for you leave it to us you just learn how to read Quran.

peace

Ha hah! Bingo!
During the Dark Ages the Roman Catholic authorities made it an offense for ordinary people (who could read, not many of them!) to own and study a Bible.
Now in Pakistan the clerics only allow you to read the Quran without understanding it.
The difference seems to be one of semantics only!
The clerics' vested interests (of keeping the ordinary people under a cloak of ignorance) is getting clearer and clearer.

As to issuing counter-fatwas, I don't think we are strong enough, since the main author of these fatwas, a certain Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid apparently lives in Saudi Arabia and is very likely to be financially supported by billions of petrodollars.

Like Brother Kurt said, let them issue more fatwas, and then let people with brain judge the sheer stupidity of these fatwas, just have a look at the links below (for Goodness sake, logic does not seem to be in abundant supply in Saudi Arabia)

http//islamqa.com/index.php?ref=3440&ln=eng

http//islamqa.com/index.php?ref=604&ln=eng

Peace

Sister Francesca

Peace Sisterfrancesca,

My friends from Pakistan told me the same thing. Matter of fact, when I used to ask about Islam, most of them didnt know how to answer me. Also, most of the Quran that they know is only in Arabic, so when I try to discuss ayat to them, they get confused.

I still think that being able to pronounce it is still better than nothing at all. Matter of fact, thats a step above us who cant read Quran at all. I do hope that these madrasas change their style, its very pointless to recite something that you dont know what you are saying. Same with Salat. I had to tell my friend what he was saying because he had no clue.

Peace

Peace Amuslim
Well, I believe that there is a vested interest for the madrasas to go on like this.
All what these mullahs want is to keep the populace under control.
Same story as the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, when the Mass was celebrated in Latin, a language that was already dead and totally unintelligible by the general populace.
You Quran-alone brothers and sisters might be unaware, but we already quite a few fatwas against us from both Sunnis and Shias.
Only when the Quran is widely understood in the correct manner can barriers and ghettoes be torn down.

Peace
Sister Francesca

That explains why you don't understand the rest of the post...

Religious freedom allows discarding of traditions, most traditions have nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with tradition. The Quran does not like tradition either. What I mean by higher education rates is that it is no surprise people in more educated parts of the world are questioning what is being stuffed down their throats.

Peace to everyone
As I said in another thread (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14842.30)
it is unfortunately usual for madrasas in the West, especially in Britain, to teach young kids only how to pronounce Arabic, but nothing more.
So when the kids read the Quran in Arabic they don't usually understand what they read, unless they come from an Arabic speaking background.
Not only that, but usually they are also taught a cauldron of Hadiths, Sunnah and all the wonderful things that Mohammed and his Companions did in English or their own family language, that is Urdu, Punjabi, etc.
And the imams who teach those things are usually notorious for their poor level of general education and training on religious matters at best, and for their zealotry and anti-Western hatred at worst, especially those coming from the notorious Wahabi "University" of Madinah.
Now PM gordon Brown is mulling the idea of setting up a special college for providing imams with a comprehensive and systematic training, instead of importing them from overseas.
In a few words, education yes, but of the right type.
Peace
Sister Francesca

Peace Wakas,

Im in favour of verifying Quran and going to what it meant originally, before traditions and cultural views got in the way.

When I say modernizing, I mean make it (or change its meaning) to fit todays time. For example, if we go with the lashing for zina, people could modernize it and say, well we dont have to do that, even when it clearly says it in the quran to do so. Same with cutting off the hand, which people are debating as to whether it is or isnt. Most people (not saying people here but in general) would say that cutting off the hand is too barbaric, and therefore introduce a modernized version of it where we dont have to cut off the hand. Thats one example that I meant for modernizing.

I think as muslims, we should all verify the quran. Like God says

You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

Wa Salaam

Peace Amuslim

Oh, you are perfectly right when you talk about verifying, but unfortunately this is exactly what does NOT happen in the Muslim world.
An example? As I said before I grew up in Britain in a very strict and closed Pakistani Muslim community, a sort of Pakistani Muslim ghetto.
In the afternoon I usually attended the afterschool classes at the local madrasa attached to the local mosque, and most of the madrasa syllabus consisted of reading the Quran ... in Arabic.
But no, we only learned how to pronounce the words, we never learned the meaning of what we were reading.
Hope this example helps to illustrate the reason why there is so much religious illiteracy in the Muslim world.
Peace
Sister Francesca

Dear nun de plume

I think you are quoting the wrong verses.
Verse 538 is not about cutting thieves' hands, and verse 537 is about cutting alternate hands and feet (and/or banishing from the land) of those who war against God and His Apostle and go about committing disorders on Earth.
Also verse 511 says nothing of the sort.
I have the Quran right under my eyes while I am writing, and I cannot find anything talking about thieves and amputations.
Therefore, can anyone here tell me where the relevant verse is?
Peace
Sister Francesca

Oops, on my copy of the Quran the verse that you identify as 5 38 appears as verse 5 42.
My apologies for the mistake
Peace
Sister Francesca

Peace amuslim,

I?m in favor of reading Qur?an which does not contradict thus if cross referenced usually will clarify as with the different uses of ?their hands? and take/apply best meaning?

Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
538 As to the THIEF, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power.

Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran
4824 And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

In above verse as in 511 what was held back/restrained is ?their hands? or means to carry out. Likewise, for known thieves; i.e. repeat offenders; cut off their hands or means to do so.

Prison is certainly an option along with other methods.

Question is for professional thieves in 7th century Arabia was the ?literal? severing a way to cut off ?their means" to perpetrate crime? Probably yes.

Dear nun de plume

I think you are quoting the wrong verses.
Verse 538 is not about cutting thieves' hands, and verse 537 is about cutting alternate hands and feet (and/or banishing from the land) of those who war against God and His Apostle and go about committing disorders on Earth.
Also verse 511 says nothing of the sort.
I have the Quran right under my eyes while I am writing, and I cannot find anything talking about thieves and amputations.
Therefore, can anyone here tell me where the relevant verse is?
Peace
Sister Francesca

Peace sisterfrancesca,

I am sorry to hear your story. But in regards to your question, my belief from what Ive seen in the quran is that we can marry people that arent idolaters, as you stated. There are Christians that fall into either category. Some believe in the Trinity, and thats shirk, while others dont, such as Unitarians. Just because it lists Christians as people of the Book doesnt mean that its talking about all Christians. Its the same as within Islam, there are many sects. If they commit shirk and polytheism, they are idolators and according to quran we shouldnt marry them until they believe, like you quoted.

If your husband already falls in the line of idolatry, seeing Jesus as God, maybe its best to have a talk between yourselves in the best manner. As the quran says

Say "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)."

Hope you find your answer.

Peace

Dear Amuslim

Thanks a million for your enlightning answer.
The problem that we have in Islam is that Sunnis and Shias between them make up some 95% of the Muslim world, and we all know that both of them hold ideas that are frankly un-Islamic.
It is no point for the Sunnis to accuse Trinitarian Christians of politeism when they themselves accept Sunnah and Hadith as part and parcel of their religious baggage, which is tantamount to worshipping Prophet Mohammed, even though in an unconscious way.
I don't know much about these Unitarian Christians (I will do some research), but I suspect that they are much closer to Allah than Sunnis and Shias will ever be.

As to my husband, he is a lukewarm Roman Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church holds on to the dogma that God, because He is Almighty, can do everything, including being one and three at the same time, and that Jesus had both a human nature and a divine nature.
But that does not bother me my husband has always been very laid-back and extremely respectful of my religious views, and has given me total freedom on educating the kids, and all of them have a sound knowledge of the Quran.
Anyway,my husband is a good-natured and God-fearing man, and I sincerely pray that one day I will find him go to Heaven, just by a different path.

The reason why I asked the question in the first place was not not out of concern for myself, but out of concern for girls like that Hina Saleem in Italy who routinely get murdered by their Sunni/Shia relatives because they want to marry someone who is Christian or other.
But again, Sunnis or Shias calling Christians polytheists is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Peace
Sister Francesca

Since the qur'aan already used a derivative of the verb "batara amputate/cut off", there is no reason, or logic, in giving the same meaning to a different word.

Also, the usage of "qata3a" as "stopping/interrupting" is used in the qur'aan in verse 5633 "and abundant fruit, neither interrupted (in production; not seasonal) nor inaccessible"; 2166; 4722 (taqTa3uu ar7aamakum to disconnect from your close relatives. The opposite of this expression , Silatur ri7m connection with blood relatives, is used in the qur'aan).

Sister Samia

Very well done!
The idea of cutting off hands is not just a problem of wrong interpretation, but also a problem of mis-translation.

Peace to all,

I dont think we should modernize the Quran, we should Quranize the modern world.

Kurt

Yes, Kurt, you are right, but before we need to make sure that we fully understand what the Quran says and purge it of all mis-translations, mis-interpretations, etc.

Peace
Sister Francesca

Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...

Yes, that is the true spirit of the Quran, with an emphasis on prevention, welfare and social justice rahter than a punishment that is clearly disproportionate for the crime.
Peace
Sister Francesca

Hi all
Thanks for your answers.
Actually I have done some research myself, and found the following

http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545554

http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543072

http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543380

http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543382

http//infad.kuim.edu.my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8783

It is true that Surah 2.221 recited "Marry no idolatresses until they believe ... and wed not your daughters to idolaters until they believe".
But we all know that not all non-Muslims are classified in the Quran as idolaters, and that Surah 2.59 says that Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabeites shall have their reward with their Lord if they believe in God and the last day and do what is right.

So, basically, I am inclined to believe that this idea of Muslims Sisters being forbidden from marrying non-Muslims is nothing but a piece of male chauvinism masquerading as religion.

And thanks to David K for quoting the relevant Hadiths.
It is true, Hadiths and Sunnah are really the cancer of Islam

Peace
Sister Francesca

Dear all
Please someone answer this question.
Can a Muslimah marry a non-Muslim?
If no, where is the rule on which this prohibition is based?
A bit more about myself.
My adoptive Italian name is Francesca. I was born in Britain into an extremely strict and extremely honour-obsessed South Asian Sunni family.
When I turned 18 my parents brutally forced me into a marriage with a man I immensely disliked.
After 6 months of appalling domestic abuses I fled first to a women's hostel, then to Italy, where I knew and married a lovely and educated Italian gentleman, who helped me rebuild myself psychologically and from whom I have had 4 kids.

I have learned with huge shock about that poor young lady in Britain, Banaz Mahmoud,
who was a victim of a brutal honour killing.
Something similar happened in Italy last year that shocked a usually tolerant nation to the core.
A 20 years old pakistani girl called Hina Saleem living in the northern town of Brescia was ordered by her father to marry her cousin; she refused, and told her father that seh had fallen in love with a local Italian Roman Catholic man, and her father slit her throat and buried her in the back garden.
When he was captured, he replied that in Islam a Muslimah cannot marry a filthy kaafir (non-Muslim)., and that a father has all the right to kill a daughter who falls in love with a filthy kaafir.
But where this rule come from?
I have searched everywhere in the Quran, but found no such thing.
Can anyone please help?
Sister Francesca