“THE GOATMILK DEBATES” will be an ongoing series featuring two debaters tackling an interesting or controversial question in a unique, irreverent manner.
Each debater makes their opening argument. They can elect to post a rebuttal.
The winner will be decided by the online audience and judged according to the strength of their argument.
The motion: “Muslim Women Should Be Able to Marry Non-Muslim Men”
For the motion: Nadia S. Mohammad [See her article here] and May Alhassen
Against the motion: Sister Soul [Read her argument here]
For the Motion – May Alhassen – “Muslim women should not be able to marry non-Muslim men”
“And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.” (30:21, Y. Ali)
“I’m not against capture and convert,” a male Muslim friend of mine frequently provides this jocular rejoinder in discussions about finding solutions to the rising number of successful, accomplished, unmarried Muslim American women in their 30s. As many families and Muslimah community members extradite the Huma Abedins of the world for marrying “non’s,” and as little to no Imams agree to perform marriages for these unions, we must ask ourselves, what is the appropriate recourse for solving the problem of a growing number of unwed Muslimahs with a proportionally dwindling stock of suitable (or even available) Muslim men?
What is the solution? Should the Muslim community, with an overwhelming opposition to inter-faith marriages for Muslim women, reconsider its position in the matter?
As Ms. Mohammad mentioned, Islamic legal scholar Dr. Abou El Fadl “personally, finds the evidence regarding the prohibition to be weak and does not feel comfortable telling a woman she cannot marry a kitabiyya [People of the Book.] Although this may be the case, he also acknowledges, “I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them.” Since scholarly opinion has overwhelmingly established Muslim female marriage to non-Muslim men as haram [forbidden], it is incumbent for the “pro” side to prove otherwise. I, in return, offer three additional points to not just support an “against position” but also to add nuance to the controversial debate which has arisen in this age of an “epidemic case” of Muslimah singledom.
Although I am a person not interested in ideological conversion or searing into people’s private affairs with argumentative interventions, I am taking this position on three accounts.
Firstly, to argue in favor of a Muslim marriage as a source for the preservation and protection of a woman’s legal rights in marriage; secondly, to show that not Muslim women, but Muslim men have more restrictive marriage guidelines; and lastly, to explore the parameters of what a “Muslim” is and rigorously interrogate the meanings we attach to such historically evolving, morphing, and transformed terms as “Muslim”—in fact, let us ask ourselves, not just who is defined as a non-Muslim man, but who is defined as a befitting “Muslim” man to marry. This is not a legal or a scholarly intervention, as I am no neither, but one compelling further scrutiny of perceived axiomatic truths. I also do not take on popular sociological arguments that use the preservation of religious inheritance in a patriarchical society or continuation of the “ummah” to either support or justify their position. I find those arguments lacking in qualitative and quantitative proof.
Even though I personally subscribe to a philosophy of “live and let live,” am not a fan of cultural, racial or racially restricted endogamy, and really could not care if a Muslim woman decides to wed a goat or even a Gingrich, I am taking this position to demonstrate the need for vibrant debate on this issue and to enter into a more rigorous interrogation of perceived Islamic/Muslim community norms. So let us start:
1. “My Prerogative”: Muslim woman’s rights in a Muslim marriage:
This point can be summed up very quickly and is one that my opponent will probably concede. A Muslim woman is guaranteed certain rights in terms of dowers (4:4) (4:24) (4:25), one that cannot be taken back (2:229) (4:20). And her rights in divorce proceedings are well accounted for. The issue of whether these rights, or any of the like, are applied into social practice is a claim very few faith communities can make, that of abiding by the precepts of their scripture.
2. “Two Can Play That Game”
Upon investigation of the prohibitions on Muslimah-non-Muslim unions, I discovered more restrictions placed on a men’s prospective spouse than on a woman’s (not surprising, Ms. Mohammad had a similar finding). Both men and women are cautioned against joining into marriage with a mushrikin [simply defined as a polytheist or one who ascribes divinity to other than God] (2:221). But only men are specifically singled out when entering into a discussion about marrying a muminatin [believing women], and guarding THOSE women from returning to the kuffar [deniers of Truth] (60:10). In addition, lawful are the ones who a man has paid their dowers (33:50), and muhsanaat [chaste women] (5:5). Men are also instructed to “give them their due dower, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues” (5:5). And forbidden to men are their father’s previous spouses (4:22), mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal and maternal aunts, nieces, mothers-in-law, step daughters (4:23), married women (4:24). No such prohibitions or advisories appear for Muslim women.
With such limits, provisions, supplemental instructions on lawful and prohibitive marriage, men appear to have more restrictions than women when it comes to choosing a lawful or desirable spouse. Certain madhabs [schools of thought] find it makruh [reprehensible] for Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women, including kitabis, in non-majority Muslim state settings. Some Maliki jurists even used the Haram card when describing such geography particular unions.
So a Muslim women cannot marry a mushrikin [polytheist] and a Muslim man has the additional provisions of marrying a woman who is a mumin [believer] (60:10) muhsanaat [chaste woman] (5:5)— provisions not outlined for women. Does that mean she won the argument, that Muslim women can marry muslim men? Not necessarily because I contend that non-mushrikin men are Muslims. So, since the category of “Muslim” under my definition is a much wider net than Muslims would feel comfortable casting, I will explain what I mean by Muslim and use that as grounds to endorse Muslim-on-Muslim marriages as a sort of protection of gender rights.
3. “One Love”?: Interrogating the socially popular definition of “Muslim”
This conveniently leads us back to a rudimentary question requiring clarification, “What is a Muslim?” Who is considered a Muslim by the Qu’ran? Religious Studies Professor William Chittick in a recent article for Huffington Post “Which ‘Islam’? Exploring the Word’s Many Meanings” contends that historically, the identification with the term Muslim and Islam is an innovation, and the limited demarcations that term has metamorphized to, also is an innovation. Chittick and Sachiko Murata in “The Vision of Islam” argue for four different meanings for the words “Islam.” Those include: “(1) The submission of the whole of creation to the Creator; (2) the submission of human beings to the guidance of God as revealed through the prophets; (3) the submission of human to the guidance of God as revealed through the prophet Muhammad; and (4) the submission of the followers of Muhammad to God’s practical instructions” (6).
Being that I am the purveyor of this argument, I will subscribe to the second of the four to make my point. Examples of mentions of such an Islam, with such Muslims counted as its adherents, can be seen here (I have added the original Arabic words in those instances where it is relevant):
“And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims (almuslimeena), both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector – the Best to protect and the Best to help!” (22:78, Y. Ali)
“When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: “Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah.” Said the disciples: “We are Allah’s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims (muslimoona).” (3:52, Y. Ali)
“And dispute ye not with the People of the Book (alkitabi), except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, “We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).” (muslimoona).” (29:46, Y. Ali)
As was demonstrated by the above examples, the term “Muslim” was used to describe Jesus’s disciples, (who I have heard people refer to as distinctly different than us Mooz-lams), who are part of the “cult of your father Abraham,” and who include kitabis as those who bow to the one God they share.
Furthermore, as we see in Yusuf Ali’s translation, there is a distinction made between People of the Book and “the unbelievers,” or the kitaba and kafaroo, aligning kitabis with the mumins:
“And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith,- and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the Believers, and that those in whose hearts is a disease and the Unbelievers may say, “What symbol doth Allah intend by this ?” Thus doth Allah leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth: and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than a warning to mankind.” (74:31, Y. Ali)
And the mumins are grouped together with the Muslims:
“For muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward.” (33:35, Y. Ali)
So what is a Muslim? Based on the above examples that include kitabi in definitional explanations of mumins and Muslims, I argue that a Muslim can be a kitabi, and thus that these kitabis, counted in my books as Muslims, are eligible for Muslim women to marry. So thus, a Muslim woman does not have to invent arguments demonstrating her legal Quranic ability to marry a non-Muslim since there is nothing to disprove, unless that is that she wants to marry a polytheist.
The underlying problem is the way we frame our understanding of the parameters of “Muslim-ness,” limiting a “Muslim” is to an ethnicized notion of Muslim performance. Marriage in a post-Christian West means that religious identities splinter off into ethnic identities and religious identities. As such, there is a development of different Muslim identities, that of an ethnic and religious nature. Herein lies a cultural transformation paralleling the process of development of ethnic Jewish and Christian communities, where we become an ethnicized or racialized Muslim who must fight for civil rights or cultural preservation, and not simply Muslims on a spiritual path towards submission to the Divine Noor. This convolutes and restricts notions of Muslim-ness that historically enjoyed more ideological flexibility.
As Chittick points out in his HuffPo article, “The Quran uses the word islām and derivatives like muslim (one who has the quality of islām) about 80 times. A small number of these instances can plausibly be interpreted as designations for the religion that the Quran and the Prophet were in the process of establishing. Historians have pointed out that the word came to be employed as a common designation for the religion only gradually, a process that has intensified enormously in modern times.”
Similarly, so focused are we on the nominal line that is drawn between “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” men when it comes to marrying our Muslimahs, we have been distracted from the task of dissecting, as a community, what passes for an unsuitable Muslim who banks on the nominal association or exclusively wears Islam as an ethnic identity. It is possible for a Jewish man or a Christian man to adhere to and practice more Islamic values than a nominally Muslim man. As a minor example, in Surah Ahzab the munafiqeen [hypocrites], who can be Muslims, are grouped with the kafireen, opposite of mumin (the desirable spouses for men), as those who should not be given any counsel:
“O Prophet! Fear Allah, and hearken not to the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites: verily Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom.” (33:1, Y. Ali)
Oh parents, would you give your daughter off to a nominally Muslim hypocrite who is mentioned in an association with a kaffir, that denier of Truth, instead of a muslim Jew or Christian?
By these guidelines Huma Abedin should not be publicly paraded around with a scarlet “H” (“H” for “haram”—I felt like a Sesame Street character for breaking that down). If her husband is indeed a believer in God and not a polytheist Jew, she entered into a marriage with a Muslim. So what is not the benefit for a Muslim woman to choose to marry a Muslim man or enter into a Muslim-on-Muslim marriage, if it confers certain rights and protections onto the women and includes kitabis in its definitional breadth? Utilizing a cost-benefit analysis, Muslim marriage adds benefit with minimal sacrifices in terms of “choices” and “options.” It is the community’s narrow-minded vision of an appropriate “Muslim” who in their eyes turns out to be more an ethnic Muslim, rather basing the criteria of Muslim on one who’s submission is predicated on a love for God, that misrepresents the permissible choices that are in front of Muslim women, and consequently creates a false perception of limited options.
And lastly, I would like to conclude by emphatically agreeing with my opponent:
Allah knows best.
*kufis off to the person who can guess the theme that ties the headers together
READ NADIA S. MOHAMMAD’S ARGUMENT FOR THE MOTION HERE
HERE’S THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
 And although I am not attempting to convince readers of this highly unpopular position and as uncomfortable as the following statement will make both Muslims and non-Muslims, (as a believer in Murata and Chittick’s (1) definition for Islam) for me, can also include Zorastarians, Hindus, Sikhs-those believers in monotheism who are not counted amongst the mushrikin.
60 thoughts on ““Muslim Women Should Be Able to Marry Non-Muslim Men”: The Goatmilk Debates #2”
Wow are you kidding me Mr. Wajahat Ali? The debators you’ve chose to represent opposing views actually come down on the same side, as far as the traditional orthodox opinion is concerned.
This seems like some sort of disingenuous attempt to promote a certain viewpoint.
If you’re actually trying to promote a fair discourse i suggest you find another writer to present the opposing view.
Wajahat here – I gave full discretion to the writers and did not influence their decision. Neither myself or the site promote or reject the views given. One debater was supposed to be for and another against. I agree that both have come, essentially on one side. I am currently finding a writer to debate “against” the motion…
I would like to write a rebuttal as the opposing view.
Please send me your piece. Same guidelines as before. Respecting the etiquettes, 2000 words or less, taking the position “against the motion.”
You’ve argued for the opposition…that’s intellectually dishonest.
As salaamu alaikum,
There’s a major mistake in lumping “kitabis” with Muslims or even worse ,Mu’mins. For one, “submission” to God is to accept what He has revealed or ordained, even when one doesn’t even practice it in his or her life. A person who rejects or doesn’t accept Muhammad as the final messenger and prophet or Islam as the way of life adhere to is not a Muslim or Mu’min.
As far as verses in the Quran mentioning groups before the advent of Muhammad being Muslims, that’s an issue of naskh (abrogation). Muhammad said in a famous Hadith that if Moses were alive today, he would have no choice but to follow him (Muhammad). Countless verses in the Quran and Hadith clearly mention the obligation upon mankind to accept Muhammad and Islam in order to be a Muslim or Mu’min.
The main problem is your argument aside from “the kitabis are Muslim too” belief is the lack of adhering to fiqhi principles when presenting an argument.
For example, if I didn’t take into account naskh or abrogation in presenting an argument, I would say that drinking alcohol is permissible, even when it is not related to health or survival because there are verses that do not mention the prohibition of alcohol. Moreover, if I ignored the countless ayaat and Hadiths that mention the obligation to accept Muhammad and what was revealed to him, I can lump “kitabis” as Muslims or even Mu’min because there are verses in the Quran that mention them as such.
As far as Chittick is concerned, Abraham was neither a Christian nor a Jew but a Muslim as the Quran says.
If Jews or Christians can be Muslims or Mu’min, why would the Quran say that Abraham wasn’t a Jew or a Christian?
interesting arguments. i’d like to add that i think muslimahs can marry jewish men but not christian men. reason being modern christians do not worship the same god that muslims and jews do. in fact i think it can even be argued that the way christianity is being practiced today is not a monotheistic religion.
or how about something I have never found an answer to. If Jews believe that religion is passed through the mother, would that mean that in a Jewish male-Muslim female marriage, that the child would be seen as Muslim from the Jewish perspective?
Godo point. Any Rabbis care to comment?
Well, actually that depends on which Jewish sect. Orthodox and Conservative only consider a child Jewish if the child has a Jewish mother. Reform and Humanist Jews consider a kid a Jew regardless, but generally speaking, they tend to encourage the kid to learn about Judaism, but no Jews consider anyone a Jew until they’ve gone through the process of conversion, which means nobody’s expected to be a Jew until after they’re 13 years old. So almost nobody gets forced into Judaism.
Aeshi, you display profound lack of understanding of Christianity. The Law of Christian faith which is repeated in every worship, say “We believe in one God”
You either lack sound understanding of Christianity, or you are drowning in the falsehoods proclaimed by those who hate Christianity. The Kouran testifies of the validity of the Christian Faith, see sourah El Nissa.
Do not ascribe a falsehood to a the timeless truth of Christianity. If you are correct, why did the profit Muhammad marry Mary the Coptic?
u do not worship as Jesus didPBH u take him as son of God or God what? so how can a muslim woman marry someone believes like this
Husayn, I think I should be asking that about bigots like you. How can they marry a man like you who wants the privelege to marry non Muslim women but denies non Muslim men the same privelege with Muslim women that he so flagrantly ignores. Sorry, but I think somethings got to give. Either Muslim men stick to Muslim women only or Muslim women should be allowed to marry non-Muslim men.
Sorry for making several posts (instead of one long post); I’m typing from a cell phone.
At any rate, there are verses in the Quran that mentions non believers from amongst the Christians, Jews and pagans but not from amongst the Muslims.
If as you say a Jew or a Christian can be a Muslim, why don’t the verses mention the unbelievers from amongst the Muslims but instead mention them from People of the Book?
1) The Quran uses the word Muslim in both senses (as we understand it today) and as those who submitted to their respective Prophets (ala Moiz Amjad)
2) Hujjurat (49:14) also states on certain nomad Muslims that while apparently Muslims they have not accepted true belief:
The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say “We submit,” for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts.
There is a difference between Muslim and Mu’min as you know.
But the crux of her argument is that Jews and Christians are Muslims, despite the fact that a person who rejects or doesn’t accept Muhammad or Islam is neither a Muslim or a Mu’min. Instead of adhering to fiqhi principles such as “al qur’aan yufassiru ba’Dahu min ba’Din” (the Quran explains other parts of the Quran) or sticking to naskh, what I saw was an adoption of methodology used by Orientalists and secular scholarship to contend that Jews and Christians are Muslims.
This by far is classic revisionism.
Brother Mahdi Ahmad,
I recall watching one of the Doha Debates which brought forth the issue of a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim person. One of the traditionally trained Muslim scholars (not an orientalist or secularist) contended that she could marry people of the book, as they were like us.
I do not think the Sister is defining Jews and Christians as strict Muslims but rather saying that they may be more Muslims than several hypocrites/ namesakes within our own ranks.
Many Muslims, I know of, make such claims on occasions, when they state that the Western democracies have instilled more Islamic values than the corrupt dictatorships in the Muslim world.
Even if a traditional scholar said what he said regarding Muslim women can marry non Muslim men, than that doesn’t mean anything. Like I keep saying, Islam is based on revelation, not scholars or scholarship. The great imams stated that if there is clear evidence that goes against their opinions, go with the evidence and not with them.
The sister used the opinions of Orientalists to redefine what a Muslim is. If you reread her argument, she uses it clearly.
If a person post-Muhammad were to believe in God but reject Muhammad, can he be a Muslim or a Mu’min?
The shahaadah requires belief in Allah and Muhammad. This is what makes a person Muslim or Mu’min.
Regarding the Arabs who were mentioned in the ayah, they still made shahaadah. Even if they lacked faith, in order for those Arabs to be called Muslims, they had to witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger.
While you men are arguing semantics, the single Muslim women who want to get married are quickly reaching the age so they qualify to work at Panda Express Grocery Store in Saudia.
Thank you Tensil,
You got exactly what I was going for–though, upon subsequent readings I realized was not nearly as well written as I had intended. For me, these issues are more questions than answers. I do not have the answers, what I do see are interesting ayat and Qu’ranic concepts dedicated to describing a faithful worshiper that bring up questions as to how we even define the appropriate “Muslim” man for the Muslim woman. Who is that non-mushrikin that would be compatible with Qu’ranic summons? Maybe it was a stretch and over-reaching to cast my net so wide in this discussion and with so little background and training I have. It was not my earnest conviction on these points, but my voracious precocity that motivated these statements that should have been phrased in question format. Why are there ayah in which the noun “muslimoona” is used, are the kitabis included? Am I decontextualizing the ayah? What is the socio-historic contextualization and the textual contextualization (that was so grad school of me right there)?
But, what I am also wondering, is Muslim, in this supposed moment of “modernity” becoming or splitting off into two paths (maybe not exactly divergent ones) of ethnic/cultural Muslim and spiritual Muslim, in which we are more concerned about ethnic/cultural markers of a Muslim our daughter, niece, cousin, sister, etc is going to marry, and not the worship of the man?
Sorry the poor stylistic packaging of these points have obfuscated and detracted from the main concerns.
Another example of non sense. Dont Muslims have serious issues to tackle about? Like poverty, illiteracy and unemployment and better life standards for it’s people?
All you people spend your entire life talking what is writtin in your God damned book and do not care how pathetic life has become for a person in the poorest of Islamic countries
I’m not against you people. The entire world is hoping you Muslims can change and lead a good and peaceful life. Why dont the Imam of Ground Z Mosque use his $100 million money on building schools and hospitals in under developed Muslim countries? Why not give out charity and alms to poor people.. Christianity is in the strong arms of science, progress, education, health, charity, home for the aged/orphanage/blind and many more. Why dont Muslims do that? Now dont tell me, “yes we were all that in 12th century”. To cut short, discuss about how to uplift the downtrodden Muslims around the world. Please. The world would live in peace if you Muslims do that
Concentrate on the couple of million Pakistani’s right now who have lost their homes, relatives, job’s, businesses and probably hope….as they listen to the radical Muslims tell them to reject Christian charity and kill the Christians providing charity. They are telling them to wait until Muslim charity arrives.
About the argument: Sounds to me like single Muslim women are just tired of waiting, too, and want to get married no matter how it arrives.
I think the most recent (3rd) entry in this debate really hit on something.
I once went to a panel discussion on marriage and one of the scholars there emphasized the point that as a community Muslims need to come up with halal ways for young Muslims to get together and find mates.
I’ve heard of one mosque which has some kind of halal “meet-ups” for that purpose.
I’m not saying throwing out the baby with the bathwater but in my experience there is a bit of a disconnect. I mean, the level of sex segregation within the Muslim community (in the West) can at times make it hard to get to know one another. But obviously the same norms aren’t in play in the general non-Muslim society. So paradoxically it is alot easier to find non-Muslims of the opposite sex as potential partners.
Especially if you are a convert and your main connection to the Muslim community is the mosque or Islamic organizations (where the segregation is most operative) and don’t have the backdoor channel of “aunties” or Muslim parents working behind the scenes to fix people up.
Actually, non-facetiously, THAT might make a good debate topic at some point. Whether/how Muslims should “date”? If you address THAT issue, then the issue of Muslims marrying non-Muslims would be less of a big deal.
I completely agree with you Abdul-Halim, I would be fascinated with a debate on that–and also, what would we mean by “dating”? What would that look like? And what are the various names we give it to avoid such a cultural taboo term?
Oh come on guys. This type of woman who wants to marry a non muslim just for the sake of marrying isnt/wasnt the girl that would have been affected by segregation in a strict muslim society. She was loose from the start, had an inflated worth of herself, hated Islam, her refusal to go to muslim countries for marriage due to her intolerance replacing with a will to settle for a non-muslim male. She is trying hard to portray herself as innocent but has been unable to fool anybody but herself.
Everybody has a test and this is why we are here. So let her choose. Heaven or hell.
There is a verse in the Quran …
“If you do not do our work, we will replace you with others who will”.
Another verse …
“If you love somebody/something more than Allah then that thing will become the source of your demise, depression, ill health and your downfall”
Kashif. I do not find it to reflect very well on men of your religious group when you have to go and call a woman “loose from the start” just for marrying a non-Muslim man. These women do not get married in Muslim majority countries because of what you think, quite frankly, they don’t get married in Muslim countriess because Muslim men like you have such a dim view of women in general and hold them to standards you don’t hold yourself up to.
Lastly, you say the choice is given to her by Allah and she has to choose between heaven and hell. Well, ask yourself this. If the only person Allah willed this woman would fall in love with was a non Muslim man, and this woman is “going to hell” for falling in love with a non Muslim man rather than spend a life finding no love at all. IF there is a God who wills all this beforehand and then decides to punish this woman for something that hurt nobody, then why should anyone worship such a god? How could any God act like that and still call himself a diety when more merciful behaviors can be found in a human being?
Sorry to the others out here, but I do not respond nicely to men who belittle women, call them whores, etc. It’s a cheap shot and you guys know it, so please, argue about these women without having to jump to slander and accusations.
Islam must be booked for hate crimes against humanity. It does not care about a person’s well being, all it wants to do is have a global dominance. Sooner or later Islam will be confronted. We are only quite now because this is just the beginning. I mean Islam is creating hatred globally since a decade. Let some more decades pass. I want Muslims to fill everywhere in every country. Then we shall blow the death siren on Islam through a revolution. But obviously, by not harming Muslims. Only Islam must DIE
I’m all for Muslim women marrying who they think best
but I’m totally against gorgeous Huma marrying that beanpole politician Weiner. She can do so much better.
Yeah, Jewish left wing Atheists like myself are scratching our heads thinking “Huma…..you could have found a way better one than him!” lol
We cannot lump those who are Jews and Christians under the Muslim icon, just because they seem better people then some Muslims (the Saudi couple who hammered 23 nails into their SriLankan maid’s body).
By definition a Muslim is one who submits to Allah. Those who submits to Allah will submit to the Quran and Sunnah. Those who submit to Quran & Sunnah will submit to the Shariah.
Now I ask, which Jew and Christian believes in 1 God, and then believe in the Quran, and then believe in the Shariah?
Even those who call themselves Muslims have a hard time submitting their will to the Shariah (the hypocrites as you stated).
//Nay, O Mohammad, by your Lord, they can never be Believers until they accept you as judge for their decision of the disputes between them, and then surrender to your decision with entire submission without feeling the least resentment in their hearts. (An’Nisa – 65)//
So yes definitely, before marriage, first of the identity must be asertaind. Then, whether he is a man of Taqwa.
Believing in Shariah is not a pillar of Faith. Belief in the oneness of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad are the only basic criteria for being a Muslim. Allah is our god, not shariah books.
I’m going to go out on a limb here: many of the Muslim women I’ve known who had relationships with non-Muslim men was simply because they were attracted to them physically or had a personality that meshed with their own better. That these women, and muslim men who marry non-Muslim women, would choose someone not compatible in faith is significant. The limb I go out on here is that I propose that such women are not very deep into Islam and perhaps, ancedotally, don’t really like being Muslim or feel Islam is merely part of their cultural background, not as a spiritual practice per se.
Thus, if they are in such a state of iman or lack thereof, then why do we feel compelled to force them to in-marry? They clearly do not want to be part of the Ummah, so why do we insist on keeping them?
Spot on brother. I think your proposal is correct that they never liked Islam. I couldn’t care less about them. I mean to be honest; How many of these kitabis are actually kitabis? How many just pay lip service?
Verse in the Quran …
“An adulterer will marry an adultress and an adultress will marry an adulterer..”
Another verse …
“..If you commit adultery, it will take you away from the right path tremendously ..”
The choice is yours … after life or few moments of this world.
I find your accusations of these women pathetic on both of your parts. Rather than argue the points, you simply start making up falsehoods about these girls. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Kashif and OmarG, I find that your line “She was loose from the start, had an inflated worth of herself, hated Islam, her refusal to go to muslim countries for marriage due to her intolerance replacing with a will to settle for a non-muslim male.” is offensive to a lot of good Muslim women who married non-Muslim men because they could not find a good Muslim man. It is attitudes like yours that make Muslim women even think of marrying non-Muslim men in the first place. I hope someone will guide you to became a better people and less judgmental about your sisters.
If you dont get that opportunity, you should know what it is like to be a Muslim woman in the United States. We lack the community of support for marriage that people have in Islamic countries. People don’t help each other as they do in other countries or communities. Many of the Muslim women had never dated. Do you think if given the choice of a good Muslim guy and a good non-Muslim guy (given everything else is equal) that a woman would prefer to go outside of her religion and go through all the hardships associated with marrying that person, willingly? Do you think many of the women just choose to go that route? OmarG and Kashif, I hope you learn that Muslim women are people just like you and we all just want to be happy and married and settled in life.
If we can’t find that in our own communities because of narrow mindedness and primitive thinking like yours, then we will have to look outside.
“.. If we can’t find that in our own communities because of narrow mindedness and primitive thinking like yours, then we will have to look outside. ..”
“.. I hope someone will guide you to became a better people and less judgmental about your sisters. ..”
You are not my sister.
You don’t choose your sisters in faith, Kashif
“…If we can’t find that in our own communities because of narrow mindedness and primitive thinking like yours, then we will have to look outside. ..”
You are making it look like it is men’s fault. It is women who are picky and then when they can’t find anyone then they come with insulting posts like: there are no good men, men are narrow minded, if women do not find somebody attractive then they should not marry him etc. If however, a man says that he doesn’t find a woman attractive then blame him. It is never your fault. It is always somebody else: community, men, parents etc. Never you. Never take responsibility. Off load on others.
We are so sick and tired of insults, intolerance and blame-somebody-else attitude of yours that unless you change yourself, any amount of bullying and blackmailing of marrying to a non muslim man is not going to change me.
There is a goatmilkblog on this:
He covers a lot of points and most men including myself agree. It gets boring after a while when the same line of blame-it-on-men continues on and on and on…. and in a larger context all women talk about is marriage, marriage and marriage … Isn’t there anything else interesting in this world? If you develop more interests, have a decent uninsulting and responsible attitude then perhaps you stand a better chance with men because in this state of yours, you are not going to attract any decent upstanding muslim man or non muslim man.
Imagine being married to a woman who blames everything on somebody else. It would be a war everyday. It wouldn’t last. It is better to be alone than in bad company.
I’m sorry you have to put up with Kashif and OmarG. I find it funny how when Muslim men marry non Muslim women they’re just fine, but they don’t see the hypocrisy involved in refusing to allow non-Muslim men to marry Muslim women….then they wonder why non-Muslim men find conservative Muslim males to be hypocrites. I find your display of faith in Islam to be much stronger and more beautiful than Kashif’s narrow and hateful method.
PS Kashif, OmarG, you guys are only going to make more Muslim women refuse to date Muslim men because you have an inflated sense of self worth that you gain from belittling and insulting women. By the way Kashif, I have a newsflash for you. It is the men’s fault that Muslim women even have to think of going outside the faith. I swear, you and Omar treat your women the way southern rednecks do. Infact, with your self righteous attitude, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone got a dose of it, thought it was Islam, and decided to leave the faith because of the vile venomous dribble that comes out of your mouths. As for the “blame it on men” thing you decry, you should really look into that. As far as the high levels of spousal abuse, marital rape, and other forms of violence against women goes, Islamic majority countries have a major problem with that. But don’t take my word for it, I’m just a guy who worked with Amnesty International.
Thanks Aaron. Good post. I wish people become less judgmental and would try to see what it’s like to live in another person’s shoes before they criticize. There are lots of good Muslim men too who treat their wives and other women well, but the problem is that its people (like a few of the commenters here) who get their voices heard and bring about the greatest problems for women.
Also, you are absolutely right about hypocrites. Having lived in the middle east myself, I can’t tell you the amount of hypocrisy I saw in those countries in the way they lived.
Kashif, I hope you didn’t mis-interpret my post to be a blame game. In fact, my main point was that calling some women “loose” is offensive and it is important to know what it is like to be a Muslim woman in the United States. It is vital to have intellectual discussions about topics, and this blog is an excellent avenue for people who are mature enough to have that kind of discussion.
Kashif, you are probably right: “It is women who are picky”, In fact, we are picky because we do want respectful, decent, educated men who are attractive to us. Maybe that is too much to ask for in our community and it is probably better that we settle with someone who we are not compatible with so that everyone can be happy that he is a Muslim.
As I mentioned before, this was not inteded to be a personal attack against anyone. However, I hope you become less judgmental about Muslim women. If we (Muslim women) have no problems attracting men in general, then what is it about Muslim men? There are plenty of upstanding,responsible, and wonderful Muslim guys, but as I mentioned earlier, they need to step up and take interest in Muslim girls. If not, we’ll have to consider other options.
“in a larger context all women talk about is marriage, marriage and marriage … Isn’t there anything else interesting in this world? ”
Kashif, in a commmunity that considers a woman in-eligible after a certain age, do you blame women for focusing on getting married. So, are you suggesting that women wait till their 30’s to think about it? Again, this goes back to my idea that if you don’t know what it is like to walk in a Muslim american woman’s shoes, then it will be difficult for you to not be judgmental and bitter. I suggest that you take a look at the single Muslim women who have fulfilled lives full of hobbies, friends and activities. Don’t assume that they are all sitting at home waiting for you to ask their hand in marriage.
Many muslim women are discouraged by the lack of respect and regard shown to them by muslim men. the thought of the possibity of another woman coming in doesn’t help either.
1 Tim. 2:11-15
Rev. 13:14 James 1:16
Deceived; “To cause (one) to believe what is untrue.”
From the writings of James (segment 241B) “Do not be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth that we might be a kind of first fruit of all he created.”
From the writings of Paul (segment 272NB) “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may some how be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
(segment 294Div) “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first then Eve and Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
From the writings of John “… he deceived the inhabitants of the earth …”
Now let us go to the beginnings;
Genesis 3:1-24. You should read this from your bible.
Here we learn the truth about Eve. Was Eve really the one who was deceived? I say No! It was Adam. “She also gave some to her husband, WHO WAS WITH HER, and he ate it.” Gen. 3:16
Y Why!! Why did Adam remain silence and did not say; ‘No! Stop! That fruit is forbidden.’ Adam did not say this, because he was deceived also.
PROOF; Read what God said to Adam. Gen. 3:17-19. “Because you listen to your wife and ate from the tree …” Adam would not had eaten if he was not deceived also. (OR out-right disobeyed God, if not deceived).
Adam # “The Hebrew for man (Adam) sound like and may be derived from the Hebrew for ground (adamah); it is also the name Adam.”
“Cursed is the ground because of you.” Adam is cursed and produces thorns and thistles.
Here is a question: Since women still give birth with pain, why is it that all men do not till the soil with painful toil?
But Eve# “The Hebrew for woman sounds like the Hebrew for man. Eve means living.”
And what did God say to Eve, “… you will give birth to children …”
So Eve is truly living; but man is not. Man produces thorns and thistles; things that produce pain. Throughout all nations and all times; man is rulers over women. (Even in Canada, because in Canada women were not allow to go down hill ski-jumping in the 2010 Olympic games. This is a little thing, but still not equal to men.)
Here question #2. Since men can find reasons to not ‘till the soil with painful toil’; why is it that men can not find reasons to treat women as equal in every.
Why!!? Because man is not allow to give birth to life.
O Yes: I know I am playing on words; but you need to know that all human life begins in the womb; and only women have the womb.
Remember this: Paul wrote in 1Cor.11:2-16 (segment 266KA) “For this reason and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, no is man independent of woman; for as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.” What Paul wrote in verses 2-9 could be call sarcasm. Sarcasm # “a bitter, cutting remark: also ironical, language expressing scorn or contempt”
But all of this is a man point of view. So I will give you another man point of view. From the writings of Matthew, ch.7 v.12 (segment 64B); the words of Christ, “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the teachings of the Prophets.”
John A. Clark 2010 Oct. 21
(Segment is for those who read the book ‘The People of the Way, the first 100 years.)
Poor poor John,
do you really really believe all this bullshit?
Adam and Eve never existed,there was never a “paradise” on earth,the god of the bible or Koran has nothing, nothing to do with the ultime reality of the real truth…
You may find the truth in yourself and in the love for all ( all) existing people.
You will never find the truth in books…
You have a right to what you said; but you also missed the point. The point is; that, women are equal to men.
if there is or is not a God, we have no right to make others do what we believe is right. “Do for others as you wants others to do for you.”
–And Yes: I do believe that there is a God; who treats all person as equals.
–John A. Clark
John, this doesn’t even have ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand. Please try your proselytizing elsewhere.
If you would like to know what I believe and teach, read; http://www.freewebs.com/johnaclark
-John A. Clark
It’s simple, anyone that says that woman should be able to marry a non-muslim man, is no longer a muslim person .. since by this agreement to that, s\he is going against what God (Allah) told them in his Book (Qur’an) …
I find it weird, how many people go in a discussion, and can’t even use simple logic …
No Khaled, you’re just using narrowminded, Wahabbiist, simpleton logic. Your idea is that “since by this agreement to that, s/he is going against the word of God (Allah) told them in his Book (Qur’an).” I want to address just how ridiculous that claim is, by offering passages from the Quran. In Sura 86: 7, the Quran states the following: “So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs.”
By your standards, a man who studies urology would have to perform a vasectomy by pulling out a man’s rib to make him sterile. If he decides to do the operation by going against the Sura, he would be going against God, and therefore not a Muslim. Hence, your argument that you must blindly follow every single word literally in the Quran as you say is a baseless and arbitrary one.
They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God – Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him*).” 9.31 Surah At Tawbah
The word Yushrikun* is found on the Arabic text. My Arabic is not perfect but I assume that the words Yushrikun and Mushrikun(in verse 2.221) are derived from the words shirk/polytheism. If i am not mistaken , this verse clearly shows that people of the book are polytheists
Musa; No matter what You believe, or I believe; when You make a person less than yourself; even under God’s order; you are making a slave. The Prophet Jesus Christ said; “Do for others as you would have them do for you.” And that statement is everything; that is what make us human; without it we are just animals. – John
That’s all I got to say after reading the arguments made by the stupidest ass on the planet to non Muslim men marrying stupid bitches who if they really loved Islam wouldn’t think of even talking let alone marrying and then fucking a dirty kafir who doesn’t even wash his ass after having a shit, what does that tell you about their lives bSic cleanliness is an issue with non Moslems so how can we take them serious.