The Doha Debates take place in Doha, Qatar, eight times a year. The most recent debate, broadcasted by BBC World News on June 6 and 7, was titled, “This House Believes That Muslim Women Should be Free to Marry Anyone they Choose”.
Based on the title, one gets the immediate impression that Muslim women have absolutely no say in whom they can and cannot marry. Using the words “free” and “Muslim women” in the same sentence about marriage makes it seem like we are all handcuffed and locked away until our prince arrives with the key. Moreover, phrasing the topic so broadly makes any succeeding argument dependent on ambiguous interpretation of its generality, which in my opinion limits the the dialogue. Yassir Qadhi, a debate panelist, describes how challenging it was to form his argument, given his reservations with the way the topic was phrased.
Asra Nomani , Bombay-born American author and journalist, and Dr. Muhammad Habash, a Syrian MP and Muslim cleric, spoke in support of the motion. Qadhi, a Muslim American cleric, took the opposing stance, along with Dr. Thuraya Al Arrayed, a female Saudi writer, columnist and member of the advisory board of the Arab Thought Foundation. Both panelists argued Islamic Law prohibits Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. Qadhi started out string by framing his argument with the notion that one gives up certain freedoms when adhering to religion. Since a “Muslim” submits to the laws of Islam, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. I agree with him.
There is already a consensus amongst Islamic scholars that makes this debate illegitimate based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah, therefore the debate rather futile unless you can undoubtedly prove that it is not Islamically illegitimate–something neither the proponents or opponents did. It seemed the debaters were more concerned with showing their own opinion, rather than the opinion of Islam. Non-scholarly opinions have no place in a debate with consequences as far-reaching as the identity of future Muslim generations.
This was made particularly obvious on the opposing side, when Al Araayed, (met by serious criticism from the audience) said “women are too immature to know what’s best for them.” Moreover, on the opposing side, Habbash changed his stance on the entire topic, initially saying he believed a Jewish or Christian man must affirm the Prophet Muhammad in order to marry a Muslim women, and then modifying his answer to say the man must only respect the Prophet Muhammad. Holy smokes! A Syrian MP is saying he would indeed allow a Muslim woman to marry a Jewish or Christian man if he respected the Prophet Muhammad! Ha! Political upholstery at its finest: “I’m a religious politician but I can be liberal and change my position when it contradicts with the mainstream point of view.” As Qadhi effectively pointed out, his statement is in effect mute; Jews and Christians do not believe in Muhammad as a prophet, therefore they cannot truly respect him.
To further prove my point that this debate is ineffective, Asra Nomani injected an absolutely secular point of view in an absolutely religious topic, charging anyone who dared prohibit Muslim woman from marrying non-Muslim men as adhering to their personal interpretation of Islam. She also said she believed Muslim women should have the right to marry each other. As I pointed out earlier in support of Qadhi’s stance, you simply can’t argue for absolute freedom in religion. Unfortunately, I cannot take her argument seriously, as she cited no theological evidence in support of it.
Fortunately, I am not alone. In an opinion poll of Arabs across the Middle East, 89 percent of women strongly object to the proposition, citing the Qur’an as their justification.
Non-Muslim feminists take note: Based on this poll, it is clear that Muslim women believe their freedom lies within the teachings of Islam.
I think people are going to disagree more and more on this issue, as the world continues to get smaller and mobility increases. Muslim women who live and/or study in predominantly non-Muslim countries marry non-Muslim dudes all the time. Some of these dudes convert and are sincere, but others do it for convenience.
There is the concept of “conversion on paper” – it’s not done out of sincerity but to appease the family, or to ensure that the marriage will not be invalidated in a woman’s home country. When you have someone who “converted on paper,” you’re only “technically” married to a Muslim. I think that a lot of people know this already, they just don’t talk about it. Nobody seriously believes that the guy a friend of mine married a few years ago is Muslim, it just says that he’s Muslim somewhere for those who are keeping score.
In a lot of these households religion isn’t an issue to begin with, but I think as more and more people intermarry (I think that regardless of the present economic crisis, this will continue happening), you’re going to end up with a whole new concept of what it means for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim.
And a new concept of what it means to be Muslim in the first place.
Wow, 89%! I didn’t know the number was that high. You learn something new everyday. I’ll have to watch the Doha debates on YouTube.
assalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullaj
Thank you for standing up for Islam and for providing information for politically active people who desire to be media savvy. Barakallahu bikum.
I absolutely agree with you Sr. Yusra. As Muslims we should uphold the Shariah and in this matter of who Muslim women can marry the Shariah is very clear. I would even go further and say that the Shariah is very clear about who Muslim men can marry. Unfortunately due to many Muslims not abiding by Shariah, many Muslim men go off and marry any nonMuslim women they find without thinking if the specific requirements meant for marrying them are in place. The Shariah is very clear about the need for Muslim men to only marry chaste pious Jewish/Christian women. In this day and age it is very difficult to find that as you’ll have most people just saying they’re Jewish/Christian by name but not really living by it; and of course you’ll find even fewer non Muslims who remain chaste until marriage. These requirements must also thus be made clear to Muslims so they don’t make the mistake of marrying just anyone. I think also the Doha discussion should have been broadened to talk about Muslims not letting nationalism/tribalism get in the way of allowing Muslims to marry each other. I think that is a bigger problem within the Ummah than that of Muslims marrying nonMuslims.
*thumbs up*
I didn’t expect to read this on MMW, lulz.
I don’t think I’ve ever left a comment before even though I’ve been reading your blog for a year or so. I’m not a Muslim; I’m an atheist. Your blog has been really eye opening for me. I first started reading it when my husband and I were stationed in Turkey to help me better understand my new friends. I keep reading it because it consistently challenges my world view.
As one of the non-Muslim feminists you addressed at the end of this post, I am taking note. And, of course, freedom lies in being able to choose your own path, whether that path be to adhere strictly to the teachings of your religion or to try and figure out a different way to live.
I love your blog and I will keep reading it; not because I agree with everything you have to say, but because I don’t.
My Muslim mother married my Jewish father and I don’t think she deserves banisment from the Muslim community from this, nor do I consider myself ‘bache haram’ (in Persian) or illigimate. Nor do I think I deserve disenfranchizement from my mother’s home country (Iran), even though my parents got an Islamic marriage. I know I shouldn’t take this personally, but this post hurts my feelings a little bit.
BTW: Same goes for the Jewish community, who does not recognize my parent’s marriage or my right to be part of the Jewish community as Judiasm runs through the mother. I have done nothing to deserve this, and there are many children like me.
This issue is not something you can argue. In Islam, a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Even Muslim men can only marry people of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews), not just anyone. There are reasons for this, obviously. But the point is, you can’t change the fundamental rules in Islam. These people cannot give an opinion that goes against Islam, because their point will be moot.
Thanks for the kind words and please continue to read and agree and disagree with us.
Natalia, I know very well that definitely does happen, but I disagree it will lead to any change in what it means for a Muslim woman to marry a non Muslim, because ultimately we are addressing an issue of faith. If someone is not faithful to his/her religion, regardless of what it is, they are going to do whatever they want, and not follow that which is proscribed. Take for example the issue of alcohol. Because of accessibility, globalization or what have you, many Muslims drink it, but there has never been a movement to somehow make it lawful in Islam. Popularity does not in any way legitimize that which is explicitly banned.
The argument usually put forward that a Muslim woman cannot marry a non Muslim man is that children are likely to follow father’s religion who is the head of the house. In a patriarchal and a religiously conservative society this is true and in the case of a non Muslim woman married to a Muslim man she readly accepts her children will be raised as Muslims. However living in a country where Muslims are a minority and there is more equality between the sexes, it does not make sense to me that Muslim men are allowed to marry people of the book and Muslim women cannot.What faith the child will follow is determined by how they are rasied, having a father who is Muslim will not guarantee they will be Muslims as opposite to a Muslim mother.
Yusra, I think that from a purely legal perspective this will always be an issue, and it will continue to be more of an issue as time goes on. Right now, there is a general consensus on marriage because there is a general consensus on what it means to be Muslim. Similarly, Rochelle brought up the issue of what it means to be a Jew and how it happens “through the mother,” to put it in simple terms.
But the definition is in flux. As I wrote in my post in response to you, all Muslims are “cultural Muslims,” because all religious people are culturally religious. And if you look at history, even with something as seemingly simple as alcohol, you’ll note the Umayyad Caliphs who enjoyed it.
People break the rules all the time, but what negates or does not negate a religious affiliation is often cherry-picked. Just recently on this very blog, MuslimGirl said something like – “I don’t know any Muslim women who wear short skirts, except for maybe Queen Rania.” Personally, the majority of my female Muslim acquaintances dress pretty much like I do. Does this make them non-Muslim? 2/3 Muslim? Apostates? Etc.
I’m not trying to muddy the waters, but, as Rochelle has already pointed out, inter-marriage is a reality and people who exist as the result of it are going to want status of some sort, particularly if their parents chose not to appease the community and “convert on paper.” So when you say that non-Muslim feminists should take note, I can only say that as a non-Muslim feminist, I see this issue from a different perspective.
You speak about faith, and I think that’s important, because it seems to be that there is often a big contrast between faith and religion. Faith is something that no one can take away from you, unless you give it away. Religion, however, is subject to pretty arbitrary regulation.
The verse in the Qur’an dealing with marriage to non-Muslims is pretty clear on the requirements as Rchoudh mentioned. So even if you believe that this verse also applies to women as well as men, you still have the constraint that Muslim women can only marry Jewish/Christian men. So they still can’t marry anyone they choose, just like men can’t marry anyone they choose. Therefore using this as an argument in the debate is irrelevant. The main point here is that arguing zero boundaries renders religion pretty much pointless.
I’m so sick of hearing Asra Nomani play the role of the benevolent saviour to all those poor opressed muslim women out there, even her tone of voice was condescending. Honestly, I think every person on that panel, except for Yasir Qadhi, did a disservice to the debate.
As a Muslim woman I second Yusra’s statement my freedom lies within the teachings of Islam. I believe that a truly free person has both rights AND responsibilities. I find that Islam places equal weight on both rights and responsibilities of women, just like it does for men. That is true equality (for me, I don’t claim to speak for anybody else here).
And Lauren, I love the last sentence of your comment “not because I agree with everything you say, but because I don’t”.
@ Kalimaat
Wherever Muslims live they must abide by the Shariah; whether one lives in a Muslim majority country or a nonMuslim majority country it does not matter. I agree that this issue of interfaith marriages is more of an issue for Muslims living in a nonMuslim majority country than it is for Muslims living in Muslim majority countries. However it is possible to live as a practicing Muslim in a nonMuslim majority country, however unique the circumstances of living there may be. Muslims who are raised in households with Tarbiyyah (Islamic upbringing) will have a greater chance of living by Islam no matter where they live than those who aren’t raised that way. Also in regard to what you stated about Muslim men getting to marry people of the book, again it’s not something that can be done without conditions and responsibilities attached. If a Muslim man does not marry according to these conditions and responsibilities then you’re right there is no guarantee that the children will grow up to be Muslim as well. It all comes down to how much of a priority Shariah is in an individual Believer’s life. May Allah forgive us all our sins and keep us guided towards the Straight Path.
@ Rochelle
You’re right it’s never allowed to banish someone who wants to remain part of the community.
Even the Jewish/Christian woman for the Muslim man thing is kind of sketchy. Muslim men in India have been marrying Hindu (and Sikh/Jain/Parsee/Buddhist) women for ages, and during various periods of Muslim rule, people from these religions were considered to be “People of the Book”.
Can’t find the exact reference, but even the case of my own family shows that there are a lot of loopholes when it comes to interpreting Shariah in different historical and spatial contexts.
As a non-Muslim, the issue of who is not allowed to marry who seems incomplete. Yes you can set the rules, but people can and do break them, and what then?
Just wondering. A German daughter of a friend of the family married a Turkish Muslim man, and the Turkish grandparents have not acknowledged the marriage or the children in the last 25 years. That is, they are unknown to the children by their demand and they have never met their daughter in law.
Is this conduct by the grandparents considered good as a consequence of the marriage prohibition?
Do you personally consider it good?
If this couple lived a country under Islamic law, what should happen to them? Is it good to punish them? What is the punishment you would feel good about administering?
thanks.
@ s.c.
It’s interesting you mention that; some people believe that the issue of who Muslims can/cannot marry is a modern day issue when in actuality it is a very old issue. Muslims have migrated to many parts of the world throughout history and one of the major ways Islam spread elsewhere was through marriage. So this issue of who can marry whom has been something discussed and debated about by scholars before. While there have been different interpretations of Shariah given over this issue at different times, the strongest evidence is what we have today and what majority of Muslims abide by.
“I agree with him.
There is already a consensus amongst Islamic scholars that makes this debate illegitimate based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah, therefore the debate rather futile unless you can undoubtedly prove that it is not Islamically illegitimate–something neither the proponents or opponents did. It seemed the debaters were more concerned with showing their own opinion, rather than the opinion of Islam. Non-scholarly opinions have no place in a debate with consequences as far-reaching as the identity of future Muslim generations.”
Hm..I didn’t realize MMW had become a theological site since I took a break…lol.
Actually, there is debate on this. There are scholars who say that a Muslim woman can marry a man of the book. From what I’ve heard from Imam Shabbir Ally here in Canada the Qur’an does not explicitly say that a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man. The verse in the Qur’an that says that one can marry people of the book refers to both men and women, not just men. There are actually other interpretations of this issue. It’s not as clear cut as you state Yusra.
@ RCHOUDH:
“Wherever Muslims live they must abide by the Shariah; ”
Whose shariah?
Ok..I’m sorry but this post has seriously rubbed me the wrong way. Hence all the comments.
First Rochelle and Natalia – I agree with you. Rochelle, it’s unfortunate that you felt personally offended and hurt. That should not happen on MMW.
s.c. – ditto!
“Non-Muslim feminists take note: Based on this poll, it is clear that Muslim women believe their freedom lies within the teachings of Islam.”
First, that poll was of Arab Muslims, not all Muslims. So generalizing to all Muslims is inaccurate and exclusionary. Additionally, not all Muslim women feel this way. Many do, but not all.
I’m glad MMW covered this debate as well. Great post Yusra! Here’s my take on it:
http://nuseiba.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/muslim-women-and-choice-in-marriage/
Sobia, how can you completely ignore theological debate when you’re writing on Muslim women? I fnd that strange. At times it has to be addressed.
@ lark
I’ll try to answer some of your questions:
A). Islam places great emphasis upon preserving one’s relationship with one’s family; relationships can often get strained for any number of reasons but the test is to maintain some semblance of a relationship even if it’s not as close as it once was. Perhaps by initially maintaining some bare minimum of interaction, it can be hoped that over time the relationship can heal and return to becoming close knit like before. So the grandparents shouldn’t have broken off the relationship with their son because this is not sanctioned by Islam. A similar incident happened within my own family where my cousin eloped with his white American girlfriend. His parents were about to disown him but I and some other relatives dissuaded them from doing so by explaining to them that Islam doesn’t allow this. Now their relationship with their son is back to normal (it certainly helped having a cute grandson mend the rift!)
In regards to your other question since I don’t know the circumstances of the situation I can’t comment. For example was the German daughter in law Jewish/Christian? If so was she a practicing Jew/Christian?
@ Sobhia
Well there’s only Shariah based on Quran and Sunnah. How much or how little a Muslim wants to abide by it is up to him/her.
I have to say I’m a little weirded out to see a post dealing with theological issues on this blog… MMW exists to look at *representations* of Muslim women, not to discuss issues of Islamic law. I’m especially uncomfortable with the fact that at least one reader/commenter has been personally hurt by the perspective expressed here.
(To be clear, the interpretation presented here is irrelevant to my feeling on whether or not it belongs on MMW – a post arguing that Muslim women *should* be allowed to marry outside of Islam would be equally out-of-place.)
I do agree with the last sentence, that it is important for non-Muslims to realise that (many) “Muslim women believe their freedom lies within the teachings of Islam,” instead of feeling like they have to liberate Muslim women from Islam. (I would qualify the statement by saying that not ALL teachings that are described as “Islamic” are always actually positive for women, or actually Islamic, for that matter. But the overall idea that people wanting to support Muslim women should be working from within Islam, rather than from outside of it, is an important one.) But I’m still confused to see this post here.
@ Kalamaat:
The argument usually put forward that a Muslim woman cannot marry a non Muslim man is that children are likely to follow father’s religion who is the head of the house.
I’ve seen the same argument used for the other side (“don’t marry a non-Muslim woman because the children take the religion of the mother”).
People will use that argument whenever convenient. The conclusion, as far as I can tell, has no sound basis in either case.
@Rochelle:
My Muslim mother married my Jewish father and I don’t think she deserves banisment from the Muslim community from this, nor do I consider myself ‘bache haram’ (in Persian) or illigimate. Nor do I think I deserve disenfranchizement from my mother’s home country (Iran), even though my parents got an Islamic marriage. I know I shouldn’t take this personally, but this post hurts my feelings a little bit.
The post is not about the children of women/men who marry in a manner that is forbidden by their faith(s).
As far as Islam goes, and as far as I know, how your parents married, or even whether they were married, has no bearing on you. I’m not aware of any actual verse/ruling that suggests that one should be judged by their parents.
That’s not to say some Muslim societies don’t do stupid things, just as almost any society does stupid things.
@ RCHOUDH:
And again, which one shariah would that be? The one of Pakistan? Nigeria? Iran? Saudi? etc. I’m sure you know they are different from each other. Which one of those is true shariah?
Shariah, like most other parts of Islam, is open to interpretation. There is no one shariah. Shariah is based on interpretations of hadith. Which is why there is more than one shariah.
@ Sahar:
“Sobia, how can you completely ignore theological debate when you’re writing on Muslim women? I fnd that strange. At times it has to be addressed.”
Not on MMW. This is not a theological site. It is not our place to tell people what is or isn’t Islam. That is for people to decide. And as can be seen by the comments, for good reason. First, one risks hurting people and second one discounts and invalidates people who have a different interpretation (and different interpretations on this issue do indeed exist). What Yusra has done is insult Rochelle and basically tell people like me, who may have other interpretations, that we are not being “good Muslims.”
We have often recognized that various interpretations exist on issues, but rarely have we gone into preaching territory where we tell people what Islam says or doesn’t say and which interpretation they should be following.
Everyone has a right to believe what they like about Islam, therefore Yusra and others have the absolute right to believe that Islam forbids Muslim women from marrying outside the religion. However, telling others that this is the only way to view the issue does not belong on MMW. Our readers can decide for themselves what they believe is or isn’t Islam.
What happen to there is no compulsion in religion? What will you do… forcibly separate them—or will you force the Muslim women to legally renounce her religion on paper or will you force the non-Muslim man to convert on paper? Either way you cannot control their faith! How is it “Absolute” freedom when men have this freedom? Why did you choice the word absolute in this case? Why is this absolute freedom?
Are you saying that if your not a scholar your opinion concerning your life doesn’t count?
“Jews and Christians do not believe in Muhammad as a prophet, therefore they cannot truly respect him.” And what does that mean; you must believe in something to respect it or that they can not respect you as a human being? If this is one of the underlining reasons given as to why we cannot marry a Jewish or Christian man, then it is not convincing or persuasive. Am I supposed to take this argument seriously?
Please take note: As an Islamic feminist who believes my freedom lies within the teachings of Islam I hope to come back to challenge this view.
I am sad to be excluded in your views of a Muslim women. I have as much right to my faith as you, your beliefs do not overrule my. I do not submit to this interpretation and you can not dismiss me from being a Muslim women.
To add to what laila mentioned about the quote, “Jews and Christians do not believe in Muhammad as a prophet, therefore they cannot truly respect him.”
This is like saying that Muslims cannot “truly” respect Jesus because they refuse to acknowledge his divinity. It’s possible to respect historical figures in ways that differ from their original veneration. For instance many non-Catholics have respect for Joan of Arc, even if they don’t buy into the notion of sainthood.
On another note, I’d like to echo what Sobia said about their being many valid Islamic positions on this issue, and that it should NOT be the business of contributers to this site to come down on one side of the argument, as Yusra appears to have done. One thing I love about MMW is that it does NOT sound preachy or overly dismissive of controversial and/or unpopular viewpoints, and I would hate to see that changed.
@ Sobhia
While there are some rulings that can be open to interpretation others which are based on strong evidence are not open. Anyway I agree that for more theological debates MMW is not the forum to have it in.
@ laila
The best thing to do would be to give Da’wah to both of them.
i’m a non muslim feminist and i still think that this poll simply says: muslim women are willing to accept the ostensible dictates of islam. that’s not the same as them saying they find their freedom in islam, as – as you pointed out – no religious person can be truly free, since they have submitted to the dictates of one faith or another.
that said, i have read countless opinions and interpretations that permit an understanding where a muslim women can marry people of the book too. look into those.
either way, what is patently ridiculous is that any state should prevent people from marrying others on the basis of faith, something that no state should record or legislate on. this is what people should be lobbying against.
For me, the issue with this debate was the point of reference for each of the panelists. Asra talked from the perspective of her forced marriage – and of course, none of us are forced to marry other men, ever. Qadhi was in opposition to non muslim and female partners formuslim women.
To me, this seems too scattered – a forced marriage is vastly different from a same-sex one! Hardly debateable..
RCHOUDH:
Shariah is complicated by the sect of Islam a person adheres to. So no, RCHOUDH, the majority interpretation of Shariah is not the one that all Muslims agree with or even recognize as legitimate (It isn’t just the Quran and Sunnah btw, for those who don’t belong to Sunni sects, there’s a BIG difference in how Islam is interpreted and the sources of authority).
It is only natural that in South Asia (vague term, I know), where 1/3 of the world’s Muslims come from, and where Islam was never able to completely dominate as the majority population remained Hindu, that the Muslim population had to adapt their rules to Hindu (or Buddhist, as is the case with Sri Lanka) norms instead of the other way around. It isn’t good/bad, it was just a reality that population had to respond to. And I think with more and more Muslim women living in non-Muslim nations, the norms on intermarriage will also have to respond to a new reality.
.Salaam Alaikum,
There is a difference between what Islamic law says and how you choose to live your life.
The oft misquoted “No compulsion in religion” refers to there being no compulsion to believe in Islam, not that it is acceptable to do anything one pleases and deem it Islamically acceptable
Salaam Alaikum,
Again, the definition is not in flux.
Islamically, there is no divide between faith and religion.
Take the shahada:
There is no God but God
and Muhammed is His Messenger.
The first part concerns faith, the belief in one God. The second part, by confirming that Muhammed (peace be upon him) is a Messenger, confirms that there has been a message and that is the religion of Islam. The Jibril Hadith also has a very good depiction of how the two are linked.
Bearing in mind, a key part of the Islam religion is the Qur’an as a revealed message held in an unchanging text, I find the term arbitrary, when describing the Islamic religion as quite offensive.
Now, there may be those who view Islam as a cultural affliation, but I think it is wrong for them to try and change the religion itself.
This is a sensitive issue, especially considering that there are many who fear Islam and those who practice it and would like to see far less religious Muslims. So I feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an Islamic identity should move away from being a religious one.
For those who are offended lease understand that I am reiterating what Islamic scholars say when it comes to Quranic teachings.
Many comments are off-topic and some insist on putting words in my mouth. But It is not for me to decide who is a Muslim or not-that is between you and God.
Islam has faced so many issues during a long course of 1400 years. Because of its dynamic nature, it was able to live in peace and harmony with its surroundings and yet retain its core principles which are followed by the mainstream. If a new definition who is to say it will not also retain the basic tenants of faith. I would advise against comparing Islam to other religions in terms of identity i.e. cultural Jew versus secular jew etc, as Islam is a faith in and of itself.
Children coming from different faith marriages can choose their own status. They don’t have to follow their father or mother if they are not convinced. They have all the freedom in the world to choose whether or not they want to be Muslim.
* If a new definition of what it means to be Muslim arises, who is to say it will not also retain the basic tenants of faith.
Also, anyone can come tomorrow and say the moon is blue and we have a debate. One isolated sheik or 20 doesn’t mean anything. We can find until today people saying the Earth is not round and man never set foot on the moon.
Salaam alaykoum,
I find a couple of things problematic here. Yusra writes: “It seemed the debaters were more concerned with showing their own opinion, rather than the opinion of Islam.”
This makes me feel uncomfortable because it’s an accusation often made against Muslims who have an “unorthodox interpretation” of Islam. I’ve noticed this many times when I debate about music with fellow Muslims. “Brother,” they say, “we have to follow what Islam instructs, not our personal desires.” Yeah, it’s very condescending. It suggests that Muslims like myself don’t read/study/understand the Qur’an, Hadith, and other religious texts.
I agree with Sobia, the Sharia is open to interpretation. The Sharia is flexible and this can only be understood if we contextualize the verses from the Qur’an. When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was preaching Islam, people had to change their old lifestyle and it wasn’t easy. Change happens gradually, not instantly or overnight. When the Qur’an teaches that men and women are equal, it wasn’t easy for all Muslims at the time to fully understand/practice it because they were living in misogynistic society for so long.
What I’m saying is that the Qur’an promotes gender equality and it was something the Prophet was gradually working towards. The argument that children will follow their father’s religion applies to a different time and different society. As oft-quoted (nonetheless, important) verse states: “There is no compulsion in religion.” How can you force your children to believe in Islam without allowing them to choose?
To say women are “too immature to make their own decisions” is another outdated argument that was never even true in the first place. There is no genetic disposition in women to make their own decisions. They can interpret Islam just like any Muslim man can; they can be scholars, religious leaders, and give khutbahs. They can marry anyone they choose just like any Muslim man can.
They don’t need anyone to tell them what to do. Faith is personal. Leave the relationship with Allah to the individual.
On a positive note, it’s good that these debates took place. It may cause some controversy and some heated discussions, but I think it’s a good sign because it shows our community is acknowledging multiple views and interpretations on Islam.
@forsoothsayer:
either way, what is patently ridiculous is that any state should prevent people from marrying others on the basis of faith, something that no state should record or legislate on. this is what people should be lobbying against.
There’s a wider issue at stake: Should a state have anything to do with religion? I can’t just pick this one issue and insist that they should act differently.
Most states will have laws related to marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. If a state claims to be Islamic, it would be somewhat problematic to have laws that are contrary to Islam (or at least that state’s interpretation of Islam).
Note, of course, that not all such laws would apply to non-Muslims.
If the state does not want to legislate these, then either the state should not recognize marriage, divorce, etc on the whole, or it should not claim to be an Islamic state.
@ Yusra:
“For those who are offended lease understand that I am reiterating what Islamic scholars say when it comes to Quranic teachings.”
No, you’re not simply re-iterating what they are saying. You are endorsing it. There is a huge difference and MMW is *not* the place to endorse one interpretation over another. You can present the various interpretations or state that a variety of interpretations but to endorse one over others is *not* appropriate at all. That is the problem with your post.
@Sobia
“No, you’re not simply re-iterating what they are saying. You are endorsing it.”
I don’t feel like Yusra was endorsing anything, it’s a fact that Islam forbids these types of marriages, this is agreed upon by the majority of scholars both past and present and this is the view held by the majority of muslims. Just because you’re pissed off by this rule you shouldn’t attack the poster, and besides using phrases like “whose Shariah” to imply that one doesn’t know what they’re talking about doesn’t really add to the discussion.
their seems to be a rule on this site that only “some” women are fit to write about Muslim women.
@ Dude:
I wish you were right that children of such marraiges do not suffer the consequences of their parents’ actions, but this is simply not the case. But the question goes deeper: Is my parent’s marriage invalid? Which is worse: that my parents stay together and raise their two children in a happy household or get divorced because their marriage is not ‘Islamic’ enough for some people? Which would create more chaos upon society? Which would cause the greatest harm for all involved?
With regards to the state and laws, the citizenship code of a lot of Arab and Middle East states are pretty hypocritical about this. They’re more nationalistic than Islamic, as Islam has pretty much nothing to say about citizenship and nation-states. In short, citizenship runs through the father and it is generally illegal / discouraged for a woman to marry a foreigner. Much of the justification for this is based on ‘Islam’, but this doesn’t really make sense because even if the foreign man is Muslim, it will make no difference. For instance, a lot of Iranian women marry (Muslim) Afghani refugees and cannot pass on their citizenship to their children and these marriages often go unreported.
I totally agreed with the Saudi columnist in this Doha Debate. She is quite pragmatic, centered truthful and speaks like a mother. Can’t get any better than that.
Salaam Alaikum,
Sobia – Yusra’s post is by no mean the first post here to endorse one interpretation over another. Many posts here do endorse certain interpretations of Islam whether implicitly or explicitly. I don’t see that as problematic. Everyone has opinions.
It seems that Yusra is being taken to task for daring to endorse a “conservative” viewpoint. For some reason this is seen as being hurtful and threatening in a way that the more progressive interpretations aren’t.
Personally, I agree with Yusra’s post and I think it is good that there is room for conservative/traditional opinions in an Islamic feminist space as it opens up the movement.
There should be room for everyone here and I think ensuring everyone gets a turn to speak is the best way of ensuring that.
Your response smacks of wanting to take the ball and go home because you don’t like the way the game is going.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You know what, y’all? Enough fingers have been pointed. I’m shutting this down.