I don't mean to bother you but this is disturbing my mind and I need an educated explanation.
I was at a Muslim Sister's Fashion Show (predominately African American
sisters) when during casual conversation a young sister (mid 20s)
that her husband is Christian. This as you can image created quite a
She was immediately verbally attacked. She tried to defend herself by
saying that he did not prohibit her from practicing Islam and he has
that the children will be Muslim. She was advised to divorce him.
I don't know if they were married and she converted or if she was
Muslim when they married. She was under such a heavy attack that I
not get that question in. However this issue is one that I need to
understand because I can't adequately explain why there is a
for the Muslim female in marrying from the people of the book and there
no prohibition for the Muslim male. More often than not I hear all non
Muslims classified as kufar.
The only explanation I can provide is that the Quran specifies that the
male can marry a Christian or Jewish woman. Since he is the head of
household the expectation is that he will respect her rights and the
children will take his religion. Really in actuality from what I've
this is not the case. The woman has so much pressure put on her to
her beliefs that she eventually gives in or gets out of the marriage.
I have been asked does the Quran specifically prohibit the Muslim woman
from marrying a Christian or Jewish male. My understanding is the only
specific prohibition is for polytheist. Am I wrong?
This is a big issue for African Americans especially because of the
conversion. There are instances where the husband converts and the
does not. This is not seen as a problem. However there are instances
where the wife converts and the husband does not. It doesn't matter
whether they have been together 2 years or 20 years, the advice the
receives is to divorce him.
Then there are the cases of sisters whose preference is to marry within
their race but there are not enough suitable African American Muslim
least in this city. They resign themselves to being celibate forever.
When I say suitable African American Muslim men, I mean those who are
knowledgeable about the Deen and truly strive to practice it, those
have truly accepted the role and responsibilities of the Muslim male
do not demand that the woman provide more financially for them than
provide for her, those who are not extremist, those who have not been
married and divorced 3, 4 or 5 times with children all over the place,
those who are not trying to have several wives when they can't afford
take care of one, etc. This is airing dirty laundry but so be it, this
our harsh reality.
[Name withheld for privacy]
Al-salamu 'alaykum sister:
First I should apologize for the long time it has taken me to respond
your message. As you might have heard, I have been rather ill. But on
a happier note, recently we were blessed with a wonderful baby boy.
But I should confess that there is another reason for the delay. This
is a difficult issue to deal with. I did receive a large number of
inquiries about this same issue, and I have tended to avoid responding
to them because I am not exactly very excited about handling this
weighty and serious problem.
Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from
marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am
aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual
for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on
issues, but this is not one of them.
All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God--there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion].
However, because of al-Ma'ida verse 5, there is an exception in the
of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition
in the Qur'an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi.
However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to
men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The
argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a
kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but
since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred
from marrying a kitabi.
The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children
are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the
offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still
be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited
from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is
prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar
prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own
religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their
Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands') religion. Put
differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism
valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the
validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is
the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and
Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam.
(If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law
and committing a grave sin).
Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i jurists held that it is
reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live
in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries,
mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore,
there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be
Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far
as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if
they live in non-Muslim countries.
This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it.
all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence
prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim
jurists took a very strong position on this matter--many of them going
as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as
apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not
reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. However,
I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with
jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible
(makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best--I have
reached this position after observing that the children of these
Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong
sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like
the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim
father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman
a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate
her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know
that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight
of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her
my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women
in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that
must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect
on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for
guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience
I hope this response helps answer your question. I pray to God to
us both to what He pleases and wants, and that He helps the sister you
wrote me about to find peace and tranquility with whatever decision she
makes. God is the best guide and mentor--may He forgive our sins and
bless us with His Compassion and Mercy.
With my sincere regards,
Shaykh Khaled Abou El Fadl