Why are Muslim women not allowed to marry non-Muslims?

[Jadz]

The Qur'an permits Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women:

Today all good things are made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste believing women, and chaste women from the people who were given the Scripture before you, provided you give them their dowries, and take them in marriage, not in adultery, nor as mistresses. But whoever rejects faith, his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
Q5:5

Thus, a Muslim man is required to provide

a) a dowry
b) financially, for all his wife's, family's needs
c) a divorce, upon the request or demand of his wife
d) inheritance rights (in the event of his death, very necessary)
e) but: is not allowed to employ his wife's earnings or wealth, without her express permission.

But, why are Muslim women not given similar permission? The answer lies in the rights provided to women by Islam:

1) the right to choose one's spouse
2) the right to receive dowry
3) the right to divorce
4) the right to inherit - from parents, siblings, spouses, offspring
5) the right to own property
6) the right not to spend wealth upon family, children.

Inheritance Laws are applicable to both men and women. Though women may receive a lesser share than men in respect of bequests of parents and relatives, this apparent disparity is necessitated by the fact that men have full and complete responsibility for all financial obligations. Women may own property and wealth in their own right - but they are not required by Law to spend it upon the family, although they may contribute financially if they so desire.

A woman forfeits her rights under Islamic law - which are designed to protect her interests and provide for her under all circumstances - when she marries a non-Muslim, and obviously becomes subject to the laws her husband believes in, adheres to or follows. He is not obliged, for instance, to provide a dowry, he is not obliged to take full financial responsibility for her, the family, he is not obliged to divorce her (if he is Catholic, Orthodox Jewish), he is not obliged to provide her with any inheritance rights, an important matter because he could predecease her. And so on.

Muslim women, like their male counterparts, may marry - or do whatever - they please, as 'There is no compulsion in religion' Q2:256, means force of any kind or description is categorically forbidden.

Allah SwT knows best.

 

[humzy]

The Qur'an permits Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women:

Today all good things are made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste believing women, and chaste women from the people who were given the Scripture before you, provided you give them their dowries, and take them in marriage, not in adultery, nor as mistresses. But whoever rejects faith, his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
Q5:5

Thus, a Muslim man is required to provide

a) a dowry
b) financially, for all his wife's, family's needs
c) a divorce, upon the request or demand of his wife
d) inheritance rights (in the event of his death, very necessary)
e) but: is not allowed to employ his wife's earnings or wealth, without her express permission.

But, why are Muslim women not given similar permission? The answer lies in the rights provided to women by Islam:

1) the right to choose one's spouse
2) the right to receive dowry
3) the right to divorce
4) the right to inherit - from parents, siblings, spouses, offspring
5) the right to own property
6) the right not to spend wealth upon family, children.

Inheritance Laws are applicable to both men and women. Though women may receive a lesser share than men in respect of bequests of parents and relatives, this apparent disparity is necessitated by the fact that men have full and complete responsibility for all financial obligations. Women may own property and wealth in their own right - but they are not required by Law to spend it upon the family, although they may contribute financially if they so desire.

A woman forfeits her rights under Islamic law - which are designed to protect her interests and provide for her under all circumstances - when she marries a non-Muslim, and obviously becomes subject to the laws her husband believes in, adheres to or follows. He is not obliged, for instance, to provide a dowry, he is not obliged to take full financial responsibility for her, the family, he is not obliged to divorce her (if he is Catholic, Orthodox Jewish), he is not obliged to provide her with any inheritance rights, an important matter because he could predecease her. And so on.

Muslim women, like their male counterparts, may marry - or do whatever - they please, as 'There is no compulsion in religion' Q2:256, means force of any kind or description is categorically forbidden.

Allah SwT knows best.

In todays age women are far far superior to men in the eyes of the courts when it comes to divorce proceedings, muslim women would be better off marrying non muslims in this day and age if they really want to bleed the husband dry.

 

[JaDed]

So the logic is the men enforcing the religious law to which women should submit to are required to give a fair deal to women?

I hope you see the issue here...

 

[Black Zero]

So the logic is the men enforcing the religious law to which women should submit to are required to give a fair deal to women?

I hope you see the issue here...

I hope you know that regions are not founded on logic

 

[Black Zero]

During my days of ignorance, I liked one scholar(Rashid Khalifa), who like pervaizis, ahmadis, and other similar sects, was a big fan of selective selection of hadis and history and would not mind rejecting concrete historical facts. I liked this scholar as he was giving me a way out from such an embarrassing situation.

As per him, there is no restriction on muslim women in this regard and muslim women can marry non muslim men.
He was killed in 1990.

http://submission.org/Misconceptions_about_Women.html
Enjoy!!

#12

Muslim women cannot marry Jewish or Christian men:
This common misconception is advocated and promoted by men but have no basis in the Quran. Quran gives both men and women the right to marry from the people of the book, i.e. Muslims (Submitters), Jews or Christians. God also reminds us that the marriage to a believer is much better than the marriage to an idolworshiper. See 5:5 and 2:221. See also; Marriage in the Quran, and A Marriage question and answer from the Quran.

 

[Specialisttailender]

The Qur'an permits Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women:

Today all good things are made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste believing women, and chaste women from the people who were given the Scripture before you, provided you give them their dowries, and take them in marriage, not in adultery, nor as mistresses. But whoever rejects faith, his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
Q5:5

Thus, a Muslim man is required to provide

a) a dowry
b) financially, for all his wife's, family's needs
c) a divorce, upon the request or demand of his wife
d) inheritance rights (in the event of his death, very necessary)
e) but: is not allowed to employ his wife's earnings or wealth, without her express permission.

But, why are Muslim women not given similar permission? The answer lies in the rights provided to women by Islam:

1) the right to choose one's spouse
2) the right to receive dowry
3) the right to divorce
4) the right to inherit - from parents, siblings, spouses, offspring
5) the right to own property
6) the right not to spend wealth upon family, children.

Inheritance Laws are applicable to both men and women. Though women may receive a lesser share than men in respect of bequests of parents and relatives, this apparent disparity is necessitated by the fact that men have full and complete responsibility for all financial obligations. Women may own property and wealth in their own right - but they are not required by Law to spend it upon the family, although they may contribute financially if they so desire.

A woman forfeits her rights under Islamic law - which are designed to protect her interests and provide for her under all circumstances - when she marries a non-Muslim, and obviously becomes subject to the laws her husband believes in, adheres to or follows. He is not obliged, for instance, to provide a dowry, he is not obliged to take full financial responsibility for her, the family, he is not obliged to divorce her (if he is Catholic, Orthodox Jewish), he is not obliged to provide her with any inheritance rights, an important matter because he could predecease her. And so on.

Muslim women, like their male counterparts, may marry - or do whatever - they please, as 'There is no compulsion in religion' Q2:256, means force of any kind or description is categorically forbidden.

Allah SwT knows best.

This is not a valuable reason, this explanation won't even fly in India. It just seems like it was a law that was invented to make it seem like women are not properties.

 

[JaDed]

This is not a valuable reason, this explanation won't even fly in India. It just seems like it was a law that was invented to make it seem like women are not properties.

It probably was during those years,women were treated badly in those days and the Islamic laws did help women,the question is if those laws can still be upheld now when the world and laws have evolved and are in more favor of women.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The main reason why any X community should not marry with another community, is the unfavourable change in demography, which threatens the equilibrium and stability of the country/society. Protectionism is the right of every community.

Other reason at the individual level, is that the person has to discard his/her culture and adopt the culture of the dominant spouse. So one wonders if there is anything to be gained and if the person could not have found a good match in their own community.

 

[captain.hansolo]

The Qur'an permits Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women:

Today all good things are made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste believing women, and chaste women from the people who were given the Scripture before you, provided you give them their dowries, and take them in marriage, not in adultery, nor as mistresses. But whoever rejects faith, his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
Q5:5

Thus, a Muslim man is required to provide

a) a dowry
b) financially, for all his wife's, family's needs
c) a divorce, upon the request or demand of his wife
d) inheritance rights (in the event of his death, very necessary)
e) but: is not allowed to employ his wife's earnings or wealth, without her express permission.

But, why are Muslim women not given similar permission? The answer lies in the rights provided to women by Islam:

1) the right to choose one's spouse
2) the right to receive dowry
3) the right to divorce
4) the right to inherit - from parents, siblings, spouses, offspring
5) the right to own property
6) the right not to spend wealth upon family, children.

Inheritance Laws are applicable to both men and women. Though women may receive a lesser share than men in respect of bequests of parents and relatives, this apparent disparity is necessitated by the fact that men have full and complete responsibility for all financial obligations. Women may own property and wealth in their own right - but they are not required by Law to spend it upon the family, although they may contribute financially if they so desire.

A woman forfeits her rights under Islamic law - which are designed to protect her interests and provide for her under all circumstances - when she marries a non-Muslim, and obviously becomes subject to the laws her husband believes in, adheres to or follows. He is not obliged, for instance, to provide a dowry, he is not obliged to take full financial responsibility for her, the family, he is not obliged to divorce her (if he is Catholic, Orthodox Jewish), he is not obliged to provide her with any inheritance rights, an important matter because he could predecease her. And so on.

Muslim women, like their male counterparts, may marry - or do whatever - they please, as 'There is no compulsion in religion' Q2:256, means force of any kind or description is categorically forbidden.

Allah SwT knows best.

I dont quite follow, are you suggesting that the decision to marry outside one's own faith for a muslim woman is 'permissible'?

shouldnt a better question be, 'why must a muslim woman want to determine whether it is permissible or not?'. i would imagine that we are free to exercise some rather fundamental choices - whom to love, whom to marry being two such choices...

 

[captain.hansolo]

The main reason why any X community should not marry with another community, is the unfavourable change in demography, which threatens the equilibrium and stability of the country/society. Protectionism is the right of every community.

Other reason at the individual level, is that the person has to discard his/her culture and adopt the culture of the dominant spouse. So one wonders if there is anything to be gained and if the person could not have found a good match in their own community.

thats some serious nonsense son. what unfavorable change in the demography results from a muslim and say a non believer marry occur?

 

[CricketCartoons]

thats some serious nonsense son. what unfavorable change in the demography results from a muslim and say a non believer marry occur?

If it wasn't obvious, I wasn't talking about just one interfaith marriage changing the demography. What will happen when say thousands of muslim women marry non muslims, and proceed to have non muslim children?

 

[Convict]

If it wasn't obvious, I wasn't talking about just one interfaith marriage changing the demography. What will happen when say thousands of muslim women marry non muslims, and proceed to have non muslim children?

Some Donald Trump logic here.

 

[Gilly]

I wouldent allow my daughters to marry a Collingwood supporter.

 

[Heisenberg]

A Muslim man can marry anyone and the children will be Muslims. Can't say the same about Muslim women marrying outside the faith and multiplying the numbers is such an important part of religion that it makes sense. Women = baby making machines.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Some Donald Trump logic here.

So you think change in religion doesnt cause a change in loyalties and priorities?

 

[Convict]

So you think change in religion doesnt cause a change in loyalties and priorities?

So you think letting in immigrants doesn't cause a change in loyalties and priorities?

 

[Musakhel]

As this commandment is in the Quran no pervezi, Ahmedi, modernist so called muslim can wriggle there way out of this. Any person who says the opposite is no longer a muslim and has committed kuffar by making halal what Allah has made haram.

 

[CricketCartoons]

So you think letting in immigrants doesn't cause a change in loyalties and priorities?

Nice strawman by bringing up immigration (change in country of stay) when I was talking about change in religion. An immigrant may or may not have a change in loyalty, he may be loyal to the adopted country or may still have loyalty for country of origin. But a convert always has loyalty to the adopted religion.

You don't have to convert everything to Trumpism to make it easier for you to understand.

 

[kabbirann]

The Qur'an permits Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women:

Today all good things are made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste believing women, and chaste women from the people who were given the Scripture before you, provided you give them their dowries, and take them in marriage, not in adultery, nor as mistresses. But whoever rejects faith, his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.
Q5:5

Thus, a Muslim man is required to provide

a) a dowry
b) financially, for all his wife's, family's needs
c) a divorce, upon the request or demand of his wife
d) inheritance rights (in the event of his death, very necessary)
e) but: is not allowed to employ his wife's earnings or wealth, without her express permission.

But, why are Muslim women not given similar permission? The answer lies in the rights provided to women by Islam:

1) the right to choose one's spouse
2) the right to receive dowry
3) the right to divorce
4) the right to inherit - from parents, siblings, spouses, offspring
5) the right to own property
6) the right not to spend wealth upon family, children.

Inheritance Laws are applicable to both men and women. Though women may receive a lesser share than men in respect of bequests of parents and relatives, this apparent disparity is necessitated by the fact that men have full and complete responsibility for all financial obligations. Women may own property and wealth in their own right - but they are not required by Law to spend it upon the family, although they may contribute financially if they so desire.

A woman forfeits her rights under Islamic law - which are designed to protect her interests and provide for her under all circumstances - when she marries a non-Muslim, and obviously becomes subject to the laws her husband believes in, adheres to or follows. He is not obliged, for instance, to provide a dowry, he is not obliged to take full financial responsibility for her, the family, he is not obliged to divorce her (if he is Catholic, Orthodox Jewish), he is not obliged to provide her with any inheritance rights, an important matter because he could predecease her. And so on.[/I]

Muslim women, like their male counterparts, may marry - or do whatever - they please, as 'There is no compulsion in religion' Q2:256, means force of any kind or description is categorically forbidden.

Allah SwT knows best.

Responding to the underlined-
This is why Abrahamic religions will never be ok with me.
This presumption that a Non-Muslim's law, religion and morality would be so inferior that it could not provide all this.

And God forbid that a woman be financially independent.

The main reason for fewer interfaith marriages is that society and religion which is nothing but a reflection of society, does not approve of same and there are real horrible consequences of doing so.
Given that they are Man-made,all religions are patriarchal.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Responding to the underlined-
This is why Abrahamic religions will never be ok with me.
This presumption that a Non-Muslim's law, religion and morality would be so inferior that it could not provide all this.

And God forbid that a woman be financially independent.

The main reason for fewer interfaith marriages is that society and religion which is nothing but a reflection of society, does not approve of same and there are real horrible consequences of doing so.
Given that they are Man-made,all religions are patriarchal.

Women are still not financially independent in many eastern countries where Abrahamic faiths are not even a consideration. The plight of females in the subcontinent with the dowry system and expectations of dutiful wife is very much alive and kicking in Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist homes across the continent, so I think you are going off on a tangent here.

If you mean that religion in general including the non-Abrahamic faiths put women at a disadvantage, then that might make more sense.

 

[kabbirann]

Women are still not financially independent in many eastern countries where Abrahamic faiths are not even a consideration. The plight of females in the subcontinent with the dowry system and expectations of dutiful wife is very much alive and kicking in Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist homes across the continent, so I think you are going off on a tangent here.

If you mean that religion in general including the non-Abrahamic faiths put women at a disadvantage, then that might make more sense.

OP wrote that a Muslim guy would provide xyz which a non-Muslim guy being non-Muslim was not obliged to do.She then used this to justify why Muslim women should not marry out Non-Muslims.
All I was saying was that us kaffirs could also have laws and the basic decency which could provide the same.

And as I wrote earlier,all religions, given that they are made by men, are inherently patriarchal.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

OP wrote that a Muslim guy would provide xyz which a non-Muslim guy being non-Muslim was not obliged to do.She then used this to justify why Muslim women should not marry out Non-Muslims.
All I was saying was that us kaffirs could also have laws and the basic decency which could provide the same.

And as I wrote earlier,all religions, given that they are made by men, are inherently patriarchal.

Yes so we agree, I was just clarifying on your objection specifically raised against Abrahamic faiths that in fact in the subcontinent those problems exist probably to the same extent in non-Abrahamic faith communities as well.

 

[Jadz]

OP wrote that a Muslim guy would provide xyz which a non-Muslim guy being non-Muslim was not obliged to do.She then used this to justify why Muslim women should not marry out Non-Muslims.
All I was saying was that us kaffirs could also have laws and the basic decency which could provide the same.

And as I wrote earlier,all religions, given that they are made by men, are inherently patriarchal.

Firstly, a 'Kaafir' is one who knowingly denies the truth, having understood and accepted it. Non-Muslims are not Kuffar, therefore, since most are not aware of the Message of Islam, or have received a corrupted, perverted version of it - through the media, or ISIS, for example.

Secondly, and with the greatest of respect: I am not making any assertions whatsoever regarding the Qur'anic statutes that address the rights and responsibilities of both men and women, but merely seeking to explain, in light of my studies and extremely limited knowledge, the reasons why they (the statutes) exist in the first place.

Please read through the piece again, because in so doing you will find that men are required - not by choice or whim - but by law to provide financially for his wife, family and any offspring they may have. The wife is not required, by law, to provide financially for the family, but she may do so if she wishes.

Also, there is absolutely no concept of dowry that the wife, or her family, gives to prospective husbands. This is an entirely Indian/Hindu belief or tradition, which has been adopted by sub-Continental Muslims through centuries of contacts with them. In fact, a Muslim man cannot marry a woman until he has first given the dowry, as Q5:5 makes abundantly clear


provided you give them their dowries


Just for the record: I am not saying that Muslim women are allowed to marry non-Muslims, only seeking to explain why they are not. My post states clearly that women, however, like their male counterparts, can do what they want, including marry who they wish to, because the law of 'no compulsion in religion' categorically prohibits any kind of force. Thus, no-one can force a woman - or man - to pray, fast, make pilgrimage or marry against their will. Free will operates for everyone, so that people are free to practice their faith, or live their lives, as they see fit.

 

[troodon]

We all belong to the same species homo sapiens. That is enough to marry anyone of your choice.

This believer, non-believer, caste, social status are all man made. Everyone should have realized it by now.

 

[miandadrules]

It probably was during those years,women were treated badly in those days and the Islamic laws did help women,the question is if those laws can still be upheld now when the world and laws have evolved and are in more favor of women.

Women were treated so badly before Islam, that the prophet married his boss.

 

[CricketCartoons]

We all belong to the same species homo sapiens. That is enough to marry anyone of your choice.

This believer, non-believer, caste, social status are all man made. Everyone should have realized it by now.

Marriage is not about being able to propagate the species or being biologically compatible. More important to have compatibility in religious/spiritual beliefs, cultural practices, sense of community. For example, I would not marry an tamilian or even american because i will not be able to talk in my mother tongue. Or a christian because I can't go to a church and pray to western/middle eastern God.

 

[Jadz]

Women were treated so badly before Islam, that the prophet married his boss.

Female babies were buried alive, women were treated like material possessions, like cattle. They had no rights at all. Islam introduced laws which raised the status of women, provided laws which defined their rights and responsibilities, warned men against mistreating or abusing them, and thus, conferred upon Muslim women the dignity their Western counterparts only obtained in the latter part of the 20th Century.

Unfortunately, Muslim societies and communities have regressed and all but returned to the Days of Inorance, Al-Jahiliyyah, the times preceding the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and revelation of the Qur'an. Women are, once again, mistreated, abused and even killed. Female babies are often viewed with revulsion, and, above all else, men have assumed the role of deity or semi-divinity, which means they dictate virtually all religious, economic and social matters. In short, the Muslim world is not Muslim at all, it is jahiliyyah, or ignorance, that is in full operation, with illiteracy of Islam at epic levels.

 

[DW44]

Female babies were buried alive, women were treated like material possessions, like cattle. They had no rights at all.

Female infanticide is a cultural relic that still exists in parts of the world. As for the other two issues, treating women like material possessions/cattle, and women having limited rights (or at significantly fewer rights than men anyway) are not problems Islam fixed, it exacerbated them by giving them religious legitimacy.

I was trying extremely hard not to post in this thread and especially not to engage this particular poster anywhere but those claims are so outrageous I couldn't help myself.

 

[Heisenberg]

Women were treated so badly before Islam, that the prophet married his boss.

That's the one that makes me laugh every time.

 

[miandadrules]

Female babies were buried alive, women were treated like material possessions, like cattle. They had no rights at all. Islam introduced laws which raised the status of women, provided laws which defined their rights and responsibilities, warned men against mistreating or abusing them, and thus, conferred upon Muslim women the dignity their Western counterparts only obtained in the latter part of the 20th Century.

Unfortunately, Muslim societies and communities have regressed and all but returned to the Days of Inorance, Al-Jahiliyyah, the times preceding the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and revelation of the Qur'an. Women are, once again, mistreated, abused and even killed. Female babies are often viewed with revulsion, and, above all else, men have assumed the role of deity or semi-divinity, which means they dictate virtually all religious, economic and social matters. In short, the Muslim world is not Muslim at all, it is jahiliyyah, or ignorance, that is in full operation, with illiteracy of Islam at epic levels.

They had no rights yet his wife was his boss?

They had no rights yet the Quran mentions prominent Women who opposed the Islamic movement ?

You claim Islam raised the status of women without providing any independent, corroborated evidence of the status of women during pre-Islamic period. Simply quoting the revisionist history of Islamic conquerors or parroting the apologist narrative is hardly convincing.

Women were no longer treated like cattle under Islam?

I agree they had their rights defined, and it clearly defined them to be inferior.

Warned men against mistreating them but conveniently left enough caveats to allow it to happen, hence legitimising it.

Even if you believe the laughable notion that western women only attained such rights in the 20th century, they have now surpassed them to such an extent that the comparison is embarrassing.

You can continue your polemic on the age of ignorance to your hearts content but the evidence suggests that modern hunter-gatherer tribes worked on an egalitarian basis. So Islam for all its boasts couldn't even give women the same status that primitive tribes could many millennia before.

 

[miandadrules]

That's the one that makes me laugh every time.

It's just one excuse after another.

However, I would like to state that I am more interested in how people behave rather than what they believe, though I appreciate that beliefs influence actions.

Though, I vehemently disagree with nearly every single post the OP has ever made, I would like to state that if more Muslims took the approach of the OP the Ummah would be in a far better place.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Good OP.

Women and men are free to choose any religion but if they choose Islam they now the rules and should be happy to follow them.

 

[DW44]

Good OP.

Women and men are free to choose any religion but if they choose Islam they now the rules and should be happy to follow them.

And if it's chosen for them at birth when they don't have a choice in the matter but they decide it's not for them when they're old, and therefore mature, enough to make such a choice, what then? Should they be killed?

 

[KingKhanWC]

And if it's chosen for them at birth when they don't have a choice in the matter but they decide it's not for them when they're old, and therefore mature, enough to make such a choice, what then? Should they be killed?

Very dramatic and emotional question.

I live in the UK and know of many men and women who have left the religion or just dont practice, as far as I know they are not underground hiding for their lives. Do you?

 

[miandadrules]

Very dramatic and emotional question.

I live in the UK and know of many men and women who have left the religion or just dont practice, as far as I know they are not underground hiding for their lives. Do you?

On the other side of the coin we have this.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Its sexist, sectarian and just stupid to support a ban of women marrying men of other faiths in this day and age.

Dress it up any way you like, it is what it is. If a western nation enshrined into existence laws banning all non Muslims from marrying Muslims youd rightfully call that out as the sectarianism it is, why is this any different?

Once again, certain people closing themselves off from other communities out of fear or a total lack of independent thought. Sad to see

 

[KingKhanWC]

On the other side of the coin we have this.

So you are not aware of anyone who is at risk of being murdered in your local area or in the country?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Its sexist, sectarian and just stupid to support a ban of women marrying men of other faiths in this day and age.

Dress it up any way you like, it is what it is. If a western nation enshrined into existence laws banning all non Muslims from marrying Muslims youd rightfully call that out as the sectarianism it is, why is this any different?

Once again, certain people closing themselves off from other communities out of fear or a total lack of independent thought. Sad to see

The thread is about principles of a religion not laws in society. You are free to be a Muslim or not, if you chose to be, then you accept it's rules. Dont see what the problem is tbh.

 

[miandadrules]

So you are not aware of anyone who is at risk of being murdered in your local area or in the country?

You know full well the threat faced by those who are classed as apostates in Muslim majority states yet you chose to maintain a facetious stance.

This is in line with your hypocritical and ignorant stance on a whole host of issues and your total disregard for basic human rights is a symptom of the quagmire the Ummah is in.

 

[KingKhanWC]

You know full well the threat faced by those who are classed as apostates in Muslim majority states yet you chose to maintain a facetious stance.

This is in line with your hypocritical and ignorant stance on a whole host of issues and your total disregard for basic human rights is a symptom of the quagmire the Ummah is in.

The Muslim countries I have visited, I have seen hundreds of women/men not praticisng Islam with no threat to their lives. If people stop believing they just get on their lives. Of course there those who make blogs or go around criticising the religion openly who have received threats, which I dont agree with but you see people in the west threatened and killed just for being Muslims. Its the way of the world but these incidents are rare. Most just do what they please, you're always trying to justify your anti-religion views with extreme exaggerations and dramatic questions. You'd give Riz a good go for best dramatic acting.

 

[Black Zero]

What happened to the "principle" of following only Qur'an here...

Not a single verse which prohibits muslim women to marry Christians or Jews...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^====^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://quransmessage.com/articles/marriage with people of the book FM3.htm

Contrary to popular Muslim belief, the Quran does not forbid this marriage. However, nor do we find any explicit mention of the Quran sanctioning it. There is complete Quranic silence on the matter.

There is much wisdom with any Quranic silence on a particular issue and much can be inferred with regards this type of marriage.

It is important to note however, that the Quran is explicit when it wants to forbid a certain type of marriage. We note this in the following verse dealing with marriages with idolaters.

 

[DW44]

Very dramatic and emotional question.

I live in the UK and know of many men and women who have left the religion or just dont practice, as far as I know they are not underground hiding for their lives. Do you?

I asked a simple yes or no question, not for commentary on life in the UK so what is it? Yes or no?

 

[Yossarian]

The thread is about principles of a religion not laws in society. You are free to be a Muslim or not, if you chose to be, then you accept it's rules. Dont see what the problem is tbh.

]It probably was during those years,women were treated badly in those days and the Islamic laws did help women,[/B]the question is if those laws can still be upheld now when the world and laws have evolved and are in more favor of women.

Exactly. Think in terms of 1400+ years ago, especially versus other societies/religions around at that time. And since (some) Muslims believe that laws from 1400+ years ago must be followed to the letter even today ....

.... as opposed to seeing those laws as being designed to address the needs and prevailing situations at that time of 1400+ years ago, in those societies, in a hot, dry and arid environment of the Arabian Peninsula, and not necessarily relevant today.

 

[Yossarian]

The thread is about principles of a religion not laws in society. You are free to be a Muslim or not, if you chose to be, then you accept it's rules. Dont see what the problem is tbh.

That's a very fair point. Akin to saying if you wish to be a member of a golf club then you abide by it's rules, otherwise you are free to leave. I guess that's why from being quite religious during my younger years, I'm now veering on the edge, with one foot already partly outside the circle.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I asked a simple yes or no question, not for commentary on life in the UK so what is it? Yes or no?

When Miandad rules asked should people be killed for leaving a religion? lol

You have been watching too many Fox news videos on IS. I dont think they should, sorry to surprise you

Are you in a secret location?

 

[miandadrules]

The Muslim countries I have visited, I have seen hundreds of women/men not praticisng Islam with no threat to their lives. If people stop believing they just get on their lives. Of course there those who make blogs or go around criticising the religion openly who have received threats, which I dont agree with but you see people in the west threatened and killed just for being Muslims. Its the way of the world but these incidents are rare. Most just do what they please, you're always trying to justify your anti-religion views with extreme exaggerations and dramatic questions. You'd give Riz a good go for best dramatic acting.

Here we have a perfect example.

So you base your judgements on anecdotal evidence and then pass them off as fact?

Conveniently blurring the line between not practicing and outright rejecting the faith, which are not the same. Why are you deliberately not making the distinction.

As long as they stay quite and meekly live there lives they are safe? How merciful of you.

There is institutionalised killing of Muslim citizens of western countries? And it is at the same level as those considered apostates in Muslim lands? There is the same level of legal recompense for such transgressions?

The persecution and murder of minorities and apostates is rare in Muslim lands? What figure constitutes rare? How many can be killed before we reach the threshold of concern?

My views are not anti-religion they are anti-bigotry. I don't pick and chose the causes I want to stand for. I stand up for the rights of all regardless of their beliefs.

You can believe whatever you want and I will stand up for your right to do so, as I am more concerned with how people act and I won't stand by when bigotry is being perpetuated.

You are a totally disingenuous hypocrite who cries foul when his sub-sect of a tribe is wronged but is more than happy when they are the oppressor.

Once again resorting to facetious style posting, so much that you even have to add a smiley so the reader can comprehend that it was meant to be funny.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That's a very fair point. Akin to saying if you wish to be a member of a golf club then you abide by it's rules, otherwise you are free to leave. I guess that's why from being quite religious during my younger years, I'm now veering on the edge, with one foot already partly outside the circle.

Do you feel scare to stop being a Muslim? I mean do you feel your will be under a real threat in the UK?

 

[PakLFC]

Jews and Christians reject the prophet hood of Muhammad (saw). The Indian religions have very different ways of worship and views where a Muslim lady may not receive her full rights as Islam dictates. It must be remembered that even Muslim men may not marry a Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Atheist lady. Only in exceptional circumstances may he even marry a Jew or Christian. As Islam disallows Muslim women from marrying outside the faith Muslim men doing that would mean no men available for them

 

[miandadrules]

Do you feel scare to stop being a Muslim? I mean do you feel your will be under a real threat in the UK?

Is the UK a Muslim majority state?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Here we have a perfect example.

So you base your judgements on anecdotal evidence and then pass them off as fact?

Conveniently blurring the line between not practicing and outright rejecting the faith, which are not the same. Why are you deliberately not making the distinction.

As long as they stay quite and meekly live there lives they are safe? How merciful of you.

There is institutionalised killing of Muslim citizens of western countries? And it is at the same level as those considered apostates in Muslim lands? There is the same level of legal recompense for such transgressions?

The persecution and murder of minorities and apostates is rare in Muslim lands? What figure constitutes rare? How many can be killed before we reach the threshold of concern?

My views are not anti-religion they are anti-bigotry. I don't pick and chose the causes I want to stand for. I stand up for the rights of all regardless of their beliefs.

You can believe whatever you want and I will stand up for your right to do so, as I am more concerned with how people act and I won't stand by when bigotry is being perpetuated.

You are a totally disingenuous hypocrite who cries foul when his sub-sect of a tribe is wronged but is more than happy when they are the oppressor.

Once again resorting to facetious style posting, so much that you even have to add a smiley so the reader can comprehend that it was meant to be funny.

Im sorry but I find your concern to be totally exaggerated and very dramatic which is why used to the smiley to portray a sense of not being able to take what you say in a serious way. You can claim you are not anti-religous but always turn up on various topics relating to Islam to only criticise and claim it's oppressive without actually providing any real evidence.

I base my evidence on what I have read from reliable unbiased sources and what I have personally witnessed myself traveling around the world. What do you base yours on?

If a woman accepts Islam as her faith and believes in , she will then follow the rules. If she doesnt, she wont and wont get murdered as you seem to imply.

People are threatened and hurt for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of people. From being gay, black, Muslim, supporting a certain football club or just by looking at someone in the wrong way. The list is endless, we live in a strange world. But to claim near 2 billion Muslims wont leave their religion because of fear is nothing more than cow manure and you know it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Is the UK a Muslim majority state?

So there are no extremists in the UK?

 

[miandadrules]

Im sorry but I find your concern to be totally exaggerated and very dramatic which is why used to the smiley to portray a sense of not being able to take what you say in a serious way. You can claim you are not anti-religous but always turn up on various topics relating to Islam to only criticise and claim it's oppressive without actually providing any real evidence.

I base my evidence on what I have read from reliable unbiased sources and what I have personally witnessed myself traveling around the world. What do you base yours on?

If a woman accepts Islam as her faith and believes in , she will then follow the rules. If she doesnt, she wont and wont get murdered as you seem to imply.

People are threatened and hurt for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of people. From being gay, black, Muslim, supporting a certain football club or just by looking at someone in the wrong way. The list is endless, we live in a strange world. But to claim near 2 billion Muslims wont leave their religion because of fear is nothing more than cow manure and you know it.

Before we gone any further, please present your extensive evidence here for us all to analyse.

 

[miandadrules]

So there are no extremists in the UK?

Once again deliberately not making the distinction between extremism and institutionalised persecution.

Also, failing to acknowledge the legal consequences of such actions would have on the perpetrators of such actions.

You wreak of disinguinity.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Before we gone any further, please present your extensive evidence here for us all to analyse.

Surely you should as you made the claim first? I found little evidence to support your assertion people will be killed in Muslim majority nations for leaving Islam.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Once again deliberately not making the distinction between extremism and institutionalised persecution.

Also, failing to acknowledge the legal consequences of such actions would have on the perpetrators of such actions.

You wreak of disinguinity.

There are up to 2000 people under watch in the UK (just Muslims) who the authorities believe are extremists and potential terrorists. One area is East London where a few live, also in East London girls born into Muslim families wear mini skirts and drink alcohol openly, showing they dont really follow their religion. They are not targetted by such extremists for being apostates unless you know otherwise?

 

[DW44]

When Miandad rules asked should people be killed for leaving a religion? lol

You have been watching too many Fox news videos on IS. I dont think they should, sorry to surprise you

Are you in a secret location?

Still evading the question. Yes or no? What is it?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Still evading the question. Yes or no? What is it?

You're evading if you're in an underground bunker but do you see me complaining?

Which question is this?

 

[miandadrules]

There are up to 2000 people under watch in the UK (just Muslims) who the authorities believe are extremists and potential terrorists. One area is East London where a few live, also in East London girls born into Muslim families wear mini skirts and drink alcohol openly, showing they dont really follow their religion. They are not targetted by such extremists for being apostates unless you know otherwise?

What a pathetic response.

Do you even know the difference between institutionalised persecution and extremism?

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the legal and institutionalised safety netting by states such as the UK.

Are you suggesting that extremists behave the same way when they are a minority as they do when they are an overwhelming majority?

When was there last a pogrom by any group in the uk?

As stated earlier you're a hypocrite and apologist for oppression.

 

[miandadrules]

Surely you should as you made the claim first? I found little evidence to support your assertion people will be killed in Muslim majority nations for leaving Islam.

Are you going to present this great evidence you base your opinions on or not?

It will end the entire debate if you provide solid evidence and I will admit that I was completely wrong.

Make sure present fact checked, verifiable evidence which has been statistically analysed.

 

[Yossarian]

Do you feel scare to stop being a Muslim? I mean do you feel your will be under a real threat in the UK?

Nothing to do with any of that.

It's mainly to do with the fact that whilst I feel that virtually everything in Islam was needed and appropriate 1400+ years ago, it is not the case any more.

I believe that each and every aspect within Islam was designed to address some issue or other prevailing at the time, in that region, 1400+ years ago, and/or to create rules and practices that were beneficial to the whole society, whether that be the concept of halal methods of slaughter (health), interest on money lending (exploitation), inheritance, wuzu (hygene), dealing with the aftermath of a war, etc. etc.

And since the vast majority of the masses were illiterate and ignorant, the easiest and best way to convey the message such that the rules will be followed was to couch it in terms of "directives from God". Akin to The Wizard of Oz.

As I said, that was 1400+ years ago, in the societies of the hot, dry, arid Arabian Peninsula. Time and knowledge has moved on since then.

 

[Yossarian]

Is the UK a Muslim majority state?

Considering the question was directed at me in response to the post I made, I don't see the point of the question posed in your post.

 

[KingKhanWC]

What a pathetic response.

Do you even know the difference between institutionalised persecution and extremism?

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the legal and institutionalised safety netting by states such as the UK.

Are you suggesting that extremists behave the same way when they are a minority as they do when they are an overwhelming majority?

When was there last a pogrom by any group in the uk?

As stated earlier you're a hypocrite and apologist for oppression.

If a person gets killed by an extremist in society or the state, their life has ended either way.

I wont lose any sleep over what you think or me. You carry on spending your time discussing something you dont even believe in.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Are you going to present this great evidence you base your opinions on or not?

It will end the entire debate if you provide solid evidence and I will admit that I was completely wrong.

Make sure present fact checked, verifiable evidence which has been statistically analysed.

You made the claim so you present it.

As I've said I've seen little evidence people leaving Islam in Muslim nations are rounded up and butchered. There have been cases in the likes of Saudi but with Muslims at near 2billion across dozens of nations across the world, the extent of this issue is only in your anti religious mind.

 

[sshakir411]

Women were treated so badly before Islam, that the prophet married his boss.

Not really in to religion and don't have much knowledge on the topic..but from what I know Islam came after the Prophet was married to his first wife and not before.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Nothing to do with any of that.

It's mainly to do with the fact that whilst I feel that virtually everything in Islam was needed and appropriate 1400+ years ago, it is not the case any more.

I believe that each and every aspect within Islam was designed to address some issue or other prevailing at the time, in that region, 1400+ years ago, and/or to create rules and practices that were beneficial to the whole society, whether that be the concept of halal methods of slaughter (health), interest on money lending (exploitation), inheritance, wuzu (hygene), dealing with the aftermath of a war, etc. etc.

And since the vast majority of the masses were illiterate and ignorant, the easiest and best way to convey the message such that the rules will be followed was to couch it in terms of "directives from God". Akin to The Wizard of Oz.

As I said, that was 1400+ years ago, in the societies of the hot, dry, arid Arabian Peninsula. Time and knowledge has moved on since then.

Fair enough. You dont believe any more and I doubt anyone Muslim you know has said your deserve to die.

 

[miandadrules]

Considering the question was directed at me in response to the post I made, I don't see the point of the question posed in your post.

It was in relation to his response to DW44. If you follow the thread sequentially I see no ambiguity.

 

[miandadrules]

You made the claim so you present it.

As I've said I've seen little evidence people leaving Islam in Muslim nations are rounded up and butchered. There have been cases in the likes of Saudi but with Muslims at near 2billion across dozens of nations across the world, the extent of this issue is only in your anti religious mind.

Are you going to present this evidence or not?

How many countries currently have the death penalty in their constitution for apostasy?

 

[miandadrules]

If a person gets killed by an extremist in society or the state, their life has ended either way.

I wont lose any sleep over what you think or me. You carry on spending your time discussing something you dont even believe in.

Why are you avoiding the question?

It's not difficult. It's about the freedom to act upon ones beliefs.

Do groups behave the same when they are a majority as they do as a minority?

Would the state allow it to happen?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Are you going to present this evidence or not?

How many countries currently have the death penalty in their constitution for apostasy?

Did I make a claim first or did you?

How many people have been put to death for apostosy in Muslim nations? A percentage will do. If the figure is high, I will then reply.

 

[miandadrules]

Not really in to religion and don't have much knowledge on the topic..but from what I know Islam came after the Prophet was married to his first wife and not before.

Exactly.

But the OP and Islamist historians state that women pre-Islam were in a dire state.

 

[miandadrules]

Did I make a claim first or did you?

How many people have been put to death for apostosy in Muslim nations? A percentage will do. If the figure is high, I will then reply.

How many have openly espoused their apostasy?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why are you avoiding the question?

It's not difficult. It's about the freedom to act upon ones beliefs.

Do groups behave the same when they are a majority as they do as a minority?

Would the state allow it to happen?

Groups actually behave worse. ISIS isn't a state as it's not officially accepted by any other nation. They behave in a more irrational way with kangaroo courts than any state. So you are wrong, again.

You seem to enjoy asking questions, this isnt debate, it's trolling at best .

 

[KingKhanWC]

How many have openly espoused their apostasy?

Im glad you have accepted only a very small percentage of people have been put to death considering the size of the Muslim population worldwide.

There is nothing further to argue on this point.

 

[Yossarian]

Fair enough. You dont believe any more and I doubt anyone Muslim you know has said your deserve to die.

Can't speak about Pakistan as I haven't been there for a while. But had anyone even remotely suggested that I be harmed in any way for expressing my views, I've no doubt that they'd already be currently living in an all expenses paid free accommodation at one of Her Majesty's luxury hotels.

 

[miandadrules]

Groups actually behave worse. ISIS isn't a state as it's not officially accepted by any other nation. They behave in a more irrational way with kangaroo courts than any state. So you are wrong, again.

You seem to enjoy asking questions, this isnt debate, it's trolling at best .

Yet again your either obfuscating or exhibiting a phenomenal level of ignorance.

You're actually proving my point. ISIS controlled its territories and implemented its doctrine. A group such as this could not implement such measures in the UK.

Or are you suggesting ISIS is implementing it doctorine in parts of the UK, and is outside of British jurisdiction?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yet again your either obfuscating or exhibiting a phenomenal level of ignorance.

You're actually proving my point. ISIS controlled its territories and implemented its doctrine. A group such as this could not implement such measures in the UK.

Or are you suggesting ISIS is implementing it doctorine in parts of the UK, and is outside of British jurisdiction?

I was giving you an example of a goup which is not a state but is big enough to function and carry out punishments.

This what happens when someone is so obsessed with being anti-religion they fail to understand and obvious point.

The FACTS are only a tiny, less than 0.1% of the worlds muslim population have been sent to death for leaving their religion. We cannot know the numbers of those who have left or who kept quiet so we can only go with reports of those killed.

This is going off topic and you're boring me, so Ill allow you to continue your obsession with religion with someone else.

 

[miandadrules]

Im glad you have accepted only a very small percentage of people have been put to death considering the size of the Muslim population worldwide.

There is nothing further to argue on this point.

What?

Please name the numerous apostates that are open and not victim to the institutionalised persecution.

We can take it further and look at studies that show attitudes of citizens of such states and their attitudes to apostasy.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

 

[miandadrules]

I was giving you an example of a goup which is not a state but is big enough to function and carry out punishments.

This what happens when someone is so obsessed with being anti-religion they fail to understand and obvious point.

The FACTS are only a tiny, less than 0.1% of the worlds muslim population have been sent to death for leaving their religion. We cannot know the numbers of those who have left or who kept quiet so we can only go with reports of those killed.

This is going off topic and you're boring me, so Ill allow you to continue your obsession with religion with someone else.

It is a pathetic example which only proved the opposite of what you were trying to defend. ISIS when it controlled its own territory liberally executed minorities. Something it cannot do in states which the are minority sympathisers because the institutions in place won't allow it to happen.


Why are you emphasising left and kept quite?

Of course I'm boring you. Just like every interaction we have, once your hypocrisy is exposed you're look for an out.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Why are ex Muslims so active on these threads when have already said adios to the religion........

 

[miandadrules]

Can't speak about Pakistan as I haven't been there for a while. But had anyone even remotely suggested that I be harmed in any way for expressing my views, I've no doubt that they'd already be currently living in an all expenses paid free accommodation at one of Her Majesty's luxury hotels.

So you're suggesting the state wouldn't allow it to happen?