Here are some questions and I wonder what the Islamic rulings are on them:
If you marry a Muslim and then later down the road…they decide to abandon Islam and choose to become an atheist or an agnostic or a polytheist…does that nullify the nikkah? Or does the nikkah stay in-tact?
Muslim men are allowed to marry women who are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). But is the condition that they be practicing? And if they are not practicing… nor even sure of their faith…is such a marriage not allowed? And is conversion to Islam a mandatory condition for the marriage or no?
If let’s say there’s an individual (regardless of gender) who was born to Muslim parents but neither practices the faith nor do they believe that Islam is truth…is nikkah with such a person even valid? What is the shariah ruling on this? One might argue that the difference between a Muslim and a Kafir is namaz and there are plenty of Muslims who don’t pray and get married. I know that. But…there 's a difference between someone who is slack in prayers but believes in the kalima and believes that Islam is the truth…and someone who neither practices nor believes it’s the truth. So is such a nikkah even valid?
Is nikah a contract between man and woman or between man and woman's wali?
I have recently heard in a Nouman Ali Khan lecture that a nikkah is a transference of guardianship...from one wali (the girl's father) to another wali (the husband to be).
But I don't think that's the only stipulation...is it? I've had the impression that there are various conditions that make a marriage valid. For instance, coercion renders a marriage invalid.
Here are some questions and I wonder what the Islamic rulings are on them:
1) If you marry a Muslim and then later down the road....they decide to abandon Islam and choose to become an atheist or an agnostic or a polytheist.....does that nullify the nikkah? Or does the nikkah stay in-tact?
2) Muslim men are allowed to marry women who are among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). But is the condition that they be practicing? And if they are not practicing... nor even sure of their faith...is such a marriage not allowed? And is conversion to Islam a mandatory condition for the marriage or no?
3) If let's say there's an individual (regardless of gender) who was born to Muslim parents but neither practices the faith nor do they believe that Islam is truth........is nikkah with such a person even valid? What is the shariah ruling on this? One might argue that the difference between a Muslim and a Kafir is namaz and there are plenty of Muslims who don't pray and get married. I know that. But...there 's a difference between someone who is slack in prayers but believes in the kalima and believes that Islam is the truth....and someone who neither practices nor believes it's the truth. So is such a nikkah even valid?
Nikkah is nullified if one spouse becomes a disbeliever. When the Prophet pbuh was called to Islam his daughter was married to hazrat Uthman RA. When the Prophet pbuh told him he couldn't stay married to his daughter because she was now Muslim hazrat Uthman RA became Muslim. Plenty of examples of this happening during prophets time.
If they aren't practising then they don't follow the condition that they are "people of the book". Unfortunately Muslims today don't follow this condition as t should be followed. Conversion to Islam is not mandatory but if they don't even follow Christianity or Judaism then they are not people of the book and marriage is not valid with them.
Wouldn't think so. You'd need to consult an imam or alim about that. But the condition for Nikkah does include that the two consenting parties be Muslim or the woman should at least be " people of the book " so if that condition isn't met then I'd assume that the marriage is not valid. Allah knows best.
^Thank you, Thornewood. Actually a personal experience of both a friend and a coworker....made me wonder about this. So the question was in my mind from an earlier point. My friend isn't married but because of the doubt in some basic principals of faith, I had once asked her this question...not intending to be mean...but I was generally curious about it. And, then yes, Sammi's thread also brought that former question back to into mind last night. But as you can see, my questions are not exactly the same...and not all of them deal with Sammy's situation.
If they aren't practising then they don't follow the condition that they are "people of the book". Unfortunately Muslims today don't follow this condition as t should be followed. Conversion to Islam is not mandatory but if they don't even follow Christianity or Judaism then they are not people of the book and marriage is not valid with them.
I remember I had asked this question in a former thread and you had answered it there and then I had asked a follow-up question about...which maybe wasn't answered...don't quite remember now.
But when we say "People of the Book"...would that refer more to the old Testament for Christians....since the rules there are more similar to those in Islam? And I could be wrong...but attributing divinity to Jesus....was not mentioned in the Old Testament. I'm under the impression that the new Testament not only contains this attribution but is also more lax. I've also read that only some portions of the Bible are authentic. So, are they really People of the Book if they follow one testament more than the other? Maybe the Christians during the time of the Prophet SAWS were also lax...and followed one testament more than the other? Another thing I've wondered about is that ...you can't marry a Hindu person because they're polytheists....but attributing divinity to Jesus isn't quite monotheism either...so how is that explained?
I remember I had asked this question in a former thread and you had answered it there and then I had asked a follow-up question about...which maybe wasn't answered...don't quite remember now.
But when we say "People of the Book"...would that refer more to the old Testament for Christians....since the rules there are more similar to those in Islam? And I could be wrong...but attributing divinity to Jesus....was not mentioned in the Old Testament. I'm under the impression that the new Testament not only contains this attribution but is also more lax. I've also read that only some portions of the Bible are authentic. So, are they really People of the Book if they follow one testament more than the other? Maybe the Christians during the time of the Prophet SAWS were also lax...and followed one testament more than the other? Another thing I've wondered about is that ...you can't marry a Hindu person because they're polytheists....but attributing divinity to Jesus isn't quite monotheism either...so how is that explained?
There are quite a few scholars who have debated this question and opinion is divided. Some do say that we can't really call the Christians and Jews of today " people of the book" because unlike their ancestors they follow a religion which has been distorted so much over time that its not even the same thing. For instance the Christians who claim Jesus AS is actually God Himself some scholars say are not monotheistic and therefore fall under the category of polytheists. I personally agree with that view. Today you have people who are just Christian in name and they font follow Christianity in any way. Even if they celebrate Easter or Christmas the meaning is more on family rather than religion. I have quite a few coworkers who are Christian in name only if you like but they don't believe in God or Jesus and dont follow the teachings of either old or new testament. Faith isn't important to them at all. In the end its always better for Muslims to marry Muslims rather than gamble on whether someone falls into the "people of the book" category or not. And Allah knows best. If there were other questions you asked that I didn't answer I apologise, I didn't notice them! :) hope you didn't think I was ignoring them deliberately!
Here are some questions and I wonder what the Islamic rulings are on them:
1) If you marry a Muslim and then later down the road....they decide to abandon Islam and choose to become an atheist or an agnostic or a polytheist.....does that nullify the nikkah? Or does the nikkah stay in-tact?
but why would they care, when they are not muslim ?
There are quite a few scholars who have debated this question and opinion is divided. Some do say that we can't really call the Christians and Jews of today " people of the book" because unlike their ancestors they follow a religion which has been distorted so much over time that its not even the same thing.
See, I didn't know that this was a matter if debate among the scholars. I assumed that general permission was granted as I had always heard from my mom and others that it's allowed to marry Women of the Book.
For instance the Christians who claim Jesus AS is actually God Himself some scholars say are not monotheistic and therefore fall under the category of polytheists. I personally agree with that view.
*And that view makes sense to me as well. However, didn't the Christians during Rasool SAWS's time also believe that Jesus AS was son of God? The "distortion" of the teachings of Jesus came before Rasool SAWS....so my guess is that the Christians during Rasool SAWS's time must have also believed Jesus was son of God though they might have been more conservative in their lifestyle than the Christians today. In this case....if I am right.....then wouldn't the ruling of some scholars that modern day Christians are "polytheists" also apply to the Christians during Rasool SAWS's time? *
If there were other questions you asked that I didn't answer I apologise, I didn't notice them! :) hope you didn't think I was ignoring them deliberately!
No, not at all. I appreciate that you even tried to answer them; Jazak Allah.
No, not at all. I appreciate that you even tried to answer them; Jazak Allah.
Well this is where the debate comes in. In Qur'an it does state that Muslim men are allowed to marry "chaste women' who are of the "people of the book". However we do also know that there were different sects of Christianity at the time of Rasoolullah SAW and some of these sects did not believe in the " Jesus is God/son of God". If you look at it logically anyone who claims Jesus is the son of God or even God Himself, well that's shirk right there. That's not monotheism. And that's why some scholars don't actually believe that we are allowed to marry those Christians that believe that. This question would need an in depth study of the Christians at the time of the Prophet and whether the Prophet pbuh approved of Muslims marrying their women. The thing is during the Prophets time (pbuh) the man was the one who had legal responsibility over his children not the mother. So the father could decide on what his children would have faith in despite the mothers religion or even her thoughts on the matter. Today that isnt the case. And Allah knows best. :)
^Thank you again, TW. Wow, it's news to me that the Quran does not state that men can marry women Of the Book. I'll have to research the matter further. The Quran does say that men are allowed to marry chaste women from the People of the book. But it also forbids marrying idolators. So it leads to the question as to whether Christians are considered idolators/mushriks because of the divinity they attribute to Jesus. I don't know what the majority stance of scholars is on this matter.
I have always thought 'people of the Book' included those with Shirk in their Aqeedah.
I think there was different sects of christians, at least i am willing to accept that there was, but the generality of christians was upon shirk. The christians generally were as they are now, known to have Shirk in their Beliefs
Also debate among scholars could mean debate among salafis or debate among classical scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. If its the salafis, as i expect it to be, then know that they may be debating on a false basis
I have just read the tafsirs I rely upon and those which comment on this particular aspect of our intrigue, they all make exception for Ahle Kitab [people of the Book]
O Muslims, Do not marry idolatresses, disbelievers, until they believe; a believing slavegirl is better than an idolatress, who may be a free woman; this was revealed as a rebuttal of the idea that it was shameful to marry a slavegirl and that it was better to marry an idolatress free woman; though you may admire her, because of her beauty and wealth: this provision excludes the womenfolk of the People of the Scripture (as indicated by the verse [Q. 5:5], [lawful to you] are the chaste women among those who were given the Scripture). And do not marry, off believing women to, idolaters, until they believe. A believing slave is better than an idolater, though you may admire him, for his wealth and good looks. Those, the people of idolatry, call to the Fire, because they invite one to perform deeds that merit this, and for this reason one should not marry with them; and God calls, through the voice of His prophets, to Paradise and pardon, that is, to the deeds that merit these two, by His leave, by His will, so that His call may be heeded by marrying with His friends; and He makes clear His signs to the people so that they might remember, [that] they [might] be admonished.[end of quote]
Part 1 Page 102 [appears as page 124 on phone reader]
Says marriage is not allowed to disbelievers [all of them including mushriks] except Ahle Kitab. Also says that if a disbeliever [meaning pagan] women becomes Ahle Kitab it is permissible to marry her
^Thank you again, TW. Wow, it's news to me that the Quran does not state that men can marry women Of the Book. I'll have to research the matter further. The Quran does say that men are allowed to marry chaste women from the People of the book. But it also forbids marrying idolators. So it leads to the question as to whether Christians are considered idolators/mushriks because of the divinity they attribute to Jesus. I don't know what the majority stance of scholars is on this matter.
I think I confused you it DOES say Muslim men can marry people of the book! I hope I didn't say otherwise! I apologise for any mistakes.
@vroom I'm not Salafi. And the debate isn't a Salafi one.
I remember I had asked this question in a former thread and you had answered it there and then I had asked a follow-up question about...which maybe wasn't answered...don't quite remember now.
But when we say "People of the Book"...would that refer more to the old Testament for Christians....since the rules there are more similar to those in Islam? And I could be wrong...but attributing divinity to Jesus....was not mentioned in the Old Testament. I'm under the impression that the new Testament not only contains this attribution but is also more lax. I've also read that only some portions of the Bible are authentic. So, are they really People of the Book if they follow one testament more than the other? Maybe the Christians during the time of the Prophet SAWS were also lax...and followed one testament more than the other? Another thing I've wondered about is that ...you can't marry a Hindu person because they're polytheists....but attributing divinity to Jesus isn't quite monotheism either...so how is that explained?
Beyond 300 AD there was the Arian controversy which argued against the divinity of jesus (rejection of trinity) so while we may believe the belief in trinity was universal there was till the 7th century genuine debate among the factions and eventual squashing of the non-trinity believers.