S
Sparrowhawk
Guest
What is the Islamic position on first cousin marriage?
- Status
There is no disagreement between Islamic scholars that Muslim men are permitted to marry Christian or Jewish women. In such marriages – as I have said elsewhere – the wife retains an absolute right, not only to retain her faith, but to practise it.
On the other hand, there is broad (but by no means unanimous) consensus among Islamic scholars and jurists that the marriage of a Muslim woman to a Christian or Jewish man is prohibited.
Mohammad Hashim Kamali writes: ‘The reason given (for this prohibition) is that the husband is the head of the household and his religion influences the children of the marriage. Besides, Islam accepts Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Islam itself is not given the same recognition by these older religions. A Muslim husband of a Christian woman can thus be expected to respect her faith but the same is not expected of a non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim wife.’ (‘Shariah Law: Questions and Answers.’).
The end result (it is alleged) will be tension within the marriage, and an erosion of mutual respect; so essential for the continuity of a happy and successful marital relationship.
Neither the Qur’an nor the aḥādīth provide justification for what is seen – increasingly, and especially among young Muslims in the West, who are more likely to meet Christian or Jewish partners in their personal life – as a form of discrimination.
As you know, there is no central authority (‘Magisterium’) in Islam. Where there is a difference of opinion among the scholars concerning some aspect of the faith (in our case, marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim) the woman (and now I have your in-law in mind) has a duty to learn all she can about the various arguments – both for and against; to weigh one against the other; and – having done so in an open and honest manner – to then act according to her conscience; aware of the fact that she is entirely responsible for her actions.
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) knows best.
I wish your in-law’s marriage every success.
On the other hand, there is broad (but by no means unanimous) consensus among Islamic scholars and jurists that the marriage of a Muslim woman to a Christian or Jewish man is prohibited.
Mohammad Hashim Kamali writes: ‘The reason given (for this prohibition) is that the husband is the head of the household and his religion influences the children of the marriage. Besides, Islam accepts Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Islam itself is not given the same recognition by these older religions. A Muslim husband of a Christian woman can thus be expected to respect her faith but the same is not expected of a non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim wife.’ (‘Shariah Law: Questions and Answers.’).
The end result (it is alleged) will be tension within the marriage, and an erosion of mutual respect; so essential for the continuity of a happy and successful marital relationship.
Neither the Qur’an nor the aḥādīth provide justification for what is seen – increasingly, and especially among young Muslims in the West, who are more likely to meet Christian or Jewish partners in their personal life – as a form of discrimination.
As you know, there is no central authority (‘Magisterium’) in Islam. Where there is a difference of opinion among the scholars concerning some aspect of the faith (in our case, marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim) the woman (and now I have your in-law in mind) has a duty to learn all she can about the various arguments – both for and against; to weigh one against the other; and – having done so in an open and honest manner – to then act according to her conscience; aware of the fact that she is entirely responsible for her actions.
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla) knows best.
I wish your in-law’s marriage every success.
First cousin marriages are permitted, but not advocated. It is certainly preferable to choose a marriage partner from outside one’s family.
Such marriages are subject – always – to the laws of one’s country of residence. They are entirely permissible in the UK, for example (and in most other Western countries), regardless of one’s personal beliefs.
Such marriages are subject – always – to the laws of one’s country of residence. They are entirely permissible in the UK, for example (and in most other Western countries), regardless of one’s personal beliefs.
A
AlNg
Guest
It may not happen in Israel or in Saudi Arabia for a Jew to marry a Muslim woman, but i know a case where it did happen in Uzbekistan. However, i don’t think that her husband, an American Jew, is very religious.
A
Autumn-Smoke
Guest
I have been hearing about and reading many reports about Jesus appearing to Muslims all over the world in visions and and in dreams, and sometimes even in bodily form. There are numerous stories all over the internet. He explains many things to them. These experiences are causing many to turn fully to Jesus.
What do you think?
http://godreports.com/tag/jesus-appears-to-muslims/
What do you think?
http://godreports.com/tag/jesus-appears-to-muslims/
P
Pattylt
Guest
First, let me be clear that fanaticism can and does occur in any religion.
From my point of view, the Shi’ites seem to radicalize much more than the Sunni do. Would you agree with that and, if so, why do you think it happens more amongst the Shi’ites?
From my point of view, the Shi’ites seem to radicalize much more than the Sunni do. Would you agree with that and, if so, why do you think it happens more amongst the Shi’ites?
Edmund Case – in an article entitled ‘Judaism Is Not Just For Jews: The Lesson Of Interfaith Families’; published by the American news media organisation ‘The Forward’, and dated December 2019 – writes:
‘Now that nearly three out of four marriages among non-Orthodox Jews are interfaith, 84% of new households that include at least one non-Orthodox Jew are interfaith households. That means that the future vitality of every aspect of liberal Judaism depends on engaging increasing numbers of interfaith families in Jewish life. Yet instead of discussion of the issue in Jewish organizations and media, there’s deafening silence.
‘The silence around interfaith life from the organized Jewish world is doubly frustrating given the challenge that interfaith couples face — and in particular, the partners from different faith traditions. Many doubt that they can belong in Jewish groups, organizations and communities. That’s because in the traditional view, Judaism is for Jews; what matters is “being” Jewish, being part of the Jewish people. Those who identify as Jews are “in,” while a partner who is not a Jew is “out” or “other.”
‘Despite recent suggestions to the contrary, the truth of the matter is, interfaith couples don’t feel completely welcome. Many report an undercurrent of disapproval or feel they are treated as outsiders. Moreover, welcoming interfaith couples is a necessary first step…….’
‘………Unfortunately, examples of expressions of negative attitudes abound, including the “missing mazel tov” when Jewish leaders described Chelsea Clinton’s wedding as not a Jewish event; “expert” assumptions that Mark Zuckerberg’s intermarriage meant his children would not be Jewish (which later was disproved); denunciations from Israel of intermarriage as a “plague” or “catastrophe.”
‘We have quite a way to go before we consider partners from different faith traditions as equal. Even expressing a preference that our children marry Jews delivers a message of disapproval to the 72% of them who will intermarry anyway. Feeling disapproved of is not conducive to feeling belonging.’
A
AlNg
Guest
I was looking to buy a car recently and the young saleslady was from Iran. We got to talking and she said that she was Jewish and that her boyfriend was Catholic. I said that I thought a Jew was supposed to marry a Jew but she said that things are different now in the 21st century.
Last edited:
I’m not so sure, Patricia (may I call you by your name?)
I’ve a feeling that Middle Eastern history, and current politics, play the dominant role in the radicalisation of Muslims.
Iran – a Shiite theocracy, of course – sees herself as a regional power. Now that she is no longer counterbalanced by Sunni Iraq (as she was under Saddam Hussein), Iran – like all political powers – is striving to assert herself; to increase her influence; to gain ever more power.
Shiites comprise about 50% of the population in that region; and for these folk, Iran provides effective leadership (and plentiful resources).
I’m an old geezer; and this entire Middle-Eastern Maelstrom is beyond my ability to fully understand, let alone explain. For sure, Shiites are players; but so are the Sunnis, in the form of Saudi Arabia and its allies.
And it must not be forgotten, of course, that ISIS is a ‘Sunni’ organisation.
I am a Sunni, by the way.
Last edited:
B
BornInMarch
Guest
It says on your profile that you’re are Shia. Do you believe someone who dies a Sunni can reach Jannah, or are they damned? What about Kharijites?
P
Pattylt
Guest
Of course! I usually go by Patty but I answer to Patricia as well.
I have very incomplete knowledge of the Sunni/Shia divisions other than in Syria, Iran and Iraq. I have a bit more knowledge about Lebanon. In Lebanon, I gather the Sunni sect is larger than the Shi’ites but it’s mostly the Shi’ites that are radicalized…due to influence from Iran and Hezbollah. Here’s a country with no one majority religion but the Shi’ites are the more fanatical. I also know that it isn’t the religion itself that got them that way. They were a poor and ignored minority which is always a recipe for radicalization.
I just wondered if there was something within the religion that helped that tendency? Yes, the ME is a mess. Too little democracy and too many warlords in rule. If the Muslim communities don’t fix it themselves, we certainly have no hope nor right to do so. Thanks for your views!
Hi Patty,
Folk have to decide that for themselves.
In 2002 the Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah issued the following definition of terrorism:
‘Terrorism is an outrageous attack carried out either by individuals, groups or states against the human being. It includes all forms of intimidation, harm, threats, killing without a just cause, all forms of armed robbery, banditry, every act of violence or threat intended to fulfil a criminal scheme individually or collectively, terrify and horrify people by hurting them or by exposing their lives, liberty, and security to danger – all are resolutely forbidden in Islam.’ (quoted in the Muslim World League Journal in July 2002; and again in Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s ‘Shariah Law: Questions and Answers’).
Terrorism – as defined above – constitutes the crime of hirabah (‘waging war against society’; ‘corrupting the earth’); a capital crime in Islam.
Professor Khaled M. Abou El Fadl writes:
‘In the modern age, it would seem that terrorism is the quintessential crime of corrupting the earth. When violence is committed against the defenceless, by stealth and without warning, the net effect is to spread fear and horror among God’s people. Whether one calls the crime hiraba or terrorism, it is fundamentally the same thing. Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells – that could indiscriminately kill the innocent – as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).
Continued:
Why then do Islamist extremists defy the Qur’an?
The principal reason is evidenced in a Channel 4 documentary on the Qur’an; a documentary I recorded several years ago. At one point, the presenter introduces Sheikh Khalid Tafesh, at that time the elected representative of Hamas in Bethlehem, with (according to the presenter) a third of his votes coming from Christian Palestinians.
When reminded that suicide is expressly forbidden in the Qur’an the Sheikh (after a long and uncomfortable pause) answers: ‘That’s true. God says “do not kill yourself, and do not bring misery on yourself”, so we are forbidden from attempting suicide.’
He then adds: ‘If we had the same weapons as the enemy we would not resort to this method, but we don’t, so it’s our only option.’
His argument (and that of Islamic extremists in general) is straightforward: When faced with overwhelming power and weaponry Muslims are entitled to set the Exalted’s prohibitions on aggressive and unrestrained warfare aside; and to act in any way they see fit.
El Fadl writes: ‘Since they (the terrorists) are not strong enough to take on the Western armed military, they must achieve victory by any means necessary. And, according to puritans, waging attacks against the civilian nationals of countries that occupy Muslim lands will eventually bring these countries to their knees and teach them not to violate the sanctity of or attempt to dominate Muslim nations.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).
In short, Islamist extremists believe they are justified in violating the prohibitions against starting – or participating in – a war of aggression; against harming, in any way, non-combatants, women, children, the old, the sick and those enemy combatants who no longer wish to fight, or who are prisoners of war; as well as the prohibitions against destroying property; homes; churches; synagogues; mosques; crops or livestock; and the prohibition against suicide; because (as far as they are concerned) there is no other way to win peace…their version of peace.
El Fadl writes:
‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority? What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors? Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).
The principal reason is evidenced in a Channel 4 documentary on the Qur’an; a documentary I recorded several years ago. At one point, the presenter introduces Sheikh Khalid Tafesh, at that time the elected representative of Hamas in Bethlehem, with (according to the presenter) a third of his votes coming from Christian Palestinians.
When reminded that suicide is expressly forbidden in the Qur’an the Sheikh (after a long and uncomfortable pause) answers: ‘That’s true. God says “do not kill yourself, and do not bring misery on yourself”, so we are forbidden from attempting suicide.’
He then adds: ‘If we had the same weapons as the enemy we would not resort to this method, but we don’t, so it’s our only option.’
His argument (and that of Islamic extremists in general) is straightforward: When faced with overwhelming power and weaponry Muslims are entitled to set the Exalted’s prohibitions on aggressive and unrestrained warfare aside; and to act in any way they see fit.
El Fadl writes: ‘Since they (the terrorists) are not strong enough to take on the Western armed military, they must achieve victory by any means necessary. And, according to puritans, waging attacks against the civilian nationals of countries that occupy Muslim lands will eventually bring these countries to their knees and teach them not to violate the sanctity of or attempt to dominate Muslim nations.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).
In short, Islamist extremists believe they are justified in violating the prohibitions against starting – or participating in – a war of aggression; against harming, in any way, non-combatants, women, children, the old, the sick and those enemy combatants who no longer wish to fight, or who are prisoners of war; as well as the prohibitions against destroying property; homes; churches; synagogues; mosques; crops or livestock; and the prohibition against suicide; because (as far as they are concerned) there is no other way to win peace…their version of peace.
El Fadl writes:
‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority? What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors? Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).
P
Pattylt
Guest
That’s a great read! 
My next question may be sensitive and you may feel free not to answer!
Despite the fact that Israel has not been a perfect nation by any stretch of the imagination, do you personally feel they have right to exist?
Of the MErns I’ve talked with, it varies. Most said that historically they shouldn’t but in order to move forward a few admitted that it’s time to change. Of course, they still support a Palestinian homeland and I tend to agree with the idea but not necessarily how Israel and her neighbors view it. What are your thoughts? And feel free to be honest! (I’m sure you will!). You could send me a PM if you prefer.
My next question may be sensitive and you may feel free not to answer!
Despite the fact that Israel has not been a perfect nation by any stretch of the imagination, do you personally feel they have right to exist?
Of the MErns I’ve talked with, it varies. Most said that historically they shouldn’t but in order to move forward a few admitted that it’s time to change. Of course, they still support a Palestinian homeland and I tend to agree with the idea but not necessarily how Israel and her neighbors view it. What are your thoughts? And feel free to be honest! (I’m sure you will!). You could send me a PM if you prefer.
Hi Patty.
Have just arrived.
My old brain was hit by your question, and skimmed your compliment. It was very remiss of me not to thank you. I apologise.
You will have seen, of course, that I have access to the work of excellent scholars. In truth, your three hearts belong to them.
Again, have a great weekend.
Very best regards.
Have just arrived.
My old brain was hit by your question, and skimmed your compliment. It was very remiss of me not to thank you. I apologise.
You will have seen, of course, that I have access to the work of excellent scholars. In truth, your three hearts belong to them.
Again, have a great weekend.
Very best regards.
Hi Patty,
Sorry for the delay.
To say that Israel has not been ‘a perfect nation by any stretch of the imagination’ is masterful understatement
. I’m reminded of a scene in Monty Python’s ‘The Meaning of Life’: An Army officer has just lost a leg. When asked how he feels, he glances down at his bleeding stump and replies, ‘Stings a bit.’MOLAD: The Centre for the Renewal of Israeli Democracy writes:
‘In recent years, Israel’s public image has been damaged through a variety of channels. At times, it has been attacked by countries with which Israel has sound diplomatic relations. Public opinion polls show that Israel is perceived in the international community as militaristic, masculine, religious, stiff-necked, dangerous, chauvinist, and frightening, and is constantly identified in the international media with images of conflict. Israel is frequently criticized and condemned by various countries, the UN and its agencies, human rights organizations and other international organizations. In addition to condemnations in the official diplomatic arena in recent years, Israel has been subjected to attack from non-governmental organizations in Europe and North America. Recent surveys illustrate that Israel is increasingly identified as one of the primary threats to world stability and the number of critical voices calling for boycott, divestment, and sanctions of various Israeli bodies and businesses are ever increasing.’ (‘Israeli Hasbara: Myths and Facts – A Report on the Israeli Hasbara Apparatus 2012’).
For sure, Israel has a right to exist. But perhaps it is time to ask ourselves: ‘Do her critics have a case; is their criticism of certain of her behaviours justified? If the answers is ‘yes’, then do these behaviours have a right to exist?
The same applies to certain behaviours on the part of her enemies. There is no justification – for example – for suicide bombings, or the launching of rockets into civilian areas; no matter how great the provocation.
All in all, I’m reminded of this quote: ‘In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.’ (Winston Churchill).
There can be no doubt that both sides of this terrible situation (one might say ‘curse’) have a surfeit of such bodyguards.
Have a great day, and very best regards.
Last edited:
- Status