Showing posts with label Youth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Youth. Show all posts

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Part 2: Why can't Muslim women marry non-Muslim men

This is a reply to a comment by Pamela Taylor on my previous posting.  She referred to her posting on the Washington Post On Faith, and to an interview with the Sudanese scholar, Al-Turabi.  
 It grew too long to be a comment, so I ‘promoted it’ to a post status!

Hi Pamela:
Thanks for the link to your article on the Washington Post On Faith blog.  I enjoyed reading it and I do encourage readers of this posting to read it as well.

I agree with most of the thoughts and sentiments you expressed (especially about the lack of association between what I call 'religious concordance' between spouses, and the likelihood of success of marriage.  I disagree with you on a couple of points though.

On principle, I believe in religious freedom, which as you well know, is a principle very strongly endorsed by the Quran.  So, as individuals, we have the right to do what we feel is appropriate for 'us', since we know truly what is in our hearts, which God knows as well. 

Others should not intervene by imposing religious opinions on us, although for all practical purposes, civil and criminal laws in any society have their own constraints that limit freedoms to what is deemed appropriate by the state. For example, a woman may practice polyandry in the USA, but the state would recognize only one marriage and holds her accountable if she officially marries a second husband while still officially married to the first one.  Polygamy, under-age marriage, incest marriage are similar examples in this aspect of social life. 

And to that extent, civil law may impose constraints on what is officially accepted; constraints that may or may not be derived from religious beliefs of the majority. I can accept that only as long as it is clear that the rules are CIVIC RULES and not considered religious rules (i.e., enshrined by God).

The complementary side of that is this: while an individual should be free to decide for themselves what they want to do; they need to be careful about adding their own preferences to the core religious rules.  By that I mean, trying to establish their practice as a “religiously-endorsed practice” for co-coreligionists.

The reason is that I believe a religion, any religion, has to have some minimal sacred core that is immutable. If people do not agree with the core principle, they should be free to start their own religion, but not confuse their own version of the religion with the original.  And other people can choose which one to follow.

For me, that core text is the Quran, and the small collection of Mutawatir Hadith that does not contradict the obvious of the Quran (i.e., Mutawatir  متواتر with non-problematic Matn, i.e., content متن ).  Establishing Aqueeda (i.e., religious creed  عقيدة) based on other texts is tantamount to accepting the authors of those texts as equivalent to God’s..

And the Verse of interest here (5:5) strongly sounds like it is a retraction of an earlier position, or an earlier practice by Muslims.  And if it seems straight forward enough to understand it that way in Arabic (which is my mother tongue), I have difficulty if anyone 'legislates' for an apposing position and then  MAKING THAT POSITION a core religious principle. 

They are certainly free to practice the way they want. And I will defend their right to do that, and not even judge them or judge their intentions.  But I would not think considering their personal view and preference as if it is integral to Islam as a religion is an appropriate thing.

Second, an edict that is genuinely ‘patriarchal’, as you alluded to in your article, should not be accepted as religion under the same logic I presented in the previous paragraph.  I want God to legislate religious rules, not the patriarchs, no matter how scholarly or well-intentioned they were.  But to judge a practice as patriarchal requires that one proves there is no explicit evidence for it in the Quran or Mutawatir Hadith.
And in the situation we are concerned with here, that is not the case, in my humble opinion and in my understanding of the Arabic text of Verse 5:5.

I also read the article you linked to by H  Al-Turabi.  I would like to bring to your attention that the initial segment about the article which talked about the situation of a recently converted woman who was still married to her non-Muslim husband.  That situation has been discussed initially in the first few decades of Islam and at least nine different opinions exited.  The most interesting is by no less of an authority than Ali ibn Abi Taleb, who thought that a convert woman DID NOT have to leave her non--Muslim husband to become a Muslim, and that their marriage was still valid (details can be found in Jurisprudence for Muslim Minorities, By Qaradawi, page 105 – and unfortunately the book is only in Arabic). Interestingly he mentioned Al-Turabi in the book, and supports his opinion on that issue (i.e., the validity and legitimacy of previous marriage of a new 'Muslim convert' woman to a non-Muslim husband).

However, Al-Turabi's opinion on the second situation - that is of an "already Muslim" woman marrying a non-Muslim man - does not reflect the way the Quranic verse 5:5 is worded (although I would be interested in reviewing his research work on the topic if you can provide me with links to the relevant material).
And as such, I would be not comfortable adopting such opinion, with all due respect to his scholarly credentials.
I guess that is what it boils down to: comfort level so we can face God knowing that we followed our hearts after sincere search of the truth.

Khaled 

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Why can't Muslim women marry non-Muslim men

In a previous posting I brought up the issue of the difficulty facing many Muslim women finding husbands.  Many Muslim women (and men) are raising the question about the discrepancy between the rules of marriage outside the faith that has - so far - been undisputed amongst Muslims.
I recently received this email from a non-Muslim reader:
"One of the most misunderstood areas in Islam is that of the position of women in the religion. The general perception in the West is that Muslim women are subjugated and almost seen as property. While not all Muslims deal with women as inferior, this is unfortunately true in some segments of the Muslim world and this treatment is supposedly justified by the religion. However, when we look at the basis of the religion, the Quran, we see a very different picture. In the Quran God makes it very clear that men and women are equal.

If this is true then why is it okay for men to Marry outside Muslim and not women ? This is not seen as equal but as lesser or lower than that of a man.

For the record I am an american male in love with a Muslim woman from [an Arab country] and am reading alot to try and understand the cultural differences.    ..DK".
The past blog post Wanna be a bride was meant to raise some discussion about the issue, and it did that only in  a very limited way.  So, I thought that by posting my 'indecisive response' to this gentleman's email I may get the discussion stirred again.  Here is my reply to that reader, with some editing:
Dear DK:
I am a Muslim man who tries to understand the word of God in the Quran believing that the Quran should be the overriding gold standard for Muslim behavior. The accumulated practice legacy of many Islamic cultures and societies that frequently are loaded with non-Quran based cultural and social traditions should not be part of the religion, even when they are not considered wrong. That is the only way we keep religion pure from ethnic and social perspective that may be accepted in one place and at one time, but not in another.
The issue you raised has been a focus of interest for the last couple of months because of social stresses in many Muslim communities in the West and even in some Arab countries, where an increasing number of Muslim women are not getting married, apparently as a result of many Muslim men marrying outside Islam. Some Muslim women now are discussing whether they should be allowed to marry outside the Islamic faith.
The Quran, in my opinion has been fair and equitable to men and women 'on the whole', but there are definite difference and not every issue is 'split 50-50'. Looking at women's advantage in issues related to post-divorce financial support, and support for child care and women's overall financial entitlements, it seems balanced when considering men's advantage in inheritance (especially in son's and daughter's inheritance from a parent).
My point is that fairness does not come from exact equality, but rather from overall equality.
Having said that, it is not very easy to understand the restriction on Muslim women marrying outside the faith. Some people justify it by explaining that it is a result of Islam recognizing other Abrahamic faiths as divinely inspired and legitimate, while Jews and Christians do not have a similar opinion about Islam. And assuming the husband may have stronger influence on family spiritual life, it would be 'safer' for a Christian woman to marry a Muslim man and still keep her faith, than for a Muslim woman to marry a Christian or Jewish man and still keep her faith and her/there children as Muslims.
This argument made more sense in past times, but may not be undisputed in modern time when the balance of power and control in the family is less likely to be male-dominated in many societies. A small minority of Muslim clerics in Lebanon (and I believe in few European countries) have ventured and performed marriage contracts between Muslim women and non-Muslim men based on that logic.
I believe marriage is a personal issue. And individuals have some leeway deciding what they want to do depending on their comfort level. But when I consider the Quranic verse dealing with inter-religious marriages, it is almost impossible to understand it in any way other than it giving an exemption for Muslim men to be able to cross that line (with significant constraints, I may say), but not explicitly including women in that exemption.
I am aware that the situation does not make for an exact 50-50 kind of deal, but the clarity of that Quranic verse makes it difficult for me - personally - to ignore it and go the other way.
As a believer, I accept the fact that religion, being a structure decided by God, may have constraints that do not make obvious sense to everyone, everywhere and in every era, but they are still part of the faith. Examples are not restricted only rituals, but also extend to social behavior such as absolute prohibition of gambling (even for fun and in trivial amounts of money), alcohol (even in moderation), and eating pork (except to sustain life).

I am not a clergy and I do not believe in the authority of clergy imposing their opinions on society. I am just a Muslim studying my Book. I would not judge anyone that behaves differently in their personal life, but this issue unfortunately is relevant to social acceptance. If a new couple or family cares about being accepted in a community, sometimes they have to consider how that community thinks and behaves. If the couple do not care for acceptance, then they should be free to do whatever they want.
These links (pro and con) were forwarded to me recently, are are of interest
And this was my comment on that debate:
".... I am sure that you also noticed that neither side of those debates is talking with a great deal of certainty. That is because the key verse on the topic is an indirect one and talks mainly about Muslim 'men' marrying women of the Book. So, it may boil down to one's comfort level with extrapolation and deduction from that verse.
And while historic legacy favors a particular argument and opinion, support for that argument and opinion should not be based on 'how long has the tradition been going on' but rather on the deduction from the Quranic verse in the context of the established norms of that time. Again, it is the level of 'religious' comfort one has in their own logic for the choice they make that matter.
Whichever way someone chooses, should be something between them and God, not a subject for a new Fatwa. Just my opinion. "
---- end of my email.


I would be interested in knowing what you can add to this discussion.  Are you aware of any scholarly attempts to re-analyse the marriage outside the faith rule in Islamic practices?  Do you have strong opinions one way or the other? what do you think is the better way to even the playing field for me and women?


Hope some of you will share their thoughts.

Khaled

Sunday, June 29, 2008

'Hussein' may end up being a popular middle name after all

Is something wrong with being a Muslim??
We all know by now how the dirty republican-initiated email campaign against Barack Obama tried to use his middle name, Hussein, as part of their scare tactics. Many Muslims and even non-Muslims, felt he should have been more forceful not only denouncing using his Muslim middle name as part of a scare tactic, but also making it clear that he would have been as happy, as proud, as American even if he were a Muslim. Basically, declaring that nothing is wrong with being a Muslim.
He did not come out personally saying it that strongly and most Muslims are familiar with the realities of life in the public arena especially when you want to make it to the oval office. SO, they are not holding grudges against him.
But something good is still likely to come out of the horrible 'smear attempt' using his own middle name against the Democratic presidential nominee. Their dirty tactics may have backfired!

A lot of Obama's fans and supporters are younger, more diverse, more tolerant and inclusive than many of the traditional 'hard-core conservatives' whose claim to conservatism is not their fiscal and governmental ideals, but their exclusiveness, xenophobia and racism.
The New York Times online today had an article titled Obama Supporters Take His Name as Their Own.
Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.
Out of support for Obama, and I think as they believe that inherently nothing is wrong with having a Muslim name, some younger people are adopting Hussein as a middle name. As a Muslim, I really admire what they are doing. They do not only talk the talk -- they also walk the walk.
“I am sick of Republicans pronouncing Barack Obama’s name like it was some sort of cuss word,” Mr. Strabone wrote in a manifesto titled “We Are All Hussein” that he posted on his own blog and on dailykos.com.
The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.
It is one thing to say that it is a shame to pick on someone because of their Muslim name, but it is a whole different ball game when you put yourself literally on the same fire line that they face. I am certain many of those brave young souls are expecting getting hard time from their families, teachers, and even others they may not know.
Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.”
Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.
This is not the first time non-Muslims have walked the extra mile in Muslim's shoes. Nearly two years ago a young Muslim student was harassed on her university campus for wearing the Islamic head cover (Hijab) and her scarf was pulled of her head by some racist Islamophobic idiots on campus. In support of that young lady, non-Muslim young women decided to have a 'Wear a Hijab to School' day. They put themselves on the line to see and feel for themselves what a Muslim woman may go through facing bigotry sometimes on daily basis.

Unfortunately that also reminds me of how we, Muslims, sometimes hide our affiliation with Islam as if it were a spot of shame. Many workers in public venues 'abbreviate' their Muslim names for the 'convenience' of their customers. And we all know Muslims with 'anglicized' nick names used in work places. I have seen Muslims that are regular at mosques, yet would not dare to have a car sticker that says 'Muslims Denounce Terrorism'.
A good friend of mine was chastised by attendees at his own mosque when he tried to take some pictures at an event we organized at a St. Louis mosque for an online report on the event. Mature adults Muslim who happened to be in the general direction of where the camera was pointing was afraid of having his face among the audience in a public event at a mosque he attends regularly.
Incidents like those, and the fear that some of us live in, motivated me to call for a community wide Muslim Visibility Campaign that was the beginning of my online effort a year ago. Like most of our Muslim community based campaigns, it did go far (see here for a report on the kick off event that ended being the one and only event.

Sorry for digressing. Any way, back to NYT article:
Some Obama supporters say they were moved to action because of what their own friends, neighbors and relatives were saying about their candidate. Mark Elrod, a political science professor at Harding University in Searcy, Ark., is organizing students and friends to declare their Husseinhood on Facebook on Aug. 4, Mr. Obama’s birthday.
My great respect goes to those young and old non-Muslims who are willing to take a stand for what they believe in.
And one more time I will pray for our community to mature, and maybe one day we can do that too.

Khaled

Links: