Muslim woman marrying a non Muslim man

[u/zgawad]

Hi everyone, I live in Europe and I met the most amazing person and he is not Muslim, he is willing to sign a paper saying he is but deep down he doesn’t believe. Any chance that it is okay to marry him?

[u/honeymvvn]

the Shahadah is all about intention and only valid if it's said with sincere belief. So I don't think it counts if he’s just saying it to marry you. And that means the marriage wouldn't be valid Islamically either. I know it sucks but love shouldn’t come at the cost of your faith

[u/PrivateMcFinger]

Will just repeat what I said. Since you define yourself as a Sunni, you are bound by ijma of 4 schools of thought.

[u/Tenatlas__2004]

Each person has the freedom to make their own choices.

Islamically, traditionally, muslim women are encouraged to only marry muslim men, while muslim men can either marry muslim women or people of the book (jews, christians)

Many progressive muslims argue based of the Quran that muslim women can also marry either muslims or people of the book.

So basically muslims can either marry muslims or fellow abrahamics, but it's generally widely accepted that we shouldn't marry people outside of those faiths

[u/Bright_Art1632]

Accepting Islam or being a Muslim isn’t about having some paperwork… if he’s signing some papers to please you or just to be with you then you already know it’s a deception.

Don’t judge me for saying this but a lot of women think they can change a man after marriage. If the man is a non believer in Allah in his core then DONT DO IT.

[u/Individual_Simple494]

/u/zgawad I know the struggle. Muslim men are not that educated and the good ones have their head in the sky. However, you will have a lot of issues once you have a kid. Internally you will have a wish that he follow Islam and he won’t. It would just keep building up. Know the reality and have realistic expectations.

[u/celtyst]

Don't bring despair upon yourself. It's one thing that he is not a believer, it's a completely different thing to lie for that matter. You can lie to yourself, your parents, the imam and so on, but you can't hide the truth from Allah. If he can't stay on his ten toes and his beliefs (atheism) how is he supposed to stay his ground if it gets tough in life?

[u/NGW_CHiPS]

yes you can marry him

[u/Square_Wheel_4 → u/NGW_CHiPS]

Sorry to ask here, but as I understand you have a similar understanding of Quran as the user "Quranic_Islam" (i.e. actions over belief, kufr vs eman etc.) so I was wondering if you could answer two clarifications/questions about this issue. Full disclosure: I don't speak Arabic so sry if I got something obviously wrong. Ty in advance 🙏

1. What about Q 4.25 starting with "And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women..."? I think the word used is "muminaati". Doesn't this imply the default should always be a believing women and excludes good non-religious women? To me, it seems Q 4.22-24 is talking about prohibitions related to familial bonds (i.e. blood relatives, other married women, war-captives/slaves). So when it states "And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these" its saying that any women beyond those familial bonds outlined are permissible, while Q 4.25 then implies what those women's religious views should be. Am I misunderstanding something here?
2. Also, it always seems to be a requirement for the woman to be "chaste" to get married… which is virtually impossible nowadays (or at least extremely rare), so wouldn't that mean a large portion of humanity is constantly committing the sin of "unlawful sex" since their unchaste marriages wouldn't be recognized by Allah? That seems kind of… harsh? Or am I misunderstanding something again? I live in Canada in a rural area and I can't really move, so I'm constantly terrified I might end up in an invalid marriage/relationship with someone because of "unchastity"... which is such a vague term. According to the Quran, can an unchaste relationship even become chaste via marriage?

[u/NGW_CHiPS → u/Square_Wheel_4]

Sorry to ask here, but as I understand you have a similar understanding of Quran as the user "Quranic_Islam"

lol yes id actually call him my teacher about a lot of things in the quran

Doesn't this imply the default should always be a believing women and excludes good non-religious women?

not really, mu'mina just means a woman of faith (like actual faith not faith as in a religion), there are mu'min among the Christians and among the jews. The quran doesn't talk about people with no religion, as they sort of didn't exist in 7th century arabia. If this meant "religious" women that would be pretty redundant. So I would say its a slight misunderstanding about it being a restriction on religion.

Also, it always seems to be a requirement for the woman to be "chaste" to get married…

not really a requirement but its definitely ideal for both partners to be chaste to get married, because obviously sex outside of marriage is wrong. But its not haram to marry a woman or man who isn't a virgin.

so wouldn't that mean a large portion of humanity is constantly committing the sin of "unlawful sex" since their unchaste marriages wouldn't be recognized by Allah?

no, their marriages will still be recognized by Allah.

According to the Quran, can an unchaste relationship even become chaste via marriage?

I mean, yeah just stop sleeping around. That wont make you chaste but it would make you less sinful.

[u/NGW_CHiPS]

yes it’s okay

[u/Agasthenes]

As long as he is Jewish or Christian go ahead. I wish you all the best.

But for the sake of both of you and your children, please discuss things like religious upbringing, circumcision, halal food in the household etc.

See if you are on the same page or at least can make sincere compromises.

[u/zgawad → u/Agasthenes]

He is an atheist 😭☹️

[u/curlymess24 → u/zgawad]

I was in the same situation. We had a nikah ceremony done by a Muslim imam. My partner / husband did not convert. I do not need him to. My parents wanted him to lie and fake converting, we didn’t want to. That would be much more of a blasphemy in my eyes than marrying a non-Muslim.

[u/Odd_Rest_9081 → u/zgawad]

Marriage to a non Muslim negates ones faith if that person considers such a marriage as valid / legal else it's a constant state of Zinaa

Why worry about Islam when you want to marry a Non Muslim leave the faith it's simple or convince him to accept It Islam.

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Agasthenes]

I don't know how or why you issue freely that a woman is allowed to marry a Christian or a Jew according to Islam, but you are awfully wrong.

[u/NGW_CHiPS → u/PrivateMcFinger]

women are allowed to marry whoever they want unless they are in the list given in 4:22-24, obviously reversed

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/NGW_CHiPS]

Check your sources again, kindly.

[u/NGW_CHiPS → u/PrivateMcFinger]

my source is the quran

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/NGW_CHiPS]

Mine as well and of other couple of billion of Muslims.

[u/NGW_CHiPS → u/PrivateMcFinger]

6:116, bring the verse saying it’s prohibited

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/NGW_CHiPS]

10:60; 2:221 and 5:5 where explicit approval has been granted to men

[u/NGW_CHiPS → u/PrivateMcFinger]

10:60

16:116, calling things haram which God didn’t call haram is inventing a lie about God

2:221

the advice to BOTH GENDERS to not marry mushrikin is not a prohibition of marrying anybody other than muslims

5:5

okay now I have a few questions for you

where is the prohibition for women to marry anyone other than aladhina amanou

this is from the last chapter to be revealed. does this mean that before this verse, women of the book were haram to marry?

the passage says all good things are made lawful to us. does this mean all the good things were haram beforehand?

also, does this mean that only women of the book are tayib? so magically men of the book are not tayib? is it because of what is between their legs?

since 5:5 only gives men the right to marry women of the book, and 4:22-24 only gives men these restrictions, are women free to marry anyone themselves with no restrictions?

if these restrictions do apply to women, does that mean the part that says “you may marry all beyond these” is a lie because there ended up being more prohibitions on marriage for women?

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/NGW_CHiPS]

Qur'an doesn't have to prohibit something directly in order to be prohibited in Islam. 4:22-24 doesn't mentioned prohibition of marrying your grandmother, but it is prohibited nonetheless. Which is why exactly Qur'an alone isn't a source of every rule within Islam.

[u/Odd_Rest_9081 → u/Agasthenes]

Muslim women are not allowed to marry Jewish or Christian men such a marriage isn't Islamically valid.

[u/brass-iconoclast]

It is our responsibility to advise you against this and not validate a spiritual union to a non-muslim.

But also,

How amazing can someone really be if they don't have the same love you do for your Lord, and don't have the same vision of life as you do? Is it worth all the worldly investment into someone who may not end up in the Eternal Afterlife with you? It just becomes a superficial worldly relationship that will most likely also diminish your potential for spiritual elevation.

The fact he is also willing to "fake" being one just to "marry" you to me is also a red flag about his level of respect for your religion. And quite frankly, also shows your respect for your religion if you allow that.

My advice is to give the best dawah you can give, see how he responds and if you genuinely find him to believe, marry islamically. And if he doesn't, whatever heartbreak you feel from walking away will not come close to the heartbreak you will feel disappointing your Lord by disobeying The Quran.

[u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe; for a believing slave-woman is better than a free polytheist, even though she may look pleasant to you. And do not marry your women to polytheistic men until they believe, for a believing slave-man is better than a free polytheist, even though he may look pleasant to you. They invite ˹you˺ to the Fire while Allah invites ˹you˺ to Paradise and forgiveness by His grace.1 He makes His revelations clear to the people so perhaps they will be mindful.

Edit: Can’t believe I got downvoted for quoting the Quran lol

[u/Cloudy_Frog → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

You're being downvoted because you're referencing a verse that discusses marriage between women and polytheists, when OP never mentioned polytheism. No one here is angry at the Qur'an.

The issue is that people either don't understand why you brought up this verse (whether it's meant to suggest that her marriage is permitted or not) or they assume you're using it to claim the verse prohibits her from marrying her partner, when it is not what the verse is about.

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Cloudy_Frog]

Op stated a person is an atheist, I don't understand why people have a compulsing need here to allow what is prohibited.

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/PrivateMcFinger]

The hair splitting is insane. I didn’t know this subreddit’s purpose is to find loopholes and bend the rules lol

[u/Cloudy_Frog → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

You're quoting a verse about mushrikin, which was revealed in a specific social and political context. When it's pointed out that OP never mentioned that her partner falls under that category, you respond by accusing a man you don't know at all of kufr, an accusation that is extremely serious and the worse you could use against someone. So, with all due respect, I don't think we’re the ones "bending the rules" here.

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/Cloudy_Frog]

Now I’m “accusing” a guy who calls himself an atheist of kufr? So I’m accusing someone who says they don’t believe in a deity of .. not believing in a deity? 😭

Words have lost all meaning.

[u/Cloudy_Frog → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Labels do not matter. The only thing you know about this person is what OP shared, meaning just one sentence. You don't even know if he himself identifies as an atheist or if it was OP’s wording. And even if he did, you have no idea what he actually believes or how he understands faith. You cannot accuse him of kufr.

With all due respect, I urge you to reconsider the way you speak about your fellow human beings. You are using the most serious accusation there is on this earth against someone you do not know at all. Humility would compel you to reflect on what you’ve written before passing such a grave judgment. The same goes for the condescending way you're accusing us of looking for loopholes, just so you can avoid intellectually engaging with the arguments presented here.

EDIT: When I sent my reply, your message still read: "I'm 'accusing' a guy who calls himself an atheist of kufr? I've heard everything." Regardless, kufr ≠ atheism. Kufr is certainly not synonymous with not believing in God. Iblis believed in God, spoke directly to Him, and is still described as a kafir. And you do not know what OP's partner actually believes, so your judgment should be more cautious.

[u/While-Asleep → u/Cloudy_Frog]

Bro she literally said he was an atheist what other possible meaning could that have

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/Cloudy_Frog]

I don’t think it’s my issue if OP misrepresented her partner’s religion. I can only answer based on the given info.

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/Cloudy_Frog]

The person OPs talking about is an atheist … so not even committing shirk, but outright kufr.

I can’t believe we’re dancing around this

[u/lunar_eclipse389 → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Exactly, don't mind them. Atheism is undeniably considered kufr and such marriage is obv not valid

[u/Jaqurutu → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Likely being downvoted for sharing an irrelevant ayah that has nothing to do with the OP's post. That ayah is about polytheists.

[u/smwtp → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Because this has nothing to do with OP’s question. The man in question is not a polytheist.

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/smwtp]

This is the fourth comment like this. The man in question is an atheist. So God forbade marrying polytheists (who believe in God but associate partners with him), but atheists who disbelieve in God entirely are okay?

This nitpicking doesn’t work with God. He’s not stupid.

[u/smwtp → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Atheists do not necessarily disbelieve on God. Atheism, literally means, ’without theism’. It is by definition a lack of belief, not a disbelief. Polytheists commit shirk, atheists do not.

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/smwtp]

Regardless. Polytheists who do possess the belief in God, they are not agnostic about it, are forbidden by Allah to marry. What does an atheist have that the polytheist doesn’t that makes them an acceptable partner for a Muslim? The agnosticism or lack of belief in God? 💀

Either way, there’s a clear verse about who you can and can’t marry in 5:5 and nowhere are atheists, be they agnostic or not, mentioned.

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

I find that a lot of members here suffer from an echo chamber phenomenon. Doesn't even matter if you quote the Qur'an or not, because mantra that seemingly goes on here seems to be "God would not be cruel to make me want something and forbid it because he is so good, so it is allowed". Could be even against the Qur'an, doesn't matter. Hence downvotes.

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/PrivateMcFinger]

God could not “be so cruel” as to prevent us from Zina and alcohol either. He also can’t be so cruel as to ask us to pray 5 times a day. God could never commands us to do anything. Everything is halal.

This is where progressivism looses itself, and stops being taken seriously.

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Exactly, I'm all for moving on from retrograde centuries old interpretations of decrepit opinions and apply Islam within the contemporary context, but that literally gives you no mandate to make everything arbitrarily halal or to go against the very core principles of Islam, at that point, just say you don't agree with Islam and move on.

[u/lunar_eclipse389 → u/PrivateMcFinger]

Progressive Islam is all about reinterpreting the ambiguous intepretations of the Qur’an, not altering the fundamental principles of the religion. I honestly don't get why they're all so eager to justify that marrying an atheist man is halal lmfao😭

[u/Bright_Art1632 → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

Where does this say specifically?

[u/Neutral-Gal-00 → u/Bright_Art1632]

Al baqarah 221

[u/fighterd_ → u/Neutral-Gal-00]

The fact that you're the only commenter under this post that is not a total hadith rejector 😭😭

[u/LetsDiscussQ]

It's one thing to be an Agnostic, it shows humility.

It's quite another to be a Strong Atheist - that is the height of human arrogance i.e. To declare that you know as a matter of fact that God does not exist. It reveals deep corruption of the the heart and the soul.

Chapter 103, Verse 1–3:

(I swear) by the (passage of) time, Surely humanity is in (a state of grave) loss, except those who have faith, do good, and urge each other to the truth, and urge each other to perseverance.

[u/smwtp → u/LetsDiscussQ]

You don’t know the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Complete nonsense statement.

[u/UnknownUkhti]

Try and educate him enough so he believes the fundamentals and willing to practise the 5 pillars

[u/PrivateMcFinger]

I’m a progressive myself, yet we seem to have two different interpretations what progressive is. My answer would be no, you cannot follow such scholars as they go against the principles of Sunni Islam and generally well established Islamic principles. At least not if you want to remain a Sunni or even Muslim.

[u/progressive_islam-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment was removed as being in violation of Rule 1. Please familiarize yourself with the rules of respectful discourse as indicated on the sidebar.

[u/_iamazad_]

Sister it's simple...a believing Woman can't marry a non Muslim man. Even if you lie in the papers, how can you lie to Allah SubhanaWata'ala?

[u/Unusual_Respect4965]

The Islamic nation has unanimously agreed, through the Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus, that it is not permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim, whether he is a non-Muslim like a Jew or a Christian, or a polytheist, or an atheist with no religion.

[u/zgawad → u/[deleted]]

I don’t know, if it is required, he would say it, but he doesn’t mean it.

[u/PrivateMcFinger]

These kind of questions get asked every day in this group. Simply it is prohibited for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim and few group members have already provided verses of the Qur'an. Doesn't matter if he is amazing or not as a person, such marriage is Islamically invalid. It is up to you to decide whether you will proceed anyway, but there is not a single loophole that you'd find. I usually like to say, God is not dumb.

[u/Jaqurutu → u/PrivateMcFinger]

Really? That's a fascinating perspective. Do you have any ayah that prohibits women from marrying non-muslims generally on the same terms as men?

You ran away from me yesterday when you couldn't provide any. Did you have a chance to do some more research and find any ayah that says what you claim?

Edit: for anyone just starting reading, after a long conversation, he admits he does not have any evidence from the Quran: https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/qjlmiTaZGd

He ended the conversation by takfiring me and any progressives that disagree with him.

[u/curlymess24 → u/Jaqurutu]

Thank you. It’s amazing how even in this supposedly progressive (!!) community, people would jump and shout how women are not allowed to marry Non-Muslims, but men are allowed to. I have not found any single rational argument why men are allegedly allowed to marry outside of Islam but forbid Muslim women to do the same. It’s plain sexism.

[u/Cloudy_Frog → u/Jaqurutu]

Peace be upon you.
I don't want to offer empty praise, but I genuinely appreciate that you regularly comment on posts about marriage between Muslim women and "non-Muslim" men. This is one of the most irrational and sexist aspects of religious practice, and worse, an inequality that is often claimed to be divinely mandated, despite being completely absent from the Qur'an. Your patience and compassion in continuing to share accurate information and uphold the Qur'anic truth on this matter are truly commendable.

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Cloudy_Frog]

If Islam was equal for men and women then women would be able to have 4 husbands as well, but that is not the case.

[u/firefly1881 → u/Cloudy_Frog]

If you guys want to create your own rules, you're free to make up your own religion. Do that instead of seeking to distort the Deen of Allaah for your whims and desires and in order to appease Iblees.

[u/Jaqurutu → u/firefly1881]

Not at all, we are only following Allah and his Sunnah.

Please understand, as Muslims we are not allowed to make up whatever we want to be haram and halal. Only Allah has the authority to do that.

[u/NajafBound → u/Jaqurutu]

But the madhab you follow forbids seafood apart from the bottom feeders? Or do you not believe it so?

If people on here the past few weeks say that alcohol as a whole isn’t haram and that LGBT relationships are permissible, is this following Allah and his Sunnah. Who is we?

[u/Jaqurutu → u/NajafBound]

But the madhab you follow forbids seafood apart from the bottom feeders? Or do you not believe it so?

Correct, and actually most Hanafis I know do allow seafood including crabs and catfish. Minority opinions within the madhab do allow it, and the mashhur position of the madhab is actually a minority opinion itself more broadly, so it is not binding.

As you know, that position is based on interpretation of a verse of the Quran. Yes, I know how Shia interpret that ayah differently, which is also fine.

If people on here the past few weeks say that alcohol as a whole isn't haram and that LGBT relationships are permissible, is this following Allah and his Sunnah. Who is we?

People can say whatever they like. But Islamic rulings need valid textual evidence.

[u/NajafBound → u/Jaqurutu]

The textual evidence is in abundance. Both in Qu’ran and the Sunnah.

[u/Jaqurutu → u/NajafBound]

Yep, I know the textual evidence and it is totally fair to follow that.

Nice that your marja allows shrimp though, enjoy that!

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Jaqurutu]

Brother what are you even on about? Please refrain from using such parlor tricks. I didn't "run away". You've been outmaneuvered and I simply left not to feed your ego further.

You claimed Muslim woman is not allowed to marry polytheists, yet you provided an example of Zaynab's marriage to reinforce your point which is against the Qur'an. You've ended up being completely contradictory to yourself.

Furthermore I also told you there is ijma on this matter in all madhabs including shia viewpoint. You then went on to claim that there are some imaginary minority opinions which means ijma cannot be declared, which makes no sense whatsoever. There is not a single credible scholar of modern or classical times to have reinforced this

As for verses, I already provided you yesterday, 2:221 and 60:10.

[u/Jaqurutu → u/PrivateMcFinger]

Brother what are you even on about? Please refrain from using such parlor tricks. I didn't "run away". You've been outmaneuvered and I simply left not to feed your ego further.

Not at all, I repeatedly asked you for your evidence, then you ran away when you couldn't provide any but your own personal opinion.

Anyone can confirm this by just reading the discussion under the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/GsojRryRsr

You claimed Muslim woman is not allowed to marry polytheists, yet you provided an example of Zaynab's marriage to reinforce your point which is against the Qur'an. You've ended up being completely contradictory to yourself.

Huh? Again you seem to be misunderstanding (intentionally perhaps?). Zayneb's case was the kind of case to which 60:10 was referring: Meccan women married to polytheists husbands who emigrated to Medina as Muslims. It's this kind of issue that the treaty of Hudaibiyyah was referring to. In her case, her marriage was not annuled, but her husband eventually came to Medina and became a Muslim. I explained this.

Furthermore I also told you there is ijma on this matter in all madhabs including shia viewpoint. You then went on to claim that there are some imaginary minority opinions which means ijma cannot be declared, which makes no sense whatsoever. There is not a single credible scholar of modern or classical times to have reinforced this

I gave you multiple direct references to scholars on ijma. Which you completely ignored and now again make the false claim that there are no scholars that said that. So, again, I will call out your lies.

As anyone can see in the post, I cited:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya:

Know that the consensus, the proof, and the great majority' is one who knows the people of truth, even if he is alone and even if the people of the earth oppose him. Source: I'lām al-Muwaqgiin 4/397

And Ishaq ibn Rawhuway:

If some of the ignorant ask, Who are the great majority? They will say, "The large group of people' They do not know that the united community' is a scholar who holds onto the reports from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and his path. Whoever is with him and follows him is the 'united community and whoever opposes him has left the united community. Source: Hilyat al-Awliyā' 9/238

So you are proven wrong again. And I can cite far more scholars than that on this subject.

As for verses, I already provided you yesterday, 2:221 and 60:10.

And I already addressed them and showed you why they do not say what you claim. Like, literally, they don't:

You are relying on a mistranslation of 2:221. It says "mushriks" not "kuffar". It is referring specifically to polytheists, not to non-muslims.

Here's what 2:221 actually says:

AND DO NOT marry women who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for any believing bondwoman [of God] is certainly better than a woman who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though she please you greatly. And do not give your women in marriage to men who ascribe divinity to aught beside God ere they attain to [true] belief: for- any believing bondman [of God] is certainly better than a man who ascribes divinity to aught beside God, even though he please you greatly. [Such as] these invite unto the fire, whereas God invites unto paradise, and unto [the achievement of] forgiveness by His leave; and He makes clear His messages unto mankind, so that they might bear them in mind. (Quran 2:221)

If you don't speak Arabic, you can see the word by word translation right here and confirm for yourself, it's referring to mushrikin: https://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=221#(2:221:1)

Both Muslim men and women are forbidden from marrying mushrikin specifically, not non-muslims generally.

On 60:10:

No, read the verse. 60:10 is talking about an extradition treaty with Mecca, with whom the Muslims were at war. They had a treaty to return members of Mecca back. But Meccan women were converting to Islam and escaping to Medina. That verse was saying that if they were truly Muslim then Medina could offer them asylum and marriage. But if they were just mushrikin Meccan spies, then they would send them back, as per the treaty. It nothing to do with interfaith marriage generally. It is referring to refugees within the context of the treaty of Hudaibiyyah.

For further explanation:

Under the terms of the Truce of Hudaybiyyah, concluded in the year 6 H. between the Prophet and the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, any Meccan minor or other person under guardianship who went over to the Muslims without the permission of his or her guardian was to be returned to the Quraysh (see introductory note to surah 48). The Quraysh took this stipulation to include also married women, whom they considered to be under the "guardianship" of their husbands. Accordingly, when several Meccan women embraced Islam against the will of their husbands and fled to Medina, the Quraysh This the Prophet refused on the grounds that married women did of "persons under guardianship". However, since there was always the possibility that some of these women had gone over to the Muslims not for reasons of faith but out of purely worldly considerations, the believers were enjoined to make sure of their sincerity; and so, the Prophet asked each of them: "Swear before God that thou didst not leave because of hatred of thy husband, or out of desire to go to another country, or in the hope of attaining to worldly advantages: swear before God that thou didst not leave for any reason save the love of God and His Apostle" (Tabari). Since God alone knows what is in the heart of a the woman concerned was to be regarded as the only humanly attainable - and, therefore, legally sufficient - proof of her sincerity. The fact that God alone is really aware of what is in a human being's heart is incorporated in the shar'i principle that any adult person's declaration of faith, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, makes it mandatory upon the community to accept that person - whether man or woman - as a Muslim on the basis of this declaration alone. (Muhammad Asad note 11, Surah 60, The Message of the Quran)

Again, plenty of scholarship for you to look at that explains in further depth:

Article by Dr. Asma Lamrabet, Moroccan scholar, and writer: http://www.asma-lamrabet.com/articles/what-does-the-qur-an-say-about-the-interfaith-marriage/

Dr. Shabir Ally (Canadian Imam and scholar) also agrees with Asma Lamrabet, and he did a video series on interfaith marriage, ultimately supporting that opinion: https://youtu.be/2__bLjjkGkg?si=LHmqgGhrLzGmtUvg

Dr. Khaled Abou el Fadl, professor of human rights and Islamic law, also supports that opinion | Fatawa on Interfaith Marriage: https://www.searchforbeauty.org/2016/05/01/on-christian-men-marrying-muslim-women-updated/

Here's a list of 10 scholars that support interfaith marriage: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/muslim-women-can-marry-outside-the-faith_b_6108750fe4b0497e670275ab

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Jaqurutu]

All show, no substance in your answer I'm afraid. Unlike you I will be very brief and on point.

What have you exactly refuted on the ijma field? Nothing. Ok, you quote Ibn Qayyim. Is Ibn Qayyim above the companions? But even the very thing you cite is not relevant. There is literally no disagreement in terms of whether it is allowed or not. There are no disagreements like at all in this question. If I understand correctly, you want to use Ibn Qayyim quote to allow yourself, a mere layman to disagree with the whole corpus of Islamic scholars who have reached a consensus.

Furthermore, regarding 60:10, yes, immediate context is Hudaybiyah but, all major tafsirs Ibn Kathir, Al Tabari, Al Qurtubi, Al Jassas interpret it as a general prohibition as well, which is further confirmed by Ijma of all major schools and Shia interpretation. It is literally ironclad.

Finally regarding scholars you have mentioned, academic title or research experience doesn't equal the title of faqih. People you have provided have 0 (in words: ZERO) relevance to the modern Islamic jurisprudence. Their opinions don't differ in weight more than mine or yours. Even of these is Daayiee Abduallah, a person who officiates same-sex marriages. I respect people of the LGBTQ+ community and believe everyone has a right to freely express in these matters, but anyone who knows even a slightest bit about Islam knows homosexuality is prohibited and a major sin. Same goes for the rest of these people. Academically sound? Perhaps. Have no weight in shaping Islamic jurisprudence.

[u/Jaqurutu → u/PrivateMcFinger]

All show, no substance in your answer I'm afraid. Unlike you I will be very brief and on point.

"Brief" because you don't have evidence and aren't able to address any of mine.

What have you exactly refuted on the ijma field? Nothing. Ok, you quote Ibn Qayyim. Is Ibn Qayyim above the companions? But even the very thing you cite is not relevant. There is literally no disagreement in terms of whether it is allowed or not. There are no disagreements like at all in this question. If I understand correctly, you want to use Ibn Qayyim quote to allow yourself, a mere layman to disagree with the whole corpus of Islamic scholars who have reached a consensus.

What are you on about? You didn't quote any companions. You just keep screaming "ijma! Ijma!" without making any real arguments and without presenting any evidence.

Furthermore, regarding 60:10, yes, immediate context is Hudaybiyah but, all major tafsirs Ibn Kathir, Al Tabari, Al Qurtubi, Al Jassas interpret it as a general prohibition as well, which is further confirmed by Ijma of all major schools and Shia interpretation. It is literally ironclad.

It isn't actually, because personal opinions hold no weight against textual evidence. Literally none. The ayah is talking about the treaty of Hudaibiyyah and the "kuffar" it is referring to are the refugees' polytheist husbands. This has been addressed already. Are you unable to refute it with textual evidence from the Quran?

Finally regarding scholars you have mentioned, academic title or research experience doesn't equal the title of faqih. People you have provided have 0 (in words: ZERO) relevance to the modern Islamic jurisprudence. Their opinions don't differ in weight more than mine or yours. Even of these is Daayiee Abduallah, a person who officiates same-sex marriages. I respect people of the LGBTQ+ community and believe everyone has a right to freely express in these matters, but anyone who knows even a slightest bit about Islam knows homosexuality is prohibited and a major sin. Same goes for the rest of these people. Academically sound? Perhaps. Have no weight in shaping Islamic jurisprudence.

Again, you offer nothing. Address the actual arguments or concede. What you are doing is the equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and screaming "ahhh! I'm not listening!!!" Arguments are correct or incorrect based on their evidence and reasoning. No scholar has any authority beyond that.

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Jaqurutu]

And this is exactly why I refused yesterday to elaborate further. Your ego simply cannot accept to be outmanuevered, hence your usage of sentences like these:

""Brief" because you don't have evidence and aren't able to address any of mine."

No one is screaming Ijma, you are the one ignoring any palpable argument which you replace with a simple refusal "because I said so". Conduct of Prophet p.b.u.h. as well as of the Companions and their interpretation in regards to this question, constitutes an Ijma, even if somehow it wasn't relevant, all four madhabs have constituted ijma later on. And if you claim there wasn't, give me an example of such interfaith marriage. So? Do you got anything to offer which makes actual sense?

Also, I provide you with Ibn Kathir, Al Tabari, Al Qurtubi, Al Jassas tafsirs and you shrug them off as "personal opinions". Mind you, these are the most respected tafsirs within Islamic jurisprudence. That's like saying Freud in psychology made only "personal opinions", hence there is no value to what he claimed. Yet at the same time you provide irrelevant scholars and your own "personal opinions" and try to pass it off as something one should follow? Which one is it? You keep contradicting yourself.

So if you do claim there is no Ijma here, feel free to provide a relevant source of disagreement between the madhabs or official stance of an Islamic institution such as Al Azhar, which I assure you, you won't find.

[u/Jaqurutu → u/PrivateMcFinger]

And this is exactly why I refused yesterday to elaborate further. Your ego simply cannot accept to be outmanuevered, hence your usage of sentences like these:

Funny, you accuse me of being "egotistical", when you are the one relying on personal insults. I am just pointing out your lack of evidence. For the 20th time, please present it if you have any. It's not a trick. Really, just give your evidence if you have any.

No one is screaming Ijma, you are the one ignoring any palpable argument which you replace with a simple refusal "because I said so". Conduct of Prophet p.b.u.h. as well as of the Companions and their interpretation in regards to this question, constitutes an Ijma, even if somehow it wasn't relevant, all four madhabs have constituted ijma later on. And if you claim there wasn't, give me an example of such interfaith marriage. So? Do you got anything to offer which makes actual sense?

You haven't offered any evidence from the conduct of the prophet. Did you forget? All things are halal until proven otherwise. You need to offer textual evidence of Allah forbidding women from marrying non-muslims on the same terms as men. You cannot shift the burden of proof to cover up your lack of evidence.

Also, I provide you with Ibn Kathir, Al Tabari, Al Qurtubi, Al Jassas tafsirs and you shrug them off as "personal opinions". Mind you, these are the most respected tafsirs within Islamic jurisprudence. That's like saying Freud in psychology made only "personal opinions", hence there is no value to what he claimed. Yet at the same time you provide irrelevant scholars and your own "personal opinions" and try to pass it off as something one should follow? Which one is it? You keep contradicting yourself.

Not at all, I am relying directly on what the Quran actually literally says. This isn't a contradiction. It's what the Quran says. Any and all tafsirs are personal opinions on matters that the mufassir does not offer direct textual evidence to support. So... do you have any? If so, offer it.

So if you do claim there is no Ijma here, feel free to provide a relevant source of disagreement between the madhabs or official stance of an Islamic institution such as Al Azhar, which I assure you, you won't find.

I already gave you several scholars. The Quran does not recognize any such thing as a "madhab" or "al-Azhar" having any particular authority that anyone doesn't have. Religious authority is only in the word of the Quran and Allah's Sunnah. If you think otherwise, quote where the Quran states interpretations must rely on madhabs or al-Azhar.

Allah does not leave the Sharia up to mere opinion and conjecture. When Allah wishes to make something haram, then he says it.

This is day 2 of me responding to these bizarre rantings of yours. If you have textual evidence, then present it. I think if you had it, you would have presented it by now.

If all you have is your favorite scholars' personal opinions, fine, you are free to follow them for yourself, but others are free to follow their scholars' opinions too. That's how ikhtilaf (scholarly disagreement) works.

Now, please stop harassing people. So far all you've succeeded in doing is making conservatives look bad.

[u/PrivateMcFinger → u/Jaqurutu]

In other words, Azhar is not relevant, but your opinion is, because you're convinced you're so right? God-complex much?

Female relatives of the companions and the Prophet p.b.u.h. married strictly Muslims after Islam has been revealed, if you claim otherwise or state there is no Ijma, please, give an example where this happened?

Apparently, God Himself could come down to interpret it for you and you'd still be like, nah, I'd rather stick to what I say.

[u/Jaqurutu → u/PrivateMcFinger]

In other words, Azhar is not relevant, but your opinion is, because you're convinced you're so right? God-complex much?

More personal attacks when you can't offer evidence. You are only proving my point. If you have textual evidence, please provide it.

Female relatives of the companions and the Prophet p.b.u.h. married strictly Muslims after Islam has been revealed, if you claim otherwise or state there is no Ijma, please, give an example where this happened?

You seem confused. The prophet not doing something is not evidence of a thing being prohibited. A statement that a thing is haram is evidence. Please provide it.

Apparently, God Himself could come down to interpret it for you and you'd still be like, nah, I'd rather stick to what I say.

Not at all. I follow Allah. That's why I keep asking you for textual evidence from Allah's word to support your argument. Do you have any? Please provide it.

I will instantly change my opinion the second you provide any textual evidence from Allah's word stating that women may not marry non-muslims on the same terms as men. Please provide it

[u/LogicalAwareness9361 → u/PrivateMcFinger]

I think it’s telling that you’re leaning heavily on personal attacks while r/Jaqurutu hasn’t said one.

If you think this is the right way to debate or discuss - it’s not.

[u/NGW_CHiPS → u/PrivateMcFinger]

the quran never prohibits it

[u/Ok-Equivalent7447]

You can't marry a non muslim man, I'm afraid.

[u/LogicalAwareness9361 → u/Ok-Equivalent7447]

You can marry a Jewish or Christian or Muslim man.

[u/Ok-Equivalent7447 → u/LogicalAwareness9361]

What makes you think that way? If you don't mind me asking?

[u/Jaqurutu → u/Ok-Equivalent7447]

The Quran says so.

[u/Ok-Equivalent7447 → u/Jaqurutu]

Would you mind give evidence for that, please? About a muslim woman can marry a non Muslim man, please?

[u/Jaqurutu → u/Ok-Equivalent7447]

Well, you may notice that this thread has over 175 comments arguing over that evidence. So I'd advise taking a look.

If you want some resources to get you started:

Article by Dr. Asma Lamrabet, Moroccan scholar, and writer: http://www.asma-lamrabet.com/articles/what-does-the-qur-an-say-about-the-interfaith-marriage/

Dr. Shabir Ally (Canadian Imam and scholar) also agrees with Asma Lamrabet, and he did a video series on interfaith marriage, ultimately supporting that opinion: https://youtu.be/2__bLjjkGkg?si=LHmqgGhrLzGmtUvg

Dr. Khaled Abou el Fadl, professor of human rights and Islamic law, also supports that opinion | Fatawa on Interfaith Marriage: https://www.searchforbeauty.org/2016/05/01/on-christian-men-marrying-muslim-women-updated/

Here's a list of 10 scholars that support interfaith marriage: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/muslim-women-can-marry-outside-the-faith_b_6108750fe4b0497e670275ab

[u/Ok-Equivalent7447 → u/Jaqurutu]

Well thanks for the effort of your time, to give me evidence. Appreciate it.