Q. I was skimming
through your website which certainly has enchanted me and I came across your
FAQ section and read through some questions and answers. First of all, no doubt
I was impressed by the answers but this FAQ concerned me. I don’t find myself agreeing
with the answer from one point. Following is my stand and concern, so please
let me know if my reading of the Qur’an is not correct in anyway.
First, when referring to Muslim women
not being granted the permission to marry non-Muslim men, the writer points to
one of the ahadith from Tirmidhi
to support that. In that hadith, there was this woman who was already
married before the advent of Islam and when she became Muslim later, she was
ordered by the Prophet to leave her non-Muslim husband. I don’t accept this hadith
which is attributed to the Prophet. Second, for further support from the
Qur’an, the writer quoted half of the verse of 60:10 with regards to the
refugee women as to not return them back to their disbelieving husbands, and
that they are not lawful to them anymore. I do not find myself agreeing with
the author’s interpretation of the verse; I feel it has been taken out of
context. The author though has given a very thorough and acceptable answer overall to the question,
but he has not done full justice in this special stance.
My reading of the Qur’an
suggests the following (bold is mine):
Verse 2:221 (Pickthall):
“...and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they
believe…”
Verse 60:10 (Pickthall):
“O ye who believe! When believing women come unto you as fugitives,
examine them. Allah is Best Aware of their faith. Then, if ye know them for
true believers, send them not back unto the disbelievers. They are not lawful
for them (the disbelievers), nor are they (the disbelievers) lawful for them...”
Many people take verse 2:221 as also
referring to People of the Book and state therefore that one cannot marry
People of the Book because they shirk too. Let’s accept that as is for this
moment (which I know the author does not and I agree with the author). First as
per my reading, Q2:221 refers to only those women who
were not married before and were already Muslims before even their marriage.
From that stance, this verse does not apply to those who were already married
before being a Muslim and only became Muslim sometime after their marriage to a
non-Muslim, with whom they may even have children while not Muslim.
Second, again as per my reading, verse 60:10
refers to those women who are fugitives. If we look into the literal meaning of
fugitive, we find that it means those who are escapees, runaways, etc. Why
would a woman, after becoming a Muslim, wish to run away from her non-Muslim husband and perhaps leave her children whom she bore with
him, especially if the husband does not oppress her? No women would,
unless and only unless they are harmed, oppressed, and tortured.
Having said that, verse 60:10 to me suggests
that it is only with regards to those women who are being oppressed and
therefore came running to have shelter under the Prophet’s umbrella, and hence
they themselves would not wish to go back, are the ones the Qur’an states not to
return them because those husbands (who are oppressors) are not lawful anymore
to them.
If my reading is correct, which
I feel it is, then the hadith mentioned from Tirmidhi
is also false as the Prophet Muhammad would be the best interpreter of the
verses of the Qur’an than any other. The problem lies with us. Many lives have been destroyed and homes have been shattered because of
this issue of marriage. There were loving and caring non-Muslim husbands (who
had over 50% chance to see the light of Islam and
become Muslim too through their wives if the ties were not broken by the
Mullahs). Such husbands were abandoned or wives eventually gave up Islam for
its harsh dictation and children were snatched or labeled haramed.
Who could live through such dilemmas? What was their crime? Only that they
became Muslims? What a huge price to pay? But doesn’t the Qur’an state that
Allah has put no hardship in the religion, and that to give glad tidings and
not let them run away?
A. Thank you for your
observations. Actually, you will note that the date for the posting was in
1994, and there has been an update since. Regarding the observations you made:
the issue of tafsir is based on sound common
sense (which you certainly demonstrate) among other things. One of those things
is also a reliable knowledge of the sitz im leben, as well as
vocabulary. When this is not there, it could lead to unintentional errors. For
example, you refer to Pickthall's version of Q2:221.
What word in the verse may we translate as "daughters"? This is his
interpretation; rather the word is "laa tunkihu" -- do not give in marriage to the
polytheists. It assumes based on the practice of the time that men were in
charge. It has nothing to do with distinction between women of the tribe and
daughters (and by translating it as daughters, Pickthall
allowed for a Hanafi interpretation which, knowingly
or unknowingly, you seem to follow in this case).
Regarding Q60:10, I agree with
all that you state for the most part. But the word muhajir
does not only mean refugee -- it could simply mean someone who wishes to
emigrate. Yet in context, refugee could be a meaning. Given that, it states:
"and if you know them to be believers, then send
them not back to the kufar." In
the case of Zeinab's marriage to al-Aas, she had come to the Prophet Muhammad. And given the
part of the verse that I just quoted, the Prophet would have, on examination of
his adult daughter, found her to be a Muslim, and could not, by Qur’anic imperative, send her back to a kafir
who was at war with the Muslims (her husband was
fighting against the Muslims). Now it is true that the hadith may be
forged, but to establish this, we must also establish (since we cannot find
fault with its chain) that it is against the Qur'an, or the spirit of the
Qur’an. We cannot do this, and so cannot reject the hadith on the basis
that it seems to go against the Qur’an, for a full study of the verses show
that it does not. I would agree, however, that we are speaking of kufar who were at war with Islam, which is different
to a situation where there is NO war declared because of religious reasons, for
then, the covenants made with those parties would have to be respected. Until
that time, the Prophet had allowed her to stay with her husband; when there was
war, and when she came to the Muslims to give her mother's bangle as ransom,
she spoke to her father, now in the capacity of a Muslim woman whose husband
and his tribe were at war with the Muslims -- in which case, her father had to
follow the Qur’anic rule.
The hadith scenario, therefore,
fulfills the Qur’anic stipulation of prohibiting the
return of the muhajir to the Muslims. Do note too that in her case, the concept of muhajir was fulfilled linguistically. She was a Meccan, and the battle was at Badr.
The point about a woman running away for her husband, etc., is well taken, but
it is also possible that if her husband denies her new religion, fights against
it, vilifies her, and teases her based on her conviction, she may choose to
walk out. After all, the Qur'an does tell us that children, etc., under
circumstances, could be a test. We are not justifying leaving children behind;
we are simply stating that the depth of a woman's conviction could make the
choice seem rather easy, religion over kin. How many Muslim converts to Islam
have not given up their parents, etc.? And similarly, converts to Christianity
have broken ties with their families.
The last paragraph of your
question is to be taken in a contemporary context, for in medieval times,
marriage meant more than just the creation of a family: it also had to do with
clans, etc. In today's world, your suggestion is cogent: unless there is a
situation where the wife is being belittled and denied, one should not seek to
break a marriage, conducted wherein both parties respect each other, regardless
of religion. Just a point: like you, I often quote that Allah has not created
hardship in religion. But if you read in context, you will see that the verse
is in regards to fasting: itself a difficult thing in certain circumstances. It
is that same God who tells us that we must be witnesses for God, even against
our parents. That latter one is a difficulty, understood by the verse that God
does not tax anyone beyond his/her ability. I am trying to point out that
"hardship and difficulty" are not to be avoided because they are problematic.
Sometimes they are, and we have to face them, which is why there were martyrs,
etc.
Fazlur Rahman's methodology states that the Qur’an never claimed
its laws are permanent and that situations dictate judgments. Most scholars
disagree stating that the rule only applies to non-Qur’anic
rulings. Anyway, we have to be careful that we do not IMPOSE twenty-first
century ideas when reading a seventh century text. I truly thank you for
your observations and the fact that you drew to my attention that the article
needs to be updated. Let me reiterate that along with your view, I feel that
there is no need to end a marriage where there is respect, regardless of
religious differences, on the sole condition that both parties agree not to
force the other to convert, or disparage the other's religion. We have evolved from the time when male
values alone governed society, and it is time that we bring into play that
which promotes harmony and pluralism.
Posted
September 23, 2005