Does Islam allow Muslim men to marry Christian women?

[Caladan 19]

Catholics do not worship Mary. (There's a distinction between honoring someone and worshipping them.)

Could you elaborate on this? I'm just curious. Growing up Catholic, I feel that I most definitely worshipped Mary. I guess it depends on what you mean by worship. I might even consider the saints as being worshipped in Catholicism.

You've got the distinction between adoration and veneration right. Hey, this is the religion that invented the Jesuits. We're good at fine distinctions. In other words, it's ALL about the semantics and sometimes even about the syntax. One of these days I'm going to write a book analyzing the metaphysics of the Nicaean creed, because I swear, every. single. word. means something that a) was a result of an argument and B) likely got someone declared a heretic.

A quick explanation: basically, when you pray to Mary or the saints, it's like asking your mom or dad or friends to pray for you. Except that Mary and the saints are people who have proved that they're very holy and devout and all that jazz. But the idea is that you're asking for their intercession, not for them to grant you thus-and-such.

Also, in general, the Trinity is really bizarre and requires a mess of philosophy that doesn't always work to keep it coherent. Whether that's good enough for Islam is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

As an interesting side note, back in my undergraduate days, the professor of world religions I had said that early Muslims were most familiar with a heretical form of Christianity that said God, Jesus, and *Mary* were the Trinity, and he thought that the interpretation of Christianity as polytheist likely stemmed from that rather than the ancient & medieval philosophical interpretations.

[Nasturtium 500]

Here's the thing-- the form of Christianity your prophet would have encountered (over 90% of the time) would have been a +/-600 year old Eastern Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodox Catholicism) out of the Byzantine culture-- and LONG before he was ever around, they were full-swing into veneration of saints, Mary, and the cross-- and in fact it was part of the reason for one of the first splits in the church. So to me, the odd idea that he would have said Christianity, and really meant a few, tiny splinter/heretical groups, is really kind of insulting, don't you think? As if he had no idea what was going on in his little corner of the world? Or was it just too much work to write a few extra qualifying adjectives into the mix and was supposed to be understood? Because it seems that generally it wouldn't be too hard to put that in... and generally Muslims seem more than happy to agree that using a term like "disbelievers" means all disbelievers in Islam, and not just all of them minus this one group which has X special quality.. so what is the difference here? And wouldn't this make this portion of the Qu'ran not literal then and in fact figurative and subjective then, if it doesn't mean what it says? It would mean then only some "people of the book", and not really the mainstream ones that were hanging around at the time. I would think that given most of the Christians would have been under this trinitarian/saint veneration/cross veneration standard in the area of Muslims, that would have been something kind of important to note at the time of saying who you could and could not marry.

And as a side note-- just because someone says they are Christian, Muslim, etc doesn't mean they actually follow the tenants of that faith. A christian is literally a follower of Christ, and one of the key elements is to believe He was Messiah, God incarnate, to fulfill the law and to make atonement for the sins of men. If you couldn't hold to that, then you're not Christian just like if you cannot now believe Mohammed was a prophet, you're not Muslim no matter how hard you want to try and label yourself as such. If I said I was Muslim but didn't believe in Mohammed as a prophet, or that you needed to pray, or that the Qu'ran was actually a true book, and actually that Christ was God, wouldn't you kind of hold issue with me? Before one makes judgements involving the acceptance of what people say, it is better to know the standards to which they are accountable. Otherwise, not only will you be duped but you will also be guilty of spreading non-truth. And if one feels that to learn the history and tenants of another religion (and of the area in general about which one is speaking) is too much work or a waste of time, then it is better to not get into arguments about it.

[mybackpages 0]

Here's the thing-- the form of Christianity your prophet would have encountered (over 90% of the time) would have been a +/-600 year old Eastern Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodox Catholicism) out of the Byzantine culture-- and LONG before he was ever around, they were full-swing into veneration of saints, Mary, and the cross-- and in fact it was part of the reason for one of the first splits in the church. So to me, the odd idea that he would have said Christianity, and really meant a few, tiny splinter/heretical groups, is really kind of insulting, don't you think? As if he had no idea what was going on in his little corner of the world? Or was it just too much work to write a few extra qualifying adjectives into the mix and was supposed to be understood?

First of all, maybe its a mistake in your syntax, but you seem to be implying that the Prophet wrote the Quran and that is very very insulting to Muslims. The first sentence "he" is clearly the rophet, but then you go on and on using "he" as if you still mean the prophet. Maybe you did, but i am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Second point- Over and over it is clear in the Quran that God distnuishes between those who follow the oneness of God and those who profess faith in a trinity. OVER and OVER and OVER..how much more clear can that be?

[Nasturtium 500]

Actually, by "he" I meant God. Sorry to confuse it there-- my point was that I am assuming if it says "people of the book" it means "people of the book" and not "only these people over here that qualify with X" because it seems to be very clear on that kind of point elsewhere as you stated, doesn't it? If it in fact only allows marriage to people who do not profess a trinity (Christians), then it bans marriage with Christians, pure and simple.

Edited September 24, 2007 by julianna

[Nasturtium 500]

PS-- MBP-- just wanted to say sorry for the quickness of myt response to you-- not mad or anything but have this new boss who keeps looking over my shoulder and generally cramping my VJ posting time so I am in a huge hurry to spit out what I have to say before he starts hovering again and calling me "dear" and being all up in my personal space zone.

[Jenn! 918]

have this new boss who keeps looking over my shoulder and generally cramping my VJ posting time

what a jerk!

[doodlebug 3]

Here's the thing-- the form of Christianity your prophet would have encountered (over 90% of the time) would have been a +/-600 year old Eastern Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodox Catholicism) out of the Byzantine culture-- and LONG before he was ever around, they were full-swing into veneration of saints, Mary, and the cross-- and in fact it was part of the reason for one of the first splits in the church. So to me, the odd idea that he would have said Christianity, and really meant a few, tiny splinter/heretical groups, is really kind of insulting, don't you think? As if he had no idea what was going on in his little corner of the world? Or was it just too much work to write a few extra qualifying adjectives into the mix and was supposed to be understood? Because it seems that generally it wouldn't be too hard to put that in...

I know you just said you meant God by he but that doesn't make sense then because God knows all about what is going on not only in his little corner but in all corners. I"m confused by what you've written and who is he.

[Nasturtium 500]

his=this. "Here's the thing-- the form of Christianity your prophet would have encountered (over 90% of the time) would have been a +/-600 year old Eastern Orthodoxy (Eastern Orthodox Catholicism) out of the Byzantine culture-- and LONG before he was ever around, they were full-swing into veneration of saints, Mary, and the cross-- and in fact it was part of the reason for one of the first splits in the church. So to me, the odd idea that he would have said Christianity, and really meant a few, tiny splinter/heretical groups, is really kind of insulting, don't you think? As if he had no idea what was going on in this little corner of the world? Or was it just too much work to write a few extra qualifying adjectives into the mix and was supposed to be understood? Because it seems that generally it wouldn't be too hard to put that in..."

First He was Mohammed, second was God and inbetween I apparently left out my connecting thought which is what happens when it takes you 30 minutes or so and several tries to get out a paragraph.

Edited September 24, 2007 by julianna

[doodlebug 3]

Or was it just too much work to write a few extra qualifying adjectives into the mix and was supposed to be understood? Because it seems that generally it wouldn't be too hard to put that in..."

ok still don't get the he's but whatever. This part though just really feels like you're saying that the prophet mohammed, pbuh, had a choice on what was to go into the Quran and what wasn't. He didn't write anything, he was illiterate. He merely spoke what was given to him by the angel Gabrielle which is one of the reasons why the Quran in and of itself is supposed to be a miracle because how could an illiterate human say these things that he said and make them rhyme so beautifully as it does.

But if you still mean God, of course it wouldn't be too much work. Not like he was still pooped from creating Earth or anyting. lol

Edited September 24, 2007 by doodlebug

[Nasturtium 500]

new guy is gone for 10 minutes! Great!

So I wasn't implying that-- it was sarcasm. My point was if it was to be more specific as people are saying, then wouldn't it have been worded as so? Because obviously it is pretty clear in many parts and so I would think the same wording would be used again if the need was there-- because it is used in multiples in other places. Repetition doesn't seem to be a problem in many religious writings, does it? I am actually asking here at this point since people are pretty clear that it means non-trinitarian-peoples.

(ETA-- so there is anyone here actually willing to outright say it is haram to marry a Christian then? Since Christians are followers of Christ and believe in His divinity? And at that point would "the book" have to be the Torah alone since it is stated Christ is divine in the NT and that would have been in place for several hundreds of years by the time the Qu'ran came along? Just curious what your guys' view is on this!)

As to your question, I see no problem with an illiterate individual being able to not only memorize and entire book but also create a good rhyme and syntax. illiterate doesn't equal stupid, and nor does it mean you are not gifted in speech or creativity or story telling. In fact, many cultures without written languages show great ability in these areas. I'm still not sure why, though, this has become about what I think about the origins of the Qu'ran and Mohammed? i'm not muslim, so that should already say something right there and get you some answers you won't like if you ask about things and want my honest and non-diplomatic opinion-- same as if I asked you about my religion! My beef was with the religious and cultural history given.

Edited September 24, 2007 by julianna

[maggieNomar 0]

To the OP: All you wanted to know is whether or not you could marry this man and you started an entire debate!!

If you didn't get it already, this marriage will not work out. Even if he does come here to marry you, the pull of his mother may indeed be strong. I have read on VJ about husbands who end up leaving their american wives becaue mom said so. And the lack of photos of you with his family could be a hindering point at the interview anyways. Unfortunately I'm with the others. This is beyond whether or not you can marry. This is whether you should marry...in which case i think most of us are saying NO. Good luck with your decision and future.

[PetraPerson101 0]

have this new boss who keeps looking over my shoulder and generally cramping my VJ posting time

what a jerk!

Sounds like somebody needs a web browser more suited for that situation: http://lynx.browser.org/

[Sofiyya 1,687]

(ETA-- so there is anyone here actually willing to outright say it is haram to marry a Christian then? Since Christians are followers of Christ and believe in His divinity? And at that point would "the book" have to be the Torah alone since it is stated Christ is divine in the NT and that would have been in place for several hundreds of years by the time the Qu'ran came along? Just curious what your guys' view is on this!)

5.5 : This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

As I said before, the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity were well established Christian doctrine centuries before Islam was introduced into the Arab world. Still, the Quran makes marriage between Muslims and Christians halal, so, I'm not going to declare it haram. We are allowed to marry those who have the potential to enter heaven, and the Quran is the only Book among the Abrahamic faiths that does not limit heaven to a "chosen" people. The people who enter heaven will be chosen on the Last Day. None of us can know who will please Him and whom will not.

2.62 : Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

5.69 : Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

22.17 : Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things.

3.113 - 115 : Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.

5.48 To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

49.13 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things

The People of the Book have a special relationship with God. He directs us to strive toward His Will, but doesn't expect perfection of any of us. He is not interested in labels, but in acts. According to Allah, we all have the potential to know Him thru His mercy. It is our free will to exercise that potential or not.

[Y's_habibitk 2]

It's a family thing. Muslim men can marry "women of the book".

Edited September 25, 2007 by Lisa & Yazied

[dreamscometrue 0]

It's a family thing. Muslim men can marry "women of the book".

Ok thanks alot, especially for where in Koran it says it is allowed. Regarding the Christian/Islam debate, I could have a lot to say being a genuine "book person." Most importantly, we do not believe in three gods or idols but only one God.