Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Syed Agha

marrying a hindu

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, pandit sukiman said:

Shiaman14, you state that temporary marriage i.e. muta'h is allowed with Jew and Christian women but not permanent nikkah. My friend your position is indefensible. In muta'h, at the outset, the period for which the nikkah is to exist is fixed. In other words, the parties are aware that their nikkah is for 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 years. There is no restriction on the time limit. What if the parties decide that the period of their nikkah is 99 years? You see how easy it is to circumvent the Sharia. By making the period of marriage fixed for 99 years, it still would be nikkah muta'h because it is for a fixed period albeit it is for 99 years but in practice the nikkah muta'h will last for a life time. You must come up with a better answer than the one you have given. The fact is that the teachings of Islam were closer to Judaism and Christianity in comparison to the pagans. It is my view, allowing marriage to Christians and Jews was a political move to bring the three communities closer without compromising the Muslim society because the Shari'a did not allow the Muslim women to marry non Muslims including Jews and Christians.

@pandit sukiman The answer to your question is the simplest possible one. That we are allowed to marry the Ahlul Kitab - albeit temporarily - because their religion and beliefs are, in spirit, much closer to Islam than other religions, such as Hinduism. A marriage cannot work very well if the two parties have entirely different worldviews and while you cannot find a couple with perfectly aligned beliefs, Islam deems the difference between Muslims and the People of the Book to be negligible enough for temporary marriage while the difference between Muslims and, say, Hindus are considered far too great to be reconciled. That is the reason for the disparity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BornShia said:

Here is the Quranic verse again, which is very clear. And, don't kid yourself into believing that Sistani is above the Holy Quran. Read the Quran, very, very carefully.

Darn, here I thought Sistani was superior.

You are more than welcome to marry a Shia, a Sunni, a Jew and a Christian -  complete Pokémon set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Would I be accurate to say that such a "marriage" would actually be counted as fornication in our fiqh, and any subsequent children would be classed as walidul zinah instead of halal birth?

 

Yepp, just like bro Khadim said.

@pandit sukiman

Please make your own thread if you want to discus this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Permanent marriage to Christians and Jews is not allowed in Shia fiqh. 

Moreover, the Trinity Christians are mushrik.

It makes no difference Fiqh-wise whether those Christians believe in the trinity or not, as the they are of the same catergory. It is not a condition for the marriage, and it would be halal to marry a Christian girl (whether she believes in the trinity or not), at least for mut'a.

And secondly, permanent marriage to Christian and Jewish women is abdolutely halal according to some scholars. Sayyed al-Sistani doesn't even say it is haram unconditionally, he says it is haram as per obligatory precaution, meaning one can refer to the second most knowledgable marja.

The Fiqh views in regards to marriage with Christian and Jewish women are various, some Fuqaha said it is haram overall - temporary and permanent. Other said it is only halal in temporary marriage. Others said it is halal whether temporary or permanent.

:salam:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BornShia said:

obligatory precaution

Question: What is the difference between the terms obligatory precaution and recommended precaution that I see in the books of Islamic laws?

Answer: Obligatory and recommended precaution are two jurisprudential terms that are used in the books of Islamic law to signify two very different concepts. When a marja’ issues a ruling using the term obligatory precaution he is allowing his followers to refer to the next most knowledgeable marja’ to see what his verdict on the matter is. The reason behind this might be that he has researched the issue but has not come to a conclusive opinion about it. When a marja’ issues a ruling using the term recommended precaution, his follow has the choice of following the precaution or not, but cannot refer to another marja’.

http://www.14publications.com/question-and-answer/difference-between-obligatory-and-recommended-precaution/

Here is the Quranic verse again, which is very clear. And, don't kid yourself into believing that Sistani is above the Holy Quran. Read the Quran, very, very carefully.

You seem to think you know more than the Fuqaha? Do you even know the context for why this Verse was revealed? Do you know if this Verse is unconditional or does it have conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

Darn, here I thought Sistani was superior.

You are more than welcome to marry a Shia, a Sunni, a Jew and a Christian -  complete Pokémon set.

LOL, I will then become a Sushi :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Batman said:

It makes no difference Fiqh-wise whether those Christians believe in the trinity or not, as the they are of the same catergory. It is not a condition for the marriage, and it would be halal to marry a Christian girl (whether she believes in the trinity or not), at least for mut'a.

And secondly, permanent marriage to Christian and Jewish women is abdolutely halal according to some scholars. Sayyed al-Sistani doesn't even say it is haram unconditionally, he says it is haram as per obligatory precaution, meaning one can refer to the second most knowledgable marja.

The Fiqh views in regards to marriage with Christian and Jewish women are various, some Fuqaha said it is haram overall - temporary and permanent. Other said it is only halal in temporary marriage. Others said it is halal whether temporary or permanent.

:salam:

salaam,

That's all I was saying too - albeit much more briefly. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2016 at 7:39 PM, shiaman14 said:

That's all I was saying too - albeit much more briefly. Thanks.

Not really, you said that it was Shia Fiqh. Read the following very carefully:

On 8/11/2016 at 10:01 AM, The Batman said:

The Fiqh views in regards to marriage with Christian and Jewish women are various, some Fuqaha said it is haram overall - temporary and permanent. Other said it is only halal in temporary marriage. Others said it is halal whether temporary or permanent.

My Marja Sistani doesn't take any stand on it and therefore he calls for Obligatory precaution. I believe that you also do the taqlid of Sistani too. Here is again for you the definition of Obligatory precaution:

On 8/11/2016 at 3:48 AM, BornShia said:

obligatory precaution

Question: What is the difference between the terms obligatory precaution and recommended precaution that I see in the books of Islamic laws?

Answer: Obligatory and recommended precaution are two jurisprudential terms that are used in the books of Islamic law to signify two very different concepts. When a marja’ issues a ruling using the term obligatory precaution he is allowing his followers to refer to the next most knowledgeable marja’ to see what his verdict on the matter is. The reason behind this might be that he has researched the issue but has not come to a conclusive opinion about it. When a marja’ issues a ruling using the term recommended precaution, his follow has the choice of following the precaution or not, but cannot refer to another marja’.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BornShia said:

Not really, you said that it was Shia Fiqh. Read the following very carefully:

My Marja Sistani doesn't take any stand on it and therefore he calls for Obligatory precaution. I believe that you also do the taqlid of Sistani too. Here is again for you the definition of Obligatory precaution:

 

Sistani under whose taqleed I am too says obligatory precaution. You say that means go to the next most knowledgeable scholar. Ayatollah Bashir Al-Najafi runs the hawza and has studied in Najaf longer than Sistani. He says:

"As regards to the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (P.B.U.H.), they are impure, and it is obligatory to avoid them. Similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like prayer and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such."

 

again, instead of citing a bunch of sources I cut to the chase and summarized what most Shia Scholars say or at least the top 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BornShia said:

Not really, you said that it was Shia Fiqh. Read the following very carefully:

My Marja Sistani doesn't take any stand on it and therefore he calls for Obligatory precaution. I believe that you also do the taqlid of Sistani too. Here is again for you the definition of Obligatory precaution:

 

I already defined obligatory precaution in my previous post.

 Sayyed al-Sistani doesn't even say it is haram unconditionally, he says it is haram as per obligatory precaution, meaning one can refer to the second most knowledgable marja.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

 

Sistani under whose taqleed I am too says obligatory precaution. You say that means go to the next most knowledgeable scholar. Ayatollah Bashir Al-Najafi runs the hawza and has studied in Najaf longer than Sistani. He says:

"As regards to the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (P.B.U.H.), they are impure, and it is obligatory to avoid them. Similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like prayer and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such."

 

again, instead of citing a bunch of sources I cut to the chase and summarized what most Shia Scholars say or at least the top 2.

Shaykh Bashir Al-Najafi says temporary marriage with Kitabi women is halal. Their najasa does not affect the permissibility of the marriage (in his view).

Edited by The Batman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could people please be more careful about quoting the views of individual scholars as 'Shia fiqh' please? Especially in these marriage-type threads, we seem to to get Sayyid Sistani for example used to represent the views of all Shia scholars, as if there is unanimity. Generally, if you see him use the phrase 'out of obligatory precaution', then there is probably another scholar with a different opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2016 at 10:59 PM, The Batman said:

Shaykh Bashir Al-Najafi says temporary marriage with Kitabi women is halal. Their najasa does not affect the permissibility of the marriage (in his view).

sorry brother, talking about permanent marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...