Talk:Interfaith marriage

Christianity

I have removed the assertion from the introduction that Christianity 'traditionally forbids' interfaith as I can find no evidence of any denomination actually doing so. Only Catholics and Eastern Orthodox denominations have specific rules on the subject and they allow it. In fact the Pauline privilege seems to give an indirect support of such marriages in both Catholic and Protestant traditions. If anybody can find any evidence of a denominations with a clear, or even effective de facto prohibition, please cite it. The evidence to the contrary for the vast majority of Christian sects and denominations is overwhelming. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"In The Bible"

This entire section (most of which cites only the Bible itself) relies, apparently, on the documentary hypothesis combined with a deeply flawed understanding of Hebrew. I don't even know how it can be usefully distinguished from the Judaism section. 69.238.167.95 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith

Jeff3000, what do you mean by "encouraged"? Are Bahai bachelors encouraged to find a non-Bahai bride? -Lev 20:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lev is right; interreligious is not "encouraged" in the Baha'i Faith, as it is not "discouraged" too. The right statement could be mentioning "permitted" only, keeping "encouraged" for Baha'i interracial marriages, as the main Baha'i artcile suggests. -DamonM, 2 July 2005

Islam

Am I right in assuming that a Muslim may marry any dhimmi woman, or is this law specific to Jewish and Christian women? – Lev 18:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) Interreligious marriage is marriage (either religious or civil) between partners professing different religions.

The WP article on Safiyya bint Huyayy, Muhammad's Jewish wife, says that she converted to Islam before marrying him. If so, it doesn't have anything to do with interreligious marriage. Can anyone confirm that she converted?

It is forbidden for a muslim woman to get married with a non-muslim, proof: sourate albaqarah 221 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.216.146 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all reasons are based on bigotry

I really objected to the supposedly liberal discussion of this subject. Some people assume that the only reasons people avoid intermarriage are bigotry. (Perhaps non-religious liberals might feel superior by imaginging this to be so?) In fact, there are actual reasons not based on bigotry that people might view intermarriage as forbidden or unwise.

• Many religions view their rules on marriage as commandments from God. This is true for Jews and Muslims.

• Some religions view themselves as a priestly people, with a specific mission to carry out. This is true for Jews, who see themselves as a priestly people, a people chosen to be in a covenant with God, which requires a family to be Jewish.

• Many religions allow their adherents to marry someone from outside of their faith if the partner converts. Therefore, in practice, there is no ban or stigma.

• Many people believe that introducing two contradictory belief systems into a marriage is grounds for marital strife, and increases the rate of divorce. In fact, I have come across a number of statistical studies which prove this. I've even seen a married man (Jew) and woman (Christian) which show why true religious intermarriage is fraught with danger. The woman continually felt that her husband was doomed to die, and burn in Hell, because he did not accept Jesus as his saviour and messiah. The stress this causes was palpable.

• Many people believe that having parents of two opposing religions causes psychological stress on the children in such a marriage, as they often are effectively forced to choose one parent over another. In fact, I have come across a number of statistical studies which prove this.

I think the article reflects many of these reasons -- though I agree that the current tone of the article is somewhat negative about prohibitions on intermarriage. Also, you can sign your posts with four tildes. :) Savant1984 06:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Judaism and Intermarriage

1) The Conservative quotation badly needs to be cited.

Good point! The Source is from the Leadership Council of Conservative Judaism, Statement on Intermarriage. Adopted on March 7, 1995

Statement on Intermarriage. Leadership Council of Conservative Judaism

2) "Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism discourage intermarriage, but have no formal rules forbidding it." This is very misleading, since it is true only in the sense that Reform Judaism, by its very nature, has virtually no "formal rules" regarding anything about personal conduct of a Jewish life. Intermarriage is condemned universally by its offical bodies. Savant1984 06:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what is misleading about the sentence. I don't se any contradiction between what you wrote and what I wrote. Not only does Reform not have any formal rules against intermarriage, but actively Christian spouses of Reform Jews are counted as "Reform Jews" when Reform Judaism counts its membership. (see the article on Reform Judaism.) RK 20:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's misleading since it implies a neutrality in the movement's position (since there are no "rules" forbidding marrying Gentiles) which doesn't really exist. It would be like saying that the movement has no "rules" about prayer -- true enough, but misleading since it clearly does have liturgical standards and viewpoints. Also, while Gentile spouses may be counted as synagogue members by the URJ, they certainly wouldn't be counted as Reform Jews by the CCAR, as the Responsa literature makes clear. Savant1984 20:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this as a revision of the sentence: "Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism discourage intermarriage, but, since they do not view halacha as binding, have no mechanism for legal prohibition of the practice in the manner of the Conservative and Orthodox movements." Savant1984 20:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. RK 19:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

More specificity needed on Christian views of interreligious marriage

The text says "Some Christian denominations forbid interreligious marriage."

I think we need to be more specific here. Which Protestant denominations approve/forbid interreligious marriage? A list is warranted here, though I do not have enough knowledge of the various Protestant faiths to include a comment here. We need some more contributions from insiders in each denomination.

Also, why is the statement "Most religions prohibit interreligious marriage" here. It seems based on the descriptions that all of the faiths mentioned allow interreligious marriage to a certain extent. That is to say, there is not one universal view agianst it. So I don't know where this comes from. If no one explains the quote, I will eliminate it.

I also have a problem with the statement "Many Christians believe that anyone has the freedom to choose her or his partner for life, and that love has no boundaries. This attitude is found most often among those who may be identified as "nominal" Christians." The author needs to expound on this. It seems like a generalization.

Definitely needs more names. Goldfritha 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re response to edit citing "false information"

With all due respect, I am making a challenge to all who hold that there is no validity to the claim that the Quran and Sunnah did not prohibit Muslim women from marriage with ahl al kitab men, and that fiqh rulings on the subject are not cultural. Post the prohibition from the Sunnah, the tradition of the Prophet and the Quran to support that view. I am not denying that there has been held to be a prohibition, and Qikipedia is not the place to post partisan pov. It is intended to provide an HONEST look at positions that have been presented as Islamic which are little more than cultural adaptations not binding on all Muslims.

I was instructed to be bold, and that I am being.

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

A revision that I made to the section about marriage that, before editing, stated that Muslim women are forbidden from marriage with men other than Muslim men has been cited as contradicting an about.islam.com article. I'm not sure how about.islam became the measure of what is Islamic, but I'll play along. This is the article, with emphasis added by me:

Interfaith Marriage in Islam

The Qur'an lays out clear guidelines for marriage. One of the main traits you should look for in a potential spouse is a similarity in religious outlook. For the sake of compatibility, and the upbringing of future children, it is most recommended for a Muslim to marry another Muslim. However, in some circumstances it is permissible for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim.

Muslim Man and Non-Muslim Woman

In general, Muslim men are not permitted to marry non-Muslim women. "Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you.... Unbelievers beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the garden of bliss and forgiveness. And He makes His signs clear to mankind, that they may receive admonition" (Qur'an 2:221).

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to 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 you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

The children of such a union are always to be raised in the faith of Islam. This should be discussed thoroughly by the couple before they decide to marry.

Muslim Woman and Non-Muslim Man

Under no conditions is a Muslim woman permitted to marry anyone but a Muslim man. The same verse cited above (2:221) mentions, "Nor marry your girls to unbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever...." No exception is given for women to marry Jews and Christians, so the law stands that she may only marry a believing (Muslim) man. As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values.

My comments:

Despite the claims of this article, which contradicts itself, there is no basis for creating a prohibition against Muslim women marrying men of the Book in the Quran nor in the Sunnah. First of all, an "exception" for men in the Quran would mean that the Quran has been abrogated from its original Message since the advent of Islam in the time of Adam, the first Prophet of Islam. Abrogation is a highly debatable position to take when dealing with the Holy Book.

Second, a basic principle of Islamic jurisprudence is the asl al-deen: The halal is that which Allah has made lawful in His Book and haram is that which He has forbidden, and that concerning which He is silent He has permitted as a favour to you.* Since ayah 2:221, as referred to by the article, prohibits marriage to 'idolaters' for both Muslim men and Muslim women, one need provide further support for the supposition that Christians and Jews (ahl al kitab) are 'idolaters', ie, committing shirk, requiring an exception for any Muslim to marry among them.

Since the Quran states repeatedly that no 'idolaters' will be rewarded for their rejection of faith and failure to submit to His Will, one way we can determine if ahl al kitab are included among them is to research who are those that Allah says can possibly be included.

[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 God 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 God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So, clearly, the group "ahl al kitab" is not among those who are lost.

An excerpt from the article states:

An exception is made for Muslim men to marry chaste or pious Jewish and Christian women, who are referred to as "People of the Book." This comes from the understanding that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc. "This day are all things good and pure made lawful to you.... Lawful to 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 you give them their due dowers, and desire chastity not lewdness. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost" (Qur'an 5:5).

There is a contradiction inherent in the statement that Jews and Christians share similar religious outlooks - a belief in One God, following the commandments of Allah, a belief in revealed scripture (Books), etc., so Muslim men can marry their women, but Muslim women can't marry their men using the same ayah that prohibits both men and women from marriage with 'idolaters'. No debatable, man-made abrogation is required.

5:5 is referred to as the ayah that created the "exception" for men.

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).

However, since no exception is needed, does the explicit permission granted here constitute a prohibition for women? The general rule is that as the majority of law giving in the Quran is directed to men, they is also extended to women. For example, I know from hadith that many of the foods of the ahl al kitab are permissible to me, a woman, if I say 'Bismillah' over it before I eat. This permission is embeded in an ayah that we are told limits interfaith marriage to men, yet doesn't limit eating the food of the ahl al kitab to men.

There is no prohibition in the Quran nor the Sunnah against Muslim women marrying ahl al kitab men. That comes from fiqh law, and can, thus, be considered to be mukruh rather than impermissible. Fiqh law also considers marriage between Muslim men and non-Muslim women living in the west to be mukruh, but that is rarely cited, creating the impression that the same source , fiqh, can be taken so seriously that it can create sinful acts for women that Allah did not, or be completely ignored when ruling against a privilege for men.

I have examples of the above and regarding challenges to the tradtion, which is based on Arab patriarchy and the concept that women follow the lead of men, which is not Quranic, but tribal. The assertion in the article that "As head of the household, the husband provides leadership for the family. A Muslim woman does not follow the leadership of someone who does not share her faith and values." is very telling of this tradition. In Islam, women follow the leadership of God, not man. The requirments for doing so are the same for both:

[33.35] For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

Challenges to the law

Fatwa by Dr. Abou El Fadl: On Christian Men marrying Muslim Women

Source: http://www.scholarofthehouse.com/oninma.html

As-Salaam-Alaikum:

I don't mean to bother you but this is disturbing my mind and I need an educated explanation.

I was at a Muslim Sister's Fashion Show (predominately African American sisters) when during casual conversation a young sister (mid 20s) stated that her husband is Christian. This as you can image created quite a stir. She was immediately verbally attacked. She tried to defend herself by saying that he did not prohibit her from practicing Islam and he has agreed that the children will be Muslim. She was advised to divorce him.

I don't know if they were married and she converted or if she was already Muslim when they married. She was under such a heavy attack that I could not get that question in. However this issue is one that I need to understand because I can't adequately explain why there is a prohibition for the Muslim female in marrying from the people of the book and there is no prohibition for the Muslim male. More often than not I hear all non Muslims classified as kufar.

The only explanation I can provide is that the Quran specifies that the male can marry a Christian or Jewish woman. Since he is the head of the household the expectation is that he will respect her rights and the children will take his religion. Really in actuality from what I've seen this is not the case. The woman has so much pressure put on her to abandon her beliefs that she eventually gives in or gets out of the marriage.

I have been asked does the Quran specifically prohibit the Muslim woman from marrying a Christian or Jewish male. My understanding is the only specific prohibition is for polytheist. Am I wrong?

This is a big issue for African Americans especially because of the rate of conversion. There are instances where the husband converts and the wife does not. This is not seen as a problem. However there are instances where the wife converts and the husband does not. It doesn't matter whether they have been together 2 years or 20 years, the advice the sister receives is to divorce him.

. . .

[Name withheld for privacy]

Al-salamu 'alaykum sister:

First I should apologize for the long time it has taken me to respond to your message. As you might have heard, I have been rather ill. But on a happier note, recently we were blessed with a wonderful baby boy.

But I should confess that there is another reason for the delay. This is a difficult issue to deal with. I did receive a large number of inquiries about this same issue, and I have tended to avoid responding to them because I am not exactly very excited about handling this weighty and serious problem.

Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them.

All jurists agreed that a Muslim man or woman may not marry a mushrik [one who associates partners with God--there is a complex and multi-layered discourse on who is to be considered a mushrik, but we will leave this for a separate discussion]. However, because of al-Ma'ida verse 5, there is an exception in the case of a Muslim man marrying a kitabiyya. There is no express prohibition in the Qur'an or elsewhere about a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi. However, the jurists argued that since express permission was given to men, by implication women must be prohibited from doing the same. The argument goes: If men needed to be given express permission to marry a kitabiyya, women needed to be given express permission as well, but since they were not given any such permission then they must be barred from marrying a kitabi.

The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands') religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

Importantly, the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i jurists held that it is reprehensible (makruh) for Muslim men to marry a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries. They argued that in non-Muslim countries, mothers will be able to influence the children the most. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the children will not grow up to be good Muslims unless both parents are Muslim. Some jurists even went as far as saying that Muslim men are prohibited from marrying a kitabiyya if they live in non-Muslim countries.

This is the law as it exists or the legal legacy as we inherited it. In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong. Muslim jurists took a very strong position on this matter--many of them going as far as saying if a Muslim woman marries a kitabi she is as good as an apostate. I think, and God knows best, that this position is not reasonable and the evidence supporting it is not very strong. However, I must confess that in my humble opinion, I strongly sympathize with the jurists that argued that in non-Muslim countries it is reprehensible (makruh) for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim. God knows best--I have reached this position after observing that the children of these Muslim/non-Muslim marriages in most cases do not grow up with a strong sense of their Islamic identity. It seems to me that in countries like the U.S. it is best for the children if they grow up with a Muslim father and mother. I am not comfortable telling a Muslim woman marrying a kitabi that she is committing a grave sin and that she must terminate her marriage immediately. I do tell such a woman that she should know that by being married to a kitabi that she is acting against the weight of the consensus; I tell her what the evidence is; and then I tell her my own ijtihad on the matter (that it is makruh for both men and women in non-Muslim countries). After telling her all of this, I add that she must always remember that only God knows best; that she should reflect on the matter as hard as she can; then she should pray and plead for guidance from God; and then ultimately she must do what her conscience dictates.

I hope this response helps answer your question. I pray to God to guide us both to what He pleases and wants, and that He helps the sister you wrote me about to find peace and tranquility with whatever decision she makes. God is the best guide and mentor--may He forgive our sins and bless us with His Compassion and Mercy.

With my sincere regards,

Shaykh Khaled Abou El Fadl

Imam Khaleel Mohammed's fatwa regarding inter-faith marriage for Muslim women

"The verse that is traditionally used by imams to prohibit an inter-religious marriage is Qur'an 5:5, which states: 'This day, all innately good things are lawful for you... Lawful to you are the chaste women from among those who have been given the Book before you...' Traditional imams contend that since women are mentioned, and men are not, then it must be understood that the marriage of Muslim women with non-Muslim men is forbidden.

This, however, is problematic. For the Qur'an is addressed, because of the custom of the time, to men. It is for this reason that the Qur'an says, for example, "And when you divorce your wives..." or "During the nights of fasting [Ramadan] you may have sex with your wives..." What do I mean by the custom of the time? In the tribal context, the woman, once married, accepted the husband as master. He, in turn, accepted the religion of his tribal chief.

Given that reality, a whole host of issues arose for Muslim scholars -- issues that made them oppose inter-religious marriages for women. One issue was, whereas Muslims honor the non-Muslim prophets, followers of the other two monotheistic religions do not honor Muhammad, and that would put the Muslim woman in the terrible position of having her prophet disrespected. Another issue was that most Christians see Jesus as God, and for a Muslim to attribute divinity to a human in unthinkable. Then, too, there was the problem of the children from such a marriage, who would presumably be brought up in the religion of the male spouse.

But remember that all of these 'issues' assume the woman must take the faith of her non-Muslim husband, and that is clearly not the case in your relationship. You live in a different time and a different place.

To be sure, most Muslims would argue that the Qur'an is true for all time and all places. If we go by that logic, then we must acknowledge that the Qur'an is still sympathetic to your dream of marrying a Christian man. Even though he is a Christian, the Qur'an does not hold that against him. For while mentioning that there are Christians who take Jesus as God, Islam's main document calls this 'kufr' (disbelief/ingratitude) rather than 'shirk' (polytheism). It's a significant distinction because, in another verse, the Qur'an also states that Christians who do good deeds have the right to enter heaven. Christian creedal beliefs are the same for both male and female followers of Christianity, so how can the Qur'an allow marriage to the Christian woman but not to the Christian man?

The evidence indicates that the main hang-up is the problem I emphasized above -- that the religion of the male spouse becomes dominant (as also evidenced in the Book of Ruth in the Hebrew Bible). In our day, since Qur'anic Islam (as opposed to the Islam of the male jurists) must acknowledge the radical notion that women are equals of men, that women have legal rights, and that those rights include placing conditions on the marriage (what you and I would term a 'pre-nuptial agreement'), then an inter-faith marriage can take place on condition that neither spouse will be forcibly converted to the other's religion. As long as that condition is respected, you and she have my blessing.

On the question of children, certainly there will be some religious confusion. But as a Muslim scholar, I can tell you that the Qur'an advocates the use of the heart and mind in forming opinions. If both parents are faithful to their interpretations of the Creator's will, then the children will make informed decisions when they come of age.

...

Dr. Khaleel Mohammed studied Sharia at Muhammad bin Saud University in Riyadh (Sunni) and the Zeinabiyya in Damascus (Shia). He holds a Ph.D. in Islamic law from McGill University.

Asharq Al-Awsat Interviews Sudanese Islamist leader Dr. Hassan Turabi

24/04/2006 By Imam Mohamed Imam

London, Asharq Al-Awsat- The following is the full text of the controversial interview that Asharq al-Awsat conducted with Sudanese Islamist leader Dr. Hassan Turabi, which resulted in him being branded an apostate by Sudan's Muslim scholars:

Q) Fatwas that you have issued, regarding the permissibility of marriage between a Muslim woman and a man of the Christian or Jewish persuasion, have been the subject of much controversy. Do you mean that married women who converted to Islam can remain married to a non-Muslim husband, or that a Muslim woman can marry a non-Muslim man?

A) First, we have to look at the context of this matter particularly from the framework of Ijtihad when it comes to the general issues of women in Islam. The modern and contemporary Islamic discourse on women lags far behind the authentic Islamic rules and principles as contemporary Muslims do not think deeply about these principles when it comes to the marriage of their daughters.

The fatwa was a response to issues in the Muslim community in the United States. There was an incident in which an American woman went to one of the Islamic centers to convert; however, she wanted to remain married to her non-Muslim husband after she converted. The center's officials told her that if she was sincere in her desire to become a Muslim that she would begin divorce procedures, despite the huge costs and even if this meant that she would lose custody of her children. They did not consider that this was too much to ask from someone who was still taking their first steps towards Islam. Such an attitude in fact causes many women to be reluctant to convert.

Of course, before issuing the edict, I had to undertake a lot of research concerning Islamic law, particularly by reading books on Islamic jurisprudence that were written at certain historical intervals. All the past fatwas that prohibited the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men were issued during periods in which political disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims were taking place. On the other hand, I could not find a single word that prohibited such marriage in either the Quran or the Sunnah.

In the particular case of the woman who wanted to convert in the United States, my opinion was that she should have remained married to the non-Muslim man. She may have been the reason that her non-Muslim husband converted. Perhaps even other families of female American converts would have followed the same path. Many people were perplexed by what I said and attacked me for it. Some even decided that I was now an infidel! They depicted the whole issue as if it was a matter of honor. However, if you look at it objectively, the conversion and Islamic conduct of the wife may have positively influenced the husband, an influence that the Muslims of the West need.

We should let the Muslim minorities, who live amongst the 'People of the Book' in the west, evaluate this issue and decide what is appropriate for them, as they are the first group affected. They would conclude that they should allow their daughters to marry Jews and Christians because perhaps these marriages will bring the husbands to Islam or else the women may remain a Muslim. In the West, the individual freedoms are generally wider and the Western Muslims to decide when it comes to this issue especially.

Q) So are you saying that women who converted to Islam can remain married to their non-Muslim husbands, but that a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man is forbidden?

A) No, I had spoken previously about this type of marriage and I believe that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is valid since nothing in the Quran or Sunnah dictates otherwise. The decision should also be based on the individuality of each case therefore; I cannot say this type of marriage is prohibited based on the accumulated teachings of past scholars.

These teachings for example tell us that Ijmaa (consensus) is the consensus of jurists at any given age but the Quran says is different. The same accumulated sayings of scholars also recommended that we should obey the ruler even if he seized power by force. The Quran does not approve of this. We should always refer to the origins that are Quran and Sunnah.

Source: http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=4678

I have not yet learned how to add citations or to do some of the fancy things available here, but I will learn. I would appreciate it if the cultural aspects that have been incorporated in Islam and which constitute ethno-Arab traditional interpretations can be discerned without the dependence on websites as the arbitors. As Dr. Turabi said, we should always refer to the origins that are Quran and Sunnah, and no prohibition against intefaith marriage for Muslimas can be found there.

I can add more historical context, if requested.

Humbly submitted FOA 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reported in Al-Hakim, classified as sahih (sound)

Human Rights instruments

Researching for this part of the article, I have found the following remarkable facts - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the only human rights instrument to specifically state that inter-faith marriage is a right. The closest that any other instrument gets to recognizing it as a right is the American Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights has a right to marry and a further clause later on saying that no rights shall be denied on the basis of religion. The Arab Charter on Human Rights, Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, and African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights do not contain language protecting interfaith marriages, that I can find. The treatment of interfaith marriages in human rights law warrants further investigation in this article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Interfaith marriage in non-major religions

This article sorely needs fleshing out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.223.54 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No references to Interfaith marriages in history?

This omission is a major weakness in this article. There are countless examples of interfaith marriages in history. To name a few from off the top of my head, they include Clovis I & Clothilde, Æthelberht & Bertha of Kent in the early Middle Ages; in the late Byzantine period, Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos married at least two of his daughters to pagans & Moslems for political gain, as did Emperor Alexios III of Trebizond. I know there are Muslim examples also. Sometimes these were political acts, sometimes they were done because the religious differences weren't that important at the time, sometimes because there weren't enough members of one religion to find partners. But the history of this practice needs to be discussed in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interfaith marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614045804/http://travel.state.gov:80/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_931.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_931.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hinduism

Can someone who knows a bit more about Hinduism refine that section for readability. The sentence structure and spelling need quite a bit of work, however I am afraid to fix it without knowing exactly what was meant.209.65.56.40 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interfaith marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901212226/http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/family/marriage/174258-marriage-to-a-christian-woman-unrestrictedly-permitted.html to http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/family/marriage/174258-marriage-to-a-christian-woman-unrestrictedly-permitted.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130228192858/http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/society-and-family/interfaith-issues/461537-can-a-muslim-women-marry-a-non-muslim-man.html to http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/society-and-family/interfaith-issues/461537-can-a-muslim-women-marry-a-non-muslim-man.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sikhism

This could use a section on Sikhism - and indeed the encyclopedia lacks an article from which to take the summary. It is particularly relevant in light of protests against mixed marriages, see Gurdwara_Sahib_Leamington_and_Warwick#Conflict. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism and interfaith marriages

The text in the article does not address interfaith marriages at all.

Interfaith marriages of Hindus with Sikhs/Buddhists/Jains of the same caste have always been permitted throughout history. The Sikh Rehat Maryada of 1945 allows a marriage of a Sikh man and a Hindu woman ("A Sikh’s daughter must be married to a Sikh"). See http://old.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_four_chap_eleven.html. Khalsa rules prohibit a Sikh man to marry/have relationship with a Muslim woman (unless she converts).

In India, an interfaith religious marriage among Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists is legally recognized according to the Hindu Code bill. Those involving marriage of a Hindu with a Christian or Muslim require a civil marriage. Overseas, interfaith marriages involve often dual ceremonies one after the other. Hinduism does not insist on "conversion" as a requirement for someone to become a Hindu (although some sects like Arya samaj has a "shuddhi" procedure). Malaiya (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interfaith marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903010038/http://joi.org/library/research/rabbis.shtml to http://joi.org/library/research/rabbis.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017192010/http://www.dovetailinstitute.org/ to http://www.dovetailinstitute.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Interfaith marriage

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Interfaith marriage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AWMC2014":

• From Interfaith marriage in Christianity: The Discipline of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection (Original Allegheny Conference). Salem: Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection. 2014. p. 33.
• From Christian views on divorce: The Discipline of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection (Original Allegheny Conference). Salem: Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection. 2014. p. 21.
• From Baptism: The Discipline of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection (Original Allegheny Conference). Salem: Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection. 2014. p. 140.
• From Separation of church and state: The Discipline of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection (Original Allegheny Conference). Salem: Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection. 2014. pp. 37–38.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)