No Interdict of Marriage to any of the People of the Book Reply to Mohammed Wagi’allah BySaeed M.

10:00 PM March, 18 2017

Sudanese Online
سعيد محمد عدنان-
My Library
Short URL

London – UK
I happened to have read an essay of Ms. A’beer Al Mujammar on 6th of February last, where she sought advice of the codifiability of a Muslim woman marrying a man from the People of the Book (Christian or Jew).
Even though this issue had been dealt with a long time ago when the late Dr. Hassan Al Turabi codified it as allowable, it occupied much of the discussions and debates of scholars and the intelligentsia then, but no general verdict was reached in public to disprove that codification, yet still I would evenly say not that any approval of it took place either, as – and always is the case of issues of religion – there are always other factors that intervene and prevent agreements, and usually are non-religious factors, yet they modify the understanding of religion, via another point of dispute that pulls the whole argument back to these factors’ centre – which is the “sanctity of the source”, exactly what I touched in your account. Hitherto, may you allow me, Ustaz Mohammed, to censure your reply, yet still I value its good dialogue interactivity and its complicity with delicate conjunction, though that conjunction I dispute.
For in your essay dated 09 February last, in response to Ms. A’beer’s query, you said:
[this is a religious legislative issue, geared to the Heavenly Revelation’s sources, not the human mental sources]
This, I agree 100%, as spirituality is essentially a worshipping of God by submission to His will in what He impose or interdict: submitting to Him by reciting His words, praising and pleading to Him (Prayers and Quran), submission to His Impositions (Zakat, Pilgrimage, Fasting and observing all His ordinances) and observing His Interdicts, all ordained in clear verses.
Yet you made an exception through another source, saying:
[of course, one cannot reject unanimous codifiability of legislature reached by Scholars of all times, for one’s contention with the power of the absolute human mind, for freedom of choice or for freedom of thought]
This I agree with so long as the codifiability of those scholars is recognised as a human effort, bearing no sanctity to privilege it with synonymous with sanctity enjoyed by religion – that is, Ordinances of the One and Only God.
And the Scholars are not only scholars in religious legislature, but also in Mathematics, in Medicine, in Genetics, in Astrology, and in any line studied and earned from any qualification to judge on in one’s field; and the effort and dedication of scholars is a research, and researches have their high tenor and leadership in reaching deep into the intricacies of humanity, but they do not enjoy any restrictive sanctity to observe.
You did mention that issue in your account, which I agree with, too:
[besides, there exists no human mind complete and all perfect, that one can entrust on it all the powers of dedication, with a resulting absolute legislative finality]
I hope you allow me to mention that you have indulged here in what would canonize the source that will derail the whole meaning, before you even know it. Dedication is often slipped into the expression of the person’s perseverance not the scholar’s dedication, where, if your account needs to hold, it should be correctly interpreted as one’s perseverance to understand, as one is responsible for one’s own interpretation and dedication to secure its righteousness in the Day of Judgement. For God said in verse 17/15 “Nor would visit with Our Wrath until We had sent a Messenger”, where He promised one would only bear responsibility when a Messenger was sent to one. God said in verse 74/38 “Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds”, so, your understanding and effort to attain a true one that endorses your will, is your achievement, of which you would be judged; judgement never be based on your submission to somebody else’s understanding, even be it from the lot of scholars. God then verified in verse 2/286 “On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear, It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns”: thus what the soul earned is what God bestowed upon it of understanding [right or wrong (i.e., case of a mentally retarded person or one with a mental disability)], what licences God allowed for, what it paid for in predicament from God, and what God forgave; all these would not be made to answer for, so long the will is pure.
As to what earned, it is what the soul sought for in research, study or encodements, and if any of these was done by somebody else, and the soul accepted it without personally reaching to them from the words of God, then, if their interpretation was wrong, one should not expect God would forgive, as one is responsible for that decision; for God contended with His source, the Quran, and it needed no other to aid it: Surah 54, verses 17, 22, 32, 40, 51: “And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition؟”
Also in Verse 18/ 49 “And the Book will be placed (before you); and thou wilt see the sinful in great terror because of what is (recorded) therein; they will say, "Ah! woe to us! what a Book is this! it leaves out nothing small or great, but takes account thereof!" they will find all that they did, placed before them: and not one will thy Lord treat with injustice.”
This way, whatever one achieves through research and encodements does not lift one’s responsibility in it, and would not stand to defend when one is summoned before God. That is the sedition of sanctifying religious sources. The only source that is sacred is God’s Message in Quran, and what Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) taught (which must be witnessed by the contender or received it from a report witnessed by at least two fare witnesses, as God ordained for truth, to avoid hearsay that may mount to insult or libel).
Then you were back to the verse that answers the dispute, saying:
[as to the legislative verdict that interdicts a Muslim Woman to marry a man from the People of the Book, is stated in this verse 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 behold chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)”]
[you continued: Here, one of its rules is that the default verdict is ‘everything is allowed unless interdicted by ordinance’ – but that does not apply to female genitals! As the default verdict is interdict, not allowance. That meant the interdict of reaching for female genitals can only be lifted by a legal marriage contract]
If marriage contract was meant ‘contracting on marriage’ that will be acceptable. Yet the addition of the word ‘legal’ worries me, that you may have meant with it the marriage certificate, in which case I would say it cannot be mentioned at all as a lift of interdict. The marriage certificate is only a document that proves what man and wife had agreed to join in matrimony, with all its rights and dues, but it has nothing to do with sin or virtue, and its presence or absence bears nothing on allowance and interdict, as marriage’s requirements are: Eligibility, True Will, Wilful Acceptance, dower, and publicity, which when fulfilled, a marriage is valid. Witnesses and parent’s agreement have no sanctity to bear, interdict or allow.
Your conclusion in this is what you stated [by applying this rule it appears clearly that no allowance was granted for marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man.]
First: what is this female genital interdict؟ Do you mean celibacy؟ Does not that apply to Male Genitals (- behold chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues)؟ So, the Chaste Women believers are to be granted marrying Chaste Men Believers. Also, a man of the book is acknowledged in Islam to have an acceptable belief, and there is no ordinance stated to interdict his marriage to a Muslim woman; and the slaughter of the People of the Book are allowed for the Muslims too. Despite some Christians place Jesus as God, but Islam has not classified them as non-monotheists (polytheists), their meat meals, unless it is a slaughter offering to other than God, is allowed for Muslims. Chaste Women of the Book are also allowed for Muslims to marry. So, how can Muslim Chaste Women’s genitals be interdicted to the Chaste Men of the Book and not interdict the Chaste Muslim Men’s genitals to Women of the Book؟ Is not that male chauvinism of the Arabs؟ Or are you basing it on that the interdict of Muslim Female genitals staying in place just because in that verse, God addressed Muslims in the male pronoun and not the female one؟
As to your argument of Muslims’ respect to sanctities of the People of the Book, more than the latter’s respect to that of the Muslims, I find it vague, as the Muslims are divided to the extent of sworn enmities between them, to Sunnis and Shiites, where they not only deny the sanctities of each other, but hold one another profane, and only for political disputes, disputes of historic times: old blood wars. They are now repeating same with Jews, avenging the displeasure caused to the Prophet (PBUH). As to your verdict on predecessors following the religion of the father: that is not true, except perhaps in Arabs Male Chauvinism, where man is held higher than woman – tribally, not Islamically. But the scientific and reality fact is the mother who up-brings the child has more influence on one, and we find it decorously portrayed in the poet Hafez Beck Ibrahim’s poem ‘The Mother’; and in religion: Jews contend with their women’s offspring but not with Jewish men’s.
Sanctity of Sources is a delicate issue requiring much care to identify, for any sanctity placed in where it should not, is synonymous polytheism
You will find many verses in the Quran asserting that the only Source and Evidence of Sanctity is delivered in a verse or verses of the Quran; here are a few:
Verses: 2/ 159, 98/ 4, 3/ 105, 67/ 8, 2/ 253, 3/ 118, 57/ 17, 2/ 87
Many more verses, and God knows Best
This essay is published in Arabic on 17.03.2017 in this link
رد على الأستاذ محمد وقيع الله في حرمة زواج المسلمة من النصراني بقلم سعيد محمد عدنان – لندن – بريط



Topics related to the subject or the author



• When the Wretch Solicits the Dud By: Saeed M. Adnan – London – U.K
• Netanyahu/ Trump: an exploiter who builds to reap for a bankrupt who dwells deep By: Saeed M. Adn
• Sudan and Trump’s Era In Reply to Sadiq Al Ruzeigi, Chair of Journalists Union By Saeed M. Adnan
• America's Absentia from world Arena 2 Qualms of Trust By Saeed M. Adnan – London–UK
• The Repercussions of America’s Absentia from World Arena
• The Repercussions of America’s Absenteeism off World Arena The New World Order by Saeed M. Adnan
• Is it a New World Order Travail؟ by Saeed M. Adnan – London – United Kingdom
• THE RELIGIOUS UNHOLY WARS From Netanyahu, Bush and Blair, to Ben Laden, Trump and ISIS

Arabic Forum