Print Page | Close Window

Marriage

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: General Discussion
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24352
Printed Date: 23 April 2014 at 9:45pm


Topic: Marriage
Posted By: Nyasia
Subject: Marriage
Date Posted: 21 November 2012 at 3:12am
The Prophet says, “No house has been built in Islam more beloved in the sight of Allah than through marriage.”

On another occasion the Prophet (s.a.) said,

“The best people of my nation (Ummat) are those who get married and have chosen their wives, and the worst people of my nation are those who have kept away from marriage and are passing their lives as bachelors.”
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
A person, fully capable of marrying (physically and mentally capable), keeps away from marriage. Reason, the person cannot marry the person of his/her choice. Is it a sin not getting married in this situation?



Replies:
Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 23 November 2012 at 1:13am
We should respect people who decide not to get married. We should certainly not call them the "worst people" of a nation in my opinion.

-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: W.S.
Date Posted: 25 November 2012 at 3:21am

Originally posted by Nyasia

“The best people of my nation (Ummat) are those who get married and have chosen their wives, and the worst people of my nation are those who have kept away from marriage and are passing their lives as bachelors.”
What if you're a freak? What if you can't afford to get married?
Originally posted by Nyasia

A person, fully capable of marrying (physically and mentally capable), keeps away from marriage. Reason, the person cannot marry the person of his/her choice. Is it a sin not getting married in this situation?
 
I think most people would answer No to that question, even if getting married might be preferable.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 25 November 2012 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

We should respect people who decide not to get married. We should certainly not call them the "worst people" of a nation in my opinion.



Matt,
you have right to your opinion, but what is said above is Islamic understanding based in Quran and Sunnah. Your, mine or Tom's opinion does not alter nor move it.
Marriage is the only way for two adults of opposite sex to come in contact with each other. Anything else will be against the will of God. We are best of God's creation, and God has given us best of rules to conduct our lives to distinguish us from lesser in degree of His creation.

Others can compromise, change, alter, or leave their religious teachings to ever changing new ideas, but in Islam only God has such authority, if God decide to give us new rules or to change the existing ones He will let us know which means never as what we have with us is the Final Testament (the Quran), no new revelation will follow it.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 6:49am
Hasan,
Our opinion matters when Muslims who live in our countries become victims of discrimination with conservative Muslims being the perpetrators. The victims in this case are unmarried Muslims. The Islamic understanding based in the Quran and Sunnah must take the historical context into account. Otherwise today's Muslims have a duty to reintroduce slavery and follow the rules of the Quran how to treat slaves. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd to illustrate my point:

Question: "The question of what the Muslim attitude to violence is still one that very much preoccupies the West. You recently pointed out that recourse to the Qur'anic Surahs is totally misleading in today's context.

Abu Zayd: "Of course, the Qur'an sometimes uses very strong language in its exhortations to fight. Researchers have to question why the Qur'an employs such strong, persuasive language in this case. The context is crucial here. The Arabs who believed in Muhammad were to be convinced of the need to fight against their own families and, in so doing, reject pre-Islamic traditions. So it was forbidden for an individual to fight against his own tribe. But the arrival of Muhammad as prophet drew so many members of various tribes to him. When the time came for them to defend their new community, the threat came from their own tribes. The uncompromising tone of the Qur'an is understandable here. Islam was not born out of a world empire; it arose from a world of tribal tradition, tribal laws and pagan rules. Blood bonds and tribal ties did not hold the new community together. They came, after all, from many different tribes. They came together into a new kind of tribe, one that from the beginning was locked in conflict with other tribes. They had to defend themselves. All of this formed the Qur'an. It is very much a product of its formative influences. We cannot understand the Qur'an without knowledge of the historical background. I see my work as part of my long interest in Islamic hermeneutics, the methodology of understanding the Qur'an, the Sunnah and other components of the Islamic tradition. Of particular concern for me are certain assumptions in popular Islamic discourse that have not been fully examined, and have generally been ignored or avoided. Thus, for instance, Muslim scholars have not seriously reflected on the question of what is actually meant when we say that the Qur'an is the revealed Word of God. What exactly does the term Word of God mean? What does revelation mean? We have the definitions of the word and revelation given by traditional scholars, but other definitions are also possible. When we speak of the Word of God, are we speaking of a divine or a human code of communication? Is language a neutral channel of communication? Was the responsibility of the Prophet simply that of delivering the message, or did he have a role to play in the forming of that message? What relation does the Qur'an have with the particular social context in which it was revealed? We need to ask what it means for the faith Muslims have in the Qur'an if one brings in the issue of the human dimension involved in revelation."

Question: "Are you suggesting that the Qur'an cannot be understood without taking into account the particular social context of seventh century Arabia? In other words, are there aspects of the Qur'an that were limited in their relevance and application only to the Prophet's time, and are no longer applicable or relevant today?"

Abu Zayd: "What I am suggesting is that in our reading of the Qur'an we cannot undermine the role of the Prophet and the historical and cultural premises of the times and the context of the Qur'anic revelation. When we say that through the Qur'an God spoke in history, we cannot neglect the historical dimension, the historical context of seventh century Arabia. Otherwise you cannot answer the question of why God first 'spoke' Hebrew through his revelations to the prophets of Israel, then Aramaic, through Jesus, and then Arabic, in the form of the Qur'an. In a historical understanding of the Qur'an one would also have to look at the verses in the text that refer specifically to the Prophet and the society in which he lived. Some people might feel that looking at the Qur'an in this way is a crime against Islam, but I feel that this sort of reaction is a sign of a weak and vulnerable faith. And this is why a number of writers who have departed from tradition and have pressed for a way of relating to the Qur'an that takes the historical context of the revelation seriously have been persecuted in many countries. I think there is a pressing need to bring the historical dimension of the revelation into discussion, for this is indispensable for countering authoritarianism, both religious and political, and for promoting human rights."

So we should debate the role of marriage in 7th century Arabia, in my opinion. We should compare this context to today's context. Today we reject slavery and for the same reason we should reject calling unmarried people the "worst people" of a nation. If we allow this, we are guilty of discrimination and in European Union countries discrimination is a serious offense which might result in a legal complaint.






-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 7:18am
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Hasan,
Our opinion matters when Muslims who live in our countries
 
Matt has become quite adept at the "pivot" in discussions, turning almost anything into an us against them - east vs. west (and never shall the twain meet) screed.  Whether you like it or not Muslims have become, and are indeed citizens of "our" countries.  Muslims, like others, have a right to religious protection under the law and to not be subjected to xenophobia.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 11:40am
Matt,
before I invest my time in reading your long post, who is
Abu Zayd?
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 11:44am
One more thing Matt, if I may ask. Do you think God gave us rules so we follow them? or you think God gave us rules so we can bend and change them according to our thinking and needs?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 28 November 2012 at 6:01am
Originally posted by Matt Browne




Hasan,Our opinion matters when Muslims who live in our countries become victims of discrimination with conservative Muslims being the perpetrators. The victims in this case are unmarried Muslims. The Islamic understanding based in the Quran and Sunnah must take the historical context into account. Otherwise today's Muslims have a duty to reintroduce slavery and follow the rules of the Quran how to treat slaves.



The excerpt is not referring to the Quran as a history book with some of its verses not applicable when it comes to the sharia.

In fact he scholars of tafsir (those who go into the details of exceges of the Quran) have always taken into account the background in which a particular verse was revealed. Its called 'Asbab an Nuzul' - the circumstances in which a particular verse was revealed. The true meaning and correct context can only be understood together with the knowledge of asbab an nuzul.

This discussion started with your comment on a hadith about marriage. Know that hadith is not Quran, and no where in the quran it is said that one can dismiss certain ahadith depending on our current circumstances.Rather the Quran clearly says following the prophet is following Allah.


One needs to understand the context in which single persons are referred to as worst of people while the married as best.
This is not the only hadith which is categorizing people as good and bad.

A hadith says a strong believer is better than a weak believer, though there is good in both.

Now, if both these hadith are correct and a strong beleiver is also single, how should one find agreement between the two hadith?

Matters regarding hadith and quran need to be discerned with scholarship, not just on their outward appearances.





-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 3:10am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Matt has become quite adept at the "pivot" in discussions, turning almost anything into an us against them - east vs. west (and never shall the twain meet) screed.  Whether you like it or not Muslims have become, and are indeed citizens of "our" countries.  Muslims, like others, have a right to religious protection under the law and to not be subjected to xenophobia.


I'm sorry, Abuayisha, if I gave you the wrong impression. I firmly believe that we need to overcome the us against them paradigm in our thinking. I thought that many forum users find it rude when I give advice to how Muslims should run Islamic countries. I thought they had a valid point. So if the majority of Egyptian voters want to establish theocratic fascism (as seems the case right now) they did so by winning democratic elections. It hurts to see this, but it's the Egyptians who need to build their society the way they want.

Yes, Muslims have become German, French or American citizens. They enrich our societies and I have no problem with this as long they are fully committed to our secular system and the laws that are in place. Religious protection does not apply when religious laws clash with our constitutions and laws made by our parliaments. This has nothing to do with xenophobia whatsoever. This has nothing to do with racism either. This has to do with the protection of the foundation of our democracies.

It's actually the majority of German Muslims who feel harassed by Islamic radicals sponsored by Saudi oil money. It's especially German Muslim women who are threatened by ultra-conservative Muslims. We have a duty to protect the rights of these people and make sure our laws are being obeyed.

Honeto wrote that I have right to my opinion, but what is said above is Islamic understanding based in Quran and Sunnah. Your, mine or Tom's opinion does not alter nor move it.

Well, my opinion and that of the vast majority of German lawmakers does alter its application in Germany. Certain understandings of the Quran and Sunnah are not valid and Muslims should not be asked to follow them.

Qur'an 5:57 is not valid in Germany: "Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime." If a young Muslim woman decides to marry an atheist that is her right.

Qur'an 5:60 is not valid in Germany: "God has cursed the Jews, transforming them into apes and swine and those who serve the devil." If an imam in a German mosque said that this still applied today he would commit a crime, and be tried and punished. Anti-semitism and all forms of racism are prosecuted in Germany.

Qur'an 4:34 is not valid in Germany: "And those wives whose refractoriness you fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them (evict them); but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty and Grand." If a Muslim did this he would commit a crime and be tried and punished.

Qur'an 5:38 is not valid in Germany: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty and Wise." Same thing.

If Muslims claim today that the Qur'an is perfect and they support all the commandments in it, they clash with our laws. And we do have a right to be worried about this.


-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 3:19am
Originally posted by honeto

Matt, before I invest my time in reading your long post, who is
Abu Zayd? Hasan


"Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd was an Egyptian Qur'anic thinker and one of the leading liberal theologians in Islam. He is famous for his project of a humanistic Qur'anic hermeneutics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasr_Abu_Zayd - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasr_Abu_Zayd




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 3:29am
Originally posted by honeto

One more thing Matt, if I may ask. Do you think God gave us rules so we follow them? or you think God gave us rules so we can bend and change them according to our thinking and needs?
Hasan


Yes, and one of His rules is to seek knowledge. And seeking knowledge includes the capability to interpret sacred texts in a historical context. The Qur'an has three times as many verses urging Muslims to think than verses promoting blind worship. For this reason we no longer have slaves and no longer cut off the hands of thieves. And this is the case in most Islamic countries as well.

Faith doesn't forbid exploration. It's dogma that does. Dogma, by definition, is threatened by questions because it trusts that God can handle them. That's a God whose grace can be felt by curious individuals everywhere.

Recognizing God's infinite wisdom means acknowledging our own limited wisdom. So it's an act of faith to create societies in which we can disagree with each other without physical harm from one another.


-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt



Print Page | Close Window