On the Quran Contradiction of Marriage to Christian Idolaters
One of the writers of www.answering-christianity.com named Karim has tried to respond to our article on the Quran's contradictory position regarding whether a Muslim can marry an unbeliever or not. We had mentioned that the Quran allows Muslim men to marry women from the Jews and Christians despite the fact that these groups are classified as unbelievers and idolaters, and marriages with such individuals is expressly prohibited in the Quran.
The one good thing about Karim's response is that he agrees that, according to the Quran, Jews and Christians do come under the category of idolaters and unbelievers. He says:
The arabic word for ‘idolatresses’ is almushrikati which in the quran is a specific name given to the pagans, which includes all who worship others besides allah swt, like stones , prophets etc. Like christians who worhsip jesus, hindus who worsip other gods, and fire worshippers and off course the Meccan Pagans.
And regarding Sura 2:221 he writes:
So this verse tells us not to marry almushrikati , which refers to all those who worhsip others besides god, like christians, hindus, budhists, fire worshippers, stone worshippers etc.
He repeats these points a few more times:
True, the christians are not pure and clean in their worship, since they worship a prophet ! The jews who worshipped Ezra as son of Allah had the same uncleaness. Unclean is a figure way of speech which refers to the untruth and falseness of their worship, it’s not pure but unclean.
And:
True, ‘al-mushrikoona’ includes all those who worship other besides god, which are hindus, fire worshippers, budhistst, christians, meccan pagans etc.
Again:
Do christians believe in Muhammed saw as the last prophet ? No ! , so can’t a muslim call him a believer ? No ! If someone rejects jesus (as) as a prophet, do you call them a believer my christian friends ? No ! . So the term kafir / disbeliever applies to christians too, however the quran adresses them as ‘people of the book’ , which is the term used fort hem mostly in the quran.
So according to Karim's own words, both Jews and (specifically) Christians are unclean, are unbelievers, and are idolaters. In light of this admission let us see how he addresses the contradiction within the Quran regarding whether a Muslim can marry women from such groups.
The unbelievers mentioned in verse 60:10 refers to the pagan-husbands in makkah, from which the muslim women fled. Let us look also look at the commentary of this verse to proof my point:
The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Abdullah Yusuf Ali) Page 1455, Note 5422.
Under the treaty of Hubaydiyah , women under guardianship (included married women), who fled from Quraysh in Makkah to the Prophet’s protection at Madinah were to be sent back. But before this Ayah was issued, Qurash had already broken the treaty, and some instruction was neccessary as to what the madinah muslims should do in those circumstances. Muslim women married to Pagan husbands in Makkah were oppressed for their faith, and some of them came to Madinah as refugees. After this, they were not to be returned to the custody of their Pagan husbands at Makkah, as the marriage of believing women with non-Muslims was held to be dissolved if the husband dit not accept Islam. But in order to give no suspicion to the Pagans that they were badly treated as they lost the dower they had given on marriage, that dower was to be repaid to the husbands. Thus helpless women refugees were to be protected at the cot of the Muslims.NOWHERE DOES THIS TEXT COMMANDS MUSLIM MEN TO REMAIN MARRIED TO UNBELIEVERS, THIS FALSE COMMENT ON THE VERSE OF THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES PROOFS THE LACK OF ISLAMIC KNOWLEDGE ANSWERING-ISLAM REPRESENTS.
Clearly the verse means that the muslim men were commanded to divorce their women who were pagans.The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Abdullah Yusuf Ali) Page 1456, Note 5425.
Unbelieving women in a Muslim society would only be a clog and a handicap. There would be neither happiness fort hem, nor could they conduce in any way to the healthy life of the society in which they lived as aliens. They were to be sent away, as their marriage was held to be dissolved, and the dowers paid tot hem were to be demanded from the guardians to whom they were sent back, just as in the contrary scase the dower of believing women were to be paid back to their Pagan ex-husbands
RESPONSE:
Usually when a person starts attacking a straw man this is because he or she is unable to deal with the arguments. We never said that this reference commanded Muslims to remain married to unbelievers. Here is what we said before quoting this specific text, this time with added emphasis:
The next text commands Muslim men NOT TO remain married to unbelievers:
In light of Karim's candid admission that Jews and Christians are unbelievers he has basically conceded the fact that Muslim men cannot marry women from them, and yet elsewhere the Quran says they can marry such unbelievers! Notice what he says a little later:
Now later on the quran mentions, that there is one exception from the almushrikati that can me married , namely the peopke[sic] who had been given a book before, which refers to the jews and christians, since they are called the ‘people of the book’ in the qu’ran all over, all scholars agree about this.
S. 5:5 Arberry
Today the good things are permitted you, and the food of those who were given the Book is permitted to you, and permitted to them is your food; Likewise believing women in wedlock, and in wedlock women of them who were given the Book before you if you give them their wages, in wedlock and not in licence, or as taking lovers. Whoso disbelieves in the faith, his work has failed, and in the world to come he shall be among the losers.
Correction. Karim has assumed that this is an exception as opposed to an actual contradiction. He has assumed that these texts are conciliatory as opposed to being contradictory. These texts were composed at different times and are found in different sections, which strongly indicates that the author of the Quran didn't realize that he had contradicted himself. He wasn't aware that by stating that Jews and Christians were unbelievers and idolaters and yet permitting Muslim men to marry their women, he would be violating the prohibition he himself had given regarding not marrying unbelievers and idolaters. After all, if Jews and Christians are unbelievers and idolaters then their women are not lawful for marriage. Note how this works out:
A. Muslim men are forbidden from marrying unbelievers and idolaters.
B. According to the Quran, Jews and Christians are unbelievers and idolaters.
C. Therefore, Muslim men are forbidden from marrying Jewish and Christian women.
Even Karim admits that the Quran classifies Jews and Christians as unbelievers and idolaters so he has no logical basis for rejecting this syllogism.
Option 2:
The almushrikati in soerah[sic] 2:221 has always only been applied to the pagans, stone worshippers only , and not to the jews and christians. There are examples where the qu’ran seperates between the ‘people of the book’ and ‘Al-mushrikoon’.Quran 98:6
Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikoon will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
The Quran makes a clear distinction between jews, christians and al-mushrikoon, this verse proofs that al-mushrikoon in certain verses can be a specific name that only applies to the idol and stone worshippers, but not the jews and chritsians. If jews and christians always were adressed as ‘mushrikoon’, then this verse could have easily only mention the word ‘al-mushrikoon’ , but the quran didn’t do this and made explicit a difference between the al-mushrikoon and people of the book (jews and christians) in this verse.So the christian has even no proof to say that in soerah[sic] 2:221 jewish and christian women are included, since the soerah could very well only apply to the pagan meccan women, and stone & idol worshippers.
RESPONSE:
In the first place, citing a text which distinguishes Jews and Christians from the idolaters doesn't resolve the contradiction, it simply compounds it. Karim has managed to provide another contradiction by quoting a text which differentiates idolaters from the Jews and Christians when other references identify even the people of the Book as idolaters. So now which is it? Are Jews and Christians idolaters, or are they not?
Furthermore, even in this Sura the Jews and Christians are classified as disbelievers which therefore makes them unlawful for Muslims to marry. In fact, the only way for Jews and Christians to be recognized as believers is by accepting the Quran as revelation:
Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors. Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) THE JEWS and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly fid the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth). S. 5:77-83 Shakir
Notice that this text rebukes Muslims for simply befriending unbelieving Jews and Christians! Thus, it is wrong for Muslims to befriend the disbelieving members of the people of the Book but perfectly fine for them to marry their women!
Moreover, pay careful attention to the fact that the reason why Christians are said to be closer to the Muslims is because they profess faith in the so-called "revelation" given to Muhammad. In other words, if Christians deny that the Quran is from God or that Muhammad was his prophet then they are not those who are closest to the Muslims, but enemies and unbelievers, something expressly stated in this same Sura:
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. Sura 5:51 Pickthall
And don't forget that even Karim agrees since he classifies Jews and Christians as unbelievers for rejecting Muhammad!
More importantly, Karim has decided to focus on the word idolater since he thinks that this somehow gives him a loophole. He did this early on when he wrote:
Option 1:
So the quran here only explains which people from the mushrikoon as an exception can be married , in other words the quran only specifies which people of the ‘mushrikoon’ can be married as a final rule, this was the only exception given to muslims men in this verse, since the ‘people of the book’ are closests to the truth of islam. So the other females from the ‘al-mushrikoon’ like hindu , budhist, pagan-women etc. are forbidden to marry ! So the quran nowhere contradicts itself. There would have been only a contradiction in the quran if :verse A had said: ‘you are forbidden to marry almushrikati ‘ and verse B had said: ‘you are allowed to marry almushrikati ‘
(but even if this was the case, then there only would have been a abrogation of a previous verse, and so there wouldn’t be neither a contradiction)
However the qu’ran uses in verse B a different word then almushrikati , it specificly only says ‘you are allowed to marry those who were given the book before you’
Yet he conveniently does not focus on the fact that Sura 2:221 also refers to marrying believers:
And do not marry the idolatresses UNTIL THEY BELIEVE, and certainly a BELIEVING MAID is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters UNTIL THEY BELIEVE, and certainly A BELIEVING SERVANT is better than an idolater, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be mindful. S. 2:221 Shakir
The passage expressly states the specific condition which makes a person lawful for marriage, BELIEF! A person must be a believer in order for a Muslim to marry him or her, and yet Jews and Christians are unbelievers according to the Quran and Karim. Thus, unbelieving women from the Jews and Christians are unlawful for marriage. Again, note how this works out logically:
A. Muslims are forbidden from marrying unbelievers.
B. According to the Quran, Jews and Christians are unbelievers.
C. Therefore, Muslims are forbidden from marrying Jews and Christians.
So the Quran does contradict itself since verse A says: ‘you are forbidden to marry unbelievers (this includes Jews and Christians whom the Quran labels as disbelievers)'.
Whereas verse B says: ‘you are allowed to marry unbelievers (i.e., Jews and Christians).
Finally, Karim's own statements will come back to haunt him. Note what he wrote:
The Quran makes a clear distinction between jews, christians and al-mushrikoon, this verse proofs that al-mushrikoon in certain verses can be a specific name that only applies to the idol and stone worshippers, but not the jews and chritsians. If jews and christians always were adressed as ‘mushrikoon’, then this verse could have easily only mention the word ‘al-mushrikoon’ , but the quran didn’t do this and made explicit a difference between the al-mushrikoon and people of the book (jews and christians) in this verse.
What Karim failed to realize is that his own criteria proves our case. One can just as easily claim that whenever the word "al-mushrikoon" is used without qualification (i.e. without something in the text indicating that it is referring to a specific group distinct from Jews and Christians) then this unqualified use of the term is intended to be inclusive. In other words, if a verse uses the word without any qualification, unlike what we find in Sura 98:6, then this implies that the text in question is referring to all the groups which the Quran classifies as idolaters, i.e. Jews, Christians, Meccan Arabs etc. Now is there anything in Sura 2:221 to indicate that the word is being used in a more restricted sense which excludes Jews and Christians? Not at all. Hence, by Karim's own method of interpretation this establishes that Sura 2:221 is prohibiting marriage with ALL groups which the Quran labels as idolaters, Jews and Christians especially!
Yet Karim thinks he has a plan B, a back up plan in case this explanation failed:
So the qu’ran only specifies and tells us that as a final rule only the jews and christians of ‘al-mushrikoon’ can be married, but the others are still forbidden to marry. So theres no contradiction at all.
And:
However if soerah[sic] 2:221 indeed also did refer to the jewish and christian women, then there is still no contradiction in the qu’ran, since the quran later on only specificly states, that as a final rule only the jews and christians from the ‘mushrikoon’ can be married, however the other women from the ‘mushrikoon’ , like hindu women or budhist women or pagan women are still forbidden to marry. So i repeat ,there would have been only a contradiction in the quran if :
verse A had said: ‘you are forbidden to marry almushrikati ‘ and verse B had said: ‘you are allowed to marry almushrikati ‘
(but even if this was the case, then there only would have been a abrogation of a previous verse, and so there wouldn’t be neither a contradiction)
However the qu’ran uses in verse B a different word then almushrikati , it specificly only says ‘you are allowed to marry those who were given the book before you’So the qu’ran only specifies and tells us that as a final rule only the jews and christians of ‘al-mushrikoon’ can be married, but the others are still forbidden to marry. So theres no contradiction at all.
So it doesn’t matter, if you choose option 1 or option 2, there isn’t a contradiction in the quran.
RESPONSE:
Contrary to Karim's wishful thinking, there is a contradiction since there is nothing in Suras 2:221 and 60:10 which qualifies the Quran's prohibition regarding marriage with unbelievers and idolaters. In fact, Karim's own words indirectly testify that there is a contradiction since he must pull out the old abrogation canard. Anytime a Muslim brings up abrogation as a means of reconciling contradictions in the Quran this is nothing more than an implicit admission by the Muslim that the passages in question are in fact contradicting one another. As one Muslim put it:
… The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur’an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ('message') occurring in this context is also used to denote a ‘verse’ of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been ‘abrogated’ by God’s command before the revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion - WHICH CALLS TO MIND THE IMAGE OF A HUMAN AUTHOR CORRECTING, ON SECOND THOUGHT, THE PROOFS OF HIS MANUSCRIPT, deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur’an t have been ‘abrogated’. At the root of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’ MAY LIE THE INABILITY OF SOME EARLY COMMENTATORS TO RECONCILE ONE QUR'ANIC PASSAGE WITH ANOTHER; a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been ‘abrogated’. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ as to which, and how many, Qur’an-verses have been affected by it; and furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse from the context of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ has no basis in historical fact, and must be rejected … (Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], pp. 22-23, n. 87; online source; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Another Muslim, the Maulana Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya sect, rejected the doctrine of abrogation because it violates the claim of the Quran that it is free from errors and discrepancies. Yet he readily admitted that this concept was developed because Muslims were confronted with references that conflicted with one another which they could not satisfactorily explain:
The principle on which the theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being contrary to the clear teachings of the Qur'an. A verse is considered to be abrogated when the two cannot be reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear to contradict each other. But the Qur'an destroys this foundation when it declares that no part of it is at variance with another: "Will they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy" (4 : 82). It was due to lack of meditation that one verse was thought to be at variance with another; and hence it is that in almost all cases where abrogation has been upheld by one person, there has been another who, being able to reconcile the two, has repudiated the alleged abrogation. (Ali, The Religion of Islam [The Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam (Lahore) U.S.A., Eighth Edition 2005], p. 32; bold and italic emphasis ours)
What Ali's candid admission shows is that the Muslims who appeal to abrogation do so primarily because they are not able to reconcile the errors within the Quran. Abrogation therefore becomes the convenient means of explaining away these discrepancies.
Finally, we have already addressed Karim's focus on the word idolater, while he ignores the fact that the Quran also prohibits marriages with unbelievers, a category that definitely includes Jews and Christians. So there is no need to repeat ourselves at this point.
Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page