-
In A Marriage, If Only One Person Converts And The Other Doesn'T, Do You End It?
Correct me if I’m remembering wrong, but I believe I saw an article coming from one of ghamidi’s website saying that person can still stay in such a marriage. If so, that what if 60:10 where it says men not to stay married with unbelieving women?
-
8 Replies
-
In A Marriage, If Only One Person Converts And The Other Doesn'T, Do You End It?
updated 4 weeks ago
3 Members
·
8
Replies
-
Yes, this is correct.
For details please see Discussion 40395 • Reply 40593Here is a response to similar question discussing the verse specifically: Source: al Mawrid
Salaam
Thank you for writing to us. It is a serious misconception that if one of a non-Muslim spouse converts to Islam, the marriage is invalidated. There is no decisive, unequivocal text (nass qati’) about this matter. Pre-Islamic marriages are sound and valid. They are not considered illegitimate. They can only be annulled for definite reasons. Difference of religion is not a definite cause of invalidity due to the absence of an unequivocal text. Evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah shows that a couple remaining together with a difference of religion does not damage the basis of their faiths. Their relationship remains sound, not corrupt. The simple fact that one of them converts to Islam does not invalidate the marriage.
Despite the multitude of people converting to Islam in his time, it is not recorded at all that the Prophet (pbuh) separated a husband and wife or ordered their separation due to one of them converting, or due to one of them converting before the other. What is authentic from him is the opposite, as in the case of his daughter Zaynab who remained married to Abul-‘As for six years after she converted to Islam and before he did so, just before the Conquest of Mecca and after the revelation of Surah al-Mumtahinah. The most that happened was that she emigrated and left him in Mecca after the Battle of Badr, but her emigration (hijrah) did not nullify their marriage. To say that the ayah of al-Mumtahinah ends marital relations due to a difference of religion is not correct. It only applies when one spouse is at war with Islam (harbi), and the Hujjah has been completed on him by the Rasool. It does not apply to a non-Muslim, who shows tolerance towards the conversion of the spouse and allows the children to be educated in the Islamic way.
The ayah of Surah al-Mumtahinah (60:10) stating that “the believing women are not lawful for the disbelieving husbands..” was specific to those believing women who had emigrated from the territory of the adversaries, the Kuffar (those who disbelieve after the truth was made clear to them by the Rasool).
Ustaz Ghamidi commenting on this Aayah writes:
“When the Almighty directed Muslims to sever every kind of relationship with these disbelievers, then as an essential consequence of this the marriages of those women who had come to Madīnah to protect their faith were also terminated. It is evident that this directive relates only to those disbelievers who are active adversaries and started opposing it by becoming its enemies.” (Ghamidi; Al-Bayaan, Vol. 5)
The reason for this is to prevent an inclination towards ones enemies, as happened with Hatib bin Abi Balta’ah, who wrote to the polytheists about some of the movements of the Muslims due to the presence of some of his relatives in Mecca.
When one of the couple converts to Islam whilst the other is not at war with Islam, they are allowed to remain together. They are not separated simply due to difference in religion. The evidence for this is the practice of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Companions regarding those who embraced Islam in Mecca before the Hijrah and at the Conquest of Mecca. A difference in religion due to the conversion of one of the couple to Islam allows the annulment of the marriage but does not obligate it.
The conclusions of the Madhhabs (juristic schools) in this matter are not to be given precedence due to their opposition to what is established, weakness of evidence (dalil), weakness of juristic indication (istidlal), or all of the above. The allowance for the couple to remain together means that their marital life together is permitted, including physical relations.
This is our view….
-
Why is this only applicable to back then? How do we know it doesn’t also apply to today then? I’ve also heard the argument that the only reason converts stayed in their relationships with non believers was because it was before the revelation came down to them, since the Quran didn’t come all together in one go. After the revelation came down, then no one is allowed to keep their marriages with their non believing spouse
-
If it was the case then why the case of Hazrat Zaynab who was married to Abul-‘As was different?
As hinted in the response, if the other person enemy to Islam, same ruling may be applicable.
-
Was that the daughter of the prophet? Because I remember reading that story, and the story said that that she stayed married with a disbeliever before the revelation came. Eventually though the prophet told her husband that God has told him to separate the believers from the non believers so he was asking for his daughter back. It wasn’t until her husband converted that they were allowed to be together again.
-
-
Yes!, but you see the nikah was not annulled. Why he need to ask if nikah was annulled by default? The nikah remained until husbands conversion.
-
But the impression I got was that she wasn’t permitted to continue physical relationship with him anymore until he finally converted, since they were only allowed back together after he converted. It seems to contradict the fatwa Ghamidi gave?
-
-
Please respond to this
-
As for Quran 60:10, the reading verses from the first verse onward till the tenth make the context clear that this revocation of marriages was done as an extention of verse 09 where Muslims were asked to end every form of association/friendship with those extreme enemies of Muslims who persecuted them and forced them to leave their homes, thus implying that this did not apply to all the non-muslims of that time (as can be seen in the Verse 08). Secondly, the women mentioned in verse 10 who left mecca and reached medina after migration while escaping for their lives or from extreme persecution fall in this category since they were beng persecuted and the people who persecuted them (their husbands being on top) fall within perview of this directive i.e. being adversaries of Islam. Therefore, such Nikkahs were declared revoked openly.
As for the case of Zaynab (rta), the daughter of the Prophet (SWS): There was no revocation of Nikkah and He (Abu Al-Aas) was always considered son-in-law of the Prophet (sws) even when they both were away from each other. Also, no new Nikakh was conducted after his embrace of Islam. Had it been a religious command (i.e. Quran 60:10) for all Muslims and non-muslims marriages, then it was imperative that their old Nikkah should have been revoked after Quran 60:10 revelation and new Nikkah must have been done, since He (Abu Al-Aas) embraced Islam after the revelation of Quran’s Chapter 60.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
