~*~Humera~*~ said:
No. There is no concept of "royal" or "commoner" in Islam. Everybody is equal.
And as I said before, any Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. Only a Muslim man can marry a Chrisitian or Jewish woman.
The reason a Muslim woman cant do the same is because in Islam if a man marries a Christian or Jewish woman, she is accorded the same rights and protections as a Muslim wife and she doesnt have to convert. But no such protection is accorded to a Muslim woman in those two faiths. Infact anyone who marries out of the faith in those religions isnt considered married in the eyes of God. So in order to save Muslim women from living under such an unlawful marriage, they're only allowed to marry Muslim men.
Even with the men though, while they're allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women, who are People of the Book, it is still preferred that they marry Muslim women.
You asked in a previous post if it was in the Quran. Yes it is. This is going off-topic so I'll give you one reference (Surah 60, verse 10)
Hi there,
Man I haven’t written a post on this site in a while. In response to the argument that surah 60 verse 10 (in the Quran) instructs Muslim women to not marry non-Muslim men, from certain viewpoints that idea is only partially correct.
The two paragraphs below can be found in Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall’s English translation of the Quran.
Surah 60 verse 10: O ye who believe! When believing women come unto you as fugitives, examine them. Allah is best aware of their faith. Then, if ye know them for true believers, send them not back unto the disbelievers. They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them.
The introduction to surah 60:
“She who is to be Examined, takes its name from v. 10, where the believers are told to examine women who come to them as fugitives from the idolaters and, if they find them sincere coverts to Al-Islam, not to return them to the idolaters. This marked a modification in the terms of the Truce of Hudeybiyah, by which the Prophet had engaged to return all fugitives, male and female, while the idolaters were not obliged to give up renegades from Al-Islam. The more terrible persecution which women had to undergo, if extradited, and their helpless social condition were the causes of the change. Instead of giving up women refugees who were sincere, and not fugitives on account of crime or some family quarrel, the Muslims were to pay an indemnity for them; while as for Muslim husbands whose wives might flee to Qureysh, no indemnity was to be paid by the latter but when some turn of fortune brought wealth to the Islamic State, they were to be repaid by the State what their wives had taken of their property. In v. 12 is the pledge which was to be taken from the women refugees after their examination.”
Now, even though verse 10 states that Muslim women are not lawful for “disbelievers” and vice versa, some would argue that the term disbelievers only relates to members of a specific tribe called Qureysh (i.e. individual idolaters/pagans) as mentioned in the above introduction, whose faith was prominent in ancient Arabia (and known for being pretty anti-female in reference to the lack of women’s human, social, economic, and political rights under their rule). Nothing in the Quran states that a Muslim woman can or cannot marry a Jewish or Christian man (although I have heard that some hadiths (books which consist of the alleged sayings of Prophet Muhammad), do speak of how a marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man would be considered invalid within an Islamic (as well as non-Islamic) context).
Personally, I believe that if a union between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is indeed legally allowed on an Islamic basis, that it is nevertheless extremely disliked for two reasons. The above post speaks of the first reason (that some Jewish and Christian men/women interpret the Torah and the Bible as to not allowing them to marry individuals outside of their faiths, meaning that a Muslim woman would probably have to convert to Judaism or Christianity in order to wed a Jewish/Christian man). Secondly, some past/present Jewish and Christian individuals/states “interpreted” their scriptures as to not allowing women to have inheritance, property, occupation and divorce rights (to name a few), while the Quran directly states that a Muslim woman is entitled to all of the above laws. Now if a “Muslim” woman marries outside of her faith (whether she converts to her mate’s religion or not), her husband may or may not allow her to practice all of the rights that she is granted within the Quran, depending on how he interprets his religious scripture(s). Now off course everyone can interpret their religion differently depending on the form (i.e. through so-called secularism, devoutness, fundamentalism etc.), their sect, cultural values, ideologies etc. but as I earlier stated, it is a given fact that the Torah and Bible do not “directly or literally” point out to certain rights in reference to women, while the Quran does (I do not know about the Torah, but I have heard that the Bible has been rewritten on several occasions, so the original form could very well have literally spoken of women’s rights).
On a last note, some people will argue that which religion is or is not considered to be compatible with Islam (within the Quran), is only limited to the followers of certain faiths which were prominent in a specific region (ancient Arabia) during a given time in history (i.e. adherents of Sabaeanism, Judaism, Christianity and Qureysh). Meaning to say that Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs (for example) could very well be considered to be a part of the “believer” category as well, since some Hindus think of their faith as one that is monotheistic as do most Sikhs. “Pure” Buddhism does not believe is any God(s) but still consists of a peaceful belief system. Although, whether a religion is considered to be monotheistic or not (i.e. polytheistic), as long as it is a peaceful one, I believe that Islam could very well accept the followers of the faiths as being members of the “people of the book” too (since the term idolaters used within the Quran is mostly or always used in the reference to members of Qureysh and not all pagan faiths in general). This being said, a Muslim man "could" very well be allowed to marry a non-Muslim woman aside from a Jewish or Christian one. But as for a Muslim woman, if and only "if" she is indeed allowed to marry a non-Muslim through Islamic law, his religious scripture(s) would: have to literally state that he is allowed to marry a Muslim woman and the scripture would have to be extremely compatible with the Quran (especially in regards to women’s rights) … a scripture which I have yet to find (through my personal “interpretation” of different religious books). But again as Humera's post states, almost every holy book around instructs its followers to marry an adherent of the same religion as themselves in order to preserve their cultural, sectarian and/or religious community.
Alrighty, I hope that my personal viewpoints and ideologies were of help in reference to this issue and to those who are interested in it.
P.S. My post was not necessarily directed towards you Humera. Also, its no surprise to me that any royal family would want their son/daughter to marry a person who belongs to the same religion/sect as themselves, whether individuals within the family are religious/spiritual or not (and this not necessarily in relation to Princess Badiya and/or her family).
