Princess Badiya of Jordan & Khalid Blair June 24, 2005

[syima]

Wow! The wedding of Princess Badiya is so beautiful and the pictures is really great!
Everyone looks beauiful in their outfit but some I cannot see very well is Princess Iman Al Hussein.

Everyone looks beauiful in their outfit! Look at Princess Savarant's a Pakistani born sari wow!

I wonder where Prince Hussein, Princess Iman, Princess Salma and baby Prince Hashem...
Perhap is somewhere there?

[syima]

Originally Posted by reeda2000

Muslim girls can marry non muslm men only if they became muslims .....this rule only for girls

Hi Reeda,

That true.

Take care....
Cheer :)

[cute_girl]

Originally Posted by Nad25

Im not a muslim myself so I dont know the answer to your question cute girl.

I'm a muslim myself and I know so many muslim women marrying non muslims legally.and as the islamic law in our counrty is very restricted I wondered why Princess Badiya's husband had to convert while JRFs are not that religious.
anyway I found my answer,I'm a shia and princee Badiya is certainly sony,shia women can marry non muslims I didnt know that sony women couldnt.

[Nad25]

Shes a hashmite muslim so he had no other choice but to convert to Islam, I dont think they wouldve allowed her to marry him unless he converted to Islam.

But shes defintly the first hashmite princess to marry an English man.

[Warren]

Margrave Max and Margravine Valerie of Baden (nee Archduchess of Austria-Tuscany) - behind the bride & groom;

Prince Ludwig (brother of Margrave Max) and Princess Marianne of Baden - behind Princess Takamado;

Princess Margarita of Baden (in wheelchair), and behind her the Baden family group: Prince Leopold, Prince Michael, Princess Marie Louise (next to Hereditary Princess Stephanie) and Hereditary Prince Bernhard;

Furst (Prince) Karl Johannes von Schwarzenberg (standing next to the wheelchair);

Princess Takamado of Japan - next to the Aga Khan.

All in all, together with the other guests previously posted, a very impressive and diverse line-up. No doubt a show of support and friendship for the former Crown Prince and his wife.
.

[loubna2]

what is this? , Lalla Salma isn't good at all, she is the less elegant lady
her caftan isn't elgant, her hair aren't nice, her make up don't suit her at all
she was nice at the festival of fes, but there...., I am very disapointed, I hope she will be better in japan

[shy]

I think the reason they call it an engagement is because they cant transelate the arabic version of been married to English. The bride is 31 years of age.

Originally Posted by cute_girl

I've 2 questions.
it's a wedding,why do they call it an egagment ceremony?
how old is the bride?
and at last it's pitty that every wedding ceremony in JRF seems to be better than Hamzah and Noor's....comparing their wedding to Farah,Rania or Badiya's wedding you'll see that their wedding was not a princly wedding.

[farah]

the ebroidery on queen rania's dress seemed traditional to me. the dress is gorgeos IMO.

[Little_star]

I read about the engagement of Princess Badiya several months ago so it's nice to see the wedding photos.

[Humera]

Originally Posted by cute_girl

so it's ok for muslim commoners to marry non-muslem men?

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)

[Humera]

Originally Posted by cute_girl

I'm a muslim myself and I know so many muslim women marrying non muslims legally.and as the islamic law in our counrty is very restricted I wondered why Princess Badiya's husband had to convert while JRFs are not that religious.
anyway I found my answer,I'm a shia and princee Badiya is certainly sony,shia women can marry non muslims I didnt know that sony women couldnt.

I think you should find out whether you're conclusion is based on perception or reality. The rule isnt just for Sunnis. Infact I've come across statements from Shia scholars that prohibit a Shia woman from marrying a sunni man, so how would she be allowed to marry a non-Muslim? if she cant even marry within the faith (different denomination).
The rules certainly dont change because one has seen enough Muslim women marrying non-Muslims. I know of a Muslim woman marrying a Hindu but that wouldn't make it permissible according to Islamic law. Like in the Catholic church, one cant marry a non-catholic and cant divorce. But everyone does it. That still doesnt make it permissible.
Also I dont think we can judge whether the JRF is religious or not. Queen Rania talks about how she prays five times a day, she fasts, does everything a Muslim is supposed to, she even reads the holy Quran to her kids before bed. Queen Noor has said in so many interviews how her faith has been so important to her and comforted her, especially since the death of her husband. That obviously makes them observant Muslim women. And the same could be said for other members of the royal family, King Abdullah, his brothers, Princess Muna etc. One doesnt need to grow a beard and wear a hijab to be religious and good Muslims.
So I dont see why when it comes to something as important as marriage, Princess Badiya, or any other member of the JRF, would chose to ignore the requirements of their religion.

[Iman]

Princess Salma of Morocco has old outfit. I saw here with the samen outfit latst year.

[Reina]

Most of the women wore recycled outfits.

Originally Posted by Iman

Princess Salma of Morocco has old outfit. I saw here with the samen outfit latst year.

[Nad25]

I liked Queen Rania's top and skirt, its not a traditional Jordanian dress but it has estern style to it, really nice.

[papillon]

From The Jordan Times

Mabrouk



HRH Princess Badia Bint Al Hassan and Khalid Blair were married on Friday at a ceremony held at the residence of HRH Prince Hassan. Their Majesties King Abdullah and Queen Rania, Their Royal Highnesses Prince Hassan and Princess Sarvath, Her Majesty Queen Noor, Princess Muna, Royal family members and relatives of the bridegroom were present at the occasion. Princes, princesses and guests from Morocco, Qatar, Luxembourg, Denmark, Greece, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Spain, Japan and Germany attended a reception at Basman Palace following the ceremony.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

[lovy_bear]

Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~

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).

[Humera]

Hi lovy_bear, thanx for writing such a long post.
As I was afraid of going too much off topic and turning this thread into a religious debate, I only mentioned one reference in answer to cute-girl's question about wether or not the Quran mentions a Muslim woman can marry a non-Muslim. I read up on this issue and there's obviously more than one reason why that's not allowed and there's also more than one reference in the Quran.
As for "unbelievers" it is generally agreed that by that the Quran refers to those who aren't "People of the Book" not just because they're monotheistic faiths but also because their religion, according to Islam, also has divine origins, both faiths were given divinely revealed books and because Islam recognizes all the prophets (Jesus, Moses etc) these faiths believe in...ie. one cannot be a Muslim without believing in those books and prophets.
So monotheism isnt the only criteria for being a "believer" (or one could technically call a satanist a monotheist )which is why Hindus, Buddhists wouldnt fit that description (and also because idolatry is strictly forbidden in Islam).

[lovy_bear]

Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~

Hi lovy_bear, thanx for writing such a long post.
As I was afraid of going too much off topic and turning this thread into a religious debate, I only mentioned one reference in answer to cute-girl's question about wether or not the Quran mentions a Muslim woman can marry a non-Muslim. I read up on this issue and there's obviously more than one reason why that's not allowed and there's also more than one reference in the Quran.
As for "unbelievers" it is generally agreed that by that the Quran refers to those who aren't "People of the Book" not just because they're monotheistic faiths but also because their religion, according to Islam, also has divine origins, both faiths were given divinely revealed books and because Islam recognizes all the prophets (Jesus, Moses etc) these faiths believe in...ie. one cannot be a Muslim without believing in those books and prophets.
So monotheism isnt the only criteria for being a "believer" (or one could technically call a satanist a monotheist )which is why Hindus, Buddhists wouldnt fit that description (and also because idolatry is strictly forbidden in Islam).

Hi Humera,

I usually add a little length to my posts when I see a never-ending (somewhat un-related) topic, especially on the same thread and then I disappear lol, so yes I understand. From what I've personally read in the Quran, there's a lot of talk about both Muslim men and women not being able to marry members of Qureysh, but not much beyond that (especially in relation to Muslim women). Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "people of the book" in reference to Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs (although I have heard that some people believe that a specific Hindu scripture makes direct reference to Prophet Muhammad) and some would think that Sikhism consists of Islamic and Hindu origins (just as some would believe that Islam consists of Jewish and Christian origins). As for the whole monotheism/polytheism idea, the argument that I was making was that from my personal viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether a non-Muslim believes in monotheism or not, but if he/she follows a peaceful belief system then the person "could" very well enter heaven (lets not forget that some believe that there are seven heavens from an Islamic standpoint and not just one).

Also, from what I've read the original forms of Hinduism and Buddhism don't believe in idol worship (although I'm not 100% sure about Hinduism). As stated in my previous post, most Hindus believe in one powerful God as well as smaller godlings, while others believe that the sub-gods are actually manifestations of the one and only God. As for original Buddhism, it has more to do with ethics, morals and values than God(s). In reference to idolatry, some people believe that the negative portrayal of idol worship mainly relates to the idols worshiped by followers of Qureysh's belief system (within the Quran), since the statues symbolized the negative treatment of most women adhering to the faith/culture. Although, from my personal viewpoint I believe that worshiping an idol (i.e. a person) is especially wrong, since it undermines the equality of all humankind. Anyway now the discussion is going WAY off topic, so I think that I'll make a halt just about here lol. If needed, we can always carry on the discussion outside of this thread. Alright, back to Princess Badiya!

[Reina]

Well I don't agree that the Bible has been rewrittne on several occasions. It does have different versions of it, like from Old Enlgish to more Modern English and also to language translations, but it is still the perfect Word of God

2 Timothy 3:16
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

As far as women's rights...women ahv eequal rights as men in fact God created us equal. It is some men, who claimed to be Christians and adherents of His Word, that say that women do not have rigths and are not equal:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27) (Man refers to men and women)

And God blessed them (my emphasis: them refers to men and women-adam and eve), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28).

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
That is an excellent scripture, on how Christ sees men and women as equal.


Numbers 27
8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter." This happened after the daughters of Zelophehad had to petition Moses to give them their fathers inheritance who died and had no sons. Moses prayed and God confirmed that this was true. However the clansmen had a problem in that if the women remarried outside of the tribe, that inheritance would go to the other tribe. Therefore it was decided that women could inherit, but they had to marry within their tribe.

Also there are numerous examples of women who had leadeship roles: deborah was a Prophetess and Judge of Israel (which is a rough equivalent to King and she was head of the army), Priscilla was a pastor alongside her husband and was referred to by Paul before he referred to her husbandand with her husband she had a tent-making business, Phoebe was an evangelist, Lydia had her own business and was quite successful, Euodia and Syntychewere helped to spread the Gospel,
Luke 10:38-42). John 4:4-30, 39-42).

Ok sorry to stay off topic and I probably haven't given all the evidenece that in the Bible their is right for women, but I just needed to express this.

[Elspeth]

Blimey, when did this thread turn into a theology seminar?

Doesn't anybody have anything to say about her bouquet or her tiara or something nice and frivolous?