I don't know who needs to hear this..
- Thread starter Periplus
- Start date
@Periplus you know, I just realized... I honestly don't have much when it comes to Maliki fiqh... I've got Shafi, Hanafi and Hanbali... being that I'm a newbie to Maliki fiqh, would you mind pointing me to the Maliki fiqh book that says the wali cannot reject a suitor based on their race? and maybe you could help tell me which page it's on as well
okay. but the wali is allowed to reject a suitor. where is the ruling that the wali cannot reject a suitor if it is because of his race or ethnicity?
As I said previously:
"OP is just making stuff up. the father is entitled to reject a suitor for whatever reason. there is nothing that says he has to accept the daughter marrying a given race if he has a problem with it.
of course, "can he?" and "should he?" are two different things. the father can reject the suitor but whether he should or not is another issue. I've seen an opinion that he should not consider the race if the man is pious and I've also seen an opinion that it's perfectly fine if he chooses based on race. but while there is room for discussion in terms of "should he," "can he" is not an issue- there is no question that he is entitled to reject the suitor."
So let's remember that distinction that the OP for whatever reason ignores: "can" versus "should":
"As for suitability in lineage the Muslim Scholars have two different opinions:
1. It could be considered a criterion in marriage. This is the opinion of a large group of Scholars. They based their opinion on a Hadith that the Prophet said: "Arabs are counterpart to one another and slaves are match to one another". Reported by Hakim. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr ruled that this Hadith is Munkar/Denounced (i.e. the narration reported by a weak narrator, which goes against another authentic Hadith,) or it is a fabrication. All chains of this Hadith are not correct so it does not stand for a legal rule.
2. Imam Malik and whoever agrees with him said that only the suitability of the religion is considered and nothing else. Many sound evidence support the latter opinion. Allah Says: {Interpretation of meaning): (Verily, the Most honourable of you with Allah is that who has At-Taqwa (God's fear)}. [49:13]."
www.islamweb.net
so these are the two different opinions of the scholars. the first opinion is that lineage can be considered. the second opinion is that it should not be considred.
this idea that the wali's right to veto the marriage is annulled if it is based on race is an entirely new third opinion made up by OP.
the whole debate between the first two sets of scholars is whether lineage SHOULD be taken into consideration. even if you follow the view of Imam Malik, the position that follows is the wali SHOULD not consider lineage- not that the wali's right to veto the marriage is waived. "Should" and "can" are two different things.
"OP is just making stuff up. the father is entitled to reject a suitor for whatever reason. there is nothing that says he has to accept the daughter marrying a given race if he has a problem with it.
of course, "can he?" and "should he?" are two different things. the father can reject the suitor but whether he should or not is another issue. I've seen an opinion that he should not consider the race if the man is pious and I've also seen an opinion that it's perfectly fine if he chooses based on race. but while there is room for discussion in terms of "should he," "can he" is not an issue- there is no question that he is entitled to reject the suitor."
So let's remember that distinction that the OP for whatever reason ignores: "can" versus "should":
"As for suitability in lineage the Muslim Scholars have two different opinions:
1. It could be considered a criterion in marriage. This is the opinion of a large group of Scholars. They based their opinion on a Hadith that the Prophet said: "Arabs are counterpart to one another and slaves are match to one another". Reported by Hakim. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr ruled that this Hadith is Munkar/Denounced (i.e. the narration reported by a weak narrator, which goes against another authentic Hadith,) or it is a fabrication. All chains of this Hadith are not correct so it does not stand for a legal rule.
2. Imam Malik and whoever agrees with him said that only the suitability of the religion is considered and nothing else. Many sound evidence support the latter opinion. Allah Says: {Interpretation of meaning): (Verily, the Most honourable of you with Allah is that who has At-Taqwa (God's fear)}. [49:13]."
Marriage to someone of another culture
Discover the perspectives on crosscultural marriages within Islam, emphasizing the importance of religious compatibility as the primary criterion. While some scholars acknowledge lineage and cultural differences, the overarching agreement is that a shared faith is essential for a harmonious...
www.islamweb.net
so these are the two different opinions of the scholars. the first opinion is that lineage can be considered. the second opinion is that it should not be considred.
this idea that the wali's right to veto the marriage is annulled if it is based on race is an entirely new third opinion made up by OP.
the whole debate between the first two sets of scholars is whether lineage SHOULD be taken into consideration. even if you follow the view of Imam Malik, the position that follows is the wali SHOULD not consider lineage- not that the wali's right to veto the marriage is waived. "Should" and "can" are two different things.
As I said previously:
"OP is just making stuff up. the father is entitled to reject a suitor for whatever reason. there is nothing that says he has to accept the daughter marrying a given race if he has a problem with it.
of course, "can he?" and "should he?" are two different things. the father can reject the suitor but whether he should or not is another issue. I've seen an opinion that he should not consider the race if the man is pious and I've also seen an opinion that it's perfectly fine if he chooses based on race. but while there is room for discussion in terms of "should he," "can he" is not an issue- there is no question that he is entitled to reject the suitor."
So let's remember that distinction that the OP for whatever reason ignores: "can" versus "should":
"As for suitability in lineage the Muslim Scholars have two different opinions:
1. It could be considered a criterion in marriage. This is the opinion of a large group of Scholars. They based their opinion on a Hadith that the Prophet said: "Arabs are counterpart to one another and slaves are match to one another". Reported by Hakim. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr ruled that this Hadith is Munkar/Denounced (i.e. the narration reported by a weak narrator, which goes against another authentic Hadith,) or it is a fabrication. All chains of this Hadith are not correct so it does not stand for a legal rule.
2. Imam Malik and whoever agrees with him said that only the suitability of the religion is considered and nothing else. Many sound evidence support the latter opinion. Allah Says: {Interpretation of meaning): (Verily, the Most honourable of you with Allah is that who has At-Taqwa (God's fear)}. [49:13]."
Marriage to someone of another culture
Discover the perspectives on crosscultural marriages within Islam, emphasizing the importance of religious compatibility as the primary criterion. While some scholars acknowledge lineage and cultural differences, the overarching agreement is that a shared faith is essential for a harmonious...
so these are the two different opinions of the scholars. the first opinion is that lineage can be considered. the second opinion is that it should not be considred.
this idea that the wali's right to veto the marriage is annulled if it is based on race is an entirely new third opinion made up by OP.
the whole debate between the first two sets of scholars is whether lineage SHOULD be taken into consideration. even if you follow the view of Imam Malik, the position that follows is the wali SHOULD not consider lineage- not that the wali's right to veto the marriage is waived. "Should" and "can" are two different things.
The Hadith you mentioned, only discusses Arabs marrying non-Arabs.
There is nothing that justifies rejecting someone on race or ethnicity if neither party is an Arab.
🗑ok but there is nothing that takes away the wali's right to veto the marriage if his decision is based on the suitor's race. as I've explained multiple times in this thread, "should" and "can" are two different things.
Actually, a Wali can be stripped of veto if they do not have a shari reason for rejecting a proposal.
and this is another thing. the scholars were debating lineage in the context of whether the real or perceived nobility of the lineage should be considered.
what if Nilotic doesn't want his daughter to marry a certain race because he is worried for example that their family might be prejudiced? I have never seen anything that says he has to allow for such a marriage and that his right as wali is removed in such a case.
حكم زواج البنت دون رضا أبيها إذا منعها من كفئها
تعرف على حكم زواج الفتاة بدون رضا أبيها في حالة وجود كفء. يُشدد في الإسلام على حق المرأة في اختيار شريك حياتها، خاصةً إذا كان الخاطب كفؤًا في دينه وخلقه. يحظر على الولي منع الفتاة من الزواج بكفئها، ويعتبر ذلك ظلمًا. إذا واجهت الفتاة رفض عائلتها للزواج من شخص مناسب، يمكنها رفع الأمر إلى القاضي...
www.islamweb.net
I mean apparently the woman can try to take it to court and try to get it approved that way, if the suitor supposedly is very pious and has good character.
but I think what you're proposing is really inappropriate. the scholars have discussed if the father is preventing the woman from marrying. now if the father is just not letting her get married and rejecting righteous suitors- that's what the scholars have actually talked about that and that's what the loophole is actually for.
it isn't for people to force their families into interracial stuff against the will of their families. is there really that much of a burning need to have people get into interracial stuff? they need to create chaos within the family to fulfil some burning desire for interracial intimacy?
I mean.. the woman could I guess go and try to take it to a court. but the proposed couple want to really create all kinds of trouble just because they don't want to marry their own race and they want to force an interracial marriage on the woman's family against their will- even resorting to the legal system to do so?
in theory the woman could take it to court but... I think the willingness to create all this trouble just to fulfil some interracial thing, I think it shows a lack of character on the part of the suitor so hopefully the court doesn't go along with it. if things are really being run properly, I think the father should just be allowed to arrange a marriage to decent suitor from within the race. that loophole is there to prevent situations where the father isn't allowing the daughter to be able to get married, not to try to force things on the woman's family against their will so people can fulfill weird interracial fetishes.
It's complicated. Ideally fathers in Islam are meant to look past race and ethnicity, HOWEVER, islam takes Urf into consideration and that the most suitable marriages are ones in which the bride and groom are of the same ethnic and social class.حكم زواج البنت دون رضا أبيها إذا منعها من كفئها
تعرف على حكم زواج الفتاة بدون رضا أبيها في حالة وجود كفء. يُشدد في الإسلام على حق المرأة في اختيار شريك حياتها، خاصةً إذا كان الخاطب كفؤًا في دينه وخلقه. يحظر على الولي منع الفتاة من الزواج بكفئها، ويعتبر ذلك ظلمًا. إذا واجهت الفتاة رفض عائلتها للزواج من شخص مناسب، يمكنها رفع الأمر إلى القاضي...
I mean apparently the woman can try to take it to court and try to get it approved that way, if the suitor supposedly is very pious and has good character.
but I think what you're proposing is really inappropriate. the scholars have discussed if the father is preventing the woman from marrying. now if the father is just not letting her get married and rejecting righteous suitors- that's what the scholars have actually talked about that and that's what the loophole is actually for.
it isn't for people to force their families into interracial stuff against the will of their families. is there really that much of a burning need to have people get into interracial stuff? they need to create chaos within the family to fulfil some burning desire for interracial intimacy?
I mean.. the woman could I guess go and try to take it to a court. but the proposed couple want to really create all kinds of trouble just because they don't want to marry their own race and they want to force an interracial marriage on the woman's family against their will- even resorting to the legal system to do so?
in theory the woman could take it to court but... I think the willingness to create all this trouble just to fulfil some interracial thing, I think it shows a lack of character on the part of the suitor so hopefully the court doesn't go along with it. if things are really being run properly, I think the father should just be allowed to arrange a marriage to decent suitor from within the race. that loophole is there to prevent situations where the father isn't allowing the daughter to be able to get married, not to try to force things on the woman's family against their will so people can fulfill weird interracial fetishes.
Forget ethnicity, a father can reject a groom based on this level of income if he fears he would not be able to provide his daughters with the lifestyle they grew up in. Is this ideal? No. However, sometimes in many sceniors marrying outside of one ethnic background and class can cause legitimate issues and Walis have a right to protect their daughter/ward from this.
I've read that daughters can legally take their Walis to court if they have a strong case. All in all, it isn't black and white and I think moderation is key when it comes to this topic. I don't agree with @Periplus and I certainly don't agree with the other posters who are on the other end of spectrum.
op is right to a certain degree you guys just wanna start picking and choosing things about Islam you like and don’t like, using this as a cover to bash madows all damn day, women of other races and white men are more open to other races then madow men In America, and yet it’s the “madow” boogeyman of your guys nightmares your basing this around, at the same time tho it’s not worth your time to deal with racist and close minded people in your life, so I adivse to seek approval from the families obviously and make sure there not racist, because if so, then why even go trough all that
I agree with almost everything you've said here.
There is no question that interracial marriage is permissible of course. However I think it is crazy to try to use a legal loophole meant to protect daughters in the event that their fathers are preventing them from being able to get married- to use that as a loophole to force interracial marriages on families against their will.
As we both mentioned- the woman can indeed take the issue to court. But the idea being promoted here is misusing that mechanism for something it is not meant for. It isn't meant for forcing some "politically correct" ideology on people that they're not comfortable with.
If the woman is from another ethnicity and her family is ok with it, no problem. But if they don't consent, they don't consent. I don't think that this is something that should be forced on families that aren't okay with it.
I see u double stander Why didnt u call me natiolis and racist when i say same about my son u say said it is u jutified reason and when i say my son cant date non somali girl cuz of her race and ethnicity it is not racism and nationalism but when i say same about my daughter it is racist and natiolism what double stander i never believe the hadiths u posted cuz it is double stander
Because you have no power over your son in Islam, so no one cares.
But it is different for a daughter.
However, if you want me to make it perfectly plain for you. Both instances are displays of nationalism that should be frowned upon.
Lol you wish. At least two Somali-Aussies on here know my family.
My parents have strong ties to the Somali-Australian community.
It is same i have power over my son just lile i have power over my daughter you just proven u only cares when it comes females and not males you are such hypacrit and double stander i wont take you oppinion and the oppinion of scholars u follow what u and the scholars u follow saying is not Islamic and i wont follow it
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
This is what you wrote in your OP that parents can't reject a guy due to his background. Now you've back tracked on it and made an exception for arabs to reject everyone else, so according to you it's racism for a somali father to reject a non-somali but it's not racism when an arab father rejects a non-arab ?
This understanding of yours shows your lack of comprehension what that suitability for arabs entails and the rulings derived from it. Non-suitability of non arabs criteria also gives justification for the non-suitability of arabs themselves and pretty much every other race/ethnic groups out there.
But a parent cannot reject a potential spouse for their daughter in Islam due to race or ethnicity.
If the daughter wants to marry that potential spouse and the parent has no other reason for rejecting apart from their race or ethnicity, they lose their guardianship status over their daughter. The next male relative (generally grandfather) is expected to take over and if they're reject it, then the local Islamic leader will take guardianship status.
Islam does not believe in nationalism, so do not tie your nationalism to Islam.
Who defines what a shari reason is ? the 2 or so odd speakers that you posted ? what about the rest that don't share the same opinion ? in your view ethnicity/race doesn't matter and is a non shari reason to revoke a father's guardianship but it does matter to others and is a shari reason for them to reject others on . Why should your view matter to such people ?
Most importantly you've failed to address the validity of ethnicity being a suitability criteria that is sought after in marriage. Evidence of this has been posted here yet you completely ignore this why ?
So people are nationalist because they don't agree with your views ?
