Marriages with people of the book

Throughout history, males have been the more dominant sex in the Middle Easter cultures. This was (and still is) true in Arabia. So when a man marries a women, he has more control over his children in terms of how they are brought up. If the man is Muslim, his children are more likely to be Muslim too. If the women is Muslim but the man isn't, then chances are the children would not be brought up as Muslims.

Ever noticed how the pagans always opposed Muhammad because he was changing the religion of "their forefathers."? (e.g. verse 5.104). This shows how it must've been the religion of the fathers that's "inherited".

And to answer your question, yes, Muslim men are allowed to marry any women, provided the children will be brought up as Muslims. Practically though, the wife would most likely convert as well.

Israfil wrote: Now as you may well know Muslim men are only limited to Jewish and Christian women now as far as the history of that there could be reasons other than what you've stated I don't persume to know that maybe you shouldn't either unless research is done and you are sure.

There we go again. So people who are of non-Abrahamic religions are somehow not people? This is nonsense. Allah has created all beings, so how can someone be less than the favored ones.

It seems to me, that the consortium of people who collaborated (I could say conspired, but won't) who wrote Quran, were politically very astute people. They didn't have to deal with the multitudes of Hindus (Indians), Buddhists (Chinese and other orientals) and assortment of other beliefs (Africans, native Americans etc), so they didn't include those people in the faith. The other possibility is that they were unaware of the existence of these people as well. This clearly shows the limitations of Quran.

Human

Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir rajeem,

Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim,

human wrote: Israfil wrote: Now as you may well know Muslim men are only limited to Jewish and Christian women now as far as the history of that there could be reasons other than what you've stated I don't persume to know that maybe you shouldn't either unless research is done and you are sure. There we go again. So people who are of non-Abrahamic religions are somehow not people?

Hmm. Either your comprehension is bad or mine. However I am unable to read in the above statement any insinuation towards polytheists as "non-human".

Could you please help me understand the methodology that let u arrive to this conclusion ?

human wrote: This is nonsense. Allah has created all beings, so how can someone be less than the favored ones.

Ofcourse concluding the difference in faith as somehow making a person "lesser" in anatomy and physiology than the usual homo sapiens should be regarded as nonsense if not a deliberate attempt to falsify intentions.

human wrote: It seems to me, that the consortium of people who collaborated (I could say conspired, but won't) who wrote Quran, were politically very astute people. They didn't have to deal with the multitudes of Hindus (Indians), Buddhists (Chinese and other orientals) and assortment of other beliefs (Africans, native Americans etc), so they didn't include those people in the faith. The other possibility is that they were unaware of the existence of these people as well. This clearly shows the limitations of Quran.

The Quran addresses as "ya bani adam"  ie O children of Adam. ... now are you yourself telling the forum that people of other faiths are not children of Adam?

Then it goes to classify the children of Adam further to Bani isreal, Nasara, Kafiroon, mushriqoon, Fasiqoon, Mu'minoon. You think the polytheists are not addressed in the Quran, but then you did not even read a simple comment posted here correctly ... so no surprise.

Peace,

Nausheen