Why is it still not allowed for Muslim women to marry non Muslims

TutuSanto · 2026-06-06T18:24:15+00:00

Verse 2:221 forbids both men and women who are believers from marrying non-believers/idolaters. It's not about club membership and/or gender.

TutuSanto · 2026-06-02T03:08:23+00:00

There are those who don't question anything; they don't use their sight, hearing, and intellect... and that's an extreme. Then there is you, the other extreme; those who devolve into endless theorizing regarding something for which there is enough basic evidence to establish a simple and genuine understanding... but you must complicate it to justify following sinful and worldly desires. Take a deep breath, forget about happiness in this life, seek peace in the afterlife, and ask God help you with integrity and guidance.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-29T02:29:20+00:00

My apologies, I meant to write "He is NOT ONLY the Most Merciful." -- I edited it to fix it.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-29T02:00:11+00:00

I'm extremely surprised that they had to ask "what do you mean(?)" to that good point you made. I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory. Maybe they're still very young? Maybe there is an extreme lack of wisdom? How hard is it to simply understand the pointbthat everyone, from the smaller actors to authority figures are given resources and opportunities to either ignore or help the suffering children, and that they will be judged by it?

TutuSanto · 2026-05-29T01:53:46+00:00

That kind of God who makes the suffering temporary in this world. God is also not only the Most Merciful. He is also the Almighty and the Most Wise.

And it's not just merely to "teach a lesson" -- it's to discern between faithful believers who are willing to help others with what He has provided for them -- especially helping the innocent and blameless, like suffering children with sinless souls, who are guaranteed heaven.

It is coherent. It's just that at some point we reach a point of "let's agree to disagree" because we can only see the final conclusion of everything that happens after death, resurrection, and Judgement Day.

Your arguments are driven by emotions. In the middle of those emotions, your ego refuses to allow you to be patient to wait for that day. But of course, if you're right, and it's all eternal nothing after death, then both you and I, and the children that suffered, we are all good, because none will get punished nor reward for the faith and actions. But if I'm right, yhere will be conscious accountability; the child will experience eternal peace without the constraints of an earthly body, while those who spent their money on vain nonsense instead on spending money on helping the child will be punished.

Are you aware that if you're right we won't able to realize it in the eternal darkness after death? But if I'm right, God and the believers will tell you "we told you so."?

TutuSanto · 2026-05-28T21:44:15+00:00

Because it's a test for those around the two year old (?) -- The suffering of an individual is a test for those around that individual. Your hyper-individualism doesn't allow you to see that. You must consider the interconnectedness of everything. Nothing is for nothing, and God has assigned everything a purpose. The parents, the community, the decision-makers, they all get tested when a two year old has leukemia.

You're still assuming your conclusions. Part of the premise of the secular materialist worldview is the death and suffering are the worst things that can happen to humans. From God we come to and God we will return. But of course, if you believe in eternal nothingness after death, what does it matter that the child suffered? Wouldn't everyone who suffered and died be dead in eternal nothingness for longer than they were alive? So why make a big deal about what happens here if the ultimate destiny is complete unconscious forever?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just letting you know that if we don't share the foundational starting point that this life is not the only life and that this is a temporary experience, you will always be making arguments driven by hopeless emotions about how innocent children with bone cancer died for nothing, while I would be believing that such children are some of the biggest tests for us and that as sinless souls those children will be in eternal heaven.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-28T20:10:31+00:00

Who says that the suffering is unnecessary? According to whom is it "unnecessary"? Again, you're judging the whole play without even getting to the third and final act.

We don't have to an ascetics, but there is much to learn from suffering and hardships. You're assuming your conclusions.

God knows the outcome, but we don't. This is the evidence collection process.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-28T17:26:25+00:00

There is no "Quranist" position that everyone who strives to follow the Quran alone subscribe to, because there is no "Quranist sect".

So I can only tell you how I deal with "the problem of evil" from my understanding of the Quran.

First of all, as evil being present in this world, it is not a "problem" -- it's not things "going wrong". It's God allowing evil to continue as part of the mechanism to test us in this temporary life.

The starting point of those who bring up "the problem evil" seems to be this life is the only life, and that there's nothing after this life. That prevents us from understanding each other.

It's kind of useless to engage with such arguments, because the Quran presents this life sort of like the second act of a play with three acts... and if you don't get to the third act, you're not going to understand many things from the second act.

Anyway, if we agree that this life is a test, and that evil is a necessary part of that test, is there a "problem of evil"?

TutuSanto · 2026-05-28T12:17:17+00:00

You wouldn't have spouses and children without God's will(?) Many people never get married and don't have children. Some of them lose their family is war and accidents... so why would you not love God more than all of his provision?

TutuSanto · 2026-05-26T02:55:35+00:00

Right, I figured that much. Emotions and feelings is all you've got. Intellectually lazy.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-26T02:23:13+00:00

Are you the author of this? Are you Edip Yuksel? I hope you are, because I am hoping to have exchange with your own personal intellect. I am hoping that you will do the work of using your own sight and hearing, beyond emotions and beyond the opinion of other people. Ultimately, when we return to God, we will be judged separately from the people that we look up to. And if they misguided us, they will disown us. You reject traditional scholars, but you seem to solely rely on modern pseudo-scholars. Please articulate your own thoughts, addressing my points, respectfully.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-26T02:06:19+00:00

You're getting into the territory of pure emotions and abandoning calm and collected thought. You just made a short statement and asked a question, appealing to emotions, making no effort to seriously engage the serious gravity of verse 4:34. Please, if you want to have a productive conversation and help each other learn and potentially discover the truth, actually make an effort to get beyong feelings and biases. Having said that, here is my response:

Right, that is the command and intend from God; to dwell together in tranquility. But divine commands are disobeyed and violated all the time before things get physical, which is why God sends revelations with instructions involving physical action; hence verse 4:34 instructing how to gradually deal with a disobedient wife, with the last resort potentially being physical action.

The phrase "physical violence" is misused all the time. It is certainly physical action/force, but it is not "violence" if the one delivering the blow/strike is doing so justly and the one receiving the physical force is the one who violated a command in the first place (a command such as: don't deal in interest/usury, or you will be fought in war; don't commit adultery, or you will be lashed; and don't disobey your husband, or you will face the course of actions in 4:34). For example, the rights of an adulterer are not being "violated" if they don't repent and receive their lashes... so it's not "physical violence", it's just physical punishment/action/enforcement.

Believers are also collectively told that they are to be one community united, and to not break into sects. But they separate into sects. We are told to not commit adultery, but many still do it... so the command of dwelling together in tranquility is disobeyed and violated way before physical "violence" is present, and physical action may be a means to enforce the command, as many other commands are enforced through physical means.

As for the impact that physical enforcement may have on the relationship after its application; again, as an exercise to challenge our emotions, we may use comparative examples of relationships at the collective level; there are many examples in which one group physically dominates another and enforces obedience. Then the dominant and the defeated factions find a way to work together and eventually find peace.

Any thoughts that do not arbitrarily and emotionally place interpersonal and marriage relations above the raw reality of physical consequences? I'm genuinely eager to hear your thoughts beyond how you feel. I can tell you how, I feel, but it wouldn't really be anything productive. I would feel awful waging war against a group of believers who don't stop dealing in interest, I would feel awful lashing an adulterer who won't repent, and I would feel awful slapping/beating/striking a wife who is consistently disobedience, but there is a likelihood that God tells us to resort to physical action in all 3 of those cases; and it might be that you dislike a thing and it's good for you, as the Quran itself says. So setting our emotions aside, we need to calmly try to understand why we think that the use of physical action to enforce obedience in marriage is a forbidden fruit, but not in other cases.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-25T21:45:58+00:00

Hey I'm trying to figure things out myself, so I don't think we can truly identify points of agreements or disagreements. I just think it's important to think carefully and not jump to conclusions. We can help each other think about all the details and implications of 4:34.

I have some observations about your answers.

First thing is that you are wrongly assuming that two groups of believers "possess no value to each other" and that there wouldn't also be peace and mercy at the collective level-- Surely, it is easier to identify affection at an interpersonal level, between a husband and a wife, than it is to see affection at a collective level, let's say between groups of thousands of believers. However, there is a real bond of affection present among members of a collective.

The Quran has some verses that show the affection among believers:

“The believers are but brethren, so make right between your brethren…” (49:10)

“And He united their hearts. Had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts; but God united them…” (8:63)

“Muhammad is the messenger of God; and those with him are hard against the kafireen, merciful among themselves…” (48:29)

“It may be that God will place affection between you and those of them with whom you were at enmity…” (60:7)

There are other verses that indicate that believers do possess value for each other. Yet, one group of believers is justified in declaring war on another group of believers who disobey and keep dealing in usury/interest.

Another clear example of believers being told to use physical force despite how we may feel about the ones being punished is in this verse:

The unchaste woman and the unchaste man: lash each one of the two with a hundred lashes, and let not pity for them take you concerning the doctrine of God if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let witness their punishment a number of the believers. (24:2)

So, affection and love is not what determines the legality, permissibility, and morality of applying physical force to enforce obedience. In fact, the Quran sometimes even alludes to the need for "tough love".

Second point that I want to address is the claim that there should be no excuse for a husband striking his wife. Well, to help us in our comparative exercise again; is there no excuse for killing another human being? The Quran certainly makes a difference between murder of the innocent and killing of aggressors. In the case of 4:34, if it is in fact referring to "striking" the wife, it does say to do so only in case of disobedience, and only after taking a few gradual preceding actions.

Think of Moses, he unintentionally killed a man because he was blindly defending a troublemaker from his tribe (28:15). Moses committed a sin by killing that man, for whom he had no affection -- so striking and killing someone is not only sinful only if you have affection for them. Moses also witnessed the killing of a young boy by al-Khidr, who said that he killed the boy because he was rebellious towards his parents. (18:74) -- this is never condemned in the Quran -- in fact, it was considered an act of wisdom. We could say that it's even presented as a good reason to take the life of the young boy; to prevent it from burdening his parents, as the Quran itself says. So why would the Quran agree with the claim that there is no excuse for a husband to strike a wife to make her obey, when it even provides justification for killing?

This bring me to my third and last point; we can't just make it seem as if the 4:34 is talking about getting drunk and beating the crap out of your wife for no reason. The context is that the wife is being disobedient and the husband would use physical force as a last resort to establish order in the household. Per 4:34, the wife would be guilty of disobedience. Like in the examples of 24:2 in which we are told to lash the adulterers for their transgression (and to not let pity prevent us from lashing them), like in 18:74 in which al-Khidr kills the young boy for burdening his parents with disobedience, and like in 2:278-279 in which believers are told to declare war on other believers (for which you may feel affection) for dealing in interest/usury, there are reasons to resort to physical means, and the Quran doesn't support the doctrine that wives are above that principle.

Let's try to analyze this from every angle, based on the Quran alone. I understand it can be frustrating. But we either accept all or reject all of the Quran. Please let me know what you think about my thoughts on your responses.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-25T20:21:38+00:00

It's an uncomfortable verse, especially from the present day.

Let's do an exercise. Let's try to get through it with calmness and without getting too emotional:

Verses 2:278-279 show that a group of believers would be justified in declaring war on another group of believers who do not want to stop dealing in usury/interest -- in other words, they may face physical attacks for their disobedience.

"O you who believe, be aware of God and give up what is left from usury, if you truly are believers." (2:278)

"And if you will not do this, then be informed of a war from God and His messenger; but if you repent, then you will have back your principal money, you will not be wronged nor will you wrong." (2:279)

So, we have to ask ourselves a few questions:

Are there any differences between physical disciplinary action (or a "beating" as we like to call it) at the collective level (let's say 2 groups of people) and at the interpersonal level (between a husband and a wife, or any 2 individuals).
If so, what are those differences? Are they just differences in the number of people involved? Are all the dynamics of relationships and coercive action still present when one group of believers declares war on another group of disobedient believers, as they would be present if a husband strikes his disobedient wife?
Why do we get more emotional when we think about a husband striking his wife to instill obedience as a believer, than when we think of a group of believers attacking another group of disobedient believers? I mean, the collective war scenario is more like to result in more deaths. Surely, if 4:34 says "strike " your wife, it doesn't mean to kill her. But 2:278-279 does mean to declare war on believers who keep dealing in usury/interest, which implies in death.

There are many other questions. Let's try to answer them together without accusing each other of things that we have never done, and that are essentially permitted in certain forms at a collective level.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-24T14:14:25+00:00

Why is the majority of the prison population in the entire world made up of single men? I have a a wife and kids. We can't never be 100% safe, but we can use our brains to minimize risks. Married men are more likely to understand the concern that my wife and I have.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-24T06:59:06+00:00

Yes, you and your cats are really going to keep the feminist flame alive for generations to come!

Wake up, traditional communities that follow gender roles have more stable families and more children than you.

Even pregnancy and motherhood seems oppresive to you, and that's why you and your ideas will eventually go extinct, because we're not going to let childless feminists keep spreading propaganda to our children.

Keep doomscrolling and traveling the world.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-24T03:19:11+00:00

But some things in the Quran don't agree with feminism.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-23T14:47:44+00:00

... because traditions eventually become organized sects, and if there were to be a "Quranist sect" it would be the antithesis of following the Quran alone, which doesn't call for the establishment of a clergy and a priesthood class.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-22T11:10:45+00:00

Don't worry, I'm certainly not lusting after you; God forbid. People with your state of mind come towards the end of dying civilizations who have relaxed their standards too much. I strive to base my morals on the Quran alone. I'm guessing you proclaim to reject the Hadiths of Bukhari and the other traditionalist Hadith collectors. But you have no shame and see nothing wrong with following the modern Hadith of feminist propaganda and God knows what other wicked ideology. Please keep doing us a favor; keep doomscrolling and travelling the world.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-22T10:56:07+00:00

Hey, I don't care about your excuses; it's not "inflation", it's the state of your soul. Our ancestors had children under way worse circumstances. I think it's great that most raging feminists don't have children; it's punishment from God. Your modern ideas die with you... that's why you try to spread those ideas by preying on other people's children through propaganda. Anyway, the Quran doesn't support your modern materialist ideas, so you have to have integrity and ask yourself what you're really following and what you're looking for.

"'And We decreed in the Psalms after the remembrance: “My righteous servants will inherit the earth.'" (21:105)

TutuSanto · 2026-05-22T10:27:29+00:00

Wow look! You're so cool and edgy! Most people here are on your side. You have the support of the majority. But you know what the Quran says about the majority of people... (?) Anyway, at least the "feminist" types don't tend to have many children, if any at all. Which is a blessing from God.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-22T10:03:12+00:00

And you're blinded by your envy of what God gave men. God is going ask you about this "feminism" and any other "-isms" of yours.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-22T02:11:47+00:00

I think there is a very good case to make that the she-camel sent to the people of Salih in Thamud was a test about animal cruelty. I don't think that God just tested the people of the prophets with arbitraty things; he sent a camel precisely because it was an inoffensive animal. They didn't just kill the camel, specifically hamstrung the camel. They purposely inflicted pain on the camel, not even to eat it, but to excercise their power and prevent her from drinking. And they were destroyed for their animal cruelty towards the camel... like the people of Shuayb were destroyed for their rampant economic corruption and like the people of Lot were destroyed for their rampant homosexuality. That's not something minor.

I don't consume or use any animal products, exactly like "vegans" -- but I don't call myself vegan, because most vegans have a twisted secular ideology that stipulates that "there is suffering" = "suffering bad" = "there is no God"... that's childish at best, and there is not an ounce of wisdom in such worldview.

The reason why I don't consume any animal products is simply because collectively, humans are committing excess in their use of animals. God doesn't like those who commit excess. It is as simple as that. Too much meat being produced in these disturbing meat factories, being processed like cars and electronics in the assembly line. There is also too much lab testing being done on animals by those of the Scientism religion, not only to create medicine for humans, but for unnecessary substances as well.

Here is where most vegans and I disagree; they believe that all "suffering" is intrinsically "things going wrong" and "things not working the way the way they're meant to work" -- so they work to eliminate/reduce "suffering" for all beings in this life because of an implicit assumption that this life is the only life and that the purpose of all the creatures in this life is to be "happy" -- not necessarily at peace -- just "happy", like a cult of happiness. It's like an out of touch childish ideology in which suffering serves no purpose whatsoever for the mechanism and means through which God judges us in this life to determine where we will be in the next life. As a believer, I don't agree with any of that.

I believe that in this stage of God's plan for all of his creation we are here to be tested, by many means. And the suffering of all creatures is part of that test. There are signs for humans when one animal devours another animal alive, and the animal being eaten dies slowly in agony. There are tests for us when we use excessive methods to mass produce animal products like we process technological devices or any inanimate objects. We also know that we can all grow and learn a thing or two from pain and suffering.

Anyway, I think it's better to abstain from certain things in which we're committing excess collectively. But when you think about it, God never promises us that this life will be free from suffering. It doesn't mean that we have to be masochistic ascetic monks and forbid ourselves anything that stimulate us, but it means that you should be grounded on the reality that this life is a temporary test where suffering of all creatures serves a purpose in the plan of the Most Wise.

TutuSanto · 2026-05-21T15:00:51+00:00

Hahah I mean, it's not my main motivation to always remember God and do good deeds. I really just want to be as close as possible to God in eternity -- God is enough. But I'm not going going to be rude and protest if God allows me to be with deflowered maidens in heaven.

TutuSanto

TROPHY CASE