Marriage Between Muslims and Non-Muslims

In the following discussion I will attempt to address the issues involved in a Muslim marrying a non-Muslim. I will first discuss the matter in the light of religious laws and the opinions of scholars.
Then I will discuss the social aspects of family life and children in an inter-faith marriage. The ideas in this part are based on my and my friends' personal experiences in inter-faith marriages and may be at VERY odds with your experiences or views on this matter.
Readers are encouraged to indicate any mistakes that I make here regarding Islamic laws and teachings.
Note: References are provided at the end of this article.

CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE IN ISLAM
There are several passages and verses in The Holy Qur'an regarding marriage and family that encourage Muslims to be married, if possible. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) has even said that when a Muslim marries, he has fulfilled half of the religious devotion and duties and then he should take care of other half by being God-minded and aware of his obligations. [1]
Marraige is considered a religious duty in Islam and is enjoined upon all believers who can afford it. It provides a moral safeguard and legal means to develop relationship with the opposite sex and to extend the family. It is both solemn and sacred above physical terms. It is not only a contract between two persons committing themselves to eachother but it is a contract to which God Almighty is made the first Witness. It is made with every intention of making it permanent to the eternal success. Celibacy is NOT recommended either for Muslim men or women.

"The motivating cause of union - matrimonial and carnal - between the spouses is said to be love. This is a Qur'anic thesis that affirms the primacy of love as the cause of marriage, not simple reproduction. Nevertheless, the religious authorities, almost unanimously, interpret marriage as primarily reproductive in nature and as a means of perpetuating the species.
.....Islam views the carnal act as not merely the source of pleasure but also of as a source of "barakah" means that sexuality has apositive conotations and is not associated with sin,.." [2]

The following issues must be observed when a marriage based on Islamic priciples is desired [3]:

• Both parties should get familiarized sincerely with eachother without getting involved in immoral acts or crossing boundaries set by Islamic moral teachings. No party should attempt to deceive the other in this process.
• Woman should be chosen on the basis of their permanent values, such as, high morals, religious devotion, and not merely on her attractiveness or other mudane wealths. The Prophet is reported to have said that a woman is ordinarily sought as wife for her wealth, for her beauty, for the nobility of her stock, or for her religios qualities; but blessed and fortunate is he who chooses his mate for piety in preference to everything else. [4]
• Woman is encouraged to judge whether the man is actually worthy of her respect, love and capable of providing her happiness in the whole life. She should consider if her marriage to the man will be allow her to fulfill the duties of a wife wholeheartedly.
• Woman has a right to demand dowry (gift) from the man that she feel comfortable with. The man should meet her demands to show his willingness to undertake to responsibilities of married life and his readiness and capability to fulfill her justified needs.
• The consent of both man and woman is necessary condition for the marriage without which the marriage is not valid.
• The marraige ceremony should be made as publicly known as possible and should be celebrated in a joyful manner.
• The marriage ceremony should be held before atleast two adult witnesses from the community and should be registered in official documents.
• The maintenance of the wife and family is husband's duty. The marriage entitles her with these rights and imposes certain obligations upon both parties. Any property which belongs to her before or during the marriage, the man has no right to the wife's property during or after the marriage. This issue relieves the marriage of certain materialistic objectives and ensures the bond remain noble and beyond mundane greed.

The role of husband demands him to be bound by the promise to God to be kind and patient toward her; to keep her honorably in the marriage or otherwise free her from the martial bond honorably. [Ref. Surah 2:229-232; 4:19]
The wife is expected to work toward the happiness and comfort of her family. Wife must be sincere toward the family and honest and loyal to her husband. She should not deliberately avoid conception against her husband's will [1]. Both spouses should keep eachother's honor and protect and gratify eachother with love.
When a marriage based on Islamic principles has irreconcilable differences or irreparable damage done to the mutual trust, then as a last resort to make the distasteful marriage end, divorce is applicable. Divorce has been defined by the Prophet as the most detestable of all lawful things in the sight of God Almighty. Scholars believe a final course must be followed before a divorce is made final [5]:

1. Both parties involved should try to reconcile the difference, settle the disputes and solve the problems within themselves.
2. If they fail to come to an agreement and solve their problems, then a person from husband's relations and the other one from wife's should arbitrate the situation.
3. If both attempts fail and both parties agree, divorce can be applied.
4. If, after a divorce, a reunion occurs, it will be regarded as a fresh marriage. However, there can be no more than two reunions. The third divorce is a final one. In that case, the only possibility is that the woman needs to marry another man after "iddat" (varies from 3-12 monthly periods for diff. opinions; See Surah 2:228), consummate the marriage and get divorced and remarry the first husband again after "iddat." (See 2:30). It allows a man to be thoughtful and composed in such serious matters and the marriage with another man allows a woman to evaluate if there are other men better than her first husband that she would like to be married. There is no compulsion in her getting divorced from the second husband, if she likes him better than the first one. [See also 2:224-232; 4:34-35; 4:127-130]

Some relatives that cannot be joined in a marriage are described in Surah Nisaa 4:22-24.
The following are the positions of scholars and Islamic laws on marriages bewteen Muslims and non-Muslims:
MUSLIM WOMAN AND NON-MUSLIM MAN
....And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikun until they believe in Allah alone and verily a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik, even though he pleases you....[2:221] (Al-Mushrikun=Pagans, idolators, polytheist and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in His messanger Prophet Muhammad SAW) - [6]
Islam considers the husband to be the head of the family and therefore requires that a Muslimah cannot marry a non-Muslim because she will be under the authority of a non-muslim husband. He may prevent her from carrying out her religious obligations by either pressuring her or physically abusing her. But it is not the sole reason for imposing the restriction. The situation is considered very damaging for the woman to practise Islam afterwards and even worse for the kids in such marriages. There are NO conditions mentioned under which a Muslim woman IS allowed to get married or remain married to a non-Muslim husband after she has accepted Islam. Therefore, even if she has freedom to practise Islam after marriage, she is NOT allowed to enter into an inter-faith marriage.
MUSLIM MAN AND NON-MUSLIM WOMAN
Marriage with Christians and Jews:
The marriages between Muslim men and CERTAIN non-Muslim women is allowed. However, certain restricitions exist on such marriages, especially if they occur in non-Muslim lands where Islamic law and religion is not prevailing.
Here I am translating the "fatwaa" from Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Ludhianvi, a well-known Muslim scholar from Pakistan, answering a question regarding the shar'aii position of marriages in the US with non-Muslim women. This question was asked by a Pakistani Muslim, living in the US, and it appeared in Maulana's column that is published every Friday in a daily newspaper, "Jang". He interprets the Islamic law as following:
1- Non-Muslim women, to whom Muslim men can marry, are the women from Christian and Jewish religions who are residents of "Daar-ul-Islam" (nations where Islamic law prevails) and who are thereby called, "Dhi'mmi" (those who give Jizyah in an Islamic state), but NOT the residents of "Dar al-Kufr" (where the kuffar or non-Islamic rule exists). To these women, marriage is allowed but is "mukrooh tanzihi," or disliked. (Victor Danner describes "Dar al-Islam" as "the House of Islam, or the Islamic world; the Islamic community, where submission to the Divine Will reigns; as opposed to Dar- al-Har, the non-Islamic community.")
2- With Christian or Jewish women, who are residents of "Dar a-Harb," the nikah (the marriage contract) will be valid, but will be a "mukrooh Tahrimi" (worse than tanzihi) situation. The act which is "mukrooh tarhimi" is so close to "haraam" (not permissible at all) that it is ALMOST "haraam" and is "na'jaiz" ie. not legal. The man involved will be responsible for committing an act which is very close to a state of sin.
3- It is required that the women should be practising their religion at the time of marriage and they are not practically "Mulhid" (atheist). To any woman who doesn't believe in God, religion, God's message and doesn't practise any religion at all, the "nikaah" (marriage) will be INVALID and according to "shari'ah" (Islamic Law); such a couple is involved in sin.
4- If any Muslim marries a woman from the "People of the Book," the children, by shar'iah (Islamic law) are considered to be Muslim. For instance, often, in "Dar al-Harb," the kids adopt the religion of their mother; and, sometimes, a marriage is arranged upon agreements between the couples that half of kids will adopt mother's and the other half will follow father's religion. If a Muslim man agrees to ANY of such terms accepting the kids to be raised non-Muslims, the person will be regarded as a "Murtid" (the one who has denied Islam) because he has allowed his kids to become "kaafir" who may have been brought up in Islamic religion. Anyone who willingly and knowingly allows/agrees for his kids to become "kaafir" is regarded as "kaafir." He is out of the Islamic circle. If he had any Muslim woman in his "nikaah" before this marriage, the Muslim woman is free from his bond (because a Muslim woman can't remain married a non-Muslim).
5- Since some of our naive Muslim young men, living in the West, get married to the Christian women in their countries, and since, usually, the local courts allow the women to get the custody of kids and the divorce settlement in their favor, our young men are "khusar al-duniyaa wal'-aakhiraah" meaning they have lost both this world and the Hereafter. Since, according to sharia'ah, the "al-maa'roof ka'almashrrot", meaning whatever is prevailing or common practise in the society is being accepted in a marriage contract. It means a Muslim man, by getting married under these circumstances in these countries, is knowingly agreeing that the woman may, in case of divorce, gets the custody of the kids and is free to raise them afterwards as she pleases.
6- For all the above stated reasons, in non-Muslim countries, it is not allowed for Muslim young men to marry Christian women. For the reason #3 (woman not practising a religion), the "nikaah" isn't even valid. Since the reason #4, leads to "kufr" and he becomes "murtid", the marriage to any Muslim wife becomes invalid. The reason #5 is not apllicable, if the local laws do not usually grant custody to woman or if Muslim man hasn't agreed to any "kufriaah" terms (such as accepting some kids to be raised as non-Muslims). "Haaza ma' indee, wal'Allah ilm bis'swaab."
It is clear that Maulana Yousuf's position is extremely strict on the issue of getting married to non-Muslim women in the West. But so is the seriousness of such situations. A scholar at Dar ul-Noor hifz school and Al-Farooq Masjid, Atlanta, Dr. Abdul Ghaffar, recommends that if a Muslim is already married to a non-Muslima, he should REMAIN married to her. He should be kind and passionate to her and facilitate her understanding of true Islam. He should reflect Islam in his character and encourage her to become Muslim voluntarily before kids are born into such marriage. At that time, I found out the Al-Farooq Masjid doesn't even administer ANY inter-faith marriages.
The best option under these circumstances is to introduce the woman to Islam and WAIT for her to accept Islam before getting married. Imposing any firm conditions of her accepting Islam before marriage will NOT do any good. Because, if a woman is willing to accept Islam merely to get married to a Muslim man that she likes, she will be most likely to leave Islam if the marriage ends up in a divorce or even if the marriage becomes unpleasant for her.
It should be desireable that a woman accepts Islam solely for the reason that she likes Islam. Any forceful acceptance of Islam is not likely to be permanent nor very suitable for a happy marriage. If the woman is not a Muslim by her own choice, then in case of divorce, she may leave Islam and be free to date and marry a non-Muslim. Her new family may ultimately decide how to raise the Muslim man's children. This situation should never be acceptable to any Muslim man.
MARRIAGE WITH KUFFAR:
Marriages between Muslims and atheists are not permissible at all. In such cases, the man or woman should accept Islam before entering into a shar'ai legal "nikaah."

And do not marry Al-Mushrikats {idolatress, etc.} until they believe (worship Allah alone). And indeed a slave woman is better than a (free) Mushrikah {idolatress, etc.}, even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikun until they believe in Allah alone and verily a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik, even though he pleases you. Those Al-Mushrikun invite you to the Fire {Al naar}, but Allah invites you to the Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayaat {proofs, evidences, lessons, verses, signs, etc.} clear to mankind that they may remember. [Surah 2:221] [6]

"...(Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book revealed before your time, when you give them their due dowries, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor sectret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all the spritual good)." [Surah 5:5] (See the following two notes)

A note [7] following the above passage further describes that a Muslim man can marry a woman from their ranks on same terms as he would marry a Muslim woman, i.e. he must give her an economic and moral status, and must not be motivated merely by lust and physical desires. A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim primarily because her religious affiliation and duties will be affected by the authority of her husband. A non-Muslim woman marrying a Muslim man are expected to eventually accept Islam. Any man or woman, from any race or faith, upon ACCEPTING Islam can freely marry any Muslim, man or woman, provided the objective is purity and chasteness and not lewdness. In the above verse, "People of the Book" refers to the true followers of the religions who received God's message in the form of teachings by Prophet Moses (AS) and Prophet Jesus (AS) before Islam. However, the term "people of the Books by no mean refers to the present Torah or Pentateuch or The Bible which were written by various authors decades and centuries after their respective Prophets. The term "Book" therefore does NOT affirm in any manner the validity of the present Bible (canonized in 325 AC) or Torah (written over an uncertain period est. 1500-1350 BCE) as God's message as their followers vehemently argue and would like Muslims to take the term "Book" for their Bible or Torah. The following note by Abdullah Yousuf Ali is worth mentioning here:

Note #390: ...The Original Gospel (see Surah 3:48 below) was not the various stories written afterwards by disciples, but the real message taught directly by Jesus (AS). St. Paul, author of almost half of the New Testament and the one annulling Mosaic law, and Luke, to whom "Gospel According to Luke" is attributed, were not even among the original 12 disciples.

"And Allah will teach him (Jesus (AS)) The Book and Wisdom, The Law and the Gospel." [Surah 3:48] [This clearly indicates THE Gospel given to Jesus (AS) and not to the Council of Nicaea which decided, in 325AC, by vote, what The Bible canon should be comprised of].

"There is among them a section who distort the book with tongues; (As they read) you would think it is part of the Book, But it is no part of Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," But it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!" [Surah 3:78]

Note: Much has been already said on this topic on s.r.i.

MARRIAGE WITH JEWS:
According to Jews, a Jewish Mother gives birth to a Jew. As one of my friend tells, this issue has caused problems especially in Israel where a woman who married a Muslim man was exhorted by Jews and ultimately she accepted Islam to avoid the pressure on her family. All the rules that apply to Christian women, apply here as well.

The Issue of Riba in Islamic Faith and Law

Perhaps one of the most difficult issues in Islamic concern for fairness in business dealings is its prohibition of business transactions that call for charging riba (usury and interest). Riba, in its Qur`anic meaning, means paying money for the use of money. Muslims have struggled with the problem ever since the Qur`an categorically denounced riba. From the Islamic perspective, with its bias towards fair distribution of wealth and social justice, the Qur`an's strictures against riba have implications for international political economy. The issue also confronts devout Muslim business people as they struggle to make their investments religiously and morally legitimate.
This essay will analyze the controversy around riba as a prime example of how Muslims engage in ethical reasoning about business practice. It will show that ethical judgements in Islam amalgamate cultural elements derived from the particular experience of Muslims living in a specific place and time, as verified by the timeless universal norms derived from the scriptural sources like the Qur`an and the Tradition (Sunna), which themselves possess common elements applicable to all humans as humans.
Although the business world today is moving towards globalization in which small businesses are going to be further marginalized, the paragon of business ethics in the Muslim world as well as the West remains a devout individual who exhibits unusual sense of ethical-religious responsibility towards the higher goals set by his/her religious teachings. To dismiss this dimension from discussions about the business world today is equivalent to saying that the highly technicalized business world is moving at a pace uncontrollable by human beings and that no human conscience is able to direct the moral consequences of wealth-generating enterprises, however exploitative or corruptive they might appear to morally conscious individual or group of individuals. The following case illustrates the ethical dilemma presented by the Qur`anic stricture against paying and charging interest in business dealings.
A Religious Ethical Dilemma for a Muslim BusinessmanMr. Kamaluddin, a highly successful businessman, was faced with an ethical dilemma of a religious kind when he bought his company some twenty-three years ago. At first he did not let the owner of the property know that he had an ethical and religious problem with a transaction that involved him paying interest, because he was concerned that the seller would have factored that interest into his selling price. So after Mr. Kamaluddin had negotiated the price, he told the owner that he make a down payment, and then cover the rest in installments over a period of time. However, he could not pay interest on the unpaid balance because that was not allowed by his religion. The owner suggested that the selling price be increased to cover the interest. Mr. Kamaluddin argued that it would amount to the same thing as paying interest and in good conscience he could not justify that. He also made it clear that if this were not acceptable then he would simply not proceed with the transaction. At this point, the owner agreed not to charge the interest. Mr. Kamaluddin finalized the deal and bought the business.
In this case the amount of the interest was not significant and the owner was not going to lose much money. Nevertheless, it is hard to predict what the owner would have done had the amount of the interest been significant. And because the stakes are often much higher, the prohibition on interest-taking presents serious problems to Muslim business people. While Mr. Kamaluddin had enough resources to make the down payment, those Muslims who don't, face a quandary. Either they would have to apply for a loan to an interest-charging bank or they would simply have to give up an opportunity to start a new business.
Conscience and social responsibility in IslamMr. Kamaluddin's case underscores one of the fundamental value differences in business practice between Muslims and their counterparts in the West, namely, the ethical status of interest related transactions. Religious rulings related to the charging, paying and taking of interest in Islamic legal tradition have been at the center of ethical deliberations among Muslims for many centuries. Around the world, mainstream Islamic opinion continues to regard interest as an impediment to social justice. As a result, the question of whether interest is a legitimate financial instrument or not remains an important issue of conscience. In the Islamic tradition, human acts have a direct impact upon the development of conscience, the source of determining the rightness or wrongness of human undertakings. The conscience must be constantly guarded against being corrupted. For when the conscience of individuals becomes corrupted as a result of neglecting ethical matters related to the production of daily sustenance, there remains no moral safeguard to prevent these individuals from engaging into more serious acts that would lead to the destruction of the very fabric of social relations founded upon divinely ingrained sense of justice and fairness.
Islam, as it developed in the regions inhabited by other monotheistic faiths like Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, shared an ethos of public order founded upon justice. It required the practice of a minimum of moral virtues intended to be a kind of "rule of life," to foster a sense of social responsibility. In the Islamic view, both reflection and intention must precede all human acts which infringe upon the spiritual and temporal well being of others. To guide such reflection and inform such intention, Islam has developed a cohesive body of ethical reflection. Islam, the third and last of the Abrahamic religions to emerge, literally means "submission to God's will". It was proclaimed by Muhammad (born 570 C.E.), the Prophet of Islam and the founder of Islamic public order during the 600s in Mecca, Arabia.
Along with certain rules, which were practical and material, temporary and external, Muslim jurists explicitly decreed various permanent restrictions designed to discipline both the body (rules about lawful foods and earning, about dress and public behavior) and the mind (prohibited subjects of thought and conversation that led to the corruption of conscience). In addition, Islam required certain expiatory works of charity to compensate for the sins of omission and commission. These works were intended primarily to inculcate a sense of social responsibility. Whereas the ritual acts, whether performed publicly in a group or privately, were the homage humankind paid to God and were intended to affect the conscience of the practicing believer, commercial engagements were closely tied to the notions of interpersonal justice and were intended to affect public behavior. In this latter sense, the rites are instruments provided by God for developing the conscience in the direction of greater social responsibility.
Islamic juridical discourse on the marketIslam required a good public order in which spiritual interests were organically related to individual material well-being. Hence the law of the marketplace was given almost equal weight with the regulations connected with acts of worship in the mosque. This emphasis on economic relations in the context of commercial markets was not suprising, given that Mecca was the most important trading center of western and central Arabia. Meccans played a dominant role in the creation of a culture that nurtured the cultivation and development of socioeconomic system based on Islamic justice.
The market mechanism is an integral part of the Islamic economic system because the institution of private property depends on it for its operation. It also provides the consumers to express their desires for the production of goods of their liking by their willingness to pay the price. But the profit motive that is essential for the operation of free enterprise, if not controlled, can also become a tool of greed and violate the Islamic goals of social and economic justice and equitable distribution of income and wealth. The strictures against usury in the Qur`an can be seen in the clear distinction Islam makes between legitimate trade with profit motive and unchecked individual greed to increase one's possessions manifold without engaging in precarious trade in a market economy. According to Muslim jurists:

The law in order for the people to benefit mutually permits buying and selling. There is no doubt that this can also be a cause of injustice, because both buyer and seller desire more profit and the Lawgiver has neither prohibited profit nor has He set limits to it. He has, however, prohibited fraud and cheating and ascribing to a commodity attributes that it does not possess.

The main concern of the Islamic public order was not so much collective interest as individual justice in transactions that had to be protected outside of close friendship and family ties. It was expected that, contrary to the claims of tribal kinship and noble family lineage that determined social relations in pre-Islamic Arabia, most human relations under Islam would take the form of contractual relations rather than be determined in advance by social status. Many provisions in the law attempted to back those who were weak in one way or another against the strong who might take advantage of them. While on the whole, faith in Islam constituted ten parts, only one part was related to the God-human relationship and claimed the status of a common universal obligation. The remaining nine parts were related to human relationships, and determined by contractual responsibilities and specific social and cultural experience.
Muslim juridical writings give detailed rulings related to the acquisition and disposal of private and business property and purchase and sale of merchandise. The underlying principle operative in market law is twofold: the autonomy of individual to own productive resources to further her or his economic interest, and the protection of the consumer from harm. The pursuit of individual economic interest was to be regulated within a communitarian ethic requiring the individual to take the competing interests of the community at large as morally binding. Therefore, any individual business undertaking seen to cause harm to the moral and spiritual fabric of the society was to be condemned and prohibited.
The protection of the consumer was regulated through the principle of non-maleficence (al-darar al-muhtamal). This principle required that resource-owners could not seek to cause harm to the buyers by using false information and other means to raise sales. Hence, deceptive advertising was regarded as morally wrong and legally punishable. The principle of public interest (maslahah) required that free mutual consent of the buyer and the seller be regarded as a necessary condition for any business transaction. The Qur`an provides the grounds for the ruling: "O believers, consume not your goods between you in vanity, except there be trading, by your agreeing together". Individual freedom in negotiating business transactions was recognized in the directive given by the Prophet: "Leave people alone for God provides them sustenance through each other". Thus freedom of enterprise leaves much of the production and distribution of goods and services to individuals or voluntarily constituted groups. However, even this otherwise absolute freedom was regulated by the legal principle of public interest that requires that faithful Muslims produce more good than harm.
The integration of ethics and law was most clearly worked out in Islamic economics. The need to regulate an economic system that would be compatible with Islamic concern for redistribution of wealth and social justice required Muslim jurists to resort to legal doctrines and practical rules where the validity of their rulings against certain forms of usury received judicious legal elaboration. The apparent meaning of those verses of the Qur`an that spoke about the prohibition of usury in a straightforward manner were developed through the legal principles and rules, case by case, to create the framework for a morally accountable financial exchange. The nature of this process of legal and ethical construction is taken up next.

Shari`ah and the Emergence of Principles from CasesIslamic ethics, mediated through God's will, is an integral part of Islamic law: the Shari`ah. The Shari`ah is the divinely ordained blueprint for human conduct, which was inherently and essentially religious. It enjoys comprehensive scope, for it encompasses judgments of public interest and equity which link the overall prosperity of the community in this life and the next. The end of humanity is happiness, and this is attained fully through the rewards of God on the Day of Judgment for everything that humans do to improve the quality of spiritual and moral and material life of humanity.
Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) was developed to determine normative Islamic conduct as detailed in the Shari`ah. The legal precedents and principles provided by the Qur`an and Sunna were used to develop an elaborate system of rules of jurisprudence. By the middle of the eighth century, Islamic jurists had developed and laid down a legal theory to allow a judge or a mufti to find out in all circumstances what was the legal and moral action. The two sources for deriving authoritative guidance were the Qur`an, the basic scripture of Islam, and the Sunna, the normative directives deduced from the Prophet Muhammad's own actions. Two further resources in Sunni law were provided by the consensus (ijma`) of the scholars of legal tradition, and by a method of analogical deduction (qiyas). Sunni jurists used qiyas to project a new ruling from a known ruling by using data furnished by the Qur`an and the Sunna. Al-Shafi`i (d. 820), a rigorous legal thinker, systematically and comprehensively linked these four sources to extend Shari`ah to cover all possible contingencies. In the Shi`ite jurisrudence, the methodology of their founding scholar and Imam Ja`far al-Sadiq (d. 748) allowed greater use of human reason in deriving the entire system of the Shari`ah. Shi`ite jurists perfected the principle of the correlation between a judgment derived from reason and the one promulgated by the Qur'an and the Sunna, thereby giving human intuitive reason a substantial role in deriving legal decisions at all times. The `rule of correlation' (qa`idat al-mulazama) in Shi`ite law allows the jurists to infer the rulings in the Shari`ah from the sole verdict of reason.
Legal scholars and other administrative officials exercising judicial powers usually issued judgments of public interest, convenience or similar considerations. Duties and right actions that were not mentioned in the Qur`an and Sunna were to be determined by the exercise of independent personal judgment of lawyers. As developed in the classical Islamic legal theory (usul al-fiqh), justifications in religious-moral action consists of a dialectic between judgments (fatawa) in specific cases and the generalizations derived from effective causes (`ilal) in cases in the light of which generalizations themselves are modified. Hence, to derive a specific ethical judgment - for example, that an act of distribution of surplus wealth among the needy is obligatory - is to confirm that it satisfies a certain description of the religious-moral concept of justice according to one's belief in social responsibility. Social responsibility as part of the generalizable command to be just could then be applied to other acts.
The criterion of social responsibility has made it necessary for Islamic jurists to nuance the stringency of moral rules. In contemporary Islamic thinking, human conduct is to be determined in terms of how much legal weight is borne by a particular rule, and whether a rule renders a given practice obligatory or merely recommended. For instance, bribery is ethically and legally forbidden. But if it becomes necessary under an unjust system in order to influence a decision leading to the betterment of the community, then Islamic law excuses it after a careful risk-benefit analysis. The underlying principle in deciding such cases was the proportion of benefit as compared to harm to the well being of the community. Some rules are categorical. For example, cases involving blatant moral-spiritual corruption are excluded from risk-benefit analysis. Another factor in determining the weight of a rule is whether it is to be enforced by penalties in the courts because it occurs in Muslim territory, or whether it is to be left to God's judgment in the hereafter because it occurs outside. Thus, for instance, transactions involving selling or buying of alcohol are regarded as illicit and punishable by the Shari`ah courts when they occur within Muslim communities. However, when a Muslim businessman living in the West sometimes has to entertain his non-Muslim clients with alcohol while abstaining himself, his action, although sinful in itself, is regarded as being beyond the jurisdiction of the Shari`ah court.
Reason and Revelation in Islamic Moral ReasoningIn recent years, attempts have been made to engage Muslim scholars in the ongoing debate in the area of business ethics in the West. At the center of this debate is the role of ethical principles and rules in the moral assessment of an action in Western thinking. Such assessment can be developed from at least four different perspectives: those of the agent, the act itself, the end, and the consequences. They offer different viewpoints about the meaning and nature of moral principles and rules as they are applied to different types of moral dilmmas. In fact, many disputes in applied ethics in the West stem from disputes about the generalizability and applicability of more than one of these normative principles that function as action-guides, categorizing actions as morally required, prohibited, or permitted. Moreover, there exists the great variety of principle-based approaches that focus on general principles as sources of rules, and rules that specify type of prohibited, required, or permitted actions before any particular judgments can be derived in cases dealing with questionable business practices.
While this conceptual apparatus is helpful, it does not enable Westerners to delineate the pattern of Islamic moral reasoning. Without adequate training in the Islamic legal sciences, especially legal theory, one cannot pinpoint the principles and the rules that Muslim jurists utilize to justify and assess moral-legal decisions within their own cultural environment. The process has combined revelation and reason. The convergence between the divine command that human beings must treat each other justly and the rational cognition of justice being good encouraged Islamic jurists to formulate specific moral-legal judgments first and then to search for principles that can be generalized and then applied to new cases. The method, refined over centuries, yields certitude in moral judgment. By working back and forth between legal doctrines and rules, on the one hand, and analogical reasoning based on paradigm cases, on the other, Muslim jurists are able to resolve ethical dilemmas that face the community in dealing with immediate questions about economic issues: banking, taking interest, advertising, and so on. The practical judgments or legal opinions, known as fatawa, reflect the insights of a jurist who has been able to connect cases to an appropriate set of linguistic and rational principles and rules that provide keys to a valid conclusion of a case under consideration.
This pattern of moral reasoning should not be seen as a lock-step deductive model. The Qur`an uses the word al-ma`ruf (the "commonly known" paradigms) for the generalized principles which must be inferred from concrete ethical practice of everyday life. It made no attempt to lay down a comprehensive moral system because it treated morality as "the known," al-ma`ruf. Al-ma`ruf, in the meaning of moral behavior in the Qur`an, signifies "goodness," a "good quality or action," gentleness in any action, or deed, of which goodness is known by reason and by the revelation." Muslim jurists have been working out practical ways of carrying out more efficient proceedings in view of the changed circumstances of commercial life, without setting aside the more idealistic provisions of the law as basic norms. The justification provided by these jurists was to argue that there is a correlation between "known" moral convictions and God's purposes as mentioned in revelation.
Market Ethics and the Charging of InterestIn general, it can be said that in every ethical situation Islamic juridical tradition seeks to address and accommodate the demands of justice and public good. Perhaps one of the most difficult issues to test the Islamic concern for fairness in business dealings was its early prohibition of business transactions that called for charging interest (riba). Often translated by "usury", this term in its Qur`anic meaning, refers to using money to buy the use of money. Muslims have struggled with the problem of interest ever since the Qur`an categorically denounced it, and have not achieved agreement among themselves. Some jurists have interpreted the Qur`anic prohibition to permit exceptions as cases required in different contexts. There have been a number of rulings issued at different times in the history of Islamic jurisprudence making a distinction between `usury' (riba) and `interest' to circumvent the categorical prohibition. Other scholars believe that there is a difference between Muslim and non-Muslim financial institutions, allowing Muslims to receive interest from the latter institutions while prohibiting it from the former.
This lack of unanimity reflects a common but misleading practice among Muslims: sweeping larger questions about the nature of divine revelation under the rug when it comes to addressing interest and usury and other major ethical problems exacerbated by the introduction of laissez faire economics. This uncritical approach to the normative sources has deep roots in the theology of revelation in Islam. Briefly stated, there are two major trends about the meaning and relevance of revelation for Muslims. According to one, Islamic revelation in its present form was `created' in time and space. As such, it reflects historical circumstances of that original divine command. According to the other view, revelation was `uncreated' and hence its current form is not conditioned by place and time. Most devout Muslims reject any hints that the interpretation of revelation reflects cultural or historical variables. In the wake of both quantitative and qualitative change in the modern Muslim economies, the question arises as to how far traditional readings of the revelation are relevant in assessing the negative and positive limits governing the present economic system? It is this critical theological question with drastic ramifications for the overall status of normative tradition that is usually swept under the rug.
Rather than peek further under this rug, I will consider some of this historical and theological issues connected with the institution of riba. At the time that the Prophet emerged in Mecca, transactions with a fixed time limit and payment of interest (riba), as well as speculations of all kinds, formed an essential element in the highly developed regional system of trade in Arabia. A debtor who could not repay the capital (money or goods) with the accumulated interest at the time it became due was given an extension of time in which to pay, but at the same time the sum due was doubled. The practice was prevalent during the early part of the Prophet's mission in Mecca before he migrated to Medina in 622 CE, where he denounced it. Like other social reforms the Prophet introduced into his growing community, the prohibition against interest was introduced in stages in the Qur`an. It began with a caution: "O believers, devour not usury (riba) doubled and redoubled, and fear you God." Later, , the prohibition was proclaimed in no uncertain terms:

Those who devour usury (riba) shall only rise as one whom Satan strikes with his touch; that is because they say: `selling is like usury.' God has permitted selling and forbidden usury…God blots out usury, but freewill offerings He augments with interest. God does not love any guilty unbeliever… O believers, be aware of your duties, and give up usury that is outstanding, if you are believers. But if you do not, then beware that God and His prophet shall war with you. If you repent, you shall have your principal, without doing an injustice or suffering an injustice. If any one is in difficulty let there be a delay till he is able to pay, but it is better for you to give freewill offerings if you are wise.

It is important to note that instructions about usury are connected to the message about "freewill offerings" (sadaqat), encouraging people to "spend in the path of God." The Qur`an compares and contrasts two practices: usury earned without giving anything in return, and charity given without taking anything in return. Measured in risk-benefit terms, the evil effects of usury surpass by far the good effects of charity. The Qur`an indicates that the practice of usury leads to the concentration of wealth in few hands, giving these people power over the less fortunate in society: "And they accepted usury even though they had been forbidden to do so; and they devoured and misappropriated the goods and monies of others in their greed." The practice is seen to lead to social unrest and corruption because the rich become richer as a result of reckless profiteering, whereas the poor remain poor: "That which you entrust to commercial organizations with a view to making profit will not be increased by God; nor will it increase your sustenance…Corruption appears on land and sea because of the evil that human hands have done…". Clearly, the Qur`an regards usury a practice of unbelievers. It requires, as a test of belief, that it be abandoned. The Prophetic traditions which elaborate the Qur`anic passages declare that taking interest on loans is one of the gravest of sins. All who take part in transactions involving interest are cursed, and the guilty are threatened with hell. Various kinds of punishment are described.
The Qur`anic denunciations of usury were occasioned by the needs of a developing community faced with socio-economic imbalances. But such denunciations were not consistently absolute. The Qur`an sometimes softens its position on a matter of interpersonal justice it has fulminated against just before, recognizing the human conditions that prompt such behavior. At other times, the Prophet, as its interpreter, moderated the Qur`anic stance by providing exceptions to the overall prohibition. The case of usury points to this confrontation between revelation and social inertia in the early community. In spite of all the deterrent threats voiced in the Qur`an, some jurists foresaw that transactions involving interest would prevail. In pre-modern judicial decisions, gold and silver were generally regarded as items capable of riba. A number of traditions show that the severe prohibition of usury was moderated by reference to the changed circumstances of a transaction involving specific items and the way they exchanged hands in active trade. In general, Muslim jurists developed cases to permit exceptions to the categorical prohibition in the Qur`an. The cases were reported in the traditions that were open to various interpretations. There were monetary transactions that led to principles that now govern when and where interest may be accepted. For instance, some Muslims practiced money exchange during the Prophet's life time. They asked the Prophet if this was alright. The Prophet said: "If it is from hand to hand (yadan bi-yadin, that is, immediately), there is no harm in it; but if it is delayed (nasa'an) it is not right." Some jurists extrapolated these traditions to maintain the view that riba consists only in the increase of original amount of a loan in a business agreement with a fixed period (dayn); others opined that there is no riba if the transfer of ownership takes place immediately. In other words, interest was to be permitted if transfer of ownership took place at once.
Contemporary attitudes towards interest (riba)Because the rulings inferred by earlier jurists were not strictly uniform, there now exists a variety of views regarding the permissibility of charging interest in the buying and selling of goods. Outside of precious metals there remain differences of opinion about the items that are liable to usury ordinances. Thus, for instance, should all business dealings in things of the same kind be considered capable of riba? The opinions vary according to the documentation used to deduce juridical decision. Some argue that interest is permitted if the transfer of ownership of goods capable of riba takes place immediately. This is also known as riba al-fadl (`immediate' credit), which occurs in a contract of sales when there is an increase in the terms of exchange themselves. The more strict Muslims limit riba to the exchange of goods of same kind in equal quantities in accordance with a tradition that says: `Gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, salt for salt, each kind for each kind, in hand. He who increases or asks for an increase commits riba, alike whether he gives or takes.' In the case of loans, which occasioned the Qur`anic prohibition of interest in the first place, it is forbidden to make a condition that a larger quantity shall be returned without regard to the kind of article. This is known as riba al-nasi`a (`delayed' credit) which entails a fixed increase in the amount of money over a time period. This kind of riba is the main source of contention.
The law regarding interest in lending is formally more strict. Muslims are prohibited either from taking or paying interest. Much of the Islamic law of contract is aimed at enforcing this prohibition of usury and risk (maysir). Riba in a loan exists not only when one insists upon the repayment of larger quantity, but also if any advantage at all is demanded. Therefore, it can even be forbidden to draw up a bill of exchange (suftaja) because the vendor, who is regarded as the creditor, reaps the advantage of avoiding the cost of transport. To be sure, many merchants used bills of exchange in the Muslim middle ages. But they were always conscious that a direct breach of the prohibition of usury was a grave sin.
Remembering such strict interpretations, conscientious Muslims to this day therefore not infrequently refuse to take bank interest. It is accurate to say that riba has operated in a negative manner. The thrust of the debate over riba has centered on the definition of the term, and has included little by way of a positive construction of a viable alternative in the contemporary financial world. The oil boom changed the picture of money flow radically, and one urgent problem facing the Arab and Islamic world was how to utilize effectively the petrodollars without openly flouting the Shari`ah. The question of riba emerged again, but in a different context. For many concerned with its prohibition, the premise was that riba simply meant interest, and loans for interest could consequently not be accepted. Still, the importance of riba-based commerce and its requirement to charge interest have given rise to a number of methods to evade the prohibition. Some Sunni schools and the Shi`ites have recognized such methods of evasion in their discussion about the purpose of divinely ordained restrictions. In applied jurisprudence, these methods are not seen as contrary to the strict enforcement of the prohibition. Legal interpreters argue that two firm principles-"Necessity overrides prohibition" and "No harm and harrassment in Islam"-provide a reason to take into consideration the situational aspects (mawdu`at) of the original prohibition, to the extent that these two principles reflect the effective causes (`ilal) and inner significance (maqasid) of the Qur`anic ordinance. For example, if the categorical prohibition of interest has an adverse impact upon those who are manipulated in society, it may fail the test imposed by "Necessity overrides prohibition"; if one manoeuvers carefully to make interest fall within the acceptable limits , it may meet the test required by the rule "No harm and no harrassment." The case of deferred sales (buyu` al-`ajal) presses this line of interpretation farther. Where the delivery of the item or the payment of its price is deferred to a later date, there is no certainty nor even a strong probability that such a sale would lead to evil. Hence, if A sells his car to B for $10,000 with the price being payable in six months' time, and then A buys the same car for $8,000 from B with the price being payable immediately, this transaction in fact amounts to a loan of $8,000 to B on which he pays an interest of $2,000 after six months. From a legal viewpoint, there is a strong probability that this sale would lead to riba although there remains enough uncertainty that some jurists have regarded this type of transaction to be valid and legally binding. The uncertainty concerns whether the arrangement is actually exploitative. For if two businessmen have agreed, then it might be legitimate for the one who is to profit by the consequences of the present deal to be bound to share his profit in a complementary future deal.
Still, more strict jurists continue to regard any loan contract specifying a fixed return to the lender as immoral and illegal, regardless of the purpose for which a loan is sought, its amount and, or the prevailing institutional framework. The reason is that a distinction made in the loan operation by those who justify this operation, between the money on which the contract is made and the operation of lending itself is actually money rewarding money,which is unacceptable under the Shari`ah. This vocal minority in juridical opinion takes the Qur`anic prohibition as categorical, and hence, not open to any further debate or discussion. There is little doubt that in the case cited for this study, Mr. Kamaluddin's religious tenets were governed by the directives received from the latter group of scholars.
In general, it is safe to assume that majority of the Muslim businesses have come to recognize a fait accompli in dealing with interest-based transactions. Devout Muslims may remain hesitant to invest their money in the international stock market, but continue to avail themselves of modern banking with its religiously questionable practice of charging or paying interest. Most businesspeople simply consent to the western model as long as the financial institution happens to be non-Muslim. And some jurists regard banking with interest permissible, as long as, a person does not negotiate the interest and the bank is non-Muslim. Others seek to justify such excusatory thinking. Some leading Sunni jurists in Egypt defend their positive rulings on bank interest by regarding the modern bank interest as something different than the riba (usury) forbidden in the Qur`an. Their judgment rests on the ordinary lexical meaning of the term riba, which literally and simply means "increase" (ziyadah). They argue that since not every increase or profit is unlawful in the Shari`ah, the Qur`anic text remains open to further extrapolation as to what type of increase God intends to forbid. Another tactic is used by Islamic banking institutions in many countries, including traditionally Muslim countries like Algeria and United Arab Emirates. They maintain their economic viability by describing themselves using the Islamic legal concept of "partnership for profit and loss" (mudaraba). There are basically three parties to the "partnership": the depositor (mudarib), the entrepreneur-investor (mudarab) or agent (`amil) and the bank which is intermediary between the depositer and the entrepreneur, as well as the agent of the owner of capital deposited in its safes. In this form of organization, all the parites to the mudaraba share in the profit and losses of the enterprises.
ConclusionDespite efforts to evade it, the prohibition of interest remains a key element in the Islamic vision of a socially responsible economy, and an important element in Islamic business practice. In the last few decades of the twentieth century, according to a report by the Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance, as many as 150 Islamic banking institutions manage $100 billion in the Muslim countries and abroad. There is a huge market demand for religiously guided investing among Muslims. Committees of Muslim jurists are consulted to decide what companies are Qur`an-safe (i.e., for example, do not sell alcohol, pork products, tobacco or charge interest on loans) for investment. Interest in Islamic investment is growing, with international stock markets launching their own Islamic market index to track Qur`an-safe stocks. The influence of Islamic ethics extends further. Besides ruling out certain items as forbidden, the Shari`ah (Muslim religious law) also governs how much debt a company can carry and how much it can earn from interest. From the Islamic perspective, with its bias towards fair distribution of wealth and social justice, the Qur`an's strictures against riba remains at the heart of the Muslim individual as well as national financial institutions in international economic activity.
The prohibition of interest may become an important benchmark of justice in international political economy. As the world economies move closer to integration there is a growing consensus in the international community to move towards a more or less transcultural framework of ethical principles and rules. What is needed is a meta-ethics, a way for the different cultures and religions of the world to interpret their norms and practices to each other. From a normative Islamic point of view, the aim of this dialogical mode should be to engage theologians, scholars and policy makers in the world economic system to search for better ways of redestributing wealth and preserving social justice across nations. This normative focus clearly is evident in Islamic jurisprudence regarding the charging or paying of interest. When the Qur`an banned transactions involving interest, the purpose was to protect financially weak in one way or another against the wealthy who might take advantage of them. The attitude which dominated Islamic jurists was fear of arbitrariness in the decisions of those who held financial and political power. It is an appropriate attitude today.
The Islamic position is an important contribution to international business ethics, for it is supported by a general cross-cultural moral belief that the poor ought to be protected as well as a specific revelation within Islam that regards interest as a form of disregard for the downtrodden in society. All cultures share certain moral principles like beneficence or nonmaleficence. All require rules like truthfulness in advertising as an essential element in regulating morally responsible merchant-consumer relationship. The Islamic prohibition of interest therefore seems to be an extension of the ethical requirement that human beings must treat each other fairly, rather than an obstruction to commerce.

Hijab - My View

I probably do not fit into the preconceived notion of a "rebel." I have no visible tattoos and minimal piercings. I do not possess a leather jacket. In fact, when most people look at me, their first thought usually is something along the lines of "oppressed female."
The brave individuals who have mustered the courage to ask me about the way I dress usually have questions like: "Do your parents make you wear that?" Or "Don't you find that really unfair?"
A while back, a couple of girls in Montreal were kicked out of school for dressing like I do. It seems strange that a little piece of cloth would make for such controversy. Perhaps the fear is that I am harbouring an Uzi underneath it. You never can tell with those Muslim fundamentalists.
Of course, the issue at hand is more than a mere piece of cloth. I am a Muslim woman who, like millions of other Muslim women across the globe, chooses to wear the hijab. There are many different ways to wear it, but in essence, what we do is cover our entire bodies except for our hands and faces. If you're the kind of person who has watched a lot of popular movies, you'd probably think of harem girls and belly-dancers, women who are kept in seclusion except for the private pleasure of their male masters. In the true Islamic faith, nothing could be further from the truth. And the concept of the hijab, contrary to popular opinion, is actually one of the most fundamental aspects of female empowerment. When I cover myself, I make it virtually impossible for people to judge me according to the way I look. I cannot be categorized because of my attractiveness or lack thereof. Compare this to life in today's society: We are constantly sizing one another up on the basis of our clothing, jewellery, hair and make-up. What kind of depth can there be in a world like this?
Yes, I have a body, a physical manifestation upon this Earth. But it is the vessel of an intelligent mind and a strong spirit. It is not for the beholder to leer at or to use in advertisements to sell everything from beer to cars. Because of the superficiality of the world in which we live, external appearances are so stressed that the value of the individual counts for almost nothing. It is a myth that women in today's society are liberated. What kind of freedom can there be when a woman cannot walk down the street without every aspect of her physical self being "checked out"? When I wear the hijab I feel safe from all of this. I can rest assured that no one is looking at me and making assumptions about my character from the length of my skirt. There is a barrier between me and those who would exploit me. I am first and foremost a human being, equal to any man, and not vulnerable because of my sexuality. One of the saddest truths of our time is the question of the beauty myth and female self-image. Reading popular teenage magazines, you can instantly find out what kind of body image is "in" or "out." And if you have the "wrong" body type, well, then, you're just going to have to change it, aren't you? After all, there is no way that you can be overweight and still be beautiful.
Look at any advertisement. Is a woman being used to sell the product? How old is she? How attractive is she? What is she wearing? More often than not, that woman will be no older than her early 20s, taller, slimmer and more attractive than average, dressed in skimpy clothing. Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated like this? Whether the '90s woman wishes to believe it or not, she is being forced into a mould. She is being coerced into selling herself, into compromising herself. This is why we have 13-year-old girls sticking their fingers down their throats and overweight adolescents hanging themselves .
When people ask me if I feel oppressed, I can honestly say no. I made this decision out of my own free will. I like the fact that I am taking control of the way other people perceive me. I enjoy the fact that I don't give anyone anything to look at and that I have released myself from the bondage of the swinging pendulum of the fashion industry and other institutions that exploit females.
My body is my own business. Nobody can tell me how I should look or whether or not I am beautiful. I know that there is more to me than that. I am also able to say no comfortably when people ask me if I feel as though my sexuality is being repressed. I have taken control of my sexuality.
I am thankful I will never have to suffer the fate of trying to lose/gain weight or trying to find the exact lipstick shade that will go with my skin colour. I have made choices about what my priorities are and these are not among them.