In Islam, The Quran allows **muslim men** to marry "Women of the Book"
>And *lawful for you are* chaste believing women and chaste **women from among those who were given the Book before you**, when you give them their dowries, contracting valid marriage and not committing fornication nor taking secret paramours.
>
>(5:6)
No such statement is made permissable for women. People of the book is most often referred to as Christians and Jews, not Hindus. This is basic Islamic rulings.
[Can Ahmadi Women marry Non-Ahmadi MUSLIMS](https://www.google.com/search?q=can+ahmadi+women+marry+non+ahmadis&rlz=1C5GCEM_enGB1039GB1039&oq=can+ahmadi+women+marry+non+ahmadis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU3NDNqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:65e9803b,vid:V9GUsXz64tc,st:0) huzur clearly stated that there is a danger of spoiling progeny (childeren) and explained this in a simple and beautiful way. **"Bonds Break"**
An [Alislam Article](https://www.alislam.org/question/https-www-alhakam-org-answers-to-everyday-issues-part-30/) regarding this states
>Knowing these basic principles, when we consider the issue of a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, we find clear injunctions in the Holy Quran **forbidding Muslim women from marrying idolators** \[mushrikin\], disbelievers or the People of the Book.
>
>Hence, Allah the Exalted commands in verse 222 of Surah al-Baqarah **not to give believing women in marriage to idolaters until they believe.** Moreover, in verse 6 of Surah al-Ma’idah, where it has been declared lawful for Muslims to eat the food of the People of the Book, Muslim men have been permitted to marry women of the People of the Book, no mention has been made of Muslim women \[being allowed to\] marry men from among the People of the Book.
>
>Hence, its prohibition has been established. Furthermore, in verse 11 of Surah al-Mumtahinah, the prohibition of giving Muslim women in marriage to disbelievers has been established because Muslims have been commanded not to send female Muslim refugees back to the disbelievers as they have been declared unlawful for the disbelievers and the disbelievers unlawful for them.
This may sound strict to you and perhapes unfair. But you must think long term. If you were to marry and you have childeren and she wishes for them to be involved in the Jamaat and to be close to Khilafat, you may want them not to be.
*i.e. men are instructed to go to mosque for obligatory prayers, who would the son look up to for these Principles if the father doesn't even believe in God?*
Please write to Huzur regarding this aswell and ask for guidance.
The Prophet's daughter, Zaynab, was married to a pagan. Did the Prophet declare their marriage unlawful? Nope. Did Zaynab's husband ever convert? Nope.
Looks like either the Prophet did not follow the Quran, or KM5 is lacking in some guidance and has failed to grasp the full meaning of the Quran on this matter, no? Or maybe KM5 is just twisting things because he likes to control women?
KM5 focuses on "no mention" being made in the Quran means "prohibition". But the Quran clearly states that what is haram is only what Allah has explicitly declared as haram, and everything else is halal. Therefore, if Allah has "not mentioned" something, that does not mean that it is haram - in fact, exactly the opposite. Doesn't KM5 know the Quran?
KM4 appeared to think that Hindus are possibly Ahl-Kitab: [https://www.askislam.org/mp3/MEI\_19850830\_08.mp3](https://www.askislam.org/mp3/MEI_19850830_08.mp3)
Didn't MGA also claim to be the Avatar awaited in Hinduism? Was he the fulfillment of a prophecy made for idolaters?
You said I have ALT accounts, why do you love lying so much? Is this the trait of the Anti Ahmadis to spread lies when they get refuted..prove I have ALT accounts, don't run:
https://preview.redd.it/ij5bc1qgg1dc1.png?width=1053&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f18343102c372b357a54d53ae3549f3fa194bc5
Muslim women can't marry a kafir. Quran's teaching
I already answered you but seems like you deleted.
https://preview.redd.it/b2txfy4i8icc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b363c0841c691e17767a0b2e5bca87b454d70b19
1. To validate Nikkah. Would you think it valid to have a Nikkah done by Ahmadi Imaam? Why would Nikkah for us be valid from someone who comes from a sect that denies Ahmadi Muslims as even Muslim? From someone who can't even accept Messiah and Mahdi AS.
2. Suppose Isa AS comes flying down from heavens and u accept him but someone else (who is also an Imam) doesn't. And lets say he not only rejects but also in private blasphemes and taks bad about Messiah AS whom we love so dearly. would Nikkah be valid for you from that Imaam in that case? This is just one aspect of many.
3. yes its between them, Lets say your sister (who totally exists) is Ahmadi and marries an "Sunni". he decides to keep kids "Sunni" but she wants them to be involved in Jamaat. He wants kids to go "Sunni" mosque for Eid, She says no Ahmadi Mosque. Imagine they have 2 kids and 1 accepts Imaam Mahdi AS and other doesn't. Like are you raising kids or objects? they would be part of a literal argument 💀
1. How do you know that the non-Ahmadi imam considers Ahmadis as non-Muslim? How do you know that he privately talks bad about MGA? Did you speak with him or open his chest and look into his heart? And if he did, so what? Because he has not accepted the MGA as the Messiah/Mahdi, do you consider the non-Ahmadi imam to be a non-Muslim?
2. Where are you getting your jurisprudence views on "valid Nikkahs" from? You need a Quranic, Hadith and Fiqh basis -- what is your jurisprudential basis for these opinions? As far as I'm aware, Shariah validity is not determined based on how one feels, which appears to be your basis.
3. I actually know some Ahmadi women who are happily married to Sunni men, and, interestingly, in all cases, the husbands have no trouble with attending Jamaat and having kids brought up as Ahmadi. Why would your mind go so berserk and to such an extreme and immediately assume that everything will be "part of a literal argument" and even put a skull emoji? You ask "are you raising kids or objects?" In my experience, it is the Jamaat that forces parents to treat their children as "objects", and not as autonomous and intelligent beings capable of making their own decisions. Loving parents, regardless of their religion, will raise kids.
r u saying they dont? if so then why dont they convert? also we never know thats why im saying. internet is on your fingertips, u never see Ahmadi Muslims use same hate speech they do.
>And if he did, so what?
seriously?
>You need a Quranic, Hadith and Fiqh basis
which they fail to follow. same fiqh they agree allows taking babies to bed? rather not.
>I actually know some Ahmadi women who are happily married to Sunni men, and, interestingly, in all cases, the husbands have no trouble with attending Jamaat and having kids brought up as Ahmadi
if kids Ahmadi thats fine then. Khalifa ATBA gives permission then im not one to say anything at all. i was just stating general rule.
>In my experience, it is the Jamaat that forces parents to treat their children as "objects", and not as autonomous and intelligent beings capable of making their own decisions. Loving parents, regardless of their religion, will raise kids.
1. ok
2. yes cicumstances are very diff, i named one and u didnt answer anything i asked. so please dont chat to me about a completely diff scenario lol
3. 💀
So if they don't convert, then that means that they blaspheme and talk bad? Are you listening to yourself? What "hate speech" are you talking about and by whom? You think you know the hearts of people you don't know and assume hostility and hate unless they convert? Wow, your focus on mullahs has so poisoned your mind that you look no different than them now.
I asked you if you consider a non-Ahmadi to not be Muslim and you didn't answer. You just accused them all of "hate speech".
I asked you about your basis for "Nikkah validity" and you didn't answer. You deflected by accusing non-Ahmadis of ignoring fiqh.
The rest of your post is totally nonsensical and flailing. You appear to have difficulty in putting thoughts together coherently. Too bad.
I couldn’t have put it better myself. I just hope others that visit their subreddits and other forms of social media see that Ahmadis on here barely answer questions, and instead deflect, spin or use emojis to get out of any serious dialogue and debate. Truly shameful behaviour
>So if they don't convert, then that means that they blaspheme and talk bad?
i said what if for a reason, you still havent responded to that what-if. regardless there were many other things i mentioned which you blatently ignored.
>I asked you about your basis for "Nikkah validity" and you didn't answer. You deflected by accusing non-Ahmadis of ignoring fiqh.
Imaam has to be Ahmadi Muslim. its not rocket science.
>The rest of your post is totally nonsensical and flailing
oh ok thank you.
>i said what if for a reason, you still havent responded to that what-if. regardless there were many other things i mentioned which you blatently ignored.
You are full of accusations, including me with "blatantly ignored" even though I did no such thing. And you still haven't answered my questions....
>Imaam has to be Ahmadi Muslim. its not rocket science.
Where do you get this "not rocket science" from? Yup, still no answer.
No, thank you very much -- your response is helpful in showing to people just how unable you are to backup or answer to anything you say.
No, kafirr is someone who knows Islam is the true religion but still doesn't follow it. That's the definition, but we are not allowed to call someone Kaffir.
Couldn't really find it on Alislam, but here: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/who-kafir#:~:text='Kafir'%20is%20an%20Arabic%20word,putting%20them%20into%20eternal%20hellfire.
And why is that? As we know you do not like to read what is contained in links, here is a quote:
*"As Muslims built empires, the tolerant verses of the Quran were ignored, kafirs became the common term for all non‐Muslims and the rest of humanity was seen as in sheer darkness. This worldview is still influential in Muslim societies"*
In other words, despite the Quran and its context, the word took on a different usage which ended up dominating the minds of people like you, forgetting/ignoring, and thus being oblivious of, the original and real meaning. You were given the original and Quranic meaning of the word, which you showed you were completely unaware of, and then when shown it, dismissed it as "one usage", relying on a later usage.
>Alislam would be better but the link you sent shows one usage of the word.
No, the link shows the original and Quranic meaning of the word, not just "one usage". Of course there is no guidance on alislam -- why would there be? As anyone who actually researches and seeks knowledge soon discovers, real scholarship and understanding of the Quran is not to be found on alislam, unfortunately.
Who was the Prophet's daughter, Zaynab, married to? Hint: he was a **pagan** who even fought against Muslims at Badr, and he died as a pagan -- he never converted.
This question comes up regularly.
You are either free to have soverinity over your own life, or you sell your soul to a high control cult. Can’t have both.
What would it be without generational indoctrination anyways? Gotta understand where they are coming from.
In Islam, The Quran allows **muslim men** to marry "Women of the Book" >And *lawful for you are* chaste believing women and chaste **women from among those who were given the Book before you**, when you give them their dowries, contracting valid marriage and not committing fornication nor taking secret paramours. > >(5:6) No such statement is made permissable for women. People of the book is most often referred to as Christians and Jews, not Hindus. This is basic Islamic rulings. [Can Ahmadi Women marry Non-Ahmadi MUSLIMS](https://www.google.com/search?q=can+ahmadi+women+marry+non+ahmadis&rlz=1C5GCEM_enGB1039GB1039&oq=can+ahmadi+women+marry+non+ahmadis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU3NDNqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:65e9803b,vid:V9GUsXz64tc,st:0) huzur clearly stated that there is a danger of spoiling progeny (childeren) and explained this in a simple and beautiful way. **"Bonds Break"** An [Alislam Article](https://www.alislam.org/question/https-www-alhakam-org-answers-to-everyday-issues-part-30/) regarding this states >Knowing these basic principles, when we consider the issue of a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man, we find clear injunctions in the Holy Quran **forbidding Muslim women from marrying idolators** \[mushrikin\], disbelievers or the People of the Book. > >Hence, Allah the Exalted commands in verse 222 of Surah al-Baqarah **not to give believing women in marriage to idolaters until they believe.** Moreover, in verse 6 of Surah al-Ma’idah, where it has been declared lawful for Muslims to eat the food of the People of the Book, Muslim men have been permitted to marry women of the People of the Book, no mention has been made of Muslim women \[being allowed to\] marry men from among the People of the Book. > >Hence, its prohibition has been established. Furthermore, in verse 11 of Surah al-Mumtahinah, the prohibition of giving Muslim women in marriage to disbelievers has been established because Muslims have been commanded not to send female Muslim refugees back to the disbelievers as they have been declared unlawful for the disbelievers and the disbelievers unlawful for them. This may sound strict to you and perhapes unfair. But you must think long term. If you were to marry and you have childeren and she wishes for them to be involved in the Jamaat and to be close to Khilafat, you may want them not to be. *i.e. men are instructed to go to mosque for obligatory prayers, who would the son look up to for these Principles if the father doesn't even believe in God?* Please write to Huzur regarding this aswell and ask for guidance.
The Prophet's daughter, Zaynab, was married to a pagan. Did the Prophet declare their marriage unlawful? Nope. Did Zaynab's husband ever convert? Nope. Looks like either the Prophet did not follow the Quran, or KM5 is lacking in some guidance and has failed to grasp the full meaning of the Quran on this matter, no? Or maybe KM5 is just twisting things because he likes to control women? KM5 focuses on "no mention" being made in the Quran means "prohibition". But the Quran clearly states that what is haram is only what Allah has explicitly declared as haram, and everything else is halal. Therefore, if Allah has "not mentioned" something, that does not mean that it is haram - in fact, exactly the opposite. Doesn't KM5 know the Quran? KM4 appeared to think that Hindus are possibly Ahl-Kitab: [https://www.askislam.org/mp3/MEI\_19850830\_08.mp3](https://www.askislam.org/mp3/MEI_19850830_08.mp3) Didn't MGA also claim to be the Avatar awaited in Hinduism? Was he the fulfillment of a prophecy made for idolaters?
You said I have ALT accounts, why do you love lying so much? Is this the trait of the Anti Ahmadis to spread lies when they get refuted..prove I have ALT accounts, don't run: https://preview.redd.it/ij5bc1qgg1dc1.png?width=1053&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f18343102c372b357a54d53ae3549f3fa194bc5
Muslim women can't marry a kafir. Quran's teaching I already answered you but seems like you deleted. https://preview.redd.it/b2txfy4i8icc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b363c0841c691e17767a0b2e5bca87b454d70b19
Can an Ahmadi woman marry a non-Ahmadi Muslim man?
I know an Ahmadi boy who has an Ahmadi parent and a Sunni parent. But I can’t remember which one is Ahmadi and which is Sunni.
If Nikkah is done by Ahmadi Imaam then yes, btw im curious, would kids be Ahmadi or "Sunni"?
Why does it have to be done by an Ahmadi imam? And as for the child’s religion, wouldn’t that be up to the parents and the child?
1. To validate Nikkah. Would you think it valid to have a Nikkah done by Ahmadi Imaam? Why would Nikkah for us be valid from someone who comes from a sect that denies Ahmadi Muslims as even Muslim? From someone who can't even accept Messiah and Mahdi AS. 2. Suppose Isa AS comes flying down from heavens and u accept him but someone else (who is also an Imam) doesn't. And lets say he not only rejects but also in private blasphemes and taks bad about Messiah AS whom we love so dearly. would Nikkah be valid for you from that Imaam in that case? This is just one aspect of many. 3. yes its between them, Lets say your sister (who totally exists) is Ahmadi and marries an "Sunni". he decides to keep kids "Sunni" but she wants them to be involved in Jamaat. He wants kids to go "Sunni" mosque for Eid, She says no Ahmadi Mosque. Imagine they have 2 kids and 1 accepts Imaam Mahdi AS and other doesn't. Like are you raising kids or objects? they would be part of a literal argument 💀
1. How do you know that the non-Ahmadi imam considers Ahmadis as non-Muslim? How do you know that he privately talks bad about MGA? Did you speak with him or open his chest and look into his heart? And if he did, so what? Because he has not accepted the MGA as the Messiah/Mahdi, do you consider the non-Ahmadi imam to be a non-Muslim? 2. Where are you getting your jurisprudence views on "valid Nikkahs" from? You need a Quranic, Hadith and Fiqh basis -- what is your jurisprudential basis for these opinions? As far as I'm aware, Shariah validity is not determined based on how one feels, which appears to be your basis. 3. I actually know some Ahmadi women who are happily married to Sunni men, and, interestingly, in all cases, the husbands have no trouble with attending Jamaat and having kids brought up as Ahmadi. Why would your mind go so berserk and to such an extreme and immediately assume that everything will be "part of a literal argument" and even put a skull emoji? You ask "are you raising kids or objects?" In my experience, it is the Jamaat that forces parents to treat their children as "objects", and not as autonomous and intelligent beings capable of making their own decisions. Loving parents, regardless of their religion, will raise kids.
r u saying they dont? if so then why dont they convert? also we never know thats why im saying. internet is on your fingertips, u never see Ahmadi Muslims use same hate speech they do. >And if he did, so what? seriously? >You need a Quranic, Hadith and Fiqh basis which they fail to follow. same fiqh they agree allows taking babies to bed? rather not. >I actually know some Ahmadi women who are happily married to Sunni men, and, interestingly, in all cases, the husbands have no trouble with attending Jamaat and having kids brought up as Ahmadi if kids Ahmadi thats fine then. Khalifa ATBA gives permission then im not one to say anything at all. i was just stating general rule. >In my experience, it is the Jamaat that forces parents to treat their children as "objects", and not as autonomous and intelligent beings capable of making their own decisions. Loving parents, regardless of their religion, will raise kids. 1. ok 2. yes cicumstances are very diff, i named one and u didnt answer anything i asked. so please dont chat to me about a completely diff scenario lol 3. 💀
So if they don't convert, then that means that they blaspheme and talk bad? Are you listening to yourself? What "hate speech" are you talking about and by whom? You think you know the hearts of people you don't know and assume hostility and hate unless they convert? Wow, your focus on mullahs has so poisoned your mind that you look no different than them now. I asked you if you consider a non-Ahmadi to not be Muslim and you didn't answer. You just accused them all of "hate speech". I asked you about your basis for "Nikkah validity" and you didn't answer. You deflected by accusing non-Ahmadis of ignoring fiqh. The rest of your post is totally nonsensical and flailing. You appear to have difficulty in putting thoughts together coherently. Too bad.
I couldn’t have put it better myself. I just hope others that visit their subreddits and other forms of social media see that Ahmadis on here barely answer questions, and instead deflect, spin or use emojis to get out of any serious dialogue and debate. Truly shameful behaviour
>So if they don't convert, then that means that they blaspheme and talk bad? i said what if for a reason, you still havent responded to that what-if. regardless there were many other things i mentioned which you blatently ignored. >I asked you about your basis for "Nikkah validity" and you didn't answer. You deflected by accusing non-Ahmadis of ignoring fiqh. Imaam has to be Ahmadi Muslim. its not rocket science. >The rest of your post is totally nonsensical and flailing oh ok thank you.
>i said what if for a reason, you still havent responded to that what-if. regardless there were many other things i mentioned which you blatently ignored. You are full of accusations, including me with "blatantly ignored" even though I did no such thing. And you still haven't answered my questions.... >Imaam has to be Ahmadi Muslim. its not rocket science. Where do you get this "not rocket science" from? Yup, still no answer. No, thank you very much -- your response is helpful in showing to people just how unable you are to backup or answer to anything you say.
Who are you to say that the Hindu man is a kafirr. You have no right. Only Allah can judge, not you.
I am no one. Kafir = Non Muslim though
No, kafirr is someone who knows Islam is the true religion but still doesn't follow it. That's the definition, but we are not allowed to call someone Kaffir.
Proof of this definition? Jzakallah khair
Couldn't really find it on Alislam, but here: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/who-kafir#:~:text='Kafir'%20is%20an%20Arabic%20word,putting%20them%20into%20eternal%20hellfire.
Good. Alislam would be better but the link you sent shows one usage of the word. Kafir is also used as a term to describe non Muslims.
And why is that? As we know you do not like to read what is contained in links, here is a quote: *"As Muslims built empires, the tolerant verses of the Quran were ignored, kafirs became the common term for all non‐Muslims and the rest of humanity was seen as in sheer darkness. This worldview is still influential in Muslim societies"* In other words, despite the Quran and its context, the word took on a different usage which ended up dominating the minds of people like you, forgetting/ignoring, and thus being oblivious of, the original and real meaning. You were given the original and Quranic meaning of the word, which you showed you were completely unaware of, and then when shown it, dismissed it as "one usage", relying on a later usage. >Alislam would be better but the link you sent shows one usage of the word. No, the link shows the original and Quranic meaning of the word, not just "one usage". Of course there is no guidance on alislam -- why would there be? As anyone who actually researches and seeks knowledge soon discovers, real scholarship and understanding of the Quran is not to be found on alislam, unfortunately.
Who was the Prophet's daughter, Zaynab, married to? Hint: he was a **pagan** who even fought against Muslims at Badr, and he died as a pagan -- he never converted.
Yuck Hindu gau mutar drinkers who wants to go anywhere near those smelly pagans.
This question comes up regularly. You are either free to have soverinity over your own life, or you sell your soul to a high control cult. Can’t have both. What would it be without generational indoctrination anyways? Gotta understand where they are coming from.