The Civil Marriage

[yaa tahay]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 

The Civil Marriage

 

Nowadays many types of Shirk and Kufr exist which are hard to recognize for some. One of them is the civil marriage. Why exactly it is Kufr will in sha'a Allah become more obvious if we first of all look at another type of Kufr marriage that resembles it a lot:

 

For example, if a Muslim wants to marry a woman from Ahl ul-Kitab he can only marry her according to the laws of al-Islam. It is clear that he cannot marry her according to the laws of her Din, and that he would be Kafir if he did that. So if he would go to the church or synagogue (the place where the Jews pray), and demand from the followers of her Din that they marry him to her – then he demands from them to determine something. Namely, that from now on he is allowed to stay with that woman, that everyone of them has certain “rights” and “obligations”, and so on.

 

Allahu ta’ala said,

 

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ ذٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ (يوسف: 40)

 

Verily, the Hukm (judgment) is only for Allah. He has ordained that you worship only Him. That is the straight Din but most of men know not.“ (Yusuf: 40)

 

If someone marries that women in the church or synagogue according to the laws of the Kuffar he shows thereby that it doesn't bother him that these people stipulate a Hukm (judgment, law) for him.

 

If someone marries in a registry office his situation doesn't look much different. In such a registry office people are being married off according to the rules of a false Din – namely, democracy. It is not the place of marriage that counts, or that one calls it a religious marriage or a civil one – rather what counts is if one marries according to the rules of al-Islam, or in another way.

 

How would it be if a Muslim would marry an atheist? He surely wouldn't be Muslim anymore after that since such a marriage is forbidden in Islam. He would think that he is now her husband and she his wife. And that means that he would deny one of the prohibitions of Allah. Allahu ta’ala has forbidden such a thing and declared it to be invalid. But whoever declares such a marriage to be allowed he denies one of the laws of Allah. He ta’ala said,

 

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الظَّالِمُونَ (الأنعام: 21)

 

And who is more unjust than the one who invents a lie against Allah or denies His Ayat? Verily, those who are unjust won't attain success (in the Hereafter). (al-An’am: 21)

 

Denying the Ayat of Allah doesn't only happen if somebody reads an Ayah of the Qur'an and then says, “I don't believe in this anymore.” It also happens by denying something completely obvious like the prohibition of alcohol for example. In this case he could say as often as he wants that the Ayah which prohibits alcohol is part of the Qur'an and true – he still denies it and is contradicting himself. Even if he tries to explain it by sayings like, “Yes, the Ayah is correct but nowadays you don't have to abide by it, and I am Muslim and believe in the Qur'an and Sunnah”- this surely doesn't avail him in anything.

 

So that man would claim that this atheist is his wife. And this statement already shows that he considers the marriage to be valid. His situation isn't at all like that of the one who spends some time together with a woman and commits sins. This alone would already be forbidden but in that case he at least wouldn't have declared something to be allowed.

 

But the one who says, “This woman is my wife and we are married” doesn't only commit a sin because he is together with her but he is declaring something to be allowed. Even if a Muslim commits a major sin he still is Muslim. But whoever declares something that Allah has forbidden to be allowed he isn't a Muslim anymore.

 

About the divorce in court: No-one can can go to the court in order to seek any judgment from them. To let oneself being judged by the laws of Kufr is something that definitely takes one out of Islam. Allahu ta’ala said,

 

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا

 

Haven't you seen those who claim to have Iman in that which was sent down to you and in that which has been sent down before you? They want to go for judgment to the Taghut, and they already have been commanded to commit Kufr against him. And the Shaytan wants to lead them far astray. (an-Nisa': 60)

 

Whoever demands a Hukm from a Taghut (i.e. does Tahakum) asks him to set something for him by his Kufr-laws. Never is it possible to tell a Taghut to enact a new Kufr-law. If somebody demands from the government that they declare a certain thing to be allowed or forbidden he surely isn't a Muslim anymore.

 

If someone asks them to make something allowed by law for the whole nation he cannot be Muslim. But what about if he “only” asks them to make it allowed for him alone, and not for the others? That would be exactly the same, with the exception that it isn't about a law that concerns the whole nation but “only” a single person.

 

It's the same case with the divorce. Let's say, someone would demand from the state to repeal all existing civil marriages – so now he would demand Kufr from them. Because they would repeal them by law, and would enact by law that the couples don't have any “rights” or “obligations” anymore. Whoever demands something like this contradicts “La ilaha illa Allah” by his deeds. No matter if he went therefor before the court, or if he himself joined the government in order to make new laws together with them, or whatever.

 

If this point was understandable then it is in sha'a Allah understandable as well what the case of the one who asks the court for divorce is. He would demand a Hukm from the Taghut, and would ask him to set something according to the law which concerns him and his wife. Here something was determined by law, while Allahu ta’ala is the One Who has determined for mankind what is obligatory for them and what is not, and what is allowed or forbidden. Allahu ta’ala said,

 

أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَنْ بِهِ اللَّهُ (الشورى:21)

 

Or do they have partners who have enjoined on them that of the Din which Allah hasn't made allowed? (ash-Shura:21)

 

Since in al-Islam laws for the whole life are set. If someone claims that people among themselves can allow or forbid some things regarding “worldy matters” without any problem then he would have said thereby, “Only Allah can make laws in the religious area but the humans can also make laws in the wordly area.” And he wouldn't have attributed the right of legislation to Allah in all areas because of which he wouldn't be a Muslim.

[Blessed]

What's the source of this?

[yaa tahay]

adigana 'what is the source' beey kaaga dhegtay

 

waa the koran, ahadith and sayings of the ulama

 

maxaad kaloo raadinisaa?