The word kafa’a stands for legitimacy of a marriage. It is widely, but fallaciously or deceptively, propagated that the Qur’an

The word kafa’a stands for legitimacy of a marriage. It is widely, but fallaciously or deceptively, propagated that the Qur’an and genuine Prophetic traditions consider Muslims as equals, and hence, allow any Muslim to marry a suitable Muslim spouse from any background. In choosing an ideal partner for marriage, they propagate the notion that the Qur’an recommends piety (taqwa) and faith (iman) as the only mark, rather than birth or wealth. They cite examples of the Prophet that he had allowed freed slave men to marry the Arab women. In this regard, they cite the example of Zaid, a black slave freed by Muhammad, to whom the Prophet gave his cousin Zainab in marriage. But they ignore the fact that this marriage was sham, a ploy, set up by aged Muhammad in his desire to add the young and beautiful Zainab into his own harem (read the story: Sex With Daughters-in-Law: Divinely Ordained in Islam). One must also take into account that the famous Salman the Persian, a distinguished convert of Muhammad, had to withdraw his desire to marry a daughter of Caliph Omar, because he was a non-Arab. It should be added here that Salman had saved Muhammad and his community, and, Islam, for that matter, in the Battle of the Ditch by giving Muhammad the idea of digging a trench surrounding his community as defence. Muhammad himself had thanked Salman for the saving the day for Islam and praised him and his people for their excellence in knowledge. The social hierarchical system, as recognized by the Quran and Prophet Muhammad (read more here: Racism in Islam: Allah’s White Faces), in which the Koreish were placed at the height of nobility, followed by other Arab tribes, followed by non-Arabs, later on evolved further transforming Islamic societies into a sharply hierarchical social order. Notions of social hierarchy based on birth, clan or race also gradually became incorporated into the corpus of writings of Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh. Taking a spouse from outside one’s kafa’a was sternly frowned upon, if not explicitly forbidden by the fuqaha (jurists). For a non-Arab, marrying an Arab, particularly a woman, became a social crime during the entire age of Islam, continuing to this day in Arab societies. In the Indian subcontinent, the vast majority of Indian Muslims follow the Hanafi law. The opinions of the classical Hanafi scholars regarding kafa’a continued reflect the caste system and social hierarchy. Most Indian Hanafis seem to have regarded caste (biraderi), understood as hereditary occupational group (i.e., division of labour) as an essential factor in deciding kafa’a. It was continued to be determined on consideration of following salient points: (1) legal status as free or enslaved (azadi), (2) economic status (maldari), (3) occupation (pesha), (4) intelligence (‘aql), (5) family origin or ethnicity (nasb), (6) piety (taqwa), and (7) absence of bodily defects. In this way, the caste system was legitimized amongst Muslims of India through the notion of kafa’a: taking a spouse from outside one’s kafa’a was sternly frowned upon, if not explicitly forbidden by the fuqaha. In support of this notion of kafa’a, the ulama used to refer to a hadith according to which caliph ‘Umar refused to let a girl from a rich family to marry a man from a lower class. But later on, many scholars raised their voice against the above-mentioned caste system amongst Muslims declaring it un-Islamic, out of their ignorance of course. Contemporary Indian Muslim scholar, Maulana ‘Abdul Hamid Nu’mani, was one of them. Nu’mani belonged to the Ansari caste of hereditary weavers, traditionally considered ‘low born’ by ashraf Muslims. He asserted that, according to the Qur’an, kafa’a should be considered only on piety. Hence, the only criterion for deciding a marriage partner should, ideally, be his or her personal character and dedication to the faith. In other words, he suggested that, there should be no religious bar for a Muslim man, even from a low caste, or a low caste Hindu convert to Islam, to marry a Muslim girl from a high caste or vice versa. However, caste and caste-based social hierarchy, through the notion of kafa’a, were accepted and propagated as a social norm and binding for Muslims by important sections of the ulama. It is widely practised amongst Muslims today, despite some Muslim scholars’ denouncement of it (as do Hindus in their society). So, the Muslims of India, who usually denounce Hinduism for its caste system and try to project that Islam is free from this evil, are either ignorant or trying to hide caste system deeply integrated in Muslim society. In conclusion, let me emphasize that the Muslim society of India are not at all free from many of the socials ills of Hindu society, they frequently point to. They are often as stark and integrated in the Muslim society, but remain unrecognized, unspoken. The Hindus have recognized all its past and continuing social ills and are making strenuous efforts to rid their society from them. The Hindus of India would cleanse their society of these ills and move forward to become a proud and contributory part of the emerging global civilization: the sings are all there for one to see. Unfortunately, the same cannot be expected of the stagnant Muslim world, of India’s Muslims in particular. The Arab Islamic imperialism they embraced did little to free themselves from what they call the ills of Hinduism. Instead, the debilitating, violent nature of their new ideology is crippling them in every respect: their contributions to all indices of social and national development and progress are declining.. Poverty, lack of education, propensity of violence, human rights violation within the Islamic community and beyond are becoming the hallmark of their community within the wider Indian society. Freeing themselves from the yoke of the Arab imperialism, from the debilitating cult of Islam, remains a precondition for the subcontinental Muslim society (and of the wider Muslim world) to march toward progress and prosperity. Freedom and liberty to choose as one wishes to live one’s life, to pursue one’s dream, is a precondition to excel in the race of modern civilization. The Islamic creed imparts religious scruples at every step of one’s life to pursue what is needed to excel in today’s society. For India’s Muslims, returning to their civilizational root, which, undoubtedly, allows much greater freedom and liberty, is an option to them. They just have to look around to realize where their non-Muslim neighbors are heading to and where their own society.