Controversy over the Prohibition of Marriage of Muslim Female to Non-Muslim Male in Tunisia Sheds Light on the Importance for Christians to Understand Legal Diversity in Islam

By Raffi Chilingirian

Tunisian authorities have lifted the ministerial order that had previously prohibited the marriage of Muslim Tunisian females to non-Muslim males, announced Saida Garrach, the spokesperson for the Presidency of the Republic, on Thursday the 14^th of September, 2017.

Garrach made her announcement on social media where she wrote, “All the texts related to the prohibition of Tunisian marriage with a foreigner, namely the 1973 circular and all similar texts, have been cancelled. Congratulations to the women of Tunisia for the enshrinement of the right to the freedom to choose one’s spouse.”

The decision to ban the marriage of Muslim Tunisian women from non-Muslim Tunisian men dates back to the 5^th of November 1973, under the rule of former president Habib Bourguiba. This law recognized the marriage of a Tunisian Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man, provided that a certificate attesting to the man’s conversion to Islam was produced. Nevertheless, the initiative to cancel this order was taken by the current president, Beji Caid Essebsi, during his meeting with the Tunisian Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on the 13^th of August 2017. Not only that, but Essebsi also requested that the constitution be amended to achieve equality of inheritance for men and women.

Tunisian associations and organizations active in civil society had asked for a revoking of the ministerial order, as they maintain that it does not align with article 6 of the Tunisian Constitution, which stipulates that the state is the guardian of religion and guarantees freedom of conscience. Moreover, this publication seems to be in contradiction with articles 21 and 41 of the Tunisian Constitution, which guarantee the equality of Tunisian men and women.

It is evident that Essebsi’s decision provoked major controversy among various constituencies and religious and political figures, whose views on the matter were in sharp contrast, with some being in favor and others in strong opposition. On the one hand, the Tunisian Fatwa House defended Essebsi’s call and stated it “supports the status of women and guarantees the principle of gender equality in rights and duties, called for by the religion of Islam.” On the other hand, Tunisian Imams and Sheikhs rejected the President’s decision; the Association of Imams held a conference in the Tunisian capital, to which they invited the Association of the Independent Leaders of Tunisia and, in efforts of pursuing moderation and denouncing extremism, signed a petition rejecting the presidential initiative. Additionally, they confirmed their adoption of the position of Islamic Law regarding issues of inheritance and the marriage of Muslim females to non-Muslim males.

The consequences of this decision extended beyond Tunisia, where the deputy of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif in Egypt, Abbas Shuman, said, “inheritance is legislated by categorical verses that cannot be altered with changing conditions in time and place.”

This disparity of opinions and attitudes demonstrates the diversity that exists among schools of Islamic jurisprudence, as they adopt varying approaches to address social issues. In that regard, not all Muslim scholars adhere to the same school and thus the vast spectrum in Muslim society cannot all be subjected to the same judgment. Yet, the Church is often guilty of stereotyping, as Christians can impose a single mold on Muslim society in all of its diversity. It is thus not uncommon for the Church to assume that what applies to one or more Muslim groups applies to all others. These controversial issues of the marriage of a Muslim female to a non-Muslim male and of the questions of inheritance demonstrate the plurality and diversity that exist in Islamic thought. Much of this stereotyping comes from our own ignorance of the Islamic faith. As a result, such categorization prevents the Church from initiating dialogue and understanding with Muslims.

The divergence of views among Tunisian Imams is due to varying approaches to reading and interpreting the Quranic text. Some Imams, including those of Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, will follow the literal approach to understanding the Quran, which claims that the Quranic text is clear on matters of life, and that all attempts to moderate it and render it better suited to the current reality of Muslim society should be avoided. Other Imams, however, insist that the Quran contains the “intentions of the Law,” and that jurisprudence has therefore the responsibility to adapt its message in a way that relates appropriately to contemporary times, needs, and geographical locations. It is worth noting that these two approaches are not alien to those that the Church has adopted historically when reading and interpreting Biblical texts.

The Church today must seek to further its knowledge of Islam and its comprehension of the diversity of thought that exists within the religion, especially as Muslims have become their neighbors both in the East and in the West. Thus stands the question as to how the Church will defy its stereotypical perceptions of Islam. And finally, should the Church not engage more actively in dialogue with those who seek a more contextual interpretation of Quranic texts, and should they not cooperate with them more intentionally in seeking the progress of society towards a common good?