Recently, the world of Islamic Da’wah in the English-speaking world has been set ablaze amidst claims and counterclaims, as a now world-famous Muslim Da’i is engulfed in allegations of having a secret Misyar marriage, with counterclaims placed against the accusers. To those outside the world of Da’wah, this takes on the feel of a Big Brother-esque drama, akin to a real-life comic tragedy. It also presents Christians doing work amongst Muslims and non-Muslims (in their orbit) an opportunity to evangelise whilst their ranks are in disarray. However, amidst this melodrama, some serious issues could be missed, which I hope to address here. This article will not discuss the allegations against famous figures but will compare Misyar marriage to Christian marriage as a means to highlight fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity.
Misyar marriage is not, as some less well-informed Christian polemicists claim, a temporary marriage, or at least, it is not meant to be, and so it should not be confused with Mut’ah marriages. Misyar marriages assume a state of permanence but differ from a standard marriage, as a woman voluntarily relinquishes some of her normative rights within the marriage contract of Nikah (Islam QA 2008). Due to this unfortunate state, the victims of a Misyar marriage are usually converts and those previously married with children. I say victims because of my first criticism of this legitimate Islamic marriage: only women surrender their rights within a Misyar marriage; men do not. This highlights a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam: that people are not equal. In fact, Islam assumes a pyramid of worth in which, at every level (as people of different religions inhabit different levels), women are placed beneath men. This is expressed clearly within marriage, inheritance, and punishments (Al-Bukhari 1997, Hadith 676). I could provide other examples, such as the price of blood money paid for Christians vis-à-vis Muslims or between males and females at different ranks.
Christians, holding what is probably their most central value and the most impactful of Christian values, believe in the equal dignity of all people; every individual, regardless of religion, gender, or race, due to their creation in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This has been one of the key values that had the most impact on our classical liberal world, though it is now disregarded by progressive cultists. This leads to two very different concepts of law: one in which all are equal under the law (a Christian ideal) and one in which people are treated differently under the law (an Islamic concept). Christian marriage assumes a normative set of values and a narrative to govern the marriage that applies to all marriages.
Misyar marriage itself is a subset of polygamous marriages; again, something only men can participate in according to Islam; for a Christian, it is merely legalised fornication. Christians restrict marriage to one man and one woman, as they hold that Christ is restoring the fallen order to a pre-fallen state. Since God only made Adam and Eve, and not Adam, Eve, Jessica, Lauren, Aisha, and Fatima, polygamy, even when seen in the Old Testament, is due to the sinfulness in the hardness of men’s hearts (Matthew 19:8). Christian marriage assumes that ‘two shall become one flesh’, not five or any other number (Genesis 2:24). Polygamy, increasingly practised in the UK, though liberal authorities turn a blind eye to it despite the widespread benefits fraud that often accompanies it, is illegal in the UK (another vestige of our Christian past). It is rooted in an intrinsic injustice against women, who, at best, can only hope to get one-quarter of their husband’s time and attention and must compete for his affections, fearing falling out of favour with him to one of the other wives. What a wound it must be to each wife to hear she is not sufficient for her husband and that he is taking another wife! Christianity, however, creates parity between a man and a woman, as the example of the elders of the Church is held aloft, that he be a ‘man of only one wife’ (1 Timothy 3:2). Christ, our example, as we will see in Ephesians, has only one wife, the Church, His bride being one (Ephesians 5:25-27).
Misyar marriage is given the following justifications in Islamic circles, amongst others, and I would like to discuss each in turn:
1. An increase in the number of single women unable to marry because young men are deterred by the high cost of dowries and marriage or because of a high divorce rate. In such circumstances, some women agree to be a second or third wife and give up some of their rights.
2. Some women need to stay in their family home, either because they are the only caregivers for family members or because the woman has a disability, and her family do not want the husband to be burdened with something he cannot bear. He stays in touch with her without placing too great a burden on himself, or because she has children and cannot move with them to her husband’s house, amongst other reasons.
3. Some married men want to keep some women chaste because they need that, or because they seek variety and halal pleasure, without affecting the first wife and her children.
4. In some cases, a husband may want to conceal his second marriage from his first wife for fear of consequences that may affect their relationship.
5. The man travels often to a certain place and stays there for lengthy periods. Undoubtedly, staying there with a wife is safer for him than not doing so (Islam QA 2008).
The idea that one would argue for a deficient marriage, one with fewer rights because of ‘high divorce rates’ or as a means of not giving a woman her due, say in the dowry (a questionable practice in any case), demonstrates the structural imbalances within Islamic culture that disenfranchise women and lead to their disadvantage. Why not, instead, attempt to solve the problems of high divorce rates in normal marriages rather than use this as justification for creating unfair and unbalanced marriages? Unlike in Christianity, where singleness is permitted, esteemed, and valued, ‘But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I’ (1 Corinthians 7:8), in Islam, it is almost a point of social embarrassment to be single. Christians, however, value singleness as much as a gift from God as being married. The assumptions behind this reasoning are entirely male-centric.
The concept that couples need to be apart is not problematic; this is sometimes a reality for all couples, including Christians. There is no criticism here, except that formalising it as a normative element of the marriage shows the absurd nature of the contractual understanding of marriage within Islam. Christians, by contrast, see marriage as a covenant, a journey undertaken by the man and woman that waxes and wanes through the bludgeoning of chance or blessings of God’s favour. The husband and wife navigate all terrains together, even when apart for some reason, but there is no sense of ‘normalising’ a loss of standard rights or diminishment of dignity. The idea of covenant over contract is clearly a narrative within which to frame marriage that avoids this kind of reasoning.
The notion that men, out of charity, marry women to keep them chaste is quite hilarious. Whilst I do not doubt the reality and presence of a woman’s sexual drive as any less voracious than that of a man, let us be clear: this is as much about what the man wants/needs as the woman. When you consider that one of the reasons for a Misyar marriage is to surrender to lust or desire, something not entirely alien to Christianity; remember Paul said, ‘But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion’ (1 Corinthians 7:9). The idea that proceeds from this, that men need variety and halal pleasure, shows that this is merely a licence for fornication. It is a legitimisation of sleeping around, a surrender to the ‘nafs’ (as Muslims say in Arabic) or base desires, an unjust means (because it is an affront to God and because women, whilst having the same needs for variety, have no means to achieve it, unlike the Muslim man who has Misyar marriage) of legitimising male lust fulfilment. Nothing in this speaks of the chastity or virtue cultivated in a firm commitment to monogamous marriage, which forces man and woman equally to restrain their sexual appetites for variety and change, fostering a covenantal partnership built more on their love for one another than their sexual passions. Misyar marriage essentially reveals Islam’s inability to constrain a man’s nafs whilst delusionally pretending women do not have the same desires.
By far the most damning of all justifications given for Misyar marriage is the right to keep it secret. This shows that the consent of the first wife is not required in Islam to take a second, again demonstrating the privileged position of men over women. This is simply a licensed means of adultery within Islam. What else can it be called if you are sleeping with another woman without your wife’s knowledge? I would also highlight the potential for non-consensual transmission of sexually transmitted diseases between wives, posing a risk to women’s health (World Health Organization 2020). Christian marriages simply have none of these ethical issues; marriage is between one man and one woman, and each has rights over the other’s body. Indeed, the Church Fathers discourage adultery by pointing out that our body belongs to our spouse. ‘For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does’ (1 Corinthians 7:4, ESV). Interestingly, this idea of ownership of one another’s bodies gave women radical equality with men, unheard of in the classical Roman world. It was the Christian formation of marriage that was the chief vehicle for improving the rights of women in the Roman world, where previously they were barely considered people in their own right, something echoed in Islam’s ‘wali’ concept, in which the guardian of the woman, in addition to the woman, must consent to the marriage, as the woman is not deemed able to consent alone (Al-Nawawi 1914, Book 33). Many women are misled into thinking their Muslim suitor is being romantic when he insists on asking their father for permission to marry, not understanding the actual sinister undertone: he does not believe she can decide for herself about whom she marries. Christianity did inherit this attitude, and it carried over into Christian culture; however, the marriage ceremony is predicated on female consent, as she consents even against her father’s wishes, which makes sense when you consider Christianity was an insurgent movement at its birth. Thus, couples would marry as Christians even when their parents opposed the marriage. Furthermore, the justification for keeping a Misyar marriage secret from the first wife is precisely because informing her would harm the first marriage, assuming a woman’s objection to the second marriage. This again clearly shows their lower status and inferior rights to the man. Christianity offers women no such insecurity; their one husband is bound to them to the exclusion of all other women, whether he desires them or not. Monogamous marriages protect women from the abuses of Misyar marriages.
We find it particularly galling that Muslim Da’is, like those facing accusations of secret Misyar marriages, have espoused a narrative that Islam forbids vice and promotes virtue, claiming Islam is the answer to the degeneracy of Western liberalism. Whilst we agree that the West is degenerate, we hardly find an improvement in Islam; it is degeneracy light!
The final reason is a repeat of the ‘halal pleasure’ rationale and is connected to the idea that a man need not remain chaste when his life demands he lives away from his wife for long periods, a position Christian men can also find themselves in. Unlike the Christian man, who has the personal responsibility to remain chaste and faithful to his wife, a Muslim man, unlike his wife, who also suffers from his absence, can simply have a Misyar marriage; a ‘hotel marriage’, if you will. In other words, this is surrendering to the nafs, to vice, whilst considering himself righteous because it is a ‘Misyar marriage.’ With or without secrecy, this is just a mistress, a booty call! This reasoning highlights the deprivation women are subject to under Islamic law, whereas in a Christian marriage, both the man and the woman share the same equal burden of chastity and safeguarding the marriage bed.
One more disturbing aspect of Misyar marriages is that when you delve into this fundamental question of who one can and cannot sleep with and under what circumstances, you find evidence of scholarly disagreement in what is claimed to be a perfected religion offering clear guidance. For instance, I quote from the aforementioned fatwa: ‘Some of those who said that it was permissible have retracted that view. Among the most prominent scholars who said that it was permissible were Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Baz and Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Al al-Shaykh; among the most prominent scholars who said that it was permissible and then retracted it was Shaykh al-‘Uthaymin; among the most prominent scholars who said that it is not allowed at all was Shaykh al-Albani’ (Islam QA 2006). Scholars are not clear as to whether it is halal or haram to sleep with other women without telling one’s first wife. How can this be? How can this be clear guidance? How is this a perfected religion? The reasons some scholars retracted their opinions are not because Misyar marriage is prohibited, but because of the harm it does to society and women and how it can be easily exploited by corrupt men, an admission that Islam permits harm and evil. Christianity, however, avoids this.
Christianity, in the Apostolic teaching, offers women a far better deal. I want to explain how by examining one of the two main passages that discuss marriage at length: Ephesians 5:22-33. The primary point of this text is that it creates an analogous relationship between the covenantal marriage of man and woman and the covenantal relationship between Christ and His Church, often likened to a marriage in the scriptures. This is already a firmer footing. As noted earlier, this is not some trivial civic contract but a deeper, more poignant expression of profound commitment to one another.
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22, KJV). This is triggering to feminists worldwide, I am sure; however, biblical teaching is clear and unambiguous, male headship of the household is assumed and expected in Christian homes. Some men seek to abuse this verse, reading it in isolation, but most commentators agree that male authority in the home is not absolute but framed within the paradigm of the passage, which can be somewhat summarised by adding the words ‘in all godly things’ at the end of the verse (Chrysostom 1889, Homily 20). That being said, the man should set the strategic vision for his household, and insofar as it is godly, the wife should follow and assist in making it happen.
Our teacher, Jerome, said, ‘The union of Christ and the church is holy. The proper union of husband and wife is also holy. But just as a congregation of heretics cannot be called the church of Christ, nor have Christ as its head, so too a union of husband and wife cannot be called holy if it disregards the way of life taught by Christ’ (Jerome 2002, 227-228, commenting on Ephesians 5:22-23).
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Ephesians 5:23). Here, the reason for male headship is placed beyond arguments about culture or the protests of offended feminists; it is rooted in the analogous relationship of covenant between Christ and Church to man and woman. Christ has rescued His bride; not to say that a husband is to rescue his wife spiritually (she is saved by the same Christ), but that the husband is concerned for the well-being of his wife in all temporal matters and seeks to preserve her unto the Lord. This draws out a pastoral concern: many men in the church are unfit for this high office due to their weak temperament or legalistic minds. Husbands must think of their wives as their own bodies and care for them as if caring for themselves (Haydock 1859, 1567).
George Leo Haydock also commented, ‘For the husband is the head of the wife. Though St. Paul here speaks of a man, who is a husband, we may rather translate man than husband, being the same sentence and same words as 1 Corinthians 11:3… He (Christ) is the Saviour of his mystical body, the Church: though some expound it, that the husband is to save and take care of his wife, who is as it were his body’ (Haydock 1859, 1567).
“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (Ephesians 5:24). Again, a verse that, if used in isolation upon the ignorant, could be ripe for abuse and the justification of tyranny; however, Paul is considering an idealistic relationship in his argument: that of a Christlike husband to a holy church. Christ can be trusted and obeyed, for all good things come from His hand; He is righteousness and godliness embodied. Thus, the implication is again ‘in all godly things’, the wife must follow her husband. The church is held, contained, and secured in Christ, which is her grounding; so, a husband must be the grounding and security of his wife.
Our teacher Ambrosiaster said: ‘Here is Paul’s analogy: As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him. There is a crucial difference, however, between Christ and the church as opposed to man and woman. The essential difference is that the woman is of the same nature as the man. The church, on the other hand, can participate in Christ in name but not in nature’ (Ambrosiaster 2011, 5:24).
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Ephesians 5:25). Consider well, husbands, all the blessings, beauty, care, and perfections bestowed on the church by Christ, and remember that your love is to be of like passion, though it cannot be the same in kind (this is only an analogy, after all). You can and should pour yourself out for your wife, building her up in godliness, leading her from harm, and providing for her physical and emotional needs as Christ meets the spiritual needs of the church. The men of the Church should be willing to give their lives for the temporal needs of their wives when such a life is at stake. However, a man cannot provide for the spiritual needs of his wife as to God as an end, because these can only be met in Christ. As we imagine Christ loves and builds up His church, so we must, in an analogous way, build up our wives in all temporal matters (Chrysostom 1889, Homily 20).
Our teacher John Chrysostom said: ‘You have heard how great the submission; you have extolled and marvelled at Paul, how, like an admirable and spiritual man, he welds together our whole life… Husbands, says he, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church. You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church…’ (Chrysostom 1889, Homily 20).
“That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26). Our Lord entered into our death and joined us to Himself in the waters of Baptism; it is there, the Fathers teach, we are washed of our sin by the work of Christ. So, a husband must join himself to all the wounds, faults, and failings of his wife and be a minister to her healing and concern for her growth in the Lord with kindly encouragement, gentle rebuke, loving words of solace, and wise counsel. By this ministering, he helps her grow and is a vehicle of her sanctification; as he is joined to her, she, too, ministers to him from her womanly station, a grace that leads to his sanctification. Thus, in the union and mutual ministering of the two, each in the covenant of marriage finds a college of love that prepares their souls in love to be worthy of Christ (Victorinus 2011, 5:26).
Our teacher Gaius Marius Victorinus said: ‘Here we take “the church” to mean every believer and everyone who has received baptism. The believer is brought to faith by the washing in water and the invocation of the Word. But how is this applied to a husband’s conduct toward his wife? … On the other hand, if we refer this to the endurance of the husband, which entails his giving himself for the wife and bearing and suffering all that is hers, even sharing in all that she endures, she is being cleansed with water and the Word—that is, she is being purified in the Lord’s sight when he renders her pure and by his endurance makes her ready to be sanctified by washing and the Word’ (Victorinus 2011, 5:26).
“That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27). Here is clear scriptural grounds against wife-beating (something explicitly sanctioned in Islam; see ‘Men are in charge of women… As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them’ [Quran 4:34] and ‘The Prophet struck Aisha on the chest, causing her pain’ [Al-Bukhari 1997, Hadith 5204]). A man is to present his wife before the Lord without physical blemish; in other words, he must tend to her physical health and not harm it. He must build her up and preserve her from sin, doing all he can to ‘lead her not into temptation but deliver her from evil’ (Matthew 6:13). Do you see now? Male headship is not an excuse for male tyranny. A Christian husband has the right to lead, for he must preserve, protect, build up, nourish, encourage, support, persevere, endure, and persist in serving and healing and fighting for his wife’s success in the Lord. A man can expect nothing from his wife that he has not enabled and empowered her to provide. This also encourages looking beyond outward to inward beauty, one of the causes of Misyar marriage, I am sure, as beauty is fleeting, making men seek ‘variety and halal pleasure’ (Chrysostom 1889, Homily 20).
Chrysostom, our teacher, said: ‘By the washing or laver He washes her uncleanness. By the word, says he. What word? In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost… Let us then also seek after this beauty ourselves, and we shall be able to create it. Seek not thou at your wife’s hand, things which she is not able to possess… Let us wipe off the spot that is within, let us smooth the wrinkles that are within, let us do away the blemishes that are on the soul. Such is the beauty God requires’ (Chrysostom 1889, Homily 20).
“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself” (Ephesians 5:28). What man would abuse, neglect, or harm himself? In all things, treat your wife fairly, as if treating an extension of your own body, seeking to perfect and cultivate without neglect or abuse. We must cleave to our wives as something inseparable; this again rules out emotional or physical abuse or abandonment. No, we must do that which nourishes and exercises our wives in ways that perfect, sustain, keep them healthy, well, whole, and secure, warmed at night, fed each day, adorned in vestments that dignify and enhance, loved always, and strengthened within and without. Men have only one body to love, so they can have only one wife to love. The church is the ‘bones of my bones’ of Christ, and so the wife is to be considered as such by the husband: ‘bones of my bones’ (Haydock 1859, 1568).
Haydock further noted, ‘He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. St. Paul would have this a love like that which a man hath for himself, or for his own flesh, when they are now joined in wedlock, and are become as it were one flesh and one person, as to a civil life and society… The wife is to be considered as a part of the husband, as a member of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones’ (Haydock 1859, 1568).
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church (Ephesians 5:29). Christ takes great care over the spiritual salvation of the church, and so men must take great care of the physical preservation of their wives. The man can (if he follows the Apostolic teaching) no more hate, harm, bring to harm, or allow his wife to be harmed than he would his own flesh. He must love his wife as he loves himself, a special application of Christ’s teachings: love your neighbour as you love yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you—‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ (Matthew 22:39); ‘In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you’ (Matthew 7:12). Do you want a faithful wife? Then be faithful. Do you want an honest wife? Then be honest. Do you want a loving wife? Then be loving. All the good you would want your wife to show you, show to her—even in submission, as you must submit your needs to hers, your body to her as it is not yours but hers, and minister to her as she ministers to you. Clearly, this ethic establishes a higher dignity and protection for women than Misyar marriage does for Muslim women. Do you see, Muslim women, you would be better basing your Nikah on Christian marriage than accepting Islamic norms, like demanding a commitment to monogamy and a refusal of secret marriages? Though, in truth, it would be better to find a Christian man to marry (Chrysostom 1889, Homily 20).
Chrysostom said: ‘It is all too evident that our bodies have many defects. One is lame, one has crooked feet, another a withered hand, each a weakness in a different member. Nevertheless, the person does not complain or cut off the defect. Rather he often treats it better than the other members—and all this quite reasonably, since it is his own’ (Chrysostom 1889, Homily 20).
“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” (Ephesians 5:30-31). Christian marriage is the joining of more than two social lives but a spiritual union of their bodies. As we become one with Christ in the new covenant, men and women in marriage become one flesh, and in their children, this is quite literal. The sacrament of marriage is expressed in the physical union between the two. It is not some social contract simply dissolved by the pronouncement of divorce. The point of marriage is to create a stable home into which new life is brought in abundance. Divorce, another similarity between Islam and the degeneracy of liberal culture, is permitted in Islam. ‘Divorce is twice. Then, either keep [her] in an acceptable manner or release [her] with good treatment’ (Quran 2:229). It is this familial breakdown that seems to be the primary engine of Misyar marriages. Christianity holds marriage to be, in virtually most cases, indissoluble, and as such, men and women must work out their differences, find a way through, maintain the sanctity of their vows, and press forward to the Lord through all circumstances—in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, until death do they part.
Jerome said: ‘The same allegorical interpretation applies both to Christ and to the church, that Adam is to prefigure Christ and Eve the church. For “the last Adam was made a lifegiving spirit.” Just as the whole human race is born from Adam and his wife, so the whole multitude of believers has been born of Christ and the church’ (Jerome 2002, 5:31).
“This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his own wife even as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Ephesians 5:32-33, NKJV). Note the mutuality of the Christian marriage, the sense of a virtuous circle of one serving the other, though sometimes in different ways. This is the nature of the covenantal relationship between Christ and His Church in the New Covenant and between husband and wife in the marriage covenant. The two cannot be mapped over one another as if they function in like manner but are analogous, having some areas of overlap but being fundamentally different. This is nothing like the concept of marriage in Islam, which is contractual and clearly designed to facilitate the man’s needs, wants, and desires, even at the expense of the woman’s.
Men must love their wives as they love themselves; the good they want for themselves is the good they should pursue for their wives. This is at the heart of the marriage: the man’s love of his wife as if an extension of himself. In like manner, the Church is an extension of her Lord, being an extension of His own body. Men, being men, need to know they are respected in a relationship, and a woman must do this from her obedience to God, not because of some stature or accomplishment of man, but out of her love for Christ, who bids her, ‘Respect your husband.’
Gaius Marius Victorinus said, ‘Already he has given instructions generally to men concerning their wives and to women concerning their husbands. He now applies the same principles specifically to the Ephesians… He has added the connecting word, however. This shows that even as Christ and the church are one body, so are husband and wife one flesh’ (Victorinus 2011, 5:33).
Christianity offers Muslim women a better deal. My advice to you is to run away and find a Christian man to marry, or to make your marriage Nikah, as close to a Christian marriage as you can negotiate.
Bibliography
Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. 1997. Sahih al-Bukhari. Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Riyadh: Darussalam.
Al-Nawawi, Yahya ibn Sharaf. 1914. Minhaj et Talibin: A Manual of Muhammadan Law According to the School of Shafi’i. Translated by E.C. Howard. London: Law Publishing Company.
Ambrosiaster. 2011. Commentary on Ephesians. Translated by Gerald L. Bray. In Galatians, Ephesians, edited by Gerald L. Bray. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Chrysostom, John. 1889. Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 20. Translated by Gross Alexander. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 13, edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Haydock, George Leo. 1859. Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary. New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother.
Islam QA. 2006. “Fatwa 82390: Misyar Marriage.” Islam Question & Answer. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/82390.
Jerome. 2002. Commentary on Ephesians. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. In The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Holy Bible, King James Version. 1611. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Victorinus, Gaius Marius. 2011. Commentary on Ephesians. Translated by Gerald L. Bray. In Galatians, Ephesians, edited by Gerald L. Bray. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
World Health Organization. 2020. “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs).” https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sexually-transmitted-infections-(stis).
The Quran. 2004. Translated by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
