for what is generally the case, it carries no contrary implication. On this view, a man may not propose over the proposal of a Christian, for a Christian has rights.

This view is more correct: it is not permissible to propose over the proposal of a non-Muslim if he is not a hostile belligerent. If he is a hostile belligerent, then he has no right. But if he is under a covenant, granted safe-conduct, or a dhimmi, then he does have such a right, because this falls under rights arising from the contract, not from the status of the contracting party. Accordingly, we may not propose over the proposals of non-Muslims. Moreover, were we to propose over a non-Muslim’s proposal, it would harm Islam: non-Muslims would imagine Islam to be a religion of brutality, aggression against others, and disregard for rights. So long as this man has proposed to her and is a suitable match for her in terms of her religion, we may not wrong him.

If someone were to ask: What, then, is the response to the verse?

We say: Allah says, “A believing slave is better than an idolater” [al-Baqarah 2:221], addressing the woman’s family, telling them not to marry her to an idolater when a believer is available. But it does not permit a believer to propose over the proposal of an idolater—assuming that Christians fall here under the designation of idolaters.

His words, “it is forbidden for anyone else to propose to her,” apply whether the proposal is made indirectly or explicitly, due to the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “Nor should he propose over his brother’s proposal” (1).

This is a prohibition, and the basic rule concerning a prohibition is that it denotes forbiddance—especially since its underlying reason entails forbiddance, because it involves transgression and injustice, and because it may lead to serious discord.