question about child names and citizenship

[Kashnowe]

can a child with name as michael on passport be a moroccan citizen b/c he has moroccan father?

my friend had a child with a moroccan man. they were never married. he left her when she was 6 months pregnant and the last thing he said to he was "make sure the baby has a muslim name" . she was angry and hurt and delivered the baby without him. he did not show up again untilt he child was 1. she named the child michael. she named him that because michael is supposed to be God's top angel mentioned in the Quran and the Bible as such. and she didn't think she would ever hear from the father again. so afterwards the father showed up and had a new moroccan girlfriend. they both harassed the mother about changing the name. the mother refused. so the father went into hiding for another year. totally neglecting his child. didn't seem to care at all aboutthe kid jsut that he have a muslim name b/c his family was outraged. (why were they not outraged at their son making a child, not being married, and not caring for the child is absurd to me) so then the mother learned of the father's address and filed for child support from him. (they live in the u.s.) so the father was outraged b/c all he really cares about is money. he did not want to pay a penny. he was however forced to pay getting the payments taken out of his checks weekly. the materialistic girlfriend was outraged b/c this took money from her lavish lifestyle she lived with him (while her bf's son lived in poverty with a single mother) the gf made threats to kidnap the baby and send him to morocco and the mother would never see him again. this sadly could very well happen. a father can easily buy a plane ticket and run away with a kid without being caught. it happens all the time. the only thing is...the kid is named michael and has the mother's last name...a very american name. so someone informed the mother that since the child's name is michael, he would not be recognized as the child of the moroccan father by the government, and would not be granted citizenship unless the name was changed....i'm sure that the father could work that out if he wanted to as i'm told in muslim countries the man is always right. but the passport would tell a different story.

furthermore the father does not practice islam in the least. he does not pray, he drinks, he sleeps around, he has tattoos, etc etc....he is basically the complete opposite of a real muslim.

he keeps claiming michael is a christian name...when in reality it is more jewish....but michael is mentioned in the quran...and the meaning is still the same. just as i see sayyeed, saaid, said, saiyeed here. all the same name, the same meaning but spelled completely different. as sofiene and soufiane. both muslim names, same meaning, spelled quite different. and as the quran is not written in english or with the same alphabet i find this argument over name spellings to be moot. i think the intention counts. not the spelling.

sooo....i'm being long winded here but anyone want to offer commentary?
10 hours ago - 4 days left to answer.

 

[Woodrow]

This is a legal issue and would be dependent upon the nation the woman lives in. Here in the USA he would not be able to get a passport for the child without the mother's consent nor take the child out of the country without legal consent of the mother or court ordered custody of the child. Let the woman know it is doubtful he could take the child, but adivse her to see a lawyer ASAP.

 

[Snowflake]

Hi Kashnowe,

You may want to pass this on to your friend.


Attribution of an illegitimate child and rulings that result from that

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/85043

 

[Kashnowe]

Thank you for the link. From what I gathered it says that the child should inherit the mother's name and nationality (citizenship from wherever she is from) and is not entitled to any inheritence from the father.

This is interesting because the father keeps demanding that the child take a Muslim first name and the father's last name but from what I am reading that would be against the rules (?) So it is true then that the child does not need a Muslim name? his mother is Christian.

Also my understanding of the article is that the father is in no way obliged to care for the child emotionall or financially but God willing he is a man with a good heart he will show affection to the poor innocent child and that would not be punishable (hopefully it would be praised as the child is innocent and in my opinion deserves to be acknowledged especially when his father is the one who put him in that said predicament)

I'm glad the adulterer is not permitted to marry the child...as to me that is just common sense whether or not the child is legitimate but I also understand these rules were made before the scientific knowledge we have now about inbreeding and the medical repurcussions.

It saddens me greatly to think the father is not made to take responsibility for his actions and it all falls on the mother as a burden. Should not a man be held responsible for what he does?

If i go out and steal from someone and then beg God for forgiveness I am still responsible for the crime and I must still pay the punishment in this world even if God may forgive me and let me live eternity in his kingdom. Should that not be the same for the man?

Does Islam allow for rational arguments or is everything set in stone?

 

[Woodrow]

Thank you for the link. From what I gathered it says that the child should inherit the mother's name and nationality (citizenship from wherever she is from) and is not entitled to any inheritence from the father.

This is interesting because the father keeps demanding that the child take a Muslim first name and the father's last name but from what I am reading that would be against the rules (?) So it is true then that the child does not need a Muslim name? his mother is Christian.

Also my understanding of the article is that the father is in no way obliged to care for the child emotionall or financially but God willing he is a man with a good heart he will show affection to the poor innocent child and that would not be punishable (hopefully it would be praised as the child is innocent and in my opinion deserves to be acknowledged especially when his father is the one who put him in that said predicament)

I'm glad the adulterer is not permitted to marry the child...as to me that is just common sense whether or not the child is legitimate but I also understand these rules were made before the scientific knowledge we have now about inbreeding and the medical repurcussions.

It saddens me greatly to think the father is not made to take responsibility for his actions and it all falls on the mother as a burden. Should not a man be held responsible for what he does?

If i go out and steal from someone and then beg God for forgiveness I am still responsible for the crime and I must still pay the punishment in this world even if God may forgive me and let me live eternity in his kingdom. Should that not be the same for the man?

Does Islam allow for rational arguments or is everything set in stone?

In sharia law there are only 5 crimes serious enough to carry a Hadd punishment. (One preset by law and is non-negotiable. Financial responsibility does not come under Hadd so there is flexibility determined by the court. However to follow that route would entail a disclosure and admission of illicit sex and that is punishable by jail and/or a public flogging for both parties. However, the husband is required to abide by the laws of the nation he lives in, the country the pregnancy took place, and the woman may have recourse under local law even though the father is not a citizen.

 

[Snowflake]

^Jazak Allah khayr Brother Woodrow

This is interesting because the father keeps demanding that the child take a Muslim first name and the father's last name but from what I am reading that would be against the rules (?) So it is true then that the child does not need a Muslim name? his mother is Christian.

Yes, this is the opinion of the majority of scholar with relation to a child born to an unmarried woman. The child does not legally belong to the man. He cannot have his name. (The rulings for married persons differ).

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “The child is to be attributed to the husband and the adulterer deserves nothing.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2053; Muslim, 1457.

It saddens me greatly to think the father is not made to take responsibility for his actions and it all falls on the mother as a burden. Should not a man be held responsible for what he does?

Rather than being in favour of the man, this ruling bring great dishonour to the man. He cannot claim the child he created as his own, even if that means he may never be able to father children again, or have an heir for his wealth. There the ruling is in no way excusing the man from taking responsibility. If anything it is taking away his rights. Not only that. It also serves as a deterrent for fornication, and when exercised in an Islamic state, it also protects children from being taken off their mothers.


However according to al-Hasan and Ibn Sireen said: he may be attributed to the zaani if the hadd punishment has been carried out on him, and he may inherit from him. It's unlikely this will happen.

If i go out and steal from someone and then beg God for forgiveness I am still responsible for the crime and I must still pay the punishment in this world even if God may forgive me and let me live eternity in his kingdom. Should that not be the same for the man?

As explained, not being able to claim his 'own' child is punishment. If he were able to claim the child as his, he'd be able to take him (at least in an islamic country). Then what would happen to the mother's rights? Islamic rulings are based on evidence from the Holy Quran and Prophetic sayings. The source of both being Allah, the All-Knowing and Wise, subhana wa ta 'ala. And Allah knows best.






.

 

[Kashnowe]

interesting stuff here. definitly food for thought. i think that by saying the father has no rights to the child its not so much a punishment but it tells the man he can fornicate and not be he held responsible...as is the case i'm speaking of. the father doesn't care about the child. he prefers to think the child doesn't exist. he is not being punished. he is free to do whatever he wants and the enitre burden, emotionally and financially, fall on the mother. its quite clear the mother and child are the ones suffering.

Muslim parents of the father do nothing but degrade the mother and call her a *****. why do they not consider their son a *****? why does he escape ridicule and shunning? they all want nothing to do with the child. this is hardly a portrayal of love or peace or civility. it is pure hate

in my opinion a better punishment would be to make the man pay financially to help support the child, and if he was to marry and have his own children afterwards then he would still have to support his illegitimate child until adulthood. first come first served. seems just and fair to me. because who is to say that the man would not get married andcheat on his wife and father another illegitimate child? he was not punished the first time so why would the second be any different? he would not have to pay a penny to the child or the mother. the punishment would be real if every paycheck the man earned, a bit had to be taken for his illegitimate child, and it would remind him every day of what he has done, and hopefully it would drive him to pray for forgiveness every day and maybe bring him closer to God.
then his family and friends any everyone in town would know that you must pay every day and every minute for your actions.

this man doesn't care that his son can't inherit from him. he just wants to keep all of his money so he can buy $300 sunglasses and fancy cars. to him the child is dirt. i believe that attitude is a learned one, from the society in which he was raised, a Muslim society that does not value the needs of the innocent children, moreso it is concerned with wealth.

the greatest thing this child deserves to inherit from his father is love. anything else is quite irrelevant.

anyhow, i'm not trying to cause an argument. i was just wondering what you all believe.

i would also like to add that i'm assuming the father would not have fornicated with the mother if he was actually living in morocco. i bet the pressure from family and community and not to mention the law would be a huge deterrent. but he came here to america where evil and temptation are rampant. but also, if a man of faith was surrounded by temptation it should have no effect on him if he truly believe what he said he did. so i'm thinking the man who fathered this child was not of a strong faith at all in the first place to allow himself to do such things. we do of course have free will. a religious man would say no to a room full of naked women if he was truly a man of faith.

 

[Snowflake]

=Kashnowe;1373680]interesting stuff here. definitly food for thought. i think that by saying the father has no rights to the child its not so much a punishment but it tells the man he can fornicate and not be he held responsible...as is the case i'm speaking of. the father doesn't care about the child. he prefers to think the child doesn't exist. he is not being punished. he is free to do whatever he wants and the enitre burden, emotionally and financially, fall on the mother. its quite clear the mother and child are the ones suffering.

Punishing those who violate God's commands isn't an automatic right of human beings. This is only permissible when the criteria set for the punishment are met. Where punishment can't be carried out, we leave the judgement in Allah's hands. Allah has prescribed severe punishment for fornicators in this life and the hereafter, in the Holy Quran. However if one repents then Allah may forgive him if he wills.


"And those who invoke not any other god along with Allah, nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse (zina) and whoever does this shall receive the punishment. The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace; except those who repent and believe and do righteous deeds, for those Allah will change their sins into good deeds, and Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful." (al-Furqaan #25, ayat #68-70)

"And come not near to unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a faahishah (a great sin) and an evil way." (Sura Al-Israa # 17 ayah # 32)

I understand that the Bible also forbids Christians of illegal sexual intercourse. Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery." According to the Bible adultery is punishable by death. We can safely say no such punishment is going to be executed amongst present day Christians. However, in regards to the rights of illegitimate children in Christianity, the Bible says:

“No ******* shall enter into the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” (B* Deuteronomy 23:2).

The Bible is clearly denying children born out of wedlock the same rights as legitimate children. In fact in (Sirach 23:22-25 NRSV) that such children will be punished as will their mother.

Your friend's frustration is understandable given the societal influence of man made laws. But if she were to consider the Christian judgement of her own actions, she may realize that she isn't in the position to be demanding any emotional and financial help from the father of her child at all.

Lastly on this perspective, I assure you Islam has the perfect solutions for all man's ill. Muslim's must follow the laws of the land they live in. This means that your friend can demand child maintenance from him, as long as he is a subject of that country.

Muslim parents of the father do nothing but degrade the mother and call her a *****. why do they not consider their son a *****? why does he escape ridicule and shunning? they all want nothing to do with the child. this is hardly a portrayal of love or peace or civility. it is pure hate

Muslims parents have every right to hate the actions of a Christian fornicator, but they should not call her names while ignoring their son's mistake. Islam deems both people equally guilty, and has prescribed the same punishment for the man and woman.

in my opinion a better punishment would be to make the man pay financially to help support the child, and if he was to marry and have his own children afterwards then he would still have to support his illegitimate child until adulthood. first come first served. seems just and fair to me. because who is to say that the man would not get married andcheat on his wife and father another illegitimate child? he was not punished the first time so why would the second be any different? he would not have to pay a penny to the child or the mother. the punishment would be real if every paycheck the man earned, a bit had to be taken for his illegitimate child, and it would remind him every day of what he has done, and hopefully it would drive him to pray for forgiveness every day and maybe bring him closer to God.

then his family and friends any everyone in town would know that you must pay every day and every minute for your actions.

this man doesn't care that his son can't inherit from him. he just wants to keep all of his money so he can buy $300 sunglasses and fancy cars. to him the child is dirt. i believe that attitude is a learned one, from the society in which he was raised, a Muslim society that does not value the needs of the innocent children, moreso it is concerned with wealth.

the greatest thing this child deserves to inherit from his father is love. anything else is quite irrelevant.

anyhow, i'm not trying to cause an argument. i was just wondering what you all believe.

I think Allah the All-Knowing, Wise and Just knows better which punishment prescribed is suited to which crime. I strongly believe that if anyone feels that Islam is unfair, then they only have to look at their own beliefs and compare the punishments that their religion has prescribed for them. I am sure your friend will be glad she is not living under Christian laws.

i would also like to add that i'm assuming the father would not have fornicated with the mother if he was actually living in morocco. i bet the pressure from family and community and not to mention the law would be a huge deterrent. but he came here to america where evil and temptation are rampant. but also, if a man of faith was surrounded by temptation it should have no effect on him if he truly believe what he said he did. so i'm thinking the man who fathered this child was not of a strong faith at all in the first place to allow himself to do such things. we do of course have free will. a religious man would say no to a room full of naked women if he was truly a man of faith

.
He may still have fornicated. We don't know that. But it'd easier for men to commit adultery where women are willing participants. Of course the man is not of strong faith. I'm wondering what the level of his faith is at all. A true God fearing muslim would rather be stabbed in the head with a piece of iron than commit sexual intercourse with a woman who isn't his wife.



I don't think it's appropriate for your friend to bring the man's faith into it, especially as her actions as a Christian are equally questionable and neither can be dealt with religious laws. I think your friend should pursue the matter through legal means, and leave it at that. My sincere piece of advice to both you ladies is to learn about Islam with an open heart and mind, and hopefully come to understand and accept it as the Truth. may Allah guide you both. Ameen.


Peace.




.

 

[Kashnowe]

i came to this board to learn. thank you for the information.

 

[Snowflake]

MashaAllah (as Allah likes) :statisfie You are most welcome. May Allah make your stay here beneficial in your search for the truth. Ameen.