Taking the husband's surname
- Thread starter Delete.
- Start date
- Replies 11
- Views 4K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Salam Aleykum
The Ayah is about the adopted children and the hadith is about the people who claim to be from other fathers. Women's adopting the husbands' surname do not fall in these two cathegories.
I found a very clear, and valid answer by a student of knowledge at Darul Iftaa Institute, Hisham Dawood, approved by Mufti Ebrahim Desai.
"In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.
The misconception of the impermissibility in adopting the husband’s last name stems from misunderstanding the purport of the Qurānic order to attribute one’s lineage only to his/her father. In order to dispel this misunderstanding, a thorough understanding of the background of the Āyah is necessary
When Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam adopted Zaid bin Ĥārithah Radillāhu ‘Anhu, he (Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam) took him to the Ka’bah and proclaimed, “O People! Bear witness that Zaid is my son. I shall inherit from him and he shall inherit from me.” This practice was common amongst the Arabs. They treated their adopted children as their own; in lineage, inheritance, marriage, etc. As such, Zaid Radiallāhu ‘Anhu would be referred to as Zaid bin Muĥammad. However, when the following Āyah was revealed, the Saĥābah would call him Zaid bin Ĥārithah
وَمَا جَعَلَ أَدْعِيَاءَكُمْ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ...ادْعُوهُمْ لِآبَائِهِمْ هُوَ أَقْسَطُ عِنْدَ اللَّه (الأحزاب ٤،٥)
“And He (Allāh) has not made your adopted sons your real sons…Attribute them (adopted children) to their father. This is more just according to Allāh” (Al Aĥzāb 4,5)
Hence, the prohibition which was revealed was in the context of the practice of the Arab society i.e. considering the adopted child to be the adoptive father’s biological child by attributing his lineage to that of the adoptive father. Ultimately, the verse prohibits rejecting one’s lineage or ascribing it to another.
This is corroborated by a Hadīth in Saĥīĥ Al Bukhārī:
إن من أعظم الفرى أن يدعي الرجل إلى غير أبيه (صحيح البخاري ج-٤ ص-١٨١، دار المنهاج)
“One of the biggest lies is that a person attributes his lineage to other than his biological father”
Thus it is clear that false genealogical attribution is prohibited in Qurān and Sunnah, and not any other type of identification.
The impermissibility for a woman to adopt her husband’s last name ... is based on the following arguments:
The Qurān and Sunnah do not “require” or command women to adopt the husband’s last name.
The wives of Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam did not adopt his name. They kept the names of their fathers, though they (their fathers) were Kuffār.
The last name is an indication of one’s father, and represents his/her lineage.
Calling a person by his father’s name is more appropriate for knowing who is who and telling people apart.
There are rulings attached to the woman being named after her father, which have to do with her inheritance, spending, and who is her Maĥram, etc. Taking her husband’s last name overlooks all that.
We will be called by our father’s name in the Hereafter as well.
The writer claims impermissibility of adopting the husband’s last name. However, none of the proofs reflect this claim. Whilst we agree that a woman is not “required” to alter her maiden name, the issue is not about whether or not maiden names are a requirement of Sharī’ah. The issue at hand is about whether altering maiden names is permissible or not. Proving non-requirement is not tantamount to proving impermissibility. A simple example to illustrate this is that wearing new clothes to perform Salāh is not a requirement in Sharī’ah, although it is permissible. Similarly, proving that maiden names were not altered at the time of Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam does not prove impermissibility. For example, cars were not used as a mode of transport at the time of Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam. That does not mean we are not permitted to use cars today.
The writer also claims that a last name is an indication of one’s father and represents one’s lineage. However, a brief analysis of a worldwide pattern even amongst Muslims will reveal that a last name is only a family name, not the father’s name. Last names represent individuals associated to a family. In the case of a woman adopting her husband’s last name, it simply indicates that she is married into such and such family.
How does adopting the husband’s last name “overlook” the laws of inheritance, spending, and Maĥramiyyah? Perhaps the writer feels that a woman will not be able to inherit from her siblings, father, etc. because she will have no proof of being from the family. If this argument is to be accepted i.e. the husband’s last name proves to be an obstacle in claiming inheritance from one’s genealogical family, then one’s family name equally stands as an obstacle in claiming inheritance from one’s husband, children, mother, etc. The same goes for spending and Maĥramiyyah.
There is no correlation between Allāh Ta’ālā calling us by our father’s name on the Day of Judgment and the impermissibility of adopting the husband’s last name. Being called by our father’s name on the Day of Judgment does not indicate impermissibility of altering one’s maiden name in this world. The procedure adopted in the hereafter does not become law for worldly procedure.
The practice of our pious predecessors illustrates that adopting methods of identification other than attribution to one’s father is not inconsistent with the Shar’ī command of attributing one’s lineage only to his/her father. Many Saĥābah, Tābi’een, and ‘Ulamā were even “attributed” to their mothers/grandmothers. For example,
‘Abdullāh ibn Umme Maktūm (one of the muezzins of Rasūlullāh Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam),
Sakhr ibn Al ‘Ailah,
Ibn Al Lutbiyyah (Radiallāhu ‘Anhum),
Muĥammad ibn Al Ĥanafiyyah (son of ‘Alī Radiallāhu ‘Anhu),
Ibn Mājah (Sāhib Al Sunan)
Ibn Taimiyyah (Aĥmad ibn ‘Abd Al Halīm), etc.
Why didn’t these luminaries attribute themselves to their fathers only? Were they not aware of the Qurānic order?
It is clear that the command in reference is the prohibition to deny a biological attribution and not to prohibit every other form of attribution.
It is best that the husband’s last name is adopted with mutual consent. If there is a need for the wife to adopt her husband’s last name, it is up to the husband to convince her to do so.
And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best"
Source
"In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.
The misconception of the impermissibility in adopting the husband’s last name stems from misunderstanding the purport of the Qurānic order to attribute one’s lineage only to his/her father. In order to dispel this misunderstanding, a thorough understanding of the background of the Āyah is necessary
When Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam adopted Zaid bin Ĥārithah Radillāhu ‘Anhu, he (Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam) took him to the Ka’bah and proclaimed, “O People! Bear witness that Zaid is my son. I shall inherit from him and he shall inherit from me.” This practice was common amongst the Arabs. They treated their adopted children as their own; in lineage, inheritance, marriage, etc. As such, Zaid Radiallāhu ‘Anhu would be referred to as Zaid bin Muĥammad. However, when the following Āyah was revealed, the Saĥābah would call him Zaid bin Ĥārithah
وَمَا جَعَلَ أَدْعِيَاءَكُمْ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ...ادْعُوهُمْ لِآبَائِهِمْ هُوَ أَقْسَطُ عِنْدَ اللَّه (الأحزاب ٤،٥)
“And He (Allāh) has not made your adopted sons your real sons…Attribute them (adopted children) to their father. This is more just according to Allāh” (Al Aĥzāb 4,5)
Hence, the prohibition which was revealed was in the context of the practice of the Arab society i.e. considering the adopted child to be the adoptive father’s biological child by attributing his lineage to that of the adoptive father. Ultimately, the verse prohibits rejecting one’s lineage or ascribing it to another.
This is corroborated by a Hadīth in Saĥīĥ Al Bukhārī:
إن من أعظم الفرى أن يدعي الرجل إلى غير أبيه (صحيح البخاري ج-٤ ص-١٨١، دار المنهاج)
“One of the biggest lies is that a person attributes his lineage to other than his biological father”
Thus it is clear that false genealogical attribution is prohibited in Qurān and Sunnah, and not any other type of identification.
The impermissibility for a woman to adopt her husband’s last name ... is based on the following arguments:
The Qurān and Sunnah do not “require” or command women to adopt the husband’s last name.
The wives of Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam did not adopt his name. They kept the names of their fathers, though they (their fathers) were Kuffār.
The last name is an indication of one’s father, and represents his/her lineage.
Calling a person by his father’s name is more appropriate for knowing who is who and telling people apart.
There are rulings attached to the woman being named after her father, which have to do with her inheritance, spending, and who is her Maĥram, etc. Taking her husband’s last name overlooks all that.
We will be called by our father’s name in the Hereafter as well.
The writer claims impermissibility of adopting the husband’s last name. However, none of the proofs reflect this claim. Whilst we agree that a woman is not “required” to alter her maiden name, the issue is not about whether or not maiden names are a requirement of Sharī’ah. The issue at hand is about whether altering maiden names is permissible or not. Proving non-requirement is not tantamount to proving impermissibility. A simple example to illustrate this is that wearing new clothes to perform Salāh is not a requirement in Sharī’ah, although it is permissible. Similarly, proving that maiden names were not altered at the time of Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam does not prove impermissibility. For example, cars were not used as a mode of transport at the time of Nabī Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam. That does not mean we are not permitted to use cars today.
The writer also claims that a last name is an indication of one’s father and represents one’s lineage. However, a brief analysis of a worldwide pattern even amongst Muslims will reveal that a last name is only a family name, not the father’s name. Last names represent individuals associated to a family. In the case of a woman adopting her husband’s last name, it simply indicates that she is married into such and such family.
How does adopting the husband’s last name “overlook” the laws of inheritance, spending, and Maĥramiyyah? Perhaps the writer feels that a woman will not be able to inherit from her siblings, father, etc. because she will have no proof of being from the family. If this argument is to be accepted i.e. the husband’s last name proves to be an obstacle in claiming inheritance from one’s genealogical family, then one’s family name equally stands as an obstacle in claiming inheritance from one’s husband, children, mother, etc. The same goes for spending and Maĥramiyyah.
There is no correlation between Allāh Ta’ālā calling us by our father’s name on the Day of Judgment and the impermissibility of adopting the husband’s last name. Being called by our father’s name on the Day of Judgment does not indicate impermissibility of altering one’s maiden name in this world. The procedure adopted in the hereafter does not become law for worldly procedure.
The practice of our pious predecessors illustrates that adopting methods of identification other than attribution to one’s father is not inconsistent with the Shar’ī command of attributing one’s lineage only to his/her father. Many Saĥābah, Tābi’een, and ‘Ulamā were even “attributed” to their mothers/grandmothers. For example,
‘Abdullāh ibn Umme Maktūm (one of the muezzins of Rasūlullāh Sallallāhu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam),
Sakhr ibn Al ‘Ailah,
Ibn Al Lutbiyyah (Radiallāhu ‘Anhum),
Muĥammad ibn Al Ĥanafiyyah (son of ‘Alī Radiallāhu ‘Anhu),
Ibn Mājah (Sāhib Al Sunan)
Ibn Taimiyyah (Aĥmad ibn ‘Abd Al Halīm), etc.
Why didn’t these luminaries attribute themselves to their fathers only? Were they not aware of the Qurānic order?
It is clear that the command in reference is the prohibition to deny a biological attribution and not to prohibit every other form of attribution.
It is best that the husband’s last name is adopted with mutual consent. If there is a need for the wife to adopt her husband’s last name, it is up to the husband to convince her to do so.
And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best"
Source
ardianto
IB Legend
- Messages
- 8,551
- Reaction score
- 931
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
There is difference between changing the name and having alias name. Married woman usually take their husband's name which often include husband's surname, but they use this name only as alias name and do not change the name that given by their parents. So the rule of changing name cannot be applied on this case unless this woman officially remove her birth name.
islamirama
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 608
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Taking the name of the husband is an imitation of the kuffar, especially the Christians as that's where it originated from. In early Christianity, first it was believed woman didn't have a soul. Then women not humans, nothing more than property. When this property went from her father's house to her husband, she had to be transferred over to his name thus given his name as the last name.
In the words of the English jurist Henry de Bracton, they became "a single person, because they are one flesh and one blood". As this idea gained ground, so did the clerical habit of designating a married woman by her husband's surname. If there was one person in a marriage, that person was the husband. Married women still could not hold property, vote, or go to law. Legally, at the point of marriage they ceased to exist.
In Islam, a person takes the name of their father and that is the only name they keep. This is to keep the lineage un-corrupted and not muddy the water. The naming convention used in Arabic is muhammad ibn hanaf ibn janafi ibn khalfi etc, meaning muhammad son of hanafi son of janafi son of khalfi. Same is with the daughter, fatima bint muhammad ibn abdullah etc, meaning fatima daugher of muhammad son of abdullah. To take the name of the husband and become fatima shafi would be fatimia bint shafi, is she fatima daughter of shafi or his wife? Common sense will tell you not to take the name of your husband but to keep your fathers.
In the words of the English jurist Henry de Bracton, they became "a single person, because they are one flesh and one blood". As this idea gained ground, so did the clerical habit of designating a married woman by her husband's surname. If there was one person in a marriage, that person was the husband. Married women still could not hold property, vote, or go to law. Legally, at the point of marriage they ceased to exist.
In Islam, a person takes the name of their father and that is the only name they keep. This is to keep the lineage un-corrupted and not muddy the water. The naming convention used in Arabic is muhammad ibn hanaf ibn janafi ibn khalfi etc, meaning muhammad son of hanafi son of janafi son of khalfi. Same is with the daughter, fatima bint muhammad ibn abdullah etc, meaning fatima daugher of muhammad son of abdullah. To take the name of the husband and become fatima shafi would be fatimia bint shafi, is she fatima daughter of shafi or his wife? Common sense will tell you not to take the name of your husband but to keep your fathers.
A'salamu alaykum. JazakAllahu khayr that was informative. But it also consisted of your personal opinion. Any evidence from our Deen?
Allah knows best.
islamirama
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 608
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
:wa:
What part was my opinion?
The historical fact that woman was considered a soul-less creature and then property or the fact of how naming convention is done in the arabs? Or the fact that Islam forbids imitating the kuffars, especially in things specific to them?
While you will find this question answered specifically by the shieks, however, Allah gave us faculties to use for ourselves as well. Not everything requires hadith and verses. Ibrahim a.s. didn't quote verses to his people all the time, he reasoned them into silence from their idol worship.
Firstly, I'd like to mention that I don't condone women changing their surnames.
What I didn't understand about your post was, how is it imitating the kuffar when some of the Sahaba, in RasoolAllah salaAllahu alayhi wa salam's time, adopted names other than that of their fathers (mentioned above)? Isn't changing the surname different than declaring your lineage is other than your father's? Also, Fatima Shafi wouldn't become Fatima bint Shafi... She would be Fatima Shafi bint Muhammad, etc. (this is an example of what I mean, changing the surname wouldn't be changing the lineage). In case I am misunderstood, these are genuine questions and not rhetorical.
I'd also like to say, I respectfully disagree with you on the point you made about not everything needing evidence. When it comes to Deen, everything needs evidence. We can't use our 'common sense' on issues of the Deen, because undoubtedly most of us would be overpowered by our nafs.
Allah knows best.
noraina
* Tawakkul *
- Messages
- 2,878
- Reaction score
- 337
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Wa alaykum assalam,
I'm by no means knowledgeable on this issue, but we as has been mentioned above, taking someone's surname after marriage isn't the same as actually changing your lineage or suggesting this *his* father is now *your* father. You're not claiming any change in lineage. And most people understand that - intention is what matters in such a case.
In my culture (Afghan/Kashmiri) your surname tends to be from the 'tribe' you are from, the way my surname would tell anyone what tribe my father comes from.
Or otherwise the wife and children take on the husbands first name as their surname, and the father keeps his father's name. For example, a man whose name is Hassan and his father's name is Amir would be Hassan Amir, but his wife's and children surname would be Hassan. So while the wife had her father's name as her surname, she now has her husbands.
I'm not sure how it would work in Arabic countries, as those names are explicitly structured to show your descent, like Ahmad ibn Hussain ibn Abdullah, for example. I thought married women in Arab countries didn't even change their name, because it's not possible with the way they structure names?
I'm by no means knowledgeable on this issue, but we as has been mentioned above, taking someone's surname after marriage isn't the same as actually changing your lineage or suggesting this *his* father is now *your* father. You're not claiming any change in lineage. And most people understand that - intention is what matters in such a case.
In my culture (Afghan/Kashmiri) your surname tends to be from the 'tribe' you are from, the way my surname would tell anyone what tribe my father comes from.
Or otherwise the wife and children take on the husbands first name as their surname, and the father keeps his father's name. For example, a man whose name is Hassan and his father's name is Amir would be Hassan Amir, but his wife's and children surname would be Hassan. So while the wife had her father's name as her surname, she now has her husbands.
I'm not sure how it would work in Arabic countries, as those names are explicitly structured to show your descent, like Ahmad ibn Hussain ibn Abdullah, for example. I thought married women in Arab countries didn't even change their name, because it's not possible with the way they structure names?
islamirama
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 4,194
- Reaction score
- 608
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Those were exceptions not norms. Even a child of a zani must take the name of the mother as his/her last name and not the zani father.
Yes, you need evidence from the deen when it comes to matters of the deen. In this case, you could rule out taking the last name based only on what I posted previously. So you wouldn't necessarily need deen evidence if you don't plan on taking the surname. You just need its historical origin and the logical reasoning to know that your last name is your father's name or as noraina mentioned, your tribes name. As for the deen part. Although not common among the masses I suppose, but it's not a hidden fact either that the Prophet :saw: forbade imitating the kuffars and said who ever does is ONE of them. Putting this fact and the historical fact together gets you your answer.
But if you want a specific fatwa like the jews, must have fatwa for everything, then that too exists and you can go get it.
I know how it's done in SE Asia. That is fine in terms of the children. They can take their father name or their tribe name to show their origin. But the wife taking the husband name is something they got from the colonial british who ruled over them for 200 years. This is something the wife should not do. She should keep her father's name or her tribe's name, whatever was given to her at birth.
Many women in the west now are keeping their maiden name and not taking husband's name. Their reasoning though is because the marriage hardly lasts for 50% of them and they get married multiple times in their lifetime and it is a big hassle trying to get your last name changed every time in all the official documents.
Last edited:
My brother, If a man who raises and loves a child like his own, with all the feelings and love that are shared between father and son, where in every way the man is like a father, and even in this situation, with all its sensitivities and emotions and feelings, Allaah has forbidden for that man to change the child's surname to his own, then what about the situation of a woman who's surname is changed to that of a man who was a stranger to her, based upon a custom which originated from the Christians in the first place?
So if before her marriage she is Zainab Yaqub, after her marriage she becomes Zainab Bilal. What's the need or obligation to even do that?