|muhammad.hamza.sk||-- 05-02-2004 @ 12:34 AM|
As-Salaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh!
I have come across a personal issue that I feel may be important to a lot of brothers and sisters out there. It is also important now that the members of this forum have been requested to produce their names and the names of their fathers on their posts.
I recently asked a brother studying in Madeenah (Aboo 'Umar Faarooq from London, UK) to please ask one of the Mashaayikh this question:
"My mother and father, both non-Muslims, gave birth to me before they were married. Do I take the lineage and nationality of my father or not?"
I asked this because I have become known as "as-Skatlandee" = "The Scotsman" because my father is Scottish. The brother, may Allaah preserve him and reward him for his help, spoke to our beloved Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee (May Allaah preserve him) whom replied:
"He is not your father! You do not have a father. Rather you should look at him as the man who is married to your mother..."
There was a bit more detail than that but that was the part of the response I do distinctively remember. I will, bi-ithnillaahi ta 'aala, speak to the brother again and get the full response down on paper and relay it back here.
Although I had heard the odd reference in the past about this issue, I did not expect it to be deep like that. The more I thought about it after and it sunk in, the more shell-shocked I became. I'm not an individual who turns from the truth (inshaa'Allaah) I will accept it and act upon it, but if my mother came to me after 22 years and told me "your father is not your father" it would not have hit me as hard as this did.
That means I am not his descendant, I am not Scottish, he is not a Mahram for my wife, nor a grandfather to my son.
It has left me with some more questions though.
Is it safe to assume that I take my mothers lineage and nationality now?
Do I keep the surname that was given to me at birth (my fathers)?
It would also mean that for us who come from disbelieving families may have to carefully trace their lineage before we take names, i.e. Muhammad ibn Robert ibn John ibn etc ibn etc. It would have to be established that the individuals parents were married before they were born.
I apologise for my ignorance if my brothers and sisters in Islaam were aware of this but I am sure there are a few of us in this predicament.
If I have made any mistakes here then please do correct me.
And Allaah knows best.
Aboo Ahmad Muhammad (formerly) as-Skatlandee
This message was edited by muhammad.hamza.sk on 2-5-04 @ 11:28 AM
|al.Arabaanee||-- 05-02-2004 @ 4:48 AM|
Wa alaikumussalamu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh
As far as I understand the word ?Nikaah? in the Arabic language literally means sexual intercourse and someone can correct me if I am wrong. Here in my city there are some who are a little confused about this issue of children of fornication. The question is what if the mother claims that a particular man is the father of a particular child and the man agrees. Is this child still considered to be a child of the bed? I ask this question because from the little I have read on the subject it seems as if the child will be considered a child of the bed if the people are not sure who is the father of the child. However, what if the man and woman agree that so and so is their child? Would the rulings of the child of Zinaa pertain to this child? We know that in the days of pre-Islam the Arabs had different ways they performed "Nikaah" (Marriage/sexual intercourse) and that some of these "Ankihah" (Marriages/ways or types of sexual intercourse) were accepted by Al-Islam. I recall asking Sheikh Saalih AS-Suhaimee may Allah preserve him about my particular situation i.e. that my "parents" as far as I know were not married when I was conceived and he told me not to name myself after my mother or my ?father? but to just pick a nice name. There is only but so much info one can get from a non-Muslim mother regarding this issue because many non-Muslims lie to their children and raise them upon lies and false stories.
Abdur Rahmaan Al-Atharee
إذا التبستِ الأمورُ فعليكُمْ بالأمرِ العتيقِ
|shahid393||-- 05-02-2004 @ 5:58 PM|
as-salaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh,
more info on the children of zinaa can be found here:
aboo husaam shaheed ibn george ibn jerret ibn jerret ibn abraham williams al-kansasee
This message was edited by shahid393 on 2-5-04 @ 6:00 PM
|AbumusaAbdulkareem||-- 05-02-2004 @ 11:10 PM|
as-salaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh
There was this additional information posted by Moosaa on the 03/23/2003 on salafitalk.net with more information on this issue:
Children From Jaahiliyyah
Summarized from a phone conversation with Shaykh Muhammad ?Umar Baazmool (1423/5/20)
Questioner: A man and a woman live together unmarried as disbelievers. They accept Islaam together and then get married. The woman, however, is pregnant when they accept Islaam, meaning she became pregnant before her Islaam and before her marriage. Is her husband now considered the legitimate father of this child? And what about children that were already born to this couple before their Islaam?
Shaykh Muhammad ?Umar Baazmool: Were they considered married before their Islaam by way of the customs of their people? (ie. Common-law marriage)
?er: No, they were only considered boyfriend and girlfriend.
MUB: Ok, had they been considered married by the customs of their people, even without an actual contract, then they would be viewed as a married couple after they accepted Islaam, without needing a marriage ceremony, but this is not the case. This is because Islaam honors all contracts from jaahiliyyah, either written or understood by custom. When people live together in this fashion in their land, do the people consider the child to be the man?s legitimate child?
?er: Yes, if you mean does the child take the name of the father. The majority of children in this case take the last name of the father, and the society views the man as his real father.
MUB: OK, then in this case, the child would be considered the man?s son after they have accepted Islaam. All that is upon them is to get married after accepting Islaam. The child, as he would be considered the man?s son before Islaam, will also be considered the man?s son after their acceptance of Islaam. The Islaamic rules of the child not being attributed to the biological father from a non-marital relationship take effect after people have accepted Islaam. As for this couple that has accepted Islaam, then the unborn child, as well as all children born to them prior to their acceptance of Islaam, will be considered the father?s legitimate children. This is what appears to be the correct understanding, and Allaah knows best.
سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك
أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت
أستغفرك وأتوب إليك
|al.Arabaanee||-- 06-02-2004 @ 5:44 AM|
Wa alaikumussalamu wa Rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh
May Allah reward the bro Abu Moosaa with good. This is the link to the original post:
Abdur Rahmaan Al-Atharee
إذا التبستِ الأمورُ فعليكُمْ بالأمرِ العتيقِ
This message was edited by al.Arabaanee on 2-6-04 @ 11:22 AM
|umm.aboo.yahyaa||-- 06-02-2004 @ 1:04 PM|
wa alaykumus salaam wa rahmatullaah,
akhee muhammaad, sorry to hear your unfortunate news and pray that you will be strong with whatever the outcome is, aameen.
concerning something you said in your post:
"That means I am not his descendant, I am not Scottish, he is not a Mahram for my wife, nor a grandfather to my son".
Is it possible that you could provide any info that you have to support the allowance of your disbelieving fathers right to be a mahram (yanee, any disbelieving father in-law) for your wife?
I've heard many things over the years but nothing resent, as far as I'm aware a kaafir brother can see his muslim sister without hijaab but cannot be her mahram, so what about the father in-law.
umm aboo yahyaa