Muslims

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's not haram.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

I also have a question... I changed my last name to my husband's (we both agreed on this) and I have a friend that was very upset at my doing this...telling me it's not allowed in the Qu'ran. Yikes, I've already got my social security card back with my habibi's name now what should I do??? Is it really that bad?? Is it Haram? I couldn't find it on the "haram" list

Are you serious? I never heard that its haraam!!! My husband has gotten really religious while we were separated so I mean I thought he knew alot about haraam/and whats allowed by now. he wanted me to take his last name though? Am I asking the same question here ??

here is something about it http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/6241/surname

[Sofiyya 1,687]

With all due respect, the folks at Islamqa throughly enjoy pronouncing haram things that have not been made haram by Allah, the only One who can declare something haram. It also employs the political tactic of declaring anything they disagree with as "western" (read: modern), as tho being non-Western is more Islamic than being western. Allah was not concerned with dictating that Muslims follow Arab practices - recalled in the fatwa (a legal opinion we is free to adopt, discern, or disregard) by the tradition of calling people "‘ibn’ (son of) or ‘ibnatu’ (daughter of) between their own names and the name of their fathers."

Islam was sent to all parts of the earth, and, frankly, it is not an Arab faith, nor are we required to take on Arab cultural affectations to be a good Muslims. Just as the Message was transmitted and prayers offered in many languages before Arabic became the norm, the practices of other cultures were allowed to be interpreted within the Message as long as it did not corrupt it.

The bottom line is, the explanation for a wife not changing her name to her husband's is that she "belongs" to her father, as children from her marriage belong to their father. Her lineage is subordinated to her husband's; it is his that is central to the family. The argument is that a woman is to keep a family name only for the purpose of making it clear which man she "belongs to"; an adjunct position is that upon marriage, she takes on her husband's status and preferences, and moves to his home (Islam, in this mode is portrayed as patrilineal and patrilocal), thus becoming his appendage, defined by him.

This view can only be accepted if one also believes that, in Islam, women are defined by men, and not by God, that Islam inherently adheres to patriarchal norms found in Arab cultures, and that "western" is unIslamic and "non-western" is Islamic. Political resistance to the concept that one can be Muslim and western (modern), and that Muslim practice does not always equal ancient Arab practice has done much to preclude an honest discussion re interpreting the texts in a way that allows for Muslims of all stripes and cultures to make legitimate contributions to the ummah without having to bow to the perceived "authenticity" of a mere 18% of the Muslim world that is Arab in practice.

[nunyab 0]

That makes sense.... I was wondering thank you.

[April and Mohamed 0]

With all due respect, the folks at Islamqa throughly enjoy pronouncing haram things that have not been made haram by Allah, the only One who can declare something haram. It also employs the political tactic of declaring anything they disagree with as "western" (read: modern), as tho being non-Western is more Islamic than being western. Allah was not concerned with dictating that Muslims follow Arab practices - recalled in the fatwa (a legal opinion we is free to adopt, discern, or disregard) by the tradition of calling people "‘ibn’ (son of) or ‘ibnatu’ (daughter of) between their own names and the name of their fathers."

Islam was sent to all parts of the earth, and, frankly, it is not an Arab faith, nor are we required to take on Arab cultural affectations to be a good Muslims. Just as the Message was transmitted and prayers offered in many languages before Arabic became the norm, the practices of other cultures were allowed to be interpreted within the Message as long as it did not corrupt it.

The bottom line is, the explanation for a wife not changing her name to her husband's is that she "belongs" to her father, as children from her marriage belong to their father. Her lineage is subordinated to her husband's; it is his that is central to the family. The argument is that a woman is to keep a family name only for the purpose of making it clear which man she "belongs to"; an adjunct position is that upon marriage, she takes on her husband's status and preferences, and moves to his home (Islam, in this mode is portrayed as patrilineal and patrilocal), thus becoming his appendage, defined by him.

This view can only be accepted if one also believes that, in Islam, women are defined by men, and not by God, that Islam inherently adheres to patriarchal norms found in Arab cultures, and that "western" is unIslamic and "non-western" is Islamic. Political resistance to the concept that one can be Muslim and western (modern), and that Muslim practice does not always equal ancient Arab practice has done much to preclude an honest discussion re interpreting the texts in a way that allows for Muslims of all stripes and cultures to make legitimate contributions to the ummah without having to bow to the perceived "authenticity" of a mere 18% of the Muslim world that is Arab in practice.

Woo-hoo! Good for you, I agree with everything you just said. I too find it intensely irritating when American/Western cultural practices are deemed unIslamic or haram, but all of the haram Arab or Indonesian or Indian etc. practices are overlooked. Some people here think that you have to act exactly as the Arabs do and if not then you're being fully Muslim. My husband told me it's haram to pray in pants. Mind you, loose long pants, not butt-tight jeans! Can you or anyone else shed light on that one? I've seen truckloads of women praying in pants in the masjids in California and my husband looked at me like I said they were all praying without wearing scarves. It's interesting how people pay attention to minute details that are not necessarily as important as other details, like improving your actual faith, praying on time, etc. I just feel like people over here are focusing so much on the little practices and rituals instead of actually being spiritual, are they subconsciously trying to avoid it?

[sara..... 371]

Hey guys we got our NOA2 today and we got approved! My mom scanned it and e-mailed it to me. I'm SO excited right now!

congratulations :dance:

[sara..... 371]

With all due respect, the folks at Islamqa throughly enjoy pronouncing haram things that have not been made haram by Allah, the only One who can declare something haram. It also employs the political tactic of declaring anything they disagree with as "western" (read: modern), as tho being non-Western is more Islamic than being western. Allah was not concerned with dictating that Muslims follow Arab practices - recalled in the fatwa (a legal opinion we is free to adopt, discern, or disregard) by the tradition of calling people "‘ibn’ (son of) or ‘ibnatu’ (daughter of) between their own names and the name of their fathers."

Islam was sent to all parts of the earth, and, frankly, it is not an Arab faith, nor are we required to take on Arab cultural affectations to be a good Muslims. Just as the Message was transmitted and prayers offered in many languages before Arabic became the norm, the practices of other cultures were allowed to be interpreted within the Message as long as it did not corrupt it.

The bottom line is, the explanation for a wife not changing her name to her husband's is that she "belongs" to her father, as children from her marriage belong to their father. Her lineage is subordinated to her husband's; it is his that is central to the family. The argument is that a woman is to keep a family name only for the purpose of making it clear which man she "belongs to"; an adjunct position is that upon marriage, she takes on her husband's status and preferences, and moves to his home (Islam, in this mode is portrayed as patrilineal and patrilocal), thus becoming his appendage, defined by him.

This view can only be accepted if one also believes that, in Islam, women are defined by men, and not by God, that Islam inherently adheres to patriarchal norms found in Arab cultures, and that "western" is unIslamic and "non-western" is Islamic. Political resistance to the concept that one can be Muslim and western (modern), and that Muslim practice does not always equal ancient Arab practice has done much to preclude an honest discussion re interpreting the texts in a way that allows for Muslims of all stripes and cultures to make legitimate contributions to the ummah without having to bow to the perceived "authenticity" of a mere 18% of the Muslim world that is Arab in practice.

Woo-hoo! Good for you, I agree with everything you just said. I too find it intensely irritating when American/Western cultural practices are deemed unIslamic or haram, but all of the haram Arab or Indonesian or Indian etc. practices are overlooked. Some people here think that you have to act exactly as the Arabs do and if not then you're being fully Muslim. My husband told me it's haram to pray in pants. Mind you, loose long pants, not butt-tight jeans! Can you or anyone else shed light on that one? I've seen truckloads of women praying in pants in the masjids in California and my husband looked at me like I said they were all praying without wearing scarves. It's interesting how people pay attention to minute details that are not necessarily as important as other details, like improving your actual faith, praying on time, etc. I just feel like people over here are focusing so much on the little practices and rituals instead of actually being spiritual, are they subconsciously trying to avoid it?

ummm i have never heard that it is haram to pray while wearing pants ..........but im not always right about things either i think being a muslim even a born muslim is a daily learning process ........but if it haram i been wrong a lot cuz we wear paki clothing mostly and that is long kameeza and pants with shawl....infact i would say that would mean all of pakistan is praying wrong?

sara

[Alhamdulillah 0]

It's not an "Arab" practice to name children "so and so, son of so and so".... It's in the bible in Hebrew and it's been done this way from the beginning of time (well I guess not Adam and Eve since they didn't have parents but I believe Adam is referred to as the son of God in the bible even).

The idea of changing your name when you marry has everything to do with which man the woman "belongs to" and it's as if ownership transfers from one man to another. In Islam, however, it has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with lineage.

Of course, you are free to disagree as you like and this topic has been discussed to death on here over the years No one is ever going to agree on this board about anything that has to do with anything and I really don't know why we bother

Edited June 28, 2008 by Alhamdulillah

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yep, you're right, sis. We will agree to disagree.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Yep, you're right, sis. We will agree to disagree.

Sounds like a plan

[Nasturtium 500]

It's not an "Arab" practice to name children "so and so, son of so and so".... It's in the bible in Hebrew and it's been done this way from the beginning of time (well I guess not Adam and Eve since they didn't have parents but I believe Adam is referred to as the son of God in the bible even).

The idea of changing your name when you marry has everything to do with which man the woman "belongs to" and it's as if ownership transfers from one man to another. In Islam, however, it has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with lineage.

Of course, you are free to disagree as you like and this topic has been discussed to death on here over the years No one is ever going to agree on this board about anything that has to do with anything and I really don't know why we bother

He's not referred to as son of anyone (ben), definately not son of G-d But yes, people are ben or bat (insert father's name here) in the Bible.

That is the correct differentiation too for name changing. I have seen it pronounced haram or halal depending on who is speaking-- if it's said to be halal the usual logic I have seen is that because in places where a woman does change her name, no one is confused about her lineage-- we account for it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The emphasis on lineage is primarily a matter of avoiding incest in tribal socieites, not about women keeping their names because it pleases God.

[nunyab 0]

I like having his name and he likes me having it... so we're good.

[palilover 1]

It's not an "Arab" practice to name children "so and so, son of so and so".... It's in the bible in Hebrew and it's been done this way from the beginning of time (well I guess not Adam and Eve since they didn't have parents but I believe Adam is referred to as the son of God in the bible even).

The idea of changing your name when you marry has everything to do with which man the woman "belongs to" and it's as if ownership transfers from one man to another. In Islam, however, it has nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with lineage.

Of course, you are free to disagree as you like and this topic has been discussed to death on here over the years No one is ever going to agree on this board about anything that has to do with anything and I really don't know why we bother

He's not referred to as son of anyone (ben), definately not son of G-d But yes, people are ben or bat (insert father's name here) in the Bible.

That is the correct differentiation too for name changing. I have seen it pronounced haram or halal depending on who is speaking-- if it's said to be halal the usual logic I have seen is that because in places where a woman does change her name, no one is confused about her lineage-- we account for it.

Dumb question maybe. But how ocme some people write God as G-d? I saw that in Jewish sites (I don't remember why I was looking up Jewish site, lol) and now here.

[Nasturtium 500]

Dumb question maybe. But how ocme some people write God as G-d? I saw that in Jewish sites (I don't remember why I was looking up Jewish site, lol) and now here.

There is the English word "god" which can refer to any number of gods. Of course our English word God refers to YHVH, which is His Holy Name. G-d is in rememberance for Elohim, the Hebrew title for "my God" (actually, grammatically, it's "the G-d of me") of as we would use "God." L-rd is in deference to the actual word Adonai, which means "my L-rd." (the L-rd of me). HaShem is another title which is sometimes used in replacement for either, which means "the Name."

For certain Orthodox groups, the usage of Elohim and Adonai are restricted to religious-only settings, and they will either stick with HaShem, Elokim (intentional mispronunciation), or AdoShem, etc.

The English way to account for the names in the texts is usually with capitalization. If you read an Eglish Bible, you'll see sometimes there is God, and sometimes GOD. GOD means Elohim was used in the Hebrew, and God is either El or something else like HaShem which was meant to replace the title. LORD is in replacement of Adonai. We really only have those two words we use as direct titles. YHVH is replaced with I AM quite often, and sometimes GOD. Sometimes they try to spell it out with vowels, but no one knows the vowel points anymore and it is not good to even try.

Some also say it is also to avoid erasing or using the name of G-d in vain, since you didn't fully write it out in the first place. It's a reverence across the board, though.

Hope that helped