Kudos to Perlis Mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin for asserting the right of converts to retain their surnames. This flies in the face of the strange Malaysian practice of making converts to Islam adopt the patronymic ‘bin Abdullah’. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fine name—one of the finest, in fact. But it isn’t my father’s name, nor is it the name of most converts’ fathers. That’s a problem, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) made it pretty clear that while a convert should change his or her given name if its meaning is dodgy, there is nothing to be done about one’s father’s name. You can always change who you will be and sometimes even who you are, but you can’t change who you came from. And I don’t want to anyway. It’s actually a sin in Islam for one to claim to be the child of anyone but his or her father, so this whole ‘bin Abdullah’ thing is indeed strange.
As the Star said today, the reactions to the mufti’s fatwa have been mixed, and they show just how mixed up this whole ‘bin Abdullah’ thing has become. For example, first there’s this:
In Ipoh, National Fatwa Committee chairman Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria said that the national body had reached a consensus in the early 1980s for non-Muslims converting to Islam to carry the bin or binti Abdullah.
Then there’s this:
Selangor deputy mufti Datuk Abdul Majid Omar said that adopting Muslim names was “a non-issue because the National Fatwa Council had decided way back in the early 1980s that converts may retain their original family names upon conversion.”
So it looks like it isn’t quite clear just what the consensus actually was back in the early 1980s. Should converts take ‘bin Abdullah’? Should they keep their family names? Hmmm…Okay, to be fair to the officials quoted above, neither is actually wrong: it seems the consensus was that converts could indeed keep their family names but would also have to adopt ‘bin Abdullah’. Therefore, according to what seems to have been agreed upon way back then, I would be Jordan MacVay bin Abdullah.
As nice as it is that such a ruling would allow me to keep my surname, it’s still wrong. So I’m glad the mufti of Perlis has taken a stand on it. This isn’t the first time I’ve been impressed by his wisdom and good sense. I’m looking forward to hearing more from him.
Speaking of names, I’m currently going through the process of renewing my Canadian passport. When I got my first passport in 2002, it didn’t mention my middle name. I seem to recall being concerned about the whole ‘bin Abdullah’ thing so I somehow managed to have my middle name omitted. Even in Canada I seldom used it, so at the time it made sense to simplify things by just using Jordan MacVay. This time around the Canadian government is being more strict about it (my full name does, after all, appear on my birth certificate), so my new passport will contain my full name: Jordan Francis MacVay. That should make things interesting when I renew my Malaysian work visa (AKA Social Visit Pass) next month. I’ve been sort of in the process of doing that too, which I’ll write about shortly because the need to renew my passport and my visa at the same time has certainly made life interesting.
No Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://macvaysia.com/2007/03/13/mufti-of-perlis-converts-dont-need-bin-abdullah/trackback/
9 Comments
what happened to Fahim?
I don’t really to speak about these kind of matter!
The truth to matter is that they(jab. agama)
reasoned that they want to be in absolute certain there is no uncertainty! No subahat what so ever.
This is a bit offensive. But for example if a married couple marries with a unreconise ‘Qadi’ then the couple are to be remarried.
This is to be certain there is no uncertainty!
But if the couple have some children before the remarriage vow(with the unqualified Qadi) then what are of those children?
Aare they consider a product of unholy reunion? Off course secularly they would be fine I guess, but in the eyes of the representive of the peoples religious council, What are they?
So To some it becomes offensive.
The same issue happen when a convert, converts to Islam. In thier eyes the marriage of thier father n mother are considered uncertain. There is no Qadi, no akad, tak sah and etc. In thier eyes the reunion is an illegit one. There is no certainty of status. Just simply syak and meragukan.
So they come to a conclussion that if a person is a product of an unmarried reunion(bastard child) therefore he should be made bin Abdullah just as the case for those bastard Man!
So that is why the convert in Malaysia are made into bin Abdullah! because your father/mother are not married(in Islamic way).
Now this practise was probably done before pre Merdeka days and it is also base on certain previous Ulama ijtihad/fatwa/opinion or school of thoughts. So the current generatyion(us) tend to follow/taqlid the olders schools of tradition rather than create new ijtihad/solution.
My opinion is this the wrong opinion to follow! The Prophet did not do it neither any of the companion and remember they were the worst of the pagan! the worst of the syirik!
And in the name of being overly strict, to be always certain with no uncertainty and in the name of always be tecnically correct, they insist on being more rigidious.
Intrestingly, In the Quran/Hadith there is a tale about how the Jews(ancient one) were condemn because in the name of being religious… they ask Moshe(Moses) for more specification after specification on certain religious issue(for the sacrificial Cow if my memory is right).
And even more outragious is how the modern-day(Rabbinical) Jews solve thier Bin Abdullah issue eventhough names are never important for a Jew.
Easy, instead of being a Patriarh religion for this one issue they suddenly become Matriach! So no ben Abdul-Elohim or such status for the child.
All child born from a Jews Mother is consider Jews while it is not the case for a Jews father. So Jews boys are encourage to ‘marry’ a Jews while a daughter can marry outside. Adulterous child of a non-Married reunion will never occur for a Jew!
So much for being the so call lineage one of the Son of Noah name Sem(Shem) which we get the term Semitic! Which most Jews are not while most Arab are Semitic! So much for being anti-Semite.
Conclussion : No more bin Abdullah, but please be married and live happily!
sorry for this comment Mr. Mac but seriously I can’t something this serious in my site kukumon.blogspot.com?
I’m proud that the mufti is from my kampung!
He was the only mufti that supported Chinese Muslim Masjid.
He openly critisized the couple-spying/khalwat raid process.
We need more mufti like him. This is what I would call progressive!
Raina: While I often say these days that the F stands for Fahim, I’ve never officially changed my name. So My middle name is still Francis, which was the name of my paternal grandfather, Frank MacVay. Changing it would have been tricky, but I wanted to make my name less complicated when I came to Malaysia, so I was somehow able to leave my middle name out of my passport. But now that I’ll need to include it, things might get complicated anyway!
Kuku: You completely lost me with the stuff about Jews, but your explanation of how this whole ‘bin Abdullah’ thing originated actually makes a little bit of sense. If that is indeed the reason the authorities began doing it, I still don’t agree with it but I can sort of see the reasoning behind it.
sorry for this comment Mr. Mac but seriously I can’t something this serious in my site kukumon.blogspot.com
After seeing the post on Ernie and Bert, I believe you!
Azlin: I agree!
kukuman,
About the fake Qadi matter, I don’t believe that’s it’s a halal\haram issue but more of a legal one. If a couple gets married, that marriage needs to be documented with the government. This will avoid a host of problems when facing matters such as inheritance, divorces etc. I don’t believe that any JAB has ever nullified any ‘fake’ marriages or called their offsprings ‘bastards.’
Dear Jordan,
Keep your name with all its glorious meaning attached to it. The long and illustrious history of the McVAys, the wonderful Francis whom you wrote about, the Jordan bit where both your parents have wreck their brains for.
Don’t let the Malay Islamofacists dictate your very identity -your name.
(Incidently, I think all Malaysians regardless of religion should have access to civil marriage. Then the whole fake Qadi thing will be avoided and all will be subjected to the law of the land- muslims and non-muslims alike)
Ida
Just in case you’re here in Malaysia, buzz me up in advance via email. If you want to see the Mufti of Perlis for a visit or anything, I will insha-allah arrange it for you.
Visit my website at http://www.alquds-productions.com for more speeches of him.
As-Salamu `alaykum:
On March 10, 2007 >
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Sunday/National/20070311084452/Article/in\
dex_html
Comments:
The most disturbing passages of the above are the phrase “From now on,
the council has decided that it is haram, or forbidden, for them to do
so” and the claim that changing one’s father’s name or patronym is
“contrary to Islam.” Also disturbing is the claim that the Prophet, upon
him blessings and peace, “never forced his friends to change their
fathers’ names when they converted to Islam.”
Imam Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan that the Prophet, upon him
blessings and peace, changed the names of the Banu al-Zinya (”sons of
fornication”) to Banu al-Rishda (”sons of uprightness”), and he also
changed the name of the Banu Mughwiya (”sons of misguidance”) to Banu
Rishda.
Most bizarre is Asri’s statement that “Even if the father’s name may be
taken from the names of their gods, it must be retained as it is his
name.”
On the contrary, Allah most High said in Surat al-`Ankabut (8): {We have
enjoined on man kindness to parents; but if they strive to make you join
with Me that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not.} And He
also said in Surat al-Baqara (170): {And when it is said unto them:
Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say: We follow that wherein
we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers were wholly
unintelligent and had no guidance?þ} So if a new Muslim has a father
called “servant of Krishna” or “worshipper of Christ” (`Abd al-Masih) or
“slayer of Muslims” (Matamoro) he is not only permitted but expected to
change his patronym.
The Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, taught his Companions to name
themselves “`Abd Allah ibn `Abd Allah ibn Amat Allah” (the servant of
Allah, son of the servant of Allah, son of the maiden of Allah) in
their supplications as narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad. This
teaching is meant neither for the new Muslims of the first generation
alone, nor in metaphorical terms alone. Most relevantly, re-naming
ourselves in such fashion in no way whatsoever violates “fairness,
equality and respect for one’s parents.”
One day after the above fatwa, the Malaysia Muslim Welfare Organisation
(Perkim) urged the Perlis Fatwa Council to take it back, saying “It
would be more appropriate to allow those converting to Islam to decide
on their own whether or not they wanted to change their names.”
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/state_news/news.php?id=250720&cat=nt
This is the least that can be said although a more forceful response
was in order. Allah Most High said in Surat al-Nahl (116): {And speak
not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or
unclean), the falsehood: “This is lawful, and this is forbidden,” so
that you invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie
against Allah will not succeed.þ}
It is a Western concept to consider first names and family names mere
identity tags with little spiritual value or power. In his discussion of
the fiqh of name-changing among the Prophetic Companions in Zad
al-Ma`ad, Ibn al-Qayyim mentions that names stand for meanings that
carry into the lives of the named. He cites the hadith of Ibn
al-Musayyab in Sahih al-Bukhari in which the Prophet, upon him blessings
and peace, told Sa`id’s grandfather to change his name from Hazn,
“hardship,” to Sahl, “ease.” But Hazn refused, saying: “I will never
change a name my father gave me.” Years later, Sa`id said: “I think
difficulty followed us all our lives.”
There is a long list of those whose first names were changed by the
Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Some of them are mentioned in a
mostly good response posted under the title “Changing One’s Name After
Conversion” at the URL:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503549226&pagename=IslamOnl\
ine-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
It is true that if the patronym has no negative connotation, such as
“Smith” or “Jones,” then it is better to retain it as it forms a living
testimonial to the attractiveness of Islam. So in the vast majority of
cases, changing the first name is enough. It is also more transparent,
regarding one’s background, than to adopt a misleading Arabic-sounding
patronym.
Allah knows best.
GF Haddad
The above comment by GF Haddad appears to have been pasted at several sites and not directed specifically at my own comments. Still, I’d like to post my own response.
As-Salamu `alaykum:
Walaikumsalam.
Imam Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan that the Prophet, upon him
blessings and peace, changed the names of the Banu al-Zinya (”sons of
fornication”) to Banu al-Rishda (”sons of uprightness”), and he also
changed the name of the Banu Mughwiya (”sons of misguidance”) to Banu
Rishda.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but those appear to be names that identify groups of people and not individuals. Did each member of the Banu al-Zinya actually go by the patronym al-Zinya? And, if so, was al-Zinya actually the name of their father? If the answer to either question is no, the example is not relevant to this particular discussion. Even if the answer to either is yes, in the first case it wouldn’t necessarily mean that was actually their father’s name, in which case changing it wouldn’t be a problem (making the example irrelevant to this discussion); in the latter case, if the answer is yes then it would be helpful to know whether the person named al-Zinya changed his given name, in which case his children would naturally identify themselves as the children of his new name (and therefore, this case is also irrelevant to the current discussion, since it does not clearly demonstrate that it is necessary for one to change one’s patronym).
Most bizarre is Asri’s statement that “Even if the father’s name may be
taken from the names of their gods, it must be retained as it is his
name.”
On the contrary, Allah most High said in Surat al-`Ankabut (8): {We have
enjoined on man kindness to parents; but if they strive to make you join
with Me that of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not.} And He
also said in Surat al-Baqara (170): {And when it is said unto them:
Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say: We follow that wherein
we found our fathers. What! Even though their fathers were wholly
unintelligent and had no guidance?þ} So if a new Muslim has a father
called “servant of Krishna” or “worshipper of Christ” (`Abd al-Masih) or
“slayer of Muslims” (Matamoro) he is not only permitted but expected to
change his patronym.
It’s a bit of a stretch (and I’m being polite here) to say that the verse mentioned above actually calls for the conclusion Dr. Haddad reaches here. There’s a difference between following the actions of one’s ignorant father (which that verse seems to be dealing with) and identifying oneself as the child of that person.
The Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, taught his Companions to name
themselves “`Abd Allah ibn `Abd Allah ibn Amat Allah” (the servant of
Allah, son of the servant of Allah, son of the maiden of Allah) in
their supplications as narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad. This
teaching is meant neither for the new Muslims of the first generation
alone, nor in metaphorical terms alone. Most relevantly, re-naming
ourselves in such fashion in no way whatsoever violates “fairness,
equality and respect for one’s parents.”
Did the Prophet really teach his Companions to name themselves in this way? An important distinction is to be made here, that between calling oneself something and actually having something as one’s name. They may sound like the same thing, but while I can rightly refer to myself (according to the Prophet’s instructions) as `Abd Allah ibn `Abd Allah ibn Amat Allah, the fact remains that my name is Jordan Francis MacVay. Were all of the companions named `Abd Allah ibn `Abd Allah ibn Amat Allah? No, they were not. Each had their own individual name, and this is well documented. How many of the earliest Muslims whose parents were not Muslims actually changed their patronyms? I don’t think the example of `Abd Allah ibn `Abd Allah ibn Amat Allah proves Dr. Haddad’s point.
One day after the above fatwa, the Malaysia Muslim Welfare Organisation
(Perkim) urged the Perlis Fatwa Council to take it back, saying “It
would be more appropriate to allow those converting to Islam to decide
on their own whether or not they wanted to change their names.”
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/state_news/news.php?id=250720&cat=nt
This is the least that can be said although a more forceful response
was in order. Allah Most High said in Surat al-Nahl (116): {And speak
not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or
unclean), the falsehood: “This is lawful, and this is forbidden,” so
that you invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie
against Allah will not succeed.þ}
It is indeed made pretty clear that we cannot claim something to be forbidden when it is not. But I don’t think Dr. Haddad has clearly demonstrated that the Mufti of Perlis has really contradicted the verse quoted above.
It is a Western concept to consider first names and family names mere
identity tags with little spiritual value or power. In his discussion of
the fiqh of name-changing among the Prophetic Companions in Zad
al-Ma`ad, Ibn al-Qayyim mentions that names stand for meanings that
carry into the lives of the named. He cites the hadith of Ibn
al-Musayyab in Sahih al-Bukhari in which the Prophet, upon him blessings
and peace, told Sa`id’s grandfather to change his name from Hazn,
“hardship,” to Sahl, “ease.” But Hazn refused, saying: “I will never
change a name my father gave me.” Years later, Sa`id said: “I think
difficulty followed us all our lives.”
The example given here is about changing one’s given name, not one’s patronym, and is therefore irrelevant to the current discussion.
There is a long list of those whose first names were changed by the
Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Some of them are mentioned in a
mostly good response posted under the title “Changing One’s Name After
Conversion” at the URL:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503549226&pagename=IslamOnl\
ine-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
Again, the fact that many converts were advised to change their given names is not really relevant to this discussion.
It is true that if the patronym has no negative connotation, such as
“Smith” or “Jones,” then it is better to retain it as it forms a living
testimonial to the attractiveness of Islam. So in the vast majority of
cases, changing the first name is enough. It is also more transparent,
regarding one’s background, than to adopt a misleading Arabic-sounding
patronym.
I agree with this statement.
It would seem, then, that the examples provided by Dr. Haddad do not conclusively show that it is necessary—nor even preferable—for Muslim converts to drop their patronyms in favour of more ‘Islamic’ names. There are, in fact, several examples at this site which contradict the statements made here by Dr. Haddad.
Allah knows best.
GF Haddad
That’s right. It’s all good.
JF MacVay