The surname fuss: A married woman's predicament! (Page 5)

I'm at a loss on this one. On one hand, I do see that accepting your husband's last name as your own is a way to incorporate yourself into his family (going by that, shouldn't he be doing the same though?). It's like that first step of making something your own. At the same time, I, personally, would not want to change my name. I like it the way it is - it's who I am. But if I don't change my name, then my kids will have a different last name then I will (going by the ongoing paternal lineage system in society). And I don't know if I'll be okay with my kids having a different last name.

In that case, I will be on the lookout for a husband that shares my last name but isn't related too me. Shouldn't be too hard. ;-)


Edited by *Woh Ajnabee* - 14 October 2012 at 1:55pm

The men dont change there surname because its through the male side that your ancestory and lineage continue

In fact in islam its not correct for woman to change there surname when they get married
Its better for them to keep there fathers name so one knows what lineage there from.

Changing ur surname for a woman is a western practice.

Its your children that take there dads name only wen they are born to continue the family lineage

Why a woman should not take her husband's surname ar - en - fr I have read your responses to the following questions 2537 and 4362 concerning a wife
retaining her father's name upon marriage. The Ayaat mentioned from Surah Al-Ahzaab states
that adopted sons (and hence daughters?) should not be called as sons of the step-fathers.
However, how exactly does this apply to a wife simply changing her name for marriage; as
she is not actually claiming to belong to her husband, but just taking his name. If it is a
question of lineage, I would appreciate specific references from the Qur'an and hadith. Thank you for your help and clarification.
Jazak'Allah Khayr. Praise be to Allaah. The effects of imitating the west in naming ourselves are many. One of them is the way in which people have got used to omitting the word 'ibn' (son of) or 'ibnatu' (daughter of) between their own names and the name of their fathers. The reason for this is, firstly, because some families have adopted children and given them their surname, so that the adopted child is called Foolaan Foolan [where 'Foolaan (=So and so)' stands for a name] and their real children
are called Foolaan ibn Foolaan (So and so the son of So and so). Now in the fourteenth century AH, people have dropped the word 'ibn' or 'ibnatu' – which is unacceptable according to linguistics, custom and sharee'ah. May Allaah help us. Another effect is the habit of women taking their husband's surnames. Originally, the woman is So and so the Daughter of So and so, not So and so the wife of So and so! Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "Call them (adopted sons) by (the names of) their fathers, that is more just with Allaah…" [al- Ahzaab 33:5]. As it is in this world, so it will also be in the Hereafter, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "On the Day of Resurrection, each betrayer will have a banner raised beside him, and it will be said, this is the betrayer of So and so the son of So and so." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5709, and Muslim, 3265). Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (may Allaah preserve him) said: This is one of the beauties of sharee'ah, because calling a person by his father's name is more appropriate for knowing who is who and telling people apart. The father is the protector and maintainer of the child and his mother both inside and outside the home. This is why the father mixes with people in the marketplaces and takes risks by travelling to earn a halaal living and strive for their sakes. So the child is given the name of the father, not of the mother who is hidden away and who is one
of those whom Allaah commanded (interpretation of the meaning): "And stay in your houses…" [al-Ahzaab 33:33] (Tasmiyat al-Mawlood, 30, 31). On the basis of the above, there is no blood tie between the husband and wife, so how can she take his surname as if she is part of the same lineage? Moreover, she may get divorced, or her husband may die, and she may marry another man. Will she keep changing her surname every time she marries another man? Furthermore, there are rulings attached to her being named after her father, which have to do with inheritance, spending and who is a mahram, etc. Taking her husband's surname overlooks all that. The husband is named after his own father, and what does she have to do with the lineage of her husband's father? This goes against common sense and true facts. The husband has nothing that makes him better than his wife so that she should take his surname, whilst he takes his father's name. Hence everyone who has gone against this and taken her husband's name should put matters
right. We ask Allaah to put all the affairs of the Muslims right. Islam Q&A Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Ideally speaking, the concept is feudal and proprietorial. But now that it has been well-ingrained into our sense of being, I think a world devoid of last names and consequently, family trees, would cause confusion and a sense of rootless-ness. A certain Jolie and Pit or Beckham or Cruise fancying the 'no last name' trend is okay, but I don't think the greater society is going to accept it anytime in near future.

Edited by krystal_watz - 15 October 2012 at 9:36pm

It appears you apply different standards to men and women..You seem to suggest that its not a big deal, but a mere adjustment for the sake of love, for women to change their surnames; but when it comes to men you think such behaviour is a shameful weakness!!

Also you seem to have some strong patriarchal stereotypes in your mind about the roles and behaviours of genders...You find the idea of man behaving like a woman to be very abominable..Let me tell you, its not just you but a hell lot of our kind that thinks this way. I find it rather disturbing when people say this to a boy "Don't cry like a girl. Don't be a pussy"...If a woman is docile or spineless, that's acceptable, nay, desirable; but if a man even sheds a drop of tear, that's a stain upon his manhood. This insinuates that women are lesser creatures and being like them is degrading for a man's honour..In the society I live men are expected to be assertive and flamboyant in their demeanour while women are supposed to be modest and submissive and suppress their desires and sacrifice their individuality to qualify as 'virtuous women'; and as you said they are always expected to 'adjust a little'. That means if a man slaps his wife, thrashes her or rapes her, its to be passed off as his manliness and women are not to take it seriously (He's a man after all!!); but if a woman is assertive - if she registers a complaint or seeks divorce then she's a spoilt woman and she's responsible for destroying her family..

Lets stop pretending that we believe in equality of sexes, because we do not. As long as we continue to have these ridiculous stereotypes about 'manliness' and 'virtuous woman' or these antediluvian models of "Man is protector and woman is gardener of home"- as long as we continue to apply different standards to judge the sexes we can never have equality of any degree in our societies..




Edited by Rehanism - 16 October 2012 at 9:35pm

I like your post for the entire length of it but for the bold part. A man is considered "manly" if he hits his wife or so much raises A FINGER ON HER? I always thought it was the other way round. If a man hits a woman-- "Yeh mard mard hi nahi hai. Auroto par haath uthane wala mard nahi hota."
If a woman slaps a man-- "Ha! Atta girl!" or, "Hehehehe...maar kha gaya bechara". Nobody screams different standards there I see.