Call for open forum on ‘bin Abdullah’ rule

(FMT) – Khalid Samad says changed circumstances require a revisit of fatwas that are based on the opinions of ulama of the past.

Amanah communications director Khalid Samad has called for open discussions on a religious edict forbidding Muslims conceived out of wedlock from carrying their fathers’ names.

This follows a South China Morning Post (SCMP) report that quoted several Muslims born out of wedlock as saying they faced numerous problems due to the social alienation and stigma growing up with “bin Abdullah” attached to their names.

Stressing that he neither agreed nor disagreed with the ruling, Khalid told FMT the problem was that some Muslims did not know how to differentiate between divine law and the opinions of jurists of certain eras.

“Muslims must understand there are many aspects of decisions made by the ulama of a previous period which we can revisit today because these are opinions on how best to handle particular situations,” he said.

“What we are faced with today is that opinions from the past are viewed by some Muslims as almost divine and cannot be revisited or discussed.

“Whatever decisions the ulama made in their times were based on circumstances then, and thus did not create a problem in society.

“Obviously, there’s no ideal situation, but you weigh it and see which option is the lesser of two evils.”

Khalid noted an argument that Muslims conceived out of wedlock were required to bear the patronymic surname “Abdullah” because it would discourage zina (fornication).

“But how does not allowing such children to carry the names of their biological fathers prevent people from committing zina? If the ruling isn’t a deterrent, then the whole reasoning behind it is flawed. Not only do you not achieve your objective, you also end up victimising the innocent children.

“This is why this issue must be discussed and we must identify what is divine and what is human opinion.”

He said if a ruling was the opinion of jurists who based it on the social thinking of a certain era, it must be scrutinised again to see whether the same thinking would apply today.

“What was done in the past was aimed at achieving the common good of society during that period of time,” he said. “What may have been the best way of handling a situation then may not necessarily be the best way of achieving a similar objective today, given the current circumstances.”

On July 25, the Court of Appeal ruled that the National Registration Department (NRD) had acted beyond its powers in using “bin Abdullah” in the registration of children conceived out of wedlock.

Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli, who sat with two other judges, said the practice contravened the Registration of Births and Deaths Act besides causing humiliation to such children.

“We believe Islam does not permit the public humiliation of innocent children,” the judge said in allowing an appeal made by a Johor couple to compel the NRD director-general to replace the surname “Abdullah” with that of the child’s father in the birth certificate. The child was born less than six months after the couple’s marriage.

On Aug 21, however, the Federal Court granted a stay on the Court of Appeal order pending an appeal filed by the NRD.

The SCMP report quoted child rights activist Hartini Zainudin as saying the authorities, while approaching the issue from a religious viewpoint, had ignored the fact that religion should protect everybody, especially the innocent.

“What’s the harm in allowing a child to carry their biological father’s name?” she asked.

Aside from the stigma endured by such children, Hartini said, they also faced concrete problems such as lack of access to public schools and subsidised health care. They were also unable to open bank accounts or buy property, she claimed.