Changing last name when getting married
-
Do you think the woman should change her last name when she gets legally married?
335 Call them by their fathers; it is more just in the sight of God. But if you do not know their fathers - then they are your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you. And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but what your hearts intended. And ever is God Forgiving and Merciful.
This verse says that you should call adopted sons by their fathers name, so obviously the father has the dominant name to give the child. Since the child will have the fathers last name, doesn't it make more sense that the mom does too so that you'll be identified as a family?
-
In spain and portugal people do not change names when they marry and have the family names of the father and the mother.
Why should a family have a single name? If it is necessary you hyphen-name of one consort-name of the other ocnsort.
I have never understood why in so many countries people undergo such an ordeal as changing names with all the complications it brings for documents an all... not to speak of the violence it entails to have all your life your own name and suddenly you have to give it up and take another.
I do not think the Qur'an orders that people should have the father name, rather as the usage was that, what it was saying was that the usage should be followed even if you adopt a child, and let him keep his fathers name not change it to the adoptive father's.
Salaam
-
In spain and portugal people do not change names when they marry and have the family names of the father and the mother.
Why should a family have a single name? If it is necessary you hyphen-name of one consort-name of the other ocnsort.
I have never understood why in so many countries people undergo such an ordeal as changing names with all the complications it brings for documents an all... not to speak of the violence it entails to have all your life your own name and suddenly you have to give it up and take another.
I do not think the Qur'an orders that people should have the father name, rather as the usage was that, what it was saying was that the usage should be followed even if you adopt a child, and let him keep his fathers name not change it to the adoptive father's.
Salaam
Salam. True, it can complicate things on documents but here it can also be confusing when you say you're married but documents show the couple doesn't have the same last name. And I think having two last names would be ridiculously long, some hispanics have some long names like Esteban Julio Ricardo Montoya de la Rosa Ramirez..
Even though it says the adopted child should keep his father's name it still shows that the child doesn't have both the father's and mother's last name. But idk since there's no clear commandment I guess it's up to the woman if she wants to change it or not. -
Not ridiculously long, since where they do not have two family names they do have two first names, which makes for exactly the same length, but they discard the mothers name, which is logical because finally what has a mother to do with her children? nothing at all, only the father has something to do with the children, but the mother? a mere stranger.
Salaam
-
Not ridiculously long, since where they do not have two family names they do have two first names, which makes for exactly the same length, but they discard the mothers name, which is logical because finally what has a mother to do with her children? nothing at all, only the father has something to do with the children, but the mother? a mere stranger.
Salaam
What do you mean only the father has something to do with the children? The mother would have her husband's last name so her last name would be the same as the children's too.
-
What do you mean only the father has something to do with the children? The mother would have her husband's last name so her last name would be the same as the children's too.
Exactly, the wife is the first c hild of the husband, not his wife but his child. That is it. She stops being her father or other offspring and becomes the guardinaed or the property of the husband, just like his children. Disgusting.
If not, why not ahieve the same result you seem to find so desirable by the father taking the mother's last name? Wouldn't it amount to the same?
And really what is the problem in not changing names. No problem whatsoever in that. None. Where do you see the problem?
People are not things that you can call some thing today and something else next day, but you see as natural that women should be treated like things and be given the names of their owner just as they used to do with slaves, who took the name of the owner.
Salaam
-
Exactly, the wife is the first c hild of the husband, not his wife but his child. That is it. She stops being her father or other offspring and becomes the guardinaed or the property of the husband, just like his children. Disgusting.
If not, why not ahieve the same result you seem to find so desirable by the father taking the mother's last name? Wouldn't it amount to the same?
And really what is the problem in not changing names. No problem whatsoever in that. None. Where do you see the problem?
People are not things that you can call some thing today and something else next day, but you see as natural that women should be treated like things and be given the names of their owner just as they used to do with slaves, who took the name of the owner.
Salaam
How does changing your last name make you the husbands child or property? And it's like becoming a slave? Nobody sees it that way.
And there's no problem with not changing your name I said it's up to the woman if she wants to or not. -
Then what is the point of changing it?
Salaam
For most people it's just to feel more like you're a family. Btw Quranically the father has the responsibility to provide for the family (434, 2233). I don't see how a woman is like a slave by taking the husbands name when he is the one who takes care of her.
-
Do you think the woman should change her last name when she gets legally married?
335 Call them by their fathers; it is more just in the sight of God. But if you do not know their fathers - then they are your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you. And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but what your hearts intended. And ever is God Forgiving and Merciful.
This verse says that you should call adopted sons by their fathers name, so obviously the father has the dominant name to give the child. Since the child will have the fathers last name, doesn't it make more sense that the mom does too so that you'll be identified as a family?
Salam
May I ask why it is given that 335 talks only about adopted children? And who are those "them" that should call them by their fathers?
-
Sometimes i think different way and its interesting too.
Let say a woman is providing for family and husband is it ok if husband change his last name adding the name of his wife as a family ?
Some predictors already claim the son/daughter will b called by mother name on the day of judgement due to the chasity ?
Although whats wrong in here by calling kid by mother name ? Where chasity really affects the lives of poor women on the other hand who cares about hereafter when there is no need to cover up a chaste character ?
Things sometimes messed with logic and rules of tradition/custom becoz males are behind all those traditions. And also all those laws are being put forward by male which heavily hint the manmade God/scriptures try to control the women.
-
For most people it's just to feel more like you're a family. Btw Quranically the father has the responsibility to provide for the family (434, 2233). I don't see how a woman is like a slave by taking the husbands name when he is the one who takes care of her.
S in fact you are saying that she is the husands' first child and not only first child but really a child unable to do anything at all. That is the husband is taking the afther's place, who according to your set up would be the one who took care of her previously. Only males become adults? Women do nothing that would allo them to be contributors to society even if they do not stand as autnonomous proffessionals?
The whole story about changing name is absurd. You have a name for identity. How can you change your identity by the mere fact of getting married and the other partner does nto change his identity but you change yours. In fact it seems almost like a fraud you arry a woman, and then when you marry her she is nto the same woman.
Salaam
-
S in fact you are saying that she is the husands' first child and not only first child but really a child unable to do anything at all. That is the husband is taking the afther's place, who according to your set up would be the one who took care of her previously. Only males become adults? Women do nothing that would allo them to be contributors to society even if they do not stand as autnonomous proffessionals?
The whole story about changing name is absurd. You have a name for identity. How can you change your identity by the mere fact of getting married and the other partner does nto change his identity but you change yours. In fact it seems almost like a fraud you arry a woman, and then when you marry her she is nto the same woman.
Salaam
Nobody said anything about women not being able to contribute to society you're such a triggered feminist. RELAX
-
Salam
May I ask why it is given that 335 talks only about adopted children? And who are those "them" that should call them by their fathers?
Salam, 335 talks only about adopted sons so that you know what name they should have, which is their biological fathers name if you know who he is. "Them" = adopted sons.
-
Salam, 335 talks only about adopted sons so that you know what name they should have, which is their biological fathers name if you know who he is. "Them" = adopted sons.
Salam,
My question, to which I have no answer and it's a simple wondering, is why it is ONLY about adopted children. The previous verse talks about 2 groups, why everybody accepts that 335 refers only to one of them?
On the other hand, what I was wondering is not who are "them" in the verse, but who are those "they" who should call others by their fathers. There is not "oh you who believe" or similar addressing in the surah. So who are "they" who shall call others by their fathers?
Considering also that the verses following are very concrete referring to the prophet and his wives, my questions arise...
Just setting out some wonderings
-
Salam,
My question, to which I have no answer and it's a simple wondering, is why it is ONLY about adopted children. The previous verse talks about 2 groups, why everybody accepts that 335 refers only to one of them?
On the other hand, what I was wondering is not who are "them" in the verse, but who are those "they" who should call others by their fathers. There is not "oh you who believe" or similar addressing in the surah. So who are "they" who shall call others by their fathers?
Considering also that the verses following are very concrete referring to the prophet and his wives, my questions arise...
Just setting out some wonderings
Salam, thanks for making your questions more clear. It is only about adopted sons because the verse continues "but if you do not know their fathers, then they are your BROTHERS in religion and those entrusted to you.
Imo it makes sense the believers should call adopted sons by their fathers name because 334 does not sound like God is only talking to the prophet. And it doesnt actually say "o wives of the prophet" either.
-
Nobody said anything about women not being able to contribute to society you're such a triggered feminist. RELAX
Salam,
I think this is a clear-cut issue.
-
God tells us to call adopted children by their father's name.
-
God calls Myriam "daughter of Imran"
That gives the precedent and clarity of naming children (male or female) after their father's names.
It simply states that the usage of knowing the children by their father's name should not be changed in the case of the adopted children, because it seems that that was what as being done. Nowhere in the Qur'an it is set as a rule that always, everywhere, forever for everybody ONLY the fathers name may be used.
Isa ibnu Maryam,
Salaam
-
-
It simply states that the usage of knowing the children by their father's name should not be changed in the case of the adopted children, because it seems that that was what as being done. Nowhere in the Qur'an it is set as a rule that always, everywhere, forever for everybody ONLY the fathers name may be used.
Isa ibnu Maryam,
Salaam
Nobody said anything about women not being able to contribute to society you're such a triggered feminist. RELAX
If you do not have arguments, you do not have to answer. Launching personal "niceties" does not add any value to the exchange.
-
If you do not have arguments, you do not have to answer. Launching personal "niceties" does not add any value to the exchange.
I have stated my argument which is just because a woman changes her last name to her husband's doesn't mean she's a child of his, a slave, not able to contribute to society etc. And you keep telling me that I'm saying these things for example "in fact you are saying that she is the husbands' first child and not only first child but really a child unable to do anything at all."
