|
The
Islamic View Of Adoption And Caring For Homeless Children
by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.
The most famous orphan in Islamic culture is, without doubt, the Prophet
Muhammad, peace be upon him. His father died before he was born and by the time
he was eight he had lost both his mother and the grandfather who named him. He
was subsequently raised by his uncle Abu Talib who continued to be his protector
until his own death, when Muhammad was an adult of almost fifty years of age.
When Muhammad's wife Khadijah gave to him a slave named
Zaid, Muhammad freed
the boy and raised him as if he were his own son. The importance of taking
homeless children to care for them is well-established in Islam. Given these
facts, it is somewhat startling to hear Muslims assert that adoption in
prohibited in Islam. The confusion is over the precise definition of the term
adoption. We shall seek to clarify the issue here.
The Islam form of "adoption" is called
kafāla, which
literally means sponsorship, but comes from the root word meaning "to
feed." It is best translated as "foster parenting." Algerian
family law defines the concept thusly: "Kafala, or legal fostering, is the
promise to undertake without payment the upkeep, education and protection of a
minor, in the same way as a father would do for his son".
If "legal fostering" in Islam requires fulfilling these parental
duties "in the same way as a father would do for his son," then how
does it differ from legal adoption as understood in the United States? There are
three significant differences: denial or acknowledgement of identity by blood
lineage, inheritance, and implications for the possibilities of marriage
partners. I shall discuss these in reverse order.
Although the specifics differ in the two cases, both American law and Islamic
law use proximity of relation as a criterion for the permissibility of marriage.
Under Islamic law and in some states first cousins may marry, but under neither
law could a father marry his daughter. Under Islamic law a man may not marry his
son's ex-wife, but he may marry his adopted son's ex-wife. This fact does not
mean that adoption is illegal, it only means that a legal system that imposes a
prohibition on marriage to the ex-wife of an adopted son is imposing an
additional constraint beyond that imposed by Islamic law. An examination of the
relevant Qur'anic verse clearly shows its purpose is to reform the practice of
adoption by removing such prohibitions rather than to end the practice:
God has not made … your adopted sons your sons. Such is (only) your
(manner of) speech by your mouths. But God tells (you) the Truth and He
shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names) of their fathers: that is
more just in the sight of God but if ye know not their father's (names call
them) your Brothers in faith or your Maulās. But there is no blame
on you if ye make a mistake therein: (what counts is) the intention of your
hearts: and God is Oft-Returning Most Merciful. The Prophet is closer to the
Believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers.
Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties in the Decree of
God than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye
what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of
God).
The wording is very significant here. The text does not ban adoption, but
only says that the use of the word "son" with respect to an adoptee is
just a phrase and not a blood (or genetic) fact. Nor should it be inferred that
it is prohibiting the use of the word son (in a metaphorical sense), since it
should then logically follow that the term brother (explicitly approved in the
text) would also have to be prohibited for the same reasons. Our adopted sons
are not our genetic sons any more than our brothers in faith are our genetic
brothers. The purpose of the verse is clearly to prevent drawing legal
restrictions from the metaphorical use of the word "son" in describing
a foster relationship. Thus one might marry the ex-wife of one's foster son (as
one might marry the ex-wife of a blood brother), but one can no more marry a
daughter than one could marry a sister.
Analogy to blood relations is not the only relevant issue here. Islamic law
forbids a man to marry a woman who had been suckled by the same wet nurse as the
man, regardless of whether either was adopted by the wet nurse. Here, too, we
see that the issue is not adoption, but how social relationships bear on the
question of marriageability.
The issue of inheritance may be dealt with briefly. In most American states,
an adopted child has the same automatic rights of inheritance as a genetic
child. In a few states, as under Islamic law, inheritance is not automatic but
needs to be specified in the will. American law recognizes the validity of wills
that specify an inheritance distribution based on Islamic law, so this
constitutes no objection to adoption by American Muslims.
Finally, we consider the issue of identity by blood lineage. It has been the
custom in America to downplay (or even) hide the identity of blood parents in
cases of adoption. Recently there has been a welcome trend giving adopted
children some rights to discovery in this matter. In this respect American laws
are moving in an Islamic direction. The advantages from a medical point of view
to such knowledge are obvious, but there are also issues of the subjective
importance of knowing one's own identity. The verses of the Qur'an quoted above
makes it clear that identity is defined by blood. Experience shows that openness
about the true identity of children need not be an obstacle to love and caring
between foster parents and adoptees. This is an especially important issue for
American Muslims adopting children from abroad. It is neither necessary nor
desirable to deny the cultural heritage of these children.
[Published in Adoption Fact Book III (Washington: National Council for Adoption,
1999)]
Source: www.minaret.org
|