Yasir Qadhi – The Rulings Related to A Child Born Out of Wedlock – Ask Shaykh YQ #198

			Our second question,
		

			an anonymous sister, while she asks to remain anonymous, as you'll see why she has a very lengthy
question, which I'll summarize. Apparently, she says that she got married to a man. And after she
got married, she discovered that the man had an illegitimate child from a lady
		

			from before their marriage, obviously, he was not married to that lady. And he, the father or her
husband, still has a relationship with this child. He brings the child over every once in a while,
and she was not informed of this child before the marriage. And now she feels uncomfortable,
especially because the two of them have children, and they have daughters. And she doesn't know is
this boy considered a Muharram. To her biological daughters, meaning this child is a not from
marriage, this child was from a relationship that was pre pre marriage, premarital *,
basically, before they got married as well. And she's also asking, does does does that child have
		

			any financial right? Or inheritance rights over my husband? Who is the father of my children? Should
this boy be considered a part of my family or not?
		

			One?
		

			Oh, send me Kobe, Nika in Asia? No, hey, la him first.
		

			Recovery.
		

			Now, no doubt, I'm basing my answers on what you said. So I don't know his side of the story. If
what you have said is true. No doubt, for you to not have been told is not something that is good.
This is not information that he should have kept hidden from you. Because of course, while the
marriage is valid, obviously, it is not healthy, to keep such secrets, because you are the life
partner of this person, he has a child that is his. And also the fact that he was in an illegitimate
relationship is something that you have the right to be affected by, let me put it that way. Right.
And so it's not something that what he did was not right by not telling you. And you should have
		

			been made aware of the circumstances of this person on this child and then make an informed
decision. However, the fact that you were not told her not to wear does not negate the validity of
the marriage contract between you and your husband. So your marriage contract is valid, because
whatever sin the man or the woman has done before the marriage does not have meaning sort of a, you
know, sexual nature, it does not invalidate the marriage itself. And so the previous Sins of a
spouse with a third party or a child being born does not nullify the * that is taking place. But
no doubt what the person has done is not something that is praiseworthy, and you have the right to
		

			feel irritated, or you have the right to express that irritation. And you know, to that he should
make amends for whatever way possible. However, to move on to the more technical issue. This was the
moral if you like outrage or whatnot, now we get to the technical issue. This issue is multifaceted.
And I'm going to give you generic rules. I do encourage you or your husband to go to a chef and a
local chef and explain your situation so that the chef can quiz you and get more details. Again,
that's something that pretty much all the time if there's a specific fit to go to a specific scholar
so that any type of exclude any type of exceptional circumstances can be taken care of. I can't do
		

			that in a generic q&a. But I'll give you Jen generic knowledge about this issue of illegitimate
children because it is something that is something that people need to know about. And we seek
Allah's refuge and protection for ever having to do with it ourselves. do realize by the way that
this issue of unwed children or children born out of sorry, children born out of unwed marriages,
this is one of the greatest dangers of * outside of marriage. As it brings about children,
it results in children who don't have stable families. And this is one of the main reasons not the
only one not the not the you know, not the primary but one of the primary reasons why our religion
		

			has legislated sexuality, and that why it encourages sexuality only within marriage and it forbids
sexuality outside of marriage. We also need to know that the child of an unwed couple is absolutely
blameless in all circumstances, and that never should such a child carry any blame or be made to
feel guilty for what the parents have done. It is true that some
		

			of Islamic fix some books of law, some of them, they do say that the child born of such a marriage
should not be the Imam or should not be a person, a person of power, dignity. But that is their
cultural understanding of certain generic aspects of the Sharia. In reality, the Koran is explicit
what our attitude was zero to withdraw from that no soul shall bear the sin of another, whatever the
parents might have done, the child is sinless. And it is not the fault of the child, the
circumstances of the birth of the child, have nothing to do with the honor and dignity of that
child. And it is unbefitting and unbecoming an Islamic for anybody to diminish the honor of that
		

			child for something that the parents might have done. So we need to be very explicit and clear about
this, the child deserves nothing but love and comfort. And no one should make the child feel
uncomfortable. Anybody who does this is doing something that is sinful for the person that is doing
it, and the child is free of any sin of the parents. The the next issue is that the child that is
born outside of wedlock, technically, it does not take on the legal protections afforded by
marriage. Now, again, we have to differentiate between the moral status and the dignified status of
the child, which is unblemished, versus the technical perks that come from being born in a marriage
		

			situation, that's something separate. And a child that is born outside of wedlock does not take on
any legal protection of a marriage because there was no marriage. In fact, that's one of the
purposes of marriage married brings about legal protection between the partners and for children
born from that partnership. In Islamic law. The child takes on the name of the Father, the stat D,
the the financial responsibilities that are the Father, the child inherits from the Father, the
father is financially responsible for raising the child etc, etc. However, if the child is born
outside of the wedlock, then the default position is that there are no such protections. And
		

			therefore the child will not take the name of the child of the Father, the child will not inherit
from the Father. And we're going to come to this point again. But again, this is the default
position that the financial responsibility will not be on somebody who is not considered to be the
legal father of the child. This is the default position. Now, if the woman is married, and Zina
occurs with another man, that's something totally else. In this case, the child shall take on the
name of the married husband, and any external affair will be ignored and neglected by anybody
outside of the marriage situation. No one else has the right to interfere in a marriage situation.
		

			Even if modern tests are done or what not it means nothing to us, because our laws are not
necessarily the same as biological laws. That's a separate issue. Our Shetty our film is not
necessarily the same as biological DNA. So if there is a married couple, and well, yeah, the villa
will seek Allah's refuge, Xena occurred and the married lady gave birth to a child. And DNA later
showed that to this child is actually the son of so and so. From an Islamic perspective, we will
ignore that because our prophets a lot while he was sent him said and wonder do lil frosh, the child
is ascribed to the marriage or the bed that it was born upon, and wonder do they feel rush? This is
		

			the rule of Islamic law. There's only one exception, and that is when the Father Himself man, sorry,
not the father, when the husband of this woman says no, this child is not mine. And the husband then
undertakes a particular process called Leon or what I know, we're not going to go down there, that's
a technical thing between the husband and wife, the husband, and only the husband has the right to
say, I know this child is not mine. And then there's a procedure to be done. An outsider cannot and
should not get involved. It's none of their business. And if the couple has passed on and modern DNA
tests bring about some other news and whatnot, this is all relegated to you know, the footnotes and
		

			it doesn't affect anything, technically the child shall remain according to the, the the marriage so
on what to do. Lil frosh, a married lady who has a child, that child is ascribed to the marriage and
not to any type of affair, illicit affair that might have occurred. Even if DNA shows to the
contrary, that means nothing because we want to just cover up anything that would have happened and
provide dignity and sanctity to the marriage itself. However, if the lady were single, not married,
and the father and mother of the child both agree and claim that this child is theirs. So this is
now a couple of boyfriend, girlfriend, premarital couple whatever they they are together for a
		

			while.
		

			There's not been she's not a lady that's sleeping with multiple men. So she's no doesn't No, no, she
has been in an illicit relationship with one person, and the two of them, then they have the child.
And then they claim both of them, they say, this is our child, we know it's our child. Now, if they
decide to get married, if they decide to get married, can we backtrack the marriage, the child is
already born clearly before the kneecap, we're not talking about a gray area, and you know, within
seven months or something less than nine months, whatever, if it's six months after kneecap, no
problem, but so the child and the child that is born after the * even by six months, inshallah,
		

			no problem we don't ask, however, what if the child is clearly born, and then then it got takes
place. And the couple says, This is my child. So here we have a majority and a minority opinion, I
hope this is a clear situation, both men and women are unmarried, the both of them committed, as you
know, with one another, and the both agree and claim that this child is mine. If there's
disagreement or whatnot, then then the whole situation falls apart. And they both decide to get
married. So now they have a legitimate nikka. And a child from an illegitimate relationship between
the same to the majority position, which is the default of the format hips, is that the child shall
		

			be considered illegitimate, even if the marriage takes place, however, is however raw, and
shareholder Islam, Ibn taymiyyah, and even Okay, and many modern scholars, including my own teacher,
Sugarman, earth, I mean, they argued quite forcefully that in this case, with all of these
conditions, we shall backtrack the marriage, and we shall overlook that the child was born before
the nikka. And we shall consider the child to be a legitimate child name and inheritance and
everything will be established. And this is the position that I also follow. And it is, it is in
line with the goals of the Sharia, where we want to cover up a sin, and we don't want to criminalize
		

			the child penalize the child want to cover up any sin and not make a big deal about it. And we want
to protect the interests of the child, and to not, you know, have any backlash about the two, the
two have repented clearly, and they're trying to make amends. They're trying to get married
together, they do get married together, in this case, according to Ibn taymiyyah, NWfP and many,
many modern scholars that we extrapolate that the guy if you like, and we simply claim the child to
be a part of the the basically illegitimate child from this unit. And from this marriage, however,
the sister's case, the one that emailed me, this man had a child, and did not ever marry the woman
		

			that he had the child with. So this does not apply to this case. So if he had married or even if he
gets married, a legitimate nikka, meaning not a fake one, a legitimate nikka. And the both of them,
they know that this is their child, there were there were you know, together for that period of
time. And they both acknowledge this, according to Edmonton, me, and many are odema. In this case,
the child shall be considered a legitimate one. And we don't ask about their past. However, if
there's no nica, then there's nothing to extrapolate. So in your case, your husband did not engage
in an account with this lady. And so you cannot extrapolate back to this. So the child is going to
		

			be considered, basically, technically, legally, not his. However, what does this mean when it comes
to financial responsibility.
		

			So because the default position is that the Father, the biological father, is not the legal father,
and there shall be no inheritance. So those scholars said, likewise, there shall be no maintenance,
okay, when there's no technical or legal linkage between this child and between the man who sired
him, even if it's a biological father, so they said, just like there's no inheritance, and just like
the child does not have to, you know, obey the father and whatnot. So to the father does not have to
give financial support upon the child. And this is the default position of our earliest callers now,
doesn't have to does not mean that he should not, there's no doubt that he should, especially if the
		

			child is having difficulty being raised by the mother and her relatives. And here I want to just
point out, and I always, you know, when it comes to Islamic law, I do not view myself as a self
ruler ever being independent of the giants who precede me. I always am a minor person in their
shadows, and I never give a fatwa or a position that is unique and unprecedented in Islamic history.
There are some areas that I don't mind exploring some issues of Islamic theology, some issues of the
sphere of the Prophet system, some issues when it comes to the
		

			The concept of you know, otomo Quran and Raphael Corrado has certain issues, I don't mind being a
little bit more going out on a limb and being in a very minority, or maybe even bringing something
new. And I will defend myself when I do that. But when it comes to Islamic law, I have always said
that I am simply following giants, and I never break away from those giants, I don't consider myself
to be qualified to practice, HD hard in Islamic law. However, I will simply point out, I will simply
point out that a group of modern scholars, and this is a modern opinion, arguing that a person who
engages in illegitimate * with a lady that that person should be partially if not fully,
		

			financially liable as well. And this is a modern opinion. And so I'm simply saying it's there. I'm
not endorsing it, because I don't feel qualified to endorse such a minority position, because it is
only being argued by a group of modern Muslim rula. In the classical position, I am not aware of
anybody who obligated who obligated upon the biological father, the maintenance of the child. But
this modern group of scholars in the writing in academic journals, the writing, these are people
that are working in it, especially as scholars trained and filk, who then work in courts of law in
the modern world, they see things that sometimes people that are simply with their students and
		

			reading, you know, the blessitt books, they don't necessarily sometimes see, and you know, what
they're arguing, and I've read a few articles to this point, or an article or two, I should say, to
this point, what they're arguing is that, what happens is that the bulk of the burden is then placed
on the woman, the financial burden, and yet the pleasure and the sin was shared by both the man and
the woman. So why should the woman be burdened financially, when the both of them are equally
guilty? Or perhaps even the man is more guilty? If he was the one who, you know, would the lady and,
you know, she had didn't have experience with men, and he kept on promising and whatnot, and the
		

			both of them did us and no question about it, and then he just disappears, and I lost, you know,
ghosts or whatnot, and then she has to deal with the child in the aftermath. And so, one, there is a
modern position that why should you know, the person not also have a financial obligation. So, that
is something that is a modern opinion, at the same time, I am simply telling you, it's there, I
cannot, because of you know, my own limitations, I have to stick with the great giants and the
established schools in my head. And I will say that I am not aware of any pre modern opinion, that
has obligated financial support upon the biological father, that having been said, No scholar ever
		

			prohibits the support, and it is definitely the morally correct thing to do. If the person you know,
acknowledges this child to be his own, then your husband, the fact that your husband is, you say
that, you know, helping the child and, you know, taking care of the child once in a while then
giving money and whatnot, this is something that is the least that he should do, and there's no
problem islamically doing it. The as I said, the issue is whether he is obligated to do orders wajib
or not, no early scholars had to do is watch it but no scholar said is haram or mcru. Either if he
wants to give money, he has the right to give money to whomever he wants. And there's no doubt that
		

			this child you know, being a part of, you know, your husband's life and and being taken care of
financially is something that is noble overall, even if the act itself was not noble, the sin was
done, but why should that sin be perpetuated? Also the the the final point here, and you asked about
the issue of marriage, and you're worried that you know, you're This boy is coming to your house,
and you have daughters, you know, from this marriage, and so, is there Maharani or is there a
provision of marriage. And when it comes to this issue, the vast majority of scholars, the Hanbury
position, the Maliki position, the Hanafi position is that they say even if the child is it
		

			legitimate, still, the marital rules or prohibitions will apply. Hence, if a father, if a male and a
female engage in premarital *, they have let's say, a daughter, right? This lady, this
girl shall be prohibited for her biological father, and for all of the biological fathers sons, and
for the biological fathers uncles. In other words, that girl or the boy doesn't matter, it will be
considered for the purpose of marriage, like a real child like a legitimate child, not for the
purpose of NASA of inheritance, you know, of patrilineal descent that no, they said, but for the
purpose of marriage. Yes. And of course, there's one method that disagreed and with our utmost
		

			respect for that great quote, I shoot you, Mom, even if we're a nursery I don't I lay but this
issue, we have to respectfully simply delegate to the footnotes and leave it as something to know
but never to act upon. No, you just don't do this. Your biological daughter is a daughter for the
sake of marital purposes and you simply do not open this chapter or door and you leave this position
as
		

			a minority never acted upon the default position of the oma and Alhamdulillah. It is the vast
majority position is that a child born outside of marriage shall be considered a biological child,
for the purposes of marriage, for the purposes of what is allowed, it isn't allowed. And therefore,
this young boy that is coming to your house, is how long for your daughters because your daughters
are also the children of the same man who fathered this boy. So they are his half sisters, when it
comes to when it comes to what marriage they are not his half sisters, when it comes to the legal
rights and privileges when it comes to the last name. But they are those half sisters or I should
		

			say step sisters, when it comes to the issue of marriage, and therefore there is no question there
cannot be any marriage between your daughters. And between this boy, likewise, you as well become
how long for this boy because he is you know, you're married to his father. And so there's no issue
over there. I just want to point out, though, that this is the issue for marriage, quite a number of
other men, including Mr. Kodama, they said that, yes, marriages how long, but still, hey, jobs
should be observed. Because we don't want to respect the sanctity of marriage by extrapolating it to
situations outside of marriage. And so what they're basically saying is that they don't want to
		

			affirm a normal relationship, because it wasn't a normal union. Nonetheless, the point is that
that's a technicality about whether or not the main issue is that this child is not allowed ever to
marry your daughter's. And he should be told that you know, your daughters are the children of your,
your your father, and he knows who his father is, as your daughter, your that your daughters are the
children of his father, and he should he should know this, and he should view them as people that
can never he can never marry. And this is the position of Islamic law as well. I want to conclude
this by stating that you know, I understand sister that clearly this has irritated jr have every
		

			right to be irritated. But I advise you to allow your husband some leeway in showing love and in
showing care for this child. It's not his fault. The fact that your your husband is spending time
with the child and spending money on it, I know that of course it will, you know, it will cause you
some grief because you would rather that he spends on your children and whatnot. But put yourself in
the shoes of the child as long as he's giving you your rights giving your children and his children
his rights. If he gives some time and some money to this child that was born outside of marriage and
inshallah it affects this child to grow up in somewhat of a stable environment. Be a productive
		

			person, you know, be a good Muslim, you know, insha Allah, expect your reward from Allah subhanho wa
Taala I know it's difficult and awkward. And yes, he should have told you but what has happened has
happened and you've been good to others insha Allah they're going to be good back to Anisha Allah
Allah azza wa jal will reward you and also I know the child is not yours. But once again, it's not
the child's fault and for you to show as well some kindness and love and compassion. And again, just
to bring the heart of the child close to you know, the family environment and whatnot. inshallah you
will get your reward in this and in the end a lot so which knows best until next time, Giacomo mafia
		

			saramonic murottal ye wabarakatuh
		

			II
		

			II
		

			II can