A PRESS STATEMENT

 

Recently, the Constitutional Court has ruled that sections of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992 are unconstitutional, ordering that they be amended, to allow men to take the surnames of their wives in marriage.

 

In its ruling, the Constitutional Court established that the notion of a woman assuming husband’s surname upon marriage, emanates from Western and colonial customs.

 

The concept of fixed surnames did not exist in Islamic tradition as it does today. Instead, individuals were identified through their lineage, with a child attributed to the father, ensuring clarity of ancestry. This preserved family identity, protected inheritance rights, and upheld social order.

 

The Noble Qur’an exhorts Muslims not to change, but to call even their legally-adopted children by their actual surnames, where it reads: “Call them by (the names of) their fathers; it is more just with Allah.” (Noble Qur‘ān, 33:5)

 

In any case, attribution of paternity to anyone other than one’s actual father is against Islamic Law. Sayyidina Abū Dharr t said: “I heard the Prophet r say, ‘A person who knowingly attributes his fatherhood to anyone other than his actual father, has disbelieved.’” (Ṣaḥiḥ Bukharī)

 

This Prophetic tradition underscores the gravity of wrongly ascribing paternity, an aspect which in some instances can be reflected through the change of surname.

 

There is no need for either a man or a woman to change their surname, due to marriage. The idea of a man using a wife’s surname, on the basis of “gender equity”, as suggested by the Constitutional Court’s ruling, would therefore be viewed as inconsistent with Islamic teachings on the preservation of lineage and identity.

 

Released by:

 

The Executive Committee
Jamiatul Ulama South Africa

 

23 Rabi ‘al Awwal 1447 / 16 September 2025