Today’s guest blogger is Asha Islaw.
My blog post is based off an article written by Rachel Zoll for The Washington Post, which was printed on Sunday January 2, 2011. The article is titled Muslim Orphans Caught between Islam and the West. I chose to write about this article and topic because it’s a topic that’s not often discussed in mainstream media, but it’s an issue that’s relevant to Muslim communities regarding the adoption of their children in the west. This article highlights the religious and cultural considerations that should be given to Muslim children when seeking permanency options.
Strengths & Limitations of the article from my perspective.
There are some strengths and weaknesses in the arguments presented in this article. The strengths include explaining the problem and permanency practices allowed in the religion. In the last few years, thousands of refugee children have been resettled in the United States from war torn areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of these children have been orphaned and therefore in need of permanent stable homes after their arrival. There are also other Muslim children in the United States that have been removed from the home for their own safety. On the other hand, there are Muslim families who want to adopt, but are restricted by their faith. The strength in this article lies in their explanation of the problem and the rulings on Islamic law regarding the adoption of children. The article also explained in detailed the historical perspective behind the laws. Adoption of young children was widely practiced within Muslim communities as a way to force these children into slavery. As a result these children lost their identities and family connection, thus the new rulings emerged. Although the article explains the historical origins of these laws, it fails to discuss the positive aspect of such law. It also fails to explain to the reader that adoption is allowed in Islam, but a different type of adoption then one widely practiced in the west. It’s important that children maintain their family lineage, therefore their birth names must be intact. Although this article discusses adoption proceedings with this population, it focuses on the notion that changing the Islamic law is the only way these children can have permanent homes. It fails to examine other ways permanency can be achieved.
This article might leave readers questioning the legitimacy of a law that was established to protect children from abuse and harm. It also exacerbates the enormity of the problem and doesn’t offer alternative ideas for a solution. The last section of the article discusses how this problem is being solved among the minority Muslim population in Australia. The family mentioned in the article adopted a Muslim child through open adoption and maintained the birth family connection, relationship and birth name. The example presented towards the end of the article provides the reader with a new lens to think about permanency for this population. Furthermore, this article places great emphasis on the dichotomy between the adoption practices in the west and Muslim countries without discussing the options in the middle to meet the needs of these children.
This article can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123103723.html