Samir Sadek, Mamdouh Bitar:

   Tunisia is considered in this regard a spot of light in the darkness and oppression of other Arab societies, which have not grasped the problem, nor understood the relationship between the concepts of what is permissible and what is forbidden in solving it or causing it. The goal of the adoption process is not to expose or disdain the true religion in principle, and the subject of adoption has nothing to do with it, except that religion has involved itself in it and placed it in the balance of what is permissible and what is forbidden. It is not a human duty with regard to the child and his interests to care about religion and what is said about the interests of religion, as human duty takes precedence over everything, even religion!!

  The problem is embodied in the prohibition and prevention of adoption from a purely religious and personal perspective. It is an irony of the times that a personal event between a woman named Zainab bint Jahsh and Muhammad bin Abdullah would have such an impact on the present and the ways to solve its problems. The matter is a social and human one, and orphanhood and homelessness are part of the reality of the lives of these peoples addicted to fighting and warfare, and thus producing orphanhood and not allowing the adoption of an orphan child. Classifying adoption as forbidden has a relationship with the circumstances of the case of Zainab bint Jahsh, who was the adopted wife of the son of the Messenger. By chance, her husband’s father saw her half-naked and the desire to marry her fell in his heart, especially after his son Zaid had satisfied his desire for her, as stated in Surat Al-Ahzab (So when Zaid had no longer any need for her, We married her to you so that there would be no discomfort upon the believers in [other] wives. “Their supplications when they have satisfied their desire with them, and the command of Allah is to be carried out.” That is, Allah ordered the marriage of Zaynab bint Jahsh to her paternal uncle, her husband’s father, through adoption. The process proceeded quickly and the marriage was arranged by Gabriel. Since this was an unusual scandal in the desert environment, adoption was classified as forbidden. This classification is still in effect in some societies today, despite the fact that the prohibition of adoption in the name of the Creator has led to a catastrophic increase in the number of homeless orphans.

  Without delving into the interpretations of Surat Al-Ahzab and the circumstances of Zaynab’s marriage to Muhammad by divine orders, the question must be raised about the morality and humanity of prohibiting adoption religiously, then the morality and humanity of UNESCO, which encourages adoption. Does prohibiting adoption serve morality and humanity, or is adoption harmful to morality and humanity? How can it be proven that caring for an orphaned girl/child by parents with good specifications is forbidden, while what is permissible is leaving the girl/child homeless? It is fabrication to try to patch up the disaster with what is called sponsorship, and it is also fabrication to invent the problem of lineage to justify classifying adoption as forbidden, especially in this era, which provides the possibility of scientific proof of the subject of kinship, i.e. the presence or absence of an organic relationship such as brotherhood between candidates for marriage. Among the problems that were attached to adoption was the problem of inheritance and the issue of equality between the organic child/girl and the adopted child/girl. How can it be morally accepted that there are differences in the subject of inheritance between created beings? The organic and the adopted creature, and do the duties of adopted daughters and sons differ from the duties of organic sons and daughters towards those who raised and cared for them when the parents reach old age, and how can it be humanely and morally opposed to equality between them, while they were raised and lived in one house and under one care, and then how can a sane person compare life in orphanages with life within a family!

Adoption with a two-parent system represents a wonderful alternative for a child who has lost parental care. Adoption does not only represent an excellent correction for the child’s condition, but also for the condition of the parents when they are unable to have children. One of the most despicable and vile means of hindering adoption is the existence of conditions and laws that prohibit adoption before the parents, i.e. the wife and husband who are candidates for adoption, reach a very advanced age, as is the case in Egypt. While these conditions are reflected in societies that are truly keen on the success of adoption in solving the problem of children and the problem of parents… a child without parents and parents without a child!!! One of the well-known conditions in these societies is the condition of a young age for the substitute parent, in order to enable the child to live a life very close to normal. It is natural for all new families to have children at an early age and not at an old age. In Egypt, for example, it is said that the age of eligibility for adoption has been raised to 60 instead of 55 years old. We do not know of an objective reason for this other than obstructing adoption for fabricated reasons. Is the life of a child with parents in the age of sixty better than the life of a child with parents in the age of thirty years old? And what is the point of adoption after the age of sixty, when the average age of an Egyptian is less than sixty years!!!! In general, it can be said that these societies have failed miserably in solving the problem of homelessness, which was produced by their wars and crimes. The disaster lies in the relationship of this failure with taking into account the sexual whims of a whimsical person.. This is how far your absurdity has reached