Islamic Morality vs. Humanity-Based Morality: A Comparative Study

Many religious people believe that only religion and divine commandments can provide a strong foundation for true ethics. According to them, without the fear of God and accountability in the afterlife, humans cannot avoid social evils.

But when we look at different societies in today's world, some interesting patterns emerge. For example, Japan is a country where the majority of the population does not adhere to any revealed religion, but rather emphasizes secular and traditional values (such as shame, group harmony, and social responsibility).

Yet Tokyo's citizens are considered among the most honest in the world. In 2024, Tokyo police received a record 4.49 billion yen (approximately $30 million) in lost cash that was turned in (news link). Additionally, Japan's crime rate is among the lowest in the world.

Looking at this situation naturally raises the question: if the only and strongest foundation of ethics is the fear of God and the afterlife, how can a non-religious society maintain such high levels of honesty, integrity, and social peace?

This reality compels us to consider that high ethical standards are more related to education, social training, and systems of accountability than to any supernatural concept. In this article, we will examine where what is called "religious morality" stands against modern standards of human-made ethics, and whether it is truly free from the degradation of humanity.

The Religious Argument: Human-Made Ethics versus Religious Morality

When examples of high ethical standards from non-religious societies like Japan are presented to religious people, they generally cannot deny the fact that a better social order is possible even without religion. However, to conclude this debate, a new argument is presented: "Human-Made Ethics" versus "Religious Morality".

The religious position is that what we see in Japan or the West is merely 'human-made ethics', which is centered only on not causing physical or material harm to another person. According to them, the scope of true 'religious morality' is much broader. They argue that:

"Human-made ethics are limited only to social rights, while religious morality includes the purity of the soul and obedience to God's commands. Thus, matters like alcohol consumption, sexual freedom (adultery), and immodest clothing, which a non-religious person considers their personal right, fall into the category of serious immorality and sin in the eyes of religion."

This point seems weighty at first glance, but when we examine this division carefully, several fundamental questions arise. Can ethics really be divided into these two categories? And do the actions that are elevated above human rights by calling them 'religious morality' actually have any solid ethical foundation?

Let us conduct a realistic analysis of these specific examples, namely alcohol, hijab, and adultery, etc., to clarify whether the true measure of ethics is 'humanity' or 'ancient social structures'.

The Issue of Alcohol:

Religious advocates claim that the complete prohibition of alcohol is purely a part of "religious morality", which comes from God's command, and since there is no fear of God in non-religious societies, there is complete freedom regarding alcohol and no ethical restrictions.

But this claim does not match the facts. Let's see:

• In almost all Western countries, the legal age for purchasing and consuming alcohol is 18 years (such as France, Germany, Britain, Australia, etc.). In America, it is 21 years. Giving or selling alcohol to children/teenagers under this age is a serious crime. This restriction is based on scientific and medical grounds rather than religious commands, because of the risks to brain development, health, and mental issues.

• In many countries, drinking alcohol on streets, in parks, or in public places is restricted or prohibited (for example, under "open container laws" in most US states, and also restrictions in some cities in Germany and France). This restriction exists because alcohol in public places increases the risk of noise, fights, or accidents. Similarly, drinking alcohol at workplaces results in immediate termination.

• Driving under the influence is a serious crime in almost all countries with human-made legal systems. The BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) limit is generally 0.05% or less (such as 0.05% in France, Germany, Britain, 0.02% or zero tolerance in some countries). Penalties are heavy: fines, jail, license suspension, even vehicle confiscation. This restriction is also for protecting human lives and reducing road accidents, not religious.

Now the question arises: if restrictions on alcohol for children, control in public places, and prohibition of drunk driving, etc., are all not "religious morality" but based on human safety, social peace, and scientific evidence, then why should the prohibition of alcohol be declared entirely "religious"?

The truth is that restrictions on alcohol exist at different levels in different societies, but their foundation is often shared: preventing human harm. In some countries, restrictions are less (such as more freedom in public places in some parts of Europe), in others more (such as strict laws in America). This difference comes from culture, history, and social priorities, not just from religion.

Is it not possible that religious commandments were also introduced in certain matters for the sake of this same human welfare that we see in human-made laws?

For example, for Muslims, the example of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, is an intellectual challenge. Guru Nanak imposed a complete ban on alcohol in Sikhism and, describing his spiritual experiences, said that he was given "Amrit" (pure drink) by God and was commanded to spread the divine message.

Here an interesting contradiction emerges:

• Muslims do not recognize Guru Nanak as a prophet of God nor do they consider his claims of divine revelation true.

• According to Muslims, Guru Nanak was an ordinary person who made a false claim of meeting God (God forbid).

But the question arises: if Guru Nanak was not a "prophet" and he banned alcohol based on his own reason or human grounds, then how did abstaining from alcohol become a characteristic of "religious morality"? If a "non-divinely inspired" person can prohibit alcohol on ethical grounds, it proves that such prohibitions are part of human consciousness and social reform.

Even more compelling is the current example of India, where several states have implemented alcohol prohibition based purely on human reasoning about social harm, without any need for divine revelation. Gujarat has maintained prohibition since 1960, Bihar implemented it in 2016, and Nagaland, Mizoram, and parts of other states have varying degrees of restrictions.

These decisions came from observing the real-world impact of alcohol: domestic violence, poverty, health problems, and social disruption. The states debated, analyzed data, consulted experts, and made decisions based on what they believed would benefit their societies. Some states chose partial bans, some total prohibition, and others opted for regulation and taxation. This diversity itself demonstrates human-made ethical reasoning in action, where different communities weigh the same evidence and make different pragmatic choices based on their specific circumstances.

The crucial point is this: these Indian states didn't need the Quran, hadith, or fear of hellfire to recognize that alcohol can cause serious social harm. Human empathy, observation of suffering families, crime statistics, and public health data were sufficient. When people see women and children suffering due to alcoholism, when they see families impoverished, when they see alcohol-fueled violence, their natural human conscience motivates them to take action.

This proves that concern about alcohol is not evidence of "religious morality's" superiority, but rather evidence that religious prohibitions often codified common human observations about harm. The difference is that human-made ethics remain flexible and can adapt when a policy creates more problems than it solves (as some Indian states have debated reversing prohibition due to black markets and loss of tax revenue), while religious morality claims divine unchangeability even when practical harm increases.

The Issue of Hijab:

The proponents of religious morality claim that the purpose of hijab is to protect a woman's dignity, modesty, and to protect her from men's lustful gazes. They often accuse Western society of "immodesty", but when we study the rulings of hijab in Islamic jurisprudence itself, a strange reality emerges.

The command of hijab was only for "free Muslim women", while for "slave women" (female slaves), not only was there no obligation to wear hijab, but there was a "prohibition" on wearing hijab. This raises the question: If hijab was related to a 'woman's' modesty, was a slave woman not a 'woman'? Was protecting her modesty and dignity not the responsibility of religion?

Muslim scholars present the excuse that slave women had to do manual labor outside the home, so they were not commanded to wear hijab.

But this excuse cannot be acceptable because then Islam should have told slave women to wear hijab, but if they had to work outside the home, they could remove their hijab in such situations. But in the "authentic" incident involving Umar ibn Khattab, the slave woman was merely going outside somewhere, not doing any work, when Umar ibn Khattab forcibly removed her hijab while beating her with a stick and told her not to imitate free Muslim women by wearing hijab.

Saudi imam Sheikh al-Albani narrated this authentic tradition in his book Irwa al-Ghalil (link):

Companion Anas ibn Malik says: A slave woman of some Muhajir or Ansar came to Umar ibn Khattab while wearing a jilbab. Umar asked her: "Have you been freed?" She said: "No." Upon this, Umar said: "Then remove this jilbab from your head, for the jilbab is only for free Muslim women." The slave woman hesitated to remove the jilbab, so Umar got up and began beating her with a stick and struck her head until the slave woman threw off the jilbab. Al-Albani says that this hadith is 'authentic' according to Imam Muslim's criteria.

During his caliphate, Umar ibn Khattab did not leave any slave woman who wore hijab. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (link):

Abu Qilabah says that Umar ibn Khattab did not leave any slave woman wearing a veil during his caliphate. He used to say: Veiling is only the right of free Muslim women so that they may not be harassed.

The next problem is even more severe: in Islamic society, not only were slave women's hair exposed in public, but their breasts were also bare because according to Islamic jurisprudence, their 'awrah' (area to be covered) was only "from navel to knee", and the rest of the body was naked. And they were made to stand in this semi-naked state in slave markets, where customers were also allowed to touch and examine their feminine parts like sheep and goats.

Yes, this is absolute truth. But today's Muslims are not even aware of this truth (because this truth is completely hidden from them), and this truth is so severe that today's Muslims cannot even imagine that such a thing could exist in their religion.

All four schools of Islamic jurisprudence had consensus on this for centuries, and these slave women with bare breasts existed in Islamic society for centuries. You can read all these proofs in detail here (link).

This comparison exposes a bitter reality: the West, which is called "immodest", at least does not have the concept of such degradation of women in public places today, nor are women there as naked as these poor slave women used to be.

The standard of modern human-made ethics is not a woman's clothing, but her consent and autonomy (Choice). The focus of ethics in the West is that whatever clothing a woman wears, no man has permission to touch her without her consent. In contrast, ancient religious morality proved that these laws were more social and class-based than divine by setting two different standards of modesty for two women of the same gender (free and slave).

The Issue of Adultery:

The next major claim of religious people is that religious morality prevents evils like "adultery", while in non-religious or Western societies there is no code in this regard. However, a deeper study of ethics refutes this claim.

The reality is that in modern human-made ethics, there is a concept of "crime" instead of "sin", whose foundation is consent. If two adults establish a relationship with their own consent, it is their private matter; but if one party's consent is not involved, it is called "rape", which is one of the most serious crimes in human-made legal systems around the world.

In contrast, when we observe the historical application of religious morality, "ownership" was given more importance than consent.

A serious objection is raised against Islamic religious morality that it permits the sexual exploitation of female prisoners and slave women without their consent, and that too in "temporary sexual relationships" like Shia mut'ah.

In Islamic Shariah, when the master tires of her, then after the "temporary sexual relationship", he can hand over the slave woman to his brother or slave, or sell her to another master. And this second master can again sexually exploit the slave woman in a "temporary sexual relationship" and then sell her to a third master.

See in the following hadith how female prisoners are being sold after being sexually exploited in "temporary sexual relationships".

Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage, Chapter on the Ruling of Coitus Interruptus (link), and Sahih Bukhari, Book of Destiny (link) and Sahih Bukhari, Book of Oneness of Allah (link):

Companion Abu Sa'id al-Khudri says that after a battle, some beautiful Arab women came into their possession and the companions desired them because they were away from their wives. But at the same time, the companions wanted to sell these slave women for ransom and get a good price for them. So the companions practiced coitus interruptus [i.e., they withdrew their private parts during sex and ejaculated outside so that these women would not become pregnant and they could get a good price when selling them]. Then they asked the Messenger of Allah about it, and the Messenger of Allah said (yes, coitus interruptus is permitted) but if any soul is to be born, it will be born.

This behavior raises the question: can using a human being sexually merely and then selling her be called "ethical"? Is this act not equivalent to modern-day "human trafficking"?

The next problem that arises is that compared to Islamic religious morality, the religious morality of Jews and Christians did not permit such "temporary sexual relationships" with female prisoners, and men had to formally marry the female prisoner/slave, after which their status became like that of a free woman who could not be sold further. (Reference: Bible, Chapter 21 Deuteronomy, Verses 14-21).

Thus, Islamic religious morality took a "reverse journey". The "religious morality" of Jews and Christians was already bad in that it permitted forced marriage with female prisoners, but Islamic religious morality took a reverse journey from "bad to worse", and because of this, female prisoners/slaves had to become victims of sexual exploitation at the hands of multiple men.

Today, Western or non-religious societies have uprooted this entire structure of slavery from its roots without any command from a heavenly book, merely on the basis of human conscience and empathy. Today it is not possible to sexually exploit a woman by calling her "war booty". This is the point where "human-made ethics" surpasses religious traditions, because their purpose is not the superiority of a particular tribe or religion, but the protection of the dignity of all humans without discrimination of color or race.

Sexual Exploitation of Female Prisoners/Girls on the Same Night When Their Fathers, Brothers, Husbands, and Sons Were Killed During the Day

One major claim of Muslims has been that Islam taught high values and ethics even during times of war and conflict, but when we look at the historical traditions of treatment of female prisoners and girls of war, this structure of religious morality seems to tremble.

The requirement of human empathy is that if a woman or girl has just seen her father, brother, or husband killed, she should be given time and privacy to recover from this horrible trauma.

However, Islamic Shariah ignored this sentiment of human empathy.

Islamic Shariah permits warriors to sexually exploit young virgin girls on the very first night. And even if the female prisoner was married, they only had to wait a few days until she finished her first menstrual period (for example, Lady Safiyyah's menstruation ended on the same day her husband and brothers were killed in battle. So Muhammad had intercourse with her that same night).

Ali ibn Abi Talib obtained a young female prisoner on the first night in the name of khums, and then had intercourse with her:

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 22967: (Buraydah says) We captured some prisoners and then wrote a letter to the Messenger of Allah to send someone to us to collect the khums of the war booty. So the Messenger of Allah sent Ali to us. Among those prisoners was Wasifah who was the most beautiful among the prisoners. Ali collected the khums and then distributed it (among us all). Then when Ali came out, water was dripping from his head (i.e., he had finished bathing after having intercourse with the prisoner Wasifah). We said to Ali: "O Abul Hasan! What is this act?" Ali said: "You saw Wasifah who was among the prisoners. I collected the khums and she was included in the khums, then she went to the household of the Prophet, and from there she came to the family of Ali, and I had intercourse with her." Ruling: Authentic (link)

Since Ali had intercourse with Wasifah without istibra (waiting period), an objection was raised. So Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, answering this objection, wrote (link):

Translation: The issues were that Ali had intercourse with this slave woman without istibra, and then Ali obtained her for himself from the war booty. As for the first issue, the answer is that Ali assumed that istibra was not necessary because that slave woman was a virgin and underage girl. And this was according to the practice of the companions.

Consider the trauma these young girls must have endured:

• During the day, their fathers and brothers were slaughtered,
• Then in the afternoon, they were taken from their homes and looted,
• And then in the evening, they were separated from their mothers and sisters and distributed like sheep and goats
• And then that same night they were sexually exploited.

And as mentioned above, Jews and Christians also permitted forced relations with female prisoners, but they at least showed enough humanity that first they had to formally "marry" these female prisoners, and second, they had to give these female prisoners a wait of "one month" so they could mourn the killing of their fathers and brothers in war.

Bible, Deuteronomy, Chapter 21 (link): When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

The mental state of these poor female prisoners, and how they were in a state of shock over the killing of their loved ones, can be seen in this tradition:

"(After the war, during the distribution of female prisoners) The Prophet said to bring Safiyyah (a beautiful female prisoner) here. Bilal ibn Rabah (the muezzin) brought Safiyyah, along with another Jewish girl. When they passed by the corpses of their relatives, that girl started screaming and slapping her face, she took dust from the ground and put it in her hair. When the Prophet saw this girl, he became very angry and said: 'Take this witch away from my sight.'" Reference: History of Tabari, Volume 8, Page 122, English Translation

Muslims say that this tradition from Tabari may not be of "authentic" grade. But the issue is that this is a "universal truth" for which we don't even need any tradition. Our reason automatically guides us that this is the reality: every girl must have been crying like this, slapping her face over the corpses of her loved ones, and this girl is not alone, but in the 1400-year history of Islam, hundreds of thousands of girls must have gone through this torment.

This is the face of religious morality that makes the soul shudder just thinking about it, pens tremble while writing these facts, so imagine the condition of those girls who were forced to go through this entire ordeal in practice due to "religious morality"?

Muslim Scholars' Defense: In Islam Too, Intercourse Cannot Be Had With a Female Prisoner for One Month

When humanity raises questions about this treatment of female prisoners, the defense often presented from religious circles is that Islam also has the command of 'istibra' (waiting period), whose purpose is to ensure that the woman is not pregnant. But when we go into the depth of jurisprudential books and historical events, this defense proves to be a wall of sand. There are three major reasons for this:

The biggest moral flaw is that the command of 'istibra' is only for those women about whose wombs there is doubt. For virgin girls and those girls who had not yet reached puberty, there was no condition of istibra. That is, in such cases, there was complete jurisprudential permission for intercourse on 'the very first night'. If having relations with a virgin girl on that same traumatic night is "ethical", then the entire defense through istibra becomes meaningless.

The second flaw is that istibra did not mean waiting for one month, but only being free from one menstruation. If a woman became free from menstruation the very next day after the war, then relations with her were permissible that very moment. The incident of Safiyyah is a clear example where the men of her family were killed on that day, she became pure that same evening, and intercourse occurred with her that same night. Is a few hours' gap morally sufficient for a traumatized person?

The third flaw is that jurisprudentially, during istibra, only "penetration" was prohibited, but according to Imam Bukhari's "Book of Sales" and the statements of jurists like Hasan Basri and Ibn Umar, it was permissible for the master to derive pleasure from the rest of the slave woman's entire body, to kiss her, or to engage in foreplay even before istibra. That is, these female prisoners were forced to provide "sex services" from the very first night.

For example, according to Muslim scholars, Imam Bukhari's jurisprudence is in the headings of his book Sahih Bukhari.

In Kitab al-Buyu, Imam Bukhari then gives this heading (link):

Chapter: If one buys a slave woman, can he take her on a journey before istibra of the womb or not?

Then under this heading, Bukhari writes:

Hasan Basri saw no harm in kissing her or engaging in foreplay with her. And Ibn Umar said: When a slave woman with whom intercourse has occurred is gifted, sold, or freed, her womb should be cleared with one menstruation. And a virgin does not need istibra. And Ata said: If a slave woman is pregnant (from a previous husband/master), pleasure can be derived from her entire naked body except her private parts.

Rather, to know whether Muslim soldiers took sex services from these female prisoners/slaves on the first night or not, we don't even need any tradition for this, but our human reason will automatically guide us that Muslim soldiers were alone in wars and suffered from sexual frustration. And in such a situation, the additional cruelty was that Islam distributed female prisoners among these soldiers on the very first day (whereas even before Islam, some civilizations kept female prisoners under state ownership instead of distributing them among warriors).

The condition of these soldiers in wars can be estimated from the condition of senior companions like Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who wanted to become castrated in wars due to sexual frustration, but then the Prophet gave them the command of "mut'ah" (temporary marriage) and removed their frustration.

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4615: Abdullah ibn Mas'ud says: We used to participate in battles with the Messenger of Allah. Since our wives were not with us, we asked: "O Messenger of Allah! Should we not become castrated?" The Messenger of Allah forbade us from becoming castrated, then he permitted us to do mut'ah with a woman in exchange for a garment, then he recited this verse: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you (Quran 5:87)."

Think for yourself, when you have left these women tied up in ropes in tents completely at the mercy of soldiers possibly suffering from frustration, then who can stop these soldiers from becoming demons of lust after that? Would it not have been better if Islam, instead of distributing these female prisoners on the very first night, had kept them in state custody for at least one month so they could mourn their killed loved ones and also complete istibra?

Also, a serious ethical question now arises that on one hand, Islamic Shariah says that whenever a non-mahram man and woman meet in seclusion (privacy), "the third is Satan", on this basis strict restrictions were imposed on the meeting of free men and women. But on the other hand, the same Shariah left these women and girls, who were shackled and exhausted from the trauma of war, completely alone in the privacy of these same soldiers suffering from "sexual frustration".

Is this not a contradiction?

• For a free woman, privacy is a cause of sin and temptation.

• For a female prisoner slave, privacy is "the conqueror's right" and part of "religious morality".

Human reason is compelled to ask the question: could those helpless girls chained in fetters have been safe in the tents of the conquerors? Where there is no legal accountability and religion itself declares this relationship permissible in the name of "what your right hands possess", there is no one left to stop the degradation of humanity. This is the point where the garb of "religious morality" is removed and only that brutal law of power remains which gives the victor the right to snatch the physical autonomy of the vanquished.

The Issue of Lineage:

Religious people object to consensual sexual relations that this makes the child's "lineage" unclear, i.e., the child's legal, social, and familial status is affected.

The answer to this is that a child is never "illegitimate". A child is always innocent. They attach to, nestle in the lap of, and seek love from whoever raises them. The reality is that the position of the one who raises is even higher than the position of the one who gives birth.

We don't live in a 100% perfect world. The best environment for a child is one where they receive the love, attention, education, and training of both mother and father. But life's circumstances also arise where only one mother, one father, or foster/adoptive parents raise the child. Modern psychology and research on child development shows that single parents and foster families can also give children complete emotional security, education, and social values, and they can become responsible citizens of society.

That's why in today's human-made ethical standards, there is no crisis of "lineage". Children are not viewed with labels like "illegitimate child" or "bastard" or any kind of label. All children are considered innocent, equal, and respectable without any division of legitimate/illegitimate.

In contrast, the rulings about lineage in Islamic jurisprudence are such that they impose differences and labels on children and raise deep questions.

For example, Muhammad gave the command in the name of revelation that a child born as a result of adultery will not belong to the father, but will belong to whoever's bed it was born on, while for the adulterous father there is only stone (i.e., humiliation and disgrace) and he will have no relation with the child, nor will the child have the father's name and lineage. (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, agreed upon).

Islamic Shariah:

1. Deprived this innocent child of the father's name and lineage

2. Deprived them of the father's love and affection

3. Deprived them of the father's education, training, and upbringing

4. Deprived them of the father's financial support (monthly expenses)

5. Deprived them of the father's inheritance

6. The father does not have the right to meet his illegitimate child

7. According to Islam, in such a child's identification, the mother's name should be written in place of the father's name so that the entire society knows that this is an "illegitimate child" and can be ridiculed. In Islam's hadith literature, you will find many such names where they are being called by their mother's name instead of their father's.

8. According to Islam, such an illegitimate child cannot lead congregational prayers. Reference: IslamWeb.org (Islam's biggest website on the internet)

9. If the illegitimate offspring is a girl, she is non-mahram to her father and will observe hijab from her father.

10. An illegitimate child can never be mahram to legitimate children. (For example, Imran Khan has kept his daughter Tyrian for upbringing with her brothers, but according to Islam, he is doing haram by keeping these siblings under one roof because this is indecency and they are non-mahram).

11. The child was already separated from the father, but then Islam deprived the child of the mother's milk, love, and shade by stoning the mother to death in the punishment of rajm. Now this innocent little child is completely alone for the world's hardships. There is no justification for a terrible punishment like stoning.

Human reason guides us that:

• First of all, if a man and woman had consensual sex, it is not a sin.

• And if punishment was to be given in the name of sin, the mother and father could have been punished. What kind of logic is it that Islam destroyed the life of an innocent child in the name of "illegitimate child"?

• This punishment is not to the mother and father, but here Islam is directly punishing this child.

A Tale of Tears: When These Illegitimate Children Went Searching for Their Fathers and Reached Their Homes... Hearts Were Cut Reading the Stories of These Innocent Ones

On this link you can read the testimonies of those Muslim fathers who first lived with Western women as girlfriends. But when children were born to them, they abandoned those children calling them children of adultery because of Islam, and didn't even meet their own children.

And many other such testimonies and details you can read in our article:

• Islam's Oppression of Innocent Children in the Name of Illegitimate Children (Walad al-Haram)

The Right to Deny Lineage

Can a father morally have the right to deny the lineage of his own offspring and declare them "bastards"? And beyond that, can a just system of justice allow this father to enslave and auction off in the market his own biological son or daughter?

This question is not merely hypothetical but a horrific reality of the ancient jurisprudential system. Muhammad gave place in the chapter of slavery to those Arab laws of the age of ignorance, contrary to previous divine tradition (Mosaic law), where the status of offspring born to a slave woman depended on the father's "will".

Sunan Ibn Majah, Statement on Inheritance (link):

It is narrated from Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As that the Messenger of Allah said: A child whose lineage is connected to his father after his death, such that his heirs claim after his death that this is his child, then you made this decision about it that if the child is from such a slave woman who was in his ownership at the time of intercourse, then the lineage of this child will be connected to that person... But if the father denied the lineage of this child born to his slave woman during his lifetime (that this is not my child), then the lineage of this child will not be established with the father. Al-Albani has given this tradition the ruling of hasan (link). This same tradition has been narrated in Sunan Abi Dawud from Amr bin Shu'aib, and this too has the ruling of hasan (link)

Imam al-Sarakhsi writes in his book Al-Mabsut (link):

Translation: The lineage of the offspring of umm al-walad will be established with the master as long as he does not deny it, because she is his bed-mate. The Messenger of Allah, may peace be upon him, said: The child belongs to the bed. But it will be denied from him by mere denial according to us.

And Imam Ibn Humam writes in his book Fath al-Qadir (link):

Translation: Umm al-walad because of her child, even if his lineage is established without a claim, his lineage will be denied by his mere denial, unlike the married woman whose child's lineage cannot be denied except by li'an.

And Imam al-Shawkani writes in his book Nayl al-Awtar (link):

Translation: It is narrated from Abu Hanifah and al-Thawri and this is the Hadawiyya school that the bed of a slave woman is not established except by claiming the child, and acknowledging intercourse is not sufficient. And if he does not claim it, it will be his slave.

And in Fatawa Alamgiri, Volume 6, Book of Claims (link):

If a Muslim's umm al-walad (the slave woman from whom the master has a child) is a Magian or apostate, then her child is not obligatory for the master.

Why Did Muhammad Need to Deny the Lineage of a Child from a Slave Woman?

The reason was that Muhammad had given permission to the master to snatch the slave wife from his slave whenever he wanted and start sexually exploiting her, and he only had to give her a gap of 3 to 5 days of menstrual blood in between. So when a child was born, there was no certainty whether it was the slave's or the master's.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Marriage, Chapter 25:

And Anas said: {And [also prohibited to you are all] married women} meaning those who have husbands, free women, are forbidden except those your right hands possess. He saw no harm in a man taking his slave woman from his slave.

Similarly, Muhammad had permitted Muslim masters to take turns (giving a gap of 3 days of menstruation in between) sexually exploiting a jointly-owned slave woman. So when a child was born, it could officially have 2 to 5 fathers, or they could deny the child's lineage and enslave it.

In Fatawa Alamgiri (Volume 6, Page 162, link):

A slave woman is jointly owned by two people and she had a child and both claimed it, then its lineage will be established with both (i.e., that child will officially have 2 fathers).

In the same Fatawa Alamgiri (Volume 6, Page 173, link):

Imam Abu Hanifah says: If a slave woman is jointly owned by three or four or five masters and all claimed her child together, then it will be declared the son of all and its lineage will be established with all... Imam Muhammad (Hanafi) said in Ziyadat that a slave woman is jointly owned by two people, she gave birth to a child six months or more after their ownership, and another child six months or more after the birth of this child. Then one of the two masters said that the younger is my child and the older is my partner's (master's) child. So if the partner confirmed it, then the lineage of the younger child will be established with its claimant and the slave woman will become his umm al-walad.

Muhammad deliberately gave such a child the name "illegitimate child" so that this doubtful offspring could be called an illegitimate child and also be deprived of property, etc.

Final Word

True ethics are those which are born from humanity's natural empathy, reason, justice, and human equality. These are the principles that lead humans to feel another human's pain, stand against oppression, and establish a just society.

In contrast, what Muslims call "religious morality" often appears to consist of commandments that seem to conflict with the basic principles of human conscience, empathy, and equality. When morality is declared beyond question, then oppression also becomes worship and injustice also wears the garb of sanctity.

Allah is behind the veil of the unseen, angels are hidden from our eyes, and today no miracle directly addresses our reason. In such a situation, Islam itself demands that we recognize its God by looking at its commandments and morality.

But when these very commandments and morality are tested on the touchstone of human empathy, justice, and reason, instead of bearing witness to a perfect and just heavenly being, they raise serious questions about that very concept. This is the point where religious claims and human-made ethics appear to stand against each other, and humans must decide whether they prefer blind obedience or their living conscience.