Skip to main content
Refutations

Does Islam Attribute Adultery Children to the Husband? Refuting "The Child Belongs to the Bed"

27 min read 5961 words
tag

The Child Belongs to the Bed — Refuting the Allegation of Mixing Lineages

Topics Covered
  • Response to the allegation that the child belongs to the bed and the adulterer is stoned
  • The lie that Islam attributes the child of adultery to the husband
📋 Table of Contents Overview

Response — Main Points

Weak Narrations Analysis

Second Topic

Content of the Doubt The enemies of Islam claim that the Prophet called for the mixing of lineages, by attributing a child to someone other than his real father.

The enemies of Islam claim that the Prophet Muhammad ordered that we always attribute a child born out of wedlock to the husband, even if the child is not his biological father. The enemies of Islam cite the following narration as evidence for this claim:

“The boy belongs to the bed, and the whore belongs to the stone.”

Response to This Ridiculous Suspicion

Point One — Islam Forbids Mixing Lineages

Point One — Islam Forbids Mixing Lineages Islam forbids people from mixing their lineages. Islam even orders us to attribute each child to his real father, as long as we are certain of the identity of the child’s real father:
  • If we confirm that the adulterer (so-and-so) is the father of the child, then the child is attributed to him.
  • If the husband is the child’s real father, the child is attributed to him.
  • If we are not sure of the identity of the father and do not know which man is the real father, then we do not have the right to attribute the child to a man other than his real father. Rather, we treat the child as our brother in religion or our master.
Qur’an — Al-Ahzab 5 “And He has not made your adopted sons your sons. That is but your statement from your mouths, and God speaks the truth, and He guides to the way. Call them by the names of their fathers; that is more just in the sight of God. But if you do not know their fathers, then they are your brothers in religion and their fathers are your brothers in faith. There is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but only for what your hearts intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.”
Sahih Muslim — 2441 (on the authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib) “Whoever claims to be a father other than his own, or claims to be a master other than his own, then upon him is the curse of God, the angels, and all of mankind. God will not accept from him on the Day of Resurrection any ransom or compensation.”

Point Two — The Hadith in Its Full Historical Context

Point Two — The Hadith in Its Full Historical Context As for the phrase “the child belongs to the bed,” which is denounced by the enemies of Islam, the enemies of Islam are taking this phrase out of its historical context.

If we go back to the context of the entire hadith, we will find:

The Full Hadith Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas and Abd ibn Zam’ah had a dispute over a boy. Sa’d said: “This, O Messenger of Allah, is the son of my brother, Utbah ibn Abi Waqqas. He promised me that he was his son. Look at his resemblance.” Abd ibn Zam’ah said: “This is my brother, O Messenger of Allah. He was born on my father’s bed from his slave woman.” The Messenger of Allah looked at his resemblance and saw a clear resemblance to Utbah. He said: “He is yours, Abd ibn Zam’ah. The child belongs to the bed, and the adulterer is stoned.” “And hide from him, O Sawda bint Zam’a,” Aisha said: “So he never saw Sawda.”
Key Point In this hadith, the Prophet did not attribute the newborn to anyone at all. The Prophet did not say that this child was the son of Zam’ah or the son of Utbah — because the child’s mother had been slept with by more than one man, and thus the lineage and father of this newborn became unknown.

Here, the Prophet teaches us how to deal with a child whose father and lineage are unknown: we must consider this newborn as one of our brothers and clients without attributing him to anyone else.

Al-Tahawi — Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar 3/114 “The Prophet did not rule on anything regarding his lineage.”
Important Clarification This story does not talk about the husband and his adulterous wife. Rather, it talks about a slave girl who committed adultery in the pre-Islamic era. Therefore, it is wrong for some sheikhs to claim that this story concerns the husband and his adulterous wife who bore him a child from adultery.

Understanding the Story in Detail

Background of the Story
  • Zam’ah was a man in the pre-Islamic era who had children, including: (Abd ibn Zam’ah) and (Sawda bint Zam’ah) — who was the wife of the Prophet.
  • Zam’ah owned a slave girl who served him, and this slave girl gave birth to a child in his house.
  • However, Utbah ibn Abi Waqqas had previously committed adultery with this slave girl while he was a polytheist — as female slaves used to commit adultery in the pre-Islamic era of ignorance.
  • Before dying, Utbah ordered his brother (Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas) to bring the child because he thought he was his son.
  • Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas wanted to take the child from Abd ibn Zam’ah; Abd ibn Zam’ah refused, stressing the child was the son of his father Zam’ah.
  • Both went to the Prophet, who ruled that the newborn be given to Abd ibn Zam’ah.
Why the Prophet Gave the Child to Abd ibn Zam’ah Reason One: The child’s mother was still alive and living with the Zam’ah family. Therefore, the child should be given to his mother, as she was more deserving of his upbringing. Knowing that this slave girl committed adultery in the pre-Islamic era, the punishment imposed on her has nothing to do with Islam; and even if carried out, it would be flogging (not stoning), because she was a slave — meaning the child’s mother did not die but remained alive with her master’s family.

Reason Two: After Zam’ah died, this slave girl was taken into the care of Abd ibn Zam’ah because he was the new master responsible for her affairs. In the same way, the child would be with Abd ibn Zam’ah to take care of him along with his mother. The phrase “He is yours” does not mean the Prophet attributed the newborn to Zam’ah or Abd ibn Zam’ah — it means the Prophet gave the newborn to Abd ibn Zam’ah as his new master, responsible for raising him and managing his affairs.

Al-Kamal ibn Al-Humam — Fath Al-Qadir 5/37 The Prophet did not attribute the newborn to anyone, not even to Zam’ah. What the Prophet did was give the newborn to Abd ibn Zam’ah to be his new master, responsible for raising him and managing his affairs.
Abu Bakr Al-Razi — Ahkam Al-Quran by Al-Jassas 5/159 “It has been narrated in some versions that he said, ‘It is yours, O servant,’ but this does not indicate that he established the lineage, because it is permissible for him to mean by it the establishment of his hand, since whoever is entitled to a hand in something, it is permissible for it to be added to him, so it is said, ‘It is his.’”
Al-Tahawi — Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar 3/114 “The Messenger of God only said to Abd ibn Zam’ah: ‘He is yours, O Abd ibn Zam’ah,’ and he did not say: ‘He is your brother.’ It is possible that by his saying ‘He is yours,’ he meant: He is yours, because of the right of the owner over him, and he did not rule on anything regarding his lineage.”

The Phrase “He Is Your Brother” — Is It Authentic?

The Addition “He Is Your Brother” Is Disputed
Al-Bayhaqi’s Chain — Weak Al-Bayhaqi narrated it with a weak chain of transmission in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra:

“Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz informed us, Abu al-Hasan ibn Subaih informed us, Muhammad ibn Ishaq informed us, Ahmad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Wahb informed us, my uncle informed me, Yunus informed me, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, Urwah ibn al-Zubayr informed me, that Aishah said: The Messenger of God said: ‘He is yours, he is your brother, O Abd ibn Zam’ah.’”

  • Abu al-Hasan ibn Subaih: Unknown narrator
  • Ahmad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Wahb: Confused, a liar, and weak
Al-Bukhari’s Suspended (Mu’allaq) Chain — Weak Al-Bukhari mentioned the phrase “He is your brother” via a suspended (mu’allaq) chain of transmission — Al-Bukhari was born years after Al-Layth’s death. Al-Bukhari mentioned it in the mu’allaqat style to alert people to its weakness.

When Al-Bukhari narrated the same story on the authority of Al-Layth with a continuous chain of transmission in another place in his Sahih, he did not mention the phrase “He is your brother, O Abd.”

The Authentic Continuous Chain in Sahih Al-Bukhari Qutaybah ibn Sa’d narrated: Al-Layth narrated, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Urwah, on the authority of Aishah, that she said: The Prophet said: “It is yours, Abd ibn Zam’ah. The child belongs to the husband, and the adulterer is stoned. And veil yourself from him, Sawdah bint Zam’ah.” She said: So he never saw Sawdah.
Badr Al-Din Al-Ayni — Umdat Al-Qari Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari 23/251 “Abu Dawud narrated this hadith on the authority of Sa’id ibn Mansur and Musaddad, and in it: Musaddad added to his hadith: ‘He is your brother.’ The correct version is what Sa’id ibn Mansur narrated, and Ahmad did not agree with Musaddad’s addition. Even if we accept the authenticity of this addition, it is intended to mean your brother in faith. It is possible that the original hadith was: ‘He is yours,’ so the narrator thought that it meant: his brother in lineage, so he interpreted it to mean the meaning he had.”
Abu Bakr Al-Razi — Ahkam Al-Quran by Al-Jassas 5/159 “And the addition that Musaddad added, we do not know of anyone who agreed with him on it.”
Al-Tahawi — Sharh Ma’ani Al-Athar 3/114 “The Messenger of God only said to Abd ibn Zam’ah, ‘He is yours, O Abd ibn Zam’ah,’ and he did not say, ‘He is your brother.’ It is possible that by his saying, ‘He is yours,’ he meant: He is yours, because of the right of the owner over him, and he did not rule on anything regarding his lineage. The evidence for this is that the Messenger of God ordered Sawdah bint Zam’ah to veil herself from him. If the Prophet had made him Ibn Zam’ah, then he would not have veiled Bint Zam’ah from him, because he did not command severing family ties… So how could it be permissible for him to command her to veil herself from him when he had made him her brother?”
Conclusion on “He Is Your Brother” Even if we assume the phrase is authentic, it means the Prophet established a brotherhood in religion, mercy, and good treatment — not brotherhood from the same lineage, father, and blood.
Qur’an — Al-Ahzab 5 “Call them by the names of their fathers; that is more just in the sight of Allah. But if you do not know their fathers, then they are your brothers in religion and your allies.”
Qur’an — Al-Hujurat 10 “The believers are nothing but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers, and fear Allah that you may receive mercy.”
The Prophet’s Habit of Establishing Brotherhood Between Companions
  • Sahih Al-Bukhari 2048: “When they arrived in Medina, the Messenger of God established a bond of brotherhood between Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf and Sa’d ibn al-Rabi’.” — even though they were not brothers in lineage.
  • Sahih Al-Bukhari 1968: “The Prophet established brotherhood between Salman and Abu Darda.”
  • Sahih Al-Bukhari 30 (on the authority of Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari): “Your brothers are your servants. Allah has placed them under your control. So whoever has his brother under his control, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears.”
Key Evidence: The Veil of Sawda bint Zam’ah The Prophet ordered Sawda bint Zam’ah to veil herself from this child — indicating that the child was not truly her brother. A sister does not veil her face from her brother. If the Prophet had attributed this child to Zam’ah and as a brother to Sawda, then the Prophet would have allowed Sawda to meet her brother as a matter of kinship.

“And hide from him, O Sawda bint Zam’a.” So he never saw Sawda again.

This was confirmed by Al-Tahawi, Badr Al-Din Al-Ayni, and others.

Final Conclusion
  • The Prophet did not attribute the child as a son to Zam’ah
  • The Prophet did not attribute the child as a brother in lineage to Abd ibn Zam’ah
  • The Prophet only made him a brother in religion and mercy to Abd ibn Zam’ah

The Meaning of “The Child Belongs to the Bed”

Linguistic Analysis — The Word “Bed” (Firāsh) Refers to a Woman This phrase does not command you to attribute the child to someone other than his father. Rather, it means the newborn will be given to his mother to raise.
Abu Nasr Al-Jawhari — Al-Sahah Taj Al-Lughah 3/1014 “Bed: one of the mattresses. It may also be used to refer to a woman.”
Murtada Al-Zabidi — Taj Al-Arus min Jawahir Al-Qamus 17/310 “The word ‘bed’ is used to refer to a woman, as stated in Sahih al-Bukhari.”
Ibn Al-Atheer — Al-Nihaya fi Gharib Al-Hadith wa Al-Athar 3/430 “The woman is called a bed because the man lies on her.”
Al-Himyari — Sun of Sciences and the Medicine of Arab Speech 8/5149 “A man is not called a bed, nor is a bed like clothing, and it only belongs to a woman. It was said in the interpretation of dreams: ‘The well-known bed is a man’s wife because he lies with her.’”
Imam Ata’ — Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq 7/99 On the authority of Ibn Jurayj, who said: I said to Ata’: What do you think if he denies her after she gives birth? He said: And he curses her, and the child is hers. I said: Didn’t the Prophet say: The child belongs to the bed, and the adulterer should be stoned? He said: “Yes, but that is only because people in Islam claimed children who were born in men’s beds, saying: They are ours. The Prophet said: ‘The child belongs to the bed, and the adulterer should be stoned.’”

The Meaning of “Stone for the Adulterer”

Linguistic Analysis — “Stone” Means Disappointment and Humiliation The phrase “stone for the adulterer” means that the adulterer will be disappointed and humiliated. Other narrations mention the phrase as: “And in the mouth of the adulterer stone” — meaning this adulterer will be shamed. It is the custom of the Arabs to say to someone who has failed: “He will be stoned, and in his mouth will be stones and dirt.”
Abu al-Fadl al-Maydani — Majma’ al-Amthal 2/71 “Abu Ubaidah said: Its origin is that he means ‘May God put the earth in your mouth,’ just as one says ‘The stone in your mouth’ and ‘The athlab in your mouth.’ He said: Its meaning is disappointment for you.”

The Phrase “The Child Belongs to the Owner of the Bed”

This Formulation Complements, Not Contradicts Some narrations include the phrase: “The child belongs to the owner of the bed.” This formulation complements the previous one and provides a complete picture of how to deal with the illegitimate child born to a slave woman. Abd ibn Zam’ah is the master of this slave girl and the owner responsible for her — and for that reason he was described as “the owner of the bed.”
The Word “Bed” Also Means Sexual Intercourse Even if we took the phrase out of context and assumed it was talking about the child’s affiliation with a man, what would be meant is the child’s affiliation with his real father who slept with his mother in bed — because the word “bed” in Arabic also means sexual intercourse.
Murtada Al-Zabidi — Taj Al-Arus min Jawahir Al-Qamus 17/310 “The man had intercourse with the woman.”
Ibn Sidah — Al-Muhkam wa Al-Muhit Al-A’zam 8/49 “The man spread out the woman’s body for pleasure.”
Ibn Duraid — Jamharat al-Lughah 2/729 “And the mattress: the source of the verb ‘farashtu al-firashtu’ is ‘afrushtuhu farshhan’. And the ground is spread out, if she takes it as a mattress, and the man spreads out the ground for the woman in the same way.”
Refuting the Claim That “Bed” Always Refers to the Husband Some sheikhs claim that the word “bed” in this hadith refers only to the husband and his bed, and thus the illegitimate child is always attributed to the husband — even if he is not his descendant. This is a wrong statement that contradicts the context of the hadith. Moreover, it is contrary to the Arabic language, reason, and logic, because the adulterer does not sleep with the married woman wirelessly — he commits adultery with her in bed as well.
  • By the same wrong logic: if a husband has sex with his wife on a hotel bed, the child would be attributed to the hotel owner.
  • By the same wrong logic: if the husband spends the night with his wife in a house other than his own, the child would be attributed to the owner of that house.
  • By the same wrong logic: a woman who gives birth in a hospital bed must attribute the birth to the doctor or hospital director.
Dr. Ahmed Mukhtar Omar — Dictionary of Contemporary Arabic Language “He spreads, spreads, and spreads, a bed, so he is a spreader, and the object is spread.”
Al-Zamakhshari — The Foundation of Rhetoric 2/16 “I spread out a bed for him, and I spread it out for him and I spread it out for him. Al-Kumait said: Like a mother who covers the eggs with a blanket… and spreads it with soft, moist soil. And he spread out dirt or a garment underneath it.”
Al-Azhari — Tahdhib Al-Lughah 11/237 “The earth is the bed of mankind.”
Conclusion If we assume that the phrase “the child belongs to the owner of the bed” is talking about the child’s affiliation to a certain person, then its meaning would be that the child’s affiliation is to the person who slept with his mother in bed and she became pregnant by him.

Weak Narrations That Cannot Be Relied Upon

Weak Narration 1 — Amr Ibn Shu’ayb Chain

Narration Text Yazid narrated to us, Husayn al-Mu’allim informed us, on the authority of Amr ibn Shu’ayb, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather, who said: When Mecca was conquered by the Messenger of God, a man said: O Messenger of God, I committed adultery with my son so-and-so’s mother during the pre-Islamic period. The Prophet said: “There is no supplication in Islam. The matter of ignorance has disappeared. The child belongs to the bed, and the adulterer is to the athlab.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, and what is athlab?” He said: “A stone.”
Why This Narration Is Weak The narrator is the grandfather of Amr ibn Shu’ayb ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas — i.e., (Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas), who is not a companion. The chain between this narrator and the Prophet is therefore broken.
  • Al-Dhahabi said his condition is unknown
  • Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said he is acceptable only in terms of evidence and follow-ups

Furthermore, this narration means that a person has no right to attribute to himself a child born into another family without evidence. Pre-Islamic people used to take the children of others and attribute them to themselves without proof.

Weak Narration 2 — Yusuf Ibn al-Zubayr Chain

Narration Text Mahdi narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Yaqub informed us, on the authority of al-Hasan ibn Sa’d the freed slave of al-Hasan ibn Ali, on the authority of Rabah, who said: My family married me to a Roman slave girl of theirs… Then a Roman slave called Yuhanna fell in love with her… She gave birth to a boy who looked like a lizard. I said to her, “What is this?” She said, “This is for John.” We took the matter to Uthman. He said to them: “Are you satisfied that I judge between you according to the judgment of the Messenger of Allah? The Messenger of Allah ruled that the child belongs to the bed.” I think he said: “So he flogged her and flogged him.”
Why This Narration Is Weak The narrator (Yusuf ibn al-Zubayr), a client of al-Zubayr, is an unknown narrator who cannot be relied upon, as Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari stated. His hadith is not accepted except when there are other authentic narrations that confirm the same words — as Ibn Hajar indicated. Ibn Hibban’s authentication of this narrator is rejected by scholars because he was lenient in authenticating unknown narrators.

Furthermore, the narration’s text is rejected: it claims the Prophet granted Zam’ah’s inheritance to this child — yet a Muslim does not inherit from a non-Muslim’s wealth, and Zam’ah died a non-Muslim. Also, the narration explicitly states the Prophet said to Sawda bint Zam’ah: “He is not your brother.”

Weak Narration 3 — Rabah Chain

Narration Text Mahdi narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Yaqub informed us, on the authority of al-Hasan ibn Sa’d, the freed slave of al-Hasan ibn Ali, on the authority of Rabah, who said: My family married me to a Roman slave girl of theirs. I had intercourse with her and she gave birth to a black boy like me… Then a Roman slave of my family, called Yuhanna, fell in love with her… She gave birth to a boy who looked like a lizard… We took the matter to Uthman… He said: “Are you satisfied that I judge between you according to the judgment of the Messenger of Allah? The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, ruled that the child belongs to the bed.”
Why This Narration Is Weak The narrator called Rabah is an unknown person. Both Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut and Al-Albani deemed it weak.

Even if assumed correct, this narration does not command that the child be attributed to anyone other than his father. The child is either from the lineage of Rabah or from the lineage of John — in either case the child will be given to Rabah: if the child is Rabah’s offspring, he is raised as his son; if the child is John’s, he becomes a slave of Rabah since John is from the Mamluks of the Rabah family.

Weak Narration 4 — Al-Suddi Chain (Al-Tabari)

Narration Text (Al-Tabari’s Interpretation) Muhammad ibn al-Husayn narrated to me… Asbat narrated to us, on the authority of al-Suddi: A man from the Quraysh tribe of Banu Sahm, called Abdullah ibn Hudhafah, stood up and said: “O Messenger of God, who is my father?” He said: “Your father is so-and-so.” … On that day he said: “The child belongs to the bed, and the adulterer should be stoned.”
Why This Narration Is Very Weak
  • Break in chain: Al-Suddi al-Kabir has a break between himself and the Prophet
  • Al-Suddi: A lying Rafidi weakened by most scholars
  • Asbat: Weakened by most scholars for mistakes and distortion of chains of transmission and hadiths
  • Ahmad ibn al-Mufaddal: Scholars have said he made mistakes

Weak Narration 5 — Disturbed Chain via Al-Muzani

Narration Text Al-Muzani narrated: Al-Shafi’i narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah ibn Abi Yazid from his father who said: Umar ibn al-Khattab was sitting in the Hijr… He asked him about children born during the pre-Islamic era, and the old man said: “As for the sperm from so-and-so, and as for the child on the bed of so-and-so,” Umar said: “You are right, but the Messenger of Allah ruled in favor of the bed.”
Why This Chain Is Disturbed
  • Once narrated on the authority of (Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad) on the authority of his father — yet this Yazid does not narrate on the authority of his father, and his father is not among the narrators at all
  • Once narrated on the authority of (Abdullah ibn Abi Yazid) — Al-Mazini Al-Basri, not authenticated by any of the ancients; only acceptable as a witness per Ibn Hazm
  • Once narrated on the authority of (Ubaid Allah ibn Abi Yazid) — Al-Makki, trustworthy according to all scholars

The confusion and error in narrator names casts doubt on the narration. As for (Abu Yazid) — authenticated only by Ibn Hibban (who was lenient with unknown narrators) and Al-Ajli (whose authentications are disputed).

Weak Narration 6 — Al-Nasa’i Narration

Narration Text “For this reason, the Messenger of God ruled this: It is not permissible for a man to deny having a child born in his bed, unless he claims that he saw an immoral act.”
Why This Narration Is Weak Narrated by Abu Haywah Shuraih ibn Yazid Al-Hadrami — none of the ancients authenticated him; only later scholars did. He also mentioned an additional part not mentioned by the rest of the narrators or books such as Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim.

Note also that this narration does not command that a child be attributed to someone other than his biological father. Rather, it states that a man has no right to disown his son without a reason — but if he sees his wife committing adultery with another man, he has the right to disown the child.

Weak Narration 7 — Al-Sha’bi from Omar

Narration Text Al-Thawri told us, on the authority of Jabir, on the authority of Al-Sha’bi, who said: Umar said: “It is not permissible to pray for the child of fornication in Islam.”
Why This Narration Is Weak
  • Al-Sha’bi was born in Yemen in the late caliphate of Omar ibn Al-Khattab, and was young when Omar died — this narration is therefore interrupted (munqaṭiʿ): Al-Sha’bi did not hear Omar ibn Al-Khattab at all
  • Jabir Al-Ja’fi: Weakened by most scholars; some called him a liar and considered him a Shiite Rafidi Sabaean who cursed the Companions; his hadiths via chain are not acceptable because he is a mudallis who used a chain here without explicitly stating he heard it

Weak Narration 8 — Sinan Ibn al-Harith Chain

Narration Text On the authority of Sinan ibn al-Harith ibn Musarrif, on the authority of Talhah ibn Musarrif, on the authority of Mujahid, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Amr, who said: A man stood up and said: O Messenger of Allah, I have had intercourse with a slave girl from the Banu So-and-so, and she has given birth to a child for me, so order that my child be returned to me. He said: “He is not your child, it is not permissible in Islam… The child belongs to the person who shares the bed, and the adulterer is the one who is not of good character… Whoever commits adultery with a woman he does not own, or with a woman from another tribe, and she gives birth, then his child is not his; he does not inherit, and he is not inherited from.”
Why This Narration Is Weak Sinan ibn al-Harith ibn Masraf (Misrib) is an unknown person.

Note also that this narration does not contain anything shameful — it says you must provide evidence that this boy is your son, not just words. The narration includes the phrase “unless evidence is presented” and says “the defendant is more deserving of the oath” — meaning the slave girl must first be interrogated to find out whether she committed adultery with this man, and whether she knows who the father of the child is.

Narration of Imam Malik in Al-Muwatta

Narration Text “On the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar, on the authority of his father, that Umar ibn al-Khattab said: If a slave girl comes to me and her master acknowledges that he has had intercourse with her, I will attribute her child to him.”
This Narration Is About a Different Situation Entirely This narration has nothing to do with the children of adultery or a mother who slept with more than one man. It talks about a man who slept with his slave girl, she became pregnant with his child, and then he disowned the child. There were people in the past who did not like their children to be from the offspring of slave girls and therefore disowned them — for example, Shaddad disowned Antarah ibn Shaddad because his mother was a black slave.

Omar ibn Al-Khattab insisted on the right to attribute the newborn to his real father even if his mother was a slave and his father was a free man. Islam attributes each person to his father as long as his father’s identity is known.

Is It Permissible for a Husband to Disown the Son of His Adulterous Wife?

Answer — Yes, It Is Obligatory If the husband learns that his wife committed adultery with a man and became pregnant with his child, then the husband must disown this child and not attribute him to himself.
Ibn Qudamah — Al-Mughni 8/71–72 “Chapter: Slander is of three types: Obligatory, which is that he sees his wife committing adultery during a period of purity in which he did not have intercourse with her. Then he must stay away from her until her waiting period is over. If she gives birth to a child six months after the time of adultery, and he is able to deny it from him, then he must slander her and deny her child. Because this is like certainty that the child is from the adulterer. If he does not deny it, the child is his, inherits from him, inherits from his relatives, and they inherit from him. He can see his daughters and sisters. This is not permissible, so he must deny it to remove that. Even if she confesses to adultery, and he believes her truthfulness, he is as if he had seen her.”
Shams Al-Din Al-Ramli — The End of the Need for an Explanation of Al-Minhaj 7/112 “And if he knew of her adultery, he would have to accuse her of adultery and deny it. A group of scholars have stated that seeing him alone with her during that period of purity, with her adultery being known to him, also requires him to do that… It has been authenticated in Al-Rawdah that if he sees, after the woman has been purified, an indication of her adultery, as mentioned above, he must deny it based on a strong belief that it was not from him at that time.”

Comparison with the Bible and Atheism

The Bible Commands Attributing Children to Non-Biological Fathers
Book of Deuteronomy — Chapter 25:5–6 “If brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married to a foreign man. Rather, her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife, and he shall perform the duties of a husband’s brother to her. And the firstborn whom she bears shall take up the name of his dead brother, lest his name be blotted out from Israel.”
Book of Genesis — Chapter 38:8–10 “Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he corrupted the land, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he had done was evil in the eyes of the Lord, so He put him to death also.”
Gospel of Mark 12:19 and Gospel of Luke 20:28 “Teacher, Moses wrote to us: If a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife and no children, his brother shall take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.”
The Christian Gospels’ Own Contradiction The Christian Gospels attribute Joseph the carpenter to a father other than his own: the Gospel of Matthew attributes him to Jacob, while the Gospel of Luke attributes him to Heli — a clear contradiction within the Holy Bible itself regarding lineage.
Atheism and Lineage As for atheism: the country of France, which atheists are proud of, prohibits DNA testing so that men will not discover their wives’ infidelity — and thus men will not know that the children are not theirs.