Is Calling Children Born Out of Wedlock 'Illegitimate' Unethical?

The term 'illegitimate' is often used as an insult in arguments or to humiliate others. However, it is not just that. Labeling a person as 'illegitimate' deprives them of many basic personal and social rights and brands them with a permanent stigma. Society and religious thought thus separate children born from relationships outside the predetermined framework of formal, legal, and religious marriage from other children, and by considering them 'illegitimate,' they even refuse to grant them identity and birth certificates. But even assuming that the framework of marriage is accepted as the only legitimate framework for marital relations, is it fair for a child who had no role in their own birth to be stigmatized and punished as 'illegitimate'? Sociologist Hossein Ghazian and religious scholar Sajad Nikayin discuss this taboo topic this week. Why does religion, and specifically Islam, consider children born from relationships outside of marriage as illegitimate? What is the reasoning behind this? Sajad Nikayin, a religious researcher and activist close to traditional clerics, was born in May 1982 and has a degree in industrial engineering, having started his religious studies in Isfahan and continued them in Qom and Syria. He currently resides in California, USA. Nikayin states that religion is fundamentally based on what is permissible and forbidden, meaning the obligations and prohibitions defined by religious law. It is natural that certain things fall within the realm of the forbidden. Marriage is one such framework. For sexual relations, specific boundaries are set, and anything outside these religiously defined boundaries is considered forbidden, and the resulting offspring is labeled as such. This is the religious perspective. However, the social implications of such a label are another matter. This is a natural issue. Even in legal systems not related to Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, certain relationships are defined as legal, while others are considered outside the legal norms of society. In my opinion, this is not a problem; all religions are like this. For example, some foods are permissible, and some are forbidden. This classification is natural. Religions are built on these classifications and boundaries. Nikayin's point suggests that from an intra-religious perspective, it is natural to categorize certain actions, foods, and relationships as permissible or forbidden. But is it natural to also categorize humans in this way? Religion states that all humans are equal. How can it label some individuals with terms like 'illegitimate'? We know that a child born from such a relationship, even if we consider it unethical, has no role in it. How can you say it is natural for religion to consider them illegitimate? Nikayin responds that the mere fact that religion has coined a term to describe such children is not inherently problematic. The discrimination arises from societal norms. For instance, no cleric has stated that these children cannot obtain birth certificates. However, there are indeed some consequences in Islam. For example, someone born from an illicit sexual relationship cannot lead prayers in a mosque. The reasoning for this is provided by the faithful, but here, the individual is deprived of a religious position, not a social one. Consider someone who drinks alcohol; if they do so repeatedly, they are also disqualified from leading prayers. One might argue that they are aware of their actions, but what sin has the child committed by being born from such a relationship? Your response would be that this deprivation is preventive, meant to make those who wish to enter such relationships consider the consequences of depriving the child of certain rights within the religious framework. Very well. However, I still find the basis for discrimination among people and the valuation in this way to be questionable. Nikayin: You might ask me why religion distinguishes between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. I would give you the same answer: it is natural. Ghazian, having heard Nikayin's comments, questions whether it is possible to completely disregard the social implications of religion and why society itself generates such stigma. Ghazian, a sociologist and Iranian researcher residing in the US, specializes in polling, political sociology, gender, and culture. He argues that there is nothing natural about this situation because nature does not act. If we speak in legal and doctrinal terms, both the illegitimacy and the label of being illegitimate are constructs. They are fabricated concepts that humans create. They are not real matters; they are constructs. If we speak sociologically, these terms are socially constructed. People create them and determine what is forbidden and what is not. Thus, there is a logical relationship based on initial assumptions that leads us to illegitimacy. It is useful to consider this term alongside two others: 'illicit' and 'outside of marriage.' These represent three different levels of describing a reality. When we speak of children born outside of marriage, we use a relatively legal and neutral tone. When we refer to them as illicit, we add a moral dimension, and perhaps a legal one. However, when we use the term 'illegitimate,' it has moved beyond its legal and logical framework and has become an insulting term. Why do societies do this? Some societies do this under the influence of religion, and they live according to their traditions, a significant part of which is religion. One clear reason may be a form of boundary-setting with the 'other.' It is a means of excluding someone who should not be a member of society, and this exclusion is enacted by depriving the individual of certain rights. Therefore, as Nikayin points out, an illegitimate child in Islam cannot lead prayers, thus being deprived of certain social rights. If we accept Nikayin's argument that this is a preventive measure, we see that legal logic is also being violated here. We can only punish someone who has the choice to commit an act and is thus responsible for it. A child born from an illicit or extramarital relationship has no role in this and should not be punished or deprived of rights. However, we see that according to religious law and consequently in many legal systems, such children are deprived of many social rights. Society punishes them. Society may have historically punished them for two reasons: to establish lineage and inheritance, which has led to the control of women's bodies. This is why in many societies, these individuals are not issued birth certificates under their father's name. Another aspect is the issue of material inheritance, as these individuals are often deprived of inheritance. Nikayin, briefly, do you have a response, especially to Ghazian's point about the violation of legal logic? Nikayin: First, regarding the naturalness of this issue, I did not mean natural in the sense of a product of nature. I meant that it is natural for religions to act this way. Regarding the second point, which Ghazian claims undermines legal foundations, I would argue that even now in America, children whose fathers are unknown or who are products of relationships outside of legal norms are deprived of certain rights. I do not mean to suggest that it is to the same degree as in Islam, but the legal system of society unconsciously defines relationships and treats those who fall outside these relationships, regardless of their guilt, with varying degrees of discrimination, both from the legal system and society. Now, in some places, this degree is ten percent, and in others, thirty or forty percent. Moreover, if Islam is thirty, forty, or fifty percent, there are no dead ends. For instance, regarding the issue of identity and lineage, some clerics believe that DNA testing can resolve these issues. I want to say that the issue is not without solutions, and we do not have a system without discrimination. Ghazian: I am not sure how accurate Nikayin's claim is that children born from relationships outside of marriage are judged and deprived of rights everywhere. The example he provided regarding insurance or social benefits varies, but such discrimination does not exist in many European countries or the US. Ghazian: Based on the philosophy of rights prevalent everywhere, we can only hold individuals accountable for actions they choose to commit. Therefore, minors or the insane are exempt from punishment. Morally, it is clear that someone who has no choice in their actions is not morally blameworthy. This is evident, and even if it exists in all societies, it is based on a flawed understanding of human nature. However, we should be cautious about the claim that this exists everywhere. If it exists to the extent that Nikayin suggests, it is a market issue. We must separate social discrimination from legal discrimination. Legal discrimination is enshrined in law and enforced universally, backed by legal authority and enforcement power. However, when the market does this, it is different. For example, an insurance company might say, 'Your age is this, so I won't cover you,' or 'Because you have a pre-existing condition, I will raise your premium,' or 'Because you only have a mother and no father, I will treat you differently.' These are market issues and not related to legal discrimination in society. The source of this has primarily been religions, and as religions have weakened, this has also diminished in societies where religion has declined. For example, look at Scandinavian countries; since the 1970s, or Norway since the early 1900s, they have removed this issue from their laws, or Sweden in the 1970s completely eliminated the term 'child born outside of marriage.' Iceland has done the same, and Denmark as well. Therefore, we see that in countries that have been Protestant, primarily in Northern Europe, where religion has weakened, this issue has been resolved. Furthermore, realistic criminal policies have become important. They have realized that if they do not do this and deprive these individuals of social rights, mothers of these children might resort to abortion or abandon them. Additionally, children who are deprived of social rights in this way and marginalized are at risk of deviating and joining criminal groups. In fact, realistic criminal policies regarding the consequences of labeling illegitimacy in law have led to a reduction or elimination of this issue in some places, as I mentioned. Thus, it is not the case that this exists in all societies. Nikayin! Ghazian has raised the issue of abortion, which leads me to question whether, if we return to intra-religious frameworks, particularly in Islam, which strongly opposes abortion and considers it murder, this does not contradict the treatment of a child born from a relationship outside the prescribed framework.