Medical Issues


Question:

What is the Islamic viewpoint concerning the donation of one’s own body after death to medical institutions for the furtherance of science? These dead bodies are then dissected by medical students and mutilated. Muslim doctors always say that dissection has to be done on dead human bodies in order to treat future diseases that may arise in a living person. Definitely, the knowledge gained by doctors has contributed greatly to treating patients, but what is the Islamic viewpoint on this matter? Muslim students studying medicine have to dissect dead human bodies to gain first hand knowledge of the human body. Is this permissible in Islam? Please answer these two questions as the answers will help me and the other students here in Dublin tremendously.

Answer:

Both acts, i.e. donating one’s own body and dissection and mutilation of human bodies, are unlawful in lslam. The end, no matter how noble and laudable, will not justify the means if such means are outlawed by Islam. Donating one’s body and mutilating human bodies are Kabeerah (great) sins from which Muslims must abstain regardless of the worldly and material loss to be suffered as a result of adherence to the Law of Allah. 

Question:

Does the Shariah allow organ transplantation?

Answer:

Organ transplantation is not permissible in Islam.

Question:

Is it permissible for a Muslim to consent for the removal of parts of his body while he is alive, for transplantation for the benefit of close relatives?

Answer:

This is not permissible under any circumstances. Organs may not be taken from even a dead body. Man is not the owner of his body. He may therefore not give away any parts of his body. If he was the owner of his body, suicide would have been permissible. The Shariah also prohibits the derivation of any use whatsoever from parts of the human body.

Question:

When is a person pronounced dead in Islam? Organs like the heart and kidneys are useful if removed while they are receiving adequate blood perfusion. It is for this reason that when a person is pronounced “brain dead” with only a machine keeping him alive, the organs are removed. Thereafter the machine is switched off. What is the Islamic viewpoint of this concept and its application?

Answer:

Firstly, it is not permissible to remove any organs from the human body, whether the person is alive or dead. Secondly, the concept of brain dead is rejected by Islam. It is a concept created to deceive and soothe the minds of people to enable doctors to slaughter a living person for grabbing his organs. As long as the slightest blood perfusion takes place, the person is alive, i.e. the Rooh is still in his body. The machine will `sustain’ life only as long as the time of Maut has not arrived. The Qur’aan categorically declares:

“No person will die but with the permission of Allah at the appointed time.”

It is not the machine which ensures the perfusion of the blood and it is not the machine which keeps the person alive. If a machine can keep a person alive, it will mean that the answer for Maut has been found. Man can then escape death and be kept perpetually alive. Malakul Maut can then be `defeated’. The perfusion of blood and remaining alive are the effects of the presence of the Rooh (Soul) which is the life-giving substance. After the departure of the Rooh, nothing can ever keep the blood flowing and keep a person alive.

Question:

A patient’s breathing was being sustained by a ‘lifesaving’ respirator. He was unable to breathe without the machine. But with the machine on, he breathed. The Muslim doctor pronounced him ‘brain dead’, and advised removal of the machine. On the advice of the Muslim doctor, the relatives agreed. It was a Thursday afternoon. Within a few hours the sun would be setting and it would be Friday. The relatives thought that it would be an opportune occasion for their man to die because it is reported in the Hadith that one who dies on a Friday is saved from the trial of the Grave’s questioning and punishment. They, therefore, permitted the switching off of the machine only after 7 p.m., that is, after sunset when it would be Friday night according to Islam. Please comment on this whole saga.

Answer:

The ‘Friday’ and the ‘Grave’ interpretation to justify the murder of the indisposed man, is a cruel and callous self-deception perpetrated by the relatives and the doctors. While the callous relatives soothed their conscience with the ‘religious’ smokescreen, the doctor, bereft of any moral conscience, had no need for any interpretation. Conscience is generally an unknown attribute to the medical butchers. The treasure of conscience does not form part of their capital. Bereft of conscience, the doctors are insulated with the ‘brain dead’ concept which westernism has fabricated and legalized for grabbing the organs—heart, kidneys, eyes, etc.—of living human beings.

THE ROOH: The definition of Maut (Death) in Islam is the permanent transference of the Rooh –the Soul– from the physical human body to the Spiritual Realm known as Aalam-e-Barzakh which people generally call the Qabr (grave). As long as this permanent transference has not occurred, man is alive.

With the transference of the Rooh occurs the cessation of all activity of all the organs of the physical body of man. There is no way, no method and no machine that can sustain life after the transference of the Rooh. If the respirator or any other medical contraption can sustain life—keep the human being alive—then no one hooked onto one of these machines should ever die. The human body will perpetually carry on its breathing and other functions, and the heart will everlastingly continue supplying the body with blood.

As long as the Rooh remains in the human body, there is life and the respirator/machine executes a meaningful function. The machine is reduced to redundancy in consequence of the permanent exit of the Rooh. Thus, the medical concept known as ‘brain dead’ is a massive and a murderous fraud enacted for the savagery of mutilating the living human being to grab his vital bodily organs. This concept has absolutely no other function other than medical barbarism perpetrated to satisfy the cannibalism for devouring organs by other patients who believe in the justification of eating human flesh at the juncture of starvation. Barbarism and cannibalism are the twin evils for the justification of the brain dead fraud.

TRUE DEATH: When true death (Maut) has transpired, all human organs are rendered lifeless and useless. There is no longer any hayaat (life) in them. Such dead and decaying meat serves no beneficial purpose to the medical butchers, hence the imperative need for the ‘brain dead’ theory. Any death-inflicting act on the human body subsequent to the ‘brain dead’ pronouncement, is in exactly the same category as a deathinflicting act prior to this fraudulent pronouncement. While western law still recognizes as murder the infliction of unjustified death before the ‘ brain dead’ pronouncement, it no longer recognizes this infliction as murder if executed after the patient has been certified ‘brain dead’. An act of intentional killing has been excluded from murder on the basis of the fallacious and fraudulent ‘brain dead’ theory in exactly the same way as the murder of a human baby is excluded from murder if the murder is perpetrated within its mother’s womb. So far, there remains some sanity to concede that killing the infant after it has emerged from its pre-terrestrial abode is murder.

KUFR: Since kufr is utterly devoid of the slightest vestige of goodness and morality, kuffaar quite comfortably, without the slightest pang of conscience fabricate products such as ‘brain dead’-murder and abortionmurder. But Islam has no truck with these acts of savagery. The ‘brain dead’ theory is not recognized by the Shariah.

ALIVE: As long as there exists the slightest activity in the human body, the person is alive according to the Shariah. The Rooh still inhabits its physical body. The breathing is attributed to the Rooh, and it is the Rooh which sustains the functions of the failing organs until the arrival of the appointed moment of Maut. Stating this fact with great clarity and emphasis, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “A person will not die except with the permission (command) of Allah at the appointed time.”

THE MACHINE: The function of the machine is in the same category as the function of medicine, a remedy, a bandage and the like. While abstention from medicine and medical treatment is permissible, deliberate denial of a life-sustaining measure which normally leads to death is haraam. If an asthmatic is gasping for air, and a doctor or any other knowledgeable person intentionally and deliberately denies him the treatment to relieve and save him from suffocating, he (the doctor) is morally guilty of murder in Islam even if he has not actively caused the death with his hands. If the doctor/relative knows that removal of the machine from the asthmatic will cause suffocation leading to death, he will be guilty of murder because he had actively committed an act which he is fully aware will bring about the death of the patient.

REMOVAL: The machine may be removed only if it serves absolutely no beneficial purpose. If the machine is connected to the patient to sustain the functioning of a particular organ, but fails to do so, it may be removed due to its redundancy. But, if it assists the organ in its functioning, no matter how slight, disconnection will be haraam unless the patient who is a man of Taqwa, who does not understand these modern contraptions, and who has no intention of suicide insists that the contraption be removed. Abstention from medical treatment is the right of a Muslim, especially if he is a person of high Tawakkul. But he too may not resort to any method which normally leads to death.

THE DOCTOR: The Muslim doctor who had advised the disconnection of the respirator inspite of the fact that it was assisting the breathing function of the patient, is guilty of a grievous crime and sin. While technically not murder, morally it is vile, absolutely evil and haraam. His advice culminated in the death or killing of the patient.

THE RELATIVES: The relatives, if they were sincere and had no ulterior motives, are shockingly stupid for venturing the permissibility of killing their patient on the basis of their fallacious interpretation. Undoubtedly, Friday is an auspicious occasion. Maut on a Friday is a blessed event and of great benefit for a Mu’min. Undoubtedly the trials of the Grave are waived for the Mu’min who dies on a Friday. But, this never justifies killing a person on a Friday to ensure that he participates in the blessings and benefits of this great and auspicious day.

Their logic is extremely crooked, absurd and repugnant. They delayed the disconnection in anticipation of the entry of Friday to ensure Maut takes place on this holy day. By this act of intentional delay in anticipation of the arrival of Friday, they have damned themselves. In so doing they had admitted that the patient was alive on Thursday, and if the machine is disconnected on Friday, he will die, thereby being entitled to the spiritual benefits of Friday. In the recesses of their hearts and high above in their minds, they had the awareness that Maut had not arrived, hence they contemplated to inflict death after sunset when Friday would commence.

If they had honestly believed that their man had already died on Thursday when the doctor announced the stupid fraud of ‘brain dead’, the request to ‘sustain’ him with the machine at least until 7 p.m. was absurd and utterly meaningless. But, in reality it was not meaningless because they knew that the man was still alive, and that he would die only after disconnection of the machine on Friday. The scenario was absolutely terrible and morally appalling. The Muslim doctor and the relatives must now live with their conscience for the rest of their lives for having colluded in bringing about the death of the patient. If there is some flicker of life in their conscience, it will benefit them by inducing them to repent — make Taubah. But they will be capable of this only if their brains are not spiritually dead. While the patient was alive at the point when he was certified ‘brain dead’, the relatives and the Muslim doctor were spiritually brain dead. May Allah Ta’ala save us all from such dastardly and perfidious misdeeds.

Question:

A Person had a sex-change operation from man to woman. This person now wants to embrace Islam. Does Islam recognize such sex-changes? If the person was a woman and had changed to a man, would his imaamate be acceptable? What rules in general will apply to such persons?

Answer:

Some people are born with two sets of organs, male and female. The one set is sometimes more developed than the other or the one may be functional while the other is inactive or the one may be fully functional and the other partially functional or both may be functional. If the male organ is functional, not the female organ, then the person is classified a male by the Shariah. If the female organ is functional, not the male one, the person will be a woman. If both are functional, but the male organ is dominant in its functioning, then the person will be a male. If the female organ is dominant, the person will be a female. If both function, the sex remains undetermined and the person is called Khuntha Mushkil. There are laws pertaining to the Kuntha Mushkil. A medical operation for correcting the disorder and for ensuring that only one organ functions is permissible. It is permissible for a Khuntha Mushkil to have an operation so that only one organ functions. This is not a sex-change. It is rather treatment to correct a disorder. However, assuming that by some technique a person who is originally a man or a woman can undergo a sex change operation, then this will be haraam. It will be an act of shaitaan in terms of the Qur’aan Shareef. It will be described as taghyeer khalqillaah or to change the natural creation of Allah Ta’ala. Such a person will remain what he/she was originally. The sex `change’ will not be recognized. If Allah Ta’ala has created a person a man or a woman, he/she will remain so and be classified as such. The original classification will not change by artificial means.

Question:

Is it valid in the Shariah to establish paternity by some medical testing?

Answer:

In the Shariah this is not a valid way of establishing paternity.

Question:

Is it permissible for a moffie to undergo a sex-change operation? By moffie I refer to a person who is a male, but he behaves like a female. He wears female dress and acts like a woman. Medical science says that such a person has more female hormones although physically he is a male. What is the Shariah’s ruling?

Answer:

It is haraam for the `moffie’ to undergo a sex-change operation. Such a person will be punished in an Islamic state for acting like a woman and dressing like one. Such persons were expelled from Madinah by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They have to maintain total Purdah for women. Hemaphrodites may undergo sex-change operations. In fact it is incorrect to call it a sex-change operation. The operation will be to correct a physical abnormality and deformity. An hermaphrodite is a person born with both male and female organs, the one may be more developed than the other.

Question:

Many people benefit from organ transplantation. Is it permissible to bequeathe one’s organs for use in others after one’s death?

Answer:

Organ transplantation is haraam. Regardless of the benefit, a haraam act cannot be legalized. There is benefit in liquor, gambling and according to the scientists and doctors of western medicine in excreta and urine as well. But such benefit does not render these impurities halaal. Similarly, the benefits of organ transplantation do not render this practice lawful. It is haraam to bequeathe one’s organs. Human organs may not be used for any purpose whatsoever.

Question:

It has been claimed that the Fiqh Academy based in Jeddah has issued the fatwa that organ transplantation and bequeathing organs are permissible. Please comment.

Answer:

This modernist academy consisting of liberals and semi-orthodox learned men who incline towards liberalism is not a Shar’i authority. Some Molvis when they are bereft of any Shar’i arguments seek refuge in the statements of such liberal organisations which make great use of personal opinion to even override the Shariah. The deviant Salafis who have renounced the Taqleed of the Four Math-habs at least have a bit more shame and sense then our modernist molvis of shallow learning. The Salafis cite the Qur’aan and Sunnah as their proof, albeit subject to their opinion. But they do say: Qur’aan and Sunnah. But our modernist molvis lack even the intelligence to say: “Qur’aan and Sunnah”. They do not know whether they are coming or going, hence they irrationally blurt out drivel such as “the Arab Ulama say so and the Jeddah Fiqh Academy has passed this and that resolution:” Only men bereft of true Shar’i Ilm behave so irrationally and weakly. They bypass the Shariah’s Proofs and the Fuqaha, and then cling to straws like the modernist academies. They dwell in deception and error manifest.

Q. The press recently reported that there is life in the unborn baby at even 12 weeks (i.e. 84 days). The report states: “Compelling pictures of babies in the womb apparently smiling, crossing their hands, and making walking leg movements appeared in the British newspapers this week (July 2004), prompting calls to review abortion laws. Real time images show a 12 week-old foetus stretching and making kicking movements with its feet…..A 14 to 15 week-old foetus sucks its thumb and yawns….”

How does this new discovery impact on Islam’s view that the rooh (soul) enters the foetus on the 120th day. Based on this, the Shariah allows abortion for a valid reason before 120 days. But in the cases mentioned above, not only life has entered the foetus long before 120 days, but the baby is fully formed. Please comment.

The entry of the Rooh on the 120th day is established on the basis of Saheeh Hadith. There is no doubt in this fact. It is Mansoos Alayh (i.e. on which exists categoric proof of either the Qur’aan or Saheeh Hadith). Secondly, it should be understood that every rule has exceptions. Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) spoke from the womb of his mother, i.e. before birth. This is an exceptional case. Hadhrat Maryam (alayhas salaam) miraculously conceived Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) without the normal worldly agency of reproduction. This is also an exception to the rule. If the soul has in reality entered the 84 day old foetus, at most it can be argued that it is an exception to the rule. Allah Ta’ala is not bound by laws and rules which are meant for human beings.

Furthermore, there is no qat-iyyat (absolute certitude) in a claim that the rooh has indeed entered the 12 week-old foetus. The movements of the foetus cannot be attributed with absolute certitude to a rooh which has entered it. It is quite possible that the movements of the 12 week-old foetus are the consequences of the Rooh of the mother just as the movements and activities of the heart, lungs and all bodily organs without their own souls are the consequences of the Soul of the being in whom these organs exist. The numerous organs in the human body are without independent souls, but they have their movements and functions which they execute. For their activities they are dependent on the Rooh of the person. Similarly, it is quite possible that in certain cases the Rooh of the mother exercises an influence on the soulless foetus in the same way as her Rooh impacts on her other bodily organs. The mother herself smiles, walks, sits and make all types of movements. Her internal organs have their own forms of respective movement. All these movements, both inward and outward, are the consequences of the action of the Rooh. There is no rational argument to refute a contention that the mother’s Rooh influences her foetus just as it activates all her other bodily organs. After all, the foetus is part of her body. It is attached to her. Her Rooh physically nourishes, sustains and develops her foetus through the intermediary of numerous organs. This contention, namely, the movements of the foetus are the effects of the action of its mother’s Rooh, is therefore not far-fetched, leave alone it being a rational impossibility.

Whether the movements of the 12 weekold foetus are the voluntary and conscious effects of its own rooh or the mechanical consequences of the action of the mother’s Rooh in the same way as all her other organs react to the Rooh, are not known and cannot be established by this latest discovery. Professor Campell who made the pictures of the foetus observed: “What’s behind the smile, of course, I can’t say, but the corners turn up and the cheeks bulge.” The ‘turning of the corners’ and the bulging of the cheeks are not absolute evidence for conscious smiling or voluntary smiling. The smile-like movement could be an involuntary reaction to some assertion of the mother’s Rooh or the action of some of her bodily organs.

The latest discovery may just be a discovery of what is common to all foetuses prior to 120 days. This particular 12 week-old foetus may not be an exception. Other foetuses of this age and less may also be behaving in a similar way. The new technique of technology has enabled the professor to make his pictures. These images are not discernible with the techniques hitherto employed. Hence the report says: “Campbell made the pictures in 3D-4D, a new technique in existence since 2001 with photos in three dimension with video animation enabling study of foetus movements in real time.” The information which the new technique has brought to light might be common to all foetuses of less than 120 days. If this could be ascertained, it will confirm that the movements are the effects of the mother’s Rooh and organs.

Furthermore, the Hadith of 120 days is not related to abortion. The ruling of the Shariah on abortion is:

• Abortion is haraam if any human form, eg. finger, hand, etc., has developed regardless of any reason. No reason is considered valid for abortion if any human form has developed.

• If no form has developed, the foetus being only a clot, then if there is a valid Shar’i reason, abortion is permissible prior to 120 days.

• Under no circumstances is abortion permissible if life is discerned by any means whatsoever, and be it prior to 120 days.

Consider the example of a pregnant woman having died. If signs of life are detected in the foetus, it is Waajib to operate and remove the baby regardless of the age of the pregnancy. The principle is the existence of life, not the Hadith which mentions that the Rooh enters on the 120th day. It is quite possible that Allah Ta’ala decrees the infusion of rooh into the foetus even before 120 days. And Allah knows best.

Question:

Is the test-tube baby technique permissible in Islam?

Answer:

It is not permissible.

Q. Please comment on the use of medicines containing Haraam and abhorrent ingredients?

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Allah has not created the shifa’ (cure) of my Ummah in substances which have been made haraam for them.” Najaasat (filth/impurity) is a natural attribute of kufr. Imaan repels najaasat since it is the very antithesis of all Imaani attributes of excellence. It is the natural affinity between najaasat and kufr which draws the western medical establishment irresistibly towards experimentation with filth and impurities. In fact, they savour a coprophilic concept of medical efficacy in impure and filthy substances. It is therefore not at all surprising that despite the existence of millions of varieties of pure and beneficial substances in the plant and stone kingdoms, western medical scientists almost always incline to experiment with filth – blood, urine, faeces, human after-birth substances, diseased cells, and many other items of najaasat. Aggravating this concept, is their concept of brutality to animals. In the name of medicine they inflict the most horrendous acts of torture and brutality on the dumb creatures of Allah Ta’ala. Muslims who are being reared in western culture and indoctrinated with the concepts propounded by the western atheists are increasingly accepting the institutions of najaasat and zulm of their western masters and tutors. This evil trend is overwhelming the brains of even the Ulama who search in the avenues of the Shariah for ways to halaalize the filth and brutality of the western medical establishment. The argument of Dhuroorah (dire need) is invariably presented for halaalizing everything which the Shariah has prohibited. The Qur’aan and the Sunnah unambiguously and emphatically prohibit filth and impurity of all kinds. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) unequivocally declared the negation of shifa (cure) for his Ummah in all impure and haraam substances. Despite such substances possessing medicinal properties and shifa’, the Shariah has decreed its prohibition in the same way has liquor is banned whilst the Qur’aan acknowledges its ‘many benefits’. Since filth is prohibited, it does not behove people of Imaan to incline towards medicine of filth nor to aid the process of entrenching in the Ummah medical treatment with filth and haraam. The permissibility of Tadaawi bil haraam (medication with haraam substances) is never the norm for Muslims. It is firstly a permissibility which Taqwa rebuffs. Secondly, it applies to exceptional cases, urgencies and emergencies, and if at such times halaal medication is not available. The rule of Tadaawi bil haraam was never intended to be a basis for establishing haraam and filthy medication to be a permanent, acceptable and respectable institution as a valid replacement for halaal and wholesome medication. But the erosion of Imaan has made najaasat and haraam acceptable and respectable to Muslims. Thus, filth banks storing najaasat are regarded to be perfectly halaal, and blood transfusions have become the norm. The original element, viz., Dhuroorah (dire need), has been forgotten, in fact abrogated. Initially, the permissibility was conditioned with dire need. No longer nowadays. A Muslim is a being who has or who is supposed to have yaqeen in the Aqaaid of Islam. Beliefs in Islam are not supposed to be limited to verbal profession. They have to permeate our physical and spiritual beings, and be a living force in our life. We believe that every iota that happens in the universe is with the command and direct intervention of Allah Azza Wa Jal. We are under obligation to act within the parameters and boundaries of the Shariah. We are not supposed to think like the kuffaar and atheist doctors and scientists whose minds first and foremost dwell towards najaasat for cure and benefit. Our Fiqah and Shariah, and our entire life must necessarily be blended and painted with the spirit of the Sunnah and conditioned with the demand of our Aqaaid. There is no need to look at kufr and najaasat for our progress and benefit. When Allah Ta’ala has negated the shifa’ of this Ummah in haraam and najaasat, then it is akin to kufr for Muslims to actively and ardently contrive ways and methods of promoting najis and haraam medicine and medication. The argument of ‘emergency’ has no validity. When an emergency develops, the bridge will be crossed at that time. Muslims are required to have tawakkul, sabr and yaqeen on Allah Ta’ala. He will see us through the emergencies. He is the Creator of the disease and of its cure. Our obligation is to submit to His Commands as we have pledged, while His obligation is to nourish and sustain us as He has promised.

Q . Some Ulama say that it is permissible to donate blood for future use. It is not possible to acquire blood for an emergency by means of on -the-spot donation. Therefore blood can be donated for future emergencies. The argument of these Ulama goes as follows: “…The ruling with regards to donating blood would be that if there is a patient in the throes of death and the doctors say that there is strong hope that a transfusion would save the patient’s life and an urgent appeal for donation is made at the spur of the moment, then one would be permitted to donate blood, otherwise not. However, in view of the challenges facing the medical fraternity in this time and era, this ruling in its essence is not applicable due to the fact that there are stringent regulations that have to be adhered to, before a donor’s blood can be considered suitable for transfusion into a recipient, such as screening donor’s blood for diseases such as HIV, etc. It would thus be difficult to get suitable blood on the spur of the moment. Therefore one is allowed to donate blood whenever the call for donations is made, even though there may not be at that specific moment an urgent appeal made for a patient…… The donor, however, should donate his/her blood with the intention that the blood must be used in times of extreme necessity for someone who is in dire need of it. There are two reasons for the permissibility of blood transfusion in spite of it constituting the usage of human body part, whereas it has been mentioned that organ transplants are not permissible for the very same reason. The reasons for permissibility of blood transfusion in lifethreatening situations are as follows: Firstly, there is hardly any pain felt when removing blood from the body, contrary to that of removing a limb. Secondly, the jurist have given it the same law as the drinking of woman’s milk. It is permissible for a baby to drink the milk of a woman. Milk is produced from blood. So just as it is permissible to drink the milk, it is permissible to use the blood of another person (in dire necessity).

A . We disagree with the permissibility of blood donation. The two arguments presented for permissibility are utterly baseless and even weird. It is ludicrous to compare blood with milk. Blood is najaasat while milk is wholesome. Milk has been created by Allah Ta’ala specifically for the nourishment of the infant, not so blood. It is therefore a gross error to liken blood with mother’s milk. The averment that blood is halaal like milk is palpably baseless. The analogy is devoid of substance. There is no comparison between pure, halaal, wholesome mother’s milk and impure, haraam blood. If woman’s milk is ‘produced from blood’, it does not halaalize blood. It does not render blood taahir (pure and wholesome) like milk. While the milk is halaal tayyib, the blood remains najis. The averment: “So just as it is permissible to drink the milk, it is permissible to use the blood of another person.”, is absurd. Consumption of the milk is because it is taahir, halaal and tayyib. Above all, its permissibility is by the Decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Furthermore, the milk remains halaal and tayyib even after separation from the human being whereas human parts become impure after separation from the body. The introduction of the term ‘just’ is therefore stupid. There is absolutely no common factor for making this weird and ludicrous analogy. The contention of ‘dire necessity’ comes within the scope of an entirely distinct and separate principle of the Shariah. While it will be correct to say that a haraam substance becomes temporarily permissible on the basis of ‘dire necessity’, the claim that in a situation of ‘dire necessity’ blood becomes halaal because milk is halaal, is unintelligent and ridiculous, and not worthy of intelligent rebuttal. The temporary hillat (permissibility) of an original haraam substance is based solely on the element of ‘dire necessity’. There is no need to fabricate a fictitious, illogical and untenable second basis for a hukm (law) which is the effect of ‘dire necessity’ (Dhuroorat). The Mufti Sahib who has formulated the incorrect fatwa pertaining to blood transfusion, writes in the very same article: “It is not permissible to donate organs or to have organ transplants done, even if there be a dire necessity for it. The usage of a man’s organs is not permissible because of the nobility and respect of man…..Whether a man is living or dead, it is not permissible to use any part of his body. Firstly due to his respect and secondly, due to the pain and difficulty he undergoes on that limb being removed.” Despite the element of ‘dire necessity’, the Mufti Sahib has created a distinction between organs and blood. The raison d’etre for the Mufti Sahib’s negation of the use of human organs despite ‘dire necessity’ such as fear of death, is ‘nobility and pain’. Thus, it is clear that ‘dire necessity’ is not an unrestricted principle for halaalizing what is haraam. As far as blood is concerned, the raison d’etre for the prohibition is nobility and najaasat.Blood as part of the human body enjoys the same nobility as body organs while it is inside the human body. After detachment from the body it is najis (impure) just as otherhuman organs are impure after separation from the body. From this angle, organs and blood have the same raison d’etre for the prohibition. Human blood too may not be flushed down the sewerage drain. It has also to be deposited underground just as is the case with detached human organs. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) issued a specific instruction to bury the blood which was extracted by the process of Hijaamah (Cupping). Human blood despite its attribute of impurity is not in the same category as urine and faeces. Hence, the ‘after birth’ items despite being najis have to be buried. The distinction which the respected Mufti Sahib theorized for the purpose of halaalizing blood-donation and blood-storing, is logically and Islamically unsound. Pork becomes permissible on the basis of dire necessity. The element of Dhuroorah overrides all other factors, and the haraam substance is rendered temporarily permissible solely on the basis of ‘dire necessity’. If the principle of Dhuroorah is applied to blood, there is no logical reason why it cannot be extended to organs. Regarding the element of ‘pain’, it should be understood that lack of pain is not a halaalizer of haraam. Cutting hair and nails is painless. Despite the total absence of pain, it is not permissible to utilize human hair and nails. These items of the human body have to be incumbently buried. Furthermore, if a human organ can be painlessly removed, it does not follow that its utilization is halaal. An eleventh finger is an abnormality. If such an abnormal limb is painlessly removed, its use remains haraam solely on the basis of it having been a part of Insaan (the human being). The same applies to teeth. Human teeth cannot be utilized for any purpose. Thus, the element of Karaamat (Nobility) of Insaan is the primary consideration for the prohibition of utilization and derivation of benefit from any human part with the exception (Istithna’) of mother’s milk whose permissibility is the effect of Nass-e-Qat’i. The exercise of analogizing blood with milk is both illogic and redundant. Secondly just as swine flesh may not be stored in freezers for use at a later day in countries where people may still die of starvation, and just as urine may not be stored for future patients who will be in dire need of the urine medicine, and just as faeces may not be stored for future use when they will still discover the medicinal properties of human faeces, so too the impurity of blood may not be acquired by way of ‘donation’ so as to treasure it for future use. The common denominator of urine, faeces and blood is najaasat. ‘Wonderful’ medicinal properties have already been discovered in human urine. In fact, a Hindu sect in India drinks glasses of their own urine. One of India’s past prime ministers was an ardent advocate of urineconsumption. And, who knows! We may soon have ‘halaal’ urine. It remains to be seen who will win the rights to issue a halaal certificate for urine, and thereafter for medical faeces. Will it be SANHA, the MJC, NIHT, ICSA? The readers can ruminate and juggle their brains to unravel this conundrum. If today blood-banks are halaaized, then tomorrow there will be no logical reason for haraamizing urine and faeces banks. After all, the human faeces – ‘halaal’ urine and ‘halaal’ excreta – will, for the minimum, bear the designation ‘APPROVED’. Right now can the honourable Mufti Sahib come to terms with urine and faeces banks? If not, then on what basis does he accept blood-banks? If urine and faeces banks are acceptable and halaal to him, for logically there is no reason for differentiating between blood and these coprophilic substances, then we throw in the intellectual towel. Engaging stercoraceous brains defiled with coprophilic tendencies is most demeaning and befits only those whose intellectual capacity has atrophied. In our glittering, celestial, divine, pure and holy Shariah, there is no scope for elevating Najaasat to the pedestal which pure and wholesome medicine occupies. Thus, blood banks, urine banks and faeces banks are HARAAM, and no ‘halaal’ certificate can ever halaalize accretions of filth.

Q. A married, infertile woman became pregnant by the test-tube technique. The sperm of another man was used. Is the child legitimate? Will this child inherit in the husband’s estate? What does the Shariah say about the paternity of such a child?

A. Morally the woman is guilty of zina, though not in terms of the Zaahiri Shariah. The husband who permitted this vile, immoral haraam act is a Dayyooth (immoral cuckold who puts up his wife for prostitution). Inspite of the gravity of the sin and evil, the child is legitimate since it was born to a woman in wedlock. The paternity of the child is established. He will bear the name of this Dayyooth. The child will inherit normally. It should be understood that the test-tube technique is not permissible even if the husband’s sperm is used. And, the ‘fatwas’ of modernist so-called ‘fiqh academies’ of Egypt and Saudi Arabia carry no substance in the Shariah.

Q. Some Muftis says that IVF is permissible. Please comment?

A. IVF (in vitro fertilisation), – the test-tube baby technique – is an unnatural medical technique to impregnate infertile females. The fertilization process is executed in the laboratory, and the resultant embryo is then introduced into the woman’s womb. In this unnatural method the sperm of the husband is acquired by him having to masturbate. This is the first haraam and mal-oon (accursed) abomination which has to be committed. The process is initiated with a major act of immorality. The elements required for this process, which are obtained from the husband and the wife, are then stored. The embryo developed outside the human is later introduced into the womb. Some Muftis when answering questions, adopt an extremely lackadaisical attitude. They lack wisdom and fail to understand the gravity of the office of Ifta’ (issuing fatwas). A Mufti has to have wisdom and an in depth understanding of the people and environment. He should be able to comprehend the far reaching consequences of his fatwa. It is despicable for a Mufti to blurt out and dole fatwas as if he is answering some type of amusement quiz such as the shaitaaniyyat which pollutes the Shaitaani radio stations. For example, a Mufti answering the question: ‘Is IVF permissible?’, blurts out without thinking and without being aware of the entire procedure involved in this technique. It is imperative for the Mufti to have adequate awareness of the procedure from beginning to ending. If he lacks this information, then it is Waajib for him to inform the questioner that he does not know and that the question should be referred to another Mufti. However, nowadays, Muftis suffering from the malady of pride, deem it below their dignity to say: ‘I don’t know.’ Hence, they will issue perfunctory ‘fatwas’ which mislead people and which involve them in haraam acts. The Mufti who summarily says that IVF is permissible, acquits himself unprofessionally notwithstanding him suspending the permissibility on the fact that the sperm must be that of the husband. It is a display of gross ignorance by the Mufti to say IVF is permissible if (and this is an extremely big if) the sperm is that of the husband. This is not the whole issue. This Mufti fails to take into account the following factors: • That the haraam act of masturbation has to be committed for the acquisition of something which is not commanded by the Shariah. That there is absolutely no guarantee that the sperm of the husband is utilized in the fertilization process. This condition on which a Mufti basis his fatwa of permissibility is practically nonexistent. He is unaware of the many mix-ups which have happened. The sperm of other men is used and introduced into his wife. He is ignorant of the fact that the entire process is executed by fussaaq and kuffaar physicians who are the supervisors and the controllers. There is no 100% pious Muslim supervision from the time the sperm has been acquired in the haraam manner until the time of introduction into the woman. When the Shariah stipulates 100% Muslim supervision and a 100% Halaal Chain for even meat to remain halaal, then the importance of a Halaal Chain of supervision regarding such a delicate issue as IVF can be fully understood and appreciated. The supervision and control have necessarily to be 100% perfect. Far – extremely far from perfection is the supervision and control in the IVF process. In fact there is absolutely no Shar’i supervision to ensure without the slightest vestige of doubt that the matter introduced into the wife is that of her husband. Some reports on ‘mix-ups’ are reproduced here to give an idea of the gross neglect and total lack of Shar’i supervision. Should it momentarily be assumed that both the aforementioned corrupt and haraam elements are eliminated and no Shar’i violation is committed regarding the acquisition of the husband’s sperm and the storage process, then too this technique is not permissible. Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed: “The sovereignty of the heavens and the earth belongs to Allah. He creates whatever He wishes. He bestows females to whomever He wishes, and He bestows males to whomever He wishes. And to whomever He wishes He bestows male and female. And, He creates barren whomever He wishes.” There are similar Qur’aanic verses pertaining to the same subject. Allah Ta’ala decrees creation. A soul will be born only by the will and command of Allah Azza Wa Jal. No technique can thwart the Divine Ordinance. This issue is like the pursuit of Rizq commanded by Allah Ta’ala. While it is incumbent to seek Rizq (sustenance), the quest has to be confined to halaal methods. This world is the abode of test and trial. He who is unsatisfied and desires to procure his rizq in just any way will obtain it even by plodding the path of haraam. Similarly, he who desires to gratify his carnal lust will acquire offspring in a haraam manner with all its miserable consequences. In this earthly life we are commanded to adopt a measure of abstinence within the strict confines of the Shariah. What is haraam, doubtful, unnatural and in conflict with even the moral spirit of Islam must necessarily be shunned. Thus, couples who appear to be barren, should repose their trust in Allah Ta’ala. While they may resort to medical treatment, it is not permissible to pursue the treatment beyond the confines of the Shariah. It is imperative to conduct oneself within even the moral limits of Islam. Tawakkul (Trust in Allah), Qanaa-at (to be contented with Allah’s decrees), Ridha (to be pleased with Allah’s Decree), Dua (supplication) and Tafweedh (assigning one’s affairs to Allah Ta’ala), are all imperative requisites, the pursuit of which is Waajib. These noble attributes of moral excellence so necessary for the acquisition of spiritual elevation are not hobbies nor voluntary options. They are Imaani imperatives, the cultivation of which is Waajib. These are among the objectives of worldly life. Apart from the Shar’i prohibition, IVF also violently conflicts with the moral concepts of Islam. Islam is a combination of the Zaahir and the Baatin (the physical and the spiritual – the esoteric and the exoteric – the inward and the outward). It is haraam to dispense with any one of these two vital complements. Minus one wing, the Bird cannot fly. It will be a ready victim for any predator. We advise and admonish the Muftis to exercise circumspect and responsibility when answering questions, and to profess their inability to answer without  hesitation if they lack knowledge, awareness or adequate information germane to the question.

LONDON, July 8 — A white couple have become the parents of black twins after a mistake by a fertility clinic during in-vitro fertilization in what appears to be the first case of its kind in Britain. The mix-up was first reported by the newspaper The Sun. In response, the High Court issued an injunction forbidding the publication or broadcasting of details of the case. The case also involves a black couple who sought treatment at the same clinic but did not have any children afterward. A court case this fall will address the question of who the legal parents are. (The New York Times) In this case, despite the black couple having undergone the in-vitro treatment, they did not beget children. There are many similar cases where the technique has failed to yield the desired results. Allah Ta’ala is the Sole Creator. The technique works only if the appearance of the soul has been decreed by Allah Ta’ala.

TEST-TUBE BABY’S DNA DIFFERS FROM FATHER’S

SINGAPORE

A SINGAPORE private medical centre apologised for a sperm mix-up in an in vitro fertilisation treatment that resulted in the baby having DNA different to that of the putative father. “We fully empathise with the couple and are very sorry and distressed about what has happened,” said Cheng Li Chang, medical director of the Thomson Fertility Centre. A DNA test in a Hong Kong laboratory at the parents’ request showed that the baby, who was born on October 1, had the mother’s DNA but not the official father’s, their lawyer said; — AFP The Times, 5 Nov 2010

NO GENERIC TESTS

No generic tests are carried out to ensure that the right embryos are implanted into the right woman, so fertility clinics rely on a complex set of checks to avoid mistakes. In this case, The SUN reported, it is unclear whether the Black couple’s fertilized egg was mistakenly implanted in the white woman, or whether the black man’s sperm had been used to fertilize the white woman’s egg. Apart from being a tragedy for the parents involved, it is also a major embarrassment for the National Health Service ……………………… The big problem now is, who are the real parents of the twins?” (The New York Times)

WOMAN TO GIVE BIRTH AFTER IVF MIX-UP

(Sept. 21) — In a few short weeks, Carolyn Savage will give birth after going through a vitro fertilization. But she and her husband will be forced to say hello and goodbye in just a few moments before they give the baby up — because the baby she’s carrying belongs to someone else. Savage was implanted with another couple’s embryos at an Ohio fertility clinic in February. “They delivered the worst news of our life,” her husband, Sean Savage, told Meredith Vieira on NBC’S ‘Today’ show Monday. He received the call from the clinic that his wife was pregnant, but with another couple’s child. They were told they could either terminate the pregnancy, which wasn’t something they wanted to do because of their religious beliefs, or carry the foetus to term and then give him to his biological parents.” (AOL NEWS)

THE MIX-UPS – TIP OF THE ICEBERG

The known cases of invitro-mix -ups merely represent the tip of the iceberg. Whilst the physicians involved in this technique will defend the system, saying that the mix-up danger is “a one in a million chance”, the facts and figures belie them. And, for Muslims in a matter of this nature, even a “one in a million chance” is too much of a chance. Men who consume liquor and devour pork and carrion will most certainly be the victims of neglect and carelessness. This is aggravated by the near impossibility of discovery. Mix-up discoveries are the rare exceptions. This technique in terms of Islam is an immoral system. A Muslim husband who is able to tolerate his wife being submitted to the gross indignity of nudity in the custody of kuffaar and fussaaq physicians who handle and mishandle her, must be an extraordinary, or better, an abominable dayyooth (immoral cuckold), bereft of honour and shame. When the human being is discontented with Allah’s decree, he degenerates to sub-animal levels. All shame and honour are sacrificed at the altar of carnal gratification.

 

Q. Is it permissible for a Muslim surgeon to do an operation involving transplanting of human organs?

A. It is haraam for him to participate in such an operation.

Q. What are the harms of disrupting the menstrual cycle?

A. The monthly menstrual cycle is a creation of Allah Azza Wa Jal designed to expel injurious and harmful filth, impurities and poisons from the female human body. Any interference to disrupt this natural cycle is fraught with serious health consequences. Many of the sicknesses from which women suffer could be attributed to their satanic interference in the natural creation of Allah Ta’ala. Such shaitaani interference is termed in the Qur’aan Majeed, Taghyeer khalqillaah (changing the natural creation of Allah). The Qur’aan attributes this evil practice to shaitaan. The following is a report on the dangerous  onsequences of disrupting the natural menstrual cycle with haraam, poisonous pills and medication. PAINFUL DEATH CAN BE THE CONSEQUENCE “Recently this past week, Nicole Dishuk (age 31 … newly graduated student with a doctoral degree about to start her new career as a Doctor…) was flown into a nearby hospital, because she passed out. They found a blood clot in her neck, and immediately took her by helicopter to the ER to operate. By the time they removed the right half of her skull to relieve the pressure on her brain; the clot has spread to her brain causing severe damage. Since last Wednesday night, she was battling. They induced her into a coma to stop the blood flow, they operated 3 times… Finally, they said there was nothing left that they could do… They found multiple clots in the left side of her brain… The swelling wouldn’t stop, and she was on life support. She died at 4:30 yesterday. She leaves behind a husband and a 2yr old Brandon and a 4yr old Justin… The CAUSE of DEATH – they found was a birth control she was taking that allows you to only have your period 3 times a year… They said it interrupts life’s menstrual cycle, and although it is FDA approved… shouldn’t be – So to the women – I ask you to boycott this product and deal with your period once a month – so you can live the rest of the months that your life has in store for you. Please send this to every woman you know – you may save someone’s life… Remember, you have a CYCLE for a reason! For Your Information: The name of this new birth control pill is Lybrel. If you go to http://www.lybrel.com, you will find at least 26 pages of information regarding this drug. The second birth control pill is, Seasonique. If you go to the website of http:// www.seasonique.com, you will find 43 pages of information regarding this drug. The warnings and side effects regarding both pills are horrible.”

Q. What is the ruling regarding the use of contraceptive pills/medicine to prevent menstruation during Ramadhaan to avoid making qadha?

A. It is not permissible for women to use poison and harmful substances or any substance whatsoever to prevent their haidh periods whether in Ramadhaan or in any other month. It is not permissible for them to violate the natural law which Allah Ta’ala has created for the expulsion of the filth of haidh from their bodies. Unnatural storing of haidh in the body is vile and extremely harmful and haraam. By resorting to these haraam methods, they are storing extremely harmful najaasat inside their bodies. It causes even mental imbalance. The consequences of this evil and unnatural action are injurious. Their monthly periods will go haywire. Furthermore, a host of other diseases and sicknesses could develop and doctors will not know what the causes are nor be able to prescribe correct medication. Allah’s Law dictates that women MUST abstain from fasting during Ramadhaan for the duration of their haidh period, and to make qadha afterwards. This is the Law of Allah for them. It is abominable for women to act in flagrant violation of this Decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The haidh condition is not an accident. It is by divine decree.

Q. What is the Shariah’s view on Milk Banks?

A. Since there is no way to establish whose milk is fed to the babies from a milk bank, it is not permissible to establish such banks. It is haraam for Muslim women to ‘donate’ their milk to milk banks, and it is haraam to feed Muslim babies with such banks. Anyone who desires a detailed explanation may write for our article on this topic.

Q. Is it permissible for a daughter to donate a piece of her liver which is required to be transplanted in her father?

A. It is absolutely haraam for the daughter to have a piece of her liver cut and be transplanted into the body of her father or of any person. Such mutilation is haraam. Don’t be duped by these doctors with atheistic tendencies. All available remedies should be tried, and much dua made for recovery. Whatever Allah Ta’ala wills, shall transpire. A Muslim resigns himself/herself to the decree of Allah Ta’ala.

Q. A person needs a tooth implant for his front upper teeth. The bone above that tooth is also gone. For the implant to be successful it is necessary to fill the bone-gap in his upper jawbone with a powdered cement that is mixed and applied. The implant can then be done after a few months. There are three options regarding the cement: (i) The cement is made from human bone. (ii) The cement is made from cow bone. But cow bone cement does not hold up very well like human bone. (iii) The person’s own bone which will be scraped from his chin or hip or leg. Then the bone will be powdered and used. What is the ruling of the Shariah regarding these options?

A. Options one and three are haraam. It is haraam to use any human part for any purpose whatsoever. Only option number two is permissible. The person may adopt option No. 2 and then make dua for the implant to be successful and enduring.

Q. Is it permissible to use Botox as a remedy?

A. Botox is derived from the blood serum of horses which are injected with botulinium bacteria. In other words, disease is injected into the horses. From such diseased horses is extracted the blood-serum from which Botox is manufactured. Botox is also derived from humans. It is therefore, not permissible to use Botox. However, if no halaal remedy is available for the disease of Botulism which is potentially fatal, then such Botox derived from horses may be used, not the Botox acquired from humans.

Q. It is known and understood that abortion is not permissible in Islam. If, however, the woman is an invalid and definite medical proof shows that childbirth will be extremely detrimental to the health of the woman, would it be permissible to resort to abortion under such circumstances?

A. Once life enters the foetus, abortion will never be permissible no matter what the circumstances. However, prior to life entering the foetus, abortion will he permissible if valid grounds exist, and if the medical experts say that childbirth will be “extremely detrimental” to a particular woman, abortion of the dead foetus will be permissible. However, abortion of even the dead foetus without reason is HARAAM. (ANSWER TAKEN FROM IMDAADUL FATAAWA.)

Q. Is it permissible to use contraceptives if the health of one’s wife does not permit childbirth?

A. It is permissible.

Q. The doctors have diagnosed that the baby I am carrying will be horribly malformed. They all recommend abortion. I am five months pregnant. Is abortion in this situation permissible?

A. At four months the foetus becomes a living human being. The Rooh enters the foetus when it has reached 120 days. Abortion at this time will be the murder of an innocent human being. Such murder is haraam. Never heed what the murderers advise you. Abortion in your case is haraam. If Allah Ta’alaa has decreed that your baby will be ‘horribly malformed’, you have to accept it with Sabr and treat it as an Amaanat entrusted to your care by your Creator. He knows best what is good for us. The Qur’aan states: “Perhaps you dislike something when in reality it is good for you.”