Q131: Is it permissible to donate the
eye or kidney of a living human being for another?
A: It is not permissible to donate the
eye. As for donating a kidney, for one who has another healthy
one, it is permissible. (FM, p. 415)
Q132: Some people stipulate in their
will that some organs of their body may be removed after death
for the purpose of transplantation in the body of another human
being in need of them. Is this kind of will correct, and is it
permissible to excise those parts (of the body) in such a case?
A: [Certainly not. It is not correct and
is not permissible] if the testator is a Muslim, except if the
life of another Muslim depends on this, then it is permissible
even if the donor has not made such a will. But [the diyah
will be obligatory on the one who does the excision] except where
it is done according to a will, in which case there is no diyah
on him. (FM, pp. 415-16)
Q133: Dissection of a corpse after
death, if it is done for a reasonable purpose such as criminal
investigation, teaching of medicine or similar purposes.
A: It is not permissible to dissect a
Muslim corpse for these kinds of reasons. The dissecting of the
body of an unbeliever whose blood is not protected during his
lifetime is permissible, and likewise when the protection of his
blood is doubtful, if there is no shar'i sign of it
being so (protected). (FM, p. 416)
Q134: Semen is taken from the husband
and injected into his wife with a needle or by other means.
A: It is permissible as such. (FM, p.
Q135: Is it permissible to inject it
(semen) into a woman who is not his wife?
A: No, it is not permissible. (FM, p.
Q136: The husband's sperm and
the wife's egg are taken and fertilization is completed
in a test-tube, then the egg is returned to the wife's
A: This is also permissible as such.
(FM, p. 433)
Q137a: The sperm of the husband and
the egg of another woman who is not his wife are taken for fertilization,
then are transferred to the wife's womb.
A: This is also permissible as such.
(FM, p. 433)
Q137b: To whom is the child attributed
in the latter case? To the provider of the egg or to the woman
in whose womb it reached full-term. I mean, who would be his
A: There are two possible responses to
this question, and it is necessary to exercise precaution between
both of them. (FM, p. 433)
Q138: An egg is taken from a woman
and fertilized with the sperm of a man other than her husband,
then it is returned to her womb.
A: It is necessary to avoid that. (FM,
Q139: Sperm was taken from a man for
the purpose of impregnating his wife. By coincidence, the husband
died and after his death the sperm was implanted into the womb
of his widow who bore a child. What is the ruling with respect
to the status of the child and his entitlement to inheritance?
A: The child is to be attributed to the
donor of the sperm, but based on this hypothetical question, he
does not inherit from him (the father). God knows best. (MMS,
p. 15, Q14)
Q140: It is easy to abort the foetus
in the early phase of pregnancy. Does the mother have a right
to abort it?
A: Certainly not, this is not permissible
except if she is harmed by the presence of the foetus in her womb,
or if its presence causes her difficulty to a degree that is not
normally tolerable. (FM, p. 430)
Q141: In recent times, due to modern
scientific instruments, it has become possible to know the situation
of the foetus, whether it is suffering from any physical deformity
or not. If the foetus is confirmed scientifically as being deformed
and afflicted with maladies or a malady, is it permissible to
A: Deformity of the foetus in itself is
no justification for aborting it. Yes, if its presence in the
mother's womb is harmful to her health or causes her difficulty
to an extent that cannot normally be tolerated, then it is permissible
for her to abort it and that is before the soul enters it. After
that, it is absolutely not permissible to abort. (FM, p. 432)
Q142: In some situations, the physicians
can confirm that the foetus is afflicted with serious physical
deformities which will not be treatable after birth, and it may
not survive after birth, except for a short while in pain (for
the child), causing toil for the parents. Then he will die.
Is it permissible for the mother in such a situation to terminate
(the pregnancy)? Does it make any difference if it occurs before
or after the soul enters? And with the supposition that it is
permissible, is diyah obligatory and who pays
A: Abortion is not permissible in situations
similar to the one mentioned, even prior to the entrance of the
soul. (MMS, pp. 30-31, Q60)
Q143: Use of contraceptives is popular
these days. If use of the pill and similar things causes harm
or difficulty and the only remaining choice is (the insertion)
of some devices -- by a male or a female doctor --
which requires exposing the local area, is it permissible for
the woman, knowing that pregnancy would cause her harm or difficulty?
A: It is permissible as long as she faces,
in both the pregnancy and the use of alternative contraceptive
methods, such hardship and danger that cannot be normally endured.
If this requires, in addition to exposing the genital organs,
other parts of her body surrounding the genitalia, then she must
refer to a female doctor. If this is not possible then she may
refer to a male practitioner. (FM, p. 428)
Q144: Some women wish to avoid pregnancy,
but their husbands want (them to get pregnant).
Follow up: How do they prevent the onset
Response: By using pills, injections or
the cleansing of the vagina after intercourse.
A: All of these are permissible if they
do not entail substantial harm to her. (FM, pp. 428-29)
A: If the woman knows that it will lead
to the destruction of the egg after its fertilization with the
husband's sperm [then it is not permissible for her to
use it]. (FM, p. 429)
Q146: Coitus interruptus
('azl), by which they prevent their husbands from
depositing the semen in the vagina during intercourse.
A: They do not have the right to do that.
(FM, p. 429)
Q147: Is it permissible for the husband
to force his wife not to get pregnant even though she wants to?
Follow up: How does he force her to do
Response: He forces her to take pills,
injections or use an IUD.
A: He has no right to do that. (FM, p.
Q148: What about practising coitus
interruptus during intercourse?
A: Yes he has the right to do that. (FM,
Q149: Is he permitted to use a condom
A: Yes [but he must obtain her consent
for that]. (FM, p. 429)
Q150: Pills that women take in order
to delay the onset of their monthly menstrual cycle.
A: They are permitted to use them. (FM,
Q151: There are pills that women take
to delay the onset of their monthly cycle in the days of the month
of Ramadan and the days of hajj, but sometimes
intermittent blood comes out during their cycle, but it does not
have the characteristics of a cycle. What is the ruling, if,
knowing that if she stops taking the medication, after 3 days,
she will have menstrual blood, and with the medication no menstrual
blood will come out except intermittently?
A: Based on this hypothetical question,
the ruling of hayd is not applicable to the intermittent
blood. God knows best. (MMS, p. 19, Q24)
Vasectomy and Tubectomy
Q152: Is it permissible for a man or
a woman to undergo an operation, after they have had enough children,
that would prevent them from ever having children again? If this
is not permissible, would the ruling differ if they were living
in an Islamic country that encourages birth control because of
A: It is not free from objection, although
its permissibility is not unlikely if it does not entail substantial
harm, such as removing certain organs like the ovaries of the
woman. God knows best. (MMS, pp. 19-20, Q26)
Q153: Lately, science has reached a
stage of being able to determine the relationship of the father
to his son through blood analysis where their genes match. If
the husband suspects that his wife has had relations with another
man and as a result has gotten pregnant, and if the blood analysis
leads to genes matching with that man, knowing that this analysis
is never incorrect, is it obligatory to act upon the findings
or should one follow the principle "the son belongs to
the marital bed," or follow the result of this proof?
A: "The son belongs to the marital
bed" is a principle made for the one who is doubtful. Whoever
arrives at a knowledge through blood analysis or otherwise, that
goes contrary to this principle should act in accordance with
his knowledge. Adultery by the wife is not confirmed by this
and the penalty of adultery cannot be implemented except after
establishing it through specific stipulated methods in the shari'ah.
God knows best. (MMS, pp. 14-15, Q12)
Q154: Lately, science has reached a
stage where it can identify a murderer by analysing the blood
without seeking recourse to other means. It has reached a degree
of precision that makes it possible to determine the instrument
that was used to carry out the homicide. Is it possible to rely
on this to judge a criminal and apply the penalty or not? Or
does one have to act only on the well-known principles of the
A: A murder is not proven and its ruling
cannot be implemented except through the methods of the shari'ah
or through clear scientific means unmingled with personal judgment.
If what has been mentioned is conducted through this established
way, then it is permissible for al-hakim al-shar'i
to give a ruling in accordance with it. God knows best. (MMS,
p. 15, Q13)
Q155: Before taking medication, is
it obligatory to investigate and confirm the correctness of its
components to find out whether it contains any prohibited ingredients?
A: Certainly not, it is not obligatory
to investigate and confirm. (FM, p. 415)
Q156: Many medications and disinfectants
contain a small amount of alcohol. Is it permissible to use them,
and are they ritually impure?
A: They are not ritually impure and it
is permissible for you to use them. (FM, p. 415)
Q157: Some companies experiment with
medication on a patient without informing him in order to see
if the medication is effective and successful.
A: It is not permissible for them to do
that. (FM, p. 416)
Buying and Selling Blood
Q158: Buying and selling blood for
A: It is permissible. (FM, p. 412)
Q159: In hospitals, female nurses feel
the pulse, measure blood pressure, dress wounds, etc.
1. Is it obligatory for the male patient
to disallow the female nurse from touching his body?
A: It is possible for him to request a
male nurse for the aforementioned acts or to request the female
nurse to wear gloves or place a barrier like a handkerchief to
interpose without touching his body. (FM, p. 426)
2. Sometimes out of necessity, a male
patient requires direct touching and there is no male nurse or
to request one is difficult, or the female nurse is gentler to
the patient than the male nurse.
A: If necessity requires examination or
treatment, and they depend on direct touching, then this is permissible
based on the question, but only to the extent necessary. (FM,
3. If the wound is in a private area,
requiring bandage, what can be done?
A: The patient must request that the nurse
-- male or female -- use gloves or place a barrier
to avoid touching the private area. If this is not easy, then
touching is permissible to the extent necessary to apply the bandage.
(FM, pp. 426-27)
Q160: If we change the previous situations
from touching to seeing, what is the ruling on seeing?
A: The ruling on seeing is identical to
the ruling on touching and is applied as previously covered in
detail. (FM, p. 427)
Q161: In the previous situations, if
the patient is a woman and the nurse is a man, is the ruling similar
to what has been mentioned?
A: Yes. (FM, p. 427)
Q162: Some students in the physical
medical science study physiotherapy which requires touching the
body of a female patient and handling her (body), to the extent
required by the illness. Were the student to refuse to do that,
he would fail the examination. Is it permissible to study this
science and specialize in it?
A: This is permissible for the student
if he knows or is confident that his specialization in this (field)
is something upon which the preservation of some honored lives
depends, even if it be in the future. His practice of physiotherapy
should be in such a way that it does not lead to any sexual excitement.
(FM, pp. 425-26)
Q163: In a medical college, it is necessary
for the student to examine a non-mahram woman
and man, and it might happen that he examines their genital organs
or the anus. Is this kind of examination permissible for the
student of medicine? Is it permissible for a graduate doctor
to do this sort of examination if the preservation of some honored
lives depends on it, even if it be in the future?
A: Yes, this is permissible for both the
medical student and the doctor if the preservation of some honored
lives depends on it, even if it be in the future. (FM, p. 426)
Q164: You have mentioned in your practical
treatise (al-risalah al-'amaliyyah) something
which can be summarized thus -- it is not permissible for
a man to look at the private parts of a woman and vice-versa,
even for treatment, except when unavoidable. Is it adequate to
consider it a necessity for a person in a position of practice,
e.g. a medical student?
A: It is inadequate unless removing a
great harm from a Muslim depends on it (the practice), even if
it be in the future. (MMS, pp. 29-30, Q59a)
Q165: Many medical bulletins clearly
state the harm of smoking, among them the fact that smoking is
the primary cause of heart disease, disease of the blood vessels
and arteries, high blood pressure, lung cancer and ulcers, in
addition to the harm brought on the family and to society.
Is it permissible for a non-smoker to begin smoking?
Is it permissible for a tobacco addict to continue?
Is it permissible for a pregnant woman
to smoke while the doctors say that the foetus is affected by
the smoking of its mother?
A: If smoking causes substantial harm
to a male or female smoker or to the foetus, then it is prohibited,
whether he/she is a beginner or is addicted, assuming that he/she
would not suffer substantial harm by quitting. As for the one
who would suffer harm by quitting, he/she should consider which
one is less harmful: to continue smoking or to quit, and act accordingly.
(FM, pp. 416-17)