We will devote this chapter to provide an Islamic perspective on selected topics that have received publicity and/or debate in recent times. The topics have been chosen only by way of example to show the relevance to some of the major contemporary issues moving away from the area of abstract theory. Since Islam is a religion of life at large and is not confined to worship or the house of worship, it shares the concerns of society at large, of which Muslims are a part and would naturally wish to share their values with others in an attempt to jointly find appropriate solutions or concepts. The subjects we propose to discuss are:

(1) The New World Order

(2) Family and The Sexual Revolution

(3) Euthanasia

(4) Jihad

(5) Bio-Medical Ethics

The declaration of a New World Order has been prompted recently by the precipitate fall of communism although for several decades Islamic literature criticized both communism and capitalism and expected neither to endure. Comparative works were made to demonstrate where each fell short in comparison with an independent system derived from the teachings of Islam.

It will be too rash to conclude that the collapse of communism attests to the fitness of capitalism. As a matter of fact, both share the drawback of being materialistic ideologies, catering to a species that has more than the material side. They both committed another error albeit in opposite directions, and that is the assumption that the individual and the society are in irreconcilable conflict. Communism crushed the individual in favor of society. But what is the society but the individual multiplied? The result was inevitably a crushed society.

Capitalism on the other hand extoled individuality and overprotected it from the claims of society. That imbued the individual with justifiable selfishness, and when this was projected outward its various expressions were classism, corporatism, nationalism, racism, slavery and colonialism. The cornerstone of capitalism is that the only function and sole destiny of capital is to grow and keep growing without limits. When local markets are fully saturated new ones are sought overseas and in the Third World. There is obvious (perhaps willful) blindness to the fact that it is impossible to attain infinite growth on a finite planet. In the feverish race for dollars and more dollars coupled with the planned and active encouragement of patterns of consumerism and planned obsolescence - not to satisfy needs but rather to satisfy comforts, pleasures, and luxuries - natural resources, many irreplaceable, are violated at an accelerating pace. This overkill not only targeted the resources but even the Third World as the vital market and the sacred cow.

Not only are they stripped of their natural resources and raw materials at a meager price (compared to the exorbitant prices they pay to buy the finished products of those materials), they are even prevented from carrying out such projects that might improve their lot and make them less dependent on First World imports. To prevent the Third World from total death by exanguination, they are regularly injected with fresh capital in the form of loans and aid in order to maintain their buying power, to the favor of Western capital. Alas, only a tiny fraction of that aid goes to address the needs of the people. The major part goes to the home-grown elite who form the ruling class and their retinues and who undertake the maintenance of the status quo. They prevent the public debate of the terms and conditions of the loans and aids, block any attempt at supervising their management and establishing accountability for their mismanagement, oppress labor right and allow lax safety procedures, and keep a total ban on unearthing the appalling corruption that has become the hallmark of government in the Third World including much of the Islamic World. This seems to explain two paradoxes. The first is that in many Middle Eastern countries where the more money the West pumps into a country, the poorer it becomes and the deeper in debt. The second is the total betrayal by the major democracies of democratic movements who seem close to gaining power by following the sound democratic process. Invariably the democracies side with the dictators against the democratic aspirations of their people and when necessary support them even with the use of military power. The statement "stability" that is the declared aim of every Western intervention means in real terms the keeping of the best exploitative opportunities for foreign capital even if they are the worst possible for the masses. They and future generations will inherit a rising debt that the GNP is unable to service, let alone pay. This state of affairs is both known and bitterly felt by the people. They see its results in their homes, families and children. They call it injustice and they try to change it, but they are brutally suppressed. Western politics participate in this suppression, and to justify it in the eyes of their people, ready made formulae and terminologies are promptly available (such as eroding the stability or blatant aggression on our national interests.) Until recently it was convenient to call those justice seekers "communists" Since the collapse of communism the new label is "Islamic fundamentalists".

With the gigantic media machine, owned by large corporations and big capital, designed to manipulate and shape public thinking, the masses in the West have so far been easy to swallow the bait and, unsuspectingly, sanction the means and ways of their policy makers. And yet, this is not the worst about the submissive and unsuspecting nature of the people in the West. What they are even slower to grasp is that the voracious appetite of capital and its (greedy practice in the Third World is not confined to those far and away places inhabited by those strange and exotic people, but they would not flinch from doing the same at home and to own citizens whenever prompted by the dictates of that sacred principle: growth and more growth, capital and more capital, dollars and more dollars! What else can explain the shifting of major chunks of industry to South East Asia and elsewhere where cheap labor (financially and humanly) can produce cheaper final product which, however, will not be sold cheaper when shipped back home to America. During the process millions of American workers are laid off and join the ranks of the unemployed.

This road of unbridled capitalism cannot just go on indefinitely and all evidence shows that it will hit a dead end before long, evidence that has been ignored and curtailed and attacked and screwed up, but it is there whether its opponents like it or not. The golden-egged goose of the resources and the sacred cow of the Third World shall not survive for long. Unless there is radical change of course before it is too late, this planet will cease to be sustainable!

What we feel should be called for, however, is not a change of rules but a change of heart. As long as the good old mentality of materialism reigns there is no hope except for a little symptomatic treatment that might delay the inevitable for a brief time but will not prevent it. As long as the prevailing thinking goes in terms of we versus them, North versus South, exploiter versus exploited, rich versus poor, white versus coloured and masters versus slaves (at least servants) there is no hope in the future. The ship of humanity will sink even while the passengers in deluxe and first class cabins further amass more valuables and luxuries.

It is farfetched to believe that the politicians and the financiers of the world will have the vision, wisdom and ability to undergo this dramatic self-change. It is also a pity to see them staying the ominous course and leading humanity so close to the edge of the abyss. The only hope is a massive education campaign of the public who as voters remain the final arbiters at the end of the day. If a demand is created for a new way then the politicians will either change or have to get out of the way of change.

What does Islam has to do with all this? Islamic scholars and thinkers (not the terrorists and extremists that the media hold as a fixed mask on the face of everything Islamic) have for several decades been sketching the features of an Islamic system based on the Islamic Shari'a and naturally not a copy of formulas that might have served well in previous times and circumstances. Nor are they to be considered exclusively Islamic or strictly prescribed to Muslims, for the welfare of humanity is a common concern and with our ever-shrinking interactive globe we all face the same destiny. The principal features of this system are:

(1) Man is not the supreme being of this universe but is under the Supreme Being, God! Without God everything becomes possible, as Dostoyevski said, and anything can be rationalized and justified. When man dethroned God he slipped into self-worship. The role of man in this universe is to be God's vicegerent and trustee, so equipped as to be capable of having full mandate over nature but to manage the planet in accordance with the Creator's instructions and not upon man's own impulses and temptations. Neither science (a tool yet in its infancy) nor arrogance (a killer trap) should delude man into playing God... if only man were wise enough.

(2) Ultimate ownership is God's by virtue of being the Creator. Our ownership is a second level ownership. We are free to own and to increase our wealth by lawful means practically without limits as long as we are aware that capital has its rights but also has its duties. The function of capital is not merely to grow ad infinitum but also to fulfil obligations towards society. The assumption (by both communism and capitalism) that there is an inevitable conflict between individual and society does not exist in Islam where the premise is an equilibrium between both and a delicate balance that keeps everybody happy. This balance is not maintained merely by the strong arm of the law, but, of even more importance, by the pleasing of God that breeds happiness in giving. God is always in the equation and is a living reality, a notion of absolute meaninglessness in a materialistic ideology. This new philosophy is achievable and attainable, but of course not under a value free educational system, the tidal wave of media indoctrination, or a society tolerant of injustices. Society is so intercomplementary and integrated that nobody is allowed to live in isolation, either at the epic of riches or at the nadir of poverty.

Over fourteen centuries ago Omar, the second caliph of Islam, decreed that if a man in a town died out of poverty the citizens had to pay his ransom as if they killed him. The community is like "One body.. when one organ suffers the others rally in support", as the prophet said. Every citizen has the right to live at a threshold level of comfort (not merely subsistence), and since living on charity is discouraged, it follows that individual rights include the right to gainful employment. Labor-saving technology is therefore allowed as an answer to labor shortage, but never to economize on jobs and throw the laborers into unemployment. Man takes priority over the machine and the juridical rule is that collective welfare takes priority over individual welfare. This does not mean arrest of technological progress but that it should go hand in hand in dealing with its consequences. Workers are enabled and encouraged to buy shares in their companies in order to blur the polarization between labor and capital and to have a vested interest in the progress of the company.

In Islam the premise is that God remitted the sustenance of the poor in the wealth of the rich.. and in a new world order the principle may be carried over to international proportions. Another rule in Islam is that money as an instrument cannot breed money unless coupled to some kind of production, hence usury is unlawful in Islam. In recent decades much has been written on usury-free banking, and indeed a number of banks not only in Islamic countries but also in Europe and America have pioneered the experiment.

(3) The ONENESS of humanity as a single family sharing the common grandparentage of Adam and Eve should be emphasized and taught to the children from a young age together with the inherent equality of human beings. It is unfortunate that both science and religion were misused in Europe (and America) to concoct evidence of the natural superiority of the white (or Aryan) race over the others. Such evidence is now dead and buried, but the legacy continues. Until now, in most churches in the West until now Jesus is imaged as a white blond man with blue eyes and not like the rest of the Palestinians. The evidence of racism in the West practically pervades all aspects of life, and we dare say the will to change it is yet to gather sufficient momentum. An uphill battle for civil rights in America has been going on over the past decades, and in spite of palpable progress one cannot say that the bitter taste of slavery has been washed away. Equality is not a set of legal specifications but primarily a state of mind.

So far the black man in America has not heard the word "Sorry" from the white man for the chapter of slavery that tarnishes the history of the white civilization (the yellow - Japanese - Americans did receive an apology and reparations for their internment during World War II.) Racial tensions continue to erupt, and although regrettable, they often find justification like the Los Angeles riots in the near past. Every time there is a call and a few efforts to improve the economic lot of the blacks, although good, it misses the root etiology. Neither bullets nor dollars will come up with permanent and real solutions. Only when everyone in the depths of their hearts feel and believe that every other human being is a dear and equal brother or sister will real change occur. This cannot be decreed by law, but it is a function of education. There is every reason, and not just this racial issue, for an educational revolution in schools and all other educational channels to restructure the human mentality on new lines which hopefully lead to a new unified and compassionate humanity putting life into our slogans of freedom, fraternity and equality, not only within national borders (and to hell with the others) but on a global scale.

This should be coupled by a real effort at development of the Third World. It has been estimated that the subsidy Europe pays to its farmers is enough to cause such a turn around in the Third World as to eliminate the problem of hunger the world over. Such an idea was summarily scoffed at in a (philanthropic) meeting of former ministers and prime ministers from various countries that was held in Europe. Neither the stoppage of subsidy nor the developing of the Third World were considered a live option, the former for political expediency and the latter as political strategy.

(4) Another human faculty that has been rapidly eroding and needs to be restored is the faculty of self-restraint. Although it is the principal distinction between man and animal, the mentality of modern times seems to have played havoc with it. A young man who was arrested shooting at passing cars on a free way and killing some people had only this to offer as explanation "I felt like killing someone." This is not a lone example. Statistics on crime clearly indicate that this has become a social phenomenon rather than an exception as anyone watching the news bulletins or reading the papers can confirm. The lack of a sound value system and the appalling lack of resistance in the face of impulses and temptations are underlying factors, and the key to change can be found with education and the media. If there is a Day of Judgment, as Muslims and others believe, then one cannot envy the media moguls when they are faced with their role in publicizing and promoting violence, pornography and licentiousness. Speak of the unspeakable, then speak of the unspeakable, and it naturally becomes speakable. Our young then explore and experiment until it becomes a social addiction.

Unfortunately, some states are setting in subtle ways the example to its youth of recourse to naked power especially when they are strong beyond limits and their adversary is weak beyond limits. The fig leaf called values and principle often falls down when the military giant cracks down on some aggression with all its might and practically against no resistance; when a worse aggression follows the same giant pulls back because "the task would not be easy". Regard to human life is abysmal both as we attack it or refrain from protecting it. One of the powerful but revealing phrases said during the Gulf War was that of a military leader: "We are not in the business of counting bodies", but that, of course, meant the bodies of the other side.

(5) War and Peace - The rules of war in Islam are very clear and were explicitly delineated by prophet Mohammad himself. First it has to be of a defensive nature, or to remove oppression wherever it might be, following what is now called a just cause. Alliance to stop aggression was expressed in the Quranic verse: "If two parties among the believers fall into a flight, make you peace between them: but if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God. But if it complies then make peace with justice and be fair, for God loves those who are fair." (49:9) Alliance with non-Muslims for a just cause is all right. An example is the treaty with the Jews of Madinah to defend it jointly against the disbelievers at the time of the prophet. Another example is the reference by the prophet to a treaty long before Islam between the tribes of Makkah to join together in supporting the oppressed, and his comment "That was an alliance before Islam but if -in Islam- I would have been invited to it I would have joined it." The prophet's explicit instructions to his armies were strict in that they should only fight against belligerents not against women, children, old people. Non-Muslim religious people in their hermits or houses of worship should not be harmed, nor enemy trees cut or set on fire as a war measure, nor animals be targeted or slaughtered except for food. When one reviews these stipulations it becomes obvious that they cannot be practicable under conditions of modern warfare. Perhaps World War I was the last where fighting was fairly confined to military personnel. Starting with the Spanish Civil War in the thirties the rules began to change as evident in World War II, the Korean War and the Viet Nam War. The two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagazaki speak for themselves as does the carpet bombing of the Vietnam war and its "free fire zones", killing not only people, animals and plants but also the soil itself.

Some people would therefore take it that those Islamic war ethics are now theoretical and cannot hold in our modern age, perhaps like many other Islamic precepts. Their logic is obvious. Muslims and others, however, look at the issue from another perspective. Since modern warfare is so devastating, then war itself should cease to be an option in conflict resolution. War should be obsolete ust like slavery! Surely humanity at this epic of civilization never attained before, and as it goes into the second millennium and heralds and celebrates a New World Order, are capable of devising another instrument of peace making than war. Perhaps independent courts of justice can settle differences between nations. In the near past Egypt and Israel fought over the Sinai. When a disputed pocket of land later on presented an obstacle, it was settled peacefully through international arbitration without a drop of blood-shed. After all, war does not differentiate between right and wrong but only shows who is stronger and possesses more destructive power. It is a bad omen that the New World Order was announced on the occasion of an overwhelming military strike. Subsequent decisions raise suspicion that what was new in the New World Order was no more than the old order except that it is presided over by one adversary instead of two.

It is certainly no big deal to establish courts of law capable of honest and impartial handling of conflict (this excludes the United Nations and its Security Council). The success of such an idea revolves totally around one pivot, viz that the civilized countries decide to be.. .. civilized! It takes truth, and nobody would ever say they are against truth, but they are. Truth is a value; and regrettably politics have no heed for values, and this is the real threat the world faces. Will the strong accede to justice as decided by law or continue the theme that might makes right? Will the military-industrial complex give up the doctrine of living under a war system that has to justify itself by some war or another every now and then? Can justice be accepted in apportioning the cake of the world resources and the cost of replenishing them? Of course not, that would be blasphemous to the masters of the current order unless things change, and change will not come from above. It will come from below upwards, from the grass roots.

(6) The Ecology - For the sake of making dollars to buy their food, service their debts, arm their military and police to protect their dictators and satisfy the insatiable appetite of their rulers and elite, the poorer side of humanity in developing countries are depleting their natural resources.

On the affluent side of humanity, and with the same goal of making more dollars to make the rich richer, to enhance their consumeristic patterns, increase their luxuries and indulge in their pleasantries, the industrialized world are violating, poisoning, polluting and killing the ecology. This happens at a time where our science and technology are capable of influencing the biosphere in a dramatic and unprecedented way. And it happens at peace time, apart from the devastating and permanent damage that a full scale modern war is capable of causing. We borrow from the future at an extravagant rate, whereas sane and reasonable estimates tell us that we are incurring a debt our future generations will not be able to pay. Remedial measures and workable suggestions have been prescribed, but the obstacle, as expected, has always been those who hold the reins of power, the custodians of unbridled, greedy, selfish, gluttonous, short-sighted capitalism. As the Quran says "There is the type of man whose speech about this world's life may dazzle you, and he calls God to be his witness about what is in his heart, yet is he the most contentious of enemies. But when he prevails, he goes about the earth spreading mischief and destroying tilth and progeny; and God loves-not mischief." (2:204-205)

Of real significance, however, is that the ecology movement outside the sphere of politics is gaining momentum. On Earth Day 1990, one hundred million people in 140 countries showed up for the largest grass-roots demonstration ever. These cannot be ignored by the politicians or else they loose their votes. May be it is time to establish an international ecological agency, and world governments would participate in it with the prior agreement to voluntarily heed its recommendations, recommendations that, of course, should not be oblivious to the question of justice.

(7) Population Issues - The world population is growing at a pace that far exceeds that of available resources. Concerns are therefore quite legitimate about the population explosion, and since most of the population increase occurs in the Third World, the latter has been accused of irresponsible behavior and targeted for blame by the West. Disciplinary action has been considered, and a number of countries that provide aid, including the U.S.A, entertained the idea of linking that aid with fertility regulation and family planning achievements. Worse than that, in an article titled "Would Machiavelli now be a better guide for doctors than Hippocrates?" (World Health Forum, vol. 14, 1993 p. 105), Dr. Jean Martin reviews some Western opinions that question the advisability of some vaccination and other programs in the Third World since they allow the children to live, impact the resources and eventually repeat the cycle of famine and death; in other words, this is a call to setting limits on the reduction of mortality in the Third World. A shift from humanitarianism to "pragmatism" sounds logical, hence the inclusion of Machiavelli's name in the article.

That there is a problem, nobody can deny. That there is need to avail families who wish to use them (without coercion) of safe, reliable and accessible contraceptive methods is also a fact, and Islam has no qualms with that. Our only reservation is that putting the blame of the population problem solely and squarely on Third World countries is not telling the whole truth, for the issue is really multifaceted. It ignores the fact that the birth of one baby in the United States "imposes more than a hundred times the stress on the world resources and environment as a birth in, say, Bangladesh", wrote Paul and Anne Ehrlich of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, in National Geographic Magazine. They drew the distinction that while population problems in poor nations keep them poor, population problems in rich nations are destroying the ability of the earth to support civilization (Michael Henderson: Hope for a Change. Grosvenor Books, Salem U. S. A., 1991, p.24).

The way to reduce population growth in the Third World was debated (especially at the World Population Conference at Bucharest, 1974). Although historical precedent (studying what did happen in Europe that brought down fertility rates) and common sense (a known phenomenon is that insecurity is a natural stimulus of fertility) indicated that development is the cause and not the outcome of reduced fertility (development is the best pill), yet the capitalist countries put a disproportionately high emphasis on fertility regulation in the Third World. The matter is indeed more than philanthropic or an altruistic regard for the welfare of humanity. In the Summer 1991 issue of Foreign Affairs a report (originally prepared for the US Army Conference on Long Range Planning) by Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, warns against the implications of the proportional increase in numbers of the Third World nations for the international political order and the balance of world power. After three generations, he notes, eight great grand parents in the West will share only four or five descendants against over three hundred for much of Africa and the Middle East; therefore, the leading countries of today will be the little countries of the future.

The National Security Study Memorandum 200, a study of "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests" (dated Dec. 10, 1974, classified by Harry C. Blaney III, declassified July 3, 1989 Executive order 12358, Released / US National Archives June 26, 1990) is a very educative document, revealing the complex political, economic and military implications and the solid realities of the world in which we live. Population factors might be the seeds of revolutionary actions and the expropriation or limitation of foreign economic interests. Poverty, population growth and population youth would urge development, induce review of foreign investment terms and conditions, and even boost military growth if conscription to the military is seen as a viable alternative to unemployment. The document sometimes imparts the feeling that industrial countries are already waging a pre-emptive war against underdeveloped countries.

It would seem to us that a New World Order should be geared to the needs of our global village, for that is what our planet is becoming. It should not presuppose the inevitability of dividing the world into "haves" and "have-nots", and hence the inevitability of a fight to the death between them. It requires of the rich to be humble, content and willing to give up many luxuries that their life-styles incorporate. They are not vital necessities. The reward is the happiness of providing the vital necessities for the major part of the human family. What else can be more conducive to happiness? God must be brought to the equation!

Prophet Mohammad said: "Women are the other half of men." The unit of humanity is not a man or a woman. It is a man and a woman in that unison that makes them a family (just like the smallest part of water is not oxygen or hydrogen but both united). Like Judaism and Christianity and many other religions, Islam decrees that the pairing off of a man and a woman to make a family constitutes a sacred bond that the Quran calls "a stout pledge", that has to be documented and authenticated by the "marriage contract" or wed-lock. It signifies the commitment of the spouses to one another and establishes their mutual rights and responsibilities as well as those vis a vis their children. Children have the right to legitimacy (birth under a marriage contract and having and knowing their father and mother), loving care as they are raised, being nurtured and catered for both physically and spiritually, and the right of education and getting them equipped to face life and bear its responsibilities as mature and useful citizens. As the parents attain old age or get incapacitated some way or another, it is the children's religious duty to look after them and cater to their comfort without feeling impatient or distressed about it. It is a right towards God. Of course it is the perpetual insurance for the future of the children as they themselves grow up and become parents and attain old age. This solidarity of the family and strength of the family ties is of paramount importance in Islam. It spreads even beyond the nuclear family along the widening circles of blood ties. The Quran calls it "the relation of the womb". It is both a duty and a rewardable charity to be kind to those blood kindred through friendly care or financial support if needed. Even after parents have died, it remains one's duty to pray for them, and even to maintain the ties with their friends, show them courtesy, and offer help if needed.

In Islam, marriage subserves two functions, and it is only marriage that lawfully subserves them. The one is to fulfil the yearning of the one half to its other half and their becoming one, both physically and spiritually. "Amongst His signs is that He created for you -from amongst you- consorts, with whom to dwell in tranquility; and He laid love and compassion between you." (30:21) The other function is to procreate and have a progeny; "God made for you -from amongst you- consorts, and out of your consorts made for you children and grandchildren; and bestowed on you from His bounty; would they then believe in the vain things and deny the blessings of God?" (16:72) Marriage is the only legitimate venue for sex and reproduction. Trespassing outside marriage is a grave sin, and it can also be a legal offense in Islam if witnessed by four witnesses who identify the perpetrators and testify to have seen a complete sexual act. To satisfy these legal criteria must be a very rare event, and it seems it was meant to be so.

It is noteworthly that the same moral principles used to prevail also in America and the West, but with the slippage of more and more people into atheism or microtheism, change was inevitable. Atheism is when God is denied. Microtheism is when God is acknowledged but with reduced Godliness. We worship Him but on our own terms. We visit the houses of worship usually on weekends, but we do not allow God out to tell us what to do with our private or public lives. This erosion of faith set the stage for the "sexual revolution", as all religious values became subject to radical revision.

The sexual revolution did not start as recently as we think in the sixties. Nor was it the outcome of a passive natural social change. It was the result of intelligent planning, hard work and perseverance. It all started with the extreme fascination with science and its technological capabilities, in the wake of banishment of the church from delving into public life. The human mind became the Ultimate arbiter of all human affairs, and all time-honored values were subjected to its new rulings. In their haste and superficiality, however, people missed the obvious fact that the human mind itself, and by its own admission, is an imperfect instrument, and that with its limitation it cannot pass such ultimate judgments as those concerning the absolute moral standards. The mere fact that the mind diligently seeks more knowledge and pursues further research is a confession that there is so much it remains ignorant about. Had the human mind thought it was complete, then it would have ceased its pursuits and spared the research budgets; but the case is as the Quran describes it, "Of knowledge, it is only a little that was communicated to you." (17:85)

To further replace God by man, a movement arose between the two world wars called "Morality without Religion", accusing religion -and not human error- of causing enmity and conflict between people. They pretended the same moralities could be attained without necessarily ascribing them to religion and called them "unattached moralities". But as religion moved out of focus God was dethroned, and new codes of morality were issued wherein the immoralities of yesterday became the normalities of today, and secular humanism could at last frankly declare that human values must be made by human beings and without relevance to any non-human or supernatural reference. With the shift towards materialism such values as honor, chastity and purity became empty words and nonviable currency. A full range of indoctrination worked to stretch the boundaries of freedom to include license, and in a society that emphasizes individuality, every human whim became a human right. It was another setback when the tidal wave that hit society deluged also many of the traditional custodians of religion and protectors of its values - the clergy. These were the Trojan horse, because instead of leaving the religious camp to the libertarian camp, they started working on religion itself by new re-interpretations and new exegesis of the texts to render lawful and permissible what has been unlawful and reprehensive along the whole history of those religions. Many of those clergy themselves fell prey to the germs they were supposed to fend off. Some even interpreted the institution of "celibacy" as refraining from marriage but not from having sex, as we read in News Week some time ago.

The result, as expected, is this chaotic sexual conduct of whole societies. Without the values of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it, came the desecration of sex as a very special bond between a man and a woman, mass and promiscuous sex, spur posses, rapes, unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion or unwanted children stripped of their right of legitimate double parentage, and children begetting children. Further, family trust is eroded when even in stable families some 15 percent of the children are not their fathers' added to all this are health hazards due to the epidemic spread of sexually transmitted diseases, whether new diseases or the recurrence of old ones we thought have been conquered long ago. Their causative organisms have acquired resistance to known antibiotic therapy, and with rising promiscuity they are exacting a heavy toll on the community, especially the youth.

We Muslims do not have any confusion or vagueness about what is lawful in our religion and what is unlawful. The Quran remains in the original text that was revealed, word to word and letter to letter. The Quran is the divine words: and any translation or rendition in any language including Arabic (the Quranic language) cannot be called Quran. The moralities and the immoralities specified in the Quran will remain so forever, and cannot be diluted or manipulated or rationalized. There are no clergy, or scholars who can claim to be endowed with the right or ability of special interpretation. This does not mean that all Muslims are therefore virtuous people who do not sin. Of course, Muslims violate their own religion by committing sins and abominations, but at least they know it is sin, and it will remain on their conscience until they desist and repent to God. The real challenge, however, faces Muslims who are citizens of Western communities where the children are raised under social and moral norms that conflict with the teachings of Islam. Muslims are not alone in this, because there are also Jews, Christians and others who uphold the same divine moralities and make every effort to endow their children with them. Cooperation is already in progress and more is encouraged between Muslims and those who believe similarly, be they clergy or lay individuals or associations.

Our way with our children follows an early introduction to God (see Chapter One), and that when we believe in Him it means we accept and abide by His rules. If we follow His rules we do not bother if the others do not, for when one is on the side of God then one is in the majority. This breeds the confidence that resists peer pressure and the vagaries of temptation. "They all do it" ceases to be an excuse. The vaccination approach aims at building up immunity long before the child is exposed to disease: be it physical or moral. Just like a soldier is prepared to battle before and not during the battle, future hazards and catches are discussed with the child so that he/she would decide in advance what position to take when the time comes whether the offer is smoking, drink, drug or sex.

Fortunately, the preaching of premarital chastity entails more than an order to obey (of course the teaching is that when God orders, we hear and we obey). Discussions with Muslim and non-Muslim youth presented the case equally powerfully even along purely intellectual lines. "Who believes in equality of the sexes?", and it is a unanimous vote "Who believes in justice?", and again it is a unanimous agreement. The proposition is then introduced that any relationship between two partners, the consequences of which are not equally shared by both, cannot constitute justice; and they all agree. In a situation of liberal sex, the consequences are not equally shared, because the female side is the loser all the way, whether she is deserted, or gets pregnant and goes for abortion, or gives birth and signs away her baby for adoption or ends with a fatherless baby to support alone for the rest of her life. (When we observe the consequences and ask the question,) "Can this be justice?" the general shout is "No!".

The homosexuality movement was a fairly late comer on the wagon of the sexual revolution. Homosexuality, of course, is not a new invention as it has always been there in practically all cultures and among all people but, one would guess, in more limited proportions. It had its lobby whose activities followed more or less subtle ways, but its influence mushroomed only over the past decade or so. I do remember academic conferences where some scientific papers were given, upon rigorous scientific methodology, to prove by scientific experiment the safety of anal sex. That was in the early seventies, and to me the findings were so contradicting to simple common sense that I began, for the first time in my academic life, to doubt the honesty of some scientific researchers. Shortly thereafter, the American Psychiatric Association declared that homosexuality was no more to be considered an illness to be treated but merely an orientation or a sexual variant. The rest is history.

A "Gay Bowel Syndrome" was described in the medical literature, and later it was AIDS that made the news and its relation to homosexual behavior being established. Very soon the AIDS problem was pushed out of the medical arena and its rules and regulations for handling infectious diseases. It became a political issue, and the homosexual lobby further grew into a political power capable of intimidating office bearers and political figures and gaining the support of many in the media, the arts and the clergy. Instead of AIDS being contained it spilled over to blood recipients, drug addicts, the fetus in utero, heterosexual contacts with wives and others and accidental infections. It became a global epidemic that is spreading at a serious pace. To the AIDS patient we have empathy and compassion and hopefully the best available medical and nursing care. To those not infected we recommend the preventive approach. This is not the condom, for there is no such a thing as safe sex. It is chastity until marriage, and fidelity within marriage.

The debate about homosexuality is ravaging. "Be what you are" they say, "and do not be ashamed of it". Many unsuspecting youth started to experiment, to discover what they really are. Consent is a requisite, and the lobbies in Scandinavia are trying to bring down the consent age to four years. A 'Gay Pride Day' is annually observed in California with media coverage, a 'Gay Pride Month' in some school districts has been established to remove bigotry and prejudice, and two-man or two-woman households are being presented as alternative forms of family. Recently, science began exploring a possible anatomical or genetic basis for homosexual orientation. We Muslims are not impressed, and to us the matter is that simple. We do not make our religion, but we receive it and we obey it. We cannot impose anything on anyone, but to us the Quran and the teachings of prophet Mohammad clearly and explicitly condemn homosexual practices. Whether you have the orientation or not, whether you harbor the gene or not, your feelings and desires shall not dictate your behavior. You might be dying to do something (be it homosexual contact or heterosexual with a partner who is not your wife or taking an alcoholic drink or an urge for a violent action or a desire to steal something that is not yours), what you feel need not be what you do. "It is not for a believing man or woman if a matter has been decided by God and His messenger, to have a choice of their own. If anyone disobeys God and His messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." (33:36). Every human being has an undisputed gene without which they cannot be a human being: it is called the "gene of self-control"!

Euthanasia gained a legal foothold in Holland. It went to the ballot box in two states in America but was defeated. Its lobby is getting more active. Islam has definite views on euthanasia.

The sanctity of human life is a basic value as decreed by God even before the times of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. Commenting on the killing of Abel by his brother Caine (the two sons of Adam), God says in the Quran: "On that account We ordained for the children of Israel that if anyone slay a person -unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land- it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people" (Quran 5:32). The Quran also says: "Take not life which Allah made sacred otherwise than in the course of justice" (Quran 6:151 and 17:33). The Shari'a went into great detail in defining the conditions where taking life is permissible whether in war or in peace (as an item of the criminal law), with rigorous prerequisites and precautions to minimize that event.

Not in Islam. Since we did not create ourselves we do not own our bodies. We are entrusted with them for care, nurture and safe keeping. God is the owner and giver of life and His rights in giving and in taking are not to be violated. Attempting to kill oneself is a crime in Islam as well as a grave sin. The Quran says: "Do not kill (or destroy) yourselves, for verily Allah has been to you most Merciful" (Quran 4:29). To warn against suicide prophet Mohammad said: "Whoever kills himself with an iron instrument will be carrying it forever in hell. Whoever takes poison and kills himself will forever keep sipping that poison in hell. Whoever jumps off a mountain and kills himself will forever keep falling down in the depths of hell."

The Shari'a listed and specified the indications for taking life (ie. the exceptions to the general rule of sanctity of human life), and they do not include mercy killing or make allowance for it. Human life per se is a value to be respected unconditionally, irrespective of other circumstances. The concept of a life not worthy of living does not exist in Islam. Justification of taking life to escape suffering is not acceptable in Islam. Prophet Mohammad taught: "There was a man in older times who had an infliction that taxed his patience, so he took a knife, cut his wrist and bled to death. Upon this God said: My subject hastened his end, I deny him paradise." During one of the military campaigns one of the Muslims was killed and the companions of the prophet kept praising his gallantry and efficiency in fighting, but, to their surprise, the Prophet commented, "His lot is hell." Upon inquiry, the companions found out that the man had been seriously injured so he supported the handle of his sword on the ground and plunged his chest onto its tip, committing suicide. The Islamic Code of Medical Ethics endorsed by the First International Conference on Islamic Medicine (Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences, Kuwait, 1981, p.65) includes: "Mercy killing, like suicide, finds no support except in the atheistic way of thinking that believes that our life on this earth is followed by void. The claim of killing for painful hopeless illness is also refuted, for there is no human pain that cannot be largely conquered by medication or by suitable neurosurgery...".

There is still another dimension to the question of pain and suffering. Patience and endurance are highly regarded and highly rewarded values in Islam. "Those who patiently preserve will truly receive a reward without measure" (Quran 39:10). "And bear in patience whatever (ill) may befall you: this, behold, is something to set one's heart upon" (Quran 31:17). Prophet Mohammad taught "When the believer is afflicted with pain, even that of a prick of a thorn or more, God forgives his sins, and his wrongdoings are discarded as a tree sheds off its leaves."

When means of preventing or alleviating pain fall short, this spiritual dimension can be very effectively called upon to support the patient who believes that accepting and standing unavoidable pain will be to his/her credit in the hereafter, the real and enduring life. To a person who does not believe in a hereafter this might sound like nonsense, but to one who does, euthanasia is certainly nonsense.

There is no disagreement that the financial cost of maintaining the incurably ill and the senile is a growing concern, so much so that some groups have gone beyond the concept of the "right to die" to that of the "duty to die". They claim that when the human machine has outlived its productive span its maintenance is an unacceptable burden on the productive stratum of society, and it should be disposed of, and rather abruptly than allowing it to deteriorate gradually (Jacques Atalli: La medicine en accusation - in Michel Solomon 'L' avenir de la vie', Coll. Les visages de L'avenir. Ed. Seghers, Paris, 1981, p. 273-275).

This logic is completely alien to Islam. Values take priority over prices. The care for the week, old and helpless is a value in itself for which people are willing to sacrifice time, effort and money, and this starts, naturally with one's own parents "Your Lord decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to your parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of contempt but address them in terms of honor. And lower to them the wing of humility out of compassion, and say: my Lord, bestow on them Your mercy even as they cherished me in childhood" (Quran 17:25-25). Because such caring is a virtue ordained and rewarded by God in this world and in the hereafter, the believers don't take it as a debit but as an investment. In a materialistic dollar-centric community this logic is meaningless, but not so in the value-oriented God heeding community of the faithful.

When individual means cannot cover the needed care, it becomes, according to Islam, the collective responsibility of society, and financial priorities are reshuffled so that values take priority over pleasures, and people derive more pleasure from heeding values than from pursuing other pleasantries. A prerequisite of course is a complete moral and spiritual re-orientation of a society that does not hold to these premises.

In an Islamic setting the question of euthanasia usually does not arise, and if it does, it is dismissed as religiously unlawful. The patient should receive every possible psychological support and compassion from family and friends, including the patient's spiritual (religious) resources. The doctor also participates in this, as well, and provides the therapeutic measures for the relief of pain. A dilemma arises when the dose of the pain killer necessary to alleviate pain approximates or overlaps with the lethal dose that might bring about the patient's death. Ingenuity on the part of the doctor is called upon to avoid this situation, but from a religious point of view the critical issue is the doctor's intention: is it to kill or to alleviate? Intention is beyond verification by the law but according to Islam it cannot escape the ever watchful eye of God Who according to the Quran "knows the treachery of the eyes, and all that hearts conceal" (Quran 40:19). Sins that do not fulfil the criteria of a legal crime are beyond the domain of the judge but remain answerable to God.

The Islamic Code of Medical Ethics (1981 p.67), states: "In his/her defense of life, however, the Doctor is well advised to realize his limit and not transgress it. If it is scientifically certain that life cannot be restored, then it is futile to diligently keep the patient in a vegetative state by heroic means or to preserve the patient by deep freezing or other artificial methods. It is the process of life that the doctor aims to maintain and not the process of dying. In any case, the doctor shall not take a positive measure to terminate the patient's life".

The seeking of medical treatment from illness is mandatory in Islam, according to two sayings of the prophet: "Seek treatment, subjects of God, for to every illness God has made a cure", and "Your body has a right on you." But when the treatment holds no promise it ceases to be mandatory. This applies both to surgical and/or pharmaceutical measures, and, according to a majority of scholars, to artificial animation equipment. Ordinary life needs which are the right of every living person and which are not categorized as "treatment" are regarded differently. These include food and drink and ordinary nursing care, and they are not to be withheld as long as the patient lives.

The discussion of euthanasia cannot be isolated from the total ideologic background of a certain community. Muslims, believing in God and in a divinely prescribed Shari'a will naturally have different views from others who do not believe in God, or those who acknowledge God but deny Him any authority to tell us what we should or shouldn't do. In much of contemporary Christendom the concept of separation of church and state is being pushed to mean the exclusion of God from human affairs although they are not the same.

The earlier experiencing of euthanasia in Nazi Germany earlier this century left us with some eye openers. It was endorsed, pioneered and implemented by medical practitioners of the highest order of intelligence and professional status. Once the concept of "a life not worthy of living" was condoned and accepted the foundation was laid for those kinds of decisions which eventually led to the horrors that followed. Fifty years later, the euthanasia lobby has regrouped in the Netherlands and is targeting Europe and America. Their opponents question the alleged free consent of the patient, who already under great personal distress, must additionally feel the duress of the burden his or her illness and treatment is placing on the patient's family psychologically and financially. Consent given by the family is open to the possibility of conflict of interest. The battle draws and the outcome remains to be seen; but this is a conflict which is avoided in Islam because of a broader, firmer theological strength.

This word has been in frequent use in the Western press over the past several years, explained directly or subtlely, to mean holy war. As a matter of fact the term "holy war" was coined in Europe during the Crusades, meaning the war against Muslims. It does not have a counterpart in Islamic glossary, and Jihad is certainly not its translation.

The word Jihad means striving. In its primary sense it is an inner thing, within self, to rid it from debased actions or inclinations, and exercise constancy and perseverance in achieving a higher moral standard. Since Islam is not confined to the boundaries of the individual but extends to the welfare of society and humanity in general, an individual cannot keep improving himself/herself in isolation from what happens in their community or in the world at large, hence the Quranic injunction to the Islamic nation to take as a duty "to enjoin good and forbid evil." (3:104) It is a duty which is not exclusive to Muslims but applies to the human race who are, according to the Quran, God's vicegerent on earth. Muslims, however, cannot shirk it even if others do. The means to fulfil it are varied, and in our modern world encompass all legal, diplomatic, arbitrative, economic, and political instruments. But Islam does not exclude the use of force to curb evil, if there is no other workable alternative. A forerunner of the collective security principle and collective intervention to stop aggression, at least in theory, as manifested in the United Nations Charter, is the Quranic reference "..make peace between them (the two fighting groups), but if one of the two persists in aggression against the other, fight the aggressors until they revert to God's commandment." (49:9)

Military action is therefore a subgroup of the Jihad and not its totality. That was what prophet Mohammad emphasized to his companions when returning from a military campaign, he told them: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad (war) to the major jihad (self-control and betterment)."

Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions and certainly not against Christians and Jews as some media and political circles want it to be perceived. Islam does not fight other religions. Christians and Jews are considered as fellow inheritors of The Abrahamic traditions by Muslims, worshipping the same God and following the tradition of Abraham.

The rigorous criteria for a "just war" in Islam have already been alluded to, as well as the moral and ethical constraints that should be abided by. Modern warfare does not lend itself to those moral standards; and therefore, war should be replaced by some other alternative for conflict resolution. An enlightened and resolute world public opinion can overcome and subdue war oriented mentalities.

The key is a change of heart. Just as there is a constructive role for forgiveness in interpersonal relations, so might this be possible in international relations provided justice, and not force, is the final arbiter.

We have to acknowledge again, for the sake of honesty, that historically all traditions, Muslim, Christian, Jew as well as others, had their lapses in honestly following the valued ideals of their religions or philosophies. We all made mistakes, and we still do. Muslims are no exception, and time and again religion was exploited by ambitious tyrants or violated by ignorant mobs. This is no reflection on religion, but it shows how desperately humanity is in need of better education, more enduring concern for human dignity, rights and freedom, and vigilant pursuit of justice, even at the price of curbing political and economic greed.

This section enumerates some areas that have been in the forefront of the field of bio-ethics, and on which Islamic consensus has been fairly established.

Islam permits contraception as long as it does not entail the radical separation between marriage and its reproductive function. Since the time of the prophet contraception has been practiced, but he made it clear that it should be a joint decision between husband and wife. The general recommendation is for the Islamic nation to procreate and grow in numbers, but quality and not sheer numbers was well emphasized by Mohammad. One of his very prophetic sayings was: "There will come the day when other nations will fall upon you like hungry eaters upon a bowl of food." When asked whether this would be due to lack of numbers he said "No. On that day you will be so many, but (quality wise) like the froth on the surface of the torrent."

Throughout Islamic history jurists permitted family planning for a number of reasons: health, socio-economics, etc. up to merely preserving the beauty of the woman's body. Both natural and medicinal methods of contraception are acceptable, provided the method is not harmful and does not work as an abortifacient. Family planning should be the choice of the individual family without coercion or pressure. Countries that adopt a population policy may resort to wide campaigns of education to ensure the accessibility of contraceptive technology, but the decision rests with the family.

Reservations about population programs designed by Western countries for the Third World were referred to earlier. There is a consciousness about a "demographic warfare" to strip populations of their sheer power of numbers or to reduce majorities to minorities in some areas. There is also alarm about contraceptive material banned from use in their (Western) countries of origin while at the same time they are abundantly exported to Islamic and Third World countries, compromising on safety standards. More investment in developing resources and a willingness to transfer necessary technology on part of the West remains to be seen.

This has a prominent place in Islamic teaching. As a family planning method it is not a reliable prescription for the individual family; but it has been estimated on a group (collective) basis to be a more potent contraceptive than all other methods put together, measured by the drop in fertility rate in a community of suckling women. The Quran mentions breast feeding and recommends that its natural course is the span of two years. In Islam, however, breast feeding is more than a nutritional (or family planning) process. It is a "value" and a special bond, so much so that a woman other than the natural mother who breast feeds an infant acquires a special status in Islamic law which is called "suckling parenthood", and this woman is called the infant's "mother in lactation". To accentuate its value, "lactation motherhood" is given the status of natural motherhood in certain legal rulings concerning marriage. The result is that such a mother's natural children are considered "lactation siblings" of the nursed infant, who therefore may not marry any of them.

If the device acted to cause abortion it would not be acceptable. Its action, however, was explained on the basis of preventing implantation. The current generations of the device contain a copper wire that releases spermicidal copper ions, or include the hormone progesterone that thickens the mucus in the canal of the womb so it cannot be penetrated by sperm. Both actions put the device in the category of contraception and not abortion. This was confirmed by a release from the World Health Organization

There are no "pro-life" and "pro-choice" lobbies in Islamic communities, with a raging battle such as takes place in America. Islam views abortion very differently from contraception, since the former entails the violation of a human life. The question that naturally arises is whether the term "human life" includes the life of the fetus in the womb. According to Islamic jurisprudence it does. Islam accords the fetus the status of "incomplete zimma". Zimma is the legal regard that allows rights and duties, and that of the fetus is incomplete in the sense that it has rights but owes no duties. Some of these rights of the fetus are:

(a) If a husband dies while his wife is pregnant, the law of inheritance recognizes the fetus as an inheritor if borne alive. Other inheritors would receive their shares in accordance with the prescribed juridical proportions, but only after the share of the unborn is set aside to await its birth.

(b) If a fetus is miscarried at any stage of pregnancy and shows signs of life such as a cough or movement and then it dies, such fetus has the right to inherit anything it was legally entitled to inherit from anyone who died after the beginning of the pregnancy. After this fetus dies, what it has inherited is inherited in turns by its legal heirs.

(c) If a woman commits a crime punishable by death and is proven pregnant, then the execution of the punishment shall be postponed until she gives birth and nurses her baby until it is weaned. This applies irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, however early, denoting the right of the fetus to life from its beginning. It applies even if the pregnancy was illegitimate, which shows that the fetus conceived out of wedlock also has the right to life. All sects and juridical schools unanimously uphold this ruling.

There is also a money penalty for abortion even if it was inadvertent. This is called the "ghorra". If aggression or willful action causes abortion, suitable punishment by the court is also imposed.

The question of the beginning of life has been discussed since early times, since the admissibility of abortion hinged around the existence of life (some old jurists permitted abortion before four months, others before seven weeks, of pregnancy, on the assumption that life had not started in the pregnancy.) Some ten centuries ago, a notable scholar called Al-Ghazali rightly described a phase of imperceptible life, before the phase that the mother could feel in the form of fetal quickening. Recent juridical congresses reviewed the subject taking into account the applications of modern technology, and concluded that the stage of an individual's life that can be called its beginning should satisfy ALL the following criteria: (1) it should be a clear and well-defined event; (2) it should exhibit the cardinal feature of life: growth; (3) if this growth is not interrupted, it will naturally lead up to the subsequent stages of life as we know them; (4) it contains the genetic pattern that is characteristic of the human race at large, and also of a unique specific individual; and (5) it is not preceded by any other phase which combines the first four. Obviously, these postulates refer to fertilization.

Abortion, however, is permitted if the continuation of pregnancy poses a threat on the mother. The Shari'a considers the mother to be the root and the fetus to be the offshoot; the latter to be sacrificed if this is necessary to save the former. There are some arguments also in favor of expanding the admissibility of abortion to cover drastic cases of congenital anomalies and fetal illness incompatible with feasible life if performed before pregnancy is four months.

Unless done for a clear medical indication this operation is generally frowned upon. It is permitted, however, for women with a reasonable number of children and who are approaching the end of their reproductive life. Voluntary and informed consent should be given by both the husband and wife, giving no promises of a guaranteed successful reversal of the operation if they later change their mind. No government policy should pressure people into undergoing sterilization. The doctor has the right to decline performing the operation if not convinced that it is in the best interests of the patient.

The pursuit of pregnancy is legitimate and individuals may resort to the necessary means provided they do not violate the Shari'a.

This is permissible only if the sperm belongs to the husband (AIH). Donor's semen (AID) may not be used since procreation is legitimate only within the marriage contract and the elements (the couple) that are party to it.

This technology, commonly known as the test tube baby technology, is Islamically acceptable as long as it is between husband and wife, ie. within the boundaries of the marriage contract. The marriage contract should be valid and live. Since divorce or widowhood bring the marriage contract to a conclusion and they are then no more husband and wife, it follows that a woman may not be impregnated by the sperm of her ex-husband kept in deep freeze in a semen bank. Intervention of a third party other than husband and wife and the bearers of their genetic material (sperm and ovum) is not permissible because this would be an intrusion into the marriage contract binding the pair. "Alien sperm," or an "alien egg", or an "alien womb" (to carry a couple's embryo) is not allowed.

Surrogate Motherhood, where a woman carries in her womb the fetus of another couple, is absolutely unacceptable to Islam. It results in the dichotomy of motherhood into genetic and biologic whereas these should be one. It also entails a pregnancy outside the legitimacy of a marriage contract. Competition between the two mothers (!) has led to legal and other problems in America. A contract deciding the fate of the baby is certainly dehumanizing as it treats the baby as a commodity. The implications might prove to be far reaching since the human female for the first time in history is willingly going into a full pregnancy (and delivery) with the prior intent to give away the baby. Because this is done, in the majority of cases, for a negotiated price, it reduces "motherhood" from a "value" to a price. If this becomes established practice, the long term effects on intergenerational bonds will be devastating.

The Quran says: "and whoever saves a life it would be as if he saved the life of all the people." Perhaps there is no better way to implement this concept than in the area of saving lives by transplanting donated organs to replace failing vital ones. This conclusion, however, had to be reached after some synthesis of Islamic rules. Basically, violating the human body, whether living or dead, is against the rulings of Islam. It would follow that incising the body of a living donor or of a cadaver and obtaining the organ to be donated, would be impermissible, had it not been for the invocation of two juridical rules that readily solve the impasse. The first is the rule of "Necessities overrule prohibition." The second is the "choice of the lesser of the two evils if both cannot be avoided." Since the saving of life is a necessity that carries more weight than preserving the integrity of the body of donor or cadaver and since the injury of the body of the donor is less evil compared with leaving the patient to die, the procedure of organ donation and transplantation is sanctioned. It should not pose danger on the donor, as far as medically ascertainable. Rules of free consent devoid of all kinds of pressure should be observed as the donor (or next of kin of deceased donor) indicate their willingness.

This has recently shown some promise in the treatment of certain diseases. It is lawful if the source is the adrenal gland medulla or an animal fetus, or a human fetus spontaneously miscarried when it dies naturally. It is unlawful to sacrifice a living or viable human fetus for the purpose. In lawful abortion (such as to save the mother's life) the fetus may be used. Creating fetuses or performing abortion for the purpose of transplantation is unlawful.

This refers to a congenital abnormality where the vault of the skull and the brain hemispheres are absent. It might be borne alive, but will eventually die after a variable period that might extend to several days. As long as it lives, it should not be used as a source of organs for transplantation. Artificial termination of its life is unlawful. It may be maintained by artificial resuscitation to keep its tissues healthy, until its brain (stem) dies and then it is allright to take its organs.

It is unlawful to transplant testes capable of producing and discharging sperms or ovaries capable of ovulation into another person, for this would lead to confusion of genealogy and the conception of babies by gametes that are not united by an authentic marriage, since such sperms and ova will always belong to the donor and not the recipient. Sex glands that are sterile (do not produce gametes) but are hormonally active do not bear this ban, but their use has no place in clinical practice.

All text Copyright © 2008 Islamic Center of Southern California
For more about this web site, please contact the Webmaster