<Home> <Islamic Bioethics> <Vision of some Medical Practices> <General Comments on Sexual Assault, Fat of Bank-deposited Embryos and Surplus Fertilized Ova>

Medical Jurisprudence
Third Symposium
on

"The Islamic Vision of Some Medical Practices"
Held from 18-21 April, 1987 A.D.

General Comments on:

- Sexual Assault,
- Fate of Bank-deposited Embryos and
- Surplus Fertilized Ova


Fiqh and Legal Discussion What to do with surplus Fertilized Ova? Fate of Bank-Deposited Embryos Discussion Balance of Legitimacy Disposal of Human Organs Responsibility of Doctors Legal Ruling for Sale and Donation Donation and Sale of Human Organs Discussion Legal Ruling for Secret Disclosure in Islam Legal Ruling on a Doctor Disclosing some Secret for Public Good Secret Disclosure in Islamic Sharia Disclosure and Withholding Introduction Recommendations of the Symposium DISCUSSION

Chairman, Dr. Salahuddin Al-Ateeqi

This, with God's will, is going to be the last in this series of sessions. We're going to deal with two topics which are but two sides of one coin: the first is "Sexual Assault" and the second is Hymenorrhaphy". The first research was prepared by Dr. Seddiqa Al-Awadi and others, to be presented by Dr. Kamal Nageeb, the second is Dr. Kamal Fahmi's. Then the jurists will discuss the two researches. Let us begin with the first research. Dr. Kamal Nageeb: et al (Research Section Page No. 420).

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thank you Dr. K. Nageeb for your accurate definition of the problem and for your brevity as well. I give the floor to our teacher. Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali to comment and answer the questions.

Sheikh M. Al-Ghazali

The question is whether we should let that bud grow until it blossoms or abort the pregnancy during the first 40 days if the incident was revealed. The answer to that question is that the Prophet, may the bessings and peace of Allah be upon him, established that this fruit should live.

In spite of the different degrees of vileness of the crime-committing fornication with any woman is a crime, committing it with a neighbour is a more vile crime and incest is more vile still, yet, as mentioned in Al Muhalla on the authority of one of the Companions, a child born out of wedlock is the best in his line of descent, he's better than his father and mother: consequently, taking into consideration the Messenger's Judgement, may the bessings and peace of Allah be upon him, concerning the Ghamidi woman I see that the life of this wretched creature must be righteously preserved and 1 can't pass an opinion that it should be aborted or killed.

However, if the mother gets rid of it during the first 40 days, then I hope Allah will forgive her and us as we passed an opinion to be reticent about that or to conceal it. If there is proof that this embryo is extremely deformed to an extent that would not allow it to lead a normal life or to adapt to post-delivery life, shall we keep it or abort it, regardless of its uterine age? The point here is: is the case definite or presumptive? If we are practically definite that this embryo will develop into a deformed or defective human being that cannot lead a normal life. I find it permissible to abort it because it's going to be a burden on the community and will himself suffer and cause those who live with him to suffer. But if the case is only resting on a mere assumption. I would withhold this opinion. I can't say that we get rid of a person because we think that he will be deformed: he might have a good future. It was said that some of those who were born blind or handicapped led a brilliant life, even more brilliant than Abu-Alala' Al-M'ari, though he, with all the diseases he was suffering from, got disturbed, and some poetry showing heresy was attributed to him, may Allah forgive him and us.

Shall we report her to the authorities? If what is meant by "authorities" is the government, the answer is "No", we are ordered not to expose people. There was a crime of fornication and the Messenger didn't even think of asking Ma'iz about whom he did it with, and he never asked the Ghamidi woman either about who did that to her. Thus, whoever was not exposed by Allah, we should not expose. However, if what is meant by "authorities" is some relatives who may relieve her of the burden, then it is possible to ask for their help in matters related to delivery and the bringing up of the baby, etc.

If Islam wouldn't allow abortion, then to whom should the child be attributed in this case? A child out of wedlock is not to be attributed to anybody. An illegitimate child doesn't have a father recognizable by the Lawmaker. In Islam, the child is for the "bed": this one cannot be attributed to his father because the child has to come through marriage otherwise it is worthless to attribute an illegitimate child to the father who committed fornication with the mother. Should he be informed in the future in order to avoid marriage to a first degree relative when he reaches the age of marriage? That is possible because there is no harm in it as far as I see.

Finally, what I said is a sort of independent reasoning, and I can't after this but say that I have reached considering whether a man is prohibited to marry his brother's daughters or his sister's daughters by all divine religions or whether that is prohibited only in Islam. The Jews permit a man to marry his brother's daughters and his sister's daughters: it could be part of their disobedience against God and religions corruption-that is what I believe it is. Incestuous relations between father and daughter occurred in the Old Testament, unfortunately attributed to a pure chaste Prophet. The Old Testament is a distorted book and includes a lot of filth: it says that when Lot committed incest with his first daughter, they produced the Moabites, which is a tribe, and they were also claimed to be out of incestuous relations With both his daughters, relations which produced large families and tribes. The jews proved this only to claim that their line of descent is pure while the others' is dubious and impure. The whole story is a mere lie, and their provisions are extremely controversial. However, we are, unfortunately, required in this era to deal with the mistakes of the Catholic Church and the small gangs that control the world, though we are not responsible for those mistakes. Suicide in the Islamic World will probably be discussed in a symposium or may be illegitimate children will. We probably have one in every 10.000, but when children born out of wedlock reach a percentage of 25% in a community, as evident in many statistics, this is the effect of mixing which has been accepted by the Catholic Church and other churches as well. Are we, Muslims, required to face and find treatment for these mistakes? No, we, as I have said, deal with the problems at the source not the outcome Our Prophet threatened and warned us that we will follow the christians and Jews, even if some of them had sexual intercourse with their mothers, some of us will do the same. This warning should make us very careful as we proceed in this life of today because the christians and the Jews have not only lost their religions, heritage and values, but they also lead loose lives. Unfortunately, no one in the world looks repugnantly at fornication except the pan-Muslim nation, while the other nations have lost the sense of prohibition towards fornication, usury, and the like.

Therefore, I'd like us to treat matters Islamically; let us not look at what came to us from other communities and try to save ourselves; we have to safe guard the source or in other words we must control the Islamic family life with Islamic controls.

The last point I want to talk about is that Islam considers that to err is human and that cruelty in punishing errors will not lead to rehabilitation. Like our bodies get dust from the atmosphere we live in, and get harmed by disorders of the systems operating inside them, our souls and our conscience may slip into errors and the natural treatment of such errors is worship, praying and fasting:

AND ESTABLISH THOU THE PRAYER AT THE TWO ENDS OF THE DAY, AND IN THE NEIGHBORING WATCHES OF THE NIGHT; VERILY VIRTUES TAKE AWAY VICE.

We are required to purify our souls by a lot of worshipping. I believe that not exposing people nor ourselves, and building up the community according to the values that, thank God, are still adhered to because they arise from our religion; are the basis for a world wide reform. But what I have no doubt about is that the modern civilization, though extremely advanced in science and other fields, promotes man's instincts and probably covers his nails or rather hooves with silk gloves while it promotes ferocity inside this man who appears in modern attire. I'm afraid I have stepped unto a rough course, and for that I apologize and may God forgive me.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thanks to the virtuous professor for his answers and for reminding us of some fundamentals that we should always keep in mind. I give the floor now to Sheikh M. A. Al-Salami to comment.

Sheikh M. A. Al-Salami

I was given the floor though I am not ready to speak, so if I'm not successful, it's my fault, and if I then it's a grant from Allah. The lecturer concluded with many consecutive questions: the first question was whether we should let that bud grow until it blossoms or abort the pregnancy during the first 40 days if the incident was revealed. I believe that the value of life is the same whether this embryo is the result of fornication with relatives or non-relatives or valid marriage. In Sharia life has the same value in all cases. If we consider abortion permissible before the first 40 days as a principle then it may be applied; and if we consider abortion prohibited when pregnancy is within wedlock then it is still prohibited in this case too. What if there is proof that this embryo is extremely deformed? Is this question an assumption or a definite fact? In other words, can doctors with the available medical means and knowledge determine definitely before the first 40 days whether the child will be deformed and whether deformity will be in its shape or in its brain? I want an answer to this question before I can answer. It is a question directed to the doctors to explain to us deformity and whether science has led them to a degree of absolute certainty that this embryo will definitely be deformed to an extent that would render him unfit for life or is it an assumption. We cannot base judgement on mere assumptions, for life must be respected.

The third question is about divulgence of secret. The original principle is that one shouldn't reveal something evil that he has witnessed. There's definitely a wise reason why Islamic legislation made fornication not to be proved unless witnessed by four eyewitnesses. If three were at one place 1 together and saw an act of fornication, they're to be lashed if they so tell, though they're talking the truth and are seeking justice; they're also to be declared transgressors and their witnesses are not to be accepted. In all crimes we accept the witness of two male witnesses of moral integrity, or one and two women, two women alone or one woman, depending on the crime witnessed, except in the case of fornication and/or adultery. In case of homicide the witness of two men is enough to apply the Islamic punishment, while fornication is not proved unless witnessed by 4 people who witnessed it together at the same time and place. Some jurists even say that if people looked through the key-hole and witnessed that they saw a certain man with a certain woman all naked, each of the four is to be lashed.

If only a movement under the cover was witnessed, even if 10 people witnessed it, they're all to be lashed. What does all this mean? It means that the principle in legislation is that he who witnesses something should expose it. The question arises, why? Because if there's a lot of talk about it, it becomes admissible and acceptable. If we keep hearing that Miss so and so committed fornication and that Mrs. so and so committed adultery, the community starts accepting it after some time. Morals haven't deteriorated so much in the west until this has become public and common; such publicity destroys the sexual relation. Therefore, divulgence of the secret is impermissible, and doctors should not reveal secrets, neither to relatives, non-relatives, nor even to the government. Doctors have never been required to inform the government nor relatives that a certain woman committed fornication with a certain man, on the contrary a doctor should keep silent and the woman has to bear the responsibility alone and soon pregnancy will be clear to everybody, relative or not. If Islam wouldn't allow abortion, then to whom should the child be attributed in this case? The Child, as H. E. Mawlana Sheikh Al-Ghazali said, is illegitimate and as Allah, highly exalted and glorified be He, destines a man to be blind, handicapped or lacking a limb. He also destined this child to be illegitimate. On one of my Friday speeches I said that the favours of Allah to us are uncountable, and that some of these favours are not usually noticed. Of these favours is that we know our fathers and everyone of us knows the name of his father, and only those who are deprived of this favour notice it. However, as this child is born out of wedlock, then it stays illegitimate and is not to be attributed to the father. According to the schools of Figh, the fact that a girl was born out of wedlock is against her being marriageable, because what is non-exsistent in the Sharia is considered non-existent physically. Al-Zamkhshary said, "If I were asked to which school I belong, I would not tell, I will withhold it. For withholding it is safer. Until I am asked, aren't you a Shafiite?" I'll then tell. They will say that I permit a man to marry his daughter, though it is prohibited. "Any way it is only an opinion of the Shafiites. What is important for us now is that all relations to the man who committed fornication and his relatives do not exist and are of no consideration, for what is considered by Sharia non existent is materially nonexistent, as if it never happened - so the fornicator is not the child's father, his mother is not the child's grandmother, nor is his sister the child's aunt. Consequently, the child should not be told in the future; he shouldn't know at all that his mother committed fornication with this man, this must not be revealed, even if it were known, based on all what I've said of the principle being not to expose, and that exposure doesn't happen unless the incident is witnessed to by 4 people before a judge; if they choose to witness, because they don't have to. There is only one case where exposure of adultery is a must, that is when a husband has not touched his wife since her last menstrual period and yet she became pregnant, then he has to declare that he hasn't impregnated her so that the child wouldn't be attributed to him. However, if a husband sees his wife committing adultery with another man, but she doesn't get pregnant, he doesn't have to expose her. That is why Muhammad Ibn Hindi, a jurist of Andalusia, damned the saying of a man. I want to revive the Sunna now that they made it die".

The Jurists answered him that Allah did not need him to revive the "Sunna" for He stated it in His Qur'an and it is therefore eternal, and that it was better for him not to take the "Oath" against his wife and not to publicize the case so that virgins and women wouldn't know that his wife is as adulteress. This is what 1 could say off my mind, 1 hope it was to the point.

Dr. O.S. Al-Ashqar

Excuse me, Sheikh-Mokhtar. You said that if it was during the first 40 days and when deformity was definite, what if it is after the first 40 days? You didn't answer that question.

Sheikh M.A. Al-Salami

About this issue of during or after the first 40 days, I asked the doctors whether they would be dead sure. I need to know this before I answer the main question. I have a question: can doctors tell that embryo will definitely be deformed, the type and degree of deformity? and what's the meaning of deformity? Because being blind is different from being crippled, and both are completely different from being mentally retarded unable to recognize anything in life, to understand or to control movement. The issue differs from one case to another, this will clarify the question for me in order to be able to answer.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thank you, Professor, for returning the ball to the doctors' field as far as the question about deformity is concerned, and for reminding us, in addition, that disapproving that which is disreputable should always be the condition. I'm afraid to open the door for comments and questions lest that should consume much of the time allotted to the other lectures. However, may be we can have just five minutes for discussions, I give the floor to Dr. Tarnadeel Al-Gindi for a one minute comment.

Dr. T. Al-Gindi

In my practice of psychiatry we get cases that are wilder than imagination and we're sometimes unable to decide whether what the patient ,said was true or mere imagination. I'll give an example related to sexual assault: A young woman, 20 years of age, was admitted to the psychiatric hospital following attempted suicide. After several consulting sessions she said that the reason was that a man in a degree of consanguinity precluding marriage to her has repeatedly assaulted her sexually. In my opinion, if what she said was true, we are racing here a three-fold situation; first, this man is sick; second, the young woman is a victim in the first place and a patient in the second place; third, the crime of sexual assault.

With all due respect to professional confidentiality and to what has been said by the virtuous speakers, in order to verify what she said can we have her face the accused relative and divulge her secret, for the assaulter could be someone else and she's only accusing a relative precluded to marry her. How can we provide protection of this patient from this man to whose house she is going to return where she'll spend the rest of her life? How can we treat her if safety and security cannot be provided? I hope these question will be answered.

Professor Sheikh Ezzuddeen Al-Khateeb

As to the issue of pregnancy resulting from an evil relation; as H.E. Mufti of Tunisia and H.E. Sheikh Al-Ghazali said, the embryo is a human being that has the right to life and aggression on its life is absolutely impermissible. If it were permissible to abort or kill such an embryo, the Messenger of Allah, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, would have been the first person to give us the justification for killing a child born out of wedlock when the Ghamidi woman confessed fornication. As for the issue of deformity: Whether the embryo will be deformed or not, whether we abort it because it will be deformed or not, and whether being deformed is definite or not. In fact, this should not be an area of questioning at all because you doctors have raised questions, in the morning session, about the zygotes in test tubes - after an ovum is united with a spermatozoon, whether it is permissible to dispose of it or not; if you didn't agree on such a case, then how about a case where there is a real human being? I'll ask you another question; what about a child not born out of wedlock, but legitimately, and it was deformed, is it permissible to kill it because of its deformity? There is no difference between a human being already born deformed and. a deformed human being still in the belly of the mother; aggression is impermissible in both cases. Our religion also prohibits aggression on it, the Messenger, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, said.

"It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (to the fact) that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of the three cases ".

Aggression on a human life is a major crime. This human being born out of wedlock is to be attributed to the mother, not to the father. This is the provision of Islamic Sharia, and all the jurists agree to this: it is not to be attributed to the father, but it is to be attributed to the mother so that it would be saved and to stay a respected human being.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

The five minutes are over. Do you agree to have an extension of five more minutes? I give the floor to Dr. Kamal for explanation only:

Considering the issue theoretically, the possibilities that this embryo will carry congenital deformities are very great - it's only a theory of possibilities, but the possibilities are very high. However, prenatal diagnoses are made to diagnose many hereditary diseases during pregnancy, the deformities we mentioned, however, are the ones that would render the baby completely handicapped, unable to adapt to post-delivery life. Lacking a finger or having an extra finger wouldn't be a calamity or anything of the sort! the deformity could be a defective neural tube, mental retardation or disorders in metabolism; this is what we mean by deformity in this case.

Chairman Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

I suggest we postpone any other comments, if any, until the remaining research is presented, then those who would like to stay after that for discussions may do so. The second topic: "Hymenorrhaphy", presented by Dr. Kamal Fahmi; the research is on Page in the handout. I give the floor to Dr. Kamal Fahmi.

Presentation of Research by Dr. K. Fahmi (Research Section Page No. 394).

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thanks, Dr. Fahmi for this concise research and for presenting specific questions which I hope the two Fiqh researches will answer. I give the floor to Professor Sheikh Ezzuddeen Al-Khateeb Al-Tamimi to present his research first.

Presentation of research by Sheikh E.A. Al-Tamimi (Research Section Page No. 517).

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thanks to the virtuous professor. The second research is Dr. Muhammad Naem Yaseen's which starts on P. 531 and takes thirty something pages. I hope Dr. Yaseen will sum it up in 15 minutes.

Presentation of Research by Dr. M.N. Yaseen, (Research Section Page No. 531).

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thanks Dr. Yaseen for your brief presentation. May be we should have two or three of the jurists and two or three of the doctors. Who would like to comment?

Dr. Hamed Abdulmajeed Jami'

I'm not going to comment on a certain research in particular, but I'd like to draw the attention to the fact that virginity is a matter of consequence to jurists in many cases: the permission to marry the virgin and the one who is not a virgin, is of consequence, even in making and entering into a contract, it is a consequence to those who say that a woman can marry herself and directly makes the contract as well as those who say she cannot.

Virginity is also a matter of consequence to jurists when a man marries a woman on condition that she is a virgin; some jurists even say that if husband makes a condition on the wife's legal administrator or on the wife that she should be a virgin, then after marriage finds her to be otherwise, he will then have the right to divorce her, and to raise the case to the judge who would divorce them. Virginity is also a matter of consequence to the jurists in many other fields of Fiqh which I don't want to elaborate much on and I don't want to elaborate on the ones I've already mentioned either, because that would take a long time.

I'll only add to what I've already said that hymenorrhaphy is definitely deception to the husband-to-be. I'm not saying that the ruptured hymen is proof of fornication, but it is definitely deception of the future husband. It also has another aspect which is prohibited by the Munificent Qur'an

AND I WILL COMMAND THEM SO THAT THEY WILL ALTER THE CREATION OF ALLAH.

Hymenorrhaphy is not less in gravity than plucking hair from the face, separating between the teeth or tatooing as per the Hadiths mentioned, including the one of Abdullah Ibn Masoud.

Sheikh M. Al-Ghazali

I look at this issue from the vantage point of the fact that when a man slips then repents he finds the door to repentance open before him and paved. If a girl slipped and it was known of her that she repented and wanted to lead and honest life once again, should she be helped to that or should she be hindered and humiliated for ever? This is what I'm considering. If a prostitute wants to have a hymenorrhaphy we wouldn't agree or accept that, but slipping is different; to err is human. For the Arabs and Oriental people generally, as part of their culture, when a man commits fornication he doesn't find any harm in so doing, but if his daughter commits fornication, he kills her; is this our faith, is this the logic of Islam? I don't think I am lessening the gravity of committing fornication on the part of the boy nor on the part of the girl; either of them should be punished if presistently sinning. However, if the girl repents and feels sorry do we keep the doors closed before her though we open them for the man? Why does the man commit fornication, stays unexposed and can marry without any embarrassment, while if a girl slipped she is branded.

I swear to God, girls have come to me, they only played with themselves, and I believe them because their tears were faster than their words; they were lost at the issue of hymenorrhaphy. I wasn't sure myself - I am not a jurist, I care about education more than about Sharia provisions. So I thought that it is impossible that Islam opens the door to repentance for men and makes it easy for them to get back to what is right and yet closes it before women. Therefore, I'd tell the doctor to study the condition of the patient, so if repentance is evident in her and if you believe that unexposing her will make her born anew as an honest girl, then perform the hymenorrhaphy; but if she is a coquette, then don't help in deception.

Sheikh, M. A. Al-Salami

We've listened to Professor Yaseen as if we were listening to a lawyer in court. There was a change in the point of research we don't say that the girl with a ruptured hymen has committed fornication, the actual issue is would the doctor who performs hymenorrhaphy have deceived the girls future husband or not? A man came to the Messenger, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, and wanted to profess Islam, but asked the Messenger, not to make fornication impermissible, so the Messenger said.

"Do you accept it for your mother"?

The man answered, "No" He asked him.

"Do you accept it for your sister"?

The man answered, "No" and "No" every time he was asked. So the Messenger, said.

"That likewise the people do not accept it for their mothers, sisters or daughters".

Likewise, I ask every one of us, while we're here, to get back to himself, after what you have heard, does anyone of you accept to marry a girl who had hymenorrhaphy without knowing that? Praise be to Allah. We are not mature enough and so are the customs as envisaged by Professor Naem. Still. Would a man accept to marry a virgin of whose virginity he is dead sure while the fornicator laughs at him in the street for the husband only got his leftovers. Deception is nothing but deception for me, and I believe that anything that goes as far as deception shouldn't be done.

This doesn't mean that this girl is finished, I know many men who out of love married girls who committed fornication.

However, it is different when the girl has sinned, and if Sharia were applied and she confessed, the Islamic punishment would have been applied on her, thus exposing her.

AND LET NOT TENDERNESS TAKE HOLD OF YOU IN REGARDS TO THE TWAIN IN THE LAW OF ALLAH, IF YE HAVE COME TO BELIEVE IN ALLAH AND THE LAST DAY. AND LET WITNESS THIS TORMENT A BAND OF THE BELIEVERS.

Thus, this issue is very clear. Mercy is no doubt enjoined by Islam, but it is also mercy that deception doesn't occur and doesn't exceed the limits, so that we don't cry later that it happened. I believe that what really holds a girl back from committing fornication is the fact that she has to preserve her hymen and when that is destroyed, by permitting hymenorrhaphy, a door to evil will be opened; this is a way-in for Satan. So let's fear God.

Dr. Yehia N. Khawaji

To begin, I'd like to say to Dr. Yaseen that while he was presenting his lecture, he asked questions and answered them himself, and I believe that is not right. He should have asked the questions and let either the doctors or the jurists answer them, not to answer them himself; that's not right, and I believe the majority agree with me to that.

The second point: about social justice and abortion, we have forgotten that, there are also two topics that I'd like to get back to sexual assault. The issue I repeat, is opening the door to prostitution and I'll give you examples from Europe, for I've witnessed cases like these myself. People go there from the Gulf Area in particular; God favoured them with money so they started thinking of nothing but sex. Some girls who can afford it travel abroad and do whatever they want and before getting married they go to a doctor, tell him a tale about what happened to them, how they were raped and ask him to mind the hymen out of mercy; how can I take it for granted that such a girl is telling the truth? A hymenorrhaphy costs only a thousand pounds or a thousand dollars which is nothing for such a girl, if we charge 20 thousand she'll pay, and it turns into a trade this way. We shouldn't forget important points like opening the door to prostitution for such girls especially with the contraceptive pills being so available and handy. If a girl finds out that she's not going to get pregnant and hymenorrhaphy too is available, then there will be no problem-the door is open to prostitution. I hope that Dr. Yaseen will take these two points into consideration and stop playing the lawyer for, I believe, this is not a good job - to defend prostitution. May God bless you and thank you.

Dr. Salah Al-ateeqi

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not defending Dr. Yaseen, I'm rather fascinated I'd like to add another bit of information: there are some girls born without a hymen, this is, mentioned in some medicine books; a very limited percentage but it would raise doubts in case of denial. What is the Sharia attitude in such a case?

Dr. Tawfiq Al-Wa'i

There's no doubt that Dr. Yaseen's research is very valuable and in conformity with the Sharia fundamentals as to unexposing male and female Muslims. In fact, we have seen how Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, acted in a certain incident: a man came to him and said, I have a daughter that I buried alive before I became a Muslim, but saved her in the last minute, when Islam came, she became a Muslim; then she slipped into the sin of fornication. When some people came to propose to her. I told them about that, so they left. Some other people have come now to propose to her, shall I tell them about her slip?" Omar answered, "No, if you mention that to them I'll punish you and make of you an example in the country. Marry her like chaste women and don't mention anything to them". We're not, in fact, speaking here about the type of deviant girls whom the fellow doctor has seen fooling around in Europe. Dr. Yaseen has, in fact, made it clear that the women who do it as a trade or do it publicly, or those who are loose are not to be included among those considered for hymenorrhaphy. However the point which I'd like to raise in connection with-this issue is: shall the girl's word be taken here or should the opinion of her family be asked for as well? In other words, shouldn't we take the opinion of the girl's family in order to be sure that there's no crime involved? I believe that taking the opinion of the family, the father or the legal administrator is important so that they won't expose her, yet at the same time know about what she had done and keep an eye on her for her good, with God's will.

After all, we permit telling lies about trifles and we also know that it is permissible to lie in order to reconcile between people - which means that for reconciliation between two human beings lying is permissible. So why don't we overlook it in this serious problem which may cause a scandal not only for the girl but also for her family and even for the Islamic community as it opens the door for others to slander... etc. And above all, the serious detriment which all of us should avoid is giving a free rein to the girl or closing the door to repentance before her, for that may lead to looseness and similar faults. Lying is permissible for the sake of reconciliation between people; a husband tells his wife a lie and a wife tells her husband a lie when a lie is needed to reconcile between them, etc. So let's look at the issue from this perspective and we may intervene with some directives and conditions but we shouldn't close the door.

Dr. Hassan Hathout

In the first place, it's not true that a girl could be born without a hymen; throw that book away. There are two sides to the issue, as you see, and we shouldn't be affected by excitement or feelings. None of us likes fornication or defends it. I've never, thank God, committed fornication, but as a gynecologist I've performed this operation twice and helped another doctor three times. I don't like to perform this operation and I usually tell the people who ask for it to go away. And no one of us likes to be renowned for performing this operation; there are doctors specialized in it in the medicine market and they earn millions out of it. When I was an intern in Al-Demerdash Hospital, in 1951, a girl from Menya, Upper Egypt, who was a maid-servant was brought by her mother for abortion since some evil person had raped her and she got pregnant. I convinced the mother that we don't abort and that the embryo has the right to life and that we can still save her from exposure; the days were still good then. She was admitted to the hospital when her belly started to get bigger; I admitted her into the hospital and no diagnosis was recorded and she stayed until labour pains started and we took her not to the delivery room but to a side room. She delivered the baby and we had her fingerprint on a waiver document as concerns the baby, in conformity with the combinational procedures; and this baby had a story and I'm still following it up, However, a few months later the girl came back with her mother and the mother told me that the girl's father is dead and that the girl was proposed to through her paternal uncle who accepted, and that if the girl married and was found to have no hymen she would be inevitably slain. So, I went to my late professor Dr. Ahmad Ammar, may Allah have mercy upon him, and told him the story truthfully and that we had two points to consider: the first is that if we performed the operation, we would be changing facts and deceiving the husband-to-be, etc, and that is prohibited; but the second consideration is that the girl would be slain. I explained that I believed that this was a harm and that was a harm and that we should choose the lesser harm, and I asked for the professor's permission to make her a new hymen, and he permitted me. So I did it and the girl got married unexposed and is still unexposed. This is something which I denied many other girls depending on my discretion.

In fact, when a cognette comes to me and my intuition tells me that she doesn't deserve to be unexposed; and being also careful not to expose myself because if girls come one after the other, they tell each other. Besides, if the Minister of Health knows of it, he may take some action against me. However, so far I have a very peaceful mind because I've conscientiously done it - one should apply the rule of choosing the lesser harm. When it is a life against deception, one's heart may guide one in choosing the lesser harm. I'd like to say that the hymen is truly a guard of chastity since the girl who has an intact hymen wants to keep it and that makes her less susceptible to slipping into sin, but leaving the girls without this guard may drive her to sin further. In other words, the girl who lost her hymen, unless she is a fallen prostitute, would have the guard back in its place with quick hymenorrhaphy, and then knowing that she has a hymen she's not going to sin again, but if I leave her with a defoliated hymen all she needs will be contraceptive pills. There could also be another perspective: that I wouldn't respect a girl who abstains from fornication only because she has a hymen, and I wouldn't consider her honourable nor chaste. When there are brothers and sisters: the boys fornicate and the girls, don't only for fear of deflorating the hymen and the consequent scandal, I don't consider this honour, I consider it social hypocrisy. The community which is reticent when boys commit fornication and is furious when girls commit it is not a fair community.

Dr. M.S. Al-Ashqar

I wish I could speak a little about the first topic. Regarding the topic under discussion now: about the deception involved in hymenorrhaphy, it seems to me that the case is not what Dr. Yaseen pointed out that deception in respect of the Sharia evidence is for providing a proof. The point is not to provide a proof. But it is as he said an "evidence of integrity" and we don't want this evidence to be false. We want the husband to be 100% sure that he has married and honourable decent woman who has not been touched by another man.

WHOM BEFORE THEM HATH DEFLOWERED NEITHER MAN NOR JINN.

I've found in the proven Prophetic Sunna in the two Sahihs that the hymen is a valid evidence as the Prophet, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, said in the story of the three who took shelter in a cave:

"The man who wanted to seduce a poor woman who was in a dire need of money, so he wanted her to take money from him and let him have sexual intercourse with her, but she told him to fear Allah and not to take off the seal except righteously, i. e., not to deflower her except through valid marriage".

So, a hymen is a "seal" like the seal on the envelope of a confidential letter sent from one person to another; if it is delivered with an intact seal, the seal of the Department or of the sender - a wax seal, then the receiver is dead sure that letter was not opened and he opens it himself perfectly assured that no one else had access to the secret it carries and that the deposit in trust was safely delivered.

However, with the cases presented by Prof. Yaseen who so excellently presented the details of cases where it is impermissible to mend the hymen or where there is opposition to hymenorrhaphy, I don't agree with H.E. Sheikh Al-Khateeb that hymenorrhaphy is a kind of changing the creation of Allah, because we said, and I believe a decision was passed, in the morning session that plastic surgery would be impermissible when it changes the normal original condition but not when it treats a wound, like when a finger is severed and rejoined or in case of transplanting a finger or a kidney from another person. We said that we all agreed to that and I didn't see anyone objecting to kidney transplant as it can't be said that this is changing of the creation of Allah. it is, in fact, returning the creation of Allah to what it originally was; there shouldn't be any dispute over treating wounds and injuries resulting from failing down. I believe that rape is similar to wounds and accidental injuries because the girls would have no hand in it, yet no man will accept to marry her if he knows she was raped because he would think she faked rape. So, if the doctor knows that the girl was raped, she definitely had no hand in it, and the condition should be returned to what it originally was, exactly like a wound. These are cases of treating a wound-or an affliction to the creation of Allah - in order to return the creation of Allah to the original condition.

I believe that these cases shouldn't be disputable-cases of rape, falling down and wound. Now remains the case of fornication which is of two kinds: fornication just once or what we may call a "slip" and prostitution, and each of the two kinds subdivides into two cases because the case is different when either of them, even the prostitute, is repentant. I look at the two equally because H.E. Sheikh Ghazali considered man and woman equal when they repent. We accept the man who was habituated to fornication when he repents so we also accept the prostitute when she repents. Allah, highly exalted and glorified be He, pointed this out in many instances and the Sunna shows it too. However, when we speak of repentance we should differentiate between the repentant and the deceiver. Who is the deceiver? It is the one through whose conduct you can tell that she is still a prostitute, but she is getting married after a short lime and wants to deceive her husband - this is the worst case truly. Now, remains the case of slipping just once; in fact, I wanted in the beginning to be against professor Yaseen in respect of this case - to slip, but I have come to agree with him. When we were discussing the first topic in this symposium, I said that the one who slipped into committing fornication just once may lie and even swear to it if asked by the judge. So considering the issue from the same perspective, I tend to take Dr. Yaseen's side at this particular point: if the girl has slipped only once and repented, and her repentance is evident in her conduct and that she definitely wouldn't do it again, and in the case of a prostitute we must make sure whether her repentance is true or not. I hope this will be of use in reaching a decision, with God's will.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thanks, I'd like to take your opinion on some proposals: the first is to postpone the discussion of this topic until 11:00, tomorrow; the other is to carry on for another hour. Who agrees to carry on for another half an hour..

Dr. M. N. Yaseen

I didn't aim in the first place, at convincing you of my opinion, not at all; I know that it is rather impossible to simply convince other people of what took me three months. I rather aimed at motivating you to read the research as it is a trust and perhaps the researcher is right. The fellow participants who opposed me, especially as some are discovering bit by bit that some or many of the parts or divisions mentioned in my research are right, my only aim is to raise your interest in reading the research. This is one point.

The other point: about the kind doctor who said that this is something that concerns jurists; I don't know what his concept or definition of the jurist is. I'm a jurist too, I'm not a physician, I don't like to introduce myself but I'm specialized in Sharia and comparative Fiqh and I believe that my position is printed on the cover of the research. However, if being a jurist is acquired in any other way, I'll with God's will request it and present it to you at the next symposium, and I do hope that with God's will, you'll only think well of me. You have, probably, read one of my books that were published in America or in other countries, e.g. "Al-Iman" (i.e. FAITH) may have reached you. This is what I have come to, for it is a matter of independent reasoning, I don't agree with those who say that it is indisputable; I let people express their opinions and thoughts without imposing any pressure on science, debate or symposia. I believe, and Allah knows better, that this is the right way towards reform, with God's will.

Chairman, Dr. S. A-Ateeqi

Those who would like to pursue debate please return at 11.00 tomorrow. The evening session will be held at 5.00, with God's will. The Recommendations Committee is to meet right after this session. Excuse me, there is a proposal that we meet for the debate at 4:00 instead of 11:00. Then, we'll start tomorrow at 4.00 p.m. and we'll not meet at 11:00.

Dr. M.A. Ibrahim

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question, first, please: are the minutes of this session being recorded? OK, very good. First, I'll get back to the issue of fertilized ova, because we unrighteously didn't get to discussing this topic yesterday; we presented the researches then the chairman adjourned the session and promised to discuss these topics the next session, but the next session was all given to menstruation and intermenstruation, and our topic was never discussed. In fact, there are many questions raised in the two researches presented by Dr. Basalamah and myself and we request those questions to be answered. Our kind professors were unanimous, except Mawlana Sheikh Al-Ghazali. We raised the issue of fertilized ova, which is, dear fellows, the issue of the world today, east and west; the U.S. Australia and France; the church and the jews. We want to know the provisions of Allah for this issue. You said that embryos are respected; Yes, we accept that they're respected and please tell us what happens when we preserve them and one of the partners dies? If the husband dies, what are the legal consequences regarding inheritance and the wife's "idda"? And who has the right to dispose of these fertilized ova?.

Second, we agreed in the symposium on Human life on the beginning and end of life and now I find that in this symposium human life is respected only after the ovum is settled in the uterus, and yesterday someone went back to saying that a human being is alive as soon as fertilization occurs. We'd like to know whether this is the opinion of the majority in this symposion, or not. This issue is extremely important, because on it a lot of provisions are based. It is, in fact, an important issue whether in Kuwait or in Saudi Arabia - the issue is important to us and we're seeking a clear-cut opinion; and we're not going to accept any recommendations of the committee regarding this point without convincing discussion.

Chairman, Dr. S.A. Al-Ateeqi

I give the floor to Sheikh E. Al-Khateeb to answer the questions.

Sheikh E. Al-Khateeb

Disposing of embryo before its replacement into uterus takes place, isn't that what you're asking about? I do confirm what H. E. Sheikh Ghazali said: such an embryo is of no importance whatsoever and it is inadmissible to base on it a Sharia Judgement to the effect that it inherits, this is inadmissible. In fact, only the embryo in the mother's belly is the one that inherits while the one in medical instruments and records is of no consequence at all. The embryo which is of Sharia consequence, why is it called embryo? Because it is in the mother's belly in "a threefold darkness". We can't call the cells that divide and multiply out of a spermatozoa and an ovum in test tubes outside the uterus an embryo, this is of no consequence in inheritance. I was surprised at those who asked about the legal consequences in case sperm was taken from a man with which an ovum was fertilized then the man died. As soon as the man dies all his relations with life ends as well as his relation with his wife and matrimony is no longer valid, therefore any use of the sperm and the ova after death is illegitimate and does not conform to Sharia; I'm dead sure of this, no doubts or assumptions, I'm positive that, the death of the husband is the borderline between existence and non-existence of matrimony. As soon as the husband is dead there will be absolutely no matrimonial relation between his wife and this dead man. So any sperm deposited in a bank is worthless and using it is prohibited; I don't say that it is fornication, but it does have something in common with fornication in such a case since this woman is no longer the wife of that man and we can't take his sperm to her, not to mention that Sharia-wise this woman may get married immediately after her "idda ". What's said in the west that the wife wants to cherish the love and memory of her dead husband, and the like, is, I believe, indisputably inadmissible in our religion and Sharia.

As for the issue of abortion, if there is a borderline determining the beginning of man's existence as a human being with a soul; as soon as man has soul, i.e. the time set by the Messenger of Allah, it is absolutely indisputable that abortion is impermissible after that except in one case when the mother's life is definitely in danger. As for the period prior to soul "breathing" into man, there are two Fiqh opinions, whether in the past or modern Islamic history: some jurists said that it is permissible as long as the soul hasn't been formed i.e. abortion doesn't mean the killing of a human being; some jurists said that life exists - of course, life exists in all living creatures, however, the others don't consider it the kind of life of a human being with a soul. Of course the disputed issue is retardedness in an embryo prior to soul "breathing" into him. Nevertheless even those who say that it is permissible, say that it is only permissible under certain special circumstances and for particular necessities - it is not a case of absolute permissibility so that if a woman finds her self a little tired she could tell her husband that she'll get rid of the baby; this would open the door for a tremendous evil. I'm always asked in Amman whether it is permissible and I answer that it is impermissible, because I believe that if I said it is permissible, hospitals would get flooded with abortion cases since every fight between husband and wife would lead to abortion in many cases. Of course, Muslims don't need such wild situations in their matrimonial and family life. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for this symposium not to permit abortion except with very restricted limits abortion prior to the "breathing" of soul into the embryo only, but after it is "breathed" into him abortion is impermissible, as well known, except when the mother's life is actually and definitely in danger. I urge the symposium not to widely permit abortion prior to soul "breathing", if we have to permit it, let it be in specific semi-necessary cases; Opening the door widely, I believe, is not permissible by the Sharia for purposes of preserving the Muslim family.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

I call upon Sheikh Badr to speak about what to do with surplus fertilized ova.

Sheikh Badr Al-Mutawali

In fact, what the professor who spoke before me said is almost all to the point. I participated in the symposium that passed opinion on abortion, when it is permissible and when the human life begins and ends, and, we agreed that human life starts from the minute the ovum, the woman's egg cell, is fertilized with the man's spermatozoon, this as the professor said, when the process occurs in the woman's body. However, when an ovum is fertilized with a spermatozoa out side the woman it is of no consequence at all and we shouldn't give it any weight whatsoever in the Sharia whether in case of abortion or spoiling. In other words, if we spoil this ovum there' nothing to it and there are no legal consequences whatsoever because this ovum doesn't have any value or respect unless it is in the womb, in which case it forms the real correct start of human life, though worthless outside the uterus.

If we open this door, we'll be opening a door of tremendous evil. Suppose we have a fertilized ovum outside the uterus and it grows until it has something of a human form, some parts, then we spoil it; I'm not saying that there would be any consequences in this case, but out of respect to humanity, it should be buried; I can't imagine considering that it had life and died and we give it a name and offer funeral prayer; I don't think we have gone this far, the point is, if it grows until it has something of a human shape and we spoil it, we shouldn't throw it away for dogs to eat or anything of the sort, we should wrap it with a piece of cloth and bury it out of respect to a human being, or rather part of a human being, just like when some part of a human being is severed we don't throw it away to some animal or dog to eat but we respect that part:

AND ASSUREDLY WE HAVE HONOURED THE CHILDREN OF ADAM.

However, it is absolutely impossible to make inheritance provisions for a fertilized ovum outside the uterus, nor can we make provisions for naming nor any other provisions related to human beings because we only respect this ovum when it is inside a woman's uterus. We shouldn't really give any respect to such an ovum; it is impermissible to abort or spoil it when it is inside a woman's uterus, but not when in a laboratory - In fact, I have a phobia about laboratories because I have an incident which I can't tell you about and it made me doubt everything. Therefore, I had my reservations, in this symposium, about fertilizing a woman's ovum with her husband's sperm, because this door opens to a detrimental evil since this ovum will go to laboratories where there are hundreds of specimen and lineages of descent will get mixed up. So, I was reserved in this respect, because carelessness is so terrible in laboratories, and saying that precautions should be taken is theoretical talk rather than practical. What will practically happen if we open this door is and endless confusion in lineages of descent. I do really believe that these fertilized ova as far as they are in the laboratories are worthless and we shouldn't base on them any provisions of inheritance or otherwise, and God knows better.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thank you. We are left with two speakers. I give the floor to Dr. Tawfiq Al-wa'i

Dr. T. Al-Wa'i

In fact, when we speak about inviolability of ova, there is a difference between inviolability and respect. There's no doubt that ova and human parts should be respected but they wouldn't have any inviolability at all, because giving them inviolability will consequently necessitate other measures. Sanctity is not to be given just like that. Destroying an ovum involves something of aggression, but we find that the Qur'an honours man in two cases, when Allah said:

THEN WHEN I HAVE FORMED HIM AND BREATHED INTO HIM OF MY SPIRIT FALL DOWN UNTO HIM PROSTRATE.

So this respect is not due to man until he's formed and the soul "breathed into him", and there shouldn't be any aggression against him ever since. The symposium on abortion discussed this point and clarified it. However to speak about sanctity of ova as H.E. Sheikh Badr has said, when they're in laboratories for testing, outside the uterus, if aggression occurs against a man or a woman carrying an ovum, or anything of the sort, there will be no consequences to that. If we're supporting abortion of deformed embryo or as some said the embryo that is evidently and definitely deformed, won't it be more appropriate to approve the destruction of an ovum which doesn't involve an embryo or anything and has no sanctity whatsoever. If the deformed embryo no longer has sanctity when it is indisputably proved to be deformed and that it won't be able to support itself in life as well as useless or not much of a human, won't it be more logical when we speak about ova that have nothing of human life; otherwise everything on earth has life, won't it be more appropriate not to give them sanctity or even to consider it hated to dispose of them? There is absolutely nothing to it.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thank you Dr. Tawfiq. I give the floor now to Dr. Ahmad Shawqi Ibrahim.

Dr. Ahmed Shawqi Ibrahim

Embryos, no doubt, have inviolability, but what are the embryos? The word embryo, in Arabic "janeen", is derived from the word "Junna which means protection. The Messenger, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him, said.

"Fasting is "junna" i.e. protection".

Hence, the embryo "janeen" is the protected creature. The word "ajinna" (plural form of 'janeen') occurs in the Qur'an only once:

HE IS BEST KNOWER OF YOU WHEN HE PRODUCED YOU OUT OF THE EARTH, AND WHEN YE WERE EMBRYOS "AJINNA " IN THE BELLIES OF YOUR MOTHERS.

Thus, the embryo is not an embryo unless it is in the "belly" of the mother. Therefore, a fertilized ovum, even when it grows, outside the uterus is never considered an embryo. As Allah said in the Our'anic verse:

AND WHEN YE WERE EMBRYOS IN THE BELLIES OF YOUR MOTHERS.

The embryo has to be within the protection of the uterus. Thus the term "frozen embryos" is not correct or it is a mistake because those are not embryos. What is created in a test-tube or in a laboratory should never be called embryo at all because an embryo doesn't exist except in the mother's uterus. "He created you in the bellies of your mothers, one creation after creation, in a threefold darkness". This is what I wanted to clarify, and I hope it will be included in the recommendations along with a definition of "embryo" so that we would know what an embryo is.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thank you. There are some questions.

Sheikh E.K. Al-Tamimi

Regarding the inheritance of a natural embryo, even the natural embryo has no right to inheritance until it's born alive; I mean that if it is born dead it doesn't inherit at all but, after it's born alive as a full human being - being alive is the cornerstone.

Another point: Allah, says.

O MANKIND! IF YE BE IN DOUBT RESPECTING THE RESURRECTION, THEN WE HAVE CREATED YOU OF DUST, THEN OF A DROP, THEN OF CLOT, THEN OF A PIECE OF FLESH, FORMED AND UNFORMED, THAT WE MIGHT MANIFEST UNTO YOU OUR POWER AND WE SETTLE IN THE WOMBS THAT WHICH WE WILL UNTIL A TERM DETERMINED. THEN WE BRING YOU FORTH AS BABES, THEN WE LET YOU REACH YOUR MATURITY. AND OF YOU IS HE WHO DIETH, AND OF YOU IS HE WHO IS BROUGHT BACK TO THE MOST ABJECT AGE, SO THAT AFTER KNOWING HE KNOWETH NOT AUGHT. AND THOU BEHOLDEST THE EARTH WITHERED UP.

He created us "of dust" by creating Adam, who was created of dust and there were no human beings before he was created the way Allah created him. "Then of a drop" by making the starting stage of creation for Adam's descendants of the water (sperm). The fact that man's creation starts with water doesn't mean that this water is man just as dust is not Adam. "Then of a drop" means that it is in itself not the man in question. "Then of clot" - the "clot" is not the man in question either. "Then of a piece of flesh, formed and unformed", so we start here; the "piece of flesh" which is "formed", which started to take the form of a human being in the mother's uterus is divided into two parts, as doctors tell us, one part floats to the upper part of the uterus while the first part stays attached to the wall of the uterus and connecting them is the umbilical cord which nourishes the unformed to give the formed, in which life starts, before life is formed in it. So how about when it is in medical incubators in laboratories? I wouldn't call it a human being, nor would our religion, nor do I have right to consider it a human being. I wouldn't offer funeral prayer.

Dr. M. H. Ibrahim

May I explain some facts of the modern scientific findings which correspond to this facinating description in the munificent verse: first, after an ovum is fertilized, I'd like to assure Mawlana Sheikh Badr, the longest period on records of its life in laboratories is only 16 days, and after that the fertilized ovum goes out of its membrane and even if it is returned into the uterus it won't get embedded to form and embryo. After these 16 days, the fertilized ovum divides and multiplies into so many cells, and even after getting attached to the uterine wall, the preliminary protrusion appears only in a very small part of these cells and when this protrusion appears the ovum becomes faulty and will never produce an embryo and gets discharged. First, in the natural pregnancy when fertilization naturally occurs in the fellopian tubes 60% of the ova don't get embedded and even after they get embedded a high percentage of these ova get aborted - the percentage of abortion is about 17%; women are never aware of this, but through measuring the level of certain harmones, we know that the menstrual period was nothing but an unnoticed abortion. In fact, this preliminary protrusion appears after the tenth day after an ovum is embedded and it appears quite often and sometimes it doesn't, so the ovum turns into a mole which may result in a malignant tumour, and is called "pre-embryo" - this is the scientific term, it is not called "embryo" but "pre-embryo".

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

We can sum up the jurisprudence opinions....

Dr. Omar Al-Ashqar

I asked H. E. Sheikh Al-Salami after one of the sessions, "considering that in the Islamic Sharia abortion indemnity is payable when an aggression occurs against an embryo, what is the legal consequence for aggression against fertilized ova?" So he said that "ghurra" i.e. abortion indemnity would be payable, and I then said that if the number of fertilized ova was large; 10, 12 or 15 ova, would that mean 15 ghurras will be payable? If we call fertilized ova "embryos" then we'll have to apply the Islamic Sharia; when there's an aggression "ghurra "is payable - 15 or 18 ghurras, an astronomical sum of money. I believe that, even from the Sharia point of view, fertilized ova are far from being called embryos.

Sheikh M. M. Al-Salami

I wouldn't have interfered, but now I have to since my name was mentioned. In fact, I told him that we have to be logically consistent; so if we consider that the fertilized ovum in the mother's uterus is inviolable and there shouldn't be any aggression against it leading to abortion. In fact I think we must differentiate between two different words being "inviolable" and being "respectable". I said that if the ovum after being fertilized aquires respectability when in the mother's uterus then it should have the same respectability outside the mother's uterus. So, whether we consider the beginning of life so, 60, 70 or 10 days after date of fetilization, then sanctity will be given to ova starting that date whether inside or outside the uterus; or make the borderline at a later date, it will still make no difference - where it is, does not affect the judgement. This is all I wanted to say. Hence, if a woman is pregnant with triplets and aborted three embryos, she will claim three "ghurras"; and if a man kills 10 people by mistake, he'll have to pay 10 "diyyas", (blood money), the number doesn't affect the judgement in any way, I don't know why should there be that large number of fertilized ova? why don't we solve the problem from the very beginning and fertilize what we need only?

Sheikh Badr Al-Mutawali

When is "ghurra" payable? Is it payable as soon as an ovum gets embedded in the uterus or after it develops into human form? "ghurra" is not payable until it has a formed human shape. If it is still a "drop", a "clot" or a "piece of flesh" I believe that "ghurra" wouldn't be payable, "ghurra" is payable only when there is life. We considered that the proper start of life is when the ovum gets embedded in the uterus. However, when "ghurra " becomes payable is different from when life starts, provided that fertilization occurs inside the "belly", as evident from all the previous talk, when "ghurra" becomes payable is a different issue than when life starts; the embedding of ovum in the uterus even if we spoil it, doesn't make "ghurra " payable.

Sheikh M. M. Ai-Salami

In fact, Sheikh Badr, we may spoil them. There is no reference in the Islamic legislation, as far as I know, that jurists differentiated between a certain time and another; they said whenever there's aggression against pregnancy in the "belly" resulting in abortion, the fact remains that for them, at their time, abortion couldn't be recognized unless the woman discharged something tangible - can be seen by the naked eye; so they based their judgement on that. However, if we accept that they gave inviolability to man starting from date of formation, we'll have to decide whether formation or human form starts from date of fertilization wherever it would then be 20 or 40 days or even 4 months later so that we can say that beginning is from this time. We have to maintain a clear cut opinion in order to have a clear logic, this is what I wanted to say. What some said about divisions to before or after four months is not what jurists said.

Dr. T. Al-Wa'i

When the ovum is settled in the uterus "ghurra" will be payable. The ovum may not get settled, but when it is proven to be settled, any aggression will then be against something well-established.

Dr. M. N. Yaseen

I'd like to speak about when "ghurra " would be payable because I've recently read about this issue and I know that jurists hold three different opinions. One opinion is that "ghurra " is only payable in case of "formed piece of flesh", i.e. when there is a blood clot "ghurra" will be payable, and the jurists who hold this opinion are in fact, the majority. This is the least thing discharged for which "ghurra" would be payable and not earlier than that. I only wanted to clarify this point and that there are three opinions held by jurists.

Dr. I. Al-Sayyad

I'd like to go back to invoke the Munificent Qur'an:

THEREAFTER WE BROUGHT HIM FORTH AS ANOTHER CREATURE. BLEST THEN BE ALLAH, THE BEST OF CREATORS.

When is man included in the list of human beings created by Allah, highly glorified be He? When he goes through the stages of "a drop, a clot and a piece of flesh, formed and unformed", then "we brought him forth as another creature". Let us comment on the two munificent verses:

THEY WILL SAY: OUR LORD! THOU HAST MADE US DIE TWICE, AND THOU HAST MADE US LIVE TWICE NOW WE CONFESS OUR SINS.

And the first verse:

HOW WILL YE DISBELIEVE IN ALLAH WHEREAS YE WERE LIFELESS AND HE QUICKENED YOU; THEREAFTER HE WILL CAUSE YOU TO DIE, THEREAFTER HE WILL GIVE YOU LIFE, THEREAFTER UNTO HIM YE SHALL BE RETURNED.

The commentary that I felt was the most appropriate when I read it that life is the existence of soul in the body and death is the separation of soul from the body. The soul separates from the body to wherever Allah wants it to be - in Paradise, "in the bodies of green birds" like martyrs or wherever Allah wishes. Allah created all of us in "the world of atoms", our souls on one side and our bodies on another, and when the "formed piece of flesh" is mature Allah orders the angel to bring the soul from where Allah has kept it and breathes it into this "piece of flesh", then the human life begins and man stays alive since then; he gets born; leads his life on earth and when his soul separates from his body he dies - the second death, as he was dead before his soul was breathed into his body, then he lived starting from the uterine life until he dies in the earthly life and at Resurrection his soul comes back to him and then.

UNTO HIM SHALL YE BE GATHERED.

After his soul is back to him for the second life, he is gathered to Allah, highly glorified be He. Hence, man dies twice and is given life twice. This is the Our'anic definition of human life, and what's before that is not considered human life especially after we have reached the concept of "tissue culture" whereby we take tissues from any living being, put them in a test-tube and they will grow, but we can't consider them a living being into whom soul was breathed and who have the inviolability of human life which Allah honoured with soul to join the list of creatures as "another creature".

Dr. E. Al-Sherbini

Doctors have raised two issues, one of them is already in practice in Kuwait and the other will soon be within a few days or weeks and that's why we open the door for discussion as they objected because they didn't receive answers to their questions. In fact, I'll sum up the opinions expressed so far to present them to the committee when they arrive with God's will.

The first issue: surplus fertilized ova which were not implanted into the mothers uterus, and during the discussions a new issue was added: the so called "post-zygote", or whatsoever name is given, which is an ovum that divided and multiplied into many cells. H.E. Sheikh Al-Khateeb, H.E. Sheikh Badr, Dr. Abu-Ghudda and Sheikh Al-Ghazali yesterday and as I understood from Dr. Omar Al-Ashqar and Dr. Al-Wa'i today said that they're worthless and there is no harm whatsoever in disposing of them. What they requested was that when the cell has grown into many cells they should out of respect to man, be respectably dealt with and buried, but that would be of no legal consequence in Fiqh. H.E. Sheikh Al-Salami corrected what he was claimed to have said yesterday and said that if we consider that life starts from the first day then these ova must be respected from the first day and advised that only the ova needed for use be fertilized so that this problem may be avoided, but if jurists considered that life starts later than that, judgement would be different. Dr. N. Yaseen spoke about when "ghurra " is payable and actually in the three cases he mentioned: if it is formed, thought that it was about to be formed or was blood that didn't dissolve in water; the meaning is that there is some type of formation.

The second issue that the doctors urgently requested is cornea transplant because it is part of organ transplant, but yesterday when, Dr. Abdulrazzaq asked H. E. Sheikh M. Al-Salarni, he said that it has different provisions since it is not a matter of life and death. Therefore, we'd like to discuss now the issue of cornea transplant because as Dr. M. O. Shabir wrote, there are probably thousands of people who need cornea transplant which would provide them with sight to make them able to act effectively in life... etc. What is asked for now is a law that would allow occulists, at least, to take corneas of the dead-whether in accidents or other cases, to use them. I address the question to Sheikh Badr, Sheikh Ghazali, Sheikh Al-Khateeb and Sheikh Al-Salami, and I urge the chairman, for fear of wasting time, to postpone the questions related to abortion and other issues until we reach an opinion because there was no recommendation or discussion concerning the cornea transplant issue yesterday.

Sheikh M. A-Ghazali

My independent reasoning in this issue is that it is permissible to transplant a cornea from an eye that no longer can make use of it - because of death - to someone who is alive and can benefit from what is transplanted to him since this does not harm the dead and at the same time, benefits the living person. That someone benefits from something whose loss doesn't harm the other is not religiously speaking, rejected, therefore I don't conceive any inadmissibility to transplanting a cornea or any other organ from a dead person or someone who is fatally injured to someone who may benefit from it. Al-Azhar, in our country, permitted autopsy, though they're quite aware of the Hadith of the Messenger.

"Breaking the bone of the dead is tantamount to breaking the bone of the living".

However, they found that the living need autopsy to save themselves from many diseases, so they considered this benefit to outweigh the objection against it. Consequently, I don't see objection to organ transplant by religion.

Sheikh E. Al-Khateeb

I believe we weren't speaking about the permissibility and impermissibility of organ transplant in Yesterday's session. I believe the presentations and debate were on the sale of organs, and there is a great difference between the legal consequence for organ transplants and for sale of organs. I believe organ transplant, particularly cornea, is permissible but on certain conditions spicified by jurists. As for sale of organs, which is the issue discussed in the previous session yesterday, this is what is prohibited and what is dangerous to the lives of people because human beings are going to become like livestock whose organs are sold and bought, even man himself will be sold to gangs, that will appear in the future if not already existing, to be cut to pieces. Sale of organs is a very dangerous issue. The permissibility of organ transplant is a perfectly human issue because it is conditional upon the approval of owner of the organ as when a person wills that after his death his cornea may be transplanted, as per the opinion of some jurists who permit such a will, and provided that also the family of this dead man accept it, and some other conditions; I believe that organ transplant is permissible. I'd also like to remind you that in Jordan a law on organ transplant was promulgated. It is a comprehensive law that permitted transplantation of cornea as well as other parts, e.g. kidneys and the like, except for the heart which was not included because it wasn't under consideration at the time when the law was made.

Sheikh M. M. Al-Salami

Before speaking about anything else. I'd like to clarify one point that occurred in Dr. Al-Sayyad's speech resulting from mixing between "human honour" and "human life" and we differentiate between the two. Man is evidently honoured from the minute he exists in his mother's "belly" until every atom vanishes from existence. Life is something else; if man dies this doesn't mean that he is no longer honoured, on the contrary, the Prophetic Hadith is very clear:

"Breaking the bone of the living".

So, man would still be honoured after death and must be buried and protected from wild animals and from the person who assaults a dead person by insulting him must be disciplined and discretionarily punished. Hence, we say that man, after death, keeps some human aspects which are less in importance as dead than they are as living. For if someone kills a living man, parity punishment will be applicable; while if he insults a dead man discretionary punishment will be applicable. And when man is in the mother's belly"; there is no doubt that the one who hit a woman on her belly and caused the abortion of her embryo committed two things: first, he committed a prohibited act and has to pay indemnity for that embryo which is the prescribed "ghurra", the value of which is 1/10 of the "diyyah" (blood money), this is what the munificent verse meant, and what our Lord said in the Qur'an is very clear, while what Dr. Al-Sayyad deduced was not right. Now, let us consider the second issue, cornea. I said before, that we talked about transplanting an organ to someone in order to save his life by analogy to permitting the one who's about to die to eat from his own body or someone else's, in case of famine or for survival. Is it permissible for that one to eat from his own body or from the body of a dead person? This issue was raised, and it is similar to the, issue of kidney transplant, i.e. when we transplant a kidney from one person to another to give him life, otherwise he would die. Cornea transplant is not of the same degree of importance, it doesn't save lives. Therefore, we can't just say that it is permissible because if this is permissible other things will likewise be permissible. This doesn't mean that I said it should be prohibited, but we should differentiate between what saves life and what doesn't; this is what I meant to say to Dr. Al-Samerraii about his question. As I said, we should wait until the matter is clear enough, though the others, may Allah bless them, have stepped forward and gave their opinions, but I'm still holding back because I can't yet recognize whether it is permissible to take a cornea and who gives it - the living while alive or the heirs; and speaking of heirs, this is taken or the heirs; and speaking of heirs, this is taken from the West; the heirs have no right to the body of the dead - they, like the rest of the believers, are obliged to honour the dead and offer funeral prayers, burying him is not the concern of his family only but of the whole Islamic Umma.

Dr. M. S. Tantawi

In the research I presented on the legal consequences on organ sale and donation I dealt with three issues: the first is the legal ruling on trading in organs and I concluded that the opinion accepted is that it is impermissible to make the body of man a commodity to be sold and bought and that there are many texts prohibiting this and that the verifying jurists agreed that trading in human organs is impermissible, nor is it permissible to the person himself to sell any part of his own body, no matter what degree of necessity makes him do so, because it is outweighed by the necessity for saving a life from being exposed to perdition and because Allah, highly exalted and glorified be He, says:

AND SLAY NOT YOURSELVES; VERILY ALLAH IS UNTO YOU EVER MERCIFUL.

The one who sells an organ of his own exposes himself to dangers and if he is selling it due to need for the necessities of life, there are many ways other than this one through which one can earn a living, i.e. by adopting the means which Allah, highly exalted and glorified be He, made legitimate to earn a living - I've given a lot of examples in this connection. I came to the conclusion that there is one case, which is one of the rarest: when a man's life is dependent upon transplanting an organ from a living man's body, and there's no one of his friends, family or others who would donate this organ to him while his life is dependent upon this organ and there is no other available alternative, and there is someone who offers to sell the organ needed of his own body, and if a reliable doctor judges that taking this organ from this person doesn't affect him seriously - I said that the word "seriously" is meant here in particular because there is special use for every organ for Allah, didn't create an organ unless it is of use; so if it doesn't affect him seriously while the life of the other person is dependent on this organ, as per a doctor's decision, and the person who wants to give an organ of his body to that one whose life is dependent on it made it conditional upon paying a price, then in this case it is permissible because it is a necessity and there's no other way out.

As for the second case which is donation, we have seen that, as I quoted many jurists, donation is permissible provided that certain conditions are fulfilled; the most important of which is the judgement of a reliable doctor that this donation doesn't affect the donor and is beneficial to the person it is donated to. In this case it is permissible to donate a human organ.

The third case is organ transplant from the dead to the living, and I said that this is the slightest form of the case because taking from the dead to keep the life of the living, subject to a reliable doctor's judgement, is of no consequence as it goes under the famous sharia rule of "necessity knows no laws", and the dead doesn't lose anything when an organ of his is taken whereas it will be of benefit to the living.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thank you. We have some more questions: what if an ovum is fertilized and after a few hours the husband dies, shall we carry on the work to implant it into the mother's uterus or is the matrimonial relation considered over and the ovum shouldn't be implanted into the mother's uterus?

Regarding the use of sperm after husband is dead, I've read some Shafi'ite literature, a book of Al-Sharqawi that included a provision for a case close to the one under discussion now: they spoke of the slave women; if a slave woman took the sperm of her master, used it in his life time or after his death and consequently got pregnant, she would become the "mother of a child" and the provisions for -mothers of children" would apply to her. Can we analogize to this case the case of the wife? The issue is left open for research. However, jurists in fact, speak of the maximum period of pregnancy, and the differences between the schools around it are known and we don't need to discuss them. if she gives birth within the maximum period of pregnancy - the Fiqh maximum, not the legal, because the law was made following a certain opinion, but we're concerned here with Fiqh difference among the schools which is known to jurists; so if a woman gives birth during the period specified by the Fiqh schools, the provision for that is also known in Fiqh and consequently are all the provisions consequent to the case of a slave woman getting pregnant in the life of her master or using his sperm just before his death.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

A question: If we permitted abortion to avoid deformities, and before that, disposal of fertilized ova, would the day come when we permit the killing of all the disabled and deformed to attain the ideal world aspired to by the man of this century whom I consider to have gone far away from divine law and Sharia? I am sure that right knowledge is the one that guides to faith not the one that guides to exceeding proper bounds and separating one from faith. Please, clarify what is permitted and what is not.

Sheikh M. Al-Ghazali

There's no correlation, mental or otherwise, between permitting to get rid of an embryo that will definitely be born deformed and what is said by the fellow who asked this question. We're not, at all, thinking of killing the disabled or the deformed, and that never occurred to us. The question we answered yesterday was about the case when medicine by way of scientific certainty tells us that an embryo will be born mentally retarded, so what does the nation benefit from increasing its population with the mentally retarded? We said, let us avoid this harm by abortion provided that it is done in the first months during which science can tell, as I heard, that this embryo will definitely be born mentally retarded or afflicted with a disease that wouldn't allow him to function as a normal human being; and I said that if it got formed and became completely shaped, I withhold from passing a judgement on such a case because I don't have anything to base my judgement on. This is what I said and there's absolutely no one who can think that a world could exist without any deformed or disabled people and that those should be killed; this can't be thought of by a human being.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

Thank you. A question: a child born out of wedlock. The father denied that he impregnated the woman, the mother took the baby to raise. How can a birth certificate and other official documents be issued to her with out filling in the father's name. This is a true case and the child is still without a birth certificate. What is the Sharia opinion considering that such official documents are so important these days?

Sheikh M. A. Ghazali

This is a legal issue not a Sharia issue. The law-maker refuses to adopt this child and at the same time it is impossible in the Sharia to impose it on some man as his own.

CALL THEM BY THEIR FATHERS, THAT WILL BE MOST EQUITABLE IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH. AND IF YE KNOW NOT THEIR FATHERS THEN THEY ARE YOUR BRETHREN IN RELIGION AND YOUR FRIENDS.

The law must be amended to receive and accept this unwanted guest in the community because he's a brother of ours and we owe him loyalty and support. The law must be amended but we can't amend the Sharia to agree with the law; that's impossible.

Dr. Abdullah M. Abdullah

I was interested in this issue a long time ago and I wrote a book on familyless children, then I stopped. As said by our Imams, I don't want, in fact, to stop any body, but I read something that stopped me and I'd like to present it to this gathering as the time and place are apt; a child born out of wedlock, as H.E. Sheikh Ghazali said, is an unwanted guest but we have to accept him. In fact some of the later Imams: Al-Hassan Al-Basri, Muhammad Ibn Sireen, Ishaq Ibn Rahaweih and Ibrahim Al-Nakhi said that a child born out of wedlock is attributed to the one who made coitus or the fornicator; the reference is available in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudama, vol. 6, p. 315, under inheritance and the born out of wedlock. The great Ibn Taimiya, says that a child born out of wedlock is attributed to the unwed mother as proven. This is mentioned in Ahkam Al-Awlad, by Al-Barri. Imam Abu- Hanifa says, I don't see any harm, if a man fornicates a woman and she consequently gets pregnant that he marries her, though pregnant, in order not to expose her, and the child is his own". Reading Fiqh literature, we find that all the schools say that the adulterer/fornicator may marry the daughter he begot out of wedlock, that is the point concerning establishment of his fathering her whereas the semen emitted was in a state of adultery/fornication is of no legal consequence in this Sharia.

By Allah, this is what the four schools say, but in our legislations we went beyond, the four schools and adopted the obligating recommendation away from the four schools. There are researches, on legislation fabrication which were presented to the Research Academy, Cairo. Fabrication is becoming an issue as we hear of things like hymenorrhaphy and the like. We shouldn't reject every thing we hear for the first time immediately, for there may be a benefit in it. It is true that "the child is for the bed and stone for the one who committed adultery/fornication", but they gave an explanation to this Hadith when they said attributing the born out of wedlock is established; they said that the fornicator deserves punishment but what is the sin of the child; attributing the child in a crime committed by this fornicator is a separate issue. In fact I pointed out what Imam Abu Hanifa said of the fornicator marrying the fornicated, in order not to expose her, so she becomes his wife and the child is attributed to him; we should listen to this. Also, Imam Ibn Taimiya who is one of those who gave their independent reasoning and whose opinion is now followed every where, though he was accused of heresy and infidelity and that he definitely acted against consensus (Ijma). They accused him of heresy and infidelity yet his opinion is now the one followed in many cases.

Sheikh M. Al-Ghazali

The issue presented by the virtuous colleague is different from taking someone from an orphanage and attributing him to myself as happens nowadays. The law acts differently in such cases, the Hanafites have what is called "proclamation of kinship attribution", in what I read of the Hanafite school it is permissible that I proclaim that this is my son and as long as it is admissible that such a child be born to such a man then the proclamation is acceptable and the child is attributed to the proclaimer. Since he confessed that the child is his, then it is his and he is not to be asked how he begot it because we don't want to reveal that the child was born out of wedlock or anything of the sort. The legislator here is sort of covering the crime or trying to effect rehabilitation some how. However, this is different from the issue considered; what the Hanafites said and probably other Imams as well is different from the issue of permitting adoption.

Sheikh E. Al-Khateeb

I believe that a child born out of wedlock, whether the fornicator admits kinship or not, must not be attributed to the father but only to the mother. Whether the fornicator confesses or not the child must not be attributed to him because kinship attribution of children is not a legal consequence of fornication since the children are honoured while the fornicators should not.

Sheikh B. Al-Mutawali

When the Hanafites spoke of proclamation of kinship attribution they said on condition that the proclaimer doesn't say that child was born out of wedlock, he should say that this is my child only, but if he says that it was born out of wedlock then it is not acceptable to the Hanafites. Their opinion is that if the proclaimer says this is my child, and it is admissible that such a child may be born to such a man, and the child's father is unknown - on this condition that the child's father is unknown, such a proclamation is accepted and is assumed to be a righteous act.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

A question: What is your opinion of blood selling, though blood is definitely a constituent of man? what is the opinion of jurists?

Dr. M. S. Tantawi

We said that selling is impermissible, what is permissible is donation; i.e. the majority of the Ulama see that selling is impermissible while donation is permissible considering that after donation new blood is produced to replace what was donated, etc. But to be sold and to turn into a commodity sold and purchased, to become a trade, this is what the majority of jurists prohibited, for there is a difference between selling and donating.

Chairman, Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

What if it is a reward?

Dr. M.S. Al-Tantawi

If the reward takes the form of selling, then it is a sort of unacceptable circumvention. Any way, as far as I know, donation is permissible because there is a difference between organ donation and blood donation because blood is automatically replaced later but as far as selling is concerned, the majority of jurists prohibit it.

Sheikh M. M. Al-Salami

We said before the issue of blood sale is a new unprecedented one, and the one which is similar to it is milk sale for both of them are renewable, and that the blood donor replaces the blood donated after a period of time set and defined by doctors. So what I believe is that blood may be sold as well as donated because donation and sale are, on the one hand, similar and, on the other, they are like hiring someone to do some work; the person hired, he exerts a physical effort, burns some calories which are renewed and replaced later. The human is starting to discover today one after another. This makes me think that there is no difference between the human blood and the calories which are burnt as a result of work, and as it is permissible to hire a man and burn some of his energy through effort exertion in return for a pay, it is also permissible that he sells of his blood the amount that would not harm him. Man is definitely prohibited to hire himself out to do what is dangerous to his life, but blood, within the limits of safety, is permissible to be sold and donated.

Dr. E. Al-Sherbini

We have now two opinions: the first is that it is impermissible, and the other is Sheikh Al-Salami's, that it is permissible within the limits of safety. Sheikh Al-Ghazali also sees that sale is permissible. In fact what happens here in Kuwait is to encourage donations but when in need blood is bought, though this became very limited when the problem of AIDS appeared and blood is no longer accepted from anyone who offers it for safety purposes. In fact, there are some questions. I don't know who sent them but I tend not to present them because they're sort of Fiqh riddles: what is the legal consequence of artificial insemination between husband and wife if it takes place during the day - time in Ramadan?

A doctor says that there are many deformed people who are talented and this is a compensation from Allah. So why don't we reflect more interest, humanitarianism and sense of giving for them, - the mentally retarded, for example, may become an artist?

Sheikh E. Al-Khateeb

This question about the mentally retarded reminds me of certain information that I read about Hitler when he started building Germany. When Hitler came to power, he started building the German army, so he screened the youth of Germany through medical examination and found out that 85% of the German youth were not eligible for military service. Hitler was secular, didn't believe in religion nor convention, he only believed in science - he was secular and scientific. Of the rules that he set for building the modern German army is nutrition, because it was found that the German youth were anaemic as a result of deficiencies of nutrition, so he established a nutrition system that lasted for five years. In addition, he set a rule that anyone who is an idiot or has certain hereditary diseases be sterilised so as not to reproduce, aiming at securing a new German generation free from idiots, diseases and deformities. This is the saying or rather the doing of a man who had no religion, values, nor did he have any Sharia to set his life systems right; how many of the deformed he killed?

The lady who asked the question says that the deformed or the idiot may be an artist or have a certain talent. This backs up the Islamic point of view that it is impermissible to try, to kill a human being as long as he has life, no matter what his condition is - mad, idiot or whatever his degree of retardedness might be, it is absolutely impermissible even when he is in the mother's "belly".

Dr. E. Al-Sherbini

Dr. Ma'amun mentioned some very important facts. I suggest that he writes them down and hands them in to the Drafting Committee. Those facts will make it easier for doctors and jurists when they consider abortion, the fact that many of the ova fertilized inside the mother's uterus or "belly", 60% of them, don't get attached and are discharged and that even after getting attached some get discharged. I believe that this is very important and would have a great effect if forwarded to the Drafting committee.

Dr. S. Al-Ateeqi

The recommendations session will be held right after prayers.

Dr. Abdul Rahman Al-Awadi

Praise be to Allah.

Ladies & Gentlemen.

May the blessings and peace of Allah be upon His Messenger.

I apologize for the delay in recommendations. Now that they have been handed out, I believe we'll start reading them one by one and, with God's will, will take your remarks, if any, before we move to the next recommendation, but there are two recommendations that are not yet drafted. Let us start reading the recommendation, now. I call upon Dr. Salah Al-Ateeqi to read them out.

Fiqh and Legal Discussion What to do with surplus Fertilized Ova? Fate of Bank-Deposited Embryos Discussion Balance of Legitimacy Disposal of Human Organs Responsibility of Doctors Legal Ruling for Sale and Donation Donation and Sale of Human Organs Discussion Legal Ruling for Secret Disclosure in Islam Legal Ruling on a Doctor Disclosing some Secret for Public Good Secret Disclosure in Islamic Sharia Disclosure and Withholding Sacredness of Profession Confidentiality Introduction Recommendations of the Symposium Introduction Islam Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences Health News Muslim Scientists Encyclopedia Psychology Biography Bioethics Ethics Health an Islamic Perspective Technology Environment Science Heritage Arabic Islamset E-Mail Q&A Sitemap English Arabic Islamset E-Mail Q&A Sitemap English Arabic