Contact Us
Change Color
Language
Home Page
Tell a friend
Printable versionQ & A : Medical Issues ( Total Questions : 23 )
« Previous 1 Next » View All
However, if there is only a probability of infection and no certainty, then it is not obligatory for him or her to refrain from intimacy, provided that there is agreement on it.15
If it is possible to lessen the chances of infection to a level that is insignificant —for example, 2%— by using condom, etc, it is permissible for her to be intimate with her husband. In such a case, it is, based on precaution, not permissible for her to refuse [intimate relations with her husband].
This clarifies also the case of a husband who is not a carrier of the virus and wife whose: it is not permissible for him to have sexual relations with her in accordance with what sensible people perceive as considerable risk— of being infected by the virus. In such a case, the wife’s right to have sexual relations [at least once] every four months is suspended, except when it becomes possible to adopt methods that would properly prevent infection with the virus.17
However, if the wife or her representative did not say anything about the issue of the disease and the husband assumed that she is free from it, the silence does not count as deception and, it therefore, does not yield the right of annulment.
If there was no deception or the disease flared up after the marriage, the non-infected husband has the right to divorcing his infected wife. Does the non-infected wife have the right to ask for divorce from her infected husband on the grounds that she is being deprived of her conjugal rights?
There are two views [on this]; precaution should not be ruled out in this case. Of course, if her husband abandons her completely and she becomes like a suspended woman [neither married nor unmarried], it is permissible for her to take her case to the religious judge* to force her husband to choose one of two courses: either end the abandonment or divorce her.18« Previous 1 Next » View All
Question :
The serious harm of narcotic drugs to the user or society in general (whether from being addicted to them or other [sociatal, familial, and ethical] reems) is well known. Therefore, the doctors and health care professionals are strongly opposing the misuse of drugs and the laws governing the society is also strongly against it. So, what is the view of the noble shari‘a on this matter?Answer :
By considering the serious harm of narcotic drugs, it is forbidden to use them due to the great damage they cause. Based on obligatory precaution, it is compulsory to refrain from using them in any way [even if there is no harm], except for medical purposes and the like; in the latter case, it can be used only to the extent of need.1Question :
Some people believe that a brain-dead person is a dead person, even if the heart has not yet stopped and that it will definitely stop after that. This is what the doctors say. Is a person who has been pronounced brain-dead be considered dead, even if his heart is still working?Answer :
The criterion in applying the term “dead” in so far as the application of religious laws goes is the common perception of people, in the sense that they would call him “dead”. And this is not proven in the situation mentioned in the question.2Question :
The medical profession demands that the doctor checks his female patients carefully; and since getting undressed for medical check up is common in some European countries, is it permissible to engage in medical practice here in such circumstances?Answer :
It is permissible, if one refrains from forbidden looking and touching, except where the check up of the patient requires them.3Question :
Pharmaceutical companies in the West run tests on the drugs they manufacture before selling them in the market. Is it permissible for a doctor to use a drug on his patient —without the knowledge of the patient— before its testing period is over thinking that that particular drug would cure the disease?Answer :
It is necessary to inform the patient about the situation and seek his consent on using the drug on him, except when he is sure that the drug would not cause side effects and that the doubt is only about its benefit [or otherwise].4Question :
In certain cases, some governmental agencies demand that autopsy be performed on the body of the deceased to establish the cause of death. When is it permissible to agree to their demand and when is it not?Answer :
No heir of a deceased Muslim is allowed to give consent for autopsy to be carried out on the body of the deceased for the purpose mentioned above and other similar purposes; and it is necessary for him to prevent the autopsy if possible. Of course, if another important factor at play that of equal or more importance than this basic rule, it is permissible.5Question :
If an organ of an atheist is transplanted in a Muslim’s body, would it be considered ritually pure (tãhir) when it is considered, after transplantation, as part of the Muslim’s body?Answer :
An organ extracted from the body is ritually impure (najis) irrespective of whether it came from a Muslim or a non-Muslim. And when it becomes, by rejuvenation, part of a Muslim’s body or of someone who is considered a Muslim, it becomes tãhir.6Question :
Insulin used for treatment of diabetics is sometimes extracted from the pancreas of pigs. Can we use it?Answer :
There is no problem in injecting insulin in the muscles, veins or under the skin.7Question :
Is it permissible to transplant the liver of pig in a human’s body?Answer :
It is permissible to transplant pig’s liver into the body of a human being.8Question :
Is the process of test-tube babies allowed? In the sense that the wife’s ovum and the husband’s sperm are extracted to be fertilized outside the body, and then placed in the womb [of the wife].Answer :
In principle, it is allowed.9Question :
There are certain hereditary diseases that are transferred from parents to children and pose a danger to their lives in the future. Modern science has acquired the means of preventing some of such diseases by fertilizing the woman’s ovum in a test tube and examining the genes to eliminate the problematic ones. Then it is returned the woman’s womb. The remaining genes [i.e., ova] are destroyed. Is this religiously permissible?Answer :
In principle, there is no problem in it.10Question :
In the process of fertilization in a lab, more than one ovum is fertilized at a time. Secured in the knowkolge that implanting all fertilized ova in the mother’s womb will endanger her life. Is it permissible for us to use only one fertilized ovum and destroy the remaining ones?Answer :
It is not obligatory to implant all the fertilized ova in a test tube into the womb. Therefore, it is permissible to use one ovum and destroy the remaining ones.11Question :
Is it permissible to engage in embellishing the face and the body [of another person]?Answer :
It is permissible, provided that one refrains from looking and touching what is harãm to look at or touch.12Question :
What is the rule concerning isolating an AIDS patient? Is it obligatory on him to isolate himself? Is it obligatory on his family to isolate him [from the public]?Answer :
It is not obligatory on him to isolate himself just as it is not obligatory on others to do so. Indeed, it is not permissible to prevent him from frequenting public places like masjid, etc, as long as there is no danger of infecting the others with the virus. It is, however, obligatory for him as well as others to be careful in situations where there exists certainty or probability of infecting others.13Question :
What is the rule on intentionally infecting others with the AIDS virus?Answer :
This is not allowed. If it leads —even after the passage of time— to the death of the person who has been infected, then the heirs of the deceased have the right of retribution from the person responsible for causing to demand the infecting, provided that the latter was aware that that infection could lead to death; but if he was ignorant of that effect, or unaware of it, at that time, only indemnity (blood money) and penalty would apply.14Question :
Is it permissible for a person infected with AIDS to marry a person who is free from it?Answer :
Yes; but it is not permissible for him or her to mislead the other party by deliberately presenting himself or herself as free from AIDS at the time of proposing while they are not. Similarly, it is not permissible for him or her to become intimate in a way that would infect the other partner.However, if there is only a probability of infection and no certainty, then it is not obligatory for him or her to refrain from intimacy, provided that there is agreement on it.15
Question :
What is the ruling on marriage between two people who are carriers of the AIDS virus?Answer :
There is no problem in it. However, if sexual relation between them is bound to worsen the disease to a serious level, it is necessary for them to refrain from it.16Question :
What is the ruling on the sexual relations of an AIDS patient? Is it permissible for a non-infected person to refuse sexual relation with their spouse because sexual intercourse is one of the main ways of transmitting the virus?Answer :
It is permissible for a non-infected wife not to make herself available to her infected husband for intimacy that could lead to infection by the virus. It is indeed obligatory on her to prevent him from such intimacy.If it is possible to lessen the chances of infection to a level that is insignificant —for example, 2%— by using condom, etc, it is permissible for her to be intimate with her husband. In such a case, it is, based on precaution, not permissible for her to refuse [intimate relations with her husband].
This clarifies also the case of a husband who is not a carrier of the virus and wife whose: it is not permissible for him to have sexual relations with her in accordance with what sensible people perceive as considerable risk— of being infected by the virus. In such a case, the wife’s right to have sexual relations [at least once] every four months is suspended, except when it becomes possible to adopt methods that would properly prevent infection with the virus.17
Question :
What is the ruling concerning the right of the non-infected spouse in seeking separation?Answer :
If deception was involved in the marriage, in the sense that the husband or the wife concealed the fact that they had AIDS at the time of proposing, engagement, so much that the marriage contract (‘aqd) was recited based on that understanding, the deceived party has the right of annulment.However, if the wife or her representative did not say anything about the issue of the disease and the husband assumed that she is free from it, the silence does not count as deception and, it therefore, does not yield the right of annulment.
If there was no deception or the disease flared up after the marriage, the non-infected husband has the right to divorcing his infected wife. Does the non-infected wife have the right to ask for divorce from her infected husband on the grounds that she is being deprived of her conjugal rights?
There are two views [on this]; precaution should not be ruled out in this case. Of course, if her husband abandons her completely and she becomes like a suspended woman [neither married nor unmarried], it is permissible for her to take her case to the religious judge* to force her husband to choose one of two courses: either end the abandonment or divorce her.18