Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

[Book] Islamic Laws of Medicine By Ayatollah Sistani's Organization


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

Ayatullah Sistani, may Allah lengthen his life, is not my marja, but I ordered the book last Thursday and received it yesterday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

Hmm.

I’m of two minds about this book. 

On the one hand, I see why the book is being published. A lot of followers of Sistani among the older generation in the Western communities. People who are aging and will run into periods of needing more medical care. So it’s useful as a reference for a lot of people. 

At the same time, it would be nice to see a broader work that gives a more complete picture of the diversity of contemporary Shia thought on medical issues. Even within the mainstream marjaiyyah—don’t even need to get into modernist/reformist viewsthis area of fiqh is so much more dynamic and full of conversation than anyone would ever even imagine from reading Sayyed Sistani’s views alone. 

Organ donation is maybe the best example, and it’s an issue that could be relevant to any of us, whether we or a family member (God forbid) who needs a transplant, or one of them is (God forbid) in a position to be an organ donor. It’s something that literally saves lives, which is one of the greatest things you can do in our faith. According to our books, this is the sort of momentous giving action on which someone’s very salvation can be won. So it’s important to get this right and make sure people have all the information to help make a choice. 

If someone were to limit organ donation, religiously, on an invalid basis, that would result in people wrongly avoiding performing life-saving acts. That’s a problem if we get it wrong. We would be responsible for that as a community. We are responsible for that as a community.

These issues are too important to limit them to only hearing one voice. The community—the patient, if you will—deserves to hear more than one opinion. 

@Abu Zahra Thoughts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Hmm.

I’m of two minds about this book. 

On the one hand, I see why the book is being published. A lot of followers of Sistani among the older generation in the Western communities. People who are aging and will run into periods of needing more medical care. So it’s useful as a reference for a lot of people. 

At the same time, it would be nice to see a broader work that gives a more complete picture of the diversity of contemporary Shia thought on medical issues. Even within the mainstream marjaiyyah—don’t even need to get into modernist/reformist viewsthis area of fiqh is so much more dynamic and full of conversation than anyone would ever even imagine from reading Sayyed Sistani’s views alone. 

Brother - why does it have to be either/or?

This could be the start of a series of books by triggering thoughts amongst others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
35 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Brother - why does it have to be either/or?

This could be the start of a series of books by triggering thoughts amongst others.

Ok. I’m confused by this response. 

In what way do you think I am making this to be an either/or? 

What do you mean by this? Either/or? What is the either and what is the or here? 

I am saying share all the mainstream views. Or a representative sample of them. That’s not either/or. That’s all/every. 

Do you have a basis to suggest it’s volume one of a series?

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
40 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Ok. I’m confused by this response. 

In what way do you think I am making this to be an either/or? 

 

Because you said you were in 2 minds which implies either/or?

Then you also said "on the one hand" which also implies there is another hand....

 

42 minutes ago, kadhim said:

 

I am saying share all the mainstream views. Or a representative sample of them. That’s not either/or. That’s all/every. 

Do you have a basis to suggest it’s volume one of a series?

Why would Sistani share all mainstream views? Usually scholars release their own views and then someone else consolidates them into all views with pros/cons of each view.

Example: Sistani, Khamenei, etc have their own views on IVF and then a brother on ShiaChat posted a summary of several views with +/- of them.

That's how it usually works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
58 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Because you said you were in 2 minds which implies either/or?

Then you also said "on the one hand" which also implies there is another hand....

Yeah, respectfully I don’t think that’s the right usage of that wording. Two minds means both impressions are going on at once. One is understanding of what they did. The other less so. At once. People are allowed to have complicated views on the same thing. 

58 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Why would Sistani share all mainstream views?

It’s not published by Seestani. It’s published by a general organization in the name of Shiism in general. Medical Ethics in Islam. So it should present a more representative set of views.

Seestani is not really representative of where the mainstream conversation is in Shiism. Seestani’s views on medical ethics are quite far actually from where the conversation is in Shia fiqh. That’s my problem here. 

It … becomes misleading almost. 

There’s a good amount of vibrancy in this area of fiqh, comparatively. It’s ongoing and new and being actively thrashed out. Seestani’s ways of thinking through these problems is very old school conservative traditional. Which is fine. I don’t have a problem with presenting his views, even if I disagree with his approach. Present his approach. And present others. 

Ideally it would have been better to have all the big guys participate in the book. But unfortunately there is some politics in this sort of thing. 

Meh. I think that’s all I want to say for now. I’ll see if @Abu Zahra chimes in. Wink nudge. :)

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 hours ago, kadhim said:

These issues are too important to limit them to only hearing one voice. The community—the patient, if you will—deserves to hear more than one opinion. 

@Abu Zahra Thoughts? 

I don't know the subject too well so I can't immediately comment on how diverse the positions among different jurists actually are, but judging from your comments you have observed divergences. 

I think there are actually two topics here.

1. Co-authoring subject specific books with field experts. This would mean that beyond a simple booklet covering medical fiqh, we would have a book co authored by a scholar and a medical expert. It would include some commentary and explanations, ideally also some practical tips. 

2. Incorporating different opinions in a single work. This would mean that where we typically have a summary of opinions of a single jurist we would actually have 2 or 3 opinions where applicable.

To do this on a large scale is of course not easy so one would have to start with smaller subjects before expanding ultimately to a complete risalah. It won't be realistic to incorporate each and every opinion in history so perhaps a fixed number of jurists would be selected, ideally with different perspectives. 

Ideas 1 and 2 that are cited above are actually both present here:

https://www.collectiveijtihad.org/

A group of scholars and academics have come together to comment on different topics and their statements usually consist of a majority opinion, minority opinion and brief justifications. 

This could be a good format/template to extend to larger platforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, kadhim said:

Organ donation is maybe the best example, and it’s an issue that could be relevant to any of us, whether we or a family member (God forbid) who needs a transplant, or one of them is (God forbid) in a position to be an organ donor. It’s something that literally saves lives, which is one of the greatest things you can do in our faith. According to our books, this is the sort of momentous giving action on which someone’s very salvation can be won. So it’s important to get this right and make sure people have all the information to help make a choice. 

If someone were to limit organ donation, religiously, on an invalid basis, that would result in people wrongly avoiding performing life-saving acts. That’s a problem if we get it wrong. We would be responsible for that as a community. We are responsible for that as a community.

These issues are too important to limit them to only hearing one voice. The community—the patient, if you will—deserves to hear more than one opinion. 

Salam at first his respected name is  Ayatollah Sistani  which he allows organ donation from a living muslim person by his/her choice to another person which he do not recognize permisibility of this act after death of a muslim person whether adult or minor child  (unless the life of a Muslim is dependant on such a transplant) which even all Marjas a muslim can donates his/her organ to a non muslim  so therefore as usual you have given an example based on your mindset without bothering yourself for doing a simple search on Internet.

 

Quote

Ayatullah Al-Sistani does not
recognise the permissibility of organ
donation after death (unless the life
of a Muslim is dependant on such a
transplant).

Question: 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 or limb 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.
 

 

Quote


Ayatullah Khamenei does allow organ
donation provided the body does not
resemble a mutilated body. Donating
internal organs would be permissible,
but cutting off the external organs
would amount to mutilation of the
corpse, which is impermissible.
A third, less known position is that
of Ayatullah Makaram Shirazi, which
is similar to that of the late Ayatullah
al-Khoei, stating organ donation
(be it minor or major) after death is
permissible, provided it is expressed
clearly in the donor’s will.

 

https://www.organdonation.scot/sites/default/files/2021-01/Organ Donation and Religious Beliefs - Islam Leaflet.pdf

Question 1

Can a person donate some of his organs to a patient who is in need of transplantation?

(A) During your life-time

Quote

Ayatullah Sistani, however, does not differentiate between the minor and major organs. As long as the donor would not be seriously handicapped himself or herself, there is no problem in donating one’s organ, minor or major. Therefore, donating a kidney also would be permissible provided the donor has another healthy kidney. Ayatullahs Nasir Makarim and Khamanie would concur with this view.

(B) After your death

Quote

However, Ayatullahs Sistani and Jawad Tabrizi do not recognize the validity of such a will at all; and, therefore, donating an organ after death is not permissible in their views.

 

Question 4

If a minor child dies, does the parent have the right to donate an organ of the child for transplantation to another child/adult who needs it?

According to the views of the Ayatullahs Khu’i and Sistani, no parent has a right to donate his or her child’s organ or body to anyone. However, Ayatullahs Nasir Makarim and Khamenei recognize the consent of the heir as sufficient for extracting an organ from the deceased.

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/islamic-views-organ-donation-transplantation-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/6/2023 at 2:48 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam at first his respected name is  Ayatollah Sistani

His name is Ali. The rest is a title

Does this have anything to do with talking about his views? No. 
 

On 8/6/2023 at 2:48 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

he allows organ donation from a living muslim person by his/her choice to another person which he do not recognize permisibility of this act after death of a muslim person whether adult or minor child  (unless the life of a Muslim is dependant on such a transplant)

Which among the senior mainstream scholars is by far among the most limited and restrictive of views.

As you yourself have demonstrated by posting views of others who are much more open-minded than Seestani about organ transplants. 

On 8/6/2023 at 2:48 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

so therefore as usual you have given an example based on your mindset without bothering yourself for doing a simple search on Internet

Why would I comment on Seestani’s views in relation to other scholars’ views if I hadn’t already read the different views? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

I don't know the subject too well so I can't immediately comment on how diverse the positions among different jurists actually are, but judging from your comments you have observed divergences. 

Yeah. Seestani’s views on medical topics come across as curiously reasoned and overly restrictive. For example, on the organ donation question, he looks for a text that relates to taking an organ from a dead body, and comes up with hadith about mutilating corpses in battle. He even goes into a detailed discussion of diyyah/blood money considerations related to this “corpse mutilation.” And from that concludes that donation is generally prohibited, unless a Muslim’s life can be saved, in which case you get an exception. But otherwise, no in terms of after death donations. Even when the person expresses their desire for it before death by signing a donor card or putting it in their will. 

If anyone can coherently explain what an organ transplant operation has to do with battlefield corpse mutilation beyond the most superficial of resemblance, I’m all ears. 

Other thinkers, even in the mainstream, are much more nuanced here in analyzing the issue on its own terms. See what Khamenai has to say for example. 

9 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

I think there are actually two topics here.

1. Co-authoring subject specific books with field experts. This would mean that beyond a simple booklet covering medical fiqh, we would have a book co authored by a scholar and a medical expert. It would include some commentary and explanations, ideally also some practical tips. 

2. Incorporating different opinions in a single work. This would mean that where we typically have a summary of opinions of a single jurist we would actually have 2 or 3 opinions where applicable.

To do this on a large scale is of course not easy so one would have to start with smaller subjects before expanding ultimately to a complete risalah. It won't be realistic to incorporate each and every opinion in history so perhaps a fixed number of jurists would be selected, ideally with different perspectives. 

Ideas 1 and 2 that are cited above are actually both present here:

https://www.collectiveijtihad.org/

A group of scholars and academics have come together to comment on different topics and their statements usually consist of a majority opinion, minority opinion and brief justifications. 

This could be a good format/template to extend to larger platforms.

Yes, this is a much more serious and credible approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, kadhim said:

His name is Ali. The rest is a title

Does this have anything to do with talking about his views? No. 

Salam this is about respecting to his title & high positin which is now is valuable for any shia muslim around the world which everybody knows him with respeted title of Ayatollah Sistani not your mispronunciation which you have used for him which enemies of Shias in similar fashion Wahabis have used mispronunciation in Arabic  about him for humilation of him & whole of shia community .

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

Which among the senior mainstream scholars is by far among the most limited and restrictive of views.

As you yourself have demonstrated by posting views of others who are much more open-minded than Seestani about organ transplants. 

This is about differnt conditions of any Marja in relation to various condition in relaltion to various factors likewise country & demographic & Sharia & etc which they havr tried to make a balance between various factors .

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

Why would I comment on S[i]stani’s views in relation to other scholars’ views if I hadn’t already read the different views? 

you have confirmed which you have done prejudice based on your assumptions before reading or searching about a matter.:book::einstein:

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

If anyone can coherently explain what an organ transplant operation has to do with battlefield corpse mutilation beyond the most superficial of resemblance, I’m all ears. 

It has been related to selling  mutilated battlefield corpses & harvesting body organs by Daesh/ISIS in black market .

May 01, 2019
ICYMI: ISIS captives tortured by removing organs and carrying out sick Nazi-style chemical experiments

This article was published in The Sun on April 27, 2019 and the full article can be viewed on their website here.

By: Neal Baker

The Sun

TWO British jihadi health workers carried out sickening Nazi-style medical experiments on ISIS prisoners in Syria, witnesses claimed last night.

Quote

Former NHS doctor Issam Abuanza, 40, left his wife and two children in Sheffield in 2014 to become Islamic State's "health minister", according to British intelligence.

He appointed Birmingham-born pharmacist Mohammad Anwar Miah, also 40, to help him remove organs from helpless captives, it's claimed.

Witnesses to their alleged brutality told the Daily Mail that these body parts were then transplanted into wounded jihadists - or sold on the black market to fund terror.

Leftover organs harvested from tortured prisoners would also be tossed into the cells of other hostages to torment them, it's alleged.

The ten-man medical team led by Abuanza and Miah have also been accused of performing warped chemical tests on live inmates detained as ISIS rampaged across the region between 2014 and 2017.

NAZI-STYLE TORTURE

Quote

Both Brit medics - who shared the nickname Abu Obayda - allegedly performed their sick procedures in hospitals in the former ISIS strongholds of Mayadin and Deir Ezzor between 2015 and 2017.

Mr Al-Kheder added: "Anwar was involved in the transfer of human organs from the prisoners to members of IS and the human organ trade that was conducted by IS.

"They experimented with torture and with chemical materials but we are not sure for what purposes."

He also claimed the group locked prisoners in rooms with dismembered bodies.

https://reschenthaler.house.gov/media/press-releases/icymi-isis-captives-tortured-removing-organs-and-carrying-out-sick-nazi-style

Exclusive - IS sanctioned organ harvesting in document taken in U.S. raid

Quote

The ruling, contained in a January 31, 2015 document reviewed by Reuters, says taking organs from a living captive to save a Muslim’s life, even if it is fatal for the captive, is permissible.

For a U.S. government translation of the document, click here

Reuters couldn’t independently confirm the authenticity of the document. U.S. officials say it was among a trove of data and other information obtained by U.S. special forces in a raid in eastern Syria in May.

“The apostate’s life and organs don’t have to be respected and may be taken with impunity,” says the document, which is in the form of a fatwa, or religious ruling, from the Islamic State’s Research and Fatwa Committee.

“Organs that end the captive’s life if removed: The removal of that type is also not prohibited,” Fatwa Number 68 says, according to a U.S. government translation.

 

 

Quote

The document does not offer any proof that Islamic State actually engages in organ harvesting or organ trafficking. But it does provide religious sanction for doing so under the group’s harsh interpretation of Islam - which is rejected by most Muslims. Previously, Iraq has accused Islamic State of harvesting human organs and trafficking them for profit.

The document does not define “apostate,” though the Islamic State has killed or imprisoned non-Muslims, such as Christians, and Shiite Muslims, as well as Sunni Muslims who don’t follow its extremist views.

 

 

For instance, “Fatwa Number 64” dated January 29, 2015, provides detailed rules for rape, prescribing when Islamic State men can and cannot have sexual intercourse with female slaves.

The fatwa sanctioning organ harvesting justifies the practice in part by drawing an analogy to cannibalism in extreme circumstances, a practice it says earlier Islamic scholars had allowed. “A group of Islamic scholars have permitted, if necessary, one to kill the apostate in order to eat his flesh, which is part of benefiting from his body,” it says.

 

ORGANS OF ‘INFIDELS’

Quote

 

The ruling on organ harvesting cites Islamic texts, principles and laws that it says support what it calls “the notion that transplanting healthy organs into a Muslim person’s body in order to save the latter’s life or replace a damaged organ with it is permissible.”

Senior U.S. officials, including McGurk, said they have not been able to ascertain whether the Islamic State had followed through on the fatwa on organ harvesting.

The document provides “a religious justification for harnessing the organs of what they call infidels,” he said.

William McCants, a Brookings Institution scholar who is author of the book “The ISIS Apocalypse,” said the group’s ruling on slavery and human organs don’t represent modern Islamic interpretations.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-islamic-state-documents-idUKKBN0U806420151225

ISIS Sets Up Market in Turkey for Trading Body Organs: Report

According to the source, all types of body organ that could be transplanted are sold in the market, specially kidney and heart.

Based on the report, kidney is sold at a price of 5,000 Iraqi dinars (4,000 US dollars) while a heart is worth 6,000 dollars in the Turkish market.

Reports said earlier this month that the ISIL is mutilating and selling the body organs of Iraqi children to compensate for its financial loss and shortages.

Quote

Local sources reported that after starting the academic year in Iraq, 11 children were kidnapped in different parts of al-Qae'm town in the Western parts of al-Anbar province and their families then found their mutilated bodies with no heart, kidneys, eyes and other transplantable organs.

The sources added that none of the parents of these children dare to file a lawsuit against the ISIL or report the abduction of their child for the fear of the terrorist group's retaliatory measures.

The Spanish daily El Mondo reported that facing the increased number of wounded members in the Syrian army and popular forces' attacks, the ISIL is using the body organs of its captives for transplantation.

According to the report, the ISIL also forces the prisoners in Mosul jails to donate blood and postpones the execution of those sentenced to death to use their blood as much as possible.

The ISIS doesn’t merely use the organs of its captives and prisoners' bodies for transplantation to its members but it sells them to other countries as a lucrative business, it added.

Quote

Medical sources told El Mondo that the personnel in one of hospitals in Mosul have seen corpses of at least 183 people whose organs had been taken out of their bodies.

According to the report, the ISIL has set up a medical team in Mosul headed by a German physician which exports the body organs to Syria and the Iraqi Kurdistan region for transplantation to its members or selling.

Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Mohamed Alhakim had made the same revelations last year, saying that the ISIS is trafficking human organs and has executed a dozen doctors for failing to go along with the program.

Quote

Alhakim based his claim on the discovery of dozens of bodies left in shallow mass graves near the city of Mosul, currently an ISIL stronghold. Surgical incisions, along with missing kidneys and other body parts lead to an inescapable conclusion. "We have bodies. Come and examine them. It is clear they are missing certain parts,” Alhakim revealed. He further described the carnage:

"When we discover mass graves, we look at the bodies. Some of those bodies are killed by bullets, some of them by knives. But when you find pieces of the back is missing and the kidneys is missing, you will wonder what it is."

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1869478

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this is about respecting to his title & high positin which is now is valuable for any shia muslim around the world which everybody knows him with respeted title of Ayatollah Sistani not your mispronunciation which you have used for him which enemies of Shias in similar fashion Wahabis have used mispronunciation in Arabic  about him for humilation of him & whole of shia community .
 

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

you have confirmed which you have done prejudice based on your assumptions before reading or searching about a matter.

Bless your heart. 

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

It has been related to selling  mutilated battlefield corpses & harvesting body organs by Daesh/ISIS in black market .

Revisionist nonsense. Why do you insist on just making things up out of thin air in front of people who know better? 

I entered Islam in the early 2000s and was on Seestani’s taqleed for a few years. 
He has had the same fatwa about organ donation since then and probably long before. 10+ years before Daesh. Nothing to do with wars or organ trafficking whatsoever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, kadhim said:

Bless your heart. 

Salam , Allah bless your heart.

14 hours ago, kadhim said:

I entered Islam in the early 2000s and was on S[i]stani’s taqleed for a few years. 
He has had the same fatwa about organ donation since then and probably long before. 10+ years before Daesh. Nothing to do with wars or organ trafficking whatsoever.

There has been a history of war & organ trafficking since cursed Saddam era  which Daesh members have learnt inhuman torturing & mutilation  so then organ trafficking from remnants of followers of cursed Saddam which inhuman toturing & organ trafficking has been legacy of cursed Sddam for Daesh .

Quote

Saddam-era officers have been a powerful factor in the rise of Islamic State, in particular in the Sunni militant group’s victories in Iraq last year. Islamic State then out-muscled the Sunni-dominated Baath Party and absorbed thousands of its followers. The new recruits joined Saddam-era officers who already held key posts in Islamic State.

 

Quote

Of Islamic State’s 23 portfolios – equivalent to ministries – former Saddam regime officers run three of the most crucial: security, military and finance, according to Hisham al-Hashimi, an Iraqi analyst who has worked with the Iraqi government.

 

Quote

“The fingerprints of the old Iraqi state are clear on their work. You can feel it,” one former senior security official in the Baath Party said.

 

Quote

But many of the ex-Baathists working with Islamic State are driven by self preservation and a shared hatred of the Shi’ite-led government in Baghdad. Others are true believers who became radicalised in the early years after Saddam’s ouster, converted on the battlefield or in U.S. military and Iraqi prisons.

One former intelligence commander who served in Iraq’s national intelligence service from 2003 to 2009 said some ex-Baathists pushed out of state agencies by Iraq’s government were only too happy to find new masters. “ISIS pays them,” he said.

 

Quote

Among the most high profile Baathists to join Islamic State are Ayman Sabawi, the son of Saddam Hussein’s half brother, and Raad Hassan, Saddam’s cousin, said the senior Salahuddin security official and several tribal leaders. Both were children during Saddam’s time, but the family connection is powerfully symbolic.

 

Quote

The bodies of those deemed to have committed the worst offences – cursing God or the group – are thrown in an area called al-Khafsa, a deep natural crater in the desert just south of Mosul, residents in the city said. Those killed for lesser crimes are returned to their families wrapped in a blanket.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/mideast-crisis-iraq-islamicstate/

https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2015/12/12/how-former-baathists-saddams-men-help-daesh-rule

http://krg-iran.com/english/index.php/representation/item/407-daesh-terrorist-group-a-threat-to-security-of-the-entire-region-iraqi-kurdistan-envoy

https://euaa.europa.eu/country-guidance-iraq-2021/27-former-baath-party-members

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21567689.2019.1617136?journalCode=ftmp21

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-saddams-former-soldiers-are-fueling-the-rise-of-isis/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
On 8/5/2023 at 11:25 PM, kadhim said:

It’s not published by Seestani. It’s published by a general organization in the name of Shiism in general.

No, not at all. This book ISLAMIC LAWS OF MEDICINE is not a compilation of all Shia maraja. The book only looks at medical rulings by Ayatullah Sistani, may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) lengthen his life. Perhaps you overlooked the subtitle of the book, as seen on the cover, in the image in the OP:

ACCORDING TO THE RULINGS OF GRAND AYATULLAH SAYYID ALI AL-SISTANI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
32 minutes ago, Hameedeh said:

No, not at all. This book ISLAMIC LAWS OF MEDICINE is not a compilation of all Shia maraja. The book only looks at medical rulings by Ayatullah Sistani, may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) lengthen his life. Perhaps you overlooked the subtitle of the book, as seen on the cover, in the image in the OP:

ACCORDING TO THE RULINGS OF GRAND AYATULLAH SAYYID ALI AL-SISTANI. 

OMG. Obviously I can read the cover. 

You missed the point I think. 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
34 minutes ago, kadhim said:

You missed the point I think. 

Your point was wrong to say it was published in the name of Shiism in general. It is a book of medical rulings by Ayatullah Sistani.

On 8/5/2023 at 11:25 PM, kadhim said:

It’s not published by Seestani. It’s published by a general organization in the name of Shiism in general. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Hameedeh said:

Your point was wrong to say it was published in the name of Shiism in general. It is a book of medical rulings by Ayatullah Sistani.

 

No Hameedah. You didn’t understand correctly at all.

Let me break it down. 

Someone said the book is published by Seestani. 

I pointed out, no, that’s not true. It wasn’t published by Seestani. It was published by IMAM, a 3rd party, general Shia organization that is supposed to represent all Shias. 

An organization like that which wants to publish a book about Islamic Medical Ethics should publish a general book that includes a range of views, not just one person’s. Especially when the one picked is the most rigidly conservative on this subject. 

[Edit. Looks like I was mistaken in thinking IMAM was not an affiliated mouthpiece of Seestani. Apparently it is. My bad.

Still doesn’t really change my frustration and bewilderment that this book was published]

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, kadhim said:

Someone said the book is published by Seestani. 

I pointed out, no, that’s not true. It wasn’t published by Seestani. It was published by IMAM, a 3rd party, general Shia organization that is supposed to represent all Shias. 

An organization like that which wants to publish a book about Islamic Medical Ethics should publish a general book that includes a range of views, not just one person’s. Especially when the one picked is the most rigidly conservative on this subject. 

Salam even in western world is so common that a 3r party publisher will publish works of a specific person besides books which contains a range of views which it  can publish a book about Islamic Medical Ethics according to viewpoint of one specific marja likewise grand Ayatollah Sistani  or publishs another book with similar title  based on  arange of views which it depends on decision of owner of publication & it's editors which if you don't want to read a book which is related to grand Ayatollah Sistani so then you can buy another book of other Marja  from another publisher .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
11 hours ago, kadhim said:

No Hameedah. You didn’t understand correctly at all.

Let me break it down. 

Someone said the book is published by Seestani. 

I pointed out, no, that’s not true. It wasn’t published by Seestani. It was published by IMAM, a 3rd party, general Shia organization that is supposed to represent all Shias. 

An organization like that which wants to publish a book about Islamic Medical Ethics should publish a general book that includes a range of views, not just one person’s. Especially when the one picked is the most rigidly conservative on this subject. 

[Edit. Looks like I was mistaken in thinking IMAM was not an affiliated mouthpiece of Seestani. Apparently it is. My bad.

Still doesn’t really change my frustration and bewilderment that this book was published]

I apologize if I added to your bewilderment. 

I was bewildered why anyone would have a problem with Sistani's organization publishing a book with his views. This is not the first book they've published either with his views/opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 8/5/2023 at 2:42 PM, kadhim said:

Organ donation is maybe the best example, and it’s an issue that could be relevant to any of us, whether we or a family member (God forbid) who needs a transplant, or one of them is (God forbid) in a position to be an organ donor. It’s something that literally saves lives, which is one of the greatest things you can do in our faith. According to our books, this is the sort of momentous giving action on which someone’s very salvation can be won. So it’s important to get this right and make sure people have all the information to help make a choice. 

If someone were to limit organ donation, religiously, on an invalid basis, that would result in people wrongly avoiding performing life-saving acts. That’s a problem if we get it wrong. We would be responsible for that as a community. We are responsible for that as a community.

 

On 8/6/2023 at 2:48 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam at first his respected name is  Ayatollah Sistani  which he allows organ donation from a living muslim person by his/her choice to another person which he do not recognize permisibility of this act after death of a muslim person whether adult or minor child  (unless the life of a Muslim is dependant on such a transplant) which even all Marjas a muslim can donates his/her organ to a non muslim  so therefore as usual you have given an example based on your mindset without bothering yourself for doing a simple search on Internet.

The book is simply a collection of Q&A Ayatollah Sistani has received and answered based on his religious expertise. Specifically on transplants:

133.jpg.afac17dc0bf6b4f3e97de783ee6c3152.jpg

134.jpg.a7ed5953d1b7e1fc926a6a81900a6b46.jpg

135.jpg.32b672c6c616c70a81e0c9ff1397414d.jpg

136.jpg.b55d38a51ac00c487c068bd0587d8ac3.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
55 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

 

The book is simply a collection of Q&A Ayatollah Sistani has received and answered based on his religious expertise. Specifically on transplants:

133.jpg.afac17dc0bf6b4f3e97de783ee6c3152.jpg

134.jpg.a7ed5953d1b7e1fc926a6a81900a6b46.jpg

135.jpg.32b672c6c616c70a81e0c9ff1397414d.jpg

136.jpg.b55d38a51ac00c487c068bd0587d8ac3.jpg

 

Ugh. Stop.

I will give credit in the one place it’s due — the xeno-transplantation ruling is good.

It would have been better to have just reasoned the whole subject based on the same reasoning (I’m reading behind the lines this is the reason) as that used for xenotransplantation. Namely: There is nothing remotely similar to this scenario in the primary texts, so we have to reason from first principles of harm and benefit and goals of the Shariah. 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Ugh. Stop.

I will give credit in the one place it’s due — the xeno-transplantation ruling is good.

It would have been better to have just reasoned the whole subject based on the same reasoning (I’m reading behind the lines this is the reason) as that used for xenotransplantation. Namely: There is nothing remotely similar to this scenario in the primary texts, so we have to reason from first principles of harm and benefit and goals of the Shariah. 

I mean this in the most respectful way - what qualifies you to question the reasoning of Ayatollah Sistani's fatwas, edicts, rulings? 

Moreover your questioning of Ayatollah Sistani is not to learn but to criticize (I'm reading behind the lines) so once again, what qualifies you do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I mean this in the most respectful way - what qualifies you to question the reasoning of Ayatollah Sistani's fatwas, edicts, rulings? 

Moreover your questioning of Ayatollah Sistani is not to learn but to criticize (I'm reading behind the lines) so once again, what qualifies you do this?

First of all, this attitude of yours does not actually exist in Islam. People bring ideas, and tell their reasoning, and other people with intellect can hear those ideas and reasoning and critique those. No one needs to pull a permit to be allowed do that. Everyone has a right to bring reasoned criticism based on analysis of the evidence and reasoning the other person put forward. Anyone with a brain in their head can do that. 

That out of the way, I criticize that specific ruling because I am aware of the reasoning behind it. It’s not a new fatwa and many years ago there were discussions here where people presented his reasoning. And the reasoning is … questionable. Collecting an organ from a dead person who made their wish to donate known before death is not comparable to battlefield corpse mutilation in the premodern world. It simply is not. There is no meaningful similarity between those two things.

And again, the problem is this fatwa heavily restricts an act that demonstrably saves lives by finding continued use out of something that no one in the classical period could ever have even imagined could ever be salvaged and put in another person (rather than rotting uselessly in the ground). It is likely that people who could have lived died because of this fatwa. 

Am I really alone here in feeling discomfort about that? 

Respect to Seestani as a human being, as a believer, and as a member of his institution, but rationally and morally I can’t condone that fatwa and can’t be quiet about it. (Though at this point I’ve probably said my piece for now)

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, kadhim said:

First of all, this attitude of yours does not actually exist in Islam. People bring ideas, and tell their reasoning, and other people with intellect can hear those ideas and reasoning and critique those. No one needs to pull a permit to be allowed do that. Everyone has a right to bring reasoned criticism based on analysis of the evidence and reasoning the other person put forward. Anyone with a brain in their head can do that. 

Sorry to point out but you are wrong again. What you are describing above is qiyas which is not permitted. We give precedence to ijtihad and not qiyas.

Ideas and reasoning are allowed for non-islamic matters but we are to rely on the fuquha for Islamic matters.

It's not about pulling a permit either. Common sense dictates that a person who has spent 60+ years at hawzah perhaps knows more about most Islamic topics than a person who is not even 60 (speculating).

 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

 That out of the way, I criticize that specific ruling because I am aware of the reasoning behind it. It’s not a new fatwa and many years ago there were discussions here where people presented his reasoning. And the reasoning is … questionable. Collecting an organ from a dead person who made their wish to donate known before death is not comparable to battlefield corpse mutilation in the premodern world. It simply is not. There is no meaningful similarity between those two things.

And again, the problem is this fatwa heavily restricts an act that demonstrably saves lives by finding continued use out of something that no one in the classical period could ever have even imagined could ever be salvaged and put in another person rather than rotting uselessly in the ground. It is likely that people who could have lived died because of this fatwa. 

You actually questioned the need/existence of this book. Was it really based on 1 ruling? 

Here is a different perspective - our body is actually the property of Allah and as such we don't have a say in what we do with in life or after death.

Then complexities come around on when organs are harvested. The timing of harvesting depends on organs but rulings have to issued by organ, etc. 

I can go on and on about how complicated and nuanced this matter is from a religious perspective and also from a social perspective.

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Respect to Seestani as a human being, as a believer, and as a member of his institution, but rationally and morally I can’t condone that fatwa and can’t be quiet about it. (Though at this point I’ve probably said my piece for now)

I would say Sistani cares about saving lives as much as you do but he has a responsibility to his followers to ensure he provides the right Islamic advice based on ijtihad and not qiyas.

The lives of the person dying and the person living also belong to Allah so He knows best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Sorry to point out but you are wrong again. What you are describing above is qiyas which is not permitted. We give precedence to ijtihad and not qiyas.

Ideas and reasoning are allowed for non-islamic matters but we are to rely on the fuquha for Islamic matters.

It's not about pulling a permit either. Common sense dictates that a person who has spent 60+ years at hawzah perhaps knows more about most Islamic topics than a person who is not even 60 (speculating).

???

You’re not making any sense here. It seems like  you didn’t understood that paragraph at all. I’m not talking here about “lay people” coming up with rulings (that’s a whole other separate discussion, including the question of whether this layperson/scholar hawza/outside hawza distinction has any basis in Islamic texts).

I’m talking about intelligently critiquing a marja’s stated reasoning on an existing ruling when it is available.

Coming up with a ruling and critiquing one are two different things. How is it qiyas (analogical reasoning) to criticize a fatwa based on the author’s explicitly stated reasoning? That’s absurd. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
 

6 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

You actually questioned the need/existence of this book. Was it really based on 1 ruling? 

To be diplomatic about it, medical ethics is not his best subject. There are a few fatwas like this. I just quoted one example, because it’s particularly problematic. But no, it’s about more than this one ruling. It’s about Seestani and the subject of medical ethics in general. It’s an area where other scholars are substantially better. 

6 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Here is a different perspective - our body is actually the property of Allah and as such we don't have a say in what we do with in life or after death.

Wow. Who’s doing qiyas now? Ha. I thought you said as a non-hawza person you’re not qualified to give rulings? What are you doing here?

And again, that’s not the reasoning Seestani used. He said it’s a problem because there is a hadith about not mutilating bodies in war.

Serious question to you. I want you to actually grapple with this and think. Do you really think Allah wants these organs to uselessly rot in the ground when they could save another human life? This is another reason I am so passionate about this specific fatwa. Because fiqh implicitly reflects a vision of God, and the vision of a God who prefers to waste a resource that could be used for good is quite dark and frankly undermines what we know elsewhere about His mercy and compassion. 

And if you’re so hard set against the idea of qiyas, by the way, please explain in detail what modern organ transplantation has to do with battlefield corpse mutilation. This is the second time I’m asking this. I want you to see you answer the question. 

7 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Then complexities come around on when organs are harvested. The timing of harvesting depends on organs but rulings have to issued by organ, etc. 

I can go on and on about how complicated and nuanced this matter is from a religious perspective and also from a social perspective.

Yeah. We’re not talking about the nuances of living vs dead donors and such here.

The living donor scenario is indeed more complex, because the person is still alive, and still needs his body to some extent to live, and is not allowed to kill himself or make himself live on visibly disfigured or crippled or bereft of key senses. So it has to be selective about what can be donated from a living donor. Living donor you can only do internal organs with redundancy or that can regenerate like a lung lobe, or a liver lobe, or one kidney. But not things that will kill a healthy living person or disfigure him like eyes or skin or the heart, because there are known legal principles against that. That is fine. Again, credit were due to emphasize that it’s about the specific ruling and not a general vendetta against Seestani, I don’t have any problem with Seestani’s living donor rules. These are well-reasoned and make sense. 

Here we’re talking specifically about dead donor donation. 
Here it’s honestly not that complex or nuanced. The only interesting question is the effective definition of death and the no heartbeat vs brain death question. 

But beyond that one question, there is actually not a lot of complexity, legally speaking for the brain dead donor scenario. Precisely because it’s a totally brand new scenario with no relevant related precedents. As such it is by default accepted unless there is a good reason to forbid it. It’s a new thing, so it has to be reasoned from scratch rationally according to high level principles and goals of Shariah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, kadhim said:

???

You’re not making any sense here. It seems like  you didn’t understood that paragraph at all. I’m not talking here about “lay people” coming up with rulings (that’s a whole other separate discussion, including the question of whether this layperson/scholar hawza/outside hawza distinction has any basis in Islamic texts).

I’m talking about intelligently critiquing a marja’s stated reasoning on an existing ruling when it is available.

Coming up with a ruling and critiquing one are two different things. How is it qiyas (analogical reasoning) to criticize a fatwa based on the author’s explicitly stated reasoning? That’s absurd. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

you are correct that it is not qiyas if you are simply critiquing but it sure seems like you are critiquing and then also offering your own ruling (okay to take organs from dead people). 

If you made a statement such as "Ayatollah X's ruling on using organs from dead bodies is more in line with your thoughts and you dont understand the reasoning behind Ayatollah Sistani's ruling" - that is acceptable.

However your statements are more to the tune of "Ayatollah Sistani's ruling is wrong because his reasoning is flawed and the ruling should be use organs from dead bodies" then it is qiyas and it is unacceptable in shia fiqh.

2 hours ago, kadhim said:

To be diplomatic about it, medical ethics is not his best subject. There are a few fatwas like this. I just quoted one example, because it’s particularly problematic. But no, it’s about more than this one ruling. It’s about Seestani and the subject of medical ethics in general. It’s an area where other scholars are substantially better. 

what's the criteria to determine who is good, better, best in the subject of Islamic bioethics? I hope it is not just your opinion based on your reasoning because that would be....you guessed it :D

 

2 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

Wow. Who’s doing qiyas now? Ha. I thought you said as a non-hawza person you’re not qualified to give rulings? What are you doing here?

And again, that’s not the reasoning Seestani used. He said it’s a problem because there is a hadith about not mutilating bodies in war.

Sanctity of human body in life and in death is not my qiyas but #IslamicFact.

"The human body, in life as well as in death, is governed by Divine laws in Islam. There are certain limitations on what we can and can’t do with our bodies." - Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi 

 

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

Serious question to you. I want you to actually grapple with this and think. Do you really think Allah wants these organs to uselessly rot in the ground when they could save another human life? This is another reason I am so passionate about this specific fatwa. Because fiqh implicitly reflects a vision of God, and the vision of a God who prefers to waste a resource that could be used for good is quite dark and frankly undermines what we know elsewhere about His mercy and compassion. 

And if you’re so hard set against the idea of qiyas, by the way, please explain in detail what modern organ transplantation has to do with battlefield corpse mutilation. This is the second time I’m asking this. I want you to see you answer the question. 

Once again - this para above is your qiays. You are trying to establish a ruling based on your reasoning - that is not ijtihad. You are essentially making a ruling that Allah is Merciful and Compassionate and would not want organs to go to waste so let the harvesting begin. Complete qiyas.

I think you've misinterpreted the statement about battlefield corpses. The underlying premise is not "since we can't mutilate battlefield corpses, we can't do organ donation post mortem."

The actual premise is "Islam sanctifies the human body after death which is why it is washed, shrouded and buried in a specific manner. The sanctity includes not mutilating the body (even autopsies are only allowed if absolutely necessary). The sanctity is to such an extent that even corpses of enemies in battlefield are to be treated with respect and not mutilated (cutting of heads post mortem or other limbs

You are focused on the blue without considering the broader premise in green.

Additionally, Sistani does not say that you CANNOT take organs from dead bodies rather he says you CAN take organs from dead bodies if a life depends on it - big difference. Please review #251 in the screenshot I posted for the clarification.

My reference (https://www.al-islam.org/articles/islamic-views-organ-donation-transplantation-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi):

 

Can a person donate some of his organs to a patient who is in need of transplantation?

(B) After your death

According to the late Ayatullah al-Khu’i, donating some of the organs (whether minor or major) after the death is permissible provided you have expressed your intention clearly in your will.

Ayatullah Nasir Makarim also holds the same opinion.

Ayatullah Khamenei allows this provided the body does not look like a mutilated body — so donating internal organs would be permissible but cutting off the external organs would amount to mutilation of the corpse which is not permissible.

However, Ayatullahs Sistani and Jawad Tabrizi do not recognize the validity of such a will at all; and, therefore, donating an organ after death is not permissible in their views.

There is obviously a difference of opinion among scholars but the rules of ijtihad dictate that each marja forms his own opinion based on his own research.

 

I dont think there is much to discuss on this further so I will be moving on from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

However your statements are more to the tune of "Ayatollah Sistani's ruling is wrong because his reasoning is flawed and the ruling should be use organs from dead bodies" then it is qiyas and it is unacceptable in shia fiqh.

No. My point is that Seestani’s ruling is without basis because it’s based on analogical reasoning from a precedent that has nothing to do with the thing the ruling is about.

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Once again - this para above is your qiays. You are trying to establish a ruling based on your reasoning - that is not ijtihad.

Again, critiquing a ruling and saying it’s wrong is not in itself making a ruling. 

You skipped on answering my question. I think you owe me an honest answer:

Do you think it’s plausible that God prefers that organs rot in the ground rather than saving a life?

Yes or no?

What do you think? 

We’re not making fatwas here. I just want to hear what you think as a human being and Muslim. 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I think you've misinterpreted the statement about battlefield corpses. The underlying premise is not "since we can't mutilate battlefield corpses, we can't do organ donation post mortem."

The actual premise is "Islam sanctifies the human body after death which is why it is washed, shrouded and buried in a specific manner. The sanctity includes not mutilating the body (even autopsies are only allowed if absolutely necessary). The sanctity is to such an extent that even corpses of enemies in battlefield are to be treated with respect and not mutilated (cutting of heads post mortem or other limbs

No. No. No. No.

Corpse mutilation is to senselessly damage a dead body with the objective to disrespect the sanctity of the dead person as a deliberate affront to their kin and friends. 

Organ removal for donation is clearly not mutilation. If it’s done without the permission of the donor or against their wishes, then perhaps it would be. Otherwise, if it’s according to the expressed will of the person, it’s not, because it includes none of the essential characteristics of mutilation. If cutting equaled mutilation, then surgery would be forbidden in general, which it obviously is not. The intention behind the cutting and the quality of the cutting is obviously essential to calling something mutilation.

Similarly an autopsy is not done to deliberately disrespect the person or their family, nor is it senseless cutting of the body. It’s to verify the cause of death and to assure there was no foul play when this is in question.

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Additionally, Sistani does not say that you CANNOT take organs from dead bodies rather he says you CAN take organs from dead bodies if a life depends on it

Sigh.

I am aware of that conditional ruling. But what you are missing I think is that he invokes “saving a life” precisely because he thinks that by default collecting an organ for donation is forbidden, and thus that can only be overridden by a matter of life and death. 

Also, he does not just say “a life.” If he said “a life” in general, I would have no objection, even if I disagreed with the steps he took to get to the conclusion. The problem is, he says specifically a Muslim life. 

Which aside from the aesthetics of it is the impracticality and lack of feasibility of it. It becomes de facto a ban in any secular society where Muslims are not the majority, because practically speaking it doesn’t work that way where you can know in advance as a person or a family member where the organ is going or specify where it goes. There’s a list and the organs go to the top compatible person in need. 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Ayatullah Khamenei allows this provided the body does not look like a mutilated body — so donating internal organs would be permissible but cutting off the external organs would amount to mutilation of the corpse which is not permissible.

This is a sensible opinion that reasonably balances all the considerations. I particularly like how he applies the principle about sanctity of the body and not to mutilate after death, but does it in a way that is actually contextually reasonable.

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

what's the criteria to determine who is good, better, best in the subject of Islamic bioethics? I hope it is not just your opinion based on your reasoning because that would be....you guessed it

As Shias, we hold that true practical law is not arbitrary, but is based ultimately on tangible matters of harm and benefit. If we were to deny the ability to critique opinions based on matters of discernible harm and benefit, we would be denying our own principles. 

Applying that type of analysis, I would conclude that a default ruling of haram for organ donation directed by the will of the donor becomes problematic because:

It saves a life while also respecting the wishes of the individual and reasonably preserving the outer integrity of the body for the purposes of a traditional Islamic funeral. So, on my score card, lots of benefit and no discernible harm.

Are you able to present an alternative benefit/harm analysis that is more favourable to Seestani’s view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

There is obviously a difference of opinion among scholars but the rules of ijtihad dictate that each marja forms his own opinion based on his own research.

Yes. The problem comes when some people think their marja is wrong or they even shift into the rejection of taqleed altogether. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

You skipped on answering my question. I think you owe me an honest answer:

Do you think it’s plausible that God prefers that organs rot in the ground rather than saving a life?

Yes or no?

What do you think? 

We’re not making fatwas here. I just want to hear what you think as a human being and Muslim. 

yes, 100% plausible because organs have been rotting in the ground ever since Qabeel killed and buried Habeel.

If Allah was truly worried about saving a life, He could always not make organs go bad or simply say "Kun" and organ would fix itself. Allah is not helpless when it comes to saving a life.

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

No. No. No. No.

Corpse mutilation is to senselessly damage a dead body with the objective to disrespect the sanctity of the dead person as a deliberate affront to their kin and friends. 

Organ removal for donation is clearly not mutilation. If it’s done without the permission of the donor or against their wishes, then perhaps it would be. Otherwise, if it’s according to the expressed will of the person, it’s not, because it includes none of the essential characteristics of mutilation. If cutting equaled mutilation, then surgery would be forbidden in general, which it obviously is not. The intention behind the cutting and the quality of the cutting is obviously essential to calling something mutilation.

Similarly an autopsy is not done to deliberately disrespect the person or their family, nor is it senseless cutting of the body. It’s to verify the cause of death and to assure there was no foul play when this is in question.

 

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

This is a sensible opinion that reasonably balances all the considerations. I particularly like how he applies the principle about sanctity of the body and not to mutilate after death, but does it in a way that is actually contextually reasonable.

Doing anything to a dead body that you wouldn't do to a live body is considered mutilation regardless of the reason. One of the webster defintions of mutilation is "an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically" which is what taking out organs post mortem is kind of what Ayatollah Khamenei and you say above.

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

Sigh.

I am aware of that conditional ruling. But what you are missing I think is that he invokes “saving a life” precisely because he thinks that by default collecting an organ for donation is forbidden, and thus that can only be overridden by a matter of life and death. 

Yes because its relates to mutilation again similar to Khamenei. "Saving a life" meaning take liver, kidney, heart but not limbs because missing limbs are not life and death situations.

And by default he does not consider organ donation to be forbidden because he permits it for living people to donate organs.

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

Also, he does not just say “a life.” If he said “a life” in general, I would have no objection, even if I disagreed with the steps he took to get to the conclusion. The problem is, he says specifically a Muslim life. 

Which aside from the aesthetics of it is the impracticality and lack of feasibility of it. It becomes de facto a ban in any secular society where Muslims are not the majority, because practically speaking it doesn’t work that way where you can know in advance as a person or a family member where the organ is going or specify where it goes. There’s a list and the organs go to the top compatible person in need. 

I encourage you to write to his office and/or to IMAM-US.ORG to ask why does Ayatollah Sistani make a distinction between Muslims/Non-Muslims when it comes to who can receive organs. There are several other mentions in the book about organ donation being acceptable if the recipient is a Muslim.

 

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

As Shias, we hold that true practical law is not arbitrary, but is based ultimately on tangible matters of harm and benefit. If we were to deny the ability to critique opinions based on matters of discernible harm and benefit, we would be denying our own principles. 

Applying that type of analysis, I would conclude that a default ruling of haram for organ donation directed by the will of the donor becomes problematic because:

It saves a life while also respecting the wishes of the individual and reasonably preserving the outer integrity of the body for the purposes of a traditional Islamic funeral. So, on my score card, lots of benefit and no discernible harm.

BOLD is qiyas again..

True Islamic Law is not arbitary but based on Islamic principles and not on tangible matters of harm and benefit. By that reasoning, I should be able to listen to any type of music I want because it benefits me by soothing me and causes no discernible harm.

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

Are you able to present an alternative benefit/harm analysis that is more favourable to Seestani’s view?

yes. Islamically life does not end when we die. We are able to see, hear, feel for several hours after death which is why there are so many rules around a dead body. This is also why we read salah-e-mayyit and subsequently talqeen for the deceased. "Mutilating" the corpse during this time would cause pain to the deceased when it is already a difficult time for the deceased. So if it can be avoided, it is the responsibility of the living to ensure the Muslim deceased is laid to ground quickly, efficiently, respectfully and painlessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, ShiaChat Mod said:

Yes. The problem comes when some people think their marja is wrong or they even shift into the rejection of taqleed altogether. 

oh brother, people even thought our Imams were wrong and would advise/correct them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

yes, 100% plausible because organs have been rotting in the ground ever since Qabeel killed and buried Habeel.

If Allah was truly worried about saving a life, He could always not make organs go bad or simply say "Kun" and organ would fix itself. Allah is not helpless when it comes to saving a life.

Thank you for your (eventual) honesty. 

I have to observe though that the reasoning here is odd as a principle to invoke. For one, you compare the pre-20th century situation where it was simply not possible to do anything other than let it rot in the ground, to the post-20th century situation where in much of the world it is possible to save and reuse the organ. 

Moreover, this principle would seem to imply a fatalistic approach to all sorts of other medical interventions that were not possible in the previous history of medicine. 

Suppose we have a deadly childhood disease treatable with antibiotics. Would you apply this principle to conclude that it is plausible God would prefer the child not be given the antibiotics, and as a result, die?

After all, kids have been dying of awful diseases since forever. And if Allah was truly worried about saving a life, he would always make kids not get sick or say “kun fa yakun,” and the child would be well. 

I’m just applying your way of thinking here to a comparable scenario. 
 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Doing anything to a dead body that you wouldn't do to a live body is considered mutilation regardless of the reason. One of the webster defintions of mutilation is "an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically" which is what taking out organs post mortem is kind of what Ayatollah Khamenei and you say above.

No. You’re twisting the meaning of mutilation into something no English speaking person would recognize, and I highly doubt even classical Arabs would have recognized it the way you are using it (in terms of the original Arab word). Mutilation is about clearly visible damage to the outer part of the body. Cutting off/out ears, nose, tongue, eyes, fingers, hands, arms, legs. That sort of affair. Or slashing open the body to leave it like that. 

An organ extraction for donation is a surgical procedure performed with care and precision out of respect for the dead. The incisions are clean and minimal to what is needed for the task, and the wound is sutured shut as with an operation on a living patient. The only change is inside, not visible to an observer.  
 

So even by your own invented standard of “something you wouldn’t do to a live body,” it doesn’t qualify. Surgeons leave live bodies looking the same from the outside all the time. And I am virtually certain no classical Arab would have recognized a post-organ extraction body as “mutilated.” 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I encourage you to write to his office and/or to IMAM-US.ORG to ask why does Ayatollah Sistani make a distinction between Muslims/Non-Muslims when it comes to who can receive organs. There are several other mentions in the book about organ donation being acceptable if the recipient is a Muslim.

Oh, I’m good, thanks. I own his risalah and have read it start to finish. I started on his taqleed years back and was taught his risalat by someone working with his office. I have a good sense from other rulings that touch on Muslims vs non-Muslims to infer where he’s coming from. But thanks for the suggestion. 

I do note that you’ve failed to respond to the observation of how this rule would in effect block any Shia Muslim from donating in the West. 
 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

BOLD is qiyas again..

True Islamic Law is not arbitary but based on Islamic principles and not on tangible matters of harm and benefit. By that reasoning, I should be able to listen to any type of music I want because it benefits me by soothing me and causes no discernible harm.

It’s wildly amusing to me that you magically see qiyas everywhere in this conversation except where it actually does pop up. 

 

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

yes. Islamically life does not end when we die. We are able to see, hear, feel for several hours after death which is why there are so many rules around a dead body. This is also why we read salah-e-mayyit and subsequently talqeen for the deceased. "Mutilating" the corpse during this time would cause pain to the deceased when it is already a difficult time for the deceased. So if it can be avoided, it is the responsibility of the living to ensure the Muslim deceased is laid to ground quickly, efficiently, respectfully and painlessly.

OMG!!! That’s qiyas!!!

Kidding. Couldn’t resist. 

I’m going to award you points for trying here, but in the end I don’t think it works. 

Regardless of whatever extent and in whatever fashion a dead human is able to “see,” “hear,” and “feel” — Allahu alim — one thing that is rather clear from the scientific research is that this is not happening on the physical plane of sense organs, nerves, and brain processing inside the body.

Because brain death involves the irreversible disappearance of all neural correlates of conscious awareness due to irreversible damage to the brain tissues underlying that awareness in the body.

To the extent the person experiences things around him after death, it is most likely via some other supernatural mechanism of awareness. So the notion that avoiding organ donation is a problem because “the person will feel the cutting in their body” seems like jumbled up, speculative thinking to be frank. 
 

 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
17 hours ago, kadhim said:

Thank you for your (eventual) honesty. 

I am going to let your snide comment slide. next time, I will respond in kind and then you will complain to a Mod friend who will decide to act all Mody and suspend me or whatever... moving on...

 

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

I have to observe though that the reasoning here is odd as a principle to invoke. For one, you compare the pre-20th century situation where it was simply not possible to do anything other than let it rot in the ground, to the post-20th century situation where in much of the world it is possible to save and reuse the organ. 

Moreover, this principle would seem to imply a fatalistic approach to all sorts of other medical interventions that were not possible in the previous history of medicine. 

Suppose we have a deadly childhood disease treatable with antibiotics. Would you apply this principle to conclude that it is plausible God would prefer the child not be given the antibiotics, and as a result, die?

After all, kids have been dying of awful diseases since forever. And if Allah was truly worried about saving a life, he would always make kids not get sick or say “kun fa yakun,” and the child would be well. 

I’m just applying your way of thinking here to a comparable scenario. 
 

you simply asked if it was plausible without any qualifiers so of course the answer would be yes. You should have asked "Do you think it’s plausible that in the 21st century God prefers that organs rot in the ground rather than saving a life?" I will answer that question with honesty too.

In your example, will the antibiotics be breaking fiqhi rules? Would those rules be more important than saving a life rule? What are the rulings from Quran, ahadeeth, etc. Medicine has been available and used for centuries upon centuries so there will be clear precedence to use medication to save lives.

You need to come up with a better comparable scenario and definitely chose your words wisely.

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

No. You’re twisting the meaning of mutilation into something no English speaking person would recognize, and I highly doubt even classical Arabs would have recognized it the way you are using it (in terms of the original Arab word). Mutilation is about clearly visible damage to the outer part of the body. Cutting off/out ears, nose, tongue, eyes, fingers, hands, arms, legs. That sort of affair. Or slashing open the body to leave it like that. 

An organ extraction for donation is a surgical procedure performed with care and precision out of respect for the dead. The incisions are clean and minimal to what is needed for the task, and the wound is sutured shut as with an operation on a living patient. The only change is inside, not visible to an observer.  
 

mutilation: an act or instance of damaging or altering something radically (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilation). Apparently English-speaking Marriam-Webster would disagree with you.

Do you have access to the ruling in arabic and also all the references used to make the reference in arabic? Are you fluent enough in arabic to doubt anything about arabic. Clearly you are not a jurist but feel qualified to criticize one. I suppose you know 2 lines of arabic so now you can doubt about meaning and intentions behind words used by classical arabs???

What is wrong with a dead person donating ears, nose, tongue, eyes, fingers, hands, arms, legs? They are dead all the same.

 

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

So even by your own invented standard of “something you wouldn’t do to a live body,” it doesn’t qualify. 

not my standard but Islamic standard. 

19 hours ago, kadhim said:

Surgeons leave live bodies looking the same from the outside all the time. And I am virtually certain no classical Arab would have recognized a post-organ extraction body as “mutilated.” 

Have you ever seen a body after an autopsy?

19 hours ago, kadhim said:

I do note that you’ve failed to respond to the observation of how this rule would in effect block any Shia Muslim from donating in the West. 

okay so it blocks a Shia from donating in the West. What response are you looking for?

 

19 hours ago, kadhim said:

It’s wildly amusing to me that you magically see qiyas everywhere in this conversation except where it actually does pop up. 

 

OMG!!! That’s qiyas!!!

Kidding. Couldn’t resist. 

I’m going to award you points for trying here, but in the end I don’t think it works. 

Regardless of whatever extent and in whatever fashion a dead human is able to “see,” “hear,” and “feel” — Allahu alim — one thing that is rather clear from the scientific research is that this is not happening on the physical plane of sense organs, nerves, and brain processing inside the body.

Because brain death involves the irreversible disappearance of all neural correlates of conscious awareness due to irreversible damage to the brain tissues underlying that awareness in the body.

To the extent the person experiences things around him after death, it is most likely via some other supernatural mechanism of awareness. So the notion that avoiding organ donation is a problem because “the person will feel the cutting in their body” seems like jumbled up, speculative thinking to be frank. 
 

What I said about respecting the dead body is #IslamicFacts.

Thanks for kadhim points - What are they good for? can I use them at Baskin Robbins?

You need to read up on the rules regarding respecting dead bodies. Then do some pondering on why that it.

I never said that the soul will feel the physical pain of something being done to the body. Can't they feel pain supernaturally?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...