Exploiting the paranoia over “Islamic” terrorism
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi

Bearing a muslim name on one’s passport especially those issued by certain countries can test one’s patience these days. On a recent trip to the United States, I took the family along including my 2 teenaged boys. On the threshold of adulthood, I thought it would be good for them to see a little bit of America and life in a big cosmopolitan city like Chicago. I know of many friends who would rather not travel to the US these days because of the difficulties some people have faced at the immigration counter due to the security measures enforced to prevent suspected, potential or imagined terrorist-types from entering the country. Fortunately I have never had such problems as my travels there have always been for the purpose of attending medical conferences and I don’t have the looks of someone from the middle-east.

Being in the relevant age bracket, I expected my 2 boys would have a little difficulty, just like their visa application which took 2 weeks to be approved. At Chicago’s O’Hare airport they had to register with the Department of Homeland Security, a process that involves filling out a form, making a declaration and answering many probing questions by an DHS official. This included checking out the contents of one my son’s e-mails. The official who interviewed my sons was firm but not at all discourteous, I suppose because they had everything in order – return air tickets, booking confirmation of the serviced apartment where we would be staying, and the scientific program of the conference that had my name as a speaker. But even then, they whole process took more than an hour. Anyway we took it all in good stride, knowing that he had a job to do, and such stringent measures could not be helped given what had happened 3 years ago in September, and most of all we had no more flights to catch. An arab man on the same British Airways flight from London was not so lucky. He missed his connecting flight to Houston because of the registration process and interview. Once passed that, everything was fine and we had a pleasant stay in Chicago. People we met were generally courteous and friendly, and there was not much indication that muslims are unwelcome. But Chicago, like all the big cities, is perhaps among the exceptions. After all, this is the city where Elijah Muhamad’s black muslim movement “the Nation of Islam” began. The city and its environs also has a large muslim immigrant population. Taking a few trips daily by taxi between the conference hotel and our apartment, most of the time the taxi drivers were muslim immigrants. A friend of mine, an Iraqi doctor at the Children’s Hospital affiliated to the University of Chicago, while accepting that there are some difficulties in being muslims in America, he nevertheless recognizes that the notions of liberty, openness and fairness still work for professionals like him in cosmopolitan Chicago. Ever since its founding, that aspect of america has been a source of her vitality – its ability to attract immigrants from all over the world, including muslims, that continue to enrich America with their talent and hard work.

But today much of that benign face of America which has earned it respect and admiration from the rest of the world is sadly overshadowed by the Bush administration’s paranoia over “Islamic terrorism”. It was while we were in Chicago that Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, was not allowed entry into the US after his plane was diverted to Maine, away from the densely populated North East, ostensibly to minimize american civilian casualties should the plane be turned into a terrorist weapon. Yusuf Islam, who during his musical career wrote memorable songs that express yearnings for spiritual solace and peace among mankind, since becoming a muslim he has been heavily involved in humanitarian work in the muslim world and establishing Islamic schools in Britain. He is among the high profile muslims in Britain and his views have never been known to be extremist, very much consistent with the theme of peace and humanity that used to be the message of some of his old songs. After the September 11 attacks, invoking his old song “Peace train”, he wrote that Islam is a religion of peace and expressed dismay at how the religion has been tainted by extremists who commit acts of violence with no regard for innocent human lives. At the height of the Salman Rushdie affair in 1989, I saw him on british television as a panelist on a forum wearing a turban and a traditional arab robe. But he has shed that image for some years now, started recording songs again, and in fact he was on his way to Nashville on the occasion that he was denied entry.

It is very puzzling that a high profile muslim with a long history of commitment to world peace and to the alleviation of human suffering is on a terrorist watch list. Is it likely that among its stable of advisers in think tanks and academic institutions across the country, none of them could correctly advise the administration on Yusuf Islam’s background and credentials, that the British Foreign secretary was compelled to raise a mild comment on the incident.

Not long ago, Tariq Ramadan, another muslim public figure well known for his advocacy of moderation and peaceful co-existence was barred from taking up a teaching post at a US university when the US State Department revoked his visa at the last minute. Ramadan is grandson of Hassan Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. He teaches philosophy and Islamology in Geneva and Freiburg in Switzerland. His father, Said Ramadan is son in law and favourite disciple of Hassan Al Banna. With Nasser’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, the family went into exile in Switzerland where Tariq was born shortly later. Despite his pedigree, Tariq Ramadan is not the typical Ikhwan activist. Growing up in Geneva, he was active in social and humanitarian organizations, and his academic specialization was Nietzche, before he seriously took up the cause of Islam in europe.

One could gain insight into Tariq Ramadan’s ideas on a range of contemporary issues concerning Islam in the book “l’Islam En Questions” (Actes Sud, 2002), where the journalist and expert in Middle East affairs, Françoise Germain-Robin paired him off with Alain Gresh, editor-in-chief of le Monde Diplomatique and passionate defender of the third world against the ravages of globalization, to deliberate on topics from the situation in the middle-east, Islamism, the new international order and globalization, to feminism and human rights in Islam, Islam in Europe etc. The exchanges and outright debates between the two became all the more interesting as each of them have egyptian connections, Tariq Ramadan with Hasan Al Banna, and Alain Gresh is from a bourgeois family in Cairo, the son of Henri Curiel, founder of the communist movement in egypt and a militant activist in leftist liberation movements especially in the arab world and Palestine.

Tariq Ramadan’s book “Les Musulmans d’occident et l’avenir de l’Islam” (Western muslim and the future of Islam – Sindbad – Actes lud, 2003) offers an insight on Ramadan’s thoughts on how european muslims should integrate, engage and contribute meaningfully to europe’s secular society while maintaining their muslim identity and culture, rather than retreating into the ghetto and nursing exaggerated feelings of victimization.

If the Bush administration is serious about seeking a solution to the present problem on terrorism, and about “winning the hearts and minds” of muslims to eschew violence and build bridges between East and West for world peace, the Yusuf Islam and Tariq Ramadan incidents prompt one to question its sincerity. Is the casting of too fine a net to combat terrorism the result of a genuine misjudgment, or is the administration held captive by the policies of Islamphobic neoconservatives, prodded on by rightwing zionists, whose dream is for the “clash of civilization” to become a reality by exploiting and exaggerating the paranoia of terror by a small fringe of extremists on the margins of mainstream Islam? In the long run, it would have a significant impact on america as shown by the rise of anti american sentiments around the world, eroding further remnants of its benign image in the eyes of fair-minded people who still maintain an admiration for the idea and ideals of america’s founding more than 200 years ago.

For muslims, that there is a seemingly deliberate attempt to exclude them from participating in the modern world, means that engagement, dialogue, and the struggle for global justice through shared values is the only realistic, workable way for a dignified place in the world commonwealth. We should not take the Islamphobes’ bait who want us all to become terrorists at the gates of civilization.

Islamic Medical Ethics Amidst Developing Biotechnologies
by Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin FRCP, FAMM
Consultant Paediatrician & Neonatologist
Damansara Specialist Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Heralded by the revelation of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, the 21st century is aptly designated the biotechnology century. The 20th century of physics, which saw the transformation of silicon into computing magic, was embraced with enthusiasm by virtually every household. However, unlike her predecessor, the same cannot be said about the advancements in biomedicine.

These revolutionary procedures in biotechnology has probed the outermost boundaries of what is scientifically possible and acceptable. Micro manipulation at the very earliest stages of human development, at the level of the embryo, single cell and genetic structure is undoubtedly a very delicate and sensitive issue with potentially explosive ethical, social, medico-legal and religious ramifications. Hence, the turbulent and not uncommonly hostile controversies that has since evolved.

Some of the issues in biotechnology which are debated contentiously and extensively across all segments of human society, include assisted reproductive technologies, human reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning, embryo research, genetic engineering, euthanasia, organ transplantation, abortion and contraception.

THE JURISPRUDENCE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

As a complete and comprehensive way of life, the teachings of Islam encompasses all fields of human endeavours, spiritual and material, individual and societal, economics and politics, national and international. This is well understood from the revelation during the occasion of the prophet’s farewell pilgrimage.

“This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (5:3)

And the instructions which regulate our everyday activity of life is called Shariah

(Islamic law). The Shariah is the epitome of the Islamic spirit, the most typical manifestation of the Islamic way of life, the kernel of Islam itself (1). Bioethical deliberations is inseparable from the religion itself, hence Islamic bioethics must remain and flourish within the confines of the Shariah.

All Muslim scholars and jurists are agreed that four sources of Islamic law remain in the forefront of all deliberations in Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), known as the Masadir al Shariah (2). They are :

1. Quran
2. Sunnah (authentic traditions of the prophet)
3. Ijma’ (consensus)
4. Qiyas (analogy)

Others which are not founded on a material source (nass) from the Quran or Sunnah but capturing the spirit of the Shariah and taking into consideration the welfare of the community include :

1. Istihsan – the choice of one of several lawful options
2. Istishab – continuation of an existing ruling until the contrary is proved
3. Urf – customs or precedent which does not contradict nass
4. Maslahah or Istislah – consideration of public interest or welfare
5. Shar’u man qabluna – the laws of our predecessors, either confirmed or abrogated by the primary sources
6. Qawl as-sahabi – the narrative of the companion of the prophet

The purposes of the law (Maqasid al Shariah) arranged in their order of importance are directed towards the preservation of (3) :

1. Deen (religion)
2. Nafs (life)
3. Aql (mind)
4. Nasl (progeny)
5. Maal (property)

This classification which is permanent and immutable defines succinctly and clearly the objectives of the community and gives it balance and a sense of purpose. Three of these priorities are directly related to the preservation of health, namely life, mind and progeny.

And from the outset it must be emphasized that the Shariah is guided by five cardinal principles (Qawaid al Shariah). These are (4) :

1. The principle of intention – intent is all important in actions
2. The principle of certainty – certainty cannot be changed by doubt and all acts are permissible unless there are clear prohibitions
3. The principle of injury – do no harm, injury must be removed or compensated
4. The principle of hardship – hardship calls forth ease and facilitation, need or necessity makes for allowing what is prohibited
5. The principle of custom – custom or precedent is the rule unless contradicted by nass

These cardinal rules lead the scholars and jurists to think of Islamic Fiqh as the subject of five vital conceptions (5) :

1. There are few absolute obligations (takalif)
2. Gradualism in the promulgation of laws
3. Making the burden lighter when making and executing laws
4. Hardship is avoided and necessity is taken into account
5. Justice and equity must always prevail

The Shariah is therefore a living, dynamic and relevant entity. It is for everyone, everywhere and for all times. It also describes itself as a guide, a light and a mercy (6). It is this philosophy of the law which is alive to the contemporary challenges of advancing biotechnologies. I have chosen to illustrate this harmony and the relevance of the law to three areas of cutting edge biotechnology, namely :

1. Reproductive human cloning
2. Therapeutic cloning
3. Genetic technology and human embryo research

HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING

When man was experimenting with cloning in plants, frogs and small marine animals, the Islamic Organisation of Medical Sciences (IOMS) based in Kuwait, convened a seminar in 1983 in which 2 papers were presented which dealt with the potential of human cloning and the shariah perspective on this possibility. When the cloning of Dolly the sheep by the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer was announced in February 1997, the IOMS in their 9th Fiqh Medical seminar updated their juristic opinion on this most contentious issue (7)

Like the IOMS, virtually every Islamic seminar, jurisprudence council or individual scholars have concluded that cloning procedures aimed at producing human clones is not permissible. The majority considered it Haram (not permissible) in all its details (8). Whilst a minority opinion considered in Haram as a way to prevent a cause of harm (the necessity to refrain from causing harm to oneself and others). This latter juristic opinion keeps open the option of readdressing the issue should new information become available and approved by Shariah. The use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology even between husband and wife was also not approved.

The rationale for prohibition were as follows :

The basic concept in reproduction is to abide by the Shariah approved system of legally binding marriage, through the union of the sperm and ovum.
Human cloning is against the natural process (Fitrah) of human relationship of marriage and reproduction
The major harms far exceed the benefits. These include the disruption of lineage, family relationships and social fabric of humanity.
The anticipated social, moral, psychological and legal implications of human copies.
The possibility of interfering with the male-female population dynamics

The ethics aside, the science of human reproductive cloning is not evidence based :

It is an inexact science – there were 277 attempts before Dolly was possible. “Even with mammals the risks are monumental let alone humans, it is criminally irresponsible” says Ian Wilmut, the “creator of Dolly”. Failure rates are in excess of 98%
It is an inefficient technology – Abortion rates are 10x higher, stillbirth rates are 3x higher. Natural reproduction is more efficient and … more fun.
Unproven safety – Dolly suffered from premature rheumatism and early death (she was “a sheep in lamb’s clothings”). Other abnormalities include large offspring syndrome, underdeveloped lungs, reduced immunity, increased congenital anomalies. The list of misadventures increase by the day and which infertility expert or cloner is going to publish their failures!
Besides it compromises the gene pool – it reduces genetic variability and diversity. One virulent pathogen maybe sufficient to wipe out the whole clone population.

The national and international response to the new technologies of human reproductive cloning have suffered a policy lull. Eight years post-Dolly, only a few countries have either drafted or enacted laws to bring human genetic and reproductive technology under responsible societal governance. As of November 2003, 77% of countries have not taken action to ban reproductive human cloning. Malaysia is in the final stages of drafting laws to ban the reproductive cloning of human beings.

Apart from a small minority of “rogue cloners” there is an international consensus against the reproductive cloning of human beings. However the opportunity to elaborate an international convention to ban reproductive human cloning was lost when member countries disagreed on the extent of the ban.

The USA and Costa Rica in the Policy on UN Cloning Treaty 2003, proposed a full ban on both reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Whilst other member countries supported the Belgium proposal for a partial ban, that is to ban reproductive cloning and allow national discretion on therapeutic cloning.

THERAPEUTIC CLONING

Unfortunately, the confusion and disgust at the prospect of cloning and creating babies has been transferred to therapeutic cloning. In therapeutic cloning unlike human reproductive cloning the end point is not cloning a human being. This technology involves the production of human clonal embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem-cells, tissues and organs. This would open the potential of curing a whole host of chronic and debilitating diseases including diabetes mellitus, parkinsonism, myocardial infaction and spinal injuries.

The source of the totipotent stem cells has however been a source of intense controversy. Stem cells found in umbilical cord blood, bone marrow and aborted fetuses are generally acceptable from the ethical and moral point of view. Though less plastic, scarce and sometimes quite inaccessible, there have been some success stories with the use of these non-embryonic stem cells.

The use of embryonic stem cells (ESC) is however fraught with highly charged religio-bio-ethical debate. The source of controversy revolves around the various questions about when life becomes a human life; namely :

Is an ovum and sperm a person?
When do the products of conception become a person?
Does a zygote have a full set of human rights?
Does the foetus have a soul?

This concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical. It is based on one’s fundamental assumptions about the nature of the world. It is primarily a religious or quasi-religious concept.

The Roman Catholics believe that the soul enters the body at conception and the fertilized ovum is a human person will full human rights. Pope John Paul II, on 29 August 2000 said, “methods that fail to respect the dignity and value of the person must always be avoided. I am thinking in particular of attempts at human cloning with a view to obtaining organs for transplants: these techniques, in so far as they involve the manipulation and destruction of human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself”

The scientific paradigm defines the pre-embryonic stage as the period from fertilization up to the determinant of the primitive streak at the age of 14 days. The pre-embryo is unable to feel pain or pleasure and therefore has no moral status. They may be cryopreserved, discarded or used for research purposes.

Lord May of Oxford, the President of the Royal Society said, “to cut off this research (without clear understanding of the science of therapeutic cloning and its potential to contribute to mankind) would be an act of intellectual vandalism comparable to papal censorship of Galileo and Copernicus.”

The first verse revealed to prophet Muhammad in the cave of Hira’ translates as follows :

“Read! In the name of your Lord, who has created. Has created man from alaqa.” (96:1-2)

This verse embodies two very significant messages. From the outset, the Quran emphasizes the primacy of knowledge and follows this with the first lesson in embryology, the very creation of man himself.

The Quran is a book of guidance to invite mankind to the truth and salvation. But nonetheless it contains many “signs” which invites mankind to reflect upon his creation and the world that surrounds him. In various verses, it illustrates lucidly both the physical and spiritual dimensions of man’s creation. In chapter 23, verses 12-14, the Quran says :

“And indeed We created man from a quintessence of clay. Then we placed him as a small quantity of liquid (nutfa) in a safe lodging firmly established. Then we have fashioned the nutfa into something which hangs (alaqa). Then We made alaqa into a chewed lump of flesh (mudgha). And We made the mudgha into bones, and clothed the bones with flesh. And then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be God, the best to create”

The nutfa represents the blastocyst which embeds within the endometrium. The alaqa, much intrigued the distinguished embryologist, Prof. Moore who was puzzled at how 1400 years ago anyone could accurately describe it as something which clings to the inner uterine wall like a leech. The scholars of Quran were similarly unable to explain the concept of mudgha until microsopy revealed that the chewed lump of flesh resembled accurately the appearances of the somites. And note how explicit the verses has been in illustrating that the ossification centres preceded the formation of the myotomes.

In another verse the Quran very clearly revealed another phase of man’s being, the process of ensoulment.

“and breathe into him of His spirit” (32:9)

The soul is a metaphysical concept which is fundamental in Islam and it defines a human individual. The majority opinion in Islam accepts the 120th day of pregnancy as the time of ensoulment. Eventhough ensoulment occurs later, the embryo is respected from the onset of fertilization and acquires consideration as a human foetus after implantation.

And based on these fundamental premises, at least three Islamic Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Councils have given permission for the use of surplus embryos from IVF laboratories for ESC research (9,10,11). However, it is not permissible at this juncture, to consciously generate pre-embryos either by conventional IVF techniques or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for ESC research.

As at November 2003, 6 (3%) countries have allowed therapeutic cloning whilst 30 (16%) have prohibited it. The 6 countries in favour of allowing therapeutic cloning to proceed within stipulated policy guidelines are China, Singapore, Belgium, UK, Cuba and USA.

The Federal Embryo Protection Law (1990) of Germany prohibits both reproductive and therapeutic cloning. This represents the spectrum of countries with “relatively restrictive” laws related to reproductive technologies. Others include Austria, the Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland

The other end of the spectrum is represented by the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) and Human Reproductive Cloning Act (2001) and Singapore’s Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC) Report on “Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning” which was approved by the government on 18 July 2002. The UK and Singapore “more permissive” regulations allows the generation of embryos by both IVF and SCNT technologies if there is a demonstrable and exceptional need which cannot be met by the use of surplus embryos.

The “in-between” policies are demonstrated by the Canadian’s new Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004) and Australia’s Research Involving Embryos Act (2003). They both allow the utilization of surplus IVF embryos for research but prohibit the creation of human embryos for research and SCNT for research and reproduction. The current thinking in our Malaysian National Committee on Human Cloning seems to favour this line of thought and legal framework; which is also resonates well with the fatwa issued by the three jurisprudence councils in Jeddah, USA and Jordan.

Except for Israel, none of the nations in the Middle East have taken legal action to regulate either reproductive or therapeutic cloning. As at 6 November 2003, Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE and Yemen voted in favour of Iran’s motion on the UN Cloning Treaty Process, to postpone further discussions for another 2 years. This is illustrated in the table below.

Region	Countries	Reproductive Cloning		Research Cloning				IGM
		Prohibited		Prohibited		Allowed		Prohibited
	#	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Africa	53	1	2%	1	2%	0	0%	1	2%
Middle East	23	1	4%	0	0%	0	0%	1	4%
South Asia / East Asia / Pacific	33	6	18%	3	9%	2	6%	5	15%
Europe – Eastern	24	14	58%	8	33%	0	0%	9	38%
Europe – Western	24	16	67%	13	54%	2	8%	8	33%
Americas & Carribean	35	8	23%	5	14%	2	6%	3	9%
World	192	46	23%	30	16%	6	3%	27	14%

Previously it was thought that it would be extremely difficult to develop comprehensive policies to govern human genetic and reproductive technologies. Despite the earlier skepticism, various countries have now shown that it is possible to break the policy deadlock and draft legislation to regulate these new technologies of human genetic modification. Despite their different political and social experiences, some of the national policies thus available have exhibited a remarkable sharing of core principles; namely :

they affirm technologies with a real chance of preventing or curing disease
they ban technologies which could harm children or open the door to free market eugenics
they ensure research involving embryos is tightly regulated
they establish publicly accountable means to review policies & make new ones
they pose no risk for reproductive rights

Probably one of the most far reaching thoughts on this highly controversial issue of ESC research has been that propounded by Sheikh Dr. Yusuf Al-Qardawi, a highly respected and contemporary Muslim scholar who related in his concluding remarks after a lengthy juristic deliberation the following position (12) :

“If it becomes possible through research to clone organs such as the heart, liver, kidneys or others which may benefit those who are in dire need of them; then this is permitted by religion and the researcher or scientist will receive the reward from Allah. This is because the research will confer benefit on humanity without loss to others or infringing upon them. Therapeutic cloning with this noble research pursuit is permissible and it is encouraged. In fact, in some circumstances, it may become mandatory to enhance this research in accordance with the need and man’s research capability and accountability.”

The following diagram illustrates the extreme potential for therapeutic cloning, with virtually zero risk of graft versus host disease (GVHD), with the option of either de-differentiation of the patients indigenous stem cells or utilizing somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to generate embryonic stem cells.

GENETIC TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH

Two hadiths (authentic traditions) related from the Prophet has helped us to have a better insight into the science of genetics.

“Select your spouses carefully in the interest of your offspring because lineage is a crucial issue”

“Do not marry your close relatives because you will beget weak offsprings”

The second Caliph of Islam, Omar ibn El-Khattab, upon noting that a particular tribe intermarried with increased frequency, remarked to them :

“You have weakened your descendants. You should marry strangers ( people outside your tribe )”.

The spirit of the exhortations of the Prophet SAW and his companion was to secure normal and healthy babies, protection of their early well being, endowed with the benefits of good genes from both parents and the prevention of congenital malformations and its consequent disabilities.

A variety of inherited diseases may now be diagnosed in the pre-embryo stage prior to implantation into the uterus. Highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) techniques have enabled the rapid amplification of minute amounts of DNA material from the embryonic cells. Fluorescent in situ hybridization ( FISH ) technology with combination chromosomal probes have made possible the genetic analysis of embryonal sex and various aneuploidies (13).

Some of the potentially debilitating diseases which may be screened include Trisomy 13, 17 and 21, cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, Marfan’s syndrome, incontinentia pigmentosa, x-linked immune deficiency, retinitis pigmentosa, fragile X syndrome, muscular dystrophy and Lesch-Nyhan disease. The first preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was achieved in 1989. Since then, well over 200 diseases or conditions has been further isolated with ongoing PGD research (14).

The First International Conference on Bioethics in the Muslim World held in Cairo from 10-13 Dec 1991 examined very carefully this area of pre-embryo research (15). Collaborating this with the decisions of other scientific cum Islamic jurisprudence seminars, the following practice guidelines may be summarized :

Cryopreserved pre-embryos may be used for research purposes with the free and informed consent of the couple.
Research conducted on pre-embryos is limited only to therapeutic research. Genetic analysis of pre-embryos to detect specific genetic disorders is permissible. Hence diagnostic aids should be provided for couples at high risk for selected inherited diseases. The treated embryo may only be implanted into the uterus of the wife who is the owner of the ova and only during the span of the marriage contract.
Any pre-embryos found to be genetically defective maybe rejected from transfer into the uterus after proper counselling by the physician.
Research aimed at changing the inherited characteristics of pre-embryos ( e.g. hair and eye colour, intelligence, height ) including sex selection is forbidden.
Sex selection is however permitted if a particular sex predisposes to a serious genetic condition. One of the first couple to use the technique of sex selection was hoping to escape a neurologically debilitating disease known as x-linked hydrocephalus, which almost always affected boys. Embryonal sex selection would make possible the weeding out of other serious x-linked disorders including haemophilia, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and fragile X syndrome.
The free informed consent of the couple should be obtained prior to conducting any non-therapeutic research on the pre-embryos. These pre-embryos should not be implanted into the uterus of the wife or that of any other woman.
Research of a commercial nature or not related to the health of the mother or child is not allowed.
The research should be undertaken in accredited and reputable research facilities. The medical justification for the research proposal must be sound and scientific and conducted by a skilled and responsible researcher.

The designer baby technology or inheritable genetic modification ( IGM ) has further accentuated the ethical debate often referred to as “slippery slope” issues. The world’s first true designer baby, Nash Brown, was born on 29 August 2000. He was conceived specifically for the sake of his six year old sister, Molly who suffered from Fanconi’s Anaemia. His umbilical cord blood was transfused into Molly, with the hope of curing her condition.

Another landmark case was in the UK in 2001, where a British couple was given the go ahead by the courts to select an IVF baby who is Thalassaemia free and has a tissue make-up which precisely match their son Zain who suffers from Thalassaemia and does not have a compatible donor. Umbilical cord blood from the IVF baby would be transplanted into Zain to cure his Thalassaemia.

The table shows that only 27 (14%) countries have taken action to ban the creation of designer babies.

CONCLUSIONS

Islamic medical bioethics is firmly grounded on the fundamental tenets of the Islamic Shariah. The close collaboration between the scholars of jurisprudence and the scientific and medical fraternity has enabled her to keep abreast of the plethora of advancing biotechnologies.

Despite the wide ranging bio-religio-ethical problems and dilemmas posed by these emerging biotechnologies, Islamic medical bioethics, has provided a “middle of the road” approach moderating between the extremes of conservatism and liberalism. This it does without impeding the genuine and responsible quest for new knowledge and breakthroughs in new research frontiers.

It has provided a legal framework for responsible societal governance of human genetic and reproductive technologies and banned all forms of free market eugenics.

Allah says in Chapter 2, verse 143 :

“Thus we have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witness against mankind, and that the messenger maybe witness against you”.

REFERENCES

Schacht, Joseph. An introduction to Islamic Law. Reprinted 1966, 1971:1
Ash-Shafi’I; al-Umm, 1993, vol. 7:492-494; Ramadan, Islamic Law, 1970:33; Madkour, al-Madkhal, 1966:90,196
Ash-Shatibi, al-Muwafaqat, 1975, vol. 2:10
Borno, al-Wajiz, 1998, pp8,63
Madkour, al-Madkhal, 1966:12-20
Al-Quran 5:44-46
Recommendations of the 9th Fiqh-Medical Seminar; Islamic Organisation of Medical Sciences
Aly A. Mishal. Cloning and advances in molecular biotechnology. FIMA Year Book 2002, pp 38.
The Council of Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Muslim World League. 2003; 17th session in Makkah, 13-17 December.
Fiqh Council of North America, International Institute of Islamic Thought, Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, Islamic Institute news release August 27, 2001.
Aly A. Mishal. Stem cells : Controversies and ethical issues. Jordan Medical Journal. May 2001; 35(1) pp 80-82
Yusuf Al-Qardawi. Hadyul Islam Fatawi Mu’athirah. Darul Qalam Kuwait 2001. Translated Gema Insani Press, October 2002.
Grifo JA,et al. Update in preimplantation diagnosis. Advances and problems. Current Opinions Obstet Gynae 8:135-138
Fact Sheet : Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Dec 1996
Serour GI. Proceeding to the 1st international congress on bioethics in human reproduction research in the Muslim world. IICPSR 1992 Vol II

The Islamic Debate over the Human Bomb
by Dr. Azzam Tamimi

Martyrdom – a Question of Faith

According to Tunisian Islamic thinker Rachid Ghannouchi, one of the basic features of the Islamic faith is that it generates within the believer a passion for freedom. Algerian thinker Malik Bennabi had earlier asserted that the Islamic faith accomplishes two objectives: first, it liberates man from servitude and renders him un-slaveable; and secondly, it prohibits him from enslaving others. Many contemporary Islamic thinkers agree with him and explain that this is exactly what the concept of jihad is about.

One of the meanings of Jihad is given as the constant endeavour to struggle against all forms of political or economic tyranny. Despite its sacredness, life has no value in the shade of despotism. Islamic text, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) exhort Muslims to resist despotism and struggle against it by means of al-amr bilma`ruf wan-nahyu `anil-munkar (enjoining the good and forbidding the evil). On the basis of a hadith, Muslim scholars have articulated three levels of resistance or struggle. The minimum level is struggle by the heart. This is a psychological process whereby a Muslim prepares himself for the higher level up by means of boycotting evil and disliking it. The higher level of resistance entails condemning evil through the use of various means of non-violent means, such as speaking up, writing or demonstrating, or mobilising public opinion against evil. The highest level of all is resistance through the use of force. What really matters is that oppression should never be given a chance to establish itself in society. A Muslim is supposed to be a conscientious individual responding with appropriate action to whatever injustice that may be perpetrated in society provided the chosen action does not produce a greater evil that the one targeted with resistance. A Muslim is thus a force of positive change, a citizen whose faith reinforces within him a sense of responsibility.

It is in this way, according to Ghannouchi and Bennabi, that faith plays an important role in promoting civility and bolstering civil society. Not only does the Islamic faith permit a Muslim to resist despotism and rebel against it, but it makes it incumbent upon him or her to do so with whatever means available to him or her. It is understandable that a Muslim may lose his/her life struggling against oppression and for this he or she is promised a great reward in the life after death. In other words the effort made is not wasted and the sacrifice is not in vain.

The Prophet is quoted as saying: “The noblest of jihad is speaking out in defiance of an unjust ruler;” and “Hamza (Prophet’s uncle and one of the earlier martyrs in Islam) is the master of martyrs, and so is a man who stands up to an unjust ruler enjoining him and forbidding him, and gets killed for it.”

It would only be accurate to draw from this Prophetic tradition that martyrdom in the Islamic standard is not failure; a martyr is not a loser but a hopeful one who offers his life for what is much more valuable and, at the same time, eternal. For this reason martyrs are elevated to the highest of all ranks. A Muslim recites at least seventeen times a day in his salat (prayer):

Show us the straight way, the way of those on whom you have bestowed your Grace (1: 6-7)

Those on whom God has bestowed his grace belong to one of the categories listed in another Qur’anic verse which says:

All who obey Allah and the Messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah, of the Prophets, the sincere (lovers of truth), the martyrs, and the righteous (who do good). How beautiful is their Company. (4: 69)

By offering his life in the Cause of God, a martyr enters into a transaction with the Lord.

Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their wealth; for theirs in return is the Garden (of Paradise): They fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. And who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (9: 111)

O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Chastisement? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that you strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons: that will be best for you if you only knew. (61:10-11)

Martyrdom or Suicide?

However, martyrdom today is not as straightforward as what it used to be. In the old days Muslims went to war in a jihad wishing either for victory or for martyrdom. Today, many of those that go on a jihad are almost certain it is the latter but not the former. This is so because they strap themselves in dynamite and predetermine their fate when they press the button. Their wars are not conventional ones. They know they cannot inflict damage on their enemy without exploding in his face.

The ‘suicide-bombing’ or what Muslims call ‘martyrdom operation’ was not invented by the Muslims. However, it is today identified with them and with their religion. Precursors of these operations in the Middle East were first introduced by Arab secular leftists who seemed to import the idea from elsewhere in the world. During those days such operations did not usually involve strapping oneself with dynamite; mostly, they involved daring attacks from which the attacker had almost no chance of escaping alive. The attack by members of the Japanese Red Army in 1972 at Lod Airport in Israel is considered one of the earlier such attacks in the Middle East. However, it was at the hands of the Lebanese Hezbollah, founded in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, that this modus operandi was refined throughout the 1980s. The most daring of such attacks was the suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines in Beirut in 1983.

Elsewhere in the world, the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, who struggled for an independent Tamil state, began carrying out suicide bombings in 1987. It is estimated that they have since perpetrated over 200 such attacks. It was through this type of attacks that they assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 and President Premadassa of Sri Lanka in 1993. In 1999, the Tigers attempted to assassinate Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga using a female suicide bomber.

In the latter half of the nineties, it was the Palestinians organizations Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) and Islamic Jihad that captured the attention of the world for what they described as ‘martyrdom operations’. The two organizations, which did not approve of the Oslo peace accords between the PLO and Israel, were undoubtedly aware of the tactic of the human bomb resorted to by Hizbollah and the Tamil Tigers. However, they did not consider employing the tactic until after more than six years of the eruption of the first Intifada and well into the second year of the era of the Palestinian Authority. It is widely believed that what triggered a change in tactic was the massacre perpetrated on 25 February 1994 by an American-born Jewish settler. Baruch Goldstein is believed to have secured the assistance of Israeli troops to sneak into Al-Haram al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron opening fire and throwing hand grenades at worshippers as they kneeled half way through the early morning Fajr (dawn) prayers killing twenty nine of them and wounding scores more. On 6 April 1994, a Hamas bomber blew himself up near a bus in Afula, killing eight Israelis. Hamas claimed responsibility saying it carried out the attack in response to the massacre of Palestinian worshippers by Baruch Goldstein less than two months earlier.

Although Palestinians were generally appreciative of such a sacrificial mission at a time when they felt more vulnerable than ever, with no means of self-defence or deterrence, the human bomb attacks triggered a debate that is far from over. The debate, which soon crossed the borders and stretched across the Muslim world, centres on a number of themes.

– The first and most crucial theme relates to a jurisprudential problem: assessing the nature of the operation itself; is it suicide or sacrifice?

– The second relates to a practicality: the viability of the tactic in deterring the Israelis from their oppression and persecution of the Palestinians.

– The third relates to the consequences of such attacks to the Palestinians themselves since the Israelis were bound, as has always been the case, to respond; their response has invariably involved imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians whenever an attack of this kind is launched.

– The fourth relates to the impact on peace making; the attacks are an embarrassment to the Palestinian Authority which is supposed to prevent any attacks on Israel or Israelis in fulfilment of its commitments to the Oslo Accords signed with Israel in September 1993.

– The fifth relates a legal aspect: the legitimacy of a discriminate attack that may, as is the case in many instances, result in killing innocent civilians, particularly children.

As the dividends of peace turned to be bitter fruits, and as more Palestinians were becoming convinced that they had been cheated, many of these issues were resolved. It soon became obvious to the Palestinians that whether such operations existed or not the Israelis were determined to confiscate more land and build more settlements. The largest proportion of confiscation of land happened actually during days of peace making between 1993 and 1999. The peace promised turned to be nothing but a security arrangement between Israel and the PLO leadership whereby the latter takes care of the task of providing Israel with security in exchange for recognition and VIP treatment. As for the bulk of the Palestinian population their economic conditions continued to deteriorate and the six million who live as refugees or in exile were told their right to return had to be sacrificed in exchange for such a humiliating peace. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad managed to convince the majority of the Palestinians that their martyrdom operations served as the only deterrent in order to make the Israelis think twice before they attacked Palestinians villages, camps or towns. As regards the target, both organizations insisted that they never intend targeting children. They insist that they primarily target army personnel and that any attacks on civilians are either unintended or inevitable so long as Israel continues to target Palestinian civilians.

From a theological, or jurisprudential, point view, the assessing the nature of the operation had to be the most important issue to address so as to determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the ‘human bomb’. Since the Islamic religion has no one spokesperson or authority to refer to, it is not unusual in such turbulent times for politics to have a great bearing on the opinion of the religious scholars. Initially, supporters of the operations insisted they were acts of sacrifice while opponents claimed they were nothing but suicide. In the former case the perpetrator would be a martyr, a person who offers himself (or herself) for the sake of a noble cause and who will end up in the highest ranks of Paradise. From this perspective not only is the act permissible but it is highly commendable and greatly appreciated. There is no shortage of Qur’anic evidence to support this position. Take for instance Verse 111 of Chapter 9: “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”

Those who oppose the operations on religious grounds argue that they involve suicide, an act that is strictly forbidden in Islam. Consequently, the perpetrator is a sinner who will end up in the Fire of Hell. However, no Muslim scholars inside Palestine today subscribe to this opinion. Even the official Mufti of the Palestinian Authority Sheikh Ikrima Sabri has not only considered these operations a noble act of sacrifice for the sake of God but also harshly criticized some Egyptian and Saudi scholars for denouncing them as suicide accusing them of failing to understand the context and therefore failing to apply the appropriate text.

As far as the Palestinians under occupation are concerned the overwhelming majority support these operations; they even demand that more of them are planned. However, some continue to argue against them on the grounds that they have caused more harm to the Palestinians than good and that they, even if inadvertently, result in killing innocent civilians. The Palestinian Authority is opposed to them on the grounds of its commitment to the peace process.

The attitude of scholars and religious institutions outside Palestine has been varied. Division seems to be prompted by political considerations. Official (governmental) religious institutions or scholars have maintained that these operations are illegitimate for two reasons:

1. They are suicide, and that is a major sin in Islam. An attacker cannot decide to take his own life, and if he does he will permanently be in the Hell-Fire.

2. These operations are indiscriminate and innocent people get killed, including children, and that contravenes the Islamic code of war ethics.

However, it is widely believed that these institutions or scholars are requested by their governments to adopt that position. These governments come under enormous pressure from the United States of America in order to denounce ‘suicide operations’ and stop all support for organizations engaged in them. The most outspoken scholars against these operations have been the Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who is appointed by a Royal Decree and is opposed in his position by hundreds of Saudi scholars; and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, who is appointed by the President of Egypt, is under obligation to tow the official line in his fatwas and is opposed in his position by the bulk of Al-Azhar scholars represented by Al-Azhar Scholars Front. Whereas the Saudi Mufti office has been consistent in its position, Sheikh Al-Azhar Sayyid Tantawi has contradicted himself repeatedly on this issue, seemingly reflecting the political mood each time. His first fatwa was one of outright prohibition. Then he came out in full support considering the attackers to be martyrs of the highest degree. Speaking at conference on terrorism last year in Kuala Lumpur her reverted to his original position of outright condemnation.

In the meantime, independent scholars or institutions have opted for the position of considering these attacks inside Palestine to be ‘martyrdom operations’ of the noblest forms of Jihad. Prominent and renowned scholars in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other Muslim countries have come out with their public endorsements and even encouragements. They base their arguments on the following principles:

1. These operations are not suicide by sacrifice of the highest quality

2. Israel is a military outpost and there are no civilians within it to spare apart from children. All men and women in Israel serve in the army. As long as attackers try their best to avoid children every other target is legitimate and if children are inadvertently hit it is because it is unavoidable.

3. The Palestinians have been left with no other choice since their enemy is armed to the teeth while they are deprived of the basic means of self-defence. So long as this situation continues the Palestinians cannot be blamed for engaging in these attacks.

4. If the Israelis want an end to these operations they should accept the offers of truce made to them repeatedly by Hamas and other Palestinian factions. However, to expect the Palestinians to unilaterally stop all resistance in the hope that the Israelis will stop attacking them is unfair and does not work.

However, as these types of operations started being carried out by Muslims elsewhere in the world, the debate became more intense and the divisions grew wider than ever. Few scholars provide a blanket support for any ‘martyrdom attack’ no matter where and when. Interestingly, a leading number of the scholars who support ‘martyrdom operations, in Palestine were among the first to condemn the attacks on 11 September and did also similarly condemn the bombings that were carried out later on in Bali, Riyadh, Rabat, Istnabul and Madrid. Here it is not a question of suicide or martyrdom but rather a question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the target. These scholars do not see that attacking New York or Bali or Madrid was justified from an Islamic perspective and therefore they deemed those bombings to be acts of criminality rather than acts of jihad.

There are those who maintain the odd position of considering the perpetrators of all ‘suicide bombings’ as martyrs and their actions as legitimate. However, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi leads a group of scholars that disagrees. They consider the case of Palestine a unique one and therefore only in Palestine are such operations legitimate at the present time. When asked about ‘suicide bombings’ in Iraq during his recent visit to London, Qaradawi explained that although he supported the right of the Iraqi people to resist the US led invasion of Iraq and to fight to liberate their country from foreign occupation he did not believe that the use of human bombs was justified because, in his judgment, the Iraqis have an abundance of the conventional means of resistance and have not been forced to resort to such ‘desperate’ weapon as have the Palestinians.

Human Bombs: Tactic or Desperate Act

In the case of Palestine, debate has also raged over whether these ‘human bombs’ are prompted by dire economic conditions or are simply part of a strategy aimed at achieving certain political objectives. It would be wrong to suggest that it has to be an ‘either/or’ case. Many visitors to the occupied territories have privately or publicly expressed an understanding as to why the Palestinians resort to these operations. While it is true that the majority of ‘martyrs’ do not come from poor desperate backgrounds, and that many of them are well-educated and well-positioned inside the community, the general condition of despair and frustration contributes to the motivation. However, from the organizational point of view these operations are not simply reactions, though they are occasionally presented as such, to the dire economic crisis caused by occupation. More so, they are seen as the only means of pressuring the Israelis, both state and society, to recognize the rights of the Palestinians and to agree to a cease-fire deal that would at least spare the civilians. Hamas is explicit in its objectives. In a document written upon the request of a European government that was until recently in communication with the movement, the movement states that “these operations are in principle directed against military targets.” It explains that “targeting civilians is considered an aberration from Hamas’ fundamental position of hitting only military targets; they represent an exception necessitated by the Israeli insistence on targeting Palestinian civilians and by Israel’s refusal to agree to an understanding prohibiting the killing of civilians on both sides; an understanding comparable to the one reached between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.” This is a reference to the agreement signed between Hezbollah and Israel in the aftermath of the Qana massacre in the mid-90s.

Indeed, the former leader of the movement in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin, repeatedly offered the Israelis a truce only to be rejected by the Israelis. He is quoted in this same document as saying: “Hamas does not endorse the killing of civilians, but that it is sometimes the only option it has if it is to respond to the murdering of Palestinian civilians and the cold-blooded assassination of Palestinian activists. He himself was assassinated by Israel last March.

Hamas believes that such tactic, or other new ones for that matter, will force the Israelis to negotiate an honorable and acceptable deal. Since the movement does not recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in Palestine as a matter of principle, its medium term objective is a cease-fire agreement. In exchange for a cessation of all hostilities, Israel would have to agree to the following:

the withdrawal of Israeli occupation troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip;
the evacuation of all Jewish settlements in both the West Bank and Gaza; and
releasing all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Groups that struggle for the liberation of Chechnya from Russian occupation or Kashmir from Indian occupation may resort to the same tactic with some political objective in mind. Similarly those that employ the same methods in Iraq would easily claim they aspire for the end of occupation. However, the same cannot be said of clandestine and indefinable groups that carry out attacks such as the ones that took place on 11 September or subsequently in Bali, Riyadh, Rabat, Istanbul and Madrid. These attacks may be an expression of anger against the United States of America and its allies. However, there are so far no specified negotiable demands let alone, in many cases, a credible claim of responsibility. It is suspected that at least some of these attacks are carried by different groups that are not linked organizationally but have in common an anti-American (or anti-Western) sentiment provoked by local, regional or international politics.

Future of ‘suicide bombings’

While there is no shortage of recruits for this type of operations, they are becoming increasingly difficult to execute. With the heightened states of emergency, enhanced international cooperation to exchange information and suspects, and the introduction of more stringent and sophisticated security measures – and in the case of Israel the construction of an eight-meter high wall to cut off completely the Palestinian territories from Israel, the human bomb may become less frequent and eventually disappear altogether. In Palestine, where ‘martyrdom operations’ have not been seen for several months now, the Palestinians are already developing new tactics. We have seen in recent days a higher frequency of the launching of Qassam missiles against Israeli targets by Hamas fighters. The missiles have clearly been developed further, have become more accurate and have been causing casualties. Another tactic developed by Hamas is the ‘long tunnel’ which renders the wall useless.

Similarly, those bent on putting up a resistance to strong and well-established powers will not fail to discover or innovate new ways and new methods. Perhaps the only way to guarantee a safer world is to sincerely and seriously seek to resolve problems fairly. Most of the groups that fight the status quo today do so because it is an unjust status quo, one that violates the basic human rights of individuals and communities alike. If only the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were respected by the strong as they are demanded by the week, the world would be a much more comfortable, even more enjoyable, place to be in. Perhaps then, less and less people will consider killing themselves or killing others.

Azzam Tamimi

Visiting Professor, Kyoto University, Japan

Director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought, London