عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(165): "Ruling on Transplanting the Heart of a Clinically Dead Patient to another Patient"

Date Added : 04-10-2015

Resolution No.(165), By The Board of Iftaa' Researches and Islamic Studies:

"Ruling on Transplanting the Heart of a Clinically Dead Patient to another Patient" 

Date: 22/4/1432 AH, corresponding to 27/3/2011 AD.

 

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

During the above given date, the Board reviewed the following question:

What`s the ruling of Sharia on transplanting the heart of a clinically dead person to another patient. In other words, that person`s brain is completely dead and doesn`t receive or send any signals whatsoever; however, his heart is still beating, and this has been confirmed by a report of a group of doctors. It is worth mentioning that the heart transplanting will help in the recovery of the other patient?

After prolonged deliberating, the Board decided what follows:

In terms of Sharia, it is impermissible to rule that someone is dead based on a doctor`s report that he is in a state of brain death, save when it is ascertained that he is dead i.e. his heart and breathing system have ceased functioning along with other indicators. This is because, in principle, he is considered alive, unless proven otherwise for sure.

Accordingly, it is impermissible to transplant the heart of a person who is in a state of brain death to another patient, because the heart is still beating and functioning, save when the heart, the brain and the breathing system cease to function completely and to a point of no return.

 

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, The Mufti General of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, His Grace Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh.

Vice Head of the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Helayel

Dr. Yahia Al-Botoosh/ Member

His Eminence, Sheikh Sa`ied Hijjawi/ Member

Judge Sari Attieh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa/ Member

Prof. Abduln`nassir Abu Al Bass`al/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Oklah Al-Ib`brahim

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Gharaibeh/ Member

Dr.Abdulrahmann Ibbdah/ Member

Executive Secretary of the Iftaa` Board, Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hunaiti

 

(*) It is worth mentioning that our Board has issued a new resolution (237) (5/2017) in which brain death was identified as a real death and accordingly it has the same rulings of Sharia regarding death.  

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks thinking that the night is still present, then realizes that dawn has broken?

Whoever eats or drinks thinking that the night is still present, then later discovers that dawn has broken, must refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day out of respect for the sacred month. However, they must make up that day after Ramadan, and there is no sin upon them.

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is it a condition for the mosque where I‘tikaf is performed to hold Jumu‘ah prayers?

No, it is not a condition for the mosque where I‘tikaf is performed to have Jumu‘ah prayers. However, if a person vows to perform continuous I‘tikaf, and Jumu‘ah occurs within that period, then they must observe I‘tikaf in a mosque where Jumu‘ah is held so that they do not break their continuity by leaving for Friday prayer.

What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More