Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(187): "Stem Cells Law, 2013"

Date Added : 17-11-2015

Resolution No.(187) (6/2013) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"Stem Cells Law, 2013"

Date: (25/8/1434 A.H) (4/7/2013 A.D)

 


All praise is due to Allah, peace and blessings be upon Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family

and companions.

On the aforementioned date, the Board reviewed the stem cells law for the year 2013, sent by His Excellency the Chairman of the Legislation Bureau, to clarify the ruling of Sharia regarding it:
After careful study and deliberation, the Board decided what follows: 
First: The proposed draft-law pertaining to the regulation of the medical and research-based work has focused on two types of stem cells, which are: Human Embryonic Stem Cells and Somatic, or Adult Stem Cells. Little attention was given to the three other types: The Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (IPSCs), The Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer Stem Cells and The Hybrid Stem Cells.
An example on the aforesaid  is in article (Seven), where the word (Adult) should be deleted in order for the article to include all sources of the five types  of stem cells mentioned in Article (Three) because all of them contain a human source. Therefore, it must be ascertained that there is a need to obtain them for therapeutic use, or research purposes, and then it becomes insufficient for article (Seven) to be concluded with: “According to the medical protocol in use “; rather, it is imperative to restrict  it to that which goes in line with the rulings of  the Islamic Sharia.
The same applies to article (Nine/A), where we deem necessary that the word (Embryonic) should be deleted in order for the article to include all sources of stem cells so as for the General Iftaa` Department to consider the Sharia ruling regarding  the zooblast which can be used for producing hybrid stem cells. This is also to make sure that the stem cells resulting from somatic cell nuclear transfer aren`t misused since article (Three) doesn`t provide adequate precautions in this regard, rather, it sufficed with the condition that” It is not to be cultured in the womb and not to be used for the reproduction of human beings.”
Second: Article (Four/B/4) made the condition: “An insurance contract is to be concluded between the bank and one of the licensed insurance companies in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to insure the stored stem cells.” The Board recommends that the insurance should be restricted to the joint-cooperative kind which is based on donation rather than commutative and gambling contracts.
Third: We recommend nominating an employee from the Iftaa` Department  to be a member in (The National Committee of Stem Cells), as stipulated in article (Four). His Grace, The Mufti-General is to nominate this member in order for the latter to make sure that the Islamic rulings are observed.
Fourth: The Board recommends drawing up vindicatory sanctions on whoever breaks the provisions of this law. And Allah Knows Best.

 


Chairman of the General Iftaa` Department, His Grace, Sheikh Abdulkareem Khasawneh.

Prof. Abduln`nassir Abu-Albassal/ Member
Sheilkh Sai`ed Hij`jawi/ Member
Prof. Mohammad Al-Qodah/ Member
Dr. Mohammad Khair E`ssa/ Member
Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member
Dr. Wasif Al-Bakri/ Member
Dr. Mohammad Al-Zo`bi/ Member

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is a woman`s prayer considered invalid if non-Mahrams (marriageable men) saw her offering it?

A woman`s prayer isn`t invalidated if non-Mahrams saw her offering it, but she had better pray in isolation.

What is the ruling on using the *subḥah* (prayer beads) to count during *tasbīḥ* and *dhikr*?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is recommended to use the ordinary or electronic subḥah (prayer beads or counter) to count tasbīḥ, dhikr, and istighfār, because it helps one to remember Allah. Many reports have been transmitted from the Companions and the Followers (tābiʿūn) showing that they continued to use strings of date pits as an aid to dhikr and tasbīḥ.
It is one of the lawful means of worship. Indeed, what is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), namely that he counted tasbīḥ on his right hand, shows that it is permissible to count tasbīḥ with whatever helps a Muslim keep track of the number. There is therefore no basis for calling it an innovation (bidʿah), and we know of no jurist who said so.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote a dedicated treatise on the subject titled al-Minḥah fī al-Subḥah, printed within al-Ḥāwī li’l-Fatāwī (vol. 4–6).
Shaykh al-Islām Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: Does the subḥah have a basis in the Sunnah? He replied: “Yes, and al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī wrote on this. Among the evidence is what is authentically reported from Ibn ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with them both): ‘I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) counting tasbīḥ on his hand.’ Ibn Abī Shaybah, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Tirmidhī also narrated: ‘Hold fast to tasbīḥ, tahlīl, and taqdīs, and do not be heedless, lest you forget the affirmation of Allah’s oneness (tawḥīd). Count them on the fingertips, for they will be questioned and made to speak.’ Counting tasbīḥ with pebbles, date pits, and a knotted string has also been reported from a group of the Companions and those after them. Some scholars held that counting on the fingertips is better than the subḥah, based on the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar. Others distinguished, saying: if the one reciting is safe from miscounting, counting on the fingertips is better; otherwise the subḥah is better.” [al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrā, Vol.1/p.152]. And Allah Almighty knows best.

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.

The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.