Reproductive principles are a central concern of Islamic family law and jurispudence. A child is only considered legitimate (thus receiving the rights and privileges afforded to him or her) when born to a mother from the union of the mother's ovum and her legally wedded husband's sperm.
The extraction of the nucleus from the ovum. DNA from the "parent" will be used to replace the extracted material
Advances in reproductive technology have changed this equation very little. A husband and wife who has trouble conceiving can seek assistance leading to the artificial insemination of the wife with the husband's sperm. But a couple where the man is sterile will only have adoption as a final recourse for children. The artificial insemination of the wife's ovum by donor sperm is strictly prohibited.
But what about human cloning?
Some preliminary research tells me that learned Muslims everywhere oppose human cloning. The Malaysian clerical council recently released a fatwa (religious decree) banning cloning in Malaysia.
The chief arguments against human cloning from an Islamic perspective + my personal comments are found below:
Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi argues:
"Cloning may cause danger to the human personality
Cloning may cause danger to human dignity and honor
Cloning may cause danger to human family and society"
I'm concerned by the reliance on the presumption of danger in his argument; the use of the uncertain "may". This is a trend that exists in many anti-cloning arguments: possible dangers make cloning an undesirable pursuit. The problem here is that no one really knows one way or another the outcome of human cloning. But assumptions are made that will, if believed, will make it impossible for anyone to really find out the truth.
We used to think that the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that man was not meant to fly, that space radiation would make space flight a deadly impossibility. None of those beliefs prooved true, but each of them share the same principle as our current assumptions about the dangers of cloning: we fear what we don't understand and make excuses to justify our fear.
Further arguments include:
* God is the Creator not humans. We have no right to interfere with God's plan.
Of course God is the Creator. But is cloning an act of "creating" a human being? Or just another means of giving birth to one? A clone is not a carbon copy of his/her "parent" because he/she will have a unique soul - which is God-given.
* Loss of Kinship - as the clone does not really have an identifiable mother or father.
A mother and father is a legal concept. An adopted child's parents are determined through legal means. A clone legal kinships could be determined in a similar fashion.
* Harmful to Society/nature - may have grave consequences if this ability was to create superior beings.
The technology for the creation of superior beings already exists: steroids makes us stronger and faster. Laser eye surgery gives us perfect vision when nature meant for us not to have it. The artifical heart gives life to those who would otherwise die. Food supplements make us immune to disease. Children exposed to intelligence building mechanisms are grow up to be smarter adults.
Furthermore, cloning per se does not create "super humans". That is in the realm of genetic engineering, a completely different subject.
* May cause disruption in nature, due to possibilities of overpopulation and famine.
If this argument held any water, it would mean that we should even stop natural reproduction.
* Unnatural - a way of reproduction that is contrary to what God has given humans
If it was God's plan that we would never clone humans, He would have denied us this technology rather than revealing it to us.
Human beings have always been fearful of anything that we don't understand. In many ways, that trait has allowed us to survive as a species; caution is a survival instinct. Most of us don't understand the implications of cloning, but let us not use religion as an excuse not to try.
Leave a comment