Introduction: While predicting the future may have seemed straightforward in past centuries or decades, the rapid pace of scientific advancements in recent years has made forecasting even a few years ahead extremely challenging, let alone decades or centuries into the future. In this context, the future of stem cells and the nature of progress in this field remain entirely uncertain. Will humanity ultimately achieve its long-standing aspiration for immortality? Can humans create an individual identical to themselves without using gametes? Will future generations rely on conventional reproduction methods, or will their needs and lifestyles fundamentally change? Dr. Abedin Moemeni, a professor in the Department of Jurisprudence and Legal Foundations at the University of Tehran, believes that the speed of these transformations is so great that precise predictions about the future are impossible. However, he is certain that the current legal framework and its supporting jurisprudential knowledge will not suffice to address the future questions of stem cell jurisprudence. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence’s exclusive interview with this seasoned professor of jurisprudence and legal foundations at the University of Tehran, on the topic of futurology in stem cell jurisprudence, is as follows:

The Future of Stem Cell Jurisprudence

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What do you consider to be the challenges of using stem cells for treatment and cloning in the next 100 years?

Moemeni: This is a good question because societal transformations are so rapid and surprising that one cannot definitively predict what will happen in 100 years. However, I genuinely feel that, given advancements in artificial intelligence and developments in industries and other scientific fields, human capabilities will significantly improve. It is possible that in 100 years, there will be a need to define an entirely new legal framework and social system, and these developments may have far-reaching implications.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: If scientists succeed in using stem cells for permanent rejuvenation and human immortality, what changes will jurisprudential rulings such as those related to inheritance, blood money (diyah), mahram relationships, and others face?

Moemeni: The current legal framework will certainly not be sufficient to address the circumstances that will arise in the future. Even now, we are beginning to encounter this issue, and with cloning, the matter will become even more serious. Consider a scenario where robots are designed to handle agriculture, industrial production, and similar tasks. We are already seeing bakeries, confectioneries, and other trades being handed over to robots. It’s possible that a situation could arise where one person in Iran teaches, and the entire world connects to that lesson, eliminating the need for universities. Such circumstances would necessitate the definition of a new legal framework. When cloning occurs and the existing system of sibling, parent-child, and mother-child relationships changes, naturally, the legal framework concerning inheritance, mahram relationships, and other matters will also undergo transformation.

Now, you might ask, if someone does not die, inheritance would lose its relevance. For instance, in Tahrir al-Wasilah, Imam Khomeini stated that if someone boards a spacecraft that moves at the speed of the Earth’s rotation, they would remain at the point of sunrise and never experience noon, sunset, or evening. Consequently, since they are always at sunrise and no solar noon occurs for them, the noon prayer would not be obligatory. If they remain in that spacecraft for a month or a year without experiencing noon or sunset, they would not pray the noon prayer for that entire period. Similarly, inheritance works the same way. When there are no sons or daughters, the issue of inheritance becomes irrelevant. When no one dies, the concept of inheritance ceases to apply. Thus, the existing legal framework would no longer be applicable—not because it is invalid, but because, as Ayatollah Naini stated, it operates as a universal proposition (qadiyya haqiqiyya). When the conditions for its application exist, it is relevant; when they do not, the ruling remains valid in theory but has no practical application in social life. This poses no issues.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What changes will the success of scientists in human cloning bring to the philosophy of jurisprudence?

Moemeni: It is natural to say that jurisprudence, as a theory for governing society, must address these new issues in such circumstances. This requires ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning) that is responsive to time and place. As Imam Khomeini stated, time and place influence ijtihad, and this will also apply in such contexts. Jurisprudence must renew itself, issue fatwas appropriate to new conditions, and revisit its philosophy and principles. However, determining the specific areas and dimensions of these changes requires rigorous research, which jurisprudential scholars and professors must undertake diligently.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is your suggestion for a proactive approach by the field of jurisprudence in addressing stem cells and cloning?

Moemeni: In my opinion, contemporary jurists must confront new issues directly, familiarize themselves with them, and be capable of addressing people’s questions. A jurist unaware of these issues, or a jurisprudence that limits itself to repeatedly addressing past matters, will not be relevant to the current time and conditions and will fail to provide answers.

I attended classes by Professor Mahmoud Reza Hakimi, who would say: Makasib already has, say, 100 commentaries—do you want to write the 101st or 102nd? Instead, focus on issues that no one has addressed. Don’t just repeat what has already been said. A jurist must equip themselves with new knowledge, become familiar with emerging issues, and provide answers to them.