Cloning with Stem Cells: Definition, Necessity, Perspectives, and Implications

Introduction: Cloning, on the surface, appears to be a novel method of reproduction in nature; however, Dr. Mohaddeseh Moeinifar believes it has a long history in nature. Cloning can be performed through various methods, one of which is cloning using stem cells. Dr. Mohaddeseh Moeinifar, a faculty member at Imam Khomeini International University in Qazvin, has conducted extensive studies on the jurisprudential and legal dimensions of cloning, with her book Cloning in Religious Perspectives and Legal Theories being one of the outcomes. In this exclusive commentary for Contemporary Jurisprudence, she explores the nature of cloning with stem cells, the necessity of its jurisprudential and legal examination, the perspectives of Shiite and Sunni jurists on the matter, and the implications of these perspectives. The full text of this insightful commentary by this professor and researcher of jurisprudence and law is as follows:

What is Cloning?

The term for cloning in Arabic is “al-istinsakh,” in Latin “cloning,” and in French “clonage.” The word cloning is derived from the Greek word “Klon,” meaning sprout or twig. Linguistically, it refers to cutting, multiplying, or grafting. The similarity between cloning and grafting lies in the fact that in the method under discussion, reproduction occurs without fertilization (the combination of male and female cells). Cloning is not a new phenomenon in nature. Recent studies indicate that queens and males of a type of invasive ant, known as the little fire ant, reproduce through cloning. This phenomenon is not limited to little fire ants; for example, some female lizards also use cloning to produce female offspring. However, since sexual reproduction is the primary means in nature to enhance the genetic pool of various species, most species that reproduce asexually tend to go extinct, and those that persist are limited in number. Some animals that primarily reproduce through cloning also engage in sexual reproduction once every few generations to maintain their genetic adaptability to the environment.

Necessity of Jurisprudential and Legal Examination of Cloning

After clarifying the subject, the second step is to address the necessity of examining cloning from jurisprudential and legal perspectives. By analyzing the achievements and undesirable consequences of cloning, the need for discussing this issue within the domains of Islamic jurisprudence and law becomes more evident. However, what appears crucial in this context is the manner in which this issue is discussed and examined:

First, this issue must be thoroughly examined, with all its hidden aspects clarified, as a correct scientific and medical understanding of this issue assists jurists in defining its boundaries within jurisprudence.

Second, this phenomenon should not be studied in isolation; rather, it must be examined systematically, meaning alongside other fields such as social sciences, psychology, economics, and politics.

Third, adopting a unified approach by jurists regarding this issue would relieve devout policymakers and planners from confusion among diverse fatwas, clarifying their religious obligations. This would enable planners to pursue scientific and coherent progress in this field, demonstrating that Islam is not in conflict with science but, on the contrary, provides a foundation for its advancement.

Cloning in Islam

After establishing the necessity of jurisprudential and legal discussions, the next step is to examine the ruling on this issue in Islam. Among Imami (Shiite) scholars, there is no consensus regarding the ruling on human cloning, and various opinions have been expressed:

Absolute Permissibility: Some jurists and scholars, due to the absence of clear textual evidence indicating the prohibition of human cloning and based on the principle of permissibility (asala al-ibaha) and the rule “Everything is permissible for you until you know it is specifically forbidden, then you avoid it,” consider human cloning permissible.
Conditional Permissibility: Some, based on existing texts and the primary principle in this matter, deem human cloning permissible but believe that widespread human cloning could lead to issues, such as the existence of identical individuals and difficulties in distinguishing them. Consequently, they permit it on a case-by-case basis but consider it impermissible on a large scale.
Secondary Prohibition: Some Imami jurists believe that human cloning, in and of itself, is not problematic as a primary ruling and is permissible based on the principle of permissibility. However, they argue that it leads to unavoidable harms, and to prevent these harms, human cloning is deemed prohibited as a secondary ruling.
Absolute Prohibition: In contrast to the above perspectives, a fourth view, held by a small minority, is very close to the Sunni perspective, asserting that cloning is prohibited as a primary ruling.

Sunni scholars and many Islamic organizations agree on the permissibility of cloning animals and plants but prohibit human cloning. Sunni scholars have provided several reasons for the prohibition of human cloning, including: 1) The necessity of sexual reproduction, 2) Disruption of lineage, 3) Ambiguity in kinship relations, 4) Uncertainty regarding maintenance and inheritance, 5) Destruction of the institution of marriage and family, 6) Elimination of the concept of motherhood, 7) Elimination of the concept of fatherhood, 8) Potential for illicit relationships, 9) Promotion of homosexuality, and 10) Potential for criminal misuse. Additionally, they have adopted two approaches regarding therapeutic cloning: permissibility and prohibition.

Jurisprudential and Legal Implications of Cloning

The final section of this commentary addresses the jurisprudential and legal implications of cloning, with one of the most significant being the issue of lineage and the rights of the cloned child. The perspectives of Shiite jurists regarding the attribution of a cloned child to the father are divided into two categories: a) non-attribution to the father; b) attribution to the father. Similarly, their perspectives on the attribution to the mother are divided into two categories: a) attribution to the mother, which is further subdivided into two theories: the theory of singular maternal status and the theory of multiple maternal statuses. The theory of singular maternal status includes several viewpoints: attribution to the womb owner, attribution to the egg owner, and attribution to the cell owner. The theory of multiple maternal statuses includes attribution to both the cell owner and the womb owner, attribution to both the egg owner and the womb owner, attribution to both the egg owner and the cell owner, and attribution to both the nucleus and cytoplasm owners.

a) If the cell owner is a husband and the cell contents are placed in an inactivated egg and then in his wife’s womb, three opinions arise regarding the attribution of the cloned child to the father:

Suspension: The cell owner is considered the father of the cloned child, but the child is not attributed to the husband and is deemed fatherless. Regarding the attribution of the cloned child to the mother, four opinions are proposed:
First, the egg owner is the mother of the child.
Second, attribution to the mother is only valid if both the egg owner and the womb owner are the wife.
Third, the womb owner is the mother of the child.
Fourth, the wife is akin to a foster mother who nurtures the child with her milk.

b) If the cell owner is an unrelated man, this method is deemed prohibited, and the resulting child is considered illegitimate, akin to a child of adultery, and is attributed to no one except the mother. The husband is obligated to disavow the child, as the disruption of lineage is prohibited.

c) If the cell owner is a woman and the embryo is placed in another woman’s womb, since no male is involved in the cloned child’s birth, the child is attributed to the mother and is deemed fatherless. Four viewpoints arise regarding the attribution to the mother: the cell owner, the womb owner, or both the cell owner and egg owner. Some consider this method prohibited.

d) If the cell owner, womb owner, and egg owner are the same woman, the child is attributed to the mother and is deemed fatherless. Some also consider the child attributed to the mother, with her relationship to the husband akin to that of a stepdaughter, and the children of this woman and man considered maternal siblings of the cloned child.

e) If the cell owner is the husband, the egg is taken from the wife, and it is implanted in another woman’s womb, some consider the cell owner (the husband) as the father, and the womb and egg owners as foster mothers. They also maintain that in all these cases, the cloned child is attributed either to the mother or the father, as the cell owner is either the husband or the wife. However, some consider this method prohibited without providing reasoning. Finally, it should be noted that once the lineage of the cloned child is established, associated rights such as maintenance, custody, inheritance, and similar matters are also considered.