Note: However much stem cells are discussed from various dimensions among Muslims, other religions address them as well. Meanwhile, the perspectives of Abrahamic religions surrounding the use of stem cells are noteworthy. One challenge Christians faced regarding stem cell utilization was the issue of human birth through means other than maternal childbirth—an issue confronting the notion of Christ’s sonship of God due to non-birth from a mother. Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Seyyed Mahmoud Waziri, however, believes that currently most Christians, whether in the Catholic Church or Protestant churches, face no issue with the use of stem cells. This professor of advanced jurisprudence (Bahth al-Kharij) and principles of jurisprudence in the Islamic Seminary of Qom, in this exclusive interview, addresses the challenges religions face regarding the use of stem cells.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the opinion of Abrahamic religions regarding the use of stem cells and cloning?

Waziri: To the extent that current studies have taught me, considering the principles possessed by Abrahamic religions and what can be gathered from various books or within the statements of scholars of Abrahamic religious sciences, I have observed no clear and explicit opposition to the use and exploitation of stem cells, and up to this point I can state that theoretically, from their perspective, no problem exists in this regard.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the opinion of non-Abrahamic religions regarding the use of stem cells and cloning?

Waziri: The essential difference between Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic religions can be presented across several axes. One of those axes is considering non-Abrahamic religions equal or equivalent to non-divine and non-heavenly religions. Pay careful attention; I stated that one difference can be perceived this way. One matter requiring close scrutiny and noted by scholars of discipline is this very discussion of the heavenly nature of religions, for which the word “religions” (adyan) might be employed. If “religions” refers to diverse faiths and non-divine religions are intended, scholars do not precisely employ the term “religions” (adyan)—which is used for heavenly traditions—and instead say “faiths” (diyanat-ha). If non-Abrahamic religions refers to non-divine faiths, a fortiori, from their perspective no prohibition exists; because utilizing stem cells reaches stages that might become forbidden (mahzur) for scholars of divine religions—meaning prohibited due to opposing Sharia. Now, this Sharia might be past codes of law or the eternal Sharia of the Supreme Prophet (s); hence the answer to your second question is that a fortiori, if non-Abrahamic religions refers to non-divine faiths, in my view no prohibition exists regarding the use of stem cells.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the proposition correct that “Christianity opposes cloning because it negates their historical argument for Christ’s divinity”?

Waziri: In Christianity, various movements exist, each intellectual current presented based on specific thoughts and frameworks. In my view, if someone wants to brush everyone with one stroke in Christianity generally and engage in generalization, this runs contrary to scientific and rational precision. If we want to make an accurate evaluation, we must state based on what is reality in my view and expressible in this short interview: we must divide Christianity into various branches, which is a detailed discussion. A portion of those Christian branches has not expressed an opinion regarding stem cells; hence we cannot pass a specific judgment regarding them. Others have expressed an opinion and opposed, opposing due to complications and consequences, naturally advocating prohibition—such as branches of the Protestant denomination. Some of these branches opposed. Based on those oppositions, general use and exploitation of stem cells is prohibited (mahzur), forbidden, and banned. However, other branches of Christianity forming the majority now—namely the denomination of prevalent churches and Catholics whose leader worldwide is the Pope—as far as I previously studied, maintain a majority agreeing and a minority opposing. Nevertheless, at times in academic programs it has been seen or heard that certain Orientalists fueled points from whose statements it was conceived and perceived that the majority of Catholicism opposes stem cells; in my view this perception is mistaken. Thus, a section of Protestants opposes and has remained on its opposition to date, but the majority of Catholicism worldwide agrees with using stem cells; although another group forming a minority—at least until now according to what I know—opposes. Yes, the reason for agreement is that no Sharia prohibition (mahzur) or obstacle exists regarding the use of these stem cells; especially since the evolution and enhancement of societal treatment and health depend upon greater utilization and productivity of stem cells. This is their reason for agreement. However, the reason for opposition held by a group of Protestants and a minority of Catholicism is that they state this opens and smoothes the path for a form of distorting realities and tampering with the ontological realm (‘alam al-takwin); and since tampering with the ontological realm will cause future generations to lose precise information they could have possessed regarding past events and prior nations, consequently one must advocate prohibition and caution (hadhar). This was a very concise and condensed statement of the matter.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What jurisprudential and legal challenges has the use of stem cells and cloning created among Abrahamic religions?

Waziri: Yes, this is truly a detailed discussion. Regarding challenges and consequences that can arise from widespread stem cell use, in my view the topic is not summarized in one, two, or three items; meaning challenges are very numerous, multiple, and diverse. We can divide them into two categories. For now, I shall state what comes to mind.

Look, we have positive and negative challenges. This topic can produce positive consequences as well as negative consequences. I mentioned its positive consequences: enhancing societal health and developing foundational treatment, encompassing both the individual and society. I mention the word “society” because societal interests and national interests take precedence over individual and personal interests. Examples are very numerous. In psychology, it is similarly so. In economics, in certain sectors, utilizing stem cells can produce yields and fruits. These are small corners and examples of positive consequences. However, regarding its negative consequences: one instance lies in the criminalization dimension and in judicial and legal discussions (which you referred to as legal and jurisprudential). Its legal aspect is that if stem cell use becomes publicly accessible to everyone, and one day with further advancement of science and quality improvement of knowledge and proportionate tools achieves a leap, one issue will be that a criminal individual can very easily pass himself off as non-criminal and portray another individual as criminal in his stead. The crime scene and offense will be changeable very quickly and easily, which in the doctrinal dimension we term “distorting realities.” That is, one negative challenge possessing both jurisprudential and legal dimensions is this very altering of crime scenes and transforming the executioner’s position into martyr or executioner into murder victim. If stem cell use is raised epidemically, we will face numerous problems. Or for example in inheritance; I mentioned legal and judicial aspects, now let us go to inheritance. In inheritance, if stem cell use continues in this leap-like manner, at times the positions of heir and ancestor (murith) are swapped, and consequently, if a person possesses massive assets, using this tool very easily in the ancestor’s position he can surrender his place to the heir, and the person who due to death should place his property at another’s disposal can act such that massive wealth is deposited into his account. This is an example, and of course there is no dispute over examples. Scholars say if an example is illustrative from one aspect and distant from several aspects, there is no harm. These are examples of negative challenges I mentioned. I also pointed to positive instances in treatment, economics, and psychology that can carry great fruits and blessings; however, parallel to that, it can harbor challenging and important negative consequences in legal and judicial discussions, such as the examples I cited.