Note: Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimin Mohammad Ali Qasemi has been engaged in research and teaching in the field of medical fiqh for nearly two decades. One of the topics he has explored in recent years is the jurisprudential examination of stem cells. He has analyzed this subject both in the Encyclopedia of Medical Fiqh and in his article “A Jurisprudential Exploration of a Mother’s Ownership of Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells.” On this occasion, we asked him about the jurisprudential challenges of using stem cells. The head of the Medical Fiqh Department at the Fiqh Center of the Pure Imams (peace be upon them) organized these challenges into seven sections and provided evidence and examples for each. He maintains, however, that the use of stem cells does not create mahramiyyah between individuals. The full text of Contemporary Jurisprudence’s exclusive interview with the Research Deputy of the Fiqh Center of the Pure Imams (peace be upon them) is presented below:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the ruling on using stem cells for treatment? Can it be declared prohibited through titles such as “changing the creation of Allah” and the like?

Qasemi: Stem cells are cells capable of self-renewal, producing body organs, and even repairing and regenerating tissues. A more precise and standard definition can be provided if necessary. In response to the above question, it must be stated: after examining the verses related to “changing the creation of Allah” and referring to their exegeses as well as the numerous exceptions found in the universe, such issues are not connected to these verses. Rather, the intent of these verses is alteration in the religion of Allah Almighty and spiritual matters related to divine law and legislation. Therefore, these verses do not encompass the use of stem cells. Such changes in the direction of science, progress, and the treatment of diseases not only pose no problem but fall under the principle of ibāḥah (permissibility) and legal allowance. Hence, the use of stem cells for treatment—and even for non-therapeutic purposes—is permissible as long as it does not fall under prohibited legal titles, and there is no obstacle whatsoever.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What jurisprudential challenges does the use of stem cells entail?

Qasemi: Before delving into the detailed issues of stem cells, it is necessary to collect and systematize the questions that may arise concerning stem cells and their jurisprudential and legal challenges. Here, I point to some of these questions:

Section One concerns the ontological jurisprudence of stem cells, such as:

• What is the nature and jurisprudential status of stem cells?
• What distinguishes stem cells from other body cells that may give rise to new jurisprudential issues?
• Do stem cells possess human dignity (ḥurmah insāniyyah) or not?

Section Two addresses the legitimacy of extracting stem cells from the human body, such as:

• Is it permissible to take stem cells from a living person?
• Is it permissible to extract stem cells from aborted fetuses, stillborn infants, or those that die in the womb?
• Is it permissible to extract stem cells from embryos fertilized in laboratory tubes?
• Is it permissible to harvest stem cells from frozen embryos?
• Is it permissible to harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord and placenta?
• What is the sharʿī ruling on using animal stem cells to treat humans?

Section Three concerns the prescriptive rulings (aḥkām taklīfiyyah) of employing stem cells, such as:

• Is the production and cultivation of stem cells permissible?
• What is the sharʿī ruling on using stem cells to treat diseases?
• What is the ruling on transplanting one person’s stem cells to another (e.g., bone marrow stem-cell transplantation from one person to another)?
• Is it permissible to use stem cells for rejuvenation, cosmetic purposes, or non-essential goals?

Section Four pertains to the situational rulings (aḥkām waḍʿiyyah) of stem cells, such as:

• Does a person have ownership over their own stem cells?
• What is the ruling on buying and selling stem cells?
• What is the jurisprudential ruling on establishing stem-cell banks?
• If someone takes another person’s stem cells without permission, are they liable (ḍāmin)?
• How is blood money (diyah) or compensation (arsh) determined for damage to stem cells?

Section Five relates to rulings concerning the embryo and embryo-related stem cells, such as:

• Does using embryonic stem cells constitute impermissible interference with the embryo?
• What is the jurisprudential ruling on donating embryos for stem-cell extraction?
• What are the rulings related to experiments on embryonic stem cells or embryo-related cells?

Section Six concerns rulings related to cloning and producing humans from stem cells, under which numerous questions arise.

Section Seven pertains to the use of stem cells in producing artificial meat—referred to today as “green meat”—and its non-medical applications.

These seven sections constitute the principal topics in the fiqh of stem cells.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given the opinion of most jurists that “a human being does not own their own body,” is the use of stem cells required to obtain permission from the owner of the cells or their guardian?

Qasemi: Although most jurists hold that a human being does not own the members of their body, this view is open to critique in certain respects. Nevertheless, even though jurists do not accept ownership of body parts, they do recognize a right of exclusive use, priority, or precedence for the individual over their own body parts. This means that, despite the absence of certain components of ownership, body parts are not subject to ownership in the full sense, yet it is not the case that anyone may interfere with them. Jurists acknowledge a right of exclusive use or priority of disposal for the owner of the limb. Accordingly, there are multiple views (four or five opinions), all of which conclude that interference with a person’s body parts—whether still attached or detached—is not permissible without their consent. Detached parts remain connected to the individual, who retains priority, precedence, and exclusive right over them. Therefore, under no circumstances may one interfere with a limb without the permission of its owner. The conclusion is that an individual’s stem cells belong to them, and interfering with them without their permission is not permissible.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Given that mere breastfeeding (riḍāʿ) creates mahramiyyah, can it be said a fortiori that using one person’s stem cells for a member of the opposite sex creates mahramiyyah between the two?

Qasemi: Breastfeeding creates mahramiyyah only under specific conditions. Not every instance of nursing or consuming milk creates mahramiyyah; breastfeeding has particular conditions and regulations for establishing mahramiyyah. However, the claim that the use of stem cells inherently and a fortiori creates mahramiyyah is incorrect. This is because qiyās al-awlā requires proof, and until such proof is provided, transferring a ruling from one subject to a similar one constitutes a form of qiyās that is not accepted in Shiʿa fiqh and is rejected. Therefore, such an unproven qiyās al-awlā cannot establish that using one individual’s stem cells creates mahramiyyah. Moreover, accepting such an analogy would have numerous unacceptable negative jurisprudential consequences. The conclusion is that the use of stem cells does not create mahramiyyah.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What jurisprudential restrictions and limitations apply to the use of stem cells?

Qasemi: Given that we have categorized the issues related to stem cells into seven stages—as mentioned in the answer to the second question—each of these stages and sections may have its own specific restrictions and limitations. Certain uses of stem cells may conflict with human dignity. In some cases, widespread use of stem cells or creating similar humans through them may disrupt the social order. In other cases, the jurisprudential system may not accept them. In any event, it is not possible to state uniformly and with a single precise procedure that only these restrictions are necessary and these jurisprudential limitations exist. Rather, the manner and purpose of using stem cells play a role in determining its jurisprudential restrictions and limitations. Therefore, each question and each topic related to stem cells must be examined separately in light of the restrictions and limitations in each section so that the jurisprudential restrictions and limitations may be precisely determined. This fifth question requires detailed, case-by-case examination and issue-resolution for each title related to stem cells, which would constitute an independent, extensive, and lengthy discussion involving new jurisprudential topics.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Do disbelief (kufr), being born of adultery (walad al-zinā), hypocrisy (nifāq), or other similar attributes of the donor or recipient of stem cells impose restrictions on their use?

Qasemi: From a jurisprudential perspective, the primary ruling is that, in itself, using stem cells from such individuals poses no problem whatsoever. This is analogous to the question of whether transactions with individuals who are disbelievers, born of adultery, hypocritical, or bear similar attributes are problematic. The answer is no—there is no jurisprudential issue. Fiqh applies the principle of permissibility and ibāḥah in these cases, and there is no difficulty whatsoever in using, transacting, or obtaining stem cells from such individuals.