After two decades of failures, scientists have finally cloned monkeys using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the same method that was used for the first animal clone, Dolly the sheep, over 20 years ago. Long-tailed macaques Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua were born in early December at a laboratory in China. SCNT is a type of cloning that involves taking the nucleus from any cell in the adult animal to be cloned and injecting it into the cell of a fertilized egg, whose nucleus has been removed. Since Dolly, 23 other species have also been cloned using SCNT, including cows, horses, cats, and pigs.  However, transitioning from cloning sheep to cloning primates proved far more difficult than expected. Scientists removed the DNA-containing nucleus from monkey eggs and replaced it with DNA from the monkey fetus. The newly reconstituted eggs grew, divided, and finally differentiated into an early embryo, which was then placed into female monkeys to grow until birth. The whole process is extremely inefficient, as it took 127 eggs to get the two babies. While the researchers are optimistic that the ability to have genetically identical monkeys will allow unprecedented insights into human diseases, these experiments prompted concerns that the technical barrier of cloning primate species and humans is now broken.

An unexpected culprit behind climate change

Rysgaard S et al. High geothermal heat flux in close proximity to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream. Scientific Reports, January 2018.

Greenland is a critical component of the global climate system. The ice sheet covering 80% of the island reflects so much of the sun’s energy back into space that it helps keep the Earth cooler. This is known as the “albedo effect.” But Greenland is particularly vulnerable to climate change, as Arctic air temperatures are currently rising at twice the average global rate. The Greenland ice sheet is up to three kilometers thick; if it melted, sea levels would rise by seven meters. The current rate of melting is adding about 1 millimeter a year to the average global sea level. A new study has revealed yet another force expediting the melting of glaciers. Researchers showed, for the first time, that the deep bottom water of the North-eastern Greenland fjords is being warmed up by heat gradually lost from the Earth’s interior. This heat loss triggers the sliding of glaciers from the ice sheet towards the sea. This source of heat, also called the geothermal heat flux, is found all over the planet and dates back to Earth’s formation. The warming and melting from below the ice sheets lubricates the interface between the ice and the ground, resulting in a much faster ice flow.  The findings from the latest study are expected to improve the models of ice sheet dynamics, allowing better predictions of the stability of the Greenland ice sheet, its melting, and the resulting global water rise.

The powerhouses of our cells run at a sizzling 50°C

Chrétien D. et al. Mitochondria are physiologically maintained at close to 50 °C. PLOS Biology, January 2018.

Our body temperature runs between 35 to 38 °C, at an average of 37.5 °C. The heat needed to maintain this temperature comes from tiny subcellular structures called mitochondria. A new study presents surprising evidence that mitochondria are optimized to run more than 10°C hotter than the body’s average temperature. There are tens or hundreds of mitochondria in each cell and their job is to combust nutrients, producing energy and heat at the last stage of food consumption. 40% of the energy released from mitochondria is captured in the form of a chemical compound, ATP, which is used to drive functions of the body such as heartbeats, brain activity, and muscle contractions; the remaining 60% is dissipated as heat. To analyze the internal dynamics of mitochondria, researchers grew human kidney cells and skin cells in tissue cultures at 38 °C, with heat-sensing fluorescent dyes inserted into the cells. When the mitochondria became active, the level of fluorescent signal was rapidly changed to indicate a rise of 10°C within the mitochondria. Scientists suggest that mitochondria seem to operate much like radiators in a poorly insulated room, running at a much higher temperature than their surroundings. They also showed that several human mitochondrial enzymes operate at an optimum temperature close to 50°C, supporting the scientist’s interpretation of the molecular thermometer data. Researchers now are very interested in answering whether there are correlated temperature fluctuations in health conditions that are caused by mitochondrial dysfunction, such as neurodegenerative diseases and aging.

Genetic engineering is one of the fastest developing fields of science. It continues to impact our lives in many ways: the Green Revolution, the quest for perfect animal stock, disease treatment, or human reproduction. But success also has brought concerns. Plants have become insect resistant and also more toxic. Genetically engineered cattle produce more milk but have mutated and overgrown. When scientists opened the window for asexual human reproduction, life became a commodity that could be produced in a culture dish.

And it all started when a monk experimented with some sweet peas…

From Mendel to Dolly

Modern genetic engineering dates back to 1865, when the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel performed a series of experiments with sweet pea plants. These experiments led to changes in the plants’ genetic construction. Genetic engineering, also known as bioengineering or recombinant DNA technology, is a general term referring to any alteration of an organism’s genes in order to make them produce new substances or perform new functions.(1) During the following years, these little experiments developed into a new field. The genes of plants and small-sized organisms were altered through crossing, but other than that research was limited.

In the 1930s, industrial corporations like America’s Rockefeller Foundation or, 20 years later, Germany’s Volkswagen Group (VW), discovered a different approach to raise economic efficiency. At the same time, motives of social control and surveillance directed the Rockefeller Foundation’s interest in the human body to the individual and the collective levels.(2) The Rockefeller Foundation outlined its rationale for supporting genetic research as follows: For the last 100 years physics and chemistry have reigned supreme, and the question of human behavior had been neglected. The new goal was to accomplish social control through understanding and knowledge of the very basic elements of the human body.(3) With the promise of benefit for their own corporations, they started sponsoring this new subfield of biology. The National Institutes of Health, private corporations, institutes, and universities established research laboratories. The idea was that if more actors and institutions shared and exchanged knowledge, the more molecular biology’s narration of life would be consolidated, disseminated, and legitimized.(4) 

Soon discoveries were reported from the science frontier. In 1953, M. Wilkins, F. Crick, and J. Watson discovered DNA’s double helix model while working at the University of Cambridge in England. In 1962, they received the Nobel Prize for their discovery. In 1968 Nirenberg, Khorana and Holley received a Nobel Prize for their interpretation of the genetic code and its function in protein synthesis.(5) 

The first frogs were cloned in 1970. In other words, an artificial copy of their embryo was produced. Soon this fast developing field of biology turned into a new industrial sphere. In 1980, industrial biotechnology emerged after the Supreme Court case of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty. In this case, Chakrabarty engineered and wanted to patent a certain kind of organism. After his request was denied, he went to court and received a favorable ruling. This decision led to the establishment of copyrights for living organisms, which ultimately industrialized the field. Producing and patenting new organisms were two crucial factors in the biotech industry’s development. Consider Steen Willadsen, who cloned the first sheep in 1984 from an embryo.(6) One year later, he mass-produced prize cattle embryos for Grenada Genetics in order to raise a perfect stock.(7) However, that project soon was stopped because of the cloned cattle’s high and death rates and abnormal behavior.

Since the biologic make-up of many mammals had been unveiled, scientists now had a new goal: exploring the human being. Therefore the U.S. Department of Energy launched the human genome project. Soon biotech giants like Celera and many private institutions got into the race. Their goal was to map the entire human genome in order to identify and eliminate disease-causing genes. This project raised certain concerns about what would be done with an individual’s DNA information, who could access it (e.g., insurance companies and employers), and genetic discrimination.

The first human embryos were cloned in 1993. Four years, later the whole world got to meet Dolly, the first sheep cloned from an adult cell. This was an important development, for it opened the door to asexual reproduction. But despite the great enthusiasm with this achievement, some people started wondering about possible dangers. Finally in June 2000, Bill Clinton announced the completion of the human genone project.

Applications and drawbacks

Genetic engineering has penetrated into various parts of our life. Agriculture has seen a Green Revolution. Herbicide-resistant plants were engineered to have built-in pesticide resistance and to convert nitrogen directly from the soil. By April 2002, the approximately 50,000 rice genes had been discovered. Scientists already are working on ways to alter rice, the main food of the world’s population, so that it will be more nutritious and resistant. Insects are being engineered to attack crop predators. Researchers are growing agricultural products in the laboratory using genetically altered bacteria. A major commercial role for genetically engineered plants as chemical factories is also envisioned, such as organic plastics.

Some drawbacks of this revolution are increased toxins and diseases, which are causing the resulting organisms to become resistant to antibiotics. Increased toxins in plants were designed to make insect-resistant plants. Nuclear physicist Dr. John Hagerlin testified in Washington, DC, at the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) public hearing that increased toxins trigger unanticipated allergic reactions. The resulting gene pollution threatens the environment, for it breaks down genetic barriers put in place by Nature.(8)

Industrial mistakes in production or insufficient research in engineered food ingredients also can cause serious problems. The Tryptophan food supplement, an amino acid marketed as a natural tranquilizer and sleeping pill, was mass-produced from genetically altered bacteria. It killed 37 persons and permanently disabled over 1,500 others with an incurable nervous system condition known as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS).(9) When these technologies were applied to livestock, farmers first were pleased that the engineered cattle produced more milk, grew faster, and yielded more meat. However, cases of mutation and rampant overgrowth have caused scientists to reevaluate the effectiveness of these procedures.

Another important issue is inserting human genes in animals. What percent of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human? If humans have a special ethical status, does the presence of human genes in an organism change its ethical status? What about a genetically engineered mouse that produces a human sperm that is then used to conceive a human child?(10) Or a pig that contains human genes in order to grow organs that can be transplanted to humans?(11)

It is shocking that the FDA issued guidelines in September 1996 that allow animal-to-human transplants, even though a group of 44 top virologists, primate researchers, and AIDS specialists, opposed it. They attacked the FDA guidelines, saying that based on knowledge of past cross-species transmissions (e.g., AIDS, Herpes B, Ebola, and other viruses), using animals was not adequately justified for use in a handful of patients. Vast numbers of people could be injured or even killed if a new infectious agent were to be transmitted.(12) The FDA puts the responsibility for health and safety on local hospitals and medical review boards.

Recombinant DNA technology also has been applied directly to the human body. After mapping the entire genome, scientists discovered some disease-causing genes. They are now working to isolate those genes and develop molecular-level treatments. Although curing Alzheimers, nuscular dystrophy, and many other inherited diseases would make patients happy, unexpected results may occur. When applying gene therapy, a one-to-one correspondence between the gene and its function is assumed. Since genes interact in a horizontal manner, as scientists have shown, introducing a new gene could have unforeseen effects.(13)

Genetic manipulation in human beings always encompasses the possibility of designer genes that manipulate a child’s appearance, IQ, or behavior. According to a March of Dimes survey, 40 percent of Americans would use gene therapy to enhance their children’s looks or intelligence. Even picking your child’s gender has become a question of money. A Fairfax, Virginia-based genetics and in-vitro fertilization institute offers family balancing for approximately $3,000. Known as microsort, the male sperm is separated from the female one. In 2001, the institute treated around 60 couples a month and planned to double its production. Fortune Magazine calculated that the microsort market could be worth $200 million.(14)

There is also talk that people could be exploited as producers of certain substances. For example, a biotech corporation applied to the European Patent Office for a patent on a so-called pharm woman. The idea was to genetically alter women so that their breast milk would contain specialized pharmaceuticals.(15)

Related debates

There are many other largely debated topics in this field, but the most controversial one of all is human cloning life. This is divided into therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.

In therapeutic cloning, scientists produce embryos in culture dishes to harvest their stem cells. These then are used in further research, the long-term goal of which is to produce replacement organisms. Stem cells are undifferentiated and primitive cells that can be found in embryos as well as in an adult body.(16) Researchers intend to isolate stem cells so they can serve as a starter stock for growing replacement nerve, muscle and other tissue that might one day be used to treat patients with various diseases.(17) Even though this procedure sounds very promising, we should not overlook the fact that embryos are mass-produced to harvest stem cells. Once these have been isolated, the embryo becomes useless and disposable. The ethics of this procedure are questionable, since stem cells also could be harvested from an adult human body.

Reproductive cloning intends to implant such a cloned embryo into a woman’s uterus. Although this procedure is not safe for either the mother or the child, Severino Antinori announced that he and his team will soon produce the first cloned child. The Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research revealed that cloned mice possess subtle genetic defects that could eventually wreak havoc on the animals system. This means that even though a cloned child might appear completely normal at birth, it has to expect serious health problems later in life.(18)

There also are potential psychological risks for a cloned child. Dr. Thomas Murray worries about the child’s self-identity problem once he/she finds out that he/she is a clone and how he/she was conceived.(19) George Johnson, a professor at Washington University, opposes cloning because genetic variation is the chief defense our species has against an uncertain future. If we strip ourselves of it even partially, it is to endanger our species.

Conclusion

Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unique not only in the history of science but also life on the Earth as well as legal approaches towards them. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms. It presents probably the largest ethical problem science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restrictions to learn what we can about nature. Reconstructing nature was not part of the bargain. Going ahead in this direction may not be only unwise but also dangerous. Potentially it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer and novel epidemics.(20)

Since creation is in a perfect balance, interventions might have unforeseen effects. A book must be written by an author, a picture must be painted by an artist, and a poem must be written by a poet. Each piece of art has an artist who has an encompassing knowledge of his/her creation. If we do not understand that nature is a perfectly composed book, our writings will be no more than scribbles between the lines.

Footnotes

1. http://209.52.56.28/lexicon/g.html.
2. Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 26.
3. Herbert Gottweiss, Governing Molecules: The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the US (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1998), 42.
4. Ibid., 46.
5. www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1968/index.html.
6. www.dartmouth.edu/artsci/courses/coco25/Cloning/The_History_of_Cloning.html.
7. http://library.thinkquest.org/24355/data/details/1985.html?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0508.
8. www.netlink.de/gen/hagelin.html.
9. www.psrast.org/jftrypt.htm.
10. Surrogate Fathers, New Scientist (31 Jan. 1998).
11. Robert Pool, Saviors, Discover, (May 1998): 53-57. (special issue.)
12. IP/BiodivNews, 1-24-97 or http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE%20Essays/Redigning.htm#40.
13. Horizontal gene transfer refers to the transfer of genes to unrelated species by infection through viruses, through pieces of genetic material, DNA by being taken up into cells from the environment, or by unusual mating taking place between unrelated species. (Mae-Wan Ho, Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare, 2d rev. [Continuum Pub Group: 2000),
14. The Economist (14 Apr. 2001): 22.
15. Andrew Kimbrell, The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing of Life (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), 191.
16. Popular Science (Jan. 2002): 58.
17. Scientific American (Jan. 2002): 45.
18. Gunjan Sinha, Popular Science (Jan. 2002)
19. Thomas Murray, Talk of the Nation broadcast, 24 Feb. 1997.
20. George Wald, The Case Against Genetic Engineering, in The Recombinant DNA Debate, eds. David A. Jackson and Stephen P. Stich (Prentice Hall College Div: 1979), 127-28.

Before thinking about biology’s future, we should classify the most important developments made during the 1990s. The first one is cloning, most notably the sheep Dolly, a development that is still quite controversial. The problem here is twofold: religious, for some people say that scientists want to play God by “creating”; and ethical, for it could involve cloning human beings to harvest their organs. Technically, this latter issue is not a big deal.

Cloning

To deal with the first issue, we must understand the cloning process. Cloning is defined as the transfer of an ordinary cell nucleus to an egg with a depleted nucleus. Scientists have done this with frogs for years. But when they began to use mammals, people began to pay more attention.

Cloning is not creation, for it uses an existing genome encoded in an existing nucleus with a natural (but slightly modified) egg. So, the resulting organism is no more than a copy of the organism already created by the Creator.

In other words, cloning is like a copier: if you photocopy a book, you cannot claim that the copier wrote that book, even if there are some changes (e.g., lighter ink or different colors). Even if scientists one day change a portion of the genome prior to cloning so that the clone will have a different physical property, they still will be doing no more than making some small changes on a great piece of art already designed and created in a wonderful way.

The second issue, that of cloning people, is also important. The American government has already outlawed it. Why would someone want to clone himself or herself or someone else? There could be several reasons. First, to live forever, which is impossible. Even if everything were to work perfectly, the clone would be an entirely “new” person with a unique personality, for its environment would be an important factor in its development.

Second, to use the clone as an organ donor or for some other reason. A clone’s organs would not be rejected by the recipient’s immune system. However, cloning a human being just to harvest its organs is the same as killing someone for his or her organs. Although cloning now is a technically very painful and long process, advancements in biomedical technology probably will make it much easier in a few years, and available to those who can afford it.

Clearly, this process does not involve creating a new person. However, it does raise ethical complications, such as the ones mentioned above. To allay some of the public’s concerns, scientists should explain that “cloning” does not mean “creation.”

Genetic Manipulation

The second area that still needs a great deal of work is the manipulation, mainly in embryos, of an organism’s genetic code. This is already being done in many species, such as bacteria, viruses, yeast, frogs, chickens, pigs, monkeys, and mice. Researchers and scientists can change these organisms’ genes at the embryonic stage with great ease, so that the resulting organisms will have specific features. Through such manipulation, scientists strive to achieve a better understanding of various underlying biological and metabolism-related principals. This is not done extensively in human embryos, nor is it totally banned. For example, in vitro fertilization involves separating human eggs that are defective in their mitochondrial DNA from their mitochondria and replacing them with normal ones. Although the resulting embryo’s genomic DNA is unchanged, its mitochondrial DNA is replaced. This can be considered genetic manipulation to some extent. This leaves two questions: Will we allow the genetic manipulation of human embryos? Does this mean creation to some extent? Let’s assume that a couple cannot have a healthy child because of a serious illness. You can try to convince this family that they should forego having a baby, since the genetic manipulation of human embryos is banned. In the case of genetically inherited severe illnesses or some pre-birth vaccinations against AIDS, genetic manipulation of the eggs or the embryo can be a powerful method in the future. But there are consequences.

Consequences

First, right now we do not have the necessary technology to guarantee completely safe genetic manipulation. But since technology develops incredibly fast, we might be able to do so within the next decade. We should use this time to prepare answers to the ethical questions and developments that are sure to arise. Second, although this technology will be developed primarily for disease control and prevention, some will use it to manipulate an embryo’s physical or mental properties, such as increasing its mental power or changing its eye color. Of course, this technology will be available only to rich people first, which means that their children will be more skillful. This can be considered unethical, but is it really all that different from rich people using already existing specific drugs or surgical techniques that they can afford? Third, does this mean “creation” to some extent? It does not, for the scientist is only manipulating the existing genetic code so that it will assume another form in the other already-existing recipient. Even if these are new codes, they still coded by the same general principal that was created by the ultimate Creator.

Conclusion

As technology develops, it brings new ethical questions to the fore of the public consciousness, as well as new ways to increase our knowledge of how the universe works. Molecular biology and genetics are important branches of science that develop quicker than many others. All such developments, regardless of field, should be explained to the public clearly to avoid misunderstanding. We do not need to see a repeat of what happened after Dolly’s clone was introduced to the world.

References

• http://www.sciam.com/explorations/030397clone/030397/beardsbox.html.
• Lodish, Harvey et al. Molecular Cell Biology. New York: Scientific American Books, 1986.
• Lewin, Benjamin. Genes VI. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

It is important to state from the outset that despite the plurality of reasoning and judicial formulations based on independent research and interpretation of normative legal sources in Islamic tradition, there is a consensus of juridical-ethical opinions among Muslim religious experts on human cloning. The majority of Muslims in North America are Sunnis. Sunni Muslims follow one of the four officially recognized Sunni legal rites.3 The Shi’ites form a minority in North America.4 And even though scholars differ in their method of reasoning, they are in agreement with their Sunni colleagues in flashing the red light on human cloning.

In the wake of the latest success in animal cloning, prominent scholars representing Sunni centers of religious learning in the Middle East, have expressed a collective opinion on cloning. The official Sunni position in this country5 states that the Arabic term used for this technology in the legal as well as journalistic literature is istinsakh, ‘copying’. This interpretation is not very different from the fictional cloning portrayed In His Image: The Cloning of Man by David Rorvik in the late 1970s, when cloning by nuclear transplantation was the topic of the day in North America. The popular perception that human copies can be produced at will led the leading Mufti of Egypt, Dr Nasr Farid Wasil in Cairo, to emphatically declare his position on the subject. Dr. Wasil declared that possible human or ‘copying’ is both an act of disbelief and immoral. Hence, cloning should be regulated by the government.6 However, this position is disputed by another leading Egyptian legist Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, when asked if cloning was interference in the creation of God, or a challenge to God’s will, replied in no uncertain terms:

Oh no, no one can challenge or oppose God’s will. Hence, if the matter is achieved then it is certainly under the will of God. Nothing can be created without God’s will creating it. As long as people continue to do so, it is the will of God. Actually, we do not search for the question whether it is in accord with the will of God. Our search is whether the matter is licit or not.7

Although the issue of cloning technology has not been given much serious consideration in Muslim discussions of cellular nuclear transplantation, there is much concern with the anticipated biological and social effects of cloning on the underlying Islamic ethical framework and social fabric. For instance, al-Qaradawi raises a fundamental question about the impact of this technology on human life:

Would such a process create disorder in human life when human beings with their subjective opinions and caprices interfere in God’s created nature on which He has created people and has founded their life on it? It is only then that we can assess the human being, that is, to copy numerous faces of a person as if they were carbon copies of each other.8

The fundamental ethical question, as al-Qaradawi indicates, is whether this procedure interferes with growing up in a family that is founded upon the institutions of fatherhood and motherhood. It is in a family that the child is nurtured to become a person. In addition, al- Qaradawi says, since God has placed in each man and woman an instinct to produce this individual in the family, would there be a need for marriage if an individual could be created by cloning? Such a procedure may even lead to a male in no need of a female. Although al- Qaradawi does not state this, biologically speaking, the male may become superfluous (but not the female, since both her egg and womb will be needed).

The other point raised by al-Qaradawi against cloning is based on the Qur’anic notion that variations among peoples are a sign from God who created human beings in different forms and colors, just as He created them distinct from other animals. This variety reflects the richness of life. Resemblance’s resulting from “copying” might lead to a situation where spouses were unable to recognize their partners. This “misunderstanding” would clearly have serious social and ethical consequences. From the point of view of health, one could also presume that people would then be affected by the same virus. However, al-Qaradawi maintains that the technology can be used to overcome certain hereditary diseases, such as infertility, as long as it does not lead to abuse in other areas.9

The Shi’I scholarly position, on the other hand, appears to treat the term ‘clone’ more in its broad scientific sense of making identical copies of molecules, cells, tissues, and even animals involving somatic cell nuclear transplant. In fact, besides the therapeutic use in the hospitals, the technology has been in use in the area of husbandry and agriculture throughout the Islamic world. Hence, Islamic tradition takes the position of endorsing the applications of the technology as long as it provides practical benefit in terms of improved human life. When it comes to cloning human beings, however, the Shari’a-Islamic Jurisprudence-requires that the best interest of prospective parents and their future children be taken into consideration.10

ISLAM AND TECHNOLOGICALLY ASSISTED REPRODUCTION Although since the 1970s, ethical issues associated with assisted reproductive technologies (such as in vitro fertilization) have been dealt with extensively by Muslim jurists, human cloning remains to be discussed in detail. The facts about it are still emerging. With the prospect of understanding cloning better while, understanding impact it could have on how Muslims conceive of human life and subsequently their destiny, it is reasonable to expect revision in the ethnical and legal assessment of these experiments among the scholars of Shari’a, the Scared Law of Islam. Given the success rate of embryo duplication in a number of animal species, reproductive specialists seem to be confident that the technique will improve the success rates of assisted reproductive technology in humans. Accordingly, the legality of human embryo duplication by splitting has been accepted by Muslim jurists as a replication of natural twinning through legitimate scientific means.

Let me proceed to summarize the theological-ethical-legal dimensions of the issues associated with cloning in Islam have been explored with due attention to the possible differences in the interpretation of the scriptural sources for these rulings among the Sunni and the Shi’I legists.

THE THEOLOGICAL DIMENSION OF THE ISSUE

I want to begin with the teachings of the Qur’an, and see if there is any room for human intervention in the workings of nature associated with reproduction. In Chapter 23, verse 12-14, we read:

We created (khalaqna) man of an extraction of clay, then we set him, a drop in a safe lodging, then We created of the drop a clot, then We created of the clot a tissue, then We created the tissue bones, then we covered the bones in flesh; thereafter We produced it as another creature. So blessed be God, the Best of creators (khaliqin)!

Muslim thinkers have gleaned some important conclusions from this and other passages that describe the development of an embryo to a full human person:

First, creation of a human being is an act of divine will. It is this absolute will that determines the embryonic journey to full human status.

Second, perceivable human life is possible only at the later stage in biological development of the embryo when God says: “Thereafter We produced him as another creature.”12

Third, as the last reference implies, the fetus should be accorded the status of a legal person only at the later stage of its development and not in the earlier stage when it lodges itself in the uterus.

Fourth, because of the silence of the Qur’an over exactly when implantation occurs in the fetus it is possible to make a distinction between a biological and moral person,13 placing the latter stage after, at least, the first trimester of pregnancy.

On the basis of some traditions ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad which describes the stages of embryonic development,14 the majority of Sunni and some Shi’I scholars draw a distinction between the two stages in pregnancy divided by the end of the fourth month (120 days). However, these traditions, admitted as documentation for such a distinction, are not universally adapted even by Sunni scholars. The majority of the Shi’I and some Sunni legists have exercised caution in making such a distinction because, as they argue, these traditions do not speak about the enrollment of the fetus at all. They simply mention the stage when an angel is sent to the fetus. Hence, they regard the embryo at all stages as alive, and its eradication as a sin.

The Qur’an and the traditions provide no universally accepted definition of the term ‘embryo’ with which we are concerned in our deliberations about cloning.15 Nor do these two foundational sources of the Shari’a lend themselves to distinctions among the detailed modern biological data about the beginning of life from the moment of impregnation. A tenable conclusion, derived by rationally inclined interpreters of the verse of the Qur’an cited above, suggest that as participants in the act of creating with God (God being the only one who can truly create). Human beings can actively engage in furthering the overall well being of humanity by intervening in the works of nature, including the early stages of embryonic development, to improve human health.16

Nevertheless, the Qur’an takes into account the problem of human arrogance which takes the form of rejecting God’s frequent reminders to humanity. The reminders state that God’s immutable laws are dominant in nature, and human beings cannot willfully create “unless God, the Lord of all Being, wills (8:29).” The will of God in the Qur’an has often been interpreted as the processes of nature uninterfered with by human action. Hence, in Islam human management of genes made possible by biotechnical intervention in the early stages of life is regarded as an act of faith in the ultimate will of God as the Giver of all life, as long as such an intervention is undertaken with the purpose of improving the health of the fetus or increasing the chances of fertility for a married couple.

THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF THE ISSUE

At the center of the Islamic ethical debate about cloning, as pointed out by al-Qaradawi and other Muslim scholars, is the question of the ways in which cloning might affect familial relationships and responsibilities. In a plethora of concerns voiced by Paul Ramsey about the social role of parenting and nurturing interpersonal relations’17 Islam regards interpersonal relationships as fundamental to human religious life. The Prophet is reported to have said that religion is made up often parts, of which nine-tenths constitute interhuman relationships, whereas only one-tenth concerns man’s relationship to God. Since the fundamental institution to further these relationships is the family, and since human cloning interferes with the workings of male female relations, Muslim scholars have advised their governments to exercise extreme caution regarding this technology.

Since researchers at the George Washington University Medical Center succeeded in duplicating genetically defective human embryos by blastomere separation in 1993,18 some Muslim thinkers have raised questions about manipulating human embryos in IVF implantation in terms of its impact upon the fundamental relationship between man and woman, and the life giving aspects of spousal relations that culminate in parental love and concern for their offspring. Islam regards the spousal relationship in marriage to be the cornerstone of the prime social institution of the family for the creation of a divinely ordained order. Consequently, Muslim focus on the debate regarding where genetic replication is concerned with moral issues related to the possibility of technologically created incidental relationships that do not require spiritual and moral connection between a man and a woman. Can human intervention through biotechnology jeopardize the very foundation of human community, namely, a religiously and morally regulated spousal and parent child relationships under the laws of God? It is because of this reason that among Muslim scholars the more intricate issues associated with embryo preservation and experimentation have received less attention in these ethical deliberations. Certainly, since the therapeutic uses of cloning in IVF appear as an aid to fertility strictly within the bounds of marriage, both monogamous and polygamous as recognized in the Shari’a, Muslims have little problem with endorsing the technology. The opinions from Sunni and Shi’I scholars studied for this article indicate that there is a unanimity in Islamic rulings on therapeutic uses of cloning, as long as the lineage of the child remains religiously unblemished. In other words, to preserve the integrity of the lineage of a child reproduction must take place within the religiously specified boundaries of a spousal relation.19

Besides the significance attached to the spousal relationship for bearing and nurturing children, another issue in Muslim bioethics is the problem of determining the moral status of the technology itself. In a world dominated by multinational corporations, Muslims, like other people around the globe, do not treat technology as nonmoral. No human action is possible without intention and will. In light of the manipulation of genetic engineering for eugenics in recent history, it is reasonable for the Muslims, like Christians and Jews, to fear political abuse of the reproduction technology through cloning. With its emphasis on spiritual equality; Islam has refused to accord validity to any claims of superiority of one people over the other. The only valid claim to nobility in the Qur’an stems from being god-fearing. From an Islamic standpoint, it is morally and religiously wrong to employ cloning technology for purposes other than therapeutic.

THE LEGAL DIMENSION OF THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ‘EQUITY’ AND ‘PUBLIC INTEREST

In Islam, although religious, ethical and legal dimensions are interrelated, it is important to underline the legal doctrines that bear upon the decisions made by Muslim legal scholars in endorsing or prohibiting cloning. Without adequate legal reasoning based upon careful interpretation of the Qur’an and the traditions, in addition to certain rationally derived principles and rules, no Muslin legist can issue judicial decisions on the subject. In connection with embryo cloning the legists invoked the two fundamental principles of ‘equity'(istihsan) and ‘public interest’ (maslaha) to furnish a religious basis for their legal decisions. These two principles function as complementary procedures to derive rules that can be applied to formulate new decisions outside the strict letter of law. Since the subject of technologically assisted reproduction has no precedent in the classical juridical tradition, Muslim legists depend heavily on the scientific information supplied by researchers to deduce their judicial decisions. In addition, there are three major subsidiary principles or rules applied to resolve ethical dilemmas and derive judgments related to all bioethical issues, including cloning: (1) ‘protection against distress and constriction’ (‘usrwa haraj); (2) ‘the necessity to refrain from causing harm to oneself and others’ (la darar wa la dirar), (3) ‘the rule that averting causes of corruption has precedence over bringing about benefit’ (dar’u al-mafasid muqaddam al jalb al-masalih). It is obvious that in light of the limited knowledge that we have about who would be harmed by cloning or whose rights would be violated, Muslim legal rulings are bound to reflect a cautious and even prohibitive attitude beyond treatment of infertility or assessment of genetic or other abnormalities in the embryo prior to implantation. Although the recent breakthrough in mammal cloning provides a unique opportunity to the scientists to fathom the secrets of God’s creation, it also carries with it grave and unprecedented risks. Nevertheless, since we do not will unless God wills, can this breakthrough in cloning be regarded as part of the divine will to afford human kind yet another opportunity for moral training and maturity? The Qur’an seems to suggest that embryo splitting is just that opportunity for our overall maturity as members of the global community under God.

CONCLUSION

The recent opinions expressed by the Grand Mufti of Egypt and other Muslim legists around the world confirm my assessment of the ethical issues associated with cloning. Unanimity has now emerged among Muslim scholars of different legal rites that whereas in Islamic tradition therapeutic uses of cloning and any research to further that goal will receive the endorsement of the major legal schools, the idea of human cloning has been viewed negatively and almost, to use the language of the Mufti of Egypt, “Satanic.” A further consensus among Muslims seems to discourage even research directed towards improvement of human health thorough genetic manipulation because of the rule of prioritization based on the principle of distributive justice. In view of limited resources in the Islamic world and the expensive technology that is needed for research related to cloning, Muslim legists have asked their governments to ban research on cloning at this time. Since technologically assisted reproduction in Islamic tradition is legitimized only within the lawful male female relationship to help alleviate infertility, somatic cell nuclear transplant cloning from adult cells for therapeutic purposes will have to abide by the general criterion set for this technology. In the case of cloning specifically for the purposes of relieving human disease, there is no ethical impediment to stop such research, whose probable benefit outweighs possible harm. I believe that research into human cloning from adult cells in the course of reproductive treatment should be allowed, with necessary regulatory clauses to restrict abuse under penalty. My opinion is based on the principle that ‘averting (and not interdicting) causes of corruption has precedence over bringing about that which has benefit. In our religiously and ethically pluralistic society where there is a search for a universal ethical language that can speak to the adherents of different religious and cultural traditions, Islamic tradition, with its experience in dealing with matters central to human interpersonal relations in diverse cultural settings, can be become an important source for our ethical deliberations dealing with the ideals and realities of human existence. I am deeply concerned, for instance, about the way we shy away from considering the subjective dimensions pertaining to human spiritual and moral awareness in setting our goals for research with human embryos. Our policies on the matter of cloning should be seriously informed from the perspective of corrective as well as distributive justice. From the standpoint of our moral commitment to the principle of distributive justice, it will be hard to justify a heavy investment in embryonic research related to human cloning without addressing some immediate and serious problems of poverty in our own backyard. Moreover, as the leader of the world community, the U.S. has a responsibility to share its material as well as scientific resources with underprivileged nations whose immediate needs do not go beyond treating common diseases like malaria and tuberculosis.

ENDNOTES

1 This chapter is an extended version of the testimony presented before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission in March 1997. At the global level Sunni Muslims from the majority of the Muslim community, almost 80%; whereas Shi’I Muslims form the minority (20%). The two communities are divided on the question of religious authority to which obedience in matters of religious and moral law is required. The Sunni Muslims recognize the learned jurists at the Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt and Shi’I Muslims depend upon their scholars in Iran and Iraq for moral and spiritual guidance. The fundamental difference between the two communities in matters of ethical-legal decisions is marked by the use of intuitive human reason in deriving ethical-legal judgement pertaining to modern biomedical technology. Whereas the Sunni legists tend to assign a significant role to the Tradition informed by concern for ‘public interest’ (maslaha) and ‘equity’ (istihsan), the Shi’I jurist-consults (mujahid) assign intuitive reason a substantial role in finding solutions to the problems raised by technological advancements today. In the North American context also the Sunnis form a majority, whereas the Shi’ites form a minority. However, the actual figures are open to dispute because the number of Iranian Shi’ites who are assimilated in the North American culture remains unaccounted in the census among Muslim communities. The four Sunni legal rites (madhabib) are: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi’I and Hanbali. Most of the Sunnis belong to the Hanafi madhhab in their religious practice. The Shi’ites form their own madhhab known as the Ja’fari legal rite.

SEE ABOVE, NOTE 2. For various Muslim opinions collected from around the world see: “Religious Perspectives on Human Cloning” by Courtney Campbell Ph.D., Oregon State University, paper commissioned by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. In addition, for specifically Sunni opinions expressed by their leading religious authorities, see: Al-Majalla: The International News Magazine of the Arabs (No.894, 30 March-5 April 1997) and Sayyidati (No 843, 3- 9 May, 1997, pp.62-64). See Al-Ma jalla, No.894, 30 March-5 April, 1997, p.

6 Sayyidat, No.843, p.64 Ibid. p.63 Ibid, p.62-63 The opinions regarding cloning coming out of Lebanon and iron indicate more openness in accepting the technology even adult somatic cell transplant. See Ayatollah Khamenehi, Pizishki dar a’ineh ijtihad (medicine through the Process of Independent Reasoning) (Qumm, 1375/1996); pp.111-112 deal with technologically assisted reproduction. For the Qur’anic exegesis dealing with legal implications, see al-Qurtubi, al-Jami li-ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turoth al-Arobi, 1966), vol.12, pp. 6-7. Qurtubi, Jumi, ol. XII, p.6; al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din al-Tafsir al-kabir, al-Muhammed Muhyi al-Din, 32 vols. (Cairo, 1352/1933) vol. XXIII, p.85; al-Tabarsi, Abu Ali al-Fadl b. Hasan (d. 548/1154), Majma al-bayan fi tafsir al-qur’an, 10 vols. (Tehran, 1379-82), vol. VII p.101); al-Tabataba’I, Muhammad Husayn, al-Mizan fi tafsir al-qur’an, 20 vols. (Beirut, 1393- 4/1973-74), vol. XV pp. 20-24. Ayatollah Muhammad H. Bihishti, ‘Rules of Abortion and Sterilization in Islamic Law,” in Islam and Family Planning. The international Planned Parenthood Federation Middle East and North Africa Region (Beirut, 1974), vol. II pp. 416-17, indicates the possibility of such a distinction in the context of considering when abortion can be regarded as murder.

14 These traditions ore recorded in the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim among the Sunni compilations; and Wasa’il al-shi’a, the Shi’ite compendium of traditions. For valuable insights into these traditions I have depended on the commentaries: Fath al-Bari bi sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Cairo: Al-Matba’a al-Bahiyya al-Misriyya, 1347/1928), vol 11, pp.404-5; Sahih Muslim bi sharh al-Nawawi (Cairo: Al-Matba’a al-Misriyya bil-Azhar, 1349/1930), vol. 16, pp. 190-215.

15 Muammad Na’im Yasin, Abhath fiqhiyya fi qadaya tibbiva mu’asira (Amman: Dar al-Nafa’is, 1416/1996), pp. 9-25, has done extensive research in the Sunni juridical sources to demonstrate the plurality of opinions in determining the beginning of life, and has concluded with mush evidence that the majority of the Muslim scholars do not support the view that moral-legal life begins with conception. For Shi’I views on the subject see: Pasukh bi-su’alha-yi shuma dar barah-I ahkum dar marakiz bihdasht wa darmani (Tehran: Chapkhanah-I Danishgah-I Danishgo-I Ulum-I Pizishki, n.d.); and, Fiqh al-tabib. Compiled by Drs. Mustafa Najafi, Mas’ud Salihi and Mas’ud Firdasi (Tehran: Ministry of Health, n.d.)

16 in particular views expressed by al-Qaradawi and Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Fadl Allah of Lebanon in support of improving human health regard the advancements in biotechnology as an expression of Divine Will. See the report prepared by Courtney S. Campbell, “Examination of Views of Religious Traditions on Issues of the Cloning of Humans,” where he cites the Lebanese Shi’ite leader’s views.

17 Paul Ramsey, Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control (New Haven, 1970).

18 For details of the experiment and related ethical issues in genetic manipulation, see Andrea L. Bonnicksen, “Ethical and Policy Issues in Human Embryo Twinning,” in Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 4 (1995), pp.268-84.

19 Among the Shi’ite jurists, Ayatollah Khamenehi, Pizishki dar a’ineh ijtihad, p. 117-122 seems to have sanctioned both surrogacy, and sperm and egg donation, without requiring the donor of the sperm and egg donation, without requiring the donor of the sperm to be the husband as required by senior jurists like the late Ayatollah Khomeini and others. This seems to be on error of judgement on Khamenehi’s part. See: Pasukhi bi-su’alha, pp.74-81.

We have two different cells in nuclear transfer: an unfertilized egg and a donor cell. The donor cells are grown under special conditions in culture. The induction of a quiescent state in the donor cells seem to be an important factor in the success of the technology. In a normal cell the chromosomes are very active and there is an open structure to some of the DNA to provide access to the cell machinery. When a nucleus from such a cell is transferred into an oocyte it is assumed that development depends on changes to chromosomal structure to inhibit activity from the chromosome and then to re-initiate activity at the appropriate stage of development. The nucleus in quiescent cells is comparatively inactive. It is hypothesised that in that case the recipient egg is more readily able to ‘programme’ gene expression in the new embryos.

The number of donor cells can be increased by several orders of magnitude. It is also possible to make genetic modifications and to select just those cells in which the desired modification has occurred and multiply these up. Before these cells are fused with an unfertilized egg or the nucleus of the donor cell is introduced by cell fusion, the chromosomes are removed from the recipient egg by micromanipulation. Then the nucleus of the donor cell is introduced by cell fusion. The electric current used to fuse the cells also triggers the egg to begin development. The new embryos are then transplanted into recipient sheep and lambs are born naturally.

In Nature (Vol. 380, pp 64-6), the potential practical value of this new technique is explained as follows:

It will become possible to produce a number of genetically identical offspring from a population of cells. This would enable a farmer to have a small group of identical sheep each with the same high level of performance. Uniformity of this kind would offer advantages to the farmer, as the animals will mature at a very similar rate, to the food processor, as they would have a more consistent product to sell, and to the consumer, as they could be more confident of purchasing a consistent, high quality product. It seems more likely that the first uses will be for biotechnology. Sheep and goats are already making, in their milk, proteins that are needed for the treatment of human disease. The new technique will make it possible to obtain proteins that are more like the human protein even than those that are being made at present. In addition, this route may provide a more practical means for introducing change in cattle. Some proteins are required in very large quantities and it would be useful to be able to produce these in cattle, with their larger milk yield, than in sheep or goats. However, in the longer term, as the techniques are improved, then they may be used to modify many aspects of agricultural products. Changes may be made to the composition of cow’s milk. Most of the fat in cow’s milk is saturated and this has implication for the health of the human consumer. The situation arises because of the activity of enzymes in the udder and it may be possible to reduce that activity and so have cow’s milk with more unsaturated fat. It would be important to show that this did not have any adverse consequences for the cow or her calves…

PPL Therapeutics also hopes to use this technique to enable the production of new drugs for the treatment of a range of conditions using its transgenic technology. This could lead to cheaper drugs for currently untreatable diseases.

It is not possible to inhibit scientific advances. For the last few centuries, science has been preparing ‘new worlds’ for the human race. As with many previous ‘victories’ of science, intellectuals and moralists discuss this new step of gene-technology from ethical base. Arthur Caplan from University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia Inquirer, March 4, 1997) writes:

Think of current cloning technology along the lines of the Wright brothers first aeroplane flight. Many argued that human beings would never fly in a machine. The Wright brothers proved them wrong. But it took many years before the first safe, reliable and practical aircraft was up in the air.

The same is true of cloning. The sheep in Scotland and the monkeys in Oregon represent first steps down what is a very long road. They show cloning is possible but they do not prove it is practical. The techniques used are not only not safe to try in humans, they are still not very effective or efficient for use in animals.

There is still time to control cloning technology if that is what we want to do. It will be years before today’s cloning technology could reasonably be applied to human beings. If we do not want it to be then it is up to us to engage in the moral, religious and legal discussion that will make sure human cloning does not happen.

The hysteria over cloning has led many experts to wonder why we should even bother to try and control its use in human beings. After all, once a technology is available its use is inevitable-isn’t it. There is no stuffing the cloning genie back in its bottle. Phooey!

True no one can stop a nut from grabbing a spare embryo at an infertility clinic and transplanting adult genes into it to see if human cloning will work. But, that is a long way from doing anything practical, useful or even very interesting in terms of human cloning. If we really think that it is an offense to human dignity to have people bred by design, if it seems nuts to let anyone create a human being just to have a place to get spare parts, or if we really do not want grieving parents trying to ‘restore’ a lost child by making a physical copy of the child’s body, we really can bring such activities to a grinding halt.

How? Slap stiff penalties on human cloning, let researchers know that experiments on human cloning will not be published and pull all Federal and foundation support for human cloning research. For all practical purposes human cloning will grind to a halt.

The pressures in the past of Western ethical opinion-makers or of the Church on scientific researches give little reason for optimism. Especially in a world where a ‘better’ worldly life is everything and all ‘human’ values are judged according to how much one consumes, and at a time when scientific researches and successes are valued. (and funded) in terms of their marketability, it will be of no use to exert ‘moral’ pressures on scientific studies. What is necessary and important is that first it should be understood that religion and the universe or nature are the two ‘different’ expressions of the same ‘Divine’ truth and then nature should be re-acknowledged its sacredness coming from the fact that nature is the realm where God’s Names are manifested.

Science will continue to advance. However, in order that it is not harmful for mankind, it is not a lethal weapon in the hands of an irresponsible, selfish minority, God-fearing believers should direct scientific studies. The first verses revealed from the Qur’an are enough to illuminate our way in scientific studies. The first revelation to the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, was:

Read: in and with the Name of Your lord who created, created man of an embryo suspended.

Read: And your Lord is the most Munificent, who taught by the Pen, taught man that he knew not. (al- ‘Alaq, 96.1-3)

It is quite significant that the first command of God to His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, was ‘read’, when there was not yet the Book to read. This means that there is another book or, rather, there are two books, counterparts to the Book which was to be revealed. These two books are the universe and man. A believer should approach the study of universe and man without prejudice. It is also significant that the verses of the Qur’an and the phenomena in the universe and in man-material and psychological-are both called ‘signs’. The imperative ‘Read!’ is followed, not by a direct object or an adverbial, but by ‘in and with the Name of your Lord who created’. This signifies:

1. ‘Reading’ the universe- studying it-has principles of its own, like, for example, observation and experiment.

2. The word translated as Lord is Rabb, among whose meanings is ‘educator, upbringer, giver of a certain pattern, and, one who gives each entity a particular nature. Man’s nature includes free will, whereas every other entity acts according to the primordial nature assigned to it, what modem science refers to in the words ‘nature’ and the ‘laws of nature’. What man is commanded to do is to discover these ‘laws’.

3. Every act of man, including his scientific studies, should be performed in the name of God, and therefore be an act of worship. That is the only limit which the Qur’an or Islam has put on science. Any act so performed cannot be against God’s Commandments. For example, in the pursuit of scientific knowledge as worship, no one could harm mankind, nor put that knowledge in the form of a deadly weapon in the hands of an irresponsible minority. If done only in the name of God, by people conscious of always being supervised by God and who will be called to account before a Supreme Tribunal for all their actions in the world, science could change the world into a garden of Eden.

FURTHER DIMENSIONS OF SCIENCE IN THE QUR’AN

Said Nursi writes (The Words 1, Izmir 1997, pp.316—7; 325—9)): ‘In the wise Qur’an there are many apparently insignificant events behind each of which is hidden a universal principle, and which are presented as the tip of a general law. For example, the verse (He) taught Adam the names of all of them. (al-Baqara, 2.32) mentions that Adam was taught ‘the names’ as a miracle to demonstrate his superiority over the angels in being favoured with God’s vicegerency on the earth—the rule of the earth in the name of God. This is, in appearance, a small and particular event but it constitutes the tip of a universal principle which is as follows: On account of his comprehensive nature, man was taught (or given the potential to obtain) lots of information, and many sciences concerning all aspects of the universe, and extensive knowledge about the Creator’s Attributes and acts, which gave him superiority over not only the angels but also the heavens and earth and mountains in bearing the Supreme Trust, and made him the ruler of the earth in the name of God.

Likewise, the prostration of the angels before Adam by contrast with Satan’s rejection is a small, particular event in the Unseen. However, it is the tip of a most comprehensive, universally observed principle, and suggests a most extensive truth which is as follows: By mentioning the angels’ obedience and submission before the person of Adam and Satan’s haughty refusal, the Qur’an makes understood that most of the material beings in the universe and their spiritual representatives are subjugated to man and are ever-ready to satisfy all the needs and desires of all of his faculties. In addition, the Qur’an warns man against the evil beings and their immaterial representatives and the devilish inhabitants of the earth, who corrupt his potential for perfection and seduce him into wrong paths, and it reminds him what terrible enemies and great obstacles in the path of his progress toward perfection they are. Thus, while narrating a particular matter pertaining to a single individual—Adam, upon him be peace—the Qur’an of miraculous expression holds an elevated discourse with the whole creation and all mankind.

The Qur’an states that everything, wet or dry, is found in it. Is that really so? Yes, everything is found in it, but everyone cannot see that everything therein, as the things are found at different levels. The Qur’an contains all things, either in the form of seeds, or of nuclei, or of summaries, or principles, or signs, and they are found either explicitly or implicitly, or allusively, or vaguely, or suggestively. One or other of these forms is preferred according to occasion, in a way fitting for the purposes of the Qur’an and in connection with the requirements of the context. For example: As the result of man’s progress in science and industry, some scientific and technological wonders such as aeroplanes, electricity, motor vehicles, and means of radio and telecommunication have come into existence and taken the most prominent position in the material life of mankind. As it addresses the whole of mankind [at all times], the wise Qur’an certainly does not ignore these. Indeed, it has not ignored them and points to them in two ways: The first is by way of the miracles of the Prophets. The second is in connection with certain historical events, for example: Down with the makers of the trench of the fuel-fed fire! When they sat by it, and were themselves the witnesses of, what they did to the believers. They ill-treated them for no other reason than that they believed in God, the Mighty, the All-Praised One. (al-Buruj, 85.4-8) Likewise, …in the loaded fleet. And We have created for them the like thereof whereon they ride. (Ya Sin, 36.41-2) Verses like these point to trains, while the following verse, besides having many other meanings and connotations, alludes to electricity: God is the light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His light is as a niche where in is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. Kindled from a blessed tree, an olive, neither of the East or of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it: Light upon light. God guides to His Light whom He wills. (al-Nur, 24.35)

As God Almighty sent the Prophets to human communities as leaders and vanguards in respect of spiritual and moral progress, so also He endowed them with certain wonders and miracles and made them the masters and forerunners with respect to man’s material progress. He commands men to follow them absolutely. Thus, just as by speaking of the spiritual and moral perfections of the Prophets, the Qur’an encourages people to benefit from them, so too in presenting their miracles it intends that people should try to achieve the like of them in scientific way. It may even be said that like spiritual and moral attainments, material attainments and wonders were also first given to mankind as a gift through Prophetic miracles. The Prophet Noah, upon him be peace, was the first to build ships, and Joseph, upon him be peace, the clock. Therefore, the ship and clock were first given to mankind as Prophetic miracles. It is a meaningful indication to this reality that so many craft guilds take a Prophet as the ‘patron’ or originator of their craft. For example, seamen take Noah, watchmakers take Joseph, tailors take Enoch, upon them be peace, and so on. Since truth-seeking scholars and the science of eloquence have agreed that each of the Qur’an’s verses contains guidance and instruction, then the verses concerning the miracles of the Prophets, the most brilliant among the Qur’an’s verses, should not be taken as historical events; rather they comprise numerous meanings of guidance. Truly, by mentioning the miracles of the Prophets, the Qur’an shows the ultimate goal of scientific and technological developments, and specifies their final aims. It urges man forward toward those aims. Just as the past is the field for the seeds of the future and mirror to its potential, so too the future is the time to reap the harvest of the past life and mirror to the actual situation.

Now out of many examples, I shall point out only a few: The verse, And to Solomon (We subjugated) the wind: its morning stride was a month’s journey and the evening stride was a month’s journey. (al-Saba’, 34.12) which expresses the subjugation of the wind to Solomon as one of his miracles, says: “The Prophet Solomon covered the distance of two months walk in two strides by flying through the air.” By this it suggests that the road is open for mankind to cover the same distance in the air. “So,O mankind! Since the road is open to you, attain this level and do so!” Almighty God also means by this verse: “O man! A servant of mine did not obey his carnal desires, and I mounted him on the air. If you give up laziness and benefit properly from certain of My laws in nature, you too can mount it.”

The verse, When Moses asked for water for his people, We said: ‘Strike the rock with your staff.’ Then gushed forth there from twelve springs (so that) each tribe knew their drinking place’ (al-Baqara, 2.60) indicates that it is quite possible to benefit with simple tools from the treasuries of Mercy under the earth. In places hard as rock even, the water for life may be drawn with so simple a device as a staff. Thus, through this meaning, the verse says to man, “You can find the finest blessing of Mercy, the water for life, with a staff-like device. Therefore, come on, work and find it!” Through this verse, God Almighty suggests: “O man! Since I gave to a servant of Mine who relied on Me such a staff that he draws with it the water for life from wherever he wishes, you too can obtain a device resembling it provided you rely on My laws of Mercy. So, come and do so!” One of the important results of scientific developments which mankind have achieved is the invention of devices with which water is caused to well up from most of the places where they are applied. The verse points to further goals and limits beyond that, just as the previous one specified further attainments far ahead of today’s aeroplanes.

The verse, I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead by God’s leave. (Al ‘lmran, 3.49) concerning a miracle of Jesus, upon him be peace, alludes to and encourages the highest level of healing with which the Lord endowed him. It suggests: “it is possible to find cures for even the most chronic ailments. Therefore, O man! O calamity-stricken sons of Adam! Do not despair! Whatever the ailment, its cure is possible. Search for it and you will find it. It is even possible to give a temporary tinge of life to death.” By the verse God Almighty means: “O man! To a servant of Mine who renounced the world for My sake, I gave two gifts, one the remedy for spiritual ailments, the other the cure for physical sicknesses. Dead hearts were quickened through the light of guidance, and ill people who were as though dead found health through his breath and cure. You too may find the cure for all illnesses in My ‘pharmacy’ in nature where I attached to each thing many important purposes. Work and find it! You will certainly find if you seek it!” Thus, this verse marks the final point of medical developments, a point far ahead of the present level, and urges man towards it. In view of the explanations of Said Nursi, we can say that genetics will realize further successes than cloning. The Qur’an tells us that God created the human race from a single ‘soul’— human nature, according to some interpreters, It is narrated from the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Also, we read in the Qur’an that Adam was created from ‘clay’. Whatever is meant by ‘clay’, it is clear that Adam was created without a father and mother. Again, Jesus, upon him be peace, was created without a father—Virgin Mary gave birth to him—and the Prophets Isaac and John were gave born by old, sterile women. These are examples marking further points of developments in genetics. Besides the Qur’an, we find also in the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, indications to further steps of genetics. For example, as recorded in reliable sources of Tradition such as Sahih al-Muslim (Fitan, 110) and Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Fitan, 59), the Prophet predicted that one day would come when a single pomegranate would suffice for as many as twenty people, with its rind providing shade for them. He also prophesied that the wheat produced in so small an area as a house balcony would be enough for the annual consumption of a family. (Fethullah Gulen, Prophet Muhammad, The Infinite Light, Vol. 1, pp. 77)