The universe as a whole is a grand book of God,
Try any of its letters; the meaning of each reveal nothing but Him
Recaizade Mahmud Ekrem

Experts of mystical journey profess that to be able to attain true faith, one must have an encompassing sight. Only with such a sight will the essence of unity felt deep within resonate in the conscience, and constant signs indicating God will be observed on every thing and every face. When one reaches the horizon of “There is nothing more manifest than God the Truth / He is only concealed to those lacking eyes,” they will flutter over the colorful flowers in the garden of the universe with the enthusiasm of wondering, “Isn’t there more?” and will form the honeycombs of Divine Knowledge.

It is difficult to attain such a result for one who steps into the gardens of existence without gaining an encompassing sight. For example, while contemplating the multitude of flowers, the sight will be distracted, and the meanings collected somehow will not be distilled into divine knowledge because they will not receive affirmation in the heart. Hence, the sight must first be turned to the human, who is an infinitesimal model of the universe, and after reading this reference point, a telescopic view must be obtained to read the Book of the Universe. “Because the accurate reading of the outer dimensions depends on the correct reading of the inner dimensions” [1].

Intending for the sweetest honey

In this journey, the mind, like other organs, becomes a subject of the heart and follows its guidance. To bear witness to this journey, the residents in the realms of earthly and heavenly Dominion convene in the conscience – the human conscience that can be as expansive as to contain all that is there. As they do so, the primordial testimony we gave before we were born into this world echoes therein.

The heart draws nigh to the mind, dusts off its clothing and gifts its friend a pair of wings made of pure light and emerald, for it to soar into the heavens. The mind, like a honeybee leaving its hive to collect pollen, intends for the sweetest honey and takes flight. With the eyes of its friend, the heart, it observes the human, the infinitesimal model of the universe.

The journey begins from the womb of a mother.

Enthusiasm and the gift of life

As it opens its eyes with curiosity and turns its sight upon its body, the mind first catches the glimpse of an inclusive and perfect order and an encompassing and delicate balance [2]. Intending to see the Governor who created this marvelous order and delicate balance, the mind embarks on its journey from the point where the indicators of the divine name The Infinite Last transforms into the manifestations of the divine name The Very First. At this point, the sperm and egg cells, which become nuclei, quit on being themselves to grow into a new being, and they become annihilated in each other. For this meeting, the sperm covers demanding distances with great enthusiasm, and the egg, despite its apparent inertia, attracts the sperm towards itself by diverse mechanisms. Enthusiasm, manifested in the sperm as a palpable activity, manifests itself in the egg as active patience. Both take such a pleasure in obeying the law of creation and adhering to the Divine Commandment that they perish themselves with great enthusiasm to become a single cell honored with the gift of life. Thus, enthusiasm becomes the bearer of the gift called life—that is, the enthusiasm becomes a means to receive the gift of life. The human body, which will become the bearer of the gift called the soul, will develop from this single cell called the “zygote.”

Order

The mind witnesses the first steps in the creation of a marvelous order in this new cell which has been worthy of the manifestations from the divine name al-Batin (the All-Inward, the Hidden) thanks to its inherent potential. 12-24 hours after the creation of the zygote, mitotic divisions begin with a divine command, and with each division, two identical cells are formed from one cell. Rapid divisions and the hardening of the covering surrounding the zygote do not allow new cells to grow. Hence, although the number of cells reaches 32 by the 96th hour of fertilization, the size of this cell clump remains the same as that of the zygote. At this point, while the cells continue to divide and multiply, they also begin to differentiate.

As the cells in the outer part assume the key task of adhering the embryo to the mother’s womb, the cells in the inner part are clustered adjacent to one side. This mass of cells to be deployed in creating the embryo is called the “embryoblast.” Around the sixth day, the hard shell surrounding the cells thins and disappears, and the embryo, whose first differentiation is complete, adheres to the uterine wall. Like the germination of seeds buried in the soil, the embryo will be well embedded in the uterine wall in the coming days, where it will develop and transform into a radiance of the divine name al-Dhahir (the All-Outward, the Manifest) [3].

In these first steps towards order, the mind watching the Divine Command which determines the position and function of each cell, will also witness the embryoblast cells progress towards their own vaults of perfection. Because each of these cells, called the “pluripotent stem cell,” bears the potential to transform into all cell types in a developed human body.

In the second week of fertilization, a third layer is created from the embryoblast cells that separate into two layers. The ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm layers that emerge at this stage—which is called “gastrulation”—are internally and externally different from one another. The ectoderm, at the top of these layers, is the predecessor of the cells that will eventually form the skin, nails, hair, teeth, brain, and the nervous system. The mesoderm underneath forms the muscles, sex organs, bones and cartilage, heart, blood vessels and connective tissue. Lastly, the pancreas, liver, intestines, stomach, and lungs originate from the endoderm, the bottom layer.

These cells, once in one piece before transforming into features like the shattered pieces of a mirror, become mirrors to different divine names according to the organs where they will be placed for training and “as trillions of mirrors, always express the same meaning and concept with features such as unity, solidarity, harmony, concordance, cooperation and solidarity among themselves and with different voices, tunes, and characters” [4].

Quest for the straight path and regular flow

Built in a stunning order and form befitting their duties, these organs depend on precise measurements to function as a whole. Life continues with the preservation of this balance in the sphere of causes and ends when it deteriorates without repair. Numerous variables such as body temperature, pH balance, and blood pressure are kept constant within a set value range notwithstanding internal and external factors. Excess or deficiency in the system gives way to various diseases. This quest for attaining “The Straight Path” in the human body is called “homeostasis.” At this point, the mind heeds more to read the order in the body, for order, according to Nursi, is another tongue that speaks on behalf of Divine Unity. In this attentive observation, the mind notices that the body and its surroundings are in constant change, and yet the delicate balance is refreshed and maintained regularly [5] like clockwork and in harmony [6]. The fact that powerless and unconscious cells—and the tissues and organs formed from them—undertake massive duties as if they are conscious and act like soldiers as if they know the general order in the body bears witness to the Unity of the One (Great is His Majesty) Who does everything with wisdom, and Who has absolute power and knowledge [7]. The loud voice of “He is God, there is no god but He” resonating from trillions of cells to bear witness to His Unity makes the mind hear this truth without borrowing the ears of its companion, the heart.

Tasting the Sweetest Honey of Love

At the end of this journey, the mind returns to the heart having traveled between the Divine names and witnessed the order, harmony, and balance that run like clockwork in human body. Now, it feels the Divine unity deep down in the conscience, tasting the sweetest honey of love formed in the honeycombs of the heart. The heart now invites its subjects to reunion with the Divine “like gleeful children and filled with the pleasures of having attained contentment” yet with caution and composure [8]. The subjects convene in the conscience and sherbets are prepared from the sweetest honey. When lips meet the sherbet of reunion, the talks only mention the One. As the Divine Unity is captured by the mind, Love is sensed in the heart. At times, the heart’s “cupbearers of speech” offer these sherbets to other hearts as well. Hearts which taste the sweetest honey even just once always overflow with the same melodies:

“Take heed of this slave’s condition
How attached he’s been to a lock of Your hair
I kept on tasting the honey of Your love
I am parched; give me a sip of water!”
(Gadai)

References

1. M. Fethullah Gülen, Sohbet-i Cânan (Kırık Testi-2), İstanbul: Nil Yayınları, 2011, pp. 165.
2. Bediüzzaman Said Nursî, Mektubat, İstanbul: Şahdamar Yayınları, 2010, pp. 261–262.
3. www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/cells/embryology/a/human-embryogenesis
4. M. Fethullah Gülen, Kalbin Zümrüt Tepeleri, İstanbul: Nil Yayınları, 2008, pp. 565–566.
5. Bediüzzaman Said Nursî, Mektubat, İstanbul: Şahdamar Yayınları, 2010, pp. 262.
6. M. Fethullah Gülen, Kırık Mızrap, İstanbul: Nil Yayınları, 2006, pp. 31.
7. Bediüzzaman Said Nursî, Sözler, İstanbul: Şahdamar Yayınları, 2010, pp. 602.
8. 8. Fethullah Gülen, Kalbin Zümrüt Tepeleri, İstanbul: Nil Yayınları, 2008, pp. 194.

The oral cavity is one of the many systems that is perfectly designed while a fetus develops in a mother’s womb

The first event that takes place inside the mother’s womb is the union of sperm and egg to form into a single cell which later takes the shape of an embryo by rapid division and development. This embryological development occurs in three stages.

In the first of these stages (2-5 weeks), the fertilized egg (zygote) proliferates by dividing and planting itself to the womb wall (implantation). During the advance of the zygote towards the womb, some biochemical signals are sent in order to make the mother sense this situation. Via these signals, the mother’s body is prepared to supply the necessary nutrients to this cellular mass. When these biochemical signals reach the ovaries, various hormones are secreted and the ovulation that occurs during monthly periods is ceased.

During the second stage (5-6 weeks), major activities are started inside the cellular mass, which is now in the form of an embryo. The developmental process of organ and system generation from cells begins.

And during the third stage (from the 8^th week until birth), the embryo has become a fetus, and its facial and bodily structures have begun to be immaculately shaped (Figure-1).

How do organs develop?

Tissues and organs of the embryo, which morphologically starts to look like a human, develop from three layers, which are called the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. While the baby continues to come to life inside the mother’s womb, the cranial and facial regions, along with oral cavity, start to form via the development of cells in the area called the neural crest. This development is the result of perfectly corresponding functions in between the epithelium and outer mesenchyme, which results in the facial skeleton and formation of teeth.

Jaw and facial development occur during the 4-12 weeks in the womb. By the end of the 10^th week, the face can be seen with an ultrasonographic examination.

The nose forms at this point. Mid and lateral nose projections develop. A forehead projection called the “frontonasal protrusion” forms in between the two sided mid nose projections. These projections initially develop towards the lower direction because of the volume of the tongue. Later, after the palate has begun to form, and with the growth of the lower jaw and the downward extension of the tongue, like an open-close bridge, the lower and upper jaw join at the midline by rising upward. This union takes place from front to back, like closing a zipper, stage by stage.

This way, the oral cavity and the surrounding structures (tongue, teeth, etc.) that will enable speech and taste are knit, loop by loop, inside the mother’s womb. (Figure 1-2)

Due to the complexity of this process, if there happens to be any failure in the merging, some anomalies can form, such as split lips or palates. These splits are anomalies present at birth. Such lip or palate splits may arise during this phase of the pregnancy because of various negative factors: they can stem from inter-family marriages, diseases that the mother experiences during the first three months of the pregnancy (especially measles or toxoplasmosis), exposure to radiation, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, or various drugs the mother uses. These anomalies need to be corrected by plastic surgeons, upper respiratory tract specialists, and orthodontists.

Despite these anomalies, most of the time, babies are born with their oral cavities in perfect working order – which is extraordinary given the complexity of the process.

Reference

Oral R. J, Goldman H.M. Thoma’s oral Pathology.The CV Mosby Comp. St. Louis.

Figure-1: Ultrasonographic image of the facial region of a fetus in the mothers womb.

Figure-2: Upper jaw bone

The harmful foodstuff eaten is spat out quickly through vomiting and so damages of such foodstuff is minimized. Occurring upon taking of any poisonous food or alcohol, vomiting directly contributes to treatment by ensuring a quick disgorge of the harmful stuff. Variations in amounts of estrogen and progesterone hormones during pregnancy helps in noticing even the least amount of toxins (poisons) found in the blood by way of increasing sensitivity of the chemoreceptor trigger zone within the brain stem. When this zone of the brain takes notice of toxins in the blood, it immediately activates feeling of nausea and vomiting. Margie Profet, a researcher from the University of California at Berkeley was the first person who drew attention to this issue in 1995. She asserted that food craving is a divinely merciful mechanism aiming at protection of the miraculously developing embryo against probable dangers within the human body. She also asserted that food craving protects the embryo from natural toxins in foods. Vomiting may also happen to travellers and sufferers of migraine. Certain psychological factors such as unpleasant smell and excessive fear may result in vomiting as well.

If, however, vomiting recurs and turns out to become a habit, one should be careful, for vomiting causes new problems such as electrolyte losses and dehydration while irritating the alimentary canal, throat, mouth and teeth through which vomited matter passes. In addition to these, regurgitating might be inadvisable and indeed should be avoided in certain cases of poisoning which develop due to ingestion of petroleum products and burning chemicals like hypochlorite and ammonia which are used in house cleaning. The reason for this is because petroleum products may cause pulmonary infection of chemical origin in the lungs and burning chemicals may cause scalds on the tissues they touch during regurgitating.

Just like all the systems that our bodies are equipped with, vomiting also happens in accordance with a plan and program during which a wonderful co-ordination is displayed. The vomiting center in the brain is responsible for such co-ordination.

Rapid increase in salivation and nasal secretion prior to vomiting plays a key role in alleviating damages of the highly acidified vomited matter over the interior surfaces of the mouth and nose. Increased salivation helps with the protection of tooth enamel too. The pushing process of the foods eaten normally occurs from the intestines towards the bowels during the course of digestion. However, it reverses and occurs from the intestines towards the stomach during which the muscles of gastrointestinal tracts relax, open and the contents of the intestines are thus gathered in the stomach. Taking deep breaths prior to vomiting decreases the need for breathing during vomiting and blocking of the air passage by vocal cords’ converging prevents aspiration, that is, the passage of contents of stomach to the lungs. If such mechanisms did not exist, every vomiting attack might have ended catastrophically. Breathing attempts apply negative pressure on the rib cage and convulsion of stomach muscles applies positive pressure within the abdomen in spite of the converging of vocal cords. A pressure decrease is observed in order for contents of the stomach to be regurgitated. Muscles of the gastrointestinal tract tighten while muscles of the gate between alimentary canal and stomach relax just before vomiting. So, regurgitating via alimentary canal occurs without passage of stomach contents to intestines. Upon completion of vomiting, there is the disappearance of abdominal convulsions and the secretion of endorphin in the blood, so a person breathes sigh of relief.

In conclusion, although vomiting is perceived as something which is seemingly unpleasant, it is indeed a fine product of Divine artistry like all other systems and mechanisms of our body. Vomiting, as one of the proofs that God has created nothing useless and unnecessary, is certainly a great blessing bestowed upon us.

References

• “Sickening sounds – research to make your ears cringe.” University of Salford. January 28, 2007.
• Lunsden, K, and Holden WS. 1969. “The act of vomiting in man.” Gut 10: 173-179.
• Margie Profet (1995) Protecting Your Baby-to-Be: Preventing Birth Defects in the First Trimester. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. pp. viii, 312.
• Flaxman, S.M. and P.W. Sherman 2000. “Morning sickness: A mechanism for protecting mother and embryo.” Quarterly Review of Biology June 2000. 75:1-36.

The availability of embryonic stem (ES) cells isolated from human blastocysts may open novel avenues for medical treatment of otherwise incurable diseases.⁵ ES cells are pluripotent, apparently able to make any cell, except placental cells, and are also immortal.⁶ However, the generation of human ES cells requires the destruction of early human embryos. This raises the same ethical questions and conflicts that are often heard when the ethics of abortion are discussed: Most people in the pro-life movement regard an embryo to be a full human person with a soul. It has all of the rights of any citizen-including the right to life. Thus any procedure that injures or kills an embryo is seen as murder. However, most people in the pro-choice movement regard the beginning of human personhood to occur much later in pregnancy. Thus, killing a recently fertilized embryo is not seen as the murder of a human person.⁷ What is the status of the embryo when it is several days old? Is the embryo alive? Yes, from its beginning the embryo is cellular and it is alive; no one questions this. But, is the embryo human? If we could catch the embryo before it reaches a stage where it is judged as human, we would be able to take the ES cells without any concern. In an earlier paper⁸ it was argued that human life begins when the newly formed body systems begin to function as a whole, towards the end of the embryonic stage. Seeing that twinning can occur as late as day 14 after conception and that such identical twinning will produce two individuals with different lives, this could be proposed as a pre-embryonic stage, i.e. the stage where the single individual person has not yet been determined. In this respect, The Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society defines an embryo as distinct from a pre-embryo, based on medical science and legal precedents. According to that report and the Warnock Report, which lay behind the 1990 Human Fertilization and Embryology Act, the pre-embryo stage is considered to last until 14 days after fertilization,⁴ and the pre-embryo is to be respected, but not accorded absolute protection. Today, on the basis of these reports and subsequent legislation, embryo research is allowed up to 14 days of development, up until the formation of the so-called primitive streak, or the beginning of the nervous system, after which the splitting and the forming of twins is no longer possible.

The Christian tradition on this subject is interesting, but can be read in two ways. In that tradition, abortion at any stage has always been regarded as gravely sinful. However, for many centuries the termination of a pregnancy at an early stage carried lesser penalties than a later one. This was related to the view that the human soul did not enter the embryo until 40 days or so after conception, an understanding that was taken over from Aristotle.⁹ Thus, most Christians make a distinction between the moral status of the unformed and the formed embryo, and think of the human person in the full sense, coming only with a delayed ensoulment. For other Christians, however, fertilization is the point at which human life begins. 

Human Life (Personhood) May Begin at around the 9th Week of Development

While we were searching for the time of the beginning of a human individual life, we encountered a statement from God about the time of ensoulment (the infusion of a human soul in biological matter) in His last book.¹⁰ God says in His book (the Qur’an) that, We made out of the “embryo” bones, and clothed the bones in “muscles’” (23:14). This statement indicates that in the embryonic stage, first bones and then muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models at the 7th week, and then the muscles develop around them from the somatic mesoderm at the 8th week of development. Then We developed out of it another creature. This next part of the statement (23:14) implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of “another creature.” This may refer to beginning of the personhood (ensoulment) after the end of the eighth week. At this stage, the embryo has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts, and after the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. After He gave it (the embryo) the most appropriate shape, He gave it a soul and then He gave you hearing and sight. This statement (32:9) supports the statement mentioned above (23:14) in that after the embryo takes shape, the soul is infused into the fetus. This statement also indicates that the special senses of hearing and seeing develop in this order, i.e. after the ensoulment; this too which is consistent with embryological knowledge. The formation of the internal ears occurs before the beginning of the eyes, at about the 10th and 11th weeks of development, respectively. Moreover, it is very meaningful that God calls the fetus “you” after the beginning of personhood (ensoulment) (32:9), while the embryo before ensoulment is called “it” (23:14; 32:9) indicating the status of the embryo as only a “thing” or a cell cluster. 10

We suggest therefore that the beginning of a human person as an individual living organism is when the embryo develops into fetus at around the 9th week of development (after the 57th day) after the bones and muscles form, but before the development of hearing and sight. Only at this point do we have a multicellular organism and not merely a mass of living cells stuck together. The soul requires that there is an individuated matter present and prior to this period, that there did not previously exist an individual human organism. A sperm or ovum that exists independently of the other only has a potentiality for human personhood. An embryo which is merely biological material that contains human DNA also has only a potentiality for being human personhood, which implies that it is not yet an actual person.¹¹ Two things may both have only a potentiality to be something else, but one of the two may be closer to actualizing that potentiality than the other. Thus, it could be contended that the embryo is closer to being an actual human person than the sperm or ovum is.¹¹ Therefore, we can say that the informational capacity of the zygote and the early embryo is not sufficient to direct the development of anything personal, and is not sufficient to constitute a genetically stable subject as a human being.

Josef Seifert treats the human body and the soul as two incomplete substances (dualism) that are each completed in human beings as a compositum.¹² This position seems to require that the immortal soul only is infused into material committed to being a human individual, and indeed into a fetus with sufficient cortical development to allow cognitive functions. This view is consistent with our suggestion that the soul is added to the already-existing physical body when the newly formed body parts and systems begin to function as a whole. If the soul takes effect when the biological processes have produced a new human life, neither earlier nor later, then it would follow that ensoulment must occur at the end of the embryonic stage when, with the newly-formed brain acting as the central information-exchange point, the commencement of the functioning of the whole produces a new level of life and enables the processes that lead to personhood to begin. This alternative is compatible not only with the facts of modern medicine but also with the traditional understanding of ensoulment as defended by many Roman Catholic moral theologians, which has its roots in Aristotle. These moral theologians argue that the peculiarly human soul is not incarnated until there is an appropriately organized matter.¹³ However, some Christians believe that Jesus was a human being from the moment of conception and therefore that every human being must come into existence at the moment of conception.⁹ But some others believe that the conception of Jesus is an exception. It is believed that the events which occurred during the conception and development of Jesus will be explained by Jesus himself when he returns.

That the embryo cannot be considered an individual human being has implications for debates concerning the morality of the various uses to which embryos can be put; such as morning-after pills, intrauterine devices which are abortifacient by stopping implantation, the disposal of excess embryos formed in the process of invitro fertilization, and embryo research.¹⁴ Both in the religious context and without it, abortion is difficult to justify at any stage after conception.⁸ But where the question of the possible use of surplus laboratory embryos is concerned, the time of ensoulment does matter, and if this does not occur until late in the embryonic stage of development, there seems no reason why the opportunity of using the embryos may not be taken, provided-as also seems to be the ethical conclusion even before the religious aspect is considered⁸-it is for no purpose less than the relief of human suffering which can not be relieved in any other way.¹⁵ If “ensoulment” does not occur, as we have suggested, until the new organism functions as a whole, then a decision not to make use of laboratory embryos for medical purposes would be a grave responsibility.

The Soul May Have an Etheric Body

Science postulates that all matter is composed of atoms; atoms, however, are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and those in turn are composed of still finer components, until we attain ether.¹⁶ This ether is a universal connecting medium, filling all space to the furthest limits, penetrating the interstices of the atoms without a break in its continuity. So completely does it fill space that it is sometimes identified with space itself, and the universe is built up in this fluid and moves through a sea of ether.¹⁶ The atom, the electrons, and the protons of which it is composed all move in a sea of ether, the very air we breathe, the very bodies we inhabit, all things likewise are moving in this sea of ether, the parent element from which all manifestation has been derived. By a kind of instinct, one feels it to be the home of spiritual existence, and to be the vehicle of both matter and spirit.¹⁶ No experimental data can be sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a soul, but there must be a substance that is the basis of personal identity, for without space-occupying substance, there would be no way to account for the soul’s ability to move the body,¹⁷ and the idea of personality or a soul after bodily death would be inconceivable.¹⁸ It seems possible that the substance of the soul could be ether. The modern concept of science is that ether is the primary form of all substance and that all other forms of matter are merely differentiations of ether; it then seems that the substance of the soul which in this life is linked organically with the body is identical with ether. The etheric (astral) body seems to be a supersensible element in humanity that primarily lives and acts in time, but also works into the dynamics of the life processes in the physical body.¹⁶ The soul is likely to work into the physical body of the human directly via only that etheric body.16

The Limbic System Seems to Be Primarily Related to the Soul in the Brain

Humans have always contemplated the question of the anatomical location of the soul. The early concept that the cerebral ventricles harbor the soul began to break down only in the Renaissance.19 During the Renaissance, the controversy crystallized into those individuals who supported the heart (cardiocentric soul) and others who supported the brain (cephalocentric soul) as the abode for this elusive entity.²⁰ The brain seems to be the organ that harbors the soul, since the function of the brain is fundamentally linked to being human. The brain controls almost all the functions of the body and determines its psychological makeup, such as intellect and, in a theological sense, the soul.²¹ Without the brain, such functioning is not possible, since brain death means the end of human life. Children born with anencephaly can never experience a human life. Human identity, personality, and worth are associated with the functioning of the brain.²¹ Considering the role of the brain in the maintenance of the dynamic equilibrium of the organism, there are compelling reasons for defining the brain as the organ which harbors the soul.

The limbic system is intimately concerned with emotional expression and with the genesis of emotions. The term “limbic system” is applied to the part of the brain that consists of a rim of cortical tissue around the hilus of the cerebral hemisphere and a group of associated deep structures-the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the septal nuclei.²² One characteristic of the limbic system is the paucity of the connections between it and the neocortex (the cortical tissue of the remaining nonlimbic portions of the hemisphere). It is stated that “the neocortex sits astride the limbic system like a rider on a horse without reins.”²² In fact, one of the characteristics of emotions is that they cannot be turned on and off at will. Since the limbic system is intimately concerned with the genesis of emotions and is critically involved in neuropsychiatric disorders,²³ we can attribute the role to the limbic system of being a seat from which the soul can work in the physical body.

The Vomeronasal Organ Seems to Be the Point of Entry for the Soul and the Etheric Body

We thought that while the soul has an etheric component (substance), there must be an open window to the brain for the entrance of the soul with the etheric body. In this respect, the vomeronasal organ (VNO), which is found in the nasal cavity and which has connections with the brain only between the 6th and 13th weeks of human development-a period including the suggested time of ensoulment at the 9th week-seems to be the most appropriate window through which the soul and the etheric body can enter the brain. This suggestion is consistent with statements in the Old Testament (Torah) (Genesis-Bereishith 2:7, 7:22), which state that the life (soul) is infused into the human being through the nose. Actually, the VNO is said to be the place in the body where the nervous system is closest to the external world.²² Axons of VNO cells pass through the tiny foramina in the cribriform plates of the ethmoid bone to enter the brain,²⁴ and to make close connections with the amygdala and limbic system,²⁵,²⁷ the seat of emotional, hormonal, and autonomic control; in short, the seat of the soul.

The vomeronasal organ is a fluid-filled, tubular structure located at the base of the nasal septum that opens into the nasal cavity via a duct at its anterior end.²⁸ It is a chemoreceptive structure with direct axonal connections to the accessory olfactory bulbs in many terrestrial vertebrates.²⁹ Pheromones presumably bind to the vomeronasal organ and exert behavioral or physiologic responses, thereby allowing chemical communication between animals of the same species.²⁹,³⁰ The effects of pheromones are thought to be mediated by signals from the main and accessory olfactory bulbs to the amygdala and hypothalamus.²⁸ The vomeronasal system, which is well developed and functional in adult animals, begins to function before or after birth in these animals.³¹ The human VNO however, seems to be different from that of animals in that it becomes rudimental before birth.³² The VNO in the human embryo contains bipolar cells similar to the developing vomeronasal sensory neurons of other species, but the structure becomes more simplified later in development,³³,³⁹ having no obvious way of communication with the brain. The first appearance of the tubular VNO is in the 6th week of human development.⁴⁰,⁴¹ This is when the human VNO resembles that of primates with functional VNOs.⁴² An examination of the VNO and adjacent tissues suggested that the VNO may lose receptor cells and corresponding vomeronasal nerves and become a ciliated, pseudostratified epithelium at approximately the 13th week.⁴²,⁴³ These observations indicate that¹) all embryonic humans develop a functional vomeronasal organ which is homologous with the VNOs of other mammals between the 6th and 13th weeks of age (a period including the time of ensoulment which occurs at around the 9th week of development),²) the human vomeronasal organ does not degenerate prenatally, but very likely loses the functional components of the vomeronasal complex of other mammals; and³) the remnant of the human VNO persists until birth and beyond.³⁶,⁴²,⁴⁴ These observations strongly support our hypothesis in that the VNO seems to have its main function only during the intrauterine period in humans, especially during the period of ensoulment. The VNO becomes rudimental before birth in humans while it begins to function before or after birth in animals. This difference seems to be very significant, since animals do not harbor any soul, unlike humans, and their VNO is important only after birth, when it allows them to communicate chemically with other animals of the same species. Although no anatomical connection has been demonstrated in humans, Monti-Bloch et al. deduce a physiological connection with the brain, because stimulus delivery to the VNO pit elicited several systemic responses⁴⁵,⁴⁷ such as changes in blood pressure and heart rate, small but significant changes in hormonal levels⁴⁷ and some changes in mood.⁴⁸ Functional brain imaging studies also revealed consistent activation of the hypothalamus, amygdala, and cingulate gyrus-related structures during adult human VNO stimulation.⁴⁵ These findings also support our view in that the VNO is strongly related with the emotional centers that harbor the soul, even in the absence of anatomical connections.

Conclusion

The above considerations make it seem likely that human life (personhood) may begin at around the 9th week of development with a delayed ensoulment, and that the soul has an etheric component. The limbic system seems to be a primary center for the soul, while the soul may enter the brain with an etheric body, possibly through the window of vomeronasal organ, which is functional and has connections with the brain only during the suggested time of ensoulment. Therefore lawmakers, philosophers, scientists and any-one in a related field may consider the beginning of human life in their decisions and procedures as being from the 9th week (after the 57th day) of human development. Before this period, the embryo must be regarded as a cell cluster which is to be respected, but not accorded absolute protection. Our second conclusion is that embryonic stem cells have an enormous promise to benefit mankind-to save lives and cure or treat diseases which generate a very strong moral imperative to explore their potential. Almost all spare embryos in fertility clinics will eventually die, due to operator error or equipment malfunction. Spare embryos are routinely destroyed, by flushing them down a drain, by incinerating them, or by thawing them out and allowing them to die. They might as well have their stem cells extracted so that they can be of some use to humanity. If the above thesis is true, then there is no loss of human persons. What is destroyed in this process is human biological material that has not been infused with a soul. We can therefore explore the potential use of embryos and help people who are now burdened by debilitating diseases. So let us enter into the processes of nature and apply the knowledge so derived to help others, to alleviate pain, and to enhance human well-being.

Footnotes 

1. Aksoy, S., “Personhood: A matter of moral decisions.” Eubios J Asian Int Bioethics, 1997, 7:3-4.
2. Kurjak, A., “The beginning of human life and its modern scientific assessment.” Clin Perinatol, 2003, 30:27-44.
3. Mason, J.K., McCall Smith, R.A., Law and Medical Ethics, London: Butterworths; 1984.
4. Glannon, W., “Tracing the soul: medical decisions at the margins of life.” Christ Bioeth, 2000, 6:49-69.
5. Waite, L., Nindl, G., “Human embryonic stem cell research: an ethical controversy in the US & Germany.” Biomed Sci Instrum, 2003, 9:567-572.
6. Smith, A., Embryonic Stem Cells in Stem Cell Biology, Marshak DR. et al. (Eds.) New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2001: 2-19.
7. Heinemann, T., Honnefelder, L., “Principles of ethical decision making regarding embryonic stem cell research in Germany.” Bioethics, 2002, 16:530-543.
8. Shea, M.C., “Embryonic life and human life.” J Med Ethics, 1985,11:205-209.
9. Folscheid, D., “The status of the embryo from a Christian point of view.” Ethics Med, 1994, 10:57-59.
10. Moore, K.L., “A scientist’s interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur’an.” JIMA, 1986, 18:15-16.
11. Eberl, J.T., “The beginning of personhood: a Thomistic biological analysis.” Bioethics, 2000,14:134-157.
12. Seifert, J., Leib und Seele, Salzburg: Universitatsverlag Anton Pustet; 1973.
13. Bedate, C.A., Cefalo, R., C., “The zygote: To be or not to be a person.” J Med Philos, 1989, 14:641-645.
14. Bole, T.J. 3rd , “Metaphysical accounts of the zygote as a person and the veto power of facts.” J Med Philos, 1989, 14:647-653.
15. Shea, M.,C., “Ensoulment and IVF embryos.” J Med Ethics, 1987, 13:95-97.
16. Gonzalez de Posada, F., “Reflections on the ether.” An R Acad Nac Med (Madr) 2001, 118:43-72.
17. Murphy, N., “Whatever happened to the soul? Theological perspectives on neuroscience and the self.” Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2003, 1001:51-64.
18. MacDougall, D., “Hypothesis concerning soul substance, together with experimental evidence of the existence of such substance.” American Medicine April, 1907.
19. Schiller, F., “The cerebral ventricles. From soul to sink.” Arch Neurol, 1997, 54:1158-1162.
20. Del Maestro, R., F., “Leonardo da Vinci: the search for the soul.” J Neurosurg, 1998, 89:874-887.
21. Werning, C., “Is abortion murder?” Med Monatsschr Pharm, 1995, 8:251.
22. Ganong, W.,F., Review of Medical Physiology, Lebanon: Typopress; 1989.
23. Heimer, L., “A new anatomical framework for neuropsyciatric disorders and drug abuse.” Am J Psychiatry, 2003, 160:1726-1739.
24. Moore, K., L., Clinically Oriented Anatomy, 2nd Ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1985.
25. Gottfried, J., A., Deichmann, R., Winston, J.S., Dolan, R.J., “Functional heterogeneity in human olfactory cortex: an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study.” J Neurosci, 2002, 22:10819-10828.
26. Halpern, M., “The organization and function of the vomeronasal system.” Annu Rev Neurosci 1987, 10:325-362.
27. Meredith, M., “Sensory processing in the main and accessory olfactory system: Comparisons and contrasts.” J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 1991, 39:601-614.
28. Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H., Jessel, T.M., (Eds) Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
29. Zbar, R.I., Zbar, L.I., Dudley, C., Trott, S.A., Rohrich, R.J., Moss, R.L., “A classification schema for the vomeronasal organ in humans.” Plast Reconstr Surg, 2000, 105:1284-1288.
30. Meredith, M., “Human vomeronasal organ function: A critical review of best and worst cases.” Chem Senses, 2001, 26:433-445.
31. Salazar, I., Lombardero, M., Aleman, N., Sanchez Quinteiro, P., “Development of the vomeronasal receptor epithelium and the accessory olfactory bulb in sheep.” Microsc Res Tech, 2003, 61:438-447.
32. Knecht, M., Witt, M., Abolmaali, N., Huttenbrink, K.B., Hummel, T., “The human vomeronasal organ.” Nervenarzt, 2003, 74:858-862.
33. Boehm, N., Gasser, B., “Sensory receptor-like cells in the human fetal vomeronasal organ.” Neuroreport, 1993, 4:867–870.
34. Takami, S., “Recent progress in the neurobiology of the vomeronasal organ.” Microsc Res Tech, 2002,58:228-250.
35. Trotier, D., Eloit, C., Wassef, M., Talmain, G., Bensimon, J.,L., Doving, K.B., Ferrand, J., “The vomeronasal cavity in adult humans.” Chem Senses, 2000, 25:369-380.
36. Moran, D.T., Jafek, B.W., Rowley, J.C., “The vomeronasal (Jacobson’s) organ in man: ultrastructure and frequency of occurrence.” J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 1991, 39:545-552.
37. Stensaas, L.J., Lavker, R.M., Monti-Bloch, L., Grosser, B.I., Berliner, D.L., “Ultrastructure of the human vomeronasal organ.” J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 1991, 39:553-560.
38. Meisami, E., Bhatnagar, K.P., “Structure and diversity in mammalian accessory olfactory bulb.” Microsc Res Tech, 1998, 43:476-499.
39. Chuah, M.I., Zeng, D.R., “Olfactory marker protein is present in olfactory receptor cells of human fetuses.” Neuroscience, 1987, 23:363-370.
40. Bhatnagar, K.P., Smith, T.D., “The human vomeronasal organ. III. Postnatal development from infancy to the ninth decade.” J Anat, 2001, 199:289-302.
41. Sherwood, R.J., McLachlan, J.C., Aiton, J.F., Scarborough, J., “The vomeronasal organ in the human embryo, studied by means of three-dimensional computer reconstruction.” J Anat, 1999, 195:413-418.
42. Smith, T.D., Bhatnagar, K.P., “The human vomeronasal organ. Part II: prenatal development.” J Anat, 2000, 197:421-436.
43. Witt, M., Georgiewa, B., Knecht, M., Hummel, T., “On the chemosensory nature of the vomeronasal epithelium in adult humans.” Histochem Cell Biol, 2002, 117:493-509.
44. Johnson, E.W., Eller, P.M., Jafek, B.W., “Calbindin-like immunoreactivity in epithelial cells of the newborn and adult human vomeronasal organ.” Brain Res, 1994, 638:329-333.
45. Monti-Bloch, L., Jennings-White, C., Berliner, D.L., “The human vomeronasal system.” A review. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1998, 855:373-389.
46. Monti-Bloch, L., Grosser, B.I., “Effect of putative pheromones on the electrical activity of the human vomeronasal organ and olfactory epithelium.” J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 1991, 39:573-582.
47. Monti-Bloch, L., Diaz-Sanchez, V., Jennings-White, C., Berliner, D.L., “Modulation of serum testosterone and autonomic function through stimulation of the male human vomeronasal organ (VNO) with pregna-4,20-diene-3,6-dione.” J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 1998, 65:237-242.
48. Grosser, B., I, Monti-Bloch, L., Jennings-White, C., Berliner, D.L., “Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of androstadienone, a human pheromone. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2000, 25:289-299.

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.

Therefore, the products existing in nature should be far more sophisticated than ours. Investigating any species of plant or animal whether it be a microscopic or a giant creature, we reach the following conclusions: They have been specially designed to adopt their environment. They own the precise and perfect skills, organs and defence mechanisms, needed for their survival. They are so perfect that none of our engineering skills are enough to produce anything even approaching the quality of these organisms. We need also to mention that products in nature are alive, a concept which has not yet been precisely understood or described despite all our advances in technology and science. Examples supporting the above argument are innumerable, covering all branches of science. I will present only a few for illustration purposes. Fish flow in a medium of liquid. They are exposed to two components of pressure while swimming, the static pressure and the dynamic pressure. The static pressure is directly related to the weight of the water above them and does not vary while swimming at constant depths. However, this is not the case with dynamic pressure. It increases or decreases depending on the velocity of the liquid flow around the body. Researchers have found that the eyes of fish are precisely located on the body so that the dynamic pressure is always zero. This means that vision is not distorted while the fish are swimming at varying speeds. The heart of the fish is located at a point where the dynamic pressure is most negative. This enables the functioning of the heart to be much easier at high swimming speeds. The mouth is placed at the very front of the body where the total pressure is highest. This high pressure makes it easier to take water for oxygen during fast swimming. Consider another example, the octopus, which is one of the more primary creatures in the so-called evolution process.

For thousands of centuries, the octopus has been using the conservation of momentum principle. The octopus takes in water and propels it through a narrow pipe in a direction opposite to its line of movement. This jet propulsion principle has been effectively used in man-made motors only in this century. It should be evident then that these sophisticated designs and techniques cannot be generated by those animals themselves, still less randomly produced by the trial and error of blind (unguided) natural forces. The physical laws and the perfectly adapted designs must originate from the same source, the Supreme ‘Engineer’. This explanation is the most rational and logical. Other explanations, which attempt to attribute design and engineering skills to plants and animals or to blind and deaf nature, make no sense at all. Another example is the development of the embryo. From the manufacturing point of view, this development can only be explained by the term miracle. In engineering practice, the size of each part in a product is predetermined and manufactured separately. Those parts are then assembled together to form the final product. Let us call this type of manufacturing static manufacturing, since the sizes of the parts remain the same during assembling. In the case of an embryo, the sizes of organs are changing with time while a continuous assembling takes place under those conditions. New organs are created inside, without any interference from outside, developing in size over time, yet holding the assembly in a perfect condition at each interval of time. This process is an example of dynamic manufacturing which is, to put it bluntly, quite impossible for us to achieve. In usual manufacturing, the size of a part is smaller than the raw bulk of material from which it is produced, and some of the material is wasted. In some cases, moulds are used to achieve the desired shapes. In the creation of an embryo, however, there are no moulds at all, no spare parts thrown away, no wastage.

These manufacturing techniques are by far beyond the limits of humanity. Note that we have not yet mentioned the events that take place at the micro level inside the cells. Even a general glance at the global events shows us how extraordinary the development of an embryo is. A final example will be given from the mechanics of materials. For birds to be able to fly, they must balance minimum weight with maximum strength. Their bones can be considered as hollow pipes. Calculations reveal that the ratio of the inner radius of the bones to the outer radius is selected in the optimum way precisely so that, with minimum weight, maximum strength is achieved. We have not mentioned the macro creation process (cosmos, galaxies, solar systems etc.) since these topics are more related to pure sciences such as physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology etc. An understanding of creation, even then not comprehensive, requires knowledge of these pure sciences together with knowledge of engineering and design. The Creator of the earth and cosmos describes Himself as ‘the Best of Creators’ (Mu’minun, 23.14). The reader may consider what we have said here as a tiny effort towards understanding this verse. 

To begin with, we can agree, as pointed out by Mason and McCall Smith (1984, p.107), that what constitutes the state of being a person, or personhood, is a matter of moral decisions, not of scientific facts. The relevant arguments are therefore primarily based on some moral, philosophical and theological hypotheses. However, even these arguments are informed by the scientific knowledge we have recently obtained about the condition and development of the human embryo. Insofar as the question is a moral one, arguments fall broadly into two groups, those that follow a secular approach, and those that follow a theological approach.

According to the secular approach, the basic condition for being a person is being capable of valuing one’s own existence. And the moral difference between a person and non-person lies in the value that persons can give to their own lives. Through language a person can comment on and declare awareness of awareness or fully developed self-consciousness (ibid. pp.l9, 21). Command of human language is thus offered as the decisive criterion. On this argument, pre-embryos, embryos, fetuses and very young infants are living beings, even living human beings, but they are not human persons. So, morally, we owe them nothing.

In his widely read article ‘A defence for abortion and infanticide’, Tooley (1973) observed that it is important to be very clear about what makes an entity a person, what gives that entity a right to life. He went on to define five necessary properties: 1) the capacity to envisage a future state for oneself, and to have desires about it; 2) the capacity to have a concept of a self; 3) being a self; 4); the capacity for self-consciousness; and 5) self-consciousness. As unborn babies, very young infants and PVS patients do not fulfil these requirements; they would not qualify as human persons. Singer (1993, p.87), in a forceful line on personhood, made a point of comparing human ‘animals’ with non-human animals, arguing that there could be a person who is not a member of our species and, conversely, there could also be members of our species who are not persons.

Those writers who, by contrast, accept the spiritual side of being a human person, have used different arguments to define personhood but, generally, link it with the human embryological state. Keith L. Moore, one of the foremost embryologists of our time, answered the question ‘When does the embryo become human?’ as follows: ‘The scientific answer is that the embryo always had human potential, and no other, from the time of fertilization, because of its human chromosome constitution. Two things are definite: (1) human development begins at fertilization, and (2) the zygote and early embryo are living organisms. My personal view is that the embryo becomes human being during the eighth week when it acquires distinctive human characteristics’ (Moore, 1989, p.72). 

Most of the writers who think that human personhood begins at some stage of embryological development base their view on various theological arguments. Before explaining these arguments it will be useful to give some historical background.

Aristotle (d. 322 BC), considered the first thinker to speak explicitly of human life as beginning in the womb, wrote: ‘the soul is the cause and the first principle of the living body’ (1957 edn. p.4l5b). He suggested that, when first formed, the embryo would have a nutritive or vegetative soul, replaced in due time, as a result of the causal influence of the particular semen’s pneuma, by the sensitive soul. Finally, in the case of a human, the rational soul would emerge to complete the generation of a human offspring. Aristotle associated quickening and differentiation into distinct stages of 40 days for the male and 90 days for the female, and so has been traditionally interpreted as placing the beginning of the individual boy and girl at those times respectively.

Aristotle’s ideas on this subject influenced many philosophers and scientists from prior to Christian times right through to the Middle Ages, notably Thomas Aquinas (d.1274), and for several centuries afterwards. His ideas also shaped the views of philosophers and scientists from the Islamic world and the East. For example, according to Musallam (1990), the method of lbn Sina (Avicenna, d. 1037) consisted of bringing Aristotle’s facts up to date, then re-stating the original Aristotelian arguments on the basis of the new facts.

Aristotle’s concept of the soul as the cause and first principle of the living body is confirmed by all monotheistic religions with little divergence. Despite significant differences on other points, these religions share the concept of life as sacred because given by God, and therefore forbid the termination of an innocent human life after it has been given its soul. However, they differ in their understanding of when this happens and what it means. Christian theology is definite that ‘immediate animation’ or ‘ensoulment’ is the instant at which our humanity is determined, but is uncertain when that instant occurs. Mahoney sums up the Christian theological position on the beginning of a human life as follows: In point of fact, current Roman Catholic teaching on the time of human ensoulment is one of uncertainty. Official Roman Catholic teaching is that we cannot be absolutely certain when animation takes place, or when the conceptus or the fetus is a human person; but it may well be precisely at the moment of conception’ (Mahoney 1984, pp. 6 7-9).

Evidently, in the monotheistic religions, certain topics can only he discussed knowledgeably after clear Divine guidance or Revelation. Without such guidance, human beings simply cannot know when ensoulment takes place. Because this information is not disclosed in the Christian scriptures, there is uncertainty on the subject among Christian authorities.

In the case of Islam, the situation is quite different. The creation of the human individual, fetal development and ensoulment are referred to in several dozen verses of the Qur’an in various contexts (32:8-9, 23:13-14, 71:14, 16:4, 75:37-9, 86:6, 77:20-1, 76:2, 22:5, 96:1-2, 40:67, 39:6, 53:45-6, 35 11, 3:6). Also, in the second source of knowledge after the Qur’an, namely the Hadith, there are a number of sayings of the Prophet, upon him be peace, which specifically address the subject of the embryological stages of a human being and the time of ensoulment.

From these texts, the great majority of Muslim scholars have understood that ensoulment takes place 120 days after conception (al-Nawawi, 1965 edn, p.189). However, when the relevant verses and ahadith are considered more carefully, the time for ensoulment should be put at between 40 and 45 days after implantation (the detailed textual discussion to support this view cannot be given here; see Aksoy, 199-) This means that. 49 or 55 days after conception, a human individual, with all the attendant rights, can be considered to exist, due to ensoulment having taken place.

Aristotle’s argument that ‘the soul is the cause and the first principle of the living body’ should not be dismissed as a religious myth. Something important is lacking in all our reflections on the subject if we take into account only the material existence of living beings. Although life is a continuous process, the physical existence of living beings is finite. If a human is taken as an example, every single cell in a human body has a limited (and programmed) lifespan. Some cells live a couple of hours, others a couple of days, weeks or months. After that they die and are shed. It is now known as incontrovertible fact that, with the exception of certain brain cells, all the cells in a human body are replaced with new cells every two years. Thus, in two years time, as regards my physical and material existence, I will be a completely different being from the one I am today. So, if I murder someone today and am caught after two years, I might say: ‘It was not me who did the crime. It was not exactly ‘this brain’ that planned it, not ‘these feet’ that walked to the scene, not ‘this finger’ which pulled the trigger’. This defence is logical and must be acceptable if I am only a material being. Of course, our current legal systems are not based upon the (false) assumption that a person is a merely physical being and therefore I would be unable deny responsibility on these grounds.

There should be something beyond merely physical existence that makes me me. Parfit (1984, Part 3) has discussed the nature of a person and sought answers to such questions as: What makes a person at two different times one and the same’? and What is necessarily involved in the continued existence of a person over time? He defines two kinds of sameness or identity: qualitative identicalness (or exact alikeness), and numerical identicalness (or one-and-the-sameness). He writes: ‘Two white billiard balls are not numerically but may be qualitatively identical. If I paint one of these balls red, it will cease to be qualitatively identical with itself as it was. But the red ball that I later see and the white ball that I painted red are numerically identical. They are one and the same ball’ (ibid., p.20l). According to Parfit, a person is a separately existing entity, distinct from his brain and body, and his experiences. What makes an individual at two different times one and the same person is psychological connectedness and/or continuity, with the right kind of cause. The psychological connectedness is the holding of particular direct psychological connections. And the psychological continuity is the holding of overlapping chains of strong connectedness. Parfit addresses these and similar matters extensively and intelligently in his Reasons and Persons (ibid.).

All the Divine religions and some philosophers name that which provides the necessary continuity to make a person as soul. According to the authority of religion, a living human being consists of body and soul. Soul cannot manifest its existence without a body, and a body cannot be animate and survive without a soul. They are like glove and hand: just as the glove is an inanimate piece of cloth until the hand enters it, so the body becomes a human person only when the soul enters it. Likewise, just as when the hand is removed, the glove reverts to a piece of cloth, so too the human body ceases to be identifiable as a human person when the soul departs. Aristotle expresses the soul in this famous, graphic image: ‘For if the eye was an animal, then sight would be its soul…. so that when sight leaves it is no longer an eye except homonymously, much as we might say of a dead body that it is our friend; in one sense it is but in a very different sense it is not’ (Aristotle, 1957 edn, p.412b).

In sum: when the body meets with the soul it comes to be a human person, with all the attendant rights, especially the right to life.

References

• AKSOY, S. (199-) ‘When does a human individual begin to be?: A philosophical, embryological and theological perspective’. (Unpublished paper)
• AL -NAWAWI. (1965 edn) Sahih-i Muslim Bi-Sharh-i Nawawi, Kitab al Qadar, vol.16, Matbaa-i Misri. Egypt.
• ARISTOTLE (1957 edn), On the Soul (De Anima), trans. W.S. Hett. W. Heinemann, London and Cambridge, Mass.
• MAHONEY, J. (1984) Bio-ethics and Belief Sheed & Ward, London.
• MASON, J.K.& McCAll. Smith, R.A. (1984) Law and Medical Ethics, Butterworths, London.
• MOORE, K,L..(1989)Before We Are Born, W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
• MUSALLAM, B. (1990) ‘The human embryo in Arabic scientific and religious thought’ in G.R. Dunstan, (ed.) 7 ‘The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European Traditions, University of Exeter Press, Exeter. pp.32-46.
• PARFIT. D. (1984) Reasons and Persons, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• RISPLER-CHAIM, V. (1993) Islamic Medical Ethics in the Twentieth Century, E.J. Brill, Leiden.
• SINGER, P. (1993) Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• TOOLEY, M. (1973) ‘A defence of abortion and infanticide’ in J. Feinberg (ed.) The Problem of Abortion’, Wadsworth Publication Company, California, pp. 51-91.

The Qur’anic descriptions and those in the Hadith are remarkable for their accuracy in relation to what is known about the subject now. But, what was known then? Until 1688, among Muslim as well as European scientists, the Aristotelian account dominated, no one daring to question it. The two theories in Aristotle’s time were: (a) the embryo is preformed as a miniature in either the male semen or the female secretion and then grows in the womb; and (b) the embryo is actually formed and created out of the menstrual blood. Aristotle favoured the second view, adding that male semen caused the menstrual blood to coagulate, like milk curdling into cheese. The Qur’anic description tells us, by contrast, that (a) the embryo is not pre-formed but grows in successive stages (71.13-14, 23.12-14,22.5); and (b) is formed equally of male and female fluids (76.2). The relevant ahadith re-state what is in the Qur’an. Interestingly, while exegetes of Qur’an and Hadith did not fall into error in their account, many Muslim scientists and doctors, under the spell of Aristotle, repeated Aristotle’s (incorrect) view. Thus, about 700 years after the Revelation, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani commented: ‘Many of the anatomists claim that the semen of the male has no role in creation of the baby. Its role, they claim, is limited to curdling the menstrual blood… The saying of the Prophet denies what they say. The semen of the male actually participates equally to that of the female in formation of the embryo.’

The pre-formation theory lasted in Europe into the 18th century when it was believed that a full miniature existed either in the female ovum or in the male sperm, then simply got bigger in the womb. This theory was destroyed gradually and was no longer held in any form after 1900. Von Baer (1829-37), called the ‘father of embryology’, identified the human ovum. Subdivision of the egg, i.e. growth of the embryo in successive stages, was properly demonstrated and understood in 1839 by Schwann and Schleiden. And in 1875, Hertwig described the fertilization of an egg by a sperm. Then in 1883, Von Benden showed that male and female cells contribute the same number of chromosomes to the embryo.

However, not until this century, have a number of discoveries established how and when the sex of the embryo is determined; how and when the hones and musculature, the organs of sight and hearing, the nervous system, and so on, develop. It is rather more than remarkable, therefore, that in Qur’an and Hadith we should find unmistakably accurate and detailed references to these matters.

The earliest of the successive stages of embryo development is the nutfah, in turn distinguished as male and female nutfah (in modern terminology, gamete), the two being commingled to form the nutfat amshaj (zygote). The Qur’an clearly and explicitly states (75.3(t), 53.45-6, 59. 58-9) that the sex of the embryo is carried in the fluid ejaculated by the male (X or Y chromosome in the fertilizing sperm). Also, in the Qur’an s emphasis that growth is from a lucre drop of fluid, we find a clear pointer to the fact that the spermatozoa make up a mere 0.5% of the ejaculated fluid, in which tiny quantity are carried an average 2 to 300 million individual sperms.

The nutfat amshaj (zygote) develops into ‘alaqah (that which clings) which attaches itself to the uterine wall. The stunning precision of the term ‘alaqah for the detail of how the zygote attaches, implants and is nourished in the womb, is striking in Dr Albar’s account. (For even more on the detail, see Sikander Hussain ‘Al’Alaq: the mystery explored’, Ark Journal, London, 1986, pp. 31-6.) The ‘alaqah is transformed into mudghah (chewed lump), the somite(s) from which hones and muscles are subsequently differentiated. The mudghah stage includes also the pharyngeal arches (out of which face, ear and neck are formed) – the marked indentations give the embryo the look of a ‘chewed lump’. The Qur`an’s allusion (22.5) to mukhlaqa and ghairu mukhlaqa, formed and non- formed development of the mudghah, is now readily understood as the critical period of organogenesis, when the embryo is most susceptible to factors which can cause congenital malformations. The Qur’an says (2.259): kayfa nanshuzu-ha thumma naksu-ha tahma, ‘how We erect them (the bones) then enclothe them in flesh’. Nanshuzu-ha, here inadequately rendered ‘We erect them’ is as informative as any modern textbook description, for example ‘With time a number of needle-like spicules are formed which progressively radiate from the primary ossification centres towards the periphery.’

The pre-formational aspects of embryo development are now understood as hereditary characteristics contributed by parental genes. In the Qur’an (81). 17-19), the nutfah (male and female gametes) is said to carry these predetermined characteristics. There are several ahadith confirming this reading. One, in the Sahih of Muslim, explicitly mentions 4O -42 days after fertilization as the moment when the angel enters the womb and ‘gives the nutfah its shape and form, creates its hearing and visual apparatus, builds up the hones, the muscles and forms the skin. He then asks, 0 God, is it a boy or a girl, what is its livelihood and what will be its lifespan? God gives His answer and the angel writes all that will come. ‘The textbooks tell us that ‘In the sixth week of development the Primordial germ cells invade the genital ridges; if they fail to reach the ridges, the gonads do not develop..’ The site of formation of the gonads is indicated in Qur’an 86.5-9 as ‘between the backbone and the ribs’. This is exactly right. Once formed the gonads differentiate into either male and female and make their progress in the body accordingly. Blood and nerve supply and lymph drainage remain connected, even in the adult, to the area ‘between the backbone and the ribs’.

In this review only a few of the great many correspondences between the Quranic text or ahadith and current knowledge about human embryo development have been mentioned. What is the point of noting these? Almost all of these Qur’anic verses have as their general context a reminder of the resurrection. The re-creation of individual human life after death. We are confronted with the fact of life as a stunning miracle of the Mercy and Omnipotence of the Creator. Knowledge of the successive stages of growth from the near-nothing of a spot of bodily fluid cannot but create a sense of awe at the responsibility one carries for the miracle of one’s life. And one carries it hack to Him whose care initiated, ordained, proportioned and sustained our life – the contrasted human contribution being that drop of ‘lowly fluid’. Then, what – except perversity – could allow us to doubt that the Creator has concern for how we use our lives, or doubt that He can and will bring us again to life so that we may ourselves understand fully the worth of our intentions and actions? Also, these verses, urging a meditation upon the fact of life rather than upon the fact of death, educate a positive temperament, a positive attitude. Religious responsibility can be awakened by reflecting upon the wonder of birth, as much as by reflecting upon the mystery of death.

No textbook about human embryo development can inspire reflections of this kind. Of course, it is also of the utmost importance to know that the information in the Qur’an, given in words which are extraordinarily precise and yet remain generally intelligible, is accurate. Most non-Muslims do not believe that the Qur’an is the Book of God verbatim, as Muslims believe. In trying to make sense of the phenomenon – so copiously illustrated by Dr Albar from the field of human embryology – of how so much accurate knowledge is there in the Book, they may be led to question the assurance with which they hold to their non-belief.

There are two ways to explain how a seed germinates under earth, then grows into an elaborate tree, or how an embryo grows into a human being: either each of the innumerable particles operative in the process of growth individually knows its place, functions and environment, and its relations with all the other particles, cells and larger wholes within the organism, or one who has that vast knowledge employs them in the growth process, as indeed in the formation of all living or non-living entities.

The following simple scientific experiment, reported in Discover, 20 August 1993, will help in understanding this significant argument:

Overbeck and his co-workers at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston were trying to practise some gene therapy techniques by seeing if they could convert albino mice into coloured ones. The researcher injected a gene essential to the production of the pigment melanin into the single-cell embryo of an albino mouse. Later they bred that mouse’s offspring, half of which carried the gene on one chromosome of a chromosome pair. Classic Mendelian genetics told them that roughly a quarter of the grandchildren should carry the gene on both chromosomes – should be ‘homozygous’, in the language of genetics – and should therefore be coloured.

But the mice never got a chance to acquire colour. ‘The first thing we noticed,’ says Overbeck, ‘was that we were losing about 25% of the grandchildren within a week after they were born.’ The explanation:

The melanin-related gene that his group injected into the albino mouse embryo had inserted itself into a completely unrelated gene. An unfamiliar stretched of DNA in the middle of a gene wrecks that gene’s ability to get its message read. So in the mice, it seems whatever protein the gene coded for went unproduced, whatever function the protein had went undone, and the stomach, heart, liver, and spleen all wound up in the wrong place. Somehow, too, the kidneys and pancreas were damaged, and that damage is apparently what killed the mice.

Overbeck and his colleagues have already located the gene on a particular mouse chromosome and are now trying to pin down its structure. That will tell them something about the structure of the protein the gene encodes, how the protein works, and when and where it is produced as the gene gets ‘expressed’, or turned on, its the gene expressed everywhere. or just on the left side of the embryo or just on the right side?’ Overbeck wonders, ‘And when does it get expressed?’

These questions will take Overbeck far from the gene-transfer experiment. ‘We think there are at (east 100,000 genes,’ he points out, ‘so the chances of this happening were literally one in 100,000.’

It will take many thousands of tests therefore, and cost the lives of many thousands of mice, for this type of experiment to be carried out with success. However, there is no trial and error in nature, and any seed tinder earth, unless some impediment like lack of enough moisture intervenes, germinates and ultimately becomes a tree. Likewise, an embryo in the mothers womb grows into a living, conscious being equipped with intellectual and spiritual faculties.

The human body is a miracle of symmetry, as well as of asymmetry. Scientists know how an embryo develops in the womb to form this symmetry and asymmetry. but they are completely ignorant of how the particles – the particles that reach the embryo through the mother and function as building blocks in the formation of the body – can distinguish between right and left, how they are able to determine the place of each organ, how each goes and inserts itself in the exact place of a certain organ, and how they understand the extremely complicated relations among cells and organs, and their requirements. This is so complicated a process that if a single particle which should be placed in, for example, the pupil of the right eye, were to go to the ear, it could lead to malfunction or even death. Another point concerning this is that all animate beings are made from the same elements coming from earth, air and water, and similar to one another with respect to the members and organs of their bodies, yet they are almost completely different from one another with respect to bodily features, visage, character, desires and ambitions, This uniqueness of the individual is so reliable that one can be identified absolutely by one’s finger prints.

How do we explain this? There are the two alternatives we mentioned at the beginning: either each particle possesses almost infinite knowledge, will and power or One who has such knowledge, power and will creates and administers each particle. However far back we go in an attempt to ascribe this to cause and effect and heredity, these two alternatives remain valid.

This argument, frequently emphasized in the writings of Said Nursi lost its appeal when I objected: ‘Everything takes place according to a certain program and the principle of cause and effect. Why, then, need a particle possess the knowledge of its place and functions, its relations with all other particles with which it must combine and co-operate?’ However, it soon dawned upon me that I was trying to find an explanation for existence from within existence seeking the Creator in that which was created.

Materialistic science, whether biology or physics reflects upon existence from within it and is dazzled, tangled by the apparent self-organization in the universe. It is true that everything appears to happen according to certain principles and the law of cause and effect. Empirically based and having adopted the method of doing tests in laboratories, modern science attempts to discover the Creator in laboratories. This means regarding the Creator as of the same kind as the created – finite and material – which implies for the scientist a rank over the Creator, If the scientist is not seeking to deify himself over creation, what is the rationale, the sense, of looking for the Creator among the created?

As everybody knows, science advances on the feet of theories. That being so, would it not be legitimate to approach, at least for once, existence and the act of coming into existence from the perspective of the existence of God?

In the past, Muslim theologians argued the necessity of God from the unacceptability of an unending chain of causes. Everything in the universe is finite, transient, it begins and ends. Also, anything that begins and ends needs a cause or originator to bring it into existence since nothing can originate itself. (Even man, despite being the most conscious and powerful of creatures, has no part in his coming into existence, in the time and place of his birth, in determining his family, his race, his bodily features, nor has he much control over the workings of his body.) In short, as every existent needs an originator and the chain of originators cannot regress for ever, there must be an absolute originator, self-originating, self-existent, self-subsistent. This is God, without beginning and end, eternal.

Even if the existence of the universe is attributed to some entity other than God – to evolution or causality or nature or matter or coincidences and necessity – no one can deny that everything displays, through its coming into existence, its subsistence and death, an all-comprehensive knowledge, and an absolute power and determination. As we saw in the experiment referred to above, a single misplaced or misdirected gene, may suffice to ruin or prevent life. The interconnectedness of everything, from galaxies to atoms, is a reality into which every new entity enters and wherein it must know its unique place and function. And is there not a further demonstration of the existence and free operation of an all-comprehensive knowledge, an absolute power and will, that particles made up of the same bio-chemical constituents should be able to produce through the subtlest adjustments in their pattern of mutual relationships, entities and organisms which are unique? Is it satisfactory to explain this as heredity or coincidence seeing that all such explanations again rest upon the same all-encompassing knowledge, absolute power and will? 

We must not be misled by the apparent fact that everything happens according to a certain program or plan or process of causes. This process of causes is a veil spread over the flux of the universe, the ever-moving stream of events. The ‘laws of nature’ which may be inferred from this process of causes have a nominal, not a real and concrete, existence. Unless we attribute to nature the attributes we would normally attribute to the Creator of nature, we must accept that it is, in essence and reality, a printing mechanism, not a printer, a design, not a designer, a passive recipient, not an agent, an order, not an orderer, a collection of nominal laws, not a power. The same argument holds if, in place of ‘nature’, we choose the terms ‘matter’ or (the preference of French biologist Jacques Manod) ‘coincidence and necessity’.

One of the points which entangles, and brings down, materialist scientific explanations is ‘eternity’. In order to perceive eternity, science must first acknowledge the inevitable limitations of its being a product of human reason. Man is a part of existence or creation, and therefore a finite being, and it is impossible for a finite being to comprehend the Infinite:

Firstly, the Infinite cannot be of the same kind as the finite. Secondly, man is enveloped by time and space which are two of the dimensions of existence, that is, they are not there before, but there together with creation. So, unless one goes beyond the limits of time and space, it is impossible for one to comprehend eternity. This can be attained, not by, in the terminology of Kant, the theoretical reason, but by the practical reason, by spiritual experience or enlightenment, or by one’s inner conscience.

Thirdly, God is not dependent on time. Possessing absolute Will, He is not compelled to do or not do anything. He created the universe.

The universe is like a book each sentence, each word and each letter of which is interrelated with every other. By manifesting His Names, God gets this book to ‘speak’, to be listened to or read by man. The original or essential meaning of this book originates in the Knowledge of God. In other words, before coming into material existence, the universe existed in the Knowledge of God. Through manifestation of Will and Power in the sphere of Knowledge, the meanings in the Knowledge appeared as the letters, words and sentences of the book of the universe. The universe which God fastened to the’ string’ of time is the result of Divine manifestation of Will and Power in the sphere of His knowledge. For an existent being, coming into existence means transference from the sphere of Knowledge to the sphere of Power.By dying, it is transferred to the sphere of Knowledge again, but after it has acquired a new state proper for a new, eternal life in the other, eternal world. This can be made more understandable through the following analogy:

The meaning of a book exists in the mind of its author before he writes it. Even though he does not write it, the article or the hook has an ‘essential’ existence in the form of meaning. In order to make this meaning visible in the material world, the author should ‘mould’ it into letters. Readers can know the author through the book. The book’s being there to be read indicates its having an author with the ability to write it. Likewise, the universe points to all the Names of God, including the All-Powerful, the All-Knowing and the Possessor of Will. These Names are indicative of the Attributes of Knowledge. Power and Will, which, in turn, demonstrate the One Who has them.

God has many other Names or attributes and therefore many kinds of manifestations. As the manifestations of primarily. His Will and Power in Knowledge brought the universe into existence and still originate new lives incessantly, so His manifestation of Speech in the same Knowledge gave visible existence to the Qur’an, the last and the most perfect form of the Divine Scriptures. The present revealed form of the Qur’an is in one way, a counterpart of the universe in letters. In the same way as a magnificent building and the booklet describing it indicate the architect who produced them, the Qur’an and the universe, being two different forms or kinds of Divine manifestation are signs of the Creator. The Qur’an came from the Divine attribute of Speech, while the universe originated from the Divine attributes of Will and Power. Both have their sources in the same Knowledge, the Knowledge of God. For this reason, any science – whether biology or physics or chemistry or astronomy or psychology – which studies the universe or man can never be contradictory with the religion of Islam. If there is a contradiction, it is either in the mind or intention or quality of the scientist or in a mispresentation of Islam.

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. (at- ‘Alaq. 96.1-3)

It is quite significant that the first command and 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 nature’, God created the universe and man on a certain pattern, and gave each entity a particular nature. Man’s nature includes free will, every other entity acts according to the primordial nature assigned to it. This is what modern 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.

In sum: The meaning of existence is from the Existence of God. That is what gives their true meaning to all things, all events, all efforts to live and acquire knowledge. Consider that the smallest thing like an apple costs the whole universe, seeing that for its formation the sun, earth and water must co-operate, something that the whole world population working together could not provide. Whether for the universe as a whole or a simple life within it, a great expenditure has been made in creation. In spite of this, many living things die at birth, and many others after a few moments of life. The average life span of man, who is the ‘cream’ of creation, to whom much of the existence has been subjugated, is about 60 years. You may, therefore, ask why such a vast expenditure is made for so short a life-span. If there is not an eternal life in an eternal world, will life and every existent thing have been pointless, in vain? However, God has not created anything for vanity. Every existent is infinitely meaningful, displaying an infinite knowledge, will and power. Each is directed to a particular aim. Each, whether its term is short or long, is a ‘sign’ pointing to God and is directly related to Him.

Without that relation of itself to God, every entity would mean nothing – zero; and the universe would be a huge zero. If God is not recognized, if the meaning His Existence and creativity provide for existence is not understood, the zeros would be, each one, a sort of ‘black hole’ absorbing all the Divine manifestations and beauties. It is belief which removes the dark veil from creation and manifests the meaning it carries. Through belief, each of the ‘black holes’ changes – according to the degree of its refinement – into a shining sun, moon or star which manifests the meaning, aim and beauty it has been given by its Creator.