Discussions over personal liberty and government intervention are as old as modern governments, as J.S. Mill’s writings show.

John Stuart Mill was among the many philosophers, both before and after, who attempted to determine when government intervention in the private lives of individuals was legitimate. The authoritarian regimes of 19^th century Europe triggered thinkers to study citizen’s rights and state powers. Mill attempted to regulate the actions of these authoritarian regimes by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate government intervention in his book On Liberty. Mill’s ideas were one influence among many on the structure and laws of the modern nation state. Using his ideas on freedom and government as a starting point, we can discuss psychological harm, human fallibility, and social responsibilities.

Mill, in On Liberty, identifies two mechanisms for determining legitimate government intervention: the harm principle and utilitarianism. The harm principle states that government can only legitimately interfere with the actions of individuals if the actions of the individuals harm others against their will. Thus, if an action does not harm another against their will, the government cannot interfere. Notice that an individual can harm themselves or even other people with the appropriate consent. Effectively, the harm principle constitutes an absolute bar to government intervention on unharmful private action.

The second mechanism, utilitarianism, comes into play after government intervention is considered to be legitimate due to harmful consequences of private actions. At this point, the government must do a utility calculation, or a cost-benefit analysis, in which it must determine whether government intervention will result in more harm than the private action it will attempt to stop. If the analysis indicates that government intervention will result in more harm, government intervention would be considered illegitimate, and vice versa. Thus, while the harm principle constituted an absolute categorical bar, the utilitarianism mechanic requires a case-by-case determination of the legitimacy of government intervention.

In order to apply the harm principle it is important not only to know what the principle is, but also what constitutes harm. The broader the definition of harm becomes, the larger the pool of actions that the government can interfere with becomes. In general, the classification of physical damage to body and property as harm is generally accepted by society as well as by Mill. However, the definition of harm can include things other than just physical damage. In order to properly apply the harm principle, it must be determined whether psychological harm and failure to act can be classified as harm, warranting government intervention.

Psychological Harm

Can feeling distress, being upset, or experiencing psychological harm due to another individual’s actions be categorized as harm? If one were to accept distress as harm, then the definition of harm has effectively been broadened to include every instance in which one feels discomfort or is upset by another’s action, expanding the sphere of legitimate government intervention.

Mill does not determine distress or psychological harm to be harm. The distress or psychological harm Mill refers to is one originating from a disagreement of values between two individuals. For example, one individual may like the color blue while another dislikes it. The distress, anger, resentment, or any other negative feelings the other may feel when the first wears a blue shirt is the psychological harm that Mill refers to. A more consequential example would be the distress that a Democrat may feel about the ideas expressed at a Republican rally. The views expressed at the rally are clearly contrary to the individual’s beliefs, yet the distress originating from this ideological difference cannot be categorized as harm. If it was categorized as harm, then the government could intervene whenever actions or speech was contrary to the ideology and beliefs of the most powerful or the most vocal.

Mill, in On Liberty, states that “unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right and they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves” (1). Here he attempts to stop the use of the harm principle in attempts to impose beliefs or one’s own moral values on others. He argues that imposing views on another is wrong, because one would not want others to impose their views on them. Additionally, Mill emphasizes the fallibility of human reasoning and preferences, stating that despite one’s conviction in one’s own position in an argument, there is always the possibility of error.

Admittance of the fallibility is not only a sign of humility and recognition of possibilities, but also a very real demonstration of understanding one’s own limitations inherent in being human. This principle has been recognized and applied by many scholars and thinkers in addition to Mill, like Socrates and Said Nursi. For example, in The Republic, Plato quotes Socrates as exclaiming “[a]s for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (2).

Similarly, Said Nursi demonstrates the same recognition of the fallibility of human beings in his Risale-i Nur and attributes true knowledge only to God. This is clearly displayed in his use of text from the Quran at the beginning and ending of all the chapters in The Words. Thus, Nursi begins his work by drawing from what he considers the true source of knowledge and ends with that same infallible source.

Lastly, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes seems to support Mill’s position against persecution by arguing in Leviathan that “do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself” (3). Hobbes’ view is in effect a version of the golden rule, limiting social interaction to only actions one would deem acceptable if done to him/her. In congruence with Hobbes’s golden rule, Mill argues that imposing one’s views on others is wrong, and that feeling upset due to the failure of others to conform to those views is not harm. Thus, even if the actions of an individual upset or cause psychological harm to others, the government cannot legitimately interfere.

Failure to Act

Though Mill prevents distress or psychological harm from being used to legitimize government intervention over an individual’s actions, he permits failure to act to be classified as harm. In situations where a failure to act causes a negative or harmful outcome, government intervention would be legitimate. For example, the government may prosecute a firefighter if his negligence allowed a building to burn down. However, classifying failure to act or inaction as harm is dangerous, because people are not capable of infinite actions in a moment. The jurisdiction of government intervention is expanded tremendously by this classification. Why would Mill, who constructed a mechanism for limiting government intervention, expand government power in this way? And what restraints can be applied to the failure-to-act classification?

Socrates’ ideas, as expressed in The Republic by Plato, provide some insight into answering the previous questions. After examining Plato’s views in The Republic, it is possible to claim that Socrates would agree with Mill in including the failure-to-act as harm. His definition of a just society is a society in which everyone is doing their job or role in society (4). From this, one can assume that a just action within a society would be whatever action is in accordance with the job of the individual as determined by his soul and position in society. Thus, failure to perform one’s job would then be classified as an unjust action by Plato, open to government intervention for the restoration of social justice.

Socrates’ view seems to emphasize the nature of the action that the individual is failing to do. If the failure to act involved the failure to do one’s job in society, then the failure to act would be considered unjust. On the other hand, if the failure to act involved inaction about an issue that was not the individual’s responsibility, then it is possible to conclude that the failure to act in this instance is not an unjust action. Thus, this approach distinguishes between a firefighter who chooses not to stop a fire from a regular citizen who chooses not to stop a fire. The firefighter neglects his responsibility, opening him to criminal prosecution, while the regular citizen’s inaction is not open to prosecution. By allowing the failure to act to be considered as harm, Mill avoided conflicting with the conditional nature of determining whether the failure to act is just or unjust as extrapolated from Plato’s views.

Socrates’ and Mill’s analysis regarding the failure to act is based solely on the legal and formal responsibilities of the individual. The police have a responsibility to stop crime, and parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, etc. Each nation’s unique constitution and laws make legal responsibilities country-specific and unique. For example, many European states, like Germany and France, require citizens to provide assistance to persons in danger (5). However, the duty to rescue those in peril does not exist in other countries, like the United States (6). Of course, most people call the authorities for help and attempt to provide first-aid, but the fact remains that in most of the United States, there is no legal obligation to rescue. Each country determines the legal responsibilities of its citizens, some choosing to expand and some choosing to restrict the extent of responsibilities.

For many people, informal responsibilities extend beyond formal responsibilities; these are often based on the individual’s religion, culture, and ethics. While government intervention may not be legitimate for failures of informal responsibilities according to Mill, informal responsibilities constitute an important piece of the society. For example, children have an informal responsibility to care for their parents, especially during their old age. If children ignore this responsibility, the government cannot and should not intervene. After all, the government is not the ultimate solution for every social problem, and each member of the country may not believe in the same informal responsibilities due to different culture, religion, and ethics. Instead, the true solutions to failures in informal responsibilities are education in social values and decency, social structures, communities, and institutions.

Mill’s principles on government intervention in the lives of free people provided a platform to discuss psychological harm and social responsibilities. Government can provide solutions for certain social issues, but not for all. In recognition of this, Mill wrote of an alternative limited government to the authoritarian regimes of his time. In this alternative, conflicting and controversial ideologies could co-exist, and government would only regulate formal responsibilities. The burden rests on the society to care for the informal responsibilities.

Notes

1. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, 155
2. Plato, The Republic, (Plato 354c, book 1)
3. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pt. 1, Ch. 15, para. 35
4. Kara, Mahmut. “Rethinking Plato: Philosophical Idealism and Political Totalitarianism.” Fountain Magazine, April-June 2001.
5. Weinrib, Ernest J. “The Case for a Duty to Rescue.” The Yale Law Journal , Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 247-293 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. URL:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/795987>.
6. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

Fred (not his real name) is 21 years old, living in a university community. Last year, he did a project to “stretch into infinity”, i.e. he attempted suicide. Fortunately, his project failed. After his return to the normal life, he found an alternative way to infinity. I wanted to interview him as soon as I learned about his story, which he accepted.

“I am doing a double major in mathematics and biology. Unlike the regular biology students who are educated to think traditionally and memorize constantly, my way of thinking is rather mathematical and rational.”

I wanted to punch a hole in this super confident young boy’s claims about himself. “So, you never fell in love, but instead, rationally proved some girl to be the one meant for you?”

He chuckled. “I guess, I did fall in love, but suppressed my feelings since they were irrational.”

“Then you must have a strong will. How do you rationally explain the human will? I mean, we are talking about a young man whose hormones are keeping him at the verge of love. And how do you think your will fights against these molecules that pervade your body?”

“My thoughts on this are different now, but at the time, I was trying to express everything in terms of testable, concrete concepts. There is so much research on the effects of genes and the environmental conditions on human behavior. So, my will had to be some proteins synthesized from my DNA.”

“So do you think, or did you think that one day people could use love pills for keeping up their love for their partners, and to have compassion for their children?”

“Why not? Actually, it is not just that. I had many thoughts that engulfed my mind and motivated my actions, including my attempt to suicide. I couldn’t receive rationally satisfactory alternatives to my conclusions.”

Then Fred took me on a tour d’horizon of his view of life and people. There were many elements in his views that you could hear from other people, but this one was unique and noteworthy:

“This is a bit irrelevant, but I can tell you a funny one too. If the speeding tickets are issued not due to an actual harm but due to the increased risk of harm, then people who drink more than a minimal amount should be given drinking tickets. Statistically speaking, the number of crimes linked to speeding is nowhere close to the number of crimes linked to drinking. So, if I am getting a ticket for speeding, although I haven’t harmed anyone, then why isn’t my friend for whom I am the designated driver, getting a ticket for his increased potential to harm someone?”

Speechless, I tried to steer him back to his conclusions that led him to what he did.

“You know, I was never hospitalized for depression. Nobody thought that I was in deep trouble, including me. I was considered to be an intellectual, an extraordinary friend. I don’t know how it goes with other people, but when the idea came, it wasn’t like a freaky idea to entertain myself for a minute. It came as an irrefutable theory. It only made sense. Really.”

The idea of suicide making sense? That didn’t make sense to me! Seeing my blurred gaze at him, he picked up again.

“If motivation is essential to accomplish your ideals, how come things that bring motivation are considered harmful?”

He was talking about drugs.

“If success is all about hard work, then why is it forbidden to pave your way to success rather than leave it to luck?”

That is fortifying hard work through taking drugs.

“If my mental activity is nothing but complex dynamics of molecules in my brain, then shouldn’t I take drugs that are the embodiment of rejuvenating and exhilarating inspirations leading to innovations?”

After a second of pause, he concluded:

“If happiness is all about certain molecules in my body, then what is wrong about getting it directly rather than mining it through the thorny relationships with people?”

How would you answer these questions, knowing that they are asked by an individual in the making who is trying to make sense of life but who is bewildered by the discrepancies of the mature people?

“My line of thought and other people’s line of thought in this matter are similar to the graph of 1/x. We are both aiming for the same point, i.e. zero. But our distinct approaches take us to opposite directions. The two couldn’t be more divergent than this.”

In mathematical elegance, Fred was describing the state that nurtured his suicidal thoughts. He could not establish ties with the rest of us. With an intention to never come back, Fred used drugs to become a zero in our world, and to stretch into unknown infinity. Did he succeed?

“But you know, like a sad love story, 1/x never converges to zero. I failed, too, in that sense. The way I conceived it, death was going to be a culmination of motivation, success, and happiness. I aimed for it head on. According to my conviction, I was supposed to have achieved all of those. When I opened my eyes in the hospital, I realized that I had neither success nor happiness.”

You don’t have to be a sage in order to understand that suicide is not a key to success or happiness. But a brief journey to death made Fred a sage.

“It is possible in this life that one receives death while perfectly healthy. It is also possible that one can survive despite a miserable health. In other words, just like being healthy doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t die, there isn’t a mechanic relationship between being unhealthy and arriving at death. My own failure to die despite what happened to me is a living proof of this.”

I noted in my mind that this was a good example of learning from your failures.

“The moment I realized that death is given, just like life is, my suicide attempt transformed from being a story of failure to a story of success, because that’s when I started believing in the unseen.”

Believing in the unseen was a quality that Fred did not have before, but why and how had it been the elixir that changed his failure into success?

“It is so ironic and controversial. In the beginning, what I was missing was my acceptance of self-deficiency in grasping the existence. In the end, by admitting to be incomplete, I was becoming complete; being completed by God.”

Suicide is one of the most severe sins one can commit according to the monotheistic religions. Yet, this young man found God in the very sin that could throw him light years away from God.

“I don’t define myself anymore as an outstanding, perfect intellectual as my friends used to call me. Instead, I am a story in progress. No matter how severe the calamities or how satisfying the joys are, I don’t come to an end unless my author ends the story.”

The place of some individuals in altruistic work cannot be denied; however, individuals are not all there is to this work. Personalities are important, on the one hand, for the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is a personality and God commanded us to become bound to him. The most important factor in this is virtue. People become tied to others because of their virtue. For example, if it were not for Abu Hanafi, we would not know the Hanafi school of thought. For this reason we have a heartfelt tie. In the same way, someone from the Shafii school is tied to Imam Shafii, a person from the Maliki school is bound to Imam Malik and someone from the Hanbali school is tied to Ahmad b. Hanbal.

Just as virtue is a means for connection among people, everyone’s applauding it is a sign of appreciation. Yes, as an expression of appreciation, it is necessary to salute those who enlighten humankind. This is our duty. However, if the person who is saluted sees the situation as connected to himself, then he has attributed a partner to God.

In a hadith the Messenger of God says, “Let the person who awaits the salute of others prepare his place in Hell.” For example, you need to stand up when your teacher comes to your side. However, if your teacher wants and expects others to stand up, then he is at a loss. In fact, one day drawing attention to the sensitivity of this matter, the Prophet said to the Companions who stood up for him, “Don’t stand up when I come upon you as others do (who stand up to exalt their master)!” Of course this is the refined manner of a great person or, in other words, the attitude a great person should take. It is our responsibility to behave respectfully to them in spite of this kind of wish.

Another aspect of the matter is that good works, which require full, comprehensive, and strong support, should not be built on personalities. People in service to others should establish agreement and accord among themselves and in view of their successes they should say, “God is bestowing all of this on our collective body.” They should convince their egos of this because the blessings coming to them come as a result of their coming together.

Meanwhile they should cast from their minds the thought, “If such and such a person leaves this circle, it will give harm to our group.” For if a cause is really for God, no one can give harm to His cause by leaving the circle. Consequently, becoming tied to certain individuals and knowing everything to be a result of their efforts within the understanding, “Our group will disintegrate and disperse,” is contrary to Islam’s pure and clear belief. In order for the matter to be better understood, I would like to give one or two individual examples:

It is not possible to imagine a person who could love the Blessed Prophet as much as Abu Bakr. In fact, in one hadith the Messenger of God expresses this truth, “When everyone denied me, he affirmed me.” Ali expressed Abu Bakr’s love and attachment to the Prophet as follows: “When it was time for the Prophet of God to go, no one had the courage to go with him. Abu Kuhafa’s son (i.e. Abu Bakr) stood up. When everyone was making suggestions in the apostasy events, he mounted his horse and said, ‘I will follow the Prophet’s path even if I am alone.’”

We see that although he loved the Messenger of God this much and never left his side for a moment, Abu Bakr was not at Ali’s side during the Prophet’s funeral. For at that moment there was a more important matter; achievements of the Prophet could fall apart, some could sow discord among Muslims and irreparable division could occur.

Just at that moment Abu Bakr immediately appeared and said, “Whoever worships Muhammad should know that he has died. Whoever believes in God should know that He is the All-Living and the Self-Subsisting.” When he recited the verse, “Muhammad is no more than an apostle. Many were the apostles that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will you then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to God. But God, on the other hand, will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) in gratitude,” (Al Imran 3:144) Umar, who reflected the general feeling, would say, “(Upon Abu Bakr’s recitation) I felt like that verse was just revealed. Abu Bakr warned us.” Later, as is known, very conscientious believers who grasped the Messenger’s cause well, like Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubayda, gathered at Bani Saqifa and resolved the matter of caliphate there.

All Companions loved the Prophet very much and all were bound to him from the heart. Actually there is no harm in such a tie. However, seeing the message he brought as tied to him and thinking that everything is finished when he left is wrong.

We also see this portrait of consciousness that Abu Bakr displayed in Umar’s time as well. Halid was the commander of Caliph Umar’s army. When he rode his horse over Persia, he demolished all of Persia’s forces. When he rode over the Roman Empire, he destroyed its walls as well and showed an unequaled military genius.

Umar discharged this great commander and gave the following reason for it: “Halid! God knows I love you very much. But the people are attributing victories to you. But I know that God is bestowing these victories. For this reason, I am relieving you of your duty.” After Halid was removed from duty, the victories continued and the people understood that the victories were from God, not Halid.

Just as in the past, today there are those who fall into this mistake and attribute matters to individuals. Whereas, just as conquests in Islam continued after the Prophet’s death, conquest in the spiritual field always continued. For example, Abd al-Qadir Gilani and Shah Naqshiband have died, but their followers have continued until today.

Bediuzzaman, the great thinker of our time, died, some viewed things as if everything was over. However that great man said, “While I am an individual in this life, when I am under the ground I will be like an ear of corn. In comparison to service to the faith appearing in one place, after my death it will appear in perhaps one hundred places.”

Again this same great man gave us this yardstick on this subject. He once said that his students confused the real cause with the apparent cause when they said, “If our teacher had not come here, we would not be learned.” Bediuzzaman continued that he would do the same confusion, “I once was saying that if there had been no one holding a pencil like these brothers, how could a half-literate person like me serve this cause (and produce books)? Later I understood that after giving you the sacred blessing by means of a pencil, God bestowed success in this service upon me. Two things that have conjoined one another cannot be the cause of one another. I do not thank you, I congratulate you. As the price of your gratitude to me, you, too, pray and give congratulations.”

Actually every believer should think like this. For God’s grace comes to all of us commonly. There is a conjunction everywhere from the doorkeeper who opens the door to an institution to the director who manages the institution. May God give us success in showing effort in this comprehension and association!

Collective responsibility

But just acknowledging this shared responsibility is not enough. Frequently, the real problem is group inaction, for harm can be prevented if enough people form a group to prevent it. Collective responsibility often can be ascribed to those people who have the ability to form such groups but do not do so. To the extent that this is the case, they are collectively responsible for their collective inaction.

Members of the dominant Western culture may consider it overly severe to assert that all of us are collectively responsible for our failure to do something about the world’s many problems. While not saying that people who do not form groups are guilty due to their inaction, I do feel that our inaction should provoke a sense of shame within us.

Goodin describes his approach as putting consequences to the fore, meaning that consequences quickly take up the whole stage, not just its front and center. He preserves a central link between responsibility and causality, and claims to make better sense of our present practices of responsibility. Larry May sets out to expand significantly our sense of responsibility within groups. The keystone of moral responsibility here is that for who one chooses to be. Attitudes and habits, states of mind and character, roles and affiliations, and the professional, institutional, and social climates shaping our interests, perceptions, and values are reviewed even as we continue to shape them.

A welcome but difficult result is that we are responsible for failures of awareness and insensitivity, as well as unexamined habits, traits, allegiances, and identifications that predispose us to moral failure. Another result is that people should see themselves as responsible for certain harmful events occurring within their communities, even if they are not direct participants or cannot prevent them. We are”and should feel”accountable for tolerating our own morally flawed character, contributing to a morally irresponsible attitudinal climate, or failing to reckon adequately with our institutional roles. These enriched bases of responsibility are not intended as new bases for subjecting people to punishment. I suggest that shame and taint, not just guilt, are appropriate individual reactions to expanded responsibility.

My concern is the collectivities, attitudinal climates, and expectation of groups that shape what people think is up to them and what they become used to ignoring. This has implications for all people who function within institutions where the most significant outcomes are the work of many minds and hands. A group’s responsibility is a fundamental moral issue. Therefore, groups are responsible for events and should be held responsible for them.

Shared responsibility

People should see themselves as sharing responsibility for the harm experienced by their communities far more often than they do. There is a distinction between shared responsibility and collective responsibility. Collective responsibility applies to a group as such (not necessarily to individual members), whereas shared responsibility applies to individuals within groups because of their membership relation with the group. We live in a world of groups. Groups affect our daily life, attitudes, and character, and greatly increase our power to act. Individuals receive great benefits from group membership. Those increased benefits and power should come with increased responsibility. Yet, although groups cause more and greater harm than individuals and have a greater capacity to correct large-scale social problems, individuals typically identify less with harm caused by groups and less often assume responsibility for them.

People share responsibility for harm done by groups, including those that result from omission. More harm occurs collectively than individually, and yet people take less responsibility for it for two reasons: Groups break problems into pieces, responsibility gets diffused, and groups allow individuals to assume that someone else will”or at least could”act. An expanded notion of moral negligence, the idea that since individuals within groups and the group’s structure and policies influence one another, and since group membership structures its members’ values and tends to desensitize them, individual members should be aware of this and responsible for reducing the risk of harm perpetrated by their group. Since there is a duty to act, the failure to do so may constitute negligence. This makes group members responsible for group values and, derivatively, for whatever harm the group does.

Shared responsibility is particularly appropriate for the value transformations that occur within groups. Since people affect one another’s conduct more, and attitudes are more closely shared, people should feel a heightened sense of responsibility to offset any risks associated with misconduct, including negligent omission or inaction. Of course, there is always the problem of defining the scope of negligence. This problem can be handled by using a reasonable person standard to ascertain what our roles would commit us to. We are not negatively responsible for all of the world’s failures, but only what a reasonable group of fellow citizens would expect of someone in our circumstances. Recognizing negative responsibility, including responsibility for omis-sions that allow an unreasonable risk of group harm, helps people lead lives that are more integrated with their moral values, because that involves both acts and omissions. To be in harmony with ourselves, we need to integrate principles with behavior that promotes moral integrity.

Conclusion

Shared responsibility, by focusing the issues of responsibility in a different light, provides us with the beginning of an account of how people, as moral agents, are connected to and function within groups and institutions. This analysis also provides a picture of the nature of informal groups and social relations. Most human relations influence the daily life, attitudes, assumptions, aspirations, and acts of individuals everywhere, such as in voluntary associations. We should remember the team’s perception of the Challenger space shuttle disaster: It is time to take your engineer’s cap off and put on your manager’s cap.1 An aggregate approach or something like it is necessary here, making shared and vicarious responsibility particularly appropriate. 

Footnote

1. Amy Gutnam and Dennis Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997), 189.

References

• Goodin, Robert E. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Gutnam, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997.
• May, Larry. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Thampson, Dennis E. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Islam is a religion that encompasses the secular with the spiritual, the mundane with the celestial. It includes a code for the whole of human life.

Man is the vicegerent of God on earth: Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: I will create a vicegerent on earth (2.30); and He fashioned man in due proportion and breathed into him something of His spirit.

Not only Adam was honoured by Allah, but his descendants also, provided they trod on the right path.

We have honoured the descendants of Adam, provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favours above a great part of our creation. (17.70)

Human life begins at the time of ensoulment, which is stated in the sayings of the Prophet, upon him be peace, to be the 120th day from the moment of conception. (Bukhari, 1958 edn, vol. 4, p.135). Prior to that moment the embryo has a sanctity, but not reaching that of a full human being. Life ends with the departure of the soul (or spirit), a process which cannot be identified by mortals except by the accompanying signs, the most important of which is the cessation of respiration and circulation. The sanctity of the human body, however, is not lessened by the departure of soul and declaration of death. The human body whether living or dead should be respected.

The Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, rebuked a man who broke a bone of a deceased man which he found in a cemetery. The Prophet said: The sin of breaking the bones of a dead man is equal to the sin of breaking the bones of a living man (Abu Dawud, n.d., vol.3, p.212-13; Ibn Hanbal, n.d., vol.6, p.58).

The dead body should be prepared for burial as soon as possible, in order to avoid putrefaction which occurs rapidly in hot climates. Cremation is not allowed.

Due respect and reverence should be given to the funeral. The Prophet himself stood in veneration for the passing funeral of a Jew at a time when Jews were his bitter enemies, One of the Companions of the Prophet exclaimed: It is the funeral of a Jew! The Prophet answered: Is it not a human soul? (Bukhari, vol.2, p. 107).

Historical background

Organ transplantation is not a twentieth century innovation. It was known in some form even in prehistoric eras.

Ancient Hindu surgeons described methods for repairing defects of the nose and ears using autograft from neighbouring skin, a technique which remains in use to the present day. Susruta Sanhita, an old Indian medical document written in 700 EC described elegantly the procedure which was emulated by the Italian Tagliacozzi of the 16th century and by British surgeons working in India late in the 17th and 18 th centuries (Bollinger and Shekel, 1986, pp. 370-80).

Tooth transplantation was practised in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, pre-Columbian North and South America. Arab surgeons were experts at this technique a thousand years ago (Guthrie, 1946, p. 12; Peer, 1955).

During the time of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, one of his Companions called Qatada Ibn Nu‘man lost an eye during the battle of Uhud. The Prophet put it back in place and it became the better of his two eyes (Hawwa, 1971, vol.2, p. 197). In the Battle of Badr, the Prophet replaced the arm of Mu‘awath ibn ‘Afra and the hand of Habib ibn Yasaf (Al-Shibani, n.d., vol.1, p. 244; al-Khafaji, n.d., vol.3, p. 111).

Muslim jurists sanctioned transplantation of teeth and bones which has long been practised by Muslim surgeons.

Imam Nawawi (631-671/1233-1272) discussed fully the subject of bone and tooth transplantation in his comprehensive reference textbook of jurisprudence al-Majmu‘ (n.d., vol.1, p.293) and in his concise textbook Minhaj al-Talibin (1978 edn, vol.1, p. 190). Imam al-Shirbini commented on this subject in his book Mughni al-Muhtaj (n.d., vol.19, p.191). Zakaria al-Qazwini (600-682/1203-1283) advocated the use of porcine bone grafts as they take much better than other xenografts and function more efficiently (1978 edn, p.422), despite the fact that Muslims consider the pig and its produces untouchable. Jurists allowed the use of porcine material in medicine provided there was no other adequate alternative or equivalent.

Some Islamic principles and rules related to organ transplantation

1. Islam considers disease as a natural phenomenon. It is not caused by demons, stars or evil spirits. Indeed, disease is not even caused by the wrath of God, nor by any celestial creature. Diseases and ailments are a type of tribulation which expiates sins. Those who forebear and endure in dignity are rewarded in this world and on the Day of Judgement.
2. Man should seek a remedy for his ailment. The Prophet, upon him be peace, told Muslims to seek remedy and treatment (Ibn Qayyim, 1970, vol.3, p.78). He ordered his cousin Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas to seek the medical advice of Al-Harith ibn Khaledah, a renowned physician of his time (ibid.). Further, the Prophet declared that there is a cure for every illness, though we may not know it at the time (Bukhari, 1958 edn, vol.7. 148-82).
3. We are encouraged to search for such a cure (Muslim, 1972 edn, vol.14, pp.191-200). New modalities of treatment should be searched for and applied if proved successful.
4. The Prophet ordered Muslims to be compassionate to every human being. He also said: All mankind is the family (‘iyal) of God; those who best serve their family are best loved by God.
5. The human being should always keep his dignity even in disease and misfortune. The human body, living or dead, should be respected.
6. However, doing a necessary post-mortem examination or donating organ from a cadaver does not mean mutilation of the corpse or an act of disrespect. The harm, if any, of removing any organ from a deceased person should be weighed against the benefit obtained, and the improved life provided, for the recipient. In short, the principle of saving human life takes precedence over whatever assumed harm might befall the corpse.
7. In the case of a living donor, the principle of doing no harm is invoked. The donor cannot give a vital organs risking his life. That would be an act of homicide or suicide, both of which are considered among the most detestable crimes in Islam. Donation of an organ whose loss would usually cause little harm or minimal increased risk to the health or life of the donor is acceptable. It invokes the principle of accepting the lesser harm when faced with two evils. The harm done by the disease, which can kill a human life, is not to be compared to the harm incurred by donation.
8. Organ transplantation is a new modality of treatment that can save many human lives and improve the quality of life for many others. As noted above Islam encourages searching for cures and urges Muslims not to despair, for there is certainly a cure for every ailment, albeit we may not know it as yet.
9. Donation of organs is an act of charity, benevolence, altruism and love for mankind. God loves those who love fellow humans and try to mitigate their hardships and relieve their misfortunes.
10. Good intention: any action carried out with good intention and which aims to help others is respected and indeed encouraged, provided no harm is done.
11. The human body is the property of God, but man is entrusted with his body, as well as with other things. He should use it in the way prescribed by God as revealed by His Messengers. Any misuse will be judged by God on the Day of Judgement, and transgressors will get their punishment. Suicide is equated in Islam with homicide. Even cremation of the corpse is not allowed. The only accepted, dignified way is burial of the corpse, which should be done as soon as possible.
12. Donation of organs is not an act of transgression against the body. On the contrary, it is an act of charity and benevolence to other fellow humans, which God loves and encourages.
13. The human organs are not a commodity. They should be donated freely in expression of altruistic feelings of brotherhood and love for fellow humans.

Fatwas regarding organ transplantation

Muslim surgeons have long practised autograft transplantation which they learned from other nations, especially Indians. They practised tooth and bone grafting from both animal and human sources (i.e. xenograft, and homografts), after obtaining the consent of the jurists. In the twentieth century, the Muslim jurists sanctioned blood transfusion, though blood is considered as najas i.e. unclean. The fatwa of the Grand Mufti of Egypt (No. 1065, June 9th, 1959) is an example of Islamic jurists’ attitude to new modalities of treatment (Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyya, 1982, vol.7, p.2495).

The majority of Muslim scholars and jurists belonging to various schools of Islamic law invoked the principle of the precedence of saving human life over any other argument. Sheikh Hassan Ma’mun (The Grand Mufti of Egypt) also sanctioned corneal transplants from cadavers of unidentified persons and from those who agree to donate after their death (No. 1087, April 14th, 1959; ibid., p.2552). His successor, Sheikh Huraidi extended the fatwa to other organs in 1966 (No. 993; ibid., vol.6, pp. 2278-82).

Sheikh Khatir, the new Grand Mufti of Egypt, issued a fatwa allowing harvesting of skin from unidentified corpses in 1973 (ibid., vol.7, 2505-7).

Grand Mufti Jad al-Haq sanctioned donation of organs from the living provided no harm is done and provided the gift is made freely in good faith, for the sake of God and care of mankind. He also sanctioned taking organs from cadavers provided there is a legal testament or consent of the relatives. In case of unidentified corpses, an order from the Magistrate should be obtained prior to harvesting organs (No. 1323, December 5, 1979; ibid., vol.10, pp. 3702-15).

The Saudi Grand Ulema Fatwa No. 99, 1982 addressed the subject of autografts which were unanimously sanctioned. It also sanctioned, by majority, donation of organs both by the living and by the dead by legal testament or consent of relatives (Majallat al-Majma‘ 1987, vol 1, p.37).

In Kuwait, Law No. 7 (1983) reiterated the previous fatwas and pointed out that the living donor should be over 18 in order for his informed consent to be legally acceptable.

The subject of brain death was not addressed in any of these fatwas but discussed for the first time in the Second International Conference of Islamic Jurists held in Jeddah, in 1985. No decree was passed then, until further studies and consultations had been done. In the Third International Con¬ference of Islamic Jurists held in Am¬man in 1986, the historical Resolution No. 5 was passed by majority, which equated brain death to cardiac and res¬piratory death (Jeddah Fiqh Academy, 1988, p.34).

In strict Islamic teachings, death is the departure of the soul, but since this cannot be identified the signs of it are accepted.

This 1986 decree paved the way for extension of organ transplant projects previously limited to living donors. Campaigns for organ donations from brain dead persons were launched both in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We note, sadly, that the high incidence of motor vehicle accidents in the Gulf area provides many cases of brain death.

While this tragedy should be averted by issuing and enforcing stricter traffic laws and by other means, it is also quite proper that organs from suitable cadavers should be used for the living.

The Islamic League conference of jurists, (Makkah, December 1987) decree No. 2, 10th session, did not equate cardiac death with brain death. In fact, it did not recognize brain death as death. However it sanctioned all the previous fatwas on organ transplantation. This decree has received little attention in the media, and the authorities in Saudi Arabia seem to ignore it. Cardiac and kidney transplants from brain dead individuals continue without any hindrance from the jurists.

The most detailed fatwa on organ transplantation was that of the Fourth International Conference of Islamic Jurists held in Jeddah, February 1988 (Resolution No. 1). It endorsed all previous fatwas on organ transplantation, clearly rejected any trading or trafficking in organs and stressed the principle of altruism (ibid., pp.55-8).

Jurists have begun to discuss new subjects related to organ transplantation, namely a) transplantation of nervous tissues as a mode of treating Parkinsonism or other ailments; b) transplantation from anencephalics, c) transplantation of tissues from embryos aborted spontaneously, medically or electively; and d) pre-embryos remaining from IVF projects (Fiqh Academy, Kuwait, 1989).

The Sixth International Conference of Islamic Jurists addressed these issues in March 14-20, 1990. In sum, while the frontiers in medical technology continue to be pushed back, Islamic jurists are keeping abreast of the changes and applying established Islamic principles to guide Muslims in new circumstances as good illustration as any of the continued health and vitality of Islam as a code for the whole of human life.

REFERENCES

• ABU DAWUD (n.d.) Sunan Abu Dawuii, Homs, Syria.
• BOLUNGER, R. & Stickel, D.(1986) ‘Historical aspects of transplantalion’, in Sabisron, D. ed., Textbook of Surgery, 13th edn, London.
• AL-BUKHARI (1958 edn) Sahih al-Bukhari, Cairo.
• DAR AL-‘IFTA AL-MISRIYA (1982) al-Fatawa al-islamiyya, The Supreme Islamic Council, Ministry of Endowments, Cairo.
• FIQH, ACADEMY JEDDAH (1987) Majalat al-majma‘ al-fiqhi (Journal of Fiqh Academy).
• FIQH ACADEMY JEDDAH (1988) Book of Decrees.
• FIQH ACADEMY KUWAIT (1989*) Seminar on New Issues in Organ Transplantation, Fiqh Academy and Islamic Organization of Medical Sciences, Kuwait. [*Awaiting publication.]
• GUTHRIE, D.A. (1946) A History of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.
• IBN HANBAL (n.d.) : Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal (Commentary of Ahmed Shakir), Cairo. HAWWA, S. (197l) al-Rasul, 2nd edn, Beirut.
• AL-KHAFAJI, A.S (n.d.) Nasim al-riyadh, Beirut.
• AL-NAWAWI, M.S. (n.d.) al-Majmu‘ (Commentary by M. al-Mutti‘i). Cairo.
• AL-NAWAWI, M.S. (1978) Minnaj al-talibin, Beirut.
• PEER, L. A, (1955) Transplantation of Tissues, Baltimore.
• IBN QAYYIM, M. (1970) Zad al-ma‘ad fi hadyi khayr al-‘ibad, Cairo.
• AL-QAZWINI, Z. (1978) ‘Aja’ib al-makhluqat, 3rd edn, Beirut.
• AL-QUSHAIRI, M. (1972) Sahih Muslim (Commentary of al-Nawawi), Beirut.
• AL-SHIBANI, A. R.(n.d.) Hada’iq al-anwar wa matali‘ al-asrar fi siirat al-nabi al-mukhtar, 2nd edn, Ministry of Endowments, Qatar.
• AL-SHIRBINI, M. (n.d.) Mughni al-muhtaj, Beirut.

The era of illumination which began with the coming of our Prophet, upon him be peace, lasted for centuries. Then, we began to lose the dynamism of our civilization, to collapse. As a result, we came to regard the enemy as more powerful than ourselves. Our power of will and strength of spirit were paralysed. We sought excuses for our defeats, and considered the enemy invincible. The people, in consequence, lost their hope and resolve.

For many centuries we have deluded ourselves into believing our enemies irresistible, singing the praises of their military superiority. On occasions, we have even accused our ancestors of failing to match the technical advances of our opponents and have spoken ill of them. At other times, we have moaned that the enemy is cruel and pitiless. What we have not done is to criticize ourselves and honestly evaluate our own attitudes. In doing so, we have inflicted further heavy blows to the hope and resolve of people. It will remain impossible to establish the real reasons for our collapse, impossible to achieve a true revival as long as we continue to ascribe our defeats only to the military or technical superiority of the enemy and the superior number of their mechanized troops.

So ask yourselves, and then tell me, have you actually fulfilled your obligations? Have you been able to pursue the right road in your activities? Do you have enough will-power and resistance to overcome the obstacles that you face? Are your thoughts and actions in conformity with your beliefs? Have you been able to keep clear of such sinister motivating forces as hatred, malice and vengeance? And your plans and projects–are they carefully, accurately and appropriately thought out?

Only those afflicted with paralysis of will-power and spirit are so blind to their own faults that they busy themselves in finding fault with others. Such poor souls will never be able to perceive the truth, nor make a spiritual recovery, unless they admit that they are themselves fallible.

Every defeat and decline from greatness arises, first of all, from spiritual bankruptcy, and it will continue until there is spiritual recovery. What is most ominous for the well-being of the community is that the spiritually bankrupt individuals do not hold themselves responsible for the decay of the social order, and persist in laying the blame for it on others.

For God’s sake, stop blaming others, and allow yourself to carry a little of the blame. Be self-critical, at least a little. If indeed you are on the right road, if indeed your hearts are set on the service of the truth, and fully alert to your responsibilities, then no one will be able to do you any harm. Remember that only by the Will of God does harm or good come to anyone. Remember that the way has always been paved by Divine Destiny for those pure, loving souls who are determined to serve and support the truth.

How often has a small, resolute band, devoted to jihad, overcome, by God’s leave, a more numerous host. Many devout, godly persons have spent their whole lives in the way of God, and not quailed in front of whatever has befallen them. They have neither been weakened, nor brought low. They are the fortunate ones who are welcomed by the angels, and it is they who will be commemorated by succeeding generations.