The fi rst group can include the following positions in favour of: popula- tion control and contraception as long as there is the consent of the spouses;

13

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

In theory, at the end of our overview, we can imagine two groups of oppos- ing positions, overlooking the effective importance of each theory in Muslim thought as well as the fact that the relationship of force between the various positions may change as time passes. This theoretical exercise is useful to recall the variety of the positions present.

The fi rst group can include the following positions in favour of: popula- tion control and contraception as long as there is the consent of the spouses;

abortion before the infusion of the soul on the 120th day (a foetus without a souls may be alleged not to be human) but also afterwards for therapeutic reasons; abortion of handicapped foetuses; research on embryos in the fi rst stages of development or until infusion of the soul; the criteria of brain death;

organ transplants; reproductive human cloning if the technique only involves the spouses; research on embryonic stem cells; passive euthanasia; female genital mutilation (in those areas where it is present) if carried out by health care personnel; penal mutilation “assisted” by health care personnel to protect the offender’s life and contributing to save the moral level of society; IVFET including with the second wife of the same husband; the donation of ovules (if Shi’ite); etc.

The second group can include the following positions opposed to the fi rst group, i.e. opposing contraception and population control; abortion except for therapeutic abortion but only before infusion of the soul around the 40th day; therapeutic abortion; abortion of handicapped foetuses; research on embryos; the brain death criteria; the explantation of organs from a corpse;

human cloning; research on embryonic stem cells; every type of euthanasia;

female genital mutilation and penal mutilation by doctors, etc.

In fact, we generally fi nd more moderate or articulated positions on each issue in both groups.

Different models of bioethics depend, for example, on the positions regarding animation. When infusion of the soul (on the 40th or 120th day or on another date) is deemed decisive to establish the human nature of the foetus, this can generally lead to permissive positions (and “soft” approaches in criminal pro- ceedings) on abortion before infusion, contraception, research on the embryo, the production of stem cells, the abortion of handicapped foetuses, etc. These positions may oppose those that “overlook” the role of infusion of the soul and intend to protect the embryo from fecundation onwards. These are two anthro- pological models which are both based on the Sacred Sources.

Some positions on particular issues – although based on different interpreta- tions of the Sacred Sources – are similar to positions claimed in the West by secular lines of thought.

353

Dariusch Atighetchi, Islamic Bioethics: Problems and Perspectives.

© 2007 Springer.

All this guarantees a strong internal plurality for Islamic bioethics in which the majority position on an individual issue generally has to be identifi ed. These positions (and their relations with one another) may be modifi ed in space and in time. One more example can be given by abortion on which in general the positions expressed by “classic” Muslim law could be rather liberal before the infusion of the soul; only some minority schools of thought (Malikite, Zahirite, Jafarite Shi’ites and the Ibadite sect) tended to refuse abortion at any stage. These stricter positions tend to be commoner today than in the past.

In addition, there is the variable represented by national laws and regulations which do not represent a “betrayal” of a mythical and monolithic Islam but, on the contrary, can represent a further elaboration of the very rich classic Islamic background.

Another component of very great importance is represented by the effective attitude to the various issues by individual peoples, social groups and individu- als. This covers Muslim bioethics based on practice, much more important and varied than a bioethical approach based on principles which is often abstract, apologetic and, in any case, further from real life.

Today, in bioethical thought in the different religions, the risk of “fundamen- talist bioethics” is not to be underestimated. This approach, which is in a minority everywhere, tends to be based exclusively on the Holy Sources of the different religions to provide immediate, simple and undisputable answers to highly com- plex problems which are in constant evolution and on which it is often diffi cult for there to be agreement on the very meaning of the terms used. Moreover, the term “fundamentalism” does not concern the positions on the individual issues (moderate or radical is without any infl uence), but describes the method that leads to these position.

This risk or temptation is perhaps stronger in some Muslim circles as the Koran is the only Sacred Text that contains the direct and omnicomprehensive word of God, as well as the “sayings” of Muhammad, the last of the Prophets sent by God. An arbitrary use of the Holy Texts may be made to limit the multi- plication of positions on various issues of bioethics (amongst others). In actual fact, this strategy may produce the opposite effect: different but unquestionable positions as apparently based on the Word of God. Of all bioethics based on religion, Muslim bioethics is perhaps the system which makes the most frequent reference to quotations from its holy texts.

In countries of immigration (but not only there) this attempt often responds to the wishes of the individual Muslim to fi nd clear answers allowing him to oppose the disorienting ethical pluralism present in the West.

Be that as it may, a great wealth of refl ection, positions and undertones can be observed in Islamic bioethics; this wealth is not hindered but, on the contrary, stimulated by having its roots in the Sacred Sources, even if the issues discussed concern ethics.

There is not just one Islam but there are many, in ethics and in bioethics as well.

354