BLOOD DONATION

Q. Some Ulama say that it is permissible to donate blood for future use. It is not possible to acquire blood for an emergency by means of on-the-spot donation. Therefore blood can be donated for future emergencies. The argument of these Ulama goes as follows: “…The ruling with regards to donating blood would be that if there is a patient in the throes of death and the doctors say that there is strong hope that a transfusion would save the patient’s life and an urgent appeal for donation is made at the spur of the moment, then one would be permitted to donate blood, otherwise not. However, in view of the challenges facing the medical fraternity in this time and era, this ruling in its essence is not applicable due to the fact that there are stringent regulations that have to be adhered to, before a donor’s blood can be considered suitable for transfusion into a recipient, such as screening donor’s blood for diseases such as HIV, etc. It would thus be difficult to get suitable blood on the spur of the moment.
Therefore one is allowed to donate blood whenever the call for donations is made, even though there may not be at that specific moment an urgent appeal made for a patient……The donor, however, should donate his/her blood with the intention that the blood must be used in times of extreme necessity for someone who is in dire need of it.
There are two reasons for the permissibility of blood transfusion in spite of it constituting the usage of human body part, whereas it has been mentioned that organ transplants are not permissible for the very same reason. The reasons for permissibility of blood transfusion in life-threatening situations are as follows: Firstly, there is hardly any pain felt when removing blood from the body, contrary to that of removing a limb. Secondly, the jurist have given it the same law as the drinking of woman’s milk. It is permissible for a baby to drink the milk of a woman. Milk is produced from blood. So just as it is permissible to drink the milk, it is permissible to use the blood of another person (in dire necessity).
A. We disagree with the permissibility of blood donation. The two arguments presented for permissibility are utterly baseless and even weird. It is ludicrous to compare blood with milk. Blood is najaasat while milk is wholesome. Milk has been created by Allah Ta’ala specifically for the nourishment of the infant, not so blood. It is therefore a gross error to liken blood with mother’s milk. The averment that blood is halaal like milk is palpably baseless. The analogy is devoid of substance. There is no comparison between pure, halaal, wholesome mother’s milk and impure, haraam blood. If woman’s milk is ‘produced from blood’, it does not halaalize blood. It does not render blood taahir (pure and wholesome) like milk. While the milk is halaal tayyib, the blood remains najis.
The averment: “So just as it is permissible to drink the milk, it is permissible to use the blood of another person.”, is absurd. Consumption of the milk is because it is taahir, halaal and tayyib. Above all, its permissibility is by the Decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Furthermore, the milk remains halaal and tayyib even after separation from the human being whereas human parts become impure after separation from the body. The introduction of the term ‘just’ is therefore stupid. There is absolutely no common factor for making this weird and ludicrous analogy.
The contention of ‘dire necessity’ comes within the scope of an entirely distinct and separate principle of the Shariah. While it will be correct to say that a haraam substance becomes temporarily permissible on the basis of ‘dire necessity’, the claim that in a situation of ‘dire necessity’ blood becomes halaal because milk is halaal, is unintelligent and ridiculous, and not worthy of intelligent rebuttal. The temporary hillat (permissibility) of an original haraam substance is based solely on the element of ‘dire necessity’. There is no need to fabricate a fictitious, illogical and untenable second basis for a hukm (law) which is the effect of ‘dire necessity’ (Dhuroorat).
The Mufti Sahib who has formulated the incorrect fatwa pertaining to blood transfusion, writes in the very same article: “It is not permissible to donate organs or to have organ transplants done, even if there be a dire necessity for it. The usage of a man’s organs is not permissible because of the nobility and respect of man…..Whether a man is living or dead, it is not permissible to use any part of his body. Firstly due to his respect and secondly, due to the pain and difficulty he undergoes on that limb being removed.”
Despite the element of ‘dire necessity’, the Mufti Sahib has created a distinction between organs and blood. The raison d’etre for the Mufti Sahib’s negation of the use of human organs despite ‘dire necessity’ such as fear of death, is ‘nobility and pain’. Thus, it is clear that ‘dire necessity’ is not an unrestricted principle for halaalizing what is haraam. As far as blood is concerned, the raison d’etre for the prohibition is nobility and najaasat. Blood as part of the human body enjoys the same nobility as body organs while it is inside the human body. After detachment from the body it is najis (impure) just as other human organs are impure after separation from the body.
From this angle, organs and blood have the same raison d’etre for the prohibition. Human blood too may not be flushed down the sewerage drain. It has also to be deposited underground just as is the case with detached human organs. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) issued a specific instruction to bury the blood which was extracted by the process of Hijaamah (Cupping). Human blood despite its attribute of impurity is not in the same category as urine and faeces. Hence, the ‘after birth’ items despite being najis have to be buried.
The distinction which the respected Mufti Sahib theorized for the purpose of halaalizing blood-donation and blood-storing, is logically and Islamically unsound. Pork becomes permissible on the basis of dire necessity. The element of Dhuroorah overrides all other factors, and the haraam substance is rendered temporarily permissible solely on the basis of ‘dire necessity’. If the principle of Dhuroorah is applied to blood, there is no logical reason why it cannot be extended to organs.
Regarding the element of  ‘pain’, it should be understood that lack of pain is not a halaalizer of haraam. Cutting hair and nails is painless. Despite the total absence of pain, it is not permissible to utilize human hair and nails. These items of the human body have to be incumbently buried. Furthermore, if a human organ can be painlessly removed, it does not follow that its utilization is halaal. An eleventh finger is an abnormality. If such an abnormal limb is painlessly removed, its use remains haraam solely on the basis of it having been a part of Insaan (the human being). The same applies to teeth. Human teeth cannot be utilized for any purpose.
Thus, the element of Karaamat (Nobility) of Insaan is the primary consideration for the prohibition of utilization and derivation of benefit from any human part with the exception (Istithna’) of mother’s milk whose permissibility is the effect of Nass-e-Qat’i. The exercise of analogizing blood with milk is both illogic and redundant.
Secondly just as swine flesh may not be stored in freezers for use at a later day in countries where people may still die of starvation, and just as urine may not be stored for future patients who will be in dire need of the urine medicine, and just as faeces may not be stored for future use when they will still discover the medicinal properties of human faeces, so too the impurity of blood may not be acquired by way of ‘donation’ so as to treasure it for future use.
The common denominator of urine, faeces and blood is najaasat. ‘Wonderful’ medicinal properties have already been discovered in human urine. In fact, a Hindu sect in India drinks glasses of their own urine. One of India’s past prime ministers was an ardent advocate of urine-consumption. And, who knows! We may soon have ‘halaal’ urine. It remains to be seen who will win the rights to issue a halaal certificate for urine, and thereafter for medical faeces. Will it be SANHA, the MJC, NIHT, ICSA? The readers can ruminate and juggle their brains to unravel this conundrum.
If today blood-banks are halaaized, then tomorrow there will be no logical reason for haraamizing urine and faeces banks. After all, the human faeces – ‘halaal’ urine and ‘halaal’ excreta – will, for the minimum, bear the designation ‘APPROVED’. Right now can the honourable Mufti Sahib come to terms with urine and faeces banks? If not, then on what basis does he accept blood-banks? If urine and faeces banks are acceptable and halaal to him, for logically there is no reason for differentiating between blood and these coprophilic substances, then we throw in the intellectual towel. Engaging stercoraceous brains defiled with coprophilic tendencies is most demeaning and befits only those whose intellectual capacity has atrophied.
In our glittering, celestial, divine, pure and holy Shariah, there is no scope for elevating Najaasat to the pedestal which pure and wholesome medicine occupies. Thus, blood banks, urine banks and faeces banks are HARAAM, and no ‘halaal’ certificate can ever halaalize accretions of filth.

About these ads