The Methodological Approaches of the Najaf and Qom Schools of Jurisprudence in Deriving Rulings Concerning the Status of Brain-Dead Patients: A Case Study of the Deceased’s Will and Relatives’ Consent for Organ Donation

Abstract

The developments in Imami jurisprudence indicate the existence of two schools of jurisprudence, Najaf and Qum, whose jurists seek to deduce Islamic legal rulings by relying on both shared and distinctive methodologies, as well as on different approaches to the interpretation of religious texts. The present study, conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and based on library research, aimed to elucidate the influence of methodological and attitudinal differences among the jurists of these two schools on the derivation of Islamic legal rulings regarding organ donation wills and the consent of the deceased’s relatives to the donation of the deceased’s organs. The findings revealed that the scope attributed to customary understanding in comprehending subjects, the manner of approaching religious texts, and the extent to which the social consequences of legal rulings (fatwas) are taken into consideration have influenced the analysis of the legitimacy of organ donation wills and relatives’ consent. Most jurists of the Najaf school, based on the understanding of the general customary perception, consider individuals diagnosed with brain death to be alive and regard the removal of their organs as an instance of mutilation (muthla) and a violation of the dignity and sanctity of the deceased. Consequently, a deceased will for organ donation is considered illegitimate, and acting upon such a will is impermissible. Conversely, most jurists of the Qom school, by adopting a specialized customary understanding, regard the occurrence of brain death symptoms as an indication of definitive death. Moreover, by recognizing the role of intent in determining whether an act constitutes mutilation, they do not regard organ donation as the violation of the dignity and sanctity of the deceased. Thus, such a will is considered legitimate and acting upon it is obligatory. Regarding the consent of the deceased’s relatives, most Najaf jurists consider it legally ineffective due to the restriction of the scope of guardians’ authority strictly to funeral and burial preparations. In contrast, most Qom jurists, adopting a purposive approach, consider the guardians’ consent necessary as a legitimate Islamic mechanism for maintaining social order and saving patients’ lives.