Question

I was just wondering if we are allowed to take the Anti D vaccine. My midwife advised me that since my blood group is O negative I need to take the Anti D vaccine at 28 weeks of my pregnancy and after my delivery in case the baby is born with a positive blood group.

My body can produce antibodies which destroys the baby’s blood cells since it treats it like a foreigner. That’s why the anti D vaccine is given so even if a bit of the baby blood enters my blood stream during the third trimester my body is ok with it and doesn’t produce antibodies to destroy the baby blood cells which could lead to still birth or more serious complications for the baby, such as severe anaemia, brain damage and even death in some cases. Its to prevent this and any future pregnancies complications.

I read up on what Anti D is and it’s a immunoglobulin made from the clear part of the blood, called plasma, and is sourced from donors from countries outside of the UK. It is given by an injection into the muscle.

Islamically I wanted to know if there is any problem taking this vaccine or its ok.

It would be great if you could get back to me soon since I have my midwife appointment for the vaccine in 2 weeks and I need to decide by then whether I should take or no.

There isn’t any other alternate option to the Anti D therefore I just wanted absolute clarity if its OK in Islam to take this vaccine since its taken from blood donors.

Jazakallah

---

Answer

It is permissible to take the Anti D injection.

Donating blood and benefiting from blood donations are both permissible in certain circumstances. Below is a previously answered question on blood donation which details those circumstances.

It is permissible for a person to draw blood from their body for their own medical benefit. This is understood from the Prophetic narrations regarding cupping. For example, the Prophet (may Allah bless him with peace) has said:

“If there is good in any of your medicines, then it is in cupping”[1]

This hadith and other similar hadiths related to cupping indicate that one is allowed to draw blood from their own body if there is a medical benefit in doing so.

We also know from juristic texts that it is not permissible to use, and benefit from, parts of the human body,[2] except where there is a need. For example, it is not permissible to use or trade human hair,[3] human skin, breast milk etc. However, where there is a need it can become permissible provided certain conditions are met. For example, it is permissible for a woman to breast feed a child up to a certain age and it can be permissible for someone to use breast milk if there are proven medical benefits with certain conditions.[4]

Similarly, deriving benefit from blood is not permissible. However, if there is a need such as a medical emergency, it becomes permissible, again with certain conditions.[5] For example, jurists have mentioned that a patient may consume blood if it is proven through reliable Muslim doctors that they will be cured by this and there is no alternative lawful medication.

From the above we can conclude the following. It is permissible for one to draw blood from their body for their own benefit. And it is permissible for a patient to use blood as a means of treatment if there is no alternative treatment and this mode of treatment is known to be effective. However, the jurists have not discussed whether or not it is permissible to draw blood for another person’s benefit.

One may argue that extracting blood from the body goes against the sanctity of the human body and that it may not be permissible to give a substance derived from one person’s body to another. However, when we look at current methods of blood donation, they are relatively simple and do not require the body to be harmed beyond a needle piercing which in current times would not be considered to be harming or disrespecting the body. Some recent scholars such as Mufti Shafī῾ Usmani, analogise blood donation with breast-feeding stating that both require a simple process of extraction, whereby the body does not need to be injured, and the process does not lead to disrespect of the body.[6] Hence, just as extracting milk is permitted for the benefit of a child, extracting blood should also be permissible for the benefit of the patient.

As for blood being impure this would not be a problem, as a patient is permitted to make use of impure or unlawful substances in cases of need when there is no alternative lawful treatment. In addition to this blood is something which will regenerate within the donor’s body; hence, would not present major risk to their health.

Based on the above we would state that if it is proven that there are shortages within blood banks used by hospitals, Muslims will be permitted to donate blood towards these banks due to the medical need.

The following points must be observed in relation to blood donation.

• Those donating blood cannot be compelled to donate blood, rather, they must donate of their own will. Individuals should not feel obliged to donate.
• Only those individuals should donate who are fit and healthy and for whom donating will not pose any severe harm to their body.
• It would not be permissible to buy or sell blood.

Blood donation would be permissible in cases where there is a patient whose life is in danger and requires blood or a component of blood immediately. Based on this, some scholars may state that donating blood for the purpose of storing is not permissible, rather it would only be permissible when there is a patient ready to receive the blood. However, in current times this will not be practical, as the process of blood donation requires a few additional steps between giving the blood and a patient receiving the blood such as screening tests, or separating various components of blood etc. Even though there may not be a patient who needs the blood at the time of donation, there is a level of assurance, based on demand, that the blood will be needed and used in the near future.

For these reasons, we would consider blood donation permissible provided the above-mentioned conditions are met.

[1] صحيح البخاري (7/ 123)

قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: ” إِنْ كَانَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ أَدْوِيَتِكُمْ – أَوْ: يَكُونُ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ أَدْوِيَتِكُمْ – خَيْرٌ، فَفِي شَرْطَةِ مِحْجَمٍ، أَوْ شَرْبَةِ عَسَلٍ، أَوْ لَذْعَةٍ بِنَارٍ تُوَافِقُ الدَّاءَ، وَمَا أُحِبُّ أَنْ أَكْتَوِيَ “

[2] الفتاوى الهندية (5/ 354) الِانْتِفَاعُ بِأَجْزَاءِ الْآدَمِيِّ لَمْ يَجُزْ قِيلَ لِلنَّجَاسَةِ وَقِيلَ لِلْكَرَامَةِ هُوَ الصَّحِيحُ كَذَا فِي جَوَاهِرِ الْأَخْلَاطِيِّ.

الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (1/ 204)

 (وآدمي) فلا يدبغ لكرامته، ولو دبغ طهر وإن حرم استعماله

(قوله وإن حرم استعماله) أي استعمال جلده أو استعمال الآدمي بمعنى أجزائه وبه يظهر التفريع بعده (قوله احتراما) أي لا نجاسة

[3] الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (5/ 58)

 (كما بطل) (بيع صبي لا يعقل ومجنون) شيئا وبول (ورجيع آدمي لم يغلب عليه التراب) فلو مغلوبا به جاز كسرقين وبعر، واكتفى في البحر بمجرد خلطه بتراب (وشعر الإنسان) لكرامة الآدمي ولو كافرا ذكره المصنف وغيره في بحث شعر الخنزير.

(قوله وشعر الإنسان) ولا يجوز الانتفاع به لحديث «لعن الله الواصلة والمستوصلة» وإنما يرخص فيما يتخذ من الوبر فيزيد في قرون النساء وذوائبهن هداية.

[4] الفتاوى الهندية (5/ 355) وَلَا بَأْسَ بِأَنْ يُسْعَطَ الرَّجُلُ بِلَبَنِ الْمَرْأَةِ وَيَشْرَبَهُ لِلدَّوَاءِ وَفِي شُرْبِ لَبَنِ الْمَرْأَةِ لِلْبَالِغِ مِنْ غَيْرِ ضَرُورَةٍ اخْتِلَافُ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ كَذَا فِي الْقُنْيَةِ.

الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (5/ 71)

(ولبن امرأة) ولو (في وعاء ولو أمة) على الأظهر؛ لأنه جزء آدمي والرق مختص بالحي ولا حياة في اللبن فلا يحله الرق

(قوله على الأظهر)  … مطلب في التداوي بلبن البنت للرمد قولان وقال في موضع آخر: إن أهل الطب يثبتون نفعا للبن البنت للعين وهي من أفراد مسألة الانتفاع بالمحرم للتداوي كالخمر، واختار في النهاية والخانية الجواز إذا علم فيه الشفاء ولم يجد دواء غيره بحر، وسيأتي – إن شاء الله تعالى – تمامه في متفرقات البيوع، وكذا في الحظر والإباحة.

الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (5/ 228)

(قوله ورده في البدائع إلخ) قدمنا في البيع الفاسد عند قوله ولبن امرأة أن صاحب الخانية والنهاية اختارا جوازه إن علم أن فيه شفاء ولم يجد دواء غيره

[5]  الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (5/ 228)

قدمنا في البيع الفاسد عند قوله ولبن امرأة أن صاحب الخانية والنهاية اختارا جوازه إن علم أن فيه شفاء ولم يجد دواء غيره قال في النهاية: وفي التهذيب يجوز للعليل شرب البول والدم والميتة للتداوي إذا أخبره طبيب مسلم أن فيه شفاءه ولم يجد من المباح ما يقوم مقامه، وإن قال الطبيب يتعجل شفاؤك به فيه وجهان، وهل يجوز شرب العليل من الخمر للتداوي فيه وجهان، وكذا ذكره الإمام التمرتاشي وكذا في الذخيرة وما قيل إن الاستشفاء بالحرام حرام غير مجرى على إطلاقه وأن الاستشفاء بالحرام إنما لا يجوز إذا لم يعلم أن فيه شفاء أما إن علم وليس له دواء غيره

الفتاوى الهندية (5/ 355)يَجُوزُ لِلْعَلِيلِ شُرْبُ الدَّمِ وَالْبَوْلِ وَأَكْلُ الْمَيْتَةِ لِلتَّدَاوِي إذَا أَخْبَرَهُ طَبِيبٌ مُسْلِمٌ أَنَّ شِفَاءَهُ فِيهِ وَلَمْ يَجِدْ مِنْ الْمُبَاحِ مَا يَقُومُ مَقَامَهُ وَإِنْ قَالَ الطَّبِيبُ يَتَعَجَّلُ شِفَاؤُك فِيهِ وَجْهَانِ.

[6] Jawahir al-Fiqh 7:46

Answered by:
Ifta Research Fellow

Checked & Approved by:
Mufti Abdul Rahman Mangera
Mufti Zubair Patel