Vaccine hesitancy within the Muslim community: Islamic faith and public health perspectives.

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing public health concern that has fueled the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in several Muslim-majority countries. Although multiple factors are associated with vaccine hesitancy, certain religious deliberations are significant in determining individuals' vaccine-related decisions and attitudes. In this review article, we summarize the literature on religious factors linked to vaccine hesitancy among Muslims, thoroughly discuss the Islamic law (sharia) viewpoint on vaccination and offer recommendations to address vaccine hesitancy in Muslim communities. Halal content/labeling and the influence of religious leaders were identified as major determinants of vaccination choices among Muslims. The core concepts of sharia, such as "preservation of life," "necessities permit prohibitions," and "empowering social responsibility for the greater public benefit" promote vaccination. Engaging religious leaders in immunization programs is crucial to enhance the uptake of vaccines among Muslims.

Three-parent in vitro fertilization (ivf):an approach to the position of muslim jurisprudence and arab laws-emirati law as a model.

This article aims to elucidate the position of Muslim Jurisprudence on the matter of Three-Parent in Vitro Fertilization (IVF) while linking it to the position of Arab laws-the Emirati Law-as a model. The present study adopted an inductive analytical method. Three Parent IVF takes place by injecting the nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from the ovum of the mother (wife) inserting this nuclear DNA in an ovum given by a female donor, from which the nucleus has been removed. This new ovum is then fertilized by sperm from the father (husband) by traditional methods inside the laboratory. The author concludes that Islamic Law is opposed to this practice, and that Emirati Law does not permit it in such form. Key words: Three-Parent in Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Muslim Jurisprudence (Fiqh), Emirati Law.

Medical experiments on persons with special needs, a comparative study of Islamic jurisprudence vs. Arab laws: UAE law as case study.

This article is a comparative study of medical experiments on persons with special needs in Islamic jurisprudence and Arab laws; United Arab Emirates (UAE) law as case study. The current study adopts a comparative analytical and descriptive approach. The conclusion of this study points out that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Special Needs, ratified by a number of Arab States, including the United Arab Emirates, approves conducting medical experiments on persons with special needs, subject to their free consent. As a result of ratifying this Convention, a number of special laws were enacted to be enforced in the United Arab Emirates. On the other hand, this issue is controversial from an Islamic jurisprudence point of view. One group of jurisprudents permits conducting these experimentations if they are designed to treat the person involved, and prohibits such experimentations for scientific advancement. Other jurisprudents permit conducting medical experimentations on persons with special needs, whether the purpose of such experimentations is treatment of the disabled or achieving scientific advancement. The opinion of this group is consistent with the International Convention and the Arab laws in this respect. However, neither the Convention nor the Arab laws regulate this matter by specific and comprehensive conditions, as addressed by some contemporary scholars. It is recommended that the Convention and the Arab laws adopt these conditions. Additionally, the Convention does not state whether the experimentations may be conducted for the interest of the person with disability or for the purpose of scientific advancement. The text of the Convention is unclear and therefore requires further illumination.