By Ismaeel Ghouse
In light of the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the resulting sharpening of the contrast between the two sides of the political binary, it is important to consider how we, as Muslims, should view the issue. In the context of a political system where there are essentially only two parties, it is tempting to choose a side. However, it is critical to keep in mind that our values and morals as Muslims are independent of any Western ideology. We derive our morals and values from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). As a result, it is often the case that the Islamic outlook on an issue does not fit cleanly on either side of the bipartisan dichotomy.
In this article, I will lay out my thoughts on the abortion issue. I will first mention a few factors that I feel are important to take into consideration, along with my comments on their impact on the issue. I will then mention a few common arguments that I have seen mentioned by both sides of the debate that I find to be incorrect or irrelevant to the issue. Finally, I will attempt to draw a conclusion that considers all of the relevant factors.
Legal Pluralism
First, we need to address the Islamic legal status of abortion. It is important to acknowledge that the fiqh tradition contains a plurality of opinions, some more lenient than others. These opinions range from unconditionally permissible before 120 days to unconditionally impermissible, with many making exceptions for life-threatening circumstances. The point of mentioning these differences is not to empower individuals to choose whichever one is most convenient for their needs; this pick-and-choose practice of fiqh is unprincipled, dangerous, and has never been condoned by scholars of any generation. Further, just because a more lenient position exists does not mean that a fatwa will be given on it, as fatwas are given based on factors extant at the time of the fatwa. It is impossible to say this with certainty, but had the scholars of the past seen the casual use of abortion and the sheer number of abortions being performed, many of them for poor reasons, it seems unlikely that they would have given the ruling of unconditional permissibility.
This pick-and-choose practice of fiqh is unprincipled, dangerous, and has never been condoned by scholars of any generation.
The purpose of mentioning these differences of opinion within orthodox Islam is to show that it is inaccurate to characterize Islam as monolithically and absolutely anti-abortion. Some draw a comparison between abortion and alcohol, saying that “calling Islam pro-abortion is the same as calling Islam pro-alcohol, because it is permissible to consume alcohol in order to save one’s life.” This comparison is inaccurate for two reasons. The first reason is that the impermissibility of abortion in non-life-threatening circumstances is not unanimously agreed upon, unlike that of alcohol. The other is that the prohibition of pork is clearly established through unambiguous Qurʾānic verses, unlike the prohibition of abortion. The takeaway from this discussion is that there does exist a difference of opinion within orthodox Islam regarding the scope of the permissibility of abortion, both in terms of time and justification. However, it is inaccurate to use this difference of opinion to paint Islam as “Pro-Choice”, just as it is inaccurate to portray it as “Pro-Life”.
The Ideological Underpinnings of the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Movements
Another factor to consider is the problematic ideological underpinnings of the Pro-Choice movement. The fundamental principle upon which it rests is “my body, my choice”. This principle is antithetical to the ethical system implemented by Islam, which derives moral legitimacy from the command of God, not from the principle of bodily autonomy and freedom to live as one wishes. The Pro-Choice movement also has strong connections to the sexual revolution and sex-positive movement, with the goal of providing easier access to consequence-free sexual relationships. This, again, runs contrary to Islamic morals and values. Another common reason for abortion is that it is a convenient “delete button” to undo pregnancies that are inconvenient to one’s financial, academic, or recreational aspirations. This is once again problematic from an Islamic perspective, where the underlying worldview is to submit to God’s will and to trust His decree.
At the same time, the Pro-Life movement also has problematic underpinnings. While one side goes to the extreme of unrestricted freedom to perform and receive abortions, the other side leans toward the opposite extreme of making them difficult to obtain even in cases of legitimate medical need, let alone other motivating factors that could potentially be considered Islamically valid justifications. In addition, what constitutes medical need is not a clearly defined category, and often requires instantaneous decision-making without the time for legal consultation. Although state laws that ban abortions do make allowances for medical necessity, these laws are vague enough that providers are often reluctant to provide abortion and miscarriage care for fear of legal repercussions. This, of course, is a highly undesirable situation that can (and does) lead to loss or near-loss of life. Again, here we must weigh this negative outcome of overturning Roe v. Wade with its positive outcomes.
We must also consider how widespread abortion is today. Over 860,000 abortions are performed annually in the US [1], about 25% of which are due to medical concerns for either the mother or the fetus [2]. Approximately 2-3% of all abortions are performed at 19 weeks or later [3], which corresponds to a fetal age of approximately 17 weeks, or approximately 120 days. Although this percentage seems low, in terms of sheer quantity, the number is quite large; 2% of 860,000 is 17,200. In other words, 17,200 fetuses are aborted after the window of Islamic permissibility. As was mentioned previously, given the massive number of abortions that are performed, many of which are performed at a stage that is impermissible by consensus, and given the Islamically illegitimate justifications behind a large number of them, it seems unlikely that classical scholars would give the same rulings today as they did in their time. The question to consider here is whether or not these ideological issues that drive mainstream support for abortion rights are a reason for Muslims to shun legislation that allows unrestricted access to abortion.
Underlying Social Issues
We should understand that certain underlying social and economic issues are important driving factors for abortions. A significant number of Americans fall under the federal poverty line, a problem that is exacerbated by the lack of access to affordable food, housing, and healthcare that is experienced by many of them. Domestic and sexual abuse are also widespread and common. These factors, understandably, lead people to consider and pursue abortions, out of fear of raising children in environments of poverty and abuse. While these are certainly important issues that must be addressed, they are also somewhat separate from the discussion regarding the ethics of abortion and abortion policies. The fact that an unethical outcome is a result of an underlying cause does not make it appropriate to tolerate that which is unethical until the cause itself is eradicated.
Addressing the symptoms is not the way to cure the illness. Banning abortion will not eliminate the problem of sex-positive lifestyles; indeed, it is debatable if it will even reduce it. Moreover, it will not fix the socioeconomic conditions that parents or potential parents are reluctant to bring their children into. In fact, it would result in more children being born into such undesirable conditions. In this sense, abortion restrictions are a “band-aid” solution that merely remedy the visible symptoms without attacking the underlying cause. However, this does not mean that we should not attempt to address the symptoms as well. To carry on the analogy of disease, many medical treatments focus both on addressing the root causes and treating the symptoms. The fact that the general trend in the political arena is that those who advocate treating the symptoms also ignore the root causes does not mean that we should turn away from treating the symptoms; rather, we must add further treatments for the root causes, as well as promote our worldview which is the ultimate cure to all these problems.
Abortion Restrictions as a “Band-Aid” Solution
We must recognize that the problematic driving factors that I have discussed above (bodily autonomy, sexual positivity, social and economic issues) stem from problematic theologies and worldviews, as well as a lack of initiative in addressing the root socioeconomic issues. Like other ethical issues such as the LGBTQ movement, economic exploitation, etc., the fundamental cause for the abortion epidemic is a lack of belief in Allah, the objective moral system He has legislated, and the consequences of not following it. As long as this root issue remains, trying to solve the resulting moral ills that plague society will be like a game of whack-a-mole.
Common Arguments
In this section, I will discuss some arguments that I have seen being used in the abortion debate. This list is, of course, not exhaustive of all arguments used in the debate, nor have I confined the discussion to arguments used by one side specifically. I chose these arguments in particular because I find them to be either weak, false, or irrelevant to the issue at hand.
“We shouldn’t force Islam on non-Muslims.” While it is true that non-Muslims are not responsible for praying, fasting, etc., we should not make the mistake of thinking that Islamic ethics are only for Muslims. To be Muslim means to believe that the ethics and morals laid out by the Sharīʿah are objectively true and correct. Our worldview should be shaped and molded by them. Just as those who support secular ideologies or evangelical Christian ideologies genuinely believe that what they believe is the truth and readily use their voice in the democratic system to promote them, we, too, should feel confident enough in our beliefs to recognize that we have a right as citizens to use our voice in the democratic process to promote our ideals. The fact that we are a minority and unlikely to influence large-scale change does not change the fact that not only is it not wrong for us to speak up about our values, but it is in fact un-American to not do so.
To be Muslim means to believe that the ethics and morals laid out by the Sharīʿah are objectively true and correct. Our worldview should be shaped and molded by them.
“Supporting legislation that is stricter than what some valid Islamic positions allow is detrimental to the fiqh tradition.”
There is no obligation for a legal (i.e., government) system to allow every orthodox fiqh position to be practiced. Throughout history, legal systems have enforced certain positions at the expense of others. The fact that the ummah has not only tolerated, but cultivated, a pluralistic fiqh tradition does not mean that every fiqh opinion enjoyed equal status at the state level. No doubt, if the law of the land is expansive enough to accommodate multiple opinions, there is no problem in following them based on guidance from a scholar. However, if, for any reason, the law is made restrictive such that some opinions are excluded, then one should not understand this to be an attack on the institution of fiqh.
“Restrictive abortion laws infringe on women’s right to follow the more lenient opinion.”
Legal opinions are not products for display on a shelf to be chosen based on the consumer’s preference. No one has a “right” to follow a particular opinion. The existence of a legal opinion simply means that a particular scholar personally came to that conclusion. It says nothing of the strength of their legal argument nor the applicability of ruling based in a different context nor the permissibility of following it. Legal opinions are more akin to prescriptions, where qualified practitioners are responsible for determining the most suitable course of action. The pick-and-choose methodology of law that is abound today among people who are not scholars, as well as those who have acquired religious knowledge, is antithetical to the philosophy that the ummah has held from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and is dangerous ground to tread. Again, I emphasize that the criticism here is not against those who follow a particular legal tradition, in whose corpus of legal opinions exists a more lenient position on abortion. This criticism is directed toward those who wish to exercise a perceived right to practice on any opinion that exists and suits their objective. At the same time, again, a governmental law that prevents even the first category of people from practicing the position of their school is not “depriving them of a right”.
“Things like cell phones, the internet, and social media also contribute to zinā.”
While this is true, I do not find this argument to be relevant to the issue at hand. Abortion, unlike these things, is related to the termination of a being that is sanctified (at least, to some extent) by the Sharīʿah (according to many scholars). We also notice that these things have a vast scope of permissible, and even beneficial, uses, in addition to the fact that they are not ideologically promoted as a means to illicit lifestyles. This argument could work for those who follow the opinion of unconditional permissibility, but it is still not a good argument for debate, as the opposing side does not grant the premise that the fetus has no sanctity attached to it.
Conclusions
There are a few key points we can conclude from the above:
- The legal status of abortion is nuanced, yet this nuance does not mean that every existing opinion recorded in the literature must, or can, be followed.
- The primary reasons driving the push for unrestricted abortion access are Islamically problematic or unacceptable. In particular, late-term abortions are especially egregious.
- However, there are a significant number of abortions performed for health reasons. The borders surrounding the realm of valid reasons are somewhat blurry, and legislation that attempts to demarcate them either excludes certain valid medical excuses or is vague enough that medical providers would rather err on the side of legal caution than on the side of medical judgment.
- The socioeconomic issues that are a significant driving factor for abortions are problematic and must be addressed. However, they do not affect the ethics of the abortion issue. One social ill cannot be used to repel another.
- Banning abortion will not address the underlying social and economic ills that plague our society.
- The ultimate solution to this social issue, and all social issues, is to adhere to the legal and moral system legislated by Allah.
- When it comes to ethical issues, Muslims can and should use their participation in the democratic process to promote the adoption of Islamic morals in the society in which they live.
- Legislation that is more restrictive than some legal opinions is not a violation of religious freedom, nor is it detrimental to the legal tradition.
In sum, the abortion access allowed by Roe v. Wade was too expansive to fit under Islamic ethics and morals. In that sense, its overturning is a moral victory and a step in the right direction. However, it must also be acknowledged that the resulting curtailing of abortion access will have a negative impact on women’s health outcomes, especially women living in lower income brackets. This is an issue that should ideally be addressed by legislation that allows physicians enough leeway to exercise their medical judgment without fear of legal repercussions and without providing unfettered access to abortion. There is also a need for legislation that addresses the socioeconomic issues that are a significant motivating factor in seeking abortions. This is in the theoretical realm of ideals, which we should promote to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately, in the practical realm of reality, addressing socioeconomic issues has been and likely will remain an unproductive game of tug-of-war. Properly regulated access to abortion is also unlikely to occur. The more likely scenario is that any legislation will either be overly restrictive or overly permissive. In this case, we should recognize that the former will lead to increased negative health outcomes, while the latter will lead to increased negative moral outcomes. When forced to choose between two unideal options, our response should be to choose the lesser of two evils. Given the fact that abortion is inherently permissible, at least in certain situations, and given that Muslims are not morally responsible for the ethical transgressions of the non-Muslim-majority society in which they live, and over whose laws they have limited influence, the lesser of the two evils seems to be supporting progressive legislation in favor of “abortion rights”, with the purpose of ensuring the health of Muslim (and non-Muslim) women, while at the same time being very clear (both on a personal and public level) that the primary driving factors behind the progressive legislation do not enjoy the approval of the Muslim community.
￣￣￣￣￣￣
[1] Guttmacher Institute, 2017
