The Jurisprudence of the use of Human Blood

(An opinions and original document)

Abstract

Islamic scholars differed on the permissibility of benefiting from human blood on three points: The first opinion: to prohibition at all. The second opinion: the permissibility, except, to say, by eating or drinking it.  The third opinion: go into detail on that.

Each of these views is the most prominent evidence to substantiate a claim, but:

First, the evidence of those who say that it is forbidden does not stand up to the evidence of those who say that it is permissible.

Second, saying that it is permissible to remove blood from the body if it is not harmed.  Permissible .

Third, the rule of putting the most important over the important requires that blood be released for the purpose of saving a respectable soul on which its life depends.

Fourth, it has been proven in scientific investigations that removing blood from the body with the care of medical scales and standards and using health means has great benefits and actual or future benefits, and Sharia has permitted the removal of blood from the body by cupping for its benefit.

Fifth, what is learned from the release of evidence and practical principles is the permissibility of benefiting from human blood unless there is special evidence to that effect, and the case is not provided by the evidence, therefore the permissibility is proven.