On the ruling of donating a kidney.

If we know these legal realities, how can we say: It is permissible for a living person to donate one of his kidneys to another, when this may cause him harm, either immediate or delayed?
This statement is further supported by remembering a reality that every believer believes in: Our Lord said in the Qur'an: meaning: from a flaw. He who knew it, knew it, and he who did not know it, did not know it; because not all people know this reality, but the Muslim benefits from the knowledge of his Lord's Book and the Hadith of His Prophet. ; Do you think that when our Lord created for man two kidneys, and created for him two hands and two legs, it was in vain? , I see no difference at all between a person who volunteers one of his kidneys and another who volunteers one of his hands or legs; there is absolutely no difference between this and that. Yes?

The questioner: Donating kidneys is more and more dangerous.

The Shaykh: More dangerous, well done; if a witness from among them had been present, I was waiting for him to come.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : All right; may Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : And beware of that.

The Shaykh: So then—and I am saying this to clarify the reality and as a lesson for those who take heed—I am now speaking to you with this speech, and in the opinion of some doctors, I do not know if they are right or wrong; I am living among you now with one kidney; because my right kidney is inactive. If I had been one of those who were deceived by such a fatwa, and I had donated this kidney and the other had become inactive, I would have been in the world of the dead without a doubt. Therefore, it is a grave error to say: It is permissible to donate one of the kidneys; this is for the living person; because he is in need of it, otherwise as we said, and the examples of the hands and legs are completely tangible, and as you heard, this is a hidden, internal matter, and I believe that if a hand were cut off, there would be no danger to the person whose hand was cut off; as evidenced by the fact that the Shari'ah came with the cutting off of the hand, and how many people committed the sin that requires the cutting off of the hand, and perhaps the leg as well, what? They lived. But if the second kidney is not exposed to danger, it may be exposed to death; and therefore, as you heard, it is more dangerous in his donation of one of his kidneys; this is for the living person.
As for the dead person, here many people who issue fatwas on the permissibility of cutting open the dead person's chest and extracting one of the kidneys to benefit the living person overlook or neglect this. Here I recall a word attributed to "Abu al-Ala al-Ma'arri," and although he is a man whose words are not cited as evidence, but the word is truth whether it comes from one who is not qualified or from one who is qualified; when he saw a sick man and they described for him the meat of a kid goat or a small sheep, he said: "They underestimated you and described it for you; did they describe for you a lion's cub?!" [The Shaykh laughs!], so they took advantage of the dead and ruled on benefiting from one of his kidneys, but the Shari'ah says: It is not permissible to mutilate even the disbelievers, and this is part of the etiquette of Islam, so what about mutilating Muslims, and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ?!
; So they cut open his belly and his nerves and I do not know what passes on its way—the doctor knows better than me—to reach this kidney; this is mutilation of this dead person, and unfortunately, when they issue this fatwa, they do not distinguish between the Muslim and the disbeliever, and our Lord says: , if they wanted, and if such a fatwa is necessary to achieve the benefit—they claim!—the benefit of the living person at the expense of the dead person, at least they should restrict it to the disbeliever; because when the Messenger said: he described him as a believer, he said: ; nevertheless, I see that this approach rises above the principle that the end does not justify the means in Islam, unlike the disbelievers who say, either by their state or by their words—and the state is more eloquent than the words in many circumstances—these disbelievers say: "The end justifies the means"; and therefore, as you see in this life in this era and others, they make permissible what no religion after Islam permits, with all its flaws and defects; why? Because the end justifies the means, and we do not need to hear from the disbelievers the explicit statement of what their state speaks: "The end justifies the means"; we do not hope to hear such a word from these disbelievers; because, as you know, they are people of politics, and therefore they act contrary to what they express and say, but we want for all our Muslim brothers, whether they are jurists or not, scholars or not, that they do not imitate the disbelievers in their systems, in their methodologies, in their path of conduct in their lives, and among that is that the end justifies the means; therefore, you find when they say: My brother, this dead person is going to die, so let us save the living person at the expense of a kidney from this dead person, the end justifies the means!! No, this is his property and it is not permissible for him to dispose of it.
Here a question arises, and the answer is known from what has preceded, but it strengthens the position that even if the dead person wrote a bequest that I allow the benefit from a kidney or two kidneys, or an eye or both eyes, or the like; we say: This bequest is invalid; because this dead person has no right of disposal after his death, he has moved from this life to the barzakh life, so he will move with all his flaws and defects, and he does not have the right to dispose of his body contrary to what was permissible for him to dispose of in his life.
Other than that?