Answer: If he knows that the virus can infect her through sexual relations, it is not permissible for him at all. Similarly [it is obligatory on him to refrain from sex] if there exists a considerable level of likelihood [of infection], except in the case where the wife knows about it and agrees to it.

Answer: It is permissible to inform them, if the patient or his guardian gives consent. It is obligatory if the survival —for a longer time span— of the patient depends on it. It is similarly obligatory, if he knows that by not informing them, the virus would infect them for not taking necessary precautions.

Answer: Since this disease lasts long, what can be classified as terminal is its last stage only which is closer to death that is brought about by the disruption and complete destruction of the immune system or the occurrence of fatal nervous breakdown.

Answer: She does not lose the right of custody of her baby; but she must adopt sufficient methods to ensure that the virus does not infect the baby. If it is probable —a considerable probability— that the virus may be transmitted through breast-feeding, it is necessary for her to refrain from it.

Answer: It is not permissible, more so after the soul has entered the feotus. Of course, if continuation of the pregnancy poses a danger to the mother, it is permissible for her to abort it before the entering of the soul in the feotus, but not after it.

Answer: If deception was involved in the marriage, in the sense that the husband or the wife concealed the fact that they had AIDS at the time of proposing, engagement, so much that the marriage contract (‘aqd) was recited based on that understanding, the deceived party has the right of annulment.
However, if the wife or her representative did not say anything about the issue of the disease and the husband assumed that she is free from it, the silence does not count as deception and, it therefore, does not yield the right of annulment.
If there was no deception or the disease flared up after the marriage, the non-infected husband has the right to divorcing his infected wife. Does the non-infected wife have the right to ask for divorce from her infected husband on the grounds that she is being deprived of her conjugal rights?
There are two views [on this]; precaution should not be ruled out in this case. Of course, if her husband abandons her completely and she becomes like a suspended woman [neither married nor unmarried], it is permissible for her to take her case to the religious judge* to force her husband to choose one of two courses: either end the abandonment or divorce her.

Answer: It is permissible for a non-infected wife not to make herself available to her infected husband for intimacy that could lead to infection by the virus. It is indeed obligatory on her to prevent him from such intimacy.
If it is possible to lessen the chances of infection to a level that is insignificant —for example, 2%— by using condom, etc, it is permissible for her to be intimate with her husband. In such a case, it is, based on precaution, not permissible for her to refuse [intimate relations with her husband].
This clarifies also the case of a husband who is not a carrier of the virus and wife whose: it is not permissible for him to have sexual relations with her in accordance with what sensible people perceive as considerable risk— of being infected by the virus. In such a case, the wife’s right to have sexual relations [at least once] every four months is suspended, except when it becomes possible to adopt methods that would properly prevent infection with the virus.

Answer: There is no problem in it. However, if sexual relation between them is bound to worsen the disease to a serious level, it is necessary for them to refrain from it.

Answer: Yes; but it is not permissible for him or her to mislead the other party by deliberately presenting himself or herself as free from AIDS at the time of proposing while they are not. Similarly, it is not permissible for him or her to become intimate in a way that would infect the other partner.
However, if there is only a probability of infection and no certainty, then it is not obligatory for him or her to refrain from intimacy, provided that there is agreement on it.

Answer: This is not allowed. If it leads —even after the passage of time— to the death of the person who has been infected, then the heirs of the deceased have the right of retribution from the person responsible for causing to demand the infecting, provided that the latter was aware that that infection could lead to death; but if he was ignorant of that effect, or unaware of it, at that time, only indemnity (blood money) and penalty would apply.

Answer: It is not obligatory on him to isolate himself just as it is not obligatory on others to do so. Indeed, it is not permissible to prevent him from frequenting public places like masjid, etc, as long as there is no danger of infecting the others with the virus. It is, however, obligatory for him as well as others to be careful in situations where there exists certainty or probability of infecting others.

Answer: It is permissible, provided that one refrains from looking and touching what is harãm to look at or touch.

Answer: It is not obligatory to implant all the fertilized ova in a test tube into the womb. Therefore, it is permissible to use one ovum and destroy the remaining ones.

Answer: In principle, there is no problem in it.

Answer: In principle, it is allowed.

Answer: It is permissible to transplant pig’s liver into the body of a human being.

Answer: There is no problem in injecting insulin in the muscles, veins or under the skin.

Answer: An organ extracted from the body is ritually impure (najis) irrespective of whether it came from a Muslim or a non-Muslim. And when it becomes, by rejuvenation, part of a Muslim’s body or of someone who is considered a Muslim, it becomes tãhir.

Answer: No heir of a deceased Muslim is allowed to give consent for autopsy to be carried out on the body of the deceased for the purpose mentioned above and other similar purposes; and it is necessary for him to prevent the autopsy if possible. Of course, if another important factor at play that of equal or more importance than this basic rule, it is permissible.

Answer: It is necessary to inform the patient about the situation and seek his consent on using the drug on him, except when he is sure that the drug would not cause side effects and that the doubt is only about its benefit [or otherwise].

Answer: It is permissible, if one refrains from forbidden looking and touching, except where the check up of the patient requires them.

Answer: The criterion in applying the term “dead” in so far as the application of religious laws goes is the common perception of people, in the sense that they would call him “dead”. And this is not proven in the situation mentioned in the question.

Answer: By considering the serious harm of narcotic drugs, it is forbidden to use them due to the great damage they cause. Based on obligatory precaution, it is compulsory to refrain from using them in any way [even if there is no harm], except for medical purposes and the like; in the latter case, it can be used only to the extent of need.