The objective of this study is to establish a unified approach within both the Islamic world and the global community. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine the principles, objectives, and implications of gender transition in light of Islamic teachings and psychological perspectives. By analyzing the views of jurists and psychologists, the study explores their points of agreement and divergence while critically evaluating both supportive and opposing perspectives. A thorough investigation reveals a spectrum of views, ranging from absolute endorsement to outright rejection, as well as intermediate positions. The arguments presented by both supporters and opponents hold considerable significance. Ultimately, after reviewing and elucidating the perspectives of Islamic jurists and psychological scholars, the findings indicate that Islamic schools of thought have issued various rulings on this matter, ranging from absolute permissibility to absolute prohibition. The preferred stance of this study is that conditional legitimacy is the most appropriate view. This is justified based on its alignment with social realities, religious and scientific evidence, and customary practices. Additionally, this perspective is consistent with medical knowledge and has been accepted by the majority of legal systems and jurists. It is deemed rational, legitimate, and more compatible with societal norms. Therefore, gender transition is permissible under specific conditions and restrictions. Other opposing views, due to their reliance on weak reasoning, traditional beliefs, and interpretations of religious texts that lack solid evidentiary support, are rejected from both a religious and scientific standpoint.
Fani et al. (Mon,) studied this question.