Читать книгу Animal Welfare in Islam - Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri - Страница 11
ОглавлениеCRUELTY TO ANIMALS has existed throughout the ages. It takes various forms and guises, from cockfighting to cat burning, from sheer overloading of beasts of burden to downright neglect and abuse. Animals have died, and are dying, harsh deaths in traps and snares to provide fur coats and ornaments for the wealthy, and they have been hunted throughout the world for the sheer sport and morbid pleasure of man. However, until very recently the acts of cruelty were on a smaller and individual scale. What has changed now is the nature and extent of the cruelty, which is practised on a much subtler and wider scale. The most alarming aspect of the current streak of cruelty is that it is being justified in the name of human needs and spurious science. Scientific and pharmaceutical experiments on animals are being done to find cures for diseases most of which are self-induced by our own disorderly lifestyle.
To satisfy his ever-increasing demands and fads, man has begun to use his technological might and scientific prowess to transform increasing numbers of animals into food products. In laboratories, scientists are producing new genetic variations that may be amenable to low cost intensive methods of rearing. Many stock-keepers are more concerned with finance than the moral principles of animal husbandry, and look upon their livestock as meat and milk machines.
Even the once proud farmers have started yielding to temptation. The medieval sport of the feudal nobility to chase and kill animals for fun is still in vogue. Anglers hook up fish, and throw them back into the water maimed – just to while away their time. All kinds of denizens of the forest are fair game for the trophy-hunters. There is a large-scale carnage of fur-bearing animals. All this, and much more, is being done to satisfy human needs most of which are non-essential, fanciful, wasteful and which can be satisfied by alternative humane products which are easily available.
In this foul climate, the protests of animal welfarists are only just beginning to be heard. The politico-economic pressures of international balance of power and monetary balances of payment give little scope to state-legislators for moral considerations: and so millions of helpless animals go on suffering torture.
Why is it that human attitudes towards animals are so tardy in changing? The organised religious institutions could have played an important role in educating the general public. Almost ninety per cent of the world’s population owes allegiance to one or other of the major religions. Each of these religions has the benefit of platforms wherefrom it could influence and educate captive audiences. But, one seldom hears from their pulpits any sermons preaching the word of God about animals or respect for nature. Perhaps the clerics of our religions are too busy preparing their respective laities for the Life Hereafter to spare any thought for the so-called ‘dumb beasts’ and the ecology which sustains us all.
Human greed and self-indulgence needed some excuse, however flimsy, to exploit animals; and the institution of religion offered them that excuse by disseminating the creed of man’s unconstrained dominion and domination over the rest of God’s creation. It is true that all religions have tried in their respective ways to strike an equitable balance in the mutual rights and obligations between man and the rest of the species. The Scriptures of all religions contain expostulations on all kinds of cruelty to animals, but they have ceased to be taken seriously – either by theologians or the public.
The religious institutions are supposed to be there to give guidance to their respective followers in all kinds of moral problems. If all the churches and temples, all the mosques and synagogues were to make a concerted effort to bring their moral influence to bear, it would not only educate their laities, but would also put pressure on the politicians and the economists of the world – most of whom are sitting on the fence. Perhaps some religious leaders, though, still suffer from the misconceptions of the Middle Ages when they believed that their only business was to deal with the human soul. Since animals are thought to have no soul, they are not considered to be the responsibility of organised religion.
Let us hope a day will dawn when the great religious teachings may at last begin to bear fruit; when we shall see the start of a new era when man accords to animals the respect and status they have long deserved and for so long have been denied.
Both science and religion assert that man is the apex of creation. Science bases this claim on man’s physiological superiority over the rest of the animated world, while religion bases it on man’s psychical excellence and potential. Islam too, declares man as the best of God’s creation and designates him as His vicegerent (Khalīfah) on earth. So far, it all sounds very flattering, but is this position of pre-eminence unconditional? Let us see how the Islamic concept of vicegerency is meant to work. A conscientious study of this concept involves a study of issues such as:
Who is this man who has been appointed as God’s representative on earth? Does anyone who possesses human features qualify for this exalted rank, or are there any qualifying conditions attached to this office? If there are any qualifying conditions, what are they?
Islam’s corroboration of man’s claim of superiority over the other species is circumscribed by mental, moral and physical limitations in the exercise of this power. Man should use animals out of necessity and with compassion, humility and loving care rather than with malevolence, avidity or greed for the satisfaction of creature-comforts, luxurious pleasures and self-indulgence. All the major religions have taught compassionate and humane treatment of animals. It is neither feasible nor necessary for a religion to lay down in its scriptures detailed rules and regulations covering every aspect of life. Each religion has tried in its own way to lay down the basic principles and to nurture in man a sense of responsibility as the custodian of nature. In our age of ever-increasing human mastery over nature, this responsibility has also increased proportionately.
The Qur’ān, while declaring man’s vicegerency, makes it clear in the following verses, that the appointment is not unconditional:
“He [God] it is Who made you vicegerents on earth; he who disavows, the burden of disavowal will be on him …” (Qur’ān 35:39)
“Certainly, We created man in the best make.” (Qur’ān 95:4)
However, in the very next sentence the Qur’ān makes it clear what happens to those who fail to conform to the conditions, in these words:
“then We reduce him to [the status of] the lowest of the low.” (Qur’ān 95:5)
Man is the only species which has been endowed with the ability to differentiate between evil and virtue and to exercise his freedom of choice. Animals are capable of differentiating between ‘good and bad’ in the material sense, but not in the moral and ethical sense. In the following verses, the Qur’ān tells us about those humans who misuse their freedom of choice and transgress – they lose the status of human beings in the spiritual sense and are reduced to the status of animals:
“… they are those whom Allah has rejected and whom He has condemned and has turned into [the nature of] apes and swine, because they served evil. Such people are even worse than them and farther astray from the right course.” (Qur’ān 5:60)3
No doubt such people still possess human features, as distinct from those of animals, but their moral status is degraded even lower than the status of animals for not making use of their faculties in the way expected of human beings. The Qur’ān explains this further in these words:
“… they have hearts wherewith they fail to comprehend, and eyes wherewith they fail to see, and ears wherewith they fail to hear. They are like cattle; nay, even less cognizant of what is right. Such [humans] are far astray from the right path.” (Qur’ān 7:179)
Again the Qur’ān urges in remonstrance:
“And be not like those who say, ‘we have heard’, while they do not hearken. Verily, the vilest of all creatures, in the sight of Allah, are those deaf and dumb ones who do not use their rationality.” (Qur’ān 8:21, 22)
The above verses occur in the Qur’ān in a context not directly related to animals vis-à-vis man. Nevertheless, they do lay down a very relevant principle that ‘it depends on the conduct of man whether he maintains his privileged position as a human being or gets himself degenerated to a status lower than that of animals’. While elaborating man’s responsibilities as the vicegerent of God, the Qur’ān lays great emphasis on the development of Godly attributes which have been imbued in man’s incarnation. These attributes are eternal and unchangeable. Compassion, love, mercy, justice, charity … are some of the Divine attributes which form the pedestal of that masnad on which God has seated man as His vicegerent to establish His Kingdom on earth, in harmony with His laws of nature. This Kingdom of God is not meant to be only a human domain. God’s suzerainty encompasses all creation, including the Animal Kingdom. How, then, can man as His Minister on earth administer justice and grace over the whole of His Kingdom without nurturing in himself the Godly attributes and a tender conscience? This is how the Qur’ān explains this moral philosophy:
“So, set your face to the true religion…” (Qur’ān 30:30)
The spontaneous question arises here as to what is implied by ‘true religion’. The answer is given in the lines of the same verse that follow:
“Direct your face towards the upright way of life – the nature created by God upon which He has instituted the innate nature of humankind. No change is permissible in God’s creation; this is the proper way of life and yet, most people do not even know of this.” (Qur’ān 30:30)
Man’s superiority over other species does not lie in his physique. As a matter of fact, physically, man is inferior to animals in many respects. Muslims have often been advised by their mentors to learn lessons from some species of animals. For example, Imām ʿAlī gives this piece of advice: “Be like a bee; anything it eats is clean, anything it drops is sweet and any branch it sits upon does not break.”4
The real criterion of man’s superiority lies in his spiritual volition, called in the Qur’ān Taqwā. This spiritual power bestows on a man a greater measure of balance between the conscious and the unconscious elements of mind, thus, enabling him to make the best use of his freedom of choice. He is considered the best of God’s creation only because of this distinction. Without the power of spiritual volition, this distinction is rendered superficial.
Man’s dominion over animals, in the true Islamic sense, is a patriarchal authority – an arrangement under which the paterfamilias rules the family with discipline and paternal love. The Holy Prophet Muḥammed(s) puts it in these words: “All creatures are like a family [ʿiyāl] of God: and He loves them most who are the most beneficent to His family.”5
The Holy Prophet(s) used to say: “Whoever is kind to the creatures of God, is kind to himself.”6
The Qur’ān puts this analogy in tribal or communal terms in these words:
“There is not an animal on earth, nor a two-winged flying creature, but they are communities like you…”. (Qur’ān 6:38)
According to the learned commentators of the Qur’ān, the word ‘communities’ is used here in the sense of genera, and ‘animals’ and ‘flying creatures’ of vertebra, quadrupeds, mammals, crustacea, reptiles, worms, insects and the like. They all live a life, individual and social, like members of a human commune. In other words, they are communities in their own right and not in relation to human species or its values. These details have been mentioned to emphasize the point that even those species which are generally considered as insignificant or even dangerous, deserve to be treated as communities; that their intrinsic and not perceptible values should be recognized, irrespective of their usefulness or apparent harmfulness.
To define further what it means by ‘communities of animals’, the Qur’ān explains:
“Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four…” (Qur’ān 24:45)
The first category includes all kinds of worms, reptiles, centipedes, insects and all kinds of creeping creatures. The second category includes birds and human beings; and the third category covers most species of mammals. The significant point to note is that, physically, man has been put in the same bracket as all other species. The following Ḥadīth leaves no ambiguity in the sense in which the Qur’ān uses the word ‘communities’:
“Abū Hurayrah reported the Prophet(s) as telling of an incident that happened to another prophet in the past. This prophet was stung by an ant and, in anger, he ordered the whole of the ants’ nest to be burned. At this God reprimanded this prophet in these words: ‘because one ant stung you, you have burned a whole community which glorified Me’.”7
The Islamic laws (Sharīʿah) concerning the rights of animals are very elaborate and explicit. In the case of the ants’ nest the following Juristic Rule would apply: “Any damage or a damaging retaliation for a damage is forbidden.” (Lā ḍarara wa lā ḍirār).8
There are parents in this world who are cruel to their children and rulers who exploit their subjects. Similarly, there are, and will always be, people who take the concept of man’s dominion over animals as a licentious freedom to break all the established moral rules designed to protect animal rights. Imām ʿAlī has this to say about such people:
“The worldly-minded people are like barking dogs and wild beasts; some of them roar on others, the strong ones eat the weak and the big ones hurt the small.” And again, writing of those who misuse their authority over the weak, he writes: “A savage and ferocious beast is better than a wicked and tyrant ruler.”9
The following verses of the Qur’ān apply verbatim to those people of our age who are exploiting wastefully the resources of nature and are wreaking havoc in the animated as well as the inanimated world, while defending their actions with clever and seemingly convincing arguments:
“And of mankind there is he whose glibness on the mundane life may dazzle thee, [especially] when he calls on Allah to witness the verity of his statements, because he is very skilful in his arguments. But, whenever he comes to power, he goes about in the land trying to create disorder by destroying tilth and progeny. And when it is said to him, ‘fear God’, his vainglory seizes him in his sin. So, Hell shall be his reckoning – verily, it is a vile abode.” (Qur’ān 2:204-206)
In the context of these verses, the expression ‘destroying tilth and progeny’, means the ‘resources of nature’. Literally, tilth means flora and progeny means fauna.10
The question of man’s responsibilities towards animals cannot be studied without discussing the reasons for man’s ill-treatment of animals. At the same time, the problem has to be understood in the perspective of the inter-relationship between man and the rest of the animated world as well as their inter-dependence upon each other. This relationship is primarily influenced by man’s concept of the status of animals which man gives to them in the hierarchy of various species. To establish in our minds the status of animals is as important a postulate as is the assessment of our fellow human beings for determining our mutual relationships.
We owe a great deal to modern naturalists who have sifted quite a few facts from fallacies, myths and superstitions about animals. The pioneers in this field were mostly the members of the Christian Holy Order in the 17th century who were enthusiastic and bold enough to re-interpret the Biblical chronology of creation, in spite of being accused of and censured for puritanical leanings as naturalists. Notwithstanding the fact that some of their observations and theories have been found to be fallacious, it has been mostly due to their pioneering work that research in Natural History and Science has been given respectability and scholastic interest. As a result, we now know so much more about the animal world, its behaviour, its classification and categorization – most of all, its correlative status vis-à-vis the human world. The Naturalists have also helped us a great deal in understanding better those parts of our scriptures which deal with subjects, such as:
(a) Balance in Nature. (b) Conservation of Species. (c) Animals’ Faculty of Speech. (d) The Utility-value of Animals. (e) The Metaphysics of Animal Mind. (f) Animals’ Right to the Resources of Nature.
The Qur’ān and Ḥadīth have discussed all the above subjects in great detail. However, until recently, few scholars felt any need to study them seriously. Some of those who did, were not interested enough to comprehend their full significance. It is only now, when modern scientific research has started corroborating the Qur’ānic statements, that Muslim theologians have begun to give serious thought to the current problems related to animals.
All the sources of Islamic instruction, especially the Qur’ān, lay great emphasis on Nature Study in order to understand life as one homogeneous organism. The Qur’ān is full of verses exhorting man to study nature – the planetary system; the terrestrial elements; the fauna and flora on earth. The real purport of this repeated appeal in the Qur’ān is to give credence to the existence of Godhead as the primeval originator of the universe; but the point that concerns us here is that the creation of animals takes a very prominent place in such citations as His portents. Here are a few of the numerous such verses:
“Human beings and the wild and domestic animals are too, comprised of various colours. Thus, only those among His creatures who humble themselves unto God, are truly the people of knowledge.” (Qur’ān 35:28)
“Verily! In the heavens and the earth, there are portents for the believers. And in your own creation, as well as in the creation of all the animals pervading the earth, there are portents for those who believe.” (Qur’ān 45:3, 4)
“Behold! Everything We have created is in due measure and proportion.” (Qur’ān 54:49)
“Allah knows what every female bears and by how much the wombs may fall short [of gestation], and how much they may increase – for with Him everything is in due measure and proportion.” (Qur’ān 13:8)
Two words in the last verse are significant. The Arabic word Unthā denotes a female of any species, whether human or animal. Secondly, the Arabic word for measure is ‘Miqdār’, which is used in all such verses. It means ‘in accordance with the particular purpose for which a thing has been created, the exigencies and the role which it is meant to play within God’s plan of creation.11
“And the earth – We have spread out its expanse and cast on it mountains in stable equilibrium, and caused life of every kind to grow on it, justly weighed.” (Qur’ān 15:19)
“We created man, and gave him the faculty of speech. The sun and the moon rotate in ordered orbits, the plants and the trees, too, do obeisance. The firmament – He raised it high, and set the balance of everything, so that you [mankind] may not upset the balance. Keep up the balance with equity, and fall not short in it. And the earth – He spread it out for all living beings: with its fruits, blossom-bearing palms, chaff-covered grain, and fragrant plants. Which, then, of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?” (Qur’ān 55:3-13)
The following saying of the Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s) shows how much importance was attached to the conservation of nature:
“[Even when the world is coming to an end] On Doomsday, if anyone has a palm-shoot in hand, he should plant it.”12
Thanks to modern scientific research, we have started appreciating the fact that the ecological and environmental balance of our planet is of paramount importance for life on earth. This balance rests on very complex and interwoven laws of nature. The denizens of the forest, if left on their own, generally adapt themselves to those laws and learn to abide by them. One seldom sees environmental damage being done by animals living in their natural habitats, such as in the tropical forests. It is only the human species who have the idiosyncracy to flout those laws and to upset the balance of nature. And it is the humans, of all the species on earth, who need to have religious and secular education to make them realise that they are here to harness nature instead of leaving behind them a trail of wanton destruction for posterity.
Contrary to certain scientific theories, the Islamic concept is that, in this Divine design of animated nature, there are some fine differences providentially created and preserved in the origin of species to keep them distinct one from the other. Territorial, climatic and other such evolutionary processes may change their ethological characteristics or anatomical structures. In their struggle for existence, animals may learn how to camouflage themselves to distract attention or to deceive by impersonation and manipulation of their environment; but no species can transgress beyond the orbit of its genetic origin.
Wherever the Qur’ān speaks of creation, it speaks of it in terms of opposite pairs. According to the Qur’ān, not only animal life, but also every kind of flora has been created in male and female sexes. We know it scientifically now that plants, like animals, possess generative organs, i.e. male stamens and female pistils – comprising ovary, style and stigma. Botanical definitions explain stigma as that part of the style or ovary-surface that receives pollen in impregnation. Style is defined as the narrowed extension of the ovary which supports the stigma.
Keeping in mind that the Qur’ān was revealed more than fourteen centuries ago, it could not have been clearer in expression on such scientific subjects. The following verses emphasize the salient point that each species has been conditioned biologically to procreate in order to continue its heterogeneity and, thus, to go on playing its assigned part in the theatre of nature. Our scientific dexterity can bring about genetic mutations, but we shall never be able to CREATE even one germ-cell. Once a particular species is exterminated, its germ-cell is launched into eternity – as dead as the dodo – and no human skill can re-create it. Recently some scientists have expressed hopes that they might be able to bring back to life those extinct species whose dead bodies still contain some live tissues. Even if they do succeed in doing that, the fact still remains true that the re-generation of those extinct species would be dependent on the tissues containing the germ-cells which were originally created by God. The following verses of the Qur’ān bring out the significance of the law of parity in nature and, hence, the significance of an uninterrupted sequence of species:
“Glory be to Him Who created all the progenetive pairs of that which the earth grows; and of themselves [human beings], too; and of that which they do not know [yet].” (Qur’ān 36:36)
“And all things We have created in pairs, that you may reflect.” (Qur’ān 51:49)
“[My Lord is He] Who spread out for you the earth like a carpet; and made paths therein for you, and sent down water from the cloud. Then, thereby, We have produced diverse pairs of plants – each distinct from the other.” (Qur’ān 20:53)
“And We cause flora of every kind to grow as spouses.” (Qur’ān 31:10)
“And it is He who spread out the earth… and of all fruit He produced therein, as spouses of two and two…”. (Qur’ān 13:3)
“[God is] The Originator of the heavens and the earth. He has created mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby…” (Qur’ān 42:11)
“And He did create in pairs – male and female.” (Qur’ān 53:45)
The story of Noah’s Ark is well known. The Qur’ān tells it in Chapter 11, Verses 36-48: When the deluge came and the flooding of the whole area was imminent, there was the danger that some of the species of animals and birds might be exterminated. Even at such a time, God showed His concern to save at least one pair of each species, along with the faithful followers of Noah(s) by giving him the following instructions:
“… load in the Ark two of all species – one male and one female of each kind…” (Qur’ān 11:40)
All these observations of the Qur’ān lay down two basic principles. Firstly, that the preservation of species is of paramount importance. Secondly, that the Divine scheme of regeneration works through the opposite, but complementary, forces of nature – not only in animals and plants, but also in inorganic matter. In the elements of nature, for example, we find that every atom possesses a positively charged nucleus of protons and negatively charged electrons. Similarly, electricity needs the positive and the negative currents to produce energy.
The underlying message in the following verses seems to be that ‘every individual species, including the human species, has been endowed with a potential nature to serve the whole creation as a homogeneous unit’:
“Behold! In the heavens and the earth there are portents for the believers. And in your own animated nature, as in that of the beasts which He has dispersed about, there are portentous messages for a people who would accept the truth.” (Qur’ān 45:3, 4)
“And among His portents, is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all the beasts that He has dispersed therein; and He has [also] the power to gather them to Himself whenever He wills.” (Qur’ān 42:29)
The Arabic word Dābbatun used in this verse comprehends all breathing creatures on the protoplasmatic basis of life. In various other places also the Qur’ān has placed all kinds of beasts, amphibians, vertebrates, invertebrates, and primates (including human beings) in one bracket; and mentions the creation of all of them as one of the portents of God. This shows the importance that God attaches to life as a whole.
Animals are not inferior to us because they have a different vocal apparatus; nor does the fact that they cannot make articulate speech, like we can, mean that they are ‘contemptible dumb animals’. Science has proved now that they do communicate not only with each other but also with humans – at least enough to express their social interests and biological needs. Those of us who enjoy the privilege of a loving and caring relationship with our pets will bear witness to this fact. Modern scientific research by naturalists has discovered quite a few interesting facts in this field. The honey-bee’s buzzing dance is not just an outburst of merriment. It is meant to convey to other bees the location of the nectar – with the exact details of direction, distance and, perhaps, the quality and quantity of the find. The insignificant ants’ well-organised and industrious social life could not be run without intelligent communication among them. The sonic vibrations made by marine mammals, generally called whale-songs, are articulate communications. Animals and birds in the wild can pass on different kinds of information to each other by slight modulation of voice. The very accentuation in the ‘meow’ can tell the owner of a cat whether it is ‘requesting’, ‘complaining’, or saying ‘thank you’.
There are numerous legends about the Muslim saints and other holy men who could talk to animals. However, for lack of authentication, they are taken generally as mere fables. There is one statement in the Qur’ān, though, which proves that man had acquired the lore of speech with animals as early as the time of King Solomon. Perhaps in those days human civilisation was more in tune with nature than it is today. The Qur’ān verse runs like this:
“And Solomon was David’s heir, and he said: ‘O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds…’” (Qur’ān 27:16)
The Qur’ān and Ḥadīth also plead for the cause of animal rights by repeatedly citing their utility-value and worth. Their status vis-à-vis human beings has already been discussed. The plea on the ground of their utility is, perhaps, addressed to those people whose values are determined more by benefit motives than by moral conscience. Here are some of many such quotations:
“And He has created cattle for you: you get from them your warm garments and other benefits, and you eat of their produce. And you pride yourselves on their beauty as you drive them home in the evenings, and as you lead them forth to pastures in the mornings. And they carry your heavy loads to places where you could not otherwise reach save by laborious strain to yourselves. Verily! Your Sustainer is most kind – a Dispenser of grace. And [He has created for you] horses, mules and donkeys for riding as well as for adornment – and He will yet create things of which you have no knowledge now.” (Qur’ān 16:5-8)
“And surely there is a lesson for you in cattle: We provide you with a drink out of that [substance] which is in their bellies – coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood – milk which is pleasant for those who drink it.” (Qur’ān 16:66)
The Arabic word ‘farth’ means that glandular protoplasm which is filled with particles of secretions no longer needed by the metabolism, which is secreted out by the body. It has been established by scientists now that milk is a mixture of those particles and life-blood. The messages of some of the above verses are repeated below for emphasis:
“And surely there is a lesson for you in cattle. We provide you with a drink out of their bellies; and there are numerous other uses in them for you; and you get your sustenance out of them. And on them, as on ships, you make your journeys.” (Qur’ān 23:21, 22)
“It is God Who provided for you all manner of livestock, that you may ride on some of them and from some of them you may derive your food. And there are other uses in them for you to satisfy your heart’s desires. It is on them as on ships, that you make your journeys.” (Qur’ān 40:79, 80)
While enumerating the wonders of God’s creation, the camel – the ship of the desert – is pointed out conspicuously in these words:
“Do they not reflect on the camels, how they are created?” (Qur’ān 88:17)
e. The Metaphysics of the Animal Mind
Unfortunately modern scientific research has been confined mostly to the behaviour and physiology of animals. Until recently, in the field of consciousness research, most scientists attributed animal learning purely to instinct. Research work in this field tends to state that no creature other than humans has been endowed with a conscious mind and, hence, has no faculty for higher cognition. This presumption is based on the misconception that even rudimentary spiritual awareness can emanate only from a consciously analytical mind as opposed to the organic life of a body which can exist and grow without the help of apprehensive senses.
What is overlooked in this hypothesis is the fact that the quantum of balance in the conscious and the unconscious elements is of varying degrees in each species. Our scientific research has not yet been able to define the lines of demarcation between the conscious, the unconscious and the subconscious elements of mind, nor have we heard the last word on how these elements interact – hence the confusion about the psyche of animals which ranges from one extreme to the other in the hierarchy of species.
Some creeds have raised them to the sublime position of being capable of receiving human souls; others have deified some animals to a status worthy of worship; while for some, all creatures other than humans are nothing more than food-parcels of flesh and bone, neatly wrapped up solely for the benefit of man. The last view is accepted mainly by those who conveniently find in it a licentious freedom to exploit the defenceless creatures for sadistic pleasure or for gain.
According to the Qur’ānic theology, all living creatures possess a non-physical force of spirit and mind which, in its advanced form, we call ‘psyche’. This concept should not be confused with the concepts of ‘re-incarnation’ or ‘trans-migration’ of souls, which doctrines are based on postulations different from those of Islam. Although animals’ psychic force is of a lower level than that of human beings, there is ample evidence in the Qur’ān to suggest that animals’ consciousness of spirit and mind is of a degree higher than mere instinct and intuition. We are told in the Qur’ān that animals have a cognisance of their Creator and, hence, they pay their obeisance to Him by adoration and worship. Out of the many verses on this proposition, the following few must suffice here:
“Seest thou not that it is Allah Whose praises are celebrated by all beings in the heavens and on earth, and by the birds with extended wings? Each one knows its prayer and psalm, And Allah is aware of what they do.” (Qur’ān 24:41)
It is worth noting the statement that ‘each one knows its prayer and psalm’. The execution of a voluntary act, performed consciously and intentionally, requires a faculty higher than that of instinct and intuition. Lest some people should doubt that animals could have such a faculty, the following verse points out that it is human ignorance that prevents them from understanding a phenomenon like this:
“The seven heavens and the earth and all things therein declare His glory. There is not a thing but celebrates His adoration; and yet ye mankind! ye understand not how they declare His glory…” (Qur’ān 17:44)
It is understood that the inanimate elements of nature perform the act of worshipping God without articulate utterances. They do it by submitting themselves (Taslīm) to the Divine Ordinances known as the Laws of Nature. The following verse tells us how all the elements of nature and all the animal kingdom function in harmony with God’s laws; it is only some humans who infringe and, thus, bring affliction on themselves. The Qur’ān dwells on this theme repeatedly to emphasise the point that man should bring himself into harmony with nature, according to the laws of God – as all other creation does:
“Seest thou not that unto Allah payeth adoration all things that are in the heavens and on earth – the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the animals, and a large number among mankind? However, there are many [humans] who do not and deserve chastisement…” (Qur’ān 22:18).
The laws of nature have respect for no one and ‘time and tide wait for no man’. Even the most unruly and the unsubmissive have to submit to those laws, whether they like it or not – as the Qur’ān tells us:
“And unto Allah prostrate themselves [in submission] whosoever are in the heavens and on earth, whether willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows in the mornings and evenings.” (Qur’ān 13:15)
The analogy of shadows is employed here to emphasise the point that man’s submission should be like that of their shadows, which fall flat on the ground in the mornings and evenings – the times of the day when shadows are at their longest.
In the case of animals, however, the Qur’ān tells us that God actually communicates with them, as the following verse shows:
“And your Lord revealed to the bee, saying: ‘make hives in the mountains and in the trees, and in [human] habitations’.” (Qur’ān 16:68)
It is anybody’s guess what form God’s communication with animals takes. We know only this, that the Qur’ān uses the same Arabic word Waḥy for God’s revelation to all His Prophets, including the Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s), as it uses in the case of the bee. It is obvious that the connotation of God’s revelations to His Messengers would be different from that of His revelations to animals. This is a serious theological subject which cannot be dealt with here. Nevertheless, it proves the basic fact that animals have a sufficient degree of psychic endowment to understand and follow God’s messages – a faculty which is higher than instinct and intuition.
According to a great Confucian sage, Hsun-Tzu, who lived in the third century B.C., all living creatures between heaven and earth which have blood and breath must possess consciousness.13 Similarly, the very cognisance of human relationship with the rest of the species in Buddhist literature and the Hindu Vedānta is based on the premise that all living creatures (jiva) possess the faculties of thinking and reasoning (Manas)
f. Rights in the Resources of Nature
Once it has been established that each species of animals is a ‘community’ like the human community, it stands to reason that each and every creature on earth has, as its birth-right, a share in all the natural resources. In other words, each animal is a tenant-in-common on this planet with human species. Let us see now why some human beings do not act according to the terms of this joint tenancy. The inequitable attitude of some people towards animals seems to be a legacy from the early ages when man had to compete with them for food in order to survive. Man has always been in competition with animals for food, and the problem has been aggravated in the current world-situation, especially because of modern agrarian mismanagement. The Qur’ān has tried to allay this fear of man by reassuring him that God is not only the Creator but also the Sustainer and the Nourisher of all that He creates. However, the Qur’ān lays down the condition that human beings, like all other creatures, shall have to work for their food; and that their share would be proportionate to their labour. The following verse serves as the maxim for this principle.
“And that man shall have nothing, but what he strives for.” (Qur’ān 53:39)
In the following verse this stipulation is repeated in the words: ‘those who seek’, with the additional proviso that God provides according to the needs of the people:
“And [God] bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein sustenance in due proportion…; in accordance with the needs of those who seek.” (Qur’ān 41:10)
The conditions laid down in the above two verses for human beings to work for their food seems to be conveniently ignored by some people. Some tend to rely solely on God’s beneficence – lying down on their backs with their mouths open and waiting for the manna from heaven to fall therein. Others have invented dubious ways and means to get more than their share by as little work as possible. Some of those who do work, muscle in to poach on others’ preserves – and who can be an easier prey for exploitation than the poor defenceless animals who cannot fight back for their rights?
Those who expect to be fed by God, the Sustainer, without working for their bread fail to understand the real sense of the doctrine of ‘pre-destination’, or ‘fate’ (Qaḍā’ wa Qadar or Qismah). The literal meaning of ‘pre-destination’, in the Islamic sense is: “pre-fixing the fate of some one or some thing” in the sense of determining the capacity, capability, endowment, function and other faculties. The Qur’ān uses the Arabic word ‘taqdīr’ meaning ‘destiny’ even for the decreed orbits of the planetary motions, but also for inorganic substances as well as for animated creatures including human beings. Within those pre-fixed limitations, however, conditions could be changed for the better: suffering could be avoided or lessened by human effort and skill.
Unlike some human beings, animals are quite capable of satiating their hunger and of procuring all their necessities of life, if man would only let them do so without interference. The Qur’ān repeatedly hammers home the fact that food and other resources of nature are there to be shared equitably with other creatures. Below are just a few of the numerous such verses:
“Then let man look at his food: how We pour out water in showers, then turn up the earth into furrow-slices and cause cereals to grow therein – grapes and green fodder; olive-trees and palm-trees; and luxuriant orchards, fruits and grasses…”
Let us stop at this point of the quotation and ask ourselves the question: ‘what for and for whom has this sumptuous meal been laid out?’ The last line of the verse tells us that all these bounties of nature are there as:
“Provision for you as well as for your cattle.” (Qur’ān 80:24-32)
Again, in the following verses, the bounties of nature are enumerated with the accent on animals’ share in all of them:
“And He it is Who sends the winds, as glad tidings heralding His mercy. And We send down pure water from the clouds, that We may give life thereby, by watering the parched earth, and slake the thirst of those We have created – both the animals and the human beings in multitude.” (Qur’ān 25:48, 49)
In numerous passages the Qur’ān explains the reason for everything, such as: the cosmos as an ordered whole; the dark nights and the bright days; the earth with its immense expanse, shooting forth its moisture and its pastures; the stable mountains – all this, we are told, has been created for the benefit of man and animals. Below are some of such verses:
“And do they not see that We meander water to a barren land and sprout forth from it crops, whereof, their cattle as well as they themselves eat? Will they take no notice of it?” (Qur’ān 32:27)
We [God] brought forth from it [the earth] its waters and its pastures, and established the mountains firm – as a source of provision for you and for your animals.” (Qur’ān 79:31-33)
One could get the impression from these verses that they refer only to the livestock in whose welfare we have a vested interest. After reading the whole of the Qur’ān in this context, there remains no doubt that the message comprehends all animals and not only domestic livestock. The following verses support this view:
“There is no moving creature on earth, but Allah provides for its sustenance…” (Qur’ān 11:6)
“And the earth: He [God] has assigned to all living creatures.” (Qur’ān 55:10)
In the words of Moses(s), as recorded in the Qur’ān:
“Surely! The earth belongs to Allah; He bequeaths it to whosoever He pleases of His servants…” (Qur’ān 7:128).
The Qur’ān recounts the history of past nations to show how they fell into error and perished. There is an incident mentioned in the Qur’ān which is relevant to the subject under discussion. The tribe of Thamūd were the descendants of Noah(s). They have also been mentioned in the Ptolemaic records of Alexander’s astronomer of the 2nd century A.C. The people of Thamūd demanded that the Prophet Ṣāliḥ(s) show them some sign to prove that he was a prophet of God. At that time the tribe was experiencing a dearth of food and water and was, therefore, neglecting its livestock. It was revealed to the Prophet Ṣāliḥ(s) to single out a she-camel as a symbol and ask his people to give her her fair share of water and fodder. The people of Thamūd promised to do that but, later, killed the camel. As a retribution, the tribe was annihilated. This incident has been mentioned in the Qur’ān many times in different contexts. (Qur’ān 7:73; 11:64; 26:155; 54:27-31)
This historic incident sets forth the essence of the Islamic teachings on ‘Animal Rights’. Depriving them of their fair share in the resources of nature is so serious a sin in the eyes of God that it is punishable by punitive retribution. In the case of Thamūd, this retribution was so severe that the whole tribe was annihilated for this and other iniquities.
Almost all religions allow the use of animals for necessary human needs. Man has always used them and their labour just as human beings take each other in service. There seems to be nothing wrong in this arrangement, except that the animals are not capable of protecting their rights as human labour unions can do. The protection of animal rights is left mainly to human conscience, social censure and government legislation; though the last does not count much, as the legislation always follows the trends of public opinion. Political leaders and reformers are two different species.
All religions have tried to regulate the use of animals humanely and with equity and justice. There are many laws in the Scriptures which cover specific cases; but the problem is that human needs and social conditions are constantly ringing the changes. Modern scientific and technological revelations, the current inter-lacing of global cultures, international and politico-economic pressures and numerous other influences are demanding modulation in our respective lifestyles. Our social and moral values are changing so fast that an average man is no longer sure how to act.
In this section the following subjects will be discussed from the Islamic point of view: Medical and other experiments on animals; Modern Hunting and Fishing for sport; Animal Fights; Beasts of Burden and other similar controversial fields.
Most of the above-mentioned issues did not exist about fourteen centuries ago and, therefore, there was no occasion to pass any specific laws about them. It was felt sufficient to lay down general principles as guidelines. In cases like these, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) has left it to the Muslim Jurists (fuqahā’) to use their judgement by inference and analogy. The first source of Islamic law is the Qur’ān. The second source is Tradition (Ḥadīth). The third is consensus (Ijmāʿ). The fourth is inference by analogy (Qiyās), and the fifth is exercise of judgement (Ijtihād). Since Ijtihād will be quoted in many cases below, a brief explanatory note is called for here.
With the expansion of Islam into vast empires there grew the need for law and justice by inference and analogy in cases which were not mentioned specifically in the Statutory Law of the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth. During the early period of this development, the Muslim jurists were greatly influenced by Latin terms: ‘jurisconsults’ or ‘prudents’ were named in Arabic ‘fuqahā’ (plural of faqīh): the ‘responsa prudentium’, meaning ‘answers to legal questions’ were named ‘qiyās’ in the sense of ‘legal opinions’ based on analogical deductions from the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth. Some such ‘opinions’ by the jurists came to be accepted as ‘canons’ (Fatāwā, plural of Fatwā) – similar to what is known in Roman law as ‘jurisprudentia’ or ‘responsa’ or ‘case law’ in the West. The Roman freedom of ‘opinion’ based on equity, in spite of the rescript of Hadrian, had originated from secular concepts and did not meet the theological requirements of Islam. It was, therefore, found necessary to codify the Islamic law into a reliable system which would be more in line with the spirit and intention of the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth. The system is known in Islam as ‘law by ijtihād’. Ijtihād literally means ‘to try hard to do or achieve something’.
The institution of ijtihād has long been an issue of debate and discussion among Muslims. This is mainly due to the fear that the admissibility of the ijtihād law could be used by some unconscientious theologians to take liberties with the spirit and intention of the law of Sharīʿah to suit their convenience and transitory exigencies. Others, however, feel strongly that a total rejection of ijtihād would close the doors for Muslims to make the necessary adaptations according to the changing conditions of life. This whole disputation could be resolved without much fuss if a fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence were to be understood. It is that: the law by analogy and inference (ijtihād) is subordinate to the intrinsic spirit and intention of the laws of the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth – just as the Ḥadīth is subordinate to the Qur’ān. In fact the jurists of the early Islamic era followed this principle and built up juridical miscellanea which have been used for centuries and have been called case-law or ‘Juristic Rules’ (qawāʿid fiqhiyyah).
Any juristic opinion which does not conform to the Sharīʿah law, or even does not conform to its spirit and intention, would be rejected on the grounds of the above-stated principle.14
To kill animals to satisfy the human thirst for inessentials is a contradiction in terms within the Islamic tradition. Think of the millions of animals killed in the name of commercial enterprises in order to supply a complacent public with trinkets and products they do not really need. And why? Because people are too lazy or self-indulgent to find substitutes. Or to do without. It will take more than religious, moral, or ethical sermons to quell the avidity and greed of some multi-million corporations and their willing customers.
Many of the experiments that are being done in the name of research and education are not really necessary. This kind of knowledge could easily be imparted by using charts, pictures, photographs, computer simulations, dummies or the corpses of animals that have died their natural death. In other spheres animals are poisoned, starved, blinded, subjected to electric shocks or similarly abused in the alleged interests of science. Scientists generally scoff at religionists as sticklers for convention. Are scientists themselves doing any better by sticking to their primordial practices even when there are so many alternatives available now? It is very sad to see that even in the Islamic countries where Western curricula have to be followed in science subjects, similar unnecessary and inhuman experiments are being performed on animals. Those Muslim students are perhaps in ignorance of the fact that such experiments are in violation of Islamic teachings. Even if they were aware of it, it is doubtful whether they would have any sway in the matter.
Some research on animals may yet be justified, given the Traditions of Islam. Basic and applied research in the biological and social sciences, for example, will be allowed, if the laboratory animals are not caused pain or disfigured, and if human beings or other animals would benefit because of the research. The most important of all considerations is to decide whether the experiment is really necessary and that there is no alternative for it. The basic point to understand about using animals in science is that the same moral, ethical and legal codes should apply to the treatment of animals as are applied to humans.
According to Islam, all life is sacrosanct and has a right of protection and preservation. The Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s) laid so much emphasis on this point that he declared:
“There is no man who kills [even] a sparrow or anything smaller, without its deserving it, but God will question him about it.15
“He who takes pity [even] on a sparrow and spares its life, Allah will be merciful on him on the Day of Judgement.”16
Like all other laws of Islam, its laws on the treatment of animals have been left open to exceptions and are based on the criterion: “Actions shall be judged according to intention.”17 Any kind of medical treatment of animals and experiments on them becomes ethical and legal or unethical and illegal according to the intention of the person who does it. If the life of an animal can be saved only by the amputation of a part of its body, it will be a meritorious act in the eyes of God to do so. Any code of law, including religious law, which is so rigid as not to leave a scope for exceptional circumstances, results in suffering and breeds hypocrisy.
According to all religions, all life, including animal life, is a trust from God. That is why, in the case of human life, suicide is considered to be the ultimate sin. The animals, however, do not possess the freedom of choice wilfully to terminate their own life and have to go on living their natural lives. When man subjects an animal to unnecessary pain and suffering and thus cuts short its natural life, he figuratively commits a suicide on behalf of that animal and a spiritual part of his own self dies with the animal. Most problems and wrangles about the use of animals in science as well as about their general treatment would become much easier to solve if only we could acknowledge the realism of nature and learn to treat all life on earth homogeneously without prejudice and selective standards.
Take, for example, a high-security jail where cut-throats, murderers, rapists and other hardened criminals are imprisoned and compare it with a so-called research laboratory where innocent and helpless animals are cooped up in cages. By what stretch of imagination can we justify the difference in the living standards of these two places? What moral or ethical justification is there for the difference in their treatments? In the case of human prisoners you are not allowed even to prick a pin in their flesh; while the animal captives are allowed to be lacerated and hacked by surgical knives in the name of science and research most of which is for futile commercial purposes. These and many other such disparities are being allowed in our human and so-called humane societies only because of the double standards of our moral and ethical values. The real and ideal approach to this problem would be to set forth for ourselves the criterion that any kind of medical or scientific research that is unlawful on humans is unlawful on animals.
HUMAN NEEDS AND INTERESTS (AL-MAṢĀLIḤ)
It has been mentioned earlier that certain kinds of cruelties which are being inflicted on animals these days did not exist at the time of the Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s) and, therefore, they were not specifically cited in the law (Sharīʿah). Commercially motivated scientific experiments are one such case. We have to seek guidance on such issues by analogy and inference which is the third source of law, i.e. the Juristic Rules, based on ijtihād. One of the main excuses for all kinds of artful cruelties to animals is selfish interest or human needs. Let us see how Juristic Rules define ‘needs’ and ‘interests’ and judge these cases according to those definitions. The basic Juristic Rule (qāʿidah fiqhiyyah) that would apply to pecuniary experiments is: “One’s interest or need does not annul other’s right” (al-iḍṭirāru lā yubṭil ḥaqq al-ghayr). The question arises that there are certain needs that deserve to be regarded as realistic and that the use of animals to fulfil such needs should be legitimate and justifiable. The Juristic Rules are well defined for such cases. To begin with, needs are classified as follows:
1. The necessities (al-Maṣāliḥ al-ḍarūriyyah); i.e. the essential needs or interests without which life could not be sustained.
2. The requisites (al-Maṣāliḥ al-ḥājiyyah); needs or interests that are required for comfort from pain or any kind of distress, or for improving the quality of life.
3. The luxuries (al-Maṣāliḥ al-taḥsīniyyah); needs or interests that are desirable for exuberance, enjoyment, or even for self-indulgence.
It should be kept in mind that each of the above categories differs in degree, according to circumstances. These Juristic Rules can be applied to various situations of life; but, for the present, they concern us only in relation to the use of animals in science or otherwise.
Under the category (1) come the experiments which are absolutely essential for the well-being of both humans and animals and are done genuinely for medical research. The basic principles under which such experiments could be permissible are the following Juristic Rules (al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyyah):
i. “That without which a necessity cannot be fulfilled is itself a necessity.”18 This rule only states an exception, and underlines the importance of making sure that the experiment is really a necessity (wājib). However, after leaving the door open for the unavoidable necessary cases, all sorts of restrictive and prohibitive conditions have been imposed by the following Juristic Rules:
ii. “What allures to the forbidden, is itself forbidden.”19 This rule implies that material gains, including food, obtained by wrongful acts, such as unnecessary experiments on animals, become unlawful (ḥarām). The following verse of the Qur’ān supports this stand when it condemns those who fulfil their needs by illicit means, in these words:
“Why do not their learned men and doctors of law prohibit them from saying sinful things and from eating food gained by dishonest means? Certainly it is evil what they do.” (Qur’ān 5:63)20
iii. “If two evils conflict, choose the lesser evil to prevent the bigger evil).”21
According to this rule, even genuine experiments on animals are allowed as an exception and as a lesser evil and not as a right.
iv. “Prevention of damage takes preference over the achievement of interests or fulfilment of needs.”22 This rule lays down the principle that the advantages and the disadvantages of an experiment should be weighed from all angles.
v. “No damage can be put right.”23
vi. “No damage can be put right by a similar or a greater damage.”24 When we damage our health and other interests by our own follies, we have no right to make the animals pay for it by inflicting similar or greater damage on them, such as by doing unnecessary experiments to find remedies for our self-induced ailments.
vii. “Resort to alternatives, when the original becomes undesirable.”25 This rule has a great bearing on the current controversy about the use of alternatives for animals in experiments, such as tissue-culture and other substitutes. Muslim experimentists should take this Juristic Rule seriously. It places a great moral responsibility on them, as well as on Muslim medical students, to find alternatives.
viii. “That which was made permissible for a reason, becomes unpermissible by the absence of that reason.”26
ix. “All false excuses leading to damage should be repudiated.”27
The above two rules leave no excuse for Muslims to remain complacent about the current killings of animals in their millions for their furs, tusks, oils, and various other commodities. The excuse that such things are essential for human needs is no longer valid. Modern technology has produced all these things in synthetic materials and they are easily available all over the world, in some cases at a cheaper price. In olden days, for example, furs and skins were a necessity. Even the Qur’ān mentions the animals as a source of warm clothing. (Qur’ān 16:5). However, this refers only to the skins and furs of domesticated cattle which either die their natural death or are slaughtered for food. There are millions of wild animals which are being killed these days commercially just for their furs and skins, while their carcasses are left to rot. Fourteen centuries ago Islam realised the absurdity of this wasteful and cruel practice and passed laws to stop it in the following Aḥādīth:
“The Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s) prohibited the use of skins of wild animals.”28
“The Holy Prophet(s) forbade the skins of wild animals being used as floor-coverings.”29
“The Holy Prophet(s) said: ‘Do not ride on saddles made of silk or leopard skins.”30
It is important to note that the first Ḥadīth covers all wild animals. The reason why leopard skins have been mentioned specifically could, perhaps, be that the Holy Prophet(s) might have seen someone using a saddle of leopard skin. Similarly, the specific mention of floor-coverings and saddles does not mean that they could be used for other purposes.
Given the practical approach of Islam to human imperfections and inadequacies, as said before, some research on animals and the concomitant surgical operations may yet be justifiable provided that they are carried out without pain and under anaesthetics; provided that the subject animal is put to sleep before it regains consciousness; provided that the animal is not disfigured; provided that it is done honestly and truly for knowledge and not for the promotion of commercial interests; provided that the operations are done by conscientious and qualified scientists; and provided that there is no alternative to it. It is comparatively easier to keep under control professionally qualified scientists and educational institutions, although experience shows that even some of them could be tempted to abuse their professional privilege. In view of the prevailing conditions in this field, a more uncompromising legislation would not be amiss.
According to the spirit and the overall teachings of Islam, causing avoidable pain and suffering to the defenceless and innocent creatures of God is not justifiable under any circumstances. No advantages and no urgency of human needs would justify the kind of calculated violence which is being done these days against animals, especially through international trade of livestock and meat. One of the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s) tells us: “if you must kill, kill without torture”.31 While pronouncing this dictum, he did not name any animal as an exception – not even any noxious or venomous creature, such as scorpions and snakes. People are allowed to kill them only if they become a threat to life or limb; and even then without torture.
