The Islamic tradition has always held animals in high esteem, deserving the same level of consideration as humans. The Qur'an opines that "there is not an animal in the earth nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are people like you." This fascinating and highly original book examines the status and nature of animals as they are portrayed in the Qur'an and in adjacent exegetical works, in which animals are viewed as spiritual, moral, intelligent, and accountable beings. In this way, the study presents a challenge to the prevalent view of man's superiority over animals and suggests new ways of interpreting the Qur'an. By placing the discussion within the context of other religions and their treatment of animals, the book also makes a persuasive case for animal rights from an Islamic perspective.
This article offers an assessment of the current state of scholarship on animal ethics in Islam. It first discusses a group of texts that share the preoccupation of demonstrating the superiority of Islam’s animal teachings, thus exhibiting a clearly apologetic tone. Then it turns to the debate on animal ethics in Western academia. By raising challenging questions, the latter holds the promise of delving deeper into the subject, but at its current stage much of it is still hampered by factual inaccuracies and methodological flaws. In conclusion, the article explains why the subject of animal ethics in Islam is particularly deserving of careful study.
The fact that Islam allows humans to consume meat and obtain several services from nonhuman animals is prevalently interpreted as a sign of anthropocentrism. For example, G. H. Bousquet considers that God created other animals to serve humans, thus suggesting that nonhuman animals have little or no intrinsic value in Islam.1 Carol Bakhos, Mohammed Hocine Benkheira and many others subscribe to the same opinion.2 The aim of this chapter is not to contest this view altogether, but to argue that the supposed anthropocentric character of Islamic tradition has been overemphasised at the expense of the theocentric one. Anthropocentrism is, of course, a ‘sin’, of which all human societies seem to be guilty. Nevertheless, to the extent that one can discern from medieval Islamic texts, the anthropocentric tendencies of pre-modern Muslim societies were often held in check by the equally, if not more important, theocentric character of the tradition. This approach resulted in genuine respect and serious engagement with nonhuman animals’ interests. The question of legitimate and illegitimate violence is well situated to illustrate this point. Thus, as I investigate how some Muslim scholars justified and categorised acts of force against animals, I will also assess the extent to which anthropocentric presuppositions shaped Muslims’ attitudes toward other animals.
The word dābba (‘animal’), both in its singular and plural (dawābb) forms, occurs in the Qur'an a total of eighteen times. In its Qur'anic context, dābba is often understood by Arabic mufassirūn, English-language translators and other Islamic scholars as a reference to nonhuman animals only, the implication being that the Islamic scripture does not consider humans to be part of the animal world. However, analysis of the Qur'anic contexts in which the animal concept is treated indicates that this scripture subscribes to the etymological (rather than the conventional) meaning of this word: any being that produces intentional movement, the primary meaning of the verb dabba, is a dābba. Thus, the so-called rational beings (humans, angels and jinn) are part of the animal world, an understanding that is plainly expressed in many medieval Arabic lexicons whose definitions are shaped by the Qur'anic treatment of the animal concept. Furthermore, evidence from within the Qur'anic text indicates that it seems to avoid lumping all animals into one indistinct group. Both these observations may have a significant impact on the status and potentially the welfare of nonhuman animals in the Islamic scripture, and therefore have implications for attitudes to animal welfare.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.