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.
