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
