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
