Animal Welfare in Islam. Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri

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.

VIVISECTION

      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.