Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad Masri
i. In Islam the dates are not given as A.D., Anno Domini, means “The year of our Lord”. We prefer A.C. – Anno Christum, Christ(s) being accepted as Messenger of God rather than the Lord.
ii. S. = It is considered meritorious and obligatory for a Muslim to pronounce a reverential Salām whenever the name of a Messenger of God is uttered or written. ‘S’ stands for ‘peace be upon him’, in Arabic Ṣallal-Lāhu ʿalayhi wa Sallam.
iii. A.H. = Anno Hijrae, i.e. the year of migration when the Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s) had to migrate from Makka to Madina in 622 A.C. This date has been established as the first year of the Islamic era.
iv. Ḥadīth (plural: Aḥādīth), i.e. words and deeds (Sunnah) of the Holy Prophet Muḥammad(s).
v. References = In the Ḥadīth and other references at the end of each chapter, the name of the book has been printed in italics.
The Qur’ānic references have been given in the text after the quotation. The first figure stands for chapter and the second for verse. In some English translations the numbers of verses may be different. In that case, please look for the verse one or two numbers above or below. In this book verse numbers have been taken from the English translation by A.Yusuf Ali; 1938; Sh.Muhammad Ashraf, Kashmiri Bazar, Lahore, Pakistan.
vi. The references to the Old and New Testaments are from The Bible (Authorised Version), University Press, Oxford, 1955.
vii. ‘Muslim’ means one who submits to God. Believers in Islam prefer to be called ‘Muslims’ and not ‘Muḥammadans’, nor to be known by any other names or spellings.
The Affinity between Man and Beast
“In the region of existing matter, the mineral kingdom comes lowest, then comes the vegetable kingdom, then the animal, and finally the human being. By his body he (man) belongs to the material world but by his soul he appertains to the spiritual or immaterial. Above him are only the purely spiritual beings – the angels – above whom only is God: THUS THE LOWEST IS COMBINED BY A CHAIN OF PROGRESS TO THE HIGHEST. But the human soul perpetually strives to cast off the bonds of matter, and, becoming free, it soars upwards again to God, from whom it emanated.” (Al-Hazen)1
“Dying from the inorganic, we developed into the vegetable kingdom:
Dying from the vegetable, we became men.
Then what fear that death will lower us?
The next transition will make us angels.
From angels we shall rise and become what no mind can conceive;
We shall merge in affinity as in the beginning.
Have we not been told, ‘All of us shall return unto Him’?” (Rūmī)2
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS has existed throughout the ages. It takes various forms and guises, from cockfighting to cat burning, from sheer overloading of beasts of burden to downright neglect and abuse. Animals have died, and are dying, harsh deaths in traps and snares to provide fur coats and ornaments for the wealthy, and they have been hunted throughout the world for the sheer sport and morbid pleasure of man. However, until very recently the acts of cruelty were on a smaller and individual scale. What has changed now is the nature and extent of the cruelty, which is practised on a much subtler and wider scale. The most alarming aspect of the current streak of cruelty is that it is being justified in the name of human needs and spurious science. Scientific and pharmaceutical experiments on animals are being done to find cures for diseases most of which are self-induced by our own disorderly lifestyle.
To satisfy his ever-increasing demands and fads, man has begun to use his technological might and scientific prowess to transform increasing numbers of animals into food products. In laboratories, scientists are producing new genetic variations that may be amenable to low cost intensive methods of rearing. Many stock-keepers are more concerned with finance than the moral principles of animal husbandry, and look upon their livestock as meat and milk machines.
Even the once proud farmers have started yielding to temptation. The medieval sport of the feudal nobility to chase and kill animals for fun is still in vogue. Anglers hook up fish, and throw them back into the water maimed – just to while away their time. All kinds of denizens of the forest are fair game for the trophy-hunters. There is a large-scale carnage of fur-bearing animals. All this, and much more, is being done to satisfy human needs most of which 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