Indicators for Utilizing Animals in Islam
Indicators for Utilizing Animals in Islam: As far as our studies show, five significant indicators are set forth in Islamic sources for utilizing the animals, which include protection of animals’ lives, protection of animals’ bodily health, protection of animals’ sexual need, abstaining from harming and maltreating of animals, and abstaining from punishing animals.
However, with a little attention, it will be cleared that the pivot of these indicators is the magnanimity in using the animals, that if the human society keeps it in mind, the above five principles would automatically be taken care of, as well.
The principle of magnanimity is finely illustrated in three anecdotes related from the Holy Holy Prophet (S.A.W.).
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) of Islam regards as against magnanimity keeping loads on the back of a camel while its feet are tethered.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) saw a camel whose feet were tied while holding its load on its back. He asked: “Where is its owner? He is not manly [magnanimous]. Let him be ready for judgment on the Day of Resurrection.”
Similarly, he does not regard as permissible taking a piece of bread from the sheep’s mouth by forcing its neck.
Umm Salama said, “I was with the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) when suddenly the neighbor’s sheep entered the house and picked a piece of bread that was lying before us. I rushed toward it and took the bread off its mouth. The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) said, ‘It was not proper to press the animal’s neck’.”
And finally, when one of the Muslim women escaped from the Quraysh pagans and made a vow to sacrifice upon her return the camel by which she had escaped upon her return, the Holy Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) points out to her what an awful reward she had promised to this camel that saved her from the enemy, and she was going to kill it. Such a vow is not valid.
1. Protection of Animals’ Lives
Protecting the lives of animals – despite the expenses it entails – like protection of human life is a principle in Islamic law , which is incumbent upon all Muslims to do their best to achieve.
The Holy Qur’ān considers the value of the soul of a single person as equal to that of all other human beings and regards granting life to a single person as granting life to all the human beings.
﴾… anyone who kills any person without another soul being involved or for causing mischief in the land, acts as if he had killed all mankind. Anyone who spares life acts as if he had granted life to all mankind.﴿
There are similar notions in hadīth sources concerning animals, too. The Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Alī (A.S.) has referred to undertaking the custody of an animal whose owner has abandoned it due to financial disability to provide for its expenses as “giving new life” (iḥyā).
This principle enjoys such a status in Islamic thought that the life of the insects and tiny creatures are not neglected, as the Muslims are obliged to protect their lives lest they are unintentionally hurt.
To this end, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) advises the Muslims to avoid unnecessary nighttime walks on the passageways so that the tiny creatures that show up during the night to procure food would not be trampled.
Paying attention to such a principle concerning the animals has become the ground for deducing various rulings in Islamic law:
1.1. Ablution (wuḍū) and Protecting the Lives of Animals: Any Muslim is obliged to perform ablution with some water for their daily prayers. If the water available is limited and there is an animal around that is thirsty and in need of the water (for ablution), it is incumbent (wājib) upon the Muslim to give the water to the thirsty animal and perform dry ablution (tayammum) for their prayer.
The importance of such a ruling becomes clear when we find out that it is not necessary for the animal to be so thirsty that if the water is not given to it, it would die of thirst. Rather, even the possibility of its risk of dying in the future due to the likelihood of unavailability of water is sufficient for this purpose. It is for this reason that the Muslim jurists emphasize the use of khawf (fear = i.e. fear of inaccessibility of water in the future), as there is no difference between the animal belonging to oneself and the one belonging to another person.
2.1. Prayer
#7778;alāt) and Protection of Animals’ Life: Performing prayers is among the religious obligations. The Muslims are not permitted (it is unlawful for them) to give up (interrupt) their prayer before it is over. However, if the life of an animal is in danger, it is obligatory for the Muslim to give up their prayer and try to protect or save the life of that animal.
3.1. Fasting and the Protection of Animals’ Life: Similarly, if saving the life of an animal is subject to breaking one’s obligatory fast, such as when an animal is drowning, and saving it requires the person to dip their head completely under water or breathe some gas (dense smoke), it is incumbent upon the Muslim to proceed to save the life of the animal.
4.1. Inviolability of other Peoples’ Properties and Animals’ Life: If a person who is taking care of an animal is not capable of providing fodder for their animal at a certain time and in case no one else would be ready to help them thereupon and the animal’s life is in serious danger, they can use (usurp) the fodder belonging to another person in any possible way, without the owner’s permission, and pay back the price of the fodder to its owner after their financial status is normalized.
It is noteworthy that protection of Animals’ life and health is among the issues that is not merely restricted to the animal’s owner; rather, it is obligatory (a collective obligation) upon other people, who witness an animal’s being killed or injured, not to withhold their protection as a social duty (a benevolent action) from the animals.
With this explanation, the significance of the following saying of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) regarding the value of saving the life of the animals can be understood: The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) said, “A prostitute encountered a dog near a well that was about to die of thirst; she took off her shoe, tied it to her scarf, and drew some water from the well for the dog. This caused the forgiveness of her sins.”
It is worth mentioning that in some hadith sources, this narration has been quoted in another way, in which the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) in the end of his saying has referred to the rule, “fī kulli dhāti kabidin ratbatin ajrun” (lit. translation: in every wet liver, there is reward, meaning quenching every thirsty liver is rewarded.).
In the desert one found a thirsty dog,
With naught of his life but last gasp left;
That man of seemly ritual made his hat a bucket,
Binding his turban thereto as a rope;
His loins he girt in service and opened up his arms,
And gave the helpless dog a fraught of water –
At all of which the Messenger (S.A.W.) proclaimed that man’s condition
As pardoned by the Arbiter of Sins!
5.1. Killing and Hunting Animals: Despite such an attitude towards animals’ life, there is no wonder to know that killing animals except for using their meat in cases that their meat is consumable (ma’kūl al-laḥm) and man is in need of it, is not permissible. That is why the Holy Qur’ān regards the aimless killing of animals, which results in the extinction of their species, as indication of vicious (corrupt) human beings.
﴾And if he were to wield authority, he would try to cause corruption in the land, and to ruin the crop and the stock [humans and animals], and Allah does not like corruption.﴿
Accordingly, with the advent of Islam, the paganist tradition of muāqara (contending), in which the contenders practiced killing a great number of camels in a kind of contest to show off their financial authority, was declared as forbidden.
When the Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Alī (A.S.) found out a number of camels were killed as per the above (paganist) practice, he did not allow people to eat the meat and ordered it to be transferred to the city’s garbage dump so that only the carnivorous animals could eat it, because those camels were not killed for the purpose of human consumption.
Perhaps it is for this consideration that God does not consider the slaughter of an animal as permissible without mentioning the name of God so as to draw human beings’ attention to the fact that using animals’ meat is permissible only when the animals are slaughtered according to Divine rules.
﴾He has only forbidden you what has died by itself, blood and pork, and anything that has been consecrated to something besides God.﴿
The prohibition of killing animals except for using their meat (akl) and the prohibition of killing them without a purpose (in vain) is among the principles that have various applications in Islamic jurisprudence.
For instance, “If an animal gets its head stuck in a container belonging to someone else, the animal cannot be killed under the pretext of preserving the container, however valuable it may be.” “If an animal is in danger because of thirst, that animal cannot be slaughtered [without giving it water] and use the available water for performing ablution, because such an act is against Divine grace and kindness.”
Among the most important legal consequences of this principle is the prohibition of travel for hunting animals. All Muslim jurists – except for Abū Hanīfa – regard as forbidden all the recreational trips intended for hunting animals (idle hunting), which is not permissible for a Muslim person ; and if they do it, they are obliged, contrary to other travelers, to perform their prayers in the full format (tamām) and observe the fast during the month of Ramadan, as well.
As we know, according to the Islamic law, if a Muslim gets as far as 24 kilometers away from their residence, they have to perform the four-rak‘a prayers of noon (zuhr), afternoon (aṣr), and late evening (‘ishā’) in shortened (two-rak‘a) format (qaṣr). Similarly, it is not permissible to observe fast if this journey falls within the month of Ramadan. However, these two rulings do not apply to the one who goes on a trip for hunting and does not intend to procure food or earn livelihood for himself and his family. It is only Abū Hanifa, from among the Muslim jurists, who maintains that when travelling with the intention of hunting, the shortened prayers (qaṣr) and breaking one’s fast (ifṭār) would be necessary.
Condemning such a travel, the Infallible Imams (A.S.) have referred to it with phrases like travel of vanity (kharaja fī lahw); false way; unjust way (laytha bi masīr-i ḥaq); acquisitiveness (kharaja li ṭalab al-fuḍūl). They have stressed that the Almighty Allah regards as lawful the hunting of animals only when human beings are in dire need of it and have no other ways for procuring their food (muḍṭar, i.e. being in desperate plight). It is with this consideration that Imam al-Bāqir (A.S.) and Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.), in interpreting the statement, ﴾But should someone be compelled, without being rebellious or aggressive…﴿, which is repeated in verses173 of Sūrat al-Baghara, 145 of Sūrat al-An‘ām, and 115 of Sūrat al-Naḥl, have clearly stated that the one who hunts animals with the intention of entertainment (play and pastime) is oppressive and acquisitive (rebellious), and the rules of being muḍṭar do not apply to him.
According to Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.), killing animals (with intention of play and pastime) is among the most disgusting sins: The most disgusting sins are three: to kill animals; not to give women their dowries; and to avoid paying the workers their wages.
The Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Alī (A.S.) considers the one who kills an animal intentionally and in vain as deserving punishment: The Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Alī (A.S.) passed a decree for the one who kills an animal without a purpose, cuts down a tree, ruins the crop, destroys a house, or drains a spring or river to pay off the cost of what they have destroyed or ruined and to receive a number of lashes. If they do it by mistake or unintentionally, then they should only pay for the damage and not to be punished.
In the Holy Prophet’s (S.A.W.) view, anyone who kills an animal unreasonably (unrightfully), that animal will bring them to trial in the Divine Presence on the Resurrection Day: There is no animal – birds, etc. – that is killed unrightfully, except that it will call its killer to trial on the Resurrection Day.
No one would kill a sparrow or bigger than that unrightfully except that the Almighty and Glorious Allah would call them to account. The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) was asked, “What is the animal’s right?” He answered, “To slaughter it (for procuring their food) and eat it, rather than cut off its head and throw it away.”
Accordingly, the life of small birds, such as swallows, hoopoes, and sparrows are to be respected and the believing person is not permissible to deprive them of the right to live without reason.
Whoever kills a sparrow without reason, that sparrow will complain of them to Allah on the Resurrection Day and say, “O Lord! Such and such a person killed me aimlessly and for no benefit.”
No one would kill a sparrow except that it will complain on the Resurrection Day and say, “O Lord! This man killed me with no reason, neither benefitting from my killing nor leaving me to live on in Your earth.”
Whoever kills a sparrow unrightfully, Allah will call them to account on the Resurrection Day. People said, “What is its right [the right thing to do]?” He replied, “To slaughter it, rather than holding its neck and cutting it off.”
This ruling is not merely limited to the animals whose meat is eatable (ma’kūl al-laḥm); rather, from the viewpoint of the Muslim jurists, man is not permitted to kill animals that do not do any harm to him without any reason and in normal conditions. Even in the wartime, the animals that are scattered in the war-ravaged territories should not be killed on the pretext of the war condition or taking revenge the enemy.
Although killing animals that can endanger human life and inflict harm upon him, like different kinds of reptiles (wild animals), is permissible in view of Muslim jurists, it is not clear that one is permitted to commit such an act without feeling threatened by them, because the religious permission for killing such animals is subject to their potential threat against human beings; otherwise labeling them as harmful (mūdhī) is not right even though they are potentially harmful. That is why the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has permitted killing an animate creature only when it is harmful and hurting to human beings.
The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) prohibited [people] from killing any animate creature, unless when it threatens to harm.
By virtue of the restricting concept of illā (unless) and the permissibility of using the derivative of yūdhī in respect to the person who would in future appeal to the origin of the verb (al-talabbus bi al-mabda‘), and the necessity of implying truth from speech, it can be concluded that so long as an animal is not actually threatening human safety, it may not be killed.
I asked Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) concerning the killing or hurting swallows in the Holy Mosque (Masjid al-Ḥarām). He said: “They must not be killed, because I was in the company of Imam al-Sajjād (A.S.), pestering a swallow. The Imam told me: O my son! Do not kill these birds and do not hurt them, since they do not harm anybody.”
It is worth mentioning that although in this hadīth the narrator’s question concerns killing and hurting the swallow in the Holy Mosque, the Imam’s answer and the reason he mentioned would also apply to killing birds in places other than the Holy Mosque as well as killing any harmless creature.
Such an attitude towards the status of animate creatures has lead to the impermissibility of small aquatic creatures such as frogs, even with the pretext of medical use and such insects as honeybees; and also killing ants is not permissible except when they hurt human beings.
Therefore, man’s entrance into the wild life and the killing of the animals for whatever motivation, is not permissible as long as human safety is not threatened by them. Thus, claiming that all animals are created for man’s exploitation and the man has the right to take their life (ihlāk) is an incorrect claim.
2. Protection of Animals’ Physical Health
Because of his need for animals, man has tried throughout history to keep animals alive to attain his own benefit; but the superiority of man over animals has caused him to endanger their lives whenever he wishes.
These behaviors include defiling animals’ organs and cutting off, slitting, damaging, and breaking them; as in most instances, having a proprietary relationship with them would be the lame excuse for such mistreatments.
Allah considers such treatments of animals an outcome of the Satan’s interference and explains it in its language as follows: ﴾And I will lead them astray and give them [false] hopes, and prompt them to slit the ears of cattle﴿.
As this verse implicates, the best incentive for such behaviors is the existence of superstitious beliefs in ancient communities. For instance, in the community in which Islam emerged, as in many other communities, when the number of someone’s camels exceeded one hundred, they would blind one eye of a male camel and if they exceeded one thousand they would blind the two eyes of a camel, in order to avert evil eye.
Irrespective of the interference of superstition, which Islam has strongly opposed, other motivations such as revenge, pleasure seeking, entertainment, and the like have also been involved in such treatments of animals.
According to Islamic teachings, any deforming of the face and body of the animals, which is referred to as muthla (mutilation), is prohibited.
Literally, muthla is derived from the root mathala, meaning “to make an example of” and “to mark”. Making [someone or something] notorious takes place with various motivations such as frightening others and making an example of them, punishing severely, mutilating, venting one’s anger, entertaining and amusement. Having usually been performed by cutting off body parts such as nose, ear, hand, etc., this action was done to both human beings and living and dead animals.
Warning people against such an act, the Holy Prophet said: Whoever mutilates an animal, may the curse of Allah, the angels, and all people be upon him.
Whoever mutilates a living animal and does not repent for that Allah will mutilate him on the Day of Resurrection.
Cutting off the animals’ organs is unjust and impermissible to the extent that the religious authorities do not permit it even towards the stray and rabid dogs, either.
Such treatment of animals is not only an offence to them, but it also scars the beauty of their face and ruins the conformity of their body parts. It is for this reason that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has considered it impermissible to shorten a horse’s forelock and mane, and to cut its tail, explaining it as follows: Do not cut the forelock, mane, and tail of a horse, because there is goodness in its forelock; the mane would make it warm; and the tail disperses the insects from it.
You mutilated it! You mutilated it! Goodness is written on the forelock of the horse until the Resurrection Day and its owners would get assistance for it. The horse’s mane is [represents] its dignity, its forelock is its beauty, and its tail is its strength.
With these explanations, there remains no doubt that cutting off the tusks of an elephant, the antlers of an elk and a wild goat, the tusks of a walrus, and the feathers of a peacock, and similar mistreatments would not be permissible.
3. Protection of Animals’ Sexual Health
The animals’ sexual functions, like their other functions, are of concern to Islam, which, has devised protective rules and commanded people to observe them.
1.3. Castration (Ikhṣā’): Castration is among the most common treatments that man has practiced on animals throughout history. Despite the underlying motivation, this action is legally examinable from two perspectives: the torments and pain that the animal suffers during this action and its deprivation of the right to procreate in its lifetime.
Appealing to the principle of proprietorship, some jurists claim that since human beings are the proprietors of animals and the proprietors can exploit their property in whatever way they wish (the proprietor has authority over his/her property), they can castrate animals to suppress their sexual excitement or to fatten them (intending to make profit).
In contrast, jurists like Abū al-Ṣalāḥ al-Ḥalabī, Ibn Barrāj, and Shawkānī consider such an action as unlawful, because the usefulness of an action would become a permit for performing it when a legal barrier would not prohibit us from such an action. However, in our premise, in addition to the prohibition of maltreating animals, the sayings of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and the infallible Imams (A.S.) concerning the impermissibility of this action would suffice in proving its prohibition.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) prohibited us from castrating the animals , saying, “Castration is not permitted in Islam.” Similarly, he deemed castration of animals as evil (detestable), believing that we should not destroy the power of God’s creatures, as the growth and development is in procreation. He told a man who had castrated his horse at the pretext of being stubborn, “Woe on you! You have mutilated the animal’s body; goodness is hanging on the forehead of horses until the Resurrection Day.
Similarly, Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) has regarded as detestable (makrūh) the castration and pitting animals against each other (taḥrīsh).
However, if we cannot prove the prohibition of castigating animals from these traditions and conceive the word “aversion” by its literal concept, which is used in some traditions whether in its technical sense of prohibition or aversion, at least we have to accept that castration of animals is a detestable and aversive act and thus the Muslims had better avoid it.
2.3. Interbreeding Animals: Interbreeding animals is among the controversial issues in animals’ law. Is man justified to provide for the interbreeding of animals of different species and thus produce animals of middle race?
The research conducted indicates that interbreeding animals of different species (an animal born of two different animals) has been discussed by Muslim jurists in terms of purity and impurity
#7789;ahārat and najāsat) and using their meat and other products (akl and shurb).
Some traditions related from the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) concerning the interbreeding of a donkey and a horse indicate that His Holiness has regarded this practice as inadvisable and warned the Muslims against it, viewing such treatment as a result of human ignorance.
We are a household to whom (giving) charity (alms) is unlawful, and are commanded not to wipe the moist of our ablution (wuḍū) and not to interbreed a donkey with a horse.
The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) was an obedient servant; he did not enjoin us (his household) but against three things: not to wipe the moist of ablution; not to accept charity; and not to interbreed a donkey with a horse.
The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) warned against interbreeding a donkey and a horse.
[He was asked:] “O Apostle of Allah! Shall we interbreed a donkey with a horse?” He answered, “Those who do this do not know.”
A mule was presented to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) as a gift. We said, “O Apostle of Allah! Shall we interbreed our donkeys with our horses so as they produce mules like this for us?” He replied, “Those who do this do not know.”
The impression of Muslim jurists about all these traditions is that the heterogeneous interbreeding of donkeys and horses, although indecent and inadvisable, is not regarded an unlawful (harām) act, because the purpose of such a ruling is to prevent the reduction of horse stock and to encourage its procreation. This practice has been prevalent in the time of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and His Holiness (S.A.W.) has not expressed any strong opposition against it. In some ahadith, this has been regarded as permissible and in case of doubt in its permissibility and impermissibility, the practical principle of exemption (barā’a) denotes its permissibility.
Despite the unlawfulness or repugnance of heterogeneous interbreeding, the subject matter of the above traditions merely concern donkeys and horses; however, the question remains to be answered whether we can go beyond these traditions and seek to examine the issue of genetic engineering in Islamic law. Can the undesirability of interbreeding donkeys and horses be an indication that from the Islamic point of view any manipulation in the genetic structure of animals leading to the appearance of middle animals cloned is not appropriate?
4. Preventing Cruelty and Maltreatment to Animals
Transgressing animals’ rights is among the acts, which all revealed religions have been unanimous on its prohibition. However, sometimes we encounter in every community unjust traditional practices in which the major pivot is cruelty and maltreatment of animals. Among such practices, which can also be traced in different forms in other communities, are the two superstitions of ḥabs al-balāyā (confinement of misfortunes) and ḍarb al-thawr (beating the bull), prevalent all over Arabian Peninsula (before the advent of Islam).
When a person died (during the Jāhiliyya period), they would keep his camel in a ditch dug near his grave without giving it any water and fodder until it would die. This camel was called baliyya (misfortune) and this practice was called ḥabs al-balāyā, the purpose of which was that the dead person might not become pedestrian on the Resurrection Day!
It was also customary (during the Jāhiliyya period) that when the cattle are moving toward a water pond to drink, first the bulls and then the cows drink water. Now, when the cow would not drink water, it was believed that the demons living in between the bull’s horns is preventing the cow from drinking; thus, they would beat the bull to the extent that the cow would start drinking.
One of the earliest measures taken by Islam was to fight against such superstitions, which were partially or widely prevalent in Arabian Peninsula (during that period). The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) frequently prohibited his companions from such superstitious acts.
Do not oppress (torment) the creatures of God.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) prohibited from oppressing (tormenting) the creatures of God.
From the point of view of religious authorities, a Muslim is not permitted to maltreat animals even if this should be done by snatching a leaf from an ant’s mouth: The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) prohibited snatching and eating what an ant is holding in its mouth.
Similarly, the Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Alī (A.S.) clearly declared that if he were offered the whole universe to grab a barley husk from an ant’s mouth in return, he would not do it.
By Allah, if they grant me all the heavens and the whole world and ask me in return to disobey God by grabbing a barley husk from an ant’s mouth, I would not do that.
Commenting on the āya, ﴾Allah will inflict retribution on him ﴿, Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) pointed out a man who terrified a fox by bringing a fire close to its face so much as the fox wetted itself out of panic, and the Almighty God sent a snake to him at night so as he got himself wet in an intense panic. Similarly, His Holiness (A.S.) tells the story of a man who because of throwing stones at pigeons was hit by a thunderbolt.
Accordingly, not only maltreating and oppressing animals is regarded as impermissible, but also keeping silent before indecent and pervasive treatment of animals is not permissible either and one should prevent others from it; because, otherwise, one’s acts of devotion would be devoid of any value and will ensue Divine punishment.
There was an old pious person among the Children of Israel. One day, while performing prayer, he noticed two little boys who were holding a rooster and plucking its feathers. The old man kept on performing his prayer, not preventing the children from that. God ordered the earth to swallow this servant of His and the earth swallowed him.
The issue of maltreating and abusing animals in Islamic jurisprudence has been studied by Muslim legal experts who have in different cases, which will be explained later on, regarded such treatments of animals as unlawful (harām).
Semantics: Before legal examination of this issue, it is to be noted that in legal sources different terms such as īlām, ta‘dhīb, and iḍrār have been used to describe man’s indecent treatment of animals.
Structurally, īlām is infinitive and from the root word alama, which is used in Arabic as meaning severe pain (waj‘). Similarly, Ta‘dhīb is structurally an infinitive and from the root word ‘adhaba.
There are three possibilities in the meaning of this root word (i.e. alama): 1. prohibition, 2. continuity, 3. beating (darb). So also for ‘adhāb different definitions are proposed: pain (alam), loss (madārr), pain along with hardship, pain along with degradation, continuous and unremitting pain (istimrār al-alam).
A careful examination of these definitions would imply that pain (alam) has varying degrees (is gradational), which, depending on its intensity, continuity, or discontinuity, can be named ‘adhāb (chastisement). Therefore, it can be concluded that every ‘adhāb includes pain (alam), but every pain is not always ‘adhāb.
On this basis, we can regard īlām as equivalent to maltreatment and ta‘dhīb as torture. However, since īlām is conceptually more widespread than ta‘dhīb, as it encompass both torture and suffering extra pain and undergoing tension and pressure in life, instead of using any of the words here we use the word maltreatment
#257;zār wa aziyat) so that it may designate both concepts. However, in some cases we would mention the Arabic equivalent in parentheses for accuracy in phrasing.
1.4. Branding Animals: Among what has been much practiced by human beings for a long time is branding animals (wasm or kayy).
Branding animals has been normally practiced for two purposes: First, treatment referred to as kayy, on the basis of which certain superstitions have also crept in. For instance, whenever a camel developed a disease called ‘urr (mange), namely, its lips or inside its mouth would blister, they would brand a healthy camel to cure it [the diseased one].
1.1.4. Branding the Face: The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has frequently prohibited Muslims from such acts and when he saw a donkey whose face was branded, he cursed (damned) the perpetrator and warned one of his companions that the perpetrator of such an act will be punished in the same way on the Resurrection Day.
Despite causing maltreatment of the animal, branding the face would sustain serious damage to the face and ruin its beauty. Thus, in a general command, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has bewared Muslims of doing anything that may damage the animals’ beauty (lā taqbaḥū al-wujūh).
Given the prohibition and cursing by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) as well as the consensus (ijmā‘) of Muslim jurisprudents, branding the face of animals is an unlawful act, because it causes cruelty (ta‘dhīb) to animals and ruins their beauty.
2.1.2. Branding other Parts of Animals’ Body: The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and the infallible Imams (A.S.) have asserted that except for the face, other parts of the animals’ body can be branded; among which, the ears and buttocks are considered as the most suitable for this purpose.
Except Abū Hanifa, all other Muslim jurists consider branding other parts of animal’s body for the purpose of their recognition and separation as permissible and, in some cases, even as recommended (mustaḥab), with respect to the sayings of the religious authorities.
Abū Hanifa believes that since branding animals causes their maltreatment and our Holy Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has bewared us of any maltreatment and abusing of animals, it is an indecent (detested = makrūh) act. In contrast, other legal experts maintain that since this is performed for a rational purpose and the Holy Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has approved it toward animals, it can be considered as an exception to the prohibition of maltreating and abusing animals and judge it as permissible.
2.4. Hamstringing Animals (‘Aqr): According to our findings, hamstringing animals has been practiced for two different purposes in pre-Islamic Arabia:
1.2.4. In the Battlefield: In the past, when some animals such as horses were frequently used in battles, the belligerent party would cut off the four legs of their own horses or those of their enemy’s (‘aqr) so that the enemy would not be able to use them to their own benefit or by which the soldiers could not flee the battle scene; and also, in order to cripple the enemy forces.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) allowed his troops to kill (slaughter) their quadrupeds whenever they become defiant in the enemy’s land and stop from moving on, but they are not permitted to cut off their legs.
Whenever a beast of yours becomes defiant– that is, it desists from moving in battlefield in the way of Allah – slaughter it but do not hamstring it.”
Muslim jurists maintain that the Holy Prophet’s (S.A.W.) statement concerns the time when such an action is possible; but if the battle is so fierce that it would be impossible to kill the animal in a legal way (i.e., to slaughter it) and there is fear of the enemy’s opportunistic exploitation of this event, then one can hamstring his animal.
Therefore, although in normal conditions maltreatment and abusing of animals is not permissible, special circumstances of war allows man to do so; just as when Ja‘far b. Abū Ṭālib, the commander of the Muslim army in battle of Mu‘ta (against the Byzantine) did so.
2.2.4. On the Tomb of a Deceased Person: The sunna of ‘aqr (hamstringing) is among the superstitious practices of pre-Islamic Arabs. According to this sunna, when a person passed away, a camel (sheep or cow ) would have been hamstringed at his or her grave, its blood sprinkled over the grave, and its carcass was left around to be eaten by carnivorous animals.
Different motivations have been mentioned for this superstitious practice, such as compensating the hospitality during his/her lifetime, showing the deep grief of the bereavement, and sacrificing one’s best properties for that.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) forthrightly outlawed this practice by stating, lā ‘aqra fī al-Islām (there is no hamstringing in Islam), and said hamstringing is outlawed in Islam.
3.4. Using Animals as Targets (Sabr): Archery is among the athletics, learning and competition matches of which is highly recommended in Islam; however, if this sport brings about maltreatment and abusing of animals, it is not only undesirable but unlawful, as well.
Among the practices opposed to by Islam is ṣabr al-bahā’im (taking aim at animals). What is meant by this is to tie up an animal’s legs and let it die gradually and painfully by taking aim and shooting at it.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has prohibited Muslims from such a way of killing animals and cursed its perpetrator. Having taken for granted the existence of soul for the animals, it is stressed in some traditions that the animal possessing soul should not be killed this way.
The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) prohibited targeting beasts; he prohibited killing any animal by way of aiming at it while its legs are tied up. The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) prohibited al-mujaththama (killing an animal lying in a squatted position), which Abū Muhammad further explained as: al-mujaththamata al-maṣbūra (squatted while its legs are tied up). Do not take the life of any animal with spirit by taking aim at it; the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) prohibited taking the soul of an animal by taking aim at it. He cursed the one who takes the soul of a tied up animal by taking aim at.
The Holy Prophet’s prohibiting and cursing the perpetrator of such an act indicates the unlawfulness of this act in Islam; it is besides the principle that regards the maltreatment and hurting (ta‘dhīb) of animals as unlawful.
4.4. Confining Animals: As it will be explained in the following lines, man has different duties towards animals, the most important of which is to try to preserve their life, and it may best be achieved simply by supplying their water and food.
Confining animals is among the indecent conducts towards animals. In this procedure, the animal is detained in a place without water and food so that it may die gradually out of hunger and thirst. According to the Muslim jurists, such a treatment of animals is impermissible and unlawful
#7717;arām).
In his spiritual ascension to the Unseen (mi‘rāj), the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) talks about his meeting with a woman, who, due to her mistreatment and abusing of a cat, had been punished in the Hell.
The night I ascended to the mi‘rāj, I saw a woman in fire. I asked for the reason, it was said, “she had tied up a cat without giving it water and food and would not let it go to eat insects of land until it died. That was why God punished her.”
5.4. Crucifying Animals
#7778;alb): Some jurists believe that crucifying animals before killing them is not permissible, because it would torment them and is incompatible with the Islamic creed enjoining tolerance with animals (practicing benevolence towards animals when slaughtering them).
6.4. Burning Animals (Iḥtirāq): According to the Islamic law, burning animals even though they cause harm to human beings is impermissible and unlawful
#7717;arām).
Once on a journey, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) found out that some of his companions had set an ant hole on fire, he reproached them and said, “Punishing with fire does behoove no one except the Creator of fire.” “It does not behoove man to punish a creature like God does.”
Accordingly, a question is raised in legal sources as to whether the living small fish can be put in boiling oil or fire to cook them for eating.
This question is examined in two aspects: 1. maltreatment of the animals, 2. eating these animals without observing the hunting conditions.
Apart from the second aspect, which concerns the eating and drinking issue (aṭ‘ima wa ashriba), the first aspect has drawn the attention of the jurists, some of whom regard such treatment as unlawful and impermissible as it inflicts torment on the fish. Some jurists, however, have only discussed the issue in respect to the second aspect and do not view eating such fish as permissible according to the tradition narrated by ‘Ammār Sābāṭī.
Nevertheless, the Muslim jurists have only in one case given fatwā as to the legal obligation of burning animal’s body, and it is when an animal whose flesh is lawful to eat is sexually exploited by a human being. In this case, the animal is first killed (slaughtered) as per the instructions given in Islamic sources, and then the flesh is burned and buried.
It is necessary to keep in mind two points in this judgment:
First: Burning the body of the animal after killing is not for punishment of the animal because it has not had any role in its being sexually abused; rather, it is to show the indecency of the act, while suppressing the desire for such ignominious act and preventing human health from hazardous problems.
Second: this judgment is only applicable to the animals whose meat is for human consumption; as for other animals, just their place of living is to be changed and then sold so that the owner of the animal is not reproached for that.
7.4. Full Shearing of Animals Wool (Hair): As it is explicitly pointed out in the Holy Qur’ān, some animals’ wool (hair) has many uses in human clothing, which in turn can pave the way for profiteering. For this reason, the Muslim jurists have commented in this regard using the general rule concerning “the unlawfulness of maltreatment and abusing of animals.”
From the viewpoint of the Muslim legal experts, the owners of animals such as sheep are not permissible to shear off the wool close to the skin, because such an act would hurt (ta‘dhīb) the animal. Accordingly, some jurists do not deem as permissible the sale of the sheep’s wool before it is sheared, because such a transaction is apparently the sale of the whole wool of the sheep and access to such a thing is not possible except through shearing the wool close to the skin, which would hurt the animal.
8.4. Slaughtering the Animal, Avoiding Maltreatment: Although consuming the animal’s meat is not possible except by killing (slaughtering) it, one should not torment the animal under the pretext of obtaining meat and ignore the Holy Prophet’s (S.A.W.) command in doing benevolence while slaughtering them. That is because there is no conflict between the necessity of slaughtering animals and doing benevolence to them in doing so. Thus, one should avoid any action that increases persecution and maltreatment of the animal.
Verily, Allah has ordained you to do benevolence to everything; so, when you slaughter and kill animals, do it with benevolence.
In a letter to one of his judges and pointing out the necessity of instructing the butchers on how to slaughter animals properly, the Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Alī (A.S.) emphasizes that the butchers who slaughter the animals in an improper way should be reprimanded.
It is in respect to such an attitude that the Holy Qur’ān, while explaining different methods of killing animals, deems only one method as permissible and does not permit Muslims to consume the meat of the animals that are killed in such ways as described in the following verse: ﴾You are prohibited carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and what has been offered to other than Allah, and the animal strangled or beaten to death, and that which dies by falling or is gored to death, and that which is mangled by a beast of prey barring that which you may purify and what is sacrificed on stone altars [to idols], and that you should divide by raffling with arrows. All that is transgression.﴿
Benevolence in slaughtering animals cannot be restricted to specific instances, because what is meant by benevolence is to avoid maltreatment; so, whatever that may bring us a step closer to that goal is regarded as benevolence. We study benevolence in two stages:
1.8.4. While Slaughtering: In Islamic sources, the following instructions are given to reduce tormenting of animals when being slaughtered.
1.1.8.4. The Sharpness of the Slaughtering Tool: It is befitting to slaughter animals with a tool of iron (metal) and sharp like a knife so that its bluntness would not torment the animal.
When you want to slaughter an animal, do not torment it; sharpen your knife, lay the animal down facing the qibla, and do not cut off its spinal cord before it dies.
When you slaughter an animal, do it well; each one of you should sharpen your knife and relieve the animal.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) commanded that the Muslims sharpen their knives when slaughtering animals.
The sharpness of the slaughtering tool is a necessary rather than sufficient condition for the reduction of animal’s pain; because, if a tool, however sharp it is, still causes pain to the animal, should not be used. For this reason, some jurists believe that using tools such as a jagged scythe for slaughtering is not permissible, because its being jagged would add to the animal’s pain (ta‘dhīb).
2.1.8.4. Swift and Powerful: Tardiness in action also increases the process of slaughtering, causing further pain to the animal. Therefore, as the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) ordered, the animal is so that it can be slaughtered as swiftly and powerfully as possible to tolerate it more easily.
When one of you slaughters an animal, you should act swiftly.
3.1.8.4. Avoid Cutting Lengthwise: To slaughter an animal, its four main arteries are to be cut off so that blood can gush out quickly; emptying its blood vessels and end its worldly life in the shortest time possible. To this end, it is not permissible to use any other method that would cause the gradual and painful death of the animal.
Among such methods is the upward cutting of the animal’s throat (qalb al-sikkīn). In this method, the knife is inserted in the animal’s throat and moved upward while rotating it, causing the animal to die slowly.
In response to the question as to how the animals should be slaughtered, Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) warned the Muslims against the above way of slaughtering. Having regarded the sanad of this hadith as valid, some Muslim jurists have considered such an act as unlawful and eating the flesh of the animal slaughtered this way as impermissible. In contrast, another group has regarded such an act as detestable (makrūh) and enjoined the Muslims to avoid it, while throwing doubt on the validity of the sanad of the hadith due to the unclearness of the identity of Qāsim b. Muhammad(its narrator).
2.8.4. The Interval between Slaughtering and Final Death: With the acceptance of the animals’ enjoyment of an immaterial (pure) soul and the existence of a relationship between death and separation of the soul from the body (disjunction) and since this process is gradual, we should avoid doing anything that may inflict more pain to the animal until the soul is fully separated from the body.
1.2.8.4. Skinning: Among the legal considerations, whose basis is the avoidance of tormenting animals, is the unlawfulness of skinning the animal (salkh) before its body is cold enough after being slaughtered; i.e. before the total separation of the soul from the body.
It seems – as some Shī‘ī and Sunnī legal experts have asserted – that the coldness of the animal’s body that is accompanied by the ceasing of its throbbing motions can be regarded as a sign of the total separation of its soul from the body. Thus, the difference between qabl al-mawt (before death) and qabl al-bard (before getting cold), as stated in some legal books is not correct; “until it gets cold, i.e., until its soul departs from the body”, “before it gets cold… before the soul exits the body”, “unless there exists a correlation between dying and getting cold”.
Some jurists believe that since the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and the Infallible Imams (A.S.) have regarded as unlawful eating the meat of the animal that is skinned before its body gets cold, there is a correlation between the unlawfulness of eating the meat of such an animal (akl) and the unlawfulness of doing such an act (al-salkh qabl al-bard = skinning before the animal’s body gets cold). So skinning the animal before the completion of its dying process is indecent, unlawful
#7717;aram), or detestable (makrūh).
Although according to the extant documents, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has never in his life skinned a sheep before its body getting cold, it seems for proving the unlawfulness of such an act we need no specific reasons except the judgment of intellect, the impermissibility of tormenting animals, and the words of the Holy Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) concerning the unlawfulness of torturing (ta‘dhīb) animals, provided that we accept that the animal preserves its ability to perceive and feels the tormenting of its body till the end of the process of the soul leaving the body (coldness of the body).
2.2.8.4. Cutting off the Spinal Cord (Paralyzing): According to the religious teachings, the killer of the animal (zābiḥ = slaughterer) is not allowed to cut off the animal’s spinal cord (nakh‘) by cutting off its head or breaking off its backbone before its ultimate death (before the body becomes cold).
Irrespective of the disagreement among the jurists on the unlawfulness or repugnance of cutting off an animal’s spinal cord before its body gets cold as well as eating its meat, we should look for the reason for this ruling.
Since the spinal cord lies in the spinal column, breaking it off is not possible without breaking its neck; for this reason, the traditions in which cutting off the animal’s spinal cord is discussed are interpreted as referring to the issue of breaking the neck (raqaba) as well.
So long as the animal’s body does not get cold (enough), its spinal cord should not be cut off and its neck should not be broken.
After slaughtering, the spinal cord is not cut off and the neck bone is not broken.
He was asked about the person who cuts off the neck of an animal before it dies, and he replied, “Although it is an evil act, its meat can be eaten.”
Cutting off the spinal cord and breaking the neck of an animal in the early stages of its killing (dhibḥ) denotes two points:
1. The Slaughterer’s Haste; O butchers! Do not break the animal’s neck bone and do not hasten its dying [process] until the soul leaves the body by itself.
2. The Slaughterer’s Violence.
There is no doubt that this hastening and violence would torment the animal, because by the time the dying process is over, the animal’s overall nervous system is active and it feels all the injuries and pains inflicted upon its body. For this reason, by cutting off the four main arteries of the animal’s neck, the blood should be allowed to be completely drained from its body and only after the body’s activity is totally stopped the neck and the spinal cord can be cut off.
It is in respect to this issue that the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and the Infallible Imams (A.S.) have regarded cutting off the spinal cord in the interval between slaughtering and death of the animal as impermissible; however, they have permitted it after its death, i.e. after the complete separation of the soul from the body (idhhāq-i nafs).
The animal’s spinal cord is not to be cut off until it dies; so, when it dies, then cut off its spinal cord.
Do not cut off its spinal cord until it is quite death.
Do not cut off its spinal cord, nor cut off its head, nor tear apart its meat until its soul is separated from the body.
Therefore, cutting off the animal’s spinal cord and breaking its neck intentionally before its death process is over is an indecent act since it causes unreasonable intensification of its pain.
The Exalted Allah has obliged you to do good to all things; then, when you slaughter, do it with benevolence.
3.2.8.4. Cutting the Body (Flesh) into Pieces: If we accept that there is an interval between slaughtering the animal and its final death – which is referred to as the complete departure of the soul from the body – and if we regard its getting cold as a sign of dying, then we are not permitted to cut the animal’s flesh into pieces before its final death.
Animals Vexing Humans: So far, we have pointed out some instances in which Islam did not allow human beings to hurt and abuse animals in different ways and under any pretext; however, the question remains to be answered as to if animals prevent humans from utilizing them by vexing them, what can humans do?
Obviously, when we talk about rights it concerns a mutual relation. Therefore, as much as man is obliged to observe the animals’ rights, his own rights in utilizing them are also to be observed, as we talked about it before. Thus, in order to secure his rights, man is permitted to seek procedures for protecting himself against the animals’ harm, but these procedures should not cause their physical or psychological damage.
For instance, man has the right to use the honey produced by the honeybee, but he is threatened by the bees when he approaches their hives. To solve this problem, some legal sources have suggested producing smoke (tadkhīn) to keep safe from the bee stings.
5. Avoiding Punishment of Animals
Among the simplest and at the same time most widespread treatments of animals by man is beating them for various motives such as training, spurring (making it do something, e.g. go faster), and sometimes – unfortunately – taking revenge. Such treatments by man, despite its motivation, is based on accepting a kind of privilege for him; but is he really entitled to such treatment of animals?
Before legal examination of this issue, it is to be noticed that from the viewpoint of religious authorities, such treatment of animals has not been agreeable and their practical life story (sīra) has suggested avoiding such acts.
For example, Imam al-Sajjād (A.S.) went on Hajj pilgrimage with a camel forty times without whipping his camel for even once.
In response to the question as to when one can beat the animal one rides, Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) said, “When the animal is not moving like when it is returning to its manger.” Deliberating on this question and answer, it is well understood that beating an animal is permissible only when it refuses to do its duty, for which it is created.
As we explained previously, according to the Holy Qur’ān’s delineation, the creation of the cattle is intended for the fulfillment of some human needs, including transportation.
﴾Of the cattle [some] are for burden and [some] for slaughter. Eat of what Allah has provided you and do not follow in Satan\’s footsteps; he is indeed your manifest enemy.﴿ ﴾and you are carried on them and on ships.﴿
﴾It is Allah who created the cattle for you that you may ride some of them, and some of them you eat…﴿ ﴾And who created all the kinds and made for you the ships and the cattle such as you ride.﴿
Now, if an animal refuses to do this inherent duty, which can be signified by sluggish motion and lack of liveliness (not moving as when returning toward its manger), it should be notified; but since it is not possible for man and animal to verbally communicate for this purpose, it can be done by showing a specific conduct.
This issue can be implied from the difference between ‘ithār and nifār in beating the animals and the reason stated for it: Beat it for its rebellion (‘ithār), but do not beat it for its ill-temperedness (nifār), since the animal sees things you do not see.
Although in such cases, it is permissible to beat the animal to make it carry out its duty, it should be known, however, that the beating is permissible when it would not be possible in no other to notify the animal of its duty. For this reason, when one of the Holy Prophet’s (S.A.W.) companions begins to beat a camel to have it stand up, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) tells him not to beat it and to make a sound, instead, to make the animal stand up.
Similarly, to the man who was beating his sheep to make them move, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) teaches that person how to make them move instead of beating them.
The Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) saw an Arab who was beating his sheep. He told his companions “Bring that man to me without frightening him.” When they brought him to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.), he said, “O Arab! Say giddyup! Instead of beating them.”
However, the religious authorities do not approve beating animals.
I was going on a Hajj pilgrimage with Imam al-Sajjād (A.S.), his camel was moving very slowly. He pointed his stick toward it, but said, “Ah! If there were no retaliation (qiṣāṣ) in the world Hereafter, I would beat it,” and then moved his hand back.
Naturally, if beating is just for drawing the animal’s attention, then we are not permitted to use the means that may inflict serious harm on it, whether it is used for training or utilization.
Beware of beating [an animal] with a wooden stick, because the Satan will accompany you and the angels will run away from you. Whoever is so harsh on his animal that it may die, he will be cast in Hell.
Therefore, beating the animals for what they are not naturally committed, like beating them in circus shows, and beating them for doing what they are not capable of doing, like beating them for carrying heavy loads or gaining unusual speed in races, is not permissible.
If we look at beating animals from this perspective, we will well understand why the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) and the Infallible Imams (A.S.) have warned the Muslims against damaging the face of the animal and explained the reason as follows: Everything has sanctity, and the animals’ sanctity is in their faces.
Do not beat the face of animals or any spirited being, as they praise Allah.
Accordingly, the Muslim jurists have regarded damaging the face of the animals and beating it as unlawful or at least as aversive (makrūh), because the face is more delicate than other parts of the body, the animals feel more pain thereby, and the scar left on the face may ruin its beauty.
Reference:
Animals Welfare Acts and Utilization Limits in Islam
Author: Saeid Nazari Tavakkoli
Translated by: Ahmad Rezwani
Islamic Research Foundation
Astan Quds Razavi, Mashhad – Islamic Republic of Iran