1 Animals in the Primary Sources

As mentioned above, Muslim scholars have always engaged in the study of animals. The reason for this involvement was the result of the comprehensive material of animals within the two primary sources of Islam – the Qurʾān and the collection of the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muḥammad (ḥādiths). Alma Giese, a German scholar of Islamic Studies, mentions that “no other holy text – except for the Upanishaden and the Tao Te King – mentions nature and its different appearances so detailed as the Qurʾān” (Giese 2001, 111). The legal scholar Kristen Stilt states that the “rules of Islamic laws on animal welfare, established in the seventh century, do more to protect animals than the laws of any country today” (Stilt 2009, 8–9).

In the Qurʾān, animals and the natural environment are mentioned to be semantically and ontologically linked with the concept of God and creation. They point to the existence of the God, His Omniscience, Absolute Will, Omnipotence, and other Divine Attributes, and are presented as signs (āyāt, sing. āya) for the existence of God (Q 16:68–69). It is also due to the creation of the universe and everything within it that God deserves to be glorified (Q 35:1). Seven out of 114 sūras in the Qurʾān are named after animals: al-Baqara (The Cow, Q 2), al-Anʿām (The Cattle, Q 6), al-Naḥl (The Bee, Q 16), al-Naml (The Ant, Q 28), al-ʿAnkabūt (The Spider, Q 29) and al-Fīl (The Elephant, Q 105), al-ʿĀdiyāt (The Galloping Ones, Q 100). The Qurʾān also presents animals with the characteristic of glorifying God (Q 17:44), praying to Him (Q 24:41), and describing animals as communities like humans (Q 6:38). The Qurʾān further describes that the earth was created for all creatures (Q 55:10). This general statement can include all living beings, human beings as well as animals, plants, and other types of organisms.

Animals also appear in many stories listed in the Qurʾān: the Prophet Noah and the Ark (Q 23:27), the Prophet Ṣāliḥ and the female camel (Q 7:73), the Prophet Sulaymān (Solomon) and his renowned skills of communicating with ants (Q 27:18) and a hoopoe (27:20), the Prophet Yūnus (Jonas) and the whale (Q 37:139–148), the Prophet Mūsā (Moses) and the snake that transformed from a stick (Q 7:107), the dog of the Aṣḥāb al-Kahf (Companions of the Cave; Q 18:18), and many others.

In the reports of Muḥammad, the ethical and legal treatment towards animals is portrayed in a more concrete way. The Qurʾān points out that the Prophet Muḥammad was not just sent by God to reform the belief in the oneness of God and to reform legal and cultural norms between humans, but, as the Qurʾān says, “[A]nd We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds” (Q 21:107). Therefore, the Prophet’s mission can be regarded nothing but a mercy to the whole creation (al-Qaradaghi 2017, 64).

This aspect is also emphasised by looking at Muḥammad as a spokesperson for animals and other living beings in the environment. He possessed the renowned ability to communicate with animals and other living beings. He was known for listening to complaints and responding with compassion and understanding. This characteristic is reflected for instance in the following narration:

When a camel saw the Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace), it cried and its eyes flowed with tears. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and give him peace) approached it and wiped away its sweat. He then asked, “Who is the master of this camel? Whose camel is this?” A boy from the Anṣār came and said, “This is mine, Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Do you not fear Allah with regard to this beast, which Allah has put in your possession? It has complained to me that you keep it hungry and burden it.”

Abū Dāwud 2008, no. 2549

The reports of Muḥammad also reveal that he forbade all the types of cruelty and bad behaviour towards animals. One of these cruelties was causing pain to an animal on sensitive parts of its body, like branding it on the face or disfiguring its appearance. He also forbade the pre-Islamic practice to cut off camels humps for the purpose of eating it, while the camel remained alive (al-Tirmidhī 1996, no. 1480).

2 Animals in the Islamic Tradition

The inclusion of animals into the corpus of the primary sources caused the preceding Muslim scholars and societies to engage with the subject of animals, the wonder of their creation, and their welfare and rights, until the modern era. The involvement with the topic of animals was subject to various disciplines like Zoology, Medicine, Natural Science, Islamic law, Theology, Philosophy, Sufism, Literature, and Arts.

The early theological school, the Muʿtazila, included the animal in their theological and philosophical discussion on justice (ʿadl), suffering (muʿānāt), pain (alam), and compensation (ʿiwaḍ). Within their thoughts on the ontological existence and perception of pain and suffering, and the reason why God created these sensations, non-human beings were part of the discussion. According to the Muʿtazilī opinion, painful acts are only permissible to inflict upon non-human beings under two conditions: if they are conducted for the sake of animals – like the treatment for diseases – or if there is an explicit divine permission to cause pain (al-Jāḥiẓ 1965, 1:159–162; al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024) in Heemskerk 2000, 167; Tlili 2015, 230–231). If human beings inflict pain on animals without these two reasons, they are subjugated to compensate the animal in order to establish justice. If pain is caused to another living being with the permission of God, He is compensating the experienced suffering (Heemskerk 2000, 166 f.).

The Muʿtazilī theologian ʿAmr ibn Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/868) – who engaged in Arab prose, adab, and politico-religious polemics – shaped the area of Arab zoology. The most important work of al-Jāḥiẓ is the Kitāb al-Ḥayawān (“Book of Animals”). The book is an encyclopaedia with seven volumes on animals, which covers more than 350 animal species in the form of anecdotes and poetic descriptions. In addition, it reflects important views on animals from a Muʿtazilī perspective. The legal scholar and natural historian Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Damīrī (d. 808/1405) also contributed to the area of zoology with his work Ḥayāt al-Ḥayawān al-Kubrā (“Life of Animals”). It contains in an alphabetically order animal names, their physical appearance, habits, medicinal uses, and legal opinions about the permissibility of using it for food.

Within the area of Islamic literature one of the most important work on animals is the medieval fiction Tadāʿī l-Ḥayawānāt ʿalā l-Insān amāma Malik al-Jinn (“The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn”) of the Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ (Brethren of Purity) – a Muslim philosophical, religious, and political group (mostly of Shīʿī Iranians) during the 4th/10th century. The fable brings humans and animals to a court presided by the King of the Jinn. Animals were given the opportunity to report about the cruelties they have suffered at the hands of humans. The King of the Jinn listens to the arguments in favour of and against the dominance of humans over the other creatures. In the end, non-human animals fail to win their case. Nonetheless, the fable challenges the superior status of humans and their anthropocentric attitudes towards other living beings (for further reading, see Tlili 2014a).

The area of Islamic law covered some issues related to animal welfare and its rights. Traditional Islamic jurists did not dedicate entire books to the topic of animals but a careful study of their legal textbooks reveals the engagement of animal welfare and rights. They discussed the topic of animals in chapters on, for instance, prayer, purity, zakāt tax, contracts, slaughter, lost items, and permissible food (Stilt 2018, 862). The classical jurist from the 7th/13th century, ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām (d. 660/1262), formulated legal rights of animals in the chapter Min Jalb al-Maṣāliḥ wa-Darʾ al-Mafāsid (“Promoting the Common Good and Avoiding Harm”). He wrote:

The rights of beast and animals [that have to be recognised] by the human are:

to pay for their living expenses and similar matters, even if they have aged or sickened do not take advantage from them; do not burden them beyond what they can bear; neither put them together with anything by which they would be injured, whether of their own kind or other species, whether by breaking their bones or butting or wounding; slaughter them with kindness; if you slaughter them do not remove their skins nor break their bones until their bodies have become cold and their lives have passed away; do not slaughter their young within their sight but isolate them; and put the males and females together during their mating seasons; and do not hunt them neither shoot them with anything that breaks their bones nor bring about their destruction by any means that renders their meat unlawful to eat.

Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām 1991, 167

The most essential rights of animals, as laid down by Islamic jurists, can be summarised within four categories: the Right to Life (al-ḥaqq fī l-ḥayāt), the Right to Nutrition (al-ḥaqq fī l-ghidhāʾ), the Right to Be Free of Pain (al-ḥaqq fī manʿ al-alam), and the Right to Survival and Continuation of Animal Species (al-ḥaqq fī l-baqāʾ wa-istamrār al-nawʿ) (al-Qarāla 2007). Within these areas the jurists discussed for instance helping animals in any situation of emergency. In order to save an animal, it is allowed to leave the obligatory Friday prayer or to break the state of fasting (al-Anṣārī n.d., 410; al-Qarāla 2007, 29). The jurists also recommended to perform the act of dry ablution using sand or dust (tayammum) instead of the ritual washing (wuḍūʾ), so as to leave the water for the animals to drink (al-Dasūqī n.d., 149; Foltz 2006, 33; al-Qarāla 2007, 29). In addition, they prohibited owners from taking an animal’s milk to drink when this could harm its offspring (Ibn al-Murtaḍā 1988, 284; al-Qarāla 2007, 30). Pain can only be inflicted on an animal if there is a special reason for it, such as training the animal, dressing it, treating it for an affliction, or for any other purpose that benefits man (Ibn Nujaym 1997, 375; al-Qarāla 2007, 31). Further the legal scholars forbade to extinguish any kind of animal species. It is also obligatory for Muslims to prevent species from becoming extinct (al-Qaradaghi 2017, 79).

The above presented perception on animals shows that the subject of non-human beings, their ontological existence, and their welfare and rights were indeed part of the legal, ethical, philosophical, and scientific findings of Muslim scholars throughout the Islamic history. Nonetheless, anthropocentric attitudes towards animals that compromise the rights and welfare of other non-human beings can be found throughout Muslim history until modern times.

3 Anthropocentric Views on Animals

In European philosophy, there is also an ethical approach to the subject of “good treatment of animals.” This attitude however was shaped by an anthropocentric point of view. For instance, the modern philosopher Immanuel Kant (d. 1804) does not explain the special position of humanity religiously. Rather, he sees it as based on the fact that humans have a share in the world of reason, which has an absolute value. Since animals are not rational beings, according to Kant, only a relative value comes to them. He therefore advocates respect for animals, arguing that anyone who abuses animals and is cruel to them will morally decline and therefore tend toward cruelty in dealing with direct objects of morality – that is, with human beings (Kant 1797, 84). According to this anthropocentric worldview, cruelty to animals should not be renounced for the sake of the animals, not because of the suffering that the animals have to endure, but for the sake of people.

Anthropocentrism (human-centeredness) is linked, on the one hand, to the idea that humans and their existence are the most central fact in the universe. On the other, it is regarded as an acknowledgment of human ontological boundaries (Boddice 2011, 1) in the sense of human’s limitation or inability to know other species for what they are. In the first case, it can be understood as “attitudes, values or practices which promote human interests at the expense of the interests or well-being of other species or the environment” (Kopnina et al. 2018, 111). It has therefore been associated with the feeling of superiority. Anthropocentric conceptions have shaped legal, political, philosophical, and ethical treatment towards animals.

In Islamic thinking, the notion of anthropocentrism is appearing in the perception that everything on Earth is made serviceable (musakhkhar) and subjugated (mudhallal) to humans. The concept of taskhīr (verbal noun related to musakhkhar) and the concept of tadhlīl (verbal noun of mudhallal) could be interpreted as involving a privileged status of humankind and assembling ideas of control and sovereign authority (Tlili 2015, 73). The Qurʾān mentions the term taskhīr, for instance, in the following context: “Are you not aware that God has made subservient to you [sakhkhara lakum] all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and has lavished upon you His blessings, both outward and inward?” (Q 31:20). The meaning of tadhlīl is mentioned for example at this point in the Qurʾān: “Are they, then, not aware that it is for them that We have created, among all the things which Our hands have wrought, the domestic animals² of which they are [now] masters? – and that We have subjected them to men’s will, so that some of them they may use for riding and of some they may eat, and may have [yet other] benefits from them, and [milk] to drink? Will they not, then, be grateful?” (Q 36:71–73). However, the implication that non-human beings and other worldly matters are made serviceable and subjugated by God to humans, does not give humans the status of complete control. Instead, absolute authority lies with God, as He subdues, subjugates, or makes other living beings serviceable to the human being (Tlili 2012, 100).

Also the position of man being the khalīfa (pl. khulafāʾ) could be interpreted as portraying an anthropocentric viewpoint on animals.³ The verb khalafa can be translated as to succeed, to follow, come after, substitute, or replace (Wehr 1994, 297). The concept of khilāfa entails mankind to govern, to reform, and to build this world. This special position lies not in its enjoying any higher powers or control among created beings, but in humans’ accountability before God, which is like that of no other creature (Özdemir 2008, 11). This accountability arises from the onus of global trusteeship. The Qurʾān speaks of the trust (amāna) that God had offered to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to accept it because they were frightened of the burden involved. But humankind accepted it, and bore the trust (Q 33:72). The duty of being the khalīfa on earth has to be carried out in accordance with the Islamic rules, in justice and fairness in order to maintain the world in balance (mīzān) and “due measure” (qadr) as God created it (Haq 2017, 24). According to the Qurʾānic understanding, everything – human, animal, nature and the whole universe – is created by God (Q 46:3) and believers are obliged to act fairly, even though it may not benefit their own selves (Q 4:135). At the same time, the Qurʾān describes the creatures as signs that point to God (Q 3:190). The Qurʾān’s description of creation is based on a harmonious, God-directed state of nature (fiṭra). According to Islamic ethical concepts, this harmony should not be disturbed by imbalanced human interference with the state of nature.

However, the discussion above has shown that Islam authorizes the instrumental use of animals and killing them for food. In this context the killing of animals (i.e., taking a life) for food may imply one of the biggest infringements to the right of an animal. In the Qurʾān the consumption of flesh of certain animals is regarded as permissible (Q 5:1). This rule is also further enhanced by ḥadīth-reports of the Prophet slaughtering and consuming meat. The legality of eating meat is further affirmed by the Islamic celebration of the Sacrifice Feast (ʿĪd al-Aḍḥā), wedding celebrations (walīma), and the birth of children (ʿaqīqa). Even though taking an animal life is under very specific reason permissible in Islam, the killing of animals without legitimate grounds is considered a criminal offence. There are differences of opinion to what extent the permissibility of killing for food can be expanded to include other uses (Tlili 2014b, 29). Other reasons could be, for example, to warn of danger, to kill for their skin or useful body parts, and in times of war. However, there is a unanimous ethical condemnation and legal prohibition to kill animals in vain.

4 Modern Perspectives on Animals and Contemporary Challenges to Injustice

With the emergence of modern industrialized systems, cruelty towards non-human beings has increased in world history. Especially in the food industry and in biomedical science, animals are prone to suffer injustice on a massive scale. The aggression and injustice towards other beings has resulted in the increasing focus of animals in the academic discourse since the middle of the 20th century, aiming to improve the status and the rights of non-human beings. The publication of two major philosophical works on animals – Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (Singer 1975), followed by Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights (Regan 1983) – led to an explosion of interest in animals among academics, animal advocates, and the general public (DeMello 2012, 7). In western studies even an independent academic discipline developed called “human-animal studies.” It aims to assess the relationship and interactions between humans and non-human beings and also engages in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches.

Similarly to these developments, the subject of animals has become a growing concern in the modern Islamic scholarship. One of the first Muslim theologians who responded to contemporary issues on animals was Basheer Ahmad Masri (d. 1992). Masri’s most known and most circulated faith-based book Animal Welfare in Islam – first published in the year 1988 – has laid down the first attempt to respond to animal welfare problems by analysing the primary sources with regard to factory farming, ḥalāl-meat, and biomedical research (Masri 2007).

It was almost two decades later that subsequent books on animals in Islam were published. Another faith-based book was published by the Pakistani wildlife biologist Fakhar-i Abbas, addressing the importance of the rights of animals and kind treatment of other creatures by laying down the most essential principles of the Qurʾān and the reports of Muḥammad. The motivation behind his book was his involvement in combating the widespread abuse of bears across Pakistan, and its contradiction to the Islamic tradition (Abbas 2009).

A couple of years before, two publications were released on assessing the appearances of animals in Islamic history and modern times. To these belonged L’Animal en islam edited by Mohammed Hocine Benkheira, Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen and Jacqueline Sublet (2005) and Richard C. Foltz’s Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures (2006). Both books discuss non-human animals in classical sources, in the areas of Islamic law, philosophy, literature, and art. Foltz also assessed contemporary issues involving animal welfare and rights.

In order to promote animal welfare in Arab society, Kristen Stilt, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, released a booklet (at the request of an animal welfare activist in Egypt) al-Rifq bi-l-Ḥayawān fī l-Sharīʿa al-Islāmiyya (“Animal Welfare in Islamic Law”) both in Arabic and English – setting out the most essential rights of animals and the importance of kind treatment in Islamic sources (Stilt 2009). A more subsequent analysis of animals in Islamic law is the work of Musa Furber Rights and Duties Pertaining to Kept Animals: A Case Study in Islamic Law and Ethics (2015). In this book he forwarded legal rulings on animals developed by Shāfiʿī scholars and applied these rulings to contemporary problems to kept animals.

His publication was followed by one of the most important sources on animal ethics in Islam at the beginning of the 21st century – Sarra Tlili’s book Animals in the Qurʾan published in 2012. In this work she examined the status and nature of animals in the Qurʾān and in exegetical works and has challenged the prevalent view of man’s superiority over animals by suggesting new ways of interpreting the Qurʾān. Since this publication, Tlili has contributed significantly with articles (Tlili 2014b, 2015, 2018a, 2018b) and participation at conferences towards understanding the status of animals in the Islamic tradition.

All of these publications criticise the current Islamic scholars, theologians, and also the Muslim community worldwide, to have turned a blind eye on the welfare of non-human beings, to have participated in committing crimes, and by doing so contradicted essential Islamic principles.⁴ Masri wrote on the negligence of animals:

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 […]. 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 […]. 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.

Masri 2007, 3

5 Justice for Animals

It is not enough to engage only with the topic of animal welfare and their rights from an academic standpoint; it is utterly important to transfer the norms derived from this academic discussion into practice in order to actually change the lives of animals.

One central theme within the topic of justice and animals is the concept of legal personhood. In the recent past there have been some attempts to obtain legal rights for animals through court procedures worldwide. In 2014, the Argentine Court of Appeal recognized the basic legal rights of an orangutan named Sandra who was born in a German zoo and sent to Argentina. The court declared that Sandra is a non-human person, who has been wrongfully deprived of her freedom. Sandra was freed and transferred to a sanctuary.

Similarly, in April 2020 the Islamabad High Court ruled in favour of three cases involving an elephant held in solitary confinement at a zoo, a rescued bear, and the killing of stray dogs (Pallotta 2020). The court held that animals have natural rights and are entitled to protection under the Pakistani constitution. The elephant named Kaavan, which was called the “world’s saddest elephant,” was sent to a sanctuary in Cambodia. The court regarded Kaavan as the Ambassador of Pakistan, its people and the jurisprudence of this Court. The decision even states that “the elephant will represent the pride of the people of Pakistan and their commitment to protect the creations of Allah” (Islamabad High Court – Writ Petition – 1155-2019 – 25.04.2020 – Islamabad Wildlife Management Board vs. Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad through its Mayor and 4 others). Additionally, the court decision led to the closure of the Marghazar zoo in Islamabad, and the grounds of the zoo are going to be turned into a modern wildlife conservation park (Constable 2021).

A few weeks later, in May 2020, the court decided on two Himalayan brown bears and ordered relocation to an appropriate sanctuary in Jordan (Islamabad High Court, Writ Petition – 1155-2019 – 21.05.2020 – Islamabad Wildlife Management Board vs. Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad through its Mayor and 4 others). The Chief Justice Athar Minallah argued in an order sheet released in December 2020 that:

It was indeed inhumane to have deprived them of living in their natural habitat merely for the entertainment of the human species. They have remained caged in the Marghazar zoo for more than a decade. A zoo, no matter how well equipped, is no less than a concentration camp for living beings. Both the bears were sent by the Creator to live free in their natural habitats. They were born free and taking them out of their natural habitat and caging them was in violation of the natural rights bestowed upon them by the Creator. They were imprisoned without having committed a crime. By depriving them of their natural habitat, the human species has interfered with the balance created in nature by the Creator. They were subjected to unimaginable pain and suffering and there was no justification for this cruel treatment other than to entertain the human species. They have suffered enough and they lack the ability to let the human species know what they must have gone through. Their abnormal behavior while imprisoned was sufficient to speak volumes for the unimaginable pain and suffering.

Islamabad High Court – Writ Petition – 1155-2019 – 14.12.2020 – Islamabad Wildlife Management Board vs. Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad, etc.

The decisions of the Islamabad High Court are indeed revolutionary, and contribute to the few rulings worldwide recognizing animal legal rights, their legal personhood, legal capacity, and process capability.⁵

6 Contributions to the workshop “God’s Justice and Animal Welfare”

As the above description has shown, modern scholarship on animals from an Islamic perspective has its roots in the 21st century with most of the significant works on animals in Islam having been published then. Literature regarding animals in Islam is very straightforward. So far most of the faith-based publications have focused on presenting relevant passages from the Qurʾān and the reports of Muḥammad supporting an animal friendly perspective (Masri 1989; Abbas 2009). Few works only have encompassed to focus the attention also on the appearance and involvement of animals in the traditional Islamic scholarship (Benkheira, Mayeur-Jaouen, and Sublet 2005; Foltz 2006; al-Qarāla 2007; Kızılkaya 2020, 2021; Tlili 2012). There is a need for subsequent works on animals in the work of scholars in the fields of theology (kalām), ethics (akhlāq), etiquette (adab), Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), Qurʾān exegesis (tafsīr), Sufism (taṣawwuf), art, and literature. It is also important to lay out state policies and to instate awqāf (endowments) that were historically used for the protection and care for animals. In addition, there is the need to further assess the topic of contemporary animal rights from an Islamic perspective and in Muslim majority countries, such as topics concerning court decisions, animal welfare activism and the ḥalāl-food market.

In order to strengthen the academic discourse on animals in the areas of Islamic theology and Islamic studies, the Research Group “Norm, Normativity and Norm Changes”⁶ at the Department Islamic-Religious Studies at the Friedrich- Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg organised the first European workshop on Animals in Islam in December 2019. The workshop was conducted by Abbas Poya and Isabel Schatzschneider. The focus of the workshop was to tackle this topic from a so far unexplored angle Justice in Islam. Therefore, the workshop was also called God’s Justice and Animal Welfare. It aimed to comprehend to what extent non-human animals are recipients of justice and how animals are included in the academic discussion of justice in Islam.

In order to achieve these objectives, international experts from various disciplines were invited to discuss the issue from interdisciplinary perspectives. However, as mentioned above, in this special issue, not only have the papers presented at the workshop been published, but also some other interesting contributions on this topic that were submitted later.

From the realm of Arab philosophy and justice, Bethany Somma’s article “Avicenna on Animal Goods” investigates positions on animals and animal ethics, focusing on the prominent Arab philosopher Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna, d. 428/1037). By tracing his conception of providence to that of essences, and by highlighting the role of psychological powers in ensuring the attainment of essential goods, Somma argues that Avicenna can account both for essential goods and interests to individual species and for the capacity of animals to attain these goods and interests.

In the context of Islamic Ethics and justice, Ibrahim Özdemir’s article “A New Ethics of Compassion for Animals: Said Nursi on the Rights of Flies” discusses the views on animals by Said Nursi (d. 1379/1960), a Muslim scholar from Turkey of Kurdish origin. Özdemir presents Nursi’s ethics of compassion by focusing especially on his treatise on flies. The article aims to introduce a new ethics of compassion which can be derived from the Qurʾānic Weltanschauung and includes compassion and care for all creatures.

The article “Towards an Ethic of Being-With: Justice as Responsibility for the Others in the Light of the Qurʾān” by Asmaa El Maaroufi analyses the subject-object-dichotomies between humans and the rest of creation. Here she is challenging anthropocentric perception of humans – especially regarding non-animals as mere object – arguing that the Qurʾān portrays animals as subjects with their own rights.

From the perspective of Islamic law and justice, Sabrina Sohbi’s article “Killing or Sparing Inedible Animals: Adab and Internormativity in al-Jīlānī’s Kitāb al-Ghunya” focuses on presenting and analysing the views in relation to killing or sparing inedible animals of ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (d. 561/1166) – founder of the ṭarīqa Qādiriyya and Sufi master. Within the book al-Ghunya (“The Sufficient Provision”), al-Jīlānī discussed the behaviour towards snakes, geckos, frogs, ants, scorpions, dogs, and leeches in the section entitled Mā Yubāḥ wa Mā Lā Yubāḥ (“What Is Permitted and What Is Not Permitted”). He further assesses the topic of the legitimacy of killing animals within the premises on obligation to kill, permission to kill, and interdiction to kill. In this chapter he also touches upon the topic of killing with fire, killing vicious dogs, and the obligation of humans to treat other beings gently.

Finally, Necmettin Kizilkaya’s article “They Cannot Be Left to the Brutality of a Cruel Group: An Ottoman Scholar’s Treatise on Dogs” sheds light on the human-animal relationship in the Ottoman Empire by translating and analysing a treatise on dogs by Mustaqīmzāde Saʿd al-Dīn Sulaymān (d. 1202 /1788). This treatise deals with the human-dog relationship, the characteristics dogs have, why people should be compassionate towards dogs, and the problems of having a negative attitude towards dogs.

This special issue on Animals in Islam also includes two review articles on recent works on animals. The first one is a review, written by Duke McLeod, on the doctoral thesis Ethik des Mitseins: Grundlinien einer islamisch-theologischen Tierethik of Asmaa El Maaroufi. In her work she outlines the first comprehensive work on animal ethics in Islam (El Maaroufi 2021).

The second contribution written by Ibrahim Özdemir, reviews the edited volume Animals and the Environment in Turkish Culture: Ecocriticism and Transnational Literature published by Kim Fortuny. This work examined representations of and attitudes toward land and animals in selected Turkish literary texts and cultural contexts (Fortuny 2019).