The Islamic Obligation of Displaying Kindness to Animals

1. The Obligation of Showing Encompassing Kindness to All Animals — Even Those Being Slaughtered
2. Kindness to Animals in Peril
3. The Prohibition of Torturing Animals
4. Kindness to Animals Does not Contradict the Command to Kill Harmful Animals
5. Conclusion

Introduction

Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ibn Bāz was once asked regarding the ferrying of animals from Australia to the Middle East, seeking clarity concerning the difficult and cramped conditions these animals would have to be subjected to during freighting.

He wrote the following:

From ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bāz to our respected and honourable brother — may Allāh guide you and us:

al-Salāmu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuhu:

I have recently become acquainted with your request for clarification in writing regarding the subject of ferrying animals from your native Australia to the Middle East, seeking elucidation on the difficult and cramped circumstances these animals will be subjected to during freighting, as well as the situation aboard the ships utilised for this purpose where the animals shall be crowded together during transport, and subjected to other abject hardships.

It is on this occasion that we invoke Allāh for ourselves and for you that He facilitates our adopting of His straight path. We make this invocation as a means of showing our gratitude to you on account of the close attention you have displayed in seeking clarity on this important topic. For we are elated to provide the answer to your query in light of the passages extracted from the glorious Book and the pure Sunnah all of which strongly encourage the showing of mercy and compassion to all animals — irrespective of them being utilised as a source of food or otherwise. There are also authentic aḥādīth that contain a warning of impending punishment to anyone who tortures animals, whether this be by means of starvation or carelessness in the circumstances of their transport from one place to another.

The Obligation of Showing Encompassing Kindness to All Animals — Even Those Being Slaughtered

As for the passages that pertain to showing an encompassing righteousness and goodness to all animals, they include the following:

وَأَحْسِنُوا ۛ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

“And do good. Truly, Allāh loves al-Muḥsinūn (the good-doers).”
(Al-Baqarah, 2:195)

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالْإِحْسَانِ

“Verily, Allāh enjoins al-ʿAdl (i.e. justice and worshipping none but Allāh alone) and al-Iḥsān [i.e. to be patient in performing your duties to Allāh, totally for Allah’s sake and in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in a perfect manner]”
(Al-Naḥl, 16:90)

Also, the statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) as reported by Muslim and others:
Indeed, Allāh has prescribed excellence in every matter. If you kill, then do so with excellence. If you slaughter an animal, then do so with excellence. I command those [slaughtering animals] amongst you to sharpen the blade used, and to facilitate ease for the animal being slaughtered.^[1]

“Allāh has prescribed excellence in every matter”^[2]: That is, Allāh has legislatively prescribed that excellence be shown in every matter one engages in. This applies to slaughtering animals and even exterminating and killing them, and any other matter that pertains to them. One must display excellence in whatever he chooses to engage in,^[3] always adopting the appropriate conduct and manner for his chosen act. For the one who does so is most deserving of his act being accepted, and being rewarded abundantly.^[4]

“If you kill, then do so with excellence. If you slaughter an animal, then do so with excellence”: That is, the soul of an animal is taken either by means of killing or by the act of slaughtering. As for the act of slaughtering, it applies only to animals whose meat is [legislatively] edible, and occurs by slicing through the upper portion of the animal’s neck, just under their head. This slicing should sever the two jugular veins which are the two thickest veins in the neck through which blood flows and is disseminated throughout the body, as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Eat from the [type of slaughter] that causes the spurting of blood, upon which the name of Allāh is mentioned”^[5]. Blood does not spurt in this way except as a result of severing the jugulars and this is considered a prerequisite that dictates whether a slaughtered animal is ḥalāl. As for slicing the windpipe through which the animal breathes, or the oesophagus that transports its food [from its mouth to the stomach], this is not considered a condition of ḥalāl slaughter, although the additional severing of these is considered increasingly thorough and complete.^[6]

As for killing, it applies specifically to all [legislatively] non-edible animals whose extermination has been either commanded or deemed permissible. This includes rats, scorpions, snakes, and voracious dogs. These animals — in addition to any animal that inflicts harm — are killed^[7].^[8]

“I command those [slaughtering animals] amongst you to sharpen the blade used”: That is, sharpen the blade and hone it thoroughly such that it slices with swiftness, decisiveness and finality. This facilitates the cutting of the animal’s throat without inflicting undue suffering or pain.^[9]

“And to facilitate ease for the animal being slaughtered”: This is a measure additional to the mere sharpening of one’s blade and is accomplished by placing the blade on the neck of the animal and exerting strength when severing it such that the slice is made quickly, which is more expedient than slicing twice or thrice before the animal is killed. There are people who have been blessed by Allāh with strength that facilitates them severing the jugulars, the windpipe, and the animal’s oesophagus in a single quick slice. Such people grip their blade with firmness and strength, and their blade is sharp and honed to a razor edge, all of which allows the animal being slaughtered to die with ease.^[10]

The ease mentioned here is also facilitated during the slaughter by one placing his leg on the animal’s chest, grasping its head with his left hand and making the slice with his right hand, while the animal is lying on its left side with its limbs unfettered such that it is able to move them freely. This is because holding the animal’s limbs down (or instructing others to do so) during this process shall result in undue suffering and pressure being inflicted on the animal, and allowing it to move its limbs freely is more comfortable and facilitates greater ease in its final moments. The lack of incumbrance has the added benefit of increasing the blood spilt as a result of this increased movement which is also desirable when slaughtering.^[11]

As for the practice incorporated by some of the general populace of wrapping the animal’s left forelimb over its neck and then leaning on its three other legs so that it is completely immobilised [akin to a wrestler ‘pinning’ his opponent], this is completely contrary to the Sunnah.^[12]

In order to grant ease to the animal being slaughtered, it is also mustaḥabb (recommended) to avoid aggressively wrestling the animal down to the ground, sharpening one’s blade in its presence^[13], slaughtering one animal in front of another, or dragging the animal to its place of slaughter. It is also from the Sunnah to present water to the animal, allowing it to drink before being slaughtered.^[14]

One should also harbour the intention of rendering the animal to be slaughtered permissible for consumption by means of his impending slaughter, and that he intends to seek closeness to Allāh by means of it [i.e., by slaughtering it in the manner He has legislated]. In this vein, he should:

• face the animal in the direction of the qiblah,
• state Allāh’s name (when slaughtering it),
• making the necessary preparations, then slicing its jugulars and windpipe, granting it ease (in its demise)
• ensuring it is calm before slaughtering it,
• declaring and acknowledging the animal a physical manifestation of Allāh’s blessings,
• showing gratitude to Him for subjugating these animals to our will.^[15]

For had He willed, He could have made them (i.e, beasts) the subjugators over us. He has made their consumption and slaughter permissible for us and — had He willed — He could have just as easily made them ḥarām for us.^[16]

Lessons Derived from This Ḥadīth

1. The command to show excellence in slaughtering and killing by sharpening one’s blade.^[17]
2. The ḥadīth mentioned here is among the encompassing aḥādīth that is comprehensive of a great multitude of established Islamic fundamentals.^[18]
3. Allāh — the Most High’s — kindness, mercy, and compassion towards His servants manifested by Him prescribing every act being executed with excellence. This applies even to our treatment of animals.^[19]
4. The practices mentioned here are considered Sunnah and represent a manifestation of the mercy and kindness that is to be shown to animals when slaughtering them. We may deduce that every practice that is antithetical to this is disliked. For example dragging the animal to the place of slaughter, as narrated that Ibn ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) once observed a man dragging his sheep to the place of slaughter and said: “Woe to you! Drive it to its death in a beautiful manner”.^[20]
5. This [ḥadīth] especially applies to the variety of animals being referenced [in the question] that belongs to the category of livestock, as this particular variety of animal is most deserving of respect and care as they are both a food source and represent a valuable commodity. Furthermore, there are specific rights that have been afforded to these animals that relate to acts of obedience by which one seeks closeness to Allāh (i.e., zakāh), in addition to the widely acknowledged difficulties such animals are often subjected to as result of a great multitude of them being ferried in close quarters and over extensive distances. For it is as a result of such transport conditions that some of the weaker animals among them may experience death due to the close quarters within which they must subsist, in addition to the hunger and thirst as well as the contagious diseases that may become rampant among such large groups of animals. There are also other harmful conditions that may affect these animals all of which require expedient examination and thorough study from those responsible for this transport. As this will facilitate measures that lend ease and comfort to these animals, comprehensive of the conditions experienced during transport, the provision of food and drink during it, as well as the degree of ventilation, and the provision of medicine, separation of the strong from the weak and sequestering the sick from the healthy at every level until they are marketed. The introduction of such measures is now possible for most profitable corporations and small businesses that import and export such livestock. The expenses incurred in relation to these measures is considered an obligation which must be spent willingly by the owners of those animals.^[21]
6. Among the most unfortunate, objectionable circumstances that have been clarified to us — regarding which a precautionary warning is also required — are the methodologies employed during animal slaughter in most foreign countries and the varieties of torture that these animals are subjected to during this process. For example, electrocution of the animal’s brain as a form of anaesthesia, then it being transported through the slaughterhouse by means of hooks, flipped upside down while still alive, moved using a conveyor belt until it reaches the place of slaughter which occurs by means of machinery before the meat is packaged. Also among the examples of this is plucking the feathers from chickens and other poultry whilst they are alive, or dipping them in boiling water, or exposing them to superheated steam that results in the removal of their feathers — all the while they allege that this represents a more complete manner of slaughtering these animals. Our statement in this regard is based on our knowledge of the methods employed therein. It is abundantly clear that this represents the torturing of animals in a manner that directly contradicts the passages that command us to show kindness to them, as encouraged by the true and tolerant Islamic legislation. The one who incorporates such practices which are antithetical to this legislation shall be considered guilty of a form of oppression and transgression, held responsible for this as confirmed in several aḥādīth; among them: “Indeed Allāh shall facilitate qiṣāṣ [the law of equality in punishment] between the hornless and horned ram [on the Day of Judgement]”.^[22] Then what should we reasonably presume regarding those who permit the occurrence of such oppression, purveyors of such evil?

Kindness to Animals in Peril

Shaykh Bin Bāz continues:

And a great reward, forgiveness of past sin, and abundant gratitude have all been authentically confirmed for those who grant succour to any animal in peril:

On the authority of Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه) who said that the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “There was a once a man who became overcome by severe thirst whilst traversing a path. He came upon a well, within which he descended to drink water. He then observed a dog whose tongue was lolling out of its mouth, eating dirt because of thirst. The man said: ‘This dog is currently experiencing the same severe thirst that I had previously felt.’ Thus he descended into the well, filling his shoe with water, then biting the shoe to hold it whilst he climbed, returning to provide water to the dog. Allāh — the Most High — showed gratitude to him for this act, and forgave him.” The companions said: “O’ Messenger of Allāh! Are we deserving of a reward on account of our treatment of animals?” He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) replied: “There is reward on account of every moist liver”.^[23]

In another narration: “A female prostitute once observed a dog on a hot day, circuitously pacing around a well, its tongue hanging out of its mouth because of thirst. She removed her shoe to provide him [with water] and she was granted forgiveness on account of her act”.^[24]

“There was once a man”: If someone was to enquire: ‘When did this story actually occur?’ I would answer: ‘This occurred among the Children of Israel. For this reason, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) simply said “a man” without mentioning his name.’^[25]

“Whose tongue was lolling out of its mouth” and “tongue hanging out of its mouth”: used to indicate severity of thirst in extreme heat.^[26]

“Eating dirt because of thirst”: can refer to mud^[27] but here refers to dirt of any kind.^[28]

“Then biting the shoe to hold it whilst he climbed”: that is, he bit into the shoe that was filled with water because his hands were preoccupied negotiating the handholds being used to ascend from the well. The wording of the ḥadīth implies that this climb was difficult.^[29]

“Provide water to the dog”: in another narration, he provided water to the dog until it was satiated, its thirst completely quenched.^[30]

“Moist liver”: expression used to refer to any living being that possesses a soul, its physical body accompanying that soul is referred to as ‘moist’ when still alive. The word ‘moist’ is meant as a reference to any animal. That is, in the treatment of all animals — whether by providing them with food or water — there is a reward. Any living animal may be referred to as a ‘possessor of a moist liver’ because after death, the physical body is dessicated, its interior organs becoming dried up.^[31]

“Allāh — the Most High — showed gratitude to him for this act, and forgave him”: that is, Allāh accepted his act of goodness, rewarding and forgiving his sins because of it.^[32] This has also been interpreted as Allāh informing His angels of the reward granted to this man as a result of his good deed, and His commemoration and praise of him.^[33]

“Prostitute”: that is, a fornicator. As for the difference in narration — the first mentioning a man and the other a woman — this has been interpreted as two separate occurrences.^[34]

“She was granted forgiveness on account of her act”: that is, Allāh — the Most High — forgave her transgression on account of her providing water to that dog. Allāh showed mercy to her as she showed mercy to it, as narrated on the authority of ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr (رضي الله عنه) who said that the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Those who show mercy to others will have mercy shown to them by the Most Merciful. Be merciful to the inhabitants of the earth and the One in the sky shall have mercy on you.”^[35]

Lessons Derived from This Ḥadīth

1. This ḥadīth encourages the kind treatment of all respectable animals; that is, those that we have not been commanded to kill. As for such animals, the order of the One who has legislated their killing must be carried out. Besides them, all other animals are deserving of respect, the one who treats them with kindness and compassion is deserving of reward regardless of whether those animals fall under one’s ownership (domestic) or the remit of another, or whether they are considered animals that are permissible for one to acquire or otherwise.

2. This ḥadīth proves that kindness to animals represents a means towards the forgiveness of sin and the attainment of great rewards. This is not incongruent with the command narrated to kill certain, specific animals, or that killing those animals is perfectly permissible. For killing those animals represents the greater good. Even when killing such animals, we have been commanded to do so with excellence, and to show kindness and compassion for the animal being slaughtered (i.e., swiftly with a sharp knife, ensuring the animal does not suffer unduly)^[37].^[38]

3. This ḥadīth mentions the story of a person from amongst the Children of Israel. As for Islām, we have been commanded to kill [vicious] dogs. In this way, the statement ‘in every moist liver’ should be interpreted as only applying to harmless animals because we are not permitted to allow animals such as the pig to gain strength [from being fed and provided with water] such that their harm is increased. This was also the opinion espoused by al-Nawawī that the ḥadīth should be interpreted as only applying to animals deserving of respect; that is, those we have not been ordered to slaughter, as feeding, providing such animals with water and showing kindness to them in any other way are all acts most deserving of being rewarded. While other scholars postulate that such aḥadīth should be interpreted in the general sense as applying to all animals regardless of their respectable status; that is, even those we have been commanded to kill should be provided with water before being killed. This is because we have been commanded to seek excellence even in the slaughtering of animals, and to abstain from cruel mutilation. This opinion that the ḥadīth should be interpreted in the general sense represents the correct view in this matter due to the clarity of its evidence. And Allāh — the Most High — knows best.^[39]

4. This ḥadīth clarifies that any form of maltreatment directed at animals or any living creature is completely impermissible and the perpetrator of such cruelty is considered sinful. This is implied as the ḥadīth proves that one is deserving of reward and good deeds for treating animals with kindness, then it stands to reason that those guilty of treating animals with cruelty should deservedly be ascribed to sin and transgression. And Allāh protects whomever He wills [from the perpetration of such misdeeds]. Regarding this, there should be absolutely no doubt, nor may one defend himself from Allāh’s will, as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr clarifies^[40].^[41]

5. This ḥadīth has also been used to evidence the permissibility of donating supererogatory charity to polytheists, although this should only be in circumstances wherein there are no Muslims. Otherwise, a Muslim is more deserving of any charity. This is also the case if a person is only able to provide aid to either a human being or a respected animal [besides those we have been commanded to kill], and both possess the same degree of dire need, then the human being must be given precedence. And Allāh knows best.^[42]

6. We may deduce a principle from such narrations: If the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) narrates a story to us from the Children of Israel, then it serves the general purpose of providing us with a lesson, and indicates that we are meant to learn from the occurrence being related. As Allāh — the Exalted in Might — said:

لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِّأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ

“Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding.”^[43]
(Yūsuf, 12:111)

7. All living creatures represent an opportunity towards the attainment of reward. This applies to any living creature and any form of kindness including providing them with water, food, protecting and providing shelter to them from extreme cold or heat regardless of whether those (domestic) animals belong to oneself or another, or if they are wild. They all represent a means towards Allāh — the Exalted in Might’s — reward. If this is the case for animals, then what should we presume concerning other humans? If you were to show kindness to any human, you would be deserving of an even more immense allotment of reward. For this reason, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Whoever provides water to a Muslim afflicted with thirst shall be facilitated drink by Allāh from al-Raḥīq al-Makhtūm (pure sealed wine).”^[44] This means that even if your infant son was to stand in front of the fridge saying ‘I want water’, and you gave him water to drink whilst he was thirsty, then Allāh shall give you to drink from al-Raḥīq al-Makhtūm; a reward that is immense — and all praise deservedly belongs to Allāh. These represent treasure and loot to be pillaged, but where are the acceptors of such spoils?^[45]

8. This woman provided water to the dog, her heart containing sincere belief (īmān) in Allāh when she enacted this deed. This was the reason for her forgiveness. Otherwise, not every prostitute that provides water to a dog would be deserving of the reward mentioned here. For — indeed — the rewards attributable to actions fluctuate in accordance with the īmān and sincerity the enactor harbours in his heart when executing the deed. For example, two men may stand in the very same row to perform the same ṣalāh, but the difference between their two prayers is akin to the difference between the heavens and the earth.^[46] So where are the ones who enact such good deeds while harbouring intentions that are truly sincere, seeking only Allāh’s —the Exalted in Might — reward? Thus do I advise you — and myself — to consistently seek to pillage the treasures that have been set out for us by enacting these good deeds with sincerity and righteousness such that these deeds become a large store of actions kept recorded with Allāh. For how many people have enacted deeds that were themselves insignificant but were rewarded immensely on account of the intention they harboured whilst enacting them? And how many have enacted magnanimous deeds that were ultimately rendered insignificant because of the mindlessness with which they were executed?^[47]

The Prohibition of Torturing Animals

[Shaykh Bin Bāz continues]:

Just as Islām encourages righteousness and goodness in one’s treatment of animals, it similarly forbids its opposite in the form of inflicting harm or oppressing them. The Most High said:

وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

“Transgress not the limits. Truly, Allāh likes not the transgressors.”
(Al-Baqarah, 2:190)

وَمَن يَظْلِم مِّنكُمْ نُذِقْهُ عَذَابًا كَبِيرًا

“And whoever among you does wrong, We shall make him taste a great torment.”
(Al-Furqān, 25:19)

Ibn ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) once passed by a group of people who had placed a chicken on a platform for target practice. When he (رضي الله عنه) saw what they had done, he removed it saying: “Who did this? Indeed, the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) cursed those who engage in such practices.”^[48]

And on the authority of Anas (رضي الله عنه), the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forbade that animals be immobilised until death.”^[49] In another narration, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Do not set that which still possesses a soul as a target.”^[50]

“Group of people”: In Bukhārī’s narration, he (رضي الله عنه) had passed by a group of youth.

“Who did this?”: question posed as a form of rebuke and a strong objection to their act.^[51] In another narration, he (رضي الله عنه) walked towards them and freed the chicken himself. Then he said to Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd (to whom those youth were attributed): “Prevent your youths from immobilising animals in this way until death. If you wish to slaughter the animal, then slaughter it correctly.”^[52]

“Cursed”: that is, (he) invoked Allāh to expel and distance such people from Allāh’s mercy.^[53] This curse was invoked because this practice represents a form of animal torture — wasting their lives, and needlessly destroying property (if the target is a domestic animal), while also squandering the opportunity to slaughter the animal correctly (such that people could partake in its meat), provided the animal is among those fit for consumption. Otherwise, any benefit that could have been derived from that animal is effectively squandered by abusing it in this manner.^[54]

“Immobilised until death”: that is, tied down to be used for target practice until it becomes so riddled with wounds that it dies.^[55] The animal will experience pain from this practice, one of the youths hitting its wing, another hitting its chest, another hitting its back, and another hitting its head. As for a dead animal being used in this way, then it obviously would not feel this pain.^[56]

Lessons Derived from These Aḥādīth

1. This proves that abusing animals in this way is ḥarām, as those who engage in such practices are deserving of Allāh’s curse.
2. These aḥādīth also prove that mutilation of animals is ḥarām as the invocation of Allāh’s curse indicates complete impermissibility.^[57] Mutilation refers to the severing of the animal’s limbs or some of them while it is still alive.^[58]
3. It is impermissible to consume any animal that dies as a result of being tied down and used for target practice.^[59]
4. In it, there is a manifestation of Allāh’s mercy towards His servants even when slaughtering animals. Allāh commands the slaughtering of animals but to still maintain a sense of tenderness when doing so.^[60]
5. Allāh’s absolute subjugation of all His servants in that He did not grant anyone the unbridled authority to do as he wills. Rather, Allāh has delineated a correct manner in which everything is to be performed.^[61]
6. The strength and resilience of Anas (رضي الله عنه) when enjoining the good and forbidding evil, especially considering he was speaking to a governor widely known for harshness and severity.^[62]
7. On the authority of Ibn ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما) who said that the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “A woman entered the Fire (of Hell) on account of a female cat which she had tied down, refusing to either feed it, or release it to eat the vermin and insects of the earth.”^[63] And in another narration: “Until the cat passed away from extreme emaciation”.

“A woman”: The name of this woman is not mentioned, although in one narration she is defined as Ḥimyarī (Yemenī) and in another that she was among the Children of Israel as narrated by Muslim. There is no contradiction between these narrations, as a party of Himyarites did accept Judaism. Thus, they are referred to by the religion they chose to adopt at times and referred to by the name of their tribe at others.^[64]

“On account of a female cat”: that is, her cruel treatment of it. Her punishment is clarified in another ḥadith narrated by Ibn Ḥibbān: “The woman was a black, tall Himyarite (Yemenī) woman.^[65] When this cat would face her it would bite at her, and when it turned around, it would still attempt to bite at her [i.e., by quickly whipping around and pouncing].”^[66] If the question was then posed: ‘Then why is the cat being punished in the Fire as well?’ I would answer this by stating that the cat’s presence is as a means of justice and retribution against the woman who treated her so cruelly. However, Allāh shall render the Fire cool and peaceful for the cat, while the same Fire shall act as a grave torment and an exemplary punishment for the woman.^[67]

Regarding her entering the Fire on account of a cat, it is apparent from the ḥadith that this woman was a Muslim but still entered the Fire on account of her treatment of this cat. Al-Qāḍī also mentioned that she may have been a disbeliever who was bound for the Fire anyways whose punishment was increased manifold because of the way she used to treat this cat. She was, therefore, most deserving of the Fire as she is not among the believers whose minor sins are forgiven on account of them abstaining from the major sins.^[68] Al-Nawawī said: The correct view with regards to her is that she was a Muslim and was still punished in the Fire on account of her treatment of this cat just as the apparent wording of the ḥadīth implies. For her act of disobedience was not minor. Rather, it was rendered major on account of her continual perpetration of this sin. Although the ḥadīth does not explicitly state that she will abide in the Fire forever.^[69] [Al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ʿAlī Ādam said]: The opinion that she could not be a disbeliever is quite surprising, for her outright disbelief is confirmed in another ḥadīth narrated by ʿAlqamah who said: We were once sitting with ʿĀʾishah (رضي الله عنها) when Abū Hurayrah entered upon us. Āʾishah (رضي الله عنها) said to him: “Are you the one who narrated that a woman once entered the Fire on account of a cat that she tied down?” Abū Hurayrah replied: “I heard that from him” — that is, from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). She replied: “Were you aware of the state of that woman? She was — in addition to what she had done — also an outright disbeliever. For the believer occupies a station more honourable than to be deserving of being punished in relation to a cat. If you narrate a ḥadīth from the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), then thoroughly examine the manner in which you do so.”^[70][71]

Lessons Derived from This Ḥadīth:

1. It may be used to evidence the general impermissibility of killing cats as in another narration this woman “imprisoned it until it passed away”. The ḥadīth also proves that feeding (feral, non-domestic) cats is not obligatory. This is because, when left to roam, they have the natural ability to partake in the vermin and insects of the land which is Allāh’s provision that has been set out for them, as elucidated in another narration of this ḥadīth.^[72]
2. It is the responsibility of anyone who owns a cat to either feed it himself, or to leave it unfettered to roam such that it eats the vermin, snakes, small birds, and insects of the land.
3. The magnanimity of sin, even those widely perceived as insignificant.
4. The impermissibility of intentionally torturing animals, and that that animal shall be made a means of punishment for the one who tormented it in the Fire.
5. The permissibility of owning a cat and keeping it as a pet, although under the condition that one feeds and provides it with water. This permissibility may be applied to any other animal that is akin to it.^[73] Among them, for example, would be birds that are kept as pets in cages. If their owner provides them with sufficient food and water, protecting and sheltering them from extreme heat or cold, then there is nothing wrong with keeping them in this way. However, being deficient in one’s care for them which results in the demise of that animal will result in the punishment of their keeper — we seek refuge in Allāh.^[74]
6. It is obligatory for one to be dutiful and adherent in the care provided to any animal that falls under his ownership. If this is the case with animals, it is considered even more relevant to one’s care for his dependents, as human beings are more deserving of compassionate, kind treatment than any animal.^[75]

On the authority of ʿAbdullāh ibn Jaʿfar (رضي الله عنه) who said: When seeking to cover himself while satisfying his needs (i.e., the call of nature), the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) would favour either an erected structure or a group of palm trees. He once entered a garden belonging to a man from among the Anṣār, within which he came upon a camel. When the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) saw it, the camel whimpered and its eyes welled up with tears. He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) then approached the camel and patted it behind its ears [in the area where the halter is usually attached]. He then fell silent, before finally saying: “Who owns this camel?” to which a young man among the Anṣār answered: “It belongs to me, O’ Messenger of Allāh”. He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) replied: “Why do you not fear Allāh [i.e., His punishment] regarding your treatment of this animal which He has placed under your ownership? For indeed, he has complained to me that you allow him to remain hungry and exhaust him with overuse”.^[76]

“Group of palm trees”: that is, a group of trees situated close to one another such that it would completely shield a person that sits behind it, as opposed to a solitary tree whose trunk is individually narrow, negating this privacy. Even if a degree of privacy were attained by such a tree, it would still be considered inferior to a group of trees that surround an area, their branches intersecting with one another.^[77]

Lessons Derived from This Ḥadīth

1. This ḥadīth indicates a sign of prophethood granted to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in him being granted an understanding of the communication of camels.^[78] Such signs facilitate Allāh’s support for His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). For indeed, Allāh never sent a messenger except that He granted him signs that may be used to evidence their prophethood, that could be used as a defence against those among their communities that would accuse them of lying.^[79]

2. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ordered the compassionate and tender treatment of animals; that one should display righteousness and kindness when dealing with any living creature. This should manifest in not overburdening one’s animals, and providing them with sufficient food and drink. Also among its manifestations is that an animal should be mounted by a single rider at a time. It is also permissible for two riders to sit on the animal’s back provided it has the strength and ability to support two people. If the animal is unable — for example, due to weakness or some other valid reason — then it is impermissible to burden the animal with more than it is capable of bearing. Be cognizant that these animals experience weariness and exhaustion just as humans do; for they are composed of the very same flesh, bones and blood as human beings. So just as human beings experience exhaustion upon attempting to lift an object that is too heavy for them, or when executing an arduous task, these animals experience the same sense of exhaustion. For this reason, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) commanded this man to fear Allāh’s — the Exalted in Might — punishment with regards to his treatment of his animal, and to staunchly avoid depriving it of its rights.[80]

3. The extreme kindness, compassion, and mercy that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) displayed towards all animals. This is shown by the manner in which this camel approached him (صلى الله عليه وسلم) weeping and complaining to him regarding the treatment of its owner. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) showed mercy for him, descending to the camel’s level, and petting the back of his neck. Allāh — the Exalted in Might — said:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ

“And We have sent you (O Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) not but as a mercy for the ʿālamīn (mankind, jinns and all that exists).”
(Al-Anbiyāʾ 21:107)

وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَىٰ خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ

“And verily, you (O Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) are on an exalted standard of character.”
(Al-Qalam, 68:4)

4. A manifestation of the perfect and complete nature of Islamic legislation whose benefit encompasses all forms of creation. For it is a legislation that seeks to preserve the rights of every single domestic or wild animal, commanding the complete avoidance of all forms of oppression and obligating the kind, righteous treatment of all animals. It is a sharīʿah that was sent down by the All-Wise, Worthy of all praise (Allah).[81] So glory be to the Most Kind and Courteous (to His slaves), the One who is All-Aware (of everything), full of Kindness, Most Merciful.^[82]

On the authority of Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه) who said that the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Do not take your animals as pillars (inanimate objects used for sitting). For Allāh has only allowed you to subjugate them for the purpose of transporting you to lands that you could not reach except with great trouble to yourselves.^[83] And He has made the earth for you, so use it to satisfy your needs.”

“As pillars”: that is, sitting on them to converse with one another, as you sit on pillars elsewhere to have conversations.^[84]

“So use it to satisfy your needs”: that is, use the earth itself (and not the backs of animals) to satisfy the purpose of conversing with one another.

Lessons Derived from This Hadīth

1. The ḥadīth addresses people using the backs of animals as a veritable resting place, conversing with one another for hours, all the while the animal is supporting his weight without moving where there is no real need for the animal to be mounted, the owner behaving as if he is sitting on the minbar speaking to his friend about varying random matters. This type of treatment towards one’s animal is most inappropriate and unbefitting as it causes undue harm to the animal being mounted. Allāh — the Most High — created these animals for riding, as a means of “transporting you to lands that you could not reach except with great trouble to yourselves”.^[85]
2. If a person wishes to converse with another, he should use the earth itself, not harm his mount by means of this prolonged and unnecessary sitting, as if he is perched atop a minbar or casually sitting in a chair.^[86]
3. As for one using the back of his mount to sit (i.e., while the animal is stationary), then there is nothing wrong with this provided this sitting period is brief. If it is prolonged but has valid justification and need, then the rider is similarly faultless. If however, it is prolonged without a valid reason, it is considered makrūh (disliked) as evidenced by this ḥadith. Also as narrated on the authority of Anas (رضي الله عنه) that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Mount these animals correctly (i.e., while they are not suffering from maladies or overburdened) and reign them in correctly (i.e., before they are harmed by transporting your burdens for extensive periods) and do not treat their backs as chairs.”^[87] As for utilising the back of an animal for a prolonged period for a clear need, it may be evidenced by the famous ḥadīth in which the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) sat on his camel at ʿArafah and whilst delivering the sermon, and other aḥādīth as well.^[88] Regarding his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) sitting at ʿArafah, the back of an animal was needed such that he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) could be high and visible when delivering the khuṭbah.^[89] This instance is considered a specific circumstance that resulted in a greater benefit for the community, and was not among his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) perpetual habits when delivering sermons. Moreover, his mount would not have experienced the variety of weariness and exhaustion that charcterises prolonged unnecessary sitting normally attributable to one taking his mount as a seat to converse with another. For this latter purpose is perpetual and prolonged, which is contrary to his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) delivery of the sermon while on his mount to facilitate the people being able to hear him. This was done to teach the people their religion and the jurisprudence of the pilgrimage being performed. Such a purpose is not perpetual and prolonged, while also proffering an encompassing benefit to the community.^[90]
4. It is considered mustaḥabb when travelling for one to allow his riding animal to rest by descending from one’s mount in the mornings and evenings of travel, or when traversing a steep slope or anything akin to it. Also, to only use a mount for sleeping on certain occasions as it is impermissible for one to burden his riding animal with greater than it is able to bear. Also, as evidenced by the ḥadīth narrated on the authority of Anas (رضي الله عنه): “After the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) prayed Fajr, he would walk briefly, leading his camel along with him”^[91].^[92]

On the authority of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAbdullāh who narrated that his father said: Whilst we were once travelling with the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), we observed a rufous-tailed scrub robin with its two newborn chicks which we subsequently took for ourselves. The robin then approached us, with its wings flapping and limp [to the extent they almost touched the ground]. When the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) came upon us, he asked: “Who has inflicted such suffering on this bird regarding its offspring? Return her children to her.” When he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) then observed a colony of ants that we had set ablaze, he enquired: “Who burnt this?” to which we replied: “We did.” He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “It is most unbefitting for anyone to inflict punishment using Fire, for that manner of punishment is the remit only of the Lord of Fire”.^[93]

“It is most unbefitting”: that is, inflicting punishment using such methods is impermissible and not permitted.^[94]

Lessons Derived from This Ḥadīth

1. It is impermissible to capture the chicks or pups of wild animals, stealing them from their parents. This is especially true if their offspring are small in which case they should be left wherever they are found.^[95]
2. If the chicks of such animals are taken, they should be returned to their parents just as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) commanded the returning of those robin chicks to their mother.^[96]
3. Allāh —the Glorified — has instilled in the hearts of animals a mercy and compassion towards their offspring to the extent that a large animal may raise his hoof when his offspring is beneath him out of fear that he may inadvertently trample him. This is among the manifestations of Allāh’s —the Exalted in Might — infinite wisdom.^[97]

On the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنه) that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) once passed by a donkey whose face had been branded. He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “Allāh has cursed the one who has branded it [in this way].”^[98] In another narration: “The Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forbade that any face be hit or branded.”

[Shaykh Bin Bāz said]: This prohibition is comprehensive of both human beings and animals.

“Allāh has cursed the one who has branded it [in this way]”: Since it represents a clearly visible, abominable change to Allāh’s creation. The branding mentioned here was done for the purpose of ear-marking the animal.^[99]

Lessons Derived from This Ḥadīth

Branding the face of any animal is ḥarām as evidenced by the curse of Allāh being invoked as in the hadīth.^[100]

Branding the face of any human being would be similarly ḥarām regardless of circumstance. This is because of the honourable station occupied by the human face, and because this branding represents a form of needless, wanton torture. As for animals, it is only ḥarām to brand their faces but not the other parts of their bodies. The branding of their other body parts may be done for the purpose of ear-marking them for some purpose. Although this is subject to the condition that the mark is slight and non-disfiguring to the animal. For do you not recognise the appropriateness of this branding when applied to animals set aside for slaughter? As the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) branded camels to ear-mark them for charity.^[101]

As for the impermissibility of the disfiguring variety of branding, it may be evidenced by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ruling that a person who disfigures or mutilates his slaves by extirpation of their nose or ears or by wounding them, must expiate this torture by freeing them.^[102]

Kindness to Animals Does not Contradict the Command to Kill Harmful Animals

[Shaykh Bin Bāz continues]:

These passages and those similar to them all prove the impermissibility of all forms of torture being directed to animals. This even applies to the five fawāsiq animals that we have been commanded to kill:

On the authority of ʿĀʾishah (رضي الله عنها), the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “There are five animals that are considered fawāsiq which should be killed even within the confines of the Ḥaram: the crow, the kite^[103], the scorpion, the mouse and the voracious dog.”^[104] and in al-Bukhārī’s narration: “and the snake”.

“Fawāsiq”: [plural form of the word fāsiq which comes from al-fisq] linguistically means to leave or abandon anything. In Islamic legislation, this word is used as a term of censure and rebuke and is applied to the one who abandons obedience to Allāh, or abandons the sanctity of that which is permissible. [There are several opinions regarding the reason behind these animals being termed ‘fawāsiq]:

The animals mentioned here are termed thus because they have abandoned the natural sanctity that belongs to all other animals, especially where the harm attributed to them even occurs within the sacred confines of the Ḥarām, against those who have donned the iḥrām for pilgrimage, or against those performing ṣalāh.

Or they were named thus because of their abandonment and exclusion from the general impermissibility of killing that applies to all other animals besides them.

These creatures may also be deserving of this name due to their exiting from their holes and domiciles for the express purpose of inflicting harm and suffering to the Children of Ādam.^[105] As narrated on the authority of Abū Saʿīd (رضي الله عنه) that he was once asked: “Why are mice termed fuwaysiqah [diminutive form of the fāsiqah]?”. Abū Saʿīd replied: “It is because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) once awakened to find a mouse had stolen the wick [from a candle] which could have burnt his house down.”

This ḥadīth implies that these creatures are deserving of this title due to their inherent behaviours being reminiscent of the crimes often perpetrated by rebellious sinners.

This latter opinion appears closest to the truth. And Allāh knows best.^[106]

“Five animals”: one may interpret this ḥadīth as applying specifically to the five animals mentioned here. However, the ruling mentioned herein does not apply to these specific animals only, nor is this a valid interpretation according to the majority of scholars. For it is completely plausible that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) mentioned these five in the first instance, but mentioned other animals that are akin to these on other occasions.^[107]

“Should be killed”: in another narration “there is no sin upon the one who kills”. The negation of sin alone does not independently imply that killing these animals is superior to leaving them alone. However, in another narration the word “command” is used which would indicate that actively seeking to exterminate these animals is an obligation, or that it is recommended or permissible at the very least. As narrated that the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was once performing ṣalāh when he stomped and killed a scorpion. He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) then commanded pilgrims to kill scorpions, snakes, mice, and kites. Although this command was made following the precautionary warning to pilgrims of the general impermissibility of killing animals. It should therefore not be interpreted as an obligatory or recommended killing [but rather permissible only].^[108]

“The crow”: crows are of two types. The first are the larger variety often attributable to stripping off the ripe fruit-stalks from palm trees. They are also known to descend on camels, wounding them, using their beaks to perforate their anuses. The second variety of crow is known as the farmland crow and is much smaller, bearing resemblance to a pigeon. This ḥadīth is not referencing this second variety.^[109] In one narration, the (first, larger variety) of crow is described as possessing white plumage on its back or belly (termed a pied crow). Although any other bird that is akin to this animal insofar as inflicting harm and pestilence may adopt a similar ruling.^[110] The scholars have also unanimously agreed that this ḥadith is not referring to the small variety of crow that eats only seeds. Rather, the variety of crow being referred to here are those that scavenge, particularly the mottled or speckled crow. The latter has also been termed the ‘crow of separation’ by linguists because it was narrated that Nūḥ (عليه السلام) sent it from his ship to gather intelligence regarding the state of the earth (following the great flood), and that this crow discovered a dead carcass upon which it began to feast, never returning to Nūh (عليه السلام) thereafter.^[111]

“The voracious dog”: the dog has been attributed to an inherent ability to track, to pick up spoors, sleeping lightly (i.e., on guard), possessing amiability for human beings and the ability to be trained; this specific mix of abilities is not associated with any other animal. It was also narrated that the Prophet Nūḥ (عليه السلام) was the first to utilise guard dogs. “Voracious” that is, injurious, predatory, and rapacious. The scholars have differed amongst themselves regarding the variety of animal being referred to here. Among them are those that interpret^[112] this as referring to the lion, while others interpret it as the wolf, while others opine it is any dog-like animal that is known to attack or prey on humans, or seeks to frighten them which would be inclusive of any lion, tiger, panther, or wolf. This latter opinion is closest to the truth in this matter — and Allāh knows best.^[113]

Lessons Derived from this Ḥadīth

1. The pilgrim as well as the ḥalāl (one not performing pilgrimage) is not sinful for killing any of the animals mentioned here whether this be within the confines of the Ḥaram or outside of it. The ruling of the ḥalāl person is deduced from the fact that such killing is not ḥarām for the muḥrim which would imply that it is even more permissible for a person who is not in a state of iḥrām.^[114]
2. The scholars have extracted a judicial principle from such aḥādīth which is: It is Islamically permissible to kill any animal that naturally inflicts harm. As for animals that do not possess an inherent propensity for harm, but have inadvertently inflicted it, these may also be validly killed. Although the killing of this latter variety of animal is subject to the prerequisite [of harm being inflicted first]. For example, an infestation of ants in someone’s house has resulted in tiny holes dispersed within it, causing damage to a person’s property. In such a circumstance, it is completely permissible for these ants to be exterminated. This is in spite of the fact that killing ants is fundamentally forbidden. However, in consideration of the harm inflicted by these ants, it is considered permissible to kill them. This would apply to any other animal that does not naturally inflict harm, but inadvertently inflicts it, one may kill such animals provided that their harm is not averted by any other means besides complete extermination. Another example would be the extermination of rats, the killing of which is recommended [according to one opinion]. These should still be exterminated in a righteous, compassionate manner. That is, seek a means of extermination that results in their souls leaving their bodies immediately and endeavour to avoid the prolonging of any suffering. As there are people that utilise a variety of adherent traps that stick to the rat’s feet, immobilising them until they die slowly from hunger or thirst. Such methods are impermissible. Rather, if these are used, one should ensure to remain vigilant over its state and perpetually return to it such that the suffering of the trapped animal may be avoided by a swift killing. As for simply orchestrating and subsequently abandoning these traps for two or three days at a time such that whatever pest was trapped in it remains immobilised for a prolonged period until it dies of malnourishment, then such a person may be subject to punishment in the Fire in relation to this [as in the aforementioned ḥadīth of the woman who imprisoned a cat]. The salient point being made here is that even animals that may be validly killed should be exterminated in a manner that is expedient, resulting in a swift, decisive and immediate death.^[115]

On the authority of Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه) who said that the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “An ant once stung one of the prophets so he commanded that the entire colony be set afire. Thus did Allāh —the Most High —reveal unto him: “One ant has stung you, but you have burnt an entire community from among the communities that glorify (Allāh)”.^[116]

“One of the prophets”: the prophet being referred to here is Mūsá as in Nawādir al-Uṣūl. However, in al-Targhīb wa al-Tarhīb it is ʿUzayr.[117]

“You have burnt”: According to the scholars who have interpreted this ḥadīth, inflicting punishment using fire and exterminating ants had not been disavowed in the legislation of the prophet mentioned in this ḥadīth. Thus, this prophet was not reprimanded for his use of fire for this purpose. Rather, the point of contention was in him allowing the punishment inflicted to exceed the single ant that had actually stung him.^[118]

Lessons Derived From this Ḥadīth

Exterminating ants is impermissible as evidenced by the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنه): “The Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forbade the killing of four animals: the ant, the bee, the hoopoe, and the shrike^[119].”^[120] If however, one is unable to completely alleviate the harm caused by such an infestation except by means of complete destruction then there is nothing wrong with such measures being taken. Although this is considered a final resort, as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forbade the killing of ants except that if they cause harm which cannot be forgone except by means of complete extermination and killing them, then there is nothing wrong with killing them in that instance.^[121]

In the Islamic legislation, burning any animal is considered impermissible. The only exception to this would be if a criminal was to assault someone by setting them on fire, it would be permissible for the victim’s family to seek that the perpetrator is punished in the same manner (qiṣāṣ).^[122] An infestation of ants should therefore not be exterminated using fire. Rather, a chemical akin to gasoline should be spread over the holes of the colony which shall cause them to flee, never returning to that place — by Allāh’s will.^[123]

Any animal that does not present harm to human beings should be left in peace because all animals glorify Allāh — the Exalted in Might. If they cause harm, then they are killed for the sole purpose of alleviating the suffering caused by them and to restore peace.^[124]

Conclusion

[Shaykh Bin Bāz continues]:

The implicit and explicit meaning of the passages mentioned herein unequivocally proves Islam’s care and attention towards the treatment of animals, showing kindness to them and avoiding inflicting any harm upon them. It is therefore obligatory upon us to make these passages — those that contain an encouragement towards their good treatment and those that contain a precautionary, threatening warning against those who torture and harm them — at the very forefront of our minds, and to show due care and attention to these directives.

We have only selected the aforementioned passages to communicate a general answer to the question. This is not meant to be comprehensive of every authentic ḥadith that concerns the treatment of the varying species of animal. The salient point being made here is that Islām is a religion that encourages mercy; a legislation that invites people towards adopting excellence and goodness in their treatment of others; a system that when followed facilitates a complete and full life that ultimately leads to Allāh’s (reward) and the home of His generosity (Paradise). It is therefore obligatory to invite others to it, seek judgments and ruling from it, and actively seek to spread its teachings among those who are ignorant, and to teach all Muslims the rulings and goals of the Islamic legislation that they may not be fully cognizant of. This knowledge should be spread sincerely seeking Allāh’s face. The goals set out by the Islamic legislation represent the greatest manifestations of true justice, equity and wisdom. This is inherent in that Allāh has not forbade all animals for us — contrary to the Buddhists — nor has He made permissible every species of animal whose consumption and rearing is harmful to us — contrary to the modus operandi adopted by those who consume the flesh of swine, predatory animals and other animals that have adopted the same ruling as them. This legislation is devoid of all forms of oppressions and the wanton spilling of blood. Rather, Islām ensures that the respectable status of every living soul and every commodity is maintained to the fullest extent.

Thus do we thank Allāh for all His blessings, the most manifest of them being the blessing of Islām and its teachings. We invoke Allāh to grant victory to those who truly practice His religion, to render His words superior to all others, and to not make us — in relation to our shortcomings — a trial for the disbelieving people.^[125] May Allāh praise and commemorate our Prophet Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) — the one who has delivered the message of Islām in a manner that is manifestly clear and plainly evident — his family, companions and all those who follow his path of guidance in the highest assembly of angels.^[126]