Animals More Persuasive than Men

In The Case of the Animals Versus Man, though the animals do have flaws in their arguments just like the humans, the animals are ultimately more persuasive and less flawed in their arguments than their human opponents. The human arguments are often repeated and constantly repealed by the animals. The humans attempted to argue their right to enslave animals, but rarely were their arguments not refuted. In page 104, the humans cited verses of the Quran that stated “of the cattle some are for burden and some are for meat”(104) and other similar verses mentioning how animals are for helping humans , but the animals were quick to point out the verses never permitted abuse and enslavement. Soon after the humans claim being on two legs while animals stand on four makes humans superior. This view is summarized by the Jinni King with his question, “Is it not a royal trait to sit erect and stand upright, and aren’t bent backs and bowed heads the marks of slaves?”(109). The animals give detailed explanation about how this is incorrect, that in fact all beings were made for their suitable environment and needs. Cattle that eat grass are hunched down to bring their mouths to the ground, while humans pick fruit and eat from high trees, thus need to be able to reach great heights as opposed to come low to the ground. Much later in the story, the humans insist their high intellect, vast knowledge, and structured hierarchies is a sign of human superiority to all animals. The bee is quick to denounce such beliefs, explaining the vast social organizations of bees and ants, and their extensive knowledge of their surroundings and tasks that need to be done. 

Though there are flaws in the animals’ arguments and points of conflict, such as when the rabbit insults the horse and the human is the one who defends the horse, the animals ultimately have less flaws in their arguments than the humans and are ultimately more persuasive.