Are Animals Slaves to Humans? One Argument Disproven

“God declared us humans the masters of animals and the animals our slaves by his saying, “and we formed man at the fairest height,’” the humans claimed in The Case of the Animals before Man.

The animals had enough of the humans’ claims that the humans were masters of the animals and that the animals were slaves to humans. They elected to take up their case to the wise King of the Jinn, who the animals expected would then make a ruling for or against the humans’ claims. The humans claimed the Quran, the holy book for the Muslims, supported the idea that animals were made to be humans’ slaves. The animals intended to fight that assertion.

“That is not true!” cried the animals. “That is not what God meant with those words.”

“What did God mean by ‘we formed man at the fairest height?” asked the king of the Jinn. 

The animals said, “the prophetic book does not mean what you think it means. It is more complicated than to be interpreted in such a simple way. Ask your scholars about the meaning.”

“What does God mean by his words ‘the fairest height?’” the king asked his scholars.

The scholars explained, “God formed the humans at the peak of the universe, the best time for matter to be created.”

“Does that not indicate the superiority of man?” the king wondered out loud.

“There is another meaning. In God’s words, he is the one ‘who proportioned thee in just the form that pleased the lord.’ He made humans neither short nor tall nor thin nor fat, but made human form what is best for humans.” the scholars pointed out.

The animals added, “this is the case with us as well! We too have been given a beautiful, graceful, and fair form.”

“But how can that be?” the humans interrupted. “Just look at the camel’s long neck and small ears. Just look at the elephant’s huge size, great tusks and ears, yet small eyes. The cows have long tails and thick horns, but no tusks. Rams have two great horns and a thick tail, but no beard. Most animals are built unevenly and disproportionate. Rabbits have ears far too large for them. What grace and fairness is there to be found in your forms?”

“You have missed the beauty of wisdom in our form” the animals countered. “The camel has a long neck to match with his long legs, so he may reach the grass on the ground. His neck also serves to help him reach rise with a load, so he may keep his balance and not fall over. His long legs help keep his body away from the hot desert sand, and to make easy travel on the sand. The camel’s small and furry ears keep sand out of his ears, especially during sandstorms. The elephant’s trunk serves a purpose similar to the camel’s long neck, allowing him to reach down and to help him stay balanced. His ears shoo away gnats and flies from his face. Though his tusks keep his mouth open, the tusks are used to ward off predators. Rams have horns used not only to defend themselves, but for competitions during mating season. The ram’s thick tail serves the same purpose as the camel’s large hump, storing energy for times and places lacking in sustenance. The rabbit’s large ears serve as cover, a blanket in the winter and shade in the summer. Though you may not understand it, God has adapted every animal to its needs in seeking good and avoiding bad. That is what Moses meant when he spoke of ‘our lord who gave its nature to everything and guided all things’.”

Review

I rewrote this segment of The Case of the Animals Versus Man to give it more detail. It was meant to highlight the absurdity that just because the animals weren’t shaped like humans, doesn’t mean the animals are the humans’ property. The part where the animals describe the purpose of various animal features felt incomplete to me, missing explanations for the camel’s leg, the ram’s horns, and other animal body parts the humans mentioned when complaining of the strangeness of animal form. While the animals’ conclusion is that the animal forms often have purpose beyond human comprehension, and still I omit explanations for flies, gnats, and predators, I wanted to really drive the point that the unique features found in animal bodies do have purpose beyond a display of servitude to humans. 

I elected to rewrite a portion of The Case of the Animals Versus Man also because I felt a personal connection to this literature. As I muslim, I hate when people abuse the Quran and claim it supports nefarious acts and intentions. I hate when terrorists claim the Quran commands them to kill the innocent, when Arabian politicians use the Quran to justify their tyrannical policies, when Muslim men use the Quran to justify domestic violence against their wives and children. Similarly, I feel hatred for the those who claim the Quran does not prohibit animal abuse, or worse, encourages animal abuse. While I do believe the Quran says humans can use animals for a variety of purposes, like as transportation and a source of food, it forbids abusing said animals. We are not supposed to harm God’s creation and do whatever we please with it, but instead we are supposed to treat it with respect even as we benefit from God’s creation. You are free to eat cow and goat and chicken and other livestock, but you shouldn’t trap it with a thousand others like it just because that’s cheaper. When you slaughter an animal so you can feed on its meat, you should slaughter it in a manner where it feels little pain. You are free to take pets, but you should take care of them, treat them with respect, and not hurt them without cause.

I rewrote this small portion of The Case of the Animals Versus Man to emphasize the purpose behind every animal’s body, and because I felt a personal connection to it as a Muslim.

-Salaheldin Hegab

Ah yes, Humans “Controlling” Animal Interactions with each other and the Environment

Mowgli’s return to his people, his original tribe, does not presuppose human mastery over the Law of the Jungle. On the contrary, the Law of the Jungle coexists with the existence of humans. The Law of the Jungle is a set of rules for animals to regulate their behavior regarding all animal interactions, be they with humans or without humans. Humans cannot “master” the Law of the Jungle, the way lions cannot “master” the will of the savanna herds full of zebras, buffalo, and other prey. Lions cannot rule the savanna herds on who shall lead the herd, or which plants they may eat, or where the herd should go. So too are humans helpless in deciding how the animals of the jungle should interact with each other and their environment. In Mowgli’s Brothers, Bagheera says, “Baloo has spoken in his behalf. Now to Baloo’s word I will add one bull, and a fat one, newly killed, not half a mile from here, if ye will accept the man’s cub according to the Law. “ Human society had no influence even on Baloo’s and Bagheera’s decisions here! Never will human society have influence on the matters of animals making their choices within the safety of the jungle. Though humans may someday destroy the jungle, and with it all the animals who lived inside, they will never dominate the Law the animals follow to standardize their actions with one another and the environment.

-Salaheldin Hegab

Why the Officer Knew Better than the Chief

The Afghan chief is used to disobeying orders and not facing consequences. He faces little resistance from higher-up authorities in getting what he wants and therefore feels no need to better understand his higher-up authorities. The native officer on the other hand has seen the consequences of disobedience, therefore has sought to learn about his commanding officers. He understands that he must answer to his superior, but also that his superior has superiors to answer to. He finds the top of the chain of superiority to be the Empress, who to the native officer’s understanding answers to no one. The native officer is part of the chain of command the Afghan chief was not a part of. 

Another possible reason the chief never sought the knowledge is because he never saw any benefit to following orders. The chief did as he wished, and got what he wanted. In his experience, following orders yielded little if anything. Perhaps that experience comes in stark contrast with the native officer’s experiences of high reward for obedience. Or perhaps the chief is familiar instead with local town-sized chains of command rather than extensive empire-sized chains of command. 

-Salaheldin Hegab

Human Extortion of their Human-animal Relationships

The kinship bond in the Native American story “The Great Race” between the humans and the magpie is contrasted in an interesting way with the competition between the humans and the buffalo. In the story, there is a race planned between the humans and the buffalo to determine who would eat the other. The humans manage to convince the buffalo to let birds race for the humans, with the argument that it wouldn’t be a fair race if the humans had to compete themselves. Thanks to the magpie, the humans win the race and become the ones who hunt and eat buffalo. In thanks, the magpie is well-respected by the humans, being left in peace and without fear of being hunted. There are certainly instances of environmental and animal justice, like the humans reciprocating the bird’s help with respect and kindness. At the same time injustice is promoted, as seen when the humans don’t race for themselves, and with this race that will determine which species gets to hunt and eat the other. 

With this in mind, I don’t believe kinship is regularly used as a projection of environmental justice in these stories. It is a tool humans use for their own gain without particular interest in preserving the environment except where it benefits them. Notice how it is ONLY because of this race that humans respect the magpie and leave it in peace. Notice how the buffalo and humans refuse to get along, but instead insist on this competition so that one may eat the other. 

-Salaheldin Hegab

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.

Man’s First Attempt to Strawman the Animals’ Argument

In The Case of the Animals Versus Man, the animals argued that man had no right to enslave animals. The very first argument man made to justify enslaving animals was to cite verses of the Quran stating humans can eat animals and gain benefit from them. The animals were quick to point out that wasn’t their argument. The animals were not protesting being eaten by man, carrying things for man, and otherwise helping out man, but the sheer brutality by which man exploited animal. The Quran states some animals were indeed meant to be eaten and some were meant to carry people and items, but never does the Quran give explicit permission to abuse, mistreat, or cause unnecessary harm to animals. Even the last cited verse which says, “and consider your Lord’s favour as you ride”(104), which means be grateful for the gift of an animal you can ride, is ignored by the humans and instead misinterpreted as meaning “enjoy beating up your slaves.” Especially hilarious is the humans’ refusal to explain their analysis of the evidence, taking the Quranic verses as self-evident rather than attempting to explain the verses in any way. The least the humans could have done was explain why enslaving the animals is necessary to do all this.

Facing the Forces of AntiNature: Aesop’s Animals’ Behaviors when Dealing with Humans

            The cows lived a pleasant life among the humans. The fields were well-maintained, the fences were built strong and sturdy, and the people were happy to comfort them. The cows lived free from fear of predators, and the people ensured the cows were not having problems. Yet, sometimes a cow would disappear, seemingly without reason, overnight. But none of the cows seemed to care, as for the most part they lived nice lives. Eventually the cows learned a terrible truth: the very humans who cared for them were the nightly kidnappers. Once the truth was out, many of the cows attempted to avoid what seemed to be inevitable death. None could dig under the fence, not without the progress quickly undone. The fences were far too sturdy to break down, the structure far too firm for even the biggest of the cows. And any cow that dared hurt a person was quickly shot and put down. Too late the cows realized they were trapped in a cruel system that cared not about their happiness, but about the meat they could provide. Just like the recently enlightened livestock of this short story, Aesop’s animals often viewed humans as a potential foe and enslaver, always watching for signs of danger and having plans of an escape when it is clear the humans will turn violent or evil.

fairness and justice in the ploughman and lion fables

Fable 197 discusses a ploughman who attempted to trap a lion in an animal shed. When the lion found itself trapped, it ate all the sheep within the shed and began attacking the cattle. The man, worried about his life being potentially in danger, opened the animal shed and let the lion escape. When the lion left, the man’s wife berated him for attempting to trap a creature he feared so much. Fairness in most of Aesop’s ploughman and lion fables is nonexistent at best and at worst a “justice” enforced with brutal savagery and mercilessness. There is stark contrast between fables of violent retribution like fable 197, where the man loses all his sheep and much of his cattle for trapping a lion, and fable 195, where a society of animals has agreed to peace and love for all individuals regardless of who they are. Justice caused by the consequences of harming animals isn’t justice at all, for it is messy and disordered, often unbalanced compared to the severity of the crime. Sometimes said unbalance is favored for the human, sometimes against the human, but in my opinion, the phrase “wild justice” is an oxymoron, describing what should be an orderly and well-thought-out systematic process with a description of disorder and chaos.

-Salaheldin Hegab

The Fox with a Swollen Stomach

Aesop’s thirtieth fable mentions a fox that was extremely hungry it entered a hollow tree that had some food stored by shepherds. After eating all the food, the fox found itself unable to get out of the hollow tree since its belly was bloated and would no longer fit through the opening. Another fox, when asked to assist the trapped fox, told the trapped fox to wait until  “you become the size you were when you climbed in”(Aesop, pg 26), or to wait until the trapped fox was extremely hungry again. The story claimed the moral was time fixes problems, which seems to contradict my initial ideas for a moral such as be aware of being greedy, or being cautious of where you place your belongings lest your things get damaged or an animal is brought to harm. I claim the moral contradicts the story since the fox will be hungry once more once they can escape the tree. The initial problem of feeling extreme hunger will not be cured with the passing of time, as was the fox’s intention from the start of the story. The morals I push forward seem more appropriate, seeing as how the fox’s greed to eat all the food is what got it stuck in the tree, or that the Shepherds’ carelessness in where to place the food attracted the fox to get it stuck in the first place. Most of Aesop’s fables are not centered around environmental justice, but around general advice for proper behavior. Some fables, like story 58, certainly warn of some consequences for causing injustice to animals.

-Salaheldin Hegab