The BBC has reported that a family which has been running a farm breeding guinea pigs for medical research has decided to cease its operations after a campaign of intimidation by animal rights freaks. The campaign has included hate mail, bricks through windows, threats to local shopkeepers and other service providers, and most recently, the desecration of the farmer's mother-in-law's grave. They are doing this in the hope that their relative's remains will be returned.
I first posted about this last August in reply to the series of "terrorist conspiracies" the police uncovered, and the told-you-so blog coverage which appeared each time. While we now know that there were people in our community willing to carry out a terrorist attack, with or without the help of al-Qa'ida, animal rights terrorism has a possibly more damaging effect which we only discover when we can't get treatment for illness, because they could not do the necessary research. This isn't to justify needless cruelty to animals, but human life is still more important than that of guinea pigs.
(More at Samizdata.)
When the animal rights loonies start executing children or flying planes into buildings, let me know...
I wouldn't agree about the relative extent of the danger, but I agree that human life is far more important than animal life in this context.
I am not sure how "human life is far more important than animal life" is, how did you work that out?
I don't think it is a comparative thing. I think if we could figure out the best way to conduct ourselves in all circumstances, then everything we come into contact with (including animals) in existence will be equal (viz-a-viz the best mode of conduct). i.e. Do the right thing every time and every thing will be right and equal. Behave wrongly and you will only see injustice, inequality and flaws.
So, the question is, it is right to conduct research on animals? I personally do not know the right answer to this question.
As for Flanstein comment on terrorists who fly planes into the buildings...
It must be said that these criminals are still light years away from the accomplishment of their masters....who possess far more barbaric weapons and methods of killing people and have killed and continue to kill a monumental proportion of innocent human beings from Asia to Europe...through various means - economic, military, etc
I suggest we should ignore these petty criminals and get busy on how to de-nuclearising this world, get rid of all the bombs and all weapons of mass destruction, dismantle all the manufacturing process behind them, increase the worth of every human being to such an extent that it becomes a criminal offence for anyone to consciously articulate a means or weapon that can kill indiscrimately (i.e. kill an untargetted victim).
If we do that, this world, I am sure, will become the Paradise we read about in the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scriptures, and any other revealed scripture. The worlds resources will be freed up multi-folds and will reduce the thirst of the apprentice criminal to dominate his/her master.
So, the question is, it is right to conduct research on animals? I personally do not know the right answer to this question.
There isn't a clear cut answer. I wasn't saying that animal suffering doesn't matter at all. Where it is possible to avoid using animals for research, every effort should be made to find alternative methods. Also, using animals to test cosmetics is completely immoral, as that is a luxury.
Does Islam say anything specific about animal welfare? I don't think Christianity does specifically, although it's hard to imagine Jesus being wantonly cruel to animals.
Ann - interesting articles. Sounds as if Islam would be against vivisection, then?
By the way, I'm changing my name slightly because I'm going to do more listening and less arguing. Which doesn't mean I agree with Islam, but I've got tired of pointless arguing.
Yes, Islam has a lot of specifics about animal welfare.
See http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/an/an1.htm and its second section: http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/an/an2.htm
Listening KAfir,
"Does Islam say anything specific about animal welfare? I donâÂÂt think Christianity does specifically, although itâÂÂs hard to imagine Jesus being wantonly cruel to animals."
Actually there is a hadith about a Jewess protistute that was given paradise when she gave water to a sickly dog from her shoe. Abu Hurayrah, a narrator of many hadiths was given that kunyah, nick name, because of his fondness for a cat. Also Prophet Muhammed was fond of cats. Dogs are considered filthy and cant be kepted as pets but can be used for hunting.
Also Prophet Muhammed was fond of cats. Dogs are considered filthy and cant be kepted as pets but can be used for hunting.
What about guide dogs for the blind and guard dogs?
I love cats, but I can't honestly see dogs as filthy. Some are, some aren't.
The preference is to have another human being lead the blind person...like a member of his family or employ a social worker.
If it is not possible to find someone to lead the blind person (if it is not possible?), then I guess guide dogs will be permitted.
Guard dogs are fine.
God knows best.
I am quite against any form or shape of animal research...i.e. using live animals to research something/medicines in order to serve some "benefit" to humans. I have not found any indication is the few Islamic literature I have come across on how animal testing can be permitted. And even in the case of food, the conditions of "slaughtering" animals for food are so strict that I doubt it will be possible to have a lot of meat products in the food chain as we have in the commercialised food market today. In other words, taking animal for food on a grand commercial/industrial scale doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the ecosystem and general animal welfare
Take milk for instance. They impregnate the cows on and off, on and off, only just to produce enough milk to meet the market demands. They cows inturn develop infection in their udders - thus releasing puss (somatic cells) into the milk. The somatic cells can be so high in certain cases that the milk has to be destroyed, and in order cases the puss count is low enough that you can't tell the taste apart from the milk. How delicious!
The problem here is one of greed. We eat too much , drink too much, and then the animals suffer from our greed.
We humans need to learn to adapt to the natural order of things...as our forefathers did, ...that may be better for us both materially/physically and spiritually. So, we should let the animals have their way and we can organise our lives around that....without too much interference.
I think we interfere too much with the ecosystem, and have caused a great deal of imbalance and in some cases destruction to it.
Listening Kafir, I appreciate your new name, and am sure we can all learn from one another. Apologies for any rudeness from me in the past.
Likewise
Listening Kafir,
Dogs are fine for hunting and for use as guard dogs on farms, etc.
One of the schools of Islamic law (Maliki) is not so strict about having to be pure of dog hair, saliva, etc., so at least one blind Muslim woman that I know has chosen to follow that school, since she does have a guide dog.
Sorry, this is my new name, not updated.
Isn't there a principle in Islam about 'necessity', meaning that the laws can be relaxed in certain cases of need. Something I read/heard once about it being OK to eat pork if there was nothing else to eat.
I'm interested to hear about interpretations of this religion, which seems so inflexible and harsh to me. But I've come to realise that there is no point in coming to a Muslim website and shouting the odds, so I'd appreciate some answers and thanks for your patience.
Listening Kafir,
You are right. One may (in fact one MUST) eat pork if there is nothing else to eat ...where pork is the only alternative available. That is, you eat it to save your life. The Koran mentions this ...
[5.3] Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.173] He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) Allah has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
You are also correct about the principle of necessity: The 5 necessities that Islamic Shariah (laws) has come to protect are life, intellect, offsprings, wealth (i.e. private, public, and natural wealth/resources), and religion itself (here you have to understand that religion is just one component of Islam, and this may include any religion with a Prophet and a book).
There also other necessities that are considered in other matters. For instance in the penal codes. If someone were to steal. The following are considered as necessities and their lack vitiates criminalisation of the act of stealing: Sanity, food, clothing, shelter, etc, someone lacking any of these is not accountable (to the state) for stealing.
Someone correct me, if I am wrong? This is getting into fiqh (jurisprudence) in which I have little knowledge.
On the matter of necessity, it's true that one can do something like eat pork in a life or death situation -if that's all there is and then you eat just what you need.
Having a dog is different, though. The problem is not exactly that the blind person can't have a dog. There are questions of being "pure" for praying. Normally, this just means that you make ablutions before the prayer (in general, you wash the mouth, nose, face, arms, feet). But with dogs in particular, she would have to make sure there were no dog hairs or saliva (I'm not sure about the specifics) on her or her prayer rug - which would be difficult enough for a seeing person to do five times a day, and much more difficult for someone who can't see.
I may not be explaining this exactly right, but I hope you get the idea.
But with dogs in particular, she would have to make sure there were no dog hairs or saliva (IâÂÂm not sure about the specifics) on her or her prayer rug - which would be difficult enough for a seeing person to do five times a day, and much more difficult for someone who canâÂÂt see.
But why on earth should an all-knowing, all-seeing, compassionate God give a stuff about that. Surely what matters is that a person is sincere in their praying? If a blind person can't get all those little details right, that matters more than what's in their heart?
I'm not saying this to be difficult - in my new 'listening' persona, I really want to know.
anonymous wrote: "The 5 necessities that Islamic Shariah (laws) has come to protect are life, intellect, offsprings, wealth (i.e. private, public, and natural wealth/resources), and religion itself..."
This is correct except for the order. You've listed it in order 2-3-4-5-1. Religion is first. Ironically, this particular topic has been the subject of the last two khutbahs here (last week's and this week's).
Listening Kafir,
You said:
But why on earth should an all-knowing, all-seeing, compassionate God give a stuff about that. Surely what matters is that a person is sincere in their praying?.....
You question is a valid one, and it is perhaps a cruicial question in religion. The answer is potentially multi-fold, and it seems that it is infact not possible to get a satisfactory discursive answer.
First, it should be mentioned that the "rules" in religion are actually not rules. Rather, they are "Guidance". Guidance to what? They are guidance to Eternal Bliss, to God Himself.
But your question still remains. Let me rephrase it: Why on earth should guidance to an All-knowing, All-seeing, compassionate God be so detailed and specific, especially when He Himself is transcendent above all details and specification, ...and what/why does he need all these material details in order to accept us.
Now, this is a VERY important question. I hope it captures the ultimate question you have in mind?
And my lop-sided pathetic response is....that..
Well,... these rules, oops!, these Guidance, are not there in order for God to accept us. Rather they are there in order for us to be "capable" of accepting God in His Grandeursity and Sublimity. By definition, God is Omniscient, Omnipresent, The Outward, The Inward, The Manifest, The Hidden, etc, so it should be clear that nothing can condition God. But as we experience it we are not Omniscient, not Ominipresent, not ever manifest, etc... hence our consciousness may need to be conditioned in some way in order to perceive this Eternal Bliss or Entity called God. But why? you could still validly ask. God knows best.
But perhaps it is because our acquired nature (from birth to Adulthood) is so thick and unless we reconfigure it we will be unable to witness even Most Manifest of things.
The things we do or don't do somehow have a tendency to cast a veil on our consciousness such that we are unable to perceive the Truth about life. Hence, the need for Guidance on what is the best way to conduct oneself, privately, publicly, socially, economically, militarily, etc...so that our spirit can rise, and rise, to the Ultimate.
For instance eat too much red meat, and there you go - fat. Read too much horror stories, and there you go - scared. Swallow poison, we are most likely to die. All of these, indicating that we cannot take our human reality for granted, regardless of what we may think or know about God's mercy and His sustaining of life. So, 9 out of 10 times we have to honour these protocols of dealing with the base "reality"...because essentially they feed the higher "reality".
I hope this makes sense.....sorry, I am not an eloquent person and don't have the best manners when it comes to presenting written material.
You also mentioned that..
If a blind person canâÂÂt get all those little details right, that matters more than whatâÂÂs in their heart?
Yes, you are right. As the Koran say "Verily God does not look at your stature or your wealth, but He looks into your heart".
This is undisputable, and hence difficult to judge individual people.
However, observing these details often times gives an indication of the kind of heart at work. i.e. A heart that believes in the Guidance sent by God through the Prophets, and in this case the Sunnah of the last Prophet (peace be upon him). A heart that takes this base reality seriously and is bent on following it through to its (il)logical conclusion.
Allah knows best.
JD,
Thanks for the correction.
Thought of the day:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/thought/t20050825.ram
Thanks - much to think about. Good weekend, folks.