 Thank you very much everyone for being here. Thank you, Professor Flugo, for inviting me to this fascinating conference. Thank you, Professor Shahadeh. So I will talk about this subject, trying to compare previous or past attitudes toward animals to present ones in the Muslim world. And just read my paper. I hope you forgive me for doing this. One of the things that caught the attention of the British Orientalist, Edward Lane, when he visited Egypt between the years 1825 and 1828, was Egyptians' humanity to what he calls dumb animals. In his second visit in 1933, however, Lane noted that, quote, the generality of the Egyptians very much changed for the worse with respect to their humanity to brutes, end of quote. The view that Muslims' concern for non-human animals has declined in the last two centuries or has been declining in the last two centuries or so is echoed in several other works. Comparing the past to the present, Richard Faults, for example, observes, quote, in better times historically, non-human animals in Muslim societies benefited from protections and services that filled European visitors with astonishment, end of quote. Other scholars complain of Muslims diminished sensitivity to the entire natural world, to the entire natural world. So what I would like to do in this presentation is, first of all, to identify these changes, see what happened exactly. I would like also to propose an explanation, look into the question of why these changes have taken place. And finally, I will consider whether this, the present course is reversible. So I start with the first part, the signs of this decline. Non-human animals, I'll start with the past and then moving to the present. Non-human animals in the contemporary Muslim world are subject to the same mistreatment that is witnessed in other parts of the world. Factory farming and zoos are now part of the landscape in many Islamic cities. The use of insecticides has become common practice in agriculture, industry, medical institutions and households. Habitat depletion has led to the extinction and or dislocation of many species. Live animal transportation affects the lives of innumerable farm animals. Biomedical research may not be a major issue in the Muslim world, but experimenting on non-human animals is not unknown. More isolated incidents, such as the mass killing of pigs in Egypt during the so-called swine influence outbreak, may also be added to this list. Out of these items, the last is the only one that caused, to my knowledge, that caused public indignation and was largely condemned. Comparison between the past and the present reveals a vast disparity. Although violence toward non-human animals was not unknown to pre-modern Muslims, with the exception of killing certain species for food, institutionalized violence toward most non-human animals was at least contested, if not totally forbidden and often punishable. Thus, even though some jurists, for example, allowed the castration of livestock, others opposed this position vehemently and attempted to refute it, both on scriptural and rational grounds. Unjustified killing of animals, the size of a sparrow or larger, and the mutilation of any animal, were prohibited across the board. Although some schools of law tended to have a lax understanding of the word unjustified in this context, others, particularly the Shafi'i school of law, rarely failed to prioritize the interests of non-human animals, except, of course, in instances where there are clear scriptural instructions to the opposite effect. This is basically just like killing animals for food to satisfy hunger. Shafi'i jurists, for example, disallowed the use of the hides and furs of beasts of prey, the tusks of elephants, and the body parts of any animal that may not be killed for food. In fact, the Shafi'i school of law is quite interesting in its approach to non-human animals, because among the things, for example, that they prohibited, like they say you cannot drink milk until the small animal is satisfied from the mother's milk, because that milk is created for the animals themselves, not for us. So it's only like the surplus that human beings may consume. They also say if you want to milk an animal, you have to clip your fingernails so that you don't hurt that animal. They go, in fact, very far in the... And it's not just like how you use these animals, but also the protections that you need to extend to these animals. For example, in case of extreme weather conditions, what kind of protection you need to extend to these animals. Although the other four schools of law did not measure up to the Shafi'i's, none of them failed to accord at least some protections to other species, and all of them shared the position that non-human animals have chorema, or inviolability, a concept that implied that non-human animals have intrinsic value and were not to be used simply as means to humans' ends. Furthermore, many of the rules pertaining to non-human animals were administered by government institutions. For example, one of the responsibilities of the Muhtasib, a government official charged with the supervision of public order, was to make sure that animals of burden were not overloaded or mistreated. Beyond the legal sphere, comparison to non-human animals appears to have been a vibrant aspect of social life in the previous Muslim society, like in medieval times and pre-modern times. Whereas the normative level of the tradition is mostly reflected in Islamic sources, the concrete treatment of non-human animals was captured mainly by the eyes of non-Muslims, particularly Western visitors to the Middle East. The attitudes of Muslims or Turks or Egyptians to non-human animals is in fact a recurring theme in the 18th to the early 20th centuries in European travel literature. George Fowler, for example, notes that, the Turks are notorious for their mercy to animals. Kenneth L. Roberts expresses his aversion to Turkish restaurants which are filled with flies, because of the Turks' well-known aversion to killing beasts or insects. S. Hill observes that, the compassionate disposition of the Muslims extends itself beyond the human species and is exhibited in tender treatment toward the brute creation. Dogs, cats, birds and any animals that are not venomous or otherwise dangerous to men are very rarely, if ever, beaten or wantonly destroyed. And even such, as are killed for food, are not killed without the observance of certain regulations intended to subject them to as little pain as possible. End of quote. Joseph Nightingale writes that, quote, from feelings of compassion, hunting is held in abhorrence by the Turks and birds are seldom deprived of their liberty. End of quote. Nightingale also notes that, although Muslims usually keep dogs at a distance, this is because of ritual considerations, these animals are still, quote, fed by the liberal inhabitants and donations are often made for their support. So this is, I hope, gives an idea about the differences between the past and the present. So I don't think actually that this is just like an essentialized image of the present as Dr. Tomelin was saying in the past. I think this was an actual dimension in society. It is not something that we just see, you know, like defended by Muslim scholars, but it seems like it was part of the social life, the everyday life of Muslims. And it continues in certain aspects. It continues to be there also in like the contemporary Muslim society. Now I reach the second part of this presentation where I try to account for this change. Fazloun Khalid, similar to Professor Lu Fang, attributes the current universal ecological crisis to the rise of modernity. He posits that the secular scientific world view, one of the foundational ideas of modernity, produced a shift in humankind's perception of itself in relation to the natural order. Because of this shift Khalid explains, humans who for Aeans resided in nature's bosom suddenly became its predators. Modernity achieved its way over substantial parts of the world through various means. After transforming its birthplace Europe into a group of nation states, the latter succeeded in persuading or coercing the rest of the human community to organize their lives in like manner. Colonization was one of the important vehicles of this transformation. The colonizing powers created and left behind colonial educational systems and modernizing elites that continued to perpetuate the ethos and propensities cultivated by modernity, including irreverence toward tradition, readiness to innovate, and recasting of the old as antiquated, obsolete and something that needed to be replaced. This is a summary which in fact does not do justice to the entire argument of Professor Fazlun Khalid, but I try just to choose some of the points that he makes which are relevant to my discussion. Consonant with Khalid's analysis, they manage sensitivities toward non-human animals in the Islamic world, strongly correlate with Muslims' contact with modern thought and culture. In fact, to go back to Lane's observation, which I cited in the very beginning of this presentation, Lane, when after Lane describes Egyptians decreasing consideration for non-human animals, he adds, quote, I am inclined to think that the conduct of Europeans has greatly conduced to produce this effect, for I do not remember to have seen acts of cruelty, for I do not remember to have seen acts of cruelty to dumb animals, except in places where Franks either reside or are frequent visitors, end of quote. In addition to this possible influence at the concrete level, contact with aspects of modern thought produced far-reaching changes, including changes in the Islamic world view. And now I would like to elaborate on this point, what kind of changes occurred in the Islamic world view, which in my opinion have not been very beneficial to the welfare of non-human animals. The shift in self-perception, which Khalid identifies at the level of humanity, is quite discernible in the Islamic context. A cursory reading of pre-modern Islamic literatures shows, for example, that Muslims used to place humankind within the animal world, but this is no longer the case. This shift is noticeable, for example, or first of all, in lexical treatments of the Arabic words for animal, the two words, hayawain and debb. Whereas pre-modern Arabic dictionaries never fail to highlight the fact that these two words designated human, spiritual, and non-human earthly animals, that spiritual, I mean angels and jinn, also were considered to be part of the animal world, modern dictionaries rarely include humans and spiritual creatures in their definitions. Furthermore, and like Arabic modern works on animals, medieval animal books such as Al-Jahad's Kitab Al-Hayawain and Ad-Dameeri's Hayat Al-Hayawain Al-Kubra have substantial sections discussing human beings who are treated as one, among other animal species. Works of jurisprudence reflect the same position. For example, when the medieval Hanafi scholar Badr al-Din al-A'ini discusses animals that are entitled to certain types of medical treatment, he categorizes them into two groups, depending on whether or not they may be killed for food. Animals that may not be killed for food include human beings, mules, and donkeys. Even Muslims' understanding of the Quran has been affected by this change. For example, in his commentary on the Quranic verse, quote, there is no animal in the earth safe that God provides for it, end of quote, the early exeggit al-Bahak interprets the word animal in this verse as, quote, a reference to all animals, including human beings. Whereas the modern exeggit al-Tahr ibn Ashur says about the same verse, the word animal designates any creature that moves on earth with the exception of the human being, end of quote. Humans, therefore, are no longer situated within the animal world, which indicates that non-human animals are now relegated to a lower status. The kinship between humans and other animals was not only emphasized in medieval Islamic literatures. Occasionally, it was also presented as a foundation for moral consideration. Medieval biographical works report, for example, that when the scholar, Ruknadine ibn al-Qawbah, saw someone beating or hurting a dog, he reprimanded that person saying, why do you do this? Don't you have animal hood in common with this dog? A mahua shariqu kafil hayawaniya? This statement indicates that ibn al-Qawbah, first, saw nothing offensive in establishing kinship between humans and dogs, and second, that from his perspective, this kinship entitles the dog to good treatment. Furthermore, since this anecdote is cited to illustrate ibn al-Qawbah's piety and good character, it suggests that his biographers share this position. It suggests also that their larger audience probably subscribe to the same position since these biographers do not anticipate objection from them. This, of course, is not to suggest that medieval Islamic society perceived no difference of status between human beings and other animals. According to medieval texts, humans were indeed assigned a higher status, but the perceived difference appears to have been, generally, one of degree rather than of essence. Besides, for the most part, Muslim scholars did not necessarily see a correlation between superiority of status and entitlement to use other animals for humans' interests. Thus, even the permissibility to kill animals for food is more often given a theocentric rather than anthropocentric justification. In other words, humans are permitted to kill certain animals for food because God made such act permissible, not because human beings are better or deserve to kill or that other animals deserve to be killed for the better species. Many scholars, particularly from the Mu'tazili School of Thought, in fact, saw that this was not even a rational position, like the fact that non-human animals may be killed for food. It's not something that we derive from rationality. It doesn't make sense. It makes sense only because God allowed it, and since God has allowed it, He is going to recompense non-human animals profusely for their loss of lives or for any pain that He allowed to be inflicted on them on this life. The shift in self-perception is also discernible in the newly developed notion of vice-gerency or stewardship, which has become the foundation of the modern Islamic ecological worldview. This notion implies that humans or Muslims are now perceived as God's deputies on Earth with an obligation to manage or care for the natural world. This implies that they are no longer part of nature, rather they are on the top of it with a divine assignment that places them above other earthly creatures, particularly non-human animals. Advocates of this notion, it is true, almost never fail to emphasize the accountability dimension which accompanies this supposed divine appointment. This emphasis notwithstanding the simultaneous appearance of this notion and the unprecedented decline in Muslims' attitudes to the natural environment, including non-human animals, do not seem to be a mere coincidence. This shift in self-perception has tangible consequences. In the same way that kinship between humans and other animals seem to serve as a basis for moral consideration, in medieval times, absence thereof has facilitated the dismissal of non-human animals' interests in the present day. To illustrate this point, I will compare the positions of two Shafi'i scholars from different periods. As noted earlier, members of the Shafi'i School of Law generally disallow the killing of non-human animals unless a scriptural instruction made such an act permissible. Since Islamic dietary laws do not allow the consumption of the flesh of donkeys or of animals of prey, the medieval Shafi'i scholar Mohi-e-Din ibn Sharif and Nuhawi says, Our school does not allow the killing of an animal, the flesh of which is not consumable. An old donkey or a mule with a broken leg may not be killed, even if one intends to make use of their hides or to use their flesh as a bait to catch eagles and hawks. In diametrical opposition to this view, the modern Shafi'i scholar Atiyah Saqr does not oppose the killing of an old donkey or an animal whose flesh is inedible. The only condition he imposes on this is that good use be made of the killed animal, for example, by benefiting from its hide or feeding its flesh to zoo animals. Thus, wild beasts of prey may not be killed wantonly, but it is legitimate to kill them for their furs, hides, bones, or any other body parts. So this actually is like the total opposite of the medieval Shafi'i position. Atiyah Saqr, the modern jurist, also defends the legitimacy of keeping zoos on the alleged reason that they enable us to study the habits and natures of wild animals. These views are perhaps the more noteworthy because Saqr expresses them after citing views belonging to earlier authorities from his school. This is thus a deliberate departure from the earlier Shafi'i position. So now I hope this gives an idea of how these changes have gradually taken place, and I would like to consider whether the present course is reversible in the last part of this presentation. In spite of this bleak image, hope is fully justified. Richard Faltz maintains that, quote, in recent years, a few individual Muslims have given attention to animal issues as never before, end of quote. Although I disagree with parts of this statement, Faltz's observation is not without validity. In my opinion, whether in terms of depth or breadth, the level of attention that pre-modern Muslims paid to animal issues has hardly been equaled or even approached by modern Muslims. Nonetheless, Western-style animal activism, to which Faltz refers here, is an important emerging phenomenon among Muslims, especially those living in the West, and seems to have won many over to the animal cause. As a result, many Muslims are now careful to consume only ethically produced animal products, and some have even embraced vegetarianism and or veganism. This development shows that, in fact, aspects of modernity may be useful to the animal cause. This type of activism, however, has a very limited scope and is unlikely to produce significant changes in the entire Muslim world, at least not in the near future. In my opinion, more significant results may be obtained, first, through reform in education, and second, by engaging religious scholars in deeper discussions about non-human animals. So now I will elaborate on these two points. One of the immediate causes for Muslims diminished sensitivities toward non-human animals is lack of information. Like other citizens of the world, most Muslims seem to be unaware of the life conditions and types of mistreatment inflicted on many non-human animals, especially in farm factories and research institutions. Besides, given that most or all Muslim countries have adopted Western-style educational systems, the last few generations of Muslim students have hardly had any exposure to scriptural teachings about non-human animals, let alone medieval scholarly discussions thereof. More exposure to such themes and discussions is almost certain to revive Muslim sensitivities to other species. About the second point, engaging religious scholars. Religious scholars can also play a key role in this respect. Islam, as several observers have noted, shapes all aspects of a believer's life, including his or her relationship to non-human creatures. Given that humanity nowadays is faced with an entire set of animal issues that are unique to our time, many lay Muslims seek the opinions of religious experts to understand Islam's take on such matters. The opinions of religious scholars are also sought on animal questions which are not unique to our time, such as the permissibility of wearing fur or killing old animals. As we have seen, for example, the opinion by the modern jurist, Saqr, was in fact an issued legal opinion, a fatwa. Someone approached him on the permit, whether he can, like they have an old monkey and what they could do about it, like whether they could kill it or not, and he issued this opinion as a reaction to a question that was addressed to him. Should, for example, religious scholars pronounce certain animal products as an Islamic, many Muslims would probably turn away from them. Religious scholars can have a deep impact not only by issuing legal opinions, but also by inspiring other Muslims and nurturing in them feelings of compassion toward non-human creatures by exploring the abundant material that is available for them, something which religious figures from previous centuries seem to have done. Considering the wealth of available insights, this goal does not seem to be far-fetched. The main reason why this has not happened yet, in my opinion, is that animal issues seem to hardly preoccupy Muslim scholars enough for this question to obtain due attention. Finding ways to engage them in such process, however, should not be a major hurdle, I hope. Thank you very much.