Animal Wartime Protections Under Islamic Law
Even at the best of times, legal protections for non-human animals are limited to certain species, subject to exemptions based on human interests, and poorly enforced. It is therefore unsurprising that international humanitarian law has very few protections for the interests of animals in war.
By contrast, Islamic religious law outlines specific wartime protections for animals that recognize animals’ intrinsic value. This study compares international humanitarian law with Islamic law in regards to animal protections during wartime.
Although wars are created by humans, animals suffer from both direct and indirect effects. In ancient times, animals such as horses, camels, elephants, dogs, and others were trained to fight or provide other services to humans during war. For example, soldiers in cavalry units fought on horseback to improve their speed and inflict more harm on the enemy. In India and Africa, elephants transported heavy equipment and carried soldiers into battle. In desert regions, soldiers rode camels. Ancient armies would sometimes even fill bombs with small, venomous animals, like scorpions and snakes. Of course, there were also indirect effects on animals, whose habitats and bodies were damaged as casualties of war.
In modern times, wars are ostensibly meant to be governed by international humanitarian law, a subset of the international law of armed conflict. Under these laws, animal protection is not seen as valuable for the sake of the individual animals themselves. Instead, the few legal wartime protections for animals focus on domestic animals in their capacity as property of human owners and wild animals in their capacity as parts of the environment, which is in turn considered property of local governments. In practice, animals benefit most from the general limitations on the most destructive tools and methods of war, as well as efforts to concentrate damage outside of civilian areas, rather than from protections designed specifically for the sake of animals themselves.
Islamic law outlines specific protections for animals during both times of peace and war. In times of peace, Muslims should take care of domesticated animals and avoid needlessly killing wild animals. Some Islamic wartime protections do treat animals as property, such as by forbidding damage to civilian-owned animals. Other protections, however, appear to be based on the intrinsic rights of the animals themselves. For example, it is forbidden to amputate the limbs of enemies’ animals as a way to damage the enemies’ military efficiency. It is also forbidden to aim at animals when training for military combat. Additionally, when the enemy’s animals are captured, they must receive the same level of care and protection from harm as any other animal. Muslims may not punish or harm an animal for having come from the enemies’ side.
Neither international humanitarian law nor Islamic law provides comprehensive wartime protections for animals or treats them as beings with rights on par with humans. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that Islamic law does provide some protections for animals during wartime that appear to be based on concern for animals for their own sake. By contrast, very few protections for animals are written into international humanitarian law, and all are presented as ways to protect animals as human property.
Advocates can use the traditional animal welfare protections in Islamic law to appeal to Muslims, especially to prevent the animal cruelty that takes place during wartime. Advocates can also take inspiration from the Islamic legal system when figuring out what legal protections animals should have in times of war and other extreme circumstances, which may include natural disasters, scarce resources, or widespread disease.
https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_2257.html