2.3.1 Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism, literally “human-centered,” is a value theory or ethical viewpoint that holds that all and only human beings, their lives and experiences, have intrinsic (or inherent) value or are morally significant. Consequently, everything in the nonhuman world, such as animals, plants, other living organisms, complex ecosystems, and the natural world, possess only instrumental value relative to human beings for their benefit and welfare. The nonhuman world has no moral significance or standing of its own; therefore, they have no moral consideration. As a result, there is no ethical implication in the human–nature relationship. In this viewpoint, environmental protection or degradation matters only insofar as it affects human interests alone (Reference RobinsonRobinson, 2002, p. 113; Reference YangYang, 2006; p. 28; Reference Thompson, Gardiner and ThompsonThompson, 2017, p. 77; Reference Tucker, Grim, Jenkins, Tucker and GrimTucker & John, 2017, pp. 4–5).

Many environmental ethicists, however, consider anthropocentrism the ideological source, not the solution, of our environmental crisis. The underlying ideology fostered the notion that humans were distinct from nature, thereby asserting their authority to use it for the benefit of human well-being. This individualistic or humanistic worldview led Reference WhiteLynn White Jr. (1967), a prominent American historian, to write an influential article titled “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” In the article, White explains the philosophical and intellectual roots of the ecological crisis, specifically blaming Christianity for it.

This was not the first scholarly concern in response to the mounting environmental crisis; earlier in the 1960s, a series of notable and influential publications and newspaper articles, apart from radio programs, galvanized environmental consciousness in the public mind and helped change environmental attitudes. For example, Rachel Reference CarsonCarson’s (1963) book Silent Spring stands out for its combination of precise analysis and broad insights on the detrimental health impacts of the overuse of pesticides and insecticides in the agricultural industry on humans and ecosystems. A well-trained scientist, Carson, however, was criticized by industry and government representatives; she was accused of being “hysterically overemphatic” with a “mystical attachment to the balance of nature” (Reference GershonGershon, 2019).

The impact of White’s arguments on environmentalists, philosophers, thinkers, religious scholars, and policymakers concerned with the environmental crisis was immediate and far-reaching. His key concerns were discussed and looked upon in a wide range of environmental literature (see, Reference SpencerSpencer, 2019). Though he also received criticism, particularly for making the Christian religion responsible for current environmental problems, White’s discourse initiated a series of arguments and counterarguments that considerably enriched environmental ethical theories and approaches. In particular, it led to the development of nonanthropocentrism, a new viewpoint with varied interpretations and implications; it also stimulated many scholars to refine and reinterpret the anthropocentric view.

Other notable contributions from the 1960s include Reference EhrlichPaul Erlich’s (1968) book The Population Bomb and Garrett Reference HardinHardin’s (1968) article “The Tragedy of the Commons”; both warn about the perils of overpopulation, including environmental deterioration, mass starvation, and societal upheaval. These scholarly writings were widely read, enjoyed, and discussed in academia and the media. Thus, the environmental debates, which were earlier considered “to be against modernity, economic progress, and against the ‘holy’ development itself” during the environmental movements of the 1960s and 1970s, were no longer a controversial topic in the 1990s (Reference OuisOuis, 2003).

Environmentalists began to distinguish and carve out transgenerational anthropocentrism from traditional anthropocentrism. In sum, the former encourages to care for both present and future human generations while using the natural environment (Reference Stenmark and MinteerStenmark, 2009, p. 83). Redefining and defending anthropocentrism, Bryan Reference NortonNorton (1984) further distinguishes between reasoned and felt preferences, where every preference or action is not morally justified; rather, a particular reasoned preference is morally justified and acceptable only when it is critically examined according to a reasonable worldview (Reference NortonNorton, 1984, p. 134; Reference YangYang, 2006). However, other transgenerational anthropocentric ethicists acknowledge that nature possesses some intrinsic (or inherent) moral worth. This polarization over intrinsic value between humans and nonhumans resulted in other environmental viewpoints, which broadly oscillate between anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric positions.

Nonanthropocentrism is an ethical perspective on nonhuman natural beings who have intrinsic or inherent value and are thus morally distinct from humans. Nonanthopocentrists argue that moral value cannot be determined or justified solely in terms of human interests and, as a result, propose several alternative moral value bases. Thus, depending on whether all extra-human entities have any intrinsic value or are restricted to some rational beings, nonanthropocentrism can be broadly categorized into three ethical value theories: biocentrism, sentiocentrism, and ecocentrism.

2.3.2 Biocentrism

Literally meaning life-centered, biocentrism is broadly defined as an ethical viewpoint that maintains that all individual living forms have intrinsic worth. Consequently, individual living creatures, based on their biological characteristics, have moral standing, and deserve respect and moral consideration for what they are (Reference RobinsonRobinson, 2002; Reference Stenmark and MinteerStenmark, 2009, p. 83; Reference YangYang, 2006; Reference Thompson, Gardiner and ThompsonThomson, 2017, p. 80; Reference AttfieldAttfield, 2018). In this case, the human–nature relationship is evaluated based on how it affects only living beings, including humans. Moreover, theorists argue that living organisms’ interests are morally relevant whether they are conscious of them or not. Hence, in biocentrism, at least, some living forms apart from humans have intrinsic worth or moral standing, but since ecosystems or other species are not living forms per se, they lack inherent worth or moral consideration – an assumption, however, that ecocentrists reject.

Advocates of biocentrism, generally, believe that all living individuals have equal intrinsic worth because they are as good as humans are. Thus, all living organisms deserve equal respect because they possess equal moral status. This is an example of holistic biocentrism, which confers intrinsic value on collectives rather than individual members of a species.

The critics of biocentrism nevertheless respond by arguing that biocentrism, in general, confers equal inherent moral worth and standing to all living organisms, from a small fly to a human being (Reference Callicott, Jenkins, Tucker and GrimCallicott, 2017, p. 364). This perspective introduces a different worldview that supports the idea of granting moral consideration exclusively to conscious beings, including all living animals.

2.3.3 Sentiocentrism

Sentiocentrism, or animal-centeredness, is a value theory in environmental ethics that holds that all animals, at least those who are sentient, have inherent moral value. Thus, humans have a duty to respect the rights and interests of animals. The underlying philosophy of sentiocentrism considers animals’ experiences of suffering and cruelty to warrant direct moral consideration. Animal liberationists such as Reference SingerSinger (1975) and Reference ReganRegan (1979, Reference Regan1980) contend that animals can perceive pain and pleasure; thus, their sentience is a sufficient and necessary reason to accord them moral status. Hence, the appropriate way to treat animals is to consider them as ends in themselves and not as means to satisfy human interests (Reference TaylorTaylor, 1986, p. 155).

Animal ethicists contest anthropocentric viewpoint which entitles human beings to exclusive moral worth. Human beings are treated as superior just on the basis of being rational entities, and humans are seen as the builders of human civilization. Several nonanthropocentric theorists endorse criticism against the human-centric worldview – a view termed as “human chauvinism,” “arbitrary discrimination,” “morally unjustified,” “biased determination,” and so on (Reference Thompson, Gardiner and ThompsonThompson, 2017, pp. 83–84). Others maintain that some humans are, in fact, rational and thus moral agents capable of reciprocal concerns and being able to make decisions, not all are. On the other hand, some animals are more capable than some humans of doing these things. Certain animals, specifically octopuses and orangutans, exhibit a higher degree of self-consciousness compared to some humans who struggle with, or lack, the capacity for effective cooperation and social organization. Similarly, Ronald Sandler, author and professor of philosophy, writes that “some nonhuman animals have equal or greater psychological capacities than do some human beings, and so have comparable or even more complex and diverse interests” (Reference SandlerSandler, 2018, p. 99). As a result of Sandler’s recognition of comparable psychological capacities in some nonhuman animals, J. Baird Callicott (b. 1941), American philosopher and scholar, asserts that the fundamental characteristic that grants intrinsic value and justifies ethical consideration is the status of being a “subject of a life,” capable of experiencing favorable and unfavorable circumstances from its own perspective (Reference Callicott, Jenkins, Tucker and GrimCallicott, 2017, p. 367). “Subject of a life” means having the ability to have preferences, desires, sensations, and feelings that contribute to one’s overall well-being or suffering. Essentially, it signifies having a subjective perspective on life, wherein one can perceive their own experiences as either positive or negative. This perspective, according to Callicott, conveniently extends value, ethical considerations, and rights to nonhuman animals.

However, environmental ethicists and some philosophers register strong objections against both biocentrism and sentiocentrism, contending that such positions fail to engage with the moral worth of ecology. Unable to provide a new paradigm shift acknowledging ecological insights, biocentrism and sentiocentrism overlook the moral worth of nature itself. The challenge lies in extending moral principles to nonhuman entities without fully acknowledging the value of all animal life, creating an idealistic scenario where every living form is presumed to have rights against each other, exposing a flaw in this value theory. Hence, the ideal situation involves adopting a new moral system that recognizes the moral importance of entire ecosystems. This is what is referred to as the “ecocentric paradigm.”

2.3.4 Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism, or “land ethic,” a nonanthropocentric ethical view, maintains that nature as a whole has intrinsic value regardless of whether it has instrumental value to humans or not. Land ethicists expand value ethic theory to include the diversity of nonhuman entities: species, ecosystems, land, soil, air, water, mountains, resources, and so on. Hence, in this case, the human–nature relationship is evaluated based on how far it affects the natural environment, including species and ecosystems. This viewpoint was originally advanced by Aldo Leopold (1887–1958), an American forester, wildlife biologist, and environmentalist.

As an ecocentrist, Leopold is known for his “Land Ethic” or “Leopoldian Land Ethic,” according to which respect is due to nature as a whole and not to individual living beings. This philosophical view identifies a change of role for the human being: from “conqueror of the land community to plain member and citizen of it”; this implies, for the human being, “respect for his fellow members, as well as respect for the community as such” (Reference LeopoldLeopold, 1949, p. 204). Like Reference WhiteWhite (1967), Leopold was also critical of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He writes: “Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic [i.e., biblical] concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity that belongs to us” (Reference LeopoldLeopold, 1949, p. viii). This led him to formulate his famous maxim: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (p. 224).

Leopold’s land ethic reflects an “egalitarian” social model of nature in which humans are only “plain members and citizens” of the “biotic community.” It views nature as a cohesive societal entity, emphasizing the interconnectedness and interdependence of its various components. While all ecocentrists attach a value premium to ecological diversity, ecocentrists disagree on how to best address today’s environmental challenges. Nevertheless, also this outlook comes under criticism; some view ecocentrism as “environmental fascism” (Reference JamiesonJamieson, 2008, p. 152). It is often seen as a frustrated response to sentiocentrism and biocentrists’ concerns about moral extensionism. Some critics claim that Leopold’s land ethic would suggest that it is more morally permissible to kill a human than an endangered wildflower, as biotic concerns and interests precede individual rights; or, to put it differently, according to some critics ecocentrism implies that the value of a human being is no longer more significant than any other component of biotic or abiotic communities (see Reference NashNash, 1989, p. 153; Reference Hiller, Gardiner and ThompsonHiller, 2017, p. 202). This may explain why ecocentrism is not a widely embraced perspective.

Ultimately, different ethical value theories – anthropocentrism, biocentrism, sentiocentrism, and ecocentrism – disagree on whether extra-human natural things have intrinsic value. As such, environmentalist ethicists debate whether animals, plants, species, ecosystems, and so on should be attributed equal moral worth or receive equivalent moral consideration.

2.3.5 Deep Ecology

Deep ecology is an environmental philosophy and social movement, which asserts that humans are interconnected with the entire web of life. It promotes an inherent value of all life forms and ecosystems, arguing that they have a right to exist and flourish independent of their utility to humans. Arne Naess (1912–2009), a Norwegian philosopher, is renowned for his contributions to deep ecology movement that has had a lasting impact on the discourse surrounding environmental ethics and sustainability. Naess fundamentally challenges anthropocentric perspectives on nature and advocates for a more holistic and ecocentric worldview. His philosophy, first articulated in the 1973 essay “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement,” posits that traditional environmentalism, often characterized as “shallow ecology,” is insufficient in addressing the ecological crises facing the planet. Shallow ecology tends to focus on the preservation of the environment primarily for human benefit, ignoring the intrinsic value of nonhuman life forms and ecosystems.

One of Naess’ key concepts is the notion of the “ecological self” (Reference NaessNaess, 1987, p. 35), which asserts that humans are interconnected with the entire web of life. This concept challenges the conventional view of the self as a separate entity from nature and encourages individuals to expand their sense of identity to encompass the entire biosphere (Reference NaessNaess, 1987, p. 37). “Self-realization,” according to Naess, is the realization of entire biosphere, and the essence of deep ecology.

2.3.6 Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism, also called ecological feminism, is a socio-environmental movement that emerged in the late twentieth century as an intersectional philosophy that links the oppression of women and the exploitation of nature. This perspective places a strong emphasis on examining the treatment of both nature and women within a patriarchal, or male-centric, societal framework. It asserts that patriarchal (or male-centered) systems and environmental degradation are interconnected, and their roots lie in unjustified domination, objectification, and exploitation (Reference WarrenWarren, 2000, p. 1).

One of the primary sources in the development of ecofeminism is the work of French feminist Françoise d’Eaubonne (1920-2005). In her 1974 book Le Féminisme ou la Mort (Feminism or Death), she coined the term “ecofeminism” and argued that the subjugation of women and the exploitation of the environment share common oppressive structures (Reference D’Eaubonned’Eaubonne, 2022, pp. 182–183).

Ecofeminism has since evolved, drawing from diverse feminist, environmental, and cultural perspectives. It continues to inspire activism and scholarship that challenge patriarchal and environmentally destructive practices, advocating for a more equitable and sustainable world.

2.3.7 Murray Bookchin’s Social Ecology

Murray Bookchin (1920–2006), an American social theorist, historian, and political philosopher, is the founder of social ecology movement. His philosophy represents a transformative framework with considerable implications for sociopolitical and environmental discourse. Primarily expounded in his seminal work The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy, published in 1982, this perspective promotes the necessity of establishing a harmonious and sustainable relationship between “nature and humanity” (Reference BookchinBookchin, 1982, p. 11). It asserts that the fundamental origins of ecological and social crises are linked to hierarchical and exploitative social structures. For Bookchin, linked “with the social crisis is a crisis that has emerged directly from man’s exploitation of the planet” (Reference Bookchin1982, pp. 18–19).

Central to Bookchin’s framework is the advocacy for a paradigm shift, urging societies to transition away from hierarchical and oppressive systems toward decentralized and ecologically harmonious communities (Reference BookchinBookchin, 1982, p. 344). Furthermore, Bookchin’s social ecology introduces the concept of liberation ecology, which underscores the intrinsic interdependence of social and environmental concerns. It contends that the emancipation of both humanity and the natural world is indispensable for forging a sustainable trajectory into the future (Reference BookchinBookchin, 1982, p. 176).

3.4.1 Ḥimā (Reserves), and Ḥarīm (Inviolable Zones)

The Prophetic traditions contain explicit norms of land allocation and conservation as reflected in the principles of ḥimā and ḥarīm (Reference HamedHamed, 1993; Reference Bagader, Al-Sabbagh, Al-Glenid, Izzidien and LlewellynBagader, et al., 1994; Reference DienDien, 2000). Both the related notions, literally meaning “protected” or “prohibited” and “reserved” areas, predate Islam (Reference Al- ‘ArabīAl-‘Arabī, 1998, p. 72), but the Arab tribal chieftains would not allow others to enter the protected area while grazing their animals. The Prophet Muhammad (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 42, Ḥadīth 2370, 1997, p. 320) prohibited this practice. While the ḥadīths affirm the right to private property, it also recognizes public ownership of essential resources like water, pasture, and fire (Dāwūd, Sunan Abū Dāwūd, Book 22, Ḥadīth 3477, 2008, pp. 129–130). The Prophet Muhammad established these resources, including forests, as communal assets, abolishing private reserves that were used by the Arab aristocracy to claim exclusive rights to best grazing lands for their personal use (Reference QudāmahQudāmah, 1997, p. 165).

Islam promoted the institution of ḥimā, which was the establishment of public reserves dedicated to the conservation and production of resources, such as woody vegetation, wildlife, and horses for the Muslim army. This practice aimed to protect these natural assets and ensure their sustainable use for the benefit of the community. It abolished pre-Islamic practices and incorporated the “religious values and norms … into the Hima system. The function of the Hima changed and became property dedicated to the wellbeing of the community around it” (Reference GariGari, 2006, p. 213). According to Peter Vincent, “The Hima, as a system, is possibly the oldest known organized form of conservation [in] the world” (Reference SetiaSetia, 2007, p. 133). Owing to its ecological, social, and economic implications, The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have transformed the ḥimā from a private property into a public asset (Reference IdllalèneIdllalène, 2021, p. 51) and “[laid] down the rules by which it came to be one of the essential instruments of conservation in Islamic law” (Reference Llewellyn, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinLlewellyn, 2003, p. 212).

Moreover, the Prophet declared and preserved the surroundings of Makkah and Madīnah, a sanctuary representing the two primordial inviolable sanctuaries (al-ḥaramain) where hunting was forbidden within a radius of four miles (Reference Llewellyn, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinLlewellyn, 2003, p. 212). Similarly, the destruction of trees and shrubs was also made illegal within twelve miles. In a ḥadīth, the Prophet Muhammad emphasized: “If I were to find deer in the territory between the two mountains, I would not molest them, and he (the Prophet Muhammad) declared twelve miles of suburb around Medina as a prohibited pasture” (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 15, Ḥadīth 1372, 2007, p. 520). He also established Al-Naqī’ (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 42, Ḥadīth 2370, 1997, p. 320), one of the first ḥimās in Islamic law, near Madīnah for the protection of wildlife and vegetation. He prohibited private reserves for exclusive use by an individual (Reference Sardar and MasoodSardar, 2006, p. 103). In this way, the Prophet instituted a kind of what would be today called a “national park” (Reference Nasr, Abbas, Iqbal and SadrNasr, 2020, pp. 158–159) or “zonation of land,” which were considered “safe zones” (Reference IdllalèneIdllalène, 2021), where flora and fauna received special protection.

The caliphs (successors of the Prophet) continued the practice and designated more areas under the ḥimā system. Caliph ‘Umar is reported to have “established additional himās for the cavalry, the camels allocated to charity and the livestock of the poor” (Reference Llewellyn, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinLlewellyn, 2003, p. 212). Consequently, ḥimā and ḥarīm emerged as a “flexible conservation management system that enables the establishment of land and marine conservation zones in designated areas” (Reference Khalid and HartKhalid, 2017, p. 141).

In modern times, a specialized field of Islamic jurisprudence, known as Fiqh of Bī’ah (Jurisprudence of Environment), emerged. It encompasses a set of principles derived from Islamic sources that guide our actions toward a conservationist approach. The extensive collection of ḥadīth and Islamic legal texts (see Reference TaymiyyahTaymiyyah, 1965; Reference YūsufYūsuf, 1979; Reference QudāmahQudāmah, 1997) includes substantial content pertaining to land, water, pasture, and other environmental issues, categorized under the branch of “mu‘āmalāt” (transactions). For example, in his book Kitāb al-Kharāj (The Book of Taxation), Abū Yūsuf (731–798) writes in detail about the revival of the dead Earth (Ihya’ al-mawāt). Similarly, Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328), in his magnum opus, Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā, writes that “hunting solely for the purpose of amusement and play is disliked (makrūh). If such hunting involves harming people by trespassing on their farms or damaging their property, then it is considered prohibited (ḥarām)” (Reference Taymiyyah1965, p. 619).

Reference Haq and JamiesonHaq (2001a, pp. 119–129; Reference Haq2001b, pp. 149–150; Reference Haq, Foltz, Denny and Baharuddin2003, pp. 141–150) provides an in-depth examination of the material on Fiqh of Bī’ah mentioned in the corpus of ḥadīth and fiqh. It addresses issues such as land management and ownership, pastures, fuel wood, and water. In addition, a system of land grants, charitable endowments (awqāf), and an office of public inspection (iḥtisāb/muḥtasib) was established during the era of the second caliph, ‘Umar (634–644) (Reference Al-BarAl-Bar, 1992, p. 549), for the proper functioning of mu‘āmalāt-a prototype of environmental jurisprudence. Ḥisbah, the Islamic concept of market supervision, has remained a constant feature of Muslim society, especially during the medieval times with the purpose of promoting goodness and eradicating evil within society (Reference Al-MaqrīzīAl-Maqrīzī, 1971, p. 395; Reference Al-MaydaniAl-Maydānī, 1998, p. 632). Moreover, a classical Muslim scholar, ‘Izz al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Salām (1181-1262) offers essential and exhaustive jurisprudential insights about animal rights in his book Qawā’id al-Aḥkām fī Maṣāliḥ al-An‘ām (Rules for Judgment in the Cases of Living Beings) (2015). Given its flexibility and relevance to evolving contemporary circumstances, the Fiqh of Bī’ah is regarded by Muslim environmentalists and legal experts as a promising legal framework for environmental conservation.

4.1.1 Seyyed Hossein Nasr

Let’s take a closer look at the influential contributions of Seyyed Hossein Nasr (b. 1933), which include his lecture series titled “The Encounter of Man and Nature,” delivered at the University of Chicago in 1966. Such lectures served as a catalyst for raising awareness and stimulating a deeper understanding of the ecological challenges from an Islamic standpoint among the Muslim community. They were later published in the form of a book, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man (1968). Nasr has been a part of the discourse about Islam and the environment in the years since, being a very productive author in the field.

In the book Religion and the Order of Nature (1996), Nasr argues that the spiritual crisis underlies the modern environmental problems. The book explores environmental concerns within the context of religious perspectives and serves as a rallying call for “traditional believers” to unite in the defense of nature. Nasr links the present environmental problems to the moral and spiritual crisis of the modern world brought about by the obsession with scientism that confronts traditional norms and values (Reference NasrNasr, 1975). Moreover, he attributes Muslims’ obliviousness to the environment to Western influence and interference in Muslim countries (Nasr, 1997, Reference Nasr, Foltz, Denny and Baharuddin2003). Interestingly, Nasr’s engagement with environmental concerns predates the aforementioned 1967 controversial article by Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” which blamed Christianity, particularly, for the present environmental crisis.

According to Reference NasrNasr (1968, pp. 18–19), “the sense of domination over nature and a materialistic conception of nature on the part of modern humans are combined, moreover, with a lust and sense of greed which makes an even greater demand upon the environment.” Nasr further asserts that “the sciences of nature lost their symbolic intelligibility, a fact that is most directly responsible for the crisis which the modern scientific world view and its applications have brought about” (Reference Nasr1968, p. 21). Therefore, he promotes for a significant transformation in how we perceive the natural world, advocating a paradigm shift away from the prevailing scientific outlook and toward a more traditional, religious, and spiritual understanding of nature (Reference NasrNasr, 1968, pp. 118–119). According to Nasr, the ecological crisis can only be effectively addressed through a radical transformation of the prevailing mechanistic-materialistic view of the natural world (Reference NasrNasr, 1968, pp. 7, 21–22). He argues that this shift is essential for achieving long-term ecological sustainability, emphasizing the need to embrace a spiritual and participatory understanding of nature.

Additionally, since the late 1960s, Nasr has been calling for a renewed philosophical interpretation of nature as “sacred,” drawing from the perennial philosophy (Reference Foltz and GottliebFoltz, 2006a; Reference Mary and GottliebMary, 2006; Reference JohnstonJohnston, 2012). Nasr emphasizes it in his book, Religion and the Order of Nature: “a nexus must be created in this realm among the traditions, as has been carried out by the traditional proponents of the perennial philosophy for the understanding of the Divine Principle and its numerous manifestations in various religious universes” (Reference NasrNasr, 1996, p. 7). However, a vast majority of Muslims have not accepted his philosophical interpretation, especially of “nature.” Nasr’s eco-theological suggestions have been criticized for lacking practical solutions and clear alternatives to the modern lifestyle. Some find his esoteric narratives and mystic descriptions difficult to comprehend (Reference SayemSayem, 2019, pp. 294–295).

In Islam, ethical concerns have religious underpinnings and thus have a tremendous role to play in changing the behavior of humans toward the environment and other nonhuman animals. Enjoining what is good (ma‘rūf) and forbidding what is wrong (munkar) have been the hallmarks of this approach. It reiterates adhering to such ideals as moderation, compassion, and justice. Some have argued against this thesis, saying that ethics alone are not enough to reshape people’s perception and attitude toward nature because not everyone follows ethics, no matter how strong and appealing the ethics are (Reference OuisOuis, 1998, p. 177; Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2005, p. 342). That being the case, again, Nasr’s shortcoming has been ignoring Sharī‘ah or legal dimensions in projecting his perspective on environmental ethics. Therefore, it is often argued that ethical considerations without Islamic legal rulings will not substantially change people’s behavior toward the environment.

That having been said, Nasr’s philosophical and spiritual insights do contribute to a deeper understanding of the ecological crisis within the context of faith and spiritual traditions. While there may be limitations and a need for more practical proposals, Nasr successfully connects the ecological crisis to broader philosophical and spiritual considerations.

4.1.2 Fazlun Khalid

Fazlun Khalid (b. 1932), Sri Lankan-born and founder of a prominent Birmingham-based environmental organization, is one of the most vocal authors on the ecological problems stemming from modern science, and has been called “the foremost expert on ecology from the Islamic perspective” (Reference Sharp, Pratt, Hoover, Davies and ChesworthSharp, 2015, p. 471).

Khalid views that the “seeds of the ecological crisis that breached these limits were sown during the period that followed the Renaissance … [resulting from T]he shift in humankind’s perception of itself in relation to the natural order. This is encoded in what has now come to be known as the secular scientific worldview” (Reference Khalid, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinKhalid, 2003, p. 301), which occurred from the sixteenth century onward when what we now know as “modernity” began to “evolve” (Reference Khalid, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinKhalid, 2003, p. 307). What was more disappointing, according to Khalid, was the enticement of consumerism and the creation of an artificial sense of prosperity that this prevailing paradigm has led to the brink of an imminent ecological disaster. Khalid says: “[w]e now exist in soulless secularized spaces, concealing the reality that we are all trapped in an irresistible undertow of debt and hedonism aimlessly driving us through oceans of consumerism” (Reference KhalidKhalid, 2019, p. 39). He connects “secularized spaces” and consumerism with the wider crises that humanity is going through.

The first organized presentation of the Islamic position on environmental protection was a short treatise titled “Islamic Principles for the Conservation of the Natural Environment,” published in 1983 by the Saudi Meteorology and Environmental Protection Administration (MEPA) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The paper produced, however, was poorly publicized. Similarly, other Muslim organizations also played a pivotal role in Islamic environmentalism. For example, the Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences (IFEES), established in 1993 in Birmingham, England, by Khalid, is one of the most active organizations spreading environmental awareness by organizing workshops, community engagements, and educational programmes in many Muslim countries. The organization launched the world’s first Islamic conservation guide in 2008 in Zanzibar. We will take a closer look at this in Section 6.

4.1.3 Mawil Y. Izzi Dien and Uthman Llewellyn

The Iraqi Mawil Y. Izzi Dien (b. 1948: also known as Izzi Deen) is the first contemporary Muslim scholar to write about how Islamic law can be used to solve today’s environmental problems. He has been vocal in projecting the management and distribution of natural resources according to Islamic jurisprudence. A significant portion of his book, The Environmental Dimensions of Islam (2000), focuses on the use of Islamic law along with a moral ethic in ecology. He is more concerned about the legal tool of maṣlaḥah, an important concept in Islamic legal theory, which encompasses the principles of utility (maṣlaḥah) and the broader objectives of Islamic law (maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah). Commonly used by contemporary Muslim reformers, maṣlaḥah serves as a guiding principle for proposing legal reforms and addressing contemporary challenges. Broadly understood as “welfare,” jurists utilize maṣlaḥah to denote the “general good” or “public interest,” emphasizing its role in averting harm and promoting human well-being (Reference Khadduri, Bearman, Bianquis, Bosworth, Donzel and HeinrichsKhadduri, 2012). In the Islamic legal and ethical framework, according to maṣlaḥah, when the interests of individuals and specific groups cannot be reconciled with the broader interests of society as a whole, the latter takes precedence. The collective welfare and well-being of society are given priority over the individual and particular group interests. This recognition acknowledges the need for harmonization and balance, ensuring that decisions and actions prioritize the greater common good rather than catering solely to individual or limited group interests. Similarly, a sub-maxim of Islamic legal rule is when a situation of a conflict between harm and benefit arises in executing an action, the avoidance of harm takes precedence over the pursuit of benefits (dar’ al-mafāsid awlā min jalb al-maṣāliḥ) (Reference Al-ZuḥaylīAl-Zuḥaylī, 2006, p. 238). This principle arises from the strong emphasis in Islamic law on abstaining from forbidden actions rather than focusing solely on permissible ones. Moreover, the allowance for pursuing benefits is primarily justified as a means of preventing harm, as refraining from beneficial actions can often lead to inflicted harm. Thus, the guiding principle emphasizes prioritizing the prevention of harm in decision-making and prioritizing actions. By upholding this principle, ethical considerations can guide decision-making processes that contribute to the overall welfare and harmony of society. Elaborating on the legal principle of public benefit, Reference DienDien (2000, p. 136) writes:

While Dien offers a detailed exploration of the Islamic perspective on environmentalism, Islamic ethics, and the use of Islam legal tools in ecology, he falls short in providing practical examples that illustrate the application of Islamic legal principles to address contemporary environmental crises. Nonetheless, Izzi Dien’s environmental approach involves employing the Islamic legal principle of maṣlaḥah, where he emphasizes that environmental threats jeopardize human life, aligning with the objectives of Sharī‘ah. Additionally, Dien advocates for the application of maṣlaḥah to avoid harm, asserting that Islamic legislation should include provisions to protect the environment and ensure sustainability. This underscores his view of integrating Islamic legal tools to address environmental challenges, safeguarding both human well-being and the broader objectives of Sharī‘ah. He accepts that traditional fiqh experiences “remain historically distant from contemporary application without careful analysis of the concepts which they provide” (Reference Dien2000, p. 49). So, he views that “[t]he conservation of the natural environment in Islam is both an ethical and a religious imperative which should be backed with legislation and effective enforcement of an environmental law” (Reference DienDien, 2000, p. 282). He asserts that the jurisprudence of fiqh needs reshaping to make it viable in line with modern ecological problems, for it offers “pragmatic resources” to initiate changes within the social structure (Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2005).

Similarly, Uthman Abd al-Rahman Llewellyn’s “Basis for a Discipline of Islamic Environmental Law” (Reference Llewellyn, Foltz, Denny and Baharuddin2003) explores the potential of Islamic fiqh rulings in resolving environmental problems. He is optimistic that traditional fiqh corpus contains many injunctions and institutions, particularly for regulating and protecting natural resources. Like Dien, Llewellyn displays particular interest in exploring the environmental functions of past institutions such as ḥimā (inviolable zone), ḥarīm (reserve land), and waqf (endowment), which offer valuable opportunities for the contemporary advocates of animal rights, theorists, and policymakers (Reference Llewellyn, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinLlewellyn, 2003; Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2005; Reference JohnstonJohnston, 2012).

Llewellyn relies on Islamic legal traditions and elaborates on their application to the environmental crisis in modern times; however, he acknowledges the challenges that many of them face on the ground. He presents an interdisciplinary collaborative approach between environmental experts and Muslim jurists, which is indispensable in the modern context, especially in Muslim-majority countries:

Izzi Dien and Uthman Abd al-Rahman Llewellyn advocate for utilizing Islamic jurisprudence to address environmental challenges. Dien emphasizes reshaping traditional fiqh, employing maṣlaḥah (utility), and treating environmental conservation as an ethical and religious imperative. In contrast, Llewellyn proposes adapting fiqh to contemporary needs through flexible interpretations and interdisciplinary collaboration, offering a solution within Islamic legal principles. Together, their approaches promote the integration of Islamic legal tools for effective and adaptable environmental solutions grounded in ethical Sharī‘ah principles. The growing interest in the Islamic legal aspects of environmental conservation reflects an evolving discourse that emphasizes the legal frameworks and interdisciplinary approaches. Scholars are increasingly recognizing the protection of the natural environment as one of the objectives (maqāṣid) of Sharī‘ah, as highlighted by a prominent Islamic scholar, Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī (1926–2022). Integrating environmental concerns into the Maqāṣid al-Sharī‘ah discourse is seen as a natural extension of the Islamic legal approach (Reference Kamali, Kamali, Bakar, Batchelor and HashimKamali, 2016). The utilization of land, water, plants, and animals is examined in light of the ultimate objectives of Islamic law (Reference LlewellynLlewellyn, 1985), displaying the flexibility of Islamic legal discourse and its practical application to environmental issues. The case of Indonesia serves as an interesting example, where ecological preservation has been given legal priority, reflecting the recognition of the importance of environmental conservation within the Muslim context (Reference Bagir, Martiam, Jenkins, Tucker and GrimBagir & Martiam, 2017).

4.1.4 Other Notable Contributions

Tariq Ramadan (b. 1962) advocates for a reformation of our modern unbridled economic outlook to preserve the environment. He emphasizes that “[n]ature suffers because of some forms of human behavior. This is mainly due to the way of life of some societies, the richest and most industrialized, which squander natural resources, pollute the planet, deplete the ozone layer, and produce astounding amounts of greenhouse gases” (Reference RamadanRamadan, 2009, p. 253). What is needed according to Ramadan is “to reform our general approach of problems, our ways of life, our modes of consumption, and our relationship to human solidarity; in other words, our fundamental education” (Reference RamadanRamadan, 2009, p. 253). Furthermore, according to Ramadan, “[t]he profoundly moral content of the Qur’an and the eminently ethical nature of the Prophet’s exemplary life provide the central elements for understanding the Islamic message” (Reference Ramadan, Bagheri and AlaliRamadan, 2018, p. 5). He emphasizes that “the Universe is in fact a Revelation that must be respected, read, understood, and protected, [we] should reform our minds and our attitudes toward nature, animals, and therefore also to an economy focused on economic production and the mad logic of economic growth at all costs to society” (Reference RamadanRamadan, 2009, p. 234).

A significant advancement in the Islam and ecology discourse matured in 1998, when forty Muslim scholars, activists, and politicians from around the world participated in a conference titled “World Religions and Ecology” organized at Harvard University. In 2003, the papers were put together in a book called Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. As of 2024, it is the most extensive collection of Muslim writings on Islam and the environment.

One of the most influential contemporary Islamic thinkers on animal rights is an Indian-born Bashir Ahmad Masri (1914–93). His book Animal Welfare in Islam, originally published as Animals in Islam in 1988 and later republished under its current title in 2007, represents a significant and valuable contribution.

M. Gade’s Muslim Environmentalism: Religious and Social Foundations (2009) explores historical and modern theoretical developments in Muslim environmentalism and pushes for environmental humanities. Gade is innovative in that, unlike other environmental scholars, she focuses on projecting Muslim environmentalism as a broad humanities discipline.

5.3.1 Unity (Tawḥīd)

Tawḥīd is the overriding theme of the Qur’an; it is the cardinal belief and, hence, the essence of Islam. Tawḥīd refers to the belief in the absolute Oneness and Unity of Allah (God), the Creator, Sustainer, and Controller of all things. Nawal Reference Ammar, Barnhill and GottliebAmmar (2001, Reference Ammar and Taylor2005, pp. 862–63) provides significant insights while explaining the tawḥīd and God–nature–human relationship concepts. She believes that tawḥīd must be understood at two different levels. In the first, tawḥīd declares the Oneness of God. For, the Qur’an says, “Say: He is Allah, the One and Unique. Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need; He neither begot any nor was He begotten; and none is comparable to Him” (Qur’an Ikhlās/112:1–4). Similarly, the Qur’an explicitly says: “There is no God but He, the Creator of all things” (Qur’an An‘ām/6:102). It exemplifies the recognition that there is one absolute, transcendent Creator of the universe and all it contains.

Tawḥīd holds profound implications for human behavior and thought, permeating various dimensions of personal and social life. This principle resonates within the realms of religion, ethics, politics, social dynamics, epistemology, and scientific pursuits, shaping the very fabric of Islamic thought and practice. Tawḥīd encompasses the episteme of monotheism and its application to diverse world systems and their interrelations. It recognizes the interconnectedness between the unity of God and the laws governing the universe.

The world witnessed remarkable scientific development during the golden age of Muslim civilization (eighth to thirteenth century). Arguably, tawḥīd played a central role in this regard as it guided people with rational inquiry about the natural world. Tawḥīd emphasized the unity of knowledge and encouraged Muslims to seek understanding in various domains, including scientific exploration. Islamic scholars during that time viewed scientific inquiry as a means to deepen their understanding of God’s creation and uncover the wisdom and order embedded within it. This perspective fostered a conducive environment for scientific progress. Scholarly studies (Reference CampaniniCampanini, 2015) recognize the diverse and complex nature of scientific contributions during early Islamic civilization, but an argument suggests that the Islamic perspective on the universe created a conducive environment, influencing scientists from diverse religious backgrounds and contributing to a distinctive era of progress not seen in earlier times.

Consequently, tawḥīd is at the heart of Muslim curiosity about the nature of the universe (Reference SardarSardar, 1985, p. 225, Reference Sardar and Masood2006, pp. 97–98; Reference Khalid and TimmermanKhalid, 2002, p. 338; Reference SaniotisSaniotis, 2012, p. 157). The absolute Oneness of God shapes Muslim understanding of nature or the universe. The Tawhidic worldview links nature with the divine but does not make it sacred in and of itself. To consider any creation as sacred is to associate something or someone with Allah, and that is the opposite of tawḥīd or the oneness of Allah (see Qur’an Ḥā Mīm/41:6; Qur’an Nisā’/4:36; Qur’an Luqmān/31:13; Qur’an Nisā’/4:48; Qur’an Fātiḥah/1:5; Qur’an Baqarah/2:22; Qur’an Isrā’/17:23).

Islam categorically opposes the notions of “nature as God” (pantheism) and “God in nature.” That does not mean, however, that nature is secular or profane; it is respected and valued in that it reflects the Will and fulfills the purpose of God (Reference Ammar, Barnhill and GottliebAmmar, 2001, p. 196, Reference Ammar and Taylor2005, p. 862). On many occasions, the Qur’an reveals nature as: “To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and all that is in between, and all that is beneath the soil” (Ṭāḥā, 20:6). And since on many occasions (see Qur’an Qāf/50:6–8; Qur’an Anbiyā’/21:30; Qur’an Ra‘d/13:2; Qur’an Nisā’/4:126; Qur’an An‘ām/6:73) the Qur’an speaks of nature praising God’s glory, power, and might. One verse clearly says, “To Him belong all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth. All are in obedience to Him” (Qur’an Rūm/30:26), and as such, nature should be respected and protected, not because it is sacred, but because it reflects God’s Unity. This unity in creation, as Ammar emphasises, is the second level of tawḥīd (Reference Ammar and TaylorAmmar, 2005, p. 863).

This perspective creates the duality of the Creator and the created, which renders the latter in Islam (e.g., nature, humans, animals, plants, and other creatures) equal and alike – “a unified class of God’s creation” (Reference LubisLubis, 1998; Reference Ammar, Barnhill and GottliebAmmar, 2001, p. 196). Moreover, Ammar further explains that the tawhidic viewpoint guides to three key points in understanding the relationship between God and His creation: “everything on earth is created by God, everything that God creates reflects His sacredness, and that everything on earth worships the same God” (Reference Ammar, Barnhill and GottliebAmmar, 2001, pp. 193–194). Hence, tawḥīd reflects the unity and interconnectedness of nature or natural order as an important and distinctive principle of ecology and environmental science (Reference Kamali, Kamali, Bakar, Batchelor and HashimKamali, 2016, p. 175).

Tawḥīd also emphasizes that a comprehension of the metaphysical aspects of the Creator has profound ethical ramifications, as humans are obligated to act morally in obedience to Him and fulfill His commands. The universe operates as an integrated and interconnected system, where various components work together in harmony and balance. This functioning unity reflects the doctrinal concept of the Oneness of God. Any disharmony, imbalance, or breach created in nature would directly affect our relationship with the Creator. In other words, God directs us to behave with nature so as not to cause any disorder or corruption on the Earth. Instead, become the guardians on the Earth while extracting benefits from nature. As a result, from tawḥīd emerge the concepts of khilāfah and amānah – which set out the purpose and nature of human conduct on the Earth.

5.3.2 Stewardship (Khilāfah)

Though there is interdependence and equality among the creatures of God, humans have a unique role and responsibility. The Qur’an says, “I am about to place a vicegerent on earth” (Qur’an Baqarah/2:30) and “it is Who has appointed you vicegerent over the earth” (Qur’an An‘ām/6: 165). These verses provide essential insights about humans’ place and position in this universe compared to other creatures. Islam thus entrusts all the affairs of the Earth to humans as the khalīfah (vicegerents) or custodians of the Earth. There are other interpretations of khalīfah (Reference Foltz, Runehov and OviedoFoltz, 2013, p. 670), yet this term has generally been understood as referring to human vicegerency, trusteeship, or ‘khilāfah’ on the Earth. However, khilāfah implies comparatively a greater sense of moral responsibility to look after the considerable panorama of God’s creation.

A khalīfah must hold trust in following God’s will. According to Muslim environmental ethicists (Reference ZamanZaman, 1986; Reference Bagader, Al-Sabbagh, Al-Glenid, Izzidien and LlewellynBagader, 1994), this principle implies, by virtue of specific authority and qualities (see Qur’an Baqarah/2:28; Qur’an Tīn/95:4; and Qur’an Ṣād/38:72), that God grants humans, individually and collectively, the role of trustees or stewards. They are entrusted with treasures to enjoy within restrictions: to manage them, to harness them, to improve and better them, and to preserve them for sustainable use. Any misuse and abuse of bounties from God is vehemently disliked and prohibited in Islam.

In sum, humans should consider themselves vicegerents, not dictatorial lords and masters of the planet. This has enormous environmental ramifications. Vicegerency or khilāfah is further guided by the principles of trusteeship (amānah), which embody a principle of accountability (ākhirah).

5.3.3 Trusteeship (Amānah) and Accountability (Ākhirah)

In the context of the concept of khilāfah, a related concept is amānah or trust. Amānah is interpreted in various ways by different scholars: some see it as embodying the notion of “religious obligation,” that is, the rights and duties toward both God and humanity (Reference KathīrKathīr, 1999, pp. 488–489); some understand it as referring to human reason and free will. The “trust” was accepted by humans when all other creatures refused it. Within the realm of Islamic environmental ethics, there is a broader understanding of “amānah” that extends to encompass the entire universe, emphasizing the inherent responsibilities that humans hold toward the natural world (Reference OuisOuis, 1998, p. 158). As stated in the Qur’an, God proclaimed: “We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to carry it and were afraid of doing so; but man carried it. Surely he is wrong-doing, ignorant” (Qur’an Aḥzāb/33: 72). Thus, God entrusted humans with this sacred obligation, which they accepted through a transcendent covenant between themselves and God. Consequently, humans have the capacity to live a life of righteousness or engage in wrongdoing since they possess the reasoning ability to discern between right and wrong. According to Reference SetiaSetia (2007), the term “amānah” is intimately connected to the concept of “amn” (security), encompassing both “its physical and spiritual dimensions” (p. 130).

However, humanity’s elevated status comes with a heavy moral burden. Humans are superior not because they have more power, control, or authority than other creatures, but because they are accountable to Allah. Accountability stems from the trust or amānah they have accepted (Reference HaqHaq, 2001b, p. 150).

This responsibility and accountability thus demand humans adhere to the best moral conduct and display the highest ethical principles. This ethical paradigm includes all generations, together with all other forms of life in the universe, emphasizing humans’ responsibility to all living beings. It is therefore incumbent upon humanity to make prudent use of the natural resources they have been given by applying the wisdom, insight, and knowledge they have been endowed with (Reference Mohamed and PetersMohamed, 2017). As part of their devotional obligations, Muslims are entrusted with caring for God’s creation, and “they will be held accountable” on the Day of Judgment (ākhirah) if they fail to do so (Reference Ammar and TaylorAmmar, 2005). This moral imperative instils in the adherents of Islam an essential component of activism that, if fully internalized, has far-reaching positive implications for ecological conservation. The principle of accountability determines a test for Muslims and is central to framing a pragmatic ethical system (Reference WersalWersal, 1995, p. 452).

God’s grace, like His sovereignty, extends beyond the riches of the natural world in this life to His final kindness for the faithful on the Last Day. Here, too, nature is used as proof of what God has promised in scripture: that all the dead will be resurrected, judgment will occur, God will be gracious to penitent sinners if they are loyal, and the righteous will inherit paradise forever (Reference GrahamGraham, 2016, pp. 120–122). Many verses of the Qur’an confirm that life is but a test (see Qur’an Baqarah/2, 155; Qur’an Muhammad/47:31). One of the most eloquent statements of this is found in Sūrah Mulk (67:2): “Who created death and life that He might try you as to which of you is better in deed”; on another occasion, the Qur’an speaks, “We shall subject you to ill and good by way of trial” (Qur’an Anbiyā’/21:35; see also Qur’an Hūd/11:7 and Qur’an Kahf/18:7). This is further supported by a portion of a ḥadīth, where Abū Sa‘īd Khudrī reported that the Prophet Muhammad said, “The world is sweet and green (alluring), and verily Allah is going to install you as vicegerent in it in order to see how you act” (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 49, Ḥadīth 99, Reference Muslim2007, p. 112); in another ḥadīth, the Prophet Muhammad stated: “Each of you is a shepherd and will be answerable for those under his care” (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 67, Ḥadīth 5182, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, p. 81).

Consequently, in Islam, humans have a dual relationship with nature. On the one hand, they are custodians of nature, yet they are also its users. Many verses of the Qur’an eloquently utter: “Have you not seen that Allah has subjected to your service all that is in the heavens and on the earth and has abundantly bestowed upon you all His bounties, both visible and invisible?” (Qur’an Luqmān/31:20); “He it is Who made the earth subservient to you. So traverse in its tracks and partake of the sustenance He has provided” (Qur’an Mulk/67:15); “He has subjected for you the night and the day and the sun and the moon and the stars have also been made subservient by His command. … And He it is Who has subjected the sea that you may eat fresh fish from it and bring forth ornaments from it that you can wear. And you see ships ploughing their course through it so that you may go forth seeking His Bounty and be grateful to Him” (Qur’an Naḥl/16:12–14).

This dual role of khalīfah as trustee and user of the Earth is “unique in rights as well as in responsibilities” (Reference KulaKula, 2001) and summarizes the Islamic ecological ethic (Reference ZaidiZaidi, 1981 and Reference Dutton and HaleemDutton, 1998). Reference GadeGade (2019, p. 154) emphasizes the impact of unseen factors on human actions; religion connects the unseen, such as the fate of the deceased, to environmental justice, providing practical implications for this world.

5.3.4 Natural Disposition (Fiṭrah)

The principle of fiṭrah in Islam reflects living in a natural and inherent state of order, forming an integral part of the religion known as dīn al-fiṭrah (Reference Chishti, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinChishti, 2003, pp. 67, 77–79; Reference Khalid, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinKhalid, 2003, p. 315). It describes an original natural state, pattern, or pure state into which humankind and all other creatures were brought into being, which is “by nature submissive (muslim) to God” (Reference GrahamGraham, 2016, p. 123). Embedded in this original natural pattern operate divine norms or Sunnah Allah (Qur’an Aḥzāb/33: 64), which serve as unchanging principles that shape the world, while human behavior determines the distinction between good and evil. These actions have consequences, not only in the afterlife but also in the present world. Therefore, any imbalance or interference leads to malfunctioning in humans and the nature of which they are an integral part. In order to express the inherent nature of humanity within the universe, individuals must acknowledge their innate disposition and the structured harmony upon which the cosmos is founded.

The key verse of the Qur’an in which fiṭrah occurs tells us: “[T]urn your face to the true Faith and adhere to the true nature on which Allah has created human beings. The mould fashioned by Allah cannot be altered. That is the True, Straight Faith, although most people do not know” (Qur’an Rūm/30:30). This is supported by several statements by the Prophet Muhammad, including “Every child born is born in a state of fiṭrah” (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 23, Ḥadīth 1385, 1997, p. 267). The Qur’anic verse (Qur’an Rūm/30:30), therefore, taken together with other verses that speak of Allah’s creation (e.g. Qur’an Raḥmān/55:3-5), provides deep insights into the eco-ethic of Islam (Reference Khalid and HaleemKhalid, 1998, pp. 21–31, Reference Khalid, Foltz, Denny and Baharuddin2003, p. 315, 2007, pp. 131–133). Therefore, individuals are admonished against disrupting or altering this inherent, primordial, unchanging pattern of the natural disposition of humanity and the universe, which displays harmony, equilibrium, and interconnectedness.

5.3.5 Balance (Mīzān)

The universe embodies a system of well-knit design, characterized by a harmonious and balanced arrangement, and a flawless order where everything is precisely measured. Numerous verses of the Qur’an emphasize that this universe is defined by a dynamic and perfect equilibrium or balance (mīzān) often referred to as “the principle of mīzān” (Reference Khalid and TaylorKhalid, 2005, p. 881). Mīzān is an overarching principle: it signifies that there exists a balance among different but interconnected components of the natural environment (Reference OuisOuis, 1998, p. 162; Reference Agwan, Singh and AgwanAgwan, 2000; Reference HaqHaq, 2001b, p. 153). The natural world’s innate disposition to submit to the Will of its creator, God, is seen as the source of such a balance.

The Qur’an says: “The sun and the moon follow a reckoning, and the stars and the trees all prostrate themselves, and He has raised up the heaven and has set a balance that you may not transgress in the balance, but weigh things equitably and skimp not in the balance. And He has set up the earth for all beings” (Qur’an Raḥmān/55:5–10). On other occasions, the Qur’an clearly states: “Who created the seven heavens one upon another. You will see no incongruity in the Merciful One’s creation. Turn your vision again, can you see any flaw?” (Qur’an Mulk/76:3). Similarly, the Qur’an speaks: “As for the earth, We have stretched it out and have cast on it firm mountains, and have caused to grow in it everything well-measured” (Qur’an Ḥijr/15:19).

What it brings is that God speaks in the Qur’an about a delicate equilibrium in which everything has been placed. This is significant because the balance underlies God’s wisdom, purpose, and power in the creation, as mentioned in Section 5.2. So, nature should be a source of inspiration and thought for “understanding the divine operation in creation” (Reference SaniotisSaniotis, 2012, p. 157), which is also a form of worship (Reference MatinMatin, 2010, p. 12).

The mīzān thus provides critical insights as guidelines for restoring the lost environmental balance. While giving a broader explanation of the principle of fiṭrah, Reference Khalid and KhalidKhalid (1992, p. 103) says: “We have lost the art of living in the fiṭrah state that is the natural state, in balance and harmony with creation.” The teachings of the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions consistently emphasize the importance of maintaining balance in human behavior and the responsible use of resources. These sources instruct individuals to avoid wastefulness, excess, and actions that disrupt (fasād) the established order in Creation, causing harm or destruction. The following explanation delves into further detail on this principle of balance and its significance.

5.4.1 Corruption and Mischief-Making on the Earth (Fasād fī al-Arḍ)

Fasād is a central concept in eco-Islamic thought. Fasād, which means “destruction,” “corruption,” or “mischief,” is often believed to extend to the environmental sphere as well (Reference Ammar, Barnhill and GottliebAmmar, 2001; Reference Haq, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinHaq, 2003; Reference SetiaSetia, 2007). It is the consequence of transgressing or violating God-ordained restrictions on human behavior. It is worth noting and significant that the scope of “Fasād” as elucidated in the Qur’an encompasses a multitude of mischiefs and disorders. These include acts of corruption, injustice, oppression, violence, deceit, dishonesty, exploitation, and other behaviors that disrupt the equilibrium and harmony of individuals and society. The Qur’an serves as a moral guide, urging individuals to uphold righteousness, justice, and ethical conduct, while cautioning against any actions that undermine the natural order and social cohesion. As such, the corruption inflicted by humankind in the form of environmental pollution and an ecological crisis is seen as the direct outcome of human behavioral or spiritual crisis, which resulted in his interference with and wrong approach to the natural environment. The Qur’an says: “Evil has become rife on the land and at sea because of men’s deeds” (Qur’an Rūm/30:41). Thus, to maintain the goodness on the Earth, to improve the harmony in the environment, and to balance the use and protection of natural resources, Islamic environmental ethicists assert that it is imperative to heed the divine admonitions. The consequences of making mischief on the Earth are clearly mentioned in numerous verses of the Qur’an: “Surely We destroyed the nations (which had risen to heights of glory in their times) before you when they indulged in wrong doing” (Qur’an Yūnus/10: 13); “Whenever he attains authority, he goes about the earth spreading mischief and laying to waste crops and human life, even though Allah (whose testimony he invokes) does not love mischief” (Qur’an Baqarah/2: 205). God explicitly warns people to “make no mischief on the earth after it has been set in good order” (Qur’an A‘rāf/7:56, 85). In other words, because humans have destroyed the natural order, humankind is on the verge of annihilation by the forces of nature.

5.4.2 Extravagance and Waste (Isrāf and Tabdhīr)

As mentioned in Section 5.4.1, the Qur’an defines various forms of mischief and harm that can result from imbalanced behavior and unethical actions. The Qur’an warns against disrupting the established order of creation. This includes avoiding actions that lead to the destruction of crops (Qur’an Baqarah/2: 205), dishonesty in measurements and payments, economic disparities, encroachment on the rights of others (Qur’an A‘rāf/7: 85; Qur’an Shūrā/26: 183), disruption of a just system (Qur’an Naml/27: 34), and committing crimes or corruption (Qur’an Yūsuf/12: 73).

In the Qur’an, specific references can be found regarding the consequences of wastefulness (tabdhīr) and extravagance (isrāf) in verses such as Qur’an A‘rāf (7:31) and Qur’an Shūrā (26:151–152). In Surah Isrā’ (17:26–27), individuals who partake in wasteful and extravagant behaviors are referred to as the “Brothers of Satan.” These verses highlight the spiritual and moral repercussions associated with such actions, emphasizing their negative impact.

It is noteworthy that Muslim scholars, including Muhammed Al-Jurjānī (1339–1414), have drawn a technical distinction between the two terms. Al-Jurjānī explains that extravagance involves spending wealth in a permissible manner but in excessive amounts, while wastefulness refers to spending wealth in impermissible ways (Al-Jurjānī, 1985, p. 26). This distinction provides further clarity and understanding of the concepts of wastefulness and extravagance as described in Islamic scholarship. Overall, it highlights their relevance to issues of overconsumption and excessive consumerism as prevalent in the contemporary world. According to the Qur’an, engaging in wastefulness and extravagance is morally corrupt and driven by evil. Taking care of these concepts has a direct impact on an individual’s spirituality. What is interesting here is that these concepts implicitly promote the idea of sustainable use of resources. For our discussion, it leads to the adoption of the principle of 3 R’s – Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse – which has far-reaching implications for the mitigation of the contemporary environmental crisis.

Animal waste has been utilized as a valuable resource since ancient times. In the context of biomass, it can be processed and converted into biogas, thereby serving as a renewable source of energy. Islamic fiqh literature provides detailed discussions on the utilization of animal excrement and other waste products (Ministry of Awqaf, 2005, p. 204), offering guidelines aligned with Islamic ethical and legal principles. By raising public awareness about the permissible use of animal waste in accordance with Islamic teachings, a comprehensive approach can be adopted. Furthermore, adopting various scientific methods becomes essential for harnessing energy from animal waste, producing organic manure, implementing water storage techniques, and employing other scientific approaches in a prudent manner. By integrating an ethical, legal, and scientific framework, a three-tiered approach can be employed to explore and implement sustainable practices in energy, natural resource management, and environmental preservation. By aligning with sustainable behavior, we can effectively address the scope of wastefulness and extravagance.

People who are wasteful and extravagant are damaging society and abdicating their human responsibilities toward society and the environment. Although Islam allows taking legitimate advantage of divine bounty (ni‘mah), any waste or excess is strongly forbidden in Islam and leads to punishment.

5.4.3 Beauty and Cleanliness (Jamāl and Ṭahārah)

On digging deeper into the Islamic ethical teachings, one finds that a significant feature reflected in the universe is divine “aesthetics” or “beauty” (jamāl). This feature seeks to attract human attention to divine beauty, for it is “equated with recognition of truth and perfection” (Reference Haider and SardarHaider, 1984, p. 179). The beauty found in Creation (Qur’an Naḥl/16:6, 8; Qur’an Luqmān/ 31:10; Qur’an Ghāfir/40:64; Qur’an Qāf/50:7-8) – on land, at sea, and in the heavens – confirms both God’s beauty and His power. Elsewhere, the Qur’an emphasizes the divine beauty of His names and attributes (Qur’an A‘rāf/7:180). Significant to this teaching, the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said, “Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty” (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 1, Ḥadīth 147, Reference Muslim2007, p. 178). It implies that faith in God’s beauty should encourage individuals to care about the beauty of their words and actions, particularly their concern with the environment as much as their physical appearance. Moreover, God’s bounties for humans are ṭayyib and tāhir (good, pure, and clean), for, like jamāl, God also favors cleanliness and purity (Qur’an Baqarah/2:222). Often, scholars fail to recognize that beauty and cleanliness have Islamic values for environmental preservation. The Prophet emphasizes cleanliness as an essential habit of the Muslim’s everyday life, because people’s health and efficiency depend on a clean and healthy environment. He said: “Cleanliness is half of faith” (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 2, Ḥadīth 1, Reference Muslim2007, p. 354).

Both the concepts of jamāl (beauty) and ṭahārah (cleanliness) hold significant implications for addressing environmental degradation, particularly in relation to air pollution and public hygiene (Reference Brimblecombe, Nicholas and BerryBrimblecombe, 1993, p. 78). Jamāl focuses on the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty within the environment, emphasizing the importance of maintaining clean air, pristine landscapes, and aesthetically pleasing surroundings.

Likewise, ṭahārah emphasizes cleanliness and hygiene, both at an individual and communal level. This encompasses proper waste management, the maintenance of clean water sources, and the establishment of sanitary conditions in public spaces. These were common practices employed during medieval Muslim civilization as discussed earlier. By promoting cleanliness and hygiene, ṭahārah contributes to the prevention of environmental pollution and the spread of diseases.

Moreover, jamāl and ṭahārah align with Islamic principles of stewardship (khilāfah) and the responsibility to care for the environment. By cultivating an appreciation for natural beauty and prioritizing cleanliness, these concepts encourage individuals and communities to adopt sustainable practices that minimize environmental degradation and safeguard public health.

Jamāl and ṭahārah also hold significant implications for addressing climate change. Embracing cleaner behaviors in individuals’ lives can foster a heightened awareness of controlling air pollution at both individual and community levels. As highlighted earlier, Islamic tradition strongly condemns the pollution of land, air, and water. In light of the recognition that maintaining a clean environment is an act of worship, Islamic teachings can serve as a catalyst for changing toward renewable energy sources and adopting eco-friendly practices that minimize the impact on climate change. Considering the current pace and relentless pursuit of economic development, achieving these goals may pose challenges. Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that while difficult, it is not impossible to align economic progress with sustainable practices.

5.4.4 Attitude toward Animals and Plants

In Islam, believers are constantly aware of the reality that their “Lord is the one who has given everything its form and guided it” (Qur’an Ṭāhā/20:50). This understanding underscores the recognition that all things, including living beings, have been shaped and guided by the divine. The Qur’an emphasizes that, like human beings as a community, God also created communities among animals and plants. In Surah al-An‘ām, He says, “There is no animal that crawls on the earth, no bird that flies with its two wings, but are communities like you” (Qur’an An‘ām/6:38). Not only that explicit references to animals and plants abound in the Qur’an. Six chapters of the Qur’an bear animal names: the cow (2), the cattle (6), the bee (16), the ant (28), the spider (29), and the elephant (105). To get a clear understanding of Islam’s concern with nonhuman beings, it is necessary to know Islam’s attitude toward the animal and plant kingdoms.

The Prophet Muhammad demonstrated a deep concern, care, and love for the kind treatment of animals, extending even to their slaughter. He explicitly prohibited any form of harm or cruelty toward animals and emphasized the need to protect their rights. These teachings reflect a compassionate approach toward animals and serve as a reminder of the ethical responsibility humans have toward the animal kingdom. Based on numerous ḥadīths, the Prophet Muhammad is seen developing a spirit of love and care toward nonhumans. He forbade any sort of ill-treatment of them, for instance beating and branding of animals on face (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 72, Ḥadīth 5541, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, p. 263), conscientious slaughtering (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 34, Ḥadīth 57, Reference Muslim2007, p. 293), killing them for sport and entertainment (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 72, Ḥadīth 5514, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, p. 254), cutting parts off while it is alive (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 72, Ḥadīth 5515, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, p. 255; Al-Nasāʾī, Sunan Al-Nasāʾī, Book 43, Ḥadīth 4447, Reference Al-Nasāʾī2007, p. 249), and making animals fight each other (Al-Tirmidhī, Jāmi‘ Al-Tirmidhī, Book 21, Ḥadīth 1708, Reference Al-Tirmidhī2007, p. 442). It is an obligation to feed an animal and to take care of it if it is ill. The Prophet Muhammad said: “A woman was tormented because of a cat which she had kept locked up until it died, and she was thrown into Hell for that. She neither gave it food or drink when she locked it up nor freed it so that it would eat from the vermin of the earth” (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 42, Ḥadīth 2365, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, p. 318; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 39, Hadith 2243, Reference Muslim2007, p. 101). Even when the Prophet Muhammad was asked, “Is there a reward doing good with these animals”? He said, “There is a reward in doing good to every living thing” (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 46, Ḥadīth 2466, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, pp. 273–273). This is further confirmed in another ḥadīth where God forgives a sinner after she waters a dog dying of thirst (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 59, Ḥadīth 3321, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, p. 322).

In addition, the Prophet Muhammad also stated: “Whoever kills a sparrow or anything bigger than that without a just cause, God will hold him accountable on the Day of Judgment” (Al-Nasāʾī, Sunan Al-Nasāʾī, Book 43, Ḥadīth 4450, Reference Al-Nasāʾī2007, p. 250); he prohibited the killing of certain animals, such as ants, bees, hoopoes, and sparrow-hawks (Dāwūd, Sunan Abū Dāwūd, Book 42, Ḥadīth 5267, Reference Dāwūd2008, p. 485). Therefore, Islam not only condemns to hell those who mistreat animals but also bestows extraordinary grace upon those who show them kindness (Reference Foltz and GottliebFoltz, 2006a, p. 152). Furthermore, within Islamic law, the discussion of animal rights becomes inevitable when considering conservation efforts. The notion of rights being restored to their rightful owners on the Day of Resurrection is expressed in the Prophetic tradition: “Rights will certainly be restored to those entitled to them on the Day of Resurrection, to the point that even the hornless sheep will lay claim upon the horned one” (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 45, Ḥadīth 60, Reference Muslim2007, pp. 447–448). This tradition highlights the profound concept of justice and the equitable recompense that awaits individuals in the afterlife. According to Llewellyn (2002, p. 233), “the rights of animals, huqūq al-bahā’im wa ‘l-hayawān, are enshrined as one of the categories of huqūq al-’ibād, the rights of God’s servants, that is, human beings and animals.”

Numerous ḥadīths explicitly speak of the value of plants and trees. For example, “[h]e who cuts a lote tree [without justification], God will send him to Hellfire” (Dāwūd, Sunan Abū Dāwūd, Book 43, Ḥadīth 5239, Reference Dāwūd2008, pp. 473–474). And, “[i]f any Muslim plants a tree or sows a field, and a human, bird or animal eats from it, it shall be reckoned as charity from him” (Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 41, Ḥadīth 2320, Reference Al-Bukhārī1997, pp. 293; Al-Tirmidhī, Jami‘Al-Tirmidhī, Book 13, Ḥadīth 1382, Reference Al-Tirmidhī2007, p. 173 ). The Prophet displayed so much respect for plants and trees that he said, “[i]f the day of resurrection comes upon anyone of you while he has a seedling in hand, let him plant it” (Ahmad, Musnad Ahmad, Book 32, Ḥadīth 2902, Reference Ahmad2001, p. 251).

These examples demonstrate that Islamic sources are abundant in terms of the status and attitude toward nonhuman beings, such that caring for them earns reward and cruel or ill-treatment earns punishment. Care for the environment, as exemplified by the Prophet Muhammad, was continued by his successors, and followed by others throughout Islamic history (Reference Ammar, Barnhill and GottliebAmmar, 2001, p. 202). The first caliph of Islam, Abū Bakr, provided specific instructions to the departing army to Syria led by Uthāma, which included environmental considerations. He emphasized the prohibition of uprooting or burning date palms, cutting down fruit-bearing trees, or slaughtering animals unless it was for consumption purposes. These instructions demonstrate a concern for environmental preservation and the responsible use of natural resources (Reference Al-ṬabarīAl-Ṭabarī, 1967 p. 227). Bringing dead land back to life through cultivation and plantation, as well as protecting the plant kingdom, are both valuable and rewarding services to humanity. However, the present scenario reminds us how much has been lost, as Muslims often do not abide by these regulations.

5.4.5 Respect for Water

Water is a blessing from God and is essential to life. The Qur’an sees it as the source of life and one of the most precious commodities essential to all: human, animal, and plant. The Qur’an emphasizes: “We made every living being out of water” (Qur’an An‘ām/21:30); and “in the water which Allah sends down from the sky and thereby quickens the earth after it was dead” (Qur’an Baqarah/2:164). There are numerous occasions in the Qur’an where God speaks of the importance of water. The Qur’an contains indirect directives emphasizing the importance of regulating water and waterways, treating them as shared resources. It says: “Let them know that the water should be divided between them and the she-camel, each availing their turn” (Qur’an Qamar/54:28).

The Qur’an does not provide specific guidelines on the utilization of natural resources. However, Islamic Law and the Sunnah offer valuable insights in this regard. A ḥadīth of the Prophet Muhammad sheds light on the importance of distributing natural resources in a socially beneficial manner. He stated: “People are partners in three things: water, fire, and pastures” (Dāwūd, Sunan Abū Dāwūd, Book 23, Ḥadīth 3477, Reference Dāwūd2008, pp. 129–130). This ḥadīth implies the significance of equitable distribution and responsible management of natural resources for the collective well-being of society.

Similar environmental concerns for water in many traditions of the Prophet Muhammad are even more striking. Excessive use, overconsumption, wastage, impairment, pollution, and destruction of water are seen as detestable and prohibited. Apart from being a necessity of life, water also has socioreligious importance in Islam. The Prophet Muhammad forbade his followers from wasting water, even when it was in plenty or being used for religious purposes (Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah, Book 1, Ḥadīth 424, Reference Mājah2007, p. 324). The Prophet’s approach and care for water aimed to discourage wasteful attitudes toward nature’s gifts (Reference Bagader, Al-Sabbagh, Al-Glenid, Izzidien and LlewellynBagader et al., 1994; Reference KulaKula, 2001). A frequently cited ḥadīth in Islamic environmental literature concerns water consumption: “The Messenger of Allah passed by Sa‘d when he was performing ablution, and he said: ‘What is this extravagance?’ He said, ‘Can there be any extravagance in ablution?’ He said: ‘Yes, even if you are on the bank of a flowing river’” (Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah, Book 1, Ḥadīth 425, Reference Mājah2007, p. 324). Similarly, polluting and contaminating water is forbidden. The Prophet Muhammad is said to have “prohibited urinating in stagnant water” (Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 2, Ḥadīth 94, Reference Muslim2007, p. 405); another narration says, “Be on your guard against three things that provoke cursing: easing in the watering places, on the thoroughfares, and in the shade (of the tree)” (Dāwūd, Sunan Abū Dāwūd, Book 1, Ḥadīth 26, Reference Dāwūd2008, p. 40).

Based on these examples, wastage and contamination of water is strongly prohibited in Islam. The ethics of water use in Islam is connected to Muslim faith, behavior, and responsibility, guided by Islamic teachings and regulations enshrined in Islamic Sharī‘ah. The aforementioned traditions clearly indicate Islam’s stance on the conservation and judicious use of natural resources, particularly water. That wastage or excessive water use is vividly detestable, even in circumstances where the loss or misuse of water may seem inconceivable.

Drawing upon the aforementioned ḥadīth (Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah, Book 1, Ḥadīth 425, Reference Mājah2007, p. 324), Reference Özdemir, Foltz, Denny and BaharuddinÖzdemir (2003, p. 9) poses a thought-provoking question: To what extent does the Islamic prohibition against extravagance and wastefulness hold even in situations where circumstances do not necessitate such actions? By contemplating this reflection, one recognizes the broader implications of Islamic teachings, advocating for a balanced and measured approach in various spheres.