Modern Issues in The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of Jinn

For hatred is like the fire latent in stones that appears when they’re struck together: it lights the matches that can burn down houses and bazaars.”

-*The Case of the Animals Versus Man before the King of the Jinn*, page 142

### **Introduction**

   In today’s contentious world, some people often find that they are lost in the ways they reflect on themselves and extend their voice to others— creating a timeless lack of introspection and communication. This issue, as important as ever in an ever-connected and often-impersonal modern world, may be able to be answered by an unlikely source, a 9th-century Islamic treatise written in what is now Iraq. This treatise, *The Case of the Animals Versus Man before the King of the Jinn*, presents ideas that reflect modern societal issues concerning communication, power and unity. The historically complicated relationship between the Jinn and man as presented in the epistle demonstrates ideas about otherness that are still relevant today. These conflicts, stemming from otherness, are rooted in a foundation of narrative, communication, and power. This is reflected in the ancient text through the man’s utilization of language; with their sense of superiority within the power dynamics they established. In this way, man creates a strong  narrative that eventually convinces Bīwarāsp, the King of the Jinn, to rule in their favor. This aspect of language between the parties informs modern-day communication and uncivilized discourse through the venue of social media by means of emotional escalation, echo chambers, and hate speech. From Islamic spiritual texts to present-day social media platforms, humanity continues to grapple with hate, conflict, compromise, communication, and the power of language. By looking into the word of those that have gone before us, we can create a roadmap for how best to go forwards.

### **Jinn and the Adamites: An Example of Otherness for the Modern Reader**

   You may have only experienced ancient literature within the confines of a classroom, but tales of old often focus on deeper themes that remain relevant. Though our technology, sensibilities, and modes of communication change, the root of the human experience remains the same. Within the ancient tale *The Case of the Animals Versus Man* *Before the King of the Jinn*, the historically complicated relationship between the Jinn and man presented within the context of Islamic belief demonstrates ideas about otherness. “Otherness” refers to the division of people across ethnic or religious lines and often leads to stereotyping and injustice (Nasir). The Brethren of Purity’s explanation of the historic conflict between humans and the jinn shows a still-relevant example of othering and healing that can guide us in modern America.

    As society changes, our verbiage changes as well. Though commonly used in some circles, the idea of “otherness” is a modern word for a timeless concept. While they wouldn’t have used this verbiage, the relationship between the Jinn and the humans within the epistle demonstrates “otherness”. John Powell describes the concept of otherness well, writing that “when societies experience big and rapid change, a frequent response is for people to narrowly define who qualifies as a full member of society – a process I call “Othering” (Powell). Though his description is built on modern sensibilities, it applies well and provides further insight when situated within this ancient and spiritual setting. When focusing on the retelling of the Jinn and humans’ relationship, readers can observe the role of otherness as their relationship is marred by stereotyping, scapegoating, and hate-fueled violence. These injustices, as well as their consequences, continue to permeate our modern society. We look out of our windows to a world so often in protest and are reminded that the human condition has never changed and that through the ages we continue to struggle. By looking at otherness through these ancient lenses we can think critically about how we might begin to heal some of these scars and look towards a more unified future.

    Before considering the ancient words themselves, it is also important to understand the two groups that we are examining. Many of us better recognize jinn by the spelling genie. This word, genie, likely brings to mind a large blue shapeshifter with the voice of a famous comedian. However, in the context of *The Case of the Animals*, jinn must be understood from their Islamic roots and spiritual importance. In “The Politics of Muslim Magic” Perlmutter explains that “… jinn are an integral part of Islamic theology. According to the Qur'an, God created humans from clay, angels from light, and jinn from smokeless fire…” (Perlmutter). Jinn exist as a part of the spiritual realm and are attributed some additional power and control because of this (Perlmutter). When attempting to understand the human and jinn’s complicated relationship, it is important to understand both their similarities and differences. Jinn have some additional power and control, but they also share much in common with humans. *The Case of the Animals* asserts this when the Jinn Sage states, “It was we who covered the earth, land, and sea, mountain and plain. …We had kings, prophets, faith, and law” (131). This shows that foundationally, the jinn and the humans were the same. Jinn, like humans, “covered the earth” and had, “kings, prophets, faith and law” (131). These shared societal factors serve as a reminder that just as different groups in our modern world have essential similarities, humans and the jinn have many shared traits. The article "Of Children and Jinn: An Inquiry into an Unexpected Friendship during Uncertain Times" observes that “in many ways, jinn are the equivalent of humans in that they are endowed with passions, rational faculties, and responsibility for their own actions (El-Zein 1996). Biologically, they eat, grow, procreate, and die much like humans. Socially, they organize themselves as humans do (Westermarck 1926)...”(Khan). From their laws, leadership, and social structure to their passion and responsibilities Islamic jinn share much in common with humans. The role of the jinn as spiritual and powerful, but also socially organized and beings of free will, sets the stage for consideration of the adamites and the jinn’s conflict.
After establishing this foundation, one can observe that the narrow division and flattening that Powell describes when explaining “otherness” is present within the Jinn Sage’s description of the historic conflict between the jinn and man. The Jinn Sage states that “whenever the race of Adam recalled the enmity of the accursed Satan Lucifer and how he had cozened their forefather, their hearts filled with rage and rancour toward the jinni race” (136). The key ideas to consider are “enmity of…Satan Lucifer…” and “jinni race”. This demonstrates that even though the conflict, the “enmity”, was between Satan and man, man held all of the “jinni race” responsible for it (136). In both the ancient and modern world people sought justifications for why those different from them didn’t deserve to qualify “as a full member of society” (Powell).  This attribution of a single conflict to an entire group provided an unjust but present excuse and is, thus, a foundational element of othering. Unfortunately, this flattening, villainizing, and exclusion can be seen within our society today. Much like humanity today, the adamites ignored their majority shared traits and instead focused on a singular differential. Outside of the spiritual realm, this occurs every time a group is defined by singular, undescriptive, and negative ideas of a religion, race, nationality, or any other group trait. This stereotyping bleeds into scapegoating that continues to perpetuate negative othering for both the jinn and modern communities. In *The Case of the Animals* it’s observed that “when Cain killed Abel, Abel’s progeny blamed the prompting of the jinn and hated them yet more” (136). This demonstrates that the otherness between the jinn and man has active consequences, evidenced in the fact that jinn were blamed for events they had nothing to do with. The othering didn’t die or subside, but instead continued to grow and had continued consequences. This never-ending stereotyping also occurs in modern-day America.  A Muslim activist described her experience with this stereotyping saying “…when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, I was Afghan. When it invaded Iraq, I was Iraqi. Every time, I had to answer to all these identities” (Nasir).  In the ancient epistle and modern America, humanity has struggled to differentiate the individual from the whole and this has led to toxic injustice that holds entire groups, or perceived groups, responsible for a singular perceived threat.

    Conflicts that may start with kernels of truth are quickly blown out of portion and used to blame entire groups and justify hate. But looking at the conflict between man and the jinn is not just about observing the timelessness of othering. It is also about looking for a way forward. As the race and justice journalist John Powell observes, “othering is not about liking or disliking someone. It is based on the conscious or unconscious assumption that a certain identified group poses a threat to the favored group. …Overwhelmingly, people don’t ‘know’ those that they are Othering…” (Powell). Instead of simply looking out for our interests we must make a resolved effort to avoid othering in our lives. Othering often comes from a lack of knowledge, thus we must make triple the effort to know, to respect, and to invest. While the jinn and man did not have an easy reconciliation, religion eventually united them. I am not claiming that we must all convert to Islam to find unity, but I do believe that the similarity that man and the jinn found allowed them to heal their relationship. Thus, throughout our nation, our states, and our communities we should seek out similarities, and seek to better know and understand, those who are different than us. No one needs to be a villainized other. As *The Case of the Animals* warns, “hatred is like the fire latent in stones that appears when they’re stuck together: it lights the matches that can burn down houses and bazaars” (142).  If we allow hate to flourish we light the fires that have and will always destroy communities. Thankfully, we all have the opportunity to proceed with empathy and meet each other in our shared humanity.

### Power and Language: Power Dynamics and its Influence on Communication

    From bullfighting to potty-training a puppy, we are in constant exposure to the influence of communication and power dynamics that help mold the connection between man and animal. In The Case of Animals vs. Man before the King of Jinn, the use of power allows a sense of superiority that comes through Man’s argument and, thus, a power dynamic is manifested controlling the narrative. A sense of otherness is created between Man and Animal through this control, in favor of Man, and his argument is used as a means to separate the two. The use of this superiority that Man establishes from early in the story is one that gives leeway to his eventual victory over the animals. They are able to utilize the leverage given to them by their use of communication in order to convince the King of Jinn that the animal’s argument is invalid. Through Man’s strategic manipulation of their argument, they give their points substance, even if it be biased. Power dynamics shown in this story illustrate how they are used in contemporary society to control narrative. In similar way, this concept of controlling a narrative can be connected to the theme of Toni Morrison’ Nobel Peace Prize speech where she states how radical it can be by being what creates us in that very moment (Morrison). In today’s society, narrative becomes and important thing because it shapes the people and mentalities, we are exposed to thus influencing our sense of self.

    In The Case of Animals Vs. Man Before the King of Jinn, Man and Animal come together before the Jinn and plead a case unto them about the cruelties Man has made them suffer. Starting off the fable in this way allows readers to acknowledge that there is a power dynamic at play. The Animals have suffered at the hands of Man for so long that they deem it fitting to bring it up to the Jinn. When the animal’s complaints are brought up to the Jinn, there are moments in which the superiority of Man is doubted. At one point, the animal spokesperson states, “You should start from the recognition that all animals are the work of the wise Creator, who made them as he did with reason and purpose, to benefit them and protect them from harm. But this is grasped only by him and those who are well rooted in knowledge” (Goodman 194). Of course, through this, the animal’s spokesperson aimed to diminish the sense of authority that man had created for himself. Inka Nokso-Koivisto mentions in his review of the fable by Lenn Goodman that what the Brethren intended by giving animals the ability to speak is to ‘find a way of getting outside oneself, beyond the constructs of the familiar culture and even the shared biases of humanity (Nokso-Koivisto). Through the comparison of their physical traits and allowing the animals to share the ability of speech, a challenge to the othering Man pushes onto Animals is confronted and used against them in their own argument.

    This allows us to see the use of power dynamics within the fable and shows us how Man intends to use the narrative he has created to keep Animals where they are. In linguistic research, Michael Foucault mentions that “power is not a thing, an institution, an aptitude, or an object…. But something which circulates, something which functions the form of a chain.” (Kucherenko 95-96). This formation of a chain can be seen in the unification of the seven men that argue for Man’s case. From the beginning, man states, “Once again, we will show that the highest animals verge with the lowest rank of human beings…” (Goodman 63). It is said that power and oppression are like two sides of the same coin. And in the consistent presence of power, there is an increase of oppression. Through their use of words, man pushes a narrative that allows them to take seat as the superior beings therefore making acceptable their actions towards the Animals.

Similarly, this attempt at superiority is seen in our contemporary society through the uses of the different forms of communication. Through social media to our local news outlets, we allow narratives to control how we accept information, much like the King of Jinn. These different sources use their way of communication to create power dynamics and allow us to believe one to be more superior than other. This same concept can also be used in more controversial contexts like racism, sexism, and homophobia where there is a narrative created to think one party is superior to the other. Overall, we feed off a world that creates a reality based upon narrative. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to even distinguish the good and bad. Using these power dynamics and form of communication in The Case of Animal vs. Man Before the King of Jinn, Man creates an example of what we are constantly met with in our daily lives.

### From Treatise to Twitter: Escalation, Echo Chambers, and Effect in Argument

    Within *The Case of the Animals Versus Man before the King of the Jinn*, as the two parties argue against each other, their arguments grow to become more exclusionary, eventually reaching a state of non-agreement that can only be resolved by the king of the jinn interfering. Whilst the two arguing parties never devolved entirely into hate speech and separation, they likely would have if the king of jinn was not a mediating party to prevent this. The tactics and flow of the argument that the animals and humans go down should be seen as a warning for modern-day argument on discourse, especially on contentious platforms of modern discourse, such as social media, which lack this moderation. As a primary example from *The* *Case of the Animals* of this potential degradation of argument, later within the argument, when speaking for the animals, the mule becomes enraged and starts to verbally assault humanity’s character with vindication. He speaks to the king of Djinn, arguing:
“Your Majesty, if you consider how dense, vulgar, uncouth, and foul-mouthed humans are, you’ll be amazed at how little they discern their own odious ways, vicious traits, depraved characters, and vile actions, their manifold barbarities, corrupt notions, and conflicting dogmas” (119).

    This outburst comes only after a lengthy discussion of ethics and slavery within the world of humanity. This discussion remained logical, but tension slowly built as the animals attest how they are subjugated by humanity. This building of tension is recognized as “escalation,” a term within argument that relates to our modern day, as we see plenty of escalation on social media, as these platforms and their anonymity breed a lot of tension and emotional discourse. While it may seem that at first the mule is simply employing emotion to strengthen his argument, there is proof in close reading of the text that the mule was using exclusionary tactics to create a rift between the two parties, surely inciting escalation. The scholar Sara Tlili reveals that in her close reading of the epistle, the mule is using an intentionally deceitful interpretation of the Qur’an to support his argument. Shortly after his discussion on slavery and subjugation, the mule makes the argument that “God laid down the earth to all creatures, ‘wa’l-arḍa waḍaʿahā li’l-anām’ (Q. 55:10), proposing that the word ‘anām’ means ‘animals and plants’. The mule appears to imply that humans have no right to lay exclusive claim to God’s care and compassion” (Tlili 58). With this realization, it becomes clear that the mule’s use of emotion in his argument is purely an exclusionary tactic employed to invoke the rage of the humans and attack their character, since he suggests they are unworthy of God’s earth at all. Just as the mule intends to stir up the argument with his impassioned speech, social media users do the same. As Constance Duncombe analyzes in her essay on the discourse dynamics of popular social media website Twitter, she states that “users employ Twitter to both represent emotions and also provoke emotions, which can play important roles in the escalation and de-escalation of conflict” (425). Like the mule, users of Twitter today engage with the website to provoke emotion, usually in impassioned arguments like a debate between the superiority between man and animal, creating exclusionary groups (“us” against “them”) to escalate a conflict. Duncombe continues, explaining that emotions on Twitter are “easily accessible and socially acceptable to express when faced with negative representations of oneself” (419). With this framework, it is easy to see why the mule would become so enraged—the negative portrayal of itself as an animal led it to escalate its anger, affecting the argument and creating a more negative environment. This is also why the mule attempts to return this negative representation by attempting to devalue the human’s claim to God’s land. With this transcendental framework of escalation, it becomes possible to see how ancient debates and modern-day arguments on social media use the same dynamics of discourse—dynamics that are just as important to understand and know the dangers of today as they were in the ancient epistle.

    In both the epistle and the modern day, another essential function of the impassioned and emotional discourse the is the advent of the “echo chamber,” a concept in discourse “where users are surrounded by peers with similar leanings, and thus they get exposed, with a higher probability, to similar contents” (Cinelli 3). In such a scenario, people with like-minded opinions often close off the potential to new concepts or understanding the other side of an argument, due to only staying within the boundaries of their own opinion. However, the danger of echo chambers comes from their effects of unnaturally accelerating discourse, as “an echo chamber can act as a mechanism to reinforce an existing opinion within a group and, as a result, move the entire group toward more extreme positions” (Cinelli 1). When this mechanism is enacted, an argument essentially becomes closed off, not allowing for any further actual discussion or resolution. This is exemplified in *The Case of the Animals*, as the human and animals become increasingly more adverse against each other (especially after the mule’s outburst), as the pig and rabbit continue attacks of character against the humans (120-121), derailing any progress towards a resolution. This echo chamber effect forces the King of Djinn to call a respite, asking “judges, jurists, scholars, and thinkers” (127) to join him to help further the debate, since mechanics of escalation and echo chambers had halted discussion. The king’s vizier assures the reader of this, saying that this argument is a “fraught and momentous case, high contentious and deeply problematic” (127). The important connection between the epistle and modern-day social media comes from this notation of mediation. In the court-like form of *The Case of the Animals*, the king of jinn was able to squander out escalation and echo chambers before they got too out of hand, but in today’s social media, a place where nearly everyone is independently represented and anonymous, there is no mediation. Imagine if the animals and man were simply debating against each other: this makes it much more pertinent to understand the mechanics that can cause argument to approach hate speech and exclusion. This is the environment of social media.

As can be seen, escalation and echo chambers can negatively affect argumentation, as exemplified in warnings by *The Case of the Animals,* with these warnings extending into modern-day social media. However, this begs the question: what is the relevance and importance of protecting the sanctity of discussion on social media? Surprisingly, it is of the upmost importance. In our day, social media is often heralded as a tool with the potential to connect people across the world—across cultures and opinions, but if caution is not taken to preserve the civility of discourse, the very opposite effect is achieved, instead. In an article by Claire Cain Miller, she argues towards this exact unfortunate scenario, claiming that “social media, like Twitter and Facebook, has the effect of tamping down diversity of opinion and stifling debate about public affairs. It makes people less likely to voice opinions, particularly when they think their views differ from those of their friends” (¶ 2). Here, she is off-handedly referring to the effects of echo chambers, which run rampant in social media platforms. Through these, social media often times generates less diversity, only creates divisiveness and promoting groups of interest to be pitted against each other, not unlike the humans and animals from the Brethren’s ancient tale. Returning to Tlili’s reading of the text, this idea of tampering down diversity is represented quite brazenly in the epistle. As she simply points out, “human beings are not one among other animal species. Rather, humans stand alone as a separate class with its own subcategories, whereas all other animals are lumped together in one group that is assumed to be more or less uniform” (53). Essentially, the entire process of the grouping of animals and humans into “animal” and “man” is already an exclusionary device that degrades the opinion of the individual. Surely, in the great debate before the king of jinn, the opinion and view of every diverse animal cannot be conveyed by this one group (echo chamber, even). When this concept is extended to social media, it is only amplified by the anonymity of these platforms, and it is extremified by the managers of these platforms, who tweak “their algorithms to show us more content from people who are similar to us” (Miller **¶** 4). This function of their platforms, created to generate more interaction, is merely creating more echo chambers. If social media distributors continue to work their platforms and algorithms like this, social media will be no bastion of interconnectivity—it will only be an anonymous, decentralized hub of echo chambers where individuals are taught to stick to their own values and lash out against those who are different, escalating into hate speech and disdain. *The Case of the Animals* displays an argument on the edge of becoming hate speech and violence, and the devices and tactics that brought the argument there should be studied, worn about, and taught against. Instead, social media encourages these tactics to breed more attention. Unlike the court in which the animals and humans argue, social media platforms are far more unstable—the anonymity and encouragement of exclusion and polarization incentives escalation, and unlike the ancient epistle, social media companies shall be no king of jinn—they will not be a mediating force to step in to stop this discourse from self-destructing. No, they will only profit from it, as the disdain begins to seep into the offline world.

### **References**

Brethren of Purity, The. *The Case of the Animals Versus Man before the King of Djinn*. Translated by Lenn E. Goodman and Richard McGregor, Oxford University Press, 2014.

Duncombe, Constance. "The Politics of Twitter: Emotions and the Power of Social Media." *International Political Sociology*, vol. 13, no. 4, 2019, pp. 409-429*. ProQuest*, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/politics-twitter-emotions-power-social-media/docview/2364266328/se-2, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ips/olz013.

Cinelli, Matteo et al. “The echo chamber effect on social media.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 118,9 (2021): e2023301118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2023301118

Ian Richard Netton. Muslim Neoplatonists : An Introduction to the Thought of the Brethren of Purity. Routledge, 2002. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AutType=shib&db=nlebk&AN=676370&site=ehost-live.

Jasmine Linabary, Ph.D. “Negotiating Power in Groups.” Go to the Cover Page of Small Group Communication, https://smallgroup.pressbooks.com/chapter/power/.

Khan, Naveeda. "Of Children and Jinn: An Inquiry into an Unexpected Friendship during Uncertain Times." Cultural Anthropology, vol. 21, no. 2, 2006, pp. 234-264. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/children-jinn-inquiry-into-unexpected-frien dship/docview/213112386/se-2, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/can.2006.21.2.234.

Kucherenko, Svetlana N. “Power in Communication: Revisiting Power Studied.” Topics in Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 1, June 2016, pp.92-110. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1515/toppling-2016-0007.

Perlmutter, Dawn. “The Politics of Muslim Magic.” Middle East Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2, Spring 2013, pp. 73–80. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=858 45491&site=ehost-live.

Powell, John a. “US vs Them: The Sinister Techniques of 'Othering' – and How to Avoid Them.” *The Guardian*, Guardian News and Media, 8 Nov. 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/08/us-vs-them-the-sinister-techniques-of-othering-and-how-to-avoid-them.

Nasir, Noreen. “'Othered' in America: An Old Story, Still Playing out Daily.” *AP NEWS*, Associated Press, 3 Feb. 2020, https://apnews.com/article/us-news-ap-top-news-ut-state-wire-ca-state-wire-immigration-8e395030626323f75349215706a9001e.

Miller, Claire Cain. “How Social Media Silences Debate.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Aug. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/upshot/how-social-media-silences-debate.html.

Toni Morrison – Biographical. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2021. Sat. 13 Nov 2021.<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1993/morrison/biographical/>

Tlili, Sarra. “All Animals Are Equal, or Are They? The Ikhwān Al-Ṣafāʾ’s Animal Epistle and Its Unhappy End.” *Journal of Qur’anic Studies*, vol. 16, no. 2, June 2014, pp. 42–88. *EBSCOhost*, doi:10.3366/jqs.2014.0148.