The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of Jinn

Written by Carrie Marinoff, Jordan Dumstorff-Heien, and Faith Altieri

Edited by Jordan Dumstorff-Heien

## Introduction

“God is aware of the sound and open-hearted intent of the King’s resolve. His aid will endure success. To help the oppressed and free the enslaved is the best thanks for God’s blessings.” (Goodman and McGregor 129-130).

For centuries, humans and animals have cohabitated on Earth in a relationship that hasn’t always been fair. In *The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of Jinn*, the animals attempt to break away from their life of servitude and demand freedom from mankind, with the Jinn eventually ruling in favor of the humans. Applying older texts like these to current world issues like climate change, animal abuse, and deforestation can show how humans have not evolved, but instead have regressed into a servitude dependent society that they take no responsibility for. In the text, the humans prior to hearing the animal’s argument, believed their actions were justified through religion, science and philosophy, and were prepared to ignore their argument all together. After taking a step back and hearing the animal’s argument, the *Jinn* concluded that God would return them with wellness for their deed of letting the animals free. However, the *Jinn* ultimately decided it was impossible for them to release all the animals without facing consequences at the hands of other humans. As a society, humans are more than aware of the damage we are causing to the Earth, yet we have not changed our destructive ways, putting future generations in a compromising position of survival. Animals are suffering, our forests are being destroyed, and our ozone layer is diminishing. Without acknowledging our abuse of power, like that of the *Jinn*, there is no way for our society to move forward and correct our wrongdoings. In relation to *The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn,* how does the King and his court realizing they logically could not let all the animals escape relate to our use of the Earth and animals today?

## Animals in the Meat Industry

In *The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of Jinn*, the animals argue for liberation from mankind. The text indicates that these animals are built uniquely and divinely, created for independence and freedom. The ram presents its case before them and states: “They took our young and bound them hand and foot to be slaughtered and skinned, hungry, thirsty, bleating for mercy but unpitied, screaming for help with none to aid them” (*The Case*). For centuries man has taken animals and turned them to slaughter to feed the ever-growing population. The ram begs, "where then is their mercy?" (*The Case*) Look further at that question and evaluate where that mercy should land. “Humans have been consuming meat for as long as we can remember. Initially, meat consumed raw, and about 200,000 years ago, the first hearths were used.” (Worth) 200,000 years of meat processing has caused more damage to the ecosystem than the automobile industry. Repeating the ram's question, "where then is their mercy?" where is human beings’ mercy for the planet? As the population grows, more land becomes plowed to raise cattle. “Millions of acres have been plowed over for large, monoculture crop fields dedicated to feeding livestock” (Clean Water Action). Humans cannot remain content with what is already theirs. As stated in *The Case of the Animals*, “Human appetites and ambitions, by contrast, seem to know no limit” (*The Case* 15). There is no length mankind will not go in the name of greed. While the animals were arguing for humanity shown towards them and their kin, humanity for the planet now needs to be debated. The Earth has been used and abused with little to no reprimand for the damage that mankind has caused and deserves to be shown mercy and humanity.

Mankind has this leadership, dominion, and power over Earth that a sense of responsibility should come rather than entitlement. As stated in *Animals versus Man*, the Jinn understands that "humans are now dominant on Earth (*The Case* 20), meaning their responsibility is to control it. The text says that "if human exploitation of other species is wanton or cruel, it cannot be justified even by human worth — and least of all by the human potential for moral or spiritual purity and transcendence. For these would in fact heighten man’s moral responsibility” (*The Case* 53*).* Heighten man’s moral responsibility to care for and protect the gift of dominion that they were God-given, not abuse their power. Humans were given both land and animals and chose to exploit both. Humans have been using animals to destroy the ozone on a worldwide scale. According to the author of “Environmental impact of meat industry – current status and future perspectives,” Llija Djekic, "It has been confirmed that farms have heavier environmental loads compared to slaughterhouses and meat processing plants. Emission of methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from manure are the most significant environmental issues, together with acidification and eutrophication potential, and use of natural resources, namely water and energy" (Djekic 63). Nitrous oxide is the toxin most contributing to global warming, and humans are producing it at an exponential rate. The humans in *Animals versus Man* argue that God made them superior, and animals are simply God's gift to them for food and servitude. Exploring that argument, if nature is God's gift to mankind, how could humans neglect it to such an irrational extent? Not only is meat production not slowing down, but some people do not believe in the effects the greenhouse gas is causing. Climate change is not a top priority to the majority of people, and 10% of Americans do not even believe it is real, while 15% remain unsure. Scientists have stressed the importance of converting to a more plant-based diet for people's health and the planet's stability.

In the end, the case was resolved in favor of the humans. However, the ruling was not meant to rule humans completely over nature. It was said, "the aim of the Ikhwān is not to justify a tyranny over nature…rather, is to make clear that dominion imparts responsibility – for stewardship of nature and care" (*The Case*). Humans were never meant to be dictators of the land given by God. However, humans have abused their power for centuries. A study done in 2015 showed that meat production was projected to double by 2020 because of an increased per capita of global consumption of meat and population growth (Valiente‐Banuet, Alfonso, et al This intense growth is why beef and dairy farming produces the most significant amount of CH 4 from human-related activities. It is projected that by 2030 CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases from U.S beef production will be 5,000 million tons and 26,000 million tons worldwide (Valiente‐Banuet, Alfonso, et al). This is a man-made problem that was directly advised against. The humans were told not to be tyrants, and they were supposed to live harmoniously on Earth and use resources, land, and animals as they needed. However, humans have taken things too far. As the animals said, mankind is full of greed. Measures now need to be put in place to protect ozone layers after we over-produced and maneuvered our fields. The manure that litters the land "is typically stored in open lagoons susceptible to overflow during flooding or leakage due to faults. This releases harmful substances like antibiotics, bacteria, pesticides, and heavy metals into the surrounding environment” (Valiente‐Banuet, Alfonso, et al). Sustainable solutions and policies need to be enforced to create a sustainable supply chain.

## Animal Subserviance and Cruelty

One of the main themes of the text is the power construct held between the opposing species, with humans claiming superiority and rights over all and any animal species, making the act of mistreatment justified in their eyes.  One of the human orators even relates this thinking by saying, “Cattle did He create for you, whence you have warmth and many uses.... There are many other verses in the Qurʾan, Torah, and Gospels which show that they were created for our sake and that they are our slaves and we their masters” (Goodman and McGregor 104). By taking God’s word literally and manipulating it into benefitting the human motives, man goes on to believe that since animals are beneath them in status, they should have no rights or say in how they are treated. From the website article “Human-Animal: Hierarchies of Beings in Aristotle and Ecclesiastes,” this degraded treatment of animals is combated by the philosopher Ecclesiastes by saying, “This is problematic...Humans can ignore pain and suffering caused to animals since they are not equal beings and are thus undeserving of a respect for life” (par 2). In the present, humans continue to view animals as beings with no rights and treat them as if they have no meaning beyond man. By domesticating and forming bonds with animals, humans can pose their treatment as kind and caretaking, while still taking advantage of animals and hurting them. With the idea of a superior and lesser power construct between our two species, man will never progress into treating animals as equals who deserve better treatment and rights that parallel those that we get every day.

Among this uneven power construct between the species also lies the greater evil that is abuse towards animals themselves at the hands of man, which often is not given enough attention or awareness to. According to the article “Factors That Influence Personal Perceptions and Reactions to Animal Cruelty,” by Gergana Balieva and Ivanka Lazarova, “A range of studies have suggested that personal attitudes towards animals have been shaped by opportunities for human-animal interaction and relationship” (90). In this case, these personal attitudes towards animals are often cruel and heavy-handed treatment that should not be justified, paralleling how in the text man distinguishes the animals as lesser and are more than willing to mistreat the animals if it means benefitting their way of life.  Within the realm of creating bonds with animals and controlling them under disguises of domestication, humans often believe that this brings the power to them in forms of punishments meant to correct and enslave animals to their own accord. In Animal Versus Man, some of the main arguments the humans make towards the animals when it comes to controlling them, also contains connotations of abuse and misguided treatment of ill will, which is presented within the first chapter saying, “...soon began to meddle with the beasts and cattle, forcing them into service, riding them and loading them down with burdens, as in their former lands” (Goodman and McGregor 102). The use of the words “force” and “burden” exemplify the ill treatment man bestowed on animals from the beginning, when they were previously free and harmonious creatures. No dignified and mutual relationship should have pressure from one side to handle the other’s issues and tasks at hand, which can parallel issues in today’s time when reflecting upon the working relationship between man and horses, mules, or even sometimes more domesticated animals like dogs. With a ruse of taking care of animals and making them like family, we often believe we are carrying out actions that are better for the animals, but this isn't always true. Many animals today are being kicked, hit, spit on, and discarded by humans daily after these bonds are formed, sometimes with no good reason either. We continue to tear down animals and treat them like piles of trash, but what for?

As humans we seek companionship and love, and whether it is good or bad, sometimes these ideals we long for are forced on animals in the form of companionship, or mutually benefitting relationships with animals. Yet, with the key words being ‘forced’ and ‘mutually benefitting’, humans end up making mistakes and thus turn into treating animals with disrespect and harm. Donna Haraway’s work *The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness* references this idea by asking, “The question turns out not to be what are animal rights, as if they existed preformed to be uncovered, but how may a human enter into a rights relationship with an animal?" (53). Sometimes by forcing companionship onto another being, animal or human, we can still feel lost and inadequate, turning our feelings into dark and unforgiving forces. Animals are a lot to handle or take care of in the sense of domestication, and if certain individuals are not ready for that challenge, both species can end up unhappy and dissatisfied. From the text, the humans who arrive on the island want to force animals into benefitting creatures for humans, with no benefits for the animals themselves. The animals from the text reference how they would run from man and the turmoil being forced upon them, and when they would not submit to this unfair companionship, they would be beaten, bludgened, and tortured (Goodman and McGregor 107). This is a prime example of humans trying to coerce animals into a disadvantaged relationship, where if they do not follow rules set by their ‘master’, harm would soon follow because man could not find a balance of mutual agreement. Going into a relationship with another species when you have no good intentions or moral compass gives back bad energy towards the parties, making humans vicious and animals victims of a cause that could have been avoided if left alone, mirroring how it worked centuries ago and still to this day. By pressuring a relationship between the two of whatever nature, animals and their rights are stripped away morally and physically, making them beasts with no power to live how they want.

What people seem to forget at the end of the day is that humans are just animals ourselves, so the heinous acts against them should have no foundation for them to happen if we wouldn’t or can’t do them against other human beings. In well-known primatologist Jane Goodall’s Ted talk, “How Humans and Animals Can Live Together,” she highlights these similarities when comparing chimpanzees to humans by saying, “Unfortunately, they, like us, have a dark side to their nature. They're capable of extreme brutality, even a kind of primitive war. They are very territorially aggressive” (4:10). Referencing how humans behold ill intentions and malicious acts towards other humans, as well as animals, Goodall is saying that besides the obvious distinctions, humans and animals come from the same place and are not so different as one might think. In Animals Versus Man, the humans bring up the odd characters of some animals, such as a camel’s long neck and elephant’s giant ears, yet they fail to realize that humans are not perfect either (Goodman and McGregor 111-112). To another species, humans' skin or the growth of hair in particular places may seem odd, yet humans do not view each other as ‘beasts’ or ‘freaks’. Being as we are all unique in ways that benefit each species, the rights granted to humans should be synchronous to those given to animals. There are laws to protect humans from abuse and heinous treatment, but often enough, these laws are not protecting animals to the same degree because we view them as different and lesser than the rest. If we were to start looking at animal species from the viewpoint of being just like the average human being instead of creatures who are there to serve and provide for us, the tolerance of abuse they receive would start to bring attention to the bigger and darker picture that is life of domestication and companionship.

Animal Versus Man is full of examples of forced companionship and domestication against animals that play into our everyday life in society currently. Whether it is pressuring them to provide transportation, sustenance, or protection, we are taking advantage of animals and calling it a relationship, one in which abuse, and neglect often comes into play. From the beginning of time, we ranked animals as below us and this way of thinking has carried us through centuries with no end in sight. By manipulating animals into serving us as lesser beings, we are creating a social and power construct that is harmful to beings that are no different than us in the grand scheme of things. If we take a step back and play ourselves in the animals’ shoes, I fear that only then would we realize the turmoil and darkness we place on these poor creatures’ lives every day. A darkness that needs to be brought to attention and stopped once in for all.

## Climate Change and Species Extinction

Examining older texts like *The Case of The Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn* can give modern society a snippet of societal problems before the modern era. Drawing out information from old texts can also give readers an idea of how leaders acted then and can compare their responses to world leaders today. In relation to *The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of Jinn,* why does it make sense that our world’s leaders have continuously ignored the climate's cry for help, while hundreds of species are on the verge of extinction due to the Earth’s worsening conditions?

When comparing older texts to modern day issues in society, it is clear to see how issues we are facing today are not too different from those from centuries ago. *The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn* is a prime example of how the climate crisis and species extinction society is facing today stems from human’s long history of prioritizing themselves before the Earth and its needs. Only a page into the first chapter readers are struck with the reality of their use and abuse of animals; “Other animals—the wild asses, gazelles, and beasts of prey, wildlife and birds that had been docile and lived in peace and quietude in their ancestral lands—fled the haunts of men for far-off wastes, forests, mountain peaks, and glens.” (Goodman and McGregor 100). The diction used in this short quote from chapter one can very much represent today's majority of our world’s population's feelings toward the ongoing climate and species extinction crisis. Specifically, the juxtaposition of “docile and lived in peace and quietude,” next to “fled the haunts of men,” can show the reality of lives for wild animals as humans continued to expand. In his article “Beyond Species Loss: The Extinction of Ecological Interactions in a changing world” Alfonso Valiente-Banuet slams our overuse of the Earth and claims that our continuous destruction of animals natural habitats will eventually cost us, “In this situation the number of interactions disappearing due to the habitat loss can be assumed to be proportional to the number of species going extinct.” (2).   Through this short passage, readers can see the similarity in word choice compared to that of *Animal Versus Man*, specifically the use of “habitat loss” compared to “fled the haunts of men for far-off wastes.” The only difference between the two are that today, there is almost nowhere left for wildlife to flee to that is distanced from humans as we cease to continue our development of Earth's land.

While climate change was not yet a topic of concern centuries ago when *The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of Jinn* was written, the two topics of animal rights and Earth wellness go hand in hand. Today humans are well aware of the fact that the wellness of ecosystems determines the wellness and progression of plants and animals, yet we still treat the Earth as if it is ours, which is a topic very present in the story; “As far as we can see, you have no advantage to boast of but only groundless claims, baseless allegations, and bootless choler.’” (Goodman and McGregor 114). Here the animals are given the chance to make their argument against that of the humans. Before analyzing the diction, I think it is important to note how the animals never once attempted to claim superiority to the humans, rather stressing that they were equals. The humans' entire argument against the animals however, was that God made them in their “fair form” and animals were simply just human protectors and servants. The diction used by the animals in the previous quote, clearly represents how they do not view themselves as superior, but also want the humans to claim their equality and domestic use of animals proves their thoughtless claims of superiority. The use of “no advantage” can also relate to how in actuality humans could be labeled inferior to animals considering our way of functioning in life has started and largely relied on the dependence of animals. As humans we have claimed our dependence on animals, similar to the way the *Jinn* in the book, “This will give them a way to gain their freedom and escape this tyranny.” (Goodman and McGregor 128)...why have we not yet made the effort to preserve environments considering plants and animals must thrive in order for humans to thrive? Food sources for animals are very similar to that of humans as an abundance of species and natural resources allows for us both to coexist, yet we continue to deplete natural resources and produce harmful ones. In his article, “Humans Are Driving One Million Species to Extinction,” Jeff Tolefson explains scientists’ findings of our world assessment, claiming that,“agricultural activities have had the largest impact on ecosystems that people depend on for food, clean water, and a stable climate.” (3). While Tolefson makes a great point of claiming our dependence on activities that deplete our Earth, he does not include animals in the later half of his sentence and only notes that “people” depend on a stable environment. Tolefson may have had thoughtful intentions when writing his article to inform the public of the Earth’s fragile state, he is also ignoring that the needs and dependencies of animals is a large part of modern environmental issues as well.

Ignoring the issue of our environmental status is the single biggest issue our world is facing when addressing climate change, animal rights, and ecosystem destruction. Similar to that of *The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of Jinn*, modern humans have acknowledged all three of these issues, yet business as usual has continued for the majority of our world’s countries. After the *Jinn* concluded that animals were in fact being subjected to injustice at the hands of humans, they could not figure out a way to buy their freedom or release them, “When the race of Adam wake in the morning and find these beasts gone, fled from their lands, will they not be certain that this was not the work of humans nor planned by the beasts themselves, but surely by the wiles of the jinni?” (Goodman and McGregor 130). Here a philosopher assembled with the *Jinn*, explicitly states the issue we face today, the feasibility of completely changing our agriculture productions, expansion of housing and cities, and use of our environment as a whole. As far as we know there are no magical creatures, but as humans we have taken on the responsibility of not only caring for ourselves, but those that support us, which we have failed to do. In the aspect of the agriculture industry and ecosystem depletion, humans have blatantly acknowledged the issue, but have yet to make serious reform and continue the exploitation of animals with the highest value to us. In their article, “Biodiversity and species extinction: categorization, calculation, and communication,” authors Ester Turnhout and Andy Purvis explain how organizations with goals of a cleaner environment are well aware that a complete turn around is not feasible, however, scientists involved with the organizations suggest possible solutions to the issue. They claim the biggest issue we are facing today is the endangerment of more than a million species and the disruption it will cause to the functioning of our environment, “While a conception of biodiversity as species is arguably the most dominant one in traditional conservation science and policy, we have in recent years seen a diversification of concepts around biodiversity. One of these is the concept of Ecosystem Services that denotes the benefits that people derive from nature and the value they attribute to those benefits.” Here Turrnhout and Purvis are reiterating that humans inevitably care more for the nature that is of value to them. This is quite interesting as the nature we claim as valuable (meat, edible plants, fruits, veggies, and grains) cannot continue to produce in the quantities we need without a stable environment around them.

After taking these points into consideration, it is not only incorrect but ignorant to claim humans’ superiority to animals without acknowledging our inability to thrive without them. Environmental conservation is one of the hottest topics in media outlets, and every one claims that we are at risk of destruction and will soon not be able to reverse the damage we have caused. As media outlets, especially global news outlets like the video “How the Global Extinction Crisis is Linked to Climate Change,” by Global News reporter Jackson Proskow, have a large focus on the environmental crisis, and while it is great to bring attention to, news reporters’ biggest issue is not acknowledging the issue tied into the crisis of our inability to claim our dependence is ultimately what has caused the continuity of “business as usual.”

## Conclusion

The Jinn in *The Case of the Animals versus the King of Jinn* understood that there was no lodgical way for animals and man to live deatched from each other by granting the animals complete freedom. However, it was also stated that the humans were not suppoed to be tyrants over the previlage they were given. Humans were warned about the responsibility they must have with their power, yet years of abuse has cause the planet and society to suffer.

## References

Balieva, Gergana Nikolova, and Ivanka Lazarova. “Factors That Influence Personal Perceptions and Reactions to Animal Cruelty.” *Veterinarija Ir Zootechnika*, vol. 78, no. 100, July 2020, pp. 90–96. *EBSCOhost*, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=148422996&site=ehost-live.

Djekic, Ilija. “Environmental Impact of Meat Industry – Current Status and Future Perspectives.” *Procedia Food Science*, vol. 5, 2015, pp. 61–64.

Goodall, Jane. “How Humans and Animals Can Live Together.” *TED*, June 2007, www.ted.com/talks/jane\_goodall\_how\_humans\_and\_animals\_can\_live\_together.

Goodman, Lenn Evan, and Richard McGregor. *The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn: A Translation from the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity*. Oxford University Press in Association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2012.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. *The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness*. Prickly Paradigm Press, 2020.

“Human-Animal: Hierarchies of Beings in Aristotle and Ecclesiastes.” *Literature Essay Samples*, 15 Jan. 2019, literatureessaysamples.com/human-animal-hierarchies-of-beings-in-aristotle/.

McGregor, Richard J. A, and Lenn E. Goodman. *The Case of the Animals Versus Man Before the King of the Jinn: A Translation from the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity*. Oxford: Oxford University Press in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2012. Print

“The Meat Industry – Environmental Issues & Solutions.” *Clean Water Action*, 20 June 2019, www.cleanwateraction.org/features/meat-industry-%E2%80%93-environmental-issues-solutions.

Petrovic, Zoran, et al. “Meat Production and Consumption: Environmental Consequences.” *Procedia Food Science*, vol. 5, 2015, pp. 235–238., doi:10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.041.

Proskow, Jackson, director. *How the Global Extinction Crisis Is Linked to Climate Change*. *Youtube*, Global News, 2 Oct. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4JHvK-ds-w.

Tollefson, Jeff. “Humans Are Driving One Million Species to Extinction.” *Nature News*, Nature Publishing Group, 6 May 2019, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4.

Turnhout, Esther, and Andy Purvis. “Biodiversity and Species Extinction: Categorisation, Calculation, and Communication.” *Griffith Law Review*, vol. 29, no. 4, 2020, pp. 669–685., doi:10.1080/10383441.2020.1925204.

Valiente‐Banuet, Alfonso, et al. “Beyond Species Loss: The Extinction of Ecological Interactions in a Changing World.” *Functional Ecology*, vol. 29, no. 3, 2014, pp. 299–307., doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12356.

Worth, Maddie. “Environmental Effects of the Meat Industry.” *Landhealth*, Landhealth, 22 Apr. 2021, www.landhealthinstitute.org/single-post/2020/07/27/environmental-effects-of-the-meat-industry.