These differences emerge clearly when we consider how

competing theories answer two distinct but related questions.

The first asks, What are the grounds for morally

limiting human freedom when it comes to human interactions

with nonhuman animals? The second asks, How

extensive are these moral limits on human freedom? The

former inquires as to why human freedom should be limited

at all when our actions affect other animals; the latter

challenges us to investigate how much our freedom should

be limited. Of the two questions, the first is the more basic,

for the reasons given in support of views about how much

our freedom should be limited ultimately are based on views

about why our freedom should be limited in the first place.

Two opposed possibilities present themselves as answers

to the first, more basic question. One possibility holds

that it is because of how animals themselves are affected or

treated by human agents that we should limit our freedom.

Viewed from this perspective, nonhuman animals are entitled

to a certain kind of consideration or treatment. Because

such views stress the idea that something is owed or is due

directly to these animals, it is common to refer to them as

“direct duty” views.

Human reproduction, birth, and death are part of this
grand divine scheme. Indeed, the Qur’anic view is that there
is even a preconception phase of human existence. The
Qur’an refers to a covenant between God and all the human
souls in the spiritual world before the creation of this world.
God addressed the souls collectively, asking them “Am I not
your Lord?” Without hesitation they all bore witness to his
Lordship, thus implying that God-consciousness is in the
very nature of the human soul.


The general implication of the Islamic teachings on the
meaning and purpose of life for reproduction and abortion is
clear. Although reproduction is not explicitly commanded
in the Qur’an, it does appear to be encouraged. A few
hadiths are explicit in their encouragement of procreation.
The most popular is the hadith that says that, on the Day of
Resurrection, the Prophet would be proud of the numbers of
his community compared with other communities and that
he admonishes his followers to reproduce and increase
in number.
One can say with certainty that the general religious
climate that prevailed in Muslim societies throughout the
ages even until modern times is one in which procreation is
encouraged and abortion very much discouraged. Cyril
Elgood observes that “in Islamic countries moral approval of
the practice of abortion was not readily given” (Elgood,
1970) although procurement of abortion, of which there
were many cases, was not necessarily considered a criminal
act. When he further says that “it is almost universally
recognized by civilized nations that abortion is to be practiced
only on the rarest of occasions” (Elgood, 1970, p. 240),
the majority of Muslims would make the spontaneous
response that this is precisely the Islamic view of abortion.
If Islam encourages the propagation of the human
species, then it also insists that every human life be given due
protection. (Abortion, however, is not considered the ending
of a human life unless ensoulment of the fetus has
occurred.) One of the fundamental goals of Islamic law is the
protection of human life. Islam takes a serious view of the
taking of human lives (except in cases that have been
legitimized by the Divine Law itself ) and of all acts injurious
to life. One of the five basic human rights enshrined in the
Shari_a is the protection by the state of every human life. The
Qur’an asserts that “whosoever kills a [single] human for
other than murder or other than the corruption of the earth
[i.e., war], it is as though he has killed all humankind and
whosoever has saved one human, it is as though he has saved
all humankind” (5:35). The phrase “other than murder” in
this verse refers to justifiable homicide, like self-defense and
capital punishment as prescribed under the Islamic law of
equality (qisas).