درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The present study aims to examine the ethical and jurisprudential aspects of animal rights in the context of war according to Islamic and Christian doctrines. This topic holds a significant ethical and legal position within traditions, reflecting different historical and cultural backgrounds as well as varied approaches to the issue. The primary research question is to analyze and critically compare Islamic and Christian perspectives on respecting animal rights during armed conflict, while also examining the related intellectual developments. The study aims to delineate the theoretical and practical frameworks of both religions in this field and to extract their points of convergence and divergence. The research methodology is based on a content analysis of sacred texts, jurisprudential and theological literature, and a descriptive-analytical review of the viewpoints of prominent thinkers from both religious schools. The findings indicate that within Islam, the killing and abuse of animals during war are strictly limited and only permitted in cases of necessity, with adherence to ethical principles. These teachings have demonstrated remarkable stability and continuity from the inception of Islam to the present. In contrast, Christian teachings have historically legitimized and, at times, mandated the killing of animals during wartime. Until the late twentieth century, the dominant Christian stance was not strongly protective of animal rights. However, contemporary philosophical and cultural transformations within Christianity have led to a fundamental reassessment and orientation towards the preservation and protection of animal rights in armed conflict. This study demonstrates that while Islam maintains a consistent theoretical and practical position, Christianity has undergone a significant historical evolution in its attitude towards animal rights during wartime.

Aristotle considers metaphysics a science that discusses being qua being (or "being insofar as it is being") and its essential attributes. Alongside "being qua being," he also speaks of absolute being. The multiple meanings of "being" in Aristotle's thought have led interpreters to diverse understandings of what Aristotle truly meant by "being qua being? "They would have disagreements. A disagreement that starts from ontology and impacts their theology. Among Muslim philosophers, Avicenna and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), and among Christian philosophers, Albert the Great(Albertus Magnus) and his student Thomas Aquinas, have commented on this matter. In Avicenna's view, what is meant by 'being qua being' is a universal concept that applies to all beings, including the Necessary Existent per se. Consequently, the Necessary Existent is part of the subject matter of philosophy. However, Averroes introduced the highest substance to explain "being qua being" and considered God the subject of philosophy. Consequently, he regarded the proof of God as part of the problems of natural science. In Albert the Great's view, "being qua being" is the simple existence as the first creation of God, and this simple existence is the subject of philosophy. In Thomas Aquinas's perspective, "being qua being," although the subject of philosophy, applies only to contingent beings, and God is the cause of this "being qua being." A comparative study of these disagreements and the reasons behind them forms the framework of this article.