Text copied Link copied

Al-Fatawa – home

﴿ فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ﴾

Scholar
Search mode

Some scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) define man as a rational animal; what is your opinion of this definition?

Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : A questioner says: Some scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) define man as a rational animal; what is your opinion of this expression or this definition?

The Shaykh : It is the animal, meaning its derivation is from life, so in my opinion there is nothing in it to be mentioned or denied. The difference between man and the animal is speech; otherwise, the name "animal" encompasses both. This distinction is a natural one, but the fundamental distinction is by what man carries of faith in Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Otherwise, the disbeliever would be an animal like the mute animal that does not speak, as Allah (Mighty and Majestic) described the disbelievers with that when He said:
and eat as grazing livestock eatوَيَأْكُلُونَ كَمَا تَأْكُلُ الْأَنْعَامُ
[Muhammad 47:12]
and they enjoy themselves as cattle enjoy themselves.

The questioner :
They enjoy themselves and they eat. يَتَمَتَّعُونَ وَيَأْكُلُونَ
.

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner :
enjoy themselves and eat as grazing livestock eat يَتَمَتَّعُونَ وَيَأْكُلُونَ كَمَا تَأْكُلُ الْأَنْعَامُ
[Muhammad 47:12]
.

The Shaykh
and eat as grazing livestock eat وَيَأْكُلُونَ كَمَا تَأْكُلُ الْأَنْعَامُ
[Muhammad 47:12]
. As for the expression, I find nothing wrong with it; because there is a connection between man and the animal in that it has a soul and it has life. But it differs from it in that it is obligated and it is obligatory upon it to believe... So whoever disbelieves is an animal, even if he speaks.
Source www.al-albany.com

The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.

Similar fatwas