Considering Islamic Environmental Ethics

Lynn White and Islamic Environmental Ethics Faruk Rahmanovic, Ph.D.

1

Since Lynn White’s 1967 essay, The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,1 religion

has commonly been perceived as either the historical source of much of the modern

environmental crisis, or as negatively impacting modern attitudes towards that crisis.

Consequently, religious ethics have generally been excluded from active and positive

participation in the philosophical realm of climate change discussion, despite the fact that they

play a part of ethical structure for the majority of people across the world.2 However, White’s

criticism was directed not at religion as a monolithic whole, but rather at a particular Christian

reading of the Biblical tradition.

The present analysis aims to demonstrate that White’s argument, regardless of its validity

vis a vis Christianity, cannot be applied to religion as a whole, and to Islam in particular. Further,

the analysis will demonstrate that Islamic environmental ethics is an effective model through

which to consider and present ethical solutions to modern environmental issues.

White’s Argument

Lynn White’s essay considers the historical development of science and technology in the

Judeo-Christian West, in order to arrive at the source of the human objectification and

instrumentalization of nature, which he claims has led to the present ecological crisis. White

finds the source of the crisis in the Biblical notion of the human being as supreme in creation,

solely endowed with intrinsic value, while the rest of the universe is created only for human

utility and pleasure.3 He further traces the roots of the crisis to the Church-sponsored destruction

1 White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis [with discussion of St. Francis; reprint, 1967].” Ecology

and Religion in History. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. 2 The Global Religious Landscape. Pew Research Center. December 18, 2012. Accessed on 8/23/2014.

https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/ 3 White, Lynn. Pg. 7


2

of pre-Christian animism, and the reduction of nature from a sacred to profane status; an

objectification that allows for its intrinsic devaluation – a point on which he is in agreement with

S.H. Nasr, in the latter’s Man and Nature.4 White posits that this irreverent view of nature was

later coupled with the scientific and technological progress, where the Baconian notions of

scientific knowledge, defined as power over nature, have led to the destruction of the

environment through its instrumentalized treatment. He concludes that, in regards to the present

crisis, “[C]hristianity bears a huge burden of guilt.”5

Although White’s argument focuses on the Western, Judeo-Christian religious

worldview, his proponents have unfortunately, and quite indefensibly, extrapolated the

conclusions to “religion” in general, and “Western” Abrahamic religions in particular. Though

White’s argument may be sound in regards to the Judeo-Christian worldview (at least in a

particular historical and exegetical sense), the overgeneralized claims of his proponents

erroneously attempt to include other religions under the same umbrella – including Islam.

White’s Argument and Islam

Islamically, all of creation – sentient or not – is considered to be a product of the

Creator (i.e. “God”),6 and serves the purpose of worshiping that Creator by its very existence.7

Consequently, from the Islamic perspective, every atom has been created with a specific

purpose, and has inherent value.8 The human role within that creation is posited as one being

4 Nasr, S.H. Man and Nature. London; Unwin Paperbacks, 1988. Pg. 55. 5 White, Lynn. Pp. 7-9. 6 Malik, Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam. English Translation of the Meaning of Al-Qurʼan: The Guidance for Mankind. Houston, TX: Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 2002. [Henceforth referred to as Qur’an] 1:2, etc. ALSO Deen, Mawil Y. Izzi. “Islamic Environmental Ethics, Law, and Society.” In This Sacred Earth. Ed. Roger S. Gottlies. New York:

Routledge, 1996. Pg. 165. 7 Qur’an. 2:116. ALSO Deen, Mawil Y. Izzi. Pg. 165. 8 Qur’an. 44:38-39.


3

among many, differentiated primarily by the presence of intellect,9 which serves to grant the

human being a greater number of obligations, and a somewhat increased number of rights.10

That is to say, humanity is not the supreme creation of the Creator, in the sense that the

universe exists for its service; rather, mankind is an advanced part of the creation, and holds a

place within it.

The story of human creation itself, from the Christian and Islamic perspectives, offers a

clear – if subtle – difference in the conception of man and his role. White notes, according to the

Biblical account, that upon his creation, Adam named all things and thus established his mastery

over them.11 This act of naming things relates the purpose of their existence to man himself (the

one who names) – which necessarily entails that the value-component of that relation is based on

the (instrumental) value man derives from it. Thus, the act of naming is an act of establishing the

value of what is named, in terms of its value to humanity.

Islamically, Adam was taught the names of all things by God (the one who names), and

was thus established as a servant of the Creator, and given a place among the creation.12 By the

Islamic account, man was informed (or educated) about the rest of creation, and thus also about

the “objective” relation of all things to their Creator and to himself. This entails that the value

component of the human-to-creation relation is found outside of humanity, its needs and desires,

as it is not based on value to humanity, but rather its value to God. Given that the Islamic value

9 Islamically, humanity is not the only creation that possesses a soul or awareness. Humanity is considered as the only creation with intellect and reason, at least to the extent that they can intentionally overcome instinct, as well

as grasp and deal with complex problems – including those purely theoretical. 10 Islamically, one’s obligations are proportional to one’s potential, while some rights may be based on fulfillment

of obligations – which all non-human creation does by default. 11 White, Lynn. Pg. 7. 12 Qur’an.2: 31-33.


4

of creation is independent of humanity, it negates White’s charge of Christian instrumental view

of nature – at least as stemming from this particular source. It further ensures that the rights and

values of creation are mandated and protected by the same source that establishes human rights

and values.

This analysis bears out through the theological accounts employed in the two faiths.

Biblically, man plays the role of an autonomous steward, which allows him the ability to

independently administrate – a notion further supported in the Christian West by the ability of the

Church to create rules and laws that can replace or supersede those of the original texts.

Islamically, on the other hand, man is granted the title of a caliph (vicegerent), which limits the

scope of human power by inherently placing humanity under the sovereign authority of the

Creator, who alone is considered to have autonomy and sovereignty. That is, humanity cannot

autonomously administrate, but is beholden to immutable laws of the Creator; moral laws

external to themselves. This limitation is further supported by the religiously-legal inability of

any Muslim individual or state to legitimately alter the core framework of law, as outlined and

limited by the Islamic primary sources.

What this distinction presents, is the inability of White’s criticism to apply to Islam in the

same way that it does to Christianity. While other arguments might be raised against the way in

which Islam understands environmental ethics, the account offered by White simply cannot find

adequate purchase because of the absence of elements critical to that argument.

With White’s charge against Christianity deflected from the Islamic account, the analysis can

now turn to Islamic notions of environmental ethics, starting with a brief overview of the

predicates upon which Islamic Environmental Ethics is built, namely Islam and Islamic Ethics.


5

This is necessary, since, unlike the more common Western philosophical approaches where

particular conceptual elements are effectively atomized and considered as standalone wholes,

Islamic philosophy relies on a holistic (bottom-up) approach – building upon itself to produce a

coherent whole.

Islamic Ethics

Islam, insofar as the primary sources are concerned, developed over a 23-year period

(610-632 CE). It considers itself to be the final word of God. Islamic primary sources consist of

the Qur’an13 and the Hadith (best be understood as “The Way of Muhammad”).14 From these

primary sources emerges a legal and moral framework encompassing the sum total of human

action, as well as a science of jurisprudence that concerns itself with moral/legal interpretations

for the particular application and adaptation of law within the full context of circumstances.15

Islamic ethics are not solely based on divine command theory, though they are thusly anchored

in certain particularities of the framework. The core of Islamic ethics is based on the distinction

between goodness and evil. The goal and obligation of Muslims is to encourage goodness

(ma’rūf) and discourage evil (munker).16 What distinguishes these terms from simple divine

command theory is their definition, which relies upon the trifecta of human decency, deliberation

of reason, and divine injunction, acting in conjunction, to either affirm or reject an act.17 As a

13 Islam’s “Holy Book,” considered to be the immutable word of God and to have undergone no alteration since its

initial revelation. 14 Hadith consist of accounts of Muhammad’s actions, sayings, advice, rulings, etc. Since their composition into

assorted collections in the 9th century, they too have remained unchanged (at least in terms of the accepted sahih

collections). 15

This process, commonly called ijtihad allows for new rulings to be made in new cases, new contexts, and for new

issues – e.g. digital piracy, surrogate pregnancies, etc. 16 Qur’an. 9:71

17 Lane, Edward William. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Beirut: Librarie du Liban, 1968. Pg. 2850; ALSO


6

result, the combination allows for a flexibly-contextual understanding of right and wrong –

thought still dependent on the kinds of axiomatic, core principles, based on the circumstances

and the particular individual, or community, or state in question.

The primary importance of this field is the framework and rational analysis which it

provides for the consideration of human actions, as well as the malleability it embodies. The

understanding of the moral/legal scale it employs serves a key role in understanding Islamic

ethics and its application on Islamic environmental ethics. To that extent, we will briefly note

that all human actions fall on a quintet-partition moral scale as follows:

1. Mandatory/Necessary

2. Desirable/Supererogatory

3. Neutral

4. Undesirable

5. Forbidden/Prohibited

Actions are, by default, considered neutral. It is only in light of particular (primary source)

rulings, or other pertinent information, that an action gains a positive or negative moral value.

Goodness and evil are umbrella terms that contain a great number of other (more

specific) terms, which serve to precisely delineate right from wrong within a general or particular

framework. For the purpose of the later environmental ethics analysis, the term Ẓulm must be

introduced. Although commonly understood as “injustice” or “oppression,” its core meaning is

“To put a thing in a place other than its rightful place,”18 and it is a primary subsidiary of evil.

Izutsu, Toshihiko. Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʹān. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1966. Pg. 215. 18 Lane, Edward William. Pg. 1920.


7

Although seemingly innocuous, the misplacement it refers to is not of one’s socks or car keys,

but primarily the misplacement of the rights of others.

Humanity, according to Islam, has a series of instructions regarding rights and

responsibilities, which can be broken down into two general categories: 1) Human relation to

God and, 2) Human relation with the rest of creation. These instructions are then to be filtered

through the aforementioned quintet of moral categories, in order to ascertain the manner and

degree to which the commands ought to be applied, and finally arrive at the implementation on

personal, communal, state, and global levels. However, fulfilling the rights of the Creator in no

way serves to make up for the failure to fulfill the rights of all other beings. Moreover,

Islamically, God may choose to forgive the sins against Himself, but not the sins against others –

as forgiveness belongs to the primary wronged party.19 Islamic primary texts are replete with

these principles.20

The rights of others are not limited only to one’s immediate community or to one’s

immediate time period – directly or indirectly. In this sense, a Muslim has an obligation to all

people, everywhere, and at all times. That is to say, any act which causes “evil,” regardless of the

target and the time of the effect (immediate or in 100 years), is prohibited. This principle, of

course, relies on the interaction between the effort to understand, and the potential to do so, in

order to derive a moral value. Since a person is only responsible for that which is in their power,

19 Al-Ghazali. Ghazālī's Book of Counsel for Kings. Tr. F. R. C. Bagley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. Pg. 13. 20 El-Munziri, Zekijjudin Abdu-l-Azim Ed-Dimiški., comp. Muslimova Zbirka Hadisa: Izbor. 3 Vols. Translated by Šefik

Kurdić. Zenica: Kuća Mudrosti, 2004. Vol. 3. #1836. Pg. 292. [Henceforth referred to as Muslim]

“He [Muhammad] said: The bankrupt among my followers is the one who will arrive on the Day of Judgment with [obligatory] prayers, fasting, and alms, but he insulted one person, lied against another, ate [misappropriated] the possessions of a third, spilled the blood of a fourth, and harmed yet another. Then, his good deeds will be distributed to the wronged parties. And when his good deeds are gone, and he has not returned what he owes [as their right], their bad deeds will be taken, and heaped onto him; and he will be thrown into the fire [hell].”


8

the key feature here is the effort made to arrive at the right conclusion, to the best of one’s

ability.

Islam and the Environment

Unlike some Christian denominations, Islam allows for the possibility of man-made

wholesale, destruction of the environment – i.e. climate change. In this way, the notions of

goodness and evil take on a concrete meaning in terms of the outcome of human actions. The

Islamic position on the environment takes place in two related spheres. The first one deals with

the rights of flora and fauna, and the other with the order of the created universe. As noted above,

all creation has its own intrinsic value, as well as a purpose for existence that is independent of

humanity. Humans, as a created element of that universe, are granted the right to make use of

other created elements for their own benefit – a fact which Islam considers a blessing bestowed

upon humanity. In this, humanity is not unique, as other elements of nature also rely on each

other for their own survival and flourishing. Part of this blessing is that, as noted, such use is not

the raison d’être of the creation. That is to say, the rest of creation has a purpose unto itself, of

which utility to humanity is but a part. Thus, humanity is given a loan – a sort of right to use that

which belongs to another (i.e. to God) – and is expected to treat the things on loan with great

care. To do otherwise would be to show ingratitude to the owner – which is the literal translation

of the term kufr – the root word of the term “infidel.”21

This notion of care for the environment is further supported historically in the earliest

practice, by Muhammad’s establishment of hima (protected natural areas/national wildlife

refuge) in Medina, and its later expansion by the second Caliph (Umar ibn Al-Khattāb). The

21 Lane, Edward William. Pg. 2620.


9

hima was a place where hunting, foraging, woodcutting or other “invasive” practices were

prohibited; animals were free to roam and plants were free to grow. Similar ideas were also in

use across the later Islamic world, in places like Damascus, or in Cordoba, where the city

integrated landscapes and nature into the urban environment from the start.

The notion of care for the blessings granted to humanity, even extends into the sphere of

warfare. Thus, the killing of animals and destruction of plants is specifically prohibited, even in

war, even if doing so would grant an advantage. This prohibition was reinforced by noting it as

part of the pre-battle address given by the general, where the destruction of the environment was

noted as forbidden right alongside the prohibition on the murder of civilians, etc.22

The Qur’an also frequently uses the process of plant growth as a “sign” and a

demonstration of the Divine presence, power, and knowledge.23 In a more metaphysical sense,

the notion of plants, as well as environment, is constantly used in conjunction with the notion of

Heaven (jannah) – the term which literally translates into “garden.” Consequently, it is not hard

to understand the importance of flora in the Islamic context; it constitutes a source of food, of

enjoyment, of divine signs, and that which is necessary for human survival – the use of which has

been granted to humanity in good faith, as a part of (rather than apart from) that greater context

in which humanity is located.

The environment itself is Islamically considered as a sign of the Divine presence, and

includes not only the Earth, flora, and fauna, but also the universe as a whole.24 A number of

22 It should be noted that the commanding nature of such an order plays an important part of the Classical Arabic

language, especially in terms of jurisprudence and extraction of legal rulings. 23 Qur’an. 36:33, etc. ALSO Lane, Edward William. Pg. 131. 24

Qur’an. 36-37-40.


10

verses in the Qur’an deal with various elements of the universe as “signs,” and the universe itself

is posited as having been created in a sacred balance.25 The destruction of that balance, in any

form, can be conceptually reduced to the notion of forcing chaos in place of order. As such, it

constitutes evil and injustice (ẓulm). Destruction of plants and animals leads to the destruction of

ecosystems, which damages the environment in which humanity and other creation resides, and

thus damages the potential of the people and communities living in that area – where these

communities are both human and animal types. Thus, such destruction harms others, and the

world as a whole. This process, as noted, stands in complete opposition to the imperatives of

goodness in action in the foregoing sections.

In this sense, the order of the universe also carries the connotation of justice from the

goodness/evil distinction. In terms of the environment, these implications further stress that all

creation should be free and made able to fulfill its role – whether predator, prey, or otherwise.

Human interaction should fit within this system and can avail itself of the products of the system,

so long as it does not destroy it. Thus, hunting deer for food, or wolves for fur (clothing), is

permissible – but only within the limits which preserve the general ecological balance, as well as

satisfying a legitimate need that cannot otherwise be met. Consequently, hunting a species to

extinction is outright prohibited, as is any action which leads to the destruction of ecological

balance – whether by hunting, unsustainable urban expansion, overuse of resources, etc.

Any abuse of the environment, whether of the living entities such as people, animals and

plants, or non-living entities – like water or other resources – is considered the creation of chaos

where balance should reign. Consequently, it is a form of evil (munker). However, Islamic

25 Ibid. 7:56.


11

notions of what constitutes abuse are rather sensitive, as the following Hadith will serve to

clarify:

“It is narrated that God’s Messenger [Muhammad] appeared while Sa‘d was taking the ablutions. When he

saw that Sa‘d was using a lot of water, he intervened saying: ‘What is this? You are wasting water.” Sa‘d

replied asking: “Can there be wastefulness while taking the ablutions?” To which God’s Messenger

replied: “Yes, even if you take them on the bank of a rushing river.”26

It is important to note two things about this example. First, the ablutions are a necessary

prerequisite of a mandatory act – namely the Islamic five daily prayers. Second, Muhammad’s

retort categorically prohibits the abuse of a resource, even where it is plentiful, free, and its use

causes no harm to the resource, or the environment. Thus, the notion of abuse becomes redefined

as the use of any resource beyond that which is necessary. Taken in the context of the preceding

understanding of rights of humans, animals, and plants, it becomes clear that, if abuse in a way

that causes no harm is prohibited, then abuse in a way that is/may be harmful is significantly

more problematic. Such an act would constitute a form of evil insofar as it harms the creation,

and more specifically injustice insofar as it displaces the rights of other beings, as well as

disrupting the balance and harmony otherwise present – transgressing on the rights of creation

and of Creator alike.

Islamic Environmental Ethics, however, is concerned not only with the prevention of

future harm. It is also engaged in all aspects of human activity, through the use of the quintet of

moral scale noted above. The aforementioned flexibility of this approach makes Islamic

Environmental Ethics a highly useful tool in considering environmental management and the

present environmental crisis.

26 Ozdemir, Ibrahim. An Islamic Approach to the Environment. Via: Musnad and Ibn Maja Hadith Collections.


12

Application

Islamic Environmental Ethics is applicable particularly in considering the development of

science in general, of new technologies, or new understanding of the effects and scope of old

technologies. Islamic ethics strives to constantly reevaluate the moral validity of ongoing or

future projects, by assimilating new information into the moral equation. New information may

have no new bearing on the project, may constrain the scope of the project in order to mitigate

the negative effects to a manageable size, or may even outright prohibit a project – if the

consequences are dire enough, or no methods of mitigating the effects to a manageable size are

available. Similarly, new information may lead to green lighting a project which had been

sidelined, by providing either a means of management of the negative effects, or by uncovering a

method which bypasses the effects altogether.

In certain circumstances, it is possible that the new information would ordinarily lead to

the prohibition of a project, yet the already-present and ingrained aspects of that project cannot

be simply abandoned, due to the necessary services the project provides. In such a case, the

resolution is found in the principle of necessity (dharūra), which stipulates that, when a thing

becomes necessary for survival, even when it is otherwise morally prohibited, it becomes

permissible – but only in the necessary amounts.

For example, the use of gasoline/diesel-powered vehicles has become so standardized

that the information about the pollution they cause cannot be used to simply ban them outright.

To do so would cripple economies, disable emergency services, and generally prevent the

functioning of a society which is already dependent upon those means of transportation. On the


13

other hand, simply going about using these resources as before its dangers became known, is not

an option, given the now-known destructive effects of such resources on the global ecosystem.

In such cases, necessity allows for the continuation of the activity, but morally

necessitates two things in order to preserve the moral validity of the action. First, it requires that

the harmful activity be reduced to a degree which is necessary, and so limit the negative effects

as much as possible. Second, it requires that one turns their time, attention, and resources to

finding either an alternative means of providing the same service in a non-destructive manner or

finding ways to mitigate the destructive parts of the existing activity, in a way that will eliminate

or reduce its harmful effects to manageable levels.

Thus, the Islamically correct course of action would likely be first to limit vehicle use so

that at least the majority of use would be for purposes which are categorized as necessary.

Second, it would require research into alternative means of transportation, or non-polluting fuels,

or means of negating the pollutants in the fuel. As soon as the research yielded verifiable results,

it would have to be implemented – while at the same time discouraging or outlawing the use of

polluting sources of transportation in a way that would be viable for the scale on which the

project was taking place. Finally, the Islamically moral course would also demand that the

Islamic community undertaking this project work on a global level, and in partnership with all

other willing nations that utilize the same polluting methods, in order to achieve the maximum

influence of the corrective process.27

27 This step is Islamically necessary, as Islam considers itself to be universal, and understands all “evil” everywhere

to be a problem that Muslims should seek to address – even more so when the impact of the action is global.


14

Conclusion

While White’s arguments regarding religious roots of the ecological crisis might be valid

in a particular Judeo-Christian context, the argument cannot simply be applied to religion as

such, and not to Islam in particular. Therefore, the casual dismissal of religious ethical ideas,

methods, and conclusions is not warranted on this basis. The foregoing analysis should clearly

indicate that Islam does have an established environmental ethics, and has had it since the start. It

is important to note that this discussion is not mere theory about the potential meaning of Islam

in the context of environmental ethics, nor is it an anachronistic projection of modern values onto

the system. Rather, it represents both a historical and contemporary understanding of

environmental ethics within the framework of Islamic theology, philosophy, and ethics. Beyond

the general restrictions and obligations, the Islamic moral/legal theory provides a means of

incorporating modern scientific elements into a coherent framework for addressing

environmental issues.

In this way, Islamic Environmental Ethics are not bound by the timeframe of their

introduction in the 7th century, are able to meaningfully adapt to new developments, and can

serve to provide a series of environmental guidelines going forward – particularly within the

context of broader Muslim population. Islamic Environmental Ethics also offer a flexibility of

approach, which enables users to tackle problems in progress, rather than merely laying out a

series of preventative “Do’s” and “Don’ts” without guidance on what to do once things have

gone wrong.


15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Al-Ghazali. Ghazālī's Book of Counsel for Kings. Tr. F. R. C. Bagley. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1964.

2. Asad, Muhammad. The Principle of State and Government in Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust,

1980.

3. Asad, Muhammad. This Law of Ours and Other Essays. Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1987.

4. Deen, Mawil Y. Izzi. “Islamic Environmental Ethics, Law, and Society.” In This Sacred Earth. Ed. Roger

S. Gottlies. New York: Routledge, 1996.

5. El-Munziri, Zekijjudin Abdu-l-Azim Ed-Dimiški., comp. Muslimova Zbirka Hadisa: Izbor. 3 Vols.

Translated by Šefik Kurdić. Zenica: Kuća Mudrosti, 2004.

6. Ez-Zubejdi, Abdullatif, comp. Buharijina Zbirka Hadisa: Sažetak. Translated by Mehmedalija Hadžicć.

Sarajevo: El-Kalem, 2008.

7. Izutsu, Toshihiko. Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qurʹān. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1966.

8. Kamali, Muhammad Hashim. The Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. 3rd. Ed. Cambridge: The Islamic

Text Society, 2005.

9. Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955.

10. Lane, Edward William. An Arabic-English Lexicon. Beirut: Librarie du Liban, 1968.

11. Malik, Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam. English Translation of the Meaning of Al-Qurʼan: The Guidance for

Mankind. Houston, TX: Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 2002.

12. Nasr, S.H. Man and Nature. London; Unwin Paperbacks, 1988.

13. Ozdemir, Ibrahim. An Islamic Approach to the Environment. 2002. Accessed from:

14. http://www.islamawareness.net/Nature/environment_approach.html

15. Schulze, W.; Schultze-Petzold, H.; Hazem, A. S.; Groß, R. “Experiments for the objectification of pain and

consciousness during conventional (captive bolt stunning) and religiously mandated (“ritual cutting”)

slaughter procedures for sheep and calves.” In. Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift (German veterinary

weekly) volume 85 (1978), pages 62-66 Tr. Dr Sahib M. Bleher. 1987. Accessed from:

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm

16. Ullah, Hamid. Muslim Conduct of State. Edited by Syed Mahmud-un-Nasir. Lahore: Mansoor Book House,

1973.

17. White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis [with discussion of St. Francis; reprint,

1967].” Ecology and Religion in History. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

18. Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Science (IFEES). http://www.ifees.org.uk/

http://www.islamawareness.net/Nature/environment_approach.html

http://www.islamawareness.net/Nature/environment_approach.html



http://www.ifees.org.uk/

http://www.ifees.org.uk/

Considering Islamic Environmental Ethics

Documents

Transcript of Considering Islamic Environmental Ethics