ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM

Authors

  • Ismail Shahid MPhil Scholar NUML University Islamabad
  • Ayaz Mahmood PhD Scholar International Relations , Muslim Youth University Islamabad
  • Dr. Muhammad Asim Shahbaz Instructor Islamic Studies Department of Related Sciences University of Rasul, Mandi Bahauddin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63878/cjssr.v3i2.1300

Abstract

This article explores the foundations, development, and contemporary applications of environmental responsibility and ethics within the Abrahamic traditions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. By examining scriptural sources, theological interpretations, and legal frameworks, the study demonstrates that each tradition situates ecological care not as a peripheral concern but as an integral dimension of religious life. In Judaism, concepts such as bal tashchit (prohibition of needless destruction) and tikkun olam (repairing the world) embed ecological obligations in halakhic law. Christianity, while historically emphasizing dominion, has increasingly turned toward stewardship, with modern voices such as Laudato Si’ reframing environmental protection as a moral imperative. Islam, through Qur’anic teachings on ayat (signs of God in nature), the principle of khilāfah (stewardship), and prophetic traditions, establishes a comprehensive ecological ethic rooted in balance (mīzān) and trust (amānah).The article further examines comparative ethical frameworks, highlighting both shared principles and divergences in practical theology and law. It also investigates interfaith initiatives, policy influence, and future prospects for cooperation in addressing global challenges such as climate change. Ultimately, the study argues that the Abrahamic faiths, despite doctrinal differences, provide complementary moral resources that can inspire collaborative responses to the environmental crisis.

 

Downloads

Published

2025-06-25

How to Cite

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM. (2025). Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 3(2), 200-215. https://doi.org/10.63878/cjssr.v3i2.1300