The Ikhw?n al-Saff's (the Brethren of Purity) treatise, Fe kayfiyyat takw n al-hayaw-nat wa asntfih (The Case of Animals versus Man before the King of the Jinn), is an intriguing work, for while it directly addresses the question of animals' status, challenges prevailing preconceptions about nonhuman animals, and vigorously critiques anthropocentric attitudes, it inexplicably reconfirms humans' superiority to and authority over other animals. In a fictional legal suit brought against humans by nonhuman animals in the court of the King of the Jinn, the IkhwJn al-Saf ' allow nonhuman animal characters to refute all but one of the allegations made by humans about their own alleged superiority and dominion over nonhuman animals. Using both rational and scriptural arguments (derived mostly from the Qur'an), nonhuman animals persuasively make the case that none of the things in which humans take so much pride has any significant value. Wealth, fancy food and clothes, sumptuous houses and the like are only a source of stress and health problems and potential causes of eternal damnation. Rationality, which humans deny to other species, is not the monopoly of humans. Humans' reason, in fact, is even of little value as they fail to apply it to what truly matters, hence suggesting that even though humans may be intelligent, they have no or little wisdom. Having prophets and scriptures, another argument that the Ikhwan's human characters use to show their superiority, is only a sign of humans' misguidance and need for help, unlike other animal species who know and worship God without being in need for someone to remind them of that. In view of such persuasiveness, the outcome of the treatise is at once puzzling and disappointing. If the Ikhw n did not want to allow their nonhuman animals to win, then why allow them to make such a strong casem Various explanations have been offered to account for this unexpected outcome, but, in my opinion, none of them seem to account fully for it. Therefore, in this presentation, after a brief discussion of the content of The Case of the Animals, I would like to suggest a new solution to this problem.