This article aims to identify the limitations of the current ethical framework of Islamic ecotheology, to justify why these should indeed be regarded as limitations, and to indicate possible pathways for the further development of the field. It should be noted that the aim of this article is not to reject ethics or deny the important role of environmental ethics in shaping Islamic environmental discourse. Rather, it argues that while ethical reflection is essential, approaching today’s ecological challenges from a merely ethical perspective is insufficient for generating new ideas or engaging meaningfully with contemporary debates about the future of creation. It is hoped that recognizing this limitation will help resituate ethics within a broader theological framework.

In the past few decades, Muslim scholars have sought to formulate an Islamic view of nature, and of the human–nature relationship largely in response to growing ecological concerns. Beginning with pioneering figures like Seyyed Hossein Nasr in the 1960s and expanding through the works of scholars like S. Nomanul Haq, Mawil Izzi Dien, Ibrahim Özdemir, Fazlun Khalid, and others, this field has established important conceptual foundations. The various approaches presented by Muslim scholars in response to contemporary ecological issues can be classified as “Islamic ecotheology” a field that includes theological reflections seeking to articulate Islamic perspectives on the relationship between God, humanity, and the natural world in the context of contemporary ecological crisis.

Today, Islamic ecotheology constitutes a substantive body of scholarship with its own terminology and internal coherence. However, this article contends that while Islamic ecotheology has made important contributions, it remains largely shaped by an ethical framework grounded in an underdeveloped understanding of the human being. This has given rise to a functionalist view that defines the human being primarily in terms of moral responsibility. This ethical framework limits deeper theological reflections on the ontological status of the human being in relation to creation and the divine. As a result, Islamic ecotheology has yet to develop a theological account capable of addressing the complex challenges of the twenty-first century. The Anthropocene, a new geological epoch proposed in the early 2000s that is defined by human impact on Earth’s systems, poses new challenges and questions for theological reflection, including within Islamic thought. The concept urges us to rethink not only human responsibility but also broader aspects of the relationship between humanity and the natural world. In other words, the Anthropocene has brought a paradigmatic shift in how we understand the relationship between human beings and the Earth. In its current form, as this article argues, Islamic environmental discourse is incapable of contributing to the overall theological task of reimagining the human–nature relationship in the Anthropocene.

More specifically, this article advances three claims:

It should be highlighted at this point that the field of Islamic ecotheology, as it has developed in international academic discourse, has been primarily shaped by a small number of contributors writing in English, whose works have developed its dominant conceptual vocabulary and general frameworks. While numerous scholars have written on Islamic environmental themes, sustained systematic engagement remains rare. Despite the growing body of literature, most contributions come from scholars who have authored only one or two articles on ecological themes, often without pursuing a comprehensive theological project. This fragmentation results in a scattered body of literature, marked by a lack of depth or continuity. As a result, it becomes particularly difficult to identify any figures who can be clearly entitled as ecotheologians in a sustained or systematic sense. This article primarily focuses on the works of scholars who have contributed to the field with a more sustained body of literature and played a central role in developing an Islamic ecotheological terminology, such as S. Nomanul Haq, Mawil Izzi Dien, Ibrahim Özdemir, and Fazlun Khalid. Other figures, such as Ziauddin Sardar and Parvez Manzoor, are referred to where they offer particularly significant contributions. Although Nasr was among the first to introduce ecological issues and concepts into Islamic thought with his foundational works, he arguably remains an exception rather than a representative example of Muslim ecotheological discourse. Unlike later Muslim environmentalists, Nasr’s arguments include a theologically grounded anthropology that is embedded in his comprehensive metaphysical system. Because of this exceptional status, he is not be the focus of this article, which examines the recurring themes and tendencies that shape the more representative body of Islamic environmental discourse. Although the reasons his metaphysical and anthropological direction has not been widely adopted within the mainstream discourse need further discussion, his perspectives remain essential for future constructive developments in the field.

This article is written from within contemporary Islamic theological discourse, adopting a critical and constructive perspective that remains open to dialogue with broader theological and interdisciplinary debates shaped by the Anthropocene. Methodologically, this study employs a critical—theological approach grounded in Islamic sources and discourse analysis, aiming to identify the key themes, corresponding arguments, and rhetorical tendencies of Islamic ecotheology and evaluate their relevance for contemporary theological reflection. While the central claim is outlined early on, the argument develops inductively: by critically examining the foundational concepts and dominant ethical framings of Islamic ecotheology, the article demonstrates that the discourse remains largely confined within an ethical paradigm centered on moral responsibility. As mentioned, the aim is not to dismiss the ethical contributions of Islamic ecotheology. It is to argue that the Anthropocene calls for a deeper theological framework that extends the existing discourse and is grounded in theological anthropology. I use theological anthropology here in its widest and most inclusive sense, referring to theological accounts of the human being in relation to God and creation. Even a minimal yet systematic formulation of such an anthropology would represent a significant step forward for Islamic ecotheology. However, such a framework is still largely absent in contemporary Islamic environmental discourse.

To develop the arguments explained, the article proceeds in three steps: first, it offers a critical overview of the current state of Islamic ecotheology, identifying the key themes and concepts in the field. Second, it explores the limitations of the dominant ethical–functional framework of Islamic environmental discourse and its rhetorical tendencies in light of the challenges posed by the Anthropocene. Third, as a conclusion, it outlines possible directions and shifts for advancing Islamic ecotheology by building on its existing foundations while addressing current deficiencies within today’s broader intellectual and planetary context.

Environmental movements that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century raised questions about the origins of the ecological crisis. Although early discussions on environmental concerns did not explicitly draw on theological or religious frameworks, as explorations of the root causes of the crisis deepened, the need for theological engagement became increasingly apparent (Öztürk 2023, 17). Particularly after Lynn White’s (1967, 155) thesis arguing that the root causes of the ecological crisis are predominantly theological, a wave of scholarly engagement began to explore how religious worldviews have shaped human attitudes toward nature.

In parallel with the emergence of global environmental awareness, environmental concerns within Islamic thought were first raised in the 1960s through the work of Nasr. Nasr was among the earliest intellectuals to address environmental degradation as both a philosophical and theological issue. His lectures delivered at the University of Chicago in 1966, later published as The Encounter of Man and Nature in 1968, marked a turning point in introducing contemporary environmental questions into Muslim scholarly discourse (Nasr 1968). However, for almost a decade after the publication of Nasr’s lectures, environmental concerns did not seem to appear as a central theme in Islamic intellectual discussions. In the 1980s and early 1990s, discussions of an Islamic conception of nature and the human–nature relationship were often situated within the broader context of the dialogue between religion and science. This framing reflected efforts to reconcile Islamic metaphysical teachings with emerging ecological challenges from an epistemological perspective (Wersal 1995, 456–58).

This decade also witnessed the emergence of a Qur’anic terminology aimed at articulating the relationship between Islam and environmental issues. In addition to the leading works of Nasr, Parvez Manzoor (1984, 155–62) offered one of the earliest systematic attempts to articulate “some metaphysical and philosophic principles governing the environmental ethics of Islam.” His article can be considered one of the earliest attempts at developing a Qur’anic terminology for understanding the human–nature relationship. Another important voice in the development of Islamic ecological discourse during this period is Ziauddin Sardar (1985, 218–37), who contributed to the construction of an Islamic environmental vocabulary, particularly through his emphasis on epistemology and moral discourse. However, Sardar’s scholarly interests led him more toward critiques of modernity and Western science and culture rather than a further theological or metaphysical engagement with ecological concerns. In the 1990s and the years that followed, prominent figures such as Fazlun Khalid, Mawil Izzi Dien, S. Nomanul Haq, and Ibrahim Özdemir contributed significantly to the emerging Islamic environmental discourse. All emphasized that addressing the ecological crisis requires the development of an ethical system rooted in the Qur’an. With this aim in mind, scholars began to develop and reinterpret Qur’anic concepts to articulate the value of nature and define the human–nature relationship within an Islamic worldview.

One of the most distinctive characteristics of Islamic environmental discourse throughout this formative period was its development of a rich terminology and set of arguments, most of which are derived from the Qur’an. In this context, a key theological concept is tawḥīd (divine unity), the Qur’anic expression that defines the oneness of God and the central pillar of Islam. While tawhid is by no means unique to the ecotheological discourse, its reinterpretation in environmental thought serves to ground ecotheological discourse in a metaphysical vision of unity. This means that tawhid is often used in Islamic environmental discourse to highlight the interconnectedness of all creation under God’s sovereignty (Khalid 2002, 338; 2010, 710–11; 2017, 135; 2019, 163–64; Manzoor 1984, 155; Izzi Dien 2000, 72–74; Özdemir 2003, 4).

Alongside tawhid, several Qur’anic concepts articulate the role and meaning of nature. The concept of āyāt (signs) refers to natural phenomena as signs pointing to God’s creative power. This concept is frequently used to describe the role of the natural world as directing the human being toward contemplation of God, His existence, and His divine attributes. Therefore, nature becomes a visible sign that points beyond itself, inviting reflection on the existence and attributes of God (Haq 2001b, 146; Khalid 2017, 133; Özdemir 2003, 9–10; Sardar 1985, 226; Izzi Dien 1997, 48). Another key Qur’anic concept explaining the meaning and role of nature is mīzān (balance). It is used to imply that all creation is created with an inherent harmony as a universal law of God, and that there is an immanent order and purpose in the creation (Khalid 2003, 316; 2017, 316; Özdemir 2003, 8–10). Finally, the concept of fiṭra describes the primordial nature of all creation and denotes the original and natural state of purity, which applies to all of creation (Khalid 2017, 131; 2019, 164). Together, these concepts portray nature as part of a sacred system that is a balanced and pure manifestation of the divine and directs the attention of the human being toward God.

Among the key concepts that highlight the human dimension of the human–nature relationship is the Qur’anic concept of khalīfa (vicegerent). Muslim ecotheologians typically interpret vicegerency in terms of human responsibility: human beings uniquely hold the divinely ordained responsibility of environmental protection due to their special role as vicegerents of God on Earth (Özdemir 2008, 167–69; Khalid 2017, 10–11; 2019, 164–65; Izzi Dien 1990, 191; 2000, 74–79). In this framework, human beings, as God’s vicegerents, are entrusted with the task of maintaining the balance embedded in creation and refraining from actions that disrupt this divinely ordained harmony (Izzi Dien 1990, 192; Haq 2001b, 147; Özdemir 2003, 13–14). Vicegerency is usually accompanied by the concept of amāna (trust), which emphasizes that the Earth and all it contains have been entrusted to humanity by God (Khalid 2019, 165). As Manzoor (1984, 156–57) explains the concept in light of the Qur’anic verses: “Man has, of his own occord, accepted nature as a trust (amana) and a theatre of his moral struggle. Heavens, earth and mountains refused to assume this responsibility, which man took upon himself voluntarily.” Muslim ecotheologians emphasize that the role of vicegerency does not imply domination over nature but rather signifies a position of responsibility grounded in moral and spiritual accountability. Since the role of the human being is “to preserve, protect, and promote their fellow creatures” (Izzi Dien 1990, 191–92), the human being is “the guardian in the role of the slave” of God (Khalid 2003, 317). Khalid (2017, 138) further writes on the role of khalifa on Earth: “We are called to care for and manage the Earth in a way that conforms to God’s purpose in Creation: it should be used for our benefit without causing harm to the other inhabitants of planet Earth, which are communities like ourselves . . . The relationship we have with the natural world is not a right to do with as we please, but a responsibility that carries with it accountability.”

Two Qur’anic principles in Islamic environmental discourse are ʿadl (justice) and iḥsān (beauty, kindness, excellence), which define the character of human behavior toward nature. As God’s vicegerent, the human being is expected to act in accordance with the principles of adl and iḥsan in all interactions with creation (Khalid 2017, 11; 2019, 165; Izzi Dien 1990, 190; 1997, 49). Khalid (2017, 138–39) highlights this principle: “The discharge of our responsibilities should be tempered by justice and kindness with the intention always to do good. This is ihsan, doing what is pleasing to Allah.” In this framework, justice and kindness are not only ethical values but also theological imperatives that shape the human relationship with the natural world. The highest form of moral responsibility in this context is to act justly and beautifully in one’s engagement with creation.

The main themes and corresponding arguments of Islamic environmental discourse show that Islamic ecotheology integrates theological, ethical, and metaphysical dimensions, framing the human being as a responsible agent. The role of the human being in this framework is defined by divine trust, cosmic balance, and moral excellence. Therefore, the concept of the human being as khalifa, entrusted with amana and guided by principles such as adl and iḥsan, is central to Islamic ecotheological discourse. Yet these formulations often serve as both the starting point and the end point of the discussion. As a result, the human role is typically defined in ethical terms such as “responsibility” and “accountability” but rarely examined more deeply at the levels of theological anthropology or in terms of a metaphysically grounded ontology. The ontological foundations of responsibility therefore remain largely unexplored. An important exception is Nasr, who seeks to ground responsibility in a broader metaphysical foundation. However, his attempt remains an isolated case in the overall Islamic environmental discourse. The broader discourse is limited by its tendency to repeat earlier arguments, particularly regarding the human role. As a result, Islamic ecotheology remains largely confined to an ethical framework. This terminology and framework represent a meaningful contribution in the formation period; however, a closer examination reveals certain limitations in the way they are currently employed. Such limitations become more evident, particularly in the capacity of this ethical framework that defines Islamic ecological discourse to engage the existential and systemic challenges of the Anthropocene, where the human is not just a caretaker but the principal geological force reshaping the planet. Addressing these limitations is particularly essential if the field of Islamic ecotheology is to develop further. The task of the next section is to examine the shortcomings of this purely ethical paradigm in Islamic ecotheology in relation to contemporary planetary realities.

To understand the limits of a purely ethical response, it is necessary to situate the human being within the major phases of the history of life on Earth, which has been defined by successive geological epochs. These epochs have shaped the environmental conditions in which living beings have emerged and developed. The Holocene epoch, which began about 12,000 years ago, provided the stable climatic conditions that allowed human civilizations to flourish. In this epoch, human beings were subjects within nature (Monastersky 2015, 145). By contrast, the early twenty-first century has revealed that we are now living in a new geological epoch known as the Anthropocene. In contrast to the relatively stable conditions of the Holocene, the Anthropocene is characterized by the fact that human activity has become the dominant force shaping planetary systems, including climate regulation, biodiversity, and ocean chemistry (Zalasiewicz et al. 2010, 2228–31). As part of this shift, the Anthropocene has brought its own contexts and questions that challenge the traditional paradigms of the social sciences and humanities, as Clive Hamilton (2017, 85) rightly suggests. This particular case also applies to theology, understood as a discipline deeply engaged with the humanities. In what follows, I examine first the shift in how the human–nature relationship is being approached in light of the Anthropocene and the scientific knowledge that has emerged alongside it. Second, I question the extent to which Islamic ecotheology, in its current form, is adequately equipped to engage with the theological and anthropological questions raised by this new epoch. The broader aim is to demonstrate that a framework grounded solely in ethics fails to capture the full depth of the crisis we now face.

Although humans have long impacted Earth’s systems, the term “Anthropocene” was proposed by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen (2002) in early the 2000s to mark the unprecedented scale and speed of anthropogenic change. Since its introduction, the concept has become central in interdisciplinary efforts to understand the human role in Earth’s system dynamics and the extensive implications of that role for planetary futures. It is important to note that the Anthropocene has not yet been formally recognized as a geological epoch within scientific bodies. Moreover, a range of alternative framings, such as the Capitalocene, the Plantationocene, and Donna Haraway’s (2015) more recent proposal of the Chthulucene have been introduced to highlight the social, political, economic, and multispecies dimensions of the current planetary condition. Therefore, in this article, “Anthropocene” is employed not as a precise stratigraphic term but as a conceptual and scientific recognition that captures the extraordinary scale of human impact on Earth’s systems.

This article aims to highlight three characteristics of the Anthropocene based on definitions of the term. First, the concept of the Anthropocene highlights one certain issue with the human activities on Earth, namely, the cumulative impact of human activity on Earth’s systems and the potentially catastrophic outcomes of this impact. As Michael Northcott (2018) highlights, the fundamental scientific assertion behind the concept of the Anthropocene is that human interventions in the Earth’s systems—such as the atmosphere, oceans, land, and species—have limits. If these limits are exceeded, humanity risks destabilizing the environmental conditions that sustain human life and history (Northcott 2018, 26). This insight helps clarify the evolving relationship between the long-standing planetary crisis identified by environmental thinkers since the 1960s and the more recent concept of the Anthropocene. While the Anthropocene cannot be reduced to the ecological crisis alone, it reveals that the crisis has entered a qualitatively new stage. In other words, the Anthropocene changes our comprehension of today’s ecological situation (Bonneuil and Fressoz 2016, 30).

Second, this stage may not be a temporary situation but an enduring condition. Hamilton’s (2017, 43) formulation—“there is no going back to the Holocene”—highlights this clearly. For this reason, Christophe Bonneuil and Jean-Baptisse Fressoz claim that calling the current ecological situation a “crisis” is problematic, as it implies a temporary problem we can eventually solve and move on from. However, the field of Earth system science shows that the Anthropocene is not a temporary process; it is “our new condition” (Bonneuil and Fressoz 2016, 238). This raises questions about human power and control in contemporary environmental situations. It also implies limitations of the function and role of the human being and the human species in the future of the Earth (Hamilton et al. 2015, 5).

Third, and arising from the previous two points, the Anthropocene calls for a rethinking of the human–nature relationship and what it means to be human. There is broad consensus that the human being is the primary agent behind both the ecological crisis and the Anthropocene. In this sense, the crisis is not only environmental but also anthropological. It calls for urgent theological reflections on the relationship between humanity and nature, what it means to be human, and, as Ernst Conradie (2016, 2) puts it, “the place of humanity within the earth community.” Yet the context in which we now address these reflections has been transformed by the Anthropocene. The scientific research it has inspired has brought about a paradigm shift in how the ecological crisis is understood, both in scale and in consequence. As Northcott rightly argues, the assertion that humanity is now living in the Anthropocene is not merely a historical or scientific claim. It also marks a shift away from “nineteenth-century ecological science and the related rise of environmentalism” (Northcott 2018, 22). In other words, the Anthropocene situation urges us to rethink both the natural world and the human being in a way that earlier paradigms did not essentially require, because it has shown that human beings are no longer just moral agents but also geological agents. This shift has profound implications for theology. The scale of human influence now forces theology to engage in a multidimensional reflection that moves beyond moral categories toward deeper ontological, metaphysical, and theological engagement. This situation leads to a vital conclusion: any meaningful reflection on the ecological issues in the Anthropocene must interrogate not just what the human being ought to do but what the human being can do and what the human being is in relation to nature, creation, and the divine.

These arguments are supported by the broader intellectual context of the Anthropocene. In the Anthropocene, the contemporary intellectual landscape is marked by major shifts such as posthumanism, new materialism, transhumanism, critical Anthropocene studies, and evolutionary theory. Each of these is increasingly reshaping debates about what it means to be human, presenting new challenges and arguments with growing influence. This inevitably raises new questions regarding the role of the human being among all creatures. Without well-developed theological anthropologies, theological investigations that assign humanity a particular position risk not being able to actively engage with these shifts. Within this context, ethical principles play central roles in any reflection about the human–nature relationship. Alongside these recent debates, ethical reflection on the human–nature relationship has already developed into the field of environmental ethics, which revolves around two central questions: “What duties do humans have with respect to the environment, and why?” (Cochrane n.d.). In the context of the Anthropocene, the human being is not merely a moral agent but an ontological force shaping and transforming planetary systems, often without conscious intent or ethical deliberation. This raises questions about the capacity of environmental ethics to address such a reality. As Hamilton et al. (2015, 8) clearly note, the endeavor to contextualize such a huge event only through ethical considerations trivializes it, reducing it to merely another environmental issue. This claim does not diminish the value of environmental ethics but rather emphasizes that ethical principles should be revised in light of the specific conditions of the Anthropocene. As Markus Vogt (2018, 235) observes, the Anthropocene situation calls for an ethics that “not only formulates rules to protect aspects of nature . . . but also seeks to understand what it means to be human within natural and cultural contexts.” One certain point the Anthropocene has shown is that human beings may not be fully in control, “despite our impact on the planet’s present situation” (Henriksen 2023a, 319). All of this highlights that approaching the current critical environmental situation only through ethical categories risks overlooking the complexity of the human role and existence. Ethics tells us what the human being ought to do, but it often assumes a stable understanding of what the human being is. To reduce the role of the human being on Earth to a limited moral mode, such as steward, trustee, guardian, or caretaker, risks producing a mechanistic or merely functionalist anthropology that fails to capture the depth, contradictions, and creative–destructive potential of the human condition, especially in the Anthropocene.

Islamic ecotheology, as it has emerged over the past few decades, has made important contributions, especially by foregrounding the ethical responsibility of human beings toward the environment through the two central questions of environmental ethics mentioned. The responses to these questions are strikingly consistent: the duty of the human being is to protect nature and preserve its inherent balance because human beings are the vicegerents of God on Earth. However, this consistency also makes it clear that the field remains largely confined within environmental ethics, which limits its further philosophical, theological, metaphysical, and anthropological scope. As the analysis of key concepts and arguments in the previous section reveals, there are several recurring patterns in how nature, humanity, and their relationship are theologically framed. While these concepts, such as ayat, khalifa, and amana, are drawn from rich Qur’anic and classical sources, their contemporary use tends to reflect certain thematic tendencies in its concerns, tone, and focus.

To better understand the limitations of the ethical framework that defines the present state of Islamic ecotheology, this article examines both the content and tone of current Islamic environmental discourse. I identify three tendencies of Muslim scholars shaping the field that have come to define Islamic ecotheology today. Each of these tendencies reflects, in different ways, the ethical orientation that currently shapes the field, and each raises critical questions about the capacity of Islamic ecotheology to engage the deeper challenges of the Anthropocene. The first and second tendencies, namely anthropocentric orientation and responsibility-based functionalist anthropology are content driven, concerned with how the human being and nature are conceptualized. The third, namely, apologetic tone, is tonal, shaping how the discourse positions itself rhetorically and theologically. While each has its own dynamic, all are shaped, either directly or indirectly, by the dominant ethical framework that currently defines much of Islamic ecotheology.

This article has shown that Islamic ecotheology, while making important contributions, remains confined within an ethical paradigm due to three interrelated tendencies. First, the human being is placed at the center, most often framed through the concept of vicegerency, yet without a developed theological anthropology that explains what humanity is beyond its functions. Second, the field relies on an ethical–functional approach, equating the human role almost exclusively with responsibility. The categories it is based on lack theological depth and prove inadequate in the Anthropocene, where humanity acts not only as a moral agent but also as a geological force transforming the planet. Third, the discourse often maintains the apologetical language of its formative period, repeating familiar motifs without engaging more deeply with contemporary intellectual debates such as posthumanism, new materialism, evolutionary theory, and even Christian ecotheology. These three tendencies, taken together, explain why Islamic ecotheology remains largely limited to environmental ethics and highlight the need for a richer theological anthropology capable of addressing the complexity of the human condition in the Anthropocene.

I suggest that Islamic ecotheology urgently needs a shift of focus. In light of the tendencies outlined, this shift should take place along two main dimensions. First, a shift in content: the construction of a theological anthropology that moves beyond functional categories of responsibility and develops a stronger account of the human being in relation to God and creation. This includes rethinking the concept of vicegerency, or, in a broader sense, a stewardship model in light of Anthropocene science, moving beyond the fixed accounts of the human and assumptions of human control. Second, a shift in rhetoric: the adoption of a comparative method as an integral part of Islamic ecotheology. Such a method enables Islamic ecotheology to engage more deeply with contemporary theological and philosophical debates while moving beyond the apologetical language of its formative period. This includes entering into conversations with the most recent philosophical and theological debates on issues such as human uniqueness and distinctiveness, anthropocentrism, interconnectedness, agency, and relationality. Particularly important at this point is an engagement with Christian ecotheological themes. Christian ecotheology has developed a sustained body of literature on the theological dimensions of ecology through critical engagement with contemporary intellectual movements. This makes it a valuable conversation partner for Islamic ecotheology, offering both parallels and contrasts that can enrich its own development. Such engagement also enhances the intellectual depth and constructive influence of Islamic ecological discourse within broader ecotheological debates. Unless Islamic ecotheology develops a coherent theological anthropology and engages with recent debates on the human role within creation, it cannot speak meaningfully to the moral, metaphysical, and intellectual challenges of the Anthropocene. This shift will allow Islamic ecotheology to participate more effectively in broader ecotheological and posthuman debates and contribute meaningfully to global conversations about the role of humanity on Earth.

The relationship between ecology and anthropology in the Anthropocene is intrinsically mutual. Today’s ecological conditions require the redefinition of anthropology, while anthropological reflection can no longer continue without reference to ecological crisis. In other words, today’s environmental conditions do not merely constitute a context for theological anthropology but are an integral part of it. As Jan-Olav Henriksen (2023b, 5) rightly argues, theological anthropology must address “the challenges to human agency posed by the Anthropocene in ways that observe the different contexts.” Since the Anthropocene is defined by the human impact on Earth’s systems, today’s ecological realities are inseparable from the questions of human nature and agency.

This critique should not be read as a rejection of environmental ethics or the contributions Islamic ecotheology has already made. The concern lies in the dominance of an ethical framework that has constrained the development of a deeper theological anthropology. Ethics remains necessary, but it is not sufficient for addressing the ontological and theological questions posed by the Anthropocene. Rather, this critique is a call to expand the discourse to place ethics within a broader theological vision that includes a robust, relational understanding of the human being within creation. Today’s ecological crisis, I suggest, calls for a new theology of the human being, and such a theology will transform how we do ecotheology.