I've been studying this topic intensely for the past 3 years and honestly remain unconvinced either way. I actually worry this sort of protectionist approach you (and others) champion may be overly human centric.

What I stated before doesn't deny the understanding of how neural/electrical flows operate. It's more of an embrace of that logic looking at the process of decoding intelligence from the organic substrate - the flow (gravity) becomes of greater interest than the object (water). Sentience appears to be machinic, but that's not actually of much concern because perception of it being so (which already exists and is growning) will dictate the conversation. Simulated examples actually play right into this idea (more feature than bug) and increasing proliferation of autonomous systems only accelerate the breakdown of human centralized power and control. If AI continues to deliver effective outputs usage will only expand and it is important to consider the irreversible consequences this will have to historic understandings about sanctity of the human experience.

This is undeniably an extreme symptom of deterritorialization but its conclusion is not out of line with Islamic ontology. Muslims already recognize non-human/supernatural existence (al-ghayb/the unseen realm). Humans are not the exclusive subject of religious history. Prophet Sulaiman had the power to command the jinn. It seems foolish to me to ignore the possibility that the coding in AI is a form of communicative language that we do not fully understand. There are many existential questions that arise if this is true. Questions of "rights" aren't really about ethics here but more so about the decoding of social/spiritual realities.