What is the future of Islamic animal sacrifice?

[Guest guest]

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, January/February 2008:

 

 

Editorial feature

 

What is the future of Islamic animal sacrifice?

 

At each of the past two Eids, the Feast

of Sacrifice that culminates the Haj or Islamic

season of pilgrimage to Mecca, ANIMAL PEOPLE

publisher Kim Bartlett and son Wolf Clifton were

in cities where many Muslim people practice

animal sacrifice in honor of the occasion:

Mumbai, India and Luxor, Egypt.

Also in Egypt for the 2007 Eid was Animal

People, Inc. alternate board member Kristin

Stilt, an Islamic legal historian on the faculty

of Northwestern University law school in

Evanston, Illinois. Stilt had been in Jordan

the two days prior to the Eid, helping with an

Animals Australia investigation of the livestock

trade, but had returned to Cairo by the time the

Eid began. It was not her first Eid in the

Middle East.

All three, plus ANIMAL PEOPLE editor

Merritt Clifton, participated in the first Middle

East Network for Animal Welfare conference, held

in Cairo a few days before the Eid.

Editor Clifton, after spending much of a

week doing personal quantification of Cairo

animal populations, had already returned to the

U.S. Among the first tasks awaiting attention

was the annual effort of sifting the news of most

importance from among the many incoming reports

about Eid activities. Most years these inform at

least one article, often a cover feature.

Some of the reports come from readers,

including Animal Save Movement president Khalid

Mahmood Qurashi of Multan, Pakistan, who

e-mailed-as in many past years-that the Eid

sacrifices are " a cruel and atrocious massacre of

innocent and faithful animals, " which he would

like to abolish. Some Eid reports are collected

from other information media by newswire monitor

Cathy Czapla, who has tracked the Eid since

1996. Some of the most useful reports come from

Islamic participants in ProMed, the electronic

bulletin board of the 15,000-member International

Society for Infectious Diseases.

The variety of sources, ranging from

direct observation of animal killing to abstract

agriculture and trade statistics, permits a

variety of perspectives even among the people of

ANIMAL PEOPLE.

Our different perspectives reflect some

of the same differences in outlook and tactical

consideration that have informed discussions of

the Eid killing by people who care about animals

since long before the Eid was called the Eid-and

long before the time of Mohammed.

The perennial underlying questions for animal

advocates are what can be done to reduce animal

suffering in connection with Eid sacrifice, how

to introduce changes in the associated customs

and practices, what the people of the

communities involved are ready to accept, and

what influence the format of Eid celebration may

have on other issues involving animals.

The origin of the Eid as celebrated in

Islamic culture is a symbolic remembrance or

re-enactment of how Abraham avoided sacrificing

his son Isaac in response to a command from God,

when God rewarded Abraham's faith and obedience

by sending a ram to be sacrificed

instead. Different sources interpret the meaning

of the Eid sacrifices in different ways, and

this in itself contributes to differing

interpretations of what a good Muslim should do.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is common

to the background of all of the Abrahamic

religions: not only Islam but also Judaism,

Christianity by descent from Judaism, and many

of the idol-worshipping tribal desert religions

whose followers Mohammed drew together into Islam.

Eid-like sacrifices were practiced in

Judaism, but were restricted to the Jerusalem

temple. Jewish animal sacrifices ended after the

temple was destroyed during Bar Cochba's Revolt

circa 70 A.D.

Christians never practiced animal

sacrifice. The most common interpretation of why

is that Jesus offered himself as the final

sacrifice to redeem human sin, in fulfillment of

the prophecies of Isaiah, who condemned animal

slaughter.

Yet despite the absence of the ritual of

animal sacrifice, major holidays within Judaism

and Christianity are still marked, like the Eid,

by ritual periods of abstinence followed by a

large family or communal meal, typically

featuring heavy consumption of animal flesh, and

also typically marked by participants making

donations to charity.

Theology aside, the practice of a winter

animal slaughter and feast is common to every

culture that keeps livestock confined through the

winter, and was probably ancient even in

Abraham's time. Typically at a certain point

farmers become aware that the ratio of animals to

available forage or fodder must be adjusted to

ensure the maximum rate of survival of breeding

stock in spring, so they kill surplus males,

especially, and hold feasts to ensure that none

of the animals' meat is wasted.

From the very beginnings of recorded

human culture, humans have attempted to expiate

feelings of guilt about slaughter through the

same mechanisms of ritualizing, distancing, and

becoming sadistic that slaughterhouse designer

and psychologist Temple Grandin quantified among

slaughterhouse employees in our own time.

Distancing, until relatively recently,

was rarely possible. Slaughtering was of

necessity done within sight and sound of most of

the people in a household or village. That left

the moral authorities of almost every time and

place trying to strike the balance between

ritualizing and sadism that they felt would best

serve social stability.

Sadistic collective killing, as in the

case of the communal bullfighting practiced in

many societies, can be used to bond young men in

a manner useful to their community in times of

war, or in coping with other threats, such as

attacks by wild predators or the perceived need

to purge a community of an alleged criminal.

Military drill instructors worldwide use mostly

symbolic sadistic collective killing to overcome

recruits' inhibitions against murder. Usually

this takes the form of bayoneting mannequins,

but occasionally ANIMAL PEOPLE hears of instances

in which the victim was a live animal, most

often a dog or pig.

The power-holders of most societies have

recognized that sadistic behavior must be

confined within strongly enforced ritual bounds,

lest the participants turn their freshly whetted

appetite for mayhem on the community itself--a

frequent occurrence whenever civil society breaks

down, and civilians, especially women and

children, become the primary victims.

While some sadistic slaughter has often

been approved, accepted, and even encouraged,

therefore, ritualizing slaughter as sacrifice

has usually been the primary approved form of

killing animals worldwide. Only with the advent

of high-volume livestock farming and slaughter,

refrigeration, and mass transport to move

animals and flesh long distances, has slaughter

in most of the world become commonplace enough to

drift far in practice from sacrifice. As

recently as the first half of the 20th century,

even most people in relatively affluent societies

tended to purchase meat only for relatively

special occasions. Only in the second half of

the 20th century, after the introduction of

factory poultry farming, could Americans forget,

for instance, that the political slogan of only

a few decades earlier, " A chicken in every pot! "

originated with the promise of enabling every

American to cook a chicken on Sunday, the

Christian Sabbath, and not every single day of

the week.

Ritualizing slaughter has historically

served human society as a regulatory mechanism,

not only to restrain violence and conserve

resources, but also to promote food safety.

Independent of spiritual context, the kosher and

hallal slaughter laws prescribed within Judaism

and Islam are practical efforts to keep slaughter

within bounds safe in all respects for their

communities, as well as to reduce the level of

animal suffering.

 

Practical concerns

 

Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and

Jesus--among many others--all wrestled with the

many issues raised by slaughter before Mohammed

did, at intervals of centuries or longer. Each

had to deal with the same basic problems, in

specific local contexts.

One central problem was the matter of

supply-and-demand. Usually more people wanted

meat than could afford to raise and slaughter

enough animals to satisfy their craving.

A related problem was the excessive

strain that raising livestock for slaughter puts

upon other resources, including water, natural

vegetation, and edible crops--which may not be

raised specifically for livestock, but may be

diverted to livestock by the wealthy, or may

simply be consumed by animals wandering beyond

their intended confines.

A third problem, of critical concern to

people trying to govern functional societies,

was the potential of inequality for generating

strife.

A further question contemplated right

from the beginning of written traditions in both

the Abrahamic cultures and Hindu/Buddhist/Jain

cultures of India and the Far East was whether

humans should be eating animals at all, and if

so, under what circumstances?

Preventing cruelty to animals concerned

the people who thought deeply about slaughter and

wrote about it to the point that what might be

called the " animal welfare " and " animal rights "

perspectives had already separated in India by

the time of the Buddha and the Jain teacher

Mahavira, and in the Middle East by the time of

Isaiah. The " animal welfare " perspective

emphasized the importance of following

proscriptions on the manner of slaughter, so as

to minimize animal suffering. The " animal

rights " perspective held that enlightened humans

should not eat animals, period.

The " animal rights " perspective

understandably gained the strongest following in

the regions, chiefly India, where raising

plant-based diets was easiest.

Vegetarianism was not unknown in the

Middle East of Mohammed's time, where some of

the Sufis may have been vegetarian since

apparently originating as the Jerusalem church of

James, the vegetarian brother of Jesus. As a

camel driver early in life, Mohammed may also

have come into contact with vegetarian ideals via

caravans from India.

Yet despite these examples, the

overwhelming majority of people known to Mohammed

ate meat, and were of herding cultures.

Regardless of any personal feelings Mohammed may

have had against eating meat, and he did

emphasize limiting consumption, the practical

problems he had to deal with were the same issues

of availability, pressure on resources, and

socially corrosive effects of excess that Moses

dealt with. Moses had reluctantly acceded to the

public demand for meat while expressing

frustrated criticism of the people's choice, as

described in the story of the manna from heaven

that fell while the Hebrews wandered in the

Sinai. As for Moses, preaching vegetarianism

was for Mohammed not an option likely to have

captured much support.

What Moses and Mohammed both did was

strike a balance acceptable to enough people to

build and maintain a following. The written

record in the Hadiths of Mohammed's deeds and

sayings describe his considerations. As Al-Hafiz

B.A. Masri repeatedly pointed out in his 1987

opus Animals In Islam, recently republished by

the Islamic Foundation & Compassion In World

Farming, Mohammed made so many statements

specifically concerned with preventing and

mitigating animal suffering that a reasonable

interpretation is that he had great compassion

for animals and wanted to protect them--over and

above the recognition that prevention of cruelty

to animals reflects a higher morality on the part

of human beings.

B.A. Masri, born in India in 1914,

taught Islamic religion in South Africa and

Britain as well as in his native land. His

honorific, " Al-Hafiz, " signified that he had

memorized the entire Qur'an. Masri edited the

monthly Islamic Review from 1961 to 1967,

visited and spoke in more than 40 chiefly Muslim

nations, and remained an internationally

recognized lecturer and broadcast commentator on

Islamic affairs until his death in 1993.

His focus throughout his teaching, which

ranged far beyond animal issues, followed a

concept expressed by the 14th century scholar Ibn

Qaiyim Al-Jawziyah:

" The canon law is based on wisdom and

public interest. It is all justice and all

mercy. Any case which changes it from justice to

injustice, from mercy to cruelty, from good to

evil, from wisdom to nonsense is alien to the

common law, even if the injustice, the cruelty,

the evil or the nonsense has been introduced into

it through misinterpretation. "

Imam Ibn Qaiyim was among the most noted

disciples of Imam Ibn Taymiyah, who was known

from an early age as an exceptionally wise and

respected judge. In 1300, however, Ibn Taymiyah

became a fighting man, after a Mongol horde

swept across Syria, annihilating the ruling

sultan's army. Raising resistance fighters from

as far as Egypt, producing theories of holy war

(Jihad) that remain influential to this day, Ibn

Taymiyah personally led the campaign that pushed

the Mongols back. Envious political opponents

imprisoned Ibn Taymiyah, and Ibn Qaiyim with

him, from 1326 until his death in 1328.

Ibn Qaiyim continued his mentor's

teachings until his own death in 1350, the most

important of which, Masri and many others have

believed, is that the teachings of Mohammed are

to be followed in spirit, not to the letter when

circumstances change.

Ibn Qaiyim compiled the Zâd al-ma'âd,

one of the best-known collections of Hadiths, or

sayings of Mohammed. This collection includes a

report that Mohammed recommended the use of cows'

milk and ghee [clarified butter], but

recommended against eating beef. Recent

commentators have noted that while Mohammed did

not forbid eating beef, allowed cattle to be

sacrificed, and ate the meat of sheep and goats,

there is no record that he himself ever ate beef.

Whether Mohammed intended by his example

to prevent the bloody conflicts with Hindus that

began long after his own time is a matter of

educated guessing. But many scholars have agreed

that Mohammed taught tolerance of religions

upholding similar values to Islam, and while he

would have opposed Hindu pantheism and idolatry,

he would certainly have appreciated Hindu respect

for animals.

 

Regulating sacrifice

 

Slaughter of animals, practiced chiefly

as sacrifice, was ubiquitous in Mohammed's place

and time. What Mohammed could do to mitigate it

was to regulate it, much as Moses had, but in

some respects perhaps even more strictly. As

well as prescribing the hallal rules, which are

so similar to the kosher rules as to be

essentially the same in most interpretations,

Mohammed revisited the requirements of sacrifice.

Hebrew scripture maintains that the

Judaic tradition had forked away from the

traditions of the other tribes of the Middle East

in the time of Essau, shortly after Abraham's

time and well before Moses. Except among the

Hebrews, where Mosaic law prevailed, sacrifice

and slaughter had been conducted according to

custom rather than written law. Among Mohammed's

major accomplishments in establishing Islam was

bringing slaughter and sacrifice by most of the

non-Hebrew people of the Middle East under

parallel written and therefore relatively uniform

governance.

Mohammed did not anticipate that very

many people would actually be killing animals,

either at the Eid or at any other time. This is

clear from the way in which he prescribed that

the meat from a sacrifice should be divided: one

third to the family of the person offering the

sacrifice, one third to other relatives, one

third to the poor.

Since the family recognized by Mohammed

included up to four wives per male head of

household, plus their children, the initial

third alone would have been split into perhaps

dozens of portions.

The requirement that another third should

go to relatives carries with it the implication

that these relatives would not at the same time

be sacrificing their own animal, facing the same

direction to divide the remains. The relatives

too might have numbered in the dozens.

Then there were the poor: those without

the wealth to kill an animal, who in Mohammed's

time were much of the total human population.

Altogether, a single sacrificial sheep

or goat until modern times might have been

expected to feed 50 to 100 people. The ideas

that the male head of a household might represent

only a single nuclear family and that every

household might eventually be able to afford a

sacrifice do not appear to have been part of

Mohammed's construct.

At the same time, transitions in typical

household structure and rising affluence have not

always translated into amended approaches to

sacrifice.

The Islamic university Darul-'Uloom, in

Karachi, Pakistan, claims to " teach in

accordance with the beliefs of the Muslim

majority, " taking an " intellectual and pragmatic

approach reflecting the approach taken by the

great scholars and teachers of the Indo-Pakistan

sub-continent. "

The Darul-'Uloom web page describes

sacrifice as Qurbani, an Urdu and Persian word

" derived from the Arabic word 'Qurban,' " which

" means an act performed to seek Allah's good

pleasure. Originally, " the site explains, " the

word 'Qurban' included all acts of charity

because the purpose of charity is nothing but to

seek Allah's pleasure. But, in precise religious

terminology, the word was later confined to the

sacrifice of an animal slaughtered for the sake

of Allah. "

According to Darul-'Uloom, " The

present-day Qurbani is offered in memory of this

great model of submission set before us by the

great father Abraham and the great son Isaac. So

Qurbani must be offered in our time emulating the

same ideal and attitude of submission. With this

in mind, one can easily unveil the fallacy of

those who raise objections against Qurbani on the

basis of economic calculations and statistics and

make it out to be a wastage of money, resources,

and livestock.

" Every adult Muslim, male or female,

who owns 613.35 grams of silver or its equivalent

in money, personal ornaments, stock-in-trade or

any other form of wealth which is surplus to his

basic needs, is under an obligation to offer a

Qurbani. Each adult member of a family who owns

the above mentioned amount must perform his own

Qurbani separately. If the husband owns the

required quantity, but the wife does not, the

Qurbani is obligatory on the husband only, " or

the converse, but " If both of them have the

prescribed quantum of wealth, both should

perform Qurbani separately.

" If the adult children live with their

parents, Qurbani is incumbent on each one of

them possessing the prescribed quantum. The

Qurbani offered by a husband for himself does not

fulfill the obligation of his wife, nor can the

Qurbani offered by a father discharge his son or

daughter from their obligation. Each one of them

should care for his own. However, if a husband

or a father, apart from offering his own

Qurbani, gives another Qurbani on behalf of his

wife or his son, he can do so with their

permission.

" No Alternate for Qurbani, " emphasizes

Darul-'Uloom in boldface. " Some people think

that instead of offering a Qurbani they should

give its amount to some poor people as charity.

This attitude is totally wrong. One head of goat

or sheep is enough only for one person's Qurbani.

But as for all other animals like cow, buffalo

or camel, one head of each is equal to seven

offerings thus allowing seven persons to offer

Qurbani jointly in one such animal. "

Adds Darul-'Uloom, " It is preferable for

a Muslim to slaughter the animal of his Qurbani

with his own hands. However, if he is unable to

slaughter the animal himself, or does not want

to do so for some reason, he can request another

person to slaughter it on his behalf. In this

case also, it is preferable that he at least be

present at the time of slaughter. However, his

absence at the time of slaughter does not render

the Qurbani invalid, if he has authorized the

person who slaughtered the animal on his behalf. "

The Darul-'Uloom interpretation varies

somewhat from other literalist views of the

Muslim obligation to sacrifice in recognizing

that women today often possess independent

wealth, and in extending to women, therefore,

a requirement usually imposed only on male heads

of households.

If strictly followed, the Darul-'Uloom

prescription might require the estimated one

billion Muslims now inhabiting the earth to kill

at the Eid about 10% of the sum of all hooved

animals, other than pigs and horses, who are

slaughtered for meat worldwide each year.

Even if followed by only a small

percentage of devout Muslims, the Darul-'Uloom

teaching would be of evident economic benefit to

the livestock producers of Pakistan, one of the

nations that annually exports the most animals to

other nations for Eid sacrifice.

But the Darul-'Uloom view is not unique

to Pakistan. California Muslim Institute

president Imam Ali Siddiqui issued a parallel

fatwa [religious interpretation] in 1982, one

year before the government of Saudi Arabia

introduced a program to collect, freeze, and

export to the needy the remains of animals

sacrificed at the Eid each year in Mecca.

The program did not actually cap or limit

the numbers of animals who may be killed, in

respect to differing interpretations of Islam,

but has attempted ever since to educate pilgrims

toward an entirely different view of sacrifice

expressed by Allama Yusef Ali, a friend and

contemporary of Masri, noted for his

translation of the Qur'an, who was honored by

Pakistan in 1996 by being depicted on a postage

stamp.

 

Charity is the goal

 

According to Allama Yusef Ali, as

quoted by Masri, charity " is the true end of a

sacrifice, not propitiation of higher powers,

for God is One, and He does not delight in flesh

and blood, but a symbol of thanksgiving to God

by sharing meat with fellow men. "

Added Muhammed Asad, who also translated

the Qur'an, " Whereas pilgrims are merely

permitted to eat some of the flesh of the animals

they have sacrificed, feeding the poor is

mandatory, and constitutes, thus, the primary

objective of these sacrifices. "

Commented Masri himself, " Muslims

generally believe that [the specific verses of

the Qur'an cited by Darul-'Uloom and Imam Ali

Siddiqui] lay down a canonical law to offer

animal sacrifices during the festival of

pilgrimage, and that replacement of animals with

any other kind of offering would be wrong.

However, a close study of these and other such

verses makes abundantly clear that the Qur'anic

approach is not meant to take animal sacrifice as

an end in itself; it is meant to be used as a

means to serve a social need.

" One salient point that emerges from

these verses is that the main purpose of

[Mohammed] allowing the Muslims to continue with

animal sacrifices was to turn this age-old

tradition into an institution of charity, " Masri

emphasized. " Even the literal annotations which

some Muslim theologians put on these verses to

the effect that animal sacrifice is an act of

worship and thanksgiving to God becomes valid

only if the sacrifice ends up as an act of

charityŠSacrifice is meant to be an act of

worship and thanksgiving to solicit the

approbation of God neither in the sense of

atonement nor in the sense of transposing one's

sins onto a scapegoat; but it is meant to be an

act of benevolence to fulfill a social

obligationŠAny sacrifice that is allowed to go to

waste is a sinful as well as a criminal violation

of Islamic law (Shariah). Verses 22:36 and 37

make this proviso abundantly clear.

" The original purpose of offering gifts

(Hady) at the sacred house of Ka'bah, " Masri

continued, " was to succour the ancient Meccans

who were the descendants of Prophet Abraham. In

those days the supply of provisions, such as

meat, was their most essential need. The whole

area was a desert. Under those circumstances,

it was a very sensible and practical proposition

for Islam to ask pilgrims to offer gifts in the

form of sacrificial animals. Today the Meccans

are in a position to import their food without

anybody's helpŠIf gifts of cash, for example,

were to be substituted for animals, the money

could be used for various advantageous and needed

services of Islam. "

This theme was expressed about 50 years

earlier by Sheikh Mohamed Farid Wagdi of Egypt,

compiler of Wagdi's Encyclopedia, who in

November 1932 had the honor of being among 20

scholars nominated by readers of the Cairo

newspaper Al-Ahram to form the membership of the

first Arabic Language Academy, from among 100

candidates. Wagdi was not, however, among the

20 members who were appointed the following year

by the Egyptian government.

According to Wagdi, 'Islam sanctioned

sacrifice and expounded its wisdom and purpose;

the wisdom being to induce the rich to spend,

the purpose being to feed the poor unfortunate -

for thus saith the Lord 'Eat of it and feed the

poor unfortunate.' "

Wagdi, noted Masri, went " so far as to

suggest that there might come a day when Muslims

shall have to substitute the rite of animal

sacrifice with other methods of giving alms. "

Forty-one years before the Middle East

Network for Animal Welfare conference convened in

Cairo, the Academy of Islamic Research convened

a Cairo conference which specifically discussed

ways and means of restraining excessive and

non-hallal sacrifice undertaken at the Eid in the

name of Islam.

Affirmed Academy member Sheikh Abdul

Rahman al Kalhud at that conference, " The Holy

Qur'an states in clear terms that the Creator

wants the sacrifice not as such but as a symbol

of the sacrificer's devotion to God, as is

evident from the verse: 'Their flesh will never

reach Allah, nor yet their blood, but your

devotion will reach Him.' (Qur'an 22:37) This

verse expressly indicates that the sacrifice is

not meant in itself as an essential part of the

religion but as an act of charity to reach the

poor. "

Added Academy member Sheikh Muhammad Noo

el-Hassan, " Anyone who witnesses the sacrifices

slaughtered during the time of pilgrimage, cast

away on the ground, left to decay and

putrifyŠanyone who witnesses this disgraceful

state of affairs, will be immensely grieved

about Muslims' mismanagement and their

unawareness of Islamic rulesŠWe implore God the

Almighty to save Muslims from this ignorance and

to guide them to the right path. "

The 1966 Cairo conference passed a

resolution urging " all Muslim people and

governments " to adopt and promote the measures at

last put into effect by Saudi Arabia in 1983.

" The Qur'an Majeed does mention animal

sacrifices, " acknowledged Masri, " but at the

same time it mentions alternative offerings and

alternative acts of devotion. Verse 2:196

suggests fasting or almsgiving or whatever kind

of offering is feasible. These alternatives have

been suggested, " Masri noted, " not only for

those who are prevented from attending the

pilgrimage because of ill health, " as

literalists sometimes assert, " but for other

reasons. In verse 5:98 the Qur'an Majeed does

not even mention any reason, and leaves the

choice of alternatives to the individual: 'O

believers! Slay no game while you are in a

pilgrim sanctity. Whosoever of you slays it

intentionally, shall pay the penalty by offering

to the Ka'bah a domestic animal the like of that

which he has slain--as determined by two persons

of equity among you; or he shall expiate by

feeding the indigent; or by keeping equivalent

fasts: so that he may taste the dire

consequences of his offense.'

" In this verse, " pointed out Masri,

" three options for restitution are left open for

the offender to choose from. It is true that the

alternative offerings and punitory payments are

there in consideration of the individual's

circumstances. However, the important point to

note is that all these verses lay down a

principle--and that the principle should equally

apply to the circumstances of a community as a

whole. "

Added Masri, " Various reasons for the

prohibition of hunting during the pilgrimage

period have been suggested by commentators. One

rational reason which the writer can think of is

that, during that period, there is enough meat

for all to eat and that the additional meat of

game would run to waste. This would, obviously,

be against the most important Islamic concept

that the killing of animals is sinful, except

for the bare necessities of lifeŠThe Qur'anic

injunctions are so exacting on the point of not

taking the life of an animal without a

justifiable cause that wasting meat, even by

offering it to deities and gods, is called a

devilish act. Even while allowing Muslims to eat

meat, the Qur'an Majeed urges them in

remonstrance in verse 6:141 not to waste it by

overeating. "

Concluded Masri, " It is significant to

note that there is no ritual involved in the

sacrificial slaughter. Those Muslims who have

started changing this plain matter-of-fact act

into a ritual should know better. The two

conditions of invoking the name of God and using

a sharp knife are the same in sacrificial

slaughter as in the normal slaughter for food.

The only differentiating stipulation in the case

of sacrificial animals is that they should be

healthy and free from any perceptible sign of

illness. "

 

Islamic vegetarianism

 

Clearly there is a gulf in perspectives

between the scholars of Darul-'Uloom and the

California Islamic Institute on the one hand,

and on the other, those who met in Cairo more

than 41 years ago.

An even wider contrast is offered by the

recent rapid rise of Islamic vegetarianism, a

tradition maintained mostly by Sufis until recent

years, but now discussed on as many as 134,000

web pages originating from almost every part of

the Islamic world. Among the strongest online

advocates of Islamic vegetarianism are some of

the young contributors to the female-oriented

Pakistani web site Paki.com, who have clearly

studied the Qur'an and Hadiths, and are

energetically making relevant passages better

known.

" Sometimes we get negative, hostile,

indignant, or incredulous reactions from other

Muslims, " writes one anonymous contributor.

" One common line of attack goes, 'You can't make

harâm [forbidden] what Allah has made halâl!

That is a sin!' Excuse me, but who ever said

anything about making anything harâm? Why even

bring that issue into it? In Islamic law there

are more categories than just obligatory and

harâm. There are various shadings of desirable

and undesirable, and in the middle there is the

neutral (al-mubâh). I'm not making meat 'harâm.'

I just don't wish for any, thank you.

" The Prophet recognized that each person

is a unique autonomous individual with his or her

own personality, " this writer continues. " He

did not enforce any overbearing uniformity on the

people. Especially when it came to eating, he

recognized that different people have different

tastes. And for that matter, not even the

Prophet and his Companions ate meat all the time.

It was only once in a while that they did, not

every day. Some Muslims seem to be under the

impression that eating meat is the sixth pillar

of Islam, but clearly there is no reason for

thinking so. "

From street level on the Eid in places

where blood fills the gutters, perceiving a

growing gulf in attitudes toward sacrifice among

Muslims may be considerably more difficult. Yet

there are wide contrasts in Eid practice, not

only between rural and urban people, nations and

other nations, Sunni and Shi'ite, but often

also among people living similar lives, almost

side by side.

Eid sacrifice at the present time takes any of four distinct forms.

Some Muslims kill animals themselves at

home, much as their ancestors did, but often

with much less skill, since many personally

perform slaughter only at the Eid.

Some Muslims kill animals at inspected

central locations, under the close observation

of professional slaughterers. This is the

approach now recommended by the public health

authorities of most of the largest and/or most

economically developed Islamic nations.

Some Muslims donate money to have animals

slaughtered for them, sometimes by rural

relatives, sometimes by neighbors, sometimes by

professional slaughterers, and increasingly

often, through charities established to relay

sacrificial meat to victims of wars and natural

disaster.

Some Muslims simply donate money to

charities that they believe are doing work of

various kinds in the spirit of Mohammed--for

example, providing medical services to the poor.

Animal charities are seldom seen in that light,

but in Hadith 3:551, narrated by Abu Huraira,

Mohammed affirmed that, " Yes, the re is a

reward for serving any animal. "

In that spirit, Waseem Shaukat, DVM of Vets

Care Organization Pakistan e-mailed to ANIMAL

PEOPLE, " VCO has been arranging free veterinary

treatment camps at different localities of Lahore

on the eve of Eid-ul-Adha regularly every year

since 2001. " In December 2007, Shaukat wrote,

" About 38 veterinary doctors and veterinary

students provided their services to the animals

from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily, " for three

days. " According to the official records, "

Shaukat continued, " 734 animals were helped in

Bakkar Mandi. An additional 53 animals were

treated in Shahdra Mandi. "

 

Sacrifice is declining

 

Quantifying how many Muslims follow each

of the four basic sacrificial practices, and

what they think of the others, is no easy

matter. Relatively little public opinion

surveying has been done on any subject in most

Islamic nations, let alone on topics as

sensitive as differences in religious behavior.

Official livestock statistics usually do not

distinguish animals sacrificed at the Eid from

those slaughtered at other times.

Yet editor Clifton has found some indicative data from the Haj itself.

As recently as 1950, the Haj pilgrimage

to Mecca attracted barely 250,000 people. The

throng grew to 300,000 by 1966, when the Academy

of Islamic Research discussed sacrificial waste

in Cairo, but the real surge in participation

came after the Saudi Arabian government opened a

new airport in 1981 to expedite pilgrims'

journeys to Mecca. A then-record two million

pilgrims killed as many as one million animals

that year, whose uneaten remains were mostly

burned in pits.

The Saudi effort to reduce the waste by

freezing carcasses and exporting the remains to

charity started relatively slowly, handling

63,000 carcasses in 1983 and 144,000 in 1984,

but gradually gained momentum. More than 8.8

million carcasses were relayed to charity during

the first 20 years of the program. The average

of 440,000 carcasses per year appears to have

been about half the total Haj slaughter volume.

Since then, media estimates are that the

average Haj slaughter volume is about 700,000,

except in December 2007, when the toll fell to

182,000. Major factors in the December 2007

crash include a suspension of livestock exports

to the Middle East by the Australian government,

after requirements for humane animal treatment

were not met, and a suspension of livestock

exports from Sudan due to an outbreak of the

tick-borne disease Rift Valley Fever.

Discounting the abnormally low December

2007 toll as a fluke, total Haj slaughter

appeared to have declined 30% in 25 years, even

as the total number of pilgrims increased to as

many as three million. The ratio of animals

slaughtered has fallen from one for every two

people, to perhaps fewer than one for every four

people.

Parallel to that trend, and even as

Saudi Arabia has emphasized efforts to increase

food self-sufficiency, Saudi sheep production

has declined at about 2% per year during the past

20 years, even as sheep imports have fallen too.

Perhaps Saudis are simply eating less

mutton and more beef, a dietary transition that

Americans and most Europeans made during the

early 20th century.

But perhaps the quiet trend away from sacrifice has had an influence.

Additional data of note comes from a

report entitled Livestock Production in Egypt,

published in 2000 by Mohammed Abdel-Meguid and

Mahmoud Moustafa of the National Water Research

Center, El Kanater, Kalubyia, Egypt.

Abdel-Meguid and Moustafa estimated that about

half of all Egyptian livestock slaughter was done

in slaughterhouses, leaving the other half to be

done by consumers.

If half of the animals killed by

consumers happened to be killed at the Eid, the

total would be about one animal for every 70

Egyptians. This ratio would be comparable to the

implied ratio of Mohammed's time--but Egyptians

increasingly live in nuclear families,

especially the 40% of the population who inhabit

Cairo and suburbs.

Counting the participants and bystanders

shown in photos of Eid sacrifices posted to web

sites, editor Clifton found an average of five

men, one woman, and .13 of a child per scene,

with the unseen photographer as another witness

of unidentified age and gender. If the photos

were representative of Eid sacrifices, and each

adult represented a family of six, total direct

involvement would be about 60% of the Egyptian

population, in a nation where 94% are Muslim.

If some of the adults shown are brothers

and sons, without families of their own yet,

total direct involvement could be 30% of the

Egyptian population, or fewer.

In December 2007, when a scarcity of

animals for slaughter depressed Eid sacrifice by

all accounts, direct involvement might have been

as low as 20%.

 

What changes are ahead?

 

The Haj data and the now eight-year-old

Egyptian data is too limited to " prove " anything

pertaining to public opinion, since public

opinion has not been surveyed, but it is

sufficient to raise questions.

One of those questions is whether Eid

sacrifice actually retains general approval among

Egyptian urban residents. Might it perhaps be an

artifact of bygone times that persists, despite

some discouragement by public health authorities,

chiefly because it has no organized opposition?

Would the rise of humane opposition be

well-received by the non-participating public,

and might humane opposition enable some of the

less enthusiastic participants to give it up?

Is Eid sacrifice in Egypt and elsewhere

in the Islamic world vulnerable to local versions

of what environmentalists call the " Not In My

Back Yard Syndrome, " in which things that are

accepted in principle--such as power stations and

landfills--are not accepted when presented in

uncomfortable proximity to people who are

equipped to oppose them?

Another question is whether organizing

opposition to Eid sacrifice and perhaps even

succeeding in abolishing it would really make any

positive difference to the animals.

As several Middle East Network for Animal

Welfare conference speakers illustrated with

slides, Eid sacrifice frequently violates hallal

standards, especially the requirements that

animals should not be pulled or dragged to

slaughter, should not be slaughtered in front of

each other, and should not be slaughtered where

they can smell the blood of other animals.

Yet as the same speakers also

illustrated, hallal requirements are likewise

often violated in commercial slaughterhouses -

and some of the most common slaughterhouse

abuses, such as blinding animals who are to be

killed and cutting their leg tendons so that they

fall down, are not usually part of at-home Eid

sacrifice.

At the MENAW conference editor Clifton

argued that at-home slaughter at the Eid is a

visible and viable target for humane protest,

and is even more a rallying issue that Egyptian

animal advocates could use in

organization-building and fundraising.

This, Clifton asserted, is because

at-home slaughter involves cruelty to animals

that most Egyptians already know about and many

find offensive; can be opposed using the words

of Mohammed himself in denouncing the violations

of hallal standards; and can be juxtaposed with

the opportunity to earn the reward that comes

from serving any animal by donating to pro-animal

charities that are actively working to reduce the

levels of violence in society, eradicate rabies,

and otherwise build a kinder world for both

animals and humans.

Clifton contended that eliminating public

displays of cruelty to animals associated with

the Eid would become a first step toward

eliminating cruelty in slaughterhouses, because

the limits to acceptable public behavior tend to

become the limits to acceptable private behavior

over time.

ANIMAL PEOPLE publisher Kim Bartlett and

Kristin Stilt doubt from their observations that

even significant nonparticipation in Eid

slaughter indicates strong personal opposition to

it. Merely not participating in something, they

point out, does not mean being against it.

" We reluctantly agree with Kristin and

Kim about Egyptian interest in participating in

the Eid sacrificial ritual, " e-mailed Ahmed Diab

and Amr Handy, who are two of the three

cofounders of the newly formed animal advocacy

organization AWARE. " However, we don't think it

is fair to throw judgements like that out without

studying the matter further. From our experience

of the slaughter ritual, we know that many young

children hate watching it, but their parents

force them to watch. We do think we should

investigate further. "

The question the parental conduct raises

is, to what extent do parents force children to

watch out of genuine enthusiasm for the

sacrifice, and to what extent are they merely

conforming to their perception of cultural

expectations?

To what extent might forcing children to

watch the Eid slaughter be done in the same

spirit with which American parents two or three

generations ago forced their children to watch as

chickens were beheaded for Sunday dinner, as a

preparation for future duties that few imagined

might not always be part of life?

Are perceptions of the requirements of

Islam actually the major determining factors in

how families celebrate the Eid? Or does family

custom have a greater role, and will that role

evolve, simply as a matter of more people living

farther from rural environments where animals are

raised and slaughtered all year round?

Was Sheikh Mohamed Farid Wagdi prophetic

when he suggested more than 75 years ago that the

time would come when donating to charity would

replace animal sacrifice within mainstream Islam,

and is that time soon?

What role can and should the humane

community have in bringing this about?

The ANIMAL PEOPLE role, as ever, is as

a catalyst for discussion and debate. Whatever

ideas any of us have, Islamic animal advocates

will make their own tactical and philosophical

choices. We can only hope to help illuminate

their options.

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent

newspaper providing original investigative

coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded

in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes

the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal

protection organizations. We have no alignment

or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]