Better a live goat than a dead one...

November 15, 2010 12:00 PM

Two and a half million Muslims went on the annual pilgrimage to Mecca on Nov 14, 2010. The day after Hajj is celebrated as Eid-ul-Azha by Muslims all over the world. This year, in light of the flood aftermath in Pakistan, the Pakistan Animal Welfare Society is suggesting a substitute for the traditional animal sacrifice on Eid.

Eid Mubarak, everyone!

posted by bardophile (30 comments total)

This sort of hinges on the idea that the animal sacrifice is a meaningless practice. If they actually think that following the custom correctly makes their god happier with them this is kind of bizarre.
posted by EtzHadaat at 12:12 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I read up on it and decided my comment was stupid. I'm sorry for posting it. I will not comment so quickly in the future.
posted by EtzHadaat at 12:18 PM on November 15, 2010 [10 favorites]

Actually, in my interpretation of Islam, it makes sense. It's not the killing of an animal that is meant to make Allah happier, but the thought behind it; willingness to submit to the will of Allah, as in the story of Abraham / Ibrahim. In Bosnia, the sacrifice was an act of charity . . . most of the meat is given to the poor and to orphans who otherwise may not enjoy a favorite food (sheep, in Bosnia.) This idea seems to serve the same good purpose.

Bajram Mubarak!
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 12:19 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

If only they could be convinced to substitute those migratory Canadian geese instead of goats, that'd be hitting two devils with the one stone.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:20 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I thought this post was going to be about the mecca metro... which does suggest that various traditions can be altered as times change, so maybe animal sacrifice can be worked with too.
posted by mdn at 12:29 PM on November 15, 2010

Baby steps.

I'm for it.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:02 PM on November 15, 2010

Bajram Mubarak! Personally I like how this holiday was in Bosnis, because poor people were given meat.It's not that killing the animal 'makes God happy' Its that you share, especially with people in need, that you take the meat to their home. This way if you have money you don't forget the poor and if you are poor, you don't hate people with money. That mutual self help is I think a really good thing.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 1:14 PM on November 15, 2010

I grew up with the notion that 1/3 of the meat was to be given in charity, 1/3 shared amongst family, friends, and neighbours, and 1/3 to be kept for consumption.

The idea behind eating 1/3 was to be sharing from that which you consume yourself, as opposed to giving something of lesser value because you are giving in charity, so even then, it wasn't about "keeping for yourself," but really a kind of quality control.

A lot of people have always given away the whole sacrificial "portion." So charity is, at the very least, an important part of the sacrifice. And I agree with Katjusa Roquette that the community building part of it is extremely important.
posted by bardophile at 1:22 PM on November 15, 2010

willingness to submit to the will of Allah, as in the story of Abraham / Ibrahim.

Abraham wasn't submitting to the will of God; he was calling His bluff. God was the one that blinked. Only a fool submits to the will of God when there is room for negotiation.

Whilst Allah might prefer His sheep dead, there are indeed more pressing needs.

Which reminds me of a story. I am in Turkey about 15 years ago with my lovely Turkish friend Ayse. I had in mind to buy a leather jacket so we made the rounds of the shops until I found something just right. We negotiated a price and agreed on the condition that they take up the sleeves slightly right then and there. "No problem," the tailor says. He measures me up, takes the jacket from me and invites us to a cup of coffee while he works.

As we sit down, the evening call to prayer is heard through the open window. Our tailor continues to work, but his colleague goes to the sink and begins to wash up. He then proceeds to his prayer mat - which is situated uncomfortably near to where we are sitting - and begins to pray.

I say to our host "We can wait outside..." and he quickly reassures me "No, no. Is OK. Please. Sit."

At this moment there is a large crash of thunder and all the lights go out. After a few moments there is a torch and we see the man who was just praying hand-cranking the sewing machine for the tailor.

"Please no," I say, "We can certainly wait for your friend to finish his prayers."

"It's OK," says the tailor, "Allah understands. THIS IS BUSINESS."

I didn't say another word. Paid in cash. And I left with a smile on my face.
posted by three blind mice at 1:23 PM on November 15, 2010 [14 favorites]

The practice is not at all defensible from an animal-welfare standpoint. Invoking religion, in particular this religion, does not create a defence.

In short, from an animal-welfare standpoint it is wrong to sacrifice a creature – even if you’re trying to tell us God instructed you to do it and even if you intend to donate part of that creature. You don’t get a pass by being religious, and very much don’t by being Muslim.

Now, if staying true to your tenets is more important, fine; just be honest about that. But other people’s tenets – like those of compassionate people from all religions, and none, who oppose cruelty – are at the very least equally cogent.

If you think you’re being holy by slitting an animal’s throat for whatever reason, some people are going to take issue with that, and shoving Allah in our faces won’t suffice as a counterargument.
posted by joeclark at 1:36 PM on November 15, 2010

By the way, the Big Picture photos of the Hajj this year are awesome.
posted by lullaby at 1:39 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

joeclark - and I say this as an atheist buddhist with no strong feelings about Islam - who or what are you responding to? No one in the OP or the thread is "shoving Allah in our faces." This FPP is specifically about an alternative to ritual sacrifice.
posted by desjardins at 1:48 PM on November 15, 2010

joeclark, the animal welfare organization is suggesting that the animals be donated, still living, to families to use for milk, cheese, etc.
posted by palliser at 1:51 PM on November 15, 2010

In short, from an animal-welfare standpoint it is wrong to sacrifice a creature

I hope you apply the same argument to Thanksgiving turkeys.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:10 PM on November 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

My wife and I sent our money to Pakistan (via a charity) to slaughter the animal there and distribute all of the meat to the poor. It cost $256 for the both of us (Pakistan is one of the more expensive countries). This is what most American Muslims do. You can see some photos of the meat being handed out last year.
posted by exhilaration at 2:37 PM on November 15, 2010

I hope you apply the same argument to Thanksgiving turkeys.

Yeah, I'm wondering if this is one of those times where our use of language makes us think we're more different than we are. Are the animals sacrificed at Eid eaten? If so, then I don't see why it more objectionable than anyone eating Christmas turkey or Easter ham. The only difference is that some see it as a specifically religious duty to kill an animal, rather than a cultural practice or personal preference associated with a religious occasion. Belief in god may be a dumb reason to kill an animal, as long as the meat isn't wasted, then the animal is also dying for a very non-dumb reason: it's tasty as hell.
posted by Dasein at 2:39 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Belief in god may be a dumb reason to kill an animal, as long as the meat isn't wasted, then the animal is also dying for a very non-dumb reason: it's tasty as hell.

Or divinely tasty.

Myself, I think if you are going to go so far as to kill something for food, you owe it some pretty major respect, and if that means bringing God into the equation, so be it. True sacrilege in this sense is chicken nuggets. They're just demeaning to everyone involved

Read someplace that Judaism sort of gave up on animal sacrifice after the unpleasantness of the First Jewish revolt. Can't recall the details, or even if I have it right.

Anyone?
posted by IndigoJones at 2:49 PM on November 15, 2010

Despite my no longer eating meat, I have fond memories of visiting relatives in Pakistan during Eid.

People would get the cows/goats delivered to their houses a couple of days beforehand and feed and take care of them, they were almost like pets. Then the guy would come to slaughter the animal and there would be much blood (especially as the same thing was happening at every other house too). Finally there would be large parties where we would all eat plenty of meat. I seem to remember it tasting better than the usual food too.

In Canada we would only rarely have the slaughtering done here, mainly because 1/3 of a cow is too much meat for your standard nuclear family. Nowadays we just pay for it to be done in Pakistan and have it all given to the poor. The sacrifice and giving to charity still happens, but it is much less of a celebration, especially in relation to Eid-ul-Fitr (the celebration at the end of Ramadan).
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:50 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

I hope nobody is actually looking at this as "an offering to the gods". To my understanding, offers made to Gods were usually incinerated, left to rot, or destroyed in some other manner. Meat here is not destroyed, but used as more of an act of alms than an offer to the gods. The "sacrifice" is carried out in the same manner as any other meat.

I guess if I had no background or misunderstanding of this, it would help to hear that its a "meat christmas", rather than something out of Indiana Jones.

Bardophile, excellent post about an alternative to giving meat. I can see people arguing about how this isn't exactly what was stated back in the 700s. Myself, i see this being consistent with the the spirit/intention of the day.

EM, everybody!
posted by hal_c_on at 6:04 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

IndigoJones: Almost all Jews in that period only offered sacrifices at the Temple. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans, and after that time mainstream Jews stopped offering sacrifices. There are indications that some individuals offered occasional sacrifices on the Temple Mount or elsewhere, and the Samaritans continue to offer sacrifices to this day.

For my part I don't have any problem with the Eid sacrifices - not that anyone is likely to ask my opinion. If you're going to eat meat I think it's morally better to make it a ritually significant occasion, not just a trip to the supermarket.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:32 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm a vegetarian and my response to this post is.... Thanks for making me finally look up the pronunciation of "Eid." I always get confused.
posted by Morrigan at 7:21 PM on November 15, 2010

I hope nobody is actually looking at this as "an offering to the gods". To my understanding, offers made to Gods were usually incinerated, left to rot, or destroyed in some other manner. Meat here is not destroyed, but used as more of an act of alms than an offer to the gods. The "sacrifice" is carried out in the same manner as any other meat.

I'm not sure where I got this understanding from, but I've long considered it to be a "sacrifice" anyway (even if you eat or donate the meat) because you're forced to slaughter an animal that, left to your own devices, you might prefer to keep alive, for meat or breeding.

This probably doesn't mean much to people who are accustomed to eating meat regularly, but to a poor peasant it's a big deal, just as slaughtering a pig is a big deal to people in Papua New Guinea*.

In this sense, it's almost like God forcing you to live it up for once every now & then instead of ceaselessly stockpiling for the future. Feasting at Christmas is a similar kind of binge, right in the very middle of winter when food would have been at its highest premium in olden times.

* no offence intended; just an analogy.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:36 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I quickly scanned the headline and read two and a half muslims and thought, oh good god, not another Charlie Sheen show.
posted by special-k at 7:47 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

I hope nobody is actually looking at this as "an offering to the gods". To my understanding, offers made to Gods were usually incinerated, left to rot, or destroyed in some other manner. Meat here is not destroyed, but used as more of an act of alms than an offer to the gods. The "sacrifice" is carried out in the same manner as any other meat.

I'm not familiar with the practices of the pre-Muslim Arabs, but the ancient Greeks ate the meat they sacrificed, and in fact every occasion that they ate meat was marked by sacrifice to the gods. See, for example, Hesiod Theogony 511f. It's true that there were sacrifices where you deliberately destroyed items (grain, for example), but meat was too valuable for that kind of behavior.
posted by dd42 at 11:42 PM on November 15, 2010

whoops, i meant before that you might rather keep the animal alive for milk or breeding, not meat.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:52 PM on November 15, 2010

Israeli shop offers free sheep with any TV
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:17 AM on November 16, 2010

Well, that's one way to get all the kiwis out of Australia.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:26 AM on November 16, 2010

Thanks, Joe!
posted by IndigoJones at 12:31 PM on November 16, 2010

@UbiRoivas, I think that you have made a rather important point that some of the holidays where people kill an animal and share it's meat do exist to get people out of the stockpiling/hoarding mode. It doesn't absolutely HAVE to be meat, but Ithink the sharing matters. It builds families, it builds communities. It is very important to have those times. Long ago maybe it led to people surviving who could have died without that feast to tide them over. In a world which has far exceded six billion humans we forget how hard survival was and how important each human life was.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 1:12 AM on November 17, 2010

There's also the theory that Lent (40 days of "fasting", at least in the sense of cutting back on luxuries) was a way to stop the rich from conspicuously consuming, at a time when the poor were really suffering from hunger at the end of winter.

By not flaunting their wealth, the rich may have escaped a peasant revolution.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:44 AM on November 17, 2010