The Ritual of Sacrifice: Violence or Closeness?

Why do Muslims perform sacrifices? Does sacrifice still hold relevance in today's world? Some have described God's command to His prophet Abraham to sacrifice his son Ishmael as violent—whether it be a story or a historical fact. Is sacrifice a means of drawing closer to God and selflessness, or is it a remnant of a pre-modern world that, especially when performed publicly, normalizes violence? Majid Mohammadi, a sociologist with religious studies, and Abdolali Bazargan, a writer and religious scholar, discuss these questions and doubts in this week's episode of Taboo. The program begins with Mr. Bazargan. To directly address the topic for this week's Taboo, I will ask you why people perform sacrifices? What is the philosophy behind sacrifice and where does it originate? Abdolali Bazargan: Notice that 'sacrifice' is an Arabic word related to 'closeness' and 'kin.' Sacrifice is a means that brings us closer to our Creator. It means distancing oneself from personal desires and what belongs to us to give to others. The Quran states that you will never reach the level of goodness unless you give from what you truly love. It says, 'You will not attain righteousness until you spend from that which you love.' It even says you should never intend to give something you do not consume and do not like to others. Thus, sacrifice is not merely about form; it is about stepping over one's own desires and being able to give of oneself. In Rumi's Masnavi, there is a story of 'the thirsty one, the stream, and the wall,' where the clear water symbolizes life. A thirsty person is on a high wall, saying that the barrier to reaching life and truth is the wall of one's own self. It says, 'As long as this high wall exists, it prevents this head from bowing down.' This is essentially a summary of the philosophy of sacrifice. Very well, Mr. Bazargan. I have some questions regarding your viewpoint. However, let us see what Mr. Mohammadi thinks. How does he view the philosophy of sacrifice? Majid Mohammadi: The topic of sacrifice can be viewed from three different perspectives. From a religious perspective, sacrifice is a duty performed to draw closer to God, repel evil, and atone for sins. It is a kind of transaction with God or a sacred matter. The second perspective is sociological. We can look at the functions and structures of sacrificial ceremonies and rituals. Sacrifice is performed at significant moments in a person's life or at sensitive points, such as illnesses. The third perspective is anthropological, focusing on the role of these rituals in the survival of primitive humans and societies. The second introduction I want to present to you is the social functions of sacrifice. The first function is to evoke a kind of collective identity in religious ceremonies. People gain a shared experience from this bloodshed—though in a period of animal bloodshed, it could have replaced human bloodshed, and this has happened—leading to communal feasting and helping one another. The second function is a type of worship and collective purification that is accompanied by selflessness and sacrifice for the purification of the soul. The third function is to appease deities that were perceived as wrathful and vengeful. The fourth function is to alleviate feelings of guilt and responsibility arising from hunting animals, and the fifth function is the continuity of society through the sacrifice of an individual. The concept of martyrdom in religious cultures is essentially a commemoration of the individual's sacrifice for the community. With these two introductions, we can somewhat explain both the social philosophy and the religious philosophy of sacrifice. Mr. Bazargan! Mr. Mohammadi spoke about a transaction with God and the sacred matter from a religious perspective. I emphasize this point because many critics of sacrifice focus on this and ask why God would require blood from His servants. They view it as a violent transaction with God. What response do you have for this group? Bazargan: Throughout history, it has always been this way; humans, feeling defenseless against natural disasters, have engaged in a kind of transaction with God. It exists in our culture as well. For instance, when someone buys a new car, they must shed blood and smear it on the wheels. It is a ritual for travelers, weddings, or when someone buys a house, a charitable act for children. It is indeed a kind of transaction with God. The Quran states that neither its blood nor its meat reaches God. What God desires from sacrifice is for you to have self-control and piety, meaning to be able to overcome your attachments and give to others. Historically, sacrifices have always been for the gods, but the Quran clearly presents sacrifice for humans, meaning that sacrificing a sheep or something else and giving it to humans is what is intended. In fact, it is not just about killing. It states that your wealth and children are not sacrifices and means of drawing closer to God. What serves as your means of closeness and sacrifice is faith and righteous deeds. In Surah At-Tawbah, verse 99, it states that financial help you provide for the defense of the community becomes a sacrifice before God. Numerous instances in the Quran show that the intention is not merely killing and shedding blood as it has been established. So, Mr. Bazargan, I might ask you this: After all, your statement contradicts the story of Abraham and what exists regarding the sacrifice of his son Ishmael. One of the criticisms that opponents of sacrifice and its religious roots raise is why an omnipotent God would consider such a harsh test for His prophet, and this contradicts your statement that the Quran, in any case, has requested various forms of sacrifice, not necessarily blood or the beheading of someone or something. Bazargan: Notice that in the Quran, when the story is mentioned in Surah As-Saffat from verse 102 onwards, it is a dream. Abraham says he has seen a dream and shares it with his son, saying, 'O my son! I keep seeing this image in my dream that I am slaughtering you. What do you think? What do you say?' He even consults with a young child. The child replies, 'O father, do what you are commanded; you will find me, if God wills, patient.' Then it says that when Abraham was ready and prepared for this act, the message came that this was only a test. It seems that Abraham, the only monotheist of his time, thought to himself that when all the polytheists sacrifice their loved ones to please idols, am I also willing to sacrifice my dearest, my son Ishmael? When he was ready to do this, God held his hand. He says this was only a test. 'And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice.' God gifted him, meaning instead of sacrificing a human, a sheep was sacrificed. Then it says, 'We left this as a tradition for later generations.' This means that not only was no blood shed, but it marked the end of human sacrifice. Because when a human is sacrificed, it does not benefit anyone. It was only for pleasing idols. In fact, I think quite the opposite, and I say that this story about Abraham marks the end of human sacrifice. For Abraham, his son Ishmael was, in fact, something that hindered pure worship of God. Go see what has you trapped? Your work? Your job? Your money? Your fame? Your desires? What is it that binds you? The Quran uses the term 'sha'air,' which comes from the root 'sha'r,' meaning hair. A poet is someone who is discerning and sees matters accurately, or 'shu'ur,' which is a stage above mysticism. 'Sha'air' means symbols that require some precision. They are, in fact, a vessel and form. The intention is not merely to kill an innocent animal and shed blood. Throughout history, since there has been animal husbandry, what has been important for humans has been dear, and sacrificing them for others has been seen as a symbol of drawing closer to God, selflessness, and sacrifice. Returning to you, Mr. Mohammadi, I pose this question: In Mr. Bazargan's remarks, he mentioned that sacrifices were made to please idols, and even humans were sacrificed. The Abrahamic religions have spoken of the end of idol worship and religious superstitions. The question is, why have they carried over some of the customs related to these rituals, such as sacrifice, and recognized and continued them? Mohammadi: The line between superstition and religion is a blurry one. Determining what is truly superstition and what is religion is a very difficult task. Given the transformations that have occurred in human society over the past several thousand years, sacrifice and sacrificing have, in my opinion, become entirely irrelevant. Because the notion of appeasing gods that were symbols of wrath and vengeance is entirely negated, as today humanity understands that these calamities and diseases have natural causes and can be dealt with through natural mechanisms and processes. We have passed the hunting era. Today, humanity can industrially provide its food. There is no need for the stories of the past. We do not need to sacrifice an individual or an animal to ensure the survival of society. Collective identity today is not limited to religious ceremonies. Individuals can have collective identity in various secular collaborations; in their jobs, civil institutions, and in collective purification, religions have a very rich heritage of prayers and worship ceremonies that fundamentally do not require sacrificing and shedding blood. Because both bloodshed and sacrifice pose serious risks to societies. Regarding Mr. Bazargan's comments about Abraham and Ishmael, as long as these stories have a poetic and narrative aspect, I have no problem with them. You can define various types of such stories in literature, and they may have educational value. However, unfortunately, religions do not merely claim to have poetic language or tell stories. Religions claim to have realism. Unfortunately, when these take on a realistic aspect, millions of humans can be sacrificed for a greater goal—this concept of martyrdom—both in the past and today, you see that this human sacrifice by religions is a routine, and it fundamentally lacks a narrative and poetic aspect. Mr. Bazargan, you heard Mr. Mohammadi's comments. Now perhaps you would like to specifically respond to this last part. But I will ask you, as Mr. Mohammadi pointed out, that there is no longer a need for sacrifice in today's society. He lists functions for sacrifice that are now meaningless. What will your response be to this? Bazargan: Look, I have expanded the meaning of sacrifice, which is not limited to killing a sheep and shedding blood. I have opened up the concept of sacrifice to include any action that can bring a person closer to their ideals and goals. The Quran also states that faith, righteous deeds, financial help, and good ethics are, in fact, considered sacrifices. Religions have proposed certain principles. I did not say that these are merely poetry and stories. 'Sha'air' means, in fact, a symbol that, according to culture and human development, can be viewed more broadly. Sacrifice is never discontinued. Sacrifice, in its original meaning of selflessness and altruism, is for drawing closer to a goal; now, depending on what the goal is. Before the revolution, we remember that some leftist groups called themselves 'Fadai Khalq' (Fadai means sacrifice in Persian). This means there is an ideal for which we sacrifice our lives to save our country. This becomes the same sacrifice. It is not for God. It says it is for our people. The claim of idealism and religious devotion alone does not accomplish anything. In the Quran, wherever prayer is mentioned, it is followed by the command to give alms and charity. This means faith and action go hand in hand. Sacrifice, in its comprehensive meaning, is any action that brings you closer to your goal. Therefore, regarding the traditional forms that Mr. Mohammadi mentioned, yes, many of them have indeed become obsolete, but even in terms of food, as he stated, in the industrial era, there is no need. Is it really the case that in today's world, the majority of the planet is hungry and in need? One percent of the world's population holds fifty percent of the resources. Therefore, industry alone cannot solve this issue. Even if it does, it does not provide us with growth. Sacrifice means by your own choice...