Sacrifice as a level of existence

After Ramadan Eid, we are now experiencing Eid al-Adha too largely in the way the coronavirus wants or determines. Sacrifice (kurban) and distance are in fact concepts that cancel each other out. Sacrifice is an act that removes distance. Distance, in turn, is something that obstructs sacrifice. For sacrifice, both in its social function as a festival and in its dictionary meaning, is an act that removes distances and brings people near and close. Indeed, quite apart from this exceptional experience we are living through, sacrifice is always a subject worth thinking about.

Sacrifice is a multidimensional phenomenon. What has been said about it, the studies carried out, the different academic approaches, its reflections in the media, the approach of different professional groups to it, and the ways different social strata experience and perceive the event all show this. It looks one way to the veterinarian, another to the doctor, the animal lover, the butcher, the theologian; one way to the poor, another to the rich.

Perhaps, as a ceremony, sacrifice reflects different sides of itself to everyone because of the roles it distributes to the people taking part. And does a phenomenon not by its very nature express just such a situation? The ancients called a phenomenon "zahiriye"; as a zahiriye, sacrifice has as many different manifestations as it has different sides.

One of the acts of worship at the center of our lives Truly, Sacrifice looks different to everyone. Many people see it as a feast of meat, for instance. But that too is only an appearance. Does it look that way to everyone? Of course not, but it is an appearance enough to disturb some people. Those people do not live it this way, do not perceive it this way. How many people share their perceptions, then? Or is it even possible or necessary for everyone to share their perceptions in the same way?

Acts of worship gather people at one point and unite them, but this does not mean that everyone joins those acts of worship from the same place and by passing along the same path. Even if acts of worship can bring together people of very different levels of consciousness and age, of different experiences and strata, each takes place with a different perception, reason and excitement. You may notice with astonishment that some excessively elitist/havass approaches to certain acts of worship harbor a lack of empathy that is not commensurate with their intellectual level.

Most of the time we perform the act of sacrifice accompanied by images of animals passing through the hands of novice butchers. In short, a need arises to work out its literature, its philosophy, its sociology and to think about it in more dimensions. This subject is worth every kind of reflection, research, debate, and worth working out its literature and philosophy. It is a bad thing that we do not have a fully settled philosophy or interpretation on this subject. For by now this is, while being an act of worship, also a tradition. But unfortunately it cannot be made the subject of an equally important evaluation. When I say "sacrifice as a level of existence," I want to speak of the part that is apparent to me. I am of course not claiming that I can encompass it in all its aspects.

Sacrifice is a level of existence. Its meaning in Arabic is "drawing near." The word is of Arabic origin, but kurban is an extremely Turkish word. Because the Arabs do not call it kurban; they say "adha" or "fidya." Eid al-Adha is "'Id al-Adha." The English say "victim" or "sacrifice." There is of course nothing sacred in the word victim, which denotes someone who has suffered an accident, a murder, an incident, who has become a casualty. That is why "sacrifice" is used for the thing that is offered up after being consecrated. Therefore what is expressed here by the word kurban will be meaningful only for Turks. Because "kurban," as a word, exists only among the Turks, and with the meaning carried over from Arabic it expresses "closeness" and "drawing near."

Drawing near is a choice. In physics there is this kind of rule: a person cannot approach two opposite points at the same time. He approaches only one point. So in our choice there is an approach, but this approach is at the same time a choice that requires giving up other points, sacrificing them. Between the beliefs of shirk and tawhid, we take the side of tawhid, and thus we exclude every option relating to shirk, and if there is a possibility of gain connected with them, we sacrifice that too. In every choice we make, we sacrifice countless options that could have been made. Those who say that human will is limited are being a little harsh at this point. Sacrifice, in its dimension as a choice, is a reality at the center of the life not only of the Muslim but of every human being; it is a very fundamental level of human life. In the ritual of sacrifice too we make a choice. We choose to obey or not to obey. When we obey we draw near to Allah, if we do not we move away. We will continue on this subject a little more.

The debates over whether Prophet Abraham sacrificed Ishmael or Isaac have generally concluded in Islamic literature that he sacrificed Ishmael. But some Muslims have said that it could also have been Isaac. This is, in my view, an extremely meaningful and beautiful difference of opinion. Because it shows that Muslims have no complex on this matter. For while the Jews, stretching all the existing texts to the utmost, say that the one sacrificed was Isaac and not Ishmael, they have been seized by the concern of placing Isaac above Ishmael and thereby proving their own superiority.

Indeed, when the texts are examined, the view that the "only son" who was sacrificed was Ishmael, peace be upon him, weighs heavily. For Muslims, to discriminate between the sacrifice of one of the two sons or the other, by way of claiming the honor that falls to one of them, is not even sensible. But for the Jews, for instance, Isaac's being sacrificed turns, in terms of being sacrificed, not into an honor but into a privilege. What is hoped for is not that a people, a race, should find honor in the person of Isaac, but that it should become a holder of privilege.

Whereas we Muslims, even if this honor belonged to Isaac, do not feel ourselves deprived of that honor. Even so, that it was Ishmael (peace be upon him) must of course be a separate decree of Allah the Exalted.