Irrfan Khan’s Statement On Animal Sacrifice Makes So Much Sense
The statement that drew flak
Actor Irrfan Khan was recently caught in a controversy following his statements on the celebration of Ramzan and Muharram. In a movie promotion event, the 49-year-old actor questioned whether the essence of fasting during Ramzan and the concept of sacrifice had been lost.
“We have forgotten the real meaning of rituals. We have made them a tamasha (scene),” he said.
“Qurbani means sacrificing something close to your heart and sharing with others. Today, you buy a goat from the market for sacrifice. It is something to think about, it is a matter of common sense, we all should ask ourselves how sacrificing another life earns us any goodwill,” the versatile actor commented.
Let’s put this straight
Irrfan khan has touched on a very important part of all faith’s i.e sacrifice of animals. Sacrifice is something which you give up voluntarily despite you love it, you prefer to have it and have a strong sense of belonging towards it. Consider the following
1. The animal slaughter which happens on the festivals, can they be considered sacrifice in the 21st century, where animals are not much of private belonging as it was during the early ages where animals were part of their property which they cherished, loved and cared.
2. If people can buy an animal and slaughter it to call it as a sacrifice, it can just be called as slaughter and not a sacrifice. A sacrifice today would be giving your big portion of wealth for the poor, your land holding for the landless etc.
3. It can still be a sacrifice if people (Muslims in this case) raise their own goats before it is slaughtered for the festival. But raising goats in their homes is not at all a common sight in today’s world and hence the irrelevance of the word sacrifice associated with it.
These are some of the points which you can consider and add to it. Let us not feel outraged by it, as Irrfan said, let us all introspect and re-evaluate the relevance of usage of certain words for certain purposes. Should we abandon the practice? Should we call the practice something different? Neither of it? Both of it? You be the judge. The bottom line is let us discuss and debate in a civil to the points made and not indulge in character assassination.