Muslims say:
“Criticism of Eid al-Adha is just Islamophobia!”
But then why is Eid al-Fitr never criticized?
Maybe… it's not hate.
Maybe people just find animal slaughter in Eid al-Adha disturbing.
Let’s talk about why — not hide behind “hate.”
It’s about the horror, the blood, the suffering, the mass slaughter of animals in the name of faith.
It’s about the uneasy feeling that grips millions of people every year as they watch the streets run red on Eid al-Adha.
Until 1983, thousands of tons of Hajj meat were burnt due to spoilage and an unpleasant odour
For over 1400 years, Islamic tradition demanded the sacrifice of animals during Hajj — and what happened to that meat? It rotted.
It stank.
It was burned.
Yes, you read that right. Until 1983, when modern Western technology introduced flash-freezing, the people of Mecca had no choice but to burn thousands of tons of spoiled meat every year. The stench would become so unbearable, it would drive people out of the city.
You can read the full story here (link).
This continued to happen until the advent of modern technology in 1983 when Western companies introduced the revolutionary method of flash freezing to preserve these large quantities of meat on a mass scale (link).
Why did a supposedly all-wise Allah allow thousands of tons of meat to spoil every year for the past 1400 years in the name of pleasing Him?
The answer is simple: there is no such entity as an all-wise Allah in the heavens. Instead, it was Muhammad himself who established these regulations, and thus, we see the presence of human errors within Islamic Sharia that contradict the concept of being all-wise.
Muhammad himself wasted the meat by sacrificing one-hundred animals on Eid day. He slaughtered 100 animals on Eid. And it was so much meat that he was able to take only one piece of flesh from each animal for his meal.
... The total number of those sacrificial animals brought by 'Ali from the Yemen and of those brought by the Apostle (ﷺ) was one hundred ... He then went to the place of sacrifice, and sacrificed sixty-three (camels) with his own hand. Then he gave the remaining number to 'All who sacrificed them, and he shared him in his sacrifice. He then commanded that a piece of flesh from each animal sacrificed should be put in a pot, and when it was cooked, both of them (the Prophet and Hadrat 'All) took some meat out of it and drank its soup.
Islamic apologists try to make an excuse that Muhammad fed the rest of the meat to the poor people of Mecca. But this seems impossible while not only Muhammad, but thousands of other people who also did Hajj along with Muhammad, also brought the animals for sacrifice along with them. And there could never be so many poor people in Mecca (along with its surroundings) to finish all that amount of meat before it got spoiled and burnt/buried to avoid the smell and diseases.
Due to this Sunnah of Muhammad, still today rich Arabs (and other rich Muslims) sacrifice dozens of animals on Hajj festival only to show that they are rich.
Every year, thousands of animals died on their way to Mecca, not in sacrifice, but in suffering
Before airplanes and cargo trucks, before paved roads and refrigeration, the pilgrimage to Mecca was a brutal, deadly journey. For humans, and even more so for the animals dragged along for sacrifice.
For thousands of kilometers, across burning deserts and barren lands, countless goats, sheep, and camels collapsed from exhaustion. They died from dehydration, starvation, and relentless heat. Not for any noble cause. Not to feed the poor. But because a religious ritual demanded their presence in a city they’d never reach.
Billions of animals, over 14 centuries, suffered and perished not at the altar, but on the way to it.
It was only with the rise of modern Western technology, refrigeration, transport systems, logistics that Muslims could begin to carry out these mass sacrifices without as much waste or death. Not divine wisdom. Human innovation. And not even Muslim innovation.
So ask yourself: What kind of “all-wise” God designs a system that leads to such horrific waste and suffering for over a thousand years?
What kind of divine plan lets billions of animals die in vain, for no reason but poor logistics, flawed rituals, and outdated human traditions?
This isn’t wisdom.
This isn’t mercy.
This is the legacy of a man-made religion trying to disguise cruelty as piety.
And it’s time we stop calling it sacred, and start calling it what it really is.
The Bible probably borrowed the Sacrifice story from older civilizations?
People are often told that the story of Abraham being ready to sacrifice his son was a unique test of faith, something sacred and original. But honestly, this idea wasn’t new at all? That long before the Bible, other cultures had already shared similar stories, where a father is ready to kill his own child, only to be stopped at the last minute by a god?
This theme repeats so often across ancient civilizations that it raises serious questions. Was this ever really about divine command? Or was it about something deeper, like power, fear, and control wrapped in the language of religion?
The Phoenicians: Where It All May Have Started
In ancient Phoenician mythology, there’s a chilling story about a king named Cronus. During a terrible famine, he sacrifices his son to the gods. Some versions say he kills the boy. Others say the sacrifice is stopped or redirected. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
What’s even more interesting? Some scholars believe Cronus might have been the mythological seed for the character of Abraham. Yes, you read that right.
The Greeks Had It Too – Agamemnon and His Daughter
In Greek legend, King Agamemnon prepares to kill his own daughter Iphigenia to win the favor of the goddess Artemis before sailing to war. Just as he’s about to strike, Artemis steps in and replaces the girl with a deer. Again, a divine last-minute intervention. Again, a child almost killed because a god "demanded" it. How different is that from the story of Abraham and the ram.
What Was Really Being Sacrificed?
The famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud saw all this differently. He believed that these stories weren’t just about faith or obedience. To him, they were about the fears and anxieties buried deep in the human mind, especially the father’s fear of losing control, of handing over power to the next generation.
The “sacrifice” in these stories, Freud said, is symbolic. It’s not really about killing a child, it’s about the older generation trying to control the future. It's about suppressing the child's independence, desires, and choices... all in the name of duty, tradition, or god.
And if you look around, this still happens. Families still expect children to blindly follow tradition. Young people are still guilted into silence, submission, and sacrifice ... not of their bodies, but of their dreams, their identities, and their rights.
Muslim Excuse of Circulation of Wealth
That’s the excuse Muslims often give to defend the mass slaughter of animals on Eid al-Adha. They claim it helps the economy. That butchers get work. That transportation thrives. That the leather industry benefits.
But this Muslim argument is against wisdom and irrational.
If those animals were not slaughtered all at once, they wouldn’t just vanish from the earth. They’d still exist to be used throughout the year, offering sustained employment, continuous food supply, and regular economic activity.
Butchers wouldn’t lose jobs, but they’d have work all year.
The poor wouldn’t have to rely on one day of meat, but they’d receive it steadily.
The leather industry wouldn’t suffer, but it would get raw materials in a manageable, sustained flow.
What we’re seeing instead is a massive spike followed by silence, a brief frenzy that doesn’t build but burns through resources.
And the tragedy doesn’t stop there. Many of the animals killed could’ve been used for milk, for breeding, for manure, for sustainable farming. They could’ve provided long-term benefits to human lives, especially in rural, underdeveloped regions.
And let’s not forget the human cost. Do you know that:
- In countless poor Muslim countries, children go to bed hungry. Millions suffer from malnutrition, lacking essential nutrients like Vitamin B12, not because meat isn’t available, but because it’s concentrated into one single day, then gone.
- No amount of meat in one feast can fix a year’s worth of deficiency. What people need is consistent, moderate, year-round nutrition, and not an overwhelming overdose that fades as quickly as it came.
Muslim Argument: Poor people get meat to eat due to Eid al-Adha
“At least the poor get to eat meat on Eid al-Adha.” ... That’s the proud claim, repeated again and again, by Muslims defending the mass slaughter of animals every year.
But have they ever stopped to question the so-called wisdom of Allah behind this whole system?
Let’s look at the facts.
Millions of livestock are taken from poor Muslim countries like Sudan, Somalia, and Pakistan ... nations where poverty, hunger, and malnutrition are already rampant.
These animals are shipped across borders, through long, punishing journeys, just to be slaughtered in Mecca, and then their frozen meat is sent back to the very countries the animals came from (i.e. Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan etc.).
Just pause for a second. Does that sound like divine logic or a badly written logistical nightmare?
Double transportation.
Skyrocketing costs.
Unnecessary suffering.
Why go through all this drama of sacrificing in Mecca? Why not just distribute the meat directly to the people who need it, in their own lands?
And it gets worse.
Because of this one-day slaughter frenzy, the price of meat shoots up for the rest of the year. In countries like Pakistan, where inflation is crushing families, poor people can’t afford meat at all, not for months. That’s why horrifying scandals emerge, where donkey meat or even dog meat is secretly sold in markets (link).
Is that what this ritual is achieving? Feeding the poor or starving them for the other 364 days?
And let’s talk economics. Transporting livestock is 8 to 10 times more expensive than transporting meat. Add to that the cost of shelter, feeding, healthcare, and losses from animal deaths during the journey. Billions are wasted, not to serve the poor, but to preserve a ritual.
If Allah truly wanted to help the hungry, wouldn’t He have commanded a better system? One where animals are sacrificed monthly, in local communities, with meat distributed consistently and affordably? Where nutrition is spread over time, not dumped in one day and then gone?
Vitamin B12 doesn’t stay in the body all year from one Eid meal. Protein needs can’t be met with a few bites of meat once a year.
So let’s be honest. This is not divine wisdom. This is ritualism dressed as compassion, a system that fails the very people it claims to serve.
And no truly wise God would design something so wasteful, so cruel, and so detached from the real needs of the people.
Muslim Excuse: "But McDonald's also kills millions of animals!"
When confronted with the criticism of Eid al-Adha, Muslim apologists often throw out a tired old line: “You’re just hypocrites. You criticize Eid, but you don’t say anything about McDonald's, even though they kill millions of animals too!”
But this comparison is not just weak, but it is dishonest.
We reply with the facts:
- McDonald’s does not slaughter millions of animals in a single day.
- It does so in moderation, spread across the entire year. Because of that, meat is processed, distributed, and consumed at a steady pace. Prices remain stable. There is no panic, no sudden spike in cost, no artificial scarcity.
In contrast, Islamic countries slaughter millions of animals in a single day on Eid. And the result?
- Meat prices skyrocket.
- Poor people cannot afford meat for months.
- And in countries like Pakistan, donkey meat and even dog meat are sold secretly in markets, without people knowing what they’re eating. (Link)
So who’s really hurting the poor here?
Yes, McDonald’s has been criticized, but not for using meat, but for how it processes food, for adding chemicals, for poor farming ethics, and for injecting animals with antibiotics. And this criticism comes from within the West itself. People in the West challenge their corporations, their systems, and even their own eating habits.
But what about Muslims?
They refuse to question anything, because it is the supposed command of Allah, even if it results in waste, price inflation, sickness, animal cruelty, and malnutrition for the poor. There is no room for criticism, because everything is protected under the label of “divine wisdom.”
That is the difference.
People in the West criticize McDonald's openly. But Muslims fear to even whisper a doubt about Eid or about Allah’s decisions, even when they clearly cause harm.
So no, we are not hypocrites. We are asking valid questions. We are challenging an ancient system that claims to be from an all-wise God, but functions like a human-made tradition full of flaws.
Muslims Trying to Hide “God’s Mistake” Behind the West’s Mistakes
Many Muslims try to justify the mass slaughter of animals on Eid al-Adha by saying, “But people in the West also kill animals excessively and eat fish in large quantities. So why criticize Islamic sacrifice?”
Here’s the answer:
Today, millions of people in the West are raising their voices against the overconsumption of meat. They recognize it as a grave mistake, destructive to the environment and ethically troubling.
This is the greatness of human consciousness: to acknowledge our mistakes, to protest them, and to try and correct them.
But can any Muslim ever dare to do the same?
Can a Muslim, on the day of Eid al-Adha, when the blood of millions of voiceless animals is shed, ever dare to call it “God’s mistake”?
Western societies do not claim to be infallible. They admit their flaws and struggle to overcome them. Criticism is not only allowed, it is healthy. It reflects the freedom of thought and the evolution of human ethics.
But when it comes to Allah’s actions, believed to be “infallible” in Islam, why do Muslims try to hide divine commandments behind the errors of the West?
In Islamic theology, Allah is believed to be free from all error. Every command is seen as perfect, flawless, and beyond questioning.
This belief is the very foundation of the entire Islamic system. If Allah is shown to have made even one moral or ethical mistake, then He ceases to be “Allah” and the entire structure of Islam collapses with that one crack.
Here lies the deep contradiction.
When the walls close in, and environmental or ethical criticisms begin to surround the practice of animal sacrifice, Islamic thinkers often dodge the issue by saying: “Well, the West does the same thing. They consume meat and fish recklessly too.”
They try to shield divine orders by pointing to human failures.
But this attempt is weak and ultimately fails.
Acknowledging human error and criticizing it is not the same as questioning a command that, according to Islamic belief, comes directly from God.
Yes, Western society has its faults. We can criticize them, challenge them, and hope to change them. But when it comes to divine commandments, there is no room for error or reform, because by definition, they are supposed to be perfect.
So when moral or environmental questions are raised about the divine command to sacrifice animals, they cannot be dismissed by pointing fingers at humans.
Because this is not about human error. This is about a potential error in a divine decision.
And that changes everything.
Over 25,000 people hospitalized in Lahore alone, just from overeating on Eid
Every year, we see the same headlines. People falling sick, hospitals overflowing, stomachs bloated, and emergency rooms filled — all because of overindulgence in meat on Eid al-Adha.
In just one city, Lahore, over 25,000 people were hospitalized due to overeating during Eid celebrations.
Is this the outcome of divine wisdom? Is this what an All-Knowing and All-Wise Allah would design?
According to Islamic law, not only are Muslims told to sacrifice entire animals, but they are also encouraged to eat from it themselves. The result? An annual flood of gluttony and excess, disguised as worship.
This is not a new problem. It has been happening for 1400 years. And it will continue to happen, because this ritual goes against basic human psychology.
Give people an entire animal, tell them it is sacred, tell them they should enjoy it, and expect them to show restraint? That is not how human behavior works.
Religious rules are supposed to guide and uplift. But this one leads to hospital beds, upset stomachs, and sometimes even death. And it all could have been avoided with just a little wisdom, a little foresight, a little care for human health.
But when you strip away the claims of divinity and look at it for what it really is, you don’t see divine wisdom. You see man-made traditions, built without understanding of nutrition, health, or moderation, and repeated blindly in the name of God.
How much land and water are we sacrificing for the Eid sacrifice?
To raise animals for Eid al-Adha, vast areas of fertile agricultural land are consumed ... land that could otherwise be used to grow fruits, vegetables, and grains to feed the hungry year-round.
Do you know that producing just one kilogram of meat requires 60 times more land than producing one kilogram of vegetables?
And it takes 100 times more water to produce that same one kilogram of meat compared to vegetables? (link).
And 100 times more water is needed for the production of one kg of meat as compared to one kg of vegetables (link).
In a world where people are already suffering from hunger, water shortages, and land degradation, what kind of divine wisdom demands the mass breeding and slaughter of cattle every single year, just for a ritual?
Millions of acres of land and billions of liters of water are drained away to maintain a system that provides meat for one day, while taking away food security for the rest of the year.
Is this the will of an all-wise God?
Is "Eid al-Adha" Named After Isaac?
We all know Eid al-Adha as the "Festival of Sacrifice," but have you ever considered if its name might actually connect to Isaac, Abraham's son, whose Hebrew name was Yitzhak or Izhak?
It's an interesting thought because "Yitzhak" in Hebrew literally means "he will laugh." The Bible says Abraham and Sarah both laughed in disbelief when told they'd have a son in old age, hence his name. And here's the kicker: the Arabic word "ضحك" (ḍaḥika) also means "to laugh."
So, some scholars suggest Eid al-Adha might refer to Isaac, "the one who laughs."
Muslims often object, pointing out that "sacrifice" (ضحى) and "laughter" (ضحك) come from different Arabic roots. But this misses a key point: what if the name "Eid al-Adha" didn't come from an Arabic word for sacrifice at all, but from the name of a person – Isaac – whose name symbolized laughter? Festivals often absorb names from older traditions.
Another common argument is that "Duha" in the Qur'an means "morning light," not sacrifice. But if so, how can Eid al-Adha mean "Festival of Sacrifice" based on that root? More importantly, the Qur'an itself uses "Qurban" for sacrifice (like in Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:27), not "Duha" or "Adha."
Some might say the name "Eid al-Adha" was coined later, but there's no solid evidence in pre-Islamic Arabic literature that "Adha" ever meant sacrifice. The connection seems to have been established in Arabic Dicitionaries (and in Islamic Traditions/Ahadith) after the fact.
So, without strong linguistic proof for "Adha" meaning sacrifice from ancient times, and given the powerful symbolism of Isaac's name, it's quite reasonable to think that Eid al-Adha could indeed be named after Izhak – the son whose birth brought laughter, and who was almost sacrificed. It might just be a forgotten tribute to a much older, shared narrative.
Look at the Foolishness: They killed billions of animals in the past 1400 years, but they don't even know if it was Ishaaq or Ismael who was sacrificed
It is ironic. Muslims have been killing billions of animals for 1400 years, all in memory of the "sacrifice," yet they cannot even agree on who the son was. Was it Ishaaq or Ismael?
Strangely, early on, even Muhammad seemed to follow the Biblical tradition and declared that it was Ishaaq who was to be sacrificed. But then this story created a major problem. Ishaaq never lived in or visited Mecca. So how could he have been sacrificed there on the day of Hajj?
In order to cover this issue, early Muslims tried to solve it by fabricating stories. Just as they invented Muhammad's "night journey" on a flying mule, they fabricated another hadith suggesting that Ishaaq also miraculously arrived in Mecca just for the sacrifice.
But this miracle claim was too bizarre to be taken seriously. So later Muslims started fabricating new hadiths, this time claiming that it was Ismael who was to be sacrificed. This was more convenient since Ismael was believed to have lived in Mecca, and Muslims wanted to glorify their Prophet’s ancestry through him.
Still, despite the dozens of hadiths that were later fabricated in favor of Ismael, many early Muslim scholars and companions of the Prophet continued to believe that the son who was to be sacrificed was Ishaaq.
Imam Qurtubi, in his tafsir under verse Quran 37:102, wrote the following (link):
The scholars differed regarding who was commanded to be sacrificed. MOST of them said it was Isaac. Among those who said so were Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib and his son Abdullah, and this is the CORRECT opinion attributed to them. Ath-Thawri and Ibn Jurayj narrated it from Ibn Abbas, who said, "The one to be sacrificed was Isaac." And this is also the CORRECT opinion attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas'ud ... This opinion is STRONGER (Arabic: قوي) in terms of the narration from the Prophet, peace be upon him, and from the companions and the successors.
Despite this overwhelming testimony in favor of Isaac, later Muslims ignored it. Instead, they followed the fabricated traditions to make Ishmael the sacrificial son, just to give their rituals credibility.
This entire episode is a testament to the unreliability of Islamic hadith literature. The fact that 131 narrations had to be overpowered by inventing 133 opposing ones shows that hadith transmission was not divine truth but religious propaganda dressed up as sacred history.
Imam Tabari gave his final decision about the Quran on this matter in these words (link):
"As for the above-mentioned proof from the Quran that it really was Isaac, it is God's word which informs us about the prayer of His friend Abraham when he left his people to migrate to Syria with Sarah. Abraham prayed, ‘I am going to my Lord who will guide me. My Lord! Grant me a righteous child.’ This was before he knew Hagar, who was to be the mother of Ishmael. After mentioning this prayer, God goes on to describe the prayer and mentions that he foretold to Abraham that he would have a gentle son. God also mentions Abraham's vision of himself sacrificing that son when he was old enough to walk with him. The Book does not mention any tidings of a male child given to Abraham except in the instance where it refers to Isaac, in which God said, ‘And his wife, standing by laughed when we gave her tidings of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob’, and ‘Then he became fearful of them’. They said. ‘Fear not!’ and gave him tidings of a wise son. Then his wife approached, moaning, and smote her face, and cried, ‘A barren old woman’. Thus, wherever the Quran mentions God giving tidings of the birth of a son to Abraham, it refers to Sarah (and thus to Isaac) and the same must be true of God's words ‘So we gave him tidings of a gentle son’, as it is true of all such references in the Quran."
Musnad Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Hadith 2658:
Arabic Text: حدثنا يونس أخبرنا حماد عن عطاء بن السائب عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال إن جبريل ذهب بإبراهيم إلى جمرة العقبة فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات فساخ ثم أتى الجمرة الوسطى فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات فساخ ثم أتى الجمرة القصوى فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات فساخ فلما أراد إبراهيم أن يذبح ابنه إسحاق قال لأبيه يا أبت أوثقني لا أضطرب فينتضح عليك من دمي إذا ذبحتني فشده فلما أخذ الشفرة فأراد أن يذبحه نودي من خلفه أن يا إبراهيم قد صدقت الرؤيا
English Translation: Yunus narrated to us, saying Hammad informed us, from Ata' ibn As-Sa'ib, from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Jibreel (peace be upon him) took Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to Jamrat Al-Aqabah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground. Then he came to the middle Jamrah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground. Then he came to the last Jamrah, and Satan appeared to him. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) threw seven pebbles at him, and he sank into the ground."
"Then, when Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was about to sacrifice his son Is-haq (peace be upon him), his son said to his father: 'O my father! Tie me so that I do not struggle and my blood does not splash on you when you slaughter me.' So he tied him. When Ibrahim (peace be upon him) took the knife and intended to slaughter him, a voice called from behind him: 'O Ibrahim! You have indeed fulfilled the vision.'"
Ruling: The chain of narration for this tradition is Sahih (authentic). (Link)
Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut narrated this tradition in Takhrij Mushkil al-Athar (Link):
Arabic Text: أنَّ أسماءَ بنَ خارجةَ سابَّ رَجُلًا، فقال: أنا ابنُ الأشياخِ الكرامِ، فقال عبدُ اللهِ: الأشياخُ الكرامُ يوسفُ بنُ يعقوبَ صفيِّ اللهِ ابنِ إسحاقَ ذبيحِ اللهِ ابنِ إبراهيمَ خليلِ اللهِ
English Translation: "Asma' ibn Kharijah insulted a man and said: 'I am the son of noble elders.' So the Companion Abdullah (Ibn Mas'ud) said: 'The noble elders are Yusuf son of Ya'qub, the chosen one of Allah, son of Is-haq, the sacrifice of Allah, son of Ibrahim, the Khalil (intimate friend) of Allah.'"
Ruling: Sahih (authentic) (Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut)
For more details, please read our article:
Hassan Radwan