If someone were to object, saying: “But we are dealing with a practice that the noble Prophet performed, and there is a Qur’anic verse mentioning sacrificial animals as a means of drawing closer to God and as a redemptive act”, using this to argue that the uḍḥiyah has not been lifted from the Ummah, we would counter with evidence from the Prophet’s own practice and speech, and from the actions and understanding of his Companions, which prove its abrogation.
Indeed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) sacrificed on behalf of his community as a ransom, and out of deference to the prevailing custom. His Companions sacrificed as well, then later abandoned it, having understood that the Prophet had effectively lifted its obligation. The golden rule in Islamic legislation is: “Interest changes with changing times.”
A clear precedent for this is the abolition of the category ‘those whose hearts are to be reconciled’ (al-mu’allafatu qulubuhum) in the disbursement of zakat, despite it being mentioned in a Qur’anic verse:
“Zakat expenditures are only for the poor, the needy, those employed to collect [zakat], those whose hearts are to be reconciled, for freeing captives, for those in debt, in the path of Allah, and for the stranded traveler - an obligation from Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (9:60)
The Messenger of Allah used to allocate a share to this group until his death. But when Abū Bakr became caliph, ʿUmar suggested discontinuing this category, saying:
“We no longer need them. Allah has strengthened Islam and made it independent of them. If they accept Islam, then fine. Otherwise, the sword lies between us and them.” (Al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, Vol. 1, p. 164)
Abū Bakr upheld ʿUmar’s opinion.
Al-Duwalībī writes in Uṣūl al-Fiqh (p. 239) that ʿUmar’s opinion reflected the principle that interest (maṣlaḥah) changes with time, even when the Qur’anic text remains unchanged and unabrogated. He notes that ʿUmar looked to the underlying rationale (ʿillah) of the verse, not merely its wording. He understood that giving to this group was tied to specific historical conditions - namely, reconciling their hearts or warding off their harm when Islam was weak. Once Islam became strong and those conditions vanished, the rationale for the ruling vanished too.
Thus, Qur’anic texts and prophetic traditions are always governed by divine wisdom. A key objective of the sunnah is to discern that wisdom, and to act accordingly - whether that means upholding a ruling or developing it.
The texts themselves are not the goal; they are means to realize higher interests.
In the specific case of the uḍḥiyah, we are now faced with evidence for its abrogation, which overrides the earlier evidence supporting its temporary prescription. What matters is the understanding of the text - not just the text itself.
The Qur’an demands that we engage its verses with insight, warning against blind submission:
“And those who, when reminded of the verses of their Lord, do not fall upon them deaf and blind.” (25:73)
So the religious duty requires us to differentiate between the foundations of Islam and its branches, and between enduring acts of worship and temporary customary practices.
Now that it is time to revive the true sunnah in worship and conduct…
Now that the human intellect has matured, and religion can open the door to spiritual closeness through thought, rather than through the shedding of animal blood…
Now that economic, social, and health conditions (as we will see) have rendered the sacrifice burdensome, harmful, and outdated…
Now that the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly exempted his Ummah from it, and his foremost Companions followed suit…
Then the sacrifice today, in light of these developments, becomes an act entirely contrary to religion.
In fact, it is nothing more than a resurgence of superficial religiosity - a confirmation of Muslims’ attachment to the shell of religion while forfeiting its essence.
Below, we examine the economic, social, and health-related reasons for its fall.

Economic Harms of the Sacrifice Today

The uḍḥiyah was legislated temporarily to bring joy and abundance to families during a time when meat was not widely available. It was a rare, seasonal food in the harsh living conditions of the Arabian Peninsula, typically affordable only to the wealthy.
In al-Zurqānī’s commentary on al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (Vol. 3, p. 75), we read:
ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Bakr said: “The Messenger of Allah forbade eating the meat of sacrificial animals after three days.” He mentioned this to ʿAmrah bint ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, who said: “He told the truth. I heard ʿĀ’ishah, the wife of the Prophet, say: ‘Some Bedouin came to Medina for Eid, so the Prophet said: Eat for three days and then give away the rest.’ Later, when it was mentioned to him that people were benefiting from their sacrifices beyond three days, he said: ‘I only forbade you because of the needy who came to you. Now eat, give in charity, and store what remains.’”
And in Sunan Abū Dāwūd (Vol. 3, p. 93):
“We used to be forbidden from eating its meat beyond three days so that it would suffice for all. But now Allah has granted abundance - so eat, store, and benefit. These are days of eating, drinking, and remembering Allah.”
Thus, the economic dimension was one of the justifications for the uḍḥiyah during that time.
Today, however, meat is no longer a rare commodity - its economic function has faded, and the practice has shifted from benefit to burden.
In our country, as in many others, the prices of livestock have risen dramatically under the pressure of global inflation. It has become prohibitively expensive, even for middle-class families, let alone the poor. As a result, the uḍḥiyah today has become economically impractical and spiritually counterproductive.
Many families struggle to meet even their basic daily needs - how then can they afford a costly sacrifice?
This economic strain, coupled with poor religious education, opens the door to many ethical violations:
• Debt accumulation
• Bribery
• Misuse of public funds
• Failure to meet financial obligations
These are all economic harms that render the uḍḥiyah undesirable in religion, for the sake of preventing harm and closing the door to corruption.
Since the sacrifice is already not legally required of Muslims - especially today - why do we insist on blindly performing it while it brings financial ruin to individuals and families and contributes to economic imbalance in national consumption and exports during these difficult times?

Social and Health Harms of the Sacrifice Today

In today’s harsh living conditions, the economic burdens of the uḍḥiyah lead to countless social harms.
Not only does it cause social anxiety for those who sacrifice while deeply in debt and unable to support their families, but the actions of the wealthy also impose a psychological and economic toll on others.
The well-off either:
• Pressure the less fortunate to sacrifice, pushing them further into hardship
• Or humiliate them when they resist, reinforcing harsh class divisions
The result is destructive psychological effects on the community.
This is why the fatwa issued by the Grand Mufti of Sudan in 1978 (published in Al-Sahafa, 9 Nov. 1978) worsened the problem. He claimed that the sacrifice was a “sunnah for the capable person who does not need its cost for himself or his family throughout the year” - effectively making it obligatory for the well-off.
This view contradicts the sayings of the Companions, like ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās and ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd:
• Ibn ʿAbbās would slaughter daily, except on Eid - when he refrained.
• Ibn Masʿūd said: “I forgo my sacrifice though I am among the wealthiest of you - lest my neighbors think it is obligatory.”
The social harms that result from the wealthy sacrificing while the poor cannot, are proof that the uḍḥiyah has fallen for both groups alike.
Imagine the psychological toll on a poor family that doesn’t sacrifice, while their wealthier neighbors do - only to then receive meat as charity.
And we won’t even delve here into the health risks of slaughter in overcrowded residential neighborhoods, where lack of hygiene and proper disposal leads to environmental and public health dangers.
The health guidelines that circulate annually show just how significant these risks have become.