The Impact of Religious Practices on Shaping Cultural Habits: The Case of Child Sacrifice among the Pre-Islāmic Arabs from the Qur’ānic Perspective

Abstract

One of the traditions observed in pre-Islāmic Arab society (Jāhiliyya) was the practice of child sacrifice. This practice drew strong condemnation and opposition in various passages of the Qur’ān. The underlying impetus behind the Jāhiliyya Arabs (pre-Islāmic Arabs) to engage in such acts, especially the sacrifice of their daughters, finds its explanation in the phrase khashya imlāq, “fear of poverty,” as stated in the applicable passages. Nonetheless, a careful examination of the narrations (riwāyāts) and passages pertaining to the subject reveals a fundamental relationship between the Arabs’ custom of child sacrifice and their votive rituals. This paper aims to scrutinize this intricate relationship. It commences with the identification of the riwāyāts linked to the Jāhiliyya society’s custom of presenting children as offerings to their deities. Subsequently, a comprehensive analysis will be presented on interpretations put forth by Muslim exegetes (mufassirūn) regarding Qur’ānic passages addressing the theme of child sacrifice. This paper argues that while the ostensible motivation for child sacrifice, particularly that of daughters, is often attributed to peniaphobia, an examination of the relevant passages, riwāyāts, and the exegetical interpretations leads to the conclusion that this practice is intertwined with the votive beliefs once held by the Jāhiliyya Arabs. Accordingly, it can be concluded that belief strongly influences the formation of customs and practices at the social and individual levels, even when forgotten over time. Thus, a notable example illustrates a close relationship between religion and culture. Moreover, the influence of religious motivation and beliefs in legitimizing brutal practices, such as the killing of a child, is highlighted.

1. Introduction

The Qur’ān delineates various customs prevalent among its interlocutors at the time of revelation (610–632 CE).1 Among these customs, a prominent one, the practice of child sacrifice, particularly daughters, by burying them alive holds significant mention. The Qur’ān vehemently condemns and prohibits this practice, which was endemic among the polytheists (mushrikūn)2 of Jāhiliyya society.3 The perpetrators often rationalized committing this heinous act based on concerns surrounding livelihood and similar anxieties related to daily life. The phrase khashya imlāq (fear of poverty), mentioned in two Qur’ānic passages (Q. 6:151; Q. 17:31), has also been understood in the context of these justifications. However, while this understanding is not entirely unfounded, it does not fully explain the issue. This is mainly because it seems implausible to attribute the act of burying and killing one’s daughter, who is an integral part of one’s life, solely to fears related to livelihood. Accordingly, it may be surmised that there exists a more compelling and overarching motive that drove the perpetrators to commit such a brutal act. In light of this, when the economic, social, and religious milieu during the revelatory period is considered within one context, it becomes apparent that while the practice of child sacrifice among the polytheists of Jāhiliyya may be associated with certain mundane reasons, such as fear of one’s livelihood, it also finds its roots within their belief system. Notably, an examination of the relevant passages and the religious outlook of the period demonstrates that the sacrificial offerings of children to the gods and the aforementioned practice among the Jāhiliyya Arabs is interlinked, or at the very least, allows for the establishment of such a connection. This relationship underscores that the act of child sacrifice finds a much stronger foundation in the belief system of the Jāhiliyya Arabs that extended far beyond worldly concerns. Therefore, the main issue addressed in study is the tendency to primarily attribute the practice of child sacrifice, as described in the relevant Qur’ānic passages, to concerns surrounding livelihood while neglecting the dimension of faith. Thus, this paper’s central argument is that there is a connection to be made between the issue of child sacrifice, as mentioned in the Qur’ān, and the votive practices of the polytheists. The main objective is to substantiate this connection by considering the pertinent passages and riwāyāts4 from the revelatory period. So, this research will contribute to understanding the significant influence of belief on shaping cultural practices.

Although numerous academic studies have explored the custom of child sacrifice during the Jāhiliyya period,5 there appears to be a lacuna regarding the relationship between the custom above and the votive practices within the framework of the Qur’ān and passages concerning this issue. However, two noteworthy studies shed light on different aspects of the issue. Adnan Demircan’s article, titled ‘Câhiliyye Araplarında Kız Çocuklarını Gömerek Öldürme Âdeti’ (The Custom of Wa’d al-Banāt: The Act of Burying Daughters Alive among the Jāhiliyya Arabs), focuses on the prevalence, timing, methods, and motivations behind the custom of child sacrifice by burial among the Jāhiliyya Arabs. Ahmet Acarlıoğlu’s paper ‘Câhiliye Arap Toplumunda Kız Çocuklarının Katli Meselesi: İslam Tarihi Perspektifinden Değerlendirme’ (The Issue of the Murdering of Daughters in Jāhiliyya Arab Society: An Evaluation from the Perspective of Islāmic History) analyzes the tribes in which the custom of child sacrifice started in pre-Islāmic Arab society, its various forms, prevalence, execution methods, and underlying reasons. In this respect, Acarlıoğlu’s study complements and builds upon Demircan’s research. Both studies aim to determine the different aspects of the custom of killing daughters among the Jāhiliyya Arabs from the perspective of Islāmic history. Furthermore, Avner Giladi focuses on infant and child mortality rates and their causes in medieval Muslim society (Giladi 1990). In another article by Ikka Lindstedt, it is suggested that verses in the Qur’ān referring to the killing of female infants indicate abandonment rather than the literal killing of babies (Lindstedt 2023). Moreover, two studies in Arabic titled ‘al-Wad’ in al-‘Arab ḳabla al-Islām wa Mawqif al-Islāmi minh’ by Hanī Abū al-Rabb (Abū al-Rabb 2009) and ‘Tārīkh al-naṣṣ al-adabī li dhāhira al-wad’ fī al-Jāhiliyya’ by ‘Abdullāh Khālid al-‘Umayrī (al-‘Umayrī 2020), contribute to the discourse on this subject. Another significant study is al-Wad’ inda al-‘Arab bayna al-wahm wa’l-ḥaqīqa by Marzūq Ibn Tanbāk, who argues that narrations found in sources stating that the Jāhiliyya Arabs buried their daughters alive were predominantly later fabrications. He suggests that the issue mentioned in the Qur’ān is about getting rid of illegitimate children, whether male or female and that this phenomenon is not peculiar to the Jāhiliyya Arabs but has persisted throughout history, including the present day. In any case, child sacrifice during the Jāhiliyya period was a historical phenomenon against which the Qur’ān intervened. Although various aspects of this issue have been explored, this study focuses on demonstrating the relationship between sacrificial practices and the custom of child sacrifice by scrutinizing the relevant Qur’ānic passages.

The issue of child sacrifice has been explained through various historical and anthropological theories. These theories can be categorized as ‘Ritual Sacrifice and Religious Beliefs,’ ‘Social Control and Power Dynamics,’ ‘Crisis Management and Desperation,’ and ‘Symbolism and Symbolic Function’ (Girard 1989; Bell 1992). These theories could all be valid to some extent, and there could also be overlap among them. This research will focus on the religious ritual practice of child sacrifice during the pre-Islāmic period and the influence of religious beliefs on the development of this cultural practice. Therefore, while acknowledging that there could be various reasons for the custom of killing daughters in the pre-Islāmic period, this study aims to emphasize that one of the primary reasons was the cult practice of offering children as sacrifices to gods. Within this framework, the riwāyāts concerning sacrificial offerings of children to the gods in societies of the Jāhiliyya era will be identified. Since one of the focal points is to identify the narrations related to the tradition of child sacrifice in the pre-Islāmic period, it was deemed appropriate to quote these narrations directly. This approach enables the reader to see how these narratives are referenced in sources and to shed light upon the nuances more accurately. Through critical analysis and evaluation, the comments of Muslim exegetes on passages related to child sacrifice mentioned in the Qur’ān will also be presented. A semantic analysis will also be conducted on the expression khashyat imlāq, which is mentioned in the context of child sacrifice in two verses. In this regard, the study will employ the method of identifying historical data and conducting semantic analysis of relevant Qur’ānic verses based on these data.

2. The Jāhiliyya Arabs’ Sacrificial Offerings to the Gods

Before delving into the Jāhiliyya Arabs’ custom of sacrificing children to the gods, it is important to note that this practice was observed in many different religions and cultures in the pre-Islāmic period. Historical evidence revealed that slaves, women, and children were sacrificed to appease the gods in many African tribes and other ancient societies and civilizations such as the Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese, and Mongols (Özkan 2021; Pongratz-Leisten 2007). Greek culture has exhibited different models of human sacrifice such as acts of expiation, self-sacrifice for victory, initiation rituals, practices stemming from envy, and the offering of living individuals (Weiler 2007). Phoenicians are known to have offered their firstborn children to the gods in hopes of obtaining abundant and fertile crops (Cilacı 1979). Early Shintoism also engaged in sacrificing humans to the gods to assuage their anger and gain access to their blessings and aid; in later periods, however, animals eventually replaced humans in these offerings (Güç 2010). The Harranites (Sabians of Harran) in Anatolia, whose existence persisted until the thirteenth century, are also reported to organize sacrificial ceremonies involving children. Ibn al-Nadīm (d. 385 AH/995 CE) describes these rituals during festive occasions as follows:

Today, they sacrifice a newly born child to their idol gods. The child is slaughtered and then the body is boiled until the flesh falls apart. The meat is subsequently removed and kneaded with semolina flour, saffron, hyacinth, cloves, and oil, formed into small fig-like tablets, and baked in a new oven. This takes place every year for the mystics of the north. The woman, the slave, the offspring of slaves, and the mentally unstable are prohibited from its consumption. Only three soothsayers may attend the slaughter and presentation of the child. The soothsayers proceed to burn the bones, cartilage, nerves, and veins of the child as a sacrifice to the gods.

(Ibn Nadīm 2019)

According to Birūnī (d. 453 AH/1061 CE), the Christian ‘Abd al-Masīḥ b. Isḥāq al-Kindī (d. third AH/ninth century CE), in his refutation of ‘Abdullāh b. Ismā‘īl al-Hāshimī’s work mentions that the Sabians engaged in human sacrifice, although nowadays they no longer practice it publicly (al-Bīrūnī 2008). Evidence of human sacrifice could also be found in Judaism. For instance, the Holy Bible recounts the story of a man named Yeftah Mitspaya, who offered his daughter as a sacrifice to God for his victory over the people of Ammon (Gen. 22: 1–19). In addition, the incident of Ibrāhīm’s willingness to sacrifice his son in the Torah (Jud. 11: 34–40) indicates the existence of such practices at the time (Gündüz 2008; Bauks 2007). Therefore, different religions and cultures throughout human history have offered slaves, women, and children as sacrifices to a deity for a wide range of reasons that include protection from the wrath and punishment of gods, seeking divine favor, obtaining their blessings, and establishing a closer connection with them. However, there were prohibitions put in place regarding this custom since ancient times. For instance, the Iranian Emperor Dara I (d. 521–486 BC) forbade the Carthaginians from performing human sacrifices (Cilacı 1979). The divine intervention in the sacrifice Ibrāhīmaāāā was going to carry out, where Allāh sent down a ram in place of his son, could likewise be interpreted as a prohibition of this custom. Furthermore, while there is an ongoing debate as to whether the practices of human sacrifice in ancient cultures are mythological or fact based, some archaeological and historical studies attest to the existence of this phenomenon, albeit often interlaced with mythic narratives (Chinchilla Mazariegos et al. 2015; Bremmer 2013; Hughes 1991).

The sources provide ample evidence that the Arabs of the Jāhiliyya period, during which the Qur’ān was revealed, had sacrificed children to the gods. This underscores the significance that the practice of sacrifice and offerings occupied in the belief system of the Jāhiliyya Arabs. According to Shahristānī (d. 548 AH/1153 CE), the idol-worshipping Jahiliyyā Arabs claimed their idols acted as intercessors between them and God (Shahristānī n.d.). Thus, they would present gifts to idols and make sacrifices when a desired outcome was realized. They believed that by performing various sacrificial practices involving animals and crops, they could please their idols and form a closer relationship with God, thereby gaining access to their favors and blessings (Demircan 2020; Altıntaş 2007). The Qur’ān mentions that the polytheist Arabs offered animals to their idols and gods as sacrifices, which they named based on their perceived fertility, such as baḥīra, sāiba, waṣīla, and ḥām (Q. 6:143–144; Q. 39:6). The two most notable idols were isāf and nāila. Each tribe had its idol to which they would offer sacrifices (Apak 2012). The Arabs would anoint the blood of their sacrifices onto the idols, hoping that this would bring them increased wealth in return (Çelikkol 2013; Ögmüş 2013). For instance, in the month of Rajab,6 a sacrifice called ‘atīra7 would be carried out for the idols, and its blood would be poured over them (Ali 2001). The first calf from a camel, called warā‘, would also be sacrificed to the idols (Demircan 2020). That is why the Prophet Muḥammad is reported to have said, “There is no warā‘ and‘atīra in Islām.” (al-Bukhārī 2001). Furthermore, since the Jāhiliyya Arabs believed that a jinn (spirit)8 resided in every household, they would perform a sacrifice for the jinn when constructing a house. In this way, they aimed to protect themselves from the evil of the jinn, to appease them, and to forge a closer bond with them (Ali 2001).

Considering both source works and scriptural passages related to the subject, we know that the Jāhiliyya Arabs had a custom of killing their daughters by burying them alive. The primary motives underlying the practice were peniaphobia, upholding honor, and avoiding misfortune (Ibn Tanbāk 2006; Acarlıoğlu 2019). However, studies have shown that this custom was restricted to certain tribes living in the desert, such as the Tamīm and Kinda, and was therefore not widespread (Demircan 2004). On the other hand, there are alternative approaches to determining whether the custom of offering children as a sacrifice to the gods existed in Jāhiliyya society or not. For example, Adnan Demircan argues that the relevant narrations are not enough to prove the existence of human sacrifice among the Jāhiliyya Arabs. However, they were not entirely unfamiliar with it (Demircan 2020). Ali Osman Ateş, who accounted for various opinions and narrations on the subject matter, has stated that this practice existed to a given extent among Jāhiliyya society (Ateş 1996). The German theologian Julius Wellhausen (d. 1918 CE) has likewise contended that boys, girls, and slaves were offered during the Jāhiliyya period as sacrifices to the deity ‘Uzzā (Wellhausen 1897). William Montgomery Watt (d. 2006 CE) indicated that in Semitic thought, including the Arabs, a first-born son was sacrificed to the gods and made the following statement:

Deep in Semitic thought was the idea of sacrificing something very precious, even a first-born son, doubtless on the assumption that such an act tended to propitiate a jealous deity and so to ensure one’s enjoyment of the rest of one’s possessions. For people with this thought in their bones, it would be natural to regard almsgiving, the giving away of a part of one’s money or possessions, as a form of propitiatory sacrifice.

(Watt 1960)

While the sources present some information concerning tribes during the Jāhiliyya period who buried and killed their daughters, there is a dearth of evidence suggesting they offered them as sacrifices to their gods. However, the information given by Muslim exegetes regarding the interpretation of the pertinent Qur’ānic passages and the narrative historical sources indicate that the custom of child sacrifice had developed as a religious ritual or, at the very least, possessed such an aspect. The present section will provide some historical background; meanwhile, a separate section will focus on analyzing the interpretation of the passages related to the subject. One of the most well-known narrations that indicate the sacrificial offering of male children to the gods in Jāhiliyya society is that of ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib, the grandfather of the Prophet Muḥammad, who had vowed to sacrifice one of his sons. Based on a narration transmitted by Ibn Isḥāq (d. 151 AH/768 CE) and Ibn Hishām (d. 218 AH/833 CE), the incident could be summarized as follows:

When ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib was involved in the digging and repair of the Zamzam well in Mecca, he faced insults from other notables of the Quraysh and found himself unprotected, for he had no other child but Ḥāris. In response, he made a vow and said, ‘I swear by Allāh, if I were to have ten sons old enough to protect me, I would sacrifice one of them for the sake of Allāh near the Ka‘ba.’ When ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib eventually had ten sons of the coming age to protect him, he gathered them together, informed them about his vow, and sought their consent to fulfill it for the sake of Allāh. In obedience to their father’s plea, all the sons agreed. ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib then proceeded, and began writing the names of each son on arrows used for fortune-telling and went to an idol called Hubal to draw lots. As one of the major idols of Quraysh, Hubal was situated near a well inside the Ka‘ba where animals were brought in order to be sacrificed, and offerings were collected in that well. Seven arrows with different judgments inscribed on them were placed next to Hubal. ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib drew lots among his sons, and the name of his youngest and most beloved son, ‘Abdullāh, emerged. ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib took ‘Abdullah’s hand and held a sharp knife, intending to sacrifice him in front of the idols named Isāf and Nāila. The Quraysh and their other children intervened and said to ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib: ‘We swear by Allāh that as long as we are alive, you will never sacrifice ‘Abdullāh unless there was a justifiable reason. If you do so, everyone will bring their son for sacrifice until no humans remain.’ Seeing ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib’s determination, they directed him to a soothsayer (al-‘Arrāfa) from the Ḥijāz in Medina, saying: ‘Do not pursue this! Take him to the Ḥijāz. There, you will find a woman soothsayer known to have jinns accompany her. Ask her about this matter. Then the decision is yours. If she commands you to sacrifice him, then you may proceed. But if she decrees something better for you and your son, then do as you are told.’ ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib accepts their advice and takes ‘Abdullāh to see the soothsayer. After informing her about the situation, the soothsayer communicates with her jinn and says an expiation could be made in place of ‘Abdullāh. According to the custom of that day, the expiation required ten camels. Consequently, the soothsayer instructed ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib: ‘Return to your homeland. There, draw lots between your son and ten camels. If your son is drawn, increase the number of camels by ten and repeat the process until your Lord (al-Rabb) is pleased (and the camels were chosen).’ Afterward, ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib returned to Mecca and, in front of the idol of Hubal, he drew lots between his son and ten camels. However, every time the number of camels reached one hundred, ‘Abdullāh’s name would emerge in the lot, and when the number reached a hundred, the camels were drawn. Thus, ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib was able to spare his son’s life by sacrificing a hundred camels as expiation.

(Ibn Isḥāq 1978; Ibn Hishām 1955)

The transmission of this event is found in many sources with slight variation, and we also find references in ḥadīth9 sources, including one that reports the Prophet Muḥammad saying: ‘I am the son of two sacrifices.’ (Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī 1990). These statements suggest that the mentioned incident took place during the Jāhiliyya period. Therefore, when examining the narration as a whole and considering certain implications within them, it can be inferred that the custom of sacrificing children to the gods had some form of presence and significance in the Jāhiliyya society of the time. In addition, the narrative of Ibrāhīm’s sacrifice of his son mentioned in passages Q. 37:101–109, which was revealed during the Meccan period (610–632 CE),10 indicates that the Jāhiliyya society was not unfamiliar with the custom of child sacrifice. The Jāhiliyya Arabs believed that this incident occurred in Minā. As a result, pilgrims visiting the Ka‘ba would go to Minā and perform animal sacrifices according to the practice of Prophet Ibrāhīm. This tradition has continued as an integral part of Islam’s annual sacred pilgrimage (al-Hajj) in Mecca (Mawdūdī 2005).

Some accounts suggest that the practice of sacrificing children was also observed during the time of the Companions (al-Ṣaḥāba).11 In this regard, Imām al-Mālik (d. 179 AH/795 CE) mentions the following riwāyat in his al-Muwaṭṭa’:

A woman came to Ibn al-‘Abbās12 and said to him: ‘I have vowed to sacrifice my son.’ Ibn al-‘Abbās replied to her: ‘Do not sacrifice your son! Seek an alternative expiation for your vow.’ An old man with her said to Ibn al-‘Abbās: ‘How can there be expiation for this?’ Ibn al-‘Abbās read the passage (verse of al-Ẓihār) in Ṣūrah al-Mujādila (Q. 58:3–4) and said: ‘As you can see, this passage provides an expiation for your vow’.

(Mālik Ibn Anas 1999).

A similar, albeit more detailed, riwāyat can be found in Ibn al-Jarīr al-Ṭabarī’s al-Tārīkh:

A woman made a vow that she would sacrifice her son near the Ka‘ba if her wish came true. When her wish was realized, she went to Medina seeking a legal ruling (fatwa) regarding her vow. She approached ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Umar,13 who said to the woman: ‘I do not know anything except that Allāh has commanded the people to fulfill their vows.’ The woman said, ‘Shall I then sacrifice my son?’ Ibn ‘Umar replied, ‘Surely Allāh has forbidden the act of killing yourselves,’ and remained silent after that. Later, the woman came to ‘Abdullāh Ibn al-‘Abbās and asked him for a legal ruling. Ibn al-‘Abbās said to her: ‘Allāh has commanded the believers to fulfill their vows, and this is an obligation. Nevertheless, He has forbidden you to kill yourselves.’ Then, Ibn al-‘Abbās narrated to her the incident of ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib and said: ‘I think you should sacrifice a hundred camels in place of your son.’ When news of this event reached Marwān,14 he expressed his disagreement: ‘I believe Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn al-‘Abbās were incorrect in their legal rulings. Since a vow should not involve disobedience to Allāh.’ Subsequently, he advised the woman, ‘Seek forgiveness from Allāh, repent to Him, engage in acts of charity and almsgiving as much as you can. As for sacrificing her son, Allāh has strictly forbidden it’. The people were pleased and convinced by Marwān’s words and believed his legal ruling was correct. Consequently, the legal ruling, ‘There is no vow in matters that involve disobedience to Allāh’ had become a mainstay among Muslims.

(al-Ṭabarī 1968).

The riwāyāts indicate that the Jāhiliyya Arabs were not unfamiliar with the custom of child sacrifice and that practices of a similar nature existed among them. It is also known that the Sabians, with whom the Jāhiliyya Arabs had interacted in their geographical region, engaged in child sacrifice. ‘Abdullāh Dirāz (d. 1958 CE) believed that such customs of sacrificial rituals and the deification of the stars were transmitted to the Jāhiliyya Arabs from the Sabians (Draz 1951). Therefore, despite the influence exerted by different beliefs and cultures, evidence points to the existence of child sacrifice to the gods in the Jāhiliyya society.

However, as alluded to earlier, it should be noted that the custom of killing girls was not widely practiced during the Jāhiliyya period. There were, indeed, a significant number of people who opposed this custom. It is said that some of the Jāhiliyya Arabs, particularly the wealthy ones, saved daughters from being killed by paying a ransom to their families. For instance, it is narrated that Sa‘sa‘a Ibn Nājiya, one of the grandfathers of the renowned poet Farazdaḳ (d. 114 AH/732 CE) and a notable figure of the tribe of al-Tamīm, ransomed two female and one male camel in exchange for a girl who was to be killed (Ali 2001). Another example is Zayd Ibn ‘Amr al-Qurayshī (d. 606 CE), the cousin of ‘Umar al-Khaṭṭāb. The sources mention that when Zayd Ibn ‘Amr met a person who intended to kill his daughter, he prevented him from doing so by agreeing to take care of her (al-Dhahabī 1985).

The main question at stake is the relationship between the sacrifice of sons to the gods and the killing of girls by the Jāhiliyya Arabs. According to the above-related riwāyāts, we find that although sons were sacrificed to the gods, no explicit mention is made of such a religious practice concerning daughters. However, Jawād Ali (d. 1987 CE) draws attention to the possibility of a religious basis for the custom of killing the daughters of the Jāhiliyya Arabs and provides the following assessment:

I find it plausible that a religious factor motivated the Jāhiliyya Arabs to kill and bury their daughters, as historians have argued. This custom could potentially be a remnant of religious symbolism from past societies. Historical accounts indicate that in those societies, human sacrifices were offered to the gods to achieve prosperity and peace. This method of appeasing the gods was regarded as one of the religious rituals (shiars) of the time. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the custom of killing and burying children in the Jāhiliyya period may have originated from these rituals. What is of note here is that while sacrifices were traditionally offered to the gods by way of slaughter or through similar methods, daughters were killed by burial during the Jāhiliyya period. The act of slaughtering the sacrifice was to ensure the blood would flow, which thus held significance in all sacrificial rites. In brief, burying a child was considered a form of killing. The killing of children and offering them as sacrifices to the gods was a well-known form of worship in previous nations. They performed this custom expecting the gods to be pleased and respond favorably to their requests.

(Ali 2001)

These explanations raise the possibility of a religious basis regarding the custom of killing daughters among the Jāhiliyya Arabs, considering it was a remnant of religious practices in past societies. However, his usage of the expression ‘the remnants of past nations’ indicates that although this practice had a religious basis during the Jāhiliyya period, it transformed certain segments of society over time, acquiring different meanings and forms. In other words, it appears that while the custom of killing children was initially rooted in religious practice, it gradually lost its religious significance among certain tribes and evolved into a custom grounded in justifications such as fear of poverty, preservation of honor, and averting misfortune. A comprehensive analysis of the Qur’ānic passages and their exegetical interpretations on this issue reveals that the Jāhiliyya Arab custom of killing their daughters had a religious basis to some extent. With this framework in mind, the next section examines the relevant scriptural passages and zooms in on how Muslim exegetes interpreted them.

3. Qur’ānic Passages Concerning the Killing of Children

The Qur’ān contains passages that address the killing of children from different perspectives. From the four passages that stand out in this respect, it is stated that the Pharaoh, during the time of Prophet Moses, displayed arrogance and engaged in acts of slaughtering the male children while sparing the women. Ultimately, Allāh saved the Children of Israel from Pharaoh’s oppression (Q. 2:49; Q. 7:141; Q. 14:6; Q. 28:4). Scholars of exegesis have suggested that the Pharaoh’s course of action was motivated either by dreams, news, or soothsayers that predicted the birth of a son who would bring about destruction to his property (al-Ṭabarī 2000; al-Baghawī 1997; Ibn Kathīr 1998). Therefore, there is no relation between these sets of passages and the offering of children as a sacrifice to the gods.

The Qur’ānic narrative (qiṣṣa)15 about Ibrāhīm’s sacrifice of his son constitutes another group of passages related to this subject. According to this account, Ibrāhīm had a dream in which he was sacrificing his son, leading him to consider undertaking this act. However, Allāh intervened and provided a ram as a substitution, thus sparing Ibrāhīm’s son (Q. 37:101–109). Exegetes point out that this narrative primarily represents absolute faith, obedience, submission, and loyalty to the Almighty, further signifying a trial for Prophet Ibrāhīm and his son (Māturīdī 2005; Rāzī 1999; al-Qurṭubī 1964). However, since this message was related to the Arabs through such an incident suggests that they were not entirely unfamiliar with the custom of child sacrifice. Emphasis on the practice’s prohibition is another significant point worth noting. Izzat Darwaza (d. 1984 CE) has suggested that the custom of the Jāhiliyya Arabs offering children to the gods could have been influenced by or connected to this ancient practice of Prophet Ibrāhīm whom the Jāhiliyya Arabs considered themselves to be followers of his religion (Darwaza 1963).

In the context of the issue under consideration, special focus will be given to passages that address the issue of child sacrifice and identify their intended audience during the time of revelation. The following seven passages in the Qur’ān mention the killing of children:

Likewise, their idols entice many idolaters to kill their children to lead them to their ruin and confuse them in their religion. Had Allāh willed, they would not have done itso leave them to their fraud.

(Q. 6:137)16

Lost are those who kill their children foolishly, with no basis in knowledge, and forbid what Allāh has provided for them—innovations about Allāh. They have gone astray. They are not guided.

(Q. 6:140)

Say, ‘Come, let me tell you what your Lord has forbidden you: that you associate nothing with Him; that you honor your parents; that you do not kill your children because of poverty—We provide for you and for them; that you do not come near indecencies, whether outward or inward; and that you do not kill the soul which Allāh has sanctified—except in the course of justice. All this He has enjoined upon you, so that you may understand.

(Q. 6:151)

And when one of them is given news of a female infant, his face darkens, and he chokes with grief. He hides from the people because of the bad news given to him. Shall he keep it in humiliation, or bury it in the dust? Evil is the decision they make.

(Q. 16:58–59)

And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and you. Killing them is a grave sin.

(Q. 17:31)

O Prophet! If believing women come to you, pledging allegiance to you, on condition that they will not associate anything with Allāh, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor commit perjury as to parenthood, nor disobey you in anything righteous, accept their allegiance and ask Allāh’s forgiveness for them. Allāh is Forgiving and Merciful.

(Q. 60:12)

When the girl, buried alive, is asked: For what crime was she killed?

(Q. 81:8–9)

It should be noted that except for Q. 60:12, all the mentioned passages are from the Meccan period. The passage Q. 60:12, although Medinan, refers to a promise the Prophet Muḥammad made to a group of Muslims from Medina to renounce the major sins they had committed during the Jāhiliyya period. Among these sins was the killing of children. Therefore, this passage informs its readers of a practice prevalent in the Jāhiliyya society. As a result, all the passages pertain to the Meccan period and primarily address the customs of the Jāhiliyya Arabs.

The wider context of passages Q. 6:137, 140, and 151 is centered on a discussion about the votive practices of polytheists concerning various animals and crops. In passage Q. 6:140, it is mentioned that the Jāhiliyya Arabs killed children in ignorance due to their lack of understanding. The passage Q. 6:151 strictly forbids the killing of children out of fear of poverty (al-imlāq). Meanwhile, Q. 6:137 provides detailed insight into the function and meaning underlying this practice. It explains that the partners the polytheists associate with Allāh have misguided them into believing that killing their children is a virtuous act, thus leading them to destruction and confusion in their religion. These details and the emphasis in the passage indicate that this practice was performed as a religious ritual. The interpretations Muslim exegetes have provided in this context further support this understanding.

According to al-Farrā (d. 207 AH/822 CE), a group of people served the gods during the Jāhiliyya period, and these gods are said to have shown them the supposed beauty of killing their daughters. Some people in this group even asserted, ‘If I have this many sons, I will sacrifice one of them.’ (al-Farrā n.d.). Similarly, al-Samarqandī (d. 373 AH/983 CE) said in the context of this passage that some of the Jāhiliyya Arabs offered one of their children as a sacrifice when a certain number of children were born, as seen in the case of ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib (Samarqandī 1993). According to al-Khuwwāri (d. 280 AH/893 CE), the aforesaid ‘partners’ who justify the killing of children are the devils whom the polytheists worshipped, and these devils also influenced them to worship idols (al-Huwwārī 1990). Scholars like al-Mujāhid (d. 103 AH/721 CE) and al-Suddī (d. 127 AH/745 CE) interpreted the idea that the devils made the act of killing children seem virtuous as an indication that they commanded them to do so (al-Ṭabarī 2000; Ibn Abū Ḥātim 1998). In the interpretation given by Māturīdī (d. 333 AH/944 CE), the mentioning of ‘partners’ refers to the leaders of the polytheists who call people to follow their ways (Māturīdī 2005).

In the continuation of passage Q. 6:137, reference is made to the idols that led the Meccan polytheists astray, causing destruction and confusion in their religion by portraying the act of killing their children as something righteous. The passage emphasizes that they were on the religion of Ismā‘īl, although they deviated from his teachings by committing this act (al-Qurṭubī 1964). According to Ibn al-‘Abbās (d. 68 AH/687-88 CE), the devils cast doubts in their minds concerning their religion (al-Baghawī 1997). This indicates that elements not part of their religion were later incorporated into their beliefs. Rāzī (d. 606 AH/1210 CE) pointed out that the purpose of this passage is to dispel false and superstitious beliefs from the true religion (Rāzī 1999). These considerations thus all clearly conclude that the act of killing children, as mentioned in the relevant passage of the Qur’ān, is connected to the religious rituals of the Jāhiliyya Arabs, particularly in the context of sacrificial practices. This understanding is further supported by the fact that passages Q. 6:137, 140, and 151 are presented in a context that deals with the various votive practices concerning animals and crops, which were elements of polytheism among the Jāhiliyya Arabs. For example, just before the passage Q. 6:137, Allāh says:

And they set aside for Allāh a share of the crops and the livestock He created, and they say, ‘This is for Allāh,’ according to their claim, ‘and this is for our idols.’ But the share of their idols does not reach Allāh, yet the share of Allāh reaches their idols. Evil is their judgment.

(Q. 6:136)

In this respect, Izzat Darwaza has argued that the passage in question, which includes the act of killing children, refers to the various sacrificial rituals of the Jāhiliyya Arabs and that these practices were intended to establish a closer connection with the idols and Allāh and ultimately gain access to their favors. He also believed that among these rites, one of them involved sacrificing children to the gods. In times of severe calamity or when the Jāhiliyya Arabs sought anything substantial, they would sacrifice one of their sons to draw closer to Allāh or the intermediary idols (Darwaza 1963).

The passages Q. 81:8-9 and Q. 16:58–59 also provide insights regarding child sacrifice. The first passage discusses the burying of daughters while still alive. Meanwhile, the second passage refers to the story of the Jāhiliyya Arabs who, upon receiving news of a baby girl, became extremely angry and contemplated whether they should keep her or bury her in the ground. According to Muslim exegetes, the Jāhiliyya Arabs used to bury their daughters alive for two reasons. The first is related to poverty, honor, and the fear of daughters being captured or enslaved. This view is widely accepted. The second is the belief held by the Jāhiliyya Arabs who considered angels to be the daughters of Allāh. Therefore, they believed that since Allāh has more rights over girls, returning them to Allāh, their rightful owner, involved killing them (al-Huwwārī 1990; Ibn Abū Zamanīn 2002; al-Qurṭubī 1964).

In this context, some riwāyāts find additional support for the second reason behind the practice of burying daughters alive and indicate its religious significance. Many Muslim exegetes have narrated that the Jāhiliyya Arabs followed specific rituals when a daughter was born. If he wished for her to live, he would dress her in a woolen garment and leave her in the desert to herd his sheep and camels. However, if he intended to kill her, he would let her live until she turned six. When she reached this age, her father would say to her mother, طيبيها و زينيها حتى أذهب بها إلى أحمائها ṭayyibīhā wa zayyinīhā ḥattā edhabu bihā ilā aḥmā’iā ‘Beautify and adorn her so that I may take to her relatives.’ When they reached a well that had been dug in the desert beforehand, her father would tell his daughter, ‘Look into the well,’ and then push her into it. Afterward, he would proceed to fill it with earth until it became level with the ground (al-Baghawī 1997; Abū Ḥayyān 1999; Ibn ‘Āshūr 1984).

The details presented in this riwāyat, such as waiting for their daughter to reach the age of six, decorating and perfuming her before burial, and stating that she will be taken to her relatives (aḥmā’iā) who will protect and care for her, all suggest that this practice had a religious dimension. Indeed, the Mālikī faqīh and muḥaddith Abū Ḥafs al-Faqiḥānī (d. 734 AH/1334 CE), after mentioning this account, drew attention to the relationship between this practice and the Arabs’ acceptance of angels as the daughters of Allāh. At this point, he states that the idea that Allāh has more rights over daughters was one of the reasons behind the act of burying daughters in this way (al-Fākihānī 2010).

Given the perceived correlation between daughters and angels, it is quite possible that the word aḥmā’iā ‘relatives,’ denoting ‘The daughter’s relatives on her mother’s side,’ could be interpreted to mean angels. However, the scholars who transmitted this particular riwāyat did not explicitly provide such an explanation. This is because the Arabs, who believed that angels were the daughters of Allāh, established a bond of intimacy and kinship between angels and daughters. In this respect, al-Rāzī’s use of الى اقاربها ilā aqribāihā instead of إلى أحمائها ilā aḥmā’iā is meaningful (Rāzī 1999). Various passages indicate the Meccan polytheists’ claim that the angels are the daughters of Allāh (Q. 17:40; Q. 37:150–151; Q. 43:19; Q. 52:39). Idols such as Lāt, Manāt, and ‘Uzzā, whom they considered representations of angels and attributed femininity, are also mentioned (al-Bayḍāwī n.d.). This is supported by passage Q. 4:117, which refers to the polytheists worshipping females instead of Allāh. It further emphasizes that this understanding of an unfair division in which daughters are assigned to Allāh and sons to themselves is rejected (Q. 6:100; Q. 16:57; Q. 53:19–22). According to al-Rāzī, such passages show the contradiction between attributing the daughters, whom they regarded as despicable and deficient, to the Almighty, Who is exalted from all kinds of defects, while allocating the sons, whom they considered valuable, to themselves (Rāzī 1999). A crucial point to note here is that although the Jāhiliyya Arabs despised daughters, they believed Allāh had more claim to them. This allows for a connection to be made between the killing of their daughters, which was driven by their perception that they were worthless, despicable, and inferior, and their sacrificing of daughters to Allāh. This link is discernible from the following passages:

Or has He chosen for Himself daughters from what He creates and favored you with sons? Yet when one of them is given news of what he attributes to the Most Gracious, his face darkens, and he suppresses grief.

(Q. 43:16–17)

These passages, which state that the Jāhiliyya Arabs had conceived the angels as feminine (Q. 43:19), when examined in conjunction with the above-related riwāyāts, it is understood that despite their disdain for their daughters, they divided them to Allāh based on their belief that angels were the daughters of Allāh. Thus, the act of killing them through burial can be viewed as a manifestation of this division.

Another issue to be highlighted here is the use of the word اولاد awlād in the passages on the prohibition of killing children. Ibn Aṭiyya (d. 541 AH/1147 CE) indicates that this word is generic and encompasses both boys and girls (Ibn ‘Aṭıyya 2001). However, according to most exegetes, the word awlād in these passages means ‘the daughters from children’ (al-ināth min awlād) and refers to the custom of the Jāhiliyya Arabs to kill their daughters through burial (al-Ṭabarī 2000; al-Baghawī 1997). However, al-Qurṭubī (d. 671 AH/1273 CE) contends that the apparent meaning of the passage implies that among the Arabs, some killed their daughters and sons due to fear of poverty (al-Qurṭubī 1964). However, when analyzing the riwāyāts, it does not seem to indicate the existence of a custom of burying boys due to concerns surrounding peniaphobia in the Jāhiliyya society (Demircan 2004). Therefore, the word awlād arguably encompasses boys insofar as they were sacrificed to the gods. As mentioned, this is supported by the fact that passages Q. 6:137, 140, and 151 are presented within the context of the Jāhiliyya Arabs’ sacrificial practices concerning various animals and crops. Therefore, the word awlād, in the related passages, encompasses a meaning that includes the practices of the Jāhiliyya Arabs involving both boys and daughters. Moreover, the fact that the word awlād appears in a form that accounts for both situations suggests a connection between these two. This connection can be attributed to the shared characteristic of belief inherent in these two cases. This is because the practice of killing children mentioned in Q. 6:137 is distinctly associated with the religion and beliefs of the Jāhiliyya Arabs. However, when examining the riwāyāts, the presence of the belief dimension becomes evident in the killing of boys, whereas it is not discernible in the case of killing daughters.

At this point, it is crucial to analyze the phrase خَشْيَةَ اِمْلَاق khashya imlāq, which the Qur’ān mentions only in the passage Q. 17:31 as a justification for the Jāhiliyya Arabs used for killing children. The Qur’ān forbids this act for this reason and emphasizes that Allāh will provide sustenance for them. Meanwhile, in passage Q. 6:151, only the phrase min imlāq is mentioned. It is important to delve into the specific meaning structure of this phrase to comprehend the matter to the fullest. In Arabic, the noun خَشْيَةَ khashya, derived from the verb خَشِيَ khashiya, has various meanings including fear, worry, and anxiety. Nevertheless, unlike words that have comparable meanings,17 khashya expresses a kind of fear that encompasses reverence, respect, and veneration (Rāghıb al-Iṣfahānī 1992). In this context, it is frequently used in the Qur’ān in the sense of fearing Allāh with reverence and respect, particularly as a state of worship. Accordingly, the term signifies standing in awe of Allāh. Also, the passage اِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللّٰهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمٰٓؤُ۬ا From among His servants, the learned fear Allāh (Q. 35:28) corresponds to fear arising from knowledge concerning the object of reverence (Rāzī 1999). This specific fear, which incorporates respect and exaltation, is a consequence of recognizing and knowing the thing in question. For example, the verb خَشِيتُ khshītu metaphorically signifies عَلِمْتُ ‘alimtu ‘I knew.’ (Ibn Fāris 1979). Khashya also means avoiding or refraining from disobeying the object of reverence. The phrase خَاشَى بِهِمْ khāshā bihim means ‘He refrained from them.’ (Ṣāḥib Ibn ‘Abbād 1994). Consequently, khashya is an Arabic term that can be translated as ‘awe’, ‘reverence’ or ‘fear (in a positive sense).’ It describes a feeling of deep respect or fear of consequences, often with a higher authority or divine presence. Islāmic theology and ethics associates khashya with a reverential fear of Allāh’s majesty and power, which leads to obedience and avoidance of wrongdoing (Kara 1997).

Focusing on the word imlāq, which forms the second part of the phrase khashya imlāq, its derivation is from المَلَق al-malaq, meaning ‘fierce love, prayer, and supplication.’ (Ṣāḥib Ibn ‘Abbād 1994; al-Azharī n.d.). In one of the couplets by Abū al-Sha’sā’ al-Ajāj (d. 97 AH/715–16 CE), the poet from the tribe of al-Tamīm writes: إِيّاكَ أَدعو فَتَقَبَّل مَلَقي iyyāka ad‘ū fa taqabbal malaqī ‘I pray to you alone, accept my supplication!’ (Khalīl Ibn Aḥmad n.d.). In this context, the expression of تَمَلَّقَ لَهُ tamallaqa lahu means, ‘He tried to endear himself to him.’ Imlāq refers to one who spends and scatters their wealth to the point that they themselves become needy. In one of the riwāyāts, a woman asked Ibn al-‘Abbās: أَأُنفق مِن مَالِي مَا شئتُ a anfiqu min māli mā shi’tu ‘Can I spend as much as I wish from my property?’ Ibn al-‘Abbās replies to her by saying: نعم أمْلِقِي من مَالك مَا شِئْت na‘am amliqī min mālika mā shi’ta ‘Yes, you can spend what you wish.’ This example has the word imlāq with a mean ‘to spend.’ (Ṣāḥib Ibn ‘Abbād 1994; Ibn Fāris 1979). Some have suggested that this word means ‘to become bankrupt, impoverished, and needy’ due to excessive spending (Ibn Fāris 1979). Accordingly, it is understood that the Arabic term imlāq has two meanings: ‘excessive expenditure’ and ‘endeavoring to please or endear someone.’ We can combine these two basic meanings as “to spend extravagantly with intense love, affection, and supplication.

Muslim exegetes have generally interpreted the phrase khashya imlāq in the context of the Jāhiliyya Arabs killing their daughters by burying them due to various fears that included impoverishment, hardship, need, hunger, shame, disgrace, and captivity (Māturīdī 2005; al-Baghawī 1997; Rāzī 1999; al-Qurṭubī 1964). However, these interpretations do not demonstrate the connection between the expression and its lexical meaning. al-Tabarī’s interpretation of ‘Do not kill your children for fear that you will become poor because of your spending on them’ partially indicates this connection (al-Ṭabarī 2000). The relationship between these interpretations and the lexical meaning of the expression khashya imlāq is patently clear. The usage of the word khashya instead of خوف khawf or similar words suggests that a sense of awe and respect is associated with this action considering the root of khashya contains such a meaning. In addition, the etymology of the word imlāq carries a range of connotations, including spending, prayer, supplication, and love, implying that this custom had a religious dimension. The etymological meaning of the expression khashya imlāq also allows for an alternative reading. For instance, the meaning of imlāq, which means ‘to spend,’ suggests that daughters were killed with the intention and awareness of spending on the gods. As pointed out above, considering the belief among the Jāhiliyya Arabs that the angels were the daughters of Allāh and that Allāh had more right to them gives weight to this explanation. Accordingly, the two major reasons for killing their daughters, namely peniaphobia and the belief that Allāh has more rights over them, are not independent but intertwined. Therefore, the phrase khashya imlāq may well be understood as, ‘Do not kill your children out of fear of impoverishment and out of a sense of spending for Allāh and your idols.’ Despite the general attribution of this expression to the apparent justification of the fear of poverty as the reason for the killing of daughters, it is important to acknowledge that there is a religious dimension underlying this apparent justification. In other words, the etymological meaning of the term khashya imlāq suggests that this practice is executed as a cultic and religious ritual. However, Muslim exegetes have tended to describe this term based on apparent reasons without delving deeply into the underlying religious rationale behind it.

Considering the Jāhiliyya Arabs’ primary intention in offering various sacrifices to appease the gods and seek their blessings, particularly about animal and crop species, a similar purpose can be attributed to the act of killing children. Although it is not readily apparent, it is clear from the relevant assessments that boys were sacrificed to the gods for an explicit reason, and this consideration may also be extended to that of daughters. Therefore, the expression khashya imlāq can be interpreted as the anxiety experienced due to the interruption of the favors and blessings from the gods, ultimately leading to the ritual of child sacrifice. Accordingly, the subsequent passages foreground the declaration that only Allāh will provide them and their offspring with sustenance, emphasizing the unjustifiability of killing children for such reasons.

4. Conclusions

Having initially adhered to the religious tradition of the Prophets Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl, the Jāhiliyya Arabs eventually deviated from their monotheistic beliefs and religious doctrines and embraced polytheism. A prominent feature of polytheism was the custom of making various offerings to the idols they associated with Allāh to attain blessings in return. These sacrificial offerings included children, although sacrificing sons to the gods was not entirely commonplace during the Jāhiliyya era, as observed in the case of ‘Abdulmuṭṭalib. While the Qur’ān does not explicitly mention such a custom, except in the story of Prophet Ibrāhīm, the word awlād in the passages related to the act of killing children, although usually associated with daughters, can be read as a general prohibition against this practice. The riwāyāts, overall, call attention to the killing of daughters nonetheless, which also applies to the passages in the Qur’ān that highlight this issue. While it is evident from the riwāyāts that sons were presented as offerings to the gods, it is ambiguous whether there was such a religious justification for the killing of daughters. Even if this justification is not entirely obvious, it can be deduced from the relevant scriptural passages, riwāyāts, and exegetical interpretations, as well as the semantic analysis of the phrase khashya imlāq, that the Jāhiliyya custom of killing their daughters bears an association with the belief in sacrifice. This is supported by the belief among the Jāhiliyya Arabs that angels were regarded as the daughters of Allāh, implying that Allāh was believed to have more claim to daughters. There appears to be a relationship between this theological perception of pre-Islāmic Arabs towards daughters and their practice of killing them. Additionally, the mention of this practice in Q. 6:137 in association with the religion of the Jāhiliyya Arabs indicates its religious dimension. The statement that this practice confuses their religion suggests that it was a superstition introduced into their religious beliefs. Therefore, despite apparent justifications, the foremost being such as fear of poverty, concern for honor, marrying someone deemed unsuitable, or bringing bad luck, a religious basis becomes discernible in the pre-Islāmic practice of killing daughters. However, Muslim exegetes have generally focused on apparent justifications when explaining the relevant verses, often overlooking the underlying religious dimension. On the other hand, the relevant narrations describing the context of the revelation of the Qur’ān and the verses addressing the subject indicate that belief had a significant influence in legitimizing the practice and culture of killing female infants through various everyday justifications. Considering the pre-Islāmic society of the Jāhiliyya, which was deeply religious and conservative, worshipping various gods, it does not seem very reasonable to think that this practice was devoid of religious foundation. At least, it can be said that the belief in sacrificing children to gods is one of the primary reasons for this practice. In this context, it is plausible to consider Jawād Alī and Izzat Darwaza’s view that this custom may be a religious remnant of past societies. While the belief aspect may have been forgotten within certain tribes over time, the killing of daughters persisted as a custom driven by everyday concerns such as poverty and honor. Nevertheless, the dimension of belief played a crucial role in the existence and legitimization of this custom in Jāhiliyya society. Based on the analysis conducted, the scriptural passages that address the killing of children arguably allude to this dimension of belief. Therefore, to properly understand and draw conclusions from these passages, it is essential to recognize the belief aspect associated with the issue.

As a result of the research, it can be concluded that belief strongly influences the formation of customs and practices at the social and individual levels, even when forgotten over time. Accordingly, this article sheds light on the multifaceted and complex relationship between religion and culture from one aspect. Because religion and culture share a deeply intertwined and complex relationship that shapes societies in profound ways. This multifaceted relationship influences everything from individual beliefs and practices to broader social norms and structures. Over time, religion and culture undergo adaptation and transformation. In the context of the pre-Islāmic era, one can speak of such a transformation between the religious practice related to the killing of children and the cultural habit. From this perspective, it is understood that belief has a profound impact on societies’ acceptance and adoption of certain cultural practices. According to our findings, it can be said that there was such a religious influence in the custom of killing children in in pre-Islamic Arab society. However, it can be acknowledged that this issue can be discussed and examined from various perspectives.