Una aproximación al veganismo: ¿por qué el islam permite comer carne?

Salaamun alaykum, dear readers!

Vegans are people who do not consume meat or animal products, either for moral purposes, or for health benefits, or both. Vegetarians only avoid meat, while being comfortable with consuming other animal products.

People who adopt a vegan lifestyle for moral purposes do so because of the following reason: they believe that killing animals is just as wrong as killing human beings because animals can suffer and feel pain, and they have a desire to survive just like humans do. This is known as “moral veganism”.

Veganism and Major World Religions

When examining the compatibility with veganism and world religions, we find that for most of them, it is definitely possible to incorporate a moral veganism framework into them. This means it is not necessary to be an atheist to agree with the idea that killing animals for meat is immoral.

In Sikhism for example, many choose to be vegan or vegetarian because Sikh scripture and teachings require showing compassion and love to all living things, and teaches that the light of God exists in all sentient creatures. Sikhs believe that not inflicting death on living creatures when possible is a way to respect that connection.

There is a similar teaching (the divine existing in all creatures) is found in Hinduism and Jainism, and both contain the principle known as ahmisa (avoiding harm to all living beings). Therefore, there is a strong pressure in Hinduism towards veganism as a moral ideal, and it is a requirement in Jainism.

The same applies to Buddhism, which started as an outgrowth of Hindu religion and believes in the same principle of ahmisa.

In Christianity, the New Testament teaches that foods do not make one impure, but rather, what comes out of a person from inside causes impurity.

• However, a vegan Christian can respond, “I agree that impurity which originates from the heart can spread outwards, therefore polluting a person’s words, actions, and relationships. Killing a creature of God that does not want to be killed may be a manifestation of inner impurity that is having outward effects. That is why moral veganism does not contradict Christianity.”

• A vegan Christian can also cite 1 Corinthians 10:23 to justify believing in veganism as a moral philosophy, which says, “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive.” The vegan Christian can say that while eating meat may not be strictly prohibited, killing a creature of God is neither beneficial for the heart, nor constructive for cultivating mercy.

• Lastly, vegan Christians can point towards Genesis in the Old Testament, saying that before the original sin, Adam and Eve only had a plant-based diet in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis, it wasn’t after Noah’s flood that animals were allowed to be eaten, because the land was left barren after the flood. As a result, vegan Christians can argue that because the earth is no longer barren anymore, the permissibility of meat-eating has outlived its purpose, and that going back to a plant-based diet can help bring people closer to the state of innocence and peaceful coexistence that existed before the original sin.

In Judaism, laws regulate meat-eating rather than discourage it. However, a vegan Jew can argue the permissibility of meat-eating started out of necessity, after Noah’s flood left the earth barren.

• Hence, Jews who wish to believe in moral veganism can argue that while it is permissible, meat-eating is framed in scripture as something allowed out of necessity. Originally, before necessity, humans were not allowed to eat meat.

• Much like vegan Christians, they can therefore argue that adopting a plant-based diet and sticking to the original plan for humanity is closer to God than meat-eating.

Islam: Incompatible with Moral Veganism

While the Quran does not mandate eating meat on anyone, it is true that out of every world religion, Islam exhibits the most incompatibility with the idea that killing animals for food is an immoral act. That means it is permissible for someone to go vegan due to personal preference, but not due to believing that killing animals for food is immoral.

The first reason is that the Quran says the meat and other provisions derived from animals are a sign, a lesson, and something to be thankful and appreciative to God for. Something immoral cannot conceivably be a source of gratitude and a means of worshipping the God of the Quran.

Moreover, God (who claims that He never commands or encourages anyone to do anything immoral) in the Quran encourages using animals for the benefit of humanity (food, clothing, and transportation) and says that was one of the reasons why they were created. Thus, a follower of the Quran cannot conceivably believe that using animals for food and other provisions is immoral without indirectly claiming that God Himself violated verse 7:28 and encouraged people to do something immoral.

• [7:28] If they commit an immorality, they say, “We found our parents doing it, and God has commanded us to do it.” Say, “God does not command immorality. Are you saying about God what you do not know?”

• [6:142] Some of the livestock are carriers of the load, and some are a source for bedding materials. Eat from what God has provided for you, and do not follow in the footsteps of the devil. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy.

• [16:5-8] And He created the livestock for you. In them is warmth and other benefits, and from them you eat. There is also beauty in them for you when you bring them in and when you send them out. And they carry your loads to lands you could not have reached except with great difficulty to yourselves. Indeed, your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful. And the horses, the mules, and the donkeys are for you to ride and as an adornment. He also creates what you do not know.

• [16:66] Indeed, there is a lesson for you in the livestock: We provide you with a drink from their bellies. From the midst of excrement and blood comes pure milk, palatable for the drinkers.

• [36:71-73] Have they not seen that, out of what Our hands have made, We created for them livestock, which they then become their owners? And We made them tame for them. Thus, some of them they ride and some of them they eat. And for them therein are other benefits, including drinks, so will they not be appreciative?

The second reason why moral veganism is incompatible with Islam is because claiming something is immoral is tantamount to declaring it to be a prohibition in Islam, because immorality (fahishah in Arabic) is forbidden in the religion. But God in the Quran takes a strong stance against prohibiting something that God Himself made lawful. The prophet Muhammad was reprimanded once in the Quran for it.

• [66:1] O prophet, why do you prohibit what God made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? But God is Forgiving, Merciful.

• [16:116] Do not say, about what your tongues have attributed of the lies: “This is lawful, and that is unlawful,” to fabricate lies and attribute them to God. Those who fabricate lies about God will not succeed.

Therefore, enjoying meat and other foods in the way that the Quran requires (eating in the name of God, expressing gratitude to God after each meal, reflecting on how the livestock and their provisions as a sign from God, etc.) is an act of worship according to the Quran. It is definitely not a morally neutral or negative act as in Christianity or other faiths.

Moral Veganism From a Secular Perspective

Vegans who believe eating animals for food is immoral (especially when so many other plant-based options are available) make many emotionally and logically compelling arguments to support their position without needing to cite scripture or religion. As a result, many Muslims may feel guilty about being permitted to eat meat. For a brief period of time, I was one of them.

This was a very compelling logical argument for me: If an alien species 1000 times more intelligent and capable than human beings landed on Earth and wanted to farm and eat us for food, we humans would not like it. So why do the same to livestock?

An emotionally compelling argument for me was: People would be outraged to learn that people who eat their pet dogs and cats for food exists. So why are we comfortable with eating our own farm-raised chicken for food then?

So I thought to myself, “The arguments for veganism are very compelling. However, to be motivated to be vegan, I would have to convince myself that meat-eating is immoral. How can I, as a Muslim, do that when the Quran makes clear that meat-eating can be a morally good act if done properly? I would be insulting the God that I worship if I did that. The immorality of meat-eating seems to make so much sense, though, so why does God encourage it as a positive action rather than frame meat-eating as something that can be done only if necessary? Is the God of the Quran truly immoral, if He frames the act of eating meat as a positive thing? While I stand against animal abuse and suffering, I feel guilty responding to vegans that maybe if I were an atheist or something else, I’d be more compelled to agree that killing animals for meat is immoral.“

Only two types of arguments could possibly appeal to a Muslim to make one want to stop eating animals: either a Quranic argument, or a secular argument. Given that there is no way to argue from the Quran that meat-eating is an inherently immoral act, let us take the secular argument for moral veganism to their logical conclusion and determine whether there are any inconsistences.

Non-religious people who are vegan for moral purposes do so because they believe killing animals is immoral in all cases, unless absolutely necessary. They acknowledge that animals are not moral agents, therefore they can kill each other without committing a morally wrong act. In contrast, their argument is that since humans are moral agents, any action a person makes can either be right, wrong, or neutral.

• As a result, they argue that because killing is an immoral act in all cases, and because humans are uniquely capable of right and wrong, the prohibition against killing should not only extend to humans, but to animals.

The logical question is: Yes, humans can commit right and wrong. But why is killing animals immoral? If not from scripture, then where does this moral rule come from, exactly?

• The vegan response is: “Because animals are sentient creatures and can feel pain and suffering like humans. Therefore, we must not kill them, just like how we avoid killing people to minimize suffering.”

Alright, but what if people provide their livestock with plenty of space, food, medical attention, and care to reduce their suffering, then when the time comes for their slaughter, they are killed quickly and with very little pain? We are killing them for food in a way that complies with the moral rule of minimizing suffering, right?

The vegan response is: “Okay, so rather than minimizing suffering, the source of the immorality of killing animals comes from fairness and avoiding hypocrisy. All animals have a desire to survive, just like all humans. If we prohibit ourselves killing fellow humans, it would be hypocritical not to forbid ourselves from killing animals too. Moreover, is it not unfair and hypocritical to eat livestock when we don’t want an alien species of superior intelligence making us livestock?“

• The logical response to that is: “We forbid killing one another because we believe all humans have a right to life that should not be violated. So for the sake of fairness and avoiding hypocrisy, why not extend the sacred right to life to all animals as well? Why prohibit humans from murdering one another, but not prohibit other animals from killing one another, if all humans and animals have a very strong desire to live? It would certainly be unfair and hypocritical to grant each individual human a sacred right to life, but not each animal, if indeed the source of morality is reducing double standards.”

• The vegan response is: “Because animals are not moral agents, so they cannot commit any wrong by killing one another.” Okay, but that creates an ethical paradox. If the morality of preventing murder comes from reducing double standards, but animals are allowed to kill each other while humans are not, we are committing immorality by not giving all animals the sacred right to life. But animals are not moral agents, therefore cannot commit any violations of any sacred right, therefore a sacred right to life cannot be imposed on animals.

• Hence, one cannot argue that killing animals is immoral from the perspective of fairness and avoiding double standards, since that ends up creating an ethical paradox.

Another vegan argument is: “We forbid killing children, even though they don’t have full human rights. So why not forbid killing animals even though they don’t have full human rights?”

• Here is a question: let’s say you make a banana cake. The banana cake has a certain value to you as a food. But doesn’t the banana that was used to make the cake have equal, but indirect value to you as the finished banana cake?

• Without the banana that was used to make the banana cake, there would be no banana cake. So the banana used to make the cake is just as important to you as the banana cake, although the importance of the banana is indirect, while the importance of the final banana cake is direct.

• Likewise, all human adults have a certain value such that it is criminalized to kill them. But whatever value they currently have to the moral community that entitles them the right to life, their former child selves had equal but indirect value. That is because they wouldn’t be their current adult selves without first having gone through childhood. If their former child selves had equal value to the community as their current adult selves, that means their right to life (a consequence of the person’s worth to the community) had to be constant from birth to adulthood.

• For all current children, we have zero guarantee that any will make it to adulthood. We do not know the future. So when we criminalize killing children, we are assuming equal but indirect worth by assuming all of them will grow to adulthood.

• The value or importance to the community that is inherent in adult humans comes from being a moral agent, thus they have to respect the boundaries of their fellow moral agents and are entitled to have their own boundaries respected. The right to life is a consequence of that value. The assumption of equal but indirect value to the community is what we use to protect children, who are not yet moral agents. But animals, whether they are adults or infants, do not have the capacity to become moral agents. Thus, unlike children, we cannot provide animals with the assumption of equal but indirect value.

• Of course, there are inconsistencies with the “indirect but equal worth” argument. What about cognitively disabled people who used to be moral agents? Why do they have a sacred right to life even though they no longer have any potential to become a moral agent? Some can argue that the advance directives that people make before being incapacitated helps preserve their worth to the moral community and retain a degree of autonomy during medical care.

A potential pro-vegan argument is: All sentient life has value, so killing any sentient life is wrong due to the inherent value.

• The problem with this argument is: why exactly does all sentient life have value? What is the source of that value? Why does sentience and consciousness grant life more value than non-sentience? If the value of life can be tiered based on category, then why would the life of humans (who are moral agents in addition to being sentient) not have more value than all other sentient life? If sentient life has less value than moral agents, then does sentience at least grant enough value such that killing them without necessity is wrong? Where is the evidence of that, if that’s the case?

Hence, the main point is that a fully consistent, secular argument for moral veganism does not really exist, whether it is from the perspective of minimizing suffering, maximizing fairness, or the idea that animals are of equal worth morally as children, or the idea that the attribute of sentience somehow magically grants animals enough value such that killing them without necessity is wrong. Each of these three comes across consistency issues.

Additionally, a fully consistent, secular argument for the permissibility of meat-eating also does not exist. We have tried to create one with the “indirect but equal worth” argument, but it failed to properly explain the case of cognitively disabled people. In the case of children, their equal worth in this argument is built mainly on the assumption of potential, rather than as an absolute, inherent value by virtue of being children.

The simplest, most consistent moral argument is: “God decides right and wrong, and God says it’s permissible, therefore it is.” The issue in this argument now is not consistency, but proving that God exists, and where to find God’s teachings if so.

Why Islam Allows Eating Meat

Verses like 33:72, 36:60, 7:172, 2:36, and others portray a clear picture: All living and non-living things had a past life. We all committed some type of transgression during that past life. As a result, we were all offered “the Trust”.

Those who were too scared to take on the Trust were reborn as mountains, trees, stars, and animals, in constant, instinctual worship of God by obeying His laws of nature and physics as a form of redemption. The Salat, the subliming (tasbeeh in Arabic), and the prostration by living and non-living beings are all done naturally, every moment, due to the constancy of the obedience to the laws of physics, as well as natural instincts. Our own bodies are not an exception to this as well.

• [17:44] Subliming Him are the seven heavens and the earth and all who are in them. There is nothing that does not sublime Him with praise, but you do not understand their subliming. He is Forbearing, Forgiving.

• [24:41] Do you not see that all who are in the heavens and the earth sublimes God, even the birds in their flight formation? Each has certainly known its Salat and its subliming; God is Knowledgeable of what they do.

• [55:6] And the stars and the trees prostrate.

But those who took on this risky Trust were born as human beings with moral responsibility. They were entrusted to be conscious worshippers of God when guidance from God comes down, do as much good as possible, and stay away from as much bad as possible.

• [33:72] Indeed, We presented the Trust to the heavens and the earth, including the mountains, but they refused to carry it, and were afraid of it. But the human being carried it. Indeed, he was transgressing, ignorant.

• [36:60] Did I not pledge to you, O Children of Adam, that you shall not worship the devil? Indeed, he is a clear enemy to you. And that you worship Me, this is the straight path.

• [7:172] And when your Lord took from the Children of Adam their descendants, from their loins, and made them testify about themselves: “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.” Lest you say on the Day of Establishment, “Indeed, we were unaware of this.”

• [20:123] He said, “Go down from it altogether, some of you as enemies of some. Then indeed, if guidance comes to you from Me, whoever thus follows My guidance will neither go astray, nor suffer.”

So the difference between animals and humans is: animals have already completed their redemption with their existence and their ceaseless natural worship of God. They chose the safer, wise path to redemption, hence are not responsible for right and wrong. No matter how long they continue living or how they live their lives, they will eventually enter Paradise when they return to God on Judgement Day and receive the highest reward.

• Their scale will read zero bad deeds, and (very likely) the single good deed of choosing the path of constant and ceaseless worship. Thus, their ratio of good deeds to bad deeds will be infinite, and their reward in Paradise will be the highest.

But humans are morally responsible beings, thus, how much good we do in relation to how much bad we do will impact how we will be rewarded in the Hereafter. Our ratio of good deeds to bad deeds, no matter how high, will never reach infinite because of the path we chose. Hence, if God repays each of us exactly according to the balance of our good and bad deeds, we will never be able to reap the highest rewards in Paradise.

If a person was prematurely killed, and was very likely going to do numerous good deeds later in life if he wasn’t killed, the murder robbed that person of the chance to better perfect his redemption and earn more of God’s approval and reward with more good deeds.

• Of course, it is likely that God will account for that missed potential when passing the final judgement to those who were murdered. But God wouldn’t have to do that if the person was not murdered.

The same applies to a non-Muslim who was murdered, who was very likely going to become a Muslim later in life had he not been murdered.

• Once again, God will somehow factor in that missed potential, but the point is that the premature death of a person may have a negative effect on the victim’s Hereafter and the victim’s final judgement.

That is why killing an innocent human being is wrong in Islam, but killing animals for food is not. There is a lot more at stake for humans than animals.

Animal Welfare and Islam

While the Quran permits killing an animal for food, it does not permit causing suffering to animals or being cruel to them while they are alive.

The first reason is because according to Surah 16, there is “jamaal” (beauty) for people in caring for the livestock, including sending them out to get food and bringing them back in to rest. Hence, livestock should be treated in a way which preserves that beauty.

• [16:5-6] And He created the livestock for you. In them is warmth and other benefits, and from them you eat. There is also beauty in them for you when you bring them in and when you send them out.

The second reason is that the Quran in Surah 90 commands following “al-‘aqabah” (the steep and difficult path). Part of the definition of “al-aqabah” is enjoining “al-marhamah” (compassion) on others. That means compassion and empathy should be a guiding principle for all actions. This includes not neglecting or abusing animals and minimizing the physical and mental suffering of animals under your care.

• [90:12-17] And how will you know what the steep path is? It is the freeing of a slave, or feeding during a day of severe hunger an orphan of close relationship, or a needy person in misery, then to become among the ones who believed and enjoined patience, as well as enjoined compassion.

There is also the importance of not causing environmental corruption with farming practices too. If significant deforestation or environmental corruption needs to occur to produce a cattle farm, then it is not Quranically allowed to have that cattle farm.

Hence, animals should not be kept in cramped spaces, not separated from their mothers unless they are emotionally ready to be independent, etc. Lastly, they should be slaughtered in the most painless way possible if the owners want to harvest the meat, bones, and skin from them.

• One should have no business owning animals or farming them if they cannot do that as a bare minimum.