In response to your “no space for sinners” argument, I would say that the prohibition of alcohol in Islam is quite different to the prohibition (if we want to call it that) of animal product consumption in veganism. It is my understanding that alcohol is banned to protect human interests—it is a sin, but based on the idea that it harms the individual, is bad for society, can lead to addiction etc. To commit a harm against oneself is different than to commit a harm against another. If we conclude that animals are worthy of moral consideration, then to consume animal products is a harm against another. Someone may want to take a health risk and consume drugs, but that doesn’t mean they could morally justify, to themselves, giving dangerous drugs to someone else.
I believe the situation is similar for harms to others. Acts that make you a non-Muslim are a much narrower set compared to sinful actions. A thief still remains a Muslim/Christian/Jew as far as I know. Even murderers are still considered as believers depending on the denomination.
That seems to be true, you’re right. In that case, maybe the difference is that a vegan is defined by their refusal to consume animal products. If a vegan does consume animal products, they are no longer vegan, as they no longer fit the definition. A Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew is not defined by their refusal to harm others (based on what you have said). Someone can be a murderer and a Christian; they might be a bad Christian, but still a Christian. You can’t really be a bad vegan by eating animals—you just wouldn’t be a vegan anymore. I’m thinking out loud so I don’t know if my point is clear, but it feels like vegans are necessarily defined by refusing to consume animal products.
In response to your “no space for sinners” argument, I would say that the prohibition of alcohol in Islam is quite different to the prohibition (if we want to call it that) of animal product consumption in veganism. It is my understanding that alcohol is banned to protect human interests—it is a sin, but based on the idea that it harms the individual, is bad for society, can lead to addiction etc. To commit a harm against oneself is different than to commit a harm against another. If we conclude that animals are worthy of moral consideration, then to consume animal products is a harm against another. Someone may want to take a health risk and consume drugs, but that doesn’t mean they could morally justify, to themselves, giving dangerous drugs to someone else.
I believe the situation is similar for harms to others. Acts that make you a non-Muslim are a much narrower set compared to sinful actions. A thief still remains a Muslim/Christian/Jew as far as I know. Even murderers are still considered as believers depending on the denomination.
That seems to be true, you’re right. In that case, maybe the difference is that a vegan is defined by their refusal to consume animal products. If a vegan does consume animal products, they are no longer vegan, as they no longer fit the definition. A Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew is not defined by their refusal to harm others (based on what you have said). Someone can be a murderer and a Christian; they might be a bad Christian, but still a Christian. You can’t really be a bad vegan by eating animals—you just wouldn’t be a vegan anymore. I’m thinking out loud so I don’t know if my point is clear, but it feels like vegans are necessarily defined by refusing to consume animal products.
I agree!