Apostate prophet may reconsider his vegan approach; is islamic animal sacrifice a cruelty?

In answer to the video "The Sacrifice Craziness"

For all the previously mentioned benefits, and many others to be integrated into the notion of "sacrifice" and make it regain a meaning on an emotional and economical level we need to make several spirtual and lifestyle readjustments. 

As stated earlier we need firstly to rid ourselves of the idea that the shedding of blood per se is what God requires

22:37"There does not reach Allah their flesh nor their blood, but to Him is acceptable the guarding (against evil) on your part, thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah". 

Secondly, lifestyle changes must be done especially in our eating habits. It is the key to changing our negative, unnnatural and harmful animal farming methods. By doing so, we will benefit from livestock on many intricate levels. 

The occasional slaughter, like our ancestors did for private consumption and/or the yearly or once in a lifetime pilgrimage, will even become an essential component of that system. It will not only satisfy a legitimate nutritional need, but also maintain control of livestock population so as to not compromise the sustainable balance, just as predators in nature contribute to regulate rich ecosystems around the world of which they and all other species benefit from, through their occasional hunting and killing.

In our current destructive farming model, slaughter of livestock is more akin to murder, preceded by imprisonment, abuse, torture. People having the slightest spark of spirituality in them cannot accept any meat issuing from such religiously and humanely illegitimate sources. And the consumption of such meat is as unethical as it would be for vegetables, tofu or grain raised in non sustainable ways, as is vastly the case nowadays, and even moreso due to the rise of veganism. Besides leaving too many resources unused, like the lands unsuitable for tillage mentioned earlier, and thus reducing the number of humans that can be adequately fed, veganism is a diet that demands a year long availability of a wide range of plant based foods that cannot be all found within one and the same landscape. These are brought in from far, which is highly detrimental to local populations used to eating the food of their direct landscape. Local farmers are forced to choose only a few varieties to mass produce for the international demand, reducing their own access to a complete and varied diet. 

This inefficient system can be avoided if a population seeks its nutrients locally, taking advantage of a variety of resources including moderate animal meat and byproducts consumption. It is the principle of necessary harm for greater good. Once more, you cannot grow anything anywhere. Not all landscapes are fit to grow the variety needed to accommodate a vegan diet, hence the need to import, most of the time from very far, the majority of a vegan food plate. 

Even if the whole world turned vegan, imports will never stop, and from far away, most often to the detriment of local populations. A true ethical debate involves as many global and long term parameters as possible. Why would it be unethical to moderately eat sustainably farmed animals but ethical to eat unsustainably grown plants? Eating locally grown plants involves little to no transport, no storage and/or cooling need, less fossil fuel and all its negative sometimes deadly effects on the fauna and flora, and occasionally eating local meat from animals that graze on lands not suitable for tillage supports the development of the fauna/flora in countless ways. That system makes full use of all resources available within every landscape of every society on the planet, besides its socio-economic benefits. 

That is what is meant by necessary harm, having that system, which must involve occasional taking of life, supports life and the biosystem on a local and planetary scale in a much more efficient way that the vegan system does. With that perspective in mind, the responsible, comprehensive ethical choice that causes less harm both to the environment and living creatures is to NOT follow the vegan diet. Vegans will never be able to have a healthy diet by eating strictly locally grown plants and meat substitutes so as to avoid the negative effects of their diet on a planetary scale. The reason for that failure is simple and transpires through the history of humanity. Animals were of great benefit to humans while alive, and the last thing the owner would think of would be to reduce the number of his assests but even so, they had to occasionally kill and eat their meat to thrive healthily, let alone survive in harsh conditions. 

Thats why no society ever went vegan, simply because it isnt the best choice, both for the humans, the animals, and the environment. The Quran emphatically states, any food consumed must be "tayyiba", implying lawfulness, purity and wholesomeness. The kind and quality of food, its origins and the way acquired all are interrelated from a spiritual perspective. The current unethical model goes against these directives. In the sustainable farming model however, occasional slaughter is a necessity that benefits humans, other species and the environment in a much more efficient way than if it wasnt used, without compromising the spiritual and ethical dimension. The bottom line is that if what one is trying to achieve by adopting an ethical diet, is to preserve the integrity, stability, beauty of the biotic comunity as a whole then the larger ethically sound choice would be to occasionally eat meat. In fact, with such perspective in mind, not eating meat is the narrow, unethical choice.

The Quran associates remembrance of God with consideration for our environment and animals. Remembrance must be in all circumstances, when walking on this smooth earth and enjoying its sustenance. But that sustenance is not a human prerogative, it is intended for the creatures known and unknown, those that we directly feed from the earth and those whose sustenance is made available without our intervention 15:19-21,67:15. Remembering God from that perspective makes us inevitably inclined to consider the legitimate needs of other creatures. Especially when mastering this nature entrusted to us, we must be God-conscious in the process, never becoming self-conceited, thinking that we are all-powerful over it, having unconditional right to use and abuse from it 10:24,43:13,57:7. This includes the animals made subservient to us

"then remember the favor of your Lord when you are firmly seated thereon".

We must be considerate towards this nature as it is the reflection of God's favor and compassion to us 16:5-7. God could as easily make us subservient to nature 69:6-7. Mankind is literally the product of the earth, whether at its origin from inorganic elements, or at a later stage when it began spreading as a specie 

71:17"And Allah has caused you to grow from the earth a [progressive] growth". 

Biologically, man is just like another plant, feeding and growing from what the earth provides. This Quranic worldview combines both accuracy and warmth, giving the believer a complete picture of his relation with his environment, the earth and other living things. These notions can practically be implemented through a conservative use of natural resources which all of creation has a right on

5:87,7:31,6:141,20:81"Eat of the wholesome things We have provided for your sustenance, but commit no excess therein".

The prophetic practice reflects that notion in many instances, and the way he instructed the people not to be wasteful.  

And if one is unable to appreciate these practical considerations, then the Quran appeals to our emotions. The animal kingdom has a similarity with us in the most basic of traits and needs

6:38"there is not a moving entity in the land nor a flying entity flying with its two wings except (part of) nations/groupings similar to you. We have not neglected in the book a thing. Then towards their Sustainer they will be gathered".

The verse does not restrict their grouping among elements of the same specie. Just as humans, even those most solitary and recluse, still need, willingly or not, to form a community and interract with living entities for survival, the animals too, need to live in communities, sometimes with entirely different species, for their survival. 

Finally, the repeated notion that all of creation, animate and inanimate, worships the same Creator that mankind is called to worship, connects us with them on a spiritual level, forcing the God-conscious to be considerate towards this nature entrusted to him 2:58,13:13-15,16:48-50,17:44,22:18,24:41,45:37,55:6,29,62:1,64:1,21:79,34:10,38:17-9. The whole earth becomes a fellow worshiper of the same Creator, making the animal kingdom more particularily as among the wordly devices put at mankind's disposal to reflect on the higher meanings of things

45:4"And in your creation and in what He spreads abroad of animals there are signs for a people that are sure".

That is why they will be resurrected and gathered back to their Sustainer 6:38. Not for their own judgement but as devices by which the humans will be judged, just as many other wordly creations, animate and inanimate will be made to testify as to our use of them 99:4-5,16:78,17:36,24:24,36:65,41:20-21.  

With this comprehensive perspective, practical, emotional, spiritual, the Quran attracts mankind's empathy not only to the sentient beings but to every creature, sentient or not, which is part of our direct environement and affected by our actions. It is only with such pragmatic approach, accepting our rights and duties towards nature that mankind can reach a globally sustainable model of life, intricately connected and where every species can thrive in a healthy and diverse ecosystem.

 In such model, "sacrifice" of a valuable asset becomes highly meaningful and necessary.