If you’ve been following recent developments in India, you may be aware that one of the latest controversies concerns campaigns by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) and some Hindu nationalist organizations to oppose the inclusion of eggs in government-sponsored school midday meal programs.

Their position is generally rooted in religious and ethical commitments to lacto-vegetarianism, particularly the Vaishnava belief that eggs constitute non-vegetarian food and should therefore not be served in public institutions. Some proponents also argue that vegetarian meals are culturally appropriate for large segments of Indian society and that eggs can be replaced by dairy or plant-based alternatives.

However, there are a few issues here. To begin with, eggs are among the most nutrient-dense and cost-effective foods available. They provide complete, highly bioavailable protein containing all essential amino acids, together with vitamin B12, choline, vitamin D, riboflavin, selenium, iodine, and bioavailable fats that are critical for early childhood growth and cognitive development.

Unlike many plant-based foods, eggs require minimal preparation, are relatively low cost, and can be easily incorporated into large-scale school feeding programs. Numerous nutritional studies have found that regular egg consumption improves growth outcomes, dietary diversity, and micronutrient intake among children, especially in low-income populations.

The debate is particularly significant because India continues to face one of the world’s largest burdens of child malnutrition. According to recent estimates by organizations such as UNICEF and the World Health Organization, roughly one-third of Indian children under five are stunted (low height for age), reflecting chronic undernutrition, while a substantial proportion are underweight or wasted. Malnutrition contributes to a large share of under-five mortality, and preventable nutrition-related causes continue to account for hundreds of thousands of child deaths in India each year.

Also, this entire controversy reminds me of an observation made by the famous German polymath and “civilizationist” Oswald Spengler, in his 1931 work Man and Technics. Spengler contrasted predators with grazing animals as symbols of fundamentally different orientations toward life. His argument was neither simply anatomical nor was it a scientific theory of evolution. It was a philosophical and civilizational metaphor.

Carnivores, with their forward-facing eyes, binocular vision, and active pursuit of prey represented what he regarded as the “Faustian” will: initiative, conquest, risk, and domination over the environment. Herbivores, by contrast, with their laterally placed eyes, optimized for detecting predators, symbolized vigilance, caution, adaptation, and a fundamentally defensive relationship with nature. While modern biology explains these anatomical differences in terms of ecological niches rather than psychological dispositions, Spengler employed them as archetypes expressing contrasting cultural and civilizational temperaments.

One could therefore broaden the discussion into a wider comparative analysis of dietary ethics and civilization. Rather than restricting the debate to theology, it is possible to examine whether Islam’s normative acceptance and, in some cases, encouragement of meat consumption, can be defended against forms of religious vegetarianism using “secular” arguments drawn from nutrition, evolutionary biology, anthropology, archaeology, economics, developmental psychology, and civilizational history.

RELATED: Hinduism and Judaism: A Match Made in Hell?

Evolutionary Biology

Even if one accepts the evolutionary account of human origins (which obviously leads to kufr), the conclusion reached by modern biology is that human beings are neither natural herbivores nor obligate carnivores. They are omnivores.

Human anatomy displays numerous adaptations consistent with dietary flexibility. Our forward-facing eyes provide binocular vision and stereoscopic depth perception. These are characteristics associated with precise manipulation and, in many species, predatory behavior, although they are not exclusive to predators. Our dentition is similarly intermediate: incisors are adapted for cutting, relatively small canines for tearing, and broad molars for grinding, enabling efficient processing of both plant and animal foods. The human digestive tract is likewise neither that of a carnivore nor that of a specialized herbivore. It is substantially shorter than the elongated intestines and fermentation chambers of herbivores that depend upon microbial digestion of cellulose, yet it is longer than the relatively short gastrointestinal tract of obligate carnivores.

Rather than specializing in one dietary niche, the human digestive system is optimized for extracting nutrients from a remarkably diverse range of foods.

Human physiology also reinforces the same conclusion. The stomach maintains an exceptionally acidic environment, with a fasting pH typically between 1 and 2, among the most acidic found in mammals. Evolutionary biologists have argued that such acidity likely evolved, at least in part, as a defense against pathogens associated with the consumption of animal tissues, including scavenged meat. Humans also possess an extensive suite of digestive enzymes capable of efficiently breaking down animal proteins and fats, while also retaining the ability to digest starches, fruits, legumes, and many other plant foods. Conversely, humans lack the specialized digestive adaptations required to derive substantial nutrition directly from cellulose, the principal structural component of plants, unlike ruminants such as cattle or sheep.

Perhaps the strongest physiological evidence is our dependence upon vitamin B12. Humans cannot synthesize this vitamin, yet it is indispensable for neurological function, DNA synthesis, and red blood cell production. Under natural conditions, vitamin B12 is obtained almost exclusively from animal-source foods, as it is produced by microorganisms that ultimately enter the food chain through animal tissues. Although modern supplementation makes vegan diets possible today, this technological solution underscores rather than refutes the evolutionary reality that human nutritional physiology developed in an environment where animal foods were regularly consumed.

The archaeological and paleoanthropological record reaches the same conclusion. Beginning with early members of the genus Homo, the fossil record documents a marked increase in brain size that coincides with growing reliance on calorie-dense and nutrient-dense animal-source foods. Stable isotope analyses of fossilized human remains frequently reveal substantial consumption of animal protein, while stone tools associated with cut-marked bones and systematic butchery dating back more than two million years demonstrate that meat acquisition formed a regular component of early human subsistence rather than being an occasional anomaly. Ethnographic studies of hunter-gatherer societies further reinforce this picture: although the proportion of animal and plant foods varies enormously depending on local ecology, virtually every traditionally studied hunter-gatherer population has consumed animal foods whenever they were available.

The human genome likewise bears the imprint of dietary adaptation. Rather than revealing specialization for a single mode of nutrition, genetic evidence demonstrates that human populations have repeatedly evolved in response to the foods available within their particular ecological and cultural environments. Evolution has therefore favored dietary flexibility rather than commitment to either strict carnivory or strict herbivory.

One of the clearest examples is lactase persistence. In most mammals, including the majority of humans throughout history, the enzyme lactase declines after weaning, making the digestion of fresh milk in adulthood difficult. Yet several human populations independently evolved genetic mutations that allow lactase production to continue throughout life. These mutations arose separately in Europe, parts of East Africa, and the Middle East following the domestication of cattle, sheep, goats, and camels, illustrating a classic case of convergent evolution driven by the nutritional advantages of dairy consumption.

Populations inhabiting the Arctic provide yet another illustration. Indigenous Arctic peoples traditionally consumed diets that are exceptionally rich in marine mammals, fish, and other animal-source foods while obtaining relatively few carbohydrates from plants. Over thousands of years, natural selection favored genetic variants affecting lipid metabolism and fatty acid processing that appear to reflect adaptation to this distinctive nutritional environment.

An additional point that is frequently overlooked in discussions of vegetarianism concerns the evolutionary biology of plants themselves. Plants are often perceived as “passive organisms” that exist simply to be consumed, yet modern botany paints a far more complex picture. Unable to escape predators through movement, plants have instead evolved an extraordinary array of structural and chemical defenses designed to reduce herbivory and increase their chances of survival and reproduction.

Among these defenses are numerous secondary metabolites that deter insects, grazing mammals, and other herbivores. Oxalates can bind minerals such as calcium and, in sufficiently high concentrations, contribute to the formation of kidney stones in susceptible individuals. Phytates reduce the absorption of essential minerals including iron, zinc, and calcium by binding them within the digestive tract. Lectins, found in varying concentrations in legumes and grains, can interfere with digestion when consumed in significant quantities, although proper cooking largely neutralizes most dietary lectins. Tannins reduce the digestibility of proteins and impart the bitter or astringent taste that discourages many animals from consuming immature fruits or leaves. Some plants also produce cyanogenic glycosides, compounds capable of releasing cyanide when plant tissues are damaged, thereby serving as a potent chemical deterrent against herbivores.

The presence of these compounds does not imply that plant foods are inherently harmful or unsuitable for human consumption. The broader point, however, is evolutionary rather than nutritional. Plants are not passive food sources that exist without defenses. Like animals, they have evolved under intense selective pressure and employ a diverse arsenal of biochemical strategies to discourage consumption. If you were to go by the evolutionary mythology, herbivory, no less than predation, has driven an evolutionary arms race extending back hundreds of millions of years.

Human beings therefore consume organisms from two kingdoms of life, both of which have evolved mechanisms to survive being eaten. The existence of chemical defenses in plants serves as a reminder that consumption itself is a fundamental feature of biology, not an anomaly unique to meat eating. Every form of nutrition involves organisms interacting with and often overcoming the defensive adaptations of other living organisms.

Thus, even if one adopts the very intellectual framework most celebrated by modern kufri secular thought (evolution, evolutionary biology, and nutritional science), the resulting picture does not naturally support religious vegetarianism. On the contrary, these disciplines consistently portray human beings as omnivores whose biology and history have been shaped in part by the consumption of animal-source foods.

This creates an interesting tension, as many contemporary Hindu apologists readily appeal to the authority of modern scientific discourse when defending aspects of their tradition. Yet, on the question of vegetarianism, the same evolutionary and biological framework that they invoke can be turned against them.

If one chooses to argue on the terrain of modern scientific naturalism rather than revelation, the evidence arguably aligns more closely with Islam’s permissive attitude toward meat than with the elevation of vegetarianism into a universal religious ideal.

RELATED: The Most Popular Hindu Movement in West Is… Anti-Hindu?

History and Anthropology

Also, the anthropological record points in the same direction. Virtually every major civilization and nearly every traditional society incorporated animal-source foods into its diet, although the proportion varied according to geography, climate, ecology, and economic conditions.

Arctic peoples such as the Inuit depended overwhelmingly on fish and marine mammals because agriculture was impossible in their environment. The Maasai of East Africa traditionally relied heavily on cattle, obtaining meat, milk, and occasionally blood as dietary staples. The Mongols built one of history’s largest empires while subsisting largely on the products of their pastoral herds. The Arabs of Late Antiquity and the early Islamic period likewise depended extensively on livestock in the harsh environment of the Arabian Peninsula.

The same pattern is found among the great agricultural civilizations: Ancient Egyptians raised cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, and fish alongside cereal agriculture. The Romans regarded meat, fish, eggs, and dairy products as normal components of the diet, even if ordinary citizens consumed them less frequently than the wealthy. Chinese civilization, despite long traditions of Buddhist vegetarianism among some monastic communities, has historically incorporated pork, poultry, fish, eggs, and other animal products into its regional cuisines. Likewise, throughout the medieval Islamic world, from al-Andalus to Central Asia, animal husbandry formed an essential component of economic life, while meat, dairy, and fish occupied an important place in both everyday meals and religious celebrations.

This convergence across civilizations separated by thousands of years and vast geographical distances is quite unlikely to be accidental.

Ecology

Beyond human biology and history, the natural world itself provides another perspective on the role of meat consumption. Modern ecology recognizes predation as one of the fundamental processes through which ecosystems maintain stability and resilience.

Virtually every complex terrestrial and marine ecosystem depends upon predator-prey relationships that have evolved over millions of years and continue to regulate population dynamics, energy transfer, and biodiversity.

Predators perform numerous ecological functions that are indispensable to healthy ecosystems. By limiting herbivore populations, they prevent excessive grazing and browsing that would otherwise degrade vegetation, reduce plant diversity, and ultimately destabilize entire habitats. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in numerous ecological studies, perhaps most famously following the reintroduction of wolves into protected ecosystems, where the restoration of predation produced cascading effects throughout the food web. Such “trophic cascades” can alter the abundance and distribution of plants, birds, insects, and even river morphology by preventing unchecked herbivore pressure.

Predation also contributes to the genetic health of prey populations. Predators disproportionately capture individuals that are young, sick, injured, elderly, or otherwise less fit, thereby reducing the spread of disease and allowing healthier individuals a greater probability of survival and reproduction. While “natural selection” operates through many mechanisms, predation remains one of its most powerful ecological drivers, continually shaping the evolution of both predators and prey.

Furthermore, predators play an essential role in nutrient cycling. By consuming prey and leaving carcasses that are subsequently utilized by scavengers, decomposers, insects, and microorganisms, they facilitate the redistribution of nutrients throughout ecosystems. Energy captured by plants ultimately moves through herbivores, carnivores, scavengers, and decomposers in interconnected food webs, illustrating that death and consumption are integral components of ecological renewal rather than disruptions of it.

From this perspective, the consumption of animals is not an anomaly imposed upon nature. It is an expression of a broader ecological principle that characterizes life itself. Herbivores consume living plants; carnivores consume herbivores; omnivores consume both; decomposers recycle organic matter into forms that sustain future generations of life.

Every ecological niche depends upon the transformation of living organisms into nourishment for others.

RELATED: The Metaphysics of Vegetarianism

Agriculture

Another consideration concerns the ethics of agriculture itself. Discussions of meat consumption often assume a sharp moral distinction between animal agriculture, which directly involves the slaughter of livestock; and crop production, which is frequently portrayed as causing little or no animal harm.

In reality, modern agriculture of every kind alters ecosystems and inevitably results in the deaths of large numbers of wild animals. The relevant question is therefore not if a particular diet causes harm but, rather, what forms of harm it entails and to what extent they can realistically be avoided.

Large-scale crop cultivation requires clearing land, tilling soil, harvesting fields, transporting produce, and protecting crops from pests. Each of these processes results in substantial mortality among wild animals. Mechanical harvesting kills rodents, rabbits, reptiles, amphibians, ground-nesting birds, and countless insects that inhabit cultivated fields. Land conversion for agriculture destroys habitats, displaces wildlife, and fragments ecosystems, while pesticides and rodenticides intentionally eliminate enormous numbers of insects and other animals in order to preserve crop yields.

These effects occur regardless of whether the crops are ultimately consumed by humans or livestock, although the scale varies according to the agricultural system involved.

For this reason, it is difficult to maintain that any realistic human diet is entirely free from animal death. Every form of food production involves ecological trade-offs, whether through the direct slaughter of domesticated animals, the incidental killing of wildlife during cultivation and harvest, or the broader environmental transformations required to sustain agriculture.

The ethical debate is therefore more complex than a simple opposition between diets that kill animals and diets that do not, which is often the “strongest” argument of the Hindu vegetarian activists.

Immunology

The relationship between nutrition and immune function provides another relevant perspective.

The immune system is among the most metabolically demanding systems in the human body, requiring a continuous supply of energy, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals to produce immune cells, synthesize antibodies, repair damaged tissues, and coordinate inflammatory responses.

Periods of protein-energy malnutrition are consistently associated with impaired immunity, increased susceptibility to infectious disease, delayed wound healing, and higher mortality, particularly among children and the elderly.

Protein quality is especially important in this regard. Although all proteins are ultimately broken down into amino acids, dietary proteins differ in both their amino acid composition and their digestibility. Animal-source proteins (including eggs, dairy, fish, and meat) generally possess high digestibility and contain all nine essential amino acids in proportions that closely match human physiological requirements. For this reason, they typically achieve higher scores on modern measures of protein quality – such as the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) – than most individual plant proteins.

These considerations become particularly significant in populations like India, where food insecurity, childhood malnutrition, or infectious diseases remain common.

RELATED: The Religious Roots of Hindu Incest

Economics

An economic perspective leads to a similar conclusion.

One of the defining characteristics of livestock is that they transform biological resources that humans cannot directly consume into products of considerable nutritional and economic value. Ruminants, for example, possess digestive systems capable of converting grasses, leaves, and other cellulose-rich vegetation, which are nutritionally inaccessible to humans, into meat and milk. Likewise, many domesticated animals consume crop residues, food-processing by-products, and agricultural waste that would otherwise have little or no direct value for human nutrition.

Rather than simply competing with humans for food, livestock often occupy ecological niches that allow them to recycle otherwise unusable biomass into highly nutrient-dense products.

Historically, their contribution has extended far beyond food production. Domesticated animals have supplied leather for clothing and tools, wool for textiles, manure for fertilizing agricultural land, and traction for ploughing fields and transporting goods and people. Before the widespread adoption of fossil fuels and mechanization, animal power formed one of the principal engines of economic production, enabling the expansion of agriculture, trade, and urban civilization. Even today, in many parts of the developing world, livestock continue to function as productive assets, sources of income, stores of wealth, and providers of essential agricultural services.

From the standpoint of economics, this multifunctionality is significant because it illustrates that livestock generate value across numerous sectors simultaneously rather than just producing meat alone. They participate in integrated agricultural systems by converting low-value inputs into multiple outputs, many of which remain difficult or impossible to replace entirely through synthetic or purely plant-based alternatives.

There is a certain irony here: contemporary secular and modernist discourse often places economic efficiency, resource optimization, and productivity among its highest values. Yet these same criteria frequently support the continued role of livestock within agricultural systems.

Properly managed animals don’t only consume resources. They recycle nutrients, utilize land unsuitable for crop cultivation, transform agricultural by-products into valuable commodities, and produce a range of goods that have underpinned human economies for millennia.

The Islamic Case

Ultimately, however, the Islamic argument is not merely biological, historical, or economic. Even if every secular argument presented thus far were rejected, the Islamic position would remain unchanged because its foundation is theological rather than utilitarian.

In Islam, the permissibility of meat does not depend upon its nutritional superiority or its contribution to civilization. It rests upon divine revelation.

The Qur’an repeatedly presents livestock as being among Allah’s blessings bestowed upon humanity. Animals are described as sources of food, clothing, transport, and economic benefit. They are manifestations of divine wisdom within creation rather than impurities from which the believer ought to abstain.

The institution of sacrifice during Eid al-Adha further reinforces this principle. The ritual is not simply the slaughter of an animal. It is an act of worship in which eating and distributing the meat forms part of the religious practice itself.

Likewise, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ consumed meat, milk, and other animal products throughout his life. Although his diet was generally moderate and simple, there is no indication that abstention from meat constituted a higher or more spiritually perfected state. On the contrary, he discouraged self-imposed religious austerities that transformed lawful worldly blessings into prohibited things without divine authorization.

This principle is articulated repeatedly throughout the Qur’an. Believers are commanded to eat from the lawful and good things that Allah has provided (2:168), reminded that livestock have been created for their benefit (16:5–8), instructed regarding the lawful consumption of animals (5:1), warned not to make unlawful what Allah has made lawful (5:87), and commanded to eat from the sacrificial animals after offering them during pilgrimage (22:36).

Thus, animal foods are not reluctantly tolerated concessions to human weakness. They are a part of the divinely sanctioned order of creation.

For this reason, the Islamic case is considerably stronger than the claim that meat is merely useful or convenient. It is a claim about revelation itself. If Allah has declared something lawful, described it as one of His blessings, incorporated it into acts of worship, and His Messenger ﷺ partook of it, then no subsequent religious philosophy can legitimately transform abstention from it into a universal mark of spiritual superiority. To do so is not simply to adopt a different dietary preference; it is to claim a moral authority over divine legislation that, in Islam, belongs exclusively to Allah.

We could even make the case that dietary systems which encourage regular consumption of nutrient-dense animal foods are, all else being equal, more likely to support optimal physical development than dietary systems that discourage them, particularly in societies where malnutrition remains widespread.

Animal-source foods provide highly bioavailable protein, vitamin B12, heme iron, zinc, DHA, and other nutrients that are especially important during childhood and adolescence. In populations where access to these nutrients is limited, average height, muscle mass, physical work capacity, and cognitive development may be adversely affected.

From this perspective – and going back to the opening Spenglerian analysis – one could argue that Islam’s permissive attitude toward animal-source foods is consistent with its self-understanding as a universal religion intended for every people, climate, and civilization, and powered by “strong men.” By contrast, Hindu thought may be understood as imposing dietary constraints that symbolize its own insulation within a restricted race and geography.

RELATED: Hindu Festival Killing and Injuring Hindus: Diwali or Death-Wali?