I see it the opposite. I think the prophet was keener on animals than J-dogg was. For one thing, Mohammed was a known felinophile (for which, peace be upon him). He doted on his cat, whence the privileged status of cats in Islam. Jesus on the other hand doesn’t seem to have kept any pets at all—always a suspicious trait. And keep in mind, even though halal slaughter is today barbaric, for its time it was somewhat progressive. Mohammed was looking for the swiftest and most painless possible way to slaughter an animal. He was taking its suffering into account. That’s the kind of person who can potentially be brought around to seeing that the animal shouldn’t be slaughtered in the first place.
In sexual ethics, of course, Jesus has it all over Mohammed. The marriage to Aisha is a hideous abomination. Mohammed was unashamed of sex, a “hirsute warrior” type (it's unsurprising, for example, that Andrew Tate has converted to Islam), whereas Jesus was a beautiful celibate with a dim view of lust, for which I don’t think he’s given quite enough credit. The Hebrew tradition is very macho and pro-natalist; the Old Testament is full of references to a man’s seed and loins, and Jesus was uninterested in all that. However, his views on the subject may not’ve been as romantic or philosophical as they were practical: Jesus was an apocalypticist, so sex, marriage, and childbearing were pretty low-priority if the world is nearing its calamitous end. “And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. Pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath. For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now.”
