Is Sharia Law vs British Law - Which is more moral?

Sure, let people "simply be gay" but not commit homosexual acts because of morals from a 7th century fairytale ...

It's based on what you perceive to be objective morals.

You would get persecuted in the west as well if you had public "anal ***". Difference is, the level of punishment in western law and in Shariah.

You would get persecuted in the west as well if you had public "anal ***". Difference is, the level of punishment in western law and in Shariah.

But, it's worth keeping in mind, it's also harder to get proven guilty in Shariah, as opposed to western law.



Yeah, and I'm sure most would agree that laws legislated by God, would be far more objective, than laws legislated by man.



Based on your perception

You believe the are legislated by Allah. Most people on Earth and especially in this country don't.

Yes, would. But western laws have caught up with the times.

So is any form of sex, including those in arranged marriages, but no-one mentioned streets.

I was talking about 21st century. You know sodomy on the streets of Britain is illegal right?

Yeah and most people at one point thought the earth was flat, especially "in this country".



This is like me asking, what is the moral reasoning behind not torturing an animal, in the name of science? What moral reason is there to not do tests on them, even if it kills them, for the benefit of humanity?

As for the bolded part, that's a good enough answer for objective morals. We can look to find the wisdom, but regardless of what the wisdom is, laws legislated by God will always be more moral. The subjectivity is only in what the wisdom behind a certain ruling is, where one might see one way, and another might see it another.




I was talking about 21st century. You know sodomy on the streets of Britain is illegal right?

Popularity of an idea does not make it more or less right.

Yeah and most people at one point thought the earth was flat, especially "in this country".

This is like me asking, what is the moral reasoning behind not torturing an animal, in the name of science? What moral reason is there to not do tests on them, even if it kills them, for the benefit of humanity?

As for the bolded part, that's a good enough answer for objective morals. We can look to find the wisdom, but regardless of what the wisdom is, laws legislated by God will always be more moral. The subjectivity is only in what the wisdom behind a certain ruling is, where one might see one way, and another might see it another.

I was talking about 21st century. You know sodomy on the streets of Britain is illegal right?

If its "caught up with the times" (in your view) because the punishment is simply less severe, then ok lol.

Then why did you bother using it as an argument....



That's not based on morality, that's simply based on your feelings. Anyone can simply feel completely differently, yet not one would be able to base it on morals. They would just argue that we humans gain a much greater benefit [through scientific testing] by torturing the animal.



I think you're simply not able to grasp the argument here. It was the same with using unbiased sources.



Actually it would.

One day, british law could do the same due to social pressure, they could one day decide to kill all the jews. But, laws by God may forbid this.

The difference is, British law would change, but God's law would never change. So such an occurrence would never happen in a religious state, as opposed to a social state based on subjective morals.

I'm sure most people have misconceptions about Sharia Law as we will probably see from some posts here. Did you know that under Sharia Law citizens are given free water,gas and electricity?

It may be deamed a nessessary evil to torture an animal for the benefit of humans but every sane human would agree torturing an animal for no reason is morally wrong.

It doesn't even benefit humans, the stress the animals go through makes them full of the hormone cortisol, which is unhealthy