Consent in the ‘Civilised World’
In the Western World consent stops at a certain level.(1) For example, a person is unable to consent to being murdered, assault causing bodily harm and grievous bodily harm.
What does this mean?
It means that the rule of law is made so that people in society live by certain rules and if one steps outside these rules, according to public policy, it is unacceptable and a reasonable punishment in-cues.
Does Sharia Law exceed these boundaries?(2) I argue that it does.
When a person is not allowed to leave a religion, or be beaten or flogged to death for seeming moral or minor offences then we need to look carefully at this.
Sharia Law, therefore, in the Western World cannot be submitted to, or followed, as it would be likely that we could not consent to the offences in which it subscribes to.
Instead, Sharia Law itself should be outlawed as it infringes on the free agency and rights of the soul. It is an abomination.
On the other hand, the Islamic religion should be embraced from a moderate perspective inwhich does not follow such a barbaric rule of savagery.
Anyone submitting or trying to lobby for Sharia Law should be immediately charged under new laws which could be made to protect society from this barbarity.