Actually, there are many instances of consenting cannibalism--i.e. the person willingly offers up either part or all of their own person for the act. So the question is--would it be okay to allow this? Or, should it be allowed for a cult to ritualistically kill each other inside a compound as long as people in that community are okay with it?
Might sound silly--but it's the same thing. Every society has to draw the line somewhere, even for things done in private, because they are seen as too pervasive and corrupting. In Islam, adultery is such a majorly pervasive act for many reasons (such as others getting knowledge of the act, leading to further moral decline by Islamic standards). Islam knows that physical temptation is very strong and easy to spread, and it seeks to limit this temptation. Western culture has taken the opposite approach by giving up and letting everything go. Islamic societies should not try to force the West to change, and the West should not try to force Islamic societies to change.
Thus I had said if it wasn't consensual, fair point then if it is!
If it is consensual, and the person consenting is of a sane mind and mature enough age, well, I'll be deadly honest and say personally I shouldn't really have much of a right to stop it. That's just me.
Funny you bring that up, as literally seconds ago, was debating with a friend about suicide and euthanasia and the right one should have to die or take his or her own life if he or she chooses to.
As for your 2nd para, it surely isn't as simplistic as Western societies not imposing their values on Islamic ones, and Islamic ones not imposing their values on the West.
The issue begins with an individual living in a country with Islamic values who doesn't necessarily ascribe to them or agree with them or is Muslim him or herself. Not every person born in a Muslim country is a Muslim, nor is it easy for him or her to move to another country. There are issues he or she would face where he's confined to Muslim practices despite not being of the faith or agreeing with the faith.
If he wants to indulge in intercourse outside of wedlock, consume alcohol, or wants to publicly criticize religion, Islamic values might not allow him any of that. The question then is asked is if this person is condemned to adhering to Islamic law despite not ascribing to the faith if he doesn't have the freedom of mobility?
It is't as simplistic as "West should do their own thing, Muslim countries should do their own thing" is it?
Secularism allows, for the most part, religious individuals to practice their own religion as long as it is not a hindrance to others. I agree, there are issues within secular countries when it comes to restrictions on the veil, not having statutory holidays on religious observances, not getting off from work for Friday prayers, restrictions on polygamy (quite a major one admittedly!) etc.. But for the most part a religious individual can practice his or her faith in a secular country as long as others around aren't being hindered. One can choose to be religious, and one can choose to not be religious without there being a significant infringement on his or her rights.
The same isn't the case with Islamic countries though, in my opinion at least. There's laws against even criticizing religion and religious figures which can result in things as punishable as the death penalty.
Both are not perfect, but one certainly has more freedom for minorities than the other for the most part.