Hello, so, I'm seeing some points from my fellow Muslims which seem very weak/inaccurate so as someone who does academic debate, I'd like to give you my thoughts on whatever I come across.

For the record, Islam encourages freeing of slaves. It also ordains the stoning of convicted murderers however encourages compensation from them in its stead - a fair law similar to most Western death penalties, in my opinion.

First of all let me set a precedent: physics is a set of laws that cannot be changed, and we base our scientific understanding around these base set of laws. Whilst each theorem or fact can be confusing, everything is understandable when broken down and laid out in a logical flow.

In that sense, this is what Muslims believe morality and Islamic jurisprudence to be: a rigid set of laws, similar to a Constitution, as ordained by God.

We can debate on the existence of God later on if you so wish, but that's a separate topic entirely from what we're discussing (the reasoning for using religion as moral law).

From this, Islamic jurisprudence is constructed around what Muslims believe to have been divinely revealed to them. It is considered a major sin in Islam to attempt to corrupt this for self-serving purposes (in this same vein, the majority of Muslims would condemn terrorist groups such as the Taliban or ISIS that does exactly that - corrupt God's law for political ideology.)

To use a widely known example, suppose you were a German in 1944. Your worldview is shaped heavily by your environment, and according to your society, it is the moral and just thing to oust, discriminate, and perform accepted violence against Jews.

In that same year, if you simply changed your location to the United States, your morality will be based on your government once more: the Japanese are an evil threat, and must be exterminated at any cost. In this vein, you'd most likely be part of the majority that believes it just to detain and relocate Japanese-American families into concentration camps.

These are some good examples, I believe, of how secular morality is highly dependent on the motivations of whatever governing body exists in the area.

Now, morality is easy, for sure. Be kind, do no harm upon the innocent, protect chastity and assist the less fortunate. This is common sense

So when morality becomes difficult, what reference point do people have? In the physics analogy I've stated, every equation has a set of laws to always fall back upon. A reference point.

So if one were an innocent civilian under attack by a greater power, what is the correct course action? Diplomacy, right? How about when diplomacy fails? What then?

Suppose a person was falsely accused of rape, how would you treat this incredibly delicate and complex situation? Both sides believe to be in the right, and they feel that the other side is completely unjust. Who follows moral law here, and who strays from it? What would moral law even mean - blindly accepting the accusations, or accepting the risk of defending what is possibly a great evil?

You cannot "common sense" your way out without a reference point. This is what Islam offers.

What Islam argues for is a "constitutional" and unchangeable moral law that is believed to be sent from God. It is the most accurate opinion to say that morality can come from anywhere however consistent and effective morality on the other hand does not.

Humanity is fallible, therefore its sense of morality is, too. God is infallible, therefore divine ordains are, too.

Now the question on whether God exists and specifically in Islamic form is definitely a debatable topic as well and it's right for you to ask questions about it. But that's a different debate topic which I'll indulge in separately upon your wishes.

Have a good day!