This article from (which claims to be the "State News Agency" of Chechnya) sums up to me all that is wrong with reling on faith in legal matters.

The misguided Vaha Ibraghimov uses the case of Armin Meiwes as his (her?) starting point. This case, Ibraghimov claims, is simply the first incidence of "voluntary cannibalism"; there will eventually be a gradual acceptance of cannibalism in society:

The representatives of sexual minorities have already taken their places in the armchairs of mayors are nominated for presidential elections, even the supporters of euthanasia gear up and have already gained victory in Holland, so, the cannibals are not the worst of all, are they?

Ibraghimov ascribes this ever-widening support of different lifestyle choices to the secularization of Western nations. While this is true, Ibraghimov believes that this will eventually lead to a world where everything is permitted. Instead:
Therefore, a far-seeing businessman will always try to conclude a contract with the partner who will never and for nothing change the terms of the contract. Such partner is the Creator, as never change the terms of such contracts as Koran, the Holy Testament of mankind with the Creator.

This analogy reminded me of The Man Nobody Knows. Personal bias aside, this analogy is misguided. Since God does not directly intervene, there is no way to tell whether you are following the contract or not. As a result, you must interpret holy books like the Koran, allowing their terms to be "flexible."
But, noble reader, we started our discussion talking about law, a place where said "flexibility" (which is more appropriately called confusion) can cause untold problems. Far better to base law on something far more stable - like secular human rights.