Klevius considers sharia* muslim women like e.g. Sayeeda Warsi and Mishal Husain as having serious issues with their morality. So here's Klevius' moral tutorial for them.

* If Mishal Husain doesn't support Human Rights violating sharia, but only a "Westernized islam", she'd be better telling the rest of muslims about it. But she keeps silent while hiding behind the world's biggest microphone called BBC from behind which she can spit at Human Rights defending "islamophobes" and accuse the suffering in islamic countries not on islam but on the very same West her family preferred instead of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why is it that it's only Klevius who wants to vomit when encountering this bigoted hypocrisy - or is it? 

Bigoted and deeply hypocritical (or just racist and Human Righsphobic) muslim sharia women enjoy the West's Human Rights freedom while islam ravages their muslim homelands as it has always done for some 1,400 years. How does it feel for suffering women in islamic countries hearing Mishal Husain bragging about not fasting during Ramadan but instead drinking some alcohol while giving the finger to any suggestion of islamic "dress code" etc., and boasting about how she can lead her life in the West (thanks to Human Rights - not sharia) without thinking about consequences familiar to her muslim sisters in muslim/islamic countries.

Moral and justice - and the mirror reflection called a "monotheist" "God".

As the world is and always has been in an unstoppable motion, every effort to try to stop it isn't only in vain but usually also dangerous. A car has a steering wheel so to follow the world - not vise versa. However, this function also facilitates an individual goal of the trip.

Moral is temporarily and locally fluid, yet always possessing a (moving) center point of gravity. It's against this background one has to understand "the old Greeks" and their analysis of the individual (the social atom), the state, and justice.

Justice is, according to Thrasymachus, established by the strong in order that the weak will serve her/his interests. The strong are therefore better off disregarding justice and serving their own interests.

However,

Would Klevius rape women he considers sexy if given the power to do so without consequences?

or

Would Klevius rob or otherwise hurt people if given the power to do so without consequences?

Klevius doesn't think so. Why? Because Klevius is afraid of being alone in whatever activity. This "cowardice" constitutes the very essence of Klevius being a human among other humans. If you don't understand this as yet please check out the reasoning behind the 'negative Human Rights', i.e. the difference between racist/sexist impositions and the freedom of the individual among other individuals. After that you won't no longer be able to defend islamic sharia or to hide its real essence by talking about "consensual contract" etc. when in reality sharia is part of the whole islam. This latter point is what Theresa May should have addressed in her sharia "investigation" if she really cared about those girls and women who suffer under this deception.

So what about the objection that one could  do unjustice together with others? Impossible, because Klevius would still feel alone, because he would be forced to assume that the others either are ignorant or suffering the same loneliness as Klevius would suffer in a similar context. In this respect there's no difference between islam and a gang.

So what about believing that something non human justifies unjustice? No problem, Klevius is a non-socialist Atheist, not because he has chosen to be so but because there's no alternative to negative Human Rights. Religion is always a lesser good in comparison - in fact, that's the very definition of a "monotheist" religion. And now someone less bright or just evil person might try to dismiss this by talking about "what we don't know about", i.e. what they think is "God" (and which is called the 'unreachable' in Klevius 1992 book Demand for Resources) but which in fact is they themselves (see chapter Existencecentrism in Klevius 1992 book).

The meaning of life is its own definition i.e. uncertainty (Klevius 1981) just like the meaning of football (no dude, I'm not talking about American handball) is its maximization of uncertainty by being the only sport where no tools or hands are allowed when the ball is in play inside the pitch.

Klevius moral formula is a bedrock you can't beat - so why not follow it:

1 There's no absolute and fixed moral.

2 Therefor we have to repeatedly agree on a minimum moral.

3 In doing so we are logically forced to approve of negative Human Rights, i.e. not to impose restricrions other than neccessary in a democracy based on as much freedom as possible for all - no matter of sex, race etc. And, for the truly dumb ones, do note that this definition excludes the freedom to restrict freedom.