Muslims: tell me why you want Sharia Law in the UK

Your stupid god does not exist so your point is irrelevent.

No one has the right change the culture Of white countries. Ever heard of the un charter of indigenous rights ? If Muslims think they are free to change our country then you are proving why they should not be allowed to mgirate here. Your like a big walking warning sign. And sharia and Islam is an affront to democracy so your a complete contradiction.

I'm glad you said that. i was finding it hard to resist...

This is hardly a situation akin to the Native Americans or Australian Aborigines, what exactly is an indigenous Briton? These islands have seen such waves of immigration that it's fairly impossible to highlight a group which are indigenous. And how can you know that you're a member of this group, simply because all your grandparents were born in the UK? That isn't enough. Or, as I suspect, are you classing anybody indigenous as simply those people who were born in Britain and are white?

My own argument against Sharia in the UK (and Ireland) is that 1) no law should be based upon religion, and 2) one set of laws should apply to the whole population of a country. Basing anything upon the idea of being an indigenous Briton is a rule that will be on very weak footings.

Even if the son who receives twice the amount of the daugheter is obliged to 'support' his sister - this still oozes misogyny.

The two points you put forward are really not much of a reassurance for me.

Your stupid god does not exist so your point is irrelevent.

Well, that is probably because you are unable to look at anything that has to do with Islam from a rational and objective perspective. You have the presumption that Islam is misogynystic, but you fail to see that Muslim women don't feel that way. In fact, a recent study from a British university has shown that most people who convert to Islam in Britain are white middle-class educated women, which somehow refutes your point.

And 3 out of 4 converts leave Islam within 3 years. Islam is horrendously misogynistic. And I think brainwahsing since birth can affect a Muslim womens perception of Islam.

This is a religion where apostacy is punished by death for ****sake

I don't see the need for having a separate legal system for Muslims. If you want to live in the UK, whatever your nationality/religion/ethnicity/etc. then you abide by UK law.

It really is as simple as that.

Otherwise, what is stopping me, and everyone else for that matter, setting up our own legal systems?

Source?

I'm Muslim but don't agree with the whole bringing Sharia to Britain, it's a Christian country so why bring the Islamic law? IMO there are plenty of Muslim countries so if the Sharia wants to be implemented then it can be done so there. There is no actual Muslim country out there that follows the Sharia (the ones who are under Sharia law) to a T . Take Saudi Arabia, it's a Sharia based country.... yet even that is flawed.

For the people who say brown people are not British..... they are not English* correct, but they are infact British, if they hold a red passport then they hold British nationality. Their ethnic background is something completely different.

The British people are overwhelmingly descended from the first settlers to Britain, I have actually posted extensive evidence of this on another thread. And what do the native Americans or aboriginees have to do with anything ?

The argument that goes along the lines of "Surely Shariah Law is fine if the people involved want to live under it" is certainly interesting.

Let's take the example of the thing about child custody in the OP. Surely a muslim couple that wants to live under Shariah Law, that undergo a divorce, could decide between eachother that it is right for the man to have custody under British Law? Why is Shariah Law even needed? Unless the woman DOESN'T want to lose custody, in which case the case certainly shouldn't be tried under Shariah Law, since both parties aren't consenting.

I don't see the point and all I can possibly see happening is abuse. Or am I missing something somewhere?

As have I, some evidence points towards Iberia (who were themselves from Greece and further east), other evidence points towards Germany. At one point I would have thrown my weight behind the Iberian hypothesis, now I'm not so sure. The evidence for now is blurred, and at this stage it's not enough to be used to back up making certain laws. Even still, have you had your own DNA tested? If not, a significant part of your family could have moved here from France 150 years ago. Even if not, you'd still find elements of Norwegian, Danish, French, Italian, German, and so on. This weakens any claim of being strictly indigenous.

Say you did manage to highlight an indigenous group, should an Member of Parliament whose DNA is 95% indigenous have more legal influence than an MP whose DNA is 65% indigenous? It's an area which is walking on tricky ground and setting a dangerous precedent.

The Aborigines and Native Americans were an analogy, comparing an instance where indigenous right would have been employable, to a situation where they could not.

Lol, you must be joking? Very credible source, indeed. And I was talking about Britain, not the US.

This is hardly a situation akin to the Native Americans or Australian Aborigines, what exactly is an indigenous Briton? These islands have seen such waves of immigration that it's fairly impossible to highlight a group which are indigenous. And how can you know that you're a member of this group, simply because all your grandparents were born in the UK? That isn't enough. Or, as I suspect, are you classing anybody indigenous as simply those people who were born in Britain and are white?

My own argument against Sharia in the UK (and Ireland) is that 1) no law should be based upon religion, and 2) one set of laws should apply to the whole population of a country. Basing anything upon the idea of being an indigenous Briton is a rule that will be on very weak footings.