I thought Britain was under sharia law?

[95thrifleman]

The British home secretary has revoked the citizenship of the now-infamous jihadi bride Shamima Begum, effectively making her stateless.

What I find fascinating is the fact that the usual suspects decrying my nation for being under sharia law and always pandering to muslims is ignoring this. Could it be that it's inconveniant to their "muslims are taking over the world." narrarative?

Also strangely silent are the leftists, despite Labour coming out in defence of this little terrorist baby-maker.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...latest-updates

[Aexodus]

It’s not.

[Alastor]

I thought it was illegal to make someone stateless this way. I don't see how this can survive a court challenge.

[athanaric]

I think it's a populist move to placate those who are opposed to the IS. Which is most people really. Doesn't change the fact that there's a problem with people in Britain who want to live according to the Sharia instead of British law. In fact, I'd suggest it's a dumb move unless the broad happens to find asylum in a country that appeals to her political leanings.

[Love Mountain]

I think it's a populist move to placate those who are opposed to the IS. Which is most people really. Doesn't change the fact that there's a problem with people in Britain who want to live according to the Sharia instead of British law. In fact, I'd suggest it's a dumb move unless the broad happens to find asylum in a country that appeals to her political leanings.

Quantify this problem for me. I think drug trafficking into U.S. is a problem and these ideas can be quantified. Why don't you give me some facts and figures behind Sharia Europe?

[Alastor]

Even if one agrees this move somehow proves Britain is not under the Sharia law(how?). What it doesn't show is what law is it under? Not British law, because May herself said making someone stateless in this fashion is illegal. So what? Populist law? The mob demands sth of no real significance, let's make a show of granting it and score points? An empty gesture really, if this goes to court, which it probably will, the decision will be reversed. But hey points won are points won... right?

[Diocle]

The British home secretary has revoked the citizenship of the now-infamous jihadi bride Shamima Begum, effectively making her stateless.

What I find fascinating is the fact that the usual suspects decrying my nation for being under sharia law and always pandering to muslims is ignoring this. Could it be that it's inconveniant to their "muslims are taking over the world." narrarative?

Also strangely silent are the leftists, despite Labour coming out in defence of this little terrorist baby-maker.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...latest-updates

It seems a common fact in countries under Sharia Law stripping citizenship for political reasons: in Bahrain 738 citizens have been stripped of their citizenship, Qatar stripped 55 citizenships, "Saudi Arabia has taken a highly unusual step in stripping a scion of one of its wealthiest merchant families of citizenship because he supports Muslim fundamentalist movements active in Arab countries." (but they have also given Saudi citizenship to a female robot named Sophia .. ), Kuwait strips 10 people citizenship, so, no fear rifleman, the Islamic Caliphate of Londonistan is alive and kicking and its citizens are still proudly under Sharia Law!

If you've still any doubt, watch this promotional by the British Caliphate Army, it's delicious:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Mayer]

Pff just a stupid girl lured by bearded muslims who acted all romantic.
We have genuine terrorists and war criminals with a german pass wanting to return to mama Merkel...
In my opinion all ISIS fighters should be expatriated, they swore loyalty to the self-proclaimed caliphate, now they should rot in Syrian/Iraqi prisons.

[Alastor]

In my opinion all ISIS fighters should be expatriated, they swore loyalty to the self-proclaimed caliphate, now they should rot in Syrian/Iraqi prisons.

The problem with that is nobody recognized the ISIS caliphate as a state for it to have citizens.

[I_Damian]

She has only had her citizenship revoked because she's a high profile case of a returning terrorist and it has caused widespread public outrage. Many hundreds of terrorists and their brides have already returned and are being allowed to live freely, without investigation, and claiming all kinds of welfare for themselves and their children.

As soon as the outrage dies down she will be allowed to return just like all the others and will go on to raise many Muslim children who will be taught to hate Britain and its people.

Also Britain is not officially under sharia law but it is sharia complaint. Muslims are allowed to live by sharia with full support and consent from our spineless government and police force, and any criticism of Islam is a crime. Britain is already a Muslim country in many ways.

Personally I don't care if she starves to death in a hellhole displaced persons camp in Syria. I don't care what happens to the child either as it will be raised by a terrorist mother and may go on to commit terrorist acts in the west. My sympathy for these people is less than zero.

[Mithradates]

An empty gesture really, if this goes to court, which it probably will, the decision will be reversed. But hey points won are points won... right?

This.
She will be allowed back eventually, nothing to see here.

[Morifea]

Also Britain is not officially under sharia law but it is sharia complaint. Muslims are allowed to live by sharia with full support and consent from our spineless government and police force, and any criticism of Islam is a crime. Britain is already a Muslim country in many ways.

In another Thread you`ve been already asked for any kind of proof for this claim... bother to give some this time, or are you just rambling?

@Alastor: I really like to see how this whole case will be handled by a court, this will be interesting.

[skh1]

The contention is that Ms. Begum's mother is a citizen of Bangladesh. This purportedly confers dual citizenship upon Ms. Begum. Thus revoking her British citizenship does not render her stateless which would contravene international law.

"Lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen - a dual national - but the Bangladeshi authorities assert that's not the case for Ms Begum.
Under this "blood line" law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.
So, it is Ms Begum's age, 19, that is likely - in part - to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207

Not entirely suprisingly, Bangladesh begs to differ.

Her husband and the father of her surviving child is a Dutch citizen so that is another avenue for her to pursue though one wonders if Dutch authorities would be of a mind to recognize a marriage contracted under ISIS rule and admit her on that basis.

In a similar vein:

"U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Wednesday a woman born in the United States who joined the Islamic State militant group did not qualify for U.S. citizenship and had no legal basis to return to the country.
Hoda Muthana, 24, traveled to Syria over four years ago to join Islamic State, also known as ISIS. She married a succession of Islamic State fighters and went on Twitter to encourage attacks on the West."

https://news.yahoo.com/woman-joined-...002817739.html

In this case, it is maintained that Ms. Muthana's father was in the United States in his capacity as a Yemeni diplomat at the time of her birth. Apparently, children born in the United States to accredited diplomats of foreign countries are not granted citizenship as they are not considered to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

However, somewhat awkwardly but presumably with no sense of irony whatsoever:

"Trump tweeted: “The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 Isis fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tured-in-syria

[Alastor]

Her husband and the father of her surviving child is a Dutch citizen so that is another avenue for her to pursue though one wonders if Dutch authorities would be of a mind to recognize a marriage contracted under ISIS rule and admit her on that basis.

The Netherlands not recognizing an ISIS marriage certificate (if there is such at thing) is not the crux of the problem. Even if they did it would still not confer to her the Dutch nationality, just potentially allow her entry and grant her the right to stay. Then again to move to the Netherlands a marriage certificate is not even required. Though it does make things simpler. All you really need is to have a long-term exclusive relationship and to file a relationship declaration. Of course she is not eligible to move to the Netherlands on that basis for a number of other reasons anyway whether she had a marriage certificate or not. She is below 21, her husband can't sponsor her if he is in prison etc.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nothing but a symbolic move, from a state where Muslims are a privileged group (which we could see recently when UK denied entrance to a non-Musllim woman from Pakistan whose life was under threat from local allah fanboys). To prove otherwise we'd need to see more comprehensive changes than that.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nothing but a symbolic move, from a state where Muslims are a privileged group (which we could see recently when UK denied entrance to a non-Musllim woman from Pakistan whose life was under threat from local allah fanboys). To prove otherwise we'd need to see more comprehensive changes than that.

Not really, the example you give does not support your claim.

[Papay]

There were many foreigners that went to Syria to fight for YPG. Are they terrorists or not?

[Aexodus]

No they’re not.

[Papay]

No they’re not.

How so? I have seen pics of them smiling with guns. They arent, but a stupid girl that probably hasnt used a gun is her life is?

[PointOfViewGun]

No they’re not.

Did they not fight under the pictures of Abdullah Öcalan, alongside child soldiers, and help PKK stage attacks in Turkey against civilians?