“Sharia law” is presented in the Western media as a collection of bizarre, quaint and unusual punishments (like amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, death for renouncing Islam) and protocols (differential divorce and inheritance rules for men and women) and other matters covering similar topics.
We are led to think of them as operating either in distant lands or between a few ghettoised Muslims in the UK who go along with sharia courts.
“Sharia courts”, too, are, in effect, a red herring. This is because sharia courts (or councils) are but a small fraction of Islam’s sharia edifice.
The real sharia: In fact, sharia is the panoply of religious and political governance arrangements for the caliphate, including culture and behaviour. Introducing each component of sharia into the UK is seen by Muslims here as a step towards the establishment of a divinely-ordained British caliphate. A caliphate would, of course, eliminate “the distinction between church and state”. This means that “sharia law” is not the Muslim equivalent of, say, “English law”. Conceding on any aspect of sharia already operating in the UK would be against the interests of the Islamic project. This is why sharia does not allow for compromise, debate and protest; it is dictatorial.
This is why Islamists will not compromise on sharia.