Editing Sharia (section)

== Support and opposition ==

=== Support ===
A 2013 survey based on interviews of 38,000 Muslims, randomly selected from urban and rural parts in 39 countries using area probability designs, by the [[Pew Forum|Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life]] found that a majority—in some cases "overwhelming" majority—of Muslims in a number of countries support making "Sharia" or "Islamic law" the [[law of the land]], including Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), Niger (86%), Malaysia (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Indonesia (72%), Jordan (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia (65%), Mali (63%), Ghana (58%), and Tunisia (56%).<ref name=pewssp15/> In Muslim regions of Southern-Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the support is less than 50%: Russia (42%), Kyrgyzstan (35%), Tajikistan (27%), Kosovo (20%), Albania (12%), Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%), Azerbaijan (8%). Regional averages of support were 84% in South Asia, 77% in Southeast Asia, 74% in the Middle-East/North Africa, 64%, in Sub-Saharan Africa, 18% in Southern-Eastern Europe, and 12% in Central Asia .<ref name=pewssp15/>

However, while most of those who support implementation of Sharia favor using it in family and property disputes, fewer supported application of severe punishments such as whippings and cutting off hands, and interpretations of some aspects differed widely.<ref name=pewssp15>{{cite book |editor-first=Sandra |editor-last=Stence |year=2013 |others=Research: Alan Cooperman, Neha Sahgal, Jessica Hamar Martinez, et al. |title=The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society |publisher=The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life |pages=15–19, 46, 147–48 |url=http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf |access-date=31 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030223449/http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf |archive-date=30 October 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> According to the Pew poll, among Muslims who support making Sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. In the Muslim-majority countries surveyed this proportion varied between 74% (of 74% in Egypt) and 19% (of 10% in Kazakhstan), as percentage of those who favored making Sharia the law of the land.{{sfn|Stence|2013|p=48}}

In all of the countries surveyed, respondents were more likely to define Sharia as "the revealed word of God" rather than as "a body of law developed by men based on the word of God".<ref>{{cite web|website=Pew Research Center|title=The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society. Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia|date=30 April 2013|access-date=18 April 2019|url=https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323113645/https://news.gallup.com/poll/109072/many-turks-iranians-egyptians-link-sharia-justice.aspx|archive-date=23 March 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> In analyzing the poll, [[Amaney Jamal]] has argued that there is no single, shared understanding of the notions "Sharia" and "Islamic law" among the respondents. In particular, in countries where Muslim citizens have little experience with rigid application of Sharia-based state laws, these notions tend to be more associated with Islamic ideals like equality and social justice than with prohibitions.<ref>{{cite web|website=Pew Research Center|title=Conference Call Transcript: The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society|date=30 April 2013|access-date=18 April 2019|url=https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-event-transcript/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190418211542/https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-event-transcript/|archive-date=18 April 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Other polls have indicated that for Egyptians, the word "Sharia" is associated with notions of political, social and gender justice.<ref>Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, p. 131.</ref>

In 2008, [[Rowan Williams]], the Archbishop of Canterbury, has suggested that Islamic and [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jewish]] courts should be integrated into the British legal system alongside ecclesiastical courts to handle marriage and divorce, subject to agreement of all parties and strict requirements for protection of equal rights for women.<ref name="feldman">{{cite news |last=Feldman |first=Noah |title=Why Shariah? |date=16 March 2008 |newspaper=New York Times Magazine |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html |access-date=23 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190427090249/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html |archive-date=27 April 2019 |url-status=live }}</ref> His reference to the Sharia sparked a controversy.<ref name="feldman" /> Later that year, [[Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers|Nicholas Phillips]], then [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales]], stated that there was "no reason why Sharia principles [...] should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."<ref>{{cite news |title=Sharia law 'could have UK role' |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488790.stm |work=BBC News |access-date=4 September 2016 |date=4 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080921024521/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488790.stm |archive-date=21 September 2008 |url-status=live }}</ref> A 2008 YouGov poll in the United Kingdom found 40% of Muslim students interviewed supported the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2461830/Killing-for-religion-is-justified-say-third-of-Muslim-students.html Killing for religion is justified, say third of Muslim students] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180211225254/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2461830/Killing-for-religion-is-justified-say-third-of-Muslim-students.html |date=11 February 2018 }} The Telegraph (26 July 2008)</ref> [[Michael Broyde]], professor of law at [[Emory University]] specializing in [[alternative dispute resolution]] and [[Jewish law]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://law.emory.edu/faculty-and-scholarship/faculty-profiles/broyde-profile.html |title=Michael J. Broyde |website=Emory University School of Law |access-date=3 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170715192523/http://law.emory.edu/faculty-and-scholarship/faculty-profiles/broyde-profile.html |archive-date=15 July 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref> has argued that Sharia courts can be integrated into the American religious arbitration system, provided that they adopt appropriate institutional requirements as American rabbinical courts have done.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Volokh Conspiracy, via Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/30/sharia-in-america/ |author=Michael Broyde |title=Sharia in America |date=30 June 2017 |access-date=3 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170701103548/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/30/sharia-in-america/ |archive-date=1 July 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Opposition ===
{{further|Ban on sharia law}}
[[File:Protest against Sharia in the United Kingdom 2014.jpg|thumb|Protest against Sharia in the United Kingdom (2014)]]
In the [[Western world]], Sharia has been called a source of "hysteria",<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Nation |journal=The Nation |url=http://www.thenation.com/article/true-story-sharia-american-courts/ |last=Awad |first=Abed |date=14 June 2012 |access-date=10 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210213552/http://www.thenation.com/article/true-story-sharia-american-courts/ |archive-date=10 December 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref> "more controversial than ever", the one aspect of Islam that inspires "particular dread".<ref name=kadri-267-8>{{cite book |last1=Kadri |first1=Sadakat |title=Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law from the Deserts of Ancient Arabia |date=2012 |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=978-0099523277 |pages=267–68 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ztCRZOhJ10wC&q=Heaven+on+Earth%3A+A+Journey+Through+Shari%27a+Law |access-date=21 November 2020 |archive-date=27 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201227213749/https://books.google.com/books?id=ztCRZOhJ10wC&q=Heaven+on+Earth%3A+A+Journey+Through+Shari%27a+Law |url-status=live }}</ref> On the Internet, "dozens of self-styled counter-jihadis" emerged to campaign against Sharia law, describing it in strict interpretations resembling those of Salafi Muslims.<ref name=kadri-267-8/> Also, fear of Sharia law and of the ideology of extremism among Muslims as well as certain congregations donating money to terrorist organizations within the Muslim community reportedly spread to mainstream conservative [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] in the United States.<ref name=TPM-9-23-2010>{{cite news |last1=Slajda |first1=Rachel |title=The War On Sharia Started Long Before You Ever Heard 'Ground Zero Mosque' |url=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/the-war-on-sharia-started-long-before-you-ever-heard-ground-zero-mosque |access-date=10 December 2015 |agency=TPM Muckraker |publisher=Talking Points Memo |date=23 September 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210222641/http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/the-war-on-sharia-started-long-before-you-ever-heard-ground-zero-mosque |archive-date=10 December 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref> Former [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|House Speaker]] [[Newt Gingrich]] won ovations calling for a federal ban on Sharia law.<ref name=TPM-9-23-2010/>
The issue of "liberty versus Sharia" was called a "momentous civilisational debate" by right-wing pundit [[Diana West]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Don't Ignore Sharia's Advance |date=23 February 2008 |first=Diana |last=West |url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974971/posts |agency=Times – News [Burlington, N.C] |access-date=10 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210233714/http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974971/posts |archive-date=10 December 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref>
In 2008 in Britain, the future Prime Minister ([[David Cameron]]) declared his opposition to "any expansion of Sharia law in the UK."<ref name=BBC-26-3-2008>{{cite news |title=Cameron steps into Sharia law row |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7264740.stm |access-date=10 December 2015 |agency=BBC |date=26 February 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151002074237/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7264740.stm |archive-date=2 October 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref> In Germany, in 2014, the Interior Minister ([[Thomas de Maizière]]) told a newspaper (''[[Bild]]''), "Sharia law is not tolerated on German soil."<ref name=dw>{{cite news |title=Germany won't tolerate 'Sharia police' |url=http://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-tolerate-sharia-police/a-17906086 |access-date=8 September 2015 |agency=DW |date=6 September 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150922101349/http://www.dw.com/en/germany-wont-tolerate-sharia-police/a-17906086 |archive-date=22 September 2015 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Some countries and jurisdictions have explicit bans on Sharia law. In Canada, for example, sharia law has been explicitly banned in [[Quebec]] by a 2005 unanimous vote of the National Assembly,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-gives-thumbs-down-to-shariah-law-1.535601 |title=Quebec gives thumbs down to Shariah law |access-date=31 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171009234834/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-gives-thumbs-down-to-shariah-law-1.535601 |archive-date=9 October 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref> while the province of [[Ontario]] allows family law disputes to be arbitrated only under Ontario law.<ref name=CHOKSI-14-3-2012>{{cite web |last1=Choski |first1=Bilal M. |title=Religious Arbitration in Ontario – Making the Case Based on the British Example of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal |url=https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/970-choksi33upajintll7912012pdf |website=law.upenn.edu |access-date=10 December 2015 |date=14 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072259/https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/970-choksi33upajintll7912012pdf |archive-date=4 March 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref> In the U.S., opponents of Sharia have sought to ban it from being considered in courts, where it has been routinely used alongside traditional Jewish and Catholic laws to decide legal, business, and family disputes subject to contracts drafted with reference to such laws, as long as they do not violate secular law or the U.S. constitution.<ref name=thomas>{{cite book |last=Thomas |first=Jeffrey L. |title=Scapegoating Islam: Intolerance, Security, and the American Muslim |date=2015 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5Q-FCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA83 |pages=83–86 |isbn=978-1440831003 |access-date=13 January 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161213022551/https://books.google.com/books?id=5Q-FCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA83 |archive-date=13 December 2016 |url-status=live }}</ref>  After failing to gather support for a federal law making observing Sharia a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison, anti-Sharia activists have focused on state legislatures.<ref name=thomas/> By 2014, bills aimed against use of Sharia have been introduced in 34 states and passed in 11.<ref name=thomas/> A notable example of this would be 2010 Oklahoma State Question 755, which sought to permanently ban the use of Sharia law in courts. While approved by voters, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals placed an injunction on the law. Citing the unconstitutionality of the law's impartial focus on a specific religion, the law was struck down and never took effect.<ref>{{cite web|title=Oklahoma International and Sharia Law, State Question 755 (2010)|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_International_and_Sharia_Law,_State_Question_755_(2010)|access-date=19 March 2021|website=Ballotpedia|language=en|archive-date=18 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518135214/https://www.ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_International_and_Sharia_Law,_State_Question_755_(2010)|url-status=live}}</ref> These bills have generally referred to banning foreign or religious law in order to thwart legal challenges.<ref name=thomas/>

According to Jan Michiel Otto, Professor of Law and Governance in Developing Countries at [[Leiden University]], "[a]nthropological research shows that people in local communities often do not distinguish clearly whether and to what extent their norms and practices are based on local tradition, tribal custom, or religion. Those who adhere to a confrontational view of Sharia tend to ascribe many undesirable practices to Sharia and religion overlooking custom and culture, even if high-ranking religious authorities have stated the opposite."{{sfn|Otto|2008|p=30}}