American Muslims Don't Want Shariah, According To Study By University Of Windsor

By Omar Sacirbey
Religion News Service

(RNS) North American Muslims are more than satisfied with the secular legal system and do not want a set of parallel courts for Islamic law, according to a new study of U.S. and Canadian Muslims by a Washington-based think tank.

The study, by University of Windsor law professor Judy Macfarlane for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, would seem to refute critics' claims that American Muslims want to impose Shariah, or Islamic law.

In fact, the study indicates that Muslims are just as unwilling to accept Islamic law as non-Muslims.

Macfarlane interviewed 212 Muslim Americans, including 41 imams and 70 community leaders who used aspects of Shariah in their daily lives. The other 101 interviewees were divorced Muslim men and women. About a quarter of the interviewees were from Canada, and the rest from the United States.

"Aside from formal religious observance, American Muslims relate to their Shariah responsibilities primarily through rituals of marriage and divorce," Macfarlane wrote.

"They see these as compatible with the civil law -- almost all the respondents in this study married and divorced twice, once in Islam and once in law -- and will use the courts where they cannot agree outcomes, just like any other couple."

When asked whether they thought American courts should apply Shariah to non-Muslims in the legal system, all of the respondents answered no. Just three of the 41 imams said they wanted parallel Shariah tribunals where Muslims could handle civil issues like marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

Some 95 percent of the interviewees had signed an Islamic marriage contract, known as a nikah. Most had a nikah in addition to their civil marriage licenses, but some had only a nikah, which is not recognized in either the U.S. or Canada as a binding basis for civil marriage.

Some of the Muslims sought religious permission before seeking a civil divorce, while some imams would sanction a divorce only after it had been annulled in a civil court.

Macfarlane began her research after a Muslim group in Ontario petitioned the provincial government in 2003 to establish a separate Islamic family tribunal where Muslims could get binding legal decisions on family law issues. The Ontario government denied the request two years later.

The study follows a Jan. 10 decision by a federal appeals court that upheld a lower court's ruling to overturn a 2010 Oklahoma constitutional amendment to prohibit judges from using Shariah in their deliberations.

Louisiana has passed similar laws, while 20 other states are considering such legislation. Macfarlane said such legislation was part of a hysteric response to unfounded fears.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[AbdelX1]

09:09 PM on 02/27/2012

Unfounded fears? Seriously? As a British expat, I can absolutely guarantee you that these fears are not unfounded. We have over 100 sharia courts in the UK and the authorities are getting worried that they are undermining the British legal system. In parts of the UK, such as East London, Luton, Manchester or Liverpool, we have sharia zones where you can find flyers that call for the killing of gays or ban music, holding hands, alcohol or short skirts. Over 40% of British muslims would prefer sharia law to British law. I highly doubt American muslims are far different from British muslims as they come from the same countries.
Articles like this one grossly misrepresent the current situation and are a great danger as they deny that sharia could pose a threat to our liberties. I highly doubt that Huffington Post would support death sentences for homosexuals, adulterers or apostates. But that is exactly what sharia means. and yet HuffPo still keeps playing that danger down. In fact, HuffPo doesn't even want to talk about it, instead it keeps deleting comments that address this issue. This has got nothing to do with islamophobia but with facts.

[taoistpunk]

08:15 AM on 02/28/2012

what can i tell you, there must be something inherently wrong with brits. as you can see from this article, north american muslims don't feel that way and america has exactly zero areas like you describe. maybe you could ask your bobbies to do their jobs for a change?

unfounded fears? most definitely.

[alkh3myst]

01:31 AM on 02/18/2012

The truth is, a great many immigrant Muslims came to the US only for the Almighty Dollar. Not for the Almighty.

[messy]

03:04 PM on 02/16/2012

Of course they don't want Sharia law. That's why they came here in the first place.

[patani-muslim]

11:41 AM on 02/16/2012

what is islam? islam is submission to god. someone who submits to god is a muslim. What is submission to god? submission to god is to submit to god as (al malik the soveriegn). the modern secular state including america says no, soveriegnty no longer belongs up their to god but now soveriegnty belongs down here in the state. this is (shirk-blasphemy).

submission to god is to submit to god as (al akbar the supreme). He reminds you of this everyday in your prayers you cannot move without saying (allahuakbar. God is supreme) The modern secular state says no God is no longer( Al akbar supreme) but the security council of the united nations is now supreme. Incidently the entire (ummah family) of mohammed is a member of. and least we forget america is on the security council. this is shirk-blasphemy

submission to god is to submit to god as (al hukum the law maker) the modern secular state says no god is no longer the lawmaker we the people are the lawmakers (parliament). We all live in lands now were most things god has made illegal the state has made legal. this is shirk-blasphemy.

many of us are not to comfortable with that as god says he can forgive you everything,so bush and blaire have hope then, but he will not forgive you shirk.

you will follow them footstep by footstep, handspan by handspan. down into a lizards hole.
follow who? the jews and the christians.

[MuslimThinking]

10:39 AM on 02/16/2012

Sharia is the interpretation of the law from Qur'anic scriptures and the Hadith, the sayings of Prophet Muhammad. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. The law is extracted or to be applied to situations and problems.

The law, the Sharia, differs from geographic regions, from time to time, because of the different kinds of situations and problems that develop in different regions at different times.

So as a Muslim I would say "Sharia" is an extraction of principles and laws, etc. to be applied to problems that will arise in my life. It requires that I have a good understanding of the Qur'an and the life,the teachings and sayings of Prophet Muhammad.

For Muslims in America the Sharia is and should be a personal decision to live by which the constitution gives us that freedom which the 1st freedom, freedom of religion.

The Constitution of the United States is based upon an idea that Muslims can accept. This idea is given in the words saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the full life.

As a result I both support the Constitution and would defend it and it you haven't noticed its under attack by people who call themselves Americans and are either in or running for public office, even for the Presidency.

[messy]

03:06 PM on 02/16/2012

That is NOT the constitution, that's the Declaration of Independence.

[MuslimThinking]

03:27 PM on 02/16/2012

I never said it was. I said the Constitution is based upon this idea. The phrase is considered a hallmark statement in democratic constitutions and similar human rights instrument. Also Abraham Lincoln argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

[patani-muslim]

07:06 AM on 02/16/2012

Muslims that dont want sharia. this statement is a nonsensicle statement. They must be very strange creatures indeed.

stonings are not our law they are the biblical law.

[emulsifier]

05:10 PM on 02/14/2012

This shouldn't be news to people who interact with Muslims, or know a few well.
There might be some who want Shariah do deal with divorces, inheritance, etc (Islamic divorce is less complicated).

For some unfamiliar souls, Sharia = Stonings. An easy way to alleviate this misunderstanding is to survey a few Muslims yourself.

[AbdelX1]

09:14 PM on 02/27/2012

EMULSIFIER, You don't seem to know much about sharia considering you're a moderator. Sharia also means fewer rights for women, they inherit less, won't get the kids if they get divorced etc. Do you think this is OK? The ignorance of you islam appeasers is stunning. I am saying this as an ex-muslim myself.
Sadly, as an ex-muslim who is very critical of islam, my comments often get removed on HuffPo. This is the same thing they do in muslim countries that have sharia law: give no voice to ex-muslims. Instead they threaten them, kill them, abuse them. Which is why I had to leave my home country. It is sad to see HuffPo caters to the enemies of human rights by being ignorant.

[taoistpunk]

08:19 AM on 02/28/2012

so the british authorities were threatening to abuse and kill you for speaking out??

sounds believeable...
(that's good old american sarcasm, in case the translation is tricky for ya)

[fredaskribent]

05:23 PM on 02/13/2012

I am thinking just now of the Saudi blogger who may be executed for speaking ill of the Prophet Muhammad. The prophet himself would tell us to forgive and remind us that Allah loves kindness. There are some barbaric tyrants who have call their laws sharia, but without mercy there is no sharia. God sent us a message of mercy through Muhammad. Only with laws made with mercy is sharia valid.

That being said, most Muslims who come to America do it because it offers them a better opportunity. American born Muslims are also making a huge difference in effecting changes in some of the Islamic countries. We must support the uprisings in countries like Syria and Egypt. These people want what America has also. They want freedoms and they want a government that is for the people

[CognitoErgoSum]

09:36 PM on 02/05/2012

A good way to look at this issue is the same as with the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate; that the free practice of religion is permissible up to the point that an adherent regards the essential practice of doctrine the legislated restriction of the liberties of others. Those religious-affiliated hospitals, universities and non-Church, religious-affiliated social organizations were opposing Obama's mandate because they wanted to legislate a parallel system of restrictions they can impose on the rights of others.

Those religious practices that do not violate the Equal Protection clause, or otherwise clear a path for a one group to have restrictions on liberties legislated against others, should be permissible. If Muslims want Sharia-approved mortgages (as long as non-MUslims could get them, if they wanted), and to have their wills or dissolution petitions that BOTH sides agree to, have legal standing in court, that should be fine. Those things are part of Sharia, yet don't diminish anyone's rights. Since marriage in the U. S. is voluntary for both parties, giving a nikah the same legal standing as a pre-nup should also be okay. After all, if you don't like the conditions, you don't have to sign. No harm, no foul.

[AllegroTroppo]

02:15 PM on 02/06/2012

"Those religious practices that do not violate the Equal Protection clause, or otherwise clear a path for a one group to have restrictio­ns on liberties legislated against others, should be permissibl­e."

You can drive a school bus thru' incompatibility of this argument with Western culture and law.
Ever heard of Shariah laws against apostasy and adultery?

Next subject...

[CognitoErgoSum]

08:28 PM on 02/06/2012

>>"You can drive a school bus thru' incompatib­ility of this argument with Western culture and law.
Ever heard of Shariah laws against apostasy and adultery?"
--------------------------------------------------

Apparently you didn't read the "NOT violate the Equal Protection Clause" part of my comment, even though you copied and pasted it.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids apostasy laws, since that restricts the free practice of religion, which includes the freedom to leave a religion without criminal penalties. I have NEVER suggested that anything otherwise should eb the case.

The Equal Protection Clause forbids legislation that deprives ANY group of U. S. residents of their civil rights, so NO doctrine-based legislation that only applies to one group of people could EVER stand up in court to deprive someone of life or liberty, so "honor" killing is murder, pure and simple. Again, I NEVER suggested this should ever be okay.

The examples you gave can NEVER be defensible in U. S. court, while something that has NO effect on the liberties of others, like Sharia-compliant mortgages and wills IS compatible with the Constitution and should be legal.

[jbrl]

04:51 PM on 02/05/2012

The real question with re to both Christianity and Islam is:

How strong are the moderate Christians and nonchristians vs the Chrsitianists who want to insert their understanding of Christianity in the public sphere
And also
How strong will the Muslim moderates in this country be vs the Islamists as both their numbers grow - The traditional practice, and the theological underpinnings of Islam requires it to be manifest in both the public and private spheres. This is somewhat of a handicap for the moderates as both precedence and the theology does not really support Islam receding to the private sphere only. Hence, you see some moderates supporting the view that the U.S. already has a Constitution which is in accordance with the spirit of Sharia - in an attempt to placate the Islamists. It is unlikely however that the Islamists would ever buy that.

Perhaps one can get an idea of the relative strengths and the power dynamics between moderate vs Islamist by how the Arab spring works out, as well as how well Muslim communities can be integrated into the social fabric of Europe.

[rich3324]

12:07 AM on 02/05/2012

Of course they do, just ask fox news.

[Abdur Rahman]

06:03 PM on 02/04/2012

Muslims have no need to implement sharia law in America because sharia was instituted and enshrined into america's laws at its founding. Freedom of Religion is a sharia directive that you will not find in the Bible but is found in the Quran. This is only the most obvious example We already live under sharia. When Republicans try to put Religion in the schools they are pushing Christian sharia and this thing where you force your religion on my children is the real danger we face going forward and it's not Muslims who are doing it. Internally our greatest danger are the "social conservatives, pushing their moral codes into laws like abortion. Our greatest external danger is china....notice that if you rationally talk about the threats America faces, Muslims are nowhere in the picture?????

[CognitoErgoSum]

09:45 PM on 02/05/2012

I think rational Americans have the understanding that people don't immigrate to countries whose laws you want to change any more than people would decide to go to a restaurant whose menu they don't like.

They people who complain the loudest about the supposed Sharia threat are those who have no faith in the Equal Protection Clause of the U. S. Constitution. We aren't legislating situations in which one group can set up a legal system that denies liberties enjoyed by other citizens (except for the armed services who are specifically excluded in the Constititon from 5th Amendment rights). That's why I think the Obama administration did the right thing with the contraception coverage mandate. It doesn't force anyone to use a product, nor does it deny the right to do so. People who complain about the "Sharia threat," yet think Obama's position on contraception coverage "restricts the free exercise of religion," are hypocrites, pure and simple.

[AllegroTroppo]

02:19 PM on 02/06/2012

" rational Americans have the understand­ing that people don't immigrate to c
ountries whose laws [they] want to change."

It is exactly this kind of catastrophically naive opinion which led to free-for-all asylum laws in Europe.
And now Europeans are paying a steep price indeed for that naivete, indeed.
They are coming to their senses and enacting strict asylum laws.

Let' make sure we don't have to go thru' the same in U.S.

[Daniel S1]

01:43 PM on 02/04/2012

As an Atheist I think we need an amedment ensuring that we don't use any religion when writing laws. oh wait... we already do.

[Skepticat]

01:17 PM on 02/04/2012

If one really wanted Sharia law why move to Canada or the USA where chances of implementation are somewhat less than nil.

[ipolitics123]

11:27 PM on 02/03/2012

So, in every country around the world where Muslims have achieved any political strength, the first thing they demand is Sharia implementation.

Except, this time, they won't. Promise, promise! Pinky swear! Really!

Anybody believe that?

[MarconiDarwin]

01:42 AM on 02/04/2012

Why not? It is a poll, and the majority who live here do not want it. There are far more vocal Christianists who want the Bible to be the law of the land.

[taoistpunk]

02:08 AM on 02/04/2012

name one secular, western nation that has established sharia as it's law.
nope, not one...

Except this time they will! Promise, promise! Pinky swear! Really!

Anybody believe that?

[Caernarvon]

10:03 AM on 02/06/2012

Of course western countries won't adopt Sharia Law. That's why European Muslims have taken to colonizing small sections of cities and declaring them off limits to non-muslims (including police), creating micro-states where Sharia Law is very much the rule. And not the "Democracy Friendly", basically-the-same-as-Jewish-Talmud-courts version so often peddled to us by the media, but rather the unveiled-women-getting-acid-attacks and gays-beaten-in-the-streets version.

http://technorati.com/politics/article/no-go-zones-for-non-muslims/

I assume you'd have no problem with this sort of thing in your town?

[Caernarvon]

12:05 PM on 02/06/2012

If that technorati link doesn't do it for you, maybe these will:

Here's a French government website which gives the locations of "sensitive urban zones" with populations coinciding closely with the country's overall Muslim population.

http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

The Washington Times may skew a bit to the right, but certainly no more than this one does to the left. Here's a piece they ran on the ZUS:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/16/sensitive-urban-areas/

Here's a German news show whose politics I am unfamilar with that ran a piece on the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8eOAnBGPn0&feature=related

A piece on the same problem run by a Swedish news show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6XQD0BxxcE

Now, either the "Islamophobic Propaganda Network" has grown to levels beyond Robert Spencer's wildest dreams, or this is an actual problem, and shooting the messenger won't make it go away.