A new Rasmussen Reports and Our Republic survey found 43% of likely voters ages 18 to 24 expressed a positive opinion of Sharia, while overwhelming majorities of Americans overall opposed allowing Islamic law to replace existing legal codes in U.S. communities.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
A new national poll has found a striking generational divide in Americans’ attitudes toward Sharia, with 43% of likely voters ages 18 to 24 saying they hold a mostly or somewhat positive view of Islamic law even as a large majority of voters nationwide oppose allowing it to become the governing legal code of an American community.
The survey of 1,026 likely U.S. voters was conducted Sept. 20 by Rasmussen Reports and Our Republic and carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Overall, 21% of respondents said they viewed Sharia mostly or somewhat positively, compared with 57% who viewed it negatively and 22% who were unsure, according to the polling released by Our Republic.
Positive attitudes were substantially more common among younger respondents. Forty-three percent of voters ages 18 to 24 expressed a favorable view, along with 39% of those ages 25 to 29.
The findings were subsequently highlighted in a Federalist report examining the divide between younger and older Americans.
Justin Haskins, president of Our Republic, attributed the numbers in part to what he described as younger Americans’ understanding of constitutional government and their attitudes toward groups perceived as marginalized.
“Too many have been taught to see constitutional limits as obstacles to progress, especially when those limits stand in the way of policies they believe would help groups they view as oppressed,” Haskins said.
“Because Muslims are widely perceived by young people as an oppressed or marginalized group, I suspect many default to a sympathetic view of policies associated with Islam without seriously considering whether those policies are compatible with constitutional freedoms,” he added. “The irony is that, in doing so, they may be undermining the very rights they claim to care about.”
The poll itself defined Sharia for respondents as “a system of Islamic religious principles and law, derived primarily from the Quran and the teachings and practices of Muhammad, that addresses matters including religious practice, personal conduct, family life, finance, and often civil and criminal law.”
That distinction is significant because Sharia is not a single universally administered criminal code. Muslim communities and countries interpret and apply Islamic jurisprudence in substantially different ways, ranging from private religious observance and family practices to state legal systems that impose criminal penalties.
Some countries that enforce strict interpretations of Islamic criminal law authorize punishments including amputation for certain theft offenses and stoning for adultery. Extremist groups have also carried out executions of gay people, including by throwing victims from buildings, though those practices should not be treated as representative of every interpretation of Sharia or of Muslims generally.
The Rasmussen-Our Republic survey separately asked whether respondents would permit Sharia to become the legal code governing everyone in a U.S. town, city or state if a majority of residents favored the change.
National opposition was overwhelming.
Eighty-three percent said no, 7% said yes and 10% were unsure.
The age breakdown again showed a markedly different response among younger adults. According to Our Republic, roughly one-quarter of voters ages 18 to 35 said they would support allowing a community to adopt Sharia as its legal code if a local majority wanted it.
Such a local vote could not override the U.S. Constitution or federal and state constitutional protections. Religious rules may guide individuals’ private conduct, and parties can sometimes voluntarily use religious arbitration where permitted by law, but government action remains subject to constitutional guarantees including equal protection, due process and freedoms of religion and speech.
The survey also asked voters whether public schools should be required to teach children about the “benefits of sharia law.”
Only 8% of voters overall supported that proposal, while 76% opposed it and 16% were unsure.
Again, support was concentrated among younger respondents. Twenty-four percent of voters ages 18 to 24 favored such a requirement, along with 31% of those ages 25 to 29. Only 3% of respondents age 40 or older supported it.
The poll additionally examined partisan differences.
Twenty-six percent of Democrats reported a mostly or somewhat positive opinion of Sharia, according to the survey.
When asked whether Sharia or the United States’ alliance with Israel posed a greater threat to America’s future, 43% of all likely voters selected Sharia and 25% selected the U.S.-Israel alliance. Another 15% said neither posed a threat, while 16% were unsure.
Among Democrats, the pattern reversed: 32% identified the U.S.-Israel alliance as the greater threat, compared with 23% who selected Sharia. Twenty-five percent said neither and 20% were unsure.
The survey also compared attitudes toward Sharia and traditional Christianity.
Fifty-five percent of likely voters said Sharia posed a greater threat to America’s future, 13% selected traditional Christianity, 23% said neither and 9% were unsure.
Among Democratic voters, 34% chose Sharia, 16% chose traditional Christianity and 41% said neither posed a threat.
Our Republic characterized the results as evidence of a significant age-based political and cultural divide.
“More than four in 10 voters ages 18 to 24 have a positive opinion of sharia, nearly one-third of voters ages 25 to 29 support requiring public schools to teach children about its benefits, and roughly one-quarter of voters ages 18 to 35 would allow an American community to adopt sharia as its legal code if a majority supported it,” the organization said.
Haskins argued that some younger respondents may be reacting less to the details of Islamic jurisprudence than to perceptions of Muslims as a minority group deserving political protection.
That explanation, however, is an interpretation offered by the poll’s sponsor rather than something the survey itself establishes. Respondents were not asked why they answered as they did, and the poll did not measure their detailed knowledge of Sharia or Islamic law.
The Federalist connected the findings to wider debates over immigration, Islam, Israel and recent unrest in France, arguing that demographic and ideological changes could affect attitudes toward Islamic law in Western countries.
The poll itself does not establish that immigration caused the views recorded among young Americans, nor does it identify respondents’ religion, immigration background or level of familiarity with Islamic teachings.
The results therefore document attitudes rather than explain their origin.
They nevertheless show an unusually wide generational gap.
While most likely voters reject replacing American law with Sharia and most hold a negative view of it, younger respondents were substantially more receptive to the concept across multiple questions — including general favorability, public-school instruction and allowing a community to adopt Sharia as its legal code.
Those numbers place questions about religious law, constitutional limits and the attitudes of younger voters into a broader debate over how future generations understand the relationship between private religious belief and the single civil legal framework governing Americans regardless of faith.
Original article
Comments