Which UK organizations or think tanks have published analysis on sharia preferences in the Muslim community?

1. Who has produced the headline polling: Policy Exchange and related media coverage

Policy Exchange’s 2016 survey — widely reported as finding “two in five” (around 40%) of British Muslims supporting the introduction of some sharia provisions — is the study most often cited in subsequent coverage and commentary; Policy Exchange published the research and media outlets from The Times to the Daily Express amplified its findings ^[1]. Commentators and later write‑ups have pointed out the question wording and distribution of responses (only 16% “strongly supported” in Policy Exchange’s breakdown), which analysts use to temper headline interpretations ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Other think‑tanks and research groups flagging attitudes: Henry Jackson Society, Civitas and J.L. Partners polling

The Henry Jackson Society has published and promoted polling about British Muslim opinion — including a 2024 release citing figures such as 32% favouring implementation of sharia law and related questions about political attitudes — and used those findings to argue policy implications ^[2]. Earlier estimates of the number of sharia councils often referenced the right‑of‑centre think‑tank Civitas (the oft‑quoted “85 councils” figure originates in a Civitas study and is repeated in many accounts) ^{[3] [6]}.

3. Parliamentary and government reviews that analysed sharia councils directly

Parliamentary briefings and formal reviews have examined sharia councils’ role, practices and risks. A Home Office–supported independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales and a House of Commons briefing note have documented how sharia councils operate mainly in family matters, raised concerns about discrimination (especially towards women), and stressed the councils’ informal, advisory status ^{[4] [3]}. Written evidence and committee submissions likewise discuss risks and possible policy responses ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Academic and media commentary offering alternative frames

Academic and opinion pieces in outlets such as The Conversation and longer policy reports argue for contextualising sharia councils historically and legally — treating them as forms of religious dispute resolution rooted in community practice rather than a state takeover — and they question the reliability of headline numbers like “85 councils” or simplistic readings of polls ^{[9] [10] [11]}. These sources emphasise the advisory nature of councils and urge regulation or better oversight rather than alarmist conclusions ^{[11] [10]}.

5. How the data and framing vary — why different organisations reach different conclusions

Differences stem from methodology (question wording, sample sizes), institutional agendas, and focus: Policy Exchange framed its 2016 surveying as a broad social‑attitudes study and highlighted levels of support for particular provisions ^[1]; HJS highlighted security and cohesion concerns in 2024 polling ^[2]; Civitas and some advocacy sites emphasise proliferation and potential harms ^{[3] [12]}. Media outlets selectively amplify figures that fit their narratives, which amplifies perceived disagreement among experts ^{[1] [12]}.

6. Known limitations in the public record and what sources don’t say

Available sources in the packet do not provide a definitive, up‑to‑date national census of sharia councils or a universally accepted polling series that tracks change over time; the frequently cited “85” figure traces back to a Civitas estimate and is acknowledged as hard to verify ^{[3] [11]}. Sources here do not report a single, authoritative UK government position that criminalises consensual religious arbitration; in fact a written parliamentary answer states the government has no plans to regulate or restrict consensual religious processes ^[13].

7. What to watch next and why source provenance matters

When using these studies for policy or reporting, scrutinise who commissioned or funded the research (think‑tank, university, polling firm), question wording on “sharia” (broad concept vs. particular provisions), and whether the work focuses on legal structures, community practice, or national security. Policy Exchange, HJS, Civitas, parliamentary briefings and government reviews are the main named actors in the assembled material, but their emphases differ markedly and their conclusions should be read against their institutional perspectives ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

Limitations: this summary relies only on the supplied search results and does not attempt to adjudicate which organisation is “right”; where sources are silent about specific claims I note that those claims are not mentioned in current reporting ^{[3] [1]}.