Has the Minnesota legislature passed resolutions addressing Sharia law or religious courts?
Executive summary
The Minnesota Legislature has not passed a statewide statute explicitly banning or authorizing “Sharia law” as a separate parallel legal system; available legislative records and the Revisor index show topics touching religion (marriage solemnization, halal foods, clothing exemptions) but do not list a Sharia-specific statewide law [1]. Reporting and local debate in Minnesota have focused on specific accommodations (e.g., Sharia‑compliant lending programs in Minneapolis) and on legislative religious‑liberty exemptions restored in 2024 — not on creation of religious courts supplanting civil law [2] [3].
1. No evidence of a statewide “Sharia law” statute — what the official indexes show
Minnesota’s legislative Revisor topics index lists religion‑related statutory entries — marriage solemnization, halal foods, religious clothing exceptions — but does not show a enacted law labeled or phrased as authorizing Sharia as a parallel legal system in state law [1]. The state’s 2025 session law index exists for current bills and changes, but the indexed topics available in the public Revisor materials provided do not identify a statute establishing religious courts that override Minnesota civil or criminal law [4].
2. Local accommodations and controversies have driven much of the public debate
Coverage and commentary about Minnesota have centered on local accommodations that some commentators characterize as “Sharia accommodations” — for example, municipal partnerships offering interest‑free or Sharia‑compliant lending options and Minneapolis’s decision to allow adhan (Islamic prayer calls) over loudspeakers — which opponents sometimes portray as slippery‑slope steps toward “Sharia” governance [2] [5]. These local actions are policy choices or ordinances, not legislation that converts state judicial authority into religious courts, according to reporting and commentary in the sources [2] [5].
3. Organized efforts to ban “Sharia” exist but are not the same as state law passage
There are petitions and activist pages calling for a “Ban Sharia Law in Minnesota,” indicating public activism on the issue, but a Change.org petition is not state legislation and does not demonstrate that the legislature enacted such a ban or that it produced new state statutory language on Sharia [6]. The scholarly and law‑review literature shows that “Sharia” has been a subject of state‑level proposals elsewhere and of constitutional debate, but available Minnesota materials here do not document a legislature‑passed blanket Sharia ban or an adoption of Sharia as law [7].
4. Religious‑liberty exemptions and legislative action in 2024 are a separate, documented development
The Minnesota Legislature in 2024 restored a religious exemption allowing religious organizations to be treated differently in gender‑identity discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; that vote was reported and involved testimony from multiple religious groups including Muslim organizations — this is framed in coverage as a restoration of religious liberty protections, not as an adoption of Sharia or of religious courts [3] [8]. Reporting cites testimony by Muslim and other faith groups urging protection from government interference, showing a diversity of religious voices engaged with the legislature [3] [8].
5. Competing narratives: fear of “Sharia zones” vs. scholars and local journalists
Some national and religious commentators warn that practices like mosque calls to prayer or interest‑free lending are precursors to “Sharia law” taking root in U.S. cities [5]. Local student journalism and legal commentators counter that there are no zones where Sharia trumps federal/state law, that accommodations tend to be narrow and voluntary (e.g., loans available to anyone, not a legal regime), and that media apologies have followed overstated claims elsewhere [2]. Both threads appear in the sources: fear‑based claims are present in opinion pieces, while analyses and local reporting emphasize limits and context [5] [2].
6. What the provided sources do not say — key limitations
Available sources do not mention any Minnesota statute creating religious courts with authority over nonconsenting residents nor do they present a Revisor entry showing a statewide “Sharia law” enactment [1] [4]. They also do not provide verbatim legislative text of any “Sharia ban” passed by the legislature in Minnesota; instead, the materials point to petitions, local ordinances, academic discussion, and a 2024 legislative action restoring religious exemptions [6] [7] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers: distinguish ordinance, accommodation, rhetoric and statute
The record in these sources shows municipal accommodations and passionate public debate, a restored religious‑exemption law in 2024, petitions and national commentary warning of “Sharia,” and scholarly review of state‑level proposals in other contexts — but not an enacted Minnesota law that installs Sharia courts or formally recognizes Sharia as state law [2] [3] [6] [7]. Readers should treat alarmist claims about “Sharia zones” as public‑opinion and advocacy content unless direct statutory language from the Minnesota Revisor or session laws explicitly says otherwise; those statutory records provided here do not contain such language [1] [4].