EXCLUSIVE: Has Sharia law arrived in Italy? Attorney speaks out

PADUA, Italy (LifeSiteNews) — An Italian lawyer is warning that a newly established Islamic arbitration body could pave the way for parallel systems of religious justice, namely Sharia law, in Italy after filing a complaint asking prosecutors to investigate its rules and operations.

On October 5, attorney Francesco Minutillo submitted a formal legal complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Padua, Italy, demanding an immediate judicial investigation into the newly formed Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber.

The complaint exposes how the Padua-based association, which operates publicly under the slogan “Your path to Islamic Justice in Italy,” built an alternative legal circuit that systematically subjects civil and commercial disputes to Islamic Sharia law while reducing national secular law to a secondary, residual role.

The Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber was formally founded as an unrecognized private association headquartered in Padua on March 3, 2026, by Oman Vanin, a lawyer and scholar of private international law who collaborates with the University of Padua.

Following the publication of the complaint and the media backlash, Vanin explained that arbitration allows private parties to entrust the resolution of a dispute to arbitrators rather than an ordinary court, but said that an arbitration body based on religious principles remains subject to Italian law. He gave discrimination between men and women as an example of a rule that could not be enforced if it conflicted with fundamental principles of Italian law, even if the rule were justified by reference to Sharia. “An arbitral tribunal inspired by religious concepts cannot violate the mandatory public-order rules of our country,” Vanin stated.

READ: Cardinal betrays natural family at Amoris Laetitia summit

According to official documents, archived from the Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber’a public website on September 29, 2026, in order to prevent the alteration of evidence, the Muslim group explicitly targets the local population sharing the same religion, promising to resolve conflicts according to “the immutable principles of Sharia.” The body’s operational regulations routinely refer to its adjudicating panel as a “Sharia Tribunal” and label its final rulings as “binding Sharia sentences,” equivalent to official state court decisions.

Furthermore, Minutillo’s complaint highlights a chilling enforcement mechanism embedded within Article 30 of the tribunal’s regulation. Upon request, the “Sharia Tribunal” reserves the right to transmit its decisions against losing parties directly to local Islamic cultural associations operating in the individual’s residential area.

A Sharia court is a judicial body that applies Sharia law, that is, the body of religious and legal norms derived from the Koran and the Sunnah, the legal tradition that some branches of Islam trace directly to Muhammad and his immediate successors and disciples. Sharia claims to regulate not only religious life, but also the civil and political life of all members of society, including non-Muslims.

The difference between this and a canonical tribunal of the Catholic Church is substantial. The latter, in fact, applies canon law exclusively to members of the Catholic Church in matters concerning the life of the Church, such as marriage nullity cases, the discipline of the clergy, the administration of the sacraments, and the management of sacred places. Under no circumstances does canon law claim to replace civil authority or to govern society through religious norms.

Francesco Minutillo serves on the National Assembly of Futuro Nazionale, a newly established Italian political party founded by Roberto Vannacci, which finds its inspiration in patriotic and pro-Catholic values.

Minutillo granted an interview with LifeSiteNews to gain a clearer understanding of the true scope of his complaint, its implications for Italy and Europe, and to address objections already being raised by political figures.

LifeSiteNews: In the United States and the United Kingdom, private religious-based arbitration is already an established reality, whereas in Italy it sounds like something new. Critics say that your complaint focuses primarily on the website’s provocative wording, such as “Sharia Court” and “Islamic Justice.” Now that the organizers are reportedly removing this language to comply with civil law, you may be left empty-handed, having challenged a marketing provocation rather than an actual violation of the law. Is that true?

Francesco Minutillo: My complaint is not based solely on the expressions used on the website of the Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber, and therefore on its advertising material, but also, and above all, on specific provisions of the arbitration rules, which raise much more significant legal questions.

For example, I am referring to the provision according to which arbitration decisions, if not voluntarily complied with, may be communicated to Islamic cultural associations or published in dedicated bulletins. This is a mechanism that deserves particular attention, because publicizing non-compliance within the religious community could translate into a form of social and reputational pressure on the recipient of the decision. And this is only one of several aspects that we have brought to the attention of the judicial authorities.

Certainly, the language used by the organizers was also extremely ambiguous. Speaking of a court, Islamic justice, and decisions comparable to state court judgments is one thing; engaging in private arbitration, which is a well-defined legal institution governed by Italian law and subject to its mandatory limits, is another. These are profoundly different realities that cannot be confused.

I take note with satisfaction of the fact that the organizers are changing the terminology used on their website. However, I believe that the most important outcome of my complaint is something else, and that its scope extends far beyond the Padua case.

With this initiative, I have managed to bring to the attention of the judicial authorities, Parliament, the government, and Italian public opinion an issue that I consider real and considerably broader: the risk that, alongside the state’s legal system, forms of internal justice within Islamic communities may develop, whether more or less organized, more or less visible, and sometimes even beyond any effective public scrutiny or oversight.

The Padua case is a different matter, and the actual extent of its activities has yet to be established. This is precisely the point: I am not interested in a battle against the words on a website, but in understanding whether parallel religious justice systems are taking shape in our country alongside the state’s justice system. If my complaint has helped to finally open this debate, I believe it has already achieved a result of considerable political and institutional importance.

LSN: Is there not a risk of focusing on a secondary target while ignoring the fact that the real infiltration of Sharia is taking place through the state judiciary and European institutions?

Minutillo: At present, I am not aware of any rulings by the Italian judiciary that have recognized Islamic law as having direct and independent normative force within our legal system. After all, there is a fundamental limitation, represented by international public policy, which every Italian judge must necessarily consider when the question of applying foreign law arises.

It can certainly happen that a decision issued by a foreign judicial authority, for example a Moroccan one, on the basis of that country’s family legislation, even where inspired by Islamic principles, is submitted to an Italian judge for recognition of its effects. However, this is a legal phenomenon profoundly different from the direct application of Sharia. The recognition of that decision must, in fact, pass the test of compatibility with the fundamental principles of our legal system, beginning with constitutional principles, and with the limitation imposed by international public policy.

The issue I raised in my complaint concerning the Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber in Padua is different and, in certain respects, even more delicate. In that case, the arbitration rules expressly provided that arbitrators should primarily apply the precepts of Sharia, reserving a residual role for Italian law.

The issue falls within the framework of arbitration law, which has also recently been affected by “Cartabia reform,” which expanded the scope for private autonomy in dispute resolution. These are instruments designed to allow parties to remove certain disputes from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and they are particularly useful in commercial relations and international trade. The problem arises when this autonomy is used to assign a primary adjudicatory role to religious precepts, raising questions about the compatibility of the arbitration system thus constructed with the fundamental principles of the state’s legal system.

I believe that this is precisely where a regulatory issue emerges that lawmakers must address. We cannot simply rely on subsequent judicial review after an arbitration decision has already produced consequences in the relations between the parties or within their respective communities.

We must consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce more explicit preventive legislative limits, so that contractual freedom and arbitral autonomy cannot be used to construct parallel justice systems based on the application of Sharia.

LSN: Vanin stated that the chamber is simply offering a form of private arbitration freely chosen by consenting adults, especially in commercial disputes. If arbitration itself is lawful, what concrete concerns prompted you to ask prosecutors to investigate this institution?

Minutillo: In my complaint, I did not ask the Public Prosecutor’s Office to ban private arbitration, which is an entirely legitimate legal institution, but to investigate how the Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber has actually operated.

First, I asked for the founders, directors, and arbitrators to be identified, and for their qualifications, mutual relationships, and guarantees of independence to be verified. I then called for an examination of the activities actually carried out, the disputes handled, and any decisions issued, in order to establish whether the body operates exclusively within the scope of rights that the parties are free to dispose of or whether it also intervenes in family matters, inheritance matters, or other areas excluded from arbitration.

A central aspect concerns the sources of Sharia actually applied and their compatibility with the mandatory provisions and fundamental principles of the Italian legal system.

I have also asked for the chamber’s relationships with Islamic associations, religious centers, and commercial networks to be investigated, as well as the methods used to disseminate arbitration clauses. Particular attention should be paid to the provision in the rules that allows decisions to be communicated to Islamic associations in the area where the losing party resides, with the risk of generating social, economic, and reputational pressure.

The fundamental question is whether we are genuinely dealing with arbitration freely chosen by informed citizens or with a system of community-based justice in which adherence to Sharia rules, although formally voluntary, may in practice become compulsory for religious, economic, or social reasons.

You should also bear in mind that attorney Vanin’s name only emerged after my complaint, following the media storm. Before that, the Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber had neither a face nor a name that could be linked to anyone in particular. This is a serious flaw, because arbitration bodies usually explicitly identify the professionals they rely on, given that their authority is often crucial to the success of an arbitration institution.

LSN: Here in Italy, even the country’s main Islamic organization has officially disavowed the arbitration chamber in Padua. What do you answer to those who say that there is a risk of exaggerating an isolated initiative by a single law firm, paradoxically ending up providing media and advertising exposure to individuals whom the Muslim community itself seems to have marginalized?

Minutillo: I take note of the fact that the country’s main Islamic organization has distanced itself from the establishment of a private judicial body based on the application of Sharia. I must nevertheless observe that this position was taken only after my complaint and the resulting nationwide media coverage.

The Italian Islamic Arbitration Chamber had already been established last March and prepared and publicized its own rules, together with the contractual clauses intended to enable recourse to arbitration. This was therefore not merely a statement of intent, but an organized and formally structured initiative, although the actual extent of the arbitration activities carried out remains to be established.

Is it really possible that the Islamic associations knew nothing about this? On the contrary, I believe that I have also helped send a very clear message to Islamic associations: do not try to bring Sharia into Italy, because we will be ready to defend ourselves.