Texas has launched a formal inquiry into a North Texas group that appears to be running what looks like an Islamic judicial body. Governor Greg Abbott has directed prosecutors, sheriffs and the attorney general to determine whether this group has crossed the line between internal religious practice and the early architecture of a parallel legal framework. For the governor, this is not a question of belief or community identity. It is a question of whether political Islam is attempting to establish a foothold inside the state’s legal landscape.
The investigation is focused on one simple principle. Texas has a single legal system. Anything that challenges that system, even through symbolic imitation, will be examined closely and openly.
A small minority attempting something much larger than its numbers
Texas is home to more than 30 million people. The Muslim population stands at around 313,000 residents, or roughly 1.1 percent of the state. The community is not large in numbers. Yet the scale of the community has never been the point of concern. What has drawn the attention of state officials is the appearance of a structure that follows a pattern associated historically with political Islam, not ordinary worship.
Today, I called on local District Attorneys to investigate alleged Sharia “courts” operating in Texas.
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) November 19, 2025
These tribunals have no legal authority in our state.
Only Texas laws enforced by Texas courts govern our people. pic.twitter.com/7lCOL1Fgop
Political Islam often begins with institutional footholds that operate quietly. These footholds may present themselves as community mediation, cultural services or advisory panels. Over time, they seek recognition, deference and influence. They create a moral and administrative authority that operates independently of the state’s own courts. This pattern has been seen across parts of Europe, Canada and the United Kingdom, where Islamic arbitration bodies grew from informal dispute venues into gatekeepers that enforced social pressure and defined the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for community members.
The Sharia tribunal in Texas triggers this same concern. The tribunal does not reflect a large population demanding legal autonomy. It reflects an ideological impulse to introduce an alternative framework for justice, shaped by religious law and not by the constitution of the State of Texas.
The tribunal that raised the alarms
The group at the center of the controversy calls itself the Islamic Tribunal. It describes its members as judges. It advertises that it handles family disputes, business disagreements and community conflicts. It claims to issue rulings based on Islamic jurisprudence.
To the untrained eye, this may look like religious mediation. To state authorities, it resembles the early stages of an independent justice mechanism. The language is not pastoral or ceremonial. It is judicial. It is formal. It is shaped to resemble authority.
The question for Texas officials is straightforward. If a resident reads the tribunal’s website or attends one of its sessions, would that person believe they are dealing with an authority that has real power? The governor believes that possibility is high. And if even a single Texan feels pressure to comply with a religious ruling instead of seeking protection under state law, the tribunal becomes a threat to the integrity of the justice system.
Texas draws a line that political Islam cannot cross
Texas does not interfere in prayer, personal belief or cultural customs. But Texas does not allow anyone to imitate state authority.
The rules are clear.
>A person cannot issue a document that resembles a court judgement unless it comes from a real court.
>A person cannot present themselves as a judge unless they are licensed by the state.
>A person cannot pressure another individual into following a decision that limits their legal rights.
>A person cannot establish a private tribunal that influences family, property or civil disputes in a way that undermines state protections.
Political Islam tends to operate in the gray zone where cultural practice becomes administrative authority. Texas has no gray zone. The state enforces a bright, absolute boundary between religious life and legal power. The tribunal crossed into that boundary by using language and structures that mirror the judiciary.
This issue has a pattern across the Western world
What is happening in Texas is not occurring in isolation. The shape of the dispute resembles earlier attempts by political Islam to build parallel structures within Western legal systems.
Irving, Texas
In 2015, a group of local imams created a mediation panel that residents believed would become a Sharia court. The reaction was immediate. The city rejected any recognition of it. The episode revealed how alert Texans are to ideological structures presenting themselves as neutral mediation.
New Jersey
Several family law cases involved women pressured to accept religious rulings that contradicted state protections. Judges intervened and reminded everyone that civil law is not optional.
Europe and Canada
Across parts of the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Canada, Islamic tribunals evolved from informal advice circles into influential decision-making bodies that shaped marriage disputes, inheritance, custody and community conduct. These tribunals enforced norms that did not align with national legal standards. Political Islam used these footholds to negotiate its influence within public life.
State-level responses in the United States
Kansas, Tennessee, Alabama and others passed laws preventing courts from applying foreign legal frameworks in civil cases. These laws emerged because lawmakers recognised a pattern forming. Political Islam does not need large numbers. It needs institutional entry points. Once those are established, the authority they claim tends to grow. Texas is responding before that pattern takes deeper root.
Why Texas views this as more than a misunderstanding
What concerns Texas officials is not cultural diversity or private worship. The concern is the ideological ambition behind establishing a tribunal that claims judicial vocabulary. Even if the tribunal affects only a small group, the symbolic effect is large. If the tribunal is allowed to function as it currently describes itself, it sends a message that alternative justice structures can develop quietly and present themselves as legitimate options.
Political Islam seeks legitimacy before influence. Influence follows recognition. Recognition begins with small institutions that mimic authority. That is the arc that Texas wants to interrupt.
The state does not want informal courts that regulate marriages, business dealings or family conflicts outside the framework of the constitution. It has no interest in allowing an ideology to create pressure systems within communities that weaken individual rights.
What the investigation will focus on now
State prosecutors will examine whether the Islamic Tribunal:
• presented itself as a judicial authority
• issued documents that resembled legal orders
• pressured participants to accept its decisions
• discouraged individuals from accessing state courts
• claimed authority that belongs only to the judiciary
If any of these are found to be true, the state will likely bring charges. Even if no crimes occurred, Texas will not allow the tribunal to continue operating in a format that resembles a legal institution. The tribunal may be forced to remove judicial language, dissolve its panel, abandon public rulings or cease operations entirely. The state will not let the ambiguity stand.
A small case, but a fundamental principle
This investigation is not about the size of the community behind the tribunal. It is about the principle that only one legal system can exist inside a state. Parallel structures, even symbolic ones, dilute the authority of the courts and empower ideological actors who operate outside democratic oversight.
Texas is acting early. It is shutting down the possibility of a separate legal identity forming within its borders. Political Islam relies on gradualism. Texas relies on clarity. The message from the governor is direct. Texas law is the only law that governs Texas residents. The state’s courts are the only courts with authority. And any ideological project, no matter how small, that seeks to introduce an alternative path to justice will be confronted immediately.
