When Texas Governor Greg Abbott called, on November 19, for an official investigation into what he called “Sharia courts,” he did not base his call on any evidence, complaints, or legal violations. It was a political show.
There are no Sharia courts in Texas – only voluntary Muslim arbitration bodies that operate under the same framework as Jewish Beth Din courts and Christian arbitration services.
However, Abbott wrote in a letter to prosecutors and sheriffs demanding an investigation:
“The Constitution’s religious protections give no authority to religious courts to override federal or state laws simply by wearing robes and pronouncing rulings inconsistent with Western civilization.” Suggesting that Muslims are secretly building a parallel legal system.
This is not law enforcement, but political theater aimed at creating fear.
The day before, on November 18, Abbott issued an executive order designating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the United States, as a “foreign terrorist organization.”
The matter was not based on any crimes, violence, conspiracies or judicial precedents. Rather, it was a sweeping claim that an American civil rights organization represented a threat to national security.
Lawyers were quick to point out that Abbott does not have the legal authority to designate organizations as “foreign terrorist”; that authority is reserved to the federal government. But again, the goal was not legal accuracy.
This ineffective order was intended to send a political message rather than a legal move. It was designed to portray American Muslims and their institutions as suspicious, and their civic engagement as a security risk.
Republicans are not the only ones who have stoked this fear of Muslims; Major newspapers, liberal politicians, and even civil rights organizations have sometimes adopted the same basic framework that portrays Islamic law as “alien.”
Political maneuvers based on false claims
Abbott’s actions are just the latest product of a long cycle of manufactured American paranoia that turns ordinary aspects of Muslim life into an “existential threat.” This rhetoric has been at work for decades, repeatedly using “Sharia” as a political weapon.
For example, in the late 2000s, activists like David Yerushalmi and organizations like ACT for America led a coordinated national campaign that pushed lawmakers across the country to introduce “anti-sharia” bills.
During the early next decade, more than 40 states considered laws prohibiting courts from applying “foreign law.” It is a symbolic term that is implicitly understood to mean “Islamic law.”
In the most extreme example, the people of Oklahoma voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning Sharia law and the application of international law. When the law was challenged, a federal judge blocked it.
Legal challenges – in that case and others – have revealed that these measures were not a response to real legal problems, but rather were political maneuvers. However, the broader campaign succeeded in entrenching the idea that Muslim religious practice is a threat to national security, and paved the way for subsequent escalations, including Abbott’s actions today.
Months before Abbott called for an investigation into “sharia courts,” a Muslim-led real estate project in Texas was the target of a Justice Department investigation and was described online as a “sharia colony.”
Local residents were informed that the neighborhood would be subject to Islamic rule, that non-Muslims would be excluded, and that the project was part of “Islamic encroachment.” All of these claims were false: the project was open to everyone, and only sought to address the housing crisis in the area.
The Justice Department closed the investigation in June after finding no legal violations, but in September, Abbott signed a law banning “Sharia settlements” in Texas.
This dynamic is not limited to Texas. In Tennessee, opponents of a mosque in Murfreesboro argued that Islam “is not a religion” and therefore does not deserve First Amendment protection. This argument ran afoul of centuries of constitutional jurisprudence, but that did not matter; The intention was to show the religious life of Muslims as legally illegitimate.
In Dearborn, Michigan – a city that is home to one of the oldest Arab and Muslim communities in the United States – false rumors have repeatedly spread claiming that the city has been “taken over by Sharia law.”
Fabricated video clips, altered headlines, and photos taken from other countries were circulated to create the illusion of “Islamic rule on American soil.” Fact-checking reports have refuted these claims, but rumors continue to spread.
A prominent Muslim was also targeted during his election campaign: New York City’s mayor-elect, Zahran Mamdani, faced racist stereotypes and conspiracy theories claiming that he planned to establish “sharia rule” if elected.
Although his agenda has no religious elements — instead focusing on public transportation, housing and police accountability — his being a Muslim makes him a “Trojan horse” in the eyes of those who believe in the Sharia scare.
Republicans are not the only ones who have fueled this panic; Major newspapers, liberal politicians, and even civil rights organizations have sometimes adopted the same basic framework that portrays Islamic law as “alien,” “political,” or “contrary to American values.” By accepting this framework, even when they claim to oppose it, they implicitly legitimize the narrative structure of Islamophobia.
Historical links
What these repeated incidents reveal is a consistent pattern: panic over Sharia law has nothing to do with the law, security, or constitutional principles. Rather, it is about an identity struggle in a country facing demographic shifts. It’s about who is allowed to be “American,” and who will always be suspect.
Panic appears again and again, not because it reflects real fears, but because it is an effective tool used to mobilize votes, to police the boundaries of civic belonging, and to justify censorship and government intervention.
What makes the matter even more contradictory is that Sharia law – as it has been understood by Muslim scholars over the centuries – does not resemble the caricature promoted by American policy. The word “Sharia” in Arabic means “the path to water”, which is a metaphor that indicates spiritual and moral nourishment.
It is a broad ethical framework concerned with justice, the common good, and accountability. Its core objectives – known as “Maqasid al-Sharia” – are based on the protection of life, mind, religion, property, and human dignity. Sharia includes advanced principles such as “desirability,” “interest,” and “custom,” which are similar to the tools of balance and context known to Western legal systems.
Sharia is not a strange law; Rather, its structure intersects with Western legal traditions. In a pioneering article in the North Carolina Law Journal, Professor John Macdissi has shown that a number of the underpinnings of English common law are strikingly similar to Islamic legal institutions – and these influences may have been transmitted through Norman Sicily.
These historical connections are important not because they dissolve differences between legal systems, but because they demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that Sharia law necessarily contradicts Western rule.
The United States once understood this legacy. When the Supreme Court was inaugurated in 1935, it was decorated with a marble frieze depicting humanity’s greatest legislators – among them the Prophet Muhammad, holding the Qur’an, a symbol of justice and moral authority. Today, just pointing out this simple historical fact may spark anger.
Weaponizing fear
The new wave of panic over Sharia law is not related to the entry of Islam into American courts, but rather its entry into American civil life. It is about Muslim political participation, the development of Muslim communities, building their institutions, and representation, all of which are recast as an “existential threat.”
As the country enters a new election cycle characterized by anti-pluralism rhetoric, anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, and attacks on Middle East studies programs, Sharia law becomes a flexible vessel into which deeper concerns are poured: fear of a multiple America.
The real danger is not Sharia. The danger is the political machine that turns ordinary American Muslims into objects of suspicion, into targets of power, and into tools in a culture war that they did not choose. If there is something Americans should fear, it is not Islamic law — but the weaponization of fear itself.
The opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera Network.