Sharia Courts Are Expanding in America and Must Be Eliminated Immediately

America’s courts stand as the bedrock of justice, where every citizen expects equal treatment under a single set of laws. Yet, in pockets across the nation, religious arbitration centers—often operating under Sharia principles—have quietly established themselves as alternative forums for resolving disputes, particularly in family and civil matters. These setups challenge the authority of state and federal systems, creating divisions that favor religious doctrine over constitutional guarantees.

Take the Islamic Tribunal in Dallas, established back in 2015 as the country’s first formal body of its kind for handling divorces and business conflicts. Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently directed local district attorneys, sheriffs, and Attorney General Ken Paxton to probe these so-called Sharia courts, insisting they masquerade as legitimate legal entities while undermining American law.

His move follows a September 2025 law he signed banning residential developments that could function as self-contained Sharia enclaves, like the proposed EPIC City project. Abbott’s actions have sparked backlash from Muslims, with the Council on American-Islamic Relations filing a federal lawsuit against him and Paxton, claiming the investigations smear Muslim communities as terrorist-linked.

Nationwide, religious arbitration in family law remains legal if parties consent voluntarily, but critics argue it often involves coercion, especially for women in tight-knit communities. In practice, these tribunals apply rules drawn from Islamic texts that clash with U.S. standards.

For instance, under Sharia, men can divorce unilaterally, while women must seek council approval, sometimes forfeiting financial rights like the bridal gift known as mahr. Inheritance favors sons over daughters, and in some interpretations, a husband’s authority includes physical discipline for perceived disobedience, as outlined in Sura 4:34 of the Qur’an.

This is the steady and not-so-slow creep of Sharia into America’s legal system. What starts as “cultural” decisions will rapidly become legally binding, first within the communities themselves and then in other aspects of American life. This is all part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s 100-year plan, which is now nearly five decades in the making.

“We must call these councils what they are: centers that host a parallel legal system operating simultaneously with federal and state law within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States,” said journalist David Bumgardner.

Evidence from abroad, like in the United Kingdom, shows women pressured to stay in abusive relationships or denied knowledge of their civil rights. Similar patterns emerge here, where arbitration decisions can gain enforcement in secular courts, blurring lines between faith and law. This setup not only erodes state power but institutionalizes inequalities that American jurisprudence rejects outright.

On the legislative front, momentum builds to address this. In October 2025, Representative Chip Roy introduced H.R. 5722, the Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act, aiming to bar entry to immigrants who adhere to Sharia if it conflicts with U.S. law.

Senator Tommy Tuberville followed with the No Sharia Act, which would prohibit courts from enforcing foreign laws, including Sharia, that violate constitutional rights. Florida lawmakers have filed a state-level version to keep Sharia out of government proceedings.

“Arbitration is a legal term, defining a method of dispute resolution outside of civil litigation… when a religious council makes a determination on the validity of a marriage, or dictates the terms of a divorce settlement or custody arrangement, it is not engaging in worship. It is instead engaging in a legal exercise that blatantly usurps state power.”

Proponents of these tribunals claim they offer cultural sensitivity and efficient resolutions. But allowing them risks a slippery slope where community pressures override individual freedoms, echoing how unchecked immigration policies have enabled such parallel systems to flourish. Ontario, Canada, set a precedent in 2005 by banning religious arbitration in family matters, requiring all disputes to follow provincial law—a model worth emulating to safeguard unity.

The second (and most important and pressing) reason for prohibition is the inherent conflict between the laws applied by these councils and the American principle of legal equality.

At stake is more than procedure; it’s the preservation of a society where justice applies evenly, rooted in traditions that limit exploitation and uphold dignity for all. Sharia’s framework, with its built-in disparities, simply doesn’t align.

American law and Judeo-Christian values cannot coexist with Sharia. Justice for All is non-negotiable.

Shutting down these centers and outlawing Sharia arbitration would reaffirm that in America, one law governs everyone—no exceptions, no shadows.