Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday announced that he has signed laws banning “Sharia Law” and “Sharia Compounds” in the state after a Houston-area imam posted viral videos pressuring Muslim-owned stores to stop selling pork, alcohol and lottery tickets.
The governor said no business or individual should fear what he called "fools like this" and urged Texans to report any attempts to impose Sharia compliance to local law enforcement or the Texas Department of Public Safety. Abbott’s office said in a statement that "In Texas, we believe in equal rights under the law for all men, women, & children. Any legal system that flouts human rights is BANNED in the state of Texas." Abbott did not specify which measure he was referencing in the announcement; he previously signed a 2017 law that bars judges from applying foreign law in Texas courtrooms.
The controversy centers on Imam F. Qasim ibn Ali Khan, who leads Masjid At-Tawhid, a mosque in the Houston area affiliated with the Nation of Islam. In multiple videos posted to his TikTok account, which has roughly 17,000 followers, Khan is seen confronting employees at Muslim-owned stores and accusing them of selling "haram" — items forbidden under Islamic teachings. In the clips he warns of coordinated boycotts and nationwide protests targeting Muslim businesses that do not alter their inventories, saying merchants have "until the end of the month to change their inventory — or move to a different neighborhood." Khan has described the initiative as religious outreach, or da'wah.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized Abbott’s announcement, calling it "fearmongering" and disputing the governor’s characterization of Sharia as an existential threat. CAIR said the term sharia, which it translated as "the way to water," encompasses routine religious obligations such as prayer, charity and fasting and likened it to Halacha for Jews or Canon law for Catholics. The group also said it is false that Sharia is outright banned in Texas.
Legal experts and civil liberties advocates note that peaceful protests outside businesses are protected by the First Amendment, and on Tuesday there were no public reports that Khan or his supporters had threatened violence. At present, officials have not identified any criminal conduct by Khan, and state law enforcement agencies did not announce any investigations tied to the videos.
The Nation of Islam, with which Masjid At-Tawhid is affiliated, occupies a contested place within the broader American Muslim community. Some mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders have distanced themselves from the Nation of Islam’s ideology, while others emphasize that intra-faith disputes and community pressure tactics are distinct from the application of foreign legal systems in U.S. courts.
Abbott’s statement followed a week of heightened attention after the confrontations were widely shared on social media and covered by national outlets. The governor’s use of the phrase "Sharia Compounds" echoed language used in previous state-level measures elsewhere that sought to prevent the application or enforcement of foreign legal codes in municipal or private dispute-resolution settings.
Civil rights groups and legal scholars have long debated the scope and necessity of state laws that prohibit the use of foreign or religious law in American courts, arguing they are redundant with constitutional protections and, in some cases, stigmatize particular religious communities. Supporters of the measures say they are safeguards against the erosion of constitutional rights.
Local officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether any enforcement action would follow Abbott’s announcement. State legislative records show the 2017 measure commonly cited by Abbott prevents judges from considering foreign law if it would result in denying a person civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. or Texas constitutions.
As the debate continues in Texas, CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups said they plan to monitor developments and push back against what they described as efforts to conflate religious practice with legal imposition. Khan’s supporters have defended his actions as religiously motivated outreach to fellow Muslims. Authorities and civil liberties groups emphasized that, absent credible threats or illegal conduct, the response by government officials should remain within the bounds of established law and constitutional protections.