This chapter examines how narratival alignment within the Israeli judiciary has shaped the interpretation and reform of Muslim Family Law (MFL). Unlike in other jurisdictions, Israeli courts exhibit high narratival cohesion across the judicial hierarchy, underpinned by ideological consensus and professional norms. Through analyses of High Court of Justice (HCJ) and civil family court rulings, the chapter identifies five dominant judicial narratives – jurisdictional, human rights, best interests of the child, Orientalist-sexist, and comparative. It argues that while coherent apex-court narratives foster procedural justice, predictability, and minority trust, their effects on internal reform depend on resonance with religious courts and reformist groups. Alignment among the HCJ, reformers, and the shariʿa establishment enabled custody and gender reforms, including the appointment of Israel’s first female shariʿa judge. Yet in maintenance and confinement cases, alignment was absent, leaving patriarchal norms intact. The chapter thus reveals both the emancipatory and constraining potential of narratival cohesion in pluri-legal systems.