This chapter examines narratival conflict within Greek courts over the legitimacy and scope of Muslim Family Law (MFL) in Thrace – the only European jurisdiction formally recognizing Islamic law. It identifies three competing judicial narratives: the Protective Narrative, which upholds the mufti’s jurisdiction as a treaty-based obligation; the Restrictive Narrative, which narrows that jurisdiction under constitutional and human-rights principles; and the Liberative Choice Narrative, which affirms minority exit rights and voluntary recourse to civil law. Drawing on content analysis of case law and extensive fieldwork, the chapter demonstrates how narratival incohesion between higher and lower courts has produced chronic legal ambiguity, undermined procedural justice, and eroded minority trust. It argues that Greece’s securitized approach to Islamic law – shaped by historical tensions with Turkey – has stifled harmonization and prevented internal reform within the mufti system. Ultimately, narratival conflict, rather than fostering pluralism, has entrenched uncertainty, alienation, and the double failure of both religious and civil justice.