The introduction opens with a fictive case study to frame the book’s central question: how non-Muslim courts interpret and frame Muslim Family Law (MFL) disputes, shaping reform, legitimacy, and minority trust. The case shows how narrative incohesion arises when courts justify identical legal outcomes through competing judicial narratives, producing uncertainty about the law’s foundations, meaning, and authority. Narratival incohesion erodes the rule of law and public confidence in the judiciary. Comparing Ghana, Israel, Greece, and India, the chapter identifies four modalities of narrative (in)cohesion – exclusion, alignment, conflict, and dissonance – showing how ideological unity or fragmentation within judiciaries produces narratival cohesion or incohesion. It also clarifies the theological and empirical foundations of MFLs in non-Muslim contexts, addressing questions of legitimacy, authenticity, and human rights. Finally, the chapter outlines the comparative qualitative methodology underpinning the study and argues that narrative is not merely interpretive but a transformative medium through which courts construct meaning, mediate between law and faith, and influence reform.