There is a great degree of variation in application and understanding of Muslim Family Laws (MFLs) across the world—some countries adopt more liberal interpretations, some more conservative ones. However, despite this great variation, it is often reported that state-enforced MFLs negatively affect human rights, particularly those of women and children. In fact, a quick literature review indicates that various aspects of MFLs have long been considered detrimental to human and women’s rights and have been targeted by reformers across the world. Reforms were often introduced through executive orders and legislative actions. But they occasionally resulted from judicial intervention and law making. In some Muslim-majority countries, judiciaries have played a pivotal role in reforming MFLs by creating new or expanding existing categories of rights through reinterpretation of religion-based laws. However, our knowledge is much more limited in respect to the role that civil judiciaries play in regulation and reformation of MFLs in non-Muslim-majority countries. The proposed paper aims to fill this knowledge gap by examining Israeli, Greek civil (high and lower) courts’ engagement with their respective Islamic laws/judiciaries. In doing so, the paper will answer the question of whether, how and under what conditions high and lower civil courts in non-Muslim-majority countries where MFLs are formally incorporated could effect systemic changes in Muslim laws. The study relies primarily on analysis of Israeli and Greek religious and civil court decisions as well as primary data collected by the author through field research and interviews with judges, lawyers, litigants and experts in Israel-proper, and Western Thrace, Greece during multiple field trips between 2004-15.