Muslim Legal Society of Texas

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934827410
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Islam
Affiliation
Islam

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,988
Expenses
$4,859
Assets
$3,773
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Abdullah Syed (Director)
  • Farhan Mohiuddin (Director)
  • Maryam Ghaffar (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote adherence to the Islamic teachings and serve the best interest of Islam and Muslims in the legal field by organizing and facilitating religious gatherings, events, prayers, and observances in accordance with Islamic traditions and practices.

What it reported doing in 2025

During the tax year, we organized and facilitated several religious and educational events, both in-person and online, including regular Islamic study circles and book club sessions. These gatherings were designed to promote adherence to Islamic teachings and foster community among Muslim legal professionals. Through these efforts, we advanced our mission and experienced significant growth in our membership base.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.1%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 62%; rating input score 62

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.5%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 64.4% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 72.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 104.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.1% of revenue deployed · 62% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.