Purpose The purpose of this paper is to first display Islamic origins of the Common law, and thereafter analyze whether the English legal system applies Shariah law when dealing with debt-based (obligation) Islamic financial contracts. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a qualitative methodology and a single/embedded case study design. The single component refers to English law, while the embedded component refers to Beximco Pharmaceuticals LTD. and Ors. v Shamil Bank of Bahrain Ec (2004) and Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd. and Ors (2017) as units of analysis. Findings Contrary to the paradigmatic notion that the English court excluded Sharīʿah law in the Beximco Pharmaceuticals LTD. and Ors. v Shamil Bank of Bahrain Ec (2004) and Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd. and Ors (2017) cases, and exclusively applied English law, the findings in this research suggest that Sharīʿah law was indirectly applied. The findings suggest that Islamic origins in the Common law, in addition to the obligation of debt-repayment in the English legal system, results in legal parallelism due to debt-repayment simply being a key phenomenon existent within Sharīʿah law. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to analyzing two Islamic financial disputes in the English court and does not delve into theoretical arenas analyzing how English law may be amended to accommodate a growing Islamic financial industry. Separate research may be conducted to analyze how English law may practically accommodate Islamic financial disputes more efficiently. Originality/value While the cases under discussion have been discussed about in various literature, this research provides a non-paradigmatic finding that may contribute to literature and act as a cause for deliberation. Additionally, it links the analysis with the discussion pertaining to Islamic origins of the Common law, by shedding light on the dramatic changes brought forth by Henry II during the 12th century.
Alkhan et al. (2026) studied this question.