A British politics commentator calls a court ruling on an estranged couple’s Islamic faith marriage “disturbing for the future,” while a Muslim activist says it merely recognizes the similarities of Sharia to British law.
David Vance described as “ludicrous” claims made by the chief editor of Islam21c, Dr Salman Butt, that Sharia law was comparable to British common law. The comments came during an RT debate following a historic ruling by the UK’s High Court that found an estranged couple’s Islamic faith marriage fell under British common law.
Vance argued that recognition of the “parallel legal system” of Sharia law set a “precedent without establishing [what] the boundaries around it should be,” and viewed it as “troubling, misguided and potentially very disturbing for the future.”
Butt countered that the ruling was not about recognizing Sharia law, but recognized and implemented “what is seen as a marriage or a void marriage under English common law.”
“Over the centuries, English law has improved to the level where it is very, very similar to the general level of the aims and objectives of Sharia,” Butt said, adding that marriage under English common law was very similar to that under Sharia.
Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.