11-09-2005, 07:21 AM
Dear friend, you seem to have little knowledge (OR seem to be very reluctant to acquire any sort of knowledge at all) about the Islamic Insurance...Takaful...I would really appreciate if you take some time in researching TAKAFUL abit more before jumping on to conclusions... You can search Google.com for "TAKAFUL" Or can ask learned Scholars regarding it.
You are quoting the Quranic versus that are against gambling, I don't think any muslim will disagree with that....But, thats NOT what we are debating here....We are debating WHETHER Insurance (specially GENERAL INSURANCE) is similar to gambling Or NOT?? I clearly differentiated b/w Gambling v.s Personal Automobile insurance in one of my posts whose link I've mentioned above, hope you would take some time to read those posts...From here on, I would limit my discussion to GENERAL INSURANCE since thats what i'm getting educated myself & thats what my future area of practice is!....
In gambling, there is "<u>no limit</u>" on the amount you can receive as a gambler i-e you invest Rs5/- and can make Rs 5million, then you can invest 5 million & can make 5 trillion from that....On the other hand, In GENERAL insurance, the payment from insurer is<u>"limited"</u> infact, often "<u>limited to much less than Actual Losses</u>". Most policies in General Insurance, incorporate a fundamental principle "PRINCIPLE OF INDEMNITY" i-e "Insured must NOT make profit b/c of the existance of insurance". An Autombile insurer will NOT pay you Rs 50 lakh in case of a car accident destroying your Rs 5 lakh's worth car. Infact insurer will probably NOT EVEN pay you the whole 5 lakh after considering DEPRECIATION, DEDUCTIBLES, COINSURANCE & considering the current market value of car. The Actual payment from insurer might be limited to only 4-4.5 lakh (OR LESS) considering the above factors. Inshort, you won't make profit(unjustly riched) b/c of the existance of Insurance but Insurance will save you from complete disasterous financial consequences i-e you can add 1-0.5 lakh (Or MORE) from your own & can buy the same new car Or can buy a 2nd hand car with older model etc. You would be saved from disaster but won't be UNJUSTLY RICHED b/c of the existance of Insurance. There is no business in world that would NOT require you to take ANY sort of chances at all. All types of businesses have their own unique hazards, you can't do a completely risk-free business no matter how small/large your business is.
You may still insist on Insurance = Gambling and I would strongly suggest you to gain a deeper overall understanding of How General Insurance business works? What are the factors that limit the recovery under policies? What factors prohibit insureds from becoming rich by purchasing insurance? What purposes do the PRINCIPLE OF INDEMNITY, COINSURANCE, DEDUCTIBLES, DEPRECIATION etc etc serve under insurance....?
In the end, I intend to clear that I put-up the whole argument to bring forth the <u>other side</u> of picture. I don't find myself (or for that matter..."yourself") to be learned & qualified enough in Sharia matters to comment or decide this issue one way OR the other on a public forum. Its something over which a number of learned scolars disagree, Then how could I or you possibly decide it ??? You can take your view of picture & can be happy with it forever...I've arguments in favour of my view & I'm perfectly satisfied with that...
You can remain in...& can keep on insisting insurance as "gambling".. But I think I'm done in this thread & on this topic. I've said what I wanted to & repeating it again & again won't make my points any more valid - Over & All
You are quoting the Quranic versus that are against gambling, I don't think any muslim will disagree with that....But, thats NOT what we are debating here....We are debating WHETHER Insurance (specially GENERAL INSURANCE) is similar to gambling Or NOT?? I clearly differentiated b/w Gambling v.s Personal Automobile insurance in one of my posts whose link I've mentioned above, hope you would take some time to read those posts...From here on, I would limit my discussion to GENERAL INSURANCE since thats what i'm getting educated myself & thats what my future area of practice is!....
In gambling, there is "<u>no limit</u>" on the amount you can receive as a gambler i-e you invest Rs5/- and can make Rs 5million, then you can invest 5 million & can make 5 trillion from that....On the other hand, In GENERAL insurance, the payment from insurer is<u>"limited"</u> infact, often "<u>limited to much less than Actual Losses</u>". Most policies in General Insurance, incorporate a fundamental principle "PRINCIPLE OF INDEMNITY" i-e "Insured must NOT make profit b/c of the existance of insurance". An Autombile insurer will NOT pay you Rs 50 lakh in case of a car accident destroying your Rs 5 lakh's worth car. Infact insurer will probably NOT EVEN pay you the whole 5 lakh after considering DEPRECIATION, DEDUCTIBLES, COINSURANCE & considering the current market value of car. The Actual payment from insurer might be limited to only 4-4.5 lakh (OR LESS) considering the above factors. Inshort, you won't make profit(unjustly riched) b/c of the existance of Insurance but Insurance will save you from complete disasterous financial consequences i-e you can add 1-0.5 lakh (Or MORE) from your own & can buy the same new car Or can buy a 2nd hand car with older model etc. You would be saved from disaster but won't be UNJUSTLY RICHED b/c of the existance of Insurance. There is no business in world that would NOT require you to take ANY sort of chances at all. All types of businesses have their own unique hazards, you can't do a completely risk-free business no matter how small/large your business is.
You may still insist on Insurance = Gambling and I would strongly suggest you to gain a deeper overall understanding of How General Insurance business works? What are the factors that limit the recovery under policies? What factors prohibit insureds from becoming rich by purchasing insurance? What purposes do the PRINCIPLE OF INDEMNITY, COINSURANCE, DEDUCTIBLES, DEPRECIATION etc etc serve under insurance....?
In the end, I intend to clear that I put-up the whole argument to bring forth the <u>other side</u> of picture. I don't find myself (or for that matter..."yourself") to be learned & qualified enough in Sharia matters to comment or decide this issue one way OR the other on a public forum. Its something over which a number of learned scolars disagree, Then how could I or you possibly decide it ??? You can take your view of picture & can be happy with it forever...I've arguments in favour of my view & I'm perfectly satisfied with that...
You can remain in...& can keep on insisting insurance as "gambling".. But I think I'm done in this thread & on this topic. I've said what I wanted to & repeating it again & again won't make my points any more valid - Over & All
