The Takaful Company for Islamic Insurance
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Fatwa No. ( 18047 )
Q: The Takaful Company for Islamic Insurance , affiliated with the Islamic House of Finance, presented an offer to the employees of the Muslim World League. Some of the brother employees at the League hesitated to subscribe, fearing that subscribing to this insurance might not be permissible, and they requested your Eminence to issue a fatwa on the permissibility of
subscribing according to the text of the company's offer. The Arab Company for Islamic Insurance (Iyak) also presented an offer regarding car accident insurance. We ask your Eminence to graciously clarify the Islamic perspective on subscribing to the first company's offer (of which we attach a copy for your Eminence) and also on subscribing to the other company's offer (of which we also attach a copy for your Eminence), according to the details provided in each of the two offers.
A: The insurance mentioned, according to the data attached to the letter of His Excellency the Secretary General, is commercial insurance, and it is forbidden by Islamic law; because the owners of cooperative insurance do not intend to make a profit, but rather intend to remove harm from others, and this is not present in what was mentioned. For the sake of added benefit, we quote the text of the decision of the Council of Senior Scholars on commercial and cooperative insurance: Decision No. 55 dated 4 \ 4 \ 1397H Praise be to Allah alone, and blessings and peace be upon the one after whom there is no prophet, and upon his family and companions and those who follow his path until the Day of Judgment. As for what follows: Based on what came from His Majesty King / Faisal ibn Abdulaziz
Al Saud (may Allah have mercy on him), in his letter No. 22310 dated 4 \ 11 \ 91H, addressed to the Shaykh, Head of the Departments of Scientific Research and Ifta, instructing the Council of Senior Scholars to look into the issue of insurance, and based on that, it was decided to include it in the agenda of the fourth session, and the Permanent Committee for Scientific Research and Ifta prepared a study on the matter, containing two things: First: Defining it and explaining its foundations, types, pillars, characteristics of its contract, types of its policies.. and so on, which is necessary for ruling on its permissibility or prohibition. Second: Mentioning the disagreement of researchers regarding its ruling, and the evidence of each group, with discussion. In the sixth session of the Council of Senior Scholars, held in Riyadh, starting from 4 \ 2 \ 95H, the Council listened to the following: 1 - A copy of a decision issued by the Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al ash-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of the Saudi Lands and Head of Judges (may Allah have mercy on him), No. 2 \ 575 dated 18 \ 8 \ 1388H, regarding a ruling issued by the Jeddah Court, on the subject of insurance between the company (American Life) and Badawi Hussein Salem, and a memorandum of objection by the Shaykh Ali Al-Khafif, a member
The Islamic Fiqh Academy in Egypt, regarding the ruling mentioned above. 2 - The research prepared by the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta. 3 - A decision issued by the advisors of the Council of Ministers, namely: Dr. Zafir al-Rifai, and Ibrahim al-Sa'id, number 449, dated 26 \ 11 \ 1390 AH. 4 - The concise research issued by the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Cairo, in 1392 AH, prepared by the honorable Shaykh Muhammad Ahmad Faraj al-Sanhuri, a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Egypt, which includes an explanation of the stages of researching insurance in all its types, and an explanation of the opinions of a large group of jurists of the Islamic world and economic and social experts. 5 - What is held by each of the two doctors: Mustafa Ahmad al-Zarqa, and Isa 'Abd al-Haqq, on this subject, and the Council summoned them based on Article 10 of the Regulations for the Conduct of Work of the Senior Scholars' Authority and the Permanent Committee branching from it, issued by Royal Decree number 1 \ 137, dated 8 \ 7 \ 1391 AH. After the Council listened to the above, the discussion continued regarding the evidence
of those who say it is permissible absolutely, and the evidence of those who say it is prohibited absolutely, and the basis of those who distinguish, who see the permissibility of some types of commercial insurance and the prohibition of others, and after the discussion and exchange of opinion, the Council decided by majority: that commercial insurance is forbidden; for the following evidence: First: The contract of commercial insurance is one of the financial exchange contracts containing excessive uncertainty; because the insured cannot know at the time of the contract the amount he will give or take, he may pay one or two premiums, then the disaster occurs, and he is entitled to what the insurer committed to, or the disaster may not occur at all, and he pays all the premiums and takes nothing, and likewise the insurer cannot determine what he will give and take for each contract individually, and it was reported in the authentic hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) . Second: The contract of commercial insurance is a type of gambling; because of the risk in financial exchanges, and the loss without a crime or causing it, and the gain without a consideration, or a non-equivalent consideration, for the insured may pay an insurance premium, then the
accident occurs, and the insurer loses the entire insurance amount, or the risk may not occur, and yet the insurer gains the insurance premiums without a consideration, and if the ignorance in it becomes severe, it is gambling, and it falls under the general prohibition of gambling in the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:90] and the verse after it. Third: The contract of commercial insurance contains usury of excess and usury of deferment, for if the company pays the insured or his heirs or the beneficiary more than the money he paid to it - it is usury of excess, and the insurer pays that to the insured after a period from the contract, so it is usury of deferment, and if the company pays the insured the same amount he paid to it, it is usury of deferment only, and both are forbidden by explicit text and scholarly consensus. Fourth: The contract of commercial insurance is a forbidden wager; because both contain ignorance, uncertainty, and gambling, and the Shari'ah did not permit of wagering except what is in support of Islam, and the manifestation of its signs by argument and swords. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) restricted the dispensation of wagering with a consideration to three,
by his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan al-Bayhaqi 17:689 , and insurance is not of that, nor similar to it, so it is forbidden. Fifth: The commercial insurance contract involves taking the money of others without a counterpart, and taking without a counterpart in commercial exchange contracts is forbidden; because it falls under the general prohibition in the saying of Allah the Exalted: [An-Nisa 4:29] Sixth: In the commercial insurance contract, there is compulsion to what is not obligatory by Islamic law, for the insurer did not cause the risk, nor did he contribute to its occurrence, but rather he merely contracted with the insured to guarantee the risk in case it occurs, in exchange for an amount paid by the insured to him, and the insurer did not exert any work for the insured, so it is forbidden. As for what those who permit commercial insurance absolutely, or in some of its types, used as evidence, the answer to it is as follows: A - Arguing by what is beneficial (istislah) is not correct, for the benefits in the Islamic Shari'ah are three categories:
- One category is that which the Shari'ah has testified to as valid; it is therefore a proof. - The second category is that which the Shari'ah has remained silent on, neither affirming nor negating it; this is an unguided public benefit, and it is a matter for the independent legal reasoning of qualified scholars. - The third category is that which the Shari'ah has testified to as invalid. Commercial insurance contracts contain ambiguity, excessive uncertainty in a contract, gambling, and usury or interest, so they fall into the category that the Shari'ah has declared invalid, because the aspect of harm in them outweighs the aspect of benefit. B - The presumption of original permissibility is not a valid proof here, because the evidence has established that commercial insurance contracts contradict the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. Acting on the presumption of original permissibility is conditional on the absence of a text that transfers the ruling from it, and such a text has been found, so the argument based on it is invalid. C - The principle that "dire necessities permit what is prohibited" is not a valid argument here, because what Allah has permitted as ways to earn good things is many times greater than what He has prohibited. There is no dire necessity recognized by the Shari'ah that compels one to resort to what the Shari'ah has prohibited in insurance. D - It is not valid to argue from custom, for custom is not among the evidence for legislating rulings; rather, it is relied upon in applying rulings and understanding the intended meaning of
the terms of the texts and the expressions of people in their oaths, lawsuits, and reports, as well as in other matters where the intended meaning of actions and words needs to be determined. It has no effect in matters where the ruling is clear and the intended meaning is definite. The evidence has clearly indicated the prohibition of insurance, so custom has no standing in the face of that evidence. E - The argument that commercial insurance contracts are a type of profit-sharing partnership or are in its meaning is incorrect, because in a profit-sharing partnership, the capital does not leave the ownership of its owner, whereas what the insured pays leaves his ownership and enters the ownership of the company, according to the insurance regulations. Also, the capital in a profit-sharing partnership is due to the heirs of the owner upon his death, whereas in insurance, the heirs may be entitled by regulation to the insurance amount, even if their deceased relative paid only one installment, or they may be entitled to nothing if the beneficiary is designated as someone other than the insured and his heirs. Furthermore, the profit in a profit-sharing partnership is divided between the partners in equal percentages, unlike insurance, where the profit and loss of the capital belong to the company, and the insured is entitled only to the insurance amount or an unspecified amount. F - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to the pledge of loyalty among those who hold it is not
correct, for it is an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that the goal of insurance contracts is material profit mixed with excessive uncertainty in a contract, gambling, and gross ambiguity, whereas the goal of the pledge of loyalty is primarily brotherhood in Islam, mutual support and cooperation in times of hardship and ease, and in all other circumstances, and any material gain is incidental. G - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to a binding promise among those who hold it is not valid, for it is an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that a promise to lend, lend an item, or bear a loss, for example, is a matter of pure kindness, so fulfilling it is obligatory or among the noble qualities of character, whereas insurance contracts are commercial exchanges motivated by material profit, so what is excused in donations, such as ambiguity and excessive uncertainty in a contract, is not excused in them. H - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to guaranteeing the unknown or guaranteeing what is not yet due is an incorrect analogy, for it is also an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that a guarantee is a type of donation intended for pure kindness, whereas insurance is a commercial exchange contract intended primarily for material gain. If kindness results from it, it is incidental and not intended, and rulings take into account the primary purpose, not the incidental, as long as the incidental is not intended.
I - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to guaranteeing the risk of the road is not valid, for it is an analogy with a difference, as mentioned in the previous evidence. J - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to the pension system is incorrect, for it is also an analogy with a difference, because what is given from the pension is a right that the one in authority has committed to, as he is responsible for his subjects, and he has considered in its disbursement the service the employee has rendered to the nation, and has established a system that takes into account the benefit of those closest to the employee. Considering the likelihood of need in them, the pension system is not a matter of financial exchanges between the state and its employees. Accordingly, there is no similarity between it and insurance, which is a commercial financial exchange contract intended for companies to exploit the insured and profit from them through unlawful means, because what is given in the case of a pension is considered a right committed to by governments responsible for their subjects, and it is disbursed to those who have served the nation, as a reward for their kindness and cooperation with them with their bodies, minds, and by devoting much of their free time to helping the nation rise.
K - Analogizing the commercial insurance system and its contracts to the 'Aqilah system is not valid, for it is an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that the basis for the 'Aqilah bearing the blood money for accidental killing or quasi-intentional killing is the kinship and relationship between them and the killer, which calls for support, connection, cooperation, and doing good, even without compensation, whereas insurance contracts are commercial and exploitative, based on pure financial exchanges, with no connection to the emotion of kindness or the motives of doing good. L - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to custody contracts is incorrect, for it is also an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that safety is not the subject of the contract in either case; rather, in insurance, the subject is the installments and the insurance amount, and in custody, it is the fee and the work of the custodian. Safety is the goal and result; otherwise, the custodian would not be entitled to the fee if the item under custody were lost. M - Analogizing insurance to deposit is not valid, for it is also an analogy with a difference, because the fee in a deposit is compensation for the trustee keeping something in his possession and protecting it, whereas in insurance, what the insured pays is not compensated by work from the insurer that benefits the insured; rather, it is a guarantee of safety and peace of mind. The condition of compensation for a guarantee is not valid, but rather it invalidates the contract. If the insurance amount is made in exchange for the installments, it is a commercial exchange in which the insurance amount or its time is unknown, so it differs from a paid deposit contract.
N - Analogizing insurance to what is known as the case of the silk merchants with the weavers is not valid. The difference between them is that the analogized-to case is from cooperative insurance, which is pure cooperation, whereas the analogized case is commercial insurance, which is commercial exchanges, so the analogy is not valid. However, the issuance of the decision was postponed by a majority of votes until an alternative to commercial insurance was researched. In the tenth session of the Council of Senior Scholars, the Council reviewed what some experts had prepared as an alternative to commercial insurance, and those who agreed on the prohibition of commercial insurance decided to issue the decision. The Council also decided - except for His Eminence Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muni' - to issue a specific decision regarding the permissibility of cooperative insurance as an alternative to commercial insurance. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his Companions.
Abd al-Razzaq Afifi
Q: The Takaful Company for Islamic Insurance , affiliated with the Islamic House of Finance, presented an offer to the employees of the Muslim World League. Some of the brother employees at the League hesitated to subscribe, fearing that subscribing to this insurance might not be permissible, and they requested your Eminence to issue a fatwa on the permissibility of
subscribing according to the text of the company's offer. The Arab Company for Islamic Insurance (Iyak) also presented an offer regarding car accident insurance. We ask your Eminence to graciously clarify the Islamic perspective on subscribing to the first company's offer (of which we attach a copy for your Eminence) and also on subscribing to the other company's offer (of which we also attach a copy for your Eminence), according to the details provided in each of the two offers.
A: The insurance mentioned, according to the data attached to the letter of His Excellency the Secretary General, is commercial insurance, and it is forbidden by Islamic law; because the owners of cooperative insurance do not intend to make a profit, but rather intend to remove harm from others, and this is not present in what was mentioned. For the sake of added benefit, we quote the text of the decision of the Council of Senior Scholars on commercial and cooperative insurance: Decision No. 55 dated 4 \ 4 \ 1397H Praise be to Allah alone, and blessings and peace be upon the one after whom there is no prophet, and upon his family and companions and those who follow his path until the Day of Judgment. As for what follows: Based on what came from His Majesty King / Faisal ibn Abdulaziz
Al Saud (may Allah have mercy on him), in his letter No. 22310 dated 4 \ 11 \ 91H, addressed to the Shaykh, Head of the Departments of Scientific Research and Ifta, instructing the Council of Senior Scholars to look into the issue of insurance, and based on that, it was decided to include it in the agenda of the fourth session, and the Permanent Committee for Scientific Research and Ifta prepared a study on the matter, containing two things: First: Defining it and explaining its foundations, types, pillars, characteristics of its contract, types of its policies.. and so on, which is necessary for ruling on its permissibility or prohibition. Second: Mentioning the disagreement of researchers regarding its ruling, and the evidence of each group, with discussion. In the sixth session of the Council of Senior Scholars, held in Riyadh, starting from 4 \ 2 \ 95H, the Council listened to the following: 1 - A copy of a decision issued by the Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al ash-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of the Saudi Lands and Head of Judges (may Allah have mercy on him), No. 2 \ 575 dated 18 \ 8 \ 1388H, regarding a ruling issued by the Jeddah Court, on the subject of insurance between the company (American Life) and Badawi Hussein Salem, and a memorandum of objection by the Shaykh Ali Al-Khafif, a member
The Islamic Fiqh Academy in Egypt, regarding the ruling mentioned above. 2 - The research prepared by the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta. 3 - A decision issued by the advisors of the Council of Ministers, namely: Dr. Zafir al-Rifai, and Ibrahim al-Sa'id, number 449, dated 26 \ 11 \ 1390 AH. 4 - The concise research issued by the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Cairo, in 1392 AH, prepared by the honorable Shaykh Muhammad Ahmad Faraj al-Sanhuri, a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Egypt, which includes an explanation of the stages of researching insurance in all its types, and an explanation of the opinions of a large group of jurists of the Islamic world and economic and social experts. 5 - What is held by each of the two doctors: Mustafa Ahmad al-Zarqa, and Isa 'Abd al-Haqq, on this subject, and the Council summoned them based on Article 10 of the Regulations for the Conduct of Work of the Senior Scholars' Authority and the Permanent Committee branching from it, issued by Royal Decree number 1 \ 137, dated 8 \ 7 \ 1391 AH. After the Council listened to the above, the discussion continued regarding the evidence
of those who say it is permissible absolutely, and the evidence of those who say it is prohibited absolutely, and the basis of those who distinguish, who see the permissibility of some types of commercial insurance and the prohibition of others, and after the discussion and exchange of opinion, the Council decided by majority: that commercial insurance is forbidden; for the following evidence: First: The contract of commercial insurance is one of the financial exchange contracts containing excessive uncertainty; because the insured cannot know at the time of the contract the amount he will give or take, he may pay one or two premiums, then the disaster occurs, and he is entitled to what the insurer committed to, or the disaster may not occur at all, and he pays all the premiums and takes nothing, and likewise the insurer cannot determine what he will give and take for each contract individually, and it was reported in the authentic hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
The prohibition of selling with excessive uncertainty
النهي عن بيع الغررaccident occurs, and the insurer loses the entire insurance amount, or the risk may not occur, and yet the insurer gains the insurance premiums without a consideration, and if the ignorance in it becomes severe, it is gambling, and it falls under the general prohibition of gambling in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالأَنْصَابُ وَالأَزْلامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَby his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):
No racing except with the hoof, the hoof, or the arrow
لا سبق إلا في خف، أو حافر، أو نصلO you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لاَ تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلا أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْكُمْ- One category is that which the Shari'ah has testified to as valid; it is therefore a proof. - The second category is that which the Shari'ah has remained silent on, neither affirming nor negating it; this is an unguided public benefit, and it is a matter for the independent legal reasoning of qualified scholars. - The third category is that which the Shari'ah has testified to as invalid. Commercial insurance contracts contain ambiguity, excessive uncertainty in a contract, gambling, and usury or interest, so they fall into the category that the Shari'ah has declared invalid, because the aspect of harm in them outweighs the aspect of benefit. B - The presumption of original permissibility is not a valid proof here, because the evidence has established that commercial insurance contracts contradict the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah. Acting on the presumption of original permissibility is conditional on the absence of a text that transfers the ruling from it, and such a text has been found, so the argument based on it is invalid. C - The principle that "dire necessities permit what is prohibited" is not a valid argument here, because what Allah has permitted as ways to earn good things is many times greater than what He has prohibited. There is no dire necessity recognized by the Shari'ah that compels one to resort to what the Shari'ah has prohibited in insurance. D - It is not valid to argue from custom, for custom is not among the evidence for legislating rulings; rather, it is relied upon in applying rulings and understanding the intended meaning of
the terms of the texts and the expressions of people in their oaths, lawsuits, and reports, as well as in other matters where the intended meaning of actions and words needs to be determined. It has no effect in matters where the ruling is clear and the intended meaning is definite. The evidence has clearly indicated the prohibition of insurance, so custom has no standing in the face of that evidence. E - The argument that commercial insurance contracts are a type of profit-sharing partnership or are in its meaning is incorrect, because in a profit-sharing partnership, the capital does not leave the ownership of its owner, whereas what the insured pays leaves his ownership and enters the ownership of the company, according to the insurance regulations. Also, the capital in a profit-sharing partnership is due to the heirs of the owner upon his death, whereas in insurance, the heirs may be entitled by regulation to the insurance amount, even if their deceased relative paid only one installment, or they may be entitled to nothing if the beneficiary is designated as someone other than the insured and his heirs. Furthermore, the profit in a profit-sharing partnership is divided between the partners in equal percentages, unlike insurance, where the profit and loss of the capital belong to the company, and the insured is entitled only to the insurance amount or an unspecified amount. F - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to the pledge of loyalty among those who hold it is not
correct, for it is an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that the goal of insurance contracts is material profit mixed with excessive uncertainty in a contract, gambling, and gross ambiguity, whereas the goal of the pledge of loyalty is primarily brotherhood in Islam, mutual support and cooperation in times of hardship and ease, and in all other circumstances, and any material gain is incidental. G - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to a binding promise among those who hold it is not valid, for it is an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that a promise to lend, lend an item, or bear a loss, for example, is a matter of pure kindness, so fulfilling it is obligatory or among the noble qualities of character, whereas insurance contracts are commercial exchanges motivated by material profit, so what is excused in donations, such as ambiguity and excessive uncertainty in a contract, is not excused in them. H - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to guaranteeing the unknown or guaranteeing what is not yet due is an incorrect analogy, for it is also an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that a guarantee is a type of donation intended for pure kindness, whereas insurance is a commercial exchange contract intended primarily for material gain. If kindness results from it, it is incidental and not intended, and rulings take into account the primary purpose, not the incidental, as long as the incidental is not intended.
I - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to guaranteeing the risk of the road is not valid, for it is an analogy with a difference, as mentioned in the previous evidence. J - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to the pension system is incorrect, for it is also an analogy with a difference, because what is given from the pension is a right that the one in authority has committed to, as he is responsible for his subjects, and he has considered in its disbursement the service the employee has rendered to the nation, and has established a system that takes into account the benefit of those closest to the employee. Considering the likelihood of need in them, the pension system is not a matter of financial exchanges between the state and its employees. Accordingly, there is no similarity between it and insurance, which is a commercial financial exchange contract intended for companies to exploit the insured and profit from them through unlawful means, because what is given in the case of a pension is considered a right committed to by governments responsible for their subjects, and it is disbursed to those who have served the nation, as a reward for their kindness and cooperation with them with their bodies, minds, and by devoting much of their free time to helping the nation rise.
K - Analogizing the commercial insurance system and its contracts to the 'Aqilah system is not valid, for it is an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that the basis for the 'Aqilah bearing the blood money for accidental killing or quasi-intentional killing is the kinship and relationship between them and the killer, which calls for support, connection, cooperation, and doing good, even without compensation, whereas insurance contracts are commercial and exploitative, based on pure financial exchanges, with no connection to the emotion of kindness or the motives of doing good. L - Analogizing commercial insurance contracts to custody contracts is incorrect, for it is also an analogy with a difference. One of the differences is that safety is not the subject of the contract in either case; rather, in insurance, the subject is the installments and the insurance amount, and in custody, it is the fee and the work of the custodian. Safety is the goal and result; otherwise, the custodian would not be entitled to the fee if the item under custody were lost. M - Analogizing insurance to deposit is not valid, for it is also an analogy with a difference, because the fee in a deposit is compensation for the trustee keeping something in his possession and protecting it, whereas in insurance, what the insured pays is not compensated by work from the insurer that benefits the insured; rather, it is a guarantee of safety and peace of mind. The condition of compensation for a guarantee is not valid, but rather it invalidates the contract. If the insurance amount is made in exchange for the installments, it is a commercial exchange in which the insurance amount or its time is unknown, so it differs from a paid deposit contract.
N - Analogizing insurance to what is known as the case of the silk merchants with the weavers is not valid. The difference between them is that the analogized-to case is from cooperative insurance, which is pure cooperation, whereas the analogized case is commercial insurance, which is commercial exchanges, so the analogy is not valid. However, the issuance of the decision was postponed by a majority of votes until an alternative to commercial insurance was researched. In the tenth session of the Council of Senior Scholars, the Council reviewed what some experts had prepared as an alternative to commercial insurance, and those who agreed on the prohibition of commercial insurance decided to issue the decision. The Council also decided - except for His Eminence Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muni' - to issue a specific decision regarding the permissibility of cooperative insurance as an alternative to commercial insurance. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and his Companions.
Abd al-Razzaq Afifi
Source
www.alifta.gov.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.