What is the ruling on insurance paying the blood money to the family of the murdered person on behalf of the killer?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you, Shaykh. Regarding the blood money in the case where it is paid on behalf of the deceased driver, here, according to the prevailing third-party insurance system, if someone kills someone, the insurance company pays five thousand dinars. This amount is paid to the family of the deceased, not to the perpetrator. Is it permissible to accept this money that the insurance company pays?
The Shaykh : Before answering, what is meant by the negation here: "It is not paid to the perpetrator"? Why would it be paid to the perpetrator?
The questioner : I mean, the killer, who killed by mistake, has third-party insurance. In the case of killing, this insurance pays five thousand dinars as blood money to the deceased.
The Shaykh : You repeated the words. I understand what you are saying. If you had stopped there, and not left me standing at your statement "and it is not paid to the killer," what is the intent? Do you mean it is not paid to the killer, so that the killer pays the blood money, or what do you mean?
The questioner : Yes, so that the killer pays the blood money.
The Shaykh : I believe the question has no relation to the issue of blood money; it has a relation to the issue of insurance. Is insurance permissible or not? Of course, you know the answer is that it is not permissible because it is gambling. But I say, considering the general principles in the Shari'ah, if a person gets involved one day and insures, and has an accident—let us leave killing aside—and has an accident where his car is destroyed, the company comes to compensate him. If he is the one who benefits, the owner of the accident, is it permissible for the owner of the accident to accept a new car in exchange for his car that was destroyed? The answer: It is not permissible, except in one case, and this is very rare. And because of its rarity, and due to its rarity, insurance companies stand firm; otherwise, if it were frequent, I would not have seen any insurance company in the world at all. How is that?
It is very rare relative to the total amount that an insurance company collects from its customers and clients. This massive quantity is sufficient to compensate for all accidents that may occur, and in the worst case, they take a profit from it. Were it not for these precise calculations, insurance companies would not have been established. Is this clear up to here?
Let us return to the picture. A person bought a car and insured it for one or two years. He paid, for example, a hundred or several hundred. He had an accident, the car was destroyed, so they came and gave him a car in its place. What is this car in exchange for? Gambling. On the contrary, a person remains insured on his car for his whole life, paying a specified amount every month or every year, but he does not have any accident, like my story, praise be to Allah. It has been forty years for me and I have not had any accident. So if I were, may Allah forgive me, like those people, paying every year to this company, what did I benefit from this time? Only an illusion, perhaps something will happen to me and I will not be able to compensate, so the company compensates me. What do they compensate me for? I paid insurance for one or two years, and after twenty years they compensated me for the car. This is gambling. So if a person is insured on his car, and he has a deductible, for example, one thousand dinars, no more than one thousand dinars, they come and compensate him for the car, giving him, for example, five thousand dinars. Is it permissible for him to take it? The answer: It is not permissible. Is this clear up to here?
So in that case, it is not permissible, because the matter is formal. You said earlier that they give five thousand to the heirs of the killed person, not to the owner of the accident. It is a cycle and a gesture in which they have an interest, so that it is said that one of the benefits of insurance companies is that they participate in the issue of blood money. The truth is that instead of giving to the owner of the accident, the owner of the car, they say, "You are a policyholder with us, so this much comes out for you, you give them." No, they twist it and give directly from their own funds to whom? To the heirs of the killed person. If someone other than the insurance company, another company that has no financial relationship with the owner of the car, volunteered and said, "Do not worry, it is divine decree and destiny, and this blood money is on us," that would be an action he performs. But these companies do not pay except based on a system established on gambling, and they are winners all the time, not like gamblers. You hear about gamblers in London and elsewhere; overnight they lose millions or win millions. These insurance companies are among the most cunning forms of gambling. And the charitable lottery, call it what you will, all of this is gambling. And this falls under what they call by a different name, as we said about the People of the Book, what do they call them? Citizens. And what do they call riba? Interest. And likewise, they call gambling lotteries, they call it insurance, and so on. Despite this, you find many jurists telling you: There is nothing wrong with this, there is nothing wrong with this, and they put it under the title of social solidarity. Social solidarity is that you give to one who does not deserve a gift from you, in the context of your assistance to him. But here, he gives you more than you give him. This is a joke.
So the answer is that it is not permissible. This killer, who killed by mistake, is the one who must undertake paying the blood money. If he cannot, his 'aqlah, his 'asabah, his relatives, they undertake this. I have answered you.
The questioner : May Allah reward you, may Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.
The questioner : Regarding insurance, I think, Shaykh, for example, we are four in the council and we said each one pays ten dinars per month, and if anyone has an accident or something, we fix it from that fund.
The Shaykh : There is no objection.
The questioner : I told them that I really think there is no objection, this is cooperation. But there, in insurance, it is not in this way. They say, take them all, so the way of eating is what is forbidden.
The Shaykh : Yes, glory be to Allah.
The Shaykh : Before answering, what is meant by the negation here: "It is not paid to the perpetrator"? Why would it be paid to the perpetrator?
The questioner : I mean, the killer, who killed by mistake, has third-party insurance. In the case of killing, this insurance pays five thousand dinars as blood money to the deceased.
The Shaykh : You repeated the words. I understand what you are saying. If you had stopped there, and not left me standing at your statement "and it is not paid to the killer," what is the intent? Do you mean it is not paid to the killer, so that the killer pays the blood money, or what do you mean?
The questioner : Yes, so that the killer pays the blood money.
The Shaykh : I believe the question has no relation to the issue of blood money; it has a relation to the issue of insurance. Is insurance permissible or not? Of course, you know the answer is that it is not permissible because it is gambling. But I say, considering the general principles in the Shari'ah, if a person gets involved one day and insures, and has an accident—let us leave killing aside—and has an accident where his car is destroyed, the company comes to compensate him. If he is the one who benefits, the owner of the accident, is it permissible for the owner of the accident to accept a new car in exchange for his car that was destroyed? The answer: It is not permissible, except in one case, and this is very rare. And because of its rarity, and due to its rarity, insurance companies stand firm; otherwise, if it were frequent, I would not have seen any insurance company in the world at all. How is that?
It is very rare relative to the total amount that an insurance company collects from its customers and clients. This massive quantity is sufficient to compensate for all accidents that may occur, and in the worst case, they take a profit from it. Were it not for these precise calculations, insurance companies would not have been established. Is this clear up to here?
Let us return to the picture. A person bought a car and insured it for one or two years. He paid, for example, a hundred or several hundred. He had an accident, the car was destroyed, so they came and gave him a car in its place. What is this car in exchange for? Gambling. On the contrary, a person remains insured on his car for his whole life, paying a specified amount every month or every year, but he does not have any accident, like my story, praise be to Allah. It has been forty years for me and I have not had any accident. So if I were, may Allah forgive me, like those people, paying every year to this company, what did I benefit from this time? Only an illusion, perhaps something will happen to me and I will not be able to compensate, so the company compensates me. What do they compensate me for? I paid insurance for one or two years, and after twenty years they compensated me for the car. This is gambling. So if a person is insured on his car, and he has a deductible, for example, one thousand dinars, no more than one thousand dinars, they come and compensate him for the car, giving him, for example, five thousand dinars. Is it permissible for him to take it? The answer: It is not permissible. Is this clear up to here?
So in that case, it is not permissible, because the matter is formal. You said earlier that they give five thousand to the heirs of the killed person, not to the owner of the accident. It is a cycle and a gesture in which they have an interest, so that it is said that one of the benefits of insurance companies is that they participate in the issue of blood money. The truth is that instead of giving to the owner of the accident, the owner of the car, they say, "You are a policyholder with us, so this much comes out for you, you give them." No, they twist it and give directly from their own funds to whom? To the heirs of the killed person. If someone other than the insurance company, another company that has no financial relationship with the owner of the car, volunteered and said, "Do not worry, it is divine decree and destiny, and this blood money is on us," that would be an action he performs. But these companies do not pay except based on a system established on gambling, and they are winners all the time, not like gamblers. You hear about gamblers in London and elsewhere; overnight they lose millions or win millions. These insurance companies are among the most cunning forms of gambling. And the charitable lottery, call it what you will, all of this is gambling. And this falls under what they call by a different name, as we said about the People of the Book, what do they call them? Citizens. And what do they call riba? Interest. And likewise, they call gambling lotteries, they call it insurance, and so on. Despite this, you find many jurists telling you: There is nothing wrong with this, there is nothing wrong with this, and they put it under the title of social solidarity. Social solidarity is that you give to one who does not deserve a gift from you, in the context of your assistance to him. But here, he gives you more than you give him. This is a joke.
So the answer is that it is not permissible. This killer, who killed by mistake, is the one who must undertake paying the blood money. If he cannot, his 'aqlah, his 'asabah, his relatives, they undertake this. I have answered you.
The questioner : May Allah reward you, may Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.
The questioner : Regarding insurance, I think, Shaykh, for example, we are four in the council and we said each one pays ten dinars per month, and if anyone has an accident or something, we fix it from that fund.
The Shaykh : There is no objection.
The questioner : I told them that I really think there is no objection, this is cooperation. But there, in insurance, it is not in this way. They say, take them all, so the way of eating is what is forbidden.
The Shaykh : Yes, glory be to Allah.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.