13.5 Inshuwara (Ta'meen) - Tsarin Tattalin Arziki na Musulunci | Quran Course

13.5 Inshuwara (Ta'meen) - Tsarin Tattalin Arziki na Musulunci | Quran Course

0% read · 5 min left

Tsarin Tattalin Arziki na Musulunci Bookmark

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

13.5 Inshuwara (Ta'meen)

13.5 Insurance Ta’meen

by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani5 min readViewed 87 times

Inshoran, ko a kan rayuwa, ko kayayyaki, ko dukiya, ko kowane irinsa mai yawa, kwangila ce. Kwangila ce tsakanin kamfanin inshora da mutumin da yake yin inshorar, inda na ƙarshen yake neman kamfanin inshora ya ba shi alkawari cewa zai biya shi diyya saboda wancan (‘Ayn) da ya lalace ko ya salwanta, ko farashinsa idan kayayyaki ne ko dukiya, ko wani adadin kuɗi idan rayuwa ce da makamantanta. Wannan yana faruwa idan hatsari ya auku cikin wani ƙayyadadden lokaci, a madadin wani adadin kuɗi (premium), kamfanin inshora kuma ya amince da hakan.

Insurance whether on life, goods, property or any of its numerous types is a contract. It is a contract between the insurance company and the insuring person in which the latter asks the insurance company to give Him a promise that it will compensate Him for that (‘Ayn) which is spoilt or destroyed or for its price with regard to goods or property, or a certain sum of money with regard to life and the like. This takes place if the accident occurs within a defined period, in exchange for a certain amount of money (premium); and the (Insurance) company accepts this.

Bisa wannan tayin da karɓa, kamfanin inshora yana ɗaukar nauyin biyan diyya ga wanda ya yi inshorar, bisa wasu sharuɗɗa da bangarorin biyu suka amince da su, ko dai saboda abin da ya rasa ko farashinsa idan hatsari ya faru, ko kuma wani adadin kuɗi da suka yi yarjejeniya a kai, misali idan kayansa suka lalace, motarsa ta lalace, gidansa ya kone, dukiyarsa ta ɓace, ko ya mutu ko wani abu makamancin haka ya faru cikin wani lokaci da aka ƙayyade, za a biya shi diyya, a madadin wani adadin kuɗi (kuɗin inshora) da wanda ya yi inshorar yake biyan kamfanin a cikin wannan lokaci da aka ƙayyade.

Kalmar ‘inshora’ (insurance) an yi amfani da ita a cikin wannan batu. Inshora na iya kasancewa don amfanin mai yin inshorar da kansa, ko kuma don amfanin wasu kamar 'ya'yansa, matarsa, magada, ko duk wani mutum ko rukuni (wanda ake amfana da shi) wanda mai yin inshorar ya ware. Kiran wannan kwangila da ‘inshorar rai’, ko inshorar kaya, murya ko duk wata dukiya, manufarsa ita ce tallata wannan ciniki ga mutane. Amma gaskiyar al'amari ita ce, mai yin inshorar ba ya yin inshorar rayuwarsa. Maimakon haka, yana yin inshora ne don a biya wata takamaiman kuɗi ga 'ya'yansa, matarsa ko magadansa, ko duk wani wanda aka ware da suna daga gare shi, idan mutuwarsa ta faru. Haka nan, ba ya yin inshorar kayansa, motarsa, dukiyarsa da sauransu: maimakon haka, yana yin inshora ne domin a biya shi diyya ga abin da aka yi wa inshora ko farashinsa idan ya lalace ko ya ji rauni. Don haka, a zahiri, jingina ce (Dhamaan), ga shi ko ga wasu, don samun wata takamaiman kuɗi ko diyya idan wani abu ya faru da shi wanda ya ɗauke ransa ko ya lalata dukiyarsa, saboda haka ba jingina ba ce ga ransa ko dukiyarsa. Wannan ita ce gaskiyar inshora. Nazari mai zurfi a kanta ya nuna cewa haramtacce ne (Batil) ta fuskoki biyu.

The term ‘insurance’ has been used in this matter. Insurance could be to the benefit of the insuring person, or to the benefit of others such as his children, wife, inheritors, or any other person or group (beneficiary) assigned by the insuring person. Calling this contract ‘life insurance’, or insurance on goods, the voice or any other asset is aimed to market this transaction to the people. Otherwise, the fact of the matter is that the insuring person does not insure his life. He, rather, insures that a certain sum of money will be paid to his children, wife or inheritors or to any other named beneficiary designated by him, when his death occurs. Similarly He does not insure his goods, car, property etc: rather, He insures so as to be compensated for the insured object or its price in case it is injured or damaged. So it is, in fact, a guarantee (Dhamaan), for Him or others to obtain a certain sum of money or compensation if something occurred to Him that took his life or damaged his property, and therefore it is not a guarantee for his life or his property. This is the reality of insurance. The accurate study of it shows it to be invalid (Batil) from two angles:

Na farko: Yana da kwangila saboda yarjejeniya ce tsakanin bangarori biyu, kuma ta ƙunshi tayi da karɓa, inda tayin ya fito daga bangaren mai inshorar, karɓar kuma ya fito daga kamfanin. Saboda haka, domin wannan kwangila ta zama ingantacciya bisa ga mahangar Shari'a (wahayin Ubangiji), dole ne ta ƙunshi sharuddan kwangilar da Shari'a ta gindaya. Idan ta ƙunshi irin waɗannan sharuddan, sai ta zama ingantacciya; in ba haka ba, ba za ta inganta ba. Daga mahangar Shari'a, kwangila dole ne ta shafi wani abu ko wata amfani. Don haka idan ba ta shafi ɗaya daga cikinsu ba, to za ta zama ba ta inganta ba, domin ba za ta shafi abin da zai sa ta zama kwangila halaltacciya ba. Wannan saboda kwangila halaltacciya tana shafar ko dai wani abu a musanya da wani, kamar sayarwa, salam (siyayyar gaba), haɗin kasuwanci da makamantansu; ko kuma tana shafar wani abu ba tare da musaya ba, kamar kyauta; ko kuma tana shafar wata amfani a musanya da biya, kamar hayar abu; ko kuma wata amfani ba tare da biya ba, kamar bashi. Don haka dole ne kwangila halaltacciya ta shafi wani abu.

Firstly: It is a contract because it is an agreement between two parties, and it includes offer and acceptance, where the offer is from the insuring party and the acceptance is from the company. So in order that this contract be legitimately valid from the Shar’a (divine revelation) point of view, it must contain the Shar’a conditions of the contract. If it contains such conditions it becomes valid, otherwise not. From the Shar’a point of view, the contract should apply upon an object or a benefit. So if it did not apply upon either a thing or benefit it would be invalid, because it would not apply upon a matter that makes it a legitimate contract. This is so because the legitimate contract applies either to a thing in exchange for something else as is the case with selling, forward buying/advance sale (Salam), company and the like; or it applies upon a thing without an exchange like the gift; or it applies upon a benefit in exchange for compensation like leasing; or to a benefit without compensation like lending. Thus the legitimate contract must apply upon something.

Al-kafala shi ne inda mai kafala (Dhaamin) ya haɗa nauyinsa (Dhimma) da nauyin wanda aka yi kafalar dominsa (Madhmoon ‘Anhu) wajen ɗaukar wani haƙƙi (Haqq) a kansa. Don haka dole ne ya haɗa nauyin mutum da nauyin wani; sannan dole ne a sami mai kafala, wanda aka yi kafalar dominsa, da wanda aka yi wa kafalar (Madhmoon Lahu). Saboda haka kafala ita ce wajibcin ɗaukar haƙƙi (Iltizam) a matsayin nauyi a kan mutum ba tare da diyya ba. Sharaɗin ingancin kafala shi ne ya kasance dangane da haƙƙin kuɗi wanda ya riga ya wajaba (a biya) ko kuma wanda zai zama wajibi nan gaba. Don haka idan alkawarin bai kasance dangane da haƙƙin da ya wajaba ko wanda zai zama wajibi ba, to kafalar ba ta inganta ba. Wannan ya faru ne saboda kafala haɗa nauyin mutum da nauyin wani ne dangane da cika shi; don haka idan babu haƙƙi a kan nauyin wanda aka yi kafalar dominsa, to babu haɗuwar nauyi. Wannan a bayyane yake a cikin haƙƙin da ya wajaba.

The guarantee is where the guarantor (Dhaamin) joins his responsibility (Dhimma) to the responsibility of the person guaranteed for (Madhmoon ‘Anhu) in committing oneself to a certain right (Haqq). So it must include joining one’s responsibility to another’s responsibility; also there must be a guarantor, a person guaranteed for and a person guaranteed (Madhmoon Lahu). So the guarantee is the mandatory commitment (Iltizam) of a right as one’s responsibility without compensation. A condition of the guarantee’s validity is that it should be with regard to a financial right which is already due (for repayment) or which will become due. So if the pledge was not in respect of a due right or a right that will become due, the guarantee is not valid. This is so because a guarantee is the joining of one’s responsibility to another’s responsibility in relation to its fulfilment, so if there is no right in the responsibility of the person guaranteed for, then there is no joining of responsibilities. This is quite clear in the due right.

Game da haƙƙin da zai zama wajibi daga baya, kamar misali idan mutum ya ce wa mace: ‘Ki auri wannan mutumin, ni kuma na ɗauki nauyin sadakinki’, to mai ɗaukar nauyi ya haɗa nauyinsa da nauyin wanda aka ɗauka wa nauyi, ta yadda mai ɗaukar nauyi zai ɗauki nauyi kamar wanda aka ɗauka wa, kuma abin da aka tabbatar a nauyin wanda aka ɗauka wa haka ma za a tabbatar a nauyin mai ɗaukar nauyi. Amma idan babu haƙƙin da yake wajibi a kan kowa, ko haƙƙin da zai zama wajibi daga baya, to babu ma'ana ga ɗaukar nauyin, domin babu haɗuwar nauyi; irin wannan ɗaukar nauyi saboda haka ba shi da inganci. Don haka, idan haƙƙin bai kasance wajibi a wuyan wanda aka ɗauka wa nauyi ba, ko kuma ba zai zama wajibi daga baya ba, to ɗaukar nauyin ba shi da inganci. Wannan saboda sharaɗi ne cewa wanda aka ɗauka wa nauyi yana da mai ɗaukar nauyi a kan abu idan ya lalace ko ya salwanta, ko kuma yana da bashi, ko dai a zahiri a inda haƙƙin ya kasance wajibi kuma an tabbatar cewa nauyinsa ne, ko kuma yana iya zama mai nauyi a inda haƙƙin zai zama wajibi daga baya. Saboda haka, idan wanda aka ɗauka wa nauyi bai da nauyi, ko a yanzu ko a nan gaba, to ɗaukar nauyin ba shi da inganci, domin abin da bai wajaba a kan wanda aka ɗauka wa nauyi ba, ba ya wajaba a kan mai ɗaukar nauyi. Misali, game da mutumin da ya karɓi tufafi daga wani (misali mai wanki), sai wani ya ce wa wani mutum: ‘Ka aika masa tufafinka, ni kuma zan ɗauki nauyinsu.’ Idan tufafin suka lalace, shin mai ɗaukar nauyi zai biya farashin tufafin a madadin wanda ya karɓe su? Amsar ita ce kamar haka: Idan tufafin sun lalace ba tare da aikinsa ko sakacinsa ba, to mai ɗaukar nauyi ba ya ɗaukar wani nauyi, domin tun farko wanda aka ɗauka wa nauyi (mai wankin) ba shi da alhakin lalacewar. Tun da ba shi da alhakin lalacewar ba, to balle mai ɗaukar nauyi. Saboda haka, ya zama wajibi a sami haƙƙi ga wanda ake garantin sa a wurin wasu mutane, ko kuma ya zama wajibi daga baya, domin garantin ya inganta. Don haka, kafa haƙƙi ga wanda ake garantin sa, ko dai nan take ko kuma a nan gaba, sharadi ne na ingancin garantin. Sai dai, ba sharadi ba ne a bayyana sunan wanda ake garantin sa a kansa (Madhmoon ‘Anhu) ko kuma wanda ake garantin ga shi (Madhmoon Lahu); don haka garantin zai inganta ko da waɗannan ba a san su ba (watau ba a ambaci sunansu ba). Saboda haka, idan mutum ya ce wa wani: ‘Ka ba wa mai wanki tufafinka,’ sai ɗayan ya ce: ‘Ina tsoron kada Ya lalata su.’ Sai na farko ya amsa: ‘Ka ba wa mai wanki tufafinka, kuma ina garantin su idan sun lalace,’ ba tare da ya ƙayyade mai wankin ba, garantin yana da inganci. Don haka idan ya ba su ga mai wanki kuma suka lalace, mai garantin zai ɗauki alhakin, koda kuwa ba a ambaci sunan wanda ake garantin sa ba. Haka nan, idan ya ce: ‘So da kaza mai wanki ne nagari, kuma ina garantin Shi daga duk wata lalacewa ga duk wanda ya ba Shi tufafinsa,’ garantin yana da inganci ko da ba a san wanda ake garantin ga shi ba.

As for the right which will become due later, as for example when a man says to a woman: ‘Marry this person and I guarantee your dowry’, the guarantor has joined his responsibility to the responsibility of the person guaranteed for such that the guarantor will be bound like the guaranteed for, and that which is proved in the responsibility of the guaranteed for is similarly proved in the guarantor’s responsibility.Whereas, if there is no right due upon anyone or a right that will become due later, then there is no meaning to the guarantee as there is no joining of responsibilities; such a guarantee therefore is not valid. Therefore, if the right was not due upon the neck of the person guaranteed for or it does not become due later, the guarantee is not valid. This is because it is a condition that the person guaranteed for has a guarantor for an object if it is damaged or destroyed, or He is responsible for a debt whether the matter is actual in the case where the right was due and proved to be his responsibility or He is potentially responsible in the case where the right will become due later. So, if the person guaranteed for was not responsible, whether immediately or potentially, the guarantee is invalid because whatever is not due upon the person guaranteed for is not due upon the guarantor. So, for example, in the case of a person who receives clothes from (e.g. cleaner), and somebody told another person: ‘Send your clothes to Him and I will guarantee them.’ If the clothes were then damaged, would the guarantor be responsible for the price of the clothes on behalf of the person who received them? The answer is as follows: If the clothes were damaged without his (i.e. the cleaner’s) action or negligence, then the guarantor guarantees nothing because, in the first place, the person guaranteed for (the cleaner) bears no responsibility for the damage. Since the principal (Aseel) is not liable for the damage then, with greater reason, neither is the guarantor. Therefore, there should be a right due to the person guaranteed for from other people, or it will become due later, in order that the guarantee becomes valid. So establishing the right for the person guaranteed for, whether immediately or potentially, is a condition for the validity of the guarantee. However, it is not a condition that the person guaranteed for (Madhmoon ‘Anhu) nor the guaranteed person (Madhmoon Lahu) be named; thus the guarantee will be valid if these were unknown (i.e. not named). So if a person said to another: ‘Give your clothes to a cleaner,’ and the latter said: ‘I am afraid that He will damage them.’ Then the former responded: ‘Give your clothes to a cleaner and I guarantee them if they are damaged’ without specifying the cleaner, the guarantee is valid. So if He gave them to a cleaner and they were damaged, the guarantor would be responsible even if the person guaranteed for was not named. Similarly, if He said: ‘so and so is a good cleaner, and I guarantee Him against any damage for any person who gives to Him his clothes,’ the guarantee is valid though the guaranteed person is unknown.

Yana bayyana a cikin dalilan garantin cewa akwai haɗa nauyin mutum da nauyin wani, kuma garantin haƙƙi ne da ya wajaba a kan dhimma. Haka kuma a bayyane yake cewa akwai mai garanti, wanda aka yi wa garanti, da mai bin bashi wanda aka ba da garantin sa. Haka kuma a bayyane yake cewa ana bayar da shi ba tare da diyya ba, kuma wanda aka yi wa garanti da mai bin bashi na iya zama ba a san su ba. Dalilin hakan shi ne abin da Abu Dawud ya ruwaito daga Jabir, wanda ya ce: "Manzon Allah ﷺ ba ya yin sallah a kan duk wanda ya mutu yana da bashi. Aka kawo wani mamaci. Ya ce: 'Shin yana da bashi?' Suka ce: 'Eh, dinari biyu.' Ya ce: 'Ku yi wa abokinku sallah.' Abu Qatadah al-Ansari ya ce: 'Ya Manzon Allah, su (bashin) suna kaina.' Sai Manzon Allah ﷺ ya yi masa sallah. Lokacin da Allah (SWT) ya buɗe ƙasashe (watau cin nasara a jihadi) ga Manzon Allah ﷺ, sai ya ce: 'Ni ne na fi dacewa da (in ɗauki nauyin) kowane mumini fiye da ransa. Saboda haka duk wanda ya bar bashi, to yana kaina in biya, kuma duk wanda ya bar dukiya, ta gadonsa ne.'" A cikin wannan hadisi a bayyane yake cewa Abu Qatadah ya haɗa nauyinsa da nauyin mamacin wajen cika haƙƙin kuɗi da ya wajaba a kan mai bashi. Haka kuma a cikin hadisin akwai mai garanti, wanda aka yi wa garanti, da mai bin bashi wanda aka ba da garantin sa; kuma garantin da kowannensu (mamacin da mai garanti) ya yi na biya haƙƙi ne da ya wajaba a kan dhimmar mamacin, kuma an bayar da shi ba tare da diyya ba. Haka kuma a bayyane yake cewa wanda aka yi wa garanti watau mamacin, da mai bin bashi watau mai bashin, ba a san su ba a lokacin garantin. Don haka hadisin ya ƙunshi sharuɗɗan ingancin garanti, da sharuɗɗan kafuwarsa (In'iqad).

It is clear in the evidence of the guarantee that there is a joining of one’s responsibility to another’s responsibility, and it is a guarantee of a right due upon the responsibility (Dhimma). It is also clear that there is a guarantor, a person guaranteed for and a guaranteed person. It is also clear that it is given without compensation, and that the person guaranteed for and the guaranteed person could be unknown. The evidence for that is what Abu Dawud narrated from Jabir who said: “The Prophet (pbuh) would not pray over any person who died while indebted. A dead man was brought. He (pbuh) said: ‘Is He indebted?’ They said: ‘Yes, two dinars.’ He said: ‘Pray for your companion.’ Abu Qatadah al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, they are upon me.’ The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) then prayed over him. When Allah (swt) opened the land (i.e. conquests in Jihad) for the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), He (pbuh) said: ‘I am more entitled to (i.e. responsible for) every believer than his own soul. So if anyone leaves a debt it is upon me to repay, and whoever leaves wealth it is for his inheritors.”’ It is clear in this Hadith that Abu Qatadah had joined his responsibility to the responsibility of the dead man in committing a financial right due upon the debtor. And it is clear in the Hadith that the guarantee includes a guarantor, a person guaranteed for and a guaranteed person; and the guarantee which each of them (the dead person and the guarantor) guaranteed to pay was a right due upon the responsibility (of the deceased) and it was given without compensation. It is also clear that the person guaranteed for i.e. the deceased and the guaranteed person i.e. the owner of the debt were unknown at the time of the guarantee. So the Hadith contained the conditions for the validity of a guarantee, and the conditions for its contracting (In’iqad).

هذا هو الضمان من حيث الشرع. فإذا طبّقنا عليه عقد التأمين الذي هو لا شك ضمان، وجدنا أن التأمين خالٍ من جميع الشروط التي بيّنتها الشريعة في صحة الضمان وانعقاده. ففي التأمين لا يوجد ضمّ مسؤولية إلى مسؤولية بأي وجه من الوجوه. فشركة التأمين لم تضم مسؤوليتها إلى مسؤولية غيرها لتلتزم بدفع المال المستحق للشخص المؤمِّن، فلا يوجد ضمان، ولذلك يكون التأمين باطلاً. وفي التأمين لا يوجد حق مالي مستحق للشخص المؤمِّن على أحد تكون شركة التأمين قد التزمت بدفعه. وذلك لأن الشخص المؤمِّن لا يملك حقاً مالياً على أحد ضمنته الشركة، فالتأمين خالٍ من الحق المالي. ولذلك لم تلتزم شركة التأمين بأي حق مالي حتى يصح اعتباره ضماناً في الشرع. وعلاوة على ذلك، فإن ما التزمت الشركة بدفعه من تعويض أو ثمن أو مال لم يكن حقاً مستحقاً للشخص المضمون على الناس الآخرين وقت إبرام عقد التأمين، لا حالاً ولا مآلاً، حتى يصح أن يكون ضماناً. فالشركة قد ضمنت ما ليس مستحقاً لا حالاً ولا مآلاً، فيبطل الضمان، ويترتب على ذلك بطلان التأمين. ثم إن التأمين لا يشتمل على مضمون له، لأن شركة التأمين لم تضمن لأحد حقاً مستحقاً عليه حتى يسمى ضماناً، فخلا عقد التأمين من ركن أساسي يجب توفره في نظر الشرع، وهو وجود المضمون له. ذلك أنه يشترط في الضمان أن يوجد فيه ضامن، ومضمون له، ومضمون عنه. وبما أن عقد التأمين لم يتضمن مضموناً له، فهو باطل. Bugu da ƙari, idan kamfanin inshora ya yi alkawarin biyan diyya ga abin da aka lalata ko kuma biyan farashinsa idan ya lalace, ko kuma biyan kuɗi idan wani hatsari ya faru, to ya yi alkawarin wannan biyan ne a madadin wani adadin kuɗi (ko kuma kuɗin inshora, wato premium). Don haka wannan alkawari ne (Iltizam) a madadin diyya, kuma hakan ba a halatta ba, domin ɗaya daga cikin sharuddan garantin da ya inganta shi ne cewa ba ya tare da diyya. Saboda haka kasancewar diyya (kuɗin inshora ga kamfanin inshora) yana ɓata shi.

This is the guarantee in view of the Shar’a. By applying the pledge of insurance which is definitely a guarantee, upon it, we find that insurance is devoid of all the conditions which the Shari’ah enunciated regarding the validity and contracting of the guarantee. In insurance, there is no joining of a responsibility to a responsibility in any way. The insurance company did not join its responsibility to the responsibility of another to commit itself in paying money due to the insuring person so there is no guarantee; thus the insurance is void. In insurance, there is no financial right due to the insuring person from anyone that the insurance company committed itself to pay. This is because the insuring person has no financial right against anyone that the company guaranteed, so insurance is devoid of the financial right. So the insurance company did not commit itself to any financial right so as to validate it as a guarantee in Shar’a. Moreover, what the company was committed to pay of compensation, price or money, was not a right due to the guaranteed person from other people at the time of concluding the insurance contract, whether immediately or potentially, so as to validate it as a guarantee. So the insurance company has guaranteed that which is not due either immediately or potentially, making the guarantee invalid and the insurance consequently becomes void. Furthermore, insurance does not include a person guaranteed for, because the insurance company did not guarantee for anyone a right due upon Him so as to be called a guarantee; thus the insurance contract was devoid of an essential element required to exist in the view of Shar’a, namely the presence of the person guaranteed for. This is because it is essential that there should exist in the guarantee, a guarantor, a person guaranteed for, and a guaranteed person. Since the insurance contract did not include a person guaranteed for, it is void. Additionally, when the insurance company pledged to compensate for the object or pay its price if it was damaged, or pay money in case an accident occurred, it pledged to make this payment in return for a certain amount of money (or premium). So this is a commitment (Iltizam) in return for compensation which is not allowed, as one of the conditions for the valid guarantee is that it is without compensation. Thus the presence of compensation (premium for the insurance company) invalidates it.