Bima, iwe ni bima ya maisha, ya mali, ya bidhaa au ya aina yoyote kati ya aina zake nyingi, ni mkataba. Ni mkataba baina ya kampuni ya bima na mtu anayekatiwa bima, ambapo huyu wa mwisho anaiomba kampuni ya bima impe ahadi kwamba itamfidia kwa kile ('Ayn) kilichoharibika au kuangamia, au kwa thamani yake kuhusu bidhaa au mali, au kiasi fulani cha fedha kuhusu maisha na mambo yanayofanana na hayo. Hili hutokea iwapo ajali itatokea ndani ya kipindi kilichowekwa, kwa malipo ya kiasi fulani cha fedha (ada ya bima); na kampuni ya bima hukubali jambo hili.

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.

Kwa msingi wa ijabu na kukubali huku, kampuni ya bima inajitwika jukumu la kumlipa mtu aliyekatiwa bima, kwa masharti fulani yaliyokubaliwa na pande mbili, ama kwa kile alichopoteza au thamani yake pale ajali inapotokea, au kwa kiasi fulani cha fedha walichokubaliana, kwa mfano endapo bidhaa zake zitaharibiwa, gari lake likiharibika, nyumba yake ikiungua kwa moto, mali yake ikiibiwa, au kifo chake au tukio kama hilo kutokea ndani ya kipindi fulani cha muda, atalipwa fidia, badala ya kiasi fulani cha fedha (malipo ya bima) ambacho mtu aliyekatiwa bima analipa kwa kampuni katika kipindi hicho kilichowekwa.

Based upon this offer and acceptance, the insurance company undertakes to compensate the insuring person, within certain conditions approved by the two sides, either for the thing which He loses or its price when an accident occurs, or a sum of money which they have agreed upon e.g. in the event of his goods being destroyed, his car being damaged, his house being burnt down, his property being stolen, Him dying or the like occurred during a certain period of time, He will be compensated, in exchange for a certain amount of money (premium) which the insuring person pays to the company during that defined period of time.

Inaonekana kutokana na yaliyotangulia kwamba bima ni makubaliano baina ya kampuni ya bima na mtu anayekatiwa bima kuhusu aina ya bima na masharti yake, kwa hiyo ni mkataba. Hata hivyo, kwa mujibu wa mkataba huu uliofungwa baina ya pande mbili, yaani makubaliano hayo, kampuni inajitolea kufidia au kulipa kiasi fulani cha fedha ndani ya masharti yaliyokubaliwa. Hivyo, ikitokea ajali kwa mtu anayekatiwa bima ambayo masharti ya mkataba yanamhusu, basi kampuni inalazimika kumfidia kwa kitu kilichoharibika au bei yake kulingana na bei ya soko wakati wa ajali. Kampuni ina uhuru wa kulipa bei hiyo au kufidia hasara kwa mtu anayekatiwa bima au kwa wengine. Fidia hii inakuwa haki ya mtu anayekatiwa bima, iliyo katika dhima ya kampuni, mara tu jambo lililotajwa katika mkataba linapotokea, mradi kampuni ya bima iwe imeridhika kwamba anastahiki, au mahakama ikitoa hukumu ya namna hiyo.

It appears from the above that insurance is an agreement between the insurance company and the insuring person over the type of insurance and its conditions, so it is a contract. However, according to this contract which was concluded between the two sides. i.e. the agreement . the company gives an undertaking to compensate or to pay a certain amount of money within the agreed conditions. So if an accident occurred to the insuring person upon which the terms of the contract apply, then the company becomes obliged to compensate Him for the destroyed thing or its price according to the market price at the time of the accident. The company is free to pay the price or to compensate for the loss to the insuring person or to others. This compensation becomes a right due to the insuring person, in the company’s responsibility (Dhimma) once the matter mentioned in the contract has occurred, provided the insurance company is convinced that He deserves it or if the court gave such a verdict.

Neno ‘bima’ limetumika katika suala hili. Bima inaweza kuwa kwa manufaa ya mtu anayekata bima, au kwa manufaa ya wengine kama watoto wake, mke wake, warithi, au mtu yeyote au kikundi chochote (mnufaika) aliyeteuliwa na mtu anayekata bima. Kuita mkataba huu ‘bima ya maisha’, au bima ya bidhaa, sauti au mali nyingine yoyote kunalenga kuuza muamala huu kwa watu. Vinginevyo, ukweli ni kwamba mtu anayekata bima hakatii bima maisha yake. Badala yake, anakata bima ili kiasi fulani cha fedha kilipwe kwa watoto wake, mke wake au warithi wake, au kwa mnufaika mwingine yeyote aliyemteua, endapo kifo chake kitatokea. Vilevile, hakatii bima bidhaa zake, gari lake, mali yake n.k.; badala yake, anakata bima ili kulipwa fidia ya kitu kilichokatiwa bima au thamani yake endapo kitaharibika au kuharibiwa. Kwa hiyo, kwa kweli, ni dhamana (Dhamaan) kwake yeye au kwa wengine kupata kiasi fulani cha fedha au fidia endapo kitu kitamtokea kikasababisha kifo chake au kuharibu mali yake, na hivyo si dhamana ya maisha yake wala mali yake. Huu ndio ukweli wa bima. Uchunguzi sahihi wa jambo hilo unaonyesha kuwa ni batili (Batil) kwa pande mbili.

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:

Kwanza: Ni mkataba kwa sababu ni makubaliano baina ya pande mbili, na unajumuisha ijabu na kabul (pendekezo na kukubali), ambapo pendekezo linatoka kwa upande wa bima na kukubali kunatoka kwa kampuni. Kwa hiyo, ili mkataba huu uwe halali kisheria kwa mtazamo wa Shari'a (ufunuo wa kiungu), lazima uwe na masharti ya Shari'a ya mkataba. Ukiwa na masharti hayo unakuwa halali, vinginevyo hauwi halali. Kwa mtazamo wa Shari'a, mkataba unapaswa kuhusu kitu au manufaa. Hivyo, kama haukuhusu kitu wala manufaa, utakuwa batili, kwa sababu hautahusu jambo linalouifanya kuwa mkataba halali. Hii ni kwa sababu mkataba halali unahusu either kitu kwa kubadilishana na kitu kingine, kama ilivyo katika kuuza, biashara ya mkopo wa mbele (Salam), ushirika na mengineyo; au unahusu kitu bila kubadilishana, kama zawadi; au unahusu manufaa kwa malipo, kama kukodisha; au manufaa bila malipo, kama kukopesha. Hivyo basi, mkataba halali lazima uhusu kitu fulani.

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.

Bima si mkataba unaohusu kitu halisi wala manufaa; bali ni mkataba unaohusu dhamana, yaani ahadi ya kuwajibika (Dhamana). Dhamana hiyo haiwakilishi kitu kwa sababu haiwezi kutumiwa wala kufaidiwa kwa kuitumia; wala haiwakilishi manufaa, kwa sababu hakuna manufaa yanayotokana na dhamana yenyewe, iwe kwa kukodisha au kwa kukopesha. Kupata fedha kwa msingi wa dhamana hii hakuchukuliwi kuwa ni manufaa yake; bali ni matokeo ya muamala. Kwa hiyo, mkataba wa bima hauchukuliwi kuwa unahusu kitu wala manufaa, na haujumuishi masharti yote yanayohitajika na Shari'a katika mkataba halali; hivyo ni batili.

The insurance is not a contract that applies upon an object or a benefit; rather it is a contract that applies upon a pledge i.e. guarantee (Dhamana). The pledge or the guarantee does not represent an object for it cannot be consumed nor its benefit be used; nor does it represent a benefit, because no benefit derives from that guarantee itself either by leasing or by lending. As for obtaining money based upon this guarantee, this is not considered its benefit; rather it is a result of a transaction. Therefore, the insurance contract is not considered to apply upon a thing or a benefit, and it does not include all of the conditions required by the Shar’a in a legitimate contract, so it is void.

Pili: Kampuni inatoa ahadi kwa mtu aliyekatiwa bima ndani ya masharti fulani, hivyo ni aina ya dhamana (Dhamaan). Kwa hiyo, masharti yanayohitajika na Shar’a kuhusiana na dhamana yanapaswa kutumika kwenye mkataba wa bima ili uchukuliwe kuwa dhamana halali. Ikiwa ungekuwa na masharti haya, ungekuwa halali, vinginevyo haungekuwa halali. Tukirejea dhamana, tunakuta:

Secondly: The company gives a pledge to the insuring person within certain conditions, so it is a form of guarantee (Dhamaan). Accordingly, the conditions required by Shar’a in relation to the guarantee have to be applied to the insurance contract so as to be considered a legitimate guarantee. If it contained these conditions it would be legitimate, otherwise not. Referring to the guarantee we find:

Dhamana ni pale ambapo mdhamini (Dhaamin) anaunganisha wajibu wake (Dhimma) na wajibu wa mtu anayedhaminiwa (Madhmoon ‘Anhu) katika kujifunga na haki fulani (Haqq). Kwa hiyo lazima ihusishe kuunganisha wajibu wa mtu mmoja na wajibu wa mwingine; pia lazima kuwepo na mdhamini, mtu anayedhaminiwa na mtu anayedhaminiwa kwake (Madhmoon Lahu). Kwa hiyo dhamana ni kujifunga kwa lazima (Iltizam) kwa haki kama wajibu wa mtu, bila malipo ya fidia. Sharti la dhamana kuwa sahihi ni kwamba iwe kuhusu haki ya kifedha ambayo tayari imestahili kulipwa au ambayo itastahili kulipwa baadaye. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa dhamana haikuhusu haki iliyostahili au haki itakayostahili kulipwa, dhamana hiyo si sahihi. Hii ni kwa sababu dhamana ni kuunganisha wajibu wa mtu na wajibu wa mwingine kuhusu utekelezaji wake; hivyo, ikiwa hakuna haki katika wajibu wa mtu anayedhaminiwa, basi hakuna kuunganisha wajibu. Jambo hili liko wazi kabisa katika haki iliyostahili.

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.

Kuhusu haki itakayokuwa ya lazima baadaye, kama mfano mtu anapomwambia mwanamke: ‘Mwoe mtu huyu nami nadhamini mahari yako’, dhamini ameunganisha wajibu wake na wajibu wa mtu aliyedhaminiwa, kwa namna ambayo dhamini atafungwa kama vile aliyedhaminiwa, na kile kinachothibitika katika wajibu wa aliyedhaminiwa kinathibitika vivyo hivyo katika wajibu wa dhamini. Lakini, ikiwa hakuna haki inayomlazimu yeyote, wala haki itakayokuwa ya lazima baadaye, basi udhamini hauna maana kwa kuwa hakuna kuunganishwa kwa wajibu; udhamini wa namna hiyo kwa hiyo si sahihi. Hivyo, ikiwa haki haikuwa juu ya shingo ya aliyedhaminiwa, au haitakuwa ya lazima baadaye, udhamini si sahihi. Hii ni kwa sababu ni sharti kwamba aliyedhaminiwa awe na dhamini kwa kitu chochote kikiharibika au kiki­tupwa, au awe na deni, iwe jambo hilo ni la hakika katika hali ambapo haki ilikuwa ya lazima na ikathibitika kuwa wajibu wake, au awe na uwezekano wa kuwajibika katika hali ambapo haki itakuwa ya lazima baadaye. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa aliyedhaminiwa hakuwa na wajibu, iwe papo hapo au kwa uwezekano, udhamini ni batili, kwa sababu kisicho lazima kwa aliyedhaminiwa hakilazimu pia dhamini. Kwa mfano, katika kesi ya mtu anayepokea nguo kutoka (mfano, mfuaji), na mtu fulani akamwambia mwingine: ‘Mtumie nguo zako nami nitazidhamini.’ Kama nguo hizo zikaharibika, je, dhamini atawajibika kulipa thamani ya nguo kwa niaba ya aliyezipokea? Jibu ni kama ifuatavyo: Ikiwa nguo ziliharibika bila kitendo chake (yaani cha mfuaji) wala uzembe wake, basi dhamini hadhamini chochote, kwa sababu kwanza aliyedhaminiwa (mfuaji) hana wajibu wowote kwa uharibifu huo. Kwa kuwa mdhaminiwa (Aseel) hana dhima kwa uharibifu huo, basi kwa sababu nzito zaidi dhamini naye hana dhima. Kwa hiyo, ni lazima kuwepo na haki kwa mtu anayedhaminiwa (Madhmoon ‘Anhu) inayotolewa na watu wengine, au itakuwa ya lazima baadaye, ili dhamana iwe sahihi. Kwa hiyo kuanzisha haki kwa mtu anayedhaminiwa, iwe ya papo hapo au ya baadaye, ni sharti la kusihi kwa dhamana. Hata hivyo, si sharti kwamba mtu anayedhaminiwa (Madhmoon ‘Anhu) wala mtu anayedhaminiwa kwake (Madhmoon Lahu) watajwe majina; hivyo dhamana itakuwa sahihi hata kama hawa hawakujulikana (yaani hawakutajwa majina). Ikiwa mtu alimwambia mwingine: ‘Mpe nguo zako mfuaji,’ na yule mwingine akasema: ‘Nina hofu kwamba ataziharibu,’ kisha yule wa kwanza akajibu: ‘Mpe nguo zako mfuaji, nami nazidhamini iwapo zitaharibika’ bila kumtaja mfuaji, dhamana hiyo ni sahihi. Kwa hiyo, akizipeleka kwa mfuaji na zikaharibika, mdhamini atawajibika hata kama mtu anayedhaminiwa hakutajwa jina. Vilevile, akisema: ‘Fulani ni mfuaji mzuri, nami namdhamini dhidi ya uharibifu wowote kwa mtu yeyote atakayempa nguo zake,’ dhamana hiyo ni sahihi ingawa mtu anayedhaminiwa hajulikani.

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.

Ni wazi katika ushahidi wa dhamana kwamba kuna kuunganisha wajibu wa mtu na wajibu wa mwingine, na ni dhamana ya haki inayostahiki juu ya wajibu (Dhimma). Pia ni wazi kwamba kuna mdhamini, mtu anayedhaminiwa na mtu anayedhaminiwa. Pia ni wazi kwamba hutolewa bila malipo, na kwamba mtu anayedhaminiwa na mtu anayedhaminiwa wanaweza kuwa hawajulikani. Ushahidi wa hayo ni kile alichosimulia Abu Dawud kutoka kwa Jabir, aliyesema: "Mtume ﷺ hakuwa akiswali juu ya mtu yeyote aliyefariki akiwa na deni. Mtu mmoja aliyekufa alileta. Akasema: 'Je, yeye ana deni?' Wakasema: 'Ndiyo, dinari mbili.' Akasema: 'Swalini kwa ajili ya mwenzenu.' Abu Qatadah al-Ansari akasema: 'Ee Mjumbe wa Allah, mimi ndiye ninayebeba deni hilo.' Kisha Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akamswalia. Allah (SWT) alipofungua ardhi (yaani ushindi katika Jihadi) kwa Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, akasema: 'Mimi ninastahili zaidi (yaani kuwajibika zaidi) kwa kila muumini kuliko nafsi yake mwenyewe. Basi yeyote atakayeacha deni, ni juu yangu kulilipa, na yeyote atakayeacha mali, ni kwa warithi wake.'" Katika Hadithi hii ni wazi kwamba Abu Qatadah aliunganisha wajibu wake na wajibu wa mtu aliyekufa katika kutekeleza haki ya kifedha inayostahiki juu ya mdaiwa. Pia ni wazi katika Hadithi kwamba dhamana inajumuisha mdhamini, mtu anayedhaminiwa na mtu anayedhaminiwa; na dhamana ambayo kila mmoja wao (aliyekufa na mdhamini) alidhamini kulipa ilikuwa haki inayostahiki juu ya wajibu (wa marehemu) na ilitolewa bila malipo. Pia ni wazi kwamba mtu anayedhaminiwa, yaani marehemu, na mtu anayedhaminiwa, yaani mwenye deni, hawakujulikana wakati wa dhamana. Kwa hiyo Hadithi hii ilikuwa na masharti ya uhalali wa dhamana, na masharti ya kuanzishwa kwake (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).

Hii ni dhamana kwa mujibu wa Shari'ah. Tukitumia ahadi ya bima, ambayo kwa hakika ni dhamana, juu yake tunaona kwamba bima haina masharti yote ambayo Shari'ah imeyaweka kuhusu uhalali na kufungwa kwa dhamana. Katika bima, hakuna kuunganisha wajibu na wajibu kwa namna yoyote. Kampuni ya bima haikuunganisha wajibu wake na wajibu wa mtu mwingine ili kujifunga kulipa fedha zinazostahili kwa mtu aliyekatiwa bima, kwa hiyo hakuna dhamana; hivyo bima ni batili. Katika bima, hakuna haki ya kifedha inayostahili kwa mtu aliyekatiwa bima kutoka kwa mtu yeyote ambaye kampuni ya bima imejifunga kulipa. Hii ni kwa sababu mtu aliyekatiwa bima hana haki ya kifedha dhidi ya mtu yeyote ambaye kampuni ilidhamini, kwa hiyo bima haina haki ya kifedha. Kampuni ya bima haikujifunga kwa haki yoyote ya kifedha ili kuihalalisha kama dhamana katika Shari'ah. Zaidi ya hayo, kile ambacho kampuni ilijifunga kulipa, iwe ni fidia, bei au fedha, hakikuwa haki inayostahili kwa mtu aliyedhaminiwa kutoka kwa watu wengine wakati wa kuhitimisha mkataba wa bima, iwe mara moja au kwa uwezekano, ili kuihalalisha kama dhamana. Kwa hiyo kampuni ya bima imedhamini kitu ambacho hakistahili, wala mara moja wala kwa uwezekano, jambo linalofanya dhamana kuwa batili na bima kwa sababu hiyo kuwa batili. Aidha, bima haijumuishi mtu aliyedhaminiwa kwa ajili yake, kwa sababu kampuni ya bima haikudhamini kwa ajili ya mtu yeyote haki inayostahili juu yake ili iitwe dhamana; hivyo mkataba wa bima haukuwa na sharti muhimu linalotakiwa kuwepo kwa mujibu wa Shari'ah, yaani kuwepo kwa mtu aliyedhaminiwa kwa ajili yake. Hii ni kwa sababu ni lazima katika dhamana kuwepo na mdhamini, mtu aliyedhaminiwa kwa ajili yake, na mtu aliyedhaminiwa. Kwa kuwa mkataba wa bima haukujumuisha mtu aliyedhaminiwa kwa ajili yake, ni batili. Zaidi ya hayo, pale kampuni ya bima inapoahidi kulipa fidia kwa kitu au kulipa thamani yake endapo kitaharibika, au kulipa fedha endapo ajali itatokea, inaahidi kufanya malipo haya kwa malipo fulani ya fedha (au ada ya bima). Kwa hiyo hii ni ahadi (iltizām) kwa malipo ya fidia, jambo ambalo hairuhusiwi, kwani mojawapo ya masharti ya dhamana sahihi ni kwamba iwe bila malipo ya fidia. Hivyo kuwepo kwa malipo (ada ya bima kwa kampuni ya bima) kunaifanya batili.

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.

Hii inadhihirisha kwa kiwango gani mkataba wa bima hauna masharti ya dhamana ambayo Shariah imeyataja, na kushindwa kwake kutimiza masharti ya kufungamanisha dhamana na masharti ya uhalali wake. Kwa hiyo, hati ya ahadi (Sanad) ambayo kampuni inatoa, ikihakikisha fidia na bei au kuhakikisha mali, ni batili tangu msingi wake, hivyo bima yote kwa ujumla ni batili kwa mtazamo wa Shariah.

This clarifies the extent to which the contract of insurance is devoid of the conditions of guarantee which Shar’a has stated, and its failure to satisfy the conditions for concluding the guarantee and the conditions for its validity. Therefore, the pledge document (Sanad) which the company gives, guaranteeing thereby compensation and price or guaranteeing property is void from its basis, such that insurance, in its totality, is void in the view of Shar’a.

Kwa hiyo, bima kwa jumla yake imekatazwa na Shari'a, iwe ni bima ya maisha, bidhaa, mali au kitu kingine chochote. Sababu ya kukatazwa kwake ni kwamba mkataba wake ni batili kwa mtazamo wa Shari'a; na ahadi ambayo kampuni ya bima inatoa kulingana na mkataba huu ni batili kulingana na Shari'a. Kwa hiyo, kuchukua fedha kwa sababu ya mkataba huu na ahadi hii ni haramu, na inachukuliwa kuwa ni kupata fedha kwa njia isiyo halali, ambayo imejumuishwa kama mali haramu (Mal as-Suht).

Therefore, insurance in its totality is prohibited by Shar’a, whether it is insurance on life, goods, property or any other thing(s). The reason for its prohibition is that its contract is void in the view of Shar’a; and the pledge which the insurance company gives according to this contract is void according to Shar’a. So taking money because of this contract and this pledge is prohibited, and it is considered to be the earning of money illegitimately which is included as illicit money (Mal as-Suht).