保险，无论是人寿保险、货物保险、财产保险，还是其众多种类中的任何一种，都是一种合同。这是保险公司与投保人之间的合同，投保人请求保险公司向其承诺：若所投保之物（'Ayn）遭到损毁或灭失，则对货物或财产予以赔偿其价值，对人寿等则支付一定数额的金钱。这需在约定期限内发生意外时方才生效，投保人则为此支付一定数额的金钱（保费），保险公司对此予以接受。

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.

基于这一要约与承诺,保险公司承诺在双方认可的某些条件之下,当事故发生时,对投保人所遭受的损失进行赔偿,赔偿其损失之物或其价值;或者赔付双方所约定的一笔金额,例如在其货物被毁、汽车受损、房屋被烧毁、财产被盗、其本人死亡或类似事件于某一特定期间内发生时,他将获得赔偿;作为交换,投保人在该特定期间内向公司支付一定数额的金钱(保费)。

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.

由上文可知,保险是保险公司与投保人之间就保险种类及其条件达成的协议,因此它是一份合同。然而,根据双方所订立的这份合同,即该协议,保险公司承诺在约定条件之内予以赔偿或支付一定数额的金钱。因此,如果投保人遭遇了适用合同条款的事故,那么公司就有义务为其赔偿所毁坏之物,或按事故发生时的市场价格支付其价款。公司可以自行选择向投保人或其他人支付价款或赔偿损失。一旦合同中所述之事项发生,这笔赔偿便成为投保人的权利,并成为公司所负的责任(Dhimma),前提是保险公司确信投保人确有权获得赔偿,或法院作出了此类判决。

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.

"保险"一词已在此事中被使用。保险可以是为投保人自己的利益，也可以是为他人的利益，例如他的子女、妻子、继承人，或投保人指定的任何其他人或团体（受益人）。将这种合同称为"人寿保险"，或将保险用于货物、声音或任何其他资产，其目的是把这种交易推销给民众。然而事实是，投保人并没有为自己的生命投保。他实际上是保证，在他死亡时，一定数额的钱将支付给他的子女、妻子或继承人，或他指定的任何其他受益人。同样，他也不是为自己的货物、汽车、财产等投保，而是为了在所投保的物品受到伤害或损坏时，能够获得对该物品或其价格的赔偿。因此，它实际上是一种担保（Dhamaan），即为他或他人在自己的生命遭受伤亡或财产遭受损坏时获得一定数额的钱或赔偿而提供的担保，因此它并不是对其生命或财产的担保。这就是保险的实质。对其进行准确的考察可以表明，从两个角度来看，它是无效的（Batil）。

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:

首先：这是一份合同，因为它是两方之间的协议，包含要约和承诺，其中要约来自投保方，承诺来自公司。因此，要使这份合同从沙里亚（神圣启示）的角度看具有合法效力，它必须包含沙里亚规定的合同条件。如果包含这些条件，它便有效，否则无效。从沙里亚的角度看，合同应当作用于某一标的物或某项利益。因此，如果它既不作用于某物，也不作用于某项利益，它就是无效的，因为它没有作用于一个使其成为合法合同的事项上。这是因为合法的合同要么作用于某物并以另一物作为交换，如买卖、预付购买（预付款买卖，Salam）、合伙及类似情形；要么作用于某物而无需交换，如赠与；要么作用于某项利益并以报酬作为交换，如租赁；要么作用于某项利益而无需报酬，如借贷。因此，合法的合同必须作用于某种事物。

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.

保险并非针对某一物品或某项利益所订立的合同；它实际上是针对一种担保（Dhamana，即保证）所订立的合同。担保本身不构成一件物品，因为它既不能被消耗，其利益也无法被使用；它也不构成一项利益，因为无论通过租赁还是借贷，这种担保本身都不能产生任何利益。至于基于这一担保而获得金钱，这并不被视为它的利益，而是交易的结果。因此，保险合同不能被视为针对某物或某项利益而订立，而且它也不具备沙里亚所要求的合法合同所应有的全部条件，所以它是无效的。

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.

其次:公司在某些条件下向投保人作出承诺,因此它属于一种担保(Dhamaan)。据此,就保险合同而言,必须适用伊斯兰教法(Shar'a)对担保所要求的条件,才能将其视为合法的担保。如果它包含这些条件,则合法,否则不合法。谈到担保时,我们发现:

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:

担保是指保证人（Dhaamin）将自己的责任（Dhimma）与被担保人（Madhmoon ‘Anhu）的责任相连，共同承担某项权利（Haqq）。因此，它必须包括将自己的责任与他人的责任相连；同时还必须有保证人、被担保人（Madhmoon ‘Anhu）以及受保证人（Madhmoon Lahu）。所以，担保是无偿地将某项权利作为自己的责任而进行的强制性承诺（Iltizam）。 担保有效的一个条件是：所担保的必须是一项已经到期（需要偿还）或即将到期的财务权利。因此，如果保证所针对的不是已到期或即将到期的权利，则担保无效。这是因为，担保是将自己的责任与他人的责任相连，以便共同履行义务；如果被担保人的责任中不存在任何权利，那么就没有责任的相连。对于已到期的权利，这一点十分明确。

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.

至于将来才会到期的权利,例如有人对女子说:“你嫁给这个人,我担保你的聘礼”,担保人便将自己的责任与被担保人的责任相连,使担保人与被担保人承担同样的义务;在被担保人责任中得到证实的事项,同样在担保人的责任中得到证实。 然而,如果没有任何权利目前对任何人成立,或者将来也不会成立,那么担保就没有意义,因为责任并没有相连,所以这样的担保是无效的。因此,如果权利并未落在被担保人身上,或者将来也不会成立,担保即为无效。这是因为担保的条件是:被担保人对某物受损或毁坏负有担保责任,或者对某项债务负有责任。这种责任既可以是现实的,即权利已经成立并证明为他的责任;也可以是潜在的,即权利将来才会成立。因此,如果被担保人既无现实责任,也无潜在责任,担保便无效,因为凡是不在被担保人身上成立的义务,也不会在担保人身上成立。 例如,某人从他人那里接收衣物(例如洗衣店),另一人对衣物的主人说:“把你的衣服交给他,我来担保。”如果衣物随后受损,担保人是否要代接收者赔偿衣物的价款?答案如下:如果衣物的损坏并非出于他(即洗衣者)的行为或疏忽,那么担保人不承担任何担保责任,因为首先,被担保人(洗衣者)对损坏并不负责。既然本人(Aseel)对损坏都不负责,那么担保人更不负责。 因此，为了使担保有效，必须存在对被担保人（Madhmoon ‘Anhu）的某种权利，无论是当下存在的，还是将来会产生的。所以，为被担保人确立权利，无论是即时的还是潜在的，都是担保有效的条件。然而，被担保人（Madhmoon ‘Anhu）和受担保人（Madhmoon Lahu）不必被指明；因此，即使这两者都不确定（即未被指明），担保依然有效。若有人对另一人说："把你的衣服交给一个洗衣工。"后者说："我担心他会弄坏它们。"前者回答说："把你的衣服交给一个洗衣工吧，如果它们损坏了，我来担保。"而没有指定是哪位洗衣工，那么这项担保是有效的。因此，如果他把衣服交给了一个洗衣工，而衣服损坏了，担保人就要承担责任，即使受担保人没有被指明。同样，如果他说："某某是个好洗衣工，任何人把衣服交给他，我都担保其不会受损"，那么即使受担保人不确定，这项担保也是有效的。

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.

从证据中可以清楚看出,担保是将一个人的责任与另一个人的责任相连接,是对附着于责任(Dhimma)之上的应有权利的担保。同样清楚的是,担保包括担保人、被担保人和受保人。还清楚的是,担保可以无偿提供,而且被担保人和受保人可以是不为人知的。对此的证据是艾卜·达五德从扎比尔传述的圣训,他说:“先知ﷺ从不为任何负债而死的人拜丧礼。有一具尸体被抬来。他ﷺ问:‘他有债务吗?’人们说:‘有,两个第纳尔。’他ﷺ说:‘你们替你们的同伴拜吧。’阿布·戛塔德·安萨里说:‘安拉的使者啊,这笔债由我承担。’于是安拉的使者ﷺ为他拜了丧礼。后来安拉为安拉的使者ﷺ开通了土地(即圣战中的征服),他ﷺ说:‘我比每个信士自己更有权为其负责。所以凡是留下债务的人,由我来偿还;凡是留下财产的人,归他的继承人所有。’” 从这段圣训中可以清楚看出,阿布·戛塔德将自己的责任与那位亡者的责任相连接,共同承担了债务人所欠的一项财务权利。圣训中也清楚表明,担保包括担保人、受保人和被担保人;而他们(亡者与担保人)各自承诺偿付的担保,是附着于(亡者)责任之上的权利,并且是无偿提供的。还清楚的是,在担保之时,受保人即亡者,以及被担保人即债权人,都是不为人知的。因此,这段圣训包含了担保有效成立的条件,以及担保订立(In'iqad)的条件。

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).

这是从伊斯兰教法（Shar’a）角度对担保的论述。将保险合同所包含的担保承诺适用于这一概念来看，我们发现保险缺少伊斯兰教法对担保的有效性与订立所规定的全部条件。在保险中，不存在以任何方式将一项责任与另一项责任相连接的情况。保险公司并没有将自身的责任与他人的责任相联系，以承诺向投保人支付应付的款项，因此不存在担保；由此，保险无效。 在保险中，投保人并不对保险公司所承诺支付的任何人享有应得的财产权利。这是因为投保人对公司所担保的任何人都不享有财产权利，所以保险缺乏财产权利这一要素。因此，保险公司并未承诺任何财产权利，从而不足以使其在伊斯兰教法中成立为担保。 此外，公司所承诺支付的赔偿、价款或金钱，在订立保险合同时，无论是即时的还是潜在的，都不是被担保人对他人应得的权利，因而不足以使其成立为担保。所以，保险公司担保的是既非即时应得、也非潜在应得的东西，这使担保无效，保险也随之无效。 再者，保险中不包含被担保人（即为之担保的人）。因为保险公司并未为任何人担保一项应归其所有的权利，因而不能称之为担保；由此，保险合同缺少伊斯兰教法所要求存在的一个必要要素，即为之担保的对象的存在。这是因为担保必须同时具备担保人、为之担保的人以及被担保人。既然保险合同中不包含为之担保的人，它便是无效的。 此外，当保险公司承诺对标的物进行赔偿，或在其受损时支付其价格，或在事故发生时支付一定金额的款项时，它是以获得一定数额的金钱（即保费）作为回报来做出这笔支付的。因此，这属于以补偿为回报的承诺（Iltizam），这是不允许的，因为有效担保的条件之一是无偿的。因此，补偿的存在（即保险公司的保费）使其无效。

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.

这说明了保险合同在多大程度上缺少伊斯兰教法所规定的担保条件，以及它未能满足订立担保的条件和担保有效的条件。因此，公司出具的担保凭证（Sanad）——即以此保证赔偿、价款或保证财产的凭证——从根本上是无效的；因而从伊斯兰教法的角度看，保险整体上是无效的。

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.

因此,保险在整体上被伊斯兰教法禁止,无论是人寿保险、货物保险、财产保险还是其他任何形式的保险。其被禁止的理由在于:依伊斯兰教法,其合同无效;保险公司依据此合同所作出的承诺,依伊斯兰教法也是无效的。因此,凭借此合同和此承诺而获取的钱财是被禁止的,这被视为非法获利,属于不义之财(Mal as-Suht)的范畴。

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).