|
Q.)
These questions came to light after discussing them with ulema,
who advise me to put forward these questions to Mufti Taqi Usmani
sahib and inform them of the view of our beloved Mufti Sahib.
1. In England to have
car insurance is compulsory. Talking to ulema, they state that
third party only is allowed. However discussing this with my
friend, who is also an aalim, we wanted to know what if full
comprehensive insurance is cheaper than third party insurance e.g.
full comprehensive was £600.00 and third party was £1000.00, which
happens sometimes. So even in this case would one have to buy
third party Insurance or not?
2. When a person has
an accident with another car, the insurance company of the other
car owner pays a person out fully. The money that they pay is the
market value of the car and not the actual value. For example I
recently had an accident, the insurance company of the other
person paid me out £2100.00 whereas I bought my car for the price
of £1600.00. So would the extra money received in this case be
jaa'iz (permissible) or haraam? Also I have heard that you cannot
claim more than the amount you have paid to the insurance company.
In case if the other person is not insured then my own company
will pay me out. Would this money also be jaaiz? [Sajid Khan]
A.) Although all of the conventional schemes of
insurance violate certain injunction of Shariah and are therefore
not permissible. However, if a Muslim is obligated by the law to
have an insurance cover, it is permissible for him to have
insurance up to the minimum level required by law. Since the third
party insurance is obligatory by the law in most of the countries
this has been allowed by the Shariah scholars but if full
comprehensive insurance is cheaper than the third party insurance
and it can fulfill the requirement of law and after that one does
not need to enter into a third party insurance then it will be
permissible to have full comprehensive insurance to meet the
requirement of law. But two points must be kept in mind in this
respect: First, merely on the ground that the full comprehensive
insurance is cheaper, both kinds of insurance cannot be held
simultaneously if the law does not require so. Second, in case the
full comprehensive insurance is undertaken to meet legal
requirement and the insured person is offered a compensation only
to the extent of the total premium he paid to that company so far
(it may include the premium to the same company with regard to
some other items also) and the rest of the compensation must be
given in charity.
If the
car of a person is destroyed by a wrongful act of another person
the owner of the car is entitled to receive the full market value
of the car and not only the original cost of the car, but this
market price is the liability of the person whose wrongful act
caused the accident. Therefore, it is advisable that the aggrieved
person receives the compensation from the owner of the car and not
from the insurance company. But if it is not possible for some
legal procedures in a country and the amount of compensation is
paid by the insurance company directly to the aggrieved person and
not to the insured person, the aggrieved person can also avail of
this compensation.
Article taken (with Thanks) from Albalagh.net |
