In Arab News dated June 17, 2002
Dr. M. Haitham Al Khayyal says that:

The rule of insurance is like “when food is scarce, mix each other’s food and divide it equally”.

His views on the insurance are a perfect example of “Applied Quran and Hadith” as we mentioned in the chapter “The reasons behind the suspicion.” He says:

Having established these broad and comprehensive principles, with their momentous effect, Islam allows Muslims to determine how to implement them according to their particular circumstances. The only provision it makes is that such implementation must not make lawful what God has forbidden; similarly no one should forbid anything which God made lawful. The proper way to prevent natural risks, in the universe and in human life, and to spare or reduce their effects when they occur is to break up their effects and to provide cooperation in bearing the losses they produce. An authentic Hadith clearly supports this principle. According to both Bukhari and Muslim, Abu Musa Asha’ari quotes the Prophet(ﷺ) as saying:

“When the Ash’aries are on an expedition and they happen to run out of food supplies, or if food becomes scarce for their families in Madinah, they put together everything they have in one lot and divide it all equally among themselves. They belong to me and I belong to them”.

This is a highly effective lesson showing how the whole community shares equally the consequences of any hardship that befalls some of its members.

In our present day, insurance has countless forms, all of which have a common feature giving the insured person a security against a total loss that could have broken his back or left him helpless.

Prohibiting insurance is due to ignorance

Contemporary scholars who pronounce a ruling prohibiting insurance consider the insured person’s ignorance of what he receives in return for his premiums as the basis of their ruling. This ignorance is totally or virtually removed when we apply the law of large numbers, i.e. actuarial arithmetic.

Their argument also refers to an element of betting or gambling involved in insurance, but insurance, in all its forms, has nothing to do with either. They also say that insurance involves some usury of either one of its two types, but this applies only to monetary exchanges, which are not existent at least in health insurance.

They further argue that the insurer does not undertake any work on behalf of the insured. This is again a false argument, because insurance companies invest the premiums so that there will be sufficient funds to compensate should there be a flurry of claims as a result of a general calamity. The investment also aims to provide shareholders with dividends on their investment.

He also pointed out that with the expansion of the insurance concept among people, the insurance companies can reduce the premiums, and the medical insurance companies can provide better health facilities. These are the added benefits of the insurance which a state is unable to do from its funds.