In the Best Interest of Humanity

Written on 2/1/12 in response to a couple of readings (sorry, I can't give adequate bibliography) for my Modern Muslim Thought class.

            I found the fatwa, issued by the 1403/1983 Meccan Islamic Law Academy of the World Muslim League, to be hypocritical in it’s function. It was saying that one could receive interest from a bank or financial dealing, but could not  benefit from it, instead donating it to some good cause, like a school. In order to make sure that the person couldn’t benefit from the donation (a good deed), they termed such a donation as not  being sadaqah, but instead a cleansing of the sin of taking the interest. I found it interesting that the Academy felt confident to declare that this donation was null and void in the eyes of God. I didn’t realize that they had such insight. To me, it’s semantics.

            The argument against this fatwa made sense to me, as it is true that in this world it is nearly impossible to not have and benefits that come from bank interest of some kind. They also attacked the hypocrisy of the fatwa. The argument didn’t make it clear, however, which interest is allowed and which  forbidden. The response left me feeling as though they were suggesting the permission of all interest dealings because it’s just to hard to “separate” in our modern world.

            The insurance fatwas were interesting, and I could follow the logic that such insurance policies are liken to gambling, which is forbidden in the Qur'an, but they didn’t address situations where law requires insurance – like with cars in Michigan where drivers are required by law to have auto insurance.

            Life insurance is less of a gamble (as indicated for a reason why it is forbidden) than is auto or property insurance. It is true that one may never reap a benefit from paying for property insurance, but we all die eventually. Where is the gamble?