Guarantee (Dhaman), Insurance (Ta’meen) and Monopoly (Ihtikar)

প্রশ্ন · Question

Assalam Alaikum, I have two questions
First: In the book The Economic System, in the discussion of insurance
there is an example that confused me, which is “'Give your clothes to
a cleaner and I guarantee them if they are damaged' ... there will be a
guarantor, a person guaranteed for and a guaranteed person, who is
the unknown cleaner. How does this differ from the insurance
company? There is a guarantor, i.e. the company and the person
guaranteed for, i.e. the owner of the car and the guaranteed person,
i.e. the car that is on the road and its driver who is unknown who we
might hit him one day.
The second question: How does the Islamic state deal with
monopoly? Will it force the monopoliser to sell his goods at a certain
price, and mentioning pricing, is it Haram or what is its ruling?
May Allah reward you for your efforts and may it benefit all Muslims.

উত্তর · Answer

Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh

1- Your question about the guarantor, a person guaranteed for and a
guaranteed person, and that the subject has confused you...
My brother, I reviewed your question ... Of course, the prohibition of
insurance is not only because of the subject of the guaranteed
person, but it is for many Shariah violations, such as the absence of a
right due upon the responsibility (Dhimma) whether immediately or
potentially and this makes the insurance invalid, in addition the
insurance has compensation and this makes the insurance invalid, etc
as shown in this chapter.
But it seems that the confusion or misunderstanding that you
experienced is because you thought that in the case of the cleaner
we mentioned in The Economic System (book) that the guaranteed
person is unknown, but the guarantee is valid, and that in the case of
insurance we also mentioned that the guarantor is unknown (as you
thought), and therefore it is invalid, and this is why you asked, how
can it be valid in the case of the cleaner but invalid the case of
insurance?
My brother, we did not say in both cases, that the guaranteed person
is unknown, but we said in the case of the cleaner that he is unknown
and in the case of insurance it does not exist, and I quote the text in
both cases from the Economic System:
A- Regarding the cleaner, the following is mentioned in the book:
“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.”
Then he mentioned the evidence and said:
“It is clear in the evidence of the guarantee that there is a joining of
one's responsibility to another 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:
ي بميت
«
فقال: أعليه دين؟ قالوا: نعم ديناران. قال: صلوا علَ صاحبكم. فقال أبو قتادة الْنصاري
هما علَيّ يا رسول الله، قال: فصلَ عليه رسول الله صلَ الله عليه وسلم، فلما فتح الله
علَ رسول الله صلَ الله عليه وسلم قال: أنا أولَ بكل مؤمن من نفسه. فمن ترك ديناً
فعلَيّ قضاؤه، ومن ترك مالاً فلورثته
The Prophet ﷺ would not pray over any person who died while
indebted. A dead man was brought. He ﷺ said: 'Is he indebted?'
They said: 'Yes, two dinars.' He ﷺ said: 'Pray for your companion.'
Abu Qatadah al -Ansari said: 'O Messenger of Allah, they are upon
me.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then prayed over him. When Allah ﷻ
opened the land (i.e. conquests in Jihad) for the Messenger of Allah
ﷺhe ﷺ 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 (the
deceased), and the guaranteed person (the owner of the debt) were
both 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).”
It is clear from this that the unknown element regarding the
guaranteed for and the person guaranteed is not that he do not exist,
but that his name and details are unknown ...etc, but the deceased
who is the guaranteed person is present, but the guarantor does not
know his name and lineage, but he is present. Not knowing the
details of the guaranteed person is the issue and not the fact that he
is absent. Therefore the Guarantee is valid, because the guaranteed
person is present but his details are not kno wn. Thus the cleaner is
present in the neighbourhood but what is unknown is his name to
the one who will give the clothes for cleaning, and this does not
affect the guarantee according to the previously explained evidence
in the Hadith of Abu Dawud from Jabir.
B- Regarding insurance, the following is mentioned in the book:
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 Shari’, namely the
presence of the person guaranteed for. This is be cause 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.
As you can see, we mentioned “that it does not include a guaranteed
person. Since the insurance contract did not include a person
guaranteed for, it is void.” The guaranteed person is said to be
“absent” during the contracting, so there is no car crash that will
result in the driver paying for the crash and this is guaranteed by the
insurance company, that is the guaranteed person is completely
absent, not present, which is different to knowing the name, or
lineage, therefore the contract is void, because t he guaranteed
person is absent and not just unknown. Maybe you thought that “not
present” means “unknown” and you got confused and thought that
they are the same, that is it is unknown in the example of the cleaner
and unknown in insurance and you therefore asked how is it that it is
valid in the first example but invalid in the second one?
The issue as we explained to you is that the guaranteed person in the
case of the cleaner is present but his name and lineage are
unknown...etc and the guaranteed person is absent in insurance and
it is not just the his name and lineage are unknown.
I hope that this is sufficient.
2- Regarding the topic of Monopoly, as it is explained in the Economic
System, that Monopoly is prohibited:
“Monopoly is prevented absolutely, and it is forbidden in Shari’ due
to the decisive prohibition of it that came explicitly in the Hadith.
S'aid ibn Al -Musayyab narrated from Mu'ammar ibn Abdullah Al -
'Adawi in Sahih Muslim that the Prophet ﷺ said:
«لا يحتكر إلاّ خاط» “No one monopolises except the wrongdoer.”
Al-Qasim narrated from Abu Umamah, he said:

«
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade that a foodstuff be
monopolized”. Narrated by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak and Ibn Shayba
in His Musannaf.
And Muslim narrated through his chain of narrators from S'aid ibn Al -
Musayyab that Mu'ammar said: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
«من احتكر فهو خاط»
“Whoever monopolised is a wrongdoer.”
The prohibition in the Hadith indicates the refrain and the dispraising
of the monopoliser by describing him as a wrongdoer; however the
wrongdoer means the disobedient.
This is a concatenation that indicates that this prohibition is decisive.
Thereupon, the Ahadith indicated that monopoly is Haram. The
monopoliser is the one who hoards the commodities until the price
rises so as to sell them expensively such that it becomes difficult for
the citizens to buy them.”
The solution of the problem of Monopoly is to punish the
monopoliser by Ta’zir, and he is forced to display his goods to the
consumers and sells it with the market price not by a price given by
the state, because price-fixing is Haram as mentioned in the book.
Islam prohibited pricing absolutely, due to what Imam Ahmad
narrated from Anas who said:
«
ي لْرجو أن ألق الله، و
فقال: إن الله هو الخالق، القابض، الباسط، الرازق، المسعر، وإب
ي دم، ولا مال
يطلبن ي أحد بمظلِمة ظلمتها إياه، ف
Prices increased at the time of the Messenger of Allah, so they said,
O Messenger of Allah, we wish would you price (fix the prices). He ﷺ
said: "Indeed Allah is the Creator, the holder (Qabidh), the Open -

handed (Basit), the Provider (Raziq), the Pricer (who fixes prices); and
I wish I will meet Allah and nobody demands (complains) of me for
unjust act I did against him, neither in blood or property.”
Also Abu Dawud narrated from Abu Huraira, he said,
«
الله، سعّر فقال: بل الله يخفض ويرفع
A man came and said, O Messenger of Allah, fix prices. He ﷺ said:
"Rather Allah reduces and increases.” These Ahadith indicate that
pricing is prohibited and is an unjust act against which a complaint is
made to the ruler to remove it. And if the ruler himself did pricing he
would be sinful in the sight of Allah ﷻbecause it is a prohibited
(Haram) act. Every person of the citizens would have the right to
complain to the Court of the Unjust Acts (Mahkamat Al -Madhalim)
against the ruler who makes pricing, whether he was a governor
(Wali) or Khalifah. He complains to this court about this act in order
to judge against him and remove this unjust act (Madhlama).
But if he sells it at the market price, it is because this is the Shariah
ruling in selling and buying, and if the commodity is only available
with the monopoliser, and he sells it at the price that he wants thus
controling the price, because it exists only with him, in this case the
state must provide the commodity in the market so that no one of
the traders can control the price of his commodity because it is
available in the market and sold at market price, so the trader is
forced to sell the commodity a t the market price. How to deal with
the monopoliser is by the Ta’zir punishment and forcing him to
display his goods in the market, and if he is the provider of the
commodity, then the state must provide the commodity in the
market so as not allow him to control the price. The book explained
this and it mentions in the chapter of price-fixing the following:

“In regard to the prices that rise at the time of war, or during a
political crisis, this results from either the non -availability of the
commodities in the market because of their being hoarded as
monopoly or because of their shortage. If their absence was due to
monopoly, monopoly was prohibited by Allah ﷻand if it was due to
their shortage in the market, then the Khalifah, who is ordered to
look after the affairs of the nation, must strive to make them
available in the market by bringing them from other places, and thus
he would prevent the prices from rising. In the famine year, which
was called Ramadha (ashes) year, when famine occurred only in Hijaz
due to food shortage in that year and thus food prices increased,
'Umar ibn Al -Khattab did not fix the prices of the foodstuffs. Rather
he ordered supplies of foodstuffs from Egypt and ash -Sham to be
sent to the Hijaz; thus prices dropped without the need for pricing.”
Not selling at the market price is unjust ... and gross unfairness is
Haram, which exceeds the market price that the traders know of a
small increase or a little decrease from the market price, but if there
is a great increase the term gross unfairness applies to it, it is
forbidden.
All this obliges the trader to adhere to the market price, and the state
must find the market price so that a merchant must not control a
commodity, but if no other trader sells this commodity for the
market price to exist, the state must provide this commodity and sell
it at the market, and no trader controls the price.
In The Islamic Personality Volume Two, the "Deferred Sale", the
following is stated:
“But it is stipulated that the price should not be excessive (grossly
unfair), but the price must be according to the market price at the
time of the sale such as in deferred payment, not when the
commodity is received, because the deferred sale is a sale but gross
unfairness is prohibited in all sales including the deferred sale.

Similarly, it is Haram to sell a present commodity at a price that is
deferred with excessive price, and it is not permissible to sell a
deferred commodity at a present commodity price that is excessive.”
In The Islamic Personality Volume Three, it states under the chapter
of I’la (divine reason):
“Similar to what is narrated by Abu Huraira:
«
“The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade
selling of the person from the city to the person from the
countryside” Narrated by Bukhari. The prohibition include that the
seller be from the people of the city, and the buyer from the people
of the countryside, both are explanations of the prohibition of the
sale, and give the (divine) reason for the prohibition as the ignorance
of the person from the countryside of the price in the market. Also is
prohibited to meet the owners of the goods , the reason is explained
clearly, it was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said:
نْ يُتَلَق َّ الْجَلَبُ، فَإِنْ تَلَقَّاهُ إِنْسَانٌ فَابْتَاعَهُ، فَصَاحِبُ السرلْعَةِ
َ
«
فِيهَا بِالْخِيَارِ إِذَا وَرَدَ السُّوقَ
The Prophet (ﷺprohibited meeting the goods being brought (to
the market). If someone were to meet them and buy them, then the
owner of the goods retains the option when he reaches the market.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi”
In summary, the solution to the issue of monopoly should be by:
• Ta’zir punishment to the monopoliser.
• Oblige him to display his goods in his shop to sell to people at
market price.

• If he is the only provider of this type of goods and the people need
them, the state must provide the goods and let the market decide
the price without any trader controlling the price of the goods.
• Thus the problem is solved without pricing because pricing is not
allowed.
Your brother,
Abu Yasin
26 Ramadhan 1439 AH
11/6/2018 CE