from American Thinker:
So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.“Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion,” said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. “And that’s perfectly constitutional.”
Apparently, this exemption will apply similarly to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance – and, for that matter, any form of risk insurance – to be haraam (forbidden).
According to a March 23 publication on an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance:
Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). This is what is stated in fatwas by the senior scholars.In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/277) there is a quotation of a statement of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning the prohibition on insurance and why it is haraam:It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/251):
Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people’s wealth unlawfully, and other shar’iSecondly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: “but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment”[al-Maa'idah 5:2]. End quote
for the rest of the article: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/amish_muslims_to_be_excused_fr.html
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 27, 2010 at 12:46 pm
HistorianDude
Insurance is not forbidden in Islam. It is in fact universally available in Islamic countries and a product regularly traded by Islamic financial institutions.
The American Thinker has cherry picked one fatwa by one obscure Islamic mullah who has essentially no influence anywhere except the internet. That’s like picking a “prophet” from The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints, pretending they are representative of all Christians, and then quoting from them to prove that polygamy is a fundamental of the Christian Faith.
There are four major schools of Sunni Shari’a and countless smaller ones. There is similar diversity among the Shi’a. Almost all of them consider insurance to be halal.
As usual, James, you are being lied to and willfully spreading the lie.
There is no exception for Muslims in the new Health care Law.
March 28, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
So by your comment I would take it that if you were a member of this “fatwa”, and an Amercian Citizen, then you will be exempt from the legislation passed by our Congress?
And if you are a member of this “fatwa”, then you would also be Muslim?
So in reality, JAMES and The American Thinker would be right, except it would be SOME Muslims, not ALL Muslims, that would be exempt.
March 28, 2010 at 8:05 pm
HistorianDude
You really have to stop putting fingers to keyboard every time you get indigestion and mistake it for a thought.
Fatwa’s do not have members.
Having gotten your cluelessness out of the way, back to the subject. No Muslims are exempt from this bill, except those that are not Americans.
Should some Muslim eventually challenge this law (unlikely, but hey, if Sarah Palin can get nominated to be VP, anything can happen) , they will do so in court. Until then, though, the right wing “brain trust” of The American Thinker will continue to capitalize on your and Jame’s girlish fear of all things “Muslim” by inventing stuff like this and watching you dance in agony as a result.
You can’t buy entertainment like this.
March 29, 2010 at 1:49 am
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude commented:
“Should some Muslim eventually challenge this law (unlikely, but hey, if Sarah Palin can get nominated to be VP, anything can happen) , they will do so in court.”
Maybe they could get Obama (he says he was a lawyer you know, and a Constitutional professor) or Holder (who plays a lawyer as the AG of the United States)to represent them.
Now wouldn’t THAT be ironic?
April 2, 2010 at 9:33 am
HistorianDude
That certainly is among your most pointless comments ever. And that is saying a lot.