Question: Is conventional insurance permissible if a person genuinely needs protection but no suitable takaful alternative is available? 

Answer:

The absence of takaful does not automatically make conventional insurance permissible. However, some contemporary scholars recognise greater flexibility where there is a genuine and serious need (hajah), particularly for protection against matters such as critical illness, loss of income, or serious financial hardship to dependants. This is not necessarily the same as darurah or extreme necessity, which has a higher threshold. There is also a stricter scholarly position that limits conventional insurance to more exceptional circumstances.

Where such a concession is relied upon, it should remain proportionate to the actual need. As the juristic maxim states, الحاجة تقدر بقدرها — “Need is assessed according to its proper extent.” This is also the position taken by MUIS in their Conventional coverage should therefore be limited to the protection genuinely required, rather than being used unnecessarily for investment or wealth accumulation. If a reasonably equivalent Shariah-compliant alternative later becomes available, the basis for that concession should also be reassessed.