Crown
Board: Porsche - 911 - 996 - Turbo
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Jan 15, 2007 5:39:59 PM
- Porker
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: SZ , Switzerland
- Posts: 6884, Gallery
- Registered on: Jan 17, 2005
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: 871 RWHP Turbo
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
BTW guys, although gambling/betting is forbidden in Islam, what cjv has in mind is not strictly speaking a reciprocal bet.
For this to be a reciprocal bet, there needs to be a risk of both gain or loss ON BOTH SIDES dependent upon an uncertain outcome/event.
The way I read this is as follows: cjv offers to pay his own expenses if his car is slower but that turbo_s would agree to pay these expenses if cjv's car is quicker.
There appears to be nothing in this proposed arrangement to indicate that cjv might pay turbo_s's expenses if cjv's car is slower.
As such, although cjv is indeed taking a gamble (since he may either have to pay his expenses or not), turbo_s does not stand to gain anything. He can only be in the same position as before (i.e. he pays nothing) or he has to pay for cjv's expenses. He cannot win anything. I see this as being identical to an indemnity or an insurance policy. If I may explain: turbo_s is effectively covering/indemnifying/insuring against cjv's losses in the event that cjv's car is quicker.
NB: insurance contracts and indemnities are lawful in Islam. There is an abundance of Islamic scholarship to support this in 'usul-ul-fiqh' (Islamic jurisprudence).
As such, there is only a bet on one side (cjv) while turbo_s is only providing an indemnity/insurance policy (which is lawful for him).
BTW the crucial issue to understand is that it's not the uncertain outcome of the race that makes this a bet but instead, it's the financial risk undertaken by either side that means this is not a reciprocal bet.
turbo_s: I assume you are Sunni. As a Kuwaiti, are you Maliki, Hanbali or Wahhabi? Anyway, this doesn't affect the Islamic legal analysis.
(Just so that you know. I'm Muslim too (Sunni Hanafi fiqh). I'm an English lawyer who has also studied the Shariah extensively. I don't actively practice Islam anymore. IMHO it's full of hypocrisy, insults my intelligence and is usually misinterpreted by its adherents for whom moderation has been replaced with fanaticism. I would rather not associate myself with such people).
Anyway, cjv, I hope my explanation shows that on this occasion, turbo_s is not entitled to shelter behind religion from this challenge. If he wants to refuse the challenge, then that of course is his choice but it would have to be for other reasons.
Sorry if the lawyer in me has intermeddled in this gentlemen's challenge. It's just that, as a lawyer, I'm trained to analyse things like this and to find crucial distinctions.
Great post, very interesting!
Hats of to you
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
