Shariah Scholars' View Point on the Practice of Underwriting and Risk Rating for Family Takaful Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of underwriting and risk rating for individual participants in family takaful stems from the underwriting practice in life insurance, and thus could contain elements which contravene the essence of the Shari’ah. A review of literature on takaful indicates that there are very few materials which look at the underwriting practice from a Shari’ah perspective. The objective of this study is to find out the Shari’ah viewpoint on the underwriting and risk rating practice for individual participants in family takaful. The study sample consists of five purposefully selected Shari’ah experts on takaful. The research method uses is based on the Delphi technique. This study found that most of the Shari’ah scholars interviewed did not seem to have a deep exposure to the underwriting and risk rating practice in family takaful. They however declare that underwriting and risk rating is permissible, although they had some concerns regarding some of the factors use in the underwriting process. The findings of this study will be of interest to the Shari’ah scholars, takaful operators, regulatory bodies, academicians, and other stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".