Pro and Contra of Modern Insurance

Because thats strayed far from the initial principle of mutual insurance, many people from among the Muslims who objected with modern insurance practices.  Insurance contract is rejected by the ulema or Islamic scholars with a variety of reasons, among others:
1.  Modern Insurance is a gambling contract
2.  Insurance is betting
3.  Insurance is not definite
4.  Life insurance is a tool with which an attempt is made to replace God's will
5.  In life insurance premium amount is not necessarily, because participants did not know how many times insurance installments will be paid until he died
6.  Insurance companies invest the money paid by insurance participants in the securities of flowering.  In the event that the participant insurance life insurance for his death are entitled to far more than the amount already paid, which is usury
7.  All of the insurance business is based on riba which is haraam.
So many reasons why the scholars firmly declared war against the exclusion of modern insurance.  The figure includes modern insurance cons are: Sayyid Sabiq, Abdullah al-Qalqii, Yusuf Qaradawi and Muhammad al-Muth'i Bakhii (Muslehuddin, Muhammad).
Amid the rush of blasphemy against modern insurance practice it turns out there are some scholars who actually support the implementation of modern insurance.  The scholars who pro tehadap modern insurance is of the opinion:
1.  Insurance is not gambling is not gambling because it is based on mutuality (togetherness) and cooperation.  Gambling is a game of luck and therefore damage the community.  Insurance is a boon to mankind, because it protects them from dangers that threaten their lives and property and provide benefits for trade and industry.
2.  Uncertainty in the transaction is prohibited in Islam because it causes strife.  It is clear from the Prophet saying that the contract prohibited the sale if the seller could not deliver the promised goods to the buyer because it is not necessarily.  Insurance contract is one of indemnity in accordance with Islamic law, because it has been known to the amount of property.
3.  Life insurance is not a tool to resist the power of God or His will replace, because insurance does not guarantee an event that did not happen but instead replace the losses to the insurance of participants against the consequences of an event or risks that have been determined.  Cooperatively movement which reduces losses due to certain events and is supported by verses in the Qur'an: "And make cooperative both of you in (do), virtue and piety and not helping in sin and offense."
4.  Objections regarding the life insurance certainly not in the sense that participants insurance do not know how many installments are paid until death is not unreasonable.
5.  Objection on usury in useless insurance because insurance insurance allows participants to not accept more than that has been paid.
That in brief opinion from the scholars who are pro to the practice of modern insurance.  They also added that indirectly support contract ('aqd al-muwalat) in Islam is similar to liability insurance.  The figures which agree with modern insurance include: Abd.  Wahab Khalaf, Akhmad Mustafa Zarqa, Muhammad Yusuf Musa, Isa Abd Rakhman.
So over time the debate between the pros and cons of continuing insurance.  Amid the fierce debate then emerged of a moderate in the sense that they are not directly reject the modern insurance but also indirectly confirmed.  These people argue that:
1.  Vehicle insurance for the repairs is not prohibited but life insurance is a kind of gambling because there is no justification for someone who gives only part of a whole amount to be entitled to if he dies (usury).
2.  The insurance system is illegitimate if based on on usury.  Clearly there are elements of chaos definitife and lack of insurance often resulted in losses for individuals and gain a lot for the company.
3.  Insurance in any the type is an example of cooperation and useful to society.
Based on the views of all three groups then emerged the notion that social insurance would be allowed but commercial insurance is unlawful.
This third opinion in the embrace, among others, by: Muhammada Abdu Zahrah