 We shall continue with our conversation around criticisms on Islamic modes of finance. We have already considered quite a few criticisms and we have tried to respond to those criticisms as well. We have tried to be as objective as possible, giving our neutral view on the criticisms. The criticism which I have chosen for this module is about the kaful. The criticism says that the kaful as practiced in Islamic banking and finance is no more cooperative than the existing models of mutual insurance. According to this criticism, there is no need of a new kaful model. This is a very interesting criticism on one practice of Islamic banking and finance. And I must say that this criticism is true to a large extent. And a reflection of this criticism is Ta'amin Ta'abuni as practiced in Saudi Arabia. This is a view taken by many Saudi scholars. They say that the kaful, the way it is being practiced, this is unnecessary because the cooperative insurance is actually very close to the Islamic requirements. They say if three elements, Reba, Ghadr and gambling are not there in insurance, in mutual insurance, then this can be made Islamic very easily. And this is what they have done in case of Saudi Arabia. An additional requirement for those Ta'amin companies, insurance companies, is that they should be distributing 10% of their profits amongst the policy holders if they want to be called as Islamic insurance company. So in Saudi Arabia, a lot of Islamic insurance companies actually use the phrase Islamic insurance in their name. Elsewhere, the kaful is actually a more popular term. In case of the kaful, there are some shortcomings which are going away with the passage of time. As I said, the kaful started with a Mudaraba-based model. It then evolved into a Wakala-based model which was a slight improvement on the previous one. There were some practices like Wakala, Mudaraba-based kind of model and the one which is being used in Pakistan, Wakaf-based model. This is a definite improvement on the previous model. Now the real problem in my view is with the role of the kaful operator. When I as a kaful participant, I put my one dollar into the Wakaf or in the kaful fund, whatever be the underlying model. A major bulk of my participation fee actually of my participation or my contribution, my donation is actually taken away by the kaful operator by way of the Wakala fee or any other management fee. And in many cases, this is 40%. So my one pound 40 pence out of this or 35 pence or in some cases even more 50 pence they are taken away by the kaful operator as Wakala fee. This doesn't sound good. It is Sharia compliant. I am not saying that the transaction becomes Sharia repugnant, but it doesn't look very good. This doesn't go well with the concept of mutuality. In case of mutuality, the money contributed by all the participants in the form of donations should go into a donation box and from there a reasonable management fee for a Wakala manager should be negotiated. 35%, 40%, this doesn't look very good. So from that viewpoint, I believe that those who say that the practice of the kaful is a weak one. It needs to be improved. And if someone likes Saudis, if they come up with the kaful model or an Islamic insurance model, which is more in line with the concept of mutuality and it takes care of all the Sharia matters, I think that could be a lot better alternative to conventional insurance.