Family takaful’s research boom exposes an industry failing the underserved

MAHMOOD SANGLAY

Family takaful promises long-term protection for dependants, education and retirement. Yet a landmark review finds that researchers know far more about consumers’ intentions than whether the industry truly protects underserved families.

Family takaful is meant to turn mutual care into practical protection. Participants contribute to a shared pool that can help families when a breadwinner dies or becomes disabled, while some plans also build savings for education or retirement. For households without a strong state safety net, that promise can be the difference between stability and poverty.

That makes a new academic review more than a report about scholarship. Published in the 2025 issue of Maruf İktisat İslâm İktisadı Araştırmaları Dergisi, “Family Takaful Research: Trends, Themes, and Contributions”, by Dr Almabrok F Ahmid, Ümmügülsüm Korkut and Halil Şahin, is an accountability check on an industry whose social purpose is as important as its commercial growth. The authors describe it as the first dedicated global research review focused solely on family takaful.

The authors examined 78 publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science from 2009 to 2025. They found an annual growth rate of 13.85%, with research rising sharply from 2019. Trust, awareness, religious commitment, service quality and customers’ intention to buy dominate the literature.

This is encouraging, but it is not proof that family takaful is delivering.

The evidence gap is the real story

You may also want to read

The review’s most newsworthy finding is what researchers still do not know. Much of the literature asks whether people intend to take out takaful. Far less examines what happens after they sign up.

Do low-income families receive claims promptly? Are contributions affordable over many years? Are exclusions explained in plain language? How many participants cancel because payments become unaffordable? What happens to complaints, disputed claims and any surplus in the risk pool? Do products actually prevent a bereaved family from falling into debt?

These are not side issues. They are the tests by which a protection industry should be judged. Yet the authors find limited study of the supply side, including operators’ costs, solvency, organisational efficiency, regulation and ability to adapt to technology. Product models are sometimes tested on paper rather than with real families in real markets.

The result is an uncomfortable mismatch. Researchers can say a great deal about attitudes and purchase intentions, but much less about claims experience, long-term value and household outcomes. Industry stakeholders should not use rising publication numbers as a substitute for evidence of public benefit.

A global industry seen through a narrow window

The paper also reveals a serious geographic imbalance. Malaysia dominates the authorship, institutions and published output, with Pakistan a distant second. Malaysia’s leadership has undoubtedly built valuable expertise. However, evidence drawn mainly from a few markets cannot automatically speak for the Muslim world.

Africa, India and even Indonesia remain under-researched despite their large Muslim populations. Muslim-minority communities are also poorly represented. South Africa appears in the review, but only at the margins.

Local conditions matter. Household income, informal employment, regulation, funeral obligations, access to banking and trust in financial institutions differ widely. A plan that works for a salaried Malaysian customer may fail a seasonal worker in Cape Town, a market trader in Lagos or a rural family elsewhere.

The authors therefore call for cross-country comparisons and studies that follow people over time, rather than surveys taken at one moment. That is vital because what people say they intend to buy is not always what they can afford, keep or claim from.

Micro-takaful cannot remain a slogan

The review points to micro-takaful for low-income groups as a promising but neglected area. Affordable, flexible cover could extend protection to families excluded by conventional insurance and mainstream takaful. It could also support education, housing and resilience after death or disability.

But “micro” must mean more than a smaller premium. Products need to match irregular incomes, simple claims processes and the realities of people with limited digital access or financial knowledge. Researchers should include women, informal workers, rejected claimants and families who dropped out, not only existing customers who are easy to survey.

Technology may help. Mobile enrolment could reduce distribution costs, while carefully governed data tools could improve service. Yet the paper finds that mobile takaful, artificial intelligence and digital awareness remain insufficiently studied. Innovation without safeguards could also deepen exclusion through automated decisions, inaccessible apps or opaque pricing.

The watchdog questions industry must answer

Ahmid, Korkut and Şahin offer a useful roadmap: widen research beyond familiar countries, test products in the field, study regulation and solvency, examine operators as closely as consumers, and develop products for different incomes and needs.

Industry leaders and regulators should go further by publishing comparable data on claim acceptance, payment times, complaints, cancellations, fees and surplus distribution. Universities should be able to study anonymised outcomes independently. Shariah boards should ask not only whether contracts meet formal rules, but whether products deliver fairness, clarity and mutual support in practice.

The review has limits of its own. It covers English-language work in two major academic databases and excludes reports from regulators, operators and civil society. It is therefore a map of visible academic research, not the whole industry. The authors acknowledge this limitation, which strengthens the case for broader evidence rather than weakening their warning.

Family takaful stands at a crossroads. It can become a trusted shield for millions of underserved families, or a promising label whose social claims outrun the evidence. The research boom matters only if it produces public scrutiny, better products and measurable protection when families need it most.

Family takaful’s research boom exposes an industry failing the underserved

Family takaful promises long-term protection for dependants, education and retirement. Yet a landmark review finds that researchers know far more about consumers’ intentions than whether the industry truly protects underserved families.

You may also want to read

Subscribe to our Newsletters

You may also want to read

September 2026

Latest News