the abbasìd’s golden age 171In terms of the size of the work, the depth and variety of treat-
ment, and the comprehensibility of topics, it might be justifiable to
focus our examination on Abù-Yùsuf ’s work, leaving the other, sim-
ilar, two to a more specialised work.
Abù-Yùsuf (113–182 A.H., 731–798 A.C.)
Kitàb al-Kharàj, Treatise in al-KharàjThe Author
He is Abù-Yùsuf Ya"qub ibn Ibràhìm al-Ansari (113/731–182/798),
a student and a friend of Abù-Hanìfah the founder of the Œanafì
school of thought. As a Œanafìbelonging to the school of opinion,
ahl al-ra"y, Abù-Yùsuf would resort to reasoning in matters related
to secular issues when a Tradition either did not exist or existed
but, in the scholar’s opinion, the circumstances in which the Prophet
took action, were different from the prevailing circumstances in which
a ruling was needed. Juristic reasoning was not, however, free from
restrictions. According to the school of opinion reasoning was resorted
to only when there was no clear-cut rule in the Qur"àn, the Sunnah
or the consensus of the opinion of the Prophet’s companions.
Furthermore the opinion should be based on the principles of ana-
logical reasoning “qiyàs”, juristic preference “istiœsàn” and public inter-
est “istislàœ”, as said previously.
The Œanafìapproach, or generally the approach of the school of
opinion, is reflected distinctively in Abù-Yùsuf ’s writing of his Kitàb
al-Kharàj. When discussing a controversial matter we invariably find
Abù-Yùsuf expressing a ruling which would be either preceded or
be proceeded with the expression “in my opinion”. We also find
him using the term “if this leads to the betterment of the people”
when suggesting a course of action to his Caliph that might differ
from previous courses, which shows the effect of the principle of
public interest “istislàœ” in reaching a ruling.
But Abù-Yùsuf would disagree with Abù–Œanìfah, his teacher, in
support of a course of action that was different from that of his mas-
ter. This is expressed in Abù-Yùsuf’s book on several occasions where
we find him after stating Abù-Œanìfah’s point of view disagreeing
with him and preferring another. The difference of opinion between
Abù-Yùsuf and his master does not, however, make him less Œanafì.