360 chapter nine
the book in both languages is that the English speaking audience is
very large, or as the author tells us in his foreword, “the non-Arabic
speaking Muslims are almost ten times greater than the Arabic speak-
ing Muslims” (Abù-Saud, 1988), and there is a need that the mes-
sage in the book is to reach them promptly.
What prompted Abù-Saud to write his book, was, he explained,
(a) “the thick obscurity enveloping the rulings of this corner stone
of Islam”, (b) “the contradictory rules of the various Islamic schools”,
and, (c) “the lack of vision regarding the modern patterns of trans-
actions with their new concepts and models of income and investment”,
(ibid.). Even though one might find these reasons already stated in
al-Qardawi’s fiqh some two decades earlier, the significance of Abù-
Saud’s contemporary Zakàh is that, by his own assertion, although
“the work of al-Qardawi has been of great value to this author” the
author “has his own reservations” and points of view that do not
coincide with those of al-Qardawi. In a nutshell, although the inten-
tion of both authors, al-Qardawi and Abù-Saud, is the same, which
is to deal with contemporary issues that either did not exist at the
time of early or Medieval Islam, or existed but were not on the
same scale or of the same relevance, they differ on their recom-
mendations, opinions, or fatwa, given on how best these new issues
can be treated.
In effect, the traditional debate that led to the appearance of the
various schools of thought does not seem to have come to a halt. In
more than one place in his book, we read Abù-Saud’s disagreement
with both the classical and the contemporary jurists, “we do not agree
with the tradition set up by ancient jurists and adopted by al-Qardawi
and many contemporary jurists” (ibid.). Throughout the book we in-
variably find Abù-Saud, after explaining the ruling of the Rightly
Guided Caliphs, the opinions of the classical jurists, and the views
of the contemporary jurists, stating, “we may not adhere to that”,
“we have strong reservations”, or “we strongly object”, before pro-
ceeding to give his own point of view.
The zeal of Abù-Saud is undoubted, his self-exertion in reaching
an opinion is sincere and Contemporary Zakah is a valuable addi-
tion to fiqh books on the subject. The difference of opinions is a
difference of application that aims at achieving the most plausible
methods and principles of calculating the levy in modern times. It
is a difference on technicality to achieve the utmost fairness. But the
recognition of Zakàh as a social, economic and religious institution
is unanimous.