It is indeed astonishing that the respected author rejects the explicit text affirming that Hajj falls under fi sabil Allah (in the cause of Allah), yet readily accepts the statement he later cites from Sayyid Rashid in al-Manar: that fi sabil Allah includes building public charitable hospitals, preparing Islamic missionaries, financing religious schools, and the like. To the best of my knowledge, interpreting the verse in so sweeping a manner—so as to embrace every charitable act—has not been transmitted from any of the early generations. Even though Siddiq Hasan Khan inclined toward this view in al-Rawdah al-Nadiyyah, it remains unsound. Had the matter been as claimed, there would have been little benefit in restricting zakat to the eight categories named in the noble verse, for every charitable project—such as building mosques and the like—could then be counted under fi sabil Allah, and no Muslim has ever said that.

Indeed, Abu ‘Ubayd states in al-Amwal, paragraph 1979:

“As for paying a deceased person’s debts, providing for his shroud, constructing mosques, digging canals, and similar acts of benevolence, Sufyan, the scholars of Iraq, and others are unanimously agreed that these do not satisfy the zakat obligation, because they do not belong to the eight categories.”

The author himself will quote something to this effect later on.

Under the heading “Who is to distribute the zakat?” he writes: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to dispatch his deputies to collect the alms and distribute them to those entitled; Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did likewise, making no distinction between manifest wealth and hidden assets. When ‘Uthman assumed office, he followed this course for a time, but when he saw the increase of hidden assets and realized that pursuing them would impose hardship on the community and harm their owners through investigation, he left the payment of their zakat to the owners themselves.”

I say: there are several observations to be made: