13.07.2015 Views

Towards A Unified Zakat System

Towards A Unified Zakat System

Towards A Unified Zakat System

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

with the second highest mean of 3.70. The result can beexplained on the grounds that distributing <strong>Zakat</strong> is anexpensive exercise and the government can afford it.Charitable organisations seem to be suggested by theparticipants since these organisations work closely withvarious sections of the society and they are placed in abetter position than the government agencies to identify theneedy. Islamic banks have insufficient infrastructures tosupport the distribution of <strong>Zakat</strong>. Most respondents disagreethat national banks should distribute <strong>Zakat</strong>. This is due tothe riba (interest) problem discussed previously.The chi-square statistics were insignificant for all fouritems at the 5 percent level. Thus, there is nostatistically significant difference in the attitudes of AC,GV, INV and AF groups towards the institutions that shoulddistribute<strong>Zakat</strong>.Table 6.6(b)Who should distribute <strong>Zakat</strong>?<strong>Zakat</strong> should be Freq. Mean Rank Sub-group mean by country SD MIN MAX Chi-sq P. valuedistributed by BA KU SA UAEGovernment 159 3.98 1 3.67 3.92 4.22 4.00 1.25 1 5 3.04. 385(Dept. of <strong>Zakat</strong>)Islamic banks 159 3.18 3 2.91 3.03 3.41 3.29 1.33 1 5 4.08. 253National banks 159 1.99 4 2.06 1.92 1.76 2.11. 983 1 5 2.08 . 555Charitable 159 3.70 2 3.97 3.62 3.70 3.58 1.21 1 5 3.07. 381organisationsBA= Bahrain KU= Kuwa it SA= Saudi Arab ia UAE= United Arab EmiratesTable 6.6(b) indicates that all countries surveyed in thisstudy, except Bahrain, strongly supported the Department of<strong>Zakat</strong> (government) as a candidate for distributing <strong>Zakat</strong>.221

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!