![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have no edits to make, just the comment that I find the article difficult to understand as written. Respectfully suggest an edit or rewrite by a native english speaker? The thoughts or points are often not clearly connected. Thank you. May 18, 2008 ladeedah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladeedah ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you changed the newer template to the older one. In my oppinion Template:Muslim Beliefs is much more appropiate for this article than Template:Islam. It shows that there are several closly related articles, how they are related and also kills the myth that the five pillars are universal. More accurate in other words. Could you provide some arguments for changing back to the old template? -- Striver 04:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The text is clear, however, certain aspects of the discussion need to explained in a context. Regarding the prayers, it is correct that there are five prayers, but the first is not the dawn prayer. The first prayer is to occur before the dawn. This distinction should not be overlooked, as it is very important. There is a dawn prayer, but it is voluntary and not a part of what Muslims regard as the compulsory prayer.
The second correction goes to Zakat. There is not, in any strict terms, a mathematical calculation to determining Zakat. It literally should be translated as an act of charity. There is some Quranic guidance for determining the amount, but such is not based on a mathematical formula; rather, simply guides one to give from his net, i.e., from what one has in excess of his needs and obligations. Food is generally the preferred method of giving, and such should be offered to those who are hungry, poor, oppressed, etc. In modern times, one usually adjusts the meaning of Zakat to mean the giving of one's money. Perhaps this is best applied in places like the US and Europe where these forms of "value" exchanges are common. That said, Zakat will vary within societies and cultures, and may include many other things that have a value.
Zakat is a regular part of Islam practices and includes even works that are of good deeds. The Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) instructed Muslims that a good greeting, helping one to mount his or her horse, etc., all constitute Zakat. It also allows those who are poor and without to commit themselves to acts of charity.
One should also be careful not to mash-up the meaning of Zakat with certain aspects of "alms" giving that is outlined during the holy month of Ramadan. The giving of Alms during Ramadan includes certain preferred methods, and guidance. None of these preferred methods, however, is an exact calculation that is tied to one's income. Some confusions about the Zakat may have been exaggerated by Islamic practices that encourage Muslims to give donations by the end of Ramadan. The latter is a kind of assurance for those: 1) who may not have made aims donations during the earlier part of the year; 2) who are observing rites while on a pilgrimage at Mecca, or for other reasons.
The Wiki discussion also exaggerates the distinctions between major Islamic cultures, i.e., Sunni and Shai. While I am not comfortable speaking on the differences between Sunni and Shia practices relative to the five pillars, it is better to first state that this distinction is not only man made, but also in diametric opposition to instructions in the Quran and teachings by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This position is best understood in a larger context. In Islam, one should be observant of, if not attracted to, differences among peoples. The Prophet expressly states that there should not be any racial or cultural distinctions between Muslims even it these believers come from different families, clans, or parts of the earth. It is fine to see that these believers may be, for lack of a better term, arrayed in different colors, shapes, and speech. However, these differences should be akin to the way one would observe hues of colors. This is a nuanced understanding that takes one away from making black and white distinctions among groups. The prevailing sentiment is that no distinctions should be made among Muslims that are based on cultures, races, etc. This point is inserted now because the WiKi definition explains the differences between Sunni and Shai as a matter that is de facto and permissible within the Islam.
To the extent that one should make differences between any person or group should be simply based on the degree to which that person or group is pious. Plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.moss ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to send a letter to my friend about Zakah. Therfore she does not know anything about the Muslim beleif and how important it is to them. Please can you help me explain to her about Zakah? Thankyou
I have added a link in external links called "Important Information about Zakaah, Nisaab & Sadqah-Tul-Fitr" i personally when to mosque and got the accurate information though "Islamic Foundation of Toronto" do check it out, plus its very informative. ( Imuslimz ( talk) 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
First, let me say I'm not Muslim and have very little knowledge of the religion beyond the basics. I have heard different things though as to the amount of the Zakat--2.5% and 10%. The article says 2.5% but I've heard a few people (including a Muslim) say it was 10%. I even had a professor who was raised Muslim say it was 2.5% a few days ago in an anthropology lecture, but in an article she wrote she said it was 10% (and she doesn't seem to remember ever saying it was 10%, but I have the article on my lap as I type this). Can someone clarify this? The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I study Islam in college and I understand that it's 2.5% of 'wealth' (not just salary) or 10% of your 'produce' (if you're a farmer and give some of your crops for example). However, there is also Sadaqa which is a charitable donation and this can be given on top of Zakat, but it's not the same thing as Zakat (it isn't obligatory). Hope this helps :)
Zakat is used to pay the salary Islamic clergy, build mosques and temples, and promote Islam. The poor have to wage jihad to gain more territory for everyone. Soup is given out to the poor on rare occasions and the like, but nothing meaningful. The main beneficiaries are mullahs as pointed out by Ali Dashti — who was an Islamic cleric, though dissenting. -- Patchouli 08:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat (tax)."
Perhaps I make lexical mistakes unwittingly and you can alter that and modify the text.-- Patchouli 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Patchouli, as a non-Arab myself I have no difficulty reading this article. Could you point out which Arab words are left unexplained? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Are the aims of Zakat, as described here, accurate? I don't think they are and we should urgently look at the Aims section. Parkylondon 10:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this material about how zakat works. It is too well organized. My guess is that this is the ideal form of zakat according to one of the many possible source. Maybe the Shi'ite information is more accurate. It is certainly more plausible.
In my opinion the whole article should be condemned as POV. But I am not about to do anything about it today. DKleinecke 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone please clarify the numbers used in the Shiite example: "A man starts with $5000 in his bank account; on the same day after one lunar year passes, he has $1 in his bank account (having already paid his bills and debts), and so must take the fifth of his $1 earning, that is $120. What remains after the fifth (that is 1-1=$5480)"
Riemerb 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is not complete and there're a few misunderstandings on this talk page. While I am addressing some of the issues on the talk page, my main concern (and the motivation for this dispute) is because of inaccuracy of the zakat article.
The article only talks about 2.5% on savings and does not even discuss ushr and khums which is part of zakat. I cannot update it right now, but I am flagging it so someone else can spend some time fixing it and in the meantime, users will know that this is misrepresenting Zakat.
If you would like to know more about Zakat, feel free to read this: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/nodeed98.html This is a journal published in Pakistan by Al-Mawrid institude (one of the leading Islamic sciences research institutes). You can find ample material in Sayyid Sabiq (from Al-Azhar university cairo)'s Fiqh-us-Sunnah - which you can easily get by googling.
Zakat is supposed to be paid to an Islamic government - that is why many Muslim countries officially charge zakat (example in case, Pakistan - unless you are a non-Muslim or do not adhere to the scholarly opinion that you can pay zakat to the government.) It is only in the case of lack of a government or living in an Islamic government that one ends up paying their Zakat elsewhere (i.e. to poor and/or to charity). (see http://www.renaissance.com.pk/deisma951.html)
Also someone mentioned above a link between Jihad and Zakat - they have no direct link. The only way they 'were linked' was when the government waged a war (which is how armed Jihad is supposed to be), and it uses Zakat (otherwise called tax) to purchase arms or build military.
Thanks - Omer ( talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The last few paragraphs clearly need deletion or serious editing as they are full of sweeping nonverifiable generalizations and an obvious anti-Islam bias.
IrishHollow (
talk)
14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it zakat or zakah? Or are the terms interchangeable? 69.42.7.212 ( talk) 19:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking the same question. If both terms are used by Muslims then they should both be given in the introduction. Ltwin ( talk) 16:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if anyone could have a look at [1] and spot any errors. I appreciate I ought to post this on a Wikiproject Islam page but it is more relevant here and it does contain some quotes which might be useful for improving this article. -- BozMo talk 11:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Preamble:
Allama Iqbal envisions the operation of the Qura’nic command – Qulil ‘Afw [Say to the people: ‘spend the surplus’ above the median level for the benefit of the common man, Al Qur’an 2:219] in the modern age in the following verses:
Jo harf-e- Qulil ‘Afw mein poshidah hai abtak Is daur mein shayad wuh haqiqat ho namoodar.
The truth hidden in the Qur’anic verse Qulil ‘Afw And hitherto unexplored, may be revealed unto mankind, In the present age.
THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE IN ISLAM
The Theory of Surplus Value is a Qur’anic Conception, crisply defined in the Qur’an fourteen hundred years ago before Karl Marx, Thus:
“They ask you as to how much they should spend (for the cause of humanity for Allah’s sake). Say: The entire Surplus. (Al-Qur’an, 2:219).
Take the Surplus, promote good, and ignore the uninformed (for the truth and justice of Islam to prevail). (Al-Qur’an, 7:199)
This edict provides the wherewithal to the State of Islam, to ensure primary human rights to all and to abolish poverty, ignorance, inequalities and all the ills of the Society, - as decreed and ordained in the Magna Charta of Human Rights – the great Qur’an. It enunciates of the policy of public finance as well in the Kingdom of Islam.
Land and Natural resources are a part of the universe and they belong to Allah. Man, as His Khalifa and His manager, is entrusted with the efficient management of these natural resources to ensure proper exploitation, maximum production and equitable distribution of the joint product of man and nature, the free gift of Allah, to all mankind.
“To Allah belongs land (and the natural resources), the heirdom whereof He bestows upon whomsoever among His servants He may will” (Al -Qur’an, 7:128).
Land and natural resources have been created by Allah for the benefit and nourishment of all mankind and of all creatures. The function of the Government of Allah is to see that these are not misappropriated for selfish individual aggrandizement of wicked people and followers of the devil at the cost of all others.
MAN AND NATURE ARE THE AGENTS OF PRODUCTION
Man and Nature co-operate with each other in the production of wealth for the benefit of all mankind in the Kingdom of Allah. They, therefore, have each a share in the joint product. Nature’s share is collected in the Baitul Maal (State Treasury) by the Khalifa for equitable distribution among the disabled, the sick, the poor and the destitute, in order to help them to stand on their own legs, to remove inequalities, and to bring the stragglers into line to march forward and join the race with the soldiers of Allah to encircle the globe.
“And it is Allah Who confers on some of you superiority over some others in wealth and means. Why not then those who have been favoured with abundance give it away to their dependants in such a manner that they all become equal. Do they deny that this abundancy is a favour of Allah to them? (Al-Qur’an, 16: 71).
The capitalist idea of land, labour, capital and entrepreneurs as factors of production is an anathema in Islam. Land is part of Nature. Labour and entrepreneurs are the capitalist divisions of man into classes and masses.
Nature and Man are two agents of Allah for the production of wealth in this world. After man is paid his dues in return for his industry, there remains an undistributed surplus which, in the capitalist state, is unjustly appropriated by the capitalist classes in one form or other in return for undertaking no risk of uncertainty of a productive enterprise.
The Surplus is the Natures share of the national products- on the wealth produced in the Kingdom of Allah.
In the Kingdom of Allah, there is no division of man into classes. There is only one ‘Ummat’ of mankind. The surplus of the joint product of Man and Nature is the share of Nature or the share of Allah placed at the disposal of the Viceroy to feed the stragglers and to help them to join the company of workers rightfully and honourably.
Karl Marx was not originator of the Theory of Surplus Value. His definition of the Theory was also wrong. This was natural, for he came to a confused conclusion after analyzing the nature of capitalist production. According to him, the measure of the value of an article is the amount of labour necessary to produce it. The labourers, however, produce more than they consume but under the capitalistic regime, they lose the surplus value of what they produce over and above their wages. He thus sowed the seeds of class-struggle, strikes, lockouts and the division of men into militantly hostile groups.
But labour cannot produce anything in vacuum. It can produce only in co-operation with Nature and with help of natural resources which are free gifts of Allah to all mankind. Capital is the by-product of Man’s industry and Nature’s co-operation, and it consists of the undistributed surplus value left after payment to man of his dues fully, for his industry, organization and leadership. Capital also, therefore, is a free gift of Allah to all mankind.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE SURPLUS?
Plain living and high thinking has been the actively living motto of Islam. The criterion should be the lives of Muhammad (Sm.) and rightly guided Caliphs. Building up of a balanced character through complete self-realization by each individual is the first and fundamental principle of the state of Islam. State capitalism or state socialism or state communism, negating or dwarfing the personality of the common man has no place in Islam.
The main function of the head of the state of Islam is to serve as a friend, philosopher and guide – freely accessible to every individual citizen or corporate body of individuals for the fullest development of self of the individual or the corporate body, in harmony with the Divine order which is subject to eternal laws to be discovered by discerning minds and acted upon by the entire humanity.
One of the Divine attributes is that Allah is Rabbul ‘Alamin – that He is the Sustainer and Nourisher of the universes. Allah gives everything but takes nothing in return except submission to His Sole Sovereign Divinity and accord with His order and the laws of Harmony in the universe. The man who is to serve as His Khalifah - His Viceroy – is invested with this Divine attribute which is fully developed in him so that he can feel the oneness of the life eternal and forgo the transient for what is an eternal continuity. He will then have his outlook on the permanent aspect of life beyond this decaying world and be able to hold a firm grip on it and its resources to minister to the comforts, prosperity and happiness of others and acquire satisfaction for himself by seeing others under his care happy, prosperous and peaceful. For his material comforts or gains, he comes last of all, he being the residuary legatee in the Kingdom of Allah.
Theory of Surplus Value cannot work in a secular system:
The guiding principle to regulate work and distribution of wealth in the state of Islam is ‘from each according to ability, to each according to needs for a respectable living.’ This principle worked successfully in the state of Islam alone. Because it promises a future life in which every individual is accountable to his Sovereign Master for his performances in his earthly term. And he will receive rewards for his loyalty to the Revealed Constitution [The Qur’aan] or punishments for his disloyalty.
But this guiding principle cannot work in any other system. It has failed in Communism. Capitalism and other [secular or man-made] systems do not believe in, and do not accept, this principle. In the state of Islam, Nature is an agent of production. The surplus (Al-‘Afw) above the cost of production is the share of Nature, which must go to the state treasury (Baitul Maal) to promote and finance welfare services and meet the essential demands of its citizens in distress and in dire needs, to eradicate poverty, misery, ignorance and unskilled labour and not to multiply the number of beggars. Appropriation of un-invested surplus by the state prevents hoarding, dissolute living and extravagance.
Notes:
Zakaat is the compulsory state levy at prescribed rates on the annual net savings after meeting all kinds of liabilities and expenditures.
Unused and un-invested surplus (al-‘afw), however, is to be surrendered to, and to be collected by, the state of Islam, which guarantees security of means and employment on a world basis to all. These measures have been enacted to finance the welfare programme of the state to eradicate and banish poverty, ignorance and all kinds of maladies from the world.
Excerpts collated from: 1. The Intelligent Man’s Guide to Islam (1969), by Muhammad Khalilur Rahman 2. The Clarion Call of the Eternal Qur’aan (1991), by Muhammad Khalilur Rahman
Md. Nasireddin Ghani ( talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Media:hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.203.235 ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
ZAKAT IS THE ONE THING WE MUST DO because of the real property by issuing a charity that we have can terbersihkan clean dirt from the point of the rights of poor people because it was feared the treasures we have tucked away the rights of the poor.thanks,!
الزكاة الشيء الوحيد التي يجب أن نفعلها بسبب الممتلكات العقارية عن طريق إصدار الخيرية التي يمكن أن تكون محمية من التراب الذي هو واضح من حقوق الفقراء لأنه كان يخشى من كنز أن لدينا مدسوس بعيدا عن حقوق الفقراء. (Yanto)
A recently recieved e-mail (you know the kind) alleges that President Obama has made public statements in opposition to supposedly increasing the level of difficulties for US Muslims to (whatever the verb is) "do" Zakat. The e-mail links to a YouTube video which alleges that the "7th category" is to fund "military operations" around the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQG8PIqLp7k
I came to wikipedia to see what this was about, and while there is no mention in the article one way or the other, I am inclined to believe that there may be some truth to this allegation due to the amibuous working of the 7th category, "In the way of Allah - Fi sabil Allah".
It gives the impression that the specific purpose of this 7th category is to hide the fact that money given under this category may in fact be used for what would be considered terrorist activities.
It seems to me that some text directly addressing this issue/possible misconception would be constructive.
````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda emails and Youtube are not accepted credible sources. If you have some information from credible sources, please post it. Otherwise the assumption is that this is a biased attempt to make a partisan attack, based on hearsay.
Jbower47 (
talk)
17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Jonny, I saw the same video of President Obama and came to look for myself. I would disagree with Jbower47 as the Youtube video was a recording of the President giving this speech in Cairo. It's public record. Also, several other sites have the same video. I consider that a credible source. I understand his desire to defend his faith.
I read the article about the Zakat and what all it is for. Number seven says Fi sabil Allah which can be translated different ways, one of which is to be on the path of Allah which is interpreted by many Islamic Jurists, the educated class of Muslim legal scholars engaged in the several fields of Islamic studies. Unfortunately, many foreign languages have words and statements that can be interpreted different ways. While some Muslims may say Zakat is not to support jihad, others, including extremist terrorists, will interpret it as such. It depends who wrote out the uses of Zakat and you have to look at all their writings to determine what it means. Many times there are multiple words in the original language that can translate similarly but have variations. For example, there are two words in Aramaic that can both be translated "husband of one wife" but have different meanings. One can mean you are married to one woman at a time while another can mean you have only had one wife your entire life. However, in this case, I am not going to dig in to that. There will always be those who say yes, it supports jihad, and those that say no, it doesn't. I believe there are even those who believe it supports it but will tell a non-Muslim that it doesn't.
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimdavis30 ( talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
American taxes are used to fund military occupation which does cause terror in the minds of people who live in occupied lands. However, I don't see that section the "Taxes" article.-- UnbiasedNeutral ( talk) 17:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There are portions of this article that seems to suggest that non-Muslims have some a possibility to receive zakat, for example:
Non of these claims have any sources to back them up as far as I can see. There is however evidence that suggests Muslims is forbidden from giving zakat to non-Muslims here and here and even under "special circumstances". It seems only to be allowed to volentary give charity to a non-Muslim but forbidden to give zakat which is obligatory as can be seen here. Davidelah ( talk) 21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZpgRbcZDIAwJ:www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite%3Fpagename%3DIslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE%26cid%3D1119503544900+zakat+to+non-muslims+Non-Muslims+in+the+Muslim+Community&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com#ixzz1MhA3OK3b"So my suggestions above is still valid.
Advertadam, you are one of the most close minded people in my opinion on wikipedia, i am sorry if that offends you, you reject everything and anything that goes against your POV (you even revert other well referenced POV from wiklipedia), you would not even consider if you are wrong, you are always right, arent you !!!-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
To further shed some light on the opinion of the jurist as to the question of zakat for non-Muslims, in the Guide to Zakah: Understanding & Calculation from the biggest bank in Pakistan, written by a respected scholar, says that; There is consensus of the Muslim jurists that it is not permissible to give Zakah to non-Muslims. And regarding the fourth category of recipient: This category of recipients refers to the poor and needy Muslims ... non-Muslims are excluded in accordance with the general principle that they do not qualify as recipients of Zakah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This discussion was sent to the the Dispute Resolutions
here, and I will post the results here when done. Thanks
~ AdvertAdam
talk
06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
What's added, "Those Fighting for Allah", is one meaning of many; it's already explained in the wikilink. What's your reason of adding it? Look at the style of the whole list, and decide from there. Again, no need to restate the same thing over and over again, just to highlight the words you like. ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the way the section looks now, and it seems accurate. It would be nice if we could get the citations into the standard book citation template format. Also, a citation using a religious website might not hold up. Someone could come by and rip that out. - Aquib ( talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
David, please continue the discussion next-time and stop pushing your POV. "Generally" is a broad claim that you don't have the credibility to write. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
According to
WP:DUE, I reverted your edit. The first sentence (with its sources) is mentioning a minority pov, while the second sentence (with its source) is showing what is used by the larges Muslim community. Keep the weight and happy editing
~ AdvertAdam
talk
20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you open any Arabic-English dictionary and look for "أمة" under the alphabet "أ" to read the meaning of the word. Arabic words don't change meanings during history, sir. Don't make claims about things you said you haven't read about! Answering your comment above, majority comes from the root major, so please keep that in mind while rereading what I wrote above. I've already had the discussion of minor/major with you before on Jihad, so please reread those sources too, pls; to save all of us time. ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
@AdamRce, stop whitewashing Islam related articles ! Go spread your "truth" somewhere else. You still have not realised that on wikipedia there is "no one truth", we never mention the 1 truth on wikipedia, only what the sources say about the truth. Why dont you allow multiple truths? You need to stop believing that there is only 1 truth on wikipedia (which i know you do, i have shown proof of this in the admin notices), you wont last long on wikipedia, if you persist like this. You have already gotten yourself a bad reputation among many users (and i can tell you the more you carry on like this, the more people will watch your edits carefully)-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have read that many Muslim leaders such as Umar, Abu Bakr, Uthman and Muhammad enforced the payment of Zakat by force when people refused to pay it. Would it be suitable to mention this in the article. one example of enforcing Zakat during Muhammad's era is the Expedition of Uyainah bin Hisn . You thoughts please -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
See Hadith 4:538 'Allah's Apostle said, "A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that."' User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an enormous hole in this page, and it is "Zakat in practice". How is Zakat done in modern day Islamic societies? How was it done in the past? Too much of this article is about what may be largely irrelevant theory William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
As I'm sure you will all notice, I have removed a very large quantity of unsourced information, original research from primary documents, and information that used unreliable sources. I have replaced this with information that is found in scholarly sources. Please do not re-include any of the deleted information unless you can provide sources that meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS. In the future, please try to use the types of sources I've provided here -- that is, sources that are published by academic publishers, and that are not promoting a single Islamic sect's views. There is clearly disagreement about many things related to the zakat, and we need to talk about this disagreement without taking a stance ourselves, as editors. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 22:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
An alternative spelling of zakāt is zakah. Should that be mentioned in the article? -- Mortense ( talk) 16:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The intro compares donations of different religious sects thus:
There, Muslims, on average, gave $567, compared to $412 for Jews, $308 for Protestants, $272 for Catholics and $177 for atheists.
Atheism is neither a religion nor a sect. Please consider either removing atheists from the comparison of donors or clarify that large proportions of atheists' donations do not go to the upkeep of salaries/properties/mass-indoctrinations of the respective religions own followers and possible converts. Donations to secular causes that are spent directly on the needy can not be compared to religious donations that follow a long and insidious road before they actually reach the needy.
Also, while all other sects mentioned in the above have links to their respective wikis, "atheists" does not. I shall correct that presently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoother ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: Have corrected the link mentioned above. I have not capitalised the noun as some dictionaries would demand. Please correct that as needed. Themoother ( talk) 00:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
For the following statement:
"There, Muslims, on average, gave $567, compared to $412 for Jews, $308 for Protestants, $272 for Catholics and $177 for atheists."
There is only a dollar amount of wealth given and no discussion about factors that would change this. The article seems to assert that the dollar amounts imply more charity on behalf of certain groups and are caused by religion or irreligion. What if certain groups simply earn more more (and so can afford to donate more)? What if factors correlating with religion but not related to religion affect donation rates? For example, suppose recent immigrants give more or less money.
This is interesting information but maybe should not be at the top of the page (because it's complicated and can't be explained in one sentence) and might need more discussion. It also seems a bit out of place at the top of the page. Maybe we can move this sentence and add a link to a specific page that discusses the issue of religion and charity in more depth?
This issue is related to the previous subject of how atheism is not a religion but is distinct. I feel regardless of that discussion that this sentence needs more work.
Thank you for reading my thoughts.
173.180.212.56 ( talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Themoother:@ 173.180.212.56:I've gone ahead and moved the paragraph comparing the amount given by each religion, seems out of place in the lead. I could not find the original survey on ICM website. The comparison of Islamic giving Vs total humanitarian giving may be problematic - isn't some of the aid given by Muslims humanitarian? Jonpatterns ( talk) 10:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
"The family of the Muhammad…"
shouldn't that be "The family of Muhammad" ? Is "Muhammad" also a common noun ? If so, can it be defined ? --
Jerome Potts (
talk)
16:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The article states that it is obligatory to give Zakat but it doesn't say which countries. Maybe this could a good starting point? http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/zakat-by-country/
Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen. 124.190.24.102 ( talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
User at 120.18.68.78 - Read WP:V and WP:RS. The lead summary needs to reflect the main article and match what the cites are saying, not what your "Shia sources" are telling you. If you have concerns about the summary, explain it on this talk page. RLoutfy ( talk) 06:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The title of the article has a taa marbuta at the end, meaning it is pronounced "Zakah" when it stands alone such as in a title and is only pronounced "Zakat" when immediately followed by another word like "Zakat-ul-fitr". Sodicadl ( talk) 01:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Zakat. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to be clear in separating theory from practice and past from present. The separation mostly seems to exist on paragraph level, so I'm tempted to rearrange the material, but this a big change and I'd like to build consensus first. How about the following?
Thoughts? Eperoton ( talk) 02:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It is stated in the lede that, "The payment and disputes on zakat have played a major role in the history of Islam, notably during the Ridda wars." I would like to quote this excellent entry by Wael Hallaq in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 121.:
A more convincing view, however, is that each of the revolts against the new order had its own causes. Of the six major centers of uprising, four had a religious color, each led by a so- called prophet, prophetess or soothsayer: al-Aswad al-Ansī in Yemen, Musaylima (q.v.) in Yamāma, ulay a b. Khuwaylid of the tribes of Banū Asad and Banū Ghaafān and Sajā of the tribe of Tamīm. The resistance in the two other centers — east and southeast of the Arabian peninsula — seems to have been caused by a refusal to submit to the political authority of Medina including the payment of taxes imposed upon them by the Prophet in 9 ⁄ 630. Following classical Islamic sources, much of modern scholarship tends to see all these wars and battles that took place within the boundaries of Arabia — before the conquests in Syria and īra began — as falling into the category of the wars of apostasy. In point of fact, of all the centers of revolt only Najd qualifies, strictly speaking, for classification as a center of apostate rebellion. The Banū Hanīfa, led by Musaylima in Yamāma, had never been subject to Medinan domination nor did they sign any treaty either with Muhammad or with his successor Abū Bakr (11 ⁄ 632-13 ⁄ 634). It was only when the military commander Khālid b. al-Walīd (d. 21 ⁄ 642) defeated them in 12 ⁄ 633 that they came, for the first time, under Medinan domination. In other words, they never converted to Islam in the first place so that they cannot correctly be labeled as apostates. A similar situation existed in Umān, al-Barayn, al-Yaman, and a ramawt. There, Muhammad concluded treaties with military leaders — some of whom were Persian agents — who were quickly ousted by the local tribes. Thus, the tribes’ resistance to Medina did not presuppose a particular relationship in which they paid allegiance to the Muslim state. Again, their uprising does not constitute apostasy, properly speaking. The tribes of Najd, on the other hand, were their own masters and signed treaties with Muhammad, the terms of which required them to adopt Islam and to pay homage as well as taxes to Medina. Their revolt, thus, constituted a clear case of apostasy.
So as it seems "disputes on zakat" didn't play a "major role" in the ridda wars, with only the tribes of Najd refusing to pay it. What do you thus suggest as an alternative? 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
EI2 "Zakat": The system of zakat collection was gravely threatened during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, when some of the Arabian tribes refused to acknowledge that the Prophet's authority to collect zakat had passed to his successor. This movement in resistance to the collection of zakat is associated with the apostasy of the ridda wars [...]
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, "Zakat": In fact, neglecting to pay zakāt became an offense punishable by law. This was a precedent set by the first caliph, Abū Bakr, who fought against those who refused to fulfill their obligation of zakāt. Zakāt in this case, however, was in essence a form of tribute paid by the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula to the Muslim treasury (bayt al-māl). Failure to make these payments after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad resulted in the Wars of Apostasy during Abū Bakr's caliphate (632–634).
Nonetheless, Abu Bakr made a number of decisions that defined the political direction of the new regime. He decided that all tribes formerly allied to Muhammad would have to continue to pay taxes (zakat), and he waged war on those who refused, a period known as the apostasy (ridda) wars. Lapidus, Ira M.. A History of Islamic Societies (p. 65). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
The definition of the term has been subject to back-and-forth, and I've struggled myself on the best wording. I would welcome discussion on this point. Here's the issue. There are RSs which refer to zakat as simply alms-giving, there are RSs which highlight it as a religious duty, and there RSs which call it a tax. What we want to make clear is the distinction between religious obligation and compulsion. The word "obligatory" in itself doesn't convey it clearly, and so it doesn't appropriately reflect the fact that most countries these days no longer treat it as a legal requirement. Eperoton ( talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please provide a small translation for this image which is used in the article. It is the English wikipedia so I think this request makes sense here.
DTM ( talk) 07:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Zakat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have no edits to make, just the comment that I find the article difficult to understand as written. Respectfully suggest an edit or rewrite by a native english speaker? The thoughts or points are often not clearly connected. Thank you. May 18, 2008 ladeedah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladeedah ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you changed the newer template to the older one. In my oppinion Template:Muslim Beliefs is much more appropiate for this article than Template:Islam. It shows that there are several closly related articles, how they are related and also kills the myth that the five pillars are universal. More accurate in other words. Could you provide some arguments for changing back to the old template? -- Striver 04:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The text is clear, however, certain aspects of the discussion need to explained in a context. Regarding the prayers, it is correct that there are five prayers, but the first is not the dawn prayer. The first prayer is to occur before the dawn. This distinction should not be overlooked, as it is very important. There is a dawn prayer, but it is voluntary and not a part of what Muslims regard as the compulsory prayer.
The second correction goes to Zakat. There is not, in any strict terms, a mathematical calculation to determining Zakat. It literally should be translated as an act of charity. There is some Quranic guidance for determining the amount, but such is not based on a mathematical formula; rather, simply guides one to give from his net, i.e., from what one has in excess of his needs and obligations. Food is generally the preferred method of giving, and such should be offered to those who are hungry, poor, oppressed, etc. In modern times, one usually adjusts the meaning of Zakat to mean the giving of one's money. Perhaps this is best applied in places like the US and Europe where these forms of "value" exchanges are common. That said, Zakat will vary within societies and cultures, and may include many other things that have a value.
Zakat is a regular part of Islam practices and includes even works that are of good deeds. The Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) instructed Muslims that a good greeting, helping one to mount his or her horse, etc., all constitute Zakat. It also allows those who are poor and without to commit themselves to acts of charity.
One should also be careful not to mash-up the meaning of Zakat with certain aspects of "alms" giving that is outlined during the holy month of Ramadan. The giving of Alms during Ramadan includes certain preferred methods, and guidance. None of these preferred methods, however, is an exact calculation that is tied to one's income. Some confusions about the Zakat may have been exaggerated by Islamic practices that encourage Muslims to give donations by the end of Ramadan. The latter is a kind of assurance for those: 1) who may not have made aims donations during the earlier part of the year; 2) who are observing rites while on a pilgrimage at Mecca, or for other reasons.
The Wiki discussion also exaggerates the distinctions between major Islamic cultures, i.e., Sunni and Shai. While I am not comfortable speaking on the differences between Sunni and Shia practices relative to the five pillars, it is better to first state that this distinction is not only man made, but also in diametric opposition to instructions in the Quran and teachings by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This position is best understood in a larger context. In Islam, one should be observant of, if not attracted to, differences among peoples. The Prophet expressly states that there should not be any racial or cultural distinctions between Muslims even it these believers come from different families, clans, or parts of the earth. It is fine to see that these believers may be, for lack of a better term, arrayed in different colors, shapes, and speech. However, these differences should be akin to the way one would observe hues of colors. This is a nuanced understanding that takes one away from making black and white distinctions among groups. The prevailing sentiment is that no distinctions should be made among Muslims that are based on cultures, races, etc. This point is inserted now because the WiKi definition explains the differences between Sunni and Shai as a matter that is de facto and permissible within the Islam.
To the extent that one should make differences between any person or group should be simply based on the degree to which that person or group is pious. Plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.moss ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to send a letter to my friend about Zakah. Therfore she does not know anything about the Muslim beleif and how important it is to them. Please can you help me explain to her about Zakah? Thankyou
I have added a link in external links called "Important Information about Zakaah, Nisaab & Sadqah-Tul-Fitr" i personally when to mosque and got the accurate information though "Islamic Foundation of Toronto" do check it out, plus its very informative. ( Imuslimz ( talk) 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC))
First, let me say I'm not Muslim and have very little knowledge of the religion beyond the basics. I have heard different things though as to the amount of the Zakat--2.5% and 10%. The article says 2.5% but I've heard a few people (including a Muslim) say it was 10%. I even had a professor who was raised Muslim say it was 2.5% a few days ago in an anthropology lecture, but in an article she wrote she said it was 10% (and she doesn't seem to remember ever saying it was 10%, but I have the article on my lap as I type this). Can someone clarify this? The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I study Islam in college and I understand that it's 2.5% of 'wealth' (not just salary) or 10% of your 'produce' (if you're a farmer and give some of your crops for example). However, there is also Sadaqa which is a charitable donation and this can be given on top of Zakat, but it's not the same thing as Zakat (it isn't obligatory). Hope this helps :)
Zakat is used to pay the salary Islamic clergy, build mosques and temples, and promote Islam. The poor have to wage jihad to gain more territory for everyone. Soup is given out to the poor on rare occasions and the like, but nothing meaningful. The main beneficiaries are mullahs as pointed out by Ali Dashti — who was an Islamic cleric, though dissenting. -- Patchouli 08:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat (tax)."
Perhaps I make lexical mistakes unwittingly and you can alter that and modify the text.-- Patchouli 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Patchouli, as a non-Arab myself I have no difficulty reading this article. Could you point out which Arab words are left unexplained? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Are the aims of Zakat, as described here, accurate? I don't think they are and we should urgently look at the Aims section. Parkylondon 10:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this material about how zakat works. It is too well organized. My guess is that this is the ideal form of zakat according to one of the many possible source. Maybe the Shi'ite information is more accurate. It is certainly more plausible.
In my opinion the whole article should be condemned as POV. But I am not about to do anything about it today. DKleinecke 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone please clarify the numbers used in the Shiite example: "A man starts with $5000 in his bank account; on the same day after one lunar year passes, he has $1 in his bank account (having already paid his bills and debts), and so must take the fifth of his $1 earning, that is $120. What remains after the fifth (that is 1-1=$5480)"
Riemerb 08:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is not complete and there're a few misunderstandings on this talk page. While I am addressing some of the issues on the talk page, my main concern (and the motivation for this dispute) is because of inaccuracy of the zakat article.
The article only talks about 2.5% on savings and does not even discuss ushr and khums which is part of zakat. I cannot update it right now, but I am flagging it so someone else can spend some time fixing it and in the meantime, users will know that this is misrepresenting Zakat.
If you would like to know more about Zakat, feel free to read this: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/nodeed98.html This is a journal published in Pakistan by Al-Mawrid institude (one of the leading Islamic sciences research institutes). You can find ample material in Sayyid Sabiq (from Al-Azhar university cairo)'s Fiqh-us-Sunnah - which you can easily get by googling.
Zakat is supposed to be paid to an Islamic government - that is why many Muslim countries officially charge zakat (example in case, Pakistan - unless you are a non-Muslim or do not adhere to the scholarly opinion that you can pay zakat to the government.) It is only in the case of lack of a government or living in an Islamic government that one ends up paying their Zakat elsewhere (i.e. to poor and/or to charity). (see http://www.renaissance.com.pk/deisma951.html)
Also someone mentioned above a link between Jihad and Zakat - they have no direct link. The only way they 'were linked' was when the government waged a war (which is how armed Jihad is supposed to be), and it uses Zakat (otherwise called tax) to purchase arms or build military.
Thanks - Omer ( talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The last few paragraphs clearly need deletion or serious editing as they are full of sweeping nonverifiable generalizations and an obvious anti-Islam bias.
IrishHollow (
talk)
14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it zakat or zakah? Or are the terms interchangeable? 69.42.7.212 ( talk) 19:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking the same question. If both terms are used by Muslims then they should both be given in the introduction. Ltwin ( talk) 16:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if anyone could have a look at [1] and spot any errors. I appreciate I ought to post this on a Wikiproject Islam page but it is more relevant here and it does contain some quotes which might be useful for improving this article. -- BozMo talk 11:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Preamble:
Allama Iqbal envisions the operation of the Qura’nic command – Qulil ‘Afw [Say to the people: ‘spend the surplus’ above the median level for the benefit of the common man, Al Qur’an 2:219] in the modern age in the following verses:
Jo harf-e- Qulil ‘Afw mein poshidah hai abtak Is daur mein shayad wuh haqiqat ho namoodar.
The truth hidden in the Qur’anic verse Qulil ‘Afw And hitherto unexplored, may be revealed unto mankind, In the present age.
THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE IN ISLAM
The Theory of Surplus Value is a Qur’anic Conception, crisply defined in the Qur’an fourteen hundred years ago before Karl Marx, Thus:
“They ask you as to how much they should spend (for the cause of humanity for Allah’s sake). Say: The entire Surplus. (Al-Qur’an, 2:219).
Take the Surplus, promote good, and ignore the uninformed (for the truth and justice of Islam to prevail). (Al-Qur’an, 7:199)
This edict provides the wherewithal to the State of Islam, to ensure primary human rights to all and to abolish poverty, ignorance, inequalities and all the ills of the Society, - as decreed and ordained in the Magna Charta of Human Rights – the great Qur’an. It enunciates of the policy of public finance as well in the Kingdom of Islam.
Land and Natural resources are a part of the universe and they belong to Allah. Man, as His Khalifa and His manager, is entrusted with the efficient management of these natural resources to ensure proper exploitation, maximum production and equitable distribution of the joint product of man and nature, the free gift of Allah, to all mankind.
“To Allah belongs land (and the natural resources), the heirdom whereof He bestows upon whomsoever among His servants He may will” (Al -Qur’an, 7:128).
Land and natural resources have been created by Allah for the benefit and nourishment of all mankind and of all creatures. The function of the Government of Allah is to see that these are not misappropriated for selfish individual aggrandizement of wicked people and followers of the devil at the cost of all others.
MAN AND NATURE ARE THE AGENTS OF PRODUCTION
Man and Nature co-operate with each other in the production of wealth for the benefit of all mankind in the Kingdom of Allah. They, therefore, have each a share in the joint product. Nature’s share is collected in the Baitul Maal (State Treasury) by the Khalifa for equitable distribution among the disabled, the sick, the poor and the destitute, in order to help them to stand on their own legs, to remove inequalities, and to bring the stragglers into line to march forward and join the race with the soldiers of Allah to encircle the globe.
“And it is Allah Who confers on some of you superiority over some others in wealth and means. Why not then those who have been favoured with abundance give it away to their dependants in such a manner that they all become equal. Do they deny that this abundancy is a favour of Allah to them? (Al-Qur’an, 16: 71).
The capitalist idea of land, labour, capital and entrepreneurs as factors of production is an anathema in Islam. Land is part of Nature. Labour and entrepreneurs are the capitalist divisions of man into classes and masses.
Nature and Man are two agents of Allah for the production of wealth in this world. After man is paid his dues in return for his industry, there remains an undistributed surplus which, in the capitalist state, is unjustly appropriated by the capitalist classes in one form or other in return for undertaking no risk of uncertainty of a productive enterprise.
The Surplus is the Natures share of the national products- on the wealth produced in the Kingdom of Allah.
In the Kingdom of Allah, there is no division of man into classes. There is only one ‘Ummat’ of mankind. The surplus of the joint product of Man and Nature is the share of Nature or the share of Allah placed at the disposal of the Viceroy to feed the stragglers and to help them to join the company of workers rightfully and honourably.
Karl Marx was not originator of the Theory of Surplus Value. His definition of the Theory was also wrong. This was natural, for he came to a confused conclusion after analyzing the nature of capitalist production. According to him, the measure of the value of an article is the amount of labour necessary to produce it. The labourers, however, produce more than they consume but under the capitalistic regime, they lose the surplus value of what they produce over and above their wages. He thus sowed the seeds of class-struggle, strikes, lockouts and the division of men into militantly hostile groups.
But labour cannot produce anything in vacuum. It can produce only in co-operation with Nature and with help of natural resources which are free gifts of Allah to all mankind. Capital is the by-product of Man’s industry and Nature’s co-operation, and it consists of the undistributed surplus value left after payment to man of his dues fully, for his industry, organization and leadership. Capital also, therefore, is a free gift of Allah to all mankind.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE SURPLUS?
Plain living and high thinking has been the actively living motto of Islam. The criterion should be the lives of Muhammad (Sm.) and rightly guided Caliphs. Building up of a balanced character through complete self-realization by each individual is the first and fundamental principle of the state of Islam. State capitalism or state socialism or state communism, negating or dwarfing the personality of the common man has no place in Islam.
The main function of the head of the state of Islam is to serve as a friend, philosopher and guide – freely accessible to every individual citizen or corporate body of individuals for the fullest development of self of the individual or the corporate body, in harmony with the Divine order which is subject to eternal laws to be discovered by discerning minds and acted upon by the entire humanity.
One of the Divine attributes is that Allah is Rabbul ‘Alamin – that He is the Sustainer and Nourisher of the universes. Allah gives everything but takes nothing in return except submission to His Sole Sovereign Divinity and accord with His order and the laws of Harmony in the universe. The man who is to serve as His Khalifah - His Viceroy – is invested with this Divine attribute which is fully developed in him so that he can feel the oneness of the life eternal and forgo the transient for what is an eternal continuity. He will then have his outlook on the permanent aspect of life beyond this decaying world and be able to hold a firm grip on it and its resources to minister to the comforts, prosperity and happiness of others and acquire satisfaction for himself by seeing others under his care happy, prosperous and peaceful. For his material comforts or gains, he comes last of all, he being the residuary legatee in the Kingdom of Allah.
Theory of Surplus Value cannot work in a secular system:
The guiding principle to regulate work and distribution of wealth in the state of Islam is ‘from each according to ability, to each according to needs for a respectable living.’ This principle worked successfully in the state of Islam alone. Because it promises a future life in which every individual is accountable to his Sovereign Master for his performances in his earthly term. And he will receive rewards for his loyalty to the Revealed Constitution [The Qur’aan] or punishments for his disloyalty.
But this guiding principle cannot work in any other system. It has failed in Communism. Capitalism and other [secular or man-made] systems do not believe in, and do not accept, this principle. In the state of Islam, Nature is an agent of production. The surplus (Al-‘Afw) above the cost of production is the share of Nature, which must go to the state treasury (Baitul Maal) to promote and finance welfare services and meet the essential demands of its citizens in distress and in dire needs, to eradicate poverty, misery, ignorance and unskilled labour and not to multiply the number of beggars. Appropriation of un-invested surplus by the state prevents hoarding, dissolute living and extravagance.
Notes:
Zakaat is the compulsory state levy at prescribed rates on the annual net savings after meeting all kinds of liabilities and expenditures.
Unused and un-invested surplus (al-‘afw), however, is to be surrendered to, and to be collected by, the state of Islam, which guarantees security of means and employment on a world basis to all. These measures have been enacted to finance the welfare programme of the state to eradicate and banish poverty, ignorance and all kinds of maladies from the world.
Excerpts collated from: 1. The Intelligent Man’s Guide to Islam (1969), by Muhammad Khalilur Rahman 2. The Clarion Call of the Eternal Qur’aan (1991), by Muhammad Khalilur Rahman
Md. Nasireddin Ghani ( talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Media:hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.203.235 ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
ZAKAT IS THE ONE THING WE MUST DO because of the real property by issuing a charity that we have can terbersihkan clean dirt from the point of the rights of poor people because it was feared the treasures we have tucked away the rights of the poor.thanks,!
الزكاة الشيء الوحيد التي يجب أن نفعلها بسبب الممتلكات العقارية عن طريق إصدار الخيرية التي يمكن أن تكون محمية من التراب الذي هو واضح من حقوق الفقراء لأنه كان يخشى من كنز أن لدينا مدسوس بعيدا عن حقوق الفقراء. (Yanto)
A recently recieved e-mail (you know the kind) alleges that President Obama has made public statements in opposition to supposedly increasing the level of difficulties for US Muslims to (whatever the verb is) "do" Zakat. The e-mail links to a YouTube video which alleges that the "7th category" is to fund "military operations" around the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQG8PIqLp7k
I came to wikipedia to see what this was about, and while there is no mention in the article one way or the other, I am inclined to believe that there may be some truth to this allegation due to the amibuous working of the 7th category, "In the way of Allah - Fi sabil Allah".
It gives the impression that the specific purpose of this 7th category is to hide the fact that money given under this category may in fact be used for what would be considered terrorist activities.
It seems to me that some text directly addressing this issue/possible misconception would be constructive.
````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Propaganda emails and Youtube are not accepted credible sources. If you have some information from credible sources, please post it. Otherwise the assumption is that this is a biased attempt to make a partisan attack, based on hearsay.
Jbower47 (
talk)
17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Jonny, I saw the same video of President Obama and came to look for myself. I would disagree with Jbower47 as the Youtube video was a recording of the President giving this speech in Cairo. It's public record. Also, several other sites have the same video. I consider that a credible source. I understand his desire to defend his faith.
I read the article about the Zakat and what all it is for. Number seven says Fi sabil Allah which can be translated different ways, one of which is to be on the path of Allah which is interpreted by many Islamic Jurists, the educated class of Muslim legal scholars engaged in the several fields of Islamic studies. Unfortunately, many foreign languages have words and statements that can be interpreted different ways. While some Muslims may say Zakat is not to support jihad, others, including extremist terrorists, will interpret it as such. It depends who wrote out the uses of Zakat and you have to look at all their writings to determine what it means. Many times there are multiple words in the original language that can translate similarly but have variations. For example, there are two words in Aramaic that can both be translated "husband of one wife" but have different meanings. One can mean you are married to one woman at a time while another can mean you have only had one wife your entire life. However, in this case, I am not going to dig in to that. There will always be those who say yes, it supports jihad, and those that say no, it doesn't. I believe there are even those who believe it supports it but will tell a non-Muslim that it doesn't.
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimdavis30 ( talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
American taxes are used to fund military occupation which does cause terror in the minds of people who live in occupied lands. However, I don't see that section the "Taxes" article.-- UnbiasedNeutral ( talk) 17:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There are portions of this article that seems to suggest that non-Muslims have some a possibility to receive zakat, for example:
Non of these claims have any sources to back them up as far as I can see. There is however evidence that suggests Muslims is forbidden from giving zakat to non-Muslims here and here and even under "special circumstances". It seems only to be allowed to volentary give charity to a non-Muslim but forbidden to give zakat which is obligatory as can be seen here. Davidelah ( talk) 21:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZpgRbcZDIAwJ:www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite%3Fpagename%3DIslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE%26cid%3D1119503544900+zakat+to+non-muslims+Non-Muslims+in+the+Muslim+Community&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com#ixzz1MhA3OK3b"So my suggestions above is still valid.
Advertadam, you are one of the most close minded people in my opinion on wikipedia, i am sorry if that offends you, you reject everything and anything that goes against your POV (you even revert other well referenced POV from wiklipedia), you would not even consider if you are wrong, you are always right, arent you !!!-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
To further shed some light on the opinion of the jurist as to the question of zakat for non-Muslims, in the Guide to Zakah: Understanding & Calculation from the biggest bank in Pakistan, written by a respected scholar, says that; There is consensus of the Muslim jurists that it is not permissible to give Zakah to non-Muslims. And regarding the fourth category of recipient: This category of recipients refers to the poor and needy Muslims ... non-Muslims are excluded in accordance with the general principle that they do not qualify as recipients of Zakah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This discussion was sent to the the Dispute Resolutions
here, and I will post the results here when done. Thanks
~ AdvertAdam
talk
06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
What's added, "Those Fighting for Allah", is one meaning of many; it's already explained in the wikilink. What's your reason of adding it? Look at the style of the whole list, and decide from there. Again, no need to restate the same thing over and over again, just to highlight the words you like. ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the way the section looks now, and it seems accurate. It would be nice if we could get the citations into the standard book citation template format. Also, a citation using a religious website might not hold up. Someone could come by and rip that out. - Aquib ( talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
David, please continue the discussion next-time and stop pushing your POV. "Generally" is a broad claim that you don't have the credibility to write. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
According to
WP:DUE, I reverted your edit. The first sentence (with its sources) is mentioning a minority pov, while the second sentence (with its source) is showing what is used by the larges Muslim community. Keep the weight and happy editing
~ AdvertAdam
talk
20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you open any Arabic-English dictionary and look for "أمة" under the alphabet "أ" to read the meaning of the word. Arabic words don't change meanings during history, sir. Don't make claims about things you said you haven't read about! Answering your comment above, majority comes from the root major, so please keep that in mind while rereading what I wrote above. I've already had the discussion of minor/major with you before on Jihad, so please reread those sources too, pls; to save all of us time. ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
@AdamRce, stop whitewashing Islam related articles ! Go spread your "truth" somewhere else. You still have not realised that on wikipedia there is "no one truth", we never mention the 1 truth on wikipedia, only what the sources say about the truth. Why dont you allow multiple truths? You need to stop believing that there is only 1 truth on wikipedia (which i know you do, i have shown proof of this in the admin notices), you wont last long on wikipedia, if you persist like this. You have already gotten yourself a bad reputation among many users (and i can tell you the more you carry on like this, the more people will watch your edits carefully)-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 23:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have read that many Muslim leaders such as Umar, Abu Bakr, Uthman and Muhammad enforced the payment of Zakat by force when people refused to pay it. Would it be suitable to mention this in the article. one example of enforcing Zakat during Muhammad's era is the Expedition of Uyainah bin Hisn . You thoughts please -- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
See Hadith 4:538 'Allah's Apostle said, "A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that."' User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an enormous hole in this page, and it is "Zakat in practice". How is Zakat done in modern day Islamic societies? How was it done in the past? Too much of this article is about what may be largely irrelevant theory William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
As I'm sure you will all notice, I have removed a very large quantity of unsourced information, original research from primary documents, and information that used unreliable sources. I have replaced this with information that is found in scholarly sources. Please do not re-include any of the deleted information unless you can provide sources that meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS. In the future, please try to use the types of sources I've provided here -- that is, sources that are published by academic publishers, and that are not promoting a single Islamic sect's views. There is clearly disagreement about many things related to the zakat, and we need to talk about this disagreement without taking a stance ourselves, as editors. ~ Mesoderm ( talk) 22:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
An alternative spelling of zakāt is zakah. Should that be mentioned in the article? -- Mortense ( talk) 16:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The intro compares donations of different religious sects thus:
There, Muslims, on average, gave $567, compared to $412 for Jews, $308 for Protestants, $272 for Catholics and $177 for atheists.
Atheism is neither a religion nor a sect. Please consider either removing atheists from the comparison of donors or clarify that large proportions of atheists' donations do not go to the upkeep of salaries/properties/mass-indoctrinations of the respective religions own followers and possible converts. Donations to secular causes that are spent directly on the needy can not be compared to religious donations that follow a long and insidious road before they actually reach the needy.
Also, while all other sects mentioned in the above have links to their respective wikis, "atheists" does not. I shall correct that presently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoother ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: Have corrected the link mentioned above. I have not capitalised the noun as some dictionaries would demand. Please correct that as needed. Themoother ( talk) 00:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
For the following statement:
"There, Muslims, on average, gave $567, compared to $412 for Jews, $308 for Protestants, $272 for Catholics and $177 for atheists."
There is only a dollar amount of wealth given and no discussion about factors that would change this. The article seems to assert that the dollar amounts imply more charity on behalf of certain groups and are caused by religion or irreligion. What if certain groups simply earn more more (and so can afford to donate more)? What if factors correlating with religion but not related to religion affect donation rates? For example, suppose recent immigrants give more or less money.
This is interesting information but maybe should not be at the top of the page (because it's complicated and can't be explained in one sentence) and might need more discussion. It also seems a bit out of place at the top of the page. Maybe we can move this sentence and add a link to a specific page that discusses the issue of religion and charity in more depth?
This issue is related to the previous subject of how atheism is not a religion but is distinct. I feel regardless of that discussion that this sentence needs more work.
Thank you for reading my thoughts.
173.180.212.56 ( talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Themoother:@ 173.180.212.56:I've gone ahead and moved the paragraph comparing the amount given by each religion, seems out of place in the lead. I could not find the original survey on ICM website. The comparison of Islamic giving Vs total humanitarian giving may be problematic - isn't some of the aid given by Muslims humanitarian? Jonpatterns ( talk) 10:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
"The family of the Muhammad…"
shouldn't that be "The family of Muhammad" ? Is "Muhammad" also a common noun ? If so, can it be defined ? --
Jerome Potts (
talk)
16:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The article states that it is obligatory to give Zakat but it doesn't say which countries. Maybe this could a good starting point? http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/zakat-by-country/
Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen. 124.190.24.102 ( talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
User at 120.18.68.78 - Read WP:V and WP:RS. The lead summary needs to reflect the main article and match what the cites are saying, not what your "Shia sources" are telling you. If you have concerns about the summary, explain it on this talk page. RLoutfy ( talk) 06:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The title of the article has a taa marbuta at the end, meaning it is pronounced "Zakah" when it stands alone such as in a title and is only pronounced "Zakat" when immediately followed by another word like "Zakat-ul-fitr". Sodicadl ( talk) 01:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Zakat. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to be clear in separating theory from practice and past from present. The separation mostly seems to exist on paragraph level, so I'm tempted to rearrange the material, but this a big change and I'd like to build consensus first. How about the following?
Thoughts? Eperoton ( talk) 02:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It is stated in the lede that, "The payment and disputes on zakat have played a major role in the history of Islam, notably during the Ridda wars." I would like to quote this excellent entry by Wael Hallaq in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 121.:
A more convincing view, however, is that each of the revolts against the new order had its own causes. Of the six major centers of uprising, four had a religious color, each led by a so- called prophet, prophetess or soothsayer: al-Aswad al-Ansī in Yemen, Musaylima (q.v.) in Yamāma, ulay a b. Khuwaylid of the tribes of Banū Asad and Banū Ghaafān and Sajā of the tribe of Tamīm. The resistance in the two other centers — east and southeast of the Arabian peninsula — seems to have been caused by a refusal to submit to the political authority of Medina including the payment of taxes imposed upon them by the Prophet in 9 ⁄ 630. Following classical Islamic sources, much of modern scholarship tends to see all these wars and battles that took place within the boundaries of Arabia — before the conquests in Syria and īra began — as falling into the category of the wars of apostasy. In point of fact, of all the centers of revolt only Najd qualifies, strictly speaking, for classification as a center of apostate rebellion. The Banū Hanīfa, led by Musaylima in Yamāma, had never been subject to Medinan domination nor did they sign any treaty either with Muhammad or with his successor Abū Bakr (11 ⁄ 632-13 ⁄ 634). It was only when the military commander Khālid b. al-Walīd (d. 21 ⁄ 642) defeated them in 12 ⁄ 633 that they came, for the first time, under Medinan domination. In other words, they never converted to Islam in the first place so that they cannot correctly be labeled as apostates. A similar situation existed in Umān, al-Barayn, al-Yaman, and a ramawt. There, Muhammad concluded treaties with military leaders — some of whom were Persian agents — who were quickly ousted by the local tribes. Thus, the tribes’ resistance to Medina did not presuppose a particular relationship in which they paid allegiance to the Muslim state. Again, their uprising does not constitute apostasy, properly speaking. The tribes of Najd, on the other hand, were their own masters and signed treaties with Muhammad, the terms of which required them to adopt Islam and to pay homage as well as taxes to Medina. Their revolt, thus, constituted a clear case of apostasy.
So as it seems "disputes on zakat" didn't play a "major role" in the ridda wars, with only the tribes of Najd refusing to pay it. What do you thus suggest as an alternative? 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
EI2 "Zakat": The system of zakat collection was gravely threatened during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, when some of the Arabian tribes refused to acknowledge that the Prophet's authority to collect zakat had passed to his successor. This movement in resistance to the collection of zakat is associated with the apostasy of the ridda wars [...]
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, "Zakat": In fact, neglecting to pay zakāt became an offense punishable by law. This was a precedent set by the first caliph, Abū Bakr, who fought against those who refused to fulfill their obligation of zakāt. Zakāt in this case, however, was in essence a form of tribute paid by the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula to the Muslim treasury (bayt al-māl). Failure to make these payments after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad resulted in the Wars of Apostasy during Abū Bakr's caliphate (632–634).
Nonetheless, Abu Bakr made a number of decisions that defined the political direction of the new regime. He decided that all tribes formerly allied to Muhammad would have to continue to pay taxes (zakat), and he waged war on those who refused, a period known as the apostasy (ridda) wars. Lapidus, Ira M.. A History of Islamic Societies (p. 65). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
The definition of the term has been subject to back-and-forth, and I've struggled myself on the best wording. I would welcome discussion on this point. Here's the issue. There are RSs which refer to zakat as simply alms-giving, there are RSs which highlight it as a religious duty, and there RSs which call it a tax. What we want to make clear is the distinction between religious obligation and compulsion. The word "obligatory" in itself doesn't convey it clearly, and so it doesn't appropriately reflect the fact that most countries these days no longer treat it as a legal requirement. Eperoton ( talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please provide a small translation for this image which is used in the article. It is the English wikipedia so I think this request makes sense here.
DTM ( talk) 07:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Zakat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)